Review ofEducational Research

Spring 1983, Vol. 53, No. 1, Pp. 93-115

The Role of Play in Social-Intellectual Development

James F. Christie and E. P. Johnsen
University of Kansas
The past decade has witnessed growing interest in the role ofplay in child
development, prompting numerous research studies on the effects and
correlates of playful behavior. This paper reviews these studies in an
attempt to assess the current status of this important area of inquiry. The
paper begins with a discussion of the role of play in major developmental
theories. Next, a number of experimental and correlational studies are
reviewed. These studies are classified in terms of their major correlates or
dependent variables: (a) creativity, (b) problem solving, (c) language devel-
opment, (d) logical skills, and (e) social knowledge. The designs of the
studies are critically examined, and problems of internal and external
validity are noted. Recommendations are made for future research.

Play as a psychological construct has received substantial attention in the last 20

years. From a perspective that originally emphasized social adaptation as an effect
of play in Montessori's writings during the late 19th century, one can now see the
advancement of a wide variety of psychological constructs as being connected with
the play experience: symbolism, the development of language forms, the abstraction
of intellectual prototypes, coping with anxiety and personal conflicts, exercising
control over information levels, the acquisition of tool use and other social skills,
perspective or role taking that accompany social knowledge, problem solving, and
creative behavior (Sutton-Smith, 1979). Many of these constructs have already
received attention in the review literature, for example, Smith's (1977) article on
social play and Fein's (1981) review of research on pretend play.
That such a lengthy list of psychological constructs has been connected with play
is indicative of the richness and the ambiguity of the concept itself. Although
authors have been quite willing to provide subcategories of play for research
purposes (e.g., sociodramatic play, parallel play, etc.), a completely satisfactory
definition of play as an overarching construct has eluded these writers. Vandenberg
(1980) and Krasnor and Pepler (1980) have summarized the common elements
that are present in most definitions of play and which form the core of a defensible
research construct. Thus, cognitive, social, and psychomotor behaviors constituting
play should have the following characteristics: (a) behavior which is intrinsically
motivated, spontaneous, and self-generated; (b) behavior which is pleasurable or
connected with positive affect expressed in the absence of highly anxious conditions,
that is, play is not serious; (c) behavior which is variable from child to child and
from one situation to the next, that is, play is flexible; and (d) behavior which is
not literal, that is, play seems to express some element of pretending, fantasy, or
imagination in approaching a relatively familiar environment.
Arriving at an all-inclusive definition requires the reader to look across several
different theoretical perspectives as each interprets the meaning of play.
93

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

Theoretical Approaches to Play

The predominant theories explaining the nature and correlates of play are
developmental/psychological. Psychoanalytic writers, as Fein (1979) has pointed
out, are concerned with compressing feelings, fears, and frustrations into symbols
revealed in the play process. These seem to be the same mechanisms used in the
creation of dreams. As a means of adaptation to the social world, play actually has
less to do with mastery of that world, a form of preparation for later functioning,
than it has to do with mastery of one's inner emotional experiences (Elkind, 1981).
Whether one approaches play as a means of socially acceptable expression of
powerful emotional conditions, such as anxiety, or as a means of representing
various aspects of adaptation to the social milieu during the normal growth process,
psychoanalytic interpretations have been difficult to operationalize and to study in
an experimental paradigm.
In summarizing Piaget's position on play, Sutton-Smith (1979) pointed out that
Piaget considers play to be pure assimilation, an operative function deriving from
the child's own actions or mental constructions. But as a mental transformation, it
is so grounded in the child's subjective view of the world that play activities as
symbolic processes are not subjected to the criterion of objective phenomena in
the social world. Playing house, thus, is not an accommodation to the real world
of housekeeping. Insofar as it is an imitation of adult social roles (e.g., in the use
of language or actions evident in the home), it provides a source of signifiers or
symbols to be used in later mental operations. But, insofar as play represents
bending of social reality to the child's wishes, it seems in Piaget's theory to be
entirely subjective. On this basis, Sutton-Smith (1979) and Fein (1979) interpret
Piaget's position to mean that play represents a limitation of the child's rational
process, contributing little to the advancement of logical thought.
Vygotsky (1976), another structural developmental theorist, begins a description
of play in a similar manner, that is, play represents the subordination of things to
personal meaning. But Fein (1979) points out that play, from Vygotsky's perspec-
tive, makes a different contribution to cognitive development than it does for
Piaget, in that play acts as a model for later abstraction processes:

The child's use of substitute objects (e.g., a stick for a doll) is viewed by
Vygotsky as a first step in the child's transition from things perceived as
objects of action to things perceived as objects of thought. A substitute object
(e.g., a stick) acts as a "pivot" that serves to detach meaning (e.g., a baby)
from a real object (e.g., a doll that has already become a substitute for a
living b a b y ) . . . . The child may initially be hazy about the distinction between
real and not real, and in that sense, substitution activities reflect the child's
ignorance. In these activities the child acquires clarity; in fact, the stick does
not cry. (pp. 211-212)

One other group of researchers demands a comment in our selective review of

theoretical approaches to play; it is the experimental group who has examined the
motivational characteristics of play rather than its cognitive/structural aspects. Play
from the perspective of Berlyne (1960) -and others must be interpreted from a
model of motivation based on arousal control. Arousal control suggests that an
organism functions comfortably in the environment when the amount of stimulus

94

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

information is moderate. When confronted with novelty or incongruity, an indi-

vidual responds with a motivational state of curiosity, that is, he or she explores
the environment in detail to gather sufficient information to be able to assimilate
or comprehend the novelty and thereby reduce the uncertainty or arousal level.
When stimuli in the environment provide insufficient information to maintain the
comfort zone of arousal, individuals increase the information level of the environ-
ment by a different form of "exploration," which Berlyne calls diversive. This
stimulus-seeking pattern of behavior might be termed play.
The contribution of motivational theorists to the play literature has included the
distinction between play and exploration. Hutt (1979) has shown that exploration
in the presence of novel material has a primacy in the child's response. Children
seem to engage in a preliminary form of problem solving or exploration, which she
calls investigation, where careful and attentive investigation of objects precedes
playful use of them. Psychophysiological measurements of heart rate patterns during
these successive phases of response to the environment point to different patterns
of attention in exploration and play. For an alternative interpretation of play-
exploration distinction, see Weisler and McCall (1976).

Summary
Our theoretical overview has pointed out that theorists have been interested in
different aspects of play. Some are more concerned with cognitive-emotional-
motivational functions of play (Freud, Hutt, Berlyne), while others are concerned
with the relationship of play to cognitive-structural-symbolic aspects of develop-
ment (Piaget, Vygotsky). In all theories, there is a duality, a form of tension, in
looking at the function of the play process in terms of personal expression versus
social adaptation. Piaget's view of symbolic play seems to argue for subordination
of the social environment to the limited logic of preoperational thinking, with the
child using play as a form of consolidating what is already known about the world
through imitative or exploratory activities. Vygotsky demurs about the long-term
effects of play and seems to see it more as a precursor to the abstraction process
the child will use later to emancipate meaning from the constraints of concrete
social reality. Freud and other psychoanalytic thinkers seem to view play as either
a means of expression of hidden impulses or a reflection of normal conflicts
involved in the growth and personality adjustment of children. In differentiating
exploration from play, motivational theorists explain exploration as a child's
response to stimulus characteristics; it is an answer to the question, "What is this?"
Play is also an information-seeking response of the child, but one that is determined
more by the child than the environment; it is a variation introduced by the child
in answer to the question, "What can I do with this?"
In examining this duality between personal expression and response to the social
environment, educators and psychologists are concerned with the consequences of
play, and to a lesser extent, with the antecedents of play. According to Krasnor and
Pepler (1980), the important issues are:
1. Is play a reflection of the developmental level of the child?
2. How do adults affect the play process?
3. What effects do play, exploration, and social negotiation have on other
intellectual or social functions?

95

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

In this review, we plan to examine the literature that has attempted to investigate
the effects and the correlates of play, and to critically view some of the design
problems and the operationalizing of play itself as a process. The correlates or
dependent variables will be classified, and an attempt will be made to summarize
outcomes across classes of variables of interest to educators. Our assumption in
this review is that play may indeed be of value for its own sake, both in terms of
personal expression and as a form of social adaptation. Our findings should test
the validity of these assumptions against the status of the empirical literature on
play and social-intellectual development.

Research
This section reviews correlational and experimental studies that have investigated
the relationship between play and social-intellectual development during childhood.
These studies have been categorized in terms of their major dependent variables:
creativity, problem solving, language development, logical skills, and social knowl-
edge. Major design features of the experimental studies, including sampling, ran-
domization, treatment conditions, and criterion variables, have been summarized
in Table I.

Creativity
Creativity is commonly defined as ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality
(Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Intuitively, play and creativity have much in common.
Play often involves symbolic transformations in which objects and actions are used
in new and unusual ways. These transformations are similar to the novel, imagi-
native combination of ideas, which are the product of creative thinking.
A growing body of correlational research indicates that there is a relationship
between play and creativity. Torrance (1961) and Wallach and Kogan (1965)
discovered that playfulness was one of the traits that differentiated more creative
from less creative children. Lieberman (1965, 1977) used factor analysis to inves-
tigate playfulness and found that it was a unitary trait characterized by spontaneity,
manifest joy, and sense of humor. She also found that kindergartners who were
rated high in terms of playfulness scored higher on three divergent thinking tasks
than did those who received low playfulness ratings. Durrett and Huffman (1968)
replicated Lieberman's study with Mexican-American kindergartners and found
similar results. Singer and Rummo (1973) discovered that playfulness was signifi-
cantly correlated with creativity in kindergarten boys but not in girls. Finally,
Johnson (1976) found high correlations between several measures of divergent
thinking and the frequency with which low socioeconomic status (SES) preschoolers
engaged in sociodramatic play, an advanced form of pretend play in which two or
more children adopt roles and attempt to recreate real-life situations (e.g., parents
taking care of a baby).
Results of the above studies indicate a positive relationship between playfulness
and creativity. However, due to the correlational nature of these studies, it is not
clear whether playfulness determines creativity or whether creativity determines
playfulness. Lieberman's (1965) study lends some support to the possibility that
playfulness and creativity are both related to a third variable, intelligence. A
reanalysis of her data with mental age held constant found that the correlations

96

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 TABLE I
Design Features of Experimental Studies on Play and Social-Intellectual Development
Treatment as- Dependent
Study Sample and population descriptionb Treatment conditions Duration variables11
signment
Smilansky(1968) 782 low SES Israeli children se- 1. Sociodramatic play Intact Daily l^-hour Language development
lected from 22 preschools and training groups sessions for 9 Play quality
kindergartens 2. Direct experiences weeks
3. Combination (1 & 2)
Sutton-Smith (1968) 18 high SES children selected 1. Male toys By sex Not controlled Creativity
from one kindergarten class 2. Female toys
Dansky & Silverman 90 middle- and upper-middle-class 1. Play with materials Randomized One 10-minute Creativity
(1973) children selected from one pre- 2. Imitation with materials matching session
school and one day-care center 3. Coloring with crayons
Feitelson& Ross (1973) 24 lower-middle-class kindergart- 1. Fantasy play training Random Ten 30-minute Creativity
ners selected from one school 2. Play, no training sessions Play quality
3. Music tutoring
4. No treatment
Lovinger(1974) 38 low SES children selected from 1. Sociodramatic play nsc Daily 1-hour Language development
one preschool training sessions for 25 Play quality
2. No treatment weeks
Rosen (1974) 58 low SES children selected from 1. Sociodramatic play Intact Ten 1 -hour ses- Play quality
four preschool classes training groups sions Social knowledge
2. Nonfantasy experiences
Saltz& Johnson (1974) 75 low SES children selected from 1. Thematic-fantasy train- Randomized Three 15-min- IQ
four preschool classrooms in ing matching ute sessions Play quality
one school 2. Dimensionality training per week for Social knowledge
3. Combination (1 & 2) 16 weeks
4. Listening to stories
Dansky & Silverman 36 middle-class preschoolers 1. Play with materials ns ns Creativity
(1975) 2. Imitation with materials
3. Intellectual tasks with
97

(Continued on next page) materials

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 TABLE I—Continued
98

Treatment as- Dependent

Study Sample and population descriptionb Treatment conditions signment
Duration variables2

Fink (1976) 36 middle-class children selected 1. Sociodramatic play Randomized Eight 25-minute Conservation
from one kindergarten training matching sessions Play quality
2. Play, no training Social knowledge
3. No treatment
Sylva, Bruner, & Genova 180 middle-class children selected 1. Play with materials Matching One 1-10 min- Problem solving
(1976) from day-care centers 2. Observation of solution ute session
3. No treatment
Golomb & Cornelius 30 upper-middle-class children se- 1. Pretense-explanation Matching Three 15-min- Conservation
(1977) lected from three preschools training ute sessions
2. Construction play train-
ing
Saltz, Dixon, & Johnson 146 low SES children selected from 1. Random Daily 15-minute IQ
Sociodramatic play
(1977) one preschool over a 3-year pe- training sessions for 7 Play quality
riod 2. Thematic-fantasy train- months Social knowledge
ing
3. Story discussion
4. Nonfantasy tutoring
Zammarelli & Bolton 24 children, ages 10 to 12, selected 1. Play with toy TClatching One 7 ^-minute Problem solving
(1977) from one British school 2. Observe play with toy session
3. No treatment
Iannotti(1978) 30 kindergarten boys and 30 third 1. Role taking Random Ten 25-minute Social knowledge
grade boys selected from two 2. Role switching sessions
middle-class parochial schools 3. Story discussion
Smith &Syddall (1978) 14 lower-middle-class children se- 1. Sociodramatic play Matching Fifteen 40-min- Creativity
lected from one British preschool training ute sessions Language development
2. Nonfantasy tutoring Play quality
Social knowledge

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 Burns & Brainerd (1979) 51 lower-middle-class children se- 1. Sociodramatic play ns Ten 20-minute Social knowledge
lected from three Canadian day- training sessions
care centers 2. Construction play train-
ing
3. No treatment
Collier (1979) 85 middle-class children, ages 6 to 1. Language games Matching Eight 20-30 Language development
9, selected from one school 2. No treatment minute ses-
sions
Guthrie & Hudson (1979) 30 middle-class preschoolers 1. Pretense-explanation ns Conservation
Three 15-min-
training
ute sessions
2. Construction play train-
ing
Smith &Dutton (1979) 108 British preschoolers 1. Matching One 8-minute Problem solving
Play with materials
2. session
Training on solution
3.
No treatment
Dansky (1980a) 36 low SES children selected from 1. Sociodramatic play Random Nine 30-minute Creativity
one day-care center training sessions Play quality
2. Exploration training
3. Play, no training
Dansky (1980b) 96 low and middle SES preschool- 1. Play with materials Randomized One 10-minute Creativity
ers 2. Imitation with materials matching session
3. Solving problems with
materials
Yawkey(1980) 40 low SES children, ages 5 to 7 1. Acting out story Random One session Language development
2. Listening to story
Vandenberg(1981) 90 middle-class children, ages 4 to 1. Play with materials Randomized One 10-minute Problem solving
10, selected from two schools 2. Asked questions about matching session
materials
a
Only dependent variable categories discussed in this article are included.
b
Randomization not indicated.
99

c
ns = not specified.

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

between playfulness and creativity were reduced considerably (Singer & Rummo,
1973). It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the more recent studies in this
area have employed experimental rather than correlational research designs.
In the first of these experimental studies, Sutton-Smith (1968) found that girls
gave more novel responses for "female" toys (e.g., dolls), and boys gave more novel
responses for "male" toys (e.g., trucks). Sutton-Smith attributed these differences
to the amount of past play experience with the toys and claimed that the results
supported his theory that play contributes to creativity by increasing children's
repertoires of novel associations with objects. However, because Sutton-Smith
failed to control the duration of exposure to the two groups of toys, it is impossible
to determine which factor—past play experiences or length of exposure—was
responsible for the obtained differences.
Dansky and Silverman (1973) employed stricter experimental controls in an
attempt to verify the relationships investigated by Sutton-Smith. Preschool students
were divided into three groups: (a) a play group, which was allowed to play with a
set of common objects; (b) an imitation group, which imitated an experimenter's
actions with the same objects; and (c) a control group, which had no contact at all
with the objects. The duration of exposure to the objects was controlled. Results of
an alternative uses test involving the same objects that were used in the treatments
revealed that the play group subjects generated more nonstandard responses than
either of the other groups. In a follow-up study, Dansky and Silverman (1975)
found that play group subjects also produced significantly more nonstandard
responses with objects not used in the treatment sessions. The investigators con-
cluded that play creates a generalizable set for the production of novel responses to
objects, an ability which they refer to as associate fluency.
In another study, Dansky (1980b) investigated the possibility that it was the lack
of situational constraints inherent in free play settings, rather than play per se, that
was responsible for the gains in associative fluency in the above studies. Dansky
first observed preschoolers in free play situations and then classified them as being
either "players" or "nonplayers," depending on whether or not they exhibited
make-believe behaviors in their play. The subjects were then assigned to one of
three conditions that were similar to those used in the two previous studies. The
subjects were subsequently given an alternate uses test involving materials different
from those used in the treatment sessions. Results showed that play with materials
facilitated the associative fluency of players but not nonplayers. Dansky interpreted
these findings to indicate that the mere opportunity to engage in free play does not
automatically lead to gains in creative thinking. According to Dansky, it is necessary
for make-believe to take place in the free play for gains in associative fluency to
occur.
Dansky's discovery that many preschoolers did not regularly exhibit make-believe
in their free play has been supported by several other investigators. Low frequencies
of make-believe have been observed in the play of low SES children in the United
States (Christman, 1979; Feitelson & Ross, 1973; Rosen, 1974), England (Smith &
Dodsworth, 1978; Tizard, Philps, & Plewis, 1976), Canada (Rubin, Maioni, &
Hornung, 1976) and Israel (Feitelson, 1959; Smilansky, 1968).
Concern over make-believe as a central factor in play is reflected in a series of
training studies in which adults have attempted to foster pretense in children's play.

100

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

Most of these training studies have used variations of Smilansky's (1968) socio-
dramatic play training procedure in which an adult actually joins the children's
play and models different play behaviors. Feitelson and Ross (1973) found that this
type of play training not only increased the quality of low SES kindergartners' play
but also led to significant gains on a subtest of Torrance's (1966) Thinking Creatively
with Pictures Test. In a more recent study, Dansky (1980a) found that low SES
preschoolers who received sociodramatic play training, as opposed to exploration
training and free play with no training at all, showed significant gains on several
measures of creativity, including an alternative uses test.
The research reviewed above indicates that play facilitates associative fluency,
the ability to generate many original uses for objects. It appears that the symbolic
transformations that occur in make-believe play are the key link between play and
this type of creative thinking. In these transformations, children distort reality to
fit their needs and whims, resulting in the generation of novel associations and
combinations of ideas. Dansky and Silverman (1975) contend that this free assim-
ilation creates a generalized set for ideational fluency, which might transfer to new
situations requiring creative responses. This position is in agreement with Piaget's
(1962) statement:

Play constitutes the extreme pole of assimilation of reality to the ego, while
at the same time it has something of the creative imagination which will be
the motor of all future thought and even of reason, (p. 162)

Problem Solving
A number of researchers have investigated the role of play in the problem-solving
behavior of primates. For example, several studies have focused on laboratory
chimpanzees' ability to use sticks as tools for obtaining bananas that are out of
reach (Birch, 1945; Jackson, 1942; Schiller, 1957). Results have shown that when
chimpanzees are allowed to play with sticks they are much more successful later in
using the sticks to solve problems. Van Lawick-Goodall's (1976) naturalistic
observations confirmed that the stick play of young chimpanzees in the wild led to
later success in using sticks as tools for catching termites. For a concise review of
this research, see Vandenberg (1980).
In one of the early studies focusing on play and problem solving in humans,
Sylva, Bruner, and Genova (1976) gave preschool children a task similar to those
used in previous primate research. To get an out-of-reach prize, the children had
to clamp two sticks together to form a longer stick and use this stick to rake the
prize toward them. Prior to attempting to solve the problem, the children were
exposed to one of three treatment conditions: (a) observation of the complete
solution, (b) free play with the sticks and clamps, and (c) no treatment. If the
children experienced difficulty while trying to solve the problem, they were given
a standardized series of hints. Results revealed that the play group did as well at
solving the problem as the group that had actually observed the solution and did
much better than the control group. The children in the play group also engaged
in more goal-directed activity and were more persistent than the children in the
other two groups.

101

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

Several methodological problems make it difficult to conclude that play alone

was responsible for the gain in problem solving reported by Sylva et al. (1976).
First, the duration of the treatment conditions were not equal; the observation
condition lasted only 2 minutes, whereas the play conditions lasted 10 minutes.
Second, no attempt was made to differentiate play from exploration; it is possible
that the children in the play conditions were actually exploring the materials rather
than playing with them (Vandenberg, 1980).
Smith and Dutton (1979) modified several aspects of the Sylva et al. design to
overcome these shortcomings. The observation condition, which Smith and Dutton
renamed the training condition, was extended so that it was of the same duration
as the play condition. Children in the training condition not only observed the
correct solution of the problem but were also helped to assemble the sticks and
clamps. Children in all treatment conditions were given a 3-minute pretask exposure
to the materials to control for exploration. Smith and Dutton also varied the
difficulty of the task by controlling the distance between the child and the prize; in
one condition children joined two sticks to reach the prize, while in the more
difficult condition they used three.
Results showed that the children in the play and in the training conditions did
equally well on the first task. On the more difficult second task, however, the play
group performed better than the training group both in terms of solution time and
in the number of required hints. On both tasks, the play and training groups
performed better than the children in the control conditions. Smith and Dutton's
interpretation was that play is superior to direct training in problem-solving tasks
requiring flexible, innovative solutions. This hypothesis is in agreement with
Dansky and Silverman's (1973, 1975) contention that play facilitates associative
fluency.
Vandenberg (1981) extended the above studies by investigating the effects of age
and task characteristics on the relationship between play and problem solving. Half
the subjects in each of three age groups (4-5, 6-7, 8-10 years) were assigned to a
play group and to a control group. The children were presented with two tasks, one
which was similar to that used in the Sylva et al. study and a much simpler one
involving tying pipe cleaners together to dislodge a sponge stuck in a pipe. The
children were given a standardized series of hints if needed, but no attempt was
made to separate play from exploration.
Results showed that the children in the play group performed better than control
children on the first task but not on the second task. Vandenberg hypothesized that
the children in both groups may have already had extensive play experiences with
pipe cleaners and that this prior experience may have been responsible for the lack
of significant differences on the simpler task. There also was a significant age effect,
with older children performing better than younger children on both tasks. Van-
denberg (1980) concluded that "the relationship between play and subsequent
insightful tool-use is a complex one which is mediated by others factors, such as
age and task characteristics" (p. 57).
Zammarelli and Bolton (1977) explored the hypothesis that play could facilitate
solving an advanced mathematical concept formation task. The task required
subjects to use colored blocks to demonstrate an understanding of base four
arithmetic. British children, ranging in age from 10 to 12 years, were divided into

102

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

three treatment groups, one of which was allowed to play with a special toy whose
operation embodied the base four concept. Again, no attempt was made to
differentiate play from exploration. Results showed that the play group had a
significantly better understanding and memory of the concept than the two control
groups.
The research reviewed in this section has shown that unstructured activity with
objects can facilitate children's problem-solving ability. It is unclear, however,
whether play, exploration, or a combination of both was responsible for these gains.
If Hutt (1979) is correct that play and exploration are distinct forms of behavior,
then future research on the relationship between play and problem solving should
attempt to control for the effects of exploration. Smith and Dutton's (1979)
procedure of briefly exposing children to materials prior to treatments is a step in
this direction. However, the problem remains as to how long this exposure should
last. The amount of time spent exploring a set of objects could conceivably vary
from child to child, depending on past experience. Hutt (1979) has suggested a
procedure of monitoring heart rate variability as a way to operationalize differences
between play and exploration. Such techniques may eventually enable researchers
to determine the relative effects of both variables on problem-solving skills.

Language Development
Naturalistic observations by Weir (1962) and Chukovsky (1971) have revealed
that, beginning around age two, children engage in extensive play with language.
This play can be divided into three categories: (a) sound play, in which nonsense
syllables are strung together in repetitive sequences; (b) syntactic play, in which
words of the same grammatical category are substituted for one another; and (c)
semantic play, in which meaning is intentionally distorted via nonsense, jokes, and
puns. Cazden (1976) has hypothesized that this play not only allows children to
practice and master various aspects of language, it also increases children's meta-
linguistic awareness, the ability to recognize and analyze language forms and rules
as objects in their own right.
Observational studies by Garvey (1974, 1979) have shown that children also gain
valuable language practice from sociodramatic play. This advanced form of sym-
bolic play requires that children use two types of verbal exchanges: pretend
communications, which are appropriate for their chosen roles, and metacommun-
ications, which are used to structure and perpetuate the play episode. The latter
type of exchange is used to assign roles, to specify the make-believe identities of
objects, to plan story lines, and to secure the cooperation of other players. Garvey
discovered that children constantly switch between pretend communications and
metacommunications while engaging in sociodramatic play episodes.
Smilansky (1968) hypothesized that enhancing the quality of children's socio-
dramatic play should result in gains in language performance. Low SES Israeli
children were divided into four treatment groups, two of which received play
training. Results indicated that, in addition to improving the quality of the
children's play, play training also led to gains in verbal fluency, mean length of
utterance, and several other measures of language development. However, the
language data were not statistically analyzed, so it is not known if these gains were
significant.

103

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

Lovinger (1974) partially replicated Smilansky's study in the United States. Her
results showed that sociodramatic play training resulted in gains in the number of
words children used in free play and in children's scores on the Verbal Expression
subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability. Design weaknesses, such as
failure to provide alternative verbal interaction with adults in the control condition,
prevent acceptance of Lovinger's conclusion that these gains were brought about
solely by the improved quality of the children's play.
Collier (1979) investigated Cazden's (1976) hypothesis that language play leads
to increased metalinguistic awareness. Experimental group children took part in a
series of three games that involved playing with syntax. One game, for example,
entailed substituting words in sentence frames to create "funny" sentences. Results
showed that the experimental group, in comparison with a control group, made
significant gains on a test measuring metalinguistic awareness of selected syntactic
structures. Unfortunately, as in Lovinger's study, the use of only one "no treatment"
control group makes it impossible to conclude that the gains were brought about
solely by the language games.
Yawkey (1980) investigated the relationship between story reenactment and aural
comprehension. Children ranging in age from 5 to 7 were divided into two groups.
Both groups were read a 200-word selection from a children's book. The children
in the experimental group were encouraged to act out the story, whereas the control
group children simply listened to the story. The children were then given an aural
cloze test to assess their comprehension of the story. Results indicated that the
group that acted out the story comprehended the story better than the control
group. Yawkey interpreted this finding to indicate that imaginative play facilitated
the experimental groups' "aural language growth." This conclusion is hardly
warranted given the short-term nature of the study.
In summary, observational studies have revealed that children frequently play
with language forms and rules, and that they exhibit advanced language skills while
engaging in sociodramatic play. Design problems, however, have prohibited exper-
imental studies from demonstrating that play, per se, facilitates language develop-
ment. It is essential that future investigations use additional treatment conditions,
such as Smith and Syddall's (1978) "skills tutoring" condition, to control for the
effects of verbal interaction and adult tuition that often accompany play training.
Future studies might also employ detailed observations to monitor the number and
quality of the verbal exchanges that occur in different treatment conditions (Smith
&Sydall, 1978).

Logical Skills
IQ Scores. Several correlational studies have investigated the relationship between
play and IQ scores, with mixed results. Lewis (1973) failed to find a significant
relationship between kindergartners' IQ scores and the quality of their sociodra-
matic play. Johnson (1976), on the other hand, found low but significant correla-
tions between several measures of intelligence and the frequency of sociodramatic
play in low SES preschoolers. An examination of the data revealed that children
who were below the median mental age rarely engaged in this advanced type of
play. Johnson concluded that intelligence is "a necessary but not sufficient condi-
tion" for sociodramatic play.

104

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

Saltz and his associates have conducted several play training studies using
intelligence test scores as a dependent variable. In the first of these studies, Saltz
and Johnson (1974) divided low SES preschoolers into four treatment conditions,
two of which involved thematic-fantasy play training. This training involved having
children enact familiar fairy tales (e.g., The Three Billy Goats Gruff). Compared
with sociodramatic play training, which was used in most of the training studies
reviewed earlier, thematic-fantasy training is more structured and less reality
oriented. Results indicated that this type of play training led to significant gains in
IQ scores and several other measures of intellectual performance. The investigators,
however, urged caution in interpreting the IQ results because, due to time con-
straints, only a random subset of approximately 45 percent of the original sample
completed the IQ posttest measures. In addition, the researchers combined short
subtests from two different standardized instruments for a composite raw score as
a unit of analysis, a questionable practice.
In a series of follow-up studies, Saltz, Dixon, and Johnson (1977) compared the
effects of sociodramatic and thematic-fantasy play training on several different
measures of cognitive and social development. For purposes of replication, the
same basic study was repeated three times with 20 percent of the prior year's sample
as part of the subsequent subject pool. In all 3 years, the combined play training
groups showed gains in IQ scores as compared with the combined story discussion
and nonfantasy tutoring groups. Because there was opportunity for verbal interac-
tion with adults in the latter two groups, it is less likely that the gains in IQ score
were due solely to verbal interaction associated with the play training.
Conservation. Conservation, a term stemming from Piagetian theory, refers to
the understanding that certain properties of objects and relationships remain
invariant in spite of perceptual transformations. Fink (1976) attempted to use
sociodramatic play training to promote kindergartners' attainment of several types
of conservation. The results were mixed. The play training group, in comparison
with two control groups, did show significant gains in a social role-taking task, but
no significant differences were found for either conservation of number or conser-
vation of quantity. Fink attributed these differential effects to the nature of the
training procedure, which placed heavy emphasis on social roles and role-taking
skills.
Golomb and Cornelius (1977) used a very different type of play training in an
attempt to facilitate the attainment of conservation of quantity in upper-middle-
class preschoolers. Their training procedure, which might be called "pretense-
explanation training," involved first engaging a child in symbolic play and then
maneuvering the child into verbally explaining the make-believe transformations
that had occurred in the play. For example, after encouraging the child to pretend
that a sponge was a cat, the investigator would point out that it really was a sponge.
This was done to prompt the child to explain that objects can be used in a make-
believe fashion and still retain their real-life identities. Golomb and Cornelius
believed that making children aware of this transformation from fantasy to reality
would promote the acquisition of conservation of quantity. Results supported this
hypothesis. Prior to the training none of the 4-year-olds gave conservation re-
sponses, but on the posttest, 10 out of 15 subjects in the experimental group gave
conservation responses with acceptable explanations as compared with only one
subject in the control group.
105

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

Unfortunately, a partial replication by Guthrie and Hudson (1979) casts doubt

on the generalizability of Golomb and Cornelius's findings. In this replication, an
identical "pretense-explanation" training procedure was used. However, Guthrie
and Hudson also used a more representative sample of 4-year-olds, had multiple
experimenters conduct the training and testing sessions, and added a 2-week delayed
posttest. On the immediate posttest, only 1 of 15 subjects in the experimental group
offered a conservation response with an appropriate explanation, and even this
modest gain disappeared on the delayed posttest. The authors offered several
explanations for the differing results. It was possible that the upper-middle-class
subjects used in the Golomb and Cornelius study were at a more advanced stage
of cognitive development than the subjects in the Guthrie and Hudson study.
Guthrie and Hudson's use of multiple experimenters also might have prevented
the establishment of rapport between child and experimenter and somehow inhib-
ited the presumed transfer of verbal responses from the play situation to the
conservation tasks.
Guthrie and Hudson also found that their control group's performance actually
improved on the delayed posttest (approaching significance, p < .07), with more
subjects making conservation responses without justifications than on the imme-
diate posttest. This finding led the investigators to conclude that conservation tests
alone may contribute more to children's conservation attainment than the "pre-
tense-explanation" training, provided one is willing to accept verbal responses
without explanations as a valid criterion for conservation attainment.
Summary. As explained in the introduction of this paper, Piaget and Vygotsky
have contradictory views about the role of play in the development of logical
thought. Fink's (1976) and Guthrie and Hudson's (1979) discovery that play
training did not facilitate children's attainment of conservation of number and
quantity support Piaget's belief that play, due to its assimilatory nature, does not
result in the acquisition of new cognitive structures.
The findings of Saltz and his associates are more encouraging. For low SES
preschoolers, year-long training in pretend play increased IQ scores substantially,
and these increases were consistent for each of the 3 years of the study.

Social Knowledge
Social knowledge involves knowing about human beings, including ourselves,
and knowing about our social relationships. Social knowledge research in devel-
opmental psychology has concerned itself with at least three areas of children's
changing conceptualizations of the social perspective of others (Shantz, 1975):
1. Visual or perceptual perspective taking: How does another person see the
world?
2. Cognitive perspective taking: What are other people thinking? What are other
people like?
3. Affective perspective taking: What kind of emotional experiences is another
person having? This is frequently referred to as empathy.
Authors recently have shown considerable interest in the role of play, particularly
dramatic or pretend play, in the development of social cognition. While engaging
in pretend play, children enact various social roles and are required to follow rules
(e.g., turn alternation, role-appropriate behavior, etc.). Rubin (1980) has suggested

106

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

that this type of play is "an informal didactic phenomenon that serves to strengthen
already formed rule and role conceptualizations through consolidation and prac-
tice" (p. 73). Others have argued that the role-taking experiences that occur in
pretend play also build empathic skills and hasten the reduction of egocentrism,
the inability of children to focus flexibly on several aspects of social events or
objects simultaneously (Piaget, 1970).
To our knowledge, only one correlational study has investigated the relationship
between play and social cognition. Rubin and Maioni (1975) found in an obser-
vational study of preschool children that the frequency of dramatic play was
positively correlated to role-taking tasks measuring the ability to take a visual
perspective of another but not to empathic role taking measured by the Borke
(1973) test.
The majority of the studies that deal with perspective taking and play have used
experimental procedures. Rosen (1974) studied the effect of training groups of low
SES preschoolers in dramatic play. The dependent variables were a measure of
visual perspective taking and a cognitive perspective-taking task that involved
matching of visual objects (gifts) to persons (men, women, children). Differences
favoring trained groups over controls were found on these two measures, as well as
on a measure of cooperation.
Several of the studies reviewed in the logical skills section of this paper also have
assessed social knowledge outcomes. Fink (1976) taught a group of kindergarten
children to engage in pretend play and found this group to increase their cognitive
perspective taking more than controls do as measured by a social-role conservation
test (e.g., a woman can be a doctor and a mother at the same time). Saltz and
Johnson (1974) trained low SES preschoolers in thematic-fantasy play, a role
playing of children's tales (e.g., The Three Billy Goats Gruff). Training groups
scored higher than controls on Borke's test of empathy. Saltz, Dixon, and Johnson
(1977), in a follow-up study with similar samples, reported that thematic-fantasy
play groups performed at higher levels on the Borke test of empathy, compared to
other groups in the experiment.
Burns and Brainerd (1979) used two play conditions, constructive and dramatic,
to examine the effects of play training on three classes of perspective taking—
perceptual-visual, cognitive, and affective—with preschool subjects. Constructive
play training involved building specific objects collaboratively, and dramatic play
consisted of role-playing characters in thematic situations (e.g., a waiter in a
restaurant). Two measures were used to assess cognitive perspective taking: match-
ing gifts to people and a communication task requiring children to explain a story
to a fictitious partner and anticipate their verbal responses. Two emotional match-
ing tasks (e.g., identifying sadness in a character within a story) similar to Borke's
procedure were used to assess empathy. Results indicated that both play conditions
resulted in significant and "roughly equivalent" gains in all three (visual, cognitive,
and affective) types of perspective taking. In interpreting these results, the authors
raise the question of the effect of a confounding variable, the adult guidance or
tuition that occurs in all play-training procedures.
Smith and Syddall (1978) attempted to separate the effects of adult tuition from
play by controlling for the amount and type of verbal exchanges in two training
conditions. The first condition, play tutoring, involved engaging children in socio-

107

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

dramatic play. The other condition, skills tutoring, entailed producing craft prod-
ucts and "playing" academic games with numbers, colors, and size concepts. A
variety of cognitive outcomes were measured, and cognitive perspective taking was
assessed by two role-taking preference tasks requiring object or gift matching
appropriate to men, women, and so forth. The outcomes indicated that, in general,
both the skills tutoring and play tutoring conditions facilitated many cognitive
skills equally well. However, only the play treatment improved scores on the
perspective-taking tasks.
Finally, Iannotti (1978) used two training conditions involving role playing in
stories with middle-class kindergarten and third grade subjects from two schools.
One play condition, role taking, consisted of assigning children to one role in a skit
and acting out, discussing, and estimating the effect of one's activities within a
series of stories. The alternate play condition, role switching, required students to
participate in the same skits but also had them change character roles within each
story. Outcome measures included one empathy subtest that assessed matching
emotional states with characters in stories and two measures of cognitive role-
taking processes, Selman's social cjilemma stories (Selman & Byrne, 1974) and
Flavell's (1968) Nickel Dime game. The results of the study revealed that both play
conditions, role taking and role switching, resulted in higher scores than controls
on Flavell's cognitive perspective-taking test and on the Selman dilemmas but only
for one of the two schools. The empathy test scores were unaffected by any training.
Several problems color the outcomes of the above studies on social cognition.
The dependent variable measures are subject to criticism on two counts: problems
in reliability and in validity. Many of the cognitive and emotional perspective-
taking tasks may be unreliable; the reliability coefficients, when reported, are
relatively low, especially for the shorter versions of these scales.
With regard to validity, a wide variety of role-taking scales have been adopted
by individual researchers, and many of these tests do not seem to measure the same
variables. Accordingly, the intercorrelations between the tests frequently are low.
Rubin (1980) has pointed out that these criterion measures seem to assess only the
most primitive levels of perspective taking and do not include the ability to be
aware of the second person perspective, that is, to think that another is "thinking
of me in such a way, or knows that I am feeling happy" (Rubin & Pepler, 1980).
In addition, it has been suggested that verbal assessments of social problem-solving
skills may be poor predictors of behavioral performance on the same problem, thus
requiring both types of assessment to be made. In particular, many authors have
questioned the validity of the most common emotional perspective-taking task, the
Borke test. Rubin (1980) has pointed out that the Borke test is considered a measure
of egocentric projection rather than empathy.
Many of the cognitive perspective-taking tests also have questionable validity.
Those that require subjects to match gifts appropriately with a role model (e.g.,
Rosen, 1974) actually require an association between a physical object and a
picture. This process reveals little about what a child infers about others' thoughts
or feelings.
The other major issues raised in the literature have to do with the impact of the
social interaction that occurs in play, both adult-child interaction and peer inter-
action.

108

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

Smith and Syddall (1978) have raised concerns about adult-child interactions
during play activities, suggesting that these interactions may have a didactive
character and produce the gains claimed for dramatic play. In their study, they
controlled for this variable by observing the quantity of adult-child interaction in
the play-tutored and nonplay groups and found that there was no difference between
the two groups on this variable. The play-tutored group improved their social
knowledge skills from pretest to posttest. However, the groups were small with only
seven subjects in each, and only a cognitive perspective-taking task, an object-
person matching test mentioned above, was used. No measure of emotional role
taking was given.
Rubin (1980) has interpreted the literature to suggest that peer conflict and
interaction, rather than pretend play activities, may be the causal component
influencing the development of social cognition; thus play may be reflective rather
than productive of change. Rubin states

The ability to consider reciprocal role relations may be less a function of

non-literal social play per se and more the outcome of peer interaction and
conflict... it is important to note that peer conflict . . . does not appear to
occur during fantasy play itself. Once disagreement between dramaticists has
been generated, the actors "break frame": they shift from the nonliteral to
literal world vis-a-vis their social encounter. During these "frame breaks"
conflicts over dramatized roles, rules, and behaviors are resolved. Once
resolved, the boundary of social-fantasy is accessible Thus, while fantasy
play serves a consolidating and practice role, and while it demonstrates to
the play partner how one thinks about this, that, or the other, the major
moving/guiding force is the peer interaction itself and not the dramatic
activity per se. (pp. 80-81)

While we may conclude that increases in pretend play activity are generally
accompanied by changes in scores on a variety of tasks measuring some aspect of
emotional and cognitive perspective taking, it is not clear that pretend play has a
cause/effect relationship with performance on such tasks. In the studies reviewed
above, the tasks themselves were of questionable validity, and social interaction
independent of the pretend function itself was a confounding variable.

Limitations of Past Research

The results of the above research indicate that unstructured activity with objects
can lead to gains in divergent thinking and problem-solving ability. Training in
dramatic play was also shown at times to result in gains in divergent thinking, IQ
scores, measures of logical development, and in social knowledge. However, these
findings need to be viewed with several limitations in mind.
As mentioned earlier, there has been some confusion about distinguishing play
from other types of behavior. In the problem-solving and creativity studies, it was
not clear whether the play treatments involved play, exploration, or a combination
of both. The training studies had two other confounding variables associated with
their play treatments: adult-child interaction and peer interaction.
A related limitation concerns the manner in which play has been operationalized.
As was discussed in the introduction of this paper, play is commonly defined as

109

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

behavior that is intrinsically motivated, pleasurable, flexible, and nonliteral in

nature. The play treatments described above fulfill few of these conditions. Indices
of spontaneity or joy in the play situation have generally been absent, and variability
in play experiences from subject to subject has seldom been noted. In addition,
most of the play training treatments were highly structured and involved adult
modeling or prompting as a means to instigate play behavior in children. How well
these operational definitions represent the richness of play is questionable. Until
these problems with independent variables (i.e., separating play from other behav-
iors and operationalizing play in a manner consistent with its definition) are solved,
it will be impossible to demonstrate that play per se is responsible for gains in
cognitive performance.
Problems are also connected with some of the dependent variable measures used
in the above studies. For example, the use of various measures of affective role
taking in the social knowledge literature allows for minimal comparison across
studies. The measures themselves are of questionable validity (e.g., the Borke test).
Conservation, a logical skill, is measured in the traditional manner, that is, with a
requirement for verbal explanation, or the subjects' reasons are accepted at face
value. Subtest scores of full-scale IQ tests are at times selected. At other times full-
scale scores are used. The problem-solving literature is rife with a complex set of
measures of this important skill. None of these measures is well standardized, nor
can we assume similar construct validity. While such problems in dependent
variable measurement are not restricted to play research, they pose particular
difficulties in this area.
An examination of Table I reveals other problems associated with play research.
The columns marked Sample and Population Description reveal that none of the
studies indicated that subjects were randomly selected from a larger population,
which raises questions about the generalizability of the studies' findings. The
Treatment Assignment column shows that, in approximately half the studies,
subjects were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions, making it difficult to
determine if the treatments or preexisting differences in the sample were responsible
for changes in the dependent variables.
The Duration column indicates that the treatments were often quite brief. Several
treatments lasted only a few minutes, some for a few days, and many for several
weeks. Only Saltz, Dixon, and Johnson (1977) had a treatment that lasted an entire
year. It is unusual for such short treatments to have a lasting impact on children's
psychological functioning. Unfortunately, none of the studies used delayed posttests
or follow-up assessments to investigate the permanency of treatment effects. The
subjects were usually assessed before and immediately after the treatment periods.
Thus it is not known if the reported gains in performance were lasting.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future experimental studies should take great pains to distinguish play from
confounding variables such as exploration and social interaction. Several of the
studies reviewed above have made steps in this direction. For example, Smith and
Dutton's (1979) procedure of exposing children to materials prior to play treatments
is one possible way to control for exploration, although the issue of duration
remains open. With regard to social interaction, Smith and Syddall's (1978)

110

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

procedure of carefully monitoring the amount and quality of verbal interaction

occurring in different treatment conditions has promise in controlling the effects
of adult tuition in training studies.
A more pervasive problem, the definition of play itself, must be addressed.
Researchers must concern themselves with the operationalizing of play treatments,
that is, with validating that play has occurred. To this end, a focus on indicators of
pleasure or joy, on the variety of playful experiences being exhibited, and on the
presence of pretence would be helpful. Requiring the researcher to record these
indices of playfulness as the treatment proceeds may make play more difficult to
study experimentally, but it would enhance the validity of the investigation. In
addition, a great need exists for further descriptive and ethnographic studies to
investigate the very nature of playful behavior. Schwartzman's (1978) investigation
of play contexts, Garvey's (1974, 1979) studies of sociodramatic play dialogues,
and the observational research of Rubin and his associates (Rubin & Maioni, 1975;
Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung, 1976) are examples of this type of research. It is hoped
that such studies eventually will result in a more accurate conceptualization of
play, which will in turn facilitate the operationalization of the play construct.
In future experimental studies, care should be exercised in the selection of
dependent variable measures. Reporting validity data for standardized procedures
seems minimal. While many of the variables under study do not lend themselves
to standardized techniques, a careful description of the rationale and development
of assessment techniques would encourage replication.
The problems of sample selection and treatment assignment also need to be
addressed. The ideal solution, of course, is careful, systematic sampling from a
substantial pool of children and random assignment of those subjects to treatment
groups. Unfortunately, logistical problems often preclude such ideal practices.
If randomization or more complex research controls are not possible, future
researchers might use replication as an alternative strategy for establishing whether
a treatment may be responsible for an effect and for determining the generalizability
of findings. Shaver and Norton (1980) state

Replication does not necessarily handle threats to internal validity, but the
systematic variation of potentially threatening external factors in repeated
studies can help to establish their effects. And, although replication does not
provide an automatic solution to external validity problems, it does provide
a useful strategy for determining the conditions under which results will hold.
Given the difficulties in randomly sampling human subjects, replication
would seem to be an especially appropriate strategy for educational and
psychological researchers, (p. 10)

Finally, future studies should give more attention to the permanency of training
effects. Treatment durations, whenever possible, should be expanded. In addition,
longitudinal or cohort research designs should be employed to monitor the effects
of play experiences on children's development over longer periods of time.
A Few Suggestions for the Schools
In times of declining resources and increasing public demands, schools are often
tempted to reduce or abandon aesthetic experiences in the curriculum. These

111

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

experiences (e.g., art, music, movement, etc.) offer the most obvious opportunities
for children to play. Because play appears to affect other desirable patterns of
intellectual functioning like divergent thinking and problem solving, we argue that
play may have a more basic function in education than many educators believe.
The concept of basic education perhaps should include aesthetic experiences that
encourage play.
Furthermore, play can be integrated into other traditional curriculum areas with
similar benefits. Encouraging a playful approach to the academic environment in
the study of math, science, or the language arts may result in a more creative
understanding of the content or solution to a problem (Manning & Sharp, 1977).
This approach suggests a revision not only of curriculum materials but also of the
teacher-child relationship, with benefits to both.
In conclusion, there is still much to learn about the relationship between play
and social-intellectual development. We can say with some certainty that the effects
of playful experiences, as operationalized in the above studies, can have a positive
impact on some psychological characteristics. In any case, children continue to
play, as Sutton-Smith (1981) notes, because it's the most enjoyable thing for them
to do. The fact that adults do not fully understand the phenomenon is no
impediment.

References
Berlyne, D. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960.
Birch, H. G. The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. Journal of
Comparative Psychology, \9A5, 38, 367-384.
Borke, H. Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy? Develop-
mental Psychology, 1973, 9, 102-108.
Burns, S. M, & Brainerd, C. J. Effects of constructive and dramatic play on perspective
taking in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 1979, 15, 512-521.
Cazden, C. Play with language and metalinguistic awareness: One dimension of language
experience. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play—its role in development and
evolution. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Christman, M. L. A look at sociodramatic play among Mexican-American children. Child-
hood Education, 1979,56, 106-110.
Chukovsky, K. From two to five. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971.
Collier, R. G. Developing language through play. Elementary School Journal, 1979, 80, 89-
92.
Dansky, J. L. Cognitive consequences of sociodramatic play and exploration training for
economically disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
1980, 20, 47-58. (a)
Dansky, J. L. Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and associative
fluency. Child Development, 1980, 51, 576-579. (b)
Dansky, J. L., & Silverman, I. W. Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged
children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 38-43.
Dansky, J. L., & Silverman, I. W. Play: A general facilitator of associativefluency.Develop-
ment il Psychology, 1975, 11, 104.
Durrett, E., & Huffman, W. Playfulness and divergent thinking among Mexican-American
children. Journal of Home Economics, 1968,60, 355-358.
Elkind, D. Children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Fein, G. G. Play and the acquisition of symbols. In L. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early
childhood education (Vol. 2). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, 1979.

112

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

Fein, G. G. Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child Development, 1981, 52,
1095-1118.
Feitelson, D. Some aspects of the social life of Kurdish Jews. Jewish Journal of Sociology,
1959,7,201-216.
Feitelson, D., & Ross, G. S. The neglected factor—play. Human Development, 1973, 16,
202-223.
Fink, R. S. Role of imaginative play in cognitive development. Psychological Reports, 1976,
39, 895-906.
Flavell, J. The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York:
Wiley, 1968.
Garvey, C. Some properties of social play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1974, 20, 163-180.
Garvey, C. Communicational controls in social play. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and
learning. New York: Gardner Press, 1979.
Golomb, C, & Cornelius, C. B. Symbolic play and its cognitive significance. Developmental
Psychology, 1977, 13, 246-252.
Guthrie, K., & Hudson, L. M. Training conservation through symbolic play: A second look.
Child Development, 1979, 50, 1269-1271.
Hutt, C. Exploration and play. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and learning. New York:
Gardner Press, 1979.
Iannotti, R. Effect of role-taking experiences on role taking, empathy, altruism, and aggression.
Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 119-124.
Jackson, T. A. Use of sticks as a tool by young chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 1942, 34, 223-235.
Johnson, J. E. Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and
nonsocial make-believe play of preschool children. Child Development, 1976, 47, 1200-
1203.
Krasnor, L., & Pepler, D. The study of children's play: Some suggested future directions. New
Directions for Child Development, 1980, 9, 85-94.
Lewis, P. H. The relationship of sociodramatic play to various cognitive abilities in kinder-
garten children (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1973, 33, 6179-A.
Lieberman, J. N. Playfulness and divergent thinking: An investigation of their relationship at
the kindergarten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1965, 707, 219-224.
Lieberman, J. N. Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York:
Academic Press, 1977.
Lovinger, S. L. Socio-dramatic play and language development in preschool disadvantaged
children. Psychology in the Schools, 1974, 77, 313-320.
Manning, K., & Sharp, A. Structuring play in the early years at school. London: Ward Lock
Educational, 1977.
Piaget, J. Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton, 1962.
Piaget, J. Piaget's theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol.
1). New York: Wiley, 1970.
Rosen, C. E. The effects of sociodramatic play on problem-solving behavior among culturally
disadvantaged preschool children. Child Development, 1974, 45, 920-927.
Rubin, K. Fantasy play: Its role in the development of social skills and social cognition. New
Directions for Child Development, 1980, 9, 69-84.
Rubin, K., & Maioni, T. Play preference and its relationship to egocentrism, popularity and
classification skills in preschoolers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1975, 21, 171-179.
Rubin, K., Maioni, T., & Hornung, M. Free play behaviors in middle- and lower-class
preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 1976, 47, 414-419.
Rubin, K., & Pepler, D. The relationship of child's play to social-cognitive growth and
development. In H. Foot, A. Chapman, & J. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations
in children. London: Wiley, 1980.
113

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

CHRISTIE AND JOHNSEN

Saltz, E., Dixon, D., & Johnson, J. Training disadvantaged preschoolers on various fantasy
activities: Effects on cognitive functioning and impulse control. Child Development, 1977,
48, 367-380.
Saltz, E., & Johnson, J. Training for thematic-fantasy play in culturally disadvantaged
children: Preliminary results. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 623-630.
Schiller, P. H. Innate motor action as a basis of learning. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive
behavior. New York: International University Press, 1957.
Schwartzman, H. B. Transformations: The anthropology of children's play. New York:
Plenum, 1978.
Selman, R., & Byrne, D. A structural-developmental analysis of role taking in middle
childhood. Child Development, 1974, 45, 803-806.
Shantz, C. The development of social cognition. In E. M. Heterington (Ed.), Review of child
development research (Vol. 5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Shaver, J. P., & Norton, R. S. Randomness and replication in ten years of the American
Educational Research Journal. Educational Researcher, 1980, 9, 9-15.
Singer, D. L., & Rummo, J. Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kindergarten-age
children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 8, 154-161.
Smilansky, S. The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New
York: John Wiley, 1968.
Smith, P. K. Social and fantasy play in young children. In B. Tizard & D. Harvey (Eds.),
Biology ofplay. London: Heineman, 1977.
Smith, P. K. & Dodsworth, C. Social class differences in the fantasy play of preschool children.
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1978,755, 183-190.
Smith, P. K., & Dutton, S. Play and training on direct and innovative problem-solving. Child
Development, 1979, 50, 830-836.
Smith, P. K., & Syddall, S. Play and non-play tutoring in preschool children: Is it play or
tutoring which matters? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 48, 315-325.
Sutton-Smith, B. Novel responses to toys. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1968, 14, 151-158.
Sutton-Smith, B. (Ed.). Play and learning. New York: Gardner Press, 1979.
Sutton-Smith, B. Children at play. In R. Strom (Ed.), Growing through play. Monterey, Calif.:
Brooks/Cole, 1981.
Sylva, K., Bruner, J. S., & Genova, P. The role of play in the problem-solving of children 3-
5 years old. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play—its role in development and
evolution. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Tizard, B., Philps J., & Plewis, I. Play in preschool centres-II. Effects on play of the child's
social class and of the educational orientation of the centre. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 1976, 17, 265-274.
Torrance, E. P. Priming creative thinking in the primary grades. Elementary School Journal,
1961,62, 139-145.
Torrance, E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking, manual. Princeton, N. J.: Personnel Press,
1966.
Vandenberg, B. Play, problem-solving, and creativity. New Directions for Child Development,
1980, 9, 49-68.
Vandenberg, B. The role of play in the development of insightful tool-using strategies. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 1981, 27, 97-109.
Van Lawick-Goodall, J. Early tool using in wild chimpanzees. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K.
Sylva (Eds.), Play—its role in development and evolution. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Vygotsky, L. S. Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J. Bruner, A.
Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play—its role in development and evolution. New York: Basic
Books, 1976.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-
intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

114

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016

 PLAY

Weir, R. Language in the crib. The Hague: Mouton, 1962.

Weisler, A., & McCall, R. Exploration and play: Resume and redirection. American Psychol-
ogist, 1976,57,492-508.
Yawkey, T. D. An investigation of imaginative play and aural language development in young
children, five, six and seven. In P. F. Wilkinson (Ed.), In celebration of play. New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1980.
Zammarelli, J., & Bolton, N. The effects of play on mathematical concept formation. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 47, 155-161.

AUTHORS
JAMES F. CHRISTIE, Associate Professor, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Kansas, 205 Bailey Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045. Specializations:
Early childhood education and reading.
E. P. JOHNSEN, Associate Professor, Dept. of Educational Psychology and Re-
search, University of Kansas, Bailey Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045. Specializations:
Social and intellectual development in children and adolescents.

115

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at University College London on June 5, 2016