Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68
DOI 10.1007/s10643-014-0673-2
Links Between Preschool Children’s Social Skills and Observed
Pretend Play in Outdoor Childcare Environments
Jiayao Li • Linda L. Hestenes • Yudan C. Wang
Published online: 9 October 2014
! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract As one of the most advanced play forms in
childhood, pretend play often demonstrates positive associ-
ations with children’s development. However, results from
research that examines the association between social skills
and pretend play are mixed, especially when the complexity
of pretend play is taken into account. Moreover, few studies
on pretend play are conducted in outdoor environments; a
setting which affords many opportunities for engagement in
pretend play and unstructured social interactions. By
observing children’s outdoor pretend play, the primary
purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships
between different types of pretend play and children’s social
skills. Twenty-eight children from high quality childcare
centers in a southeast suburban area were observed during
outdoor free play time. Using a reliable time sampling
protocol, each child’s play was observed and recorded for a
total of 45 min to an hour over a 2-week time period. Lead
teachers rated children’s social skills in the areas of coop-
eration, self-control, and assertiveness. Results showed high
amounts of pretend play behavior overall, and differential
relationships between the type of pretend play children
engaged in and children’s social skills. Surprisingly, these
relationships were not associated with gender. Findings are
discussed in light of the value of pretend play to promote
social skill development and the potential for outdoor con-
texts specifically to encourage these play behaviors.
Keywords Pretend play ! Social skills ! Outdoors !
Preschool
J. Li (&) ! L. L. Hestenes ! Y. C. Wang
Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro,
NC 27402-6170, USA
e-mail: j_li3@uncg.edu
Introduction
Play is a primary activity in childhood, and especially for
young children. It is regarded as a key factor in promoting
learning and development. Play also enables social interac-
tions between children and others (Saracho and Spodek
1998). Pretend play (sometimes also called role play, make-
believe play, symbolic play or dramatic play) requires
children to break down boundaries between imagination and
reality (Bretherton 1989; Whitington and Floyd 2009). In
general, pretend play is thought of as most related to cog-
nitive development because it emerges at the age when
children’s symbolic thinking is forming (Connolly and
Doyle 1984; Doyle and Connolly 1989; Lillard et al. 2011;
Piaget 1962; Whitington and Floyd 2009). In addition,
previous studies suggest that pretend play is associated with
language development (Mundy et al. 1987), and emotion
development (Hoffmann and Russ 2012; Lindsey and Col-
well 2013). Studies in psychology also support a positive
relationships among pretend play, creativity, and coping
strategies (Pearson et al. 2008; Russ et al. 1999).
Results from previous studies on pretend play and social
skills, however, are mixed. Studies looking at the specific
behaviors during pretend play suggested that social pretend
play provides opportunities for reciprocity and complexity,
which are commonly seen in social interactions (Connolly
1988; de Lorimier et al. 1995). Other studies, however,
found that preschoolers’ behavior relevant to social skills is
the same in and out of the social pretend play context
(Doyle et al. 1992; Howes et al. 1992). When looking at the
predictive effect of pretend play on children’s observed
social skills demonstrated through their daily activities,
Connolly and Doyle (1984) found a positive relationship
between social pretend play and social competence with
peers, but not with following rules. Lindsey and Colwell
123
62
(2013) found that social dramatic play had long-term
positive effect on children’s social affective competence.
In contrast, Galyer and Evans (2001) failed to find a
positive association between pretend play and social
competence rated by teachers, although no negative rela-
tionship was found either. Moreover, Swindells and Stag-
nitti (2006) found unexpectedly a significant and negative
relationship between cooperation and sharing and pretend
play scores from parents’ ratings for 4–5-year-old children.
The inconsistency of these findings calls for reexamination
of this relationship between pretend play and social skills.
To address this inconsistency and to add to the body of
research on pretend play, the current study is designed to
examine the relationship between pretend play and social
skills by (1) investigating different types of pretend play,
(2) focusing on pretend play in the outdoor setting of child
care programs, and (3) exploring gender variability.
Different Types of Pretend Play
From a behavioral perspective, pretend play can be enacted
individually, or in a social group. The first type is referred
to as solitary pretend play, and the second type is called
social pretend play. Both solitary and social pretend play
enable children to use their imagination to represent real
events, or something that is symbolically treated as if it
were something else (Fein 1981), As such, children’s social
skills may be enhanced by both types of pretend play.
From a cognitive perspective, pretend play involves
different types of cognitive skills that involve different
levels of complexity. Matthews (1977) distinguished two
types of transformations in pretend play. One is object or
material transformation (i.e., concrete pretend play), and
the other is ideational transformation (i.e., abstract pretend
play). Object transformation involves using a concrete
object to represent something else, for example, using a
ball to represent a baby. Ideational transformation involves
using abstract representations to symbolize something in a
child’s mind. For example, jumping over an imagined
river, which neither exists nor is represented by a concrete
object, is an act of abstract pretend play. Abstract pretend
play may have cognitive advantages over concrete pretend
play because in abstract play children use symbolic
thinking skills, which is regarded as an advanced form of
thinking (Matthews 1977; Piaget 1962).
Outdoor Pretend Play
The majority of the research on pretend play in early
childhood takes place in indoor settings, neglecting the
wealth of pretend play opportunities that children may
engage in outdoors. Outdoor environments permit children
to engage in a wide range of pretend play scenarios. The
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68
play may vary in forms, themes, and peer groups from
indoor settings. Among the few studies that focus on out-
door pretend play, Shim et al. (2001) found that children
engaged in pretend play significantly more in outdoor
settings than in classrooms. Rubin (1982) observed chil-
dren’s free play in the outdoor environment, and found a
negative relationship between solitary pretend play and
children’s social skills as rated by teachers. The current
study aims to further investigate the associations between
specific types of pretend play and children’s social skills in
the outdoor setting.
Gender and Pretend Play
Research suggests that boys and girls may engage not only
in different amounts of pretend play but also in different
types of pretend play. The majority of studies show girls
engage in more pretend play than boys (Gleason 2005;
Jones and Glenn 1991; Lindsey and Colwell 2013). How-
ever, when Johnson and Ershler (1981) compared different
types of play in two different classrooms, with one class-
room using a formal education structure and the other using
a less traditional and less structured, discovery learning
type of classroom, they found boys engaged in more pre-
tend play than girls in the discovery classroom while no
gender differences were found in the formal education
classroom. When comparing abstract pretend play and
concrete pretend play in both genders, studies show that
boys engage in more concrete pretend play than girls, and
girls engage in more abstract pretend play than boys (Jones
and Glenn 1991; Matthews 1977; McLoyd 1980).
This Study
The two primary purposes of this study were (1) to provide
descriptive information on the type and frequency of pre-
tend play for boys and girls in outdoor settings, and (2) to
examine the relationship between different types of pretend
play and preschool children’s social skills within the con-
text of the child-care center outdoor environment, while
also looking at potential gender differences. The specific
research questions included: (1) What is the relationship
between children’s pretend play and their social skills, and
(2) How does pretend play amount and type differ as a
function of gender?
Methods
Settings
Data were collected from a suburban area of a mid-sized
town in the southeastern region of the US. The University
Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68
Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved
the research protocol for ethical treatment of human sub-
jects. Each of the three child care centers in this study held
a five (out of five) star rating from the state licensing
system. The three outdoor playground areas used for the
observations ranged from approximately 4,500 to
7,700 square feet in size. Each outdoor environment was
comparable in equipment (anchored structures), pathways
for riding toys, loose parts (e.g. balls, sand toys), sand box,
and some natural elements (e.g. trees, grass, bushes, garden
area). In order to promote more opportunities for pretend
play outdoors, costumes were developed based on teacher
interviews that were conducted at the very beginning of a
larger project from which this study emerges. The cos-
tumes included eight capes (two each of red, blue/black,
green, and purple); one lion, cheetah, and kitty cat ear-tail
set; one lion, dog, and kitty cat mask (when you press the
nose you can hear the animal’s sound); two Monarch
butterfly wings; two pink fairy wings; two kinds of tutu
wrist scarves (one was blue and purple, one was orange and
yellow) with jingle bells attached; three tutu skirts (similar
colors as the scarves). The costumes were brought out
every day only during the observation and any children
who were outside were allowed to choose to wear them. No
child was required to wear the costumes; they were just
freely available to choose during their free play time
outside.
Participants
Data for this project were collected in May, June, and July
2011. The participants included 18 boys, and 10 girls from
four classrooms within three different child-care centers.
Information on age was available for 9 girls and 17 boys.
The 26 children had an average age of 50.58 months (range
36–67 months). The average age for the 9 girls was
50.44 months, and the average age for the 17 boys was
50.65 months. t test suggested that boys and girls did not
differ in their age (t = -.060, p = .098). In the first child-
care center we recruited 10 children (6 boys and 4 girls).
The children came from two classrooms, but had the same
outdoor play schedule on a daily basis. The lead teacher in
classroom 1 was a Caucasian female who had a high-
school diploma. The lead teacher in classroom 2 was an
African American female who had a 2-year college degree.
In the second child-care center 7 children participated (5
boys and 2 girls) from the same classroom. One of the lead
teachers was a Caucasian female with a bachelor’s degree
and Birth-Kindergarten teacher licensure. The other lead
teacher was a Latina female with high-school degree. In the
third child-care center, there were 11 participants (7 boys
and 4 girls) from the same classrooms. Both lead teachers
were Caucasian females. One of them had a bachelor’s
63
degree in Psychology, the other had a bachelor’s degree in
Early Childhood Education. Overall, 16 children were
Caucasian, 6 were African American, and 3 were Asian or
Pacific Islander. Race was not available for three children.
Thirty-seven percent of parents had 4-year college degrees
and 44.8 % had higher than a 4-year college degree.
Though household annual income varied from low to high;
the median of families’ annual incomes was in the range of
$60,000–$72,000.
Procedures
Once Institutional Review Board permission was granted
from the university, researchers contacted three child care
centers with the highest star rating and comparable outdoor
environments to participate in the study. This selected
sample was chosen to reduce variability in outdoor quality.
After the three center directors and corresponding pre-
school teachers agreed to participate and signed consent
forms, researchers delivered the teachers and parent ques-
tionnaires to the classrooms. Teachers helped deliver and
collect the parent consent forms and demographic forms
once parent consent was provided. Three researchers col-
lected observation data outdoors over a period of 6 days
across a 2-week time period at each site. Teachers com-
pleted the social skills questionnaire on each child with
parental consent and returned them to the researchers at the
end of the observations.
Measures
Pretend Play
Children’s pretend play frequency and type as well as peer
group, teachers’ involvement, and children’s verbalization
were recorded using a time sampling procedure. Children
were individually observed during 20 s intervals (10 s to
observe and 10 s to record). Each child was observed for
3 min (9 intervals) before moving on to the next child’s
name on the list. Two waves of data were collected on each
child each day. The rating scale developed by McLoyd
(1980) who distinguished pretend play as an object mode
of transformation and an ideational mode of transformation
was modified to capture concrete pretend play and abstract
pretend play. The concrete pretend play had to involve
concrete items, for example, using a stick to represent a
sword. The abstract pretend play category involved only
imagination, for example, children pretending to look at a
dog that actually did not exist in front of them. If during the
10 s children engaged in both types of pretend play then
both were checked as occurring once. Children were also
coded if they were playing alone or playing in social
groups (with peers). A 0 was assigned when children
123
64 Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68

played alone, and a 1 was assigned when they were playing Table 1 Mean, SD, range, and skewness for all variables
with others. Mean (SD) Range Skewness
Inter-observer reliability (percent agreement on a con-
sensus score) was established at 85 % or better. The first Pretend play amount .21 (.14) 0–.54 0.465
reliability check was completed before data collection Concrete pretend play amount .28 (.27) 0–1 0.800
began, the second during an observation in center 2, and Abstract pretend play amount .73 (.31) 0–1 -1.407
the third during an observation in center 3. The average Social pretend play amount .81 (.32) 0–1 -1.994
Kappa coefficient was .745. For inter-observer reliability, Social skill rating system total 38.11 (13.54) 16–59 -0.103
the average reliability from 3 rounds of coding for Cooperation 12.81 (4.79) 4–20 -0.308
researcher 1 was 90 % and for researcher 2 it was 87 %. Self-control 12.07 (4.77) 4–20 0.490
Researcher 3 did not participate in the child observation Assertiveness 13.22 (5.06) 5–20 -0.277
coding and was responsible only for taking field notes of
children’s minute-by-minute behavior.
Descriptive Analyses
Social Skills
Descriptive analyses were conducted to understand the
Social Skill Rating System (age 3–5; teacher report; Gre- overall ratio of pretend play compared to other types of
sham and Elliott 1990) was used to evaluate children’s play, as well as different kinds of pretend play children
social skills. This 48-item scale includes the assessment of engaged in during observation episodes. As seen in
social skills and problem behaviors. In this study, only the Table 1, children spent 20 % of the time engaging in
section on social skills was used, which includes 30 items, pretend play on average. Of the pretend play episodes,
three of which were not used because of their inapplicability children engaged in concrete pretend play 28 % of the time
to the specific sample. The scale includes questions and spent 73 % of their time on abstract pretend play.
regarding children’s cooperating skills, self-control, and Since both abstract and concrete pretend play could be
assertion skills. The cooperating skills subscale includes coded in the same episode, the sum of the percentages of
seven questions focused on helping others and sharing abstract pretend play and the instances of concrete pretend
materials. The self-control subscale includes 10 questions play is not 1.00. In addition, children on average spent
related to taking turns and compromising. Finally, the 81 % of their pretend play time in social pretend play and
assertion subscale includes 10 questions which center on 19 % of their time in solitary pretend play.
initializing an activity, asking for help, and responding to the
actions of others. Internal consistency was reported by the Relationship Between Pretend Play and Social Skills
authors as .90 on the cooperation and assertion subscales,
and .91 on the self-control subscale (Gresham and Elliott Results of correlation analysis (see Table 2) showed that
1990). Reliability in the present study was .95, .93, and .95 total pretend play amount was positively correlated with
for cooperation, assertion, and self-control, respectively. the assertiveness score (r = .47, p = .013). Concrete pre-
Summary scores are created for each subscale, with a higher tend play was not significantly correlated with any social
score indicates a better performance on a certain dimension skill variables. Abstract pretend play, however, was posi-
of social skill based on teacher’s report. tively correlated with cooperation (r = .48, p = .012),
assertiveness (r = .44, p = .021), as well as total SSRS
score (r = .42, p = .028). Social pretend play was posi-
Results tively correlated with scores on assertiveness (r = .42,
p = .028), self-control (r = .42, p = .031), and the SSRS
Preliminary Analyses total score (r = .44, p = .022).
Next, to understand which types of pretend play were
Preliminary analyses were conducted before addressing the associated with social skills, a multiple regression was
specific research questions. First, scores on pretend play conducted with all types of pretend play (i.e., concrete
amount were standardized. No outliers were detected using pretend play, abstract pretend play and social pretend play)
the principle of larger or smaller than ±2.5. Thus, there as the independent variables, and with age and gender as
was no need to delete any data from the current data set. control variables. Results showed a trend toward a positive
Second, skewness was within -2 to 2 range, suggesting all relationship between social pretend play and cooperation
independent variables are approximately normally distrib- (b = .47, p = .08), and self-control (b = .55, p = .061),
uted. Mean, SD, and range for each variable are displayed and a significant positive relationship with assertiveness
in Table 1. (b = .60, p = .026), while no relationship was found for

123
Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68 65

Table 2 Pearson correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

between pretend play and social
skills 1. Pretend play 1
2. Concrete pretend play -0.005 1
3. Abstract pretend play 0.435* -0.435* 1
4. Social pretend play 0.504** 0.421* 0.359? 1
5. SSRS total score 0.348 -0.257 0.424* 0.438* 1
?
6. Cooperation 0.292 -0.220 0.476* 0.378 0.914** 1
7. Assertive 0.472* -0.208 0.443* 0.422* 0.965** 0.860** 1
? 8. Self-control 0.194 0.006 0.256 0.416* 0.898** 0.681** 0.817** 1
** p \ .01; * p \ .05; p \ .1

Table 3 Regression of pretend play on social skills
Self-control Assertive
Concrete pretend play -.261 -.447
Abstract pretend play -.061 .024
Social pretend play .547? .599*
* p \ .05; ?
p \ .1
abstract pretend play (see Table 3). In sum, the results from
correlation and regression analyses showed that the more
advanced pretend play types (i.e., social pretend play and
abstract pretend play) were positively related to different
kinds of social skills, while concrete pretend play was not.
Gender Effects
Independent t tests were conducted to examine the extent to
which boys and girls engaged in differed types and
amounts of pretend play. Results demonstrated that there
were no significant differences between boys and girls
[pretend play, t (26) = .633, p [ .5; concrete pretend play,
t (26) = -.142, p = .88; abstract pretend play,
t (26) = .965, p [ .1; social pretend play, t (26) = .409,
p [ .5]. The proportion of time boys and girls spent in each
pretend play type differed for each type of pretend play. In
terms of overall pretend play, girls spent 23 % of their time
during observation period in it, while boys spent 20 % of
their time. However, boys (29 %) engaged in concrete
pretend play slightly more than girls (27 %). For the other
two types of pretend play, girls (80 %) were observed to
spend more time in abstract pretend play than boys (68 %).
Girls (80 %) also spent more time in social pretend play
than boys (79 %).
Discussion
The purposes of this study were to understand more about
the amount and type of pretend play that preschool boys
and girls engage in during outdoor play and to empirically
Cooperation
test whether a direct link existed between preschool chil-
dren’s outdoor pretend play and several social skills. In this
-.351 study the children from these high quality settings with
.146 supportive dramatic play materials engaged in pretend play
.471? about 20 % of their time. The vast majority of this time
was spent in abstract pretend play and in social pretend
play. Boys and girls did not differ in their amount or type
of pretend play. Results also suggested that pretend play
overall was significantly associated with both overall social
skills and on the subscales. Moreover, similar patterns were
also revealed for abstract pretend play and social pretend
play in predicting social skills. Both abstract pretend play
and social pretend play positively correlated with chil-
dren’s assertion and cooperation. Each of these findings
will be discussed in turn.
Overall Social Skills
In this study the overall social skill score was not associ-
ated with the total pretend play frequency, but it was
related to the subtypes of pretend play: Abstract pretend
play and social pretend play. In other words, pretend play
forms that are more advanced in cognitive processing, and
involve more social interactions are more likely to be
associated with higher social skills. The link between social
pretend play and social skills was consistent with the
majority of pretend play literature that suggests social
pretend play may promote children’s social skills (Con-
nolly 1988). The association between abstract pretend play
and social skills may link cognitive process to social skill
development, which is to say children who have higher
cognitive processing ability may demonstrate higher social
skills in their social interactions. It is equally possible that
social skills are helping to drive higher cognitive process-
ing in children. Longitudinal studies would help clarify the
directional influences in these associations. In addition to
the overall social skill score, the subscales of social skill
were also associated with different types of pretend play.

123
66
Subdomains of Social Skills
Assertiveness
Assertiveness was associated with abstract and social pretend
play, but not with concrete pretend play. Some researchers
have suggested that assertion is not only related to asser-
tiveness skills, but it might also be linked to cognitive
development (Derry and Stone 1979; Eisler et al. 1978;
Vagos and Pereira 2010). In fact, those researchers called for
attention to assess the cognitive dimension in relation to
assertiveness. As suggested in the literature, advances in
cognitive development is one of the core dimensions that
permits the shift from concrete pretend play to abstract pre-
tend play possible in children. Thus, if the assumption that
the children who are good at assertion are better off in their
cognitive development is real, then we may hypothesize that
a good performance in assertion is a sign that children’s
cognitive development is at a certain level that allows them
to make the shift from concrete pretend play to abstract
pretend play (although the shift is a gradual process).
Cooperation
Results showed that abstract pretend play was positively
associated with the teacher-rated cooperation score. This
finding provided new evidence to literature that demon-
strated the positive link between cognitive development
and social skills (Connolly and Doyle 1984). Contrary to
our expectations, social pretend play was found to be only
marginally associated with the cooperation score in this
study. One possible reason for this weaker association was
that in this study cooperation was measured as following
rules, acting appropriately, and finishing requirements on
time. This definition is more similar to compliance in some
ways rather than collaboration. Children who are doing
well in enacting abstract pretend play may be those who are
good at understanding the rules and instructions teachers
give during the day. Compromising and collaboration
among participants that is required in social pretend play
was not measured by the questions within the cooperation
subscale. The mechanisms underlying cooperation with
peers may differ from what underlies compliance to
instructions. This difference may need further exploration
in future studies. We may expect a stronger relationship if
the dimensions of cooperation that relate to compromising
and collaboration were included in the measurement.
Self-control
Even though previous research suggests that cognitive
development is related to self-control ability (Kendall and
Braswell 1982), no significant correlation was found in the
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68
relationship between abstract pretend play and self-control
in this study. However, when we look at the items in this
subscale, self-control was measured as controlling one’s
emotion and regulating one’s behavior during negative
social experiences (e.g. peer teasing, criticism, and con-
flict), putting primary emphasis on dealing with the rela-
tionships with peers or adults. The ability to handle these
situations may weigh more on social-emotional develop-
ment rather than cognitive development. In this case, we
may expect a stronger association between social pretend
play and self-control.
Social pretend play was found to be positively associ-
ated with self-control, even though it was only a trend
toward significance. According to Vygotsky (1978), who
claimed that self-control is a fundamental outcome of
pretend play, this relationship makes sense. Two features
of pretend play are closely linked to self-control. The first
one is the imaginary situation, in which children need to
consciously separate imagination from reality. The second
feature is that there are potential rules in pretend play. By
following social rules, Vygotsky claimed that children are
more likely to be satisfied in pretend play than not fol-
lowing the rules. They need to self-regulate themselves to
enact the ‘‘right’’ action in order to reach the pretense
goals. Since causality cannot be determined in this cross-
sectional study, additional work will need to be done to
tease out these relative influences. It is likely that the
dynamic nature of development allows social pretend play
scenarios to promote self-control, and in turn, self-control
in children permits depth and longevity in pretend play
with peers.
Gender
In the current study, no gender differences were found for
the pretend play variables. Previous literature suggests that
girls usually engage in more pretend play than boys. Girls
also engage in more abstract pretend play (Johnson and
Ershler 1981; Jones and Glenn 1991), while boys tend to
engage in more concrete pretend play than girls (Jones and
Glenn 1991; Matthews 1977; McLoyd 1980). However, in
this study none of these differences emerged. The non-sig-
nificant results for gender may be due to a small sample as
well as the unequal sample distribution (18 boys, 10 girls).
It may be equally due to the context in which the study
took place. The outdoor environment itself or the new
costumes might have promoted both girls’ and boys’
interests and motivation to participate in pretend play. Susa
and Benedict (1994) compared traditional playground and
contemporary playground and found that children’s pretend
play behavior significantly increased in the contemporary
playground. In the traditional playground, only swings,
merry-go-round, and seesaw were available, while the
Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68
contemporary playground provided different challenge
levels of equipment, private space as well as social
opportunities. Characteristics of the playgrounds in the
current study were consistent with Susa and Benedict’s
description of contemporary playgrounds. According to
field notes, the three outdoor playground areas used for the
observations were comparable in equipment (anchored
structures), pathways for riding toys, loose parts (e.g. balls,
sand toys), sand box, and some natural elements (e.g. trees,
grass, bushes, garden area). Paved areas (i.e., pathway)
provided children an ideal place to ride tricycles or pull
wagons around. Children ran up and down small hills.
Loose part equipment like balls, wagons, buckets, and even
natural elements, such as small sticks, leaves, and mulch,
became objects that children could manipulate in pretend
play. A rich outdoor environment is more likely to promote
pretend play in all children. However, the Susa and Ben-
edict (1994) study also found that boys demonstrated more
creativity than girls did regardless of type of playground.
So it is possible that boys’ interests toward pretend play
were trigged by the open space and opportunities to engage
in more diverse activities. In future studies, the quality of
outdoor environment needs to be assessed systematically to
have a better understanding of the specific features which
promote pretend play in outdoor settings.
Since some of the costumes provided were purposely
designed for outdoor pretend play, like capes, animal
masks, and butterfly wings, they might have encouraged
boys to engage in more pretend play because they could
run with them in the outdoor environment. Boys’ pretend
play amount may have caught up with the pretend play
amount for girls’ in such a context. It also could be in an
opposite direction that girls reduced their pretend play
amount in the outdoor environment due to the materials or
props available compared to indoor environments.
Moreover, a study of gender differences in play has
documented a trend of less gender-stereotyped play among
boys and girls in natural environments (Änggård 2011). It
is possible that girls’ science-related activity (Early et al.
2010), which is usually performed by boys more than girls
in indoor settings, is also equal to boys’ in outdoor envi-
ronment. Änggård (2011) concludes that natural environ-
ments may promote gender equity. She argued that since
nature affordance could be used in various ways, it may
promote different kinds of play in which both boys and
girls could easily find their roles. This speculation is worth
pursuing in future studies given the value of pretend play
for both boys and girls.
Implications and Future Directions
The current study contributed to the literature in pretend
play by providing new information about the amount and
67
type of pretend play outdoors, and empirical evidence for a
direct link between pretend play and social skills. Specif-
ically, it was found that abstract and social pretend play are
more closely related to children’s overall social skills than
concrete and solitary pretend play. Social pretend play also
appears to have the strongest association to all three types
of social skills (i.e., assertive, cooperation, and self-con-
trol). Adults, either teachers or parents, need to consciously
promote social pretend play when they know that children
are capable of engaging in social pretend play. These
findings also suggest that it maybe worthwhile to look at
subtypes of pretend play rather than pretend play as a
whole in future studies.
The relatively high proportion of time that these chil-
dren spent in pretend play outdoors (20 %) suggests that
with environmental support (i.e., costumes) children will
engage in these important play behaviors. The high quality
outdoor environment along with the costumes provided a
setting which afforded pretend play. Children took
advantage of these opportunities and their familiar peers
and participated in many rich social interactions. It is likely
that the transactional processes during these interactions
are promoting social skills and cognitive development for
these preschool children. Since the small sample of chil-
dren and the high quality environments limits the gener-
alizability of this work there is a need to replicate these
findings with larger, more diverse groups of children.
In the mean time, this study provides support for con-
tinued efforts to promote pretend play in early childhood
settings, not only indoors but also outdoors. Providing
costumes and pretend play props in outdoor settings is a
relatively inexpensive way to support children engaging in
this important play behavior. In a broader sense, costume
provision can be viewed as a certain aspect of quality in
outdoor environments. Outdoor environment quality not
only includes the physical environment (DeBord et al.
2005; Söderström et al. 2013), such as the space, number
and quality of equipment, and the proportion of natural
elements, but also social environment (Kyttä 2004), such as
being allowed to engage in risk-taking behavior, being
encouraged to explore the environment, and teacher
involvement. With the reductions in the overall play times
in early childhood in the United States (Gray 2011), the
ability to use outdoor time to promote pretend play should
be capitalized on for young children.
References
Änggård, E. (2011). Children’s gendered and non-gendered play in
natural spaces. Children Youth and Environments, 21(2), 5–33.
Bretherton, I. (1989). Pretense: The form and function of make-
believe play. Developmental Review, 9(4), 383–401.
123
68
Connolly, J. (1988). Social pretend play and social interaction in
preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
9(3), 301–313.
Connolly, J. A., & Doyle, A. B. (1984). Relation of social fantasy
play to social competence in preschoolers. Developmental
Psychology, 20(5), 797–806.
de Lorimier, S., Doyle, A.-B., & Tessier, O. (1995). Social
coordination during pretend play: Comparisons with nonpretend
play and effects on expressive content. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly, 41(4), 497–516.
DeBord, K., Hestenes, L., Moore, R. C., Cosco, N. G., & McGinnis, J.
R. (2005). Preschool outdoor environment measurement scale.
Winston Salem, NC: Kaplan Early Learning Co.
Derry, P. A., & Stone, G. L. (1979). Effects of cognitive-adjunct
treatments on assertiveness. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
3(2), 213–221.
Doyle, A. B., & Connolly, J. (1989). Negotiation and enactment in
social pretend play: Relations to social acceptance and social
cognition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4(3), 289–302.
Doyle, A. B., Doehring, P., Tessier, O., de Lorimier, S., & Shapiro, S.
(1992). Transitions in children’s play: A sequential analysis of
states preceding and following social pretense. Developmental
Psychology, 28(1), 137–148.
Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D.-M.
C., Crawford, G. M., et al. (2010). How do pre-kindergarteners
spend their time? Gender, ethnicity, and income as predictors of
experiences in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25(2), 177–193. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.
10.003.
Eisler, R. M., Frederiksen, L. W., & Peterson, G. L. (1978). The
relationship of cognitive variables to the expression of asser-
tiveness. Behavior Therapy, 9(3), 419–427.
Fein, G. G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review.
Child Development, 52(4), 1095–1118.
Galyer, K. T., & Evans, I. M. (2001). Pretend play and the
development of emotion regulation in preschool children. Early
Child Development and Care, 166(1), 93–108.
Gleason, T. R. (2005). Mothers’ and fathers’ attitudes regarding
pretend play in the context of imaginary companions and of child
gender. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(4), 412–436.
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology
in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4),
443–463.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Hoffmann, J., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity, and emotion
regulation in children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts, 6(2), 175–184. doi:10.1037/a0026299.
Howes, C., Unger, O., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). The collaborative
construction of pretend: Social pretend play functions. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Johnson, J. E., & Ershler, J. (1981). Developmental trends in
preschool play as a function of classroom program and child
gender. Child Development, 52(3), 995–1004.
Jones, A., & Glenn, S. M. (1991). Gender differences in pretend play
in a primary school group. Early Child Development and Care,
77(1), 127–135.
Kendall, P. C., & Braswell, L. (1982). Cognitive-behavioral self-
control therapy for children: A components analysis. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 672–689.
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2016) 44:61–68
Kyttä, M. (2004). Children in outdoor contexts: Affordances and
independent mobility in the assessment of environmental child
friendliness. Helsinki University of Technology. Retrieved from
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2003/isbn9512268736/.
Lillard, A. S., Pinkham, A., & Smith, E. D. (2011). Pretend play and
cognitive development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-
Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp.
285–311). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Lindsey, E. W., & Colwell, M. J. (2013). Pretend and physical play:
Links to preschoolers’ affective social competence. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 59(3), 330–360.
Matthews, W. S. (1977). Modes of transformation in the initiation of
fantasy play. Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 212–216.
McLoyd, V. C. (1980). Verbally expressed modes of transformation
in the fantasy play of black preschool children. Child Develop-
ment, 51(4), 1133–1139.
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Ungerer, J., & Sherman, T. (1987).
Nonverbal communication and play correlates of language
development in autistic children. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 17(3), 349–364.
Pearson, B. L., Russ, S. W., & Spannagel, S. A. C. (2008). Pretend
play and positive psychology: Natural companions. The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 110–119.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York,
NY: Norton.
Rubin, K. H. (1982). Nonsocial play in preschoolers: Necessarily
evil? Child Development, 53(3), 651–657. doi:10.2307/1129376.
Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend play:
Longitudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in
children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 129–139.
Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1998). Multiple perspectives on play in
early childhood education. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Shim, S. K., Herwig, J. E., & Shelley, M. (2001). Preschoolers’ play
behaviors with peers in classroom and playground settings.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 149–163.
Söderström, M., Boldemann, C., Sahlin, U., Mårtensson, F., Raustorp,
A., & Blennow, M. (2013). The quality of the outdoor
environment influences children’s health—A cross-sectional
study of preschools. Acta Paediatrica, 102(1), 83–91.
Susa, A. M., & Benedict, J. O. (1994). The effects of playground
design on pretend play and divergent thinking. Environment and
Behavior, 26(4), 560–579. doi:10.1177/001391659402600405.
Swindells, D., & Stagnitti, K. (2006). Pretend play and parents’ view
of social competence: The construct validity of the child-
initiated pretend play assessment. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 53(4), 314–324.
Vagos, P., & Pereira, A. (2010). A proposal for evaluating cognition
in assertiveness. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 657–665.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Whitington, V., & Floyd, I. (2009). Creating intersubjectivity during
socio-dramatic play at an Australian kindergarten. Early Child
Development and Care, 179(2), 143–156.
Copyright of Early Childhood Education Journal is the property of Springer Science &
Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.