Pretend play and creativity in preschool-age children: Associations and brief intervention.

Fehr, Karla K.; Russ, Sandra W.

doi:10.1037/aca0000054

Cited by 42 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(106 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither children's copied nor novel object substitutions during the pretense experiment were related to divergent thinking, inhibitory control, the frequency of object substitution during free play, the frequency of autosymbolic play during free play, nor age, although they did correlate with each other. These results contradict previous literature reporting a relationship between pretend play and divergent thinking (e.g., Delvecchio, et al, 1 2016;Fehr & Russ, 2016;Hoffman & Russ, 2016;Kaugars & Russ, 2009;Russ, et al, 1999; control (Kelly, et al, 2011). Instead, our results are consistent with Dansky's (1980) finding 4 that pretend play and divergent thinking are not necessarily related, and with Hopkins' and colleagues' (2016) findings that inhibitory control and object substitution are not necessarily related.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

“…Therefore, while children as a group produce novel acts in appropriate contexts significantly more often than they do in control contexts, these findings suggest that most children, as a group, may not actually be able to generate 1 novel non-literal acts. This is striking as one of the key tenets of pretend play is that it 2 supposed to be a creative act (e.g., Fehr & Russ, 2016;Harris & Kavanaugh, 1993;Hoffmann 3 & Russ, 2016;Russ, et al, 1999;Wallace & Russ, 2015;Wyman, et al, 2009). Instead, ours 4 and other research suggests that pretend play may be primarily imitative in nature, at least for 5 children 3 years and under, which fits well with research suggesting pretend play has a 6 normative function (Hoicka & Martin, 2016;Rakoczy, 2008;Wyman, et al, 2009).…”

Section: Generating Novel Object Substitutionssupporting

confidence: 69%

“…We investigated whether divergent thinking and inhibitory control might underpin children's novel object substitutions. Pretend play in naturalistic settings correlates with divergent thinking in children 4 years and older (e.g., Delvecchio, Li, Pazzagli, Lis, & Mazzeschi, 2016;Fehr & Russ, 2016;Hoffman & Russ, 2016;Kaugars & Russ, 2009;Russ, et al, 1999;Wallace & Russ, 2015;Wyver & Spence, 1999). Similarly, inhibitory control is linked to structured pretend play using imitation and specific prompts in children 4 years and older (Kelly, Hammond, Dissanayake, & Ihsen, 2011), and 3-year-olds pretend more after engaging in inhibitory control tasks (Van Reet, 2015).…”

Section: Understanding Others' Intentions To Pretendmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Object substitution requires the ability to think of an alternative action or object to represent (divergent thinking), while at the same time inhibiting the original action one would do on or with that object (inhibitory control). Pretend play in naturalistic settings correlates with divergent thinking (e.g., Delvecchio, et al, 2016;Fehr & Russ, 2016;Hoffman & Russ, 2016;Kaugars & Russ, 2009;Russ, et al, 1999;Wallace & Russ, 2015;Wyver & Spence, 1999). Dansky (1980) also found that children who pretended regularly during free play produced more responses in a verbal divergent thinking task, but only when they engaged in free play immediately prior to the task.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Preschoolers understand and generate pretend actions using object substitution

Berg

Hoicka

2019

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

cannot be sure that children's pretense is in fact novel, or whether they simply copy or follows others' instructions. Some experimental work has attempted to capture children's novel pretense (Nielsen & Christie, 2008; Rakoczy, et al., 2004). However, we argue that what looked like novel pretense in these studies could be explained by deferred imitation. This is the first experiment to show preschoolers create their own novel object substitutions, without relying on deferred imitation. Generating Object Substitutions Pretend play differs from functional play as the actions performed during pretend play are technically incorrect (e.g., drinking from empty cup, talking to banana; Hoicka & Gattis, 2008; Hoicka, Jutsum, & Gattis, 2008; Hoicka & Martin, 2016). One form of pretend play, object substitution, requires temporarily suppressing the typical action for the object while performing an action that is typical for another object (e.g., pretending banana is phone; Tomasello, Striano, & Rochat, 1999). Naturalistic research suggests children perform object substitution during free play from 2 years (e.g., Belsky & Most, 1981; McCune-Nicolich, 1981). However, these studies do not provide information on the content of their play. Additionally, it is difficult to determine whether children's object substitutions are generated by children themselves, or whether they are copied from others (immediately after observation, or using deferred 1 imitation; see Hoicka & Akhtar, 2012). 2 Experimental research suggests 2-to 3-year-olds perform object substitutions (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Section: Generating Novel Object Substitutionssupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Understanding Others' Intentions To Pretendmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preschoolers understand and generate pretend actions using object substitution

Berg

Hoicka

2019

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to individual differences in subjective meaning, it would be interesting to further investigate how children's divergent thinking and creative abilities (particularly in narrative storytelling, see Fehr & Russ, 2016, for an example) influence their ratings of both abstract and representational artworks. Children who demonstrate higher levels of divergent thinking and creativity may be more likely to find subjective meaning in both kinds of artwork, but more specifically in abstract artwork through 'romancing' or invention of perceived recognizable content (Winner, 1981) or through the creation of narratives to explain the artwork in an attempt to impose meaning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared meaning in children’s evaluations of art: A computational analysis.

Schepman

Kirkham

Rodway

et al. 2018

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. (2018). Shared meaning in children's evaluations of art: A computational analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 12(4), 440-452. AbstractArt appreciation is often considered highly individual, but research has shown that there is also a shared element, which may be due to shared meanings and associations triggered by artworks. In the current analysis, we examined semantically based justifications given to aesthetic evaluations of abstract and representational artworks provided by 80 primary schoolchildren, aged 4, 5, 8, and 10 years. Using a computational semantic similarity analysis technique (UMBC Ebiquity), the authors found that children showed evidence for shared meaning in response to representational but not abstract art. The effect was present from age 4 through to age 10. In addition, it was found that the presence of semantic elements in the justifications boosted aesthetic appreciation, especially of abstract artworks. This suggests that individually constructed meaning is key to aesthetic appreciation and is, to an extent, independent from the meaning that might be assumed to be inherent in artworks, particularly if it is representational. The authors evaluate their findings in relation to aesthetic and developmental theories and make suggestions for future research. They argue that the current data, alongside calibrating analyses that apply their randomization and semantic analysis protocol to children's picture naming responses, further demonstrate the robustness of the computational semantic similarity analysis method, with great potential for further studies in semantic interpretation of art or other types of stimuli.

show abstract

Play Behaviors: Definition and Typology

Fehr¹,

Boog²,

Leraas³

2020

The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Play is a normative child behavior with defining characteristics. Specific subtypes of play are present from infancy throughout childhood, and include sensorimotor or exploratory play, functional play, constructive play, pretend play, and rough‐and‐tumble play. Play can also be categorized on the basis of the social aspects of the interaction, from solitary play to cooperative play with peers. A definition and an overview of the developmental correlates are provided for each type of play.

show abstract

Pretend play and creativity in preschool-age children: Associations and brief intervention.

Cited by 42 publications

References 47 publications

Preschoolers understand and generate pretend actions using object substitution

Preschoolers understand and generate pretend actions using object substitution

Shared meaning in children’s evaluations of art: A computational analysis.

Play Behaviors: Definition and Typology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About