week 10 Flashcards
Defining play – function & structure
Functional approach
Focuses on the purpose (or “function”) of play
No obvious goal
No clear immediate benefits
(this is not to say that playing doesn’t have benefits)
Structural approach
Describes the sorts of behaviour that only occur in play
The way in which behaviours are performed playfully
Repetition, exaggeration, reordering
Play signals
Defining play – play criteria approach
Rubin et al. (1983) identified five essential characteristics of play
Behaviour that is intrinsically motivated
Activities that are freely chosen by the child
Pleasurable, i.e., leads to experience of positive affect
Non-literal, i.e., involves elements of ‘make believe’ or reality distortion
Active engagement (psychological or physical)
Burghardt’s (2011) criteria for recognizing play:
- Incompletely functional in the context in which it appears
- Spontaneous, pleasurable, rewarding, or voluntary (done for its own sake)
- Differs from other more serious behaviours in form or timing
Incomplete, exaggerated, modified sequence, etc - Is repeated, but not in abnormal and unvarying stereotypic form
“Mastery play”; learning to walk - Tends to occur under conditions of abundance not stress
Individual is not strongly motivated to perform other behaviours
Defining play part 2
Play has proven difficult to define and all approaches have limitations - has been argued that the complexity of play means it will always defy definition
Most researchers agree that play should be “fun” and “voluntary” from the child’s point of view
Other researchers have explored children’s own understanding of what play is
Interview methodologies have been used but these too are problematic
Prompted development of the Contextual Apperception Procedure (Howard, 2002
Why is play important?
Play allows children to:
Express their thoughts and feelings
Explore and test theories about the world
Encounter and solve problems
Learn to consider other people’s perspectives
Negotiate play roles and plans
Practice self-control and sharing
Develop their language and literacy skills
Learn about other people and cultures
Types of play
Physical Activity play
Assists sustained attention in school settings (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005)
Rough-and-tumble play
Assists emotional regulation (Fry, 2014; Pellis & Pellis, 2009)
Play with objects/manipulative play
Promotes social interaction through shared attention; referential triangle (Tremblay et al., 2007)
Pretend play (fantasy and socio-dramatic play)
Claims for varied social and cognitive benefits, although quality of evidence varies (Lillard et al. 2012)
The development of social play: Parten (1933)
Observed 42 2-5-year-olds’ free-play
Controlled for environmental variables
E.g., time of day, minimal play suggestions
Of the free play time:
25% non-social play
75% social play
Found relationship between social skills and the way children play
Increasingly sophisticated and social behaviour with increased age
The development of social play: Parten (1933)
6 progressive phases of developing social play
Once a child participates in a stage they use variations of this stage and earlier stages throughout play
Non-interactive passive play
Unoccupied play, Solitary play, onlooker play
Parallel play
parallel play
True social play
Associative play, co-operative play
Critique of Parten’s Theory
Sample
Parten used children with:
average+ IQ
higher socio-economic backgrounds
Method of Data Collection
Stated that children were “oblivious” to the observer’s presence
This could be disputed as they were still unfamiliar people in the children’s environment, making it likely that the children would notice their presence
Outdated? The Emergence of Technology
Many social changes in the last 90 years
Parten considered lack of face-to-face SP an indication of social incompetence; modern research acknowledges SP occurrence within the use of technology
E.g., computer games often require children to demonstrate co-operative play with other players/characters to reach a common goal
Piaget’s stage theory of play
Sensorimotor
(birth to 2 years): Sensorimotor play occurs in this stage. The child explores and learns through their five senses, and through moving and exploring their surrounding environment. The child will manipulate objects through simple, repetitive movements
Preoperational
(2 to 7 years): Children continue to manipulate objects but also begin to engage in symbolic play (role-playing and imaginary play). This helps them to start viewing situations from the perspective of others and involves some level of abstract thought. As the child gets older, their play becomes more social in nature.
Concrete operational (7 to 11 years): Children display the ability to problem-solve and they show a greater understanding of the world. They also demonstrate logical thought. During this stage, they are able to understand and engage in ‘games with rules’.
Formal Operational (11 years onwards)
At this stage, children develop the ability to process and understand abstract thoughts and manipulate ideas independently. They are able to understand the point of view of others and the consequences of actions. This enables them to play in ‘games with rules’ that have more of a social element to them.
Evaluating Piaget
Considers play to be something initiated and performed solely by the child
Research evidence sometimes contradicts the predictions of Piaget’s theory
Stage theories underestimate individual differences/variation
Some other theories of play
Evolutionary theory – The ‘training-for-the-unexpected’ hypothesis
Play is an innate and biological activity which contributes to survival
Play exposes a child to varying situations with a variety of possible, unpredictable outcomes
By experimenting with these situations through play, the child is able to cope with more unpredictable experiences in the world in their later life
Essential physical development – The ‘motor-training’ hypothesis
Play in childhood prepares the motor system for engaging in adult behaviours
Play enables modifications to be made both in the muscles and the nervous system
Critique: Mainly relies on correlational data. It may be that physical development and the incident of play are unrelated as these modifications do occur in the absence of play too
Factors influencing play
Technology
Worry that the emergence of technology context would reduce social interaction amongst children, potentially creating social isolation
Limited evidence that this is the case (Heft and Swaminathans, 2002; Janisse et al., 2014)
Socioeconomic status
Play occurs across communities, but the types of play that are most common can vary – e.g., more pretend play in middle-SES children; more associative play in lower SES-children (Goncu et al., 2000; Dyer & Moneta, 2006)
Culture
When comparing social play in children from collectivist vs individualist societies, there are some universal dimensions and some culturally-specific dimensions (Haight et al., 1999)
Peers & Friends
Peers
People of approximately the same age and status
Friends
Peers with whom individuals have intimate, reciprocated, and positive relationships
Development of friendships
Bigelow & La Gaipa (1980) through studies of Scottish and Canadian children identified 3 stage model of friendship:
7-8yrs: Reward Cost Stage
Common activities, live nearby, play together, similar expectations
9-10: Normative Stage
Shared values, rule in place
11-12: Empathic Stage
Share secrets, understanding, shared interests
Preschool friendships
Younger children are not very selective when it comes to choosing friends
For pre-schoolers, friendships are largely dictated by physical proximity
At this age being friends is synonymous with being playmates
Have preferred playmates from approx. 3 years of age (most often same-sex friends)
Despite this children do behave differently with their friends (Dunn, 2004)
- Children who are friends appear more comfortable together
- Have more fun playing together
- Show an ability and willingness to resolve conflicts
- Are sympathetic and offer each other support
Friendships in middle childhood
Older children choose friends on basis of desirable characteristics and shared interests/values
Trust and loyalty are particularly important (Chen, 1997)
Show stronger attachments to friends and are upset when friendships end. Develop ‘best friends’
Friendships are more emotionally rewarding (Rose & Asher, 2017)
Cross-cultural differences inpeer experiences
Patterns in peer development are averaged across groups of children and mask cultural differences in peer relationships
Classic cross-cultural studies in peer relationships found wide differences in peer contact and interaction
Different cultural norms about what type of aggression is more acceptable: there is a shared norm that it is more acceptable for boys to be physically aggressive than girls
Differences in parents’ expectations regarding what social skills their children will develop and when they will do so likely influence what parents teach their children about social interaction with peers
Benefits of friendships
Friends can provide a source of emotional support and security
Friendships also provide a context for the development of social skills and knowledge that children need to form positive relationships with other people
Having a reciprocated best friendship related to positive social outcomes and self-perceived competence later in life
But….friends who have behavioral problems may exert a detrimental influence
Status and popularity
Increasingly important from middle childhood
Coie et al. (1982) identified four groups of children:
1. Popular
2. Controversial
3. Neglected
4. Rejected
Characteristics Associated with Sociometric Status
Popular children
Rated accepted and impactful by peers; high status in group
Perceived as socially skilled; cooperative, friendly, sociable, helpful, sensitive to others
Generally possess more emotional and behavioral strengths
Not necessarily most likable in peer group, but
Athletic ability, prestige, physical attractiveness, wealth
Above average in aggression
Characteristics Associated with Sociometric Status
Rejected children
Children or adolescents liked by few peers and disliked by many peers
Difficulty finding constructive solutions to difficult social situations
Anxious, depressed, lower rated in behavioral competence by teachers
Perhaps have a less developed theory of mind
Rejected children can be
Overly aggressive
Withdrawn
Aggressive-rejected children
Especially prone to physical aggression, disruptive behavior, delinquency, and negative behavior (hostility, threatening others)
Socially withdrawn, wary, and often timid
Complex bidirectional relations (adjustment, social competencies, and peer acceptance)
Withdrawn-rejected children
Socially withdrawn, wary, timid, and socially anxious
Timid, and socially anxious, victimized by peers, and many feel isolated, lonely, and depressed
Neglected children
Withdrawn with peers but are relatively socially competent
Less sociable and less disruptive than average children; avoid aggression
Rated by teachers as being as socially competent as popular children
Controversial children
Liked by quite a few peers, and disliked by quite a few others
Characteristics of both popular and unpopular children
Tend to be cooperative, sociable, good at sports, and humorous; group leaders
Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in Factors Related to Peer Status
In several countries:
Socially rejected children are aggressive and disruptive
Popular children are prosocial and have leadership skills
Withdrawn children are rejected by peers
Some cross-cultural differences, e.g.:
Shy Chinese children are different from shy Western children
Culture encourages such behavior
Western cultures encourage independence and self-assertion
