Concepts of Real and Imaginary Friendships in Early Childhood

Abstract

This investigation focused on the friendship concepts of pre-school-aged children. Eighty-four 3-to 5-year-old children responded to questions about social provisions, or benefits of relationships, available from reciprocal friends (both children in a pair nominate each other as friends), unilateral friends (one child nominates the other), non-friends (neither child of a pair nominates the other), and imaginary friends ( for those who had them). Results indicated that reciprocal and imaginary friends were the best sources of social provisions, followed by unilateral friends and non-friends. Major implications are that children draw distinctions between reciprocal and unilateral friends based on the levels of social provisions available in these relationships, and that relationship schemas underlying relationships with imaginary companions may be akin to those for reciprocal friends. Children's friendship schemata may also differ by gender, as girls discriminated more than boys between reciprocal and unilateral friends for the social provision of companionship.

Imaginary Companions and Young Children's Coping and Competence

“…For instance, a younger IC that is needy or frightened might assist children in coping with anxiety and feelings of powerlessness (Hoff, 2004–2005; Sadeh, Hen‐Gal, & Tikotzky, ). Other ICs might provide practice in navigating challenging peer interactions (Gleason & Hohmann, ; Hoff, 2004–2005), and Taylor et al. () have suggested that children who create truculent ICs might be preoccupied by themes of misbehavior and punishment.…”

Children with Imaginary Companions Focus on Mental Characteristics When Describing Their Real‐Life Friends

“…Young children's tendency to invent imaginary companions is well known. An imaginary companion (IC) may be entirely invisible or embodied in a toy or object (so‐called personified objects), and as many as two‐thirds of children report the existence of an IC at some point in childhood (Carlson & Taylor, ; Fernyhough, Bland, Meins, & Coltheart, ; Gleason, ; Gleason & Hohmann, ; Taylor, Carlson, Maring, Gerow, & Charley, ).…”

“…Gleason, ; Gleason, Sebanc, & Hartup, ), and children appear to interact with ICs in similar ways to their interactions with real people (Gleason, ; Taylor, ). For example, Gleason and Hohmann () found that there were no differences in children's reported interactions with ICs or friends with whom the friendship was reciprocated. However, children reported that they were more likely to want to play with or tell a secret to their IC than to a real friend with whom the friendship was not reciprocated.…”

The pirate in the pump: children's views of objects as imaginary friends at the start of school

“…Thus, the literature does not often represent the views of children, in the way this study aims to. Even though more recent research has begun to explore the merits and benefits of object-friends as imaginary friends and question this negativity (Singer and Singer 1990;Gleason and Hohmann 2006;Taylor 2013, we suggest that an entirely different paradigm for understanding imaginary friends is called for. To repeat an earlier point: since embodiment studies is founded on a phenomenological research approach, in our view it fits a study that privileges children's views.…”