Citation
Imaginative play predisposition, playfulness, ideational fluency

Material Information

Title:
Imaginative play predisposition, playfulness, ideational fluency
Creator:
Depper, Devora Sue
Copyright Date:
1979
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Child psychology ( jstor )
Childrens games ( jstor )
Conceptualization ( jstor )
Dolls ( jstor )
Humans ( jstor )
Philosophical psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Spontaneity ( jstor )
Theater ( jstor )
Toys ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
05802085 ( OCLC )
AAK5892 ( LTUF )
0023103529 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


















IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAYFULNESS,
IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEIR RELATIONSHIPS
IN KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN











BY
DEVORA SUE DEPPER



















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1979

































Copyright 1979

By

Devora Sue Depper














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research would not have been possible without the

support and guidance of many individuals. My doctoral com-

mittee provided both guidance in experimental rigor as

well as personal support. Of particular note was my chair

Jacquelin Goldman whose personal investment in my work has

provided a significant enhancement of my professional de-

velopment. In addition the gentle wisdom and loving sup-

port of Benjamen Barger has been unwavering throughout my

graduate training. I would also like to thank the teachers

and administration of P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. With-

out their cooperation this study would not have been pos-

sible. Finally, the immeasurable support and love of my

family and friends enabled me to maintain my own playful-

ness throughout this research.


iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . .

ABSTRACT . . . . . .

CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL PERSPEC-
TIVE ON THEORIES OF PLAY . .

Classical Theories . . .
Recent Theories . . .

IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAY-
FULNESS, AND IDEATIONAL FLUENCY:
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS AND EXPERI-
MENTAL DATA BASE . . .

Relationship of Play to Psychopathology
Antecedents to Imaginative Play .
Relationship of Play Behavior and
Playfulness . . . .
Hypotheses . . . .


METHODS OF PRESENT STUDY


Selection of the Population . .
Subjects . . . .
Procedure . . . .
Means of Evaluation . . .
Validation and Reliability of the
Tests . . . .
Data on Validity from the Literature
Data on Reliability from the
Literature . . . .
The Playfulness Scale . .
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Measuring Imaginative Play Predisposi-
tion . . . .


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . .
Inter-rater Reliability . .
Hypotheses I and II . . .
Hypothesis III . . .
Hypothesis IV . . . .
Hypothesis V, VI and VII . .
Discussion . . . .


iii


ONE


TWO


2
S 5




16

19
S 20

25
32


THREE


S. 35
S. 35
S. 36
S. 36
S. 38

S. 40
41

S. 41
S. 42
43

. 44


FOUR


50
50
53
56
57
58
59













Page


APPENDICES


IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS:
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . .

IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: GUIDE
FOR SCORING . . .

PLAYFULNESS SCALE . .

IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION
INTERVIEW . . .

HOLTZMAN SCORING GUIDELINES


. 81


S 83


. 95


REFERENCES . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . .


103

110










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAYFULNESS,
IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEIR RELATIONSHIPS
IN KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN

BY

DEVORA SUE DEPPER

JUNE 1979

Chairman: Jacquelin Goldman, Ph.D.
Major Department: Psychology

Children's play behavior has been the focus of numer-

ous experimental studies and theoretical conceptualizations.

As a body of literature, however, it is markedly diverse

and without agreement as to what play behavior is or its

significance. This study examined three constructs: play-

fulness, imaginative play predisposition and ideational flu-

ency which have theoretically encompassed both the affec-

tive and cognitive functions of play behavior. This was

done in an effort to provide a more unified theoretical

conceptualization as well as an experimental data base for

developmental aspects of play behavior. In addition, an

extensive literature review of the theoretical literature

on play behavior was provided.

Seventy-nine kindergarten and first-grade white chil-

dren from five socioeconomic status backgrounds were stud-

ied in a semi-urban school. All children were of at least

normal intelligence and participating in the regular school









program. Playfulness, a multidimensional construct, was

examined utilizing a teacher rating scale developed by

Lieberman. This construct hypothesizes five qualitative

and quantitative dimensions of playfulness: physical spon-

taneity, social spontaneity, humor, manifest joy, and cog-

nitive spontaneity. Imaginative play predisposition, the

ability to interject an "as if" quality into play, was

measured utilizing Singer's interview technique as well

as the Holtzman Inkblot Test. Two different scoring tech-

niques were utilized for the Holtzman Inkblot Test in an

effort to further clarify the methodology necessary to

measure imaginative play predisposition in a younger popu-

lation. Ideational fluency was measured utilizing Lieber-

man's modification of Torrance's work. It was hypothesized

that these three constructs could be measured and repli-

cated on a sample of kindergarten and first grade children

from heterogeneous socioeconomic status backgrounds in a

semi-urban school. It was further hypothesized that there

would be positive interrelationships between these behav-

iors, as measured, providing the beginning of the data base

necessary for a more unitary theoretical conceptualization

of play.

Imaginative play predisposition was replicated on this

population with approximately 50% of the subjects demon-

strating high imaginative play predisposition and 50% dem-

onstrating low imaginative play predisposition. There were


vii









continued difficulties with the Holtzman Inkblot Test, as

an appropriate methodology for a younger population. The

evidence for ideational fluency was replicated on this pop-

ulation. The Playfulness Scale proved problematical in that

the reliability of the data is somewhat questionable. Sig-

nificant relationships were found between imaginative play

predisposition and cognitive spontaneity. The relationship

between imaginative play predisposition as measured by the

Singer interview plus the Holtzman movement score and the

quantitative index for cognitive spontaneity as measured

by the Lieberman rating scale was significant at the .005

level. Imaginative play predisposition as measured by the

Singer interview plus the Holtzman movement score and the

qualitative index for cognitive spontaneity as measured

by the Lieberman rating scale was significant at the .05

level. Imaginative play predisposition as measured by the

Singer interview plus the Holtzman movement plus human re-

sponse and the quantitative index for cognitive spontaneity

as measured by the Lieberman rating scale was related at

the .005 level of significance. Discussion provides clar-

ification of results, new methodological considerations, as

well as new directions for future research.


viii














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE ON THEORIES OF PLAY



Children's play has captured the interest of philos-

ophers, psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists.

As Plato is paraphrased by Erikson, the model of true play-

fulness is


in the need of all young creatures, animal and
human, to leap. To truly leap, you must learn
how to use the ground as a springboard and how
to land resiliently and safely. It means to
test the leeway allowed by given limits; to out-
do and yet not escape gravity. Thus, wherever
playfulness prevails there is always a surpriz-
ing element, surpassing mere repetition or
habituation and at its best suggesting some
virgin chance conquered.(Erikson, 1977, p. 17)


Despite a longstanding interest, a variety of theoretical

conceptualizations and numerous studies, there is little

agreement as to what play is, or the significance of this be-

havior. Weisler and McCall (1976) note that there is an

inflationary trend in the number of articles produced each

year but a recession in the real production of knowledge in

that area. They suggest that part of the difficulty lies

in the lack of a precise definition of play and the lack of

a comprehensive theory of play. This paper will first pro-

vide a historical perspective on the various trends in play

theory. Then two recent conceptualizations of play behavior,






2



Singer's (1968) construct of imaginative play and Lieber-

man's (1964) construct of playfulness will be discussed

in light of their usefulness for providing unity in the

area.

A brief look at various theoretical perspectives of

play is necessary at this point to provide a fuller per-

spective on psychological thinking regarding play behavior.

There have been numerous conceptualizations of play. Gil-

more (1966) divides these theories into two categories.

The classical theories, which are concerned with the ante-

cedents and purposes of play and not its content, comprise

the first group. The more recent theories concerned with

the form of play in relation to specifying its cause and

effects comprise the second group.



Classical Theories


Within the classical theories, Gilmore (1966) notes

that one of the oldest theoretical statements concerning

the significance of play is attributed to both Schiller

(1875) and Spencer (1873). This is the surplus energy

theory. This theory states that because the young are

taken care of by their parents, they have a surplus of

energy, as they do not expend energy for self-preservation.

This energy surplus is released through the exuberant ac-

tivities of play. The theory postulates two things: first,










there is a quantity of energy available to the organism;

and second, that there is a tendency to expend this energy

through play, although it is not necessary for the main-

tenance of a life balance (Gilmore, 1966). This theory

has been put forth by others. Gilmore (1966) notes Terman

(1932), Tinklepaugh (1942), and Alexander (1958).

A second classical theory of play is the relaxation

theory of play (Gilmore, 1966). Play activity is the prod-

uct of a deficit of energy, not a surplus. Lazarus (1883)

and Patrick (1916) are associated with this theory in which

play is seen as the method by which spent energy is replen-

ished (Gilmore, 1966). Gilmore explains that play is a

mode for dissipating the inhibition built up from fatigue

due to tasks that are new to the organism. It follows then

that most play would occur in childhood, as this is a time

for acquiring new skills. Play shows very little buildup

of inhibition because it reflects deep rooted race habits

(psychogenically acquired behaviors that are not new to the

organism) (Gilmore, 1966).

Theorists have also seen play as a form of instinctive

behavior (Gilmore, 1966). Britt and Janus (1941) and Beach

(1945) list approximately two dozen theorists who see play

as a form of instinctive behavior. Karl Groos (1898, 1908)

is one of these theorists whose theory is known as the pre-

exercise theory of play. In this theory play is the product

of emerging instincts. Play is the exercising of the










emerging instincts in preparation for their time of matura-

tion.

G. Stanley Hall (1906), a contemporary of Groos, put

forward his recapitulation theory of play. In this theory

the purpose of play is to rid the organism of unnecessary

instinctual skills which are the legacy of heredity. This

is in striking contrast to Groos' theory; rather than de-

veloping new instinctual skills play is now proposed to

eliminate primitive instinctual skills. Hall also postu-

lated stages of play. He was the first to do this, and

stated that each child passes through stages corresponding

to the cultural stages in the development of races (Gil-

more, 1966). Wundt (1913) was also a well-known recapitu-

lation theorist.

An interesting approach to play with an anthropological

bent came from Appleton (1910). Having contrasted play in

primitive societies and children she suggested that play

is a response to a generalized drive for growth in the or-

ganism. Rather than instinctual pre-exercise as suggested

by Groos, play is the expression of hunger within the or-

ganism for growth to the stage at which the instinct could

operate. Play, therefore, functions, as a facilitator for

skills necessary to the function of adult instincts. Since

the child wants mastery and "knows" that play is the method

to achieve it, he plays. Gilmore (1966) labels Appleton's

theory a growth theory of play.






5



The early 1900's also produced the ego expanding the-

ories of play. K. Lange (1901) and Claraparede (1911,

1934) are considered to be the first proponents of this per-

spective (Gilmore, 1966). Ego in these theories equates

with the reality mapping aspects of cognitive behavior.

Claraparede saw play as an exercising of the ego that

strengthened developing cognitive skills and facilitated

the emergence of new skills. Lange saw play as the process

for ego completion.



Recent Theories


The newer theories of play differ from the old in two

respects. First is the focus on explanations of play based

on dynamics of the individual personality, and the second

is the concern with explaining individual changes in play

behavior (Gilmore, 1966). Gilmore labels these the infan-

tile dynamics theories. Piagetian and psychoanalytic con-

cepts of play are the best known theories in this category.

Lewin (1935) and White (1959, 1964) also fit in this cate-

gory.

Lewin's position is not extensively elaborated. Play

occurs because of the unstructured lifespace of the child.

This results in a discrimination failure between what is

real and what is unreal. It is easy, therefore, for the

child to enter an unreal region where things are changeable

and arbitrary.










Piaget's theory of play is more comprehensive. Play

is a result of the child's cognitive structure. For Piaget,

play is the product of a stage of thinking through which

the child must pass in order to develop from an original

egocentric viewpoint to the adult's viewpoint (Gilmore,

1966). In order to understand Piaget's conceptualization

of play it is necessary to examine the process of cognitive

dynamics. Gilmore (1966) explicates this well. Every human

behavior within his environment has two discriminable as-

pects which are central to Piaget's theory. The first as-

pect is the organism recognizing, categorizing and utilizing

events in terms of previous knowledge. He "bends reality"

to conform to his habits, conventions and preferences. The

second is the individual's response to unique aspects of a

new situation which he incorporates to modify or to adjust

to this "new reality." These two aspects are always pres-

ent; one can, however, predominate over the other. Piaget

suggests that these two aspects of behavior come from dif-

ferent sources, appear at different times and develop at

different rates. It is this dynamic which leads to the

appearance of play in children.

Play is that behavior in which the aspect of adjusting

reality to fit one's concept of reality predominates. The

aspect of accommodating to things as they really are takes

a backseat. As this is an aspect of all behavior, all be-

havior has some play-like aspects. Behaviors are all more










or less playlike, with respect to coping with reality.

Play versus non-play behavior is not a relevant distinction.

Piaget outlines three categories of play: practice

play, symbolic play and "games with rules." Practice play

is evidenced in the infant as the repetitious performance

of any newly acquired ability. This will be performed in

a variety of contexts. All new objects the infant encoun-

ters are made to fit this pattern regardless of their ap-

propriateness. New learning does not take place. In addi-

tion, the infant evidences pleasure with this behavior.

Symbolic play has the characteristic of the child symboliz-

ing a behavior in a play. Gilmore (1966) cites the example

of a child putting a rag to sleep. The rag, treated as

though living, symbolizes to the child that which is salient

to him in the concept of sleep. "Games with rules" develop

later in life and the name is self-explanatory.

Piaget also draws a parallel between play and dream-

ing. As in play, concepts in dreams are modified to fit

existing emotions, often discounting obvious and logical

parameters.

Piaget also examined the development of play in the

child. The newborn infant has only limited reflex abilities

for processing his world cognitively, more specifically for

recognizing and incorporating his experiences or to allow

for uniqueness in his experiences. Postulated, however,

is a tendency in all organisms to make repeated contact










with a novel event. This tendency "forces" in the infant

new knowledge, change in habits and new distinctions re-

garding his environment. The infant becomes able to act

in a play-like manner as he becomes able to act by habit,

thereby reducing the number of unique aspects of a given

experience. The play potential is a given in the nature

of the child and his cognitive structure.

Play behavior is reduced in frequency as a function

of the child's experiences. As the child has more expe-

riences, he learns more improved and rational modes of en-

countering the unfamiliar environment. The child no longer

depends on partially appropriate (play-like) responses to

new situations. Adult mastery is hallmarked by the indi-

vidual's reduced need to mold reality to fit his state of

the moment.

Gilmore summarizes Piaget's position as follows:


Play is the behavior seen whenever there is a
prepondernace of that aspect of all behavior
that involves taking in, molding, and using
things, all in terms of one's current inclina-
tion and habit, without deference to any as-
pects of so behaving that might not "fit" in
some sense. Play can occur only insofar as be-
haviors are sophisticated enough to show dif-
ferentiation between the taking in aspect of
behavior that bends reality to fit the self;
and the self modifying aspects of behavior
that bend the self to fit reality. Play can
occur only insofar as there are many different
modes of thought and action into which reality
may be bent. Thus, it is that the newborn shows
no play, and that until middle childhood more
and more play is seen. Finally, play will not
occur insofar as more adaptive responses become











familiar and can be easily invented when
needed. Thus, it is that play is reduced
in prominence in late childhood.(Gilmore,
1966, p. 318)


Cause and effects of play are sharply distinguished

in Piaget's theory. There are two important products of

play. The first is joy or pleasure or some closely related

state. Play brings with it the "functional pleasure of

use" which is readily apparent in the infant engaged in

practice play. The second product of play is adaptive.

Play facilitates the retention of new abilities. What may

be lost through disuse is maintained as these new abili-

ties get more attention than "reality."

Piaget has also provided a system for categorizing

types of play behavior. Briefly, he has noted two cate-

gories which reduce unpleasantness for the child. The

first category is "compensatory combinations." This be-

havior "improves" reality through distortion to fit more

agreeably with the child's conceptualization. The second

category is "liquidating combinations," in which behavior

is freed from strong affect that initiated the play behav-

ior. An example Piaget notes is of his daughter. After

having been frightened by seeing a dead duck, the child

played at imitating the dead duck and made her dolls see

a dead duck without fear. This source of play is similar

to psychoanalytic conceptualization of play.










A psychoanalytic concept of play was first introduced

by Freud (1908, 1920, 1926) in regard to fantasy and repe-

tition behaviors. Gilmore (1966) states that Freud

thought of play as being closely related to fantasy behav-

ior; in fact he defined play as fantasy woven around real

objects (toys) as contrasted with pure fantasy, which is

daydreaming.

Two classes of wishes were distinguished by Freud,

either of which is necessary for play. The first category

consists of the wishes of a child to be grown up or in a

more fortunate position. The child fantasizes a condition

he wishes to exist, in accordance with his tendency to seek

immediate pleasure. Secondly, play arises from the ten-

dency to repeat any experience which has been too much for

him. In this the child wishes to take an active role in

painful situations he experienced passively. Erikson clar-

ifies this as follows:


Play often proves to be the infantile way of
thinking over difficult experiences and of re-
storing a sense of mastery, comparable to the
way in which we repeat, in ruminations and in
endless talk, in daydreams and in dreams during
sleep, experiences which have been too much for
us. (Erikson, 1959, p. 85)


A "sense of mastery" is the most frequently cited ef-

fect of play in psychoanalytic theory. This mastery feel-

ing is limited to play which reverses a painful experience.

Purely wish fulfillment play is pleasurable through the











reduction of psychic tensions. Waelder (1933) pointed out

that play can circumvent the action of the superego as well

as reality. Play makes it possible to achieve what is phys-

ically or morally impossible.

There have been some modifications of psychoanalytic

theory of play notable by Anna Freud (1936) and Erik Erik-

son (1937, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1959). Anna Freud suggests

that play may serve a defensive purpose as well as promot-

ing active coping behavior. In imitative play where the

imitated object is feared, there is a lessening of the fear

either of the object or what it represents. Erikison empha-

sizes the coping aspects of play (Gilmore, 1966). Erikson

(1950) states, The human animal not only plays most and

longest, it also remains ready to become deadly serious in

the most irrational contexts. Gilmore (1966) notes that

Erikson's concept of play disruption is perhaps his most

important contribution to play theory. Anxiety leads to

play but play can become stressful by mobilizing the anxiety

it is trying to process. This results in an abrupt stop in

play. Recently, Erikson (1977) has expanded play as a

model for understanding the ritualization of human experi-

ence.

In summary, psychoanalytic theory emphasizes the adap-

tive aspects of play behavior motivated by intrapsychic

dynamics of the individual. Freud discussed play behavior

within the framework of wish fulfillment. Here reality is










modified to satisfy the drive to reduce conflict. A. Freud

and Erikson further pointed out the adaptive aspects of mas-

tery in play. Erikson (1950) states that there is mastery

of reality through the creation of "model situations."

White (1959) has addressed mastery derived through play be-

havior which is not based in conflict.

White (1959) proposes that play behavior promotes a

general relationship of effectiveness which the child seeks

to maintain or to establish between himself and the environ-

ment. The control over animate and inanimate objects or

situations, especially those which cannot be affected in

reality, is the goal of "effectance." As the child matures,

the gap between what others do and what the child accom-

plishes is reduced. Play is motivated by the ego-competence

energy which is a drive for effectiveness. Play occurs be-

cause one feels inclined toward such behavior and finds it

naturally satisfying (feeling of efficacy). White states


Young animals and children do not explore be-
cause of a desire to practice useful skills
and prepare for future contingencies. They
play and explore because it is fun, because
there is something inherently satisfying about
it, not because it is going to have a value
in a future time.(White, 1964, p. 34)


Focusing on the more recent conceptualizations of play,

Gilmore's (1966) second category, play is conceptualized as

serving several functions in the child. Cognitive theorists

have emphasized the necessity for play in cognitive










development. Psychoanalytic theorists have focused on

its usefulness for intrapsychic development. White has

suggested that the motivation for and utility of play is

in a more general mastery over his world. Two recent the-

orists have also attempted to explicate the function of

play behavior.

Two new themes in the area of play are Singer's (1973)

conceptualization of imaginative play and Lieberman's

(1964) construct of playfulness. Both of these authors

are addressing common aspects of play behavior. Each has

articulated constructs which provide new information and

clarity regarding more specific aspects of behavior within

the general framework of play. By examining their similar-

ities, it may be possible to provide a more comprehensive

understanding of play behavior.

Singer (1973) defines imaginative play as the intro-

duction of an "as if" dimension to the individual's per-

ception of his experience. This is a modification of the

environment based on experience carried in memory with

early imagery. He notes that various other theorists

(Freud, 1929; Lewin, 1935; Luria, 1932) have noted this

transformation, postulating that this quality is fantasy

in the child and daydreaming in the adult. Singer further

articulates this play behavior as play which requires a

central generation of imagery and involves pretend elements,

i.e. changing of voices and roles, changes in time and










space. This definition of play is consonant with many pre-

viously postulated theoretical conceptualizations of play

(psychoanalytic: A. Freud, 1937; S. Freud, 1958,

1959; Erikson, 1950; Hartmann, 1958; Piaget, 1962; White,

1959, 1960, 1964).

Lieberman (1964, 1977) examines a core of personality

traits which she labels playfulness which can be seen as

an element in play, imagination, and creativity. She sug-

gests that there is a developmental continuity of playful-

ness as a behavior and that playfulness survives play and

becomes a personality trait of the individual. She notes

that playfulness is made up of spontaneity, manifest joy

and a sense of humor. Playfulness, then, can be seen in

the perspective of a qualitative aspect of play. Lieber-

man's work is also consonant with previous play theorists

(Huizinga, 1955; Piaget, 1932; White, 1959, 1960, 1964).

Each of these two theorists, Singer, and Lieberman,

is examining play behavior in an effort to provide a the-

oretical unity incorporating the cognitive and affective

dimensions of play. Singer (1966, 1973a) examines the play

behavior with respect to the child and hypothesizes the im-

plications of this play behavior with respect to personality

development and cognitive processes. Lieberman, on the

other hand, explores the personality trait of playfulness

which is theoretically based around imagination and play be-

havior (Lieberman, 1977). By examining the relationship






15



between these constructs and the cognitive component of

ideational fluency, it is hoped that this author may provide

further codification of our understanding of play behavior

and generate further unity within a comprehensive theory

of play.














CHAPTER II
IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAYFULNESS, AND
IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA BASE



The concept of imaginative play as defined by Singer

(1973) provides a unity of various theories of play.

Imaginative play is the ability to inject an "as if" or

make-believe component in play. We can conceptualize this

behavior as serving a variety of functions for the child.

The use of imagination and fantasy provide the child with

a tool to facilitate the organization of his world along

both cognitive and affective dimensions. Psychoanalytic

theorists have commented on the purpose of bending reality

to meet the individual's needs. Cognitive theorists have

articulated the process by which the child bends reality

in order to organize his world cognitively.

Freud discussed fantasy behavior within the framework

of wish fulfillment. Here reality is modified to satisfy

the drive to reduce conflict. A. Freud and Erikson pointed

out the adaptive aspects of mastery in play involving imag-

inative elements. Erikson (1950) points out that there is

a mastery of reality through the creation of "model situa-

tions" (imaginary situations). Hartmann (1958) stated that

fantasy is an autonomous ego function which is developed

without conflict. This expands the psychoanalytic










conceptualization of play and fits well with Singer's con-

ceptualization. Singer's (1966) construct of imaginative

play describes the process necessary to reduce conflict

(Freud) or to gain mastery (A. Freud, Erikson). Modifica-

tion of reality by injecting an "as if" or make-believe com-

ponent enables the child to reduce conflict. Singer (1966)

is defining the mechanism necessary to accomplish the func-

tion of play in psychoanalytic theory; that of bending

reality to reduce conflict.

Piaget's (1962) conceptualization of play as defined

by the process of assimilation neatly supports Singer's

theory. According to Piaget, play is not a behavior per se

but a process. Play is the assimilation of reality to the

ego. Play is distinguishable by a modification, varying

in degree of the conditions of equilibrium between reality

and the ego. The child utilizes assimilation in order to

respond to his environment with the schemata available at

a certain age. The introduction of make-believe elements

aids in the maintenance of his perceptions at equilibrium

or in balance with his world. Singer's (1966) construct of

imaginative play is for the most part equivalent to Piaget's

(1962) construct of symbolic play.

"Symbolic play, then, is only one form of thought linked

to all others by its mechanism, but having as its sole aim

satisfaction of the ego, i.e., individual truth as opposed

to collective and impersonal truth ..." (Piaget, 1962, p. 167).










Millar (1968) interprets aspects of play within a cognitive

framework as well. She hypothesizes that imaginative play

is an aspect of cognitive feedback processes which enable

the human to code and process incoming data. This is also

stated by Schachtel (1959). In examining the repetitive as-

pects of play, he notes that this repetition provides the

opportunity to integrate new information into a limited ex-

perience background. White (1960) expands on this theme of

cognitive mastery into other areas of behavior.

White (1960) places the child's play behavior within

the general developmental framework of striving for compe-

tence. The child utilizes play to expand his own capacities

within the limits of his capacities. This includes social

as well as, cognitive abilities. Tomkins (1962, 1963) ex-

pands the cognitive and affective components of play to note

that it is utilized to organize the child's experience along

both these dimensions. The peak of familiarity of material

yields joy and laughter (Singer, 1966; Tomkins, 1962).

Singer's (1966) construct of imaginative play effective-

ly provides a link between the affective and cognitive aspects

of play behavior described in psychoanalytic and cognitive

theories. It does so by providing the mechanism by which the

affective needs articulated in psychoanalytic theory are ac-

complished and by describing the same mechanism which cog-

nitive theorists have limited to information processing.

As White (1960) expands the function of play behavior into










the realm of competence, taking it beyond conflict reduc-

tion and cognitive processes, we can see that Singer's

(1966) construct neatly provides the appropriate mechanism

here as well. The child's affective development and cog-

nitive development are limited by his age, i.e., he has lim-

ited intrapsychic structure and cognitive schemata for pro-

cessing his world effectively. Imaginative play provides

a mechanism for expanding his competence, given these lim-

itations, to achieve mastery.



Relationship of Play to Psychopathology


Singer expands his theoretical work to postulate as-

pects of personality development. Corrigan (1960) states

that daydreaming can be useful as a coping mechanism. The

development of imagination and daydreaming may be associ-

ated with a pattern of development and personality organiza-

tion. This personality organization is one in which think-

ing is valued and affective control and motor control are

emphasized. Within this personality development Singer

(1973) addresses the issues of pathological development.

He suggests that the high fantasy oriented individual will

develop a more obsessive defense pattern. The low fantasy

individual, on the other hand, will develop a more hyster-

ical style, where defenses are primarily repression and de-

nial.











In essence Singer is proposing that those individuals

who have a high imaginative play predisposition will then

utilize this mechanism defensively to reduce conflict.

Again it becomes clear that Singer is describing an inter-

nal process which describes one form of defense mechanism

according to psychoanalytic theory. What he is proposing

is that what psychoanalytic theory describes in children

as play, wish fulfillment to reduce conflict, in adults

is transformed into an internal obsessive defensive pat-

tern. He goes one step further to propose that individuals

with a high imaginative predisposition evidenced in child-

hood as high frequency imaginative play behavior, are more

likely to utilize this process defensively thereby develop-

ing a more obsessive personality style.



Antecedents to Imaginative Play


Singer's (1973) first study of imaginative play pre-

disposition explored several variables: background vari-

ables of the child and his relationship to his parents,

waiting behavior, creativity and personality characteris-

tics. Singer hypothesized that imaginative play viewed as

a manifestation of cognitive and affective style might well

be associated with a pattern of development and personality

organization in which thinking is valued and affective and

motor control would be more emphasized. Contact with at










least one benign adult and the opportunity to be alone

were seen as necessary to increased imaginative play de-

velopment. In addition, from the perspective of psycho-

pathology, high fantasizers were expected to utilize de-

fenses associated with obsessional characteristics, while

low imaginative play children were expected to exhibit pat-

terns more like those of hysterical personalities with less

self-consciousness and greater use of the mechanisms of de-

nial and repression. Singer examined forty children between

the ages of 6 and 9 years, of middle SES backgrounds and of

somewhat above average intelligence. The results supported

several of the hypotheses and clearly pointed out differ-

ences between high and low imaginative play subjects. High

imaginative play subjects reported greater associations be-

tween their parents and themselves, were able to wait for

longer periods of time, had significantly higher ratings

for creativity in a storytelling task and showed more ob-

sessional defense mechanisms than low imaginative play sub-

jects.

Pulaski (1973) examined the effects of toy structure

on imaginative play. It was hypothesized that minimally

structured materials would stimulate more imaginative play

than highly structured materials. Subjects in this study

were kindergarten, first and second graders. Again this

sample was homogeneous: upper middle class children attend-

ing a private school. The results were quite interesting.










Minimally structured toys, for both low and high imaginative

play subjects yielded a greater variety of themes in play

than highly structured toys. High imaginative play chil-

dren played at a higher fantasy level than low imaginative

play subjects. High imaginative play children also became

more deeply absorbed in their play than did low imaginative

play subjects. High imaginative play children also appeared

to be more pleased and interested in their play than low

imaginative play subjects. In addition, high imaginative

play subjects showed a tendency to integrate more than one

category of toy in their play. High imaginative play sub-

jects also showed greater flexibility in coping with demands

upon their ability to produce fantasy. They also responded

less negatively to interruptions in their play. Overall,

it can be seen that there was a distinct difference between

low and high imaginative play children from equally priv-

ileged situations and with equally high intelligence. High

imaginative play children were more original, creative,

flexible and well integrated.

Biblow (1973) examined drive reduction and mood change

in the control of aggressive responses in high and low imag-

inative play subjects. Examining fifth grade white, middle

class children of average intelligence, he found that high

imaginative play subjects reduced aggression through the

use of fantasy. Biblow concludes that the spectrum of his

data supports that there are distinct differences between










high and low imaginative play subjects, both in behavioral

aggression and in all mood states.

Freyburg (1973) examined the possibility of increas-

ing imaginative play in urban disadvantaged kindergarteners.

Utilizing a public school, she found that after one month

of training, the experimental group improved significantly

in its use of imaginative play, as well as, in the expres-

sion of positive affect and increased concentration in play.

The control group remained unchanged. The changes in the

experimental group continued post-training, and were tested

during two months of post-training observations.

Gottlieb (1973) also explored the modifiability of

imaginative play. Noting the decrease of overt manifesta-

tions of make-believe between the ages of 6 or 7 and 12,

she chose to use two age groups as subjects: 10 to 12 and

12 1/2 to 14 years. She was interested in exploring the

difference in fantasy behavior at the two age levels, and

its modifiability given a high or low fantasy predisposi-

tion. She found that expression of fantasy was increased

for young children with exposure to an adult model. Junior

high school age subjects' responses were more directly re-

lated to their imaginative play predisposition, rather than

modeling effects, i.e., they responded more in terms of

their personality attributes. She concluded that imagin-

ative behavior increases with age and as such it can be

concluded that it is a skill that develops with










differentiation, that there are age trends in ability to

engage in fantasy and in the content of fantasy as well.

The evidence for imaginative play predisposition sup-

ports that there are differences between low and high fan-

tasy predisposed individuals, that there are overt behav-

ioral and personality differences. The behaviors related

to fantasy appear to be modifiable given different environ-

ment variables.

The above mentioned studies explore a variety of di-

rections regarding imaginative play. It is important at

this point to note, how if at all, they contribute to the

theoretical basis of play behavior. Singer's (1973) study

most directly explores theoretical concerns by addressing

the defensive patterns utilized by the high and low imag-

inative play predisposed children. His finding that high

imaginative play predisposed children utilize more obses-

sional defense mechanisms supports the hypothesis that this

imaginative process may be related to the obsessional de-

fense mechanism, which in turn leads to the development of

an obsessional personality style. The other issues he ad-

dresses regarding parent-child relationships, waiting be-

havior and creativity do not directly address theoretical

issues. Rather they provide information regarding behavior

to which imaginative play predisposition may be related.

Pulaski's (1973) study focuses more on description of

imaginative play in response to the stimulus of different









toys. This study describes differential behavioral re-

sponses to play materials rather than directly providing

support for theoretical questions.

Biblow's (1973) study, in contrast to Pulaski's (1973)

work, more directly explored theoretical issues. The

cathartic theory of aggression from a psychoanalytic basis

hypothesizes that fantasy operates to lower aggression.

His data supported that hypothesis by establishing that

high imaginative play subjects utilized fantasy to reduce

aggression. This provides data regarding the utility of

imaginative play as a mechanism to reduce conflict.

Freyburg (1973) and Gottlieb's (1973) works both exam-

ine the modifiability of imaginative play. Again as with

Pulaski's work, these studies provide information regarding

the parameters of imaginative play but little direct support

for theoretical conceptualization. Studies in imaginative

play to date have served two useful and complimentary func-

tions: empirical support for certain aspects of theoret-

ical conceptualizations and description of the parameters

of imaginative play.



Relationship of Play Behavior and Playfulness


Singer (1973) and Lieberman (1977) have both addressed

the tendency toward play in children. Singer (1973) sug-

gests that the tendency to engage in imaginative play, fan-

tasied role shifting or daydreaming may be looked upon as a










particular skill that can be developed in a given child as

a consequence of the interaction between constitutional

capacities with a particular set of early environmental cir-

cumstances that provide encouragement for practice. This

tendency or trait in the individual has been addressed by

Lieberman (1977) in her construct of playfulness.

Lieberman (1964, 1977) examines a core of personality

traits which she labels playfulness. Playfulness can be

seen as an element in play, imagination and creativity.

She postulates that there is a developmental continuity of

playfulness as a behavior and that playfulness survives

play and becomes a personality trait of the individual.

She notes that playfulness is made up of spontaneity, man-

ifest joy and a sense of humor. Playfulness can be seen in

the perspective of a qualitative aspect of play.

The theoretical underpinnings to Lieberman's (1964)

work are less clear cut than Singer's work. Essentially,

Lieberman's work attempts to address qualitative aspects

of behavior rather than a discrete behavioral process that

can be identified as evident or lacking. Playfulness is

descriptive of the content of play behavior, as opposed to

the structure of play, e.g., Singer (1973) imaginative play.

Theoretically it is unclear what function playfulness serves.

Playfulness is an expressive dimension of play behavior

rather than a mechanism of play behavior.










Qualitative aspects of play have received less atten-

tion in the psychological investigation of play. Huizinga

(1955) refers to the play spirit. Joy, fun, pretend, and

nonseriousness are key words in his conceptualization of

play. While the fun element is seen as the part of play

that resists logical analysis, it is at the same time re-

garded as characterizing the essence of play. Perhaps to

the extent that play behavior is more or less playful, i.e.,

has more or less spontaneity, joy and humor in it, it is

more closely related to the quintessence of play.

How an individual child plays in relation to environ-

ment incorporates theoretically the playful component of

play noted by Piaget (1932, 1962) and White (1960, 1964).

This is the enjoyment or pleasurable component of play

noted by Piaget (1962). White (1964) articulates this as

fun, the inherent satisfaction of play behavior. This is

a key aspect of how the clinician looks at play. It is the

deviation from the play spirit which is important.

Moustakas (1955) reports on play therapy with normal chil-

dren. He notes that these children are happy, often singing

and humming, and in their actions they are both more deci-

sive and spontaneous than disturbed children. Hartley,

Frank, and Goldenson (1952) found in nursery-school children

that well-adjusted children played as enthusiastically as

the troubled youngsters, but their delight in toys was

greater.










Developmental psychologists have also referred to the

qualitative aspects of play. For example, Piaget (1962)

distinguishes playful from imitative behavior and describes

it as a process whereby the child incorporates external ob-

jects into his own thought schemata in a joyful manner.

Hunt (1961) finds function pleasure in play as a quality

that frequently accompanies learning as a result of aimless

activity.

Playfulness emerged from observational studies of how

children play (Lieberman, 1977). In an effort to examine

theoretically complex behavior she defined operationally

playfulness as physical, social, and cognitive spontaneity,

manifest joy and sense of humor. Within the framework of

play, it was seen as a quality of play. These operational

definitions of the qualitative aspects of play represent

the first step in providing an adequate empirical investi-

gation of playfulness. It is readily apparent that the

theoretical underpinnings for the construct are more so-

phisticated than the operational definitions based on loose-

ly defined behavioral observations. The playfulness con-

struct is an ambitious attempt to operationalize the ex-

pressive content of play behavior. Both psychoanalytic

theory and cognitive theories have more directly addressed

the functional and structural aspects of play behavior

while alluding to the qualitative or expressive dimensions

of this behavior. What Lieberman (1964) is attempting to










provide is a perspective of the content of play behavior:

social, cognitive and affective. In light of this, how-

ever, this is the best methodological exploration to emerge

out of the theoretical speculation.

Lieberman (1964, 1977) has examined playfulness at

two age levels: kindergarteners and adolescents. The re-

search on kindergarteners investigated the relationship be-

tween playfulness and divergent thinking. Utilizing mid-

dle-class children attending private kindergartens, she

found that there was a unitary trait called playfulness

composed of five dimensions: physical, cognitive, and so-

cial spontaneity, manifest joy and a sense of humor. The

relationship between divergent thinking and playfulness was

not so clear. But a clear relationship between playfulness

and ideational fluency and spontaneous flexibility (two as-

pects of divergent thinking) was found. The strongest re-

lationship was between ideational fluency and playfulness.

The adolescent study looked at high school students,

noting that there is a resurgence of the joyful-spontaneity-

sense of humor syndrome during adolescence and that this be-

havior syndrome is related to cognitive style (Lieberman,

1977). Preliminary results yield a more complex picture

for adolescents than kindergarteners. It is not clear

whether or not there is a "pure" playfulness factor for

adolescents. The research was conducted in a classroom be-

havior of intellectual commitment which is not consonant










with the bubbling effervescence of playfulness. Some pre-

liminary work is currently being done on a college age

population.

From the work of Singer (1973) and others (Biblow,

1973; Freyburg, 1973; Gottlieb, 1973; Pulaski, 1973) there

appears to be evidence for high and low imaginative play

predisposed individuals. In addition, the work of Lieber-

man (1964) provides evidence for a playfulness trait in

children. In order to further describe these behavioral

traits it is necessary to expand the existing data base,

i.e., to replicate the findings on a broader data base as

well as explore the relationships between these traits.

The present study explores the relationships between

imaginative play, playfulness, and ideational fluency.

Ideational fluency was chosen as an effort to replicate

Lieberman's (1964) findings and to provide further data as

to the structure of the cognitive aspect of imaginative

play.

Qualities frequently noted in children's play are its

imaginative scope and creative power (Lieberman, 1964).

There has been, however, little research done on young chil-

dren in regard to this creativity. In their initial work on

creative thinking in adults, Guilford et al. (1951) hypoth-

esized eight abilities that might "discover the individual

who is potentially creative." Among these eight was idea-

tional fluency. This is the calling up of ideas in










situations demanding relatively little restriction, the

difference in scores being more a function of the number

of ideas produced than the quality, degree of appropriate-

ness, or the aptness of expression of the ideas (Guilford,

et al., 1956).

While Guilford was refining his factors looking at

adults, Torrance (1960) and his associates used his con-

ceptual framework and an adaptation of his tests to exam-

ine creative thinking in children. The Minnesota research

team was able to develop batteries of nonverbal and verbal

creative thinking tasks. One of the constructs which could

be meaningfully scored was ideational fluency. The purpose

behind these studies was to provide a description of and a

means of testing creative potential.

The present study grew out of several considerations.

There exists extensive and sophisticated theoretical formu-

lations regarding play behavior. The empirical support for

these theories is wide ranging, divergent, and methodolog-

ically poorly developed. Rather than develop new constructs

and instruments to measure them, it seemed more useful to

work with currently defined constructs which overlapped

theoretically. Relationships between playfulness and imag-

inative play predisposition would provide information re-

garding both the structure and the content of play behavior.

While recognizing the methodologies as first steps in oper-

ationalizing complex phenomena, working with these










methodologies to explore their utility is an appropriate

investigation. If in fact the constructs address similar

aspects of behavior, as their theoretical bases suggest,

then establishing empirical relationships could provide

new directions for empirical and theoretical work in play.

The evidence for playfulness, imaginative play predispo-

sition and ideational fluency has been limited to homogen-

eous samples: middle class urban children. In an effort

to expand this data base it seemed desirable to replicate

the data on a less homogeneous sample.



Hypotheses


Hypotheses 1 and 2

Based on both psychoanalytic and cognitive theoretical

conceptualizations of play behavior, Singer (1973) has op-

erationally defined imaginative play behavior as an aspect

of play behavior which encompasses the ability to inject an

"as if" component into play. Utilizing the methodology de-

veloped by Singer (1973), as well as the Holtzman Inkblot

Test It is hypothesized that the evidence for high and low

imaginative play predisposed individuals can be replicated

on an heterogeneous SES sample of kindergarten and first

grade children. It is further hypothesized that a more

appropriate scoring technique for the Holtzman Inkblot Test

utilizes Human plus Movement responses.










Hypothesis 3

Lieberman (1964) has operationally defined the con-

struct playfulness to address the qualitative aspects of

play behavior based on observations of children's behavior.

Utilizing the methodology developed by Lieberman (1964),

it is hypothesized that the evidence for a playfulness as-

pect of behavior can be replicated on a SES heterogeneous

sample of kindergarten and first grade children.


Hypothesis 4

Ideational Fluency, developed by Guilford (1951) as

an aspect of creative thinking in adults, was expanded on

by Torrance (1960) to explore creative thinking in chil-

dren. Utilizing Lieberman's (1964) methodology for kinder-

garten children, it is hypothesized that the evidence for

ideational fluency can be replicated on an heterogeneous

SES sample of kindergarten and first grade children.


Hypotheses 5 and 6

Given the theoretical overlap of imaginative play pre-

disposition and playfulness it is hypothesized that these

two constructs are highly related in kindergarten and first

grade children. High imaginative play predisposed children

likewise should demonstrate behavior rich in the quality

dimension of playfulness. It is further hypothesized that

the subcomponent of cognitive spontaneity in playfulness

will have the greatest relationship to imaginative play pre-

disposition, as it most directly examines imagination.






34



Hypothesis 7

In addition, it is hypothesized that ideational flu-

ency is related to both playfulness and imaginative play

predisposition in this sample of kindergarten and first

grade children.














CHAPTER III
METHODS OF PRESENT STUDY



Selection of the Population


The kindergarten-first grade classes of the P.K. Yonge

Laboratory School of the University of Florida were selected

for the study. Due to its relationship with the University

of Florida the students are accustomed to a variety of in-

terruptions in their normal school day whether it be for

experimental purposes or special observers or visitors. It

was felt, therefore, that there would be fewer effects in-

troduced by the experimental intervention per se as this

is seen as "normal" in this school. In addition, as the

school selects its population to reflect five SES levels of

the community and a heterogeneous population was desirable,

the population was ideal.

There were four combined kindergarten-first grade

classes. Arrangements were made with each of the four

teachers to gain her cooperation and interest in the study.

Essentially all the Caucasian students were utilized to

provide a balanced sample for sex and SES level.









Subjects


Eighty kindergarten and first grade children attending

the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School of the University of Flor-

ida were selected. There were 40 females and 40 males.

One male child moved during the data collection period re-

sulting in a total sample of 79, 40 female and 39 male. All

subjects were Caucasian and participating in the regular

class program.

The population attending P.K. Yonge School is drawn

equally from five SES levels in a semi-urban population.

The students are selected for P.I. Yonge Laboratory School

to reflect both the ethnic and SES composition of the com-

munity. The five SES levels are as follows: Level I in-

come--<$6,000, Level II--$6,000 $10,499, Level III--

$10,500 $14,499, Level IV--$15,000 $20,999, Level V--

$21,000+.

All subjects were of at least normal intelligence as

measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. The IQ

range was from 91 162, with the mean IQ 113.



Procedure


Thursday or Friday of the week prior to the data collec-

tion the experimenter visited the classroom for the day This

enabled the experimenters to become more familiar with the

classes' daily routine and physical layout. The experiment-

ers consisted of two senior undergraduate psychology majors










in addition to the primary investigator. The primary in-

vestigator collected data from two classrooms, the other

experimenters each collected data from one classroom.

Each of the four classrooms had one experimenter for

the period of one week. Each subject accompanied the ex-

perimenter to a small workroom adjacent to the classroom

for three separate testing sessions. Each session ranged

from 15-30 minutes. Each of the three sessions comprised

one aspect of the evaluation. The experimental condition

was broken down into three sessions to accommodate the

child's attention span. Session A consisted of the Pea-

body Picture Vocabulary Test; Session B consisted of the

ideational fluency tasks and the Imaginative Play Predis-

position Interview; Session C consisted of the Holtzman

Inkblot Test. The experimental tasks were presented to the

subject in a randomized sequence to account for order ef-

fects. All of the subjects in one classroom were processed

in one week, except for circumstances of school absence.

No two sets of evaluation instruments were administered in

one day.

Concurrent with the experimenter's data collection

from the students was data collection from the teachers.

Initially the primary investigator met with the teachers

to discuss the Playfulness Rating Scales, to explain the

instructions and to answer any questions. A copy of the

rating scale was left with the teachers. They were asked










to keep the rating scale in mind as they observed their

students for 2 weeks. A second session with the experi-

menter was held to further discuss the rating scale and to

answer questions. The teachers were then asked to rate the

children.



Means of Evaluation


Evaluation instruments for this study covered three

defined areas of inquiry: ideational fluency, playfulness

and imaginative play predisposition. In addition, a stan-

dardized picture vocabulary test was used to estimate in-

telligence.

Ideational fluency was examined utilizing two tasks:

(a) Product Improvement Task, and (b) The Monroe Language

Classification Test. A description of the tests is as fol-

lows. The Product Improvement Task is a two part test.

For Part I the subject was presented with a stuffed dog made

of brown plush material, approximately 7 inches long. The

dog had button eyes, a button black nose, a red tongue and

a red ribbon around its neck. The following instructions

were given:


Well, what have we here. It is a toy dog.
Now you tell me the most interesting, clev-
erest ways by which you can change this dog
(or: make him different) so that you and
other children would have more fun playing
with it. You just tell me how and I'll
write down your ideas.










The subject's responses were recorded for 1 minute 30 sec-

onds. For Part II the subject was presented with a cloth

doll, McCalls Pattern #5724. The doll was approximately

11 inches long with brown yarn hair and a blue denim shirt

and pants. The following instructions were given:

What else do we have here? It's a doll. Now
you go ahead and tell me the most interesting
and cleverest ways by which you can change
this doll so that it will be more fun to play
with.

The subject's responses were recorded for 1 minute 30 sec-

onds. See Appendix A for the tasks.

The Monroe Language Classification Test was a three

part test. The subject was given the following instruc-

tions: "Now this is the last thing we're going to do."

"Tell me all the animals you can think of as quickly as you

can." "Tell me all the things to eat you can think of."

"Tell me all the toys you can think of." Responses for

each category were recorded in a 1 minute 30 second time

block. See Appendix A for the tasks.

The Product Improvement task and the Monroe Language

Classification Test were developed and/or adapted by Lieber-

man (1964) in her work on divergent thinking in kindergarten

children. Ideational fluency, an aspect of divergent think-

ing, was selected to be examined in this study as it yielded

the results of greatest significance in her work. Lieber-

man (1964) utilized the following criteria for development

of her instruments: (a) applicability of existing tests,










or of specially constructed tests modeled after existing

tests, at the kindergarten level; (b) evidence for validity

and reliability of these tests from a pilot study for her

initial research project and from the existing literature.

Based on the work by Guilford (1951) and Torrance

(1960) on creative thinking and Gewirtz (1948) and Meyers

(1962) on verbal fluency in young children, Lieberman

(1964) developed the following tasks: Product Improvement,

Guilford's Plot Titles, and the Monroe Language Classifica-

tion Test. From the Monroe Test the objects selected were

Animals, Things to Eat, and Toys. The child was asked to

list as many as he could think of. The tasks are included

in Appendix A.



Validation and Reliability of the Tests


Lieberman's (1964) final selection of the tests was

made after a pilot study with 14 subjects attending a pri-

vate kindergarten in New York City. The age range was from

4-6 to 6-3 years, the average being 5-0 years. Meaningful

scores were obtained for ideational fluency from all three

tests. She noted that teacher conferences provided a pre-

liminary validity check since the children who scored high

on the divergent thinking factors were judged creative by

the teachers.

Lieberman developed a special scoring guide for the

ideational fluency tasks (1964). (See Appendix B.) As far










as possible, the rationale was modeled after existing tests

by Torrance and Guilford. The introduction of the new prod-

uct, namely the doll and the original text of the stories,

called for specific guidelines for the answers obtained.

Interscorer reliability for the divergent thinking scores

was established in the Lieberman study on a sample of 20

records. The Pearson r's were .99 for ideational fluency

on all three tasks.



Data on Validity from the Literature


The evidence about the tasks measuring ideational flu-

ency is as follows. (a) For Product Improvement Torrance

(1960) claimed face validity and gave scoring categories on

the basis of a sample of 146 elementary school children,

grades 1-6. (b) Analysis of the Monroe Language Classifi-

cation Test showed a factor loading of ideational fluency

(Meyers et al., 1962) and comparable tests of object naming

also showed loadings on ideational fluency (Bereiter, 1961;

Guilford & Christensen, 1956).



Data on Reliability from the Literature


For the Product Improvement Task Torrance (1960) men-

tioned the interchangeability of a toy monkey with the toy

dog and cited interscorer reliability in the .80's, hence

the selection of a dog in Lieberman (1964). Meyers et al.










(1962) reported a reliability of .62 based on intercorrela-

tions of the three parts for the Monroe Language Classifi-

cation Test (Animals, Toys, Things to Eat).



The Playfulness Scale


Playfulness was evaluated utilizing the Playfulness

Scale developed by Lieberman (1964). (See Appendix C.)

This scale consists of five subscales corresponding to the

five behavior traits of physical spontaneity, manifest joy,

sense of humor, social spontaneity, and cognitive spontane-

ity. Each scale is divided into an A and B part, referring

to the quantity and quality of the trait measured. These

subdivisions were made in order not to contaminate frequency

with degree or intensity of the trait measured. It was

found that the further refinement was considered helpful to

the raters (Lieberman, 1962). The division also indicated

no prior assumption that quantity and quality were related.

Ratings are made on a five point scale. Descriptive labels

for the points on the scale are given, as are sample behav-

ior items for each trait to be rated. The format of the

scale was modeled after Beller's (1955) instrument for as-

sessing dependence, independence and aggression in young

children through teacher ratings (Lieberman, 1964). As a

check on validity, Lieberman (1964) included two questions

not related to the behavior indices for playfulness. These










scales asked for an evaluation of the child's intelligence

and his physical attractiveness.

Reliability coefficients, obtained from the ratings of

the two teachers for the five traits and considered quali-

tatively and quantitatively, ranged with a Spearman-Brown

correction from .66 to .86 with a mean of .70 (Lieberman,

1964). Intercorrelations between the playfulness traits

ranged from .61 between sense of humor and physical spon-

taneity to .86 between manifest joy and cognitive spontane-

ity (Lieberman, 1964). When centroid factors were ex-

tracted, four of the five playfulness traits (cognitive

spontaneity, social spontaneity, manifest joy, sense of hu-

mor) had loadings in the middle .80's on the first factor.

Physical spontaneity had a loading of .78. Factors 2 and 3

accounted for little of the variance with factor loadings

ranging from .092 to .379. Lieberman (1964) concluded from

this that Playfulness could be conceptualized as a unitary

trait.



The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test


This test is an individual intelligence test for ages

2 1/2 to 18 years. It is designed to provide a well stan-

dardized estimate of a subject's verbal intelligence (Dunn,

1965). This test was chosen for its ease of administration

and previously noted appropriateness (Lieberman, 1964). As

an instrument using verbal stimuli and nonverbal responses,










it aims at an assessment of verbal comprehension and learned

information. It is, therefore, considered sufficiently dif-

ferent to provide some control measure for the scores on the

ideational fluency tasks (Lieberman, 1964). Also testing

time is short, which is an important consideration for use

with kindergarteners.

The test consists of 150 plates. Each plate has four

well drawn and unambiguous pictures from which the subject

is asked to choose one response to the examiner's question.

The subject need only point. The score is the number of

correct answers. The manual suggests starting points for

different age levels.

With respect to the difficulties experienced with mea-

sures of intelligence below age 6, the evidence cited for

validity and reliability can be considered satisfactory. A

correlation of .79 with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children has been obtained for a group of above average

elementary school children. Reliability coefficients are

given by age level and are .73 and .67 for ages 5 and 6,

respectively (Dunn, 1965).



Measuring Imaginative Play Predisposition


Singer (1973) notes that a major effort aimed at ar-

ticulating more precisely what goes into imaginative tenden-

cies in children and adults has grown out of the use of pro-

jective techniques. Projective techniques utilize the









the presentation of relatively ambiguous stimuli to indi-

viduals who are then required to tell stories about pic-

tures or to give associations to abstract inkblots, etc.

These ambiguous testing instruments were developed in an

effort to provide behavioral assessment of underlying in-

clinations. Singer (1968) views projective techniques as a

method to tap ongoing behavioral tendencies in the individ-

ual. The use of projective methods for studying imagination

has generally involved what the content reveals about spe-

cific conflict areas, as can be seen from the widespread

use of the Thematic Apperception Test or various forms of

association tests (Singer, 1973). A different approach has

developed using the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Rorschach

(1942) provided a major insight by noting that the tendency

to produce movement or color responses when looking at the

inkblots tapped not so much the specific content of con-

flicts or needs, but rather measured a broad trend toward

reliance on imagination or an open expression of emotional-

ity as a major tendency (Singer, 1973). Rorschach proposed

that all human experience could be measured along an intro-

version-extratension dimension and that the ratio of the

human movement (M) responses in inkblots to the color re-

sponses in producing associations was a fundamental way of

tapping this predisposition (Rorschach, 1942). On the whole,

there seems to be considerable support in research for at

least some aspects of Rorschach's interpretation of the









human movement responses as a measure of imaginativeness in

both children and adults (Singer, 1960, 1968, 1973). Singer

(1973) links the development of the human movement (M) re-

sponse to the internalization of speech in the form of

heightened imagery and fantasy. This provides the basis for

the choice of the inkblot method as one approach to estimat-

ing imaginative predisposition to play. Normative data with

the original set of Rorschach inkblots indicate that chil-

dren show relatively few such movement responses before the

age of 6 or 7 (Ames et al., 1974). It was necessary, then,

to find another technique appropriate to a younger popula-

tion. The Holtzman Inkblot Test (Holtzman, 1961), however,

provides useful norms on performance of children as young

as 5 years. The data from the Holtzman Inkblots strongly

support the importance of the movement response as an index

of ideational tendencies (Singer, 1973).

The Holtzman Inkblots were developed in an attempt to

provide a projective technique with psychometrically sound

scoring procedures for responses to inkblots while also pre-

serving the rich qualitative projective material of the

Rorschach (Holtzman et al., 1961). The Holtzman Inkblots

consist of 47 cards (45 are utilized in the score, 2 are

practice cards). The subject is required to provide one

response to each card. The cards are then scored, utilizing

a standard format. Various studies have examined the com-

parability of the Holtzman Inkblot responses and the










Rorschach Inkblot responses. Most of the recognized

Rorschach responses can be reproduced by configural scoring

utilizing the basic elements coded in the Holtzman technique

(Holtzman et al., 1961). Haggard, cited in Holtzman (Holtz-

man et al., 1961), utilizing multivariate analysis, found

significant correlations across eight scores in the responses

of high school students. Important to note is that the move-

ment response was one of the eight scores examined. Holtz-

man et al. (1961) conclude that these results indicate quite

conclusively that the Rorshach and Holtzman systems have a

great deal in common as far as the underlying meaning of

their respective variables is concerned. Holtzman et al.

(1961) provide an equivalency table for converting movement

(M) responses according to the Klopfer method of Rorschach

scores as Holtzman Inkblot scores of M>l plus H>1.

Biblow (1973) utilized the Holtzman Inkblots to deter-

mine imaginative predisposition with fifth grade children.

Utilizing the blots, fantasy level was determined upon the

basis of the score for movement responses to 20 selected

cards. Gottlieb (1973) also utilized the movement (M) score

on one-half of the Holtzman Inkblots, Form A, with elemen-

tary school and junior high school age children, as an as-

pect of imaginative predisposition evaluation.

The movement (M) response on the Holtzman blots is

scored for inanimate, as well as animate, movement.

Rorschach (1942), however, stated that movement (M)









responses applied only to human or animal (animate) move-

ment. In an effort to examine the introversive elements

articulated by Rorschach as related to imagination in the

individual, this study examines different combinations of

scores of the Holtzman blots: M scores alone and M>1 plus

H>l.

The odd-numbered cards, Form A, of the Holtzman Ink-

blots were used in this study. Odd-even reliability coef-

ficients for the procedure were sufficient to utilize one-

half of the instrument to allow for the kindergarteners'

limited attention span. The correlation coefficients for

each of the responses for the 5 year old population are as

follows: Movement (M) .80, Human (H) .79.

Singer has developed an interview for assessing imag-

inative play predisposition (Singer, 1973). (See Appendix

D.) He has noted that it is possible to get adequate data

from children as young as kindergarten age. The questions

are as follows: (a) What is your favorite game? What do

you like to play the most? (b) What game do you like to

play best when you are all alone? What do you like to do

best when you are all alone? (c) Do you ever have pictures

in your head? Do you ever see make-believe things with pic-

tures in your mind or think about them? What sort of

things? (d) Do you have a make-believe friend? Do you

have an animal or toy or make-believe person you talk to










or take along with you? Did you ever have one, even though

you don't any more?

The key in scoring these items has to do with the de-

gree to which the child's report indicates the introduction

of symbolic play or make-believe. The questionnaire was

scored on a five point scale (range 0 4 positive imagin-

ative responses). Singer (1973) notes that most children

do not receive a score higher than 2 or 3. He concludes

that scores of 0 1 indicate low imaginative play predis-

position, while scores of 2 or more indicate high imagina-

tive play predisposition.














CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION



Inter-rater Reliability


The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was scored accord-

ing to manual instructions, and the subjects received an IQ

score.

The Monroe Language Classification Test was scored

blind by three raters. Two raters were senior undergrad-

uate psychology majors; one rater was a first year graduate

student in clinical psychology. The raters participated in

a training session with the primary investigator. The rat-

ers then independently rated all the protocols. Inter-rater

reliability was established utilizing a Spearman Correla-

tion Coefficient. For the Monroe Language Classification

Test inter-rater reliability for the three raters was as

follows: r = .99, r = .97, r = .97.

The Imaginative Play Predisposition Interview responses

were scored blind following the same procedures as described

for the Monroe Language Classification Test. Inter-rater

reliability was established utilizing the Spearman Correla-

tion Coefficient. Inter-rater reliability for the Imagina-

tive Play Predisposition Interview was as follows: r = .80,

r = .83, r = .82.










The Product Improvement Task was rated by two senior

undergraduate psychology majors. The procedure for rating

was described above for the Monroe Language Classification

Test. Inter-rater reliability was established utilizing

the Spearman Correlation Coefficient. The inter-rater re-

liability was r = .96.

The Holtzman Inkblot Tests were scored by three ad-

vanced graduate students in clinical psychology who had ex-

perience in administering and scoring projective tests and

one less advanced graduate student in clinical psychology.

Each rater participated in a training session with the pri-

mary investigator to learn how to score the Holtzman blots

for human and movement responses. Each rater then scored

approximately 20 protocols (one rater scored 19). The pri-

mary investigator served as a standard with which the

raters' scores were compared for inter-rater reliability.

Four of the protocols were randomly selected for comparison

as follows. Each rater scored five protocols and one was

randomly selected for comparison prior to completing the

remaining protocols. The standard then independently rated

the target protocol. Differences in scoring were discussed

but the scoring was unchanged. This procedure was followed

until all the protocols were completed. A Tau B was uti-

lized for calculating inter-rater reliability. Reliabil-

ities were as follows:










Rater 1 Human Responses T = .94
Movement Responses T = .86

Rater 2 Human Responses T = .83
Movement Responses T = .99

Rater 3 Human Responses T = .72
Movement Responses T = .90

Rater 4 Human Responses T = .88
Movement Responses T = .93


It was hypothesized that there would be significant re-

lationships between imaginative play predisposition and

playfulness, with the relationship between the subitem cog-

nitive spontaneity and imaginative play predisposition as

most notable. In fact, the only relationships of signifi-

cance generated by the regression equations were between

cognitive spontaneity and imaginative play predisposition.

Imaginative play predisposition measured by the Singer in-

terview plus Holtzman movement score was significant at the

.005 level with the quantitative index for cognitive spon-

taneity. The slope of the regression was negative. Imag-

inative play predisposition as measured by the Singer inter-

view plus Holtzman movement response was significant at the

.05 level with the qualitative index for cognitive spontane-

ity. The slope of the regression was positive. Imaginative

play predisposition as measured by the Singer interview plus

the Holtzman movement plus human response was significantly

related to the quantitative index for playfulness. The

slope of the regression was negative.










There was no evidence for a significant relationship

between ideational fluency and playfulness.



Hypotheses I and II


Measuring Imaginative Play Predisposition

With respect to the interview task designed by Singer,

he suggests that frequency of high (2 or greater) and low

(0 1) imaginative play predisposition would be evenly

divided in a normal population. In this study the sample

was divided approximately in half (38 high, 49 low) with

the high imaginative play predisposition defined as a score

of 2 or greater and the low imaginative play predisposition

defined as a score of 0 or 1. (See Table 1 for distribu-

tion of scores.) Imaginative play predisposition was re-

lated to sex in this sample. Females scored higher than

males (F<.01).

Another question raised by this study was the appropri-

ate scoring technique for the Holtzman Inkblot Test. Spear-

man Correlation Coefficient for the relationship between the

movement responses alone and the combination human plus

movement responses was r = .78, suggesting that at this age

the responses are essentially the same. The relationship be-

tween the imaginative play predisposition and the Holtzman

movement responses was r = .14 and the imaginative play pre-

disposition and Holtzman human plus movement responses


I










R = .22; neither relationship was significant. This lack

of correlation suggests that the Imaginative Play Predis-

position Interview and the Holtzman Inkblot Test may still

be aspects of the complex phenomenon of imaginative play

predisposition but are clearly not measuring the same com-

ponents. For the purposes of this study both types of scor-

ing were examined in a linear regression model to examine

relationships between the Holtzman Inkblot score and the

other variables. Both movement and movement plus human re-

sponses were positively related to age: imaginative play

predisposition, movement alone: F<.O1; imaginative play

predisposition, movement plus human response: F<.005. This

would suggest that the older the child the higher the score

on the Holtzman task. This would confirm developmental

trends noted by Holtzman (cited in Hill, 1972). Others have

suggested (Ames et al., 1974) that this developmental trend

is evident in Rorschach movement (M) responses as well. This

introspective aspect of development does perhaps develop

over time. When the interview score and the Holtzman Ink-

blot score were combined it also reflected the relationship

to age: imaginative play predisposition, Holtzman movement

along/age: F<.005; imaginative play predisposition, Holtz-

man movement plus human response/age: F<.001. This may

suggest that the age effect in the Holtzman score is so

strong that the combined imaginative play predisposition is

age related. Imaginative Play Predisposition scores without


I










the Holtzman component were not age related. Singer (1966),

however, suggests that this trait is not age related but

rather is a quantifiable entity within an individual, which

may show development over time but should not directly be

affected by age. This raises some interesting questions.

If indeed, as Singer suggests, there is an imaginative play

predisposition and it can be measured by his interview task

without age demonstrating a clear relationship then the

utility of including the Holtzman measure with its strong

relationship to age is questionable. It would seem that

adding this measure, although hypothesized theoretically as

a component of imaginative play predisposition, is so af-

fected by developmental trends as to perhaps eliminate or

confound the true imaginative play predisposition. On the

other hand one could question whether or not this is an

artifact of the age range examined. The frequency of move-

ment (M) responses shows more marked change in these years

than at other ages. In Holtzman's normative data cited in

Hill (1972), 5 year olds at the 48th percentile generated

a raw score of 9; first graders at the 50th percentile gen-

erated a raw score of 14. Norms on fourth graders reflected

a raw score of 24 at the 50th percentile which was equiva-

lent to percentile norms for the average adult population.

This could indicate that the Holtzman Inkblot Test for a

younger population is too heavily affected by developmental

trends to serve as an adequate measure of imaginative play










predisposition for these early years. The Holtzman task,

however, was selected as it seemed more appropriate than a

Rorschach at these early years. A more suitable method of

examining imaginative play predisposition needs to be de-

veloped for these early years.



Hypothesis III


Measuring Playfulness

Lieberman's (1964) scale measures five separate aspects

of playfulness on both a quality and quantity dimension.

Each subdivision--physical spontaneity, manifest joy, social

spontaneity, cognitive spontaneity--can receive a rating

from 1 to 5 for each (quality, quantity). A child's com-

bined quality of playfulness score, therefore, has the range

of 5 25. A child's combined quantity of playfulness score

has the range of 10 50 (quality + quantity). In this

sample the playfulness scores did not distribute themselves

adequately over the range to reflect both high and low play-

fulness scores. Over 50% (n=58) received scores of 36 or

greater. As can be seen in Table 3 the sample reflected al-

most no children with low playfulness scores. When the

scores were broken down by SES levels (see Table 4) it can

be seen that this trend was evident in all SES levels.

The finding of high playfulness scores raises some in-

teresting questions. Utilizing Lieberman's instrument it

is evident that Lieberman's (1964) results were replicated.










As Lieberman's (1964) sample also reflected a high playful-

ness bias. The teachers were able, in rating the children,

to utilize all five points on each of the subdivisions (some

students did receive scores less than 3); however, the ma-

jority of students received scores of 3 or greater on all

the subdivisions. Two of the teachers were able to utilize

all five points on the Lieberman scale. The remaining two

teachers utilized four out of the five points on the Lieber-

man scale. Tables 5-8 illustrate the four teachers' ratings.

The playfulness rating scale requires further examination

on more samples of children before playfulness as a con-

struct can be further explored.



Hypothesis IV


Measuring Ideational Fluency

Scores were obtained in a distribution which ranged

from low to high for ideational fluency. The point range,

however, was so limited as to raise questions as to the

utility of the methodology for further research. With a

range of scores found in this population from 1 to 38, over

50% of the population (n=44) scored in the middle range from

the scores of 16 25. With a restricted scoring range of

less than 40 points, a majority of scores within the range

of 9 points makes it difficult to utilize the instruments

as designed by Lieberman (1964). (See Table 9.) In order









to measure the construct of ideational fluency more effec-

tively tasks need to be designed which better discriminate

between the high and low dimensions of ideational fluency.



Hypothesis V, VI and VII


It was proposed that given the possibility of measur-

ing the three constructs adequately ideationall fluency,

imaginative play predisposition, playfulness) comparisons

between scores on each of the three would yield significant

relationships. It was suggested that high scores on playful-

ness would be related to high scores on imaginative play

predisposition and ideational fluency. This was suggested

given the theoretical underpinnings of the constructs. Due

to the limited range of scores on the ideational fluency

instruments and the difficulty in establishing any subjects

in the low range of playfulness, regression functions gen-

erated few significant relationships between imaginative

play predisposition, playfulness and ideational fluency.

In order to further examine the lack of significant re-

lationships between imaginative play and playfulness, the

top twenty imaginative play scores and the lowest twenty

imaginative play scores were examined in relationship to

their corresponding playfulness scores (See Table 10 and

11). It was hoped that by examining this subsample of the

population some further information might be gained regard-

ing the relationship between imaginative play and










playfulness. The score utilized to determine imaginative

play was the combined interview and Holtzman movement plus

human response. A low imaginative play response was de-

fined as <4; a high imaginative play score was defined as

>17. Graphs were plotted comparing imaginative play to a

total playfulness score, a combined playfulness quantity

score, a combined playfulness quality score, as well as

each of the ten components of the combined scores. There

were no apparent differences in the distributions. In sum-

mary, the only significant relationships generated by the

regression equations were between imaginative play predis-

position and cognitive spontaneity.



Discussion


Extensive theoretical work and research in play behav-

ior in children has generated a vast and less than cohesive

body of literature. Although play behavior has aroused the

interest of many, there is neither a cohesive theory nor an

adequate methodology to tackle this complex behavior in

human children. One difficulty has been the fact that our

theorizing has extended beyond adequate empirical data to

support it. Another difficulty has been the diversity of

approaches to the problem. Investigators have tended to

follow their own isolated routes of inquiry without compar-

ing their work. Rather than being able to compare and con-

trast constructs, new ones are formed. This study attempted











to provide empirical data to support two current constructs

and theoretical perspectives within play behavior. Second,

it attempted to compare two different approaches to play

behavior in an effort to generate some unity in theoretical

conceptualization.

The first task, that of providing empirical support

to two current theoretical constructs in the current lit-

erature, met with variable outcome. Jerome Singer's (1973)

work on imaginative play predisposition is a relatively

recent contribution to theoretical conceptualization of

the role of imaginative play behavior in the development

of the individual. This study, by demonstrating that

imaginative play predisposition can be measured utilizing

Singer's interview technique in a SES heterogeneous pop-

ulation of kindergarten and first graders, yields greater

validity to the construct as well as reliability for the

instrument with this population. The questions raised

regarding the utility of the Holtzman Inkblot Test with

this population are equally important. Given the high

relationship between age/developmental factors and the

resultant Holtzman Inkblot scores, one is inclined to

doubt the utility of the instrument for this population

in studying imaginative play predisposition. Furthermore,

if imaginative play predisposition is a quasi-personality











trait or an aspect of personality development as Singer

postulates, then one is inclined to question the Holtzman

Inkblot Test as an instrument for measurement as it is so

effected by age.

A third question that should be raised is regarding the

developmental course of the imaginative play predisposi-

tion. Is the development so rapid during these years that

it is difficult to measure or is it truly a trait in the

individual or only an artifact of age or development. A

further question to be asked regarding methodology is that

if the Holtzman Inkblot Test and the Imaginative Play Pre-

disposition Interview are so poorly correlated can one

task be substituted for the other in inquiries with older

age children where the Imaginative Play Predisposition In-

terview is inappropriate. The above mentioned questions

underscore several needs in this area. First of all,

further work needs to explore the definition of the imag-

inative play predisposition in order to generate a more

appropriate methodology to examine it. Second, work in

defining imaginative play predisposition and its methodol-

ogy must be examined over more populations to provide a

firmer data base for the construct.

Although Lieberman's (1964) results regarding playful-

ness were essentially replicated, i.e., teachers rated children

as discriminable and in the upper range of playfulness, it










is not possible to conclude anything from those data. With-

out establishing validity, other than face validity, and re-

liability of the construct, it is difficult to conclude what

the playfulness scale actually measures. Playfulness as a

construct is theoretically interesting and potentially use-

ful. Intuitively it addresses many of the concerns raised

regarding play behavior by incorporating cognitive, social

and affective components. Before further empirical explora-

tion is possible, however, considerable basic methodolog-

ical research must take place in order to determine the

validity and reliability of the construct. One research pos-

sibility would be to utilize trained observational data on

children's play behavior with teachers' and/or other trained

observers ratings with the playfulness rating scales. Es-

tablishment of adequate validity and reliability of the

Playfulness scale would permit it to serve as an efficient

research tool.

The second problem attempted in this study, to compare

two aspects of play behavior in order to provide some unity

of theoretical conceptualization, yielded significant rela-

tionships which are intriguing. In turn these results raise

further questions. Given the limited utility of the Lieber-

man (1964) playfulness instrument caution must be used in

interpreting the results. In light of this caution, how-

ever, the relationships of significance were found between

imaginative play predisposition and the cognitive









spontaneity subset of playfulness. As the cognitive spon-

taneity dimension of playfulness most directly addresses

imaginative play, this may in fact be the only aspect of

playfulness which is related to Singer's (1973) imaginative

play predisposition. Of interest, however, was the fact

that the slope of the regressions for the relationship be-

tween frequency of cognitive spontaneity and imaginative

play were negative, whereas the slope of the regression

representing the relationship between the quality of cog-

nitive spontaneity and imaginative play was positive. One

might intuitively assume that the slopes would both be pos-

itive. The question on the Lieberman (1966) instrument for

measuring the quality of congitive spontaneity directly ad-

dresses the degree of imagination demonstrated by the child

in expressive and dramatic play. These significant relation-

ships indicate an important direction for further empirical

investigation.

An enormously frustrating task for the individual in-

terested in examining play behavior is the lack of an ade-

quate methodology for research. Although fascinating, play

behavior is complex. Theoretical conceptualization surround-

ing play is diverse and equally complex.

The limited significant results in this study raise

three basic questions. The first question is whether or not

measures of the constructs have any empirical relationship

to each other. The theoretical bases of the constructs










point to a relationship which was only minimally supported

by the data. The second question raised by the results of

this study is whether or not the constructs as defined are

adequate for further empirical work. The aforementioned

question is a methodological concern. The evidence for re-

liability and validity of the instruments currently assumed

to measure the constructs may be inadequate to make any

clear statements regarding the existence of the phenomena.

The third question raised regards the logical processes of

research: the inductive process vs. the deductive process.

There are two opposing schools of thought concerning

the most effective methods for integrating diverse data.

The deductive school states that theories should be formu-

lated first and then tested by experiment. The inductive

method is to experiment first and to let the theories emerge

from the data. The difference between the two schools is

not so much the presence or absence of theory in research,

but the way in which theory is developed.

The deductive method provides a certain elegance in re-

search by which comprehensive theories generate the defini-

tion of constructs. These constructs are then operationally

defined and reliable and valid instruments are developed to

measure observable behavior. Dataare gathered in an effort

to empirically support the theoretical postulates. The dif-

ficulty in this logical process is exemplified by the area

of play. Theoretical development has far surpassed










methodological development. In psychology where phenomena

are diverse and complex this presents a serious dilemma.

The current trend in psychological research is to narrow

one's focus to examine a small amount of relatively simple

data.

A second approach in current psychological research

is to utilize the inductive method. Sidman states: in-

tensive cultivation of an area of research by an alert ob-

server will inevitably bring out interrelations among the

phenomena comprising the area (Sidman, 1960, p. 15). In

this method a large number of experiments must be conducted

with the hypothesis that order will emerge. This requires

a basic faith in the orderliness of behavior.

The present research most closely followed the deduc-

tive method. Based on theoretical conceptualizations, re-

lationships between the constructs of imaginative play pre-

disposition, playfulness and ideational fluency were hypoth-

esized. Conclusions from the data are limited by the ab-

sence of careful methodological development. This can be

seen in the lack of clear operational definitions of the

constructs, and the absence of reliable and valid instru-

ments to measure observable behavior.

The course for future research can be guided by les-

sons from both the inductive and deductive methods of re-

search. Inductively more observational data need be col-

lected to generate the definition of play behavior and its










parameters. Deductively, the definitions of play behavior

need to be tested empirically in relationship to the exten-

sive theoretical literature existing regarding play. Re-

search should establish the reliability and validity of the

instruments presumed to measure behavior related to the con-

structs of imaginative play and playfulness. This could be

accomplished utilizing careful observational data on chil-

dren's play behavior.

Investigation of children's play behavior offers the

researcher the potential for greater understanding of de-

velopment: affective, cognitive, social and psychopatho-

logical. It is not surprising that play has captured the

interest of philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, as

well as psychologists. As with so many areas in psychology,

theoretical work reaches far beyond the data base. Each

empirical investigation provides a few small steps to close

that gap. Often of greater importance are the new questions

which are raised. This study although providing few an-

swers, clearly points to some important directions for fu-

ture research.






67








TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION
INVENTORY (SINGER) FREQUENCY OVER SES LEVELS


Imaginative SES Level
SES Level
Play
Predisposition
I II III IV V
Interview Score
**
0 1 (.07) 3 (.19) 2 (.13) 3 (.19) 3 (.17)

1 4 (.29) 7 (.44) 6 (.40) 5 (.31) 7 (.39)

2 5 (.36) 4 (.25) 4 (.27) 5 (.31) 4 (.22)

3 3 (.21) 1 (.06) 3 (.20) 1 (.06) 3 (.17)

4 1 (.07) 1 (.06) 0 2 (.13) 1 (.06)


Number of subjects.
Number of subjects.


**Percentage of N for each SES level.
















TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF COMBINED IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION
AND HOLTZMAN INKBLOT TEST SCORES OVER SES LEVELS


Combined SES Level
Score
I II III IV V

**
0 5 5 (.36) 3 (.19) 4 (.27) 4 (.25) 9 (.50)

6 10 4 (.29) 5 (.31) 5 (.33) 2 (.13) 3 (.17)

11 15 0 4 (.25) 2 (.13) 3 (.19) 3 (.17)

16 20 4 (.29) 2 (.13) 3 (.20) 4 (.25) 1 (.056)

>. 21 1 (.07) 2 (.13) 1 (.07) 2 (.13) 2 (.11)



Number of subjects.
**
Percentage of N for SES level.






69








TABLE 3
PLAYFULNESS SCORE FREQUENCIES




1 -5 0

6 10 0

11 15 1

16 20 2

21- 25 3

26 30 9

31- 35 6

36 40 25

41 45 26

46 50 7
















TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF PLAYFULNESS OVER SES LEVEL


SES Level
Playfulness SES Level
Score
I II III IV V


1-5 0 0 0 0 0

6 10 0 0 0 0 0

11 15 0 1 0 1 0

16 20 0 0 1 0 1

21 25 1 1 0 0 1

26 30 1 2 2 1 4

31 35 1 0 2 2 2

36 40 4 4 7 5 4

41 45 4 6 2 6 6

46 50 3 2 1 1 0






71








TABLE 5
TEACHER B PLAYFULNESS RATINGS

>4
>O >O +J > >1 >O
40 4J 4J 4J 4J 4J 4J
3 4 .-4 5 .4 H ) 4*4 a) -44
-4 a 4 0 ) > )
+j 4J 10 : 1 rA 4-)> *
5q B5 3f 3 5 4 3 3 d i 4 J
0 0 n3 >1 >1 u 0 u 0l ( d fO U O t3 o ro tr o r0
S5 o I 5 3 O 3 o
(n z i xi P4 cn 0 04 ffi Ol i 01u In oi

1 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

2 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4

3 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4

4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 3

5 5 5 4 3 3 2 4 4

6 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3

7 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 4

8 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 3

9 3 3 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 4

10 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 4

11 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 5

12 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 55

13 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 5

14 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5

15 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5

16 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 5

17 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5

18 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4

19 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4

20 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 54 5















TABLE 6
TEACHER A PLAYFULNESS RATINGS

>1 4-3 O > >1 > >1 >0
4J 4 1 .-4 45 40 4- 45-
-, 4 4- 4 -,4 -r -H
u 4 u -4 4 U 44 3 4 -4 4. 4J -4
) Q) -.4-3 4J -4 4J -i Cl CX 4 4J 4 -A (0 4J -) m ( -H 4 p .--V 4 .I
0 o> 0 M > o>o ) C rd Uo 0 reol 0 rd
0 0 03 0 0 0
00 U) (I O( Pa 4n O( -)m (31 U) (n (' U) m cq u cn 02 u U) cy

21 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5

22 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5

23 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 4

24 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4

25 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 4

26 4 2 5 5 3 2 4 3 5 5

27 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5

28 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

29 4 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4

30 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 4

31 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3

32 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

33 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4

34 3 4 3 3 3 2 5 5 5 5

35 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4

36 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5

37 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 3 4 4

38 3 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4

39 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 2 2

40 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5






73









TABLE 7
TEACHER C PLAYFULNESS RATINGS

>1 > 4-O >1 >0 >0 >O >0
VJ +J -.4 4J a a -P -
-H 4 .*r .r *H -, 01 -H
Hr-1 > ) >1 Q) >1 ) > > >
4i 4 4 j 4 M J
-A H4J- 4J -H-V -H C4 0 -I4-' 4 *H rd J -w 4-* 1 H 44-P -H
SS > o > 0 rd >1 0>3 rd 0 o 0 0 ( 0 p o0
05 0 4 : 0 l 0 3 3 3 0 3D4 3 0 2 0 4 3
SP4 U) (DI 0 U DI -D 04) (nl cx U) CN In M Cn9O Um Ol U CO


41 3 5 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 2

42 3 2 5 5 4 2 5 5 4 4

43 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 4

45 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2

46 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

47 4 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5

48 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

49 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2

50 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 4

51 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3

52 4 4 5 5 3 3 2 3 4 4

53 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5

54 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4

55 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 3

56 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

57 5 1 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5

58 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2

59 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 4 4

60 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 5 5






74







TABLE 8
TEACHER D PLAYFULNESS RATINGS



> .O >1 4C > > O >1 > O 0
61 5 5 4 4 444 5 5 3 4
62 5 *- ) -4 3 4 )
r)> HU H > >1 0) >1 0) > 0), >0 0
4-rl ( 4 >1 4 >, *, 4 '
63 4 3 u 5 4 3 l 4




)64 5 5 54J 4 r-l 43 4- 4 4 () -1 4- 4 3
65 5 5 5C n 3 3 4 q
> 0 > i0 O >1 M ) 0) 0 T ro tai 0 m






66 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 45 : 0 Q45
co z 1 I (D I cq yi oi c CX Ol En M Ol U) Mn Ol U co cy u U) CN

61 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 4

62 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 5

63 4 3 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 4

64 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 3

65 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 4

66 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5

67 5 3 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4

68 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4

69 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 3

70 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 3

71 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5

72 4 3 5 5 4 3 3 2 5 4

73 5 5 4 3 3 2 5 5 5 5

74 4 4 5 5 3 3 2 2 4 4

75 5 4 3 4 2 1 4 4

76 5 4 5 5 3 3 4 4 3 3

77 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4

78 5 5 3 4 3 2 5 5 3 2

79 3 3 4 5 3 3 2 2 4 4

80 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4
















TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION OF IDEATIONAL FLUENCY SCORES OVER SES LEVELS


Ideational SES Level
Fluency
Score I II III IV V








TABLE 9 (continued)


Ideational SES Level
Fluency
Score I II III IV V


29 0 1 0 1 3

30 0 2 2 3 2

15 2*(.14)** 2 (.13) 1 (.07) 3 (.19) 3 (.17)

16 25 9 (.64) 7 (.44) 11 (.73) 9 (.60) 9 (.50)

_ 26 3 (.21) 6 (.38) 3 (.20) 5 (.33) 7 (.39)


*Ideational Fluency scores.

**Percentage scores.
















0
u
CO
z
0
H
H
C-O
0
ao
H


04



1-

H

z
H

H












P4



E-4
U





Fl.

z
0
H
H
O

H
oI












H


m m m H o o 0 N -
n -f o n -i O -i i- o r^ r- ^


4uauDWAOW ueWZI-OH
snld MaTA-xa;UI
uOTqTsodSTPaId
ABTd DATqUTBEUII


4U@UIaAOW u2eIZ4TOH
snld MOTAla UI
UOTq TSOdSTpaad
APTd @ATqeuTBemI


MaTAa-JUI
UOTqTSOdSTpE.ld
A Td aATqPuT6PWjI




ApTd paTrrquloz


AkT -run o 0

AeTd pauTqcuo3o N N



APTd TO~1o V 0


A4TTn6 Aq-pTUP4



-uods aATqTU6OD


AqTTun en Taupe



-uods ieToos


AqTqupenb A4T au
-uods IeTOOS


,I In



re uIn


A4TUBn6 JOUInH
AqT4lenb ournH



A4Tlen6 Aop


A4Tquenb Aor In In


AqrT"en AqTaupq
-uods TeOTssAqd


AqTquen6 Aqzaueq
-uods ieOTsAqd




.aqumnN o aCqns (N m


0 0 H-l 0 %D


Cl C


rC Me 0
0 C( H1 H
m 0
Oc~rlI


m






m H




0 H
(N (N


H-I CO MN In ) O %0 Om
r- Cm r-i H- (N (N C( (N Cn C


o c0 -1 Lf (N4 rC O N rM
(N r- I C( H- N H- H- H- (- H-q



in 0 14 in mo 'D H-1 0 C O
(N (Nq N -4 (N -4 N (q N H-4



Ln 0 Lin 0 Ln CY 0) m Ln 0
m Cl m 'IT rM m m Cl m




IT r Ln In i In In (CN



Ln 1* In Cl n I' In U a In CN




ml m IT Cl I (N m l In Ln



In m In Ln C I t In m




,r in n ml Ln (N (N Cl r CN


Lnm c nnn Ln fn m c Ln r
I L U) InP l Cl nLn C


I in In In rn l In In Ln


In Cl In Cl r C In) In l



1 m I:T (N Ii r( (N C 'IV T N



In Cl In) ml IQ, l IQ












u,2wnH
UGUIG9AOW UPUIZ4TOH

Q snld MsTAJtSUI
Suoq-TsodsTpajld

AIed eATe~eTBuuI
0



0 UaurIAoW uet2uizOH
snld MATAJ-TIUI
S UOTSOdSTpBjd
c ATed ATWUT6eU15I

U)

uoTqTsOdsTp@Id

4 AP d ATqPUTfBrUII
-4
l

> Aed p:4UT UI0
4

SXA-4TTuen6

Aeld pUT-rqwlo

H
A-4

APe-d To40J.





-uodsg AT4TTuboD


l A4Tqiren n AqT7auep


U)
A -uods eAT TUE6o
0
t ATi[enQ A OTa ue

4 -uods TUrTOS


T>1 uen d TAT-0oS


a4 4TIn3 aomuinH


)T~un<5 -lourniH


AqTlpen6 Xof


^Tlnuenfl Aor


A-4TT-4nr ATauE.C
-uodS TPDTsAqd


4TxquPnN 3AqTaLeu
-uods POT sAqT




aquinN ooaCqns


.D m m

Hrl re) r 0 'a M H q


kD m
C') r
C'


Sm
w, m
Hl


,-I
ri
HJ


0 (N M CO <3


S0 H-4 n -H 0


H H-- N
,-1 1- CM


O' 0 HD M 0
(N (N (N (N


Cn H 'IV (N ,l ( N r-I CN
, (N H (N" rH- (N (q (N (N



S C) irn Ln (N (N N r- c
" CN N IT '



in (N in n' Z "



in IV N in 'T ^



" CN in -i iLn n i



S ,F m i (No in r in m L



Ln m m C) i n m(


in in n Ln H-4 in in i in


Ln min ) m Ln Lin Ln Ln



c( (N (N in H 'n in T



' IT n 'T H T in in in


r- co m n (r' m m n .o 0c
IzT fm i-n in W kD W

















0
U
u
U)
en
z


10
H
H
U)
O
U)
to
H




>4





H


H
U)
<
I--4











Ut
U)






U)




L)3
z
0
H

E













H
U)













0
U)













--4
2
















H














a
<


















UI)
a
H











U)
E3
Fti
r-
h

W >
^-1



H


mn ko
lm 0 Om
(N r4 (N ml


a
0



0



0
.H
co



0(



PI
,-y


C-

















H













>4
c,
r1
4t
ar















0





CO
r-l
1-1


''uauaAOW UeUzITOH
snld MaTAeJOUI

uoTTSodsTrpaOd

APTd OATPeuTbeuwI


quauIOAOW umeuz4OH
snTd MO TA.-auqI
UOT4TSOdSTpaOd
ApId eATqeuTfuWI


MOTA-Ta UI
UOT4TSOdSTpa-ld
APTd @ATPUT6)PUII




AITd pauTquwOD


A4T1uren6
AeTd p@urquTo3



A eTd Teo01L




A4T-[n6 A4TauE4
-uods OATqTUBOD


AcTqupn6 AiTaupq
-uodS eATqTUBOD


AqTTpen6 qTaupq
-uods TpToOS


ArTqupen6 AqTaup
-uods i-rTOOS


A4TI-nb iownH


AqTIuenO JounH





A-4T-ueno Aoo


A;TTpn6 ATaOUuq
-uods TLOTSAqd


A-T quenf A; TOauP
-uods I-[oTsAqd





xaqnmN qoaCqns


Cl

CO' 0) C
(Ni (N H-


Cl
n m M
sa~Cl
H N Hl

Cl l (


'.0
'.0
(N H H Cl


\O
'.0

r- r-



'.0
\D


rk r-1


O rN
CN (





(N (N


' oN o 0 T ( -N '), rl om CO co
(N H- r-H ( (N (N cN CN ( r-4 H-4



,: I C N N C r-4 r-4 K' -4 Ch 00C -
C(N (N CN (N N (N (N (N N r- r-H (



CO co H (CN rN Cl (N CO I CO kO O)





U) 41 rU) U m m ir U) Ln UzC Cl C'




Lin IT rl i LI LT ULI LI L n 't




Ln rNl m Cl LI Ln Ir Ln z T Cl LI




Ln m I: T LIn ^r I LI Ln U) LI




Lu m Ln C 'U' 1 rCl Ln LI I c(N (N


' 'I'l Ln 4 'j- "T I-T Ln LI Ln (N '

LI LI I Ln LI Ln Ln lr IQ, LI Ln


Ln Ln LI I'a Ln Ln 'IT 'IT Ln Ln



^ Cl '' LIn LIn l'I (N




LIn LI Ln LI LI L Cl n LI ff (N C Q





(N Q' Ln k.0 rN H Cl N N
r-H n LI i r-H r-I r-H -i HN C C


.D

CO N
H- H-


'.0
'.0



a, N
Hl H













ueuinH
q'UUIrAOW uUIZ4TOH
snTd MaTAqaeUI
uoTqTsodsTpazd

P Td OATU.UTb6uII


ueWumAOW uemzqIOH
snId MaTAa34UI
UOT4TSOdsTpapI
APTd DATPUT6&eUII


MaTAX@-aUI
uoT TsodsTpoaid
ABTad DAT-4UTEPUI


4qETPnO
4PId pauTquuoD


A^T^uen5
AeTd pauTquloD



ePTd TeqOL



AqTT12n5 AqTDup4
-uods aAT.TU603


A4T-4Xuen6 AqT3u2e-




A4TIpn6 AqTaueq
-uods TPTOOS



-uods TlTOOS


A-TTueno owmnH


AqTquen6 aouinH



AqTirenb Aor



A TTTen6 Aq oup3
-uods leoTsAqd


ATquden ATSra Ue
-uods TIOTsATId


0

0 M 4


nm

~~C



m

Ln~
M ( -4
m


0










Ln 0 n
in or-


"In 4 (N 00 0 orI r-4
H-i l -H (N H-q (N H- (N


In m
rH Hl


O') CN H- (N 0 CN
(N (N C4 (N (N


O C 00 0 IT o0 (N 0) (n
CN (N (N ^, C) n CT rn



(,) m m In T In C' 'a



m m c -4 in 11r Ln m Cn



(N (N r-i I m In 'T m



r nm IIZV m^ r Ln 'IT Irv



m C T om v (N (q In


m m m C In C') m In


(M (N In l C) Ln Ln


0n H I-A n I zr In In



SIn m N IMn m mn 1' T



C -) r- H In In Ln In In


0 o Ln 0 o ro o r-
L) Ln n qon In I I- r-N -


laquinN qoa~qns














APPENDIX A
IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE



Introduction


"I have some things here to do and I'd like you to help me

with them. I want to find out how boys and girls do these

things, and whether they have fun doing them. So, I'm

going to ask you and (mention playmates where indicated) to

do these with me."


Product Improvement (after E. Paul Torrance)

1. "Well, what have we here. It is a toy dog. Now

you tell me the most interesting, cleverest ways by which

you can change this dog (or: make him different) so that

you and other children would have more fun playing with it.

You just tell me how and I'll write down your ideas."

Record answers and comments on form.

Time: 1'30"

If subject obviously runs out of responses, note
time and go on to Part 2.

If subject can give no responses, skip Part 2 and
go on to next item.

Only where subject is obviously shy, say: "All
right, let's leave this for a while and maybe
you'll think of something later." Return at
end of battery.









2. "What else do we have here? It's a doll. Now

you go ahead and tell me the most interesting and cleverest

ways by which you can change this doll so that it will be

more fun to play with."

Proceed as above.

Time: 1'30"


Monroe Language Classification Test (after C.E. Meyers
et al.)

"Now this is the last thing we're going to do."

"Tell me all the animals you can think of as quickly as

you can."

"Tell me all the things to eat you can think of."

"Tell me all the toys you can think of."

Record each category.

Time: 30" for each (extension to 1' consid-

ered). Praise child for cooperation.

"How did you like the things we did?"

Record answers.














APPENDIX B
IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: GUIDE FOR SCORING



This guide is divided into two parts according to the

two tasks: (1) Product Improvement and (s) the Monroe

Language Classification Test.

While specific instructions for relevancy and scoring

of responses are given separately for each task on the basis

of the answers obtained in this study, the following overall

guidelines for the divergent thinking factors of ideational

fluency, spontaneous flexibility, and originality are ap-

plicable.

Ideational Fluency. This is obtained by counting all

of the separate relevant responses given by subjects regard-

less of quality.



Product Improvement


Relevancy of a Response

1. The response must indicate that the instructions

have been understood, i.e., something needs to be done to

or with the object, resulting in a change in object of sit-

uation around it. Examples:










Relevant Irrelevant

Make him into a fox You can play with him
Make him dance Share him
(If he) barked a little Squeeze his hand
like alive
Add another doll to make To keep it the way it is
him brothers
Key back here (without
follow-up)

2. The response must indicate that the child accepts

the premise of change for the purpose stated, i.e., "fun to

play with" and that it connects in some way with the given

object. Answers indicating unrelated associational stream

or pure nonsense--i.e., change to anything at all, are not

acceptable. Examples:

Relevant Irrelevant

Make ears stand up Paper to write on or change
Make tail wag into nothing
Put bow in his head Make into telephone
Change into rabbit (for dog) Turn into table
Change into doctor (for doll)

3. A reply may be relevant for toy dog but not for

toy doll and vice versa. Also, in Part 2 (doll) change to

stimulus object of 1 is not acceptable. Examples:

Relevant Irrelevant

Make him into a lion (dog) Make him into a lion (doll)
Make him into a dolly (dog) Make him into a dog (doll)

4. An answer is relevant, irrespective of underlying

affect, if outcome is judged constructive. Examples:

Relevant Irrelevant

Cut off head and use the out- I'll break his head, arms,
side (clothing) to make everything
a toy watch I'll cut off his ears
Poke holes in his eyes Take out his eyes
I'll twist his leg









5. When by explicit statement or by implication, the

dog or toy-man has been made alive ("adaptation" in Tor-

rance's categories for flexibility), the following answers

are relevant:

He might chase a cat
Make him go to work
To do things on a ship (in a number of instances sub-
jects called doll "a sailor")

6. Part of a reply may be accepted as relevant. Ex-

ample:

Play with it--wrestle or (put him on his head)

6. If a child by demonstration, acting out or story-

telling makes changes implicit, the reply is relevant.

Examples:

"Woof, woof" as subject handles dog
"Give him a house for children to have more fun play-
ing, and ask the postman to fix him"


Scoring of Relevant Responses

When scoring for ideational fluency, the unit of enu-

meration is the thought unit, this coinciding with the clas-

sification unit. Therefore,


score as one (1)

1. When unit is logically connected and stated as such

by subject. Examples: Take off shirt and change into dif-

ferent costume; take this ribbon off and put furry thing

around him.

2. When the second part of the unit is an explanation

of the first. Examples: Make him like Robin Hood--jump up

and down; barked a little, like alive.









3. When the second part is an alternative. Example:

Change his face with a mask or skin or an animal.

4. When after an overall change has been suggested,

specific changes are detailed. Example: Change into col-

lie--different fur, white and brown, back all brown, long

mouth, sharp claws.

5. When changes are distinct but make up one context

or classification unit, i.e., one idea. Example: To get a

funny black and white clothes, brown hands, white nose,

black eyes, and a funny green hat.


score as zero (0)

1. When only agents of change are given without spec-

ifying any changes. Examples: Make abracadabra; key back

there; a fairy could change it.

2. When change back is specified. Example: Change

into real pig, goose, and then change back to normal.



Monroe Language Classification Test


Relevancy of a Response

Animals--real, imaginary, living, extinct, and generic.

Examples:

Relevant Irrelevant

Cow Houses
Dinosaur People

Things to Eat--everything edible, including general cate-

gories and fluids as well as food specified for animals.

Examples:









Relevant

Lamb chops Everyt
Meat a st
Grill Animal
Peanuts
Milk

Toys--a. All specific toys. Examples:

Relevant


Irrelevant

hing you can buy in
ore
s


Irrelevant


Dolls Doll corner
Dump truck Baby toys
Games

b. Objects that are prefaced by "toy" or by the sub-

ject saying "one could play with" or that are implicitly

understood to be handled in play situation. Examples:

Relevant

Clock
Mustache
People (in the form of dolls)
Telephone

c. Materials for play activities. Examples:

Relevant

Clay
Wood to make toys

d. Responses with no bearing on play situation are

to be considered irrelevant. Examples:

Bees and bats
Closet Toy
Daphne (Name of playmate)


Scoring of Relevant Responses: Ideational Fluency

Animals. No credit for duplicate responses. Count

separately male and female of species, and generic and









specific responses. Examples: Lion, Father Lion; fish,

tunafish.

Things to Eat. a. Count separately when subject

specifies different kinds of the same food. Examples:

plain cheese, velveeta cheese. b. Count as single re-

sponse when one dish or meal is implied. Examples: Spag-

hetti and meatballs, hamburger and french fries, supper,

breakfast.

Toys. a. Collective terms are counted as single re-

sponses. Example: games, b. Mere elaboration without

differentiation is a single response. Examples: car,

automobile car. c. Count as separate responses when sub-

ject specifies differences in the same toy. Examples:

baby dolls, big dolls; trucks, gasoline trucks.















APPENDIX C
PLAYFULNESS SCALE



Rating Instructions


As a teacher you know that children differ in many

ways--some are shy, some are friendly, some grab what they

want, others ask, or wait, for it.

In this study, we are interested in finding out how

children differ in the way they go about their play activ-

ities--how spontaneous, how cheerful, how "full-of-the-dev-

il" they are, and we hope to have your cooperation in this

work.

Attached you will find, therefore, a rating measure

made up of five scales which refer directly to a child's

behavior during play. You will note that each of the five

scales or questions has two parts. Part A of the question

aims to get at the frequency or quantity of the trait;

Part B tries to assess the quality of the trait shown. For

example, "how often does the child show joy" would be the

quantity of the trait, and "with what freedom of expression"

would be the quality of the trait.

We hope you will find it possible and worthwhile to

look at the children in your group along the traits










suggested in the rating scales and give us your evaluation

of them.

We are also interested in finding out what your impres-

sion is of the child's intelligence and physical attractive-

ness, and we would like you to give us your estimate of

these as well.

When you rate the children, you will, of course, want

to compare them with one another as well as keep in mind a

general standard for these traits in kindergarteners.

It is easier and better to rate all children first on

one trait (or question), and then do the same for each of

the six other questions. The sheets for marking down your

ratings have, therefore, been set up for the different

traits.

There will be twelve ratings for each child. Please

put down the figure that best indicates your evaluation of

the child's present thinking. Descriptive terms are also

given to help you in making your rating.

Any comments about the content or form of the ques-

tions, or about any difficulties that you may have in an-

swering them, will be welcomed.











Playfulness Rating Scale


I. A. How often does the child engage in spontaneous

physical movement and activity during play?

This behavior would include skipping, hopping,
jumping, and other rhythmic movements of the
whole body or parts of the body like arms, legs
or head, which could be judged as a fairly clear
indication of exhuberance.


Very
Often


Often


Occasionally


Rarely


Very
Rarely


B. How is his motor coordination during physical


activity?



Excellent


Very
Good


Good


Fair


Poor


II. A. How often does the child show joy in or during his

play activities?

This may be judged by facial expression such as
smiling, by verbal expressions such as saying "I
like this," or "This is fun," or by more indirect
vocalizing such as singing as an accompaniment of
the activity, f.i., "choo, choo, train, go along."
Other behavioral indicators would be repetition
of activity, or resumption of activity with clear
evidence of enjoyment.


Very
Often


Often


Occasionally


Rarely


Very
Rarely


2 1


Playfulness


Rating Scale


4 3









B. With what freedom of expression does he show his

joy?

This may be judged by the intensity of loudness of
a chuckle or a sing-song as well as the child's
ability to repeat or resume his activity by his
own choice.


Very
High


High


Moderate


Some


Little


III. A. How often does the child show a sense of humor


during play?


Very
Often


Often


Occasionally


Rarely


Very
Rarely


With what degree of consistency is humor shown?


Very
High High Moderate Some Little


IV. A. While playing, how often does the child show flex-

ibility in his interaction with the surrounding


group structure?




Full Text

PAGE 1

IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAYFULNESS, IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEIR RELATIONSHIPS IN KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN BY DEVORA SUE DEPPER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADU J\ 'I' E COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN P ARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1979

PAGE 2

Copyright 1979 By Devora Sue Depp er

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without the support and guidance of many individuals. My doctoral com mittee provided both guidance in experimental rigor as well as personal support. Of particular note was my chair Jacquelin Goldman whose personal investment in my work has provided a significant enhancement of my professional development. In addition the gentle wisdom and loving support of Benjamen Barger has been unwavering throughout my graduate training. I would also like to thank the teachers and administration of P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. With out their cooperation this study would not have been pos sible. Finally, the immeasurable support and love of my family and friends enabled me to maintain my own playful ness throughout this research. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT iii vi CHAPTER ONE TWO THREE FOUR INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL PERSPEC TIVE ON THEORIES OF PLAY Classical Theories Recent Theories .... IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAY FULNESS, AND IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA BASE ......... Relationship of Play to Psychopathology Antecedents to Imaginative Play Relationship of Play Behavior and Playfulness Hypotheses METHODS OF PRESENT STUDY 1 2 5 16 19 20 25 32 35 Selection of the Population. 35 Subjects . . . . 36 Procedure . . . . . . 36 Means of Evaluation . . . 38 Validation and Reliability of the Tests............ 40 Data on Validity from the Literature 41 Data on Reliability from the Literature . . . . . . 41 The Playfulness Scale . . . . 42 The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 43 Measuring Imaginative Play Predisposition . . . 44 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Inter-rater Reliability Hypotheses I and II Hypothesis III .... Hypothesis IV .... Hypothesis V, VI and VII Discussion ...... iv 50 50 53 56 57 58 59

PAGE 5

APPENDICES A IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . B IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: GUIDE FOR SCORING . . . C PLAYFULNESS SCALE . . D IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION INTERVIEW . E HOLTZMAN SCORING REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . . . GUIDELINES V . . . Page 81 83 89 95 97 103 110

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduat e Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAYFULNESS, IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEIR RELATIONSHIPS IN KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN BY DEVORA SUE DEPPER JUNE 1979 Chairman: Jacquelin Goldman, Ph.D. Major Department: Psychology Children's play behavior has been the focus of numer ous experimental studies and theoretical conceptualizations. As a body of literature, however, it is markedly diverse and without agreement as to what play behavior is or its significance. This study examined three constructs: play fulness, imaginative play predisposition and ideational flu ency which have theoretically encompassed both the affective and cognitive functions of play behavior. This was done in an effort to provide a more unified theoretical conceptualization as well as an experimental data base for developmental aspects of play behavior. In addition, an extensive literature review of the theoretical literature on play behavior was provided. Seventy-nine kindergarten and first-grade white chil dren from five socioeconomic status backgrounds were stud ied in a semi-urban school. All children were of at least normal intelligence and participating in the regular school vi

PAGE 7

program. Playfulness, a multidimensional construct, was examined utilizing a teacher rating scale developed by Lieberman. This construct hypothesizes five qualitative and quantitative dimensions of playfulness: physical spon taneity, social spontaneity, humor, manifest joy, and cog nitive spontaneity. Imaginative play predisposition, the ability to interject an "as if" quality into play, was measured utilizing Singer's interview technique as well as the Holtzman Inkblot Test. Two different scoring tech niques were utilized for the Holtzman Inkblot Test in an effort to further clarify the methodolo g y necessary to measure imaginative play predisposition in a younger popu lation. Ideational fluency was measured utilizing Lieber man's modification of Torrance's work. It was hypothesized that these thr ee constructs oould be measured and repli cated on a sample of kindergarten and first grade children from heterogeneous socioeconomic status backgrounds in a semi-urban school. It was further hypothesized that there would be positive interrelationships between these behav iors, as measured, providing the beginning of the data base necessary for a more unitary theoretical conceptualization of play Imaginative play predisposition was replicated on this population with approximately 50 % of the subjects demon strating high imaginative play predisposition and 50 % dem onstrating low imaginative play predisposition. There were vii

PAGE 8

continued difficulties with the Holtzman Inkblot Test, as an appropriate methodology for a younger population. The evidence for ideational fluency was replicated on this pop ulation. The Playfulness Scale proved problematical in that the reliability of the data is somewhat questionable. Sig nificant relationships were found between imaginative play predisposition and cognitive spontaneity. The relationship between imaginative play predisposition as measured by the Singer interview plus the Holtzman movement score and the quantitative index for cognitive spontaneity as measured by the Lieberman rating scale was significant at the .005 level. Imaginative play predisposition as measured by the Singer interview plus the Holtzman movement score and the qualitative index for cognitive spontaneity as measured by the Lieberman rating scale was significant at the .05 level. Imaginative play predisposition as measured by the Singer interview plus the Holtzman movement plus human re sponse and the quantitative index for cognitive spontaneity as measured by the Lieberman rating scale was related at the .00 5 level of significance. Discussion provides clar ification of r e sults, new methodological considerations, as well as new dir e ctions for future research. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THEORIES OF PLAY Children's play has captured the interest of philos ophers, psychologists, anthropologists and sociolo g ists. As Plato is paraphrased by Erikson, the model of true play fulness is in th e need of all young creatures, animal and human, to leap. To truly leap, you must learn how to us e the ground as a springboard and how to land r esi liently and safely. It me a ns to test the leeway allowed by given limits; to out do and yet not escape g ravity. Thus, wherever playfulness prevails th e re is always a surpriz in g e l ement surpassing mere rep e tition or habituati o n and at its best sug ge stin g some virgin chance conquered. (Erikson, 1977, p. 17) Despite a longstanding interest, a variety of theoretical conceptualizations and numerous studies, there is little agreement as to what play is, or the significance of this be havior. Weisler and McCall (1976) note that there is an inflationary trend in the number of articles produced each year but a recession in the real production of knowledge in that area. They suggest that part of the difficulty li e s in the lack of a precise definition of play and the lack of a comprehensive theory of play. This paper will first provide a historical perspective on the various trends in play theory. Then two recent conceptualizations of play behavior, l

PAGE 10

2 Singer's (1968) construct of imaginative play and Lieber man's (1964) construct of playfulness will be discussed in light of their usefulness for providing unity in the area. A brief look at various theoretical perspectives of play is necessary at this point to provide a fuller per spective on psychological thinking regarding play behavior. There have been numerous conceptualizations of play. Gil more (1966) divides these theories into two categories. The classical theories, which are concerned with the ante cedents and purposes of play and not its content, comprise the first group. The more recent theories concerned with the form of play in relation to specifying its cause and effects comprise the second group. Classical Theories Within the classical theories, Gilmore (1966) notes that one of the oldest theoretical statements concerning the significance of play is attributed to both Schiller (1875) and Spencer (1873). This is the surplus energy theory. This theory states that because the young are taken care of by their parents, they hav e a surplus of energy, as they do not expend energy for self-preservation. This energy surplus is released through the exuberant activities of play. The theory postulates two things: first,

PAGE 11

3 there is a quantity of energy available to the organism; and second, that there is a tendency to expend this energy throu g h play, although it is not necessary for th e main tenance of a life balance (Gilmor e 1966). This theor y has been put forth by others. Gilmor e (1966) notes Terman (1932), Tinklepaugh (1942), and Al ex ander (1958). A second classical theory of play is the relaxation theory of play (Gilmore, 1966). Play activity is the prod uct of a deficit of energy, not a surplus. Lazarus (1883) and Patrick (1916) are associated with this th eo ry in which play is seen as the method by which spent e n e rgy is r ep len ished (Gilmore, 1966). Gilmore explains that play is a mode for dissipating the inhibition built u p from fatigue due to tasks that are new to the or g anism. It follows then that most play would occur in childhood, as this is a time for acquiring new skills. Play shows very little buildup of inhibition because it reflects deep rooted race habits (psychogenically acquired behaviors that are not new to the organism) (Gilmore, 19 66) Theorists have also seen play as a form of instinctive behavior (Gilmore, 1966). Britt and Janus (1941) and Beach (1945) list approximately two dozen theorists who see play as a form of instinctive behavior. Karl Groos (1 898 1908) is one of these theorists whose theory is known as the pre exercise theory of play. In this theory play is the product of eme rgin g instincts. Play is the exerc isin g of the

PAGE 12

4 emerging instincts in preparation for their time of matura tion. G. Stanley Hall (1906), a contemporary of Groo~ put forward his recapitulation theory of play. In this theory the purpose of play is to rid the organism of unnecessary instinctual skills which are the legacy of heredity. This is in striking contrast to Groos' theory; rather than de veloping new instinctual skills play is now proposed to eliminate primitive instinctual skills. Hall also postu lated stages of play. He was the first to do this, and stated that each child passes through stages corresponding to the cultural stages in the development of races (Gil more, 1966). Wundt (1913) was also a well-known recapitu lation theorist. An interesting approach to play with an anthropological bent came from Appleton (1910). Having contrasted play in primitive societies and children she suggested that play is a response to a generalized drive for growth in the or ganism. Rather than instinctual pre-exercise as suggested by Groos, play is the expression of hunger within the or ganism for growth to the stage at which the instinct could operate. Play, therefore, functions, as a facilitator for skills necessary to the function of adult instincts. Since the child wants mastery and "knows" that play is the method to achieve it, he plays. Gilmore (1966) labels Appleton's theory a growth theory of play.

PAGE 13

5 The early 1900's also produced the ego expanding the ories of play. K. Lange (1901) and Claraparede (1911, 1934) are considered to be the first proponents of this per spective (Gilmore, 1966). Ego in these theories equates with the reality mapping aspects of cognitive behavior. Claraparede saw play as an exercising of the ego that strengthened developing cognitive skills and facilitated the emergence of new skills. for ego completion. Lange saw play as the process Recent Theories The newer theories of play differ from the old in two respects. First is the focus on explanations of play based on dynamics of the individual personality, and the second is the concern with explaining individual changes in play behavior (Gilmore, 1966). Gilmore labels these the infan tile dynamics theories. Piagetian and psychoanalytic con cepts of play are the best known theories in this category. Lewin (1935) and White (1959, 1964) also fit in this cate gory. Lewin's position is not extensively elaborated. Play occurs because of the unstructured lifespace of the child. This results in a discrimination failure between what is real and what is unreal. It is easy, therefore, for the child to enter an unreal region where things are changeable and arbitrary.

PAGE 14

6 Piaget's theory of play is more comprehensive. Play is a result of the child's cognitive structure. For Piaget, play is the product of a stage of thinking through which the child must pass in order to develop from an original egocentric viewpoint to the adult's viewpoint (Gilmore, 1966). In order to understand Piaget's conceptualization of play it is necessary to examine the process of cognitive dynamics. Gilmore (1966) explicates this well. Every human behavior within his environment has two discriminable as pects which are central to Piaget 's theory. The first as pect is the organism recognizing, categorizing and utilizing events in terms of previous knowledge. He "bends reality" to conform to his habits, conventions and preferences The second is the individual's response to unique aspects of a new situation which he incorporat es to modify or to adjust to this "new reality." These two aspects are always present; one can, however, predominate over the other. Piaget suggests that these two aspects of behavior come from dif ferent sources, appear at different times and develop at different rates. It is this dynamic which leads to the appearance of play in children. Play is that behavior in which the aspect of adjusting reality to fit one's concept of reality predominates. The aspect of accomrro::lating to things as they really are takes a backseat. As this is an aspect of all behavior, al l behavior has some play -li ke aspects Behaviors are all more

PAGE 15

7 or less playlike, with respect to coping with reality. Play versus non-play behavior is not a relevant distinction. Piaget outlines three categories of play: practice play, symbolic play and "games with rules." Practice play is evidenced in the infant as the repetitious performance of any newly acquired ability. This will be performed in a variety of contexts. All new objects the infant encoun ters are made to fit this pattern regardless of their ap propriateness. New learning does not take place. In addi tion, the infant evidences pleasure with this behavior. Symbolic play has the characteristic of the child symboliz ing a behavior in a play. Gilmore (1966) cites the example of a child putting a rag to sleep. The ra g treated as though living, symbolizes to the child that which is salient to him in the concept of sleep. "Games with rules" develop later in life and the name is self-explanatory. Piaget also draws a parallel between play and dream ing. As in play, concepts in dreams are modified to fit existing emotions, often discounting obvious and logical parameters. Piaget also examined the development of play in the child. The newborn infant has only limited reflex abilities for processing his world cognitively, more specifically for recognizing and incorporating his experiences or to allow for uniqueness in his experiences. Postulated, however, is a tendency in all organisms to make repeated contact

PAGE 16

8 with a novel event This tendency "forces" in the infant new knowledge, change in habits and new distinctions regarding his environment The infant becomes able to act in a play -lik e manner as he becomes able to act by habit, thereby reducing the number of unique aspects of a given experience. The play potential is a g iven in the nature of the child and his cognitive structure. Play behavior is reduced in frequency as a function of the child's experiences. As the child has more expe riences, he learns more improved and rational modes of en countering the unfamiliar environment. The child no longer depends on partially appropriate (play-like) responses to new situations. Adult mastery is hallmarked by the indi vidual's reduced need to mold reality to fit his state of the moment. Gilmore summarizes Piaget's position as follows: Play is the behavior seen whenever there is a prepondernace of that aspect of all behavior that involves taking in, molding, and using things, all in terms of one's current inclina tion and habit, without deference to any as pects of so behaving that might not "fit" in some sense. Play can occur only insofar as be haviors are sophisticated enough to show dif ferenti a tion between the taking in aspect of behavior that bends reality to fit the self ; and the self modifying aspects of behavior that b e nd th e self to fit reality. Play can occur only insofar as there are many different modes of thought and action into which reality may be bent. Thus, it is that the newborn shows no play, and that until middle childhood more and more play is seen Finally, play will not occur insofar as more adaptive responses become

PAGE 17

9 familiar and can be easily in ve nted when needed. Thus, it is that play is reduced in prominence in late childhood. (Gilmore, 1966, p. 318) Cause and effects of play are sharpl y distinguished in Piaget's theory. There are two important products of play. The first is JOY or pleasure or some closely related state. Play brings with it the "functional pleasure of use" which is readily apparent in the infant engaged in practice play. The second product of play is adaptive. Play facilit a tes the retention of new abiliti e s. What may be lost throu g h disuse is maintained as these new abili ties get mor e attention than "reality." Piaget h a s also provided a syst em for categorizing types of play behavior. Briefly, h e has not ed two cate gories which reduce unpleasantness for the child. The first categor y is "compensatory combinations." This be havior "improves" reality through distortion to fit more agreeably with the child's conceptualization. The second ca te go ry is "liquidating combinations," in wh ich b e havior is freed from strong affect that initi a ted th e p la y b e hav ior. An example Piaget not e s is of his daughter. Af ter havin g been frightened by seeing a dead duck, the child p la yed at imitatin g the dead duck and made her dolls see a dead duck without fear. This source of play is similar to psychoanalytic conceptualization of play.

PAGE 18

10 A psychoanalytic concept of play was first introduced by Freud (1908, 1920, 1926) in regard to fantasy and repe' tition behaviors. Gilmore (1966) states that Freud thought of play as being closely related to fantasy behav ior; in fact he defined play as fantasy woven around real objects (toys) as contrasted with pure fantasy, which is daydreaming. Two classes of wishes were distinguished by Freud, either of which is necessary fo~ play. The first category consists of the wishes of a child to be grown up or in a more fortunate position. The child fantasizes a condition he wishes to exist, in accordance with his tendency to seek immediate pleasure. Secondly, play arises from the ten dency to repeat any experience which has been too much for him. In this the child wishes to take an active role in painful situations he experienced passively. Erikson clar ifies this as follows: Play often proves to be the infantile way of thinking over difficult experiences and of re storing a sense of mastery, comparable to the way in which we repeat, in ruminations and in endless talk, in daydreams and in dreams during sleep, expe riences which have been too much for us. (Erikson, 1959, p. 85) A "sense of mastery" is the most frequently cited effeet of play in psychoanalytic theory. This mastery feeling is limited to play which reverses a painful experience. Purely wish fulfillment play is pleasurable through the

PAGE 19

11 reduction of psychic tensions. Waelder (1933) pointed out that play can circumvent the action of the superego as well as reality. Play makes it possible to achieve what is physically or morally impossible. There have been some modifications of psychoanalytic theory of play notable by Anna Freud (1936) and Erik Erik son (1937, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1959). Anna Freud suggests that play may serve a defensive purpose as well as promot ing active coping behavior. In imitative play where the imitated object is feared, there is a lessening of the fear either of the object or what it represents. Erikison empha sizes the coping aspects of play (Gilmore, 1966). Erikson (1950) states, The human animal not only plays most and longest, it also remains ready to b e come deadly serious in the most irrational contexts. Gilmore (1966) notes that Erikson's concept of play disruption is perhaps his most important contribution to play theory. Anxiety leads to play but play can become stressful by mobilizing the anxiety it is trying to process. This results in an abrupt stop in play. Recently, Erikson (1977) has expanded play as a model for understanding the ritualization of human experi ence. In summary, psychoanalytic theory emphasizes the adap tive aspects of play behavior motivated by intrapsychic dynamics of the individual. Freud discussed play behavior within the framework of wish fulfillment. Here reality is

PAGE 20

12 modified to satisfy the drive to reduce conflict. A. Freud and Erikson further pointed out the adaptive aspects of mastery in play. Erikson (1950) states that there is mastery of reality through the creation of "model situations." White (1959) has addressed mastery derived through play be havior which is not based in conflict. White (1959) proposes that play behavior promotes a general relationship of effectiveness which the child seeks to maintain or to establish between himself and the environment. The control over animate and inanimate objects or situations, especially those which cannot be affected in reality, is the goal of "effectance." As the child matures, the gap between what others do and what the child accomplishes is reduced. Play is motivated by the ego competence energy which is a drive for effectiveness Play occurs because one feels inclined toward such behavior and finds it naturally satisfying (feeling of efficacy) White states Young animals and children do not explore be cause of a desire to practice useful skills and prepare for future contingencies. They p lay and explore because it is fun, because there is something inherently satisfying about it, not b e cause it is going to have a value in a future time. (White, 1964, p 34) Focusing on the more recent conceptualizations of play, Gilmore 's (1966) second category, play is conceptualized as serving several functions in the child. Cognitive theorists have emphasized the necessity for play in cognitive

PAGE 21

13 development. Psychoanalytic theorists have focused on its usefulness for intrapsychic development. White has suggested that the motivation for and utility of play is in a more general mastery over his world. Two recent the orists have also attempted to explicate the function of play behavior. Two new themes in the area of play are Singer's (1973) conceptualization of imaginative play and Lieberman's (1964) construct of playfulness. Both of th e se authors are addressing common aspects of play behavior. Each has articulated constructs which provide n ew information and clarity regarding more specific aspects of behavior within the general framework of play. By exam ining their similarities, it may be possible to provid e a mor e comprehensive understanding of play behavior. Singer (1973) defines imaginative play as the introduction of an "as if'' dimension to the individual's per ception of his experience. This is a modification of the environment based on experience carried in memory with early imagery. He notes that various other th eo rists (Freud, 1929; Lewin, 1935; Luria, 1932) hav e noted this transformation, pos tulatin g that this quality is fantasy in the child and daydreaming in th e adult. Singer further articulates this play behavior as play which requires a central generation of imagery and involves prete nd elements, i.e. changing of voices and roles, changes in time and

PAGE 22

14 space. This definition of play is consonant with m a ny previously postulated theoretical conceptualizations of play (psychoanalytic: A. Freud, 1937; S. Freud, 1958, 1959; Erikson, 1950; Hartmann, 1958; Piaget, 1962; White, 1959, 1960, 1964). Lieberman (1964, 1977) examines a core of personality traits which she labels playfulness which can be seen as an element in p lay, imagination, and creati v ity. She sug ge sts that there is a developmental continuity of playful ness as a behavior and that playfulness sur v ives play and becomes a personality trait of the individual. She notes that playfulness is made up of spontaneity, m a nifest joy and a sense of humor. Playfulness, then, can be se e n in the perspective of a qualitative aspect of play. Lieberman's work is also consonant with previous p la y theorists (Huizinga, 1955; Piaget, 1932; Whit e 1959, 1960, 1964). Each of these two theorists, Singer, and Lieberman, is examining play behavior in an effort to provide a the oretical unity incorporating the cognitive and affective dimensions of p lay. Singer (1966, 1973a) examines the play behavior with respect to the child and hypoth es izes the im p lications of this play behavior with respect to personality development and cognitive processes. Li e berm a n, on the other hand, explores the personality trait of p layfulness which is theoretically based around ima g ination and play behavior (Lieberm an 1977). By examining the relationship

PAGE 23

15 between these constructs and the cognitive component of ideational fluenc~ it is hoped that this author may provide further codification of our understanding of play behavior and generate further unity within a comprehensive theory of play.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER II IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION, PLAYFULNESS, ANO IDEATIONAL FLUENCY: THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA BASE The concept of imaginative play as defined by Singer (1973) provides a unity of various theories of play. Imaginative play is the ability to inject an "as if" or make-believe component in play. We can conceptualize this behavior as serving a variety of functions for the child. The use of imagination and fantasy provide the child with a tool to facilitate the organization of his world along both cognitive and affective dimensions. Psychoanalytic theorists have commented on the purpose of bending reality to meet the individual's needs. Cognitive theorists have articulated the process by which the child bends reality in order to organize his world cognitively. Freud discussed fantasy behavior within the framework of wish fulfillment. Here reality is modified to satisfy the drive to reduce conflict. A. Freud and Erikson pointed out the adaptive aspects of mastery in play involving imaginative elements. Erikson (1950) points out that there is a mastery of reality through the creation of "model situa tions" (imaginary situations). Hartmann (1958) stated that fantasy is an autonomous ego function which is developed without conflict. This expands the psychoanalytic 16

PAGE 25

17 conceptualization of play and fits well with Singer's con ceptualization. Singer's (1966) construct of imaginative play describes the process necessary to reduce conflict (Freud) or to gain mastery (A. Freud, Erikson). Modifica tion of reality by injecting an "as if" or make-believe com ponent enables the child to reduce conflict. Singer (1966) is defining the mechanism necessary to accomplish the func tion of play in psychoanalytic theory; that of bending reality to reduce conflict. Piaget's (1962) conceptualization of play as defined by the process of assimilation neatly supports Singer's theory. According to Piaget, play is not a behavior per se but a process. Play is the assimilation of reality to the ego. Play is distinguishable by a modif ic ation, varying in degree of the conditions of equilibrium between reality and the ego. The child utilizes assimilation in order to respond to his environment with the schemata available at a certain age. The introduction of make-believe elements aids in the maintenance of his perceptions at equilibrium or in balance with his world. Singer's (1966) construct of imaginative play is for the most part equivalent to Piaget 's (1962) construct of symbolic play. "Symbolic play, then, is only one form of thought linked to all others by its mechanism, but having as its sole aim satisfaction of the ego i.e., individual truth as opposed to collective and impersonal truth ... (Piaget, 1962, p. 167).

PAGE 26

18 Millar (1968) interprets aspects of play within a cognitive framework as well. She hypothesizes that imaginative play is an aspect of cognitive feedback processes which enable the human to code and process incoming data. This is also stated by Schachtel (1959). In examining the repetitive as pects of play, he notes that this repetition provides the opportunity to integrate new information into a limited ex perience background. White (1960) expands on this theme of cognitive mastery into other areas of behavior. White (1960) places the child's play behavior within the general developmental framework of striving for competence. The child utilizes play to expand his own capacities within the limits of his capacities. This includes social as well as, cognitive abilities. Tomkins (1962, 1963) ex pands the cognitive and affective components of play to note that it is utilized to organize the child's experience along both these dimensions. The peak of familiarity of material yields joy and laughter (Singer, 1966; Tomkins, 1962). Singer's (1966) construct of imaginative play effective ly provides a link between the affective and cognitive aspects of play behavior described in psychoanalytic and cognitive theories. It does so by providing th e mechanism by which the affective needs articulated in psychoanalytic th eory a re ac complished and by describing the same mechanism which cog nitive theorists have limited to information processing. As White (1960) expands the function of play behavior into

PAGE 27

19 the realm of competence, taking it beyond conflict reduc tion and cognitive processes, we can see that Singer's (1966) construct neatly provides the appropriate mechanism here as well. The child's affective development and cog nitive development are limited by his age, i.e., he has lim ited intrapsychic structure and cognitive schemata for pro cessing his world effectively. Imaginative play provides a mechanism for expanding his competence, given these lim itations, to achieve mastery. Relationship of Play to Psychopathology Singer expands his theoretical work to postulate as pects of personality development. Corrigan (1960) states that daydreaming can be useful as a coping mechanism. The development of imagination and daydreaming may be associ ated with a pattern of development and personality organiza tion. This personality organization is one in which think ing is valued and affective control and motor control are emphasized. Within this personality development Singer (1973) addresses the issues of pathological development. lie suggests that the high fantasy oriented individual will develop a more obsessive defense patt e rn. Th e l o w fantasy individual, on the other hand, will develop a more hyster ical style, where defenses are primarily repression and de nial.

PAGE 28

20 In essence Singer is proposing that those individuals who have a high imaginative play predisposition will then utilize this mechanism defensively to reduce conflict. Again it becomes clear that Singer is describing an inter nal process which describes one form of defense mechanism according to psychoanalytic theory. What he is proposing is that what psychoanalytic theory describes in children as play, wish fulfillment to reduce conflict, in adults is transformed into an internal obsessive defensive pattern. He goes one step further to p ropose that individuals with a high imaginative predisposition evid e nced in child hood as high frequency imaginative play behavior, are more likely to utilize this process defensivel y thereby develop ing a more obsessive personality style. Antecedents to Imaginati ve Play Singer's (1973) first study of imaginative play pre disposition explored several variables: background vari ab l es of the child and his relationship to his parents waiting behavior, creativity and personality characteris tics. Sin g er hypoth e sized that imaginativ e p lay vi e wed as a manif e station of co g nitiv e and affective s t y l e mi g ht well be associated with a pattern of develo p ment and personality organization in which thinking is valued and affective and motor control would b e more emphasized. Contact with at

PAGE 29

21 least one benign adult and the opportunity to be alone were seen as necessary to increased imaginative play development. In addition, from the perspective of psychopathology, high fantasizers were expected to utilize de fenses associated with obsessional characteristics, while low imaginative play children were expected to exhibit pat terns more like those of hysterical personalities with less self-consciousness and greater use of the mechanisms of de nial and repression. Singer examined forty children between the ages of 6 and 9 years, of middle SES backgrounds and of somewhat above average intelligence. The results supported several of the hypotheses and clearly pointed out differ ences between high and low imaginative play subjects. High imaginative play subjects reported greater associations be tween their parents and themselves, were able to wait for longer periods of time, had significantly higher ratings for creativity in a storytelling task and showed more ob sessional defense mechanisms than low imaginative play sub jects. Pulaski (1973) examined the effects of toy structure on imaginative play. It was hypothesized that minimally structured materials would stimulate more imaginative play than highly structured materials. Subjects in this study were kindergarten, first and second graders. Again this sample was homogeneous: upper middle class children attending a private school. The results were quite interesting.

PAGE 30

22 Minimally structured toys, for both low and high imaginative play subjects yielded a greater variety of themes in play than highly structured toys. High imaginative play chil dren played at a higher fantasy level than low imaginative play subjects. High imaginative play children also became more deeply absorbed in their play than did low imaginative play subjects. High imaginative play children also appeared to be more pleased and interested in their play than low imaginative play subjects. In addition, high imaginative play subjects showed a tendency to integrate more than one category of toy in their play. High imaginative play sub jects also showed greater flexibility in coping with demands upon their ability to produce fantasy. They also responded less negatively to interruptions in their play Overall, it can be seen that there was a distinct difference between low and high imaginative play children from equally priv ileged situations and with equally high intelligence. High imaginative play children were more original, creative, flexible and well integrated. Biblow (1973) examined drive reduction and mood change in the control of aggressive responses in high and low imaginative play subjects. Examining fifth grade white, middle class children of average intelligence, he found that high imaginative play subjects reduced aggression through the use of fantasy. Biblow concludes that the spectrum of his data supports that there are distinct differences between

PAGE 31

23 high and low imaginative play subjects, both in behavioral aggression and in all mood states. Freyburg (1973) examined the possibility of increas ing imaginative play in urban disadvantaged kindergarteners. Utilizing a public school, she found that after one month of training, the experimental group improved significantly in its use of imaginative play, as well as, in the expression of positive affect and increased concentration in play. The control group remained unchanged. The changes in the experimental group continued post -trainin g, and were tested during two months of post-training observations. Gott li eb (1973) also explored the modifiability of imaginative play. Noting the decrease of overt manifestations of make believe between the ages of 6 or 7 and 12, she chose to use two age groups as subjects: 10 to 12 and 12 1/2 to 14 year s. She was interested in exploring the difference in fantasy behavior at the two age levels, and its modifiability given a high or low fantasy predisposi tion. She found that expression of fantasy was increased for young children with exposure to an adult model. Junior high school age subjects' responses were more directly re lated to their imaginative play predisposition rather than modeling effects, i.e., they responded more in terms of their personality attributes She concluded that imagin ative behavior increases with age and as such it can be concluded that it is a skill that develops with

PAGE 32

24 differentiation, that there are age trends in ability to engage in fantasy and in the content of fantasy as well. The evidence for imaginative play predisposition sup ports that there are differences between low and high fan tasy predisposed individuals, that there are overt behavioral and personality differences. The behaviors related to fantasy appear to be modifiable given different environ ment variables. The above mentioned studies explore a variety of directions regarding imaginative play. It is important at this point to note, how if at all, they contribute to the theoretical basis of play behavior. Singer's (1973) study most directly explores theoretical concerns by addressing the defensive patterns utilized by the high and low imag inative play predisposed children. His finding that high imaginative play predisposed children utilize more obses sional defense mechanisms supports the hypothesis that this imaginative process may be related to the obsessional de fense mechanism, which in turn leads to the development of an obsessional personality style. The other issues he addresses regardin g parent-child relationshi p s, waiting be havior and creativity do not directly address theoretical issues. Rather they provide information regarding behavior to which imaginative play predisposition may be related. Pulaski's (1973) study focuses more on description of imaginative play in response to the stimulus of different

PAGE 33

25 toys. This study describes differential behavioral responses to play materials rather than directly providing support for theoretical questions. Biblow's (1973) study, in contrast to Pulaski's (1973) work, more directly explored theoretical issues. The cathartic theory of aggression from a psychoanalytic basis hypothesizes that fantasy operates to lower aggression. His data supported that hypothesis by establishing that high imaginative play subjects utilized fantasy to reduce aggression. This provides data regarding the utility of imaginative play as a mechanism to reduce conflict. Freyburg (1973) and Gottlieb's (1973) works both exam ine the modifiability of imaginative play. Again as with Pulaski's work, these studies provide information regarding the parameters of imaginative play but little direct support for theoretical conceptualization. Studies in imaginative play to date have served two useful and complimentary func tions: empirical support for certain aspects of theoret ical conceptualizations and description of the parameters of imaginative p lay. Relationship of Play Behavior and Playfuln e ss Singer (1973) and Lieberman (1977) have both addressed the tendency toward play in children. Sing e r (1973) sug ge sts that the tendency to engage in ima gi n at iv e p lay, fan tasied role shifting or daydreaming may be looked upon as a

PAGE 34

26 particular skill that can be developed in a given child as a consequence of the interaction between constitutional capacities with a particular set of early environmental cir cumstances that provide encouragement for practice. This tendency or trait in the individual has been addressed by Lieberman (1977) in her construct of playfulness. Lieberman (1964, 1977) examines a core of personality traits which she labels playfulness. Playfulness can be seen as an element in play, imagination and creativity. She postulates that there is a developmental continuity of playfulness as a behavior and that playfulness survives play and becomes a personality trait of the individual. She notes that playfulness is made up of spontaneity, manifest joy and a sense of humor. Playfulness can be seen in the perspective of a qualitative aspect of play. The theoretical underpinnings to Lieberman's (1964) work are less clear cut than Singer's work. Essentially, Lieberman's work attempts to address qualitative aspects of behavior rather than a discrete behavioral process that can be identified as evident or lacking. Playfulness is descriptive of the content of play behavior, as opposed to the structure of play, e.g., Singer (1973) imaginative play. Theoretically it is unclear what function playfulness serves. Playfulness is an expressive dimension of play behavior rather than a mechanism of play behavior.

PAGE 35

27 Qualitative aspects of play have received less atten tion in the psychological investigation of play. Huizinga (1955) refers to the play spirit. Joy, fun, pretend, and nonseriousness are key words in his conceptualization of play. While the fun element is seen as the part of play that resists logical analysis, it is at the same time regarded as characterizing the essence of play. Perhaps to the extent that play behavior is more or less playful, i.e., has more or less spontaneity, joy and humor in it, it is more closely related to the quintessence of play. How an individual child plays in relation to environ ment incorporates theoretically the playful component of play noted by Piaget (1932, 1962) and White (1960, 1964). This is the enjoyment or pleasurable component of play noted by Piaget (1962). White (1964) articulates this as fun, the inherent satisfaction of play behavior. This is a key aspect of how the clinician looks at play. It is the deviation from the play spirit which is important. Moustakas (1955) reports on play therapy with normal chil dren. He notes that these children are happy, often singing and humming, and in their actions they are both more deci sive and spontaneous than disturbed childr e n. Hartley, Frank, and Gold e nson (1952) found in nurser y -school children that well-adjusted children played as enthusiastically as the troubled youngsters, but their delight in toys was g reater.

PAGE 36

28 Developmental psychologists h ave also referred to the qualitative aspects of play. For example, Piaget (1962) distinguishes playful from imitative behavior and describes it as a process whereby the child incor porates external ob jects into his own thought schemata in a joyful manner. Hunt (1961) finds function pleasure in play as a q uality that frequently accompanies learnin g as a result of aimless activity. Playfulness emerged from observational studies of how children play (Lieberman, 1977). In an effort to examine theoreticall y complex behavior she defined operationally playfulness as physical, social, and cognitiv e spontaneity, manifest JOY and sense of humor. Within the framework of p lay, it was seen a s a quality of play These operational definitions of the qualitative aspects of p lay represent the first step in prov iding an adequate empirical investiga tion of p la yf ulness. It is readily apparent that the th eore tical underpinnings for the construct are mor e so p histicated than the operational definiti on s based on loose l y defined behavioral observations. The p l ayf ulness con struct is an ambi tious attempt to operat i ona lize the ex pre ssiv e content of p lay b e havior. Bot h psychoa n a l ytic theory and co g nitive th eo ri es hav e mor e directly addressed the functional and structural aspects of play behavior while alluding to the qualitative or expre ssiv e dimensions of this behavi or What Li eberma n (1964) is at t empting to

PAGE 37

29 provide is a perspective of the content of play behavior: social, cognitive and affective. In light of this, how ever, this is the best methodological exploration to emerge out of the theoretical speculation. Lieberman (1964, 1977) has examined playfulness at two age levels: kindergarteners and adolescents. The research on kindergarteners investigated the relationship be tween playfulness and divergent thinking. Utilizing mid dle-class children attending private kindergartens, she found that there was a unitary trait called playfulness composed of five dimensions: physical, cognitive, and social spontaneity, manifest joy and a sense of humor. The relationship b e tween divergent thinking and playfulness was not so clear. But a clear r e lationshi p betwe e n pla yf ulness and ideational fluency and spontaneous flexibility (two as pects of divergent thinking) was found. The strongest re lationship was between ideational fluency and playfulness. The adolescent study looked at high school students, noting that there is a resurgence of the joyful-spontaneity sense of humor syndrome during adolescence a nd that this be havior syndrom e is related to cognitiv e st y l e (Lieberman, 1977). Preliminary results yield a more compl ex picture for adolescents than kinder ga rten ers It is not clear whether or not there is a "pure" playfulness factor for adolescents. The research was conducted in a classroom be havior of int e llectu a l commitment which is not c o nsonant

PAGE 38

3 0 with the bubbling effervescence of playfulness. Some pre liminary work is currently being done on a college age population. From the work of Singer (1973) and others (Biblow, 1973; Freyburg, 1973; Gottlieb, 1973; Pulaski, 1973) there appears to be evidence for high and low imaginative play predisposed individuals. In addition, the work of Lieberman (1964) provides evidence for a playfulness trait in children. In order to further describe these behavioral traits it is necessary to expand the existing data base, i.e., to replicate the findings on a broader data base as well as explore the relationships between these traits. The present study explores the relationships between imaginative play, playfulness, and ideational fluency. Ideational fluency was chosen as an effort to replicate Lieberman's (1964) findings and to provide further data as to the structure of the cognitive aspect of imaginative play. Qualities frequently noted in children's play are its imaginative scope and creative power (Lieberman, 1964). There has been, however, little research done on young chil dren in regard to this creativity. In their initial work on creative thinking in adults, Guilford et al. (1951) hypoth esized eight abilities that might "discover the individual who is potentially creative." Among these eight was ideational fluency. This is the calling up of ideas in

PAGE 39

3 1 situations demanding relatively little restriction, the difference in scores being more a function of the number of ideas produced than the quality, degree of appropriate ness, or the aptness of expression of the ideas (Guilford, et al., 1956). While Guilford was refining his factors looking at adults, Torrance (1960) and his associates used his con ceptual framework and an adaptation of his tests to examine creative thinking in children. The Minnesota research team was able to develop batteries of nonverbal and verbal creative thinking tasks. One of the constructs which could be meaningfully scored was ideational fluency. The purpose behind these studies was to provide a description of and a means of testing creative potential. The present study grew out of several considerations. There exists extensive and sophisticated theoretical formu lations regarding play behavior. The empirical support for these theories is wide ranging, divergent, and methodolog ically poorly developed. Rather than develop new constructs and instruments to measure them, it seemed more useful to work with currently defined constructs which overlapped theoretically. Relationships between playfulness and imag inative play predisposition would provide information re garding both the structure and the content of play behavior. While recognizing the methodologies as first steps in oper ationalizing complex phenomena working with these

PAGE 40

32 methodologies to explore their utility is an appropriate investigation. If in fact the constructs address similar aspects of behavior, as their theoretical bases sug ge st, then establishing empirical relationships could provide new directions for empirical and theoretical work in play. The evidence for playfulness, imaginativ e play predispo sition and ideational fluency has been limited to homogen eous samples: middle class urban children. In an effort to expand this data base it seemed d e sirable to replicate the data on a less homogeneous sample. Hypotheses Hypotheses 1 and 2 Based on both psychoanalytic and cognitive theoretical conceptualizations of play behavior, Sin ger (1973) has op erationally defined imaginative play behavior as an aspect of play behavior which encompasses the ability to inject an "as if" component into play. Utilizing the methodology de veloped by Sin ger (1973), as well as the Holtzman Inkblot Test It is hypothesized that the evidence for high and low imaginative play predisposed individuals can be replicated o n an het e ro geneo us SES sam p le of kindergarten and first grade children. It is further hypothesiz ed that a more app ropriate scoring technique for the Holtzman Inkblot Test utilizes Human plus Movement responses.

PAGE 41

33 Hypothesis 3 Lieberman (1964) has operationally defined the con struct playfulness to address the qualitative aspects of play behavior based on observations of children's behavior. Utilizing the methodology developed by Li ebe rman (1964), it is hypothesized that the evidence for a playfulness as pect of behavior can be replicated on a SES heterogeneous sample of kindergarten and first grade children. Hypothesis 4 Ideational Fluency, developed by Guilford (1951) as an aspect of creative thinking in adults, was expanded on by Torrance (1960) to explore creative thinkin g in chil dren. Utilizing Lieberman's (1964) methodolo gy for kinder ga rten children, it is hypothesized that th e ev idence for ideational fluency can be replicated on an heterogeneous SES sample of kindergarten and first grade children. Hypotheses 5 and 6 Given the theoretical overlap of imaginative play pre disposition and playfulness it is hypothesized that these two constructs are highly related in kindergarten and first grade children. High imaginative play predisposed children likewise should demonstrate behavior rich in the quality dimension of playfulness. It is further hypothesized that the subcomponent of cognitive spontaneity in playfulness will have the greatest relationship to imaginative play pre disposition, as it most directly examines imagination.

PAGE 42

34 Hypothesis 7 In addition, it is hypothesized that ideational flu ency is related to both playfulness and imaginative play predisposition in this sample of kindergarten and first grade children.

PAGE 43

CHAPTER III METHODS OF PRESENT STUDY Selection of the Population The kindergarten-first grade classes of the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School of the University of Florida were selected for the study. Due to its relationship with the University of Florida the students are accustomed to a variety of in terruptions in their normal school day whether it be for experimental purposes or special observers or visitors It was felt, therefore, that there would be fewer effects in troduced by the experimental interv e ntion per seas this is seen as "normal" in this school. In addition, as the school selects its population to reflect fiv e SES levels of the community and a heterogeneous population was desirable, the population was ideal. There were four combined kindergarten-first grade classes. Arrangements were made with each of the four teachers to gai n her cooperation and interest in the study. Essentially all the Caucasian students were utiliz ed to prov ide a balanced sample for se x and SES l ev e l. 35

PAGE 44

36 Subjects Eighty kindergarten and first grade children attending the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School of the University of Flor ida were selected. There were 40 females and 40 males. One male child moved during the data collection period re sulting in a total sample of 79, 40 female and 39 male. All subjects were Caucasian and participating in the regular class program. The population attending P.K. Yonge School is drawn equally from five SES levels in a semi-urban population. The students are selected for P.I. Yonge Laboratory School to reflect both the ethnic and SES composition of the com munity. The five SES levels are as follows: Level I in come-< $6,000, Level II--$6,000 $10,499, Level III$10,500 $14,499, Level IV--$15,000 $20,999, Level v$21,000+. All subjects were of at least normal intelligence as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. The IQ range was from 91 162, with the mean IQ 113. Procedure Thursday or Friday of the week prior to the data collec tion the experimenter visited the classroom for the day This enabled the experimenters to become more familiar with the classes' daily routine and physical layout. The experiment ers consisted of two senior undergraduate psychology majors

PAGE 45

37 in addition to the primary investigator. The primary investigator collected data from two classrooms, the other experimenters each collected data from one classroom. Each of the four classrooms had one experimenter for the period of one week. Each subject accompanied the ex perimenter to a small workroom adjacent to the classroom for three separate testing sessions. Each session ranged from 15-30 minutes. Each of the three sessions comprised one aspect of the evaluation. The experimental condition was broken down into three sessions to accorr~od.ate the child's attention span. Session A consisted of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; Session B consisted of the ideational fluency tasks and the Imaginativ e P lay Predis position Interview; Session C consisted of the Holtzman Inkblot Test. The experimental tasks were presented to the subject in a randomized sequence to account for order ef fects. All of the subjects in one classroom were processed in one week, except for circumstances of school absence. No two sets of evaluation instruments were administered in one day. Concurrent with th e experimenter's data collection from the students was data co llection from th e t eac hers. Initially the primary investigator met with th e teachers to discuss the Playfulness Rating Scales, to explain the instructions and to answer any questions. A copy of the rating sc a l e was left with the teach e rs. They were asked

PAGE 46

38 to keep the rating scale in mind as they observed their students for 2 weeks. A second session with the experi menter was held to further discuss th e ratin g scale and to answer questions. The teachers were th e n asked to rate the children. Means of Evaluation Evaluation instruments for this study covered three defined areas of inquiry: ideational fluency, playfulness and imaginative play predisposition. In addition, a standardized p ictur e vocabulary test was used to estimate in telligence. Ideational fluency was examined utilizing two tasks: (a) Product Improvement Task, and (b) The Monroe Language Classification Test. A description of the tests is as fol lows. The Product Improvement Task is a two part test. For Part I the subject was presented with a stuffed dog made of brown plush material, approximately 7 inches long. The dog had button eyes, a button black nose, a red tongue and a red ribbon around its neck. The following instructions were given : Well what hav e w e her e It is a toy dog Now you tell me the most int e r e sting, clev erest ways by which you can change this dog (or: make him different) so that you and other children would have more fun playing with it. You just tell me how and I'll write down your ideas.

PAGE 47

39 The subject's responses were recorded for l minute JO sec onds. For Part II the subj ect was presented with a cloth doll, McCalls Pattern #5724. The doll was approximately 11 inches long with brown yarn hair and a blue denim shirt and pants. The following instructions were given : What else do we have here? It's a doll. Now you go ahead and tell me the most interesting and cleverest ways by which you can change this doll so that it will be more fun to play with. The subject's responses were recorded for l minute JO sec onds. See Appendix A for the tasks. The Monroe Language Classification Test was a three part test. The subject was given the following instructions: No w this is the last thing we 'r e going to do ." "Tell me all the animals you can think of as quickly as you can." "Tell me all the things to eat you can think of." "Tell me all the toys you can think of ." Responses for each category were recorded in al minute 30 second time block. See Appendix A for the tasks. The Product Improvement task and the Monroe Language Classification Test were developed and/or adapted by Lieber man (1964) in her work on divergent thinking in kindergarten children. Ideational fluency, an as pec t of div ergent think ing, was selected to be examined in this study a s it yielded the results of greatest significanc e in her work. Lieber man (1964) utilized the following crit e ria for development of her instrum ents : (a) applicability of existing tests,

PAGE 48

40 or of specially constructed tests modeled after existing tests, at the kindergarten level; (b) evidence for validity and reliability of these tests from a pilot study for her initial research project and from the existing literature. Based on the work by Guilford (1951) and Torrance (1960) on creative thinking and Gewirtz (1948) and Meyers (1962) on verbal fluency in young children, Lieberman (1964) developed the following tasks: Product Improvement, Guilford's Plot Titles, and the Monroe Language Classification Test. From the Monroe Test the objects selected were Animals, Things to Eat, and Toys. The child was asked to list as many as he could think of. The tasks are included in Appendix A. Validation and Reliability of the Tests Lieberman's (1964) final selection of the tests was made after a pilot study with 14 subjects attending a pri vate kindergarten in New York City. The age range was from 4-6 to 6-3 years, the average being 5-0 years. Meaningful scores were obtained for ideational fluency from all three tests. She noted that teacher conferences provided a pre liminary validity check since the children who scored high on the divergent thinking factors were jud ged creative by the teachers. Lieberman developed a special scoring guide for the ideational fluency tasks (1964). (See Appendix B.) As far

PAGE 49

41 as possible, the rationale was mod e led after existing tests by Torrance and Guilford. The introduction of the new prod uct, namely the doll and the original text of the stories, called for specific guidelines for the answers obtained. Interscorer reliability for the div e rgent thinking scores was established in the Lieberman study on a sam p le of 20 records. The Pearson r's were .99 for ideational f luency on all three tasks. Data o n Validity from th e Lit e ratur e The evidence about the tasks measurin g id ea tional fluency is as follows. (a) For Product Impro ve m e nt Torrance (1960) claim ed face validity and gave scorin g categories on the basis of a sample of 146 elementary school children, grades 1-6. (b) Analysis of th e Monroe Lan g u age Classifi cation Test showed a factor loading of ideational fluenc y (Meyers et al., 1962) and comparable tests of object naming also showed loadin g s on ideational fluency (Bereiter, 1961; Guilford & Christensen, 1956). Data on Reliability from th e Literature For the Prod uct Improv e m e nt Task Torrance (1 960 ) men tioned the int e rchan ge abilit y of a to y m o nk ey with the toy dog and cited intersc ore r r e liabilit y in th e .80's, h ence the s e l ec tion of a dog in Lieberman (1964). Meyer s et al.

PAGE 50

42 (1962) reported a reliability of .62 based on intercorrela tions of the three parts for the Monroe Language Classifi cation Test (Animals, Toys, Things to Eat). The Playfulness Scale Playfulness was evaluated utilizing the Playfulness Scale developed by Lieberman (1964). (See Appendix c.) This scale consists of five subscales corresponding to the five behavior traits of physical spontaneity, manifest joy, sense of humor, social spontaneity, and cognitive spontane ity. Each scale is divided into an A and B part, referring to the quantity and quality of the trait measured. These subdivisions were made in order not to contaminate frequency with degr ee or intensity of the trait m eas ured. It was found that the further refinement was considered helpful to the raters (Lieberman, 1962). The division also indicated no prior assumption that quantity and quality were related. Ratings are made on a five point scale. Descriptiv e labels for the points on the scale are given, as are sample behav ior items for each trait to be rated. The format of th e scale was modeled after Beller's (1955) instrum e nt for as sessing dependence, independ e nce and aggression in young children through teacher ratings (Lieberman, 1964). As a check on validity, Lieberman (1964) included two questions not related to the behavior indices for playfulness. These

PAGE 51

43 scales asked for an evaluation of the child's intelligence and his physical attractiveness. Reliability coefficients, obtained from the ratings of the two teachers for the five traits and considered quali tatively and quantitatively, ranged with a Spearman-Brown correction from .66 to .86 with a mean of .70 (Lieberman, 1964). Intercorrelations between the playfulness traits ranged from .61 between sense of humor and physical spon taneity to .86 between manifest joy and cognitive spontane ity (Lieberman, 1964). When centroid factors were ex tracted, four of the five playfulness traits (cognitive spontaneity, social spontaneity, manifest joy, sense of hu mor) had loadings in the middle .80's on the first factor. Physical spontaneity had a loading of .78. Factors 2 and 3 accounted for little of the variance with factor loadings ranging from .092 to .379. Lieberman (1964) concluded from this that Playfulness could be conceptualized as a unitary trait. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test This test is an individual intelligence test for ages 2 1/2 to 18 years. It is designed to provide a well stan dardized estimate of a subject's verbal intelligence (Dunn, 1965). This test was chosen for its ease of administration and previously noted appropriateness (Lieberman, 1964). As an instrument using verbal stimuli and nonverbal responses,

PAGE 52

44 it aims at an assessment of verbal comprehension and learned information. It is, therefore, considered sufficiently dif ferent to provide some control measure for the scores on the ideational fluency tasks (Lieberman, 1964). Also testing time is short, which is an important consideration for use with kindergarteners. The test consists of 150 plates. Each plate has four well drawn and unambiguous pictures from which the subject is asked to choose one response to the examiner's question. The subject need only point. The score is the number of correct answers. The manual suggests starting points for different age levels. With respect to the difficulties experienced with mea sures of intelligence below age 6, the evidence cited for validity and reliability can be considered satisfactory. A correlation of .79 with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children has been obtained for a group of above average elementary school children. Reliability coefficients are given by age level and are .73 and .67 for ages 5 and 6, respectively (Dunn, 1965). Measuring Imaginative Play Predisposition Singer (1973) notes that a major effort aimed at ar ticulating more precisely what goes into imaginative tenden cies in children and adults has grown out of the use of projective techniques. Projective techniques utilize the

PAGE 53

45 the presentation of relatively ambiguous stimuli to indi viduals who are then required to tell stories about pic tures or to give associations to abstract inkblots, etc. These ambiguous testing instruments were developed in an effort to provide behavioral assessment of underlying inclinations. Singer (1968) views projective techniques as a method to tap ongoing behavioral tendencies in the individual. The use of projective methods for studying imagination has generally involved what the content reveals about spe cific conflict areas, as can be seen from the widespread use of the Thematic Apperception Test or various forms of association tests (Singer, 1973). A different approach has developed usin g the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Rorschach (1942) provided a major insight by noting that the tendency to produce movement or color responses when looking at the inkblots tapped not so much the specific content of con flicts or needs, but rather measured a broad trend toward reliance on imagination or an open expression of emotionality as a major tendency (Singer, 1973). Rorschach proposed that all human experience could be measured along an intro version-extratension dimension and that the ratio of the human movement (M) responses in inkblots to the color re sponses in producing associations was a fundamental way of tapping this predisposition (Rorschach, 1942). On the whole, there seems to be considerable support in research for at least some aspects of Rorschach's interpretation of the

PAGE 54

46 human movement responses as a measure of imaginativeness in both children and adults (Singer, 1960, 1968, 1973). Singer (1973) links the development of the human movement (M) re sponse to the internalization of speech in the form of heightened imagery and fantasy. This provides th e basis for the choice of the inkblot method as one approach to estimat ing imaginative predisposition to play. Normative data with the original set of Rorschach inkblots indicate that chil dren show relatively few such movement responses before the age of 6 or 7 (Ames et al., 1974). It was necessary, then, to find another technique appropriate to a younger popula tion. The Holtzman Inkblot Test (Holtzman, 1961), however, provides useful norms on performance of children as young as 5 years. The data from the Holtzman Inkblots strongly support the importance of the movement response as an index of ideational tendencies (Singer, 1973). The Holtzman Inkblots were developed in an attempt to provide a projective technique with psychometrically sound scoring procedures for responses to inkblots while also pre serving the rich qualitative projective material of the Rorschach (Holtzman et al., 1961). The Holtzman Inkblots consist of 47 cards (45 are utilized in the score, 2 are practice cards). The subject is required to provide one response to each card. The cards are then scored, utilizing a standard format. Various studies have examined the com parability of the Holtzman Inkblot responses and the

PAGE 55

47 Rorschach Inkblot responses. Most of the recognized Rorschach responses can be reproduced by configural scoring utilizing the basic elements coded in the Holtzman technique (Holtzman et al., 1961). Haggard, cited in Holtzman (Holtz man et al., 1961), utilizing multivariate analysis, found significant correlations across eight scores in the responses of high school students. Important to note is that the move ment response was one of the eight scores examined. Holtz man et al. (1961) conclude that these results indicate quite conclusively that the Rorshach and Holtzman systems have a great deal in common as far as the underlying meaning of their respective variables is concerned. Holtzman et al. (1961) provide an equivalency table for converting movement (M) responses according to the Klopf e r method of Rorschach scores as Holtzman Inkblot scores of M > l plus H > l. Biblow (1973) utilized the Holtzman Inkblots to deter mine imaginative predisposition with fifth grade children. Utilizing the blots, fantasy level was determined upon the basis of the score for movement responses to 20 selected cards. Gottlieb (1973) also utilized the movement (M) score on one-half of the Holtzman Inkblots, Form A, with elemen tary school and junior high school age children, as an as pect of imaginative predisposition evaluation. The movement (M) response on the Holtzman blots is scored for inanimate, as well as animate, movement. Rorschach (1942), however, stated that movement (M)

PAGE 56

48 responses applied only to human or animal (animate) movement. In an effort to examine the introversive elements articulated by Rorschach as related to imagination in the individual, this study examines different combinations of scores of the Holtzman blots: M scores alone and M>l plus H > l. The odd-numbered cards, Form A, of the Holtzman Ink blots were used in this study. Odd-even reliability coef ficients for the procedure were suffici ent to utilize one half of the instrument to allow for the kindergarteners' limited attention span. The correlation coefficients for each of the responses for the 5 year old population are as follows: Movement (M) .80, Human (H) .79. Singer has developed an interview for assessing imaginative play predisposition (Singer, 1973). (See Appendix D.) He has noted that it is possible to get adequate data from children as young as kindergarten age. The questions are as follows: (a) What is your favorite game? What do you like to play the most? (b) What game do you like to play best when you are all alone? What do you like to do best when you are all alone? (c) Do you ever have pictures in your head? Do you ever see make-believe things with pic tures in your mind or think about th e m? What sort of things? (d) Do you have a make-believe friend? Do you have an animal or toy or make-believe person you talk to

PAGE 57

49 or take along with you? Did you ever have one, even though you don't any more? The key in scoring these items has to do with the de gree to which the child's report indicates the introduction of symbolic play or make-believe. The questionnaire was scored on a five point scale (range O 4 positive imagin ative responses). Singer (1973) notes that most children do not receive a score higher than 2 or 3. He concludes that scores of O l indicate low imaginative p lay predis p osition, while scores of 2 or more indicate high i mag ina tive play predisposition.

PAGE 58

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Inter-rater Reliability The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was scored accord ing to manual instructions, and the subjects received an IQ score. The Monroe Language Classification Test was scored blind by three raters. Two raters were senior undergrad uate psychology majors; one rater was a first year graduate student in clinical psychology. The raters participated in a training session with the primary investigator. The rat ers then independently rated all the protocols. Inter-rater reliability was established utilizing a Spearman Correla tion Coefficient. For the Monroe Language Classification Test inter-rater reliability for the three raters was as follows: r= .99, r= .97, r= .97. The Imaginative Play Predisposition Interview responses were scored blind following the same procedur e s as described for the Monroe Language Classification Test. Inter-rater reliability was established utilizin g th e Spearman Correlation Coefficient. Inter-rater reliability for the Imaginative Play Predisposition Interview was as follows: r = .80, r = .83, r = .82. 50

PAGE 59

51 The Product Improvement Task was rated by two senior undergraduate psychology majors. The procedure for rating was described above for the Monroe Language Classification Test. Inter-rater reliability was established utilizing the Spearman Correlation Coefficient. The inter-rater re liability was= .96. The Holtzman Inkblot Tests were scored by three ad vanced graduate students in clinical psychology who had ex perience in administering and scoring projective tests and one less advanced graduate student in clinical psychology. Each rater pa rticipated in a trainin g session with the pri mary investigator to learn how to score the Holtzman blots for human and movement responses. Each rater then scored approximately 20 protocols (one rater scored 19). The pri mary investigator served as a standard with which th e raters' scores were compared for inter-rater reliability. Four of the protocols were randomly selected for comparison as follows. Each rater scored five protocols and one was randomly selected for comparison prior to completing the remaining protocols. The standard then ind epende ntly rated the target protocol. Differences in s co rin g were discussed but the scorin g was unchanged. This proced ur e was followed until all the protocols w e r e complet e d. A Tau B w as utilized for c a lculating inter-rater reliabilit y. ities were as follows: Reliabil

PAGE 60

52 Rater l Human Responses T = .94 Movement Responses T = .86 Rater 2 Human Responses T = 83 Movement Responses T = 9 9 Rater 3 Human Responses T = 72 Movement Responses T = .90 Rater 4 Human Responses T = .88 Movement Responses T = .93 It was hypothesized that there would be significant re lationships between imaginative play predisposition and playfulness, with the relationship between the subitem cog nitive spontaneity and imaginative play predisposition as most notable. In fact, the only relationships of significance generated by the regression equations were between cognitive spontaneity and imaginati ve play predisposition. Imaginative play predisposition measured by the Singer in terview plus Holtzman movement score was significant at the .005 level with the quantitative index for cognitive spontaneity. The slope of the regression was negative. Imaginative play predisposition as measured by the Singer inter view plus Holtzman movement response was significant at the .05 level with the qualitative index for cognitive spontaneity. The slop e of th e regr e ssion was positive. Im ag inative p lay p redis positi on as measured by th e Sin ger intervi e w p lus the Holtzman movement plus human res p onse was significantly related to the quantitative index for playfulness. The slope of th e regression was negative.

PAGE 61

53 There was no evidence for a significant relationship between ideational fluency and playfulness. Hypotheses I and II Measuring Imaginative Play Predisposition With respect to the interview task designed by Singer, he suggests that frequency of high (2 or greater) and low (0 1) imaginative play predisposition would be evenly divided in a normal population. In this study the sample was divided approximately in half (38 high, 49 low) with the high imaginative play predisposition defined as a score of 2 or greater and the low imaginative play predisposition defined as a score of O or 1. (See Table l for distribution of scores.) Imaginative play predisposition was related to sex in this sample. Females scored higher than males (F<.01). Another question raised by this study was the appropriate scoring technique for the Holtzman Inkblot Test. Spearman Correlation Coefficient for the relationship between the movement responses alone and the combination human plus movement responses was r = .78, suggesting that at this age the respons es are essentially the same. Th e relationship be tween the imaginative play predisposition and the Holtzman movement responses was= .14 and the imaginative play pre disposition and Holtzman human plus movement responses

PAGE 62

54 = .22; neither relationship was significant. This lack of correlation suggests that the Imaginative Play Predis position Interview and the Holtzman Inkblot Test may still be aspects of the complex phenomenon of imaginative play predisposition but are clearly not measuring the same com ponents. For the purposes of this study both types of scor ing were examined in a linear regression model to examine relationships between the Holtzman Inkblot score and the other variables. Both movement and movement plus human responses were positively related to age: imaginative play predisposition, movement alone: F < .01; imaginative play predisposition, movement plus human response: F < .005. This would suggest that the older the child the higher the score on the Holtzman task. This would confirm developmental trends noted by Holtzman (cited in Hill, 1972). Others have suggested (Ames et al., 1974) that this developmental trend is evident in Rorschach movement (M) responses as well. This introspective aspect of development does perhaps develop over time. When the interview score and the Holtzman Ink blot score were combined it also reflected the relationship to age: imaginative play predisposition, Holtzman movement along/age: F~.005; imaginative play predisposition, Holtz man movement plus human response/ag e : F<.001. This may suggest that the age effect in the Holtzman score is so strong that the combined imaginative play predisposition is age related. Imaginative Play Predisposition scores without

PAGE 63

55 the Holtzman component were not age related. Singer (1966), however, suggests that this trait is not age related but rather is a quantifiable entity within an individual, which may show development over time but should not directly be affected by age. This raises some interesting questions. If indeed, as Singer suggests, there is an imaginative play predisposition and it can be measured by his interview task without age demonstrating a clear relationship then the utility of including the Holtzman measure with its strong relationship to age is questionable. It would seem that adding this measure, although hypothesized theoretically as a component of imaginative play predisposition, is so af fected by developmental trends as to perhaps eliminate or confound the true imaginative play predisposition. On the other hand one could question whether or not this is an artifact of the age range examined. The frequency of movement (M) responses shows more marked change in these years than at other ages. In Holtzman's normative data cited in Hill (1972), 5 year olds at the 48th percentile generated a raw score of 9; first graders at the 50th percentile generated a raw score of 14. Norms on fourth graders reflected a raw score of 24 at the 50th percentile ~hich was equiva lent to percentile norms for the average adult population This could indicate that the Holtzman Inkblot Test for a younger population is too heavily affected by developmental trends to serve as an adequate measure of imaginative play

PAGE 64

56 predisposition for these early years. The Holtzman task, however, was selected as it seemed more appropriate than a Rorschach at these early years. A more suitable method of examining imaginative play predisposition needs to be de veloped for these early years. Hypothesis III Measuring Playfulness Lieberman's (1964) scale measures five separate aspects of playfulness on both a quality and quantity dimension. Each subdivision--physical spontaneity, manifest joy, social spontaneity, cognitive spontaneity--can receive a rating from 1 to 5 for each (quality, quantity). A child's com bined quality of playfulness score, therefore, has the range of 5 25. A child's combined quantity of playfulness score has the range of 10 50 (quality+ quantity). In this sample the playfulness scores did not distribute themselves adequately over the range to reflect both high and low play fulness scores. Over 50% (n=58) received scores of 36 or g reater. As can be seen in Table 3 the sample reflected al most no children with low playfulness scores. When the scores were broken down by SES levels (see Table 4) it can be seen that this trend was evident in all SES levels. The finding of high playfulness scores raises some in teresting questions. Utilizing Lieberman's instrum e nt it is evident that Lieberman's (1964) results were replicated.

PAGE 65

57 As Lieberman's (1964) sample also reflected a high playful ness bias. The teachers were able, in rating the children, to utilize all five points on each of the subdivisions (some students did receive scores less than 3); howeve~ the ma jority of students received scores of 3 or greater on all the subdivisions. Two of the teachers were able to utilize all five points on the Lieberman scale. The remaining two teachers utilized four out of the five points on the Lieber man scale. Tables 5-8 illustrate the four teachers' ratings. The playfulness rating scale requir e s further examination on more sampl e s of children before playfulness as a con struct can be further explored. Hypothesis IV Measuring Ideational Fluency Scores were obtained in a distribution which rang ed from low to high for ideational fluency. The point range, however, was so limited as to raise q u es tions as to the utility of th e methodology for furth er research. With a range of scores found in this population from l to 38, over 50% of th e population (n=44) scored in the middle range from the scor e s of 16 25. With a restricted scoring ran ge of less than 40 po ints, a majority of scores within the range of 9 points makes it difficult to utilize the instruments as designed by Lieberman (1964). (S ee T ab l e 9.) In order

PAGE 66

58 to measure the construct of ideational fluency more effec tively tasks need to be designed which better discriminate between the high and low dimensions of ideational fluency. Hypothesis V, VI and VII It was proposed that given the possibility of measur ing the three constructs adequately (ideational fluency, imaginative play predisposition, playfulness) comparisons between scores on each of the three would yield significant relationships. It was suggested that high scores on playful ness would be related to high scores on imaginative play predisposition and ideational fluency. This was suggested given the theoretical underpinnings of the constructs. Due to the limited range of scores on the ideational fluency instruments and the difficulty in establishing any subjects in the low range of playfulness, regression functions gen erated few significant relationships between imaginative play predisposition, playfulness and ideational fluency. In order to further examine the lack of significant re lationships between imaginative play and playfulness, the top twenty imaginative play scores and the lowest twenty imaginative play scores were examined in relationship to their corresponding playfulness scores (See Table 10 and 11). It was hoped that by examining this subsample of the population some further information might be gained regard ing the relationship between imaginative play and

PAGE 67

I 59 playfulness. The score utilized to determine imaginative play was the combined interview and Holtzman movement plus human response. A low imaginative play response was de fined as < 4; a high imaginative play score was defined as > 17. Graphs were plotted comparing imaginative play to a total playfulness score, a combined playfulness quantity score, a combined playfulness quality score, as well as each of the ten components of the combined scores. There were no apparent differences in the distributions. In sum mary, the only significant relationships generated by the regression equations were between imaginative play predis position and cognitive spontaneity. Discussion Extensive theoretical work and research in play behav ior in children has generated a vast and less than cohesive body of literature. Although play behavior has aroused the interest of many, there is neither a cohesive theory nor an adequate methodology to tackle this complex behavior in human children. One difficulty has been the fact that our theorizing has extended beyond adequate empirical data to support it. Another difficulty has been the diversity of approaches to the problem. Investigators have tended to follow their own isolated routes of inquiry without compar ing their work. Rather than being able to compare and con trast constructs, new ones are formed. This study attempted

PAGE 68

6 0 to provide empirical data to support two current constructs and theoretical perspectives within play behavior. Second, it attempted to compare two different approaches to play behavior in an effort to generate some unity in theoretical conceptualization. The first task, that of providing empirical support to two current theoretical constructs in the current lit erature, met with variable outcome. Jerome Singer's (1973) work on imaginative play predisposition is a relatively recent contribution to theoretical conceptualization of the role of imaginative play behavior in the development of the individual. This study, by demonstrating that imaginative play predisposition can be measured utilizing Singer's interview technique in a SES heterogeneous pop ulation of kindergarten and first graders, yields greater validity to the construct as well as reliability for the instrument with this population. The questions raised regarding the utility of the Holtzman Inkblot Test with this population are equally important. Given the high relationship between age/developmental factors and the resultant Holtzman Inkblot scores, one is inclined to doubt the utility of the instrument for this p opulation in studying imaginative play predisposition. Furthermore, if imaginative play predisposition is a quasi-personality

PAGE 69

61 trait or an aspect of personality development as Singer postulates, then one is inclined to question the Holtzman Inkblot Test as an instrument for measurement as it is so effected by age. A third question that should be raised is regarding the developmental course of the imaginative play predisposition. Is the development so rapid during these years that it is difficult to measure or is it truly a trait in the individual or only an artifact of age or development. A further question to be asked regarding methodology is that if the Holtzman Inkblot Test and the Imaginative Play Pre disposition Interview are so poorly correlated can one task be substituted for the other in inquiries with older age children where the Imaginative Play Predisposition Interview is inappropriate. The above mentioned questions underscore several needs in this area. First of all, further work needs to explore the definition of the imag inative play predisposition in order to generate a more appropriate methodology to examine it. Second, work in defining imaginative play predisposition and its methodol ogy must be examined over more populations to provide a firmer data base for the construct. Although Lieberman's {1964) results regarding playful ness were essentially replicated, i.e., teachers rated children as discriminable and in the upper range of playfulness, it

PAGE 70

62 is not possible to conclude anything from those data. With out establishing validity, other than face validity, and re liability of the construct, it is difficult to conclude what the playfulness scale actually measures. Playfulness as a construct is theoretically interesting and potentially useful. Intuitively it addresses many of the concerns raised regarding play behavior by incorporating cognitive, social and affective components. Before further empirical explora tion is possible, however, considerable basic methodolog ical research must take place in order to determine the validity and reliability of the construct. One research pos sibility would be to utilize trained observational data on children's play behavior with teachers' and/or other trained observers ratings with the playfulness rating scales. Es tablishment of adequate validity and reliability of the Playfulness scale would permit it to serve as an efficient research tool. The second problem attempted in this study, to compare two aspects of play behavior in order to provide some unity of theoretical conceptualization, yielded significant rela tionships which are intriguing. In turn these results raise further questions. Given the limited utility of the Lieber man (1964) playfulness instrument caution must be used in interpreting the results. In light of this caution, however, the relationships of significance were found between imaginative play predisposition and the cognitive

PAGE 71

63 spontaneity subset of playfulness. As the cognitive spon taneity dimension of playfulness most directly addresses imaginative play, this may in fact be the only aspect of playfulness which is related to Singer's (1973) imaginative play predisposition Of interest, however, was the fact that the slope of the regressions for the relationship be tween frequency of cognitive spontaneity and imaginative play were negative, whereas the slope of the regression representing the relationship between the quality of cog nitive spontaneity and imaginative play was positive. One might intuitively assume that the slopes would both be positive. The question on the Lieberman (1966) instrument for measuring the quality of congitive spontaneity directly ad dresses the degree of imaginatio~ demonstrated by the child in expressive and dramatic play. These significant relationships indicate an important direction for further empirical investigation. An enormously frustrating task for the individual in terested in examining play behavior is the lack of an ade quate methodology for research. Although fascinating, play behavior is complex. Theoretical conceptualization surround ing play is diverse and equally complex. The limited significant results in this study raise three basic questions. The first question is whether or not measures of the constructs have any empirical relationship to each other. The theoretical bases of the constructs

PAGE 72

64 point to a relationship which was only minimally supported by the data. The second question raised by the results of this study is whether or not the constructs a~ defined are adequate for further empirical work. The aforementioned question is a methodological concern. The evidence for re liability and validity of the instruments currently assumed to measure the constructs may be inadequate to make any clear statements regarding the existence of the phenomena. The third question raised regards the logical processes of research: the inductive process vs. the deductive process. There are two opposing schools of thou g ht concerning the most effective methods for integrating diverse data. The deductive school states that theories should be formu lated first and then tested by experim e nt. The inductive method is to experiment first and to let the theories emerge from the data. The difference betw e en the two schools is not so much the presence or absence of theory in research, but the way in which theory is developed. The deductive method provides a certain elegance in re search by which comprehensive theori e s generate the defini tion of constructs. These constructs ar e th e n o p eration a lly defined and reliable and valid instrum e nts ur e d e veloped to m e asure observable behavior. Dataare g athered in an effort to empirically support the theoretical postulates. The dif ficulty in this logical process is exemplified by the area of play. Theoretical development has far surpassed

PAGE 73

65 methodological development. In psychology where phenomena are diverse and complex this presents a serious dilemma. The current trend in psychological research is to narrow one's focus to examine a small amount of r e latively simple data. A second approach in current psychological research is to utilize the inductive method. Sidman states: intensive cultivation of an area of research by an alert ob server will inevitably bring out interrelations among the phenomena comprising the area (Sidman, 1960, p. 15). In this method a large number of experiments must be conducted with the hypothesis that order will emerge. This requires a basic faith in the orderliness of behavior. The present research most clos e ly followed the deduc tive method. Based on theoretical conceptualizations, re lationships between the constructs of imaginative play pre disposition, playfulness and ideational fluency were hypoth esized. Conclusions from the data are limited by the absence of careful methodological development. This can be seen in the lack of clear operational definitions of the constructs, and the absence of reliable and valid instru ments to me a sur e observable behavior. The course for future resea~ch can be g ui ded b y les sons from both the inductive and deductive methods of re s ea rch. Inductively more observational data need be col lected to generate th e definition of play behavior and its

PAGE 74

I 66 parameters. Deductively, the definitions of play behavior need to be tested empirically in relationship to the exten sive theoretical literature existing regarding play. Re search should establish th e reliabilit y and validity of the instruments presumed to measur e beh avio r r e lat ed to th e constructs of imaginative play and playfulness. This could be accomplished utilizing careful observation a l data on chil dren's play behavior. Investigation of childr e n's play behavior offers the researcher th e potential for greater underst and ing o f de velopment: affective, cognitive, s oc ial and p s yc hop a tho lo g ical. It is not surprising that p l ay h as captured the interest of philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, as well as psychologists. As with so many areas in psychology, theoretical work reaches far beyond the data base. Each empirical in ve stigation provides a few small steps to close that gap. Often of greater importanc e a re th e new q u es tions which are raised. This study althou g h providing few an swers, clearly points to some important directions for fu ture research.

PAGE 75

Im aginat iv e Play Predisposition Int erview Score 0 1 1 4 2 5 3 3 4 1 67 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF I MAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION INVENTORY ( SINGER ) FREQUENCY OVER SES LEVELS SES Level I II III IV ** (. 0 7) 3 (. 1 9 ) 2 ( .13) 3 ( .19) ( .29) 7 (. 44) 6 (. 40) 5 (. 31) (. 36 ) 4 (. 25 ) 4 ( 2 7) 5 (. 3 1) (. 21) 1 ( .06 ) 3 ( .20) 1 (. 06) (. 07) 1 (. 06 ) 0 2 ( .13) Number of sub jects. **Percentage of N for each SES level. V 3 ( .17) 7 (. 39) 4 (. 2 2) 3 ( .17) 1 (. 06)

PAGE 76

GB TABL E 2 D ISTRIBUTI ON OF COMBINED I MAGINAT I VE PLJ\Y PRED I SPOS ITI ON AND HOLTZ1'1AN INKBLOT TE S T SCORES OVER SES LE VE LS Combined SES Lev e l Score I II III I V ** 0 5 5 (. 36 ) 3 ( .1 9 ) 4 (. 2 7) 4 (. 25 ) 6 1 0 4 (. 2 9) 5 (. 3 1) 5 (. 33) 2 ( 13 ) 11 1 5 0 4 (. 25 ) 2 ( 13) 3 ( .1 9 ) 1 6 20 4 (. 29 ) 2 ( .13) 3 (. 20 ) 4 (. 25) 21 1 (. 07 ) 2 ( .13) 1 (. 07 ) 2 ( .13) Numb e r of subjects ** Percentage of N for SES l eve l. V 9 (. 50 ) 3 ( .17) 3 (. 17) 1 (. 056 ) 2 ( .11)

PAGE 77

69 TABLE 3 PLAYFU L NESS SCORE FREQUENCIES 1 5 0 6 1 0 0 11 1 5 1 1 6 20 2 2 1 25 3 26 30 9 3 1 35 6 36 4 0 25 4 1 45 26 46 50 7

PAGE 78

70 T ABLE 4 D I S T R IBUTION OF PLAYFULNESS OVER SES LEVEL P l ayfulness SES Leve 1 Score I II III IV V 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 20 0 0 1 0 1 21 25 1 1 0 0 1 26 30 1 2 2 1 4 3 1 35 1 0 2 2 2 36 40 4 4 7 5 4 4 1 45 4 6 2 6 6 46 so 3 2 1 1 0

PAGE 79

1 71 TABLE 5 TEACHER B PLAYFULNESS RA TIN G S >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, _ rl _ _ rl rl rl rl rl QJ rl QJ rl ..-l QJ >, ] D' ..-l .c QJ >, QJ > QJ >, > QJ rd rd >, ~ i::: >, rl rl >, u ;.; u rl ::, ::, rl ..-l ..-l rd _ rl _ QJ QJ rl _ rl rl OI OI ;.; ;.; rl rd _ rd rl rl _ rl rl n ..Q fl i::: fl s:: ..-l 0 ..-l rl rl s:: ..-I i::: i::: i::: s:: ..-I -g 3 >, 0 >, 0 rd >, >, u u 0 rd ty\ 0 ti' o ro ..c ::, ..c ::, 0 0 ;J ::, 0 ::, 0 ::, 0 ::, 0 ::, UJ z A< UJ OI p., UJ OI rJ rJ :I: OI :I: OI U) UJ OI U) UJ OI U UJ 01 U UJ 01 1 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 4 3 3 2 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 7 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 8 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 9 3 3 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 10 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 11 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 1 2 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 13 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 14 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 15 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 16 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 17 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 18 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 9 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 20 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 5

PAGE 80

r7 2 TABLE 6 TEACHER A P L AYFULNESS RATIN GS >, >, >, D' >, >, >, >, . rl . . rl rl rl rl rl (!) rl (!) rl rl (!) >, rl (l) rl >, (!) >, (!) > (!) >, > (!) cu ij cu >, cu >, -;:: rl ~t rl rl >, U H u rl u ;::l ;::l rl rl rl . (!) (!) rl . rl rl QI QI H H rl cu . cu rl rl . 2 rl -n~ Ul C: UJ C rl g O rl rl @ rl C: rl C: C: C: C: rl >, 0 >, 0 cu >, >, u U O cu tJ1 0 rt! tJ1 0 cu ;::l ..c: ;::l ..c: ;::l 0 0 ;::l ;::l 0 ;::l 0 ;::l 0 ;::l 0 ;::l U) z p., U) QI p., Ul QI rJ rJ :r:: QI :r:: QI U) U) QI Ul Ul QI u Ci) QI u U) QI 2 1 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 22 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 23 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 4 24 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 25 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 4 26 4 2 5 5 3 2 4 3 5 5 2 7 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 28 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 29 4 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 0 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 32 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 33 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 34 3 4 3 3 3 2 5 5 5 5 35 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 36 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 7 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 3 4 4 38 3 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 39 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 2 2 4 0 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PAGE 81

73 TABLE 7 TEACHER C PLAYFULNESS RATINGS >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, . rl . . rl rl rl rl rl QJ rl QJ rl ..-I QJ >, ..-I QJ i::: ..-I >, QJ >, Q) > QJ >, > QJ ro ro >, ro ro >, -~ ~t rl rl i::: >, u u rl u ::l ::l rl ..-I ..-I r-1 ro r-1 . rl r-1 OI OI H H rl ro . ro r-1 r-1 . r-1 rl U> C U> C ..-I 0 0 ..-I r-1 i::: i::: rl i::: ..-I i::: i::: fa i::: i::: ..-I >, 0 >, o ro >, 6 @ u o ro u o ro tJ1 0 o-, o ro ::l .c 0.. ::l .c 0.. ::l 0 3 ::l 0 0.. ::l 0 0.. ::l 0 0.. ::l 0 0.. ::l U) z p.., U) OI p.., U) OI rJ rJ ::C OI ::C OI U) U) OI U) U) OI U U) OI UU)QI 41 3 5 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 42 3 2 5 5 4 2 5 5 4 4 43 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 4 4 45 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 46 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47 4 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 48 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 49 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 50 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 52 4 4 5 5 3 3 2 3 4 4 53 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 54 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 55 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 56 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 57 5 1 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 58 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 3 2 59 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 4 4 60 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 5 5

PAGE 82

. u )..-1 (l) (l) n.Q .Q 6 ;:1 ;:1 (/) z 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 D' .-I ...; (l) >, ro c: u ro -.-1 .-I . tf) C: C: >, o ro ..c 0.. ;:1 P< (I) Ol 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 >, .-I ...; (l) ro c: >, u rj .-I .-I tf) C: ...; >, o ro ..c 0.. ;:1 P, Ul OI 5 4 3 5 5 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 2 74 TABLE 8 TEACHER D PLAYFULNESS RATINGS 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 3 4 3 >, .-I ...; ro ;:1 OI 6 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 5 3 2 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 5 4 5 4 3 5 3 4 3 3 5 3 5 2 1 4 4 5 2 2 .G .-I (l) ..--l ,G n:l .-I .-I C: ..--l u o ro 0 0.. ;:1 (I) (I) OI 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 5 2 4 >, (l) .-I :;,(l) >, .-I C: . ro -.-1 .-I . C: C: C: o-, o ro 0 0.. ;:1 U (I) 01 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 .G (l) .-I :;,(l) .-I C: >, .w ro rl .-I C: C: ..--l tJ1 0 (\j 0 0.. ;:1 U (I) 01 3 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 2 4 4

PAGE 83

75 TABLE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF IDEATIONAL FLUENCY SCORES OVER SES LEVELS Id eationa l SES L eve l Fluency Score I II III IV V 10 0 0 l 2 1 11 1 0 0 1 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 1 0 0 1 16 0 2 1 3 2 17 0 0 1 0 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 19 2 0 1 1 3 20 2 1 2 1 0 21 1 1 0 1 1 22 1 0 3 1 0 23 0 1 1 1 1 24 1 0 1 0 1 25 1 1 1 1 1 26 0 1 0 0 0 27 1 0 l 1 1 28 2 2 0 0 1

PAGE 84

76 T ABLE 9 ( con tin u e d ) I deat i o nal SE S L eve l Flu e n cy S c o r e I II III I V V 29 0 1 0 1 3 30 0 2 2 3 2 15 2 *(.14)** 2 ( .13) 1 (. 0 7) 3 ( 1 9 ) 3 ( .17) 1 6 2 5 9 ( 64 ) 7 (. 44) 11 (. 73) 9 (. 60 ) 9 (. 5 0 ) 26 3 (. 2 1) 6 ( 3 8 ) 3 ( 20 ) 5 (. 33 ) 7 (. 39 ) *Id ea ti o nal F lu e n cy s co r es. * Pe r ce nta ge sco r es

PAGE 85

w w N N N N I-' I-' \.0 -.J w N !Subject Number \.0 0-, \.0 0-, V1 N (J) I-' I t:-< 0 I :s V1 V1 Physical Spon I H w "" "" "" w "" w w "" 1 tan e it y Quanti ty C, H I Physical Spon I I z N "" w N N "" N "" w "" "" ,i::,. ;i:, tan eity Qua lity >-3 H < ,i::,. ,i::,. V1 V1 w .t> w V1 I M w V1 V1 V1 I Joy Q uantit y I ti:, t:-< .t> V1 V1 w .t> w V1 I ;i:, V1 V1 .t> "" I Joy Qua lit y >-< ti:, I-' ti:, w V1 w w w V1 w ,i::,. ,i::,. V1 ,i::,. ,i::,. I Humor Q uantity I ~ Hi 0 i:: H I-' {/J N ,i::,. w N N V1 w w V1 .t> ,i::,. ,i::,. I Humor Q uality I ::i ti:, (1) 0 {/} Cl) {/} H Social Span I >-3 Cl) H .t> V1 ,i::,. ,i::,. w V1 w V1 w V1 V1 w l taneity Q uantity 0 0 0 z t1 (1) Cl) Social SponI {/} "" V1 "" w N ,i::,. w ,i::,. w w V1 "" I tanei ty Qua lit y M n >-3 Cognitive SponI I {/J N V1 ,i::,. V1 ,i::,. V1 w V1 .,. V1 .,. ,i::,. \ taneity Quan tity I I 8 ti:, N V1 "" V1 ,i::,. V1 ,i::,. V1 "" ,I'> ,I'> ,i::,. I Cog niti ve Spon I I tanei ty Q u a lit y C I-' ~o M Cl) w "" w w N "" w ,I'> w ,I'> "" ,i::,. I Total P la y I {/J 0 V1 \.0 (J) \.0 U1 0 U1 (J) U1 w 0 H 9 0 I-' N N N I-' N I-' N N N N N I Combined Play It H 0-, w 0 I-' 0-, w V1 ,I'> 0 U1 N 0 Q uantit y Pl C, rt H I Combined Play I t-' z I-' N I-' I-' I-' N I-' N I-' N N N <: "" N \.0 -.I w N U1 I-' (J) 0 I-' 0 Q ualit y (1) H ti:, < I-' M Imaginative Play Pl '< ti:, I-' I-' N 0 I-' I-' 0 r-' 0 0 I-' w I PredisJ?osi tion t:-< ti:, '.):s 0 w w w w Inter v i ew t1 >-< (1) ti:, I Ima g inativ e Play {/} N I-' 'O 0 ,i::,. ,I'> ,i::,. \.0 m "" 0-, V1 w 0 I-' w Predispositio n 0 H {/} en w w w w Int erview p lu s t-' ti:, w rt 0 Holtzman Movemen t t-' Cl) 0 H ::i >-3 H Imaginative Play Cl) 0 0 z Predisposition 0 t1 Cl) "" r-' N 0 I-' I-' 0 I-' w 0 I-' w I Interview p lu s (1) n [/} 0 w w w w Holtzman Movement w Human {/J LL

PAGE 86

{J\ {J\ {J\ {J\ U1 U1 .ts .ts .ts Subject Number ro a, U1 w u) w u) ro -..J U1 Ul U1 .ts I-' .t:> w ..,. ..,. Physical Spontanei ty Quantity .ts U1 w I-' U1 N N N I Physical Spon.ts tan e i ty Qua li ty Ul U1 U1 U1 w U1 w U1 U1 I Joy Quan tity U1 .ts Ul U1 I-' Ul w V1 U1 I Joy Quality "" U1 .ts .ts w .ts w .ts U1 I Humor Q uantity w U1 .ts w N w N .ts V1 I Humor Quality I '"Cl 1--' p, Social SponI~ .ts Ul w V1 N .ts w .ts .ts I tan e it y Quantity 5' (l) Social SponI {/) {/) .ts U1 w U1 I-' V1 N ..,. .ts I taneity Quality [/) t-3 () 6J 0 Cognitive Spont-< (l) M .t:> "" "" "" "" V1 N .ts Vl I tan e ity Q uantity {/) I-' 0 Cognitive Spon() ..,. U1 "" .i,. .i,. V1 N .i,. V1 1 taneity Qua lity g rt f-' ::i .:: .;:,. .i,. .ts N "" N .;:,. "" I Total Play I I (l) ..,. p. N -..J N N N U1 Ul 0 .;:,. H :3 N N N I-' N I-' N N I Combined Play I{ N N "" I-' N w N .;:,. I-' w Quantity p, rt Combined Play I r-' N N N N N I-' 1--' N I < 0 w I-' 0 u) w I-' u) I-' Quality (l) 'U I-' Imaginative Play p, '< 0 I-' w 1--' 0 "" N I-' I Predisposition 'U w w {J\ Intervi ew w w {J\ (l) r-' Imaginative Play {/) I-' I-' I 'D "" ro w N 0 0 N w Predisposition 0 {/) w w {J\ Int erview plus r-' w w {J\ ('T Holtzman Movement ,... 0 ::i Imaginative Play (/) () Predisposition 0 .ts I-' w "" 0 .ts N I-' I Int erview plus ro {/) w w {J\ Holtzman Movement, w w O"\ Human Bl

PAGE 87

TABL E 11 HI GH I MAG I NATIVE PLAY P RED ISPOSITI ON SUBJECTS: PL A Y FULNESS AND I MAG I NAT I VE PL A Y PREDISPOSITION SCORES Pla y fuln ess Scores I maginativ e Pla y Predisposition Scor es . >, >, >, >, >, i:: >, i:: >, >, I I >, ro C1l QJ C1l QJ H I rl I >, rl i:: rl i::: rl i:: r-l C: en 8 r-1 i:: en 8 QJ i:: i:: rl >, rl 0 0 rl >, >, p... 0 p... 0 ::l QJ p... 0 ::l QJ 1 &~ 0 r-l >, rl I rl 0.. i:: 0.. rl C1l C1l rl rl rl :> rl rl :> 0.. C1l >, rl s:: C1l CJ} C1l CJ} C1l rl rl QJ QJ 0.. 0 QJ 0.. 0 UJ ::l UJ ::l rl rl 0 ::l 0 ::l ::l ::l >, p... p... :> rl :> .-I ::e: :> .-1 ::e: z al a rl C1l 0..0 o.. a QJ 0 QJ a C1l .-1 en 3 rl en 3 rl en 3 r1 r-l r1 ::l ::l UJ UJ :> :> rl 'O >, 'O 0 QJ 0 C) 0 QJ n:l >, n:l >, n:l 0 a >, >, rl >, rl >, p... QJ QJ >, 0.. rl n:l 0.. rl n:l rl u u u ::l ::l rl rl . . s:: rl i:: s:: en i:: en :> E s:: UJ :> E QJ rl rl rl rl a 0 H H C1l rl C1l rl rl rl rl rl r-l rl rl rl .-1 rl rl rl H N rl .-I H N i:: n en QJ Ul QJ 0 0 rl QJ rl QJ s:: QJ s:: QJ C1l ~';J 0-, 'O QJ 0-, 'O QJ 0-, 'O QJ n:l .Q E~ E~ >, >, I:: u s:: u s:: tJ1 i:: 8' ro QJ C1l QJ rl C1l QJ rl ::l 0 0 ::l 0 C1l 0 C1l 0 C1l 0 0 ::l 0 ::l E H s:: E H i:: 0 8 H s:: 0 UJ P-. p... 1-J 1-J ::r:: ::r:: UJ UJ u u E-i ua ua H p... H H P... H ::r:: H P< H ::r:: ::r:: 1 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 48 24 24 28 33 29 33 2.33 5 5 3 5 5 4 3 3 2 4 4 38 21 17 11 1 8 3.0 -J 6 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 41 22 1 9 1 7.6 6 2 66 \.D 1 2 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 4 2 22 20 1 8 19 3 14 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 47 23 24 1 4.66 17. 66 6 15 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 43 2 1 22 3 1 24 3 1 6 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 42 21 2 1 3 7 29 4 17 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 48 24 24 2 1. 33 1 8 33 33 21 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 44 21 23 1 6 1 7 2 33 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 38 1 9 1 9 1 6 66 17 .66 1. 66 37 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 3 4 4 36 18 1 8 23 2 0 1 42 3 2 5 5 4 2 5 5 4 4 39 21 1 8 22 17 3

PAGE 88

-.J -.J -.J (J\ O'I lJl lJl lJl Subj ec t Number -.J (J\ w -.J 0 lJl I-' 0 lJl lJl lJl lJl lJl I-' I-' w Phy s ical Spon tan eity Quantity lJl Phy s ic a l Span.l's .l's lJl w U l N w I 1 t t an c ity Q u a i y u, lJl .l's .l's lJl I-' w w I J oy Q uantit y lJl lJl w .l's lJl I-' N N I Joy Q uality L/1 w w lJl w .l's w w I Humor Q uantity lJl w N .i::, w .i::, w w I Humor Q uality "O I-' Social SponI ~ .i::, J:> lJl w J:> N w w I tan ei t y Q uantity I-' ::i Social SpanI (l) Ul w .i::, lJl w .i:,. I-' N N I t aneity Q uality Ul >-3 C/l (l Cognitive Span0 t"-1 t"I M w w L/1 J:> lJl I-' w w I tan ei ty guanti ty (l) Ul I-' I-' Cognitive Span (l J:> w lJl lJl w w I t a n e it y Quality 0 ::i rt 1--' ::i w J:> w .i:,. N N N I T o tal P l ay I (D w I,!) N I,!) .i:,. 0 00 I,!) 0, H I Combi~ed Play ;3 N N N N N I-' I-' PJ N 0 N I-' N I,!) w lJl Q uant ity \!) 1--' ::i PJ I Combin e d Play rt N I-' N I-' N I-' I-' I-' 1--' I-' I,!) 0 00 N I-' L/1 J:> Q u a lit y (D "O I Ima gi nativ e Play I-' J:> N N N I-' w w I-' N 0 lJl I-' I-' J:> lJl w Pr ed i spos ition w w w (J\ Int e rvi e w "O w w (J\ t"I (D 0, I Imagin ative Play 1--' J:> N N I-' I-' w N I-' Ul J:> 0 J:> 00 00 I,!) -.J -.J Predis pos iti on 'O 0 w w w O'I Int er vi ew p lus Ul w w (J\ 1--' H o l tzman Move ment rt 1--' 0 ::i Ima ginat ive Pla y C/l Pr edisposition (l 0 I-' N I-' I-' w w 0 I Int erview p lus t"I (D w w w O'I Holtzman Mo v e ment Ul w w CJ'\ Human 0 8

PAGE 89

APPENDIX A IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: Introduction INTERVIEW SCHEDULE "I have some things here to do and I'd like you to help me with them. I want to find out how boys and girls do these things, and whether they have fun doing them. So, I'm going to ask you and (mention playmates where indicated) to do these with me." Product Improvement (after E. Paul Torrance) 1. "Well, what have we here. It is a toy dog. Now you tell me the most interesting, cleverest ways by which you can change this dog (or: make him different) so that you and other children would have more fun playing with it. You just tell me how and I'll write down your ideas." Record answers and comments on form. Time: l' 30" If subject obviously runs out of responses, note time and go on to Part 2. If subject can g ive no responses, skip Pa rt 2 and go on to next item. O nly where subject is ob viousl y shy, say: "All right, let's leave this for a while and maybe you'll think of something later." Return at end of battery. 81

PAGE 90

B 2 2. "What else do we have here? It's a doll. Now you go ahead and tell me the most interesting and cleverest ways by which you can change tnis doll so that it will be more fun to play with." Proceed as above. Time: l' 30" Monroe Lan g ua ge Classification Test (after C.E. Meyers et al.) "Now this is the last thing we're go in g to do." "Tell me all the animals you can think of as quickly as you can." "Tell me all the things to ea t y ou can think of." "Tell me all the toys you can think of." Record each categor y Time: 30" for each (extension to l' considered). Praise child for cooperation. "How did yo u like the thin g s we did?" Record answers.

PAGE 91

~-----------------------------------I APPENDIX B IDEATIONAL FLUENCY TASKS: GUIDE FOR SCORING This guide is divided into two parts according to the two tasks: (1) Product Improvement and (s) the Monroe Language Classification Test. While specific instructions for relevancy and scoring of responses are given separately for each task on the basis of the answers obtained in this study, the following overall guidelines for the divergent thinking factors of ideational fluency, spontaneous flexibility, and originality are ap plicable. Ideational Fluency. This is obtained by counting all of the separate relevant responses given by subjects regard less of quality. Product Improvement Relevancy of a Response 1. The response must indicate that the instructions have been understood, i.e., something needs to be done to or with the object, resulting in a change in object of situation around it. Examples: 83

PAGE 92

Relevant Make him into a fox Make him dance (If he) barked a little like alive Add another doll to make him brothers B4 Irrelevant You can play with him Share him Squeeze his hand To keep it the way it is Key back here (without follow-up) 2. The response must indicate that the child accepts the premise of change for the purpose stated, i.e., "fun to play with" and that it connects in some way with the given object. Answers indicating unrelated associational stream or pure nonsense--i.e., change to anything at all, are not acceptable. Examples: Relevant Make ears stand up Make tail wag Put bow in his head Change into rabbit (for dog) Change into doctor (for doll) Irrelevant Paper to write on or change into nothing Make into telephone Turn into table 3. A reply may be relevant for toy dog but not for toy doll and vice versa. Also, in Part 2 (doll) change to stimulus object of 1 is not acceptable. Examples: Relevant Irrelevant Make him into a lion (dog) Make him into a dolly (dog) Make him into a lion (doll) Make him into a dog (doll) 4. An answer is relevant, irrespective of underlying affect, if outcome is judged constructive. Examples: Relevant Cut off head and use the out side (clothing) to make a toy watch Poke holes in his eyes I'll twist his leg Irrelevant I'll break his head, arms, everything I'll cut off his ears Take out his eyes

PAGE 93

8 5 5. When by explicit statement or by implication, the dog or toy-man has been made alive ("adaptation" in Tor rance's categories for flexibility), the following answers are relevant: He might chase a cat Make him go to work To do things on a ship (in a number of instances sub jects called doll "a sailor") 6. Part of a reply may be accepted as relevant. Ex ample: Play with it--wrestle or (put him on his head) 6. If a child by demonstration, acting out or story telling makes changes implicit, the reply is relevant. Examples: "Woof, woof" as subject handles do g "Give him a house for children to hav e more fun play ing, and ask the postman to fix him" Scoring of Relevant Responses When scoring for ideational fluency, the unit of enumeration is the thought unit, this coinciding with the classification unit. Therefore, score as one (1) 1. When unit is logically connected and stated as such by subject. Examples: Take off shirt and change into different costume; take this ribbon off and put furry thing around him. 2. When the second part of the unit is an explanation of the first. Examples: Make him like Robin Hood--jump up and down; barked a little, like alive.

PAGE 94

8 6 3. When the second part is an alternative. Example: Change his face with a mask or skin or an animal. 4. When after an overall change has been suggested, specific changes are detailed. Example: Change into col lie--different fur, white and brown, back all brown, long mouth, sharp claws. 5. When changes are distinct but make up one context or classification unit, i.e., one idea. Example: To get a funny black and white clothes, brown hands, white nose, black eyes, and a funny green hat. score as zero (0) 1. When only agents of change are given without spec ifying any chan ge s. Examples: Make abracadabra; key back there; a fairy could change it. 2. When change back is specified. Example: Change into real pig, goose, and then change back to normal. Monroe Language Classification Test Relevancy of a Response Animals--real, imaginary, living, extinct, and generic. Examples: Relevant Cow Dinosaur Irrel eva nt Hous e s People Things to Eat--everything edible, includin g general categories and fluids as well as food specified for animals. Examples:

PAGE 95

Relevant Lamb chops Meat Grill Peanuts Milk 87 Irr e levant Ever yth ing you can buy in a store Animals Toys--a. All specific toys. Examples: Relevant Dolls Dump truck Garnes Irrelevant Doll corner Baby toys b. Objects that are prefaced by "toy" or by the sub ject saying "one could play with" or that are implicitly understood to be handled in play situation. Examples: Relevant Clock Mustache People (in the form of dolls) Telephone c. Materials for play activities. Relevant Clay Wood to make toys Examples: d. Responses with no bearing on play situation are to be considered irrelevant. Exam p les: Bees and bats Closet Toy Daphne (Name of playmate) Scoring of Re l evant Responses: Ideational Fluency Animals. No credit for duplicate responses. Count separately male and female of species, and gener ic and

PAGE 96

specific responses. tunafish. 88 Examples: Lion, Father Lion; fish, Things to Eat. a. Count separately when subject specifies different kinds of the same food. Examples: plain cheese, velveeta cheese. b. Count as sin~le re sponse when one dish or meal is implied. Examples: Spag hetti and meatballs, hamburger and french fries, supper, breakfast. Toys. a. Collective terms are counted as single responses. Example: games. b. Mere elaboration without differentiation is a single response. Examples: car, automobile car. c. Count as separate responses when sub ject specifies differences in the same toy. Examples: baby dolls, big dolls; trucks, gasoline trucks.

PAGE 97

APPENDIX C PLAYFULNESS SCALE Rating Instructions As a teacher you know that children differ in many ways--some are shy, some are friendly, some grab what they want, others ask, or wait, for it. In this study, we are interested in finding out how children differ in the way they go about their play activities--how spontaneous, how cheerful, how "full-of-the-dev il" they are, and we hope to have your cooperation in this work. Attached you will find, therefore, a rating measure made up of five scales which refer directly to a child's behavior during play. You will note that each of the five scales or questions has two parts. Part A of the question aims to get at the frequency or quantity of the trait; Part B tries to assess the quality of the trait shown. For example, "how often does the child show joy" would be the quantity of the trait, and "with what freedom of expression" would be the quality of the trait. We hope you will find it possible and worthwhile to look at the children in your group along the traits 89

PAGE 98

90 suggested in the rating scales and give us your evaluation of them. We are also interested in finding out what your impres sion is of the child's intelligence and physical attractive ness, and we would like you to give us your estimate of these as well. When you rate the children, you will, of course, want to compare them with one another as well as keep in mind a general standard for these traits in kindergarteners. It is easier and better to rate all children first on one trait (or question), and then do the same for each of the six other questions. The sheets for marking down your ratings have, therefore, been set up for the different traits. There will be twelve ratings for each child. Please put down the figure that best indicates your evaluation of the child's present thinking. Descriptive terms are also given to help you in making your rating. Any comments about the content or form of the ques tions, or about any difficulties that you may have in an swering them, will be welcomed.

PAGE 99

I. A. B. II. A 91 Playfulness Rating Scale How often does the child engage in spontaneous physical movement and activity during play? This behavior would include skipping, hopping, jumping, and other rhythmic movements of the whole body or parts of the body like arms legs or head, which could be judged as a fairly clear indication of exhuberance. Very Often Often Occasionally Rarely Very Rarely 5 4 3 2 How is his motor coordination during physical activity? Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Good Fair 3 2 1 Poor l How often does the child show joy in or during his play activ ities? This may be judged by facial expression such as smiling, by verbal expressions such as saying "I like this," or "This is fun," or by more indirect vocalizing such as singing as an accompaniment of the activity, f. i. "choo, choo train, go along ." Other behavioral indicators would be repetition of activity, or resumption of act i vity with clear evidence of enjoyment. Very Often 5 Often 4 Occasionally 3 Rarely 2 Very Rarely 1

PAGE 100

92 B. With what freedom of expression does he show his III. A. This may be judged by the intensity of loudness of a chuckle or a sing-song as well as the child's ability to repeat or resume his activity by his own choice. Very High 5 High 4 Moderate 3 Some Little 2 l How often does the child show a sense of humor during play? Very Often 5 Often 4 Occasionally Rarely 3 2 Very Rarely l B. With what degree of consistency is humor shown? IV. A. Very High 5 High 4 Moderate 3 Some Little 2 l While playing, how often do e s th e c hild show fl e xibility in his interaction with the surrounding group structure?

PAGE 101

V. 93 This may be judged b y th e child joining different groups at any one play pe riod and becoming part of them and their play activity, and by bein g able to mov e in and out of these groups by his own choice or by su gg estion from th e group members without aggressive intent on their part. Very Often 5 Often 4 Occasionally 3 Rarely 2 Very Rarely l B. With what degree of ease does the child mo v e? A. This may be judged by r eady accep t a nce of the new situ at ion, lack of distress shown over th e change, including an ability also to am use himself if left solitary after peer interaction. V ery High High Moderate Some Little 5 4 3 2 l How often does the child show spontaneity during expressive and dramatic play? Inst a nc e s of such behavior would be labeling the p la y p roducts in clay, sand or paints as they grow, and/o r changing them as a result of, f.i., a per son a l whim, an accidental sha pe or a sugg e stion from th e pee r group; similarly, in a dramatic p lay, a l abel in g of p lay roles as th e group structure develops a nd changes, f.i., extending or shrink in g a "family" as playmates come a nd go V ery Often 5 Often 4 Occasionally 3 Rare l y 2 Very Rarely l

PAGE 102

94 B. What degree of imagination does th e child show in his expressive and dramatic play? Instances of imagination would be labeling and us ing animate or inanimate objects for other than the accepted usage as well as incorporating non existent objects into the play situation. Very High 5 High 4 Moderate 3 Some 2 Very Low l VI. How bright is the child? VII. This is your estimate of the child's intelligence based on observed behavior or inferred potential. Extremely Bright 5 Moderately Bright Average Bright 4 3 2 How attractive is the child? Not too Bright l This is your evaluation of the child's physical appeal. Passabl e in Very Nicelooks and Beautiful Attractive Looking appearance 5 4 3 2 Somewhat hom e ly and unat tractive l

PAGE 103

APPENDIX D IMAGINATIVE PLAY PREDISPOSITION INTERVIEW Instructions for Interview This is a semistructured interview. Begin by making a few pleasant remarks to the child and by identifying yourself by name. Then proceed to ask each question initially as written on the sheet. appear to be understood. Repeat the question if you do not If the child replies too tersely, ask him a question such as "Tell me just how you play it?" or "How do you do it?" If the child's answer is at once clear, there is no need to pursue the question. For exam ple, if a child answers Question l by saying "blocks," we need to know whether the emphasis is on sheer construction or whether there's a "make-believe" component. A game like "marbles" or "ball" needs little further elaboration as it probably does not have a fantasy element. Write down the child's answer verbatim and also note if a further question was asked by writing (q) before the child's reply. Do not be discouraged if you get relatively brief an swers from such young children. This is to b e expected; in examining protocols we find that we are getting suffi cient material for rating purposes. 95

PAGE 104

96 Imaginative Play Interview Schedule Imaginative Play Questions 1. What is your favorite game? What do you like to play the most? (Write verbatim answer. Query if not enough information to score.) 2. What game do you like to play best when you're all alone? What do you like to do best when you're all alone? Do you ever think things up? 3. Do you ever have pictures in your head? Do you ever see make-believe things or pictures in yo ur mind and think about them? What sort of thin g s? 4. Do you have a make-believe friend? Do you have an animal or toy or make-believe person you talk to or take along places with you?

PAGE 105

APPENDIX E HOLTZMAN SCORING GUIDELINES Movement (M) The scoring of Movement is linked closely to content in most traditional systems for the Rorschach. Too fre quently such practices lead to arbitrary conventions as to whether or not movement is scored or how it is scored. The resulting score is often highly confusing from a psycho metric point of view. The essential characteristic of the movement response is the energy level or dynamic quality of it, rather than the particular content. Leaning heavily upon Zubin et al., (1953), Sells et al., (1952), and Wilson, (1952), a 5-point scale was adopted as follows: 0 no movement or static potential for movement 1 static potential for movement as indicated by such participles as sitting, looking, resting, lying 2 casual movement, such as walking, talking, climb ing, reaching 3 dynamic movement, such as lifting, dancing, running, weeping 4 violent movement, such as whirlin g e xplodin g Credit for Mov e ment is given only when th e subj e ct volun tarily ascribes movement or potential for movement to the percept. Direct inquiry to elicit movement should never be made by the examiner. The meaning of potential for movement 97

PAGE 106

98 may need further explanation. Sinc e Movement is designed to reflect the degree of movement, tension, or dynamic en ergy projected into the percept by the subject, it is im portant that concepts clearly involving tension and dynamic energy not be excluded merely because they may not be per ceived in actual motion. The potential for movement is in dicated by the stance ( 11 a lion ready to spring") or the "looking-alive" quality as described by the subject. In some cases, the state of tension may be quite high even though visible motion as such is minimal. For example, in the response, "two men struggling in a tug of war," the en ergy level is sufficiently high to merit a score of 3 on Movement, even though the men may appear relatively motion less. It is always the level of energy inv e sted in the per cept by the subject which is scored rather than the degree of motion per se. The kinds of movement list e d above to illustrate the different levels on the scale are in no way exhaustive; rather they serve to anchor the points on the scale. In scoring a given response, the particular way in which the percept is elaborated and described may occasion ally require minor shifting up or down the scale to an ad jacent category. The total score on Movement is obtain e d by sumnnng in dividual ratings across the 45 inkblots. Movement can range theoretically from Oto 180, although in practice, it rarely rises above 80.

PAGE 107

99 Content Scores: Human, A nimal, Anatomy, Sex, Abstract The scaling of content presents some difficulties because of its intrinsically qualitative nature. Inkblot responses can be classified into any number of categories according to variations in content. A single response may contain several such content categories. For research purposes a general, two-digit coding system is described elsewhere and need not be discussed further her e It is irrelevant to the variables treated quantitativ e ly in the Holtz man Inkblot Technique. Several aspects of content occur with high enough fre quency, or are of sufficient interest in their own right, to justify scaling efforts. Human and animal responses are important to record, both in order to produce such clas sical Rorschach scores as Mand FM by confi g ural scoring of Movement and content, and in order to test hypotheses of interest concerning the nature of the human and animal responses. Similarly, anatomical responses, sex references and abstractions are singled out for special attention. It is quite likely that other aspects of content may prove worthy of scaling in the future. For ea ch of thes e fiv e cont e nt scor e s, a 3-point w e i g ht ing system has been adopted, permitting a theoretical range of total score from Oto 90. These content variables differ somewhat in psychometric characteristics from most of the

PAGE 108

100 others because it is very difficult for a person to obtain for a single response a score of 1 or 2 on all five vari ables. The definition of each variable is presented be low, together with appropriate numerical weights. Human (H) Score 0. No human being or parts of a human being present in the response. Score 1. Parts of human beings, featureless wholes or distorted bodies, and mythological or cartoon characters. Score 2. Any whole human being whose parts can be differentiated. (Small parts such as a hand or foot can be missing.) The human face if elaborated. Parts of a human being, provided the subject assumes the remainder of the person to be present but hidden. Difficulty in scoring occasionally arises due to an incomplete, undifferentiated response by the subject. For example, it is impossible to tell whether the subject is referring to animal or human (or simply creature) when he gives a response such as, "an open mouth," or "a face." In most such instances, he means a human mouth or a human face; however, this assumption should not be made without support ing evidence from other more detail ed responses by the same subject. When there is genuine d o ubt, a sc ore of 1 can be g iven to both Human and Animal. Animals en gaged in activ ity which is strictly human in nature should also be scored 1 on Human and 1 or 2 on Animal. It should be emphasized

PAGE 109

101 that all five content variables have been defined indepen dently of each other so that a given response may get credit for more than one content score. The following examples il lustrate the scoring of content. Response Two creatures looking down, in mental struggle. They have a lot of tentacles. This looks like a face to me. Bunch of monkeys playing baseball. This looks like a chest cavity ... the rib cage. Big black bug crawling up a leaf. Two centaurs. An open mouth. A snake. A man walking through life with temptation next to him, leading him into sin. Face of a monster. Two dogs having intercourse. Breast with a pink nipple. X-ray of a woman's hips and pelvic region. Woman's pe lvis. Skull of a horse. A carnival ... bright colors suggest gaiety Score on Variable H A At Sx Ab l l l 0 0 l l 0 2 l 0 l l 0 0 0 l l 2 0 l l l 2 0 l 2 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l l l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 l 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

PAGE 110

102 Score on Variable Response H A A t Sx Ab Lungs of a dog. 0 0 2 0 0 Two men running. Yo u can see their 2 0 2 0 0 insides. Bacteria. 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 111

REFERENCES Alexander, F. A contribution to a theory of play. Psycho analytic Quarterly, 1958, '!:2, 175-193. Ames, L., Metraux, R., and Walker, R. Child Rorschach re sponses. New York: Brenner/Mazel, 1974. Appleton, L.E. A comparative study of the play activities of adult savages and civilized children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910. Beach, F.A. Current concepts of play in animals. American Naturalist, 1945, 79, 623-541. Beller, E.K. Dependency and independence in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955, 87, 25-35. Bereiter, C. Fluency abilities in preschool children. Jour~al of Genetic Psychology, 1961, ~' 47-48. Biblow, E. Imaginative play and the control of aggressive behavior. In J. Singer (Ed.), The child's world of make-believe, experimental studies of imaginative play. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Britt, S.H., and Janus, S.Q. Toward a social psychology of human play. Journal of Social Psychology, 1941, 13, 351-384. Claraparede, E. Sur la nature et la fonction de jeu. Archives de Psychologie, Geneve 1934, 34, 350-369. Corrigan, P.M. Extraversion-introversion as a dimension of personality: A reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 329-360. Dunn, L.M. Manual for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Minneapolis: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1959, 1960, 1965. Erikson, E. Configuration in play: choanalytic Quarterly, 1937, 6, 103 Clinical notes. 138-214.

PAGE 112

104 Erikson, E. Studies in the interpretation of play, Part I. Clinical observations of play disruption in young chil dren. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1940, 22, 557-671 Erikson, E. Childhood and society. New York: Norton, 1950. Erikson, E. Sex differences in play configurations of pre adolescents, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1951, 21 (4), 667-692. Erikson, E. Growth and crises of a healthy personality. Psychological Issues, 1959, !, 50-100. Erikson, E. Toys and reason, stages in the ritualization of experience. New York: Norton, 1977. Freud, A. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. London: Hogarth Press, 1936. Freud, S. The relation of the poet to daydreaming. In Collected Papers. London: Hogarth Press, 1948. Freud, S. Be y ond the pleasure principle. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press, 1955. Freud, S. The problem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936. Freud, S. Creative writers and daydreaming. In J. Stracher (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psycholog ical works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press, 1959. Freud, S. Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edi tion of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press, 1958. Freyburg, J. Increasing the advantaged kindergarten training. In J. Singer make-believe. New York: imaginative play of urgan dis children through systematic (Ed.), The child's world of Academic Press, 1973. Gewirtz, J.L. Studies in word-flu e ncy: I. Its r e lation to vocabular y and mental ag e in young childr e n. Jour nal of Genetic Psychology, 1948, ?_3_, 165-176. Gilmore, J. Play: A special behavior. In R.N. Haber (Ed.), Current research in motivation. Holt-Rinehart, 1966.

PAGE 113

105 Gottlieb, S. Modeling effects upon fantasy. In J. Singer (Ed.), The child's world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Groos, K. The play of animals. New York: Appleton, 1898. Groos, K. The play of men. New York: Appleton, 1908. Guilford, J., and Christensen, P. A factor analytic study of verbal fluency. Rep. psychol. Lab No. 17. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1956. Guilford, J., Wilson, R., and Christensen, P. A factor analytic study of creative thinking: I. Hypotheses and description of tests. Rep. Psychol. Lab No. 4. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1951. Hall, G. Youth. New York: Appleton, 1906. Hartley, R., Frank, L., and Goldenson, R. Understanding children's play. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Hartmann, H. Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. New York: International Universities Press, 1958. Hill, E.F. The Holtzman Inkblot technique. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Holtzman, W. Holtzman Inkblot technique, administration and scoring guide. New York: The Psychological Corpora tion, 1958, 1961. Holtzman, W., Thorpe, J., Swartz, J., and Herron, E. Ink blot perception and personality. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961. Huizinga, J. Homo ludens. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955. Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and experience. New Ycirk: Ronald Press, 1961. Lange, K. Ergunzunstheorie. Berlin, 1901. Lazarus, M. Uber die reize des spiels. Berlin: Bun~ler, 1883. Lewin, K. A d y namic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935.

PAGE 114

106 Lieberman, J. Playfulness and divergent thinking: An in vestigation of their relationship at the kindergarten level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1964. Lieberman, J. Playfulness, its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Luria, A. The nature of human conflicts. New York: Liveright, 1932. Meyers, C., Orpet, R., Attwell, A., and Dingman, G. Pri mary abilities at mental age six. Child Development Monographs, 1962, 27, No. 1 (Whole No. 82). Millar, S. The psychology of play. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1968. Moustakas, C. The frequency and intensity of negative at titudes expressed in play therapy: A comparison of well-adjusted and disturbed young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955, ~' 309-325. Patrick, G. The psycholoqy of relaxation. Boston: Hough ton-Mifflin, 1916. Piaget, J. The moral judgement of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1932. Piaget, J. York: Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. Norton, 1962. New Pulaski, M. Toys and imaginative play. The child's world of make-believe. ic Press, 1973. In J. Singer (Ed.), New York: AcademRorschach, H. Stratton, Psychodiagnostics. 1942, 1969. New York: Grune and Schachtel, E. Metamorphosis: On the development of affect, perception, attention, and memory. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Schiller, F. Essays, aesthetical, philosophical. London: George Bell, 1875. Sells, S.B., Frese, Jr., F.J., and Lancaster, W.H. Research on the psychiatric selection of flying personnel II. Progress on the development of SAM Group Inkblot Test. Project No. 21-37-002, no. 2. Randolph Field, Texas: USAF School of Aviation Medicine, 1952.

PAGE 115

107 Sidman, M. Tactics of scientific research, evaluating ex perimental data in psychology. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1960. Singer, J. Daydreaminq: An introduction to the experimen tal study of inner experience. New York: Random House, 1966. Singer, J. Research applications of projective methods. In A. Rabin (Ed.), Proj e ctive techniques in p e rsonality assessment. New York: Springer, 1968. Singer, J. The child's world of make-beli eve e xpe rimental studies in imaginative play. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Singer, J. The experience t yp e: Some behavioral correlates and theor e tical implications. In M. Rickers-Ovsienkina (Ed.), Rorschach psychology. New York: Wiley, 1960. Spencer, H. 1873. Principles of psychology. New York: Appleton, Terman, L.M. Ge netic studies o f genius: Vol. I. Me ntal and physical traits of a th o usand g ifted children. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1925. Tinklepaugh, 0. Social behavior in animals. In F. Moss (Ed.), Comparative psychology, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall, 1942. Tomkins, S. Affect, imagery, consciousness (Vols. I and II). New York: Springer, 1962, 1963. Torrance. A ssessing the creative thinkin g abilities of yo ung children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960. Weisler, A., and McCall, R. Exploration and play. American Psychologist, 1976, 492-508. White, R. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of compe t e nce. Psychological Review, 1959, 66 297-333. White, R. Comp e t e nce and th e psychosexual st ages of devel opment. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska sympos ium on moti vation. Lincoln: University of Nebrasks Press, 1960. White, R. Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. Psy chological Issues, 1964, l, Monograph 11.

PAGE 116

108 Wilson, G.P. Intellectual indicators in the Rorschach test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1952. Wundt, W. Gundriss des Psychologie. Leipzig: Kroner, 1913. Zubin, J., and Eron, L. Experimental abnormal psychology (Preliminary edition). New York: New York State Psy chiatric Institute, 1953.

PAGE 117

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Devora Sue Depper was born in Southern California. She received her A.B. with Honors in Psychology from Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa, in May, 1974. She pursued her graduate training in clinical psychology at th e University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. She received her M.A. in 1976. She received the Florence Shafer Memorial Award for Excellence in Psychotherapeutic Counseling in 1977. Her clinical areas of interest and specialization are child de velopment and child psychotherapy. She com p leted her clin ical internship at Langley Porter Institut e University of California, San Francisco. Francisco, California. She currently resides in San 109

PAGE 118

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Jhcqelin Goldman, Chairperson Professor of Psychology and Clinical Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Paul ~htz L Professor of Ps y chology and Clinical Psychology I certif y that I have read this study a nd that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scop e and qualit y a s a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. CJ ~ Q c ,-:.: J--' c, ) ... ~. ( ). --'.1 .J-< -\ '-.'._ / \ Benjainen Barger Professor of Psychology and Clinical Psycholo g y

PAGE 119

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (...Marvin Shaw Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scop e and quality, as a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ----~CC\,.; Sandra Damico Associate Professor Foundations of Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in th e Colle g e of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 1979 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 120

UN I VERS I TY OF FLO RIDA \\ \ \\ \\\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\\ \ \\\\\ \\ \1\\11 \\II I\ \11\11 Ill\ I\\ \\I \\\III\ 3 1262 08553 5127