This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]On: 28 October 2014, At: 04:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Genetic Psychology:Research and Theory on HumanDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

Imaginative Play and LogicalThinking in Young ChildrenEstelle Peisach a & Mildred Hardeman ba Pratt Institute , USAb Department of Psychology Queens College , City Universityof New York , USAPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Estelle Peisach & Mildred Hardeman (1985) Imaginative Play and LogicalThinking in Young Children, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory onHuman Development, 146:2, 233-248, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1985.9914451

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1985.9914451

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(2), 233-249

Imaginative Play and Logical Thinking in Young Children

ESTELLE PEISACH Pratt Institute

MILDRED HARDEMAN Department of Psychology

Queens College, City University of New York

ABSTRACT. To examine the relationship between imaginative play and logical thinking in young children, 65 children ranging in age from 4 to 7 years were inter- viewed or observed to assess their level of imaginative play and were administered Piaget-derived logical-thinking tasks. It was found that the relationship varied across ages. Imaginative play was positively correlated with social perspective taking in 5- and 6-year-old children. Imaginative play was negatively correlated with spatial perspective taking and multiplication of classes in 5-year-old children.

THE QUESTION OF THE ROLE of imagination in the development of cognition has become prominent through the work of Piaget, Vigotsky, and Singer. Imaginative play, in Piaget’s theory (1962), is a basic component of the second stage of cognitive development, providing the framework for the use of symbols that is essential for subsequent logical thinking. According to Piaget, imaginative play begins in the child’s second year and starts to decline after about the fifth year.

For Vigotsky (1981), the essence of play is that it gives the child cognitive freedom from concrete reality, and Vigotsky sees this as an im- possible occurrence before about the age of 3. Play in young children, therefore, “is a stage between the purely situational constraints of early childhood and adult thought, which can be totally free of real situations.” Thus, further cognitive development could not occur without the liberating effects of imaginative - play.

More detailed information concerning the tasks may be obtained by writing to Estelle Peisach.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Estelle Peisach, 3 Washington Square Village, Apartment 5A, New York, NY 10012.

233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

234 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Whereas Piaget and Vigotsky see the young child’s imaginative play as constituting a developmental stage without which more mature logical thought cannot take place, Singer (1973) views imagination (and im- aginative play) not as a developmental stage but rather as a cognitive skill that can be acquired and can enhance intellectual functioning and the qual- ity of life throughout the life span. All three theories suggest the likelihood of a close relationship between the two variables; that is, children who have a highly developed imagination might also have more skill in dealing with logical problems, at least at certain ages.

The works of Smilansky (1968) and Singer (1973) stimulated investiga- tion of this relationship, and Fein (1981) and Chrystie and Johnson (1983) have reviewed subsequent research. Although Watson and Fischer (1977) found no relationship between symbolic play and cognition in late infancy, several studies dealing with young children, from about age 3 to 5 , have provided some support for the hypothesis: correlational studies by Rubin and Maioni (1975) and Johnson (1976); training studies by Freyburg (1973), Rosen (1974), Fink (1976), Golomb and Cornelius (1977), Saltz, Dixon, and Johnson (1977), Smith and Syddall(1978), and Burns and Brainerd (1979). The literature suggests that the relationship may vary for different areas of cognition and that children’s propensity for imaginative play may be more relevant to their cognitive functioning at one age than at another. The pres- ent study was designed to explore more fully the following questions: (a) Is there a relationship between imaginative play and cognition as manifested in children’s responses to a variety of Piaget-type logical thinking tasks; and (b) does the relationship between imaginative play and logical thinking vary as a function of age?

Method

Sample

Subjects, aged 4 through 7, came from a small, metropolitan private school having one class in each grade. The emphasis in the school is on learning through experience and play, particularly in the early grades. Imagination is accepted by the staff. The sample (a total of 65 children) consisted of the prekindergarten 4-year-old class (n = 10, M age = 58.60 months), kindergarten (n = 13, Mage = 69.57 months), and first- (n = 21, Mage = 82.40 months) and second-grade (n = 21, M age = 94.10 months) classes. Permission slips were mailed home to parents, and a range of 68% to 88% of the children in each class were granted permission to participate in the study. Of the children granted permission, 6 were not tested because of a lack of time at the end of the school year. Most of the children in the selected grades, however, were included in the sample.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 235

Data Collection Naturalistic observation was used for examining imaginative play in the 4-year-old children. Each child was observed in two separate contexts, structured and unstructured, for 10-min intervals. Singer’s interview schedule (1973), designed to evaluate a child’s level of imagination, was used with the children aged 5 through 7. These interviews took place prior to administration of the cognitive battery, which was administered to all the children, including the 4-year-olds, individually on a different occasion. All testing was done by three women, one of the investigators and two graduate students. A small room was used, with the child and the examiner sitting across from each other at a rectangular table.

Evaluating the Child’s Level of Imaginative Play Observation procedure. Singer’s method for observation of children’s im- aginative play was designed for 5-year-old children. In the present study, it was found in a pilot project that his method was too global for the less organized and less sustained imaginative play of 4-year-olds. The following rating method was, therefore, designed to provide a more specific analysis and evaluation of the 4-year-old children’s imaginative play.

An “Imaginative Play Work Sheet” was devised to record the content, frequency, and length of time of the components of imaginative behavior: type of play, degree of closeness to real-life situations, attribution of human characteristics to animal figures, representation of an object as something else, evidence of a nonvisible participant, simulated vocalizations, and role playing. Two scorers independently obtained scores based on the total fre- quency and cumulative time spent in imaginative behavior by each child in both contexts. The possible scores ranged from 0 to 11, with 10 representing either 10 or more instances of imaginative behavior or prolonged sequences of imaginative play lasting nearly 10 min or exactly 10 min. One point was added if a child resisted interruption of play by another person to any degree. The distribution of these scores was trichotomized: no or little imaginative play (scores of 0 to 3), medium imaginative play (scores of 4 to 7), and high imaginative play (scores of 8 to 11). With one exception, for 28 protocols, there was perfect agreement between the two raters’ scores. The correlation between scores obtained in the unstructured and structured situations was .76. This value may have been inflated because of the same-day observations.

Interview. Singer (1973) successfully used the following series of questions to evaluate the level of imagination in children 5 years of age and older:

1. “What is your favorite game? What do you like to play the most?” 2. “What game do you like to play best when you’re all alone? What

do you like to do best when you’re all alone? Do you ever think things up?”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

236 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

3. “DO you ever have pictures in your head? Do you ever see make- believe things or pictures in your mind and think about them? What sort of things?”

4. “Do you have a make-believe friend? Do you have an animal or toy or make-believe person you talk to or take along places with you?”

Singer used a 5-point scale (0 to 4) to score the interview, one point for each of the four questions that elicited a response indicating imaginative or fantasy play. In the present study, certain difficulties were found in using Singer’s scoring procedure. First, virtually all the children responded “yes” to the questions regarding “pictures in your head.” Including this question in the score was tantamount to adding a constant. For Item 4, Singer as- signed a score of 1 whether the child said he had an imaginary friend or reported taking a toy with him. Consequently, most of the children in the present study were assigned a score of 1 for this item. It seems likely that the children in the present study were a more homogeneous sample than those interviewed by Singer.

Therefore, in addition to scoring the children’s responses according to Singer’s system, another scoring system was devised. In the present study, 34 children reported the existence of an imaginary friend, and 31 reported that they had no such friend, reflecting maximum variation for this part of Question 4. The components of Question 4 were elaborated to devise a 6-point (0 to 5 ) Make-Believe Friend Scale. Each of the following responses was assigned 1 point: “yes” to having an imaginary friend, talking to a make-believe person, talking to a make-believe animal, talking to a toy, and taking a make-believe friend places.

Singer’s scale and the Make-Believe Friend Scale were both used in the analysis of the relationship between imaginative play and logical thinking.

The Cognitive Battery

The cognitive battery was designed to assess children’s logical capacities in four areas as defined by Piaget: multiplication of classes, class inclusion, spatial viewpoint of the other, and social viewpoint of the other. The battery was designed so that testing time would not exceed 20 min per individual.

Multiplication of classes. The purpose of the tasks in this area was to measure the child’s ability to deal with two dimensions simultaneously. Four matrix boards consisted of (a) four geometric shapes x four colors, (b) four modes of transportation x four colors, (c) three sizes x three col- ors, and (d) three sizes x three shapes. These were presented one at a time to the child. Each board had one empty cell. The examiner, pointing to the empty cell, asked what belonged there. If the child responded either incor- rectly or did not respond, a matching card with similar objects was shown to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 237

the child. The examiner, pointing to the empty cell, said, “Show me the one that belongs there on the board.” A maximum score of 2 points could be earned for each board. One point was assigned for the correct identification of each dimension; for example, for a “red train,” 1 point for the color red and 1 point for the mode of transportation were assigned. A maximum score of 8 points could be obtained for the four boards. No distinction was made between a correct response that was given verbally and one that was indicated by pointing to the correct object.

A total of 8 points was assigned for a perfect score in the conjunctive language task. First, four red candles varying in height and width were presented to the child. The child was told, “Point to the candle that is both (a) taller and fatter, (b) shorter and thinner, (c) thinner and taller, or (d) fat- ter and shorter than the other candles.” One point was assigned for each correctly identified dimension of the candle selected.

The child was then presented with four sets of buttons and told, “Please point to the set of buttons that has (a) more buttons and larger but- tons than the other sets of buttons, (b) fewer and smaller buttons, (c) smaller and more buttons, or (d) larger and fewer buttons than the other sets of buttons.” Again, 1 point was assigned for each correctly identified dimension in the set of buttons selected.

Cluss inclusion items. Each child was asked three sets of questions concern- ing whether there are more cows or more animals, more dresses (pants) or more clothes, more men or more policemen, and the reason for each answer. The child could obtain 2 points for each set of questions (a total of 6 points), 1 point for the correct response and a second’point for an ap- propriate reason.

Spatial viewpoint of the other. This score comprised four differentially weighted subscores. The items included in this score were selected to reflect varying levels of complexity and difficulty. For example, the horse and rob- ber task was initially developed by Hughes (Donaldson, 1978) as an analogue to Piaget’s mountain task using a meaningful familiar context. The remaining three items of the spatial viewpoint scale were devised by the investigators as a continued effort in the direction of creating more con- crete, familiar items of varying difficulty level. The tasks were administered in ascending order of difficulty. The child earned higher overall scores for the more difficult tasks.

The horse and robber task used four wooden blocks (6 in. x 2% in. x 1 % in.) arranged in cross-like formation. The examiner placed a toy robber in three positions and asked the child, for each position, to place a toy horse so that the robber could not find it. The child obtained 1 point for each cor- rect placement of the horse for a maximum of 3 points.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

238 The Journal of Generic Psychology

The soldier and truck task followed the horse and robber task, and two toy trucks and two toy soldiers were brought out. One of the trucks was placed in front of the child, and one soldier was placed adjacent to the child. The other soldier was placed in two different positions on the table. The child was asked, for each position, to place a second truck so that the soldier next to the child could see it the same way as the examiner’s soldier saw it. The maximum score for this set of items was 4: 2 points for correct placement of the truck relative to each position, 1 point for correct place- ment vertically or horizontally, and 1 point for correct placement of the rear and front of the truck.

In rotating display, a toy soldier was again placed adjacent to the child, and two boards with identical objects affixed (a soldier, horse, and cannon) were placed in front of the child and the soldier. The examiner showed the child that the display in front of the soldier could be rotated. Then, placing a second soldier next to the display in front of the child, the child was told, “Turn the rotating board so that the soldier can see the board just the way the other soldier sees it.” The soldier adjacent to the fixed display was placed at a second position and the instruction repeated. Three points were as- signed for each correct rotation for a maximum of 6 points.

In the reconstruction task, a board with three objects affixed, with a toy soldier alongside, was placed in front of the child. A second board that was empty, with identical objects nearby, was placed in front of a second toy soldier. The child was asked to place the objects on the empty board so that the second soldier could see it from the same perspective as the soldier next to the child’s display. The task was repeated in an additional position. The child could earn 6 points for each position, a total of 12 points. One point was assigned for each object correctly placed on the board. A second point was assigned for the correctness of directionality of the placed object. Because this last set of tasks was considerably more difficult than the previous ones, it was not administered to the 4-year-olds.

Social viewpoint of the other. Although the social and spatial viewpoints of the other are often treated as if they reflect the same domain of ability, it seemed important to distinguish between these two cognitive activities. Two stories concerning the social viewpoint of the other were administered to the 5- , 6-, and 7-year-olds: “Heidi and the Lamp,” adapted from Stuart (1965); and “The Lazy Boy,” adapted from Lerner (1937). “The Lazy Boy” was administered to the 4-year-olds, also.

The story “Heidi and the Lamp” was told as follows: “There was a lit- tle girl whose name was Heidi. One day Heidi was playing with her ball in the house and she broke her mother’s favorite lamp. Her brother saw her do it. When their mother came home and saw the broken lamp, she asked who had done it, but neither child said anything. Then the mother said that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 239

neither child could go out and play that afternoon. Then the brother said that Heidi had done it.”

After hearing the story read, the child was asked, “Was the brother right or wrong to tell the mother that Heidi had broken the lamp? Why?” The child was then asked, consecutively, the same questions from the perspective of the brother, Heidi, the mother, and the brother’s friends.

“The Lazy Boy” was told as follows: “One day the teacher wanted all the children to clean up their cubbies. One boy was lazy and didn’t clean up his cubby. The teacher told everyone in the class not to help him clean up his cubby, but one of the lazy boy’s friends broke the rule because he wanted to help all the same.”

Again, after hearing the story read, the child was asked a similar set of questions: “What do you think? Was the friend right or wrong to help the lazy boy? Why?” The same questions were then asked from the perspective of the lazy boy, the teacher, the friend who helped, and the other children in the class.

Questions devised to check on the children’s understanding of the two stories indicated that the 4-year-olds seemed to have difficulty understand- ing “Heidi and the Lamp.” Thus, only “The Lazy Boy” was administered to the 4-year-old children.

Our concern was to recognize when a child is apparently aware of the viewpoint of the other. The child may not be able to articulate what he understands. Therefore, equal credit was given to evidence from two sources: choice-two different responses out of five, that is, two wrongs and three rights or two rights and three wrongs-and reason-a minimum of two different reasons. If the child gave additional reasons beyond the minimum of two, then an additional point was assigned for each additional reason. Further, an additional point was earned if, in regard to the ques- tions concerning other children, the child responded, “Some think it’s right, some think it’s wrong.” Thus, the range for each story was 0 to 6 points.

Results

The scores for both imaginative play and logical thinking are presented in Table 1. At each age level, means and standard deviations for each item and summed score are presented.

There was an increase in the mean imaginative play scores from age 5 to 6 but a decrease from 6 to 7. This was reflected in the negative correla- tions between imaginative play and age shown in Table 2, particularly in the 6-year-old sample.

Although both imaginative play scores follow the same pattern, the decrease in imaginative play was more clearly delineated with the Make- Believe Friend score. Closer examination of the components of the Singer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E 1

N

umbe

rs, M

eans

, and

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

for

Imag

inat

ive-

Play

an

d L

ogic

al-T

hink

ing

Scor

es

Var

iabl

es

4-ye

ar-o

lds

5-ye

ar-o

lds

6-ye

ar-o

lds

7-ye

ar-o

lds

(n =

10)

(n

= 1

3)

(n =

21)

(n

= 2

1)

Poss

ible

ra

nge

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Imag

inat

iona

Si

nger

sca

le

Mak

e-B

elie

ve F

riend

Sca

le

Logi

cal t

hink

ing

Mat

rix b

oard

s C

onju

nctiv

e la

ngua

ge

Sum

med

mul

tiplic

atio

n of

cla

sses

Sum

med

cla

ss in

clus

ion

Hor

se a

nd r

obbe

r So

ldie

r an

d tru

ck

Rot

atin

g di

spla

y R

econ

stru

ctio

n ta

skb

Sum

med

spa

tial v

iew

poin

t of

the

oth

erb

“Hei

di a

nd th

e L

amp”

c “T

he L

azy

Boy

” Su

mm

ed s

ocia

l vie

wpo

int

of t

he o

ther

c Su

mm

ed v

iew

poin

t of

the

othe

r

Sum

med

cog

nitiv

e ba

ttery

-

0-5

0-5

-

0-8

4.00

0-

8 3.

70

0-16

7.

70

0-6

1 .OO

0-3

2.70

0-

4 2.

60

0-6

2.40

0-

12

-

0-25

1.10

-

0-5

0-5

so

0-10

-

0-35

8.

20

0-57

16

.90

-

2.38

-

2.38

2.67

5.1

5 2.

26

5.92

3.

27

11.0

8

1.25

3.54

.67

2.62

1.4

3 3.

00

2.37

3.

23

-

2.23

2.

83

11.0

8

- 2.

08

.85

1.92

-

4.00

3.04

15

.23

5.61

29

.11

.87

1.45

2.76

2.

53

3.43

1.90

.51

1.47

2.

28

2.28

4.

89

1.38

1.

21

2.35

5.18

7.70

2.55

2.

41

7.19

7.

81

15.0

0

4.05

2.95

3.

14

4.00

1.3

3 11

.43

2.60

2.

76

5.25

16.8

0

35.8

0

1.05

1.47

1.08

.5

1 1.0

5

1.28

.22

.73

1.97

1.

98

3.25

1.67

1.

34

2.66

4.18

4.56

2.38

1.

60

7.23

7.

80

15.0

5

4.09

2.80

2.

90

4.52

3.

61

13.8

6

3.48

2.

71

6.19

20.0

5

39.1

9

.80

1.26

1.48 .87

1.63

1.58

.68

1 .oo

1.60

3.

92

4.79

1.78 .85

2.46

5.47

6.84

aObs

erva

tions

wer

e cl

assi

fied as lo

w, m

ediu

m, o

r hi

gh im

agin

ativ

e pl

ay f

or th

e C

year

-old

s. %

he s

core

for

the

4-ye

ar-o

lds

is n

ot e

quiv

alen

t to

the

¶.- 1

,

..

^

”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 241

scale sheds some light on why this occurs. As noted earlier, virtually all the children responded “yes” to the question concerning “pictures in your head.” Further, Singer does not distinguish between a child interacting with a toy animal or a make-believe friend.

For the logical-thinking items, there was a more consistent increase in scores with age, with leveling off generally occurring between the ages of 6 and 7. This is the pattern for the multiplication of classes subscore and the items comprising this score, matrix boards and conjunctive language, as well as the class inclusion score. The mean overall spatial viewpoint scores also increased with age, although there was little difference between scores of 5- and &year-olds. The spatial viewpoint scores of the seven-year-olds were considerably higher. Almost all of the children, including the 4-year- olds, obtained a perfect score on the horse and robber item. The soldier and truck item also did not vary with age. This is confirmed in Table 2, where it can be seen that in the combined sample these two items were the only logical-thinking items not correlated with age. The overall social viewpoint subscore also increased as a function of age, although there was no correla- tion between age and “The Lazy Boy” story for the combined sample (Table 2).

The correlations between sex and the measures of imaginative play and logical thinking are also presented in Table 2. For the combined sample, there were low, positive, consistent correlations between sex and the im- aginative play measures, with girls having higher imaginative play scores than boys. This was particularly true of the &year-old sample. Four-year- old boys had higher conjunctive language scores than girls of that’age. Five- year-old boys had higher class inclusion scores than girls of that age. Among the 6-year-olds, boys had higher spatial viewpoint scores than girls. The girls of this age, however, had higher scores in the social viewpoint items. Among the 7-year-olds, there were no significant sex differences either for the imaginative play or the logical-thinking items.

The correlations between the measures of imaginative play and logical thinking are presented in Table 3. Although both zero-order and partial cor- relations for age were computed, no major differences were found, and only zero-order correlations are reported except for the combined sample.

When the 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old samples were combined, there were very few significant correlations, and the values were low. Further, the few relations that appeared were not maintained for both imaginative play measures. In addition, controlling the combined sample for age did not have an effect. Therefore, it appeared that the table should be examined at each age level.

For 4-year-old children, only one measure of imaginative play was ob- tained, namely, an Observation Scale. The sample of 10 children was very small. A significant positive correlation was found between the Observation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E 2

C

orre

latio

n B

etw

een

Chi

ld C

hara

cter

istic

s and

Im

agin

ativ

e-Pl

ay a

nd L

ogic

al-T

hink

ing S

core

s

Var

iabl

es

~ ~

~~

Com

bine

d C

year

-old

s 5-

year

-old

s 6-

year

-old

s 7-

year

-old

s sa

mpl

e A

ge

Sexa

A

ge

Sexa

A

ge

Sexa

A

ge

Sexa

A

ge

Sexa

Imag

inat

ion

Sing

er s

yste

m

Mak

e-B

elie

ve F

riend

Sca

le

Obs

erva

tion

Scal

e Lo

gica

l th

inki

ng

Mat

rix b

oard

s C

onju

nctiv

e la

ngua

ge

Sum

med

mul

tiplic

atio

n of

cla

sses

Su

mm

ed c

lass

incl

usio

n H

orse

and

rob

ber

Sold

ier a

nd t

ruck

R

otat

ing

disp

lay

Rec

onst

ruct

ion

task

Su

mm

ed s

patia

l vie

wpo

int

of t

he o

ther

“H

eidi

and

the

Lam

p”

“The

Laz

y B

oy”

Sum

med

soc

ial v

iew

poin

t of

the

oth

er

Sum

med

vie

wpo

int o

f th

e ot

her

Sum

med

cog

nitiv

e ba

ttery

- -

-.17

.2

0 -

-

-.01

.1

9 -.4

8b

.OO

-

-

.19

.08

.25

-.16

.01

-.68*

* -.

03

.16

.16

-.41

.22

-.02

.30

-.17

-.05

-.47

*

.23

-.38

-.

30

.18

.19

-.06

.6

3**

.I2

.28

.05

.42‘

.3

9b

- -

.76*

* .0

8 .3

8 -.O

l .6

9**

.24

- -

-.26

.0

9 .5

6*

-.76*

* -.4

Sb

.18

-

- -.

39b

.I

5

.51b

-.2

5 .4

9*

.31

.43

-.40

.43b

.0

9

-.15

- .3

6*

- .o I

.33b

.1

7 - .2

6

.02

- .3

3b

.25

- .2

1 - .o

s - .1

4 - .3

7*

- .2

4

- .2

2

- .2

4

so*

.31b

-

- .3

4b

.33b

.1

9 .I

2

.19

- .1

7 - .3

0b

- .4

0*

- .45*

.45*

.3

8*

.43*

- .0

6

- .0

6

- .I

4 - .0

8 -

.37*

.26

-.14

-.19

- .O

Oc

.26

- .3

1b

.15

.28

.02

- .1

3 - .0

2

.24

.21

- .0

5 .I

2 - .I

9 - .2

6 .0

3 - .05

.10

- .0

1 .2

6 - .0

4 .0

7 - .0

2 -

.05

- .0

3

- .0

5

.03

- .05

.26*

-.

24*

.21*

-

-

.43*

* .0

7 .4

2**

.10

.57*

* .0

4

.07

-.09

.09

.15

.34*

* .0

9 .0

3 - .0

1

.25*

- .1

0 .3

2**

-.02

.28*

.2

0b

.13

.22*

.2

5*

.2Ib

.40*

* -.

lo

.52*

* -.

07

aBoy

s =

0; g

irls

= 1

. b.

05 <

p <

.lo

. CH

orse

and

robb

er h

ad n

o va

rian

ce a

t th

is a

ge.

*p <

.05

. **

p <

.01

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 243

Scale and the truck item. A significant negative correlation was obtained between imaginative play and the rotating display. The truck and rotating display items were negatively correlated ( - .18) for the 4-year-olds but significantly, positively correlated for the 5- and 7-year-olds at .67 and .41, respectively. It seems likely that for the 4-year-olds, the truck tasks and the horse and robber tasks constituted a scale because there was a positive cor- relation of .44 between these two items. At the older ages, there were negative but nonsignificant correlations between the horse and robber items and the other items (including the truck tasks) in the spatial viewpoint scale.

In examining the findings for the older children, it should be kept in mind that two different measures of imaginative play were devised and are presented in Table 3. The lack of variance in Items 1 and 4 of the Singer scale may be seen. The Make-Believe Friend Scale, derived from Singer’s in- terview, seems to be more sensitive in revealing the relationship between the imaginative play and logical-thinking scores.

The total multiplication of classes score contains the matrix boards and the conjunctive language items. In the 5-year-old sample, there was a high negative correlation ( - .85) between Make-Believe Friend Scale and multiplication of classes, with the matrix boards contributing more to the correlation than conjunctive language. This relation disappears in the 6- and 7-year-old groups. Instead, conjunctive language was positively cor- related with the Singer scale in the 6-year-olds.

No significant relationship between imaginative play and class inclu- sion was found except a negative correlation between Make-Believe Friend Scale and class inclusion in the 7-year-old group. It seems likely that for both the class inclusion and the multiplication of classes items a ceiling ef- fect occurred. Table 1 shows that there were no differences in the mean scores of 6- and 7-year-olds, with consequent decreases in variance at both age levels.

The spatial viewpoint of the other consists of the following items: horse and robber, soldier and truck, the rotating display, and the reconstruction tasks. There is a suggestion of a negative correlation between this scale and the Make-Believe Friend Scale at the 5-year-old level but not at the 6- and 7-year-old levels. The truck item accounted largely for the negative correla- tion in the 5-year-olds. In contrast, there was a positive correlation between the truck item and the Make-Believe Friend Scale in the 6-year-olds, but, with the 7-year-olds, a significant negative correlation reappeared. For the 7-year-olds, however, the relationship between the Make-Believe Friend Scale and the reconstruction tasks tended to be positive, perhaps accounting for the lack of correlation between the total spatial viewpoint score and im- aginative play.

The social viewpoint of the other was measured by two items: the story “Heidi and the Lamp” and the story “The Lazy Boy.” In the sample of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E 3

C

orre

latio

ns B

etw

een

Imag

inat

ive-

Play

and

Log

ical

-Thi

nkin

g Sco

res

Cye

ar-o

lds

5-ye

ar-o

lds

6-ye

ar-o

lds

7-ye

ar-o

lds

Com

bine

d sa

mpl

e (n

= 1

0)

(n =

13)

(n

= 2

1)

(n =

21)

(N

= 6

3)

Var

iabl

e 0s

SS

M

BF

SS

MB

F SS

M

BF

SS

C/A

M

BF

CIA

Mat

rix b

oard

s C

onju

nctiv

e la

ngua

ge

Sum

med

mul

tiplic

atio

n of

Sum

med

cla

ss in

clus

ion

Hor

se a

nd r

obbe

r So

ldie

r an

d tru

ck

Rot

atin

g di

spla

y R

econ

stru

ctio

n ta

sk

Sum

med

spa

tial v

iew

poin

t of

the

oth

er

"Hei

di a

nd th

e La

mp"

"T

he L

azy

Boy"

Su

mm

ed s

ocia

l vie

wpo

int

of t

he o

ther

Su

mm

ed v

iew

poin

t of

the

othe

r Su

mm

ed c

ogni

tive

batte

ry

clas

ses

v.04

-.20

-.6

2**

.ll

-.20

.21

.10

-.lo

-.4

7*

.48*

.3

1a

.ll

.04

-.23

-.85

**

.33a

-.0

7 .2

5

- .3

8 .0

7 -.0

2 .3

1' .1

0 .0

5

.35

-.20

-.33

-b

-b

- .04

.49"

-.4

6" -

.56*

.2

0 .3

9*

-.26

- .6

0*

.08

-.26

.13

-.09

-.04

-

-.01

-.17

-.

06

.34"

.2

1 .1

7 -.1

4 -

.39"

.08

.24

.09

- .5

3*

.41a

.5

5**

.34

-.06

.13

.26

-.lo

.3

8

.20

.09

- .4

Sa

.19

.47*

.2

1 -

.01

.19

.07

-.30

.38*

.40*

.08

- .1

7 -.

05

-.59*

.S

O**

.37"

.1

3

- .1

9

- .0

1

- .40*

- .5

5'*

- .3

8*

.03

.33a

.1

2

- .2

5 - .2

9"

- .2

8

- .04

-.11 .2

9"

.03

.07

.07

.10

.06

.12

.14

.14

-.04

-.04

-.16

-.16

.06

.08

.05

.06

.01

.03

.28*

.3

1**

.24*

.2

5*

.28*

* .3

1**

.16

.2W

.16

.23*

-.29*

-.2

2a

-.07

.0

3 -.2

6*

-.I6

-.11

-.

lo

-.28*

-.2

7*

-.17

-.1

7 -.

13

-.05

-.05

.03

.04

.12

.OO

.03

.OO

.06

.12

.19a

-.02

.0

8 -.

15

.03

Not

e. 0s

= o

bser

vatio

n sc

hedu

le;

SS =

Sin

ger s

yste

m; M

BF

= M

ake-

Bel

ieve

Frie

nd S

cale

. ".

05 <

p <

.lo

. ?he

re

was

no

vari

ance

for t

he v

aria

ble

in th

is a

ge g

roup

. Th

e co

rrel

atio

n be

twee

n th

e ho

rse

and

robb

er ta

sks a

nd im

agin

ativ

e pla

y fo

r 7-y

ear-

olds

was

the

resu

lt of tw

o sc

ores

of 0

by

child

ren

who

got

hig

h sp

atia

l vie

wpo

int s

core

s fo

r the

dif

ficu

lt pe

rcep

tual

vie

wpo

int

task

s. A

p-

pare

ntly

, the

0 sc

ores

ref

lect

eith

er a

mis

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

que

stio

n by

the

chi

ld or

inte

rvie

wer

err

or.

*p <

.05

. *p

< .0

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 245

5- and 6-year-olds, “Heidi and the Lamp” was significantly positively cor- related with the Singer scale, whereas “The Lazy Boy” was not. In fact, there were lower correlations between the total social viewpoint score and imaginative play than between “Heidi and the Lamp” and imaginative

In summary, the notable significant positive relation that emerged was between the social viewpoint of the other and imaginative play. The elements of the spatial viewpoint of the other as well as other subscores of logical thinking, when related, were negatively related. This contrast was most evident with the 5-year-olds.

play.

Discussion

Two findings are prominent: (a) The relationships that were found-both positive and negative-were not constant across age, and (b) the cognitive battery apparently consisted of two distinguishable kinds of variables. Statistically significant relationships between imaginative play and logical thinking were found primarily among the 5- and 6-year-olds, ages that have less frequently been examined in regard to this problem. There was con- siderably less evidence of a relationship among 4-year-olds and 7-year-olds. There is no way of knowing on the basis of the present data whether the lack of clear-cut findings for the 4-year-olds may be attributed to the very small sample, which nevertheless included most of the children of that age in the school, or whether this lack reflects the actual nature of imaginative play and logical thinking in 4-year-olds. Whereas for the 7-year-old children, scores on logical thinking items increased as expected, ‘there was a decrease in level and variance of imaginative play. This decrease may be an effect of the self-report instrument that was used; it seems possible that older’ children might become embarrassed by acknowledging the existence, for ex- ample, of imaginary companions. The decrease in the older group may also be accounted for by the nature of the sample; that is, there is some evidence that imagination reaches its peak in middle-class children in the preschool years (Rosen, 1974; Smith & Syddall, 1978). The decrease in the present study seems to confirm the views of Piaget (1962) and Singer (1973) that im- agination becomes less prominent, apparently going underground, around the age of 7.

The pattern of positive and negative relationships among the 5- and 6-year-old children suggests that the logical thinking battery actually measured responses to two distinct kinds of tasks, those that require a grasp of relations in the external physical world and those that require under- standing of social relations. This was evidenced by the negative correlations obtained between imaginative play (Make-Believe Friend Scale) and the fol- lowing variables: multiplication of classes (r = - .85 at age 5 ) and spatial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

246 The Journal of Generic Psychology

perspective taking ( r = - .39 at age 5). Positive correlations were obtained between imaginative play (Singer scale) and social perspective taking at age 5 ( r = .45) and at age 6 (r = .47).

Because of the close relation between imaginative play and cognition suggested in the theories of Piaget, Vigotsky, and Singer, the evidence was expected to suggest that free play of imagination would contribute to the ability to hold constant or otherwise manipulate symbols used in classifica- tion and perspective taking in the physical world. Such was not the case. In fact, the negative correlations between imaginative play and multiplication of classes noted above and between imaginative play and spatial perspective taking suggest that children who are less imaginative are more likely to be aware of relations in the external physical world than are more imaginative children.

In the area of social perspective taking, the evidence in the present study does suggest that a high level of imagination enables children to hold their own opinions in abeyance while considering the thoughts of others. Although our tasks for measuring social perspective taking are considerably different from those used in other related studies, our findings are consis- tent with those of Rosen (1974) and Fink (1976) with 5-year-old children and with those of Smith and Syddall(l978) and Burns and Brainerd (1979) with preschool children.

The findings raise additional questions. To what extent are the negative and positive correlations age-specific? Would a similar pattern hold with adolescents, with adults? To what extent are the findings a function of sex difference? In the present sample, girls, especially in the 6-year-old group, had higher scores on both imaginative play and social perspective taking. The size of the present sample, however, made it inappropriate to examine the relationship between the variables in boys and girls separately.

A number of psychometric issues need consideration. Although trends were similar for the two measures of imaginative play used in the present study, a statistically significant relationship was obtained with one measure but not the other in a number of cases. Although Freyberg (1973) found a high correlation in lower socioeconomic status kindergarten children be- tween self-report, a projective test, and observation of imaginative play, it seems likely that future studies would benefit from using more than one kind of measure.

It should be noted that on the horse and robber item a ceiling effect was reached even in the 4-year-old group, their mean score being 2.7 out of a possible score of 3. This effect was maintained with the older children. It seems that a more complex version of this spatial perspective-taking task would have contributed more to the overall spatial perspective-taking score.

To what extent are the patterns item-specific? The correlation between imaginative play and “Heidi and the Lamp” was higher than the correla-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peisach & Hardeman 247

tion between imaginative play and the total social perspective-taking score. Generally, there was less variation in children’s scores on “The Lazy Boy” than on “Heidi and the Lamp.” It is not apparent from the evidence whether the children’s more varied responses to “Heidi and the Lamp” reflect the ambivalent adult attitude toward tattling and whether the lack of variation in “The Lazy Boy” reflects young children’s firm belief in obe- dience and respect for the sacred quality of rules. Examination of Table 3 shows that for the multiplication of classes and spatial perspective taking some of the individual items functioned differently in relation to im- aginative play than did the overall scores. Far more psychometric specifica- tion is needed for future studies in the area of logical thinking as well as in the areas of imaginative play.

REFERENCES

Burns, S. M., & Brainerd, C. J. (1979). Effects of constructive and dramatic play on perspective-taking in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 5 12-521.

Christie, J. F., & Johnson, E. B. (1983). The role of play in social-intellectual de- velopment. Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-1 15.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: Norton. Fein, G. G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. ChildDevelop-

ment, 52, 1095-1 118. Fink, R. S. (1976). Role of imaginative play in cognitive development. Psychological

Reports, 39, 895-906. Freyberg, J. T. (1973). Increasing the imaginative play of urban disadvantaged kin-

dergarten children through systematic training. In J. L. Singer (Ed.), The child’s world of make-believe (pp. 129-154). New York: Academic Press.

Golomb, C., & Cornelius, C. B. (1977). Symbolic play and its cognitive significance. Developmental Psychology, 13, 246-252.

Johnson, J. E. (1976). Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and nonsocial make-believe play of preschool children. Child Develop- ment, 47, 1200-1203.

Lerner, E. (1937). The problem of perspective in moral reasoning. American Journal of Sociology, 43, 248-269.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Rosen, C. (1974). The effects of sociodramatic play on problem-solving behavior

among culturally disadvantaged preschool children. Child Development, 45, 920-927.

Rubin, K. H., & Maioni, T. L. (1975). Play preference and its relation to egocen- trism, popularity, and classification skills in preschool. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

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.

Singer, J. L. (1973). The child’s world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press. Smilansky, S. (1%8). The eflects of socio-dramatic play on disadvantaged pre-

21, 171-179.

school children. New York: Wiley.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

248 The Journal of Genefic Psychology

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

Stuart, R. (1965). Decentration, age, and intelligence in the development of chil- dren’s moral and causal judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York.

Vigotsky, L. D. (1981). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Watson, M. W., & Fischer, K. W. (1977). A developmental sequence of agent use in

48, 315-325.

late infancy. Child Development, 48, 828-836.

Received April 16, 1984

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

28 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014