social pretend play and social interaction in preschoolers

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 9n 301-313 (1988)

Social Pretend Play and Social Interaction in Preschoolers

JENNIFER A. CONNOLLY York University

ANNA BETH DOYLE ERICA REZNICK

Concordia University

Social interaction was observed during social pretend play and nonpretend activities to determine whether positive and mature social behaviors were differentially associated with the pretend context. A within-subjects design and a semistructured play setting were used to control for individual differences, child and environmental effects. Thirty-seven 4- and 5-yearoold children were observed in groups of four for 47.5 minutes, in a series of play sessions. Their interactions within social pretend play and social nonpretend activities were.observed and compared. The results indicated that during pretend play, children's social interactions were more enjoyable, lasted longer, involved larger groups, and showed more play involvement and greater reciprocity. The results substantiate prior theoretical and empirical work which high- lights the educational significance of social pretend play in early childhood. Social pretend play appears to provide a contextual framework within which mature social interaction can occur and social competencies may be acquired.

Social pretend play is a favored activity of preschool children. Educators and psychologists have argued that it is also important for children's intellectual and psychosocial growth. This belief is reflected in the curriculum of many early childhood education programs which are organized to provide opportunities for fantasy play activities (Curry & Amaud, 1984). It is also reflected in the interests of many researchers of early childhood development who have examined the specific contributions of pretend play to learning and development (Fein, 1981). The empirical findings generally support the claim that social pretend play is associated with psychosocial maturity. Peer popularity and teacher-rated peer social competence (Connolly & Doyle, 1984; Marshall, 1961; Rubin & Maioni, 1975), as well as mature cognitive and affective role-taking skills (Bums & Brainerd, 1979; Fink, 1976; Saltz, Dixon, & Johnson, 1977), are reported to be higher in children who engage in more social pretend play.

This research was supported by Grant 410-81-0870 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first two authors. Portions of this paper were presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, 1983.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Jennifer Connolly, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario M3J 1P3.

301

302 CONNOLLY, DOYLE, AND REZNICK

Current explanations for these findings emphasize the unique features of the pretend mode which are thought to facilitate children's social interactions. By definition, the pretend mode entails the nonliteral treatment of objects or the self (Garvey, 1977). It has been further characterized by a particular cluster of behaviors. Smilansky (1968) emphasized the qualities of persistence and reciprocity in the child's behavior. Garvey (1977) has stressed the role of effectiveness in social communication in pretend play. Finally, the presence of positive affect, flexibility of action, and intrinsic motivation have been highlighted (Sing- er, 1973; Smith & Vollstedt, 1985). All of these researchers argue that pretend play necessitates the use of these socially mature behaviors and that this use leads to social skill advancements.

Some empirical evidence is available to support an association between these behavioral characteristics and social pretend play. When children are observed in preschool free-play settings, spontaneous social pretend play is accompanied by pleasurable affect and persistence and occurs more often in nondyadic groups (Connolly & Doyle, 1984; Marshall, 1961; Singer, 1973). It has also been reported that assertive, successful, and positively reinforcing social behaviors are associated with social pretend play (Charlesworth & Hartup, 1967; Connolly & Doyle, 1984). Also, children who have taken part in adult-led pretend play training sessions have been reported to engage in more group and cooperative interactions (Rosen, 1974; Smith & Syddall, 1978).

The purpose of the current research is to examine in greater detail the dimen- sions of this relationship between social pretend play and competent social behavior. In this examination, two features are highlighted. First, the observation of social interaction in nonpretend activities and pretend play was made with reference to the multiple social characteristics which have been differentially associated with the pretend context. These include enjoyment, interest in the play process itself, communicative skill, flexibility, persistence, and social reciprocity. As has been recently pointed out (Smith & Vollstedt, 1985) some of these criteria, such as enjoyment and persistence, are relatively overt and easy to define. Other criteria, such as intrinsic play interest, flexibility, and conversa- tional skill, can be difficult to define. For this study, these latter characteristics were defined by reference to the child's participation in managing and influenc- ing the play, the use of varied strategies, and their successfulness. This frame of reference was chosen because such positive, successful, assertive behaviors are frequently associated with social competences in preschoolers (Asher & Hymel, 1981).

Second, in the design of this study, some methodological issues which have limited the generalizability of research findings in this area were addressed. A first issue is that of distinguishing between effects associated with play itself from those associated with individual differences, such as gender, play preferences, and social skill. In observational studies of preschool free-play, it is unclear whether social pretend play leads to effective social interaction or whether socially effec-

SOCIAL PRETEND PLAY '303

tive children are more likely to engage in social pretend play. While this issue has been addressed through the use of adult-led experimental play training sessions, the adult-imposed structure may well alter the nature of this play experience. A second issue concerns the nonequivalence of the base rates of social pretend play and social nonpretend activity. Studies of children in free-play indicate that pretending occurs with lesser frequency than nonpretending (Fein, 1981). For a comparison of social behavior in the two contexts of play to be meaningful, equivalence of the base rates of pretend and nonpretend is necessary. Finally, the results of recent studies demonstrate the possible influences of child and ecological factors on play (Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg, 1983). Social pretend play occurs more often when children are familiar with each other (Doyle, Connolly, & Rivest, 1980; Matthews, 1978). It occurs less often when they play in large groups (Smith & Connolly, 1980) and for boys, when in same-sex groups (McLoyd, 1983). Boys and girls show differences in their choice of play themes: boys prefer to enact fantastic roles and girls prefer domestic roles (Connolly, Doyle, & Cecschin, 1983; McLoyd, 1983). Also, in the free-play context, boys more often select "male" toys, while girls more often select " female" toys (Rubin, Seibel, Watson, & Jambor, 1981; Sanders & Harper, 1977). Finally, some play props, such as dress-up materials and miniature kitchen objects, lead to more pretend play while others, such as art materials and puzzles, facilitate the occurrence of constructive play activities (McLoyd, 1983; Pellegrini, 1985; Pulaski, 1973; Rubin et al., 1981).

These methodological concerns were addressed in several ways. A repeated- measures design was used to control for individual differences in play preference and social skill. Children were observed in small play groups and their social interactions when in pretend play and nonpretend activities were compared. The play groups were held in a controlled setting and child and environmental factors were arranged to minimize their possible biasing effects. The playmates for each group were selected so that the children played with many different peers, including both familiar and less familiar playmates and including children of both genders. Finally, the children were provided with a common set of toys for all of the play sessions. To ensure a level of social pretend play equivalent to that of social nonpretend activity, play props which are reported to promote pretend play were provided. Toys which children often use in nonpretend activities were also included. Sex-typed toys were excluded in an attempt to ensure that all of the play materials would be equally interesting to boys and girls.

METHOD

Subjects Thirty-seven children, 16 boys and 21 girls, participated in the study. Eighteen attended one day-care center and 19 another, both located in middle-class subur-


ban neighborhoods. The children's average age was 59 months (SD = 5.7 months).

Play Session Each child participated in an average of seven play sessions with three others from the same classroom. To control for partner effects, the playmates were preselected to include a different grouping of children for each of the sessions. To control for familiarity, the playmates for each session included both frequent and infrequent playmates of both genders. Determination of playmate frequency was based on the reports of the daycare teachers who were asked to identify those children who were the most frequent play partners for each child.

The play sessions were 40 min in duration and were held in a 7m x 5m area of a separate room at the child's daycare center. They were supervised by an adult who was responsive to the children's needs but did not engage in their play. Based on the reports of previous researchers studying the effects of toy props on play (McLoyd, 1983; Pellegrini, 1985; Pulaski, 1973; Rubin, 1977; Rubin et al., 1981), a set of toys was selected to facilitate social pretend play and social nonpretend activities, to include high- and low-structure toys, and to be equally interesting to boys and girls. While most of the previous research was based on observations in settings which differ from that of the present study, such as free- play (Rubin, 1977; Rubin et al., 1981), individual (Pulaski, 1973), or dyadic (Pellegrini, 1985) settings, it was anticipated that the use of the toys would be quite similar. Toys which were selected to elicit social pretend play included dress-up materials (hats, pieces of cloth), a toy phone, puppets, stuffed animals, a doctor's kit, and a Fisher-Price airport and farm. Toys which were selected to elicit social nonpretend activity included large and small blocks, puzzles, a bowling game, coloring materials, and a large chalkboard. While some of these props, such as blocks, puzzles, and coloring materials, are reported to lead to nonsocial activity in the free-play setting (Rubin, 1977), it has also been reported that in a small group setting, these materials lead to social activity, both pretend and nonpretend (Pellegrini, 1985; Rubin et al., 1981). It was anticipated that in this setting, these toys would facilitate social nonpretend activities as well as some social pretend play.

Procedure In each play session, eight 4.5 minute observation trials (2 per child) were collected by successively observing the four children twice. The observation trial was divided into three 45-second "observe" intervals, each of which was fol- lowed by a 45-second "rating" interval. Across all sessions, the child was observed a total of 47.5 minutes. The use of a 45-second observation interval was indicated by previous research suggesting that social pretend play often lasts longer than nonpretend activities, averaging 40-60 seconds per episode (Con- nol ly& Doyle, 1984). During the "observe" interval, a continuous recording

SOCIAL PRETEND PLAY 305

was made of specific social interaction characteristics including persistence, interest, communication and its effectiveness, and flexibility. During the follow- ing "rat ing" interval, previously observed social interaction was assigned a rating for play enjoyment, group size, and interconnectedness. Also at this time, the interval was categorized as pretend or nonpretend and toy choice was recorded. Data were recorded using automated portable terminals by undergradu- ate psychology students who were uninformed about the purposes of the study.

During the session, two observers worked simultaneously, each observing a different child. To reduce data interdependence, the observations were initiated on a lagged basis, with the second observer starting 30 seconds later than the first observer. Each child participated in the scheduled play sessions until a mimimum of 15 observation trials were obtained. Because of the experimental arrangement of different groups of children in each play group, and the absenteeism of a few children, the actual number of play sessions and observation trials varied somewhat, averaging 7.29 sessions (SD = 1.2) and 15.9 (SD -- 1.9) trials.

Observation Measures

Social Interaction Characteristics. A record of the social interaction characteristics during the "observe" interval was made whenever peer social interaction was judged to occur. This was defined as an interactive sequence in which a child's social gesture (verbal or physical) was responded to by another child within 10 seconds.

To measure play persistence, the duration of the social interaction was recorded using a stopwatch. The child's active interest in the play process was operationalized in two ways: attempts to influence or manage the course of play and compliance with another child's play influence attempts. Influence attempts were defined as any verbal statements or nonverbal behavior by which the child expressed active control of the peer's behavior, including gestures, prompts, commands, questions, or requests. Peer compliance was defined as behavioral execution of the directive. Noncompliance with a peer's influence attempts was also recorded. This was used as a negative index of enjoyment. Communication was operationally defined as activity-related talking and was scored whenever the child made nondirective comments, such as comparisons or explanations regarding the ongoing activities, or engaged in conversation about events or persons outside the present situation. Social effectiveness in communication was defined as influence attempts to which the peer responded with compliance or acknowledgement. As an index of behavioral flexibility, play influence attempts which were initially unsuccessful and which were repeated with changes in verbal or behavioral form were scored.

During the "rat ing" section of the interval, the size of the group in which the child interacted was recorded. The child's enjoyment was defined in terms of the predominant affective quality and was rated as either positive, negative, or


neutral. Finally, play interrelatedness was operationally defined as the reciprocity of the play interactions. It was rated using an adaptation of the Peer Play Scale (Howes, 1980). Two levels of social play were scored; simple social play involving parallel action with mutual visual regard and no more than one reciprocated social bid; and complementary social play, involving mutual visual awareness and more than one reciprocated social bid.

Play Context. During the rating interval, the prior observed social interaction was categorized as either predominantly in the context of pretend play or in the context of nonpretend activity. Social pretend play was scored when mutually acknowledged pretend transformations were observed, evidenced by verbal or physical indications that the self and/or environmental features were being treated in a nonliteral fashion (Garvey, 1977). Examples included referring to the self as "mother" and to one's partner as " b a b y " or animating the stuffed toy snake. Nonpretend activity refers to those social interactions in which fantasy transformations were absent, for example, putting puzzles together or playing with the bowling game.

Toy Choice. In the rating interval, the observer recorded the toy or play prop used by the child during the observed social interaction. If more than one toy was used, the predominant one was recorded.

Reliability Three observers were trained to a criterion of 80% agreement prior to initiating data collection. Reliability was also assessed for 20% of the observations throughout the period of data collection. Reliability of duration of social interaction and of the frequency of activity talk, assessed by means of Pearson correla- tions on 137 and 118 observation intervals, respectively, was .90 and .87. Relia- bility of the presence or absence of influence attempts, compliance, repetitions, refusals, and successfulness was assessed by means of the Kappa coefficient (Cohen, 1960) and a value of .88 across 186 intervals was obtained. Reliability of the interval ratings was calculated on 135 observation intervals, using both Kappa and percent agreement values. For size of group, affective quality, and level of play interconnectedness, Kappa values equal to .56, .55, and .79, respectively, were obtained. Percent agreement values for these categories were .87, .76, and .85, respectively. For play context (pretend vs. nonpretend), the Kappa coefficient was .97 and the percent agreement was 98%.

RESULTS

To study differences in social behavior, intervals rated as social pretend play and as social nonpretend activity were compared. To control for individual variations in the rate of social interaction, the measures of positive and negative affect,


level of play, influence attempts, activity talk, and compliance, were expressed as relative frequencies. Similarly, success of influence attempts was expressed relative to the frequency of all influence attempts, and influence variations and refusals were expressed relative to the frequency of unsuccessful influence attempts. Since the individual child's scores were averaged across all the sessions in which he/she participated, and each session consisted of different groups of playmates, the set of observations for each child was treated as independent data. Over all sessions, each child was exposed to an average of 12.84 playmates (SD = 1.44) and was observed to interact with 8.11 (SD = 2.09) playmates. These conditions appeared to be similar to those in many classroom observation studies of free-play. In these studies, the individual child was likewise considered as the unit of analysis.

Prior to conducting the main analyses, two preliminary analyses were com- pleted. First, to assess the effectiveness of the play setting in eliciting social pretend play and social nonpretend activities, their relative rates of occurrence were compared. Social pretend play occurred in 18.16 intervals (SD = 7.18) and social nonpretend activities occurred in 18.05 intervals (SD = 6.56). The results of an analysis of variance, with context (pretend, nonpretend) as a within-group factor, and gender as a between-group factor, indicated that there were no significant differences due to play context or gender, F(1, 35) = .000, p < .50 and F(1, 35) = .288, p < .50, respectively. The context x gender interaction, was also nonsignificant, F(1, 35) = 2.781, p < .10.

A second preliminary analysis considered the differential use of toys within each context by comparing the frequencies of pretend and nonpretend intervals for each toy (see Table 1). The results of the t-test analyses indicate that dress-up materials, the kit, a phone, puppets, and stuffed animals were used more often in social pretend play. The bowling game, puzzles, Lego, small blocks and coloring/chalkboard materials were used more often in the social nonpretend context. The large blocks and the Fisher-Price toy sets were used equally often in both contexts. In addition, for both the pretend and nonpretend context, social interaction occurred very rarely without any toy. Finally, nontoy objects (e.g., a waste- basket) were used often by the children and more so in the pretend play context than in nonpretend activities.

To test the main question of the study, that is, whether social interaction characteristics differed in social pretend play and social nonpretend activities, analyses of variance with play context as a within-group factor and gender as a between-group factor were calculated. Although the preliminary analyses did not indicate any significant gender effects with regard to the amount of social interaction, gender was included in these analyses because previous research has indicated that boys and girls differ in qualitative aspects of play (Connolly et al., 1983; McLoyd, 1983). As the behavioral variables were intercorrelated, an omnibus Multivariate F test, using the Pillai-Bartlett criterion and tr = .01, was first computed (Bock, 1975). A significant multivariate main effect for context


TABLE 1 Amount of Social Pretend Play and Social Nonpretend Activities

with Each Toy and Play Prop

Social Social Pretend Nonpretend

M SD M SD t(36)

Pretend Use Dress-up 1.29 (1.88) .32 (.66) -2 .95** Phone 2.62 (2.56) .62 (1.08) -4 .49* * * Puppets; animals 1.64 (1.96) .94 (1.07) -2.40* Doctor's kit 2.08 (2.20) .32 (.62) - 4 .72 * * * Other 5.10 (4.24) 3.24 (4.14) -1 .81"

Non-Pretend Use Small blocks; Lego .42 (1.01) 1.86 (2.74) 3.31 * * Puzzles .18 (.71) 1.05 (2.10) 2.49* Drawing, chalkboard .24 (.76) 4.18 (3.31) 7.04** Bowling game .11 (.51) .84 (1.89) 2.21 *

Equal Use Large blocks 1.83 (2.56) 1.08 (1.63) - 1.61 Fisher Price toys 2.10 (2.25) 2.21 (1.78) .25 No toy/object .03 (. 16) 0 (0) - 1.00

*p < .05; * * p < .01; * * * p < .001

was found, F(11, 25) = 14.637, p < .001. Subsequent univariate ANOVAS indicated significant context differences for positive affect, F(1, 35) = 13.729, p < .001, negative affect, F(1, 35) = 14.238, p < .001, duration, F(1, 35) = 62.973, p < .001, group size, F(1, 35) = 21.999, p < .001, reciprocal play, F (1, 35) = 6.267, p < .001, influence attempts, and compliance, F(1, 35) = 61.267, p < .001. The univariate F ' s for activity talk and influence successfulness were in the expected direction, F(1, 35) = 2.839 and F(1, 35) = 3.250, respectively. As shown in Table 2, social interaction in the pretend context, as compared to the nonpretend context, was more positive (.44 vs. .32) and less negative (.07 vs . . 12), lasted longer (38.17 vs. 31.63 s), was more often of a reciprocal nature (.56 vs. .30), and typically consisted of a larger group of children (2.44 vs. 2.18). It included more influence attempts (1.06 vs..91), and these were ones with which peers more often complied (.54 vs. .40). Trends for more activity talk (1.98 vs. 1.78), and for a higher rate of successful influence attempts (.62 vs. .57), were also noted.

The multivariate tests for a gender main effect and for a gender x context interaction effect were not significant, F(11, 25) = 1.894, p < . 10 and F (11, 25) --- 1.398, p < .50, respectively

To evaluate the possibility that thes~ context effects only pertained to children

SOCIAL PRETEND PLAY

TABLE 2 Relative Frequencies of the Social Behavior Variables

in Social Pretend Play end Social Nonpretend Activities

309

Social Social Pretend Nonpretend

M SD M SD

Enjoyment Positive affect .44 .21 .32 .15 Negative affect .07 .08 .12 .11 Refusals .36 .17 .43 .26

Persistence Duration 38.17 3.55 31.63 5.31

Group Size 2.44 .30 2.18 .17

Intrinsic Play Interest Influence attempts 1.06 .39 .91 .34 Compliance .54 .19 .40 .16

Communication Activity talk 1.98 .40 1.78 .62 Influence success .62 .17 .57 .16

Interconnectedness Reciprocal play .56 .19 .30 .17

Rexibility Influence repetitions .23 .37 .26 .32

who engaged in high frequencies of pretend play, the MANOVA was repeated with high versus low frequencies of pretend (based on a median split) as a second between-group factor. The effect for this factor was nonsignificant.

In the preceding analyses, the relations between play context and social interaction were considered without regard to the toys that the children were playing with at the time. As indicated by our preliminary analyses, certain toys were used more often for pretend play and others for nonpretend activities. It is possible that this effect contributed to the overall differences in social behavior. That is, toys promoting pretend play may have induced more mature play than toys promoting nonpretend activity. A post hoc analysis was undertaken to separate these effects. Because of low frequencies of interaction for individual toys, they were grouped into three clusters: toys used more for social pretend play, toys used more for social nonpretend activities, and toys used equally for the two contexts (see Table 1). The social behavior measures in pretend and nonpretend play for each toy cluster were calculated. Rate of refusals was not included because of zero frequencies when broken down this way. The direction of the difference was computed and analysed by means of the nonpararnetric sign


test. The results of the sign test of the differences in social behaviors for the pretend toy group indicated that differences were in the expected direction (ie., more mature play in the pretend context) for 8 of 9 comparisons (p < .05). For the nonpretend toy group, all of the 9 comparisons were in the expected direction, (p < .02). In the equal use toy group, 6 of the 9 comparisons were in the expected direction (n.s.).

DISCUSSION

In this study we sought to establish in more detail the social behavior correlates of social pretend play. Based on the available literature, we anticipated that social pretend play would be associated with enjoyment, persistence, flexibility, intrinsic play interest, interconnectedness, and communicative skill. In general, these expectations were confirmed. When children were observed in social pretend play, as compared to nonpretend social activities, their interactions were characterized by more positive and less negative affect, by a longer duration of play and larger play groups, by more frequent attempts to influence the ongoing social interaction, by greater compliance with other children's directives, and by increased reciprocity of social exchange. Trends in the expected direction were found between the two contexts for the amount of activity-related talk and the effectiveness of the communication influence attempts. The expectation that social pretend play would be associated with increased flexibility was not confirmed. No differences were found in children's tendency to repeat unsuccessful social bids.

Overall, these results suggest that children's social pretend play is associated with positive changes in social behavior. As the child moves from nonpretend social activities to social pretend play, he/she demonstrates more positive, more successful, and more developmentally mature peer social interaction. These findings were consistent with those of earlier studies in which it was reported that children in pretend play were more positive, both affectively and behaviorally. In addition, the current results add convincing support to earlier findings because the study's methodology controlled for the influence of individual differences, as well as possible child and environmental effects. This social enhancement was apparent for each child, regardless of his/her usual play preference, play partners, or toys available for play. In view of these positive findings, a logical direction for future research would be the sequential analyses of the social interactions that mark the transition from nonpretend activity to pretend play. Such analyses would indicate whether entering into the pretend mode precedes or follows positive peer interaction, thus clarifying whether pretend play is an antecedent or consequence of social maturity. The results of this study support the argument that engagement in social pretend play is a valuable activity for young children and that it entails the exercise of mature social skills. The specific behavioral correlates found in this study should not, however, be considered


definitive. Many of the behavioral manifestations of play, such as flexibility or intrinsic interest, are inferred and thus are difficult to operationally define. It may be that research studying other behaviors would identify a somewhat different set of behavioral attributes. Further research, focussing particularly on flexibility and communication, would be helpful.

These findings that social pretend play is associated with positive and mature social behaviors would be of relevance to psychologists and educators who are interested in the promotion of social skills in preschoolers. Many studies have demonstrated the importance of social competencies in a child's psychosocial development and the effectiveness of skill training programs in teaching social skills (Asher & Hymel, 1981). The results of the present study indic~ite that spontaneous social pretend play may also be of value in promoting social competencies. Providing young children with the opportunity to play with a small group of other children, and with a carefully constructed set of toys that elicit complex pretend play may be an effective and simple way of facilitating the development of social competence. Although it may not be sufficient to remediate serious social dysfunction, it would certainly be of benefit to many young children in preschool settings.

The findings of the study are also of relevence to current interest in the effects of toys on play. In planning the study, play objects were chosen to elicit com- parable rates of pretend and nonpretend play. As we were successful in eliciting equal rates of pretend and nonpretend play, these results provide further evidence of the strong influence of toys on play. As expected, objects such as dress-up materials, toy doctor kits, and stuffed animals lead to pretend play, while objects such as crayons and chalk, puzzles, and gross motor games lead to nonpretend play. We also found that a few of the toys, (e.g., Fisher-Price play sets and the larger blocks) were used equally in pretend and nonpretend activities. This would suggest that they might be particularly useful toys in a preschool setting. It is also of interest to note that the children used nontoy materials in their play and particularly in their pretend play. A preference for low-structure toys in pretend play has been noted in other research (Pulaski, 1973). Our findings suggest that children may actively seek out low-structure objects even when they are not immediately available. In general, these results underscore the importance of toys in children's play patterns and emphasize the need to carefully consider this feature when designing research or educational environments for young children.

Because children's toy choice was constrained but not completely controlled by the experimental design, some limitations are imposed on the interpretation of the results. One important limitation is that the association between mature social behavior and social pretend play cannot be isolated from an association between social behavior and the specific play objects which were used in pretend play. However, post hoc analyses of these relations were conducted separately for the different types of toys and were generally supportive of the overall findings. For both the pretend use and the nonpretend use toy sets, social behavior was more


mature in pretend play than in nonpretend activities. Further work in this area might be conducted so that toy choice is under direct experimental control.

In summary, the results of this study suggest that social pretend play is associated with positive social behaviors and may be of benefit to children's social interactions. Although this association must be considered with reference to the play environment provided, it appears to facilitate a framework within which socially mature interaction can occur. Further work is needed to clarify the relative contributions of play context and play materials to social behavior. Also, further empirical consideration of the use of pretend play for social skill training and remediation is warranted.

REFERENCES

Asher, S., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. Wine & M. Smye (Eds.), Social Competence. New York: Guilford.

Bock, R.D. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Burns, S.M., & Brainerd, C.J. (1979). Effects of constructive and dramatic play on perspective taking in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 512-521.

Charlesworth, R., & Hartup, W. (1967). Positive social reinforcement in the nursery school peer group. ChiM Development, 38, .993-1002.

Cohen, J.A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 3"I-46.

Connolly, J., & Doyle, A.B. (1984). Relations of social fantasy play to social competence in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 20, 797-806.

Connolly, J., Doyle, A.B., & Cecschin, F. (1983). Forms and functions of social fantasy play in preschoolers. In M. Liss (Ed.), Children's play: Sex differences and acquisition of cognitive and social skills. New York: Academic.

Curry, N., & Amaud, S. (1984). Play in developmental preschool settings. In T. Yawkey & A. Pellegrini (Eds.), ChiM's Play: Developmental and Applied. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.

Doyle, A.B., Connolly, J., & Rivest, L.P. (1980). Social interaction in familiar vs. unfamiliar peers. Child Development, 51, 217-223.

Fein, G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child Development, 52, 1095- 1118.

Fink, R.S. (1976). Role of imaginative play in cognitive development. Psychological Reports, 39, 895-906.

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Howes, C. (1980). Peer play scale as an index of complexity of peer interaction. Developmental

Psychology, 6, 371-372. Marshall, H.R. (1961). Relations between home experiences and children's use of language in play

interactions with peers. Psychological Monographs, 75, (5, Whole No. 509). Matthews, W.S. (1978). Sex and familiarity effects upon the proportion of time young children

spend playing in spontaneous fantasy play. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, 9-12. McLoyd, V. (1983). The effects of the structure of play objects on the pretend play of low-income

preschool children. Child Development, 54, 626-635. Pellegrini, A. (1985). Social-cognitive aspects of children's play: The effects of age, gender, and

activity centers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 129-140.


Pulaski, M. (1973). Toys and imaginative play. In J. Singer (Ed.), The child's world of make- believe. New York: Academic.

Rosen, C.E. (1974). The effects of sociodramatic play on problem-solving behavior among culturally disadvantaged preschool children. Child Development, 45, 920-927.

Rubin, K.H. (1977). The social and cognitive value of preschool toys and activities. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 9, 382-385.

Rubin, K.H., & Maioni, L. (1975). Play preference and its relationship to egocentrism, popularity and classification skills in preschoolers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 171-179.

Rubin, K., Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E.M. Hetherington, (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4, (pp. 693-744). New York: Wiley.

Rubin, K., Seibel, C., Watson, K., & Jambor, T. (1981). Free play behaviors in young children: The effects of grade and ecological setting. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Interdisciplinary Conference on Piagetian Theory and the Helping Professions, Los Angeles, CA.

Saltz, E., Dixon, D., & Johnson, J. (1977). Training disadvantaged preschoolers on various fantasy activities: Effects on cognitive functioning and impulse control. Child Development, 48, 367- 380.

Sanders, K., & Harper, L. (1977). Free-play fantasy behavior in preschool children: Relations among gender, age, season, and location. Child Development, 47, 1182-1185.

Singer, J.L. (1973). The child's world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play. New York: Academic.

Smilansky, S. (1968). The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Preschool Children. New York: Wiley.

Smith, P., & Connolly, P. (1980). The ecology of the preschool classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P., & Syddall, S. (1978). Play and non-play tutoring in preschool children: Is it play or tutoring which matters? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 315-325.

Smith, P.K., & Vollstedt, R. (1985). On defining play: An empirical study of the relationship between play and various play criteria. Child Development, 56, 1042-1047.

social pretend play and social interaction in preschoolers

Documents