pretend play and positive psychology: natural companions
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 25 September 2014, At: 17:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated tofurthering research and promoting good practicePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
Pretend play and positive psychology: NaturalcompanionsBeth L. Pearson a , Sandra W. Russ a & Sarah A. Cain Spannagel aa Department of Psychology , Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, OH, USAPublished online: 25 Mar 2008.
To cite this article: Beth L. Pearson , Sandra W. Russ & Sarah A. Cain Spannagel (2008) Pretend play and positive psychology:Natural companions, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 3:2,110-119, DOI: 10.1080/17439760701760617
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760701760617
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Positive PsychologyVol. 3, No. 2, April 2008, 110–119
Pretend play and positive psychology: Natural companions
Beth L. Pearson*, Sandra W. Russ and Sarah A. Cain Spannagel
Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
(Received 3 January 2007; final version received 25 July 2007)
AbstractIn this article we posit that (1) research on pretend play fits under the umbrella of the positive psychology movement, (2) pretendplay involves a multitude of processes that are linked to adaptive functioning, and (3) understanding and implementingknowledge of pretend play processes in therapy or interventions may lead to more optimal functioning in children. We review fiveareas of positive psychology in relation to pretend play: (1) creativity, (2) coping, (3) emotion regulation, (4) empathy/emotionalunderstanding, and (5) hope. Implications for interventions and future research questions are discussed.
Keywords: positive psychology; play; creativity; coping; emotion regulation; empathy; hope
Introduction
Developmental and personality psychologists have
long been interested in adaptive functioning and how
various processes occur in order for individuals to
grow optimally. Psychology, in general, however, has
only recently become interested in understanding
processes that lead to adaptive functioning (Seligman,
1999). Less than 10 years ago, at Martin Seligman’s
1998 Presidential Address to the American
Psychological Association (Seligman, 1999), the
Positive Psychology movement was officially born
(Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006). The
positive psychology movement is not only interested in
adaptive functioning; it emphasizes the understanding
of optimal functioning.Although many definitions of positive psychology
exist (cf. Linley et al., 2006, for a review),
we particularly like Gable and Haidt’s (2005) descrip-
tion of positive psychology as ‘the study of the
conditions and processes that contribute to the
flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups,
and institutions’ (p. 104). Their definition includes not
only stable factors but processes, which lends itself to
the idea of malleability. Since a process is inherently
fluid, rather than stable, it can be acted upon. The field
of clinical psychology is becoming adept at changing
processes that lead to distress and discomfort. Despite
this, as Seligman pointed out in his presidential
address, psychology is not yet proficient in helping
people to lead optimal, fulfilling lives (Seligman, 1999).
By understanding the processes that are associated
with flourishing, we can then make attempts at altering
and enhancing them. Targeting processes associated
with optimal adaptation may be particularly beneficial
for children, whose underlying cognitive and emotional
processes are constantly developing. By targeting these
processes during childhood, it may be possible to
significantly alter the course of a child’s developmental
trajectory, yielding large benefits to both the individual
child and to society as a whole.In the last 30 years, many influential researchers
have begun studying what might be termed positive
psychological processes, despite that terminology only
being used in the last decade. Some of these processes
include creativity (Sternberg, 1988), coping (Compas,
Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth,
2001), emotion regulation (Eisenberg & Fabes, 2006),
empathy/emotional understanding (Barnett, 1987;
Nannis, 1988), and hopeful thinking (Snyder et al.,
1997). Research by Russ and colleagues over the last 20
years has focused on pretend play processes (Russ,
1987, 2004). Although pretend play has long been
recognized as developmentally important (Fein, 1981),
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1743-9760 print/ISSN 1743-9779 online
� 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17439760701760617
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
until now it has not been included within the positivepsychology literature.
We posit that (1) research on pretend play fits underthe umbrella of the positive psychology movement,(2) pretend play involves a multitude of processes thatare linked to adaptive functioning, and (3) under-standing and implementing knowledge of pretend playprocesses in therapy or prevention interventions maylead to more optimal functioning in children. We willpresent a review of five areas of positive psychology:(1) creativity, (2) coping, (3) emotion regulation,(4) empathy/emotional understanding, and (5) hope.For each area, we will show how pretend playprocesses are conceptually related. Whenever possible,we will present empirical research that delineates thoserelationships. In the cases in which research hasnot been carried out on pretend play processes andanother positive psychology domain, we willdiscuss relevant research questions, which could beinvestigated in the future.
Pretend play and adaptive functioning
Pretend play can be defined as ‘a symbolic behavior inwhich one thing is playfully treated as if it weresomething else’ (Fein, 1987, p. 282). For example,a child might use a shoebox as a doll’s bed or a sock toact like a talking puppet. Segal (2004) summarizesmany of the elements that typify play behavior: play ispleasurable and intrinsically motivated; it has no goal,it is spontaneous and voluntary; it involves activeengagement; it is all engrossing; it is a child’s privatereality; and it is nonliteral (Segal, 2004). Unlike work,which is done in order to achieve something, the pointof playing is simply that, to play. Although pleasurablefor the child, play is also fundamentally useful in thatchildren learn a variety of skills through play anddevelopmental change is brought about through play(Singer, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2006).
Pretend play is comprised of a variety of cognitive,affective, and interpersonal processes which can beobserved and measured (Russ, 2004). Russ proposedthat cognitive processes include organization(the process of telling a story with a logical timesequence), divergent thinking (the process of generatinga number of different ideas), symbolism (the process oftransforming objects into representations of otherobjects), and fantasy/make-believe (the process ofengaging in ‘as if’ play behavior). Affective processesinclude expression of emotion, expression of affectcontent themes, comfort and enjoyment in the playexperience, and emotion regulation and modulation ofthe affect in the play (the process of containing theemotion within the narrative). Interpersonal processesreflected in pretend play include empathy, commu-nication, and interpersonal schema (the process of
representing others and trusting in others). Russ (1987,2004) developed the Affect in Play Scale (APS),a standardized play measure, to assess the cognitiveand affective processes that occur in play. Pretend playhas been found to relate to a number of areas ofadaptive functioning (Russ, 2004). In a meta-analysisof 46 studies, both correlational and experimental,Fisher (1992) concluded that play results in improve-ment in children’s development.
Creativity
In the field of creativity, a distinction is usually madebetween the creative product and the creative process.The creative product is the output of the individual,which can be judged as to the amount of creativity itexhibits. There is a consensus in the field that a productmust be both original, of good quality, and appro-priate to the task (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002).The creative process refers to the many cognitive,affective, and personality processes within an indivi-dual that are involved in the creative act. Individualswho are high on some of these processes will have ahigher likelihood of producing a creative product.Different profiles of creative processes are likely indifferent domains of creativity. For example, Feist(1999) concluded that some personality traits aredomain-general and some are domain-specific.Sternberg and Lubart (1996) discussed the complexityinvolved in generating a creative act. They reviewconfluence approaches to creativity whichinvolve multiple components that must converge forcreativity to occur. Some of these components occur inpretend play.There is some consensus about the processes
involved in the creative act. Russ (1993) reviewed theresearch literature and described the cognitive, affec-tive, and personality processes associated with creativeability. A few of the cognitive processes are insight(Vandenberg, 1980), divergent thinking (Guilford,1968), and transformation abilities (Guilford, 1968).Insight refers to the ability to see the solution to aproblem. Sternberg (1988) developed a three-facetmodel of insight and synthesizing ability involved increative thinking. Divergent thinking refers to theability to generate a variety of ideas (Guilford, 1968).Transformation abilities are the capacity to shift sets inproblem solving and reorder information. Affect is alsoimportant in creativity. Csikszentmihalyi (1990)defines an optimal ‘flow’ experience occurring whenan individual is totally involved in an activity, feels adeep sense of enjoyment, and is optimally challenged.Related to the flow concept is intrinsic motivation.Amabile (1983) has demonstrated the importance ofintrinsic motivation in creativity. For those who areintrinsically motivated, the love of the work drives the
The Journal of Positive Psychology 111
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
creative process. Other affective processes related tocreativity are openness to emotional experiences (bothpositive and negative) and access to affect in fantasy,memories, and images (Russ, 1993, 2004).
Creativity and pretend play
There is a large body of research in the play andcreativity area. Individual differences in creativeprocesses can be identified in children, and many ofthese processes are experienced and developed inpretend play (Russ, 1993, 2004; Saracho, 2002).In Fisher’s (1992) meta-analysis of play studies, thelargest effect size was for divergent thinking.Sawyer (1997) conceptualized pretend play as impro-visational. Play is unscripted, yet has loose outlines tobe followed. According to Sawyer, improvisation isalso an important feature of creativity. When a child istotally involved in pretend play, or ‘lost in play,’ thatchild is most likely experiencing what Csikszentmihalyi(1990) has conceptualized as ‘flow.’
Insight, a cognitive process that is important increative problem solving, can be facilitated throughplay. In a review of experimental studies of insightand play, Vandenberg (1980) concluded thatplay facilitated insightful tool use and enhancedmotivated task activity. For example, in a classicstudy, Sylva, Bruner and Genova (1976) had one groupof children play with objects, a second group observedan experimenter solve a problem, and a third controlgroup was only exposed to the objects. Significantlymore children in the play and observation groupssolved the problem than in the control group. The playgroup was more goal oriented than the other groups intheir efforts on the task and was more likely to piecetogether the solution.
Divergent thinking has been identified as onecomponent of creativity and is important in manydomains (Runco, 1991). Play should be related todivergent thinking because in play children generate avariety of ideas and recombine ideas and symbols. Inessence, play is practice with divergent thinking(Singer & Singer, 1990). Also, the involvementof emotion in play should increase access toemotional memories and broaden the associativenetwork (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987; Russ,1993). A large number of studies have found arelationship between play (usually solitary) anddivergent thinking (Johnson, 1976; Pepler & Ross,1981; Singer & Rummo, 1973). Russ and Grossman-McKee (1990) found that both cognitive and affectiveprocesses in play related to divergent thinking,independent of intelligence. Lieberman (1977) founda relation between playfulness, which includedaffective components of spontaneity and joy, anddivergent thinking in kindergarten children.
In a longitudinal study, Russ, Robbins, andChristiano (1999) found that imagination and organi-zation of fantasy in play in first and second graderswas associated with divergent thinking in the fifth andsixth grades. In this study, the APS was individuallyadministered to children in the first and second grades.Thirty-one of those children received a divergentthinking task in the fifth and sixth grades.Imagination in play significantly related todivergent thinking (r¼ 0.42, p<0.01) and remainedsignificant after controlling for IQ. Play did notfacilitate divergent thinking but demonstrated astable relationship over time.Recently, Russ and Schafer (2006) found a relation-
ship between negative affect in fantasy play anddivergent thinking. Children who could express nega-tive themes in play, such as aggression or sadness,generated more uses for objects and more original usesfor those objects on a creativity task. This indicatesthat the process of expressing negative affect in play isrelated to creative processes.Most of this research on play and divergent thinking
has been correlational; therefore one cannot concludefrom these studies that play facilitates creativity.However, a causal relationship has also been foundbetween play and divergent thinking in a fewexperimental studies. In two important studies, playfacilitated divergent thinking in preschool children(Dansky & Silverman, 1973; Dansky, 1980). Inparticular, Dansky and Silverman, in a well-designedstudy using random assignment, found that childrenwho played with objects during a 10-minute playperiod gave significantly more uses for those objectsthan did children who imitated play or who coloredpictures. In the later experimental study, Dansky(1980) found that make-believe play was the mediatorof the relationship between play and creativity. Also, inthe second study, play had a generalized effect in thatobjects in the play period were different from those inthe test period. These two studies are important inthat they show a direct effect of play on divergentthinking.Smith and Whitney (1987) have criticized many play
and divergent thinking studies because the play anddivergent thinking tasks were carried out by the sameexaminer, thus creating experimenter bias. However, anumber of the studies did use different examiners andstudies have been conducted by independent researchgroups (Dansky, 1999). Nonetheless, future studiesshould be aware of this issue and control forexperimenter bias as much as possible.
Resilience and coping
Resilience is ‘characterized by good outcomes in spiteof serious threats to adaptation or development’
112 B.L. Pearson et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
(Masten, 2001, p. 228). If a child’s development hasbeen threatened due to a stressor such as abuse or anatural disaster and the child has ‘good outcomes’ suchas academic success or trusting relationships, then thechild is considered resilient. Masten notes thatresilience, therefore, is a judgment or an outcomerather than a process. Coping, however, refers to aprocess or a number of processes, as coping refers toconscious efforts to manage stress (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). Compas and colleagues (2001)differentiate resilience and coping as follows: ‘Copingrefers to processes of adaptation . . . coping can beviewed as efforts . . . and resilience can be viewed as thesuccessful outcome of these actions’ (p. 89). Becausecoping involves changeable processes our discussionwill focus on coping.
Attempts at categorizing coping strategies have beennumerous (see Ayers, Sandler, & Twohey, 1998, for areview). Ayers, Sandler, West and Roosa (1996) factoranalyzed 10 coping scales and found that they weresubsumed under four factors. The four factors werelabeled active coping, support seeking, distraction, andavoidance. An individual’s personality (Bolger &Zuckerman, 1995) and the amount of control aperson feels in a situation (Compas, Banez,Malcarne, & Worsham, 1991) will determine whichcoping strategy will be the most effective for anindividual. Generally speaking, however, strategieswhich involve the individual engaging with the stressorhave been found to be associated with better adjust-ment and disengagement strategies have been found tobe associated with poorer adjustment (Compas,Conner-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth,2001).
Coping and pretend play
In play therapy, play is used as a medium forhelping children to process their emotions and tocope with stressors (Russ, 2004). Children may behelped to recognize and label their feelings and thinkabout the stressor in a safe environment. In CognitiveBehavioral Play Therapy (CBPT; Knell, 1993), chil-dren are taught specific skills to cope with stressors,such as relaxation or positive self-talk. In bothtraditional play therapy and CBPT, children arehelped to use engagement coping strategies throughthe medium of play.
Studies have found pretend play and coping to bepositively related (Christiano & Russ, 1996; Russ et al.,1999; Goldstein & Russ, 2000–2001). These studiesthat investigated play and coping used the Affect inPlay Scale (APS; Russ, 2004) to measure play abilities,different types of coping measures, and involveddifferent experimenters. The APS involves childrenplaying ‘any way [they] like’ for five minutes with three
blocks and two puppets; therefore children’s play on
the APS involves a wide variety of themes.In a study of seven to nine year-old children
undergoing an invasive dental procedure, Christiano
and Russ (1996) found a positive relationship between
play and coping and a negative relationship between
play and distress. Children who were ‘good’ players
on the APS (in that they expressed affect and
imagination in play) implemented a greater number
and variety of cognitive coping strategies on a separate
coping measure and reported less distress during the
procedure than children who expressed less affect and
fantasy in play. Consistent with these findings, a study
by Goldstein and Russ (2000–2001) found that fantasy
and imagination in play were positively related to the
number and variety of cognitive coping attempts
involving a situation that required impulse control of
aggression. In a longitudinal study (Russ et al., 1999),
fantasy in play significantly predicted self-reported
coping over a four year period. Children who had
higher fantasy scores in play could think of more
things to do in stressful situations four years later.It appears that the relationship between play
processes and coping is due to a shared process
rather than the content of the play (as themes on the
APS can vary widely). It is possible that the link
between play and coping is due to divergent thinking,
which is important in both functions. Good divergent
thinkers should be able to think of alternative solutions
to real life problems. Empirically, divergent thinking
has been found to relate to teachers’ ratings of coping
in fifth grade boys (Russ, 1988). Similarly, Carson and
colleagues (1994) found a significant relationship
between figural divergent thinking and teachers’
ratings of coping (Carson, Bittner, Cameron, Brown,
& Meyer, 1994).
Emotion regulation
Learning to process and regulate emotions are key
developmental tasks for children. Emotions are impor-
tant messengers: when one experiences an emotion, the
individual is processing that something significant has
occurred (Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004).
Emotion regulation is important for adaptive function-
ing because without regulation, emotions could over-
whelm a person. Emotion regulation involves engaging
in processes to modulate the intensity and duration of
one’s feelings and one’s arousal so that one can reach
one’s goals (Eisenberg & Fabes, 2006). In considering
emotion regulation in relation to pretend play, we will
focus on the processes involved in play which may
interact with cognitive, behavioral, and physiological
processes that enable children to modulate their
emotional responses.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 113
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Emotion regulation and pretend play
Play is a major arena in which children learn toexpress, tolerate, and modulate emotions. As early as1933, Waelder described the play process as one inwhich the child repeats an unpleasant experience overand over until it becomes manageable. Erikson (1963)presented the concept of mastery, in which the childuses play to gain mastery over traumatic events andeveryday conflicts.
Play therapy is based on the premise that play servesthese functions. In play therapy, children are helped toexpress and integrate difficult negative emotions into acoherent, meaningful narrative (Gaensbauer & Siegel,1995). Play enables the child to organize the fragmen-ted experiences into meaningful narratives; interpretivework by the therapist helps the child to understand thepersonal meanings of the trauma. Those from acognitive-behavioral framework (Knell, 1993) suggestthat in play fears are extinguished as the child isexposed to fearful thoughts and emotions in manage-able ways.
Russ (2004) reviewed the play interventionliterature and concluded that play helps children tomanage fears and reduce anxiety. In medical settings,pretend play interventions have been found to beeffective at preventing and reducing distress andanxiety (cf. Moore & Russ, 2006, for a review).Interestingly, in a study of 4–11-year-olds, Kenealy(1989) investigated strategies that children use whenthey are feeling depressed, and found that 50% of thechildren’s responses included play strategies. Childrenseem to intuitively seek out play to help them modulatetheir emotions.
Two recent studies examined the construct ofemotion regulation more specifically. Galyer andEvans (2001) found a positive relationship betweenpretend play and emotion regulation in preschoolchildren. The study looked at both emotion regulationwithin a specific pretend play situation (rated by theinvestigators) and emotion regulation within daily life(rated by parents). Results indicated that the frequencyof children’s pretend play outside of the experimentwas related to parent’s ratings of the children’semotion regulation. Children who engaged in dailypretend play had significantly higher emotion regula-tion scores than children who engaged in less pretendplay. Also, children who played with their parentsregularly had significantly higher emotion regulationscores than children who played with less experiencedpartners (Galyer & Evans, 2001).
In another study involving preschool-aged children,Lindsey and Colwell (2003) found a positive relation-ship between pretend play, emotion regulation, andemotional competence. Children’s play was assessedbased on a 15-minute play session with a friend fromthe child’s class. Interestingly, gender differences
emerged. Girls had higher scores on mothers’ ratingsof emotion regulation scores and teachers’ ratings ofemotional competence than boys. Girls also engaged inmore pretend play during their dyadic play sessionthan boys. Finally, for girls but not boys, pretend playwas significantly, positively related to mothers’ ratingsof emotion regulation and teachers’ ratings of emo-tional competence.These two studies indicate that pretend play is
related to emotion regulation. What is not clear iswhether there is a causal relationship between thesetwo constructs. Future research is needed to investigateif increasing the quantity or quality of a child’s pretendplay will help with emotion regulation and, if so, whichprocesses within pretend play lead to those changes.
Empathy and emotional understanding
Empathy involves the cognitive process of recognizingand taking the perspective of another person and theaffective process of responding to another’s emotionswith a congruent emotion (Bryant, 1987). Empathy isan important part of healthy interpersonal functioningand has been empirically linked to prosocial behaviorand better overall mental health (Barnett, 1987;Bryant, 1987; Roberts & Strayer, 1996). Emotionalunderstanding involves the processes of makinginferences about one’s own emotions and aboutother’s feelings, which in turn influence one’s thoughtsand actions (Nannis, 1988). Children’s empathy andemotional understanding are conceptually, and empiri-cally, related to their understanding of what otherpeople think and feel more generally (Dunn & Cutting,1999). The understanding of how other people’s mindsworks has been referred to as ‘theory of mind.’
Pretend play, empathy, and emotional understanding
Lillard (1998) reviews several studies which foundpositive relationships between theory of mind tasksand pretend play and fantasy. Pretend play canserve as a testing ground for expressing emotion.The integration of a child’s affective and cognitivecomponents in play appears to facilitate the develop-ment of interpersonal functioning and emotionalunderstanding (Russ, 2004). In Fisher’s (1992) meta-analysis of play studies, the strongest effect size inaddition to divergent thinking was for perspective-taking.Seja and Russ (1999) found that quality of fantasy in
play was significantly related to the ability to describeemotional experiences and to the understanding ofothers’ emotions. Niec and Russ (2002) similarlydemonstrated the significant relationship betweenquality of fantasy in play and children’s empathic
114 B.L. Pearson et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
responding. Finally, Lindsey and Colwell (2003) founda significant, positive relationship between engaging inhigh levels of pretend play and understanding emo-tions in preschool boys. For preschool girls, therelationship was in the same direction, although itwas not statistically significant.
The relationship between emotional understandingand pretend play may be different depending on who isengaged in the play (Youngblade & Dunn, 1995).Haight and Sachs (1995) argued that spontaneouspretend play between young children and their mothersprovides a context for children to learn about negativeemotions within. Youngblade and Dunn (1995),however, found that siblings may be particularlyimportant for emotional understanding. Themes inchildren’s play with their siblings tended to be morediverse than children’s play with their mothers. Thetotal amount of pretend play and the amount of child–sibling play was associated with emotional under-standing, whereas the amount of child–mother pre-tense was not. Dunn and Cutting (1999) found positiverelationships between the amount of cooperativepretend play between friends and both affectiveperspective taking abilities and emotional understand-ing abilities. Emotional understanding did not inde-pendently predict cooperative pretend play, however.
Finally, having an imaginary friend does not appearto relate to emotional understanding, although chil-dren engaging in solitary impersonations may berelated (Taylor, Carlson, Maring, Gerow, & Charley,2004). Taylor and colleagues conducted a longitudinalstudy across three years in which they differentiatedbetween having an imaginary companion and imper-sonating an imaginary character. Children who did notengage in impersonations at six to seven years old hadsignificantly lower emotional understanding scoresthan children who did engage in impersonations.
Some studies have investigated the relationshipbetween the themes of the pretend play and emotionalunderstanding (Dunn & Hughes, 2001). In a two yearlongitudinal study of 80 preschoolers, Dunn andHughes (2001) found a positive relationship betweenfrequency of pretend play and scores on an emotionunderstanding interview. The content of the play alsohad important implications. Children who had a higherproportion of violent pretend play at four years oldgave less empathic responses on a moral understandingmeasure at six years old. Also at four years old,proportion of violent pretend play was significantlynegatively related to theory of mind tasks andexecutive functioning tasks. Proportion of violentpretend play was positively related to antisocialbehavior, anger, and conflict within interactions witha friend. However, proportion of violent pretend playdid not relate to emotional understanding. Theseresults indicate that pretend play relates to empathyand emotional understanding in some ways. Further,
the themes within the play may have particularrelevance to empathy and interactions with others.
Hope
Hope is the wellspring for motivation. Snyder andcolleagues (1997) defined hope as ‘a cognitive setinvolving the belief in one’s capabilities to produceworkable routes to goals (the pathways component), aswell as the self-related beliefs about initiating andsustaining movement toward those goals (the agencycomponent)’ (p. 401). According to this definition,hope has three components. The first component ofhope involves having specific goals. The secondcomponent is pathways thinking, which pertains to aperson’s belief that she can come up with multiplepaths to reach that goal. The third component isagency, which involves a person’s beliefs that it ispossible to reach her goal.In their initial validation study of the Children’s
Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997), several samples ofchildren were used to investigate the correlates of hope.Hope was positively related to parents’ ratings of theirchildren’s hope, positively related to children’s self-perceptions of their competence and their self-worth,and negatively related to depression. Other studiesusing the Children’s Hope Scale have found hope to bepositively related to adaptive coping strategies(Pearson & Russ, 2007) and to be negatively relatedto anxiety (Lewis & Kliewer, 1996; Pearson & Russ,2007).
Hope and pretend play
The two kinds of thinking that comprise hope are eachconceptually related to pretend play processes. When achild uses agency-thoughts, a child is asserting, ‘I cando it!’ or ‘I am capable.’ Part of what makes play sopleasurable for children is that within play, unlike therest of their day, children can be powerful. In play,children can arrange toys anyway they like; they canchoose which character to be and how to respond. Inthis way, the child is not passive but active. Erikson(1963) describes a child playing as being the masterover a microsphere; ‘the small world of manageabletoys’ (p. 221). Play allows children to control bothinnocuous situations such as deciding, ‘I’ll be themommy and you be the dog’ as well as to controlpreviously traumatic situations. By controlling eithertype of situation, the child asserts her agency.In pretend play, agentic thoughts may be improved
for two different reasons. First, by playing childrendevelop new skills (Singer et al., 2006), so they arecapable and can do more than they did prior toplaying. Secondly, children may gain a sense of agency
The Journal of Positive Psychology 115
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
and power by pretending to do things that they areincapable of actually doing. It is possible thatexperiencing a sense of agency during play maygeneralize to a sense of agency outside of play as well.
The pathways component of hope is also concep-tually related to pretend play processes. Pathwaythoughts tap perceptions of being able to produceone or more workable routes to goals This does notrefer to an individual’s actual problem-solving abilitiesbut an individual’s belief that she is capable of comingup with multiple alternatives. In pretend play, childrenfrequently engage in problem-solving and conflictresolution (Russ, 2004). If a child is playing out asituation and it does not work, he will try a new way.Because it’s pretend, the child can use both realisticsolutions and fantastical solutions, such as turning anenemy into a toad.
Although hope is theoretically related to pretendplay processes, to our knowledge, no studies have beencarried out which empirically examine the relationshipbetween play processes and hope. Future researchmight attempt to determine which aspects of hope (e.g.,agentic thoughts or pathways thoughts) are related towhich aspects of pretend play (e.g., imagination/fantasy, organization, comfort, or affect expression).
Implications for intervention and prevention programs
In addition to the areas of positive psychology we havereviewed, previous reviews have shown that training inpretend play can lead to positive changes in cognitivefunctioning such as problem solving, language skills,and impulse control (Fein, 1981; Christie & Johnsen,1983). More recently, reviews of the literature havefound that engaging in pretend play is positivelyassociated with literacy behaviors (Pellegrini &Galda, 1993; Roskos & Christie, 2001).
Given the important role that pretend play hasin child development and in children’s adaptivefunctioning, it is essential that we determine whetherwe can teach children to be better players. This raisesthe question of whether these improved play skills willaffect functioning in real-life domains, outside of therealm of play. Play intervention studies, which usescripts and manuals, provide some empirical evidencethat play skills can be improved.
In play intervention studies, manuals provide a basicoutline for the play trainer to use so that the essentialaspects of the intervention are included and standar-dized. Despite this aspect of standardization, manuals,if used appropriately, should not hinder the sponta-neous, intrinsic nature of play. Although modelingmay be one aspect of the intervention, often the playtrainer will follow the child’s lead and will praise thechild for playing in her unique manner. An appropriateplay manual will provide a framework for the
intervention which will then be developed jointlythrough the unique approaches of the child and playtrainer. Nevertheless, there should be a balancebetween following the manual and respecting thespontaneity of the child.Dansky (1999) reviewed the play tutoring literature
and found that ‘more than a dozen studies have shownthat play tutoring can increase not just the quantity ofplay displayed but also the richness and imagination ofchildren’s pretense’ (p. 404). Additionally, play tutor-ing, over a period of time, increased creativity on othermeasures. These play tutoring sessions usually involved8–12 group sessions with an adult who modeled andencouraged participation in social interactive pretense,with sessions spread out over 3–6 weeks. Dansky(1999) concluded that there were consistent positiveresults in studies with adequate control groups.In a recent preliminary study by Russ, Moore,
and Pearson (2007), the effectiveness of play interven-tions with first and second grade inner-city schoolchildren was investigated. The Affect in Play Scale(APS; Russ, 2004) was given as a baseline and outcomemeasure. Measures of creativity and coping were alsoadministered as outcome measures. There were twoplay intervention groups (instructions for imaginationor affect) and a control group (instructions for puzzles/coloring) to which children were randomly assigned.Each child met five times with a play trainer inindividualized standardized sessions. The major resultsof the study were that the affect play group showedsignificantly greater cognitive and affective skills on theAPS when compared with the control group. On theoutcome measures of creativity and coping, there weresignificant group effects. Trends revealed that theaffect play group had higher scores on divergentthinking than the other groups and the imaginationplay group had higher frequency of coping scores thanthe other groups. In a follow-up study 2–8 monthspost-intervention, Moore and Russ (2007) found thatthe imagination group had significantly better playscores than the control group.J. Singer and D. Singer (1999) developed a video-
based program for parents and other caregivers ofpreschool age children, which uses play and learninggames to strengthen school readiness skills. The tapeand manual provide clear examples and instructionsfor caregivers that model how to use play to helpchildren use their imagination and to learn. In a recentstudy using this intervention, Bellin and Singer (2006)found that play helped children to develop literacyskills.Because this research indicates that children’s play
skills can be improved through interventions and thosechanges may lead to optimal functioning in a variety ofdomains, pretend play interventions should be con-sidered a priority within the positive psychologymovement. Future research should refine, test, and
116 B.L. Pearson et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
develop these programs further. Individuals seeking to
optimize children’s functioning in social domains,
academic domains, or artistic domains may want to
consider pretend play intervention programs as a
means of doing so.
Future research: Questions and priorities
There are several important research questions that
should be addressed in the future. First, what is the
relationship between negative affect in play and
adaptive functioning? Negative affect themes in play
have been positively related to divergent thinking.
Conversely, negative affect in play has been positively
associated with maladaptive behaviors. The type of
negative affect (aggression versus sadness), severity of
negative affect (violence versus bickering), and the
integration of the affect into the story are important
variables for future investigation. Second, are play,
creativity, and coping linked through the process
of divergent thinking or are there other mechanisms
of more significant importance? Finally, will the
components of hope be found to be empirically
linked to pretend play processes? In general, we need
to investigate which specific processes in play relate to
and facilitate which specific areas of adaptive
functioning.Play intervention research is a priority for applying
what is known about play and adaptive functioning.
Future research should aim to develop play
manuals that target specific processes in play. Play
intervention and prevention programs that can be
easily integrated into a child’s day must be cultivated.
It must be ascertained empirically whether play
interventions can effectively teach children cognitive
and interpersonal skills. For example, could a child be
taught through play how to be more hopeful? Could
play interventions aimed at developing empathy
enhance friendship development? Those interested in
investigating and advancing children’s adaptation
should remember that pretend play is a vital resource
which naturally promotes flourishing.
References
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:
Springer.
Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., & Twohey, J.L. (1998). Conceptualization
and measurement of coping in children and adolescents.
In T.H. Ollendick & R.J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical child
psychology: Vol. 20 (pp. 243–301). New York: Plenum Press.
Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., West, S.G., & Roosa, M.W. (1996).
A dispositional and situational assessment of children’s
coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of
Personality, 64, 923–958.
Barnett, M. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children.
In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development
(pp. 146–162). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bellin, H.F., & Singer, D.G. (2006). My magic story car:
Video-based play intervention to strengthen emergent literacy of
at-risk preschoolers. In D.G. Singer, R.M. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-
Pasek (Eds.), Play¼learning: How play motivates and enhances
children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 101–123).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying
personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 890–902.
Bryant, B. (1987). Mental health, temperament, family, and friends:
Perspectives on children’s empathy and social perspective taking.
In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development
(pp. 245–270). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Campos, J.J., Frankel, C.B., & Camras, L. (2004). On the nature of
emotion regulation. Child Development, 75, 377–394.
Carson, D., Bittner, M., Cameron, B., Brown, D., & Meyer, S.
(1994). Creative thinking as a predictor of school-aged children’s
stress responses and coping abilities. Creativity Research Journal,
7, 145–158.
Christiano, B., & Russ, S. (1996). Play as a predictor of coping and
distress in children during an invasive dental procedure. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 130–138.
Christie, J.F., & Johnsen, E.P. (1983). The role of play in social-
intellectual development. Review of Educational Research, 53,
93–115.
Compas, B.E., Banez, G.A., Malcarne, V., & Worsham, N. (1991).
Perceived control and coping with stress: A developmental
perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 23–34.
Compas, B.E., Connor-Smith, J.K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A.H.,
& Wadsworth, M.E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood
and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The psychology of optimal experience.
Grand Rapids, MI: Harper & Row.
Dansky, J. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship
between play and associative fluency. Child Development, 51,
576–579.
Dansky, J. (1999). Play. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 393–408). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Dansky, J., & Silverman, F. (1973). Effects of play on associative
fluency in preschool aged children. Developmental Psychology, 9,
38–43.
Dunn, J., & Cutting, A.L. (1999). Understanding others, and
individual differences in friendship interactions in young children.
Social Development, 8, 201–219.
Dunn, J., & Hughes, C. (2001). ‘I got some swords and you’re
dead!’: Violent fantasy, antisocial behavior, friendship, and
moral sensibility in young children. Child Development, 72,
491–505.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A. (2006). Emotion regulation and
children’s socioemotional competence. In L. Balter & C.S. Tamis-
LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary
issues (pp. 357–381), Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Fein, G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review.
Child Development, 52, 1095–1118.
Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness.
In P. Gorlitz & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and
play (pp. 281–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feist, G.J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and
scientific creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, E. (1992). The impact of play on development: A meta-
analysis. Play and Culture, 5, 159–181.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 117
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Gable, S.L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive
psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103–110.
Gaensbauer, T.J., & Siegel, C.H. (1995). Therapeutic approaches to
posttraumatic stress disorder in infants and toddlers. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 16, 292–305.
Galyer, K.T., & Evans, I.M. (2001). Pretend play and the
development of emotion regulation in preschool children. Early
Child Development and Care, 166, 93–108.
Goldstein, A.B., & Russ, S.W. (2000–2001). Understanding chil-
dren’s literature and its relationship to fantasy ability and coping.
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20, 105–126.
Guilford, J.P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational
implications. San Diego: Knapp.
Haight, W., & Sachs, K. (1995). The portrayal of negative emotions
during mother–child pretend play. New Directions for Child
Development, 69, 33–46.
Isen, A., Daubman, K., & Nowicki, G. (1987). Positive affect
facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.
Johnson, J. (1976). Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence
test scores with social and nonsocial make-believe play of
preschool children. Child Development, 47, 1200–1203.
Knell, S. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral play therapy. Northvale, NJ:
Aronson.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York: Springer.
Lewis, H.A., & Kliewer, W. (1996). Hope, coping, and adjustment
among children with sickle cell disease: Tests of mediator and
moderator models. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21, 25–41.
Lieberman, J.N. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination
and creativity. New York: Academic Press.
Lillard, A.S. (1998). Playing with a theory of mind. In O.N. Saracho
& B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early
childhood education (pp. 11–33). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Lindsey, E.W., & Colwell, M.J. (2003). Preschoolers’ emotional
competence: Links to pretend and physical play. Child Study
Journal, 33, 39–52.
Linley, P.A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A.M. (2006).
Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 3–16.
Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in
development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
Moore, M., & Russ, S.W. (2006). Pretend play as a resource for
children: Implications for pediatricians and health professionals.
Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 27, 237–248.
Moore, M., & Russ, S.W. (2007). Follow-up of a pretend play
intervention: Effects on play, creativity, and emotional processes in
children. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Nannis, E.D. (1988). Cognitive-developmental differences in emo-
tional understanding. New Directions for Child Development, 39,
31–49.
Niec, L.N., & Russ, S.W. (2002). Children’s interpersonal represen-
tations, empathy, and fantasy play: A validity study of the
SCORS-Q. Psychological Assessment, 14, 331–338.
Pearson, B.L., & Russ, S.W. (2007). Hope, coping, and anxiety in
homeless and non-homeless children. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamina-
tion of symbolic play and literacy research. Reading Research
Quarterly, 28, 163–175.
Pepler, D., & Ross, H. (1981). The effects of play on convergent and
divergent problem solving. Child Development, 52, 1202–1210.
Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressive-
ness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 449–470.
Roskos, K., & Christie, J. (2001). Examining the play-literacy
interface: A critical review and future directions. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 1, 59–89.
Runco, M.A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Russ, S. (1987). Assessment of cognitive affective interaction
in children: Creativity, fantasy, and play research. In J. Butcher
& C. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment
(Vol. 6, pp. 141–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Russ, S. (1988). Primary process thinking on the Rorschach,
divergent thinking, and coping in children. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 52, 539–548.
Russ, S. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the
creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russ, S. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Toward
empirically supported practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Russ, S., & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression in
children’s fantasy play, primary process thinking on the
Rorschach, and divergent thinking. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 54, 756–771.
Russ, S., Moore, M.E., & Pearson, B.L. (2007). Effects of play
intervention on play skills. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Russ, S., Robins, D., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play:
Longitudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in
children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 129–139.
Russ, S., & Schafer, E.D. (2006). Affect in fantasy play, emotion in
memories and divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18,
347–354.
Saracho, O.N. (2002). Young children’s creativity and pretend play.
Early Child Development and Care, 172, 431–438.
Sawyer, P.K. (1997). Pretend play as improvisation. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Segal, M. (2004). The roots and fruits of pretending. In E.F. Zigler,
D.G. Singer & S.J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), The roots of reading
(pp. 33–48). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1999). The president’s address. American
Psychologist, 54, 559–562.
Seja, A.L., & Russ, S.W. (1999). Children’s fantasy play and
emotional understanding. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28,
269–277.
Singer, D.G., Golinkoff, R.M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). PLAY ¼
LEARNING: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive
and social-emotional growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singer, D.G., & Singer, J.L. (1990). The house of make-believe:
Children’s play and the developing imagination. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Singer, D.L., & Rummo, J. (1973). Ideational creativity and
behavioral style in kindergarten age children. Developmental
Psychology, 8, 154–161.
Singer, J.L., & Singer, D.G. (1999). Learning through play
(Videotape). Instructional Media Institute.
Smith, P.K., & Whitney, S. (1987). Play and associative fluency:
Experimenter effects may be responsible for positive results.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 49–53.
Snyder, C.R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W.E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L.,
Danovsky, M., et al. (1997). The development and validation of
the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22,
399–421.
Sternberg, R.J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity.
In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary
psychological perspectives (pp. 125–147). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R.J., Kaufman, J.C., & Pretz, J.E. (2002). The creativity
conundrum. New York: Psychology Press.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity.
American Psychologist, 51, 677–688.
Sylva, K., Bruner, J., & Genova, P. (1976). The role of play in
the problem-solving of children 3–5 years old. In J. Bruner,
A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play (pp. 244–257). New York:
Basic Books.
118 B.L. Pearson et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Taylor, M., Carlson, S.M., Maring, B.L., Gerow, L., & Charley,
C.M. (2004). The characteristics and correlates of fantasy in
school-age children: Imaginary companions, impersonations, and
social understanding. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1173–1187.
Vandenberg, B. (1980). Play, problem-solving, and creativity. New
Directions for Child Development, 9, 49–68.
Waelder, R. (1933). Psychoanalytic theory of play. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 2, 208–224.
Youngblade, L., & Dunn, J. (1995). Individual differences in young
children’s pretend play with mother and sibling: Links to
relationships and understanding of other people’s feelings and
beliefs. Child Development, 66, 1472–1492.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 119
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
17:
02 2
5 Se
ptem
ber
2014