Imaginary Companions and Young Children's Coping and Competence

Abstract

Imaginary companions (ICs) are purported to bolster children's coping and self‐competence, but few studies address this claim. We expected that having/not having ICs would distinguish children's coping strategies and competence less than type of companion (i.e., personified object or invisible friend) or quality of child–IC relationship (i.e., egalitarian or hierarchical). We interviewed 72 three‐ to six‐year‐olds and their mothers about children's coping strategies and competence; teachers rated competence. Mothers reported ICs. IC presence and type did not differentiate coping strategies, but children with egalitarian relationships chose more constructive/prosocial coping strategies, and teachers rated them more socially competent than children with hierarchical child–IC relationships. Mothers related ICs to cognitive competence. Findings highlight (1) modest relations between imaginary relationships and coping/competence; (2) distinctions between mothers' perceptions and IC functions; and (3) that ICs parallel real relationships in that different dimensions (presence, type/identity, and relationship quality) might be unique contributors to children's socioemotional development.

Chinese children's imaginary companions: Relations with peer relationships and social competence

“…The nonsignificant results in social competence converge with earlier research. Gleason and Kaipidou () found that children with IFs and POs did not differ in coping and social competence. The consistency in these findings once again suggests that there may be even some similarities between IFs and POs and these similarities may possess some degree of cross‐cultural homogeneity.…”

“…These nonsignificant differences imply that IC types and relationship qualities may represent different dimensions of ICs under a collective cultural background. The nonsignificant data also converge with another recent study (Gleason & Kaipidou, ), which found no connection between IC types and relationship qualities in a western context. The consistency in these findings once again implies that IC type may be not a function of relationship quality (or vice versa; Gleason & Kaipidou, ).…”

“…The nonsignificant data also converge with another recent study (Gleason & Kaipidou, ), which found no connection between IC types and relationship qualities in a western context. The consistency in these findings once again implies that IC type may be not a function of relationship quality (or vice versa; Gleason & Kaipidou, ).…”

“…In terms of social competence, we replicated the former research findings that teachers perceived children with hierarchical IC relationships as less socially competent overall than those with egalitarian IC relationships (Gleason & Kaipidou, ). The consistency in these findings once again suggests that there may be some differences between egalitarian and hierarchical IC relationships with respect to the social processes they are related to.…”

“…Based on these findings, Gleason () hypothesized that children appear to conceptualize their ICs as relationship partners and ICs may enhance their social competence and peer relationships by providing extra opportunities for social rehearsals. However, Gleason's proposal received little support from the direct finding that children with and without ICs did not differ in terms of their acceptance by peers (Gleason, ) and teacher‐rated social competence (Gleason & Kaipidou, ).…”