Lecture 8 Developmental Psychology PDF

The Importance of Play Topics in Developmental Psychology PSYC 21021 Dr. Bahar Koymen Week 8 1  Overview × What is play? What is the function of play? × Kinds of play: Functional play and Pretend play...

The Importance of Play Topics in Developmental Psychology PSYC 21021 Dr. Bahar Koymen Week 8 1  Overview × What is play? What is the function of play? × Kinds of play: Functional play and Pretend play × Functional play: playing to explore for object functions × Pretend play: and its relationship to mental state understanding × Different views × Methodological issues × Is it crucial for development? 2  Questions × Can we spot play? What is playing? × Is it important for development? × Is it just what children naturally do? × Adult supervision and pedagogy? 3  The importance of play × “Play is essential to development... so important... that it has been recognized by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights as a right of every child”. (Ginsburg, the Committee on Communications, & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2007, p. 182) × Entire preschool curricula are designed around pretend play because of the “unequivocal evidence for [its] critical importance” to children’s development. (Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2004, p. 9) 4  Core features of play × Flexibility: in different forms and lengths × Positive affect: about having fun do a an - children lots , don't up learning end things. × Non-literality: paradoxical literacy lots of × Intrinsic motivation: voluntary 5  Types of play Piaget (1932) × Functional play: when a child repeats motor actions on objects × Construction play: when a child builds thingsend to have better visualall - × Pretend or symbolic play: when a child substitutes an imagined world for reality. ↳ for example pretending a bottle is × Games with rules , a phone - 6  Descriptive study of play in 7-21 month- olds Infants initially play with all objects in the same way Play becomes more specialized through the second year Belsky & Most (1981) 7 Functional play 8  Functional play Functions about objects: × Playing to resolve uncertainty × Playing to explore the unexpected × Influence of adult pedagogy × Playing to discover the unseen 9  Playing to resolve uncertainty Children like to play with new things (novelty preference) But what if something they’ve already played with has left them uncertain about how it works – will they be more motivated to keep playing to figure it out? 10  Playing to resolve uncertainty: Clear Evidence move when mey Playe would me a with is it ↑ toy new oldy Y When you pops out. pull one stick down , the duck stick down frog the the other you pull Schulz , When & Bonawitz, 2007, Developmental Psychology 11 Pops Out.  Playing to resolve uncertainty: d Unclear (confounded) Evidence tre get with childrere oreto where iThe be old ent us may covered f or I dis it. / this toyfundin a ·under how more. Schulz & Bonawitz, 2007, Developmental Psychology 12  Playing to resolve 60 uncertainty more d spenr Children are crafting 45 weaveinterventions in order to try Time spent playing , figure out what’s going on! time more - Toyesoe - they spent Old toy with the they 30 wrated because Old Toy to be Still New Toy done with haven't what to discoveredent. 15 the old so toy itgot boring , 0 Clear Evidence Unclear Evidence Schulz & Bonawitz, 2007, Developmental Psychology 13  Playing to explore the unexpected × Toddlers’ play can look very unpredictable × But even toddlers have expectations about table, the world! ↳ bottle pass cannot through a it isn't possible (toddlers know this) When the world surprises them, do even. × very young toddlers know what to do to figure out why? 14 Playing to explore the unexpected Stahl & Feigenson, (2015) Science 15 Playing to explore the unexpected Stahl & Feigenson, (2015) Science 16  Playing to explore the unexpected Stahl & Feigenson, (2015) Science Knowledge Violation for Knowledge Violation for Solidity Support More banging! More dropping! 17  Playing to discover & pedagogy × Children are naturally curious to discover new things. × But they also pay attention to others who might indicate whether there is something interesting to be discovered. 18  Pedagogical signals and exploration × Butler & Markman (2012, 2014): 3- and 4-year-olds × Children learn that this “blicket” is a magnet in 3 conditions: × Accidental condition: E says “Ooops!” × Intentional condition: -- × Pedagogical condition: “Look watch this” > - that were not magnetic × Children were given 10 inert blickets and some paperclips and were asked to play. × Exploration: Number of attempts 19  Pedagogical signals a care Both 4- and 3-year- 09 ical sigp olds continued to test 12 e or pedas on * the magnetic feature Mean number of attempts 9 - nicher of the blicket in the ! * pedagogical condition, but 6 immediately stopped 3 in the accidental condition. 0 4-year-olds 3-year-olds In pedagogical condition, something Pedagogical Accidental ! was shared for their they believed that the adult benefit. teaching them for a reason. 20 is Pedagogical signals 21  Playing to discover the unseen: “Pedagogy as a double-edged sword” children were in the accidental half of were given Demonstration condition & then children the toy to play with. ↑ provides evidence & about what causal relationships exist… the other half …but also about what relationships do ~andinis n not exist. squeaker given the boy to play with ↳ they night convey that the message else there is nothing. mirror to be discovered investigated I which they of the 2 eotefunctions groupswoul light music of the toy. 22  Playing to discover the unseen: “Pedagogy as a double-edged sword” # of Unique Actions Performed When the experimenter During Play loved demonstrated a function within ora 7.5 the toy “pedagogically”, children did not explore the toy as much. 5 When the experimenter introduced a function within 2.5 the toy “accidentally”, children explored the toy further and discovered more things in the 0 new toy. Demonstration Accidental Bonawitz et al., 2011, Cognition 23  Pretend (symbolic) play × “as if” stance (Garvey, 1990) for example. - pretending a bottle is a phone × Pretense is complex projecting a new false reality. - × The pretender intentionally projects an alternative on the present situation (Lillard , 1993). à COUNTERFACTUAL × A group of children collectively “pretend”, acting like different people. × Meta-representative and linguistic skills × It is hard to distinguish pretend play from other types of play, e.g., physical play. Plays are infused in one another! ↳ they often occuether. × Emerges around the age of 12-15 months and peaks around 3-5 years. 24  Decontextualization and imagination × A key aspect of early pretend play is the use of realistic objects. × Over time children become more skilled at decontextualization - using non-realistic objects imagination in pretend play. × By age 3, children display more imaginative behavior - less reliance on props. without an ↳ pretend their holding a phone object (prop). 25  Development of pretend play × 18-month-olds begin to perform individually “pretend” acts such as pretending to eat, drink etc. à individual - × By age 2-3, children start engaging in- joint pretense with play partners (Harris & Kavanaugh, 1993) à cooperative × when a partner pretends to pour tea into two cups and then to drink from one cup, children say that the one cup is “empty” eventio now and the other still “full of tea”. cupempty all along me× By age 3, children could coordinate fictional scenarios with others! 26  Joint Pretend play 27  Three views All focus on the relationship between pretense and ToM (mental state attribution) × Rich Account × Lean Account × We-intentionality account 28  children understand the difference · By 18-24 months , between fiction & reality (pretend play) ) Rich account × Alan Leslie (1987) × Being able to keep reality apart from fiction is a complex ability. × Children are not ego-centric in this ability. By 18-24 months, children also “respond” to othersare pretend-acts. ↳ they understand thatpretending others. × They fill-up their empty teacups or wipe off when their pretend tea is spilled. × Children have adult-like meta-representations. 29 × Lean account to Angeline Lillard (1993; 1998): children are behaving-as-if, without really understanding the difference between fiction and reality. × Stories about a character, Moe, from another planet. Moe hopped like a rabbit (the as-if behavior) × Study 1: Moe’s behavior lacked the cognitive prerequisite—he did not know about rabbits because they don’t exist on his planet (Lillard, 1993). × Study 2: Moe’s behavior lacked the intentional prerequisite— he did not want to hop like a rabbit at all (Lillard, 1998). × Was Moe pretending to be a rabbit or not? Miesbecausebelieveaeng × 4- to 5-year-olds said “yes”. 30  Methodological issues × Confusing: × Verbally demanding, counter-factual thinking. × What does it mean “to hop like a rabbit without wanting to”? × Action-based methodology to investigate the intentional prerequisite with 2- and 3-year-olds (Rakoczy et al., 2004): × Pretending to pour water from a container into a cup. × Condition 1: playful, making water noises × Condition 2: surprise & frustration as if trying to really pour × When it was child’s turn to play with the container: imitated. × Condition 1: they pretended to pour water. - × Condition 2: they tried to pour water and said “I can’t do it have either” - tried once I said they didn't 31 water either.  “We-intentionality” Rakoczy, 2008 × Joint pretending is acting in accordance with our “we- intentionality” or “shared-intentionality”. × We “both” need to pretend X is Y. × Pretend identities: × Green blocks: soap × A puppet joins them and acts × Appropriately: pretends to wash her hands with “soap” × Inappropriately: pretends to eat the “soap” × 2- and 3-year-olds protested the puppet when it performed the inappropriate act. ↳ theytoldthepuppetatshoulda triate × Around age 2, they understand pretending as a specific form of way) intentional, non-serious activity. 32 Pretend play at age 3 (Rakoczy, 2008) 33  How crucial is pretend play? × Lillard et al., (2013) reviewed the work done on pretend play and its relation to development in the past 40 years. × Inconsistent results and methodological issues: engagina × Most studies are correlational. > Itin - saidare correlational. we × Nonrandom assignment of children cannot think thaees Pretend play × Experimenter are unmasked – not blind them smart. × Areas of development × Non social aptitudes: Creativity, Intelligence, Problem solving, Reasoning, Conservation × Social aptitudes: Theory of Mind - Language Development × Symbolic Understanding: Language Development Dev × Self-regulation: Executive function, Emotion Regulation &( Emotion Regulation 34  Non social aptitudes: Intelligence × IQ tests × Correlational studies: More intelligent children engaged in pretend play more often more in pretend Higher 1Q more intelligent engage , , play. × Direction of effects is uncertain. × Training studies: Other adult interventions, music interventions raised IQ scores just as much. ↳ If they were trained IQ scores get , higher. 35  Nonsocial aptitudes: Reasoning but this is nottrue × Logical syllogisms: T we know can These are let go of stut We × Dogs live in trees. Rex is a dog. Does Rex live in a tree? Pretending × Correct answer: yes but one needs to inhibit their real- life knowledge. ↳ because we know that dogs don't live on trees- × Pretend play might help children to reason about false premises, since they are definitional to pretend play: × One acts as if something false were true. ↳ act was true because as if something we are pretending. 36  Social aptitudes: Theory of mind × False belief understanding requires the same architecture as pretending X is Y. × Through role play children put themselves in someone else’s shoes. × Multi-party pretense à pay attention to the roles of others and coordinate roles. ~ the childrenwhoengage y perform × Do children who engage in pretend play perform better in pretend better in false-belief tasks? play tasks man × Direction of correlations is unclear Those who don't. × Linguistic abilities may mediate this correlation. 37  Symbolic Understanding: Language Development object t represent ran another × Pretend play, like language, is symbolic. × Children who are more advanced in their play at 1;0 display better language skills at 2;0 more advanced at (Lilliard et al., 2013). ↳ age I have better language children skills at age 2. × Some evidence to indicate that play-based interventions affect later language development (Christakis et al., 2007). 38  Summary: Lillard et al. (2013) × Play is very important and it is correlated with many important aptitudes in various areas of development (social, non-social, etc.). × Correlational studies ↓ × Training studies:bost social non-social aptitudes. × Pretend play has similar effects as other interventions such as music, adult training Tend to have higher la scores , better linquistic skills, earlier false belief understanding. 39  Cross-cultural differences? × Big cultural differences in the attitudes towards “play”. × Mayan culture (Gaskins & Goncu, 1992): × Children do not have time to play. Early on they are engaged in chores. × Children do not spend much time with same- age peers, mostly with family members who are Mikea older children and adults × Adults do not value play. their - be × Pretend play seems to show same developmental useful 2 9 trajectory across cultures (Lillard, 2017). Eschildren.. chores. might pretend to still eat something 40 would be different. but the attitude towards play Pretend play 41  Summary children's creativity. Open-ended toys are better for × Play provides a very important context to learn and practice various socio-cognitive skills. × Children explore and investigate various “hypotheses” in their functional play (object functions, exploring the unexpected) × Double-edged sword of pedagogy × Pretend play: × Children become skillful pretenders around age 2&3. × It is a very sophisticated socio-cognitive act. × Fiction vs. reality × Requires an understanding of “we-intentionality” 42