functional, constructive, and dramatic behaviors, as well as games-with-rules (e.g., Piaget, 1962; ... characteristics: (1) Play is not governed by appetitive drives, compliance with social demands, or ...... Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518-534.
Social and Nonsocial Play
Robert J. Coplan a, Kenneth H. Rubin b, & Leanne C. Findlay a a
Carleton University
b
University of Maryland
In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve (2nd edition). New York: Garland.
2
Social and Nonsocial Play In this chapter, we distinguish between structural and contextual features of play, broadly defined. For example, from a structural perspective, theorists have distinguished among functional, constructive, and dramatic behaviors, as well as games-with-rules (e.g., Piaget, 1962; Smilansky, 1968). These structural forms of play occur in a variety of social contexts. In this essay we examine both ends of the social participation spectrum, exploring both social play (activities that take place when two or more partners interact with one another in both literal and non-literal fashions) and nonsocial play (solitary activities in the presence of peers). We define both social and non-social play and address questions such as, “Why are these forms of behavior of developmental significance?”; “How does one assess social and nonsocial play?"; and "What are the predictors, concomitants, and outcomes associated with individual differences in social and nonsocial play?". It is argued herein that social play provides a unique and important context for young children's social, social-cognitive, and emotional development, and that some forms of nonsocial play can reflect psychosocial maladaptation, whereas others may be developmentally benign. Defining social and nonsocial play Rubin, Fein and Vandenberg (1983) defined play in terms of the following characteristics: (1) Play is not governed by appetitive drives, compliance with social demands, or by inducements external to the behavior itself; instead play is intrinsically motivated; (2) play is spontaneous, free from external sanctions, and its goals are self-imposed; (3) play asks "What can I do with this object or person?" (this differentiates play from exploration which asks "What is this object /person and what I do with it/him/her?"); (4) play is not a serious rendition of an activity or a behavior it resembles; instead it consists of activities that can be labelled as pretense
3
(i.e., play must comprise non-literality); (5) play is free from externally imposed rules (this distinguishes play from games-with-rules; and (6) play involves active engagement (this distinguishes play from daydreaming, lounging, and aimless loafing). Given these definitional criteria, we admit that the following discussion of social and nonsocial play spreads well beyond the boundaries of the above-noted definition. Nevertheless, our terminology is accepted in the current Zeitgeist of research pertaining to play, and we will return to the original definitional criteria during the course of this chapter. To state the obvious, that which distinguishes social play from other forms of play involves the notion of interaction with others. Social play occurs among dyads and larger groups. It occurs when the child (a) is motivated to engage others in playful activities; (b) is able to regulate emotional arousal; (c) possesses the skills necessarily to initiate interactions with another child, such that; (d) the social overtures are accepted in kind. Accordingly, social play compromises the associated constructs of social participation, social competence, and sociability, and typically involves two (or more) children participating in functional-sensorimotor, constructive, and dramatic activities, and games-with-rules. It also comprises active conversations between children as they go about interacting with each other, negotiating play roles and game rules. In contrast, for the purposes of this chapter, nonsocial play is defined as the display of solitary activities and behaviors in the presence of other potential play partners. An important component of this definition involves the presence of other people, which infers the opportunity to engage in social interaction and group-oriented play. Thus, from this perspective, a child who is playing quietly alone in his/her room at home would not be engaging in nonsocial play, per se, as there are no play partners in the immediate vicinity.
4
Social participation. In the 1920's, several attempts were made to develop comprehensive taxonomies for describing children's social interactions with peers. Andrus (1924) and Verry (1923), for example, systematically observed nursery school children and created various categories to categorize social and nonsocial play. Verry (1923) included the categories of 'treating playmates as objects' and 'cooperating within the group' within her various types of social attitudes. A few years later, Bott (1928) developed a coding scheme which included the category of ‘occupied with other children’. Within this category, the behaviors of talking, watching, interference, imitation, and cooperation were distinguished. Parten's (1932) observational framework is perhaps the best known of the early social participation taxonomies. In her now classic study, Parten defined two categories of socially interactive play. During associative play, the child interacts with other children and may be using similar materials, however, there is no real cooperation or division of labour. Cooperative play consists of a group activity organized for the purpose of carrying out some plan of action or attaining some goal. Play partners coordinate their behaviors and take particular roles in pursuit of the common goal. In studies postdating the 1970’s, associative play and cooperative play were combined as social play. Parten also defined four categories comprising nonsocial or "semi"-social play activities. These included: (1) Unoccupied behavior -- the demonstration of a marked absence of focus or intent (e.g., child stares blankly into space or wanders aimlessly); (2) Onlooker behavior -- the observation of others’ activities without an attempt to enter into the peers' activity; (3) Solitary play -- playing apart from other children (at a distance greater than three feet) and paying little or no attention to others; and (4) Parallel play -- the child plays beside (i.e., within 3 feet) but not with other children.
5
The legacy of Parten's (1932) taxonomy of social participation is that is continues to be used in studies that bear no striking resemblance to those originally published in the 1930’s. Contemporary researchers have refined the original scale for purposes of examining developmental, cultural, and individual differences in children's social and nonsocial “play”, broadly defined. The developmental significance of social play Theorists have been positing the developmental significance of peer interaction for over fifty years (see Rubin, Coplan, Chen, Buskirk, & Wojslawowicz, in press, for a recent review). The early work of Piaget (e.g., 1926, 1932), Mead (1934) and Sullivan (1953) emphasized the importance of peer involvement for children’s social development. Piaget suggested that peer interaction provides children with an important and unique learning environment. In particular, exposure to instances of interpersonal differences of opinion and thought with one’s peers (as opposed to interactions with adults), and opportunities for discussion and negotiation about these differences, were viewed as aiding children in the acquisition and development of sensitive perspective-taking skills in interpersonal relationships. Mead (1934) echoed Piaget's emphasis on the importance of the development of perspective-taking through peer interaction; however, he also stressed the significance of peer interaction in the development of the self-system. In particular, Mead believed that exchanges among peers, in the contexts of cooperation, competition, conflict, and friendly discussion, allowed the child to gain an understanding of the self as both subject and object. According to the notion of the “looking glass self”, Mead suggested that children experienced themselves indirectly through the responses of their peers. Finally, Sullivan (1953) proposed that peer relationships are essential for the development of skills for cooperation, compromise, empathy
6
and altruism. Sullivan emphasized the importance of 'chumships', or special relationships, for the emergence of these concepts. The underlying thread connecting these theorists is the emphasis on experiences within the peer group, and its role in the acquisition, maintenance, and practice of important social skills. It was assumed that peer interaction and particularly social play, as defined above, was of developmental significance. Researchers have long since provided support for this conjecture (e.g., Azmitia, Lippman, & Ittel, 1999; Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Rogoff, 1997). These theoretical positions and the empirical support of them take on somewhat different meaning when one ponders the question, “What about those who rarely engage others in social play?”. We address this question below. Assessing social and nonsocial play There currently exist many different measures designed to assess social and nonsocial play and its related constructs. These measures can be characterized in terms of the source of information regarding children's play behaviors: (a) outside sources; and (b) direct observation. Outside source assessments. Outside source assessment procedures involve asking "expert" informants, such as peers, parents, and teachers, to rate or nominate children's social inclinations. There are several advantages to using paper-and-pencil rating scales or nomination techniques. To begin with, outside source assessment is comparatively quick and inexpensive. As well, parents, classmates and teachers have the potential to observe children in many different circumstances and for long periods of time; thus, they can make inferences about specific children's "everyday" behaviors. The disadvantage of outside source observation methods center on the use of untrained observers for the purpose of data collection. There may be some bias in their ratings of the
7
children's characteristic social behavior patterns. More importantly, however, because they are untrained, they may not be able to identify specific and detailed aspects of behaviors. This may be particularly germane when assessing social and nonsocial play, as distinctions are made between very fine-grained components of behaviors. Perhaps as a result, although there are a plethora of measures designed to examine related constructs (i.e., children's social competence, personality, temperament, classroom behaviors), there are relatively few teacher and parent rating scale measures designed specifically to assess social and nonsocial play. In the last few years, several measures have evolved, including the Preschool Play Behavior Scale (Coplan & Rubin, 1998), the Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale (Fantuzzo, Coolahan, Mendez, McDermott, & Sutton-Smith, 1998), and the Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (Hart et al, 2000). However, the most common method used to assess young children’s social and nonsocial play has been through the use of direct behavioral observations. Direct observations. Direct observation techniques involve the systematic recording of children's behaviors. There are several advantages of observational techniques. First, the behaviors observed are face valid. Second, 'blind' observers reduce biases in the coding process. That is, coders are not influenced by their past knowledge of a child's behaviors. Finally, coders can be trained to observe and record very specific and detailed behaviors. Disadvantages of observational techniques included obvious costs in time and personnel. Also, coders may be limited in the contexts, settings, and time frames during which they can observe behavior. Methodological advances in both time- and event-sampling techniques, however, have increased the generalizibility of direct observational techniques. There currently exist several observational coding schemes designed to assess social and nonsocial play and their related constructs (see Gitlin-Weiner, Sandgrund, & Schaefer, 2000, for
8
a review). The social aspects of children's play have been investigated using time sampling (e.g., Spinrad et al., 2004); event samples (e.g., Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge & Pettit, 1997)); and scan samples (e.g., Ladd & Profilet, 1996). These coding schemes have been employed to observe social and nonsocial play in laboratory playrooms (e.g., Rubin, Cheah, & Fox, 2001), classrooms (e.g., Coplan, Gavinski-Molina, Lagace-Seguin, & Wichmann, 2001), and on the playground (e.g., Hart, 1993). In our work, we have made frequent use of the Play Observation Scale (POS, Rubin, 2001). This measure is described in more detail below. The Play Observation Scale. The Play Observation Scale (POS, Rubin, 2001) was developed in the 1970’s to allow observations to be made of the structural components of play (as defined by Piaget, 1932 and Smilansky, 1968) as they were nested in the social participation contexts described by Parten (1932). Early work focused on developmental, normative observations of preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school children during “free play” (e.g., Rubin, Hymel, & Mills, 1989; Rubin & Krasnor, 1980; Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung, 1976; Rubin, Watson, & Jambot, 1978). The POS employs a time sampling methodology within which 10 second segments are coded for both social participation (e.g., solitary, parallel, group) and the cognitive quality of children's play (e.g., functional-sensorimotor, constructive, dramatic, gameswith-rules). Several additional free play behaviors are assessed, including instances of unoccupied behavior, onlooking, exploration, peer conversation, anxious behaviors, hovering, transitional behavior, rough-and-tumble play, and aggression. The POS coding taxonomy is illustrated in Figure 1. --- insert Figure 1 about here --The use of the POS in our laboratories (e.g., Coplan, Bowker, & Cooper, 2003; Coplan et al., 2001; Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil, & Armer, 2004; Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002; Rubin,
9
Chen, McDougall, Bowker, & McKinnon, 1995) and in many others (e.g., Fox, Henderson, Rubin, Calkins, & Schmidt, 2001; Guralnick, Hammond, & Connor, 2003; Henderson, Marshall, Fox, & Rubin, 2004; Lloyd & Howe, 2003) has allowed for a clearer understanding of children's social play and nonsocial play behaviors. The POS has been particularly influential in allowing for a detailed assessment of children’s nonsocial play. Using the POS, we have combined aspects of Parten’s nonsocial participation categories to create three distinct sub-types of nonsocial play behaviors (e.g., Coplan, Rubin, Fox, & Calkins, 1994). Thus, for example, reticent behavior is identified by the frequent production of onlooking behaviors (prolonged watching of other children without accompanying play) or being unoccupied (wandering aimlessly, staring off into space). Solitarypassive play includes the quiescent exploration of objects and/or constructive activity while playing alone. Finally, solitary-active play is characterized by repeated sensorimotor actions with or without objects (functional activities) and/or by solitary dramatizing. As described below, each of these different forms of nonsocial play appear to have different meanings, reflect different developmental pathways, and are associated with decidedly different psychosocial outcomes. Individual differences in social and nonsocial play It is well documented that with increasing age, children are more likely to engage in social play (see Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998 for a review). However, there also exist marked individual differences in the degree to which children are socially initiative and willing to participate in peer play. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that individual differences in children’s social and nonsocial play patterns are influenced by children’s dispositional characteristics (temperament, sex), social motivations, and social competence.
10
Indeed, play patterns are also influenced by the cultures within which children live. In this regard, the display of social play and different forms of nonsocial play can be considered marker variables for psychosocial adjustment in childhood. Temperament and biological influences. There is growing support for a link between biology and social play. This link can be accessed through the study of temperamental characteristics that serve as biologically-based precursors to the display of different play styles. For example, Kagan (e.g., Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1999; Kagan & Saudino, 2001) has distinguished between inhibited and uninhibited children. The former group can be characterized as being quiet, hypervigilant, and restrained while they experience novel situations. The latter group, alternatively, reacts with spontaneity, as if they do not distinguish between novel and familiar situations. Inhibited children, compared to their uninhibited counterparts, have higher and more stable heart rates, larger pupil diameters, greater motor tension, and higher levels of morning cortisol (see Sanson, Hemphill, & Smart, 2004, for a recent review). These data are viewed as supporting the notion that inhibited children have a biologically predispositioned low threshold for arousal in the face of novelty. Several researchers have argued that physiological mechanisms of emotional regulation are important components of children's dispositions to engage others in interactions or to withdraw from them (e.g., Eisenberg, Shepard, Fabes, Murphy, & Guthrie, 1998; Fabes, Hanish, Martin, & Eisenberg, 2002; Gunnar, Sebanc, Tout, Donzella, & van Dulmen, 2003; Henderson et al., 2004). These physiological mechanisms include patterns of hemispheric imbalance (as measured by EEG activation) and vagal tone (a measure of parasympathetic control over heart rate) (Fox, Rubin, Calkins, Marshall, Coplan, Porges, & Long, 1995; Schmidt, Calkins, Rubin, & Coplan, 1995; Porges & Doussard-Roosevelt, 1997; Schmidt & Schulkin, 1999). For example, Fox and
11
colleagues (2001) found that stable inhibited children displayed greater right frontal EEG activity at 9 months and 4 years of age than did the uninhibited group, and were also rated more fearful, shy and less sociable by their mothers. By comparison, a group of children who displayed inhibited behavior at 4 months of age but whose behavior was not consistent over time (i.e., who were no longer reportedly inhibited at 24 or 48 months of age) did not show such EEG assymetry. These findings suggest a strong role of brain over-activity in social behavior, namely anxiety in social situations. Parental Influences. Other influences on children's inclinations to engage primarily in social or nonsocial play are parent-child relationships and parenting behaviors. Conceptually, psychologists have predicted that when insecure anxious-resistant (“C”) children find themselves in group settings with peers, they should attempt to avoid rejection through the demonstration of passive, adult-dependent behavior and withdrawal from social interaction (Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Sroufe, & Mangelsdorf, 1989; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Empirical, support derives from data indicating that infants who experience an anxious-resistant (C) attachment relationship appear to be socially withdrawn at age seven years (Renken et al., 1989). Additional support for both concurrent and predictive associations between insecure attachment and social withdrawal comes from more recent studies (e.g., Booth, Rose-Krasner, McKinnon, & Rubin, 1994; Rubin, Booth, Rose-Krasnor, & Mills, 1995). Precursors to social play are also predicted by the parent-child attachment relationship in infancy. For example, secure attachment status in infancy is predictive in early childhood of more elaborate play styles, more positive social engagement, and less behavioral inhibition than insecure attachment relationships (e.g., Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, & Fox, 2003; Rose-Krasner,
12
Rubin, Booth & Coplan, 1996). As well, securely attached 4-year-olds are more likely to engage peers in social play than their insecurely attached agemates (Booth et al, 1994). Insofar as parenting styles and behaviors are concerned, authoritative parents (high in control and warmth) are likely to raise well-adjusted children who are socially responsible and competent, friendly, cooperative and prosocial with peers (Baumrind, 1967, 1971). In contrast, authoritarian parents (harsh, coercive, and low in warmth) are likely to have children who are socially incompetent, aggressive, and/or socially withdrawn (Baumrind, 1967, 1971, 1991; Dishion, 1990, Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Mize & Petit, 1997). More recently, researchers have begun to focus on the role of parental overprotection and overintrusion (Mills & Rubin, 1998; Rubin et al., 2002; Rubin et al., 2001; Rubin, Nelson, Hastings, & Asendorpf, 1999). Overprotective parents over-manage situations for their child and discourage child independence. It is believed that this pattern of parental responses interferes with children’s abilities to develop their own coping skills for handling socially stressful situations. As such, such children would be less likely to engage in social play. For example, Rubin and colleagues (1999) found that maternally-rated child shyness at age 2 was negatively related to both mother’s and father’s encouragement of independence at age 4, indicating that parents’ perceptions of their child’s shyness influences their social strategies which may limit the child’s opportunities to develop coping strategies for their social wariness. Transactional Processes. Given that both biological and environmental factors influence children’s social and nonsocial play, the interplay between biological processes and parenting strategies also warrants investigation. Rubin and colleagues developed a theoretical model that considers pathways to social/nonsocial play styles and adjustment (or maladjustment) which are jointly influenced by child
13
characteristics, parental socialization practices, and the quality of relationships within and outside the family (e.g., Rubin & Burgess, 2002; Rubin & Lollis, 1988; Rubin & Mills, 1991). Results from several recent studies have suggested that these transactional processes are critical factors in determining peer-related outcomes (Rubin et al., 2002; Rubin et al., 1999; Spangler & Schieche, 1998). For instance, Spangler and Schieche (1998) found that insecurely attached infants who were behaviorally inhibited had higher salivary cortisol levels, indicating that it is a combination of attachment and temperament that leads to changes in physiological stimulation during a novel situation. Rubin and colleagues (2002) also found an interaction between temperament and parenting in predicting children’s play behavior. Dispositionally-based behavioral inhibition at two years predicted socially reticent behavior at four years for only those children whose mothers were overprotective and intrusive. Developmental outcomes of social and nonsocial play Social play and adjustment. Returning to our earlier discussion of play, it is of significant note that social pretense, or sociodramatic play, has generally been regarded as a marker of social competence, positive adjustment, and well-being during the period of early childhood (e.g., Howes, 1992, Rubin et al., 1983; Rubin et al., 1998). The frequent production of sociodramatic play during the preschool and kindergarten years is associated with the development of language skills, early literacy, creativity, theory of mind, self-regulation, and school achievement (e.g., Elias & Berk, 1993; Levy, Wolfgang, & Koorland, 1992; Schwebel, Rosen, & Singer, 1999; Singer & Lythcott, 2002) There have been relatively few longitudinal studies of the developmental course of children's social play, broadly defined. An exception to this was the Waterloo Longitudinal Project (WLP), initiated originally in 1980 to examine the stability and predictive outcomes of
14
children’s social and nonsocial play (e.g., Rubin, 1982, 1985; Rubin et al., 1989; Rubin, Hymel, Mills, & Rose-Krasner, 1991; Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993; Rubin et al., 1995). Results from the WLP indicated that social play is relatively stable from preschool through to adolescence (e.g., Rubin, 1993; Rubin & Both, 1989; Rubin et al., 1989). Moreover, observed social play in early childhood predicted positive feelings of self worth and was negatively associated with feelings of loneliness in late chidhood (e.g., Rubin et al., 1989). Similar results were found following the participants into adolescence. Rubin and colleagues (1995) followed a sample of children from the WLP into high school (age 14 years). Results indicated that an aggregate of observed social play and peer rated social competence at age 7 years significantly predicted higher self regard and felt group security, and lower self-reported loneliness in adolescence. Overall, social play is generally associated with social adjustment. However, there is some evidence to suggest that the frequent display of social play, in and of itself, does not "guarantee" social adjustment. For example, Rubin et al. (1995) found that social play in early childhood was not only predictive of positive outcomes in adolescence, but also predicted deviant behaviors (i.e., drug and alcohol use). Children’s emotion regulation appears to play a key role here. Whereas the ability to regulate negative emotions is related to social competence and peer acceptance (e.g., Eisenberg, Spinrad, Fabes, Reiser, et al., 2004; Eisenberg, Pidada, & Liew, 2001) the inability to regulate affect is associated with socially incompetent behavior (e.g., Calkins, Gill, Johnson, & Smith, 1999). More specifically, Rubin, Coplan, Fox, and Calkins (1995) found that an extreme group of socially interactive preschoolers who were also emotionally dysregulated (i.e., temperamentally highly reactive and difficult to soothe), were rated by mothers as having more
15
externalizing problems than comparison groups of extremely socially-interactive but wellregulated children and average children. Thus, not all young children who display a high frequency of social play grow up to be competent, well adjusted, teenagers. Nonsocial play and adjustment. It had been previously accepted that noninteractive children are at risk for later maladjustment difficulties in later childhood and adolescence (see Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2003, for a review). However, results from recent research indicate that the relations between nonsocial play types and psychosocial adjustment in childhood are quite complex. In fact, different forms of nonsocial play appear to reflect different underlying psychological mechanisms, and are associated with decidedly difference outcomes. To begin with, reticent behavior (i.e., onlooking behaviors and being unoccupied) is thought to indicate temperamental shyness and social fearfulness (e.g., Coplan et al., 1994). A child frequently displaying reticent behavior is thought to be caught in an approach-avoidance conflict (Asendorpf, 1990), wanting to engage in social interactions with peers but simultaneoulsy desiring to avoid others because of a fear of social interaction. There is strong emprirical support for this conceptualization. To begin with, the display of reticent behavior in childhood has been related a constellation of psychophysiological variables (e.g., greater right frontal EEG activation, higher levels of morning cortisol) that similarly underlie the construct of behavioral inhibition (e.g., Henderson et al., 2004; Schmidt, Fox, Rubin, & Sternberg, 1997). Moreover, reticent behavior in childhood has also been associated with temperamental shyness, the overt display of anxious behaviors, internalizing problems, social incompetence, low self-worth, and peer exclusion (Coplan, 2000; Coplan, Findlay, & Nelson, 2004; Coplan et al., 1994; Coplan et al., 2001; Coplan et al., 2004; Coplan &
16
Rubin, 1998; Fox et al., 2001; Hart et al., 2000; Henderson et al., 2004; Rubin et al., 2002; Rubin et al., 1995). In constrast, solitary-active play (i.e., solitary-functional and solitary-dramatic play) is thought to reflect social immaturity and impulsiveness (Rubin, 1982). Although it occurs rather infrequently during free play (approximately 3% of the time), Rubin (1982) speculated that solitary-active behavior is quite negatively salient to the peer group, even in early childhood, and that children who engage in solitary-active behaviors are actually playing along because they are being isolated by others. In support of this notion, solitary-active behavior in childhood has been associated with peer rejection, poor social problem-solving, impulsivity, externalizing problems, and academic difficulties (Coplan, 2000; Coplan et al., 1994; Coplan, Wichmann, & LagaceSeguin, 2001; Coplan & Rubin, 1998; Rubin, 1982). It is interesting to note here is that the same structural form of social play can have very different meanings when displayed in different contexts. Thus, as mentioned earlier, although sociodramatic play (group pretense) is generally viewed as a index of social competence and social adjustment, solitary-dramatic behavior, in the presence of peers, appears to reflect impulsivity and social immaturity; it is also associated with externalizing (or acting-out) problems in early childhood. Finally, solitary-passive play (i.e., solitary-exploratory and solitary-constructive play) has been generally thought to reflect unsociability, or a preference for playing alone (Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993). Children who frequently display solitary-passive behaviors are thought to possess the necessary skills to interact socially, but not to evidence a strong desire for peer play (Rubin, 1982). Empirical support for this characterization came from a series of studies indicating that solitary-passive behavior (in early childhood) was not associated with indices of
17
psychosocial maladaptation (e.g., Coplan, 2000; Coplan et al., 1994; Coplan & Rubin, 1998; Rubin, 1982; Rubin et al., 1995). However, results from recent studies have called into question the meaning of solitarypassive play in early childhood (e.g., Lloyd & Howe, 2003; Spinrad et al., 2004). For example, Coplan and colleagues (2001) reported that observed solitary-passive play in kindergarteners was associated with temperamental shyness and indices of maladjustment for boys but not girls. Coplan and colleagues (2004) found that although children rated as unsociable were less often observed to initiate social interactions with peers and were viewed by teachers as more socially withdrawn, they were not significantly more likely to display solitary-passive behavior. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that solitary-passive play itself may have varying psychological and emotional meanings, and may be frequently displayed by different types of children for different reasons. Direct evidence for this has been provided by Henderson et al. (2004). In a longitudinal study, they found that a subset of preschool children who displayed frequent solitary-passive play had lower resting heart period and were more likely to have been shy and inhibited when they were toddlers. This suggests that some children who frequently displayed solitary-passive behavior tended to be shy, but coped sufficiently with their approachavoidance conflicts in order to at least play quietly in the presence of peers. In contrast, other children who frequently displayed solitary-passive play had a higher resting heart period and were neither previously shy nor inhibited as toddlers. Thus, some children who display frequent solitary-passive play do not appear to be anxious or distressed. Further research is clearly required in this area, particularly to explore the long term longitudinal outcomes associated with this type of nonsocial play. Summary and Future Directions
18
The goal of this essay was to explore the constructs of young children's social and nonsocial play within the context of peer interactions. Clearly, social play provides children with a unique and important environment for development. Through social play and associated interactions with peers, children are exposed to a domain where they can acquire important social-cognitive and interpersonal skills. Social play allows children to acquire an understanding of other children's perspectives, and leads to a greater understanding of cooperation, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Moreover, children who experience a consistently impoverished quality of social play and social interaction are at risk for later social maladjustment. Thus, social play can be construed as representing a "safe-haven" for children to learn about themselves and others, and to acquire skills and knowledge that will assist them throughout their lifetimes. In contrast, the different forms of nonsocial play appear to have different meanings and are associated with different outcomes. Some children appear to play alone (displaying reticent behavior) because they are shy and anxious, lacking in social competence, and experiencing internalizing problems. Other children seem to play alone (displaying solitary-active behavior) because they are immature, impulsive, and excluded by peers, and display externalizing problems. Finally, although some children likely play alone because of a lack of interest in social interaction, such children may not display a particular type of nonsocial play. Additional longitudinal work should explore the meanings and implications of social and nosocial play into middle childhood and adolescence. Moreover, a deeper understanding is required of the role of children’s relationships (i.e., with parents and peers) in the developmental trajectories associated with the frequent display of social or nonsocial play. Finally, the vast majority of research related to social and nonsocial play has been conducted in Western cultures.
19
There is likely significant cultural variation in the meanings of different forms of solitude. Thus, there are many avenues for future researchers to explore related to the nature and outcomes of
20
References Andrus, R. (1924). A tentative inventory of the habits of children from two to four years of age. Columbia University, Teachers College, Contributions to Education, No. 160. Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: shyness, unsociability and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33, 250-259. Azmitia, M., Lippman, D. N., & Ittel, A. (1999). On the relation of personal experience to early adolescents' reasoning about best friendship deterioration. Social Development, 8, 275-291. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care patterns anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, (No. 1, Pt. 2). Baumrind, D. (1991). To nurture nature. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 386. Bott, H. (1928). Observation of play activities of three- year-old children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, Vol. 4, 44-88. Booth, C. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., McKinnon, J., & Rubin, K. H. (1994). Predicting social adjustment in middle childhood: The role of preschool attachment security and maternal style. Social Development, 3, 189-204. Burgess, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rubin, K. H., & Fox, N. A. (2003). Infant attachment and temperament as predictors of subsequent externalizing problems and cardiac physiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44, 819-831.
21
Calkins, S. D., Gill,, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Emotional reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior with peers during toddlerhood. Social Development, 8, 310-334. Coplan, R. J. (2000). Assessing nonsocial play in early childhood: Conceptual and methodological approaches. In A. Sandgrund & K. Gitlin-Weiner (Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment (2nd ed., pp.563-598). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Coplan, R. J., Bowker, A., & Cooper, S. M. (2003). Parenting daily hassles, child temperament and social adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 376-395. Coplan, R. J., Findlay, L. C., & Nelson, L. J. (2004). Characteristics of Preschoolers With Lower Perceived Competence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 399-408. Coplan, R. J., Gavinski-Molina, M. H., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Wichmann, C. (2001). When girls versus boys play alone: Nonsocial play and adjustment in kindergarten. Developmental Psychology, 37, 464-474. Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40, 244-258. Coplan, R. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Exploring and assessing nonsocial play in the preschool: The development and validation of the Preschool Play Behavior Scale. Social Development, 7, 72-91. Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1994). Being alone, playing alone, and acting alone: Distinguishing among reticence and passive and active solitude in young children. Child Development, 65, 129-137. Coplan, R.J., Wichmann, C., Lagace-Seguin, D. (2001). Solitary-active play: A marker variable
22
for maladjustment in the preschool? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 164-172. Dishion, T. J. (1990). The family ecology of boys' peer relations in middle childhood. Child Development, 61, 874-892. Eisenberg, N., Pidada, S., & Liew, J. (2001). The relations of regulation and negative emotionality to Indonesian children's social functioning. Child Development, 72, 17471763. Eisenberg, N., Shepard, S. A., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., & Guthrie, I. K. (1998). Shyness and children's emotionality, regulation, and coping: Contemporaneous, longitudinal, and across-context relations. Child Development, 69, 767-790. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A. et al. (2004). The Relations of Effortful Control and Impulsivity to Children's Resiliency and Adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25-46. Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (1993). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 216-238. Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2002). Young children's negative emotionality and social isolation: A latent growth curve analysis. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 48, 284-307. Fantuzzo, J., Coolahan, K., Mendez, J., McDermott, P., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1998). Contextually-relevant validation of peer play constructs with African American Head Start children: Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 411-431. Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., & Schmidt, L. A. (2001).
23
Stability and instability of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral factors influencing change and continuity across the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1-21. Fox, N.A., Rubin, K.H., Calkins, S.D., Marshall, T.R., Coplan, R.J., Porges, S.W., & Long, J. (1995). Frontal activation asymmetry and social competence at four years of age: Left frontal hyper and hypo activation as correlates of social behavior in preschool children. Child Development, 66, 1770-1784. Giltin-Weiner, K., Sandgrund, A., & Schaefer, C. (2000). Play diagnosis and assessment (2nd ed.) New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gulranick, M. J., Hammond, M. A., & Connor, R. T. (2003). Subtypes of Nonsocial Play: Comparisons Between Young Children With and Without Developmental Delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108, 347-362. Gunnar, M. R., Sebanc, A. M., Tout, K., Donzella, B., & van Dulmen, M. M. H., (2003). Peer Rejection, Temperament, and Cortisol Activity in Preschoolers. Developmental Psychobiology, 43, 346-358. Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across four years. Child Development, 68, 278-294. Hart, C. H. (1993). Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications. New York: State University of New York Press. Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L. J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., Porter, C. L., Jin S., Olsen, S. F., & Wu, P. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of
24
socially withdrawn behavior in China, Russia, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 24, 73-81. Henderson, H., Marshall, P., Fox, N.A., & Rubin, K.H. (2004). Converging psychophysiological and behavioral evidence for subtypes of social withdrawal in preschoolers. Child Development, 75, 251-263. Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, T. R. H. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky's theory for peer learning. In A. King & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), The Rutgers Invitational Symposium On Education Series. Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp.39-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howes, C. (1992). The collaborative construction of pretend. New York: State University of New York Press. Kagan J., Reznick, J.S., & Snidman, N. (1999). Biological basis of childhood shyness. In D. Muir & A. Slater (Eds), The Blackwell reader in development psychology (pp.65-78). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Kagan, J., & Saudino, J. (2001). Behavioral inhibition and related temperaments, In J. K. Hewitt & R. N. Emde (Eds.), Infancy to early childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on developmental change (pp.111-119). London: Oxford University Press. Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008-1024. Lamborn, S.D., Mounts, N.S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
25
Levy, A. K., Wolfgang, C. H., & Koorland, M. A. (1992). Sociodramatic play as a method for enhancing the language performance of kindergarten age students. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 245-262. Lloyd, B., & Howe, N. (2003). Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 22-41. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mills, R. S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Are behavioural and psychological control both differentially associated with childhood aggression and social withdrawal? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30, 132-136. Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers' social coaching, mother-child relationship style, and children's peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 12-332. Parten, M.B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 27, 243-269. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe: Free Press. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Porges, S. W., & Doussard-Roosevelt, J .A. (1997). Early physiological patterns and later behavior. In M. D. Franzen & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Biological and neuropsychological mechanisms: Life-span developmental psychology (pp.163-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Sroufe, L.A., & Mangelsdorf, S. (1989). Early childhood antecedents of aggression and passive withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of Personality, 57, 257-281.
26
Rose-Krasner, Rubin, Booth, & Coplan (1996). The relation of maternal directiveness and child attachment security to social competence in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 309-325. Rubin, K.H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53, 651-657. Rubin, K.H. (1985). Socially withdrawn children: An "at risk" population. In B.H. Schneider, K.H. Rubin, & J.E. Ledingham (Eds.), Peer relations and social skills in childhood: Issues in assessment and training (pp.125-139). New York: Springer-Verlag. Rubin, K.H. (1993). The Waterloo Longitudinal Project: Correlates and consequences of social withdrawal from childhood to adolescence. In K. H. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 291-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Rubin, K. H. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (POS). University of Waterloo. Rubin, K. H., & Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood: Conceptual and definitional issues. In J. B. Asendorpf & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp.3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rubin, K.H., & Both, L. (1989). Iris pigmentation and sociability in childhood: A reexamination. Developmental Psychology, 22, 717-726. Rubin, K. H., Booth, C., Rose-Krasner, L. & Mills, R. S. L. (1995). Social relationships and social skills: A conceptual and empirical analysis. In S. Shulman (Ed.) Close relationships and socioemotional development (pp.63-94). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
27
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Ed. In chief) & N. Eisenberg, (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol 3. Social, Emotional and Personality Development (5th ed., pp. 619700). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Rubin, K. H., & Burgess, K. B. (2002). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1 Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp.383-418). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and social-behavioral consequences of toddlers’ inhibited temperament and parenting behaviors. Child Development, 73, 483-495. Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. L. (2003). Social withdrawal in childhood. In R. A. Barkley & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Child psychopathology (2nd ed., pp.372406). New York: Guilford Press. Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Fox, N. (2001). Emotion regulation, parenting and display of social reticence in preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 12, 97-115. Rubin, K.H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). Socioemotional characteristics of withdrawn and aggressive children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518-534. Rubin, K.H., Chen, X., McDougal, P., Bowker, A., & McKinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo Longitudinal Project: Predicting internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 751-764. Rubin, K.H., Coplan, R.J., Chen, X., Buskirk, A., & Wojslawowicz, J. (in press). Peer relationships in childhood. In M. Bornstein & M. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (5th ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
28
Rubin, K.H., Coplan, R.J., Fox, N.A., & Calkins, S.D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and preschoolers' social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 49-62. Rubin, K.H., Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 4. Socialization, personality, and social development. New York: Wiley. Rubin, K.H., Hymel, S., & Mills, R.S.L. (1989). Sociability and social withdrawal in childhood: Stability and outcomes. Journal of Personality, 57, 238-255. Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., Mills, R. S. L., & Rose-Krasner, L. (1991). Rubin, K. H., & Lollis, S. P. (1988). Origins and consequences of social withdrawal. In R. Nezworski & J. Belsky (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp.219-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle- and lower-class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47, 414-419. Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. (1991). Conceptualizing developmental pathways to internalizing disorders in childhood. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 23, 300317. Rubin, K. H., Nelson, L. J., Hastings, P., & Asendorpf, J. (1999). Transaction between parents’ perceptions of their children’s shyness and their parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 937-957. Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1978). Free-play behaviors in preschool and kindergarten children. Child Development, 49, 534-536. Sanson, A., Hemphill, S. A., & Smart, D. (2004). Connections between temperament and social development: A review. Social Development, 13, 142-170.
29
Schmidt, L. A., Fox, N. A., Rubin, K. H., & Sternberg, E. M. (1997). Behavioral and neuroendocrine responses in shy children. Developmental Psychobiololy, 30, 127-140. Schmidt, L. A., & Schulkin, J. (1999). Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press. Schwebel, D. C., Rosen, C. S., & Singer, J. L. (1999). Preschoolers' pretend play and theory of mind: The role of jointly constructed pretence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 333-348. Singer, J. L., & Lythcott, M. A. (2002). Fostering school achievement and creativity through sociodramatic play in the classroom. Research in the Schools, 9, 43-52. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Spangler, G., & Schieche, M. (1998). Emotional and adrenocortical responses of infants to the strange situation: The differential function of emotional expression. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 681-706. Spinrad, T.L., Eisenberg, N., Harris, E., Hanish, L., Fabes, R.A., Kupanoff, K., Ringwald, S., & Holmes, J. (2004). The relation of children’s everyday nonsocial peer play behavior to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 67–80. Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Heart rate as a convergent measure in clinical and developmental research. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 23, 3-27. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Verry, E.E. (1923). A study of mental and social attitudes in the free play of preschool children. Thesis for M.A. degree, State University of Iowa.
30
Sample of Play Observation Scale Coding Sheet Name of Child:_________________
Age___ Time Sample
:10
:20
:30
:40
:50
:60
uncodable_______________________________________________________________________ out of room_____________________________________________________________________ transitional_____________________________________________________________________ unoccupied______________________________________________________________________ onlooker_______________________________________________________________________ Solitary Behaviors: Occupied_________________________________________________________________ Constructive______________________________________________________________ Exploratory_______________________________________________________________ Functional________________________________________________________________ Dramatic_________________________________________________________________ Games___________________________________________________________________ Parallel Behaviors: Occupied________________________________________________________________ Constructive_____________________________________________________________ Exploratory______________________________________________________________ Functional_______________________________________________________________ Dramatic________________________________________________________________ Games__________________________________________________________________ Group Behaviors: Occupied_________________________________________________________________ Constructive______________________________________________________________ Exploratory_______________________________________________________________ Functional________________________________________________________________ Dramatic_________________________________________________________________ Games___________________________________________________________________ Peer Conversation__________________________________________________________________ Double Coded Behaviors: AnxiousBehaviors___________________________________________________________ Hovering__________________________________________________________________ Aggression________________________________________________________________ Rough-and-Tumble__________________________________________________________ Conversation/Interacting With: 1_______ 2_______ 3_______ 4________ 5_________ 6_________
