Poster #221 - Affordances of Real Friends and Imaginary Companions in Early Childhood

• In Event: 2-163 - Poster Session 08
  In Poster Session: PS 08 Section - Social Relationships

Integrative Statement

Imaginary companions (ICs), including invisible friends (IFs) and personified objects (POs; e.g., animated stuffed animals), provide relationships for young children (Gleason, 2002). Although the developmental influence of ICs is likely less than that of real relationships, the fact that children consider ICs important (Mauro, 1991) suggests that they play a significant role in children’s social networks. To investigate the affordances of imaginary versus real relationships, we interviewed 83 preschool children (M = 4.43 years; SD = .66) either about ICs (n = 41; 19 POs, 22 IFs) or best friends (BFs; n = 42). Children explained why they and ICs/BFs became friends, what they liked/disliked about them, what activities they engaged in together and the affordances of these relationships.

Children’s responses to why they became friends with and what they liked about their IFs/POs/BFs were coded on Likert scales according to depth of content (1 = no reason, 3 = activities/shared preferences, 5 = emotional connection). Groups did not differ on the former, but did on the latter, Chisq(2) = 7.04, p = .030. BFs mean rank score (41.57) was significantly deeper than POs (25.84), p = .027 (Bonferroni adjusted), but IFs (34.38) did not differ from either group. Reasons for disliking (i.e., nothing, physical characteristics, general misbehavior, transgressions against others) differed by group, Chisq(6) = 21.82, p = .001. More children with POs (22.2%) endorsed physical characteristics (0.0% for IF/BFs), and more children with IFs endorsed general misbehavior (50%; POs: 16.7%; BFs: 30.6%) and transgressions against others (20%; 5.6% for POs/BFs).

Two multinomial logistic regressions predicted group membership using a) activities (daily routines, pretend play, and amount of play) and b) relationship affordances (relative power, nurturance, and expertise). Both models were significant (see Tables 1 and 2). For activities, coefficients indicated that compared to children with BFs, children with ICs were more likely to engage in daily routines, and those with POs were less likely to engage in pretense. For relationship affordances, children with ICs were less likely to attribute power to their partners but more likely to attribute expertise to friends. Children with IFs were also more likely to receive nurturance whereas children with POs nurtured them.

As these findings are the first to compare children’s reports of the affordances of real and imaginary relationships in early childhood, they suggest overlapping but differentiated functions for ICs and BFs in children’s social networks. IFs are conceptually similar to BFs in terms of play and liking. However, IFs are under the child’s control, yet have expertise and sometimes nurture the child. The higher rates of misbehavior and transgressions among IFs also afford opportunities for exploration of difficult behavior. For POs, the things children like/dislike about them are more concrete (e.g., physical characteristics) and include less misbehavior than for IFs/BFs, suggesting these relationships include less depth. Likewise, the greater caregiving and lower pretense associated with POs suggests a relationship partner like a baby or younger sibling. Overall, compared to BFs, IFs afford relationships with greater social variation and POs afford children superior competence.

Authors

• Tracy Gleason, Wellesley College
  Presenting Author

• Mona Husain Baloch, Wellesley College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Shaye Firmin, Wellesley College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Shruti Samala, Wellesley College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Rachel White, Hamilton College
  Non-Presenting Author