This article was downloaded by: [95.146.221.

128]
On: 28 November 2013, At: 23:56
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Changes in Children's Pretend Play Over Two Decades

a a
Sandra W. Russ & Jessica A. Dillon
a
Case Western Reserve University
Published online: 09 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Sandra W. Russ & Jessica A. Dillon (2011) Changes in Children's Pretend Play Over Two Decades, Creativity
Research Journal, 23:4, 330-338, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.621824

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.621824

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 23(4), 330–338, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.621824

Changes in Children’s Pretend Play Over Two Decades

Sandra W. Russ and Jessica A. Dillon
Case Western Reserve University

There is growing recognition that children have less time to engage in play, and, concur-
rently, recent evidence suggests a decrease in divergent thinking ability in young chil-
dren. This study investigated changes in pretend play ability during a 23-year period.
The same standardized measure of pretend play, the Affect in Play Scale (APS; Russ,
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013

1993; 2004), was the measure of pretend play in all studies. This puppet play task is
videotaped and scored from the tapes. Fourteen studies of children from 6 to 10 years
of age in school-based samples from 1985–2008 were included in the analyses. A
cross-temporal meta-analysis examined correlations between weighted mean scores
and year of data collection. Main findings were that imagination in play and comfort
with play significantly increased over time. There was no evidence of change in organi-
zation of the story or in overall expression of affect in play. When one outlier was
removed, there was a significant decrease in negative affect expression in play. Even
though children have less time to play, cognitive processes that occur in play are con-
tinuing to develop. Whether these pretend abilities are being transferred to creative pro-
duction is a key question for future investigation.

Pretend play has important functions in child develop-
ment. There is a consensus in the field that pretend
play relates to many areas of child development
(Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003; Russ, 2004; Singer &
Singer, 1990). For example, pretend play relates to cre-
ative problem solving (Dansky, 1999), perspective-
taking (Harris, 2000), coping ability (Russ, Robins, &
Christiano, 1999), and emotion regulation (Berk, Mann,
& Ogman, 2006). One of the most robust findings in the
literature is the relationship between pretend play and
divergent thinking (Fisher, 1992), and by extrapolation,
creativity. There is less consensus in the field as to
whether or not pretend play actually facilitates the
development of creativity. Nevertheless, many of the
processes we observe in play are important in creativity
and child development.
There is a long history of investigation into the
relationship between pretend play and creativity. Many
of the processes important in creative production occur
in pretend play. A creative product is defined as being
both novel and appropriate to the task or aesthetically
Correspondence should be sent to Sandra W. Russ, Department of
Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-
7123. E-mail: swr@case.edu
pleasing (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002).
Although children cannot make major creative contri-
butions to a discipline, they can produce ideas, art,
and inventions that are novel and good for their age
group. They can also express everyday creativity in
daily life. A number of theorists have thought of pre-
tend play as being a source of creativity for children
(Erikson, 1963; Fein, 1987; Singer & Singer, 1990;
Vygotsky, 1967).
Pretend play has been defined as a symbolic behavior
in which ‘‘one thing is playfully treated as if it were
something else’’ (Fein, 1987, p. 282). Pretend play
involves make-believe, fantasy, imagination, and affect.
Fein thought that pretense is charged with emotion, so
that affect is intertwined with pretend play. Cognitive
and affective processes that occur in play are also impor-
tant in creativity (Russ, 1993, 2004). Divergent thinking
is a cognitive process that occurs in both play and crea-
tivity. Divergent thinking is the generation of a variety
of ideas and solutions to problems (Guilford, 1968).
By generating many ideas, some requiring remote asso-
ciations, the likelihood of coming up with a novel idea is
increased. Singer and Singer (1990) described pretend
play as practice with divergent thinking. In pretend play,
children generate many different stories and transform

objects into representations of different things. The child
is playing with ideas in their imagination and recombin-
ing images and ideas into new configurations, which is
also an important component of creativity (Guilford,
1968).
Affective processes also occur in play and are impor-
tant in creative production. Children express positive
(happiness, affection) and negative (anger, sadness, fear)
emotions in play. Affect-laden themes and images (mon-
sters, food, guns) are also expressed in fantasy play. Fein
(1987) described how children manipulate affect-laden
symbols in pretend play and that this affective symbol
system was important in creativity. Access to
affect-laden ideas, thoughts, and memories could be
especially important for creativity in the arts. Positive
affect facilitates creativity in a number of studies (Baas,
Carsten, & Nijstad, 2008). Negative affect themes in pre-
tend play have related to divergent thinking (Russ &
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013
Schafer, 2006). Finally, in play, children become
absorbed in the task and often experience deep pleasure.
This is similar to the flow experience described by
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) as being part of the creative
experience. These are just some of the reasons that pre-
tend play should be related to divergent thinking and
creativity in children.
Many research studies have found relationships
between pretend play and creativity in both preschool
and elementary school populations, usually inde-
pendent of intelligence (Russ, 2004). In a meta-analysis
of 46 play studies, Fisher (1992) found the largest effect
sizes for relationships between play and divergent
thinking (ES ¼ .387) and perspective-taking (ES ¼
.392). Both cognitive processes and affective processes
in play have related to divergent thinking. Children
who have more imagination in play, more organized
make-believe stories, and more emotion and affect-
laden themes generate more responses and more orig-
inal responses on divergent thinking tests (Russ &
Grossman-McKee, 1990). There is some support for
stability of the association between play and divergent
thinking over time as well. For example, imagination
in first- and second-grade children predicted divergent
thinking in the 5th and 6th grade (r ¼ .42, p < .01; Russ
et al., 1999).
An important question is whether engaging in pre-
tend play only reflects creative processes or also facili-
tates the development of those processes. There are
some experimental studies in the literature that found
that pretend play facilitates insight in problem-solving
(Vandenberg, 1980) and divergent thinking (Dansky,
1980). Although there are many methodological chal-
lenges with this type of research, Dansky (1999) con-
cluded that there were well-done studies that
controlled for experimenter effects that found that pre-
tend play did facilitate creative thinking.
CHANGES IN PRETEND PLAY 331
DECREASING PLAY TIME
One implication of the impact of play on creativity fol-
lows from the growing recognition that children have
less time to themselves to engage in free play activities.
Over the past few decades, the amount of free play for
children has decreased (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff,
2003; Hirsh-Pasek, Golonkoff, Berk, & Singer, 2009).
Research examining how time is allocated in elementary
schools confirms that play time is swiftly disappearing
from many classrooms in America, despite evidence sug-
gesting play time is essential. According to surveys con-
ducted by the National Association of Elementary
School Principals (NAESP), although 96% of school
systems reported having at least one recess period in
1989, this number reduced to only 70% of school sys-
tems just 10 years later. More recently, a 2010 Gallup
poll sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foun-
dation, NAESP, and Playworks surveying 1,951 schools,
found that 92% of schools reported having recess, but
over half of the respondents reported that their school
had 30 minutes or less for recess each day, suggesting
that children are receiving minimal or no time for
unstructured or child-directed activities during the day.
Yet, although play time is being squeezed out of cur-
ricula, this same 2010 study found that 8 out of 10 prin-
cipals report recess as having a positive impact on
academic achievement, and two-thirds of the principals
reported that students listened and focused better after
recess. Furthermore, 96% of principals reported believ-
ing that recess had a positive impact on both social
development and student’s overall well-being. Thus,
there is a puzzling discrepancy between the research
and principals’ views, and the reality of how school sys-
tems are currently being run. Despite a clearly observed
connection between recess and positive student
socio-emotional and academic achievement, 77% of
principals reported that their school takes away recess
as a typical punishment, and 20% of principals reported
that they had decreased recess time due to annual aca-
demic testing.
One can imagine the many reasons why schools are
struggling to provide unstructured play time; in the
age of the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are under
increased pressure to produce strong test scores, and to
pack every minute of the day with structured material.
Additionally, many schools struggle with funding for
better playgrounds and enough teachers to monitor play
time. But the trend toward less play time is not solely the
fault of schools or government regulations: Parents, too,
seem oriented toward childhoods with less time for play.
After a review of the research in a report by the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Ginsburg (2007) out-
lined a range of possible factors contributing to this
reduction in play. Among the factors is the increase in
 332 RUSS AND DILLON
single parents or households in which both parents
work, leaving children in child care or after-school
activities more hours out of the day, or to spend more
hours in front of the television or video game console.
Furthermore, American culture increasingly views good
parenting as building a child’s skills, especially academic
skills, and producing as many opportunities for them as
possible. College admissions and preschool admissions
for that matter, promote the pressure that parents feel
to help their child be well-rounded and well-prepared.
More practically, for some children the communities in
which they live do not allow them to play safely outside.
There is growing recognition that children have less
time to play (Elkind, 2007). This decrease in play time
has been widely documented. The Academy of Pedi-
atrics has called for an increasing recognition of the
importance of play in child development (Ginsberg,
2007). There is little research on actual play ability in
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013
children during this period of decreasing play time. Is
the decrease in pretend play time resulting in poorer pre-
tend play ability? There is some evidence reported by
Kim (2011) that there has been a decrease in creativity.
What about pretend play? We were in a unique position
of having samples of pretend play of various child popu-
lations during a 23-year period that used the same stan-
dardized play task with standardized administration and
scoring in all studies. The purpose of this investigation
was to compare play ability in children from 6 to 10
years of age during a 23-year period to determine
whether play processes are improving, staying the same,
or decreasing. The Affect in Play Scale (APS) was the
measure used in all studies.
METHOD
Measure
The measure used in this study was the APS (Russ, 1993;
2004), a 5-min, unstructured play task that measured
both cognitive and affective processes in play. Each
child was met with individually and given two
neutral-looking puppets and three blocks with which
to play however he or she would like. The task is appro-
priate for children ages 6–10, in grades 1 to 4. The play
was videotaped and scored according to criteria in a
scoring manual. The APS is relatively unstructured so
that there is room for the child to structure the play
and present affect themes that are habitual to him or
her. The instructions for the task are:
I am here to learn about how children play. I have here 2
puppets and would like you to play with them any way
you like for 5 minutes. For example, you can have the
puppets do something together. I also have some blocks
that you can use. Be sure to have the puppets talk out
loud. The video camera will be on so that I can remem-
ber what you say and do. I will tell you when to stop. Go
ahead.
The researcher does not engage with the child in the
play, and follows standard prompts during the 5-minute
period.
The APS measures pretend play ability with five
scores:
1. Organization rates the child’s play (1–5) on the
quality and complexity of the plot, considering
cause and effect and plot integration.
2. Imagination rates the child’s play (1–5) on its
fantasy elements, block transformations, and
number of novel ideas, characters, or events.
3. Comfort is a rating (1–5) of the child’s comfort,
involvement in the play and enjoyment of the
play.
4. Frequency of Affect is a tally count of the num-
ber of units of verbal and nonverbal emotion
expressed during the play. A unit is defined as
one expression by an individual puppet that can
be scored. For example, every time one puppet
said, ‘‘I like you’’ or ‘‘I hate this’’ a unit is coded.
The total number of units expressed during the
5-minute period is the frequency of affect score.
Frequency of positive affect units and negative
affect units are also obtained.
5. Variety of Affect is a tally count of the number of
affect categories that are expressed during the
play, drawing from 11 categories: Anger=
Aggression, Anxiety=Fear, Happiness=Pleasure,
Frustration=Dislike=Disappointment, Sadness=
Hurt, Oral, Oral Aggression, Anal, Competition,
Sexual, and Nurturance=Affection. These cate-
gories can be combined into positive affect
expressions and negative affect expressions.
An extensive scoring manual has been developed for the
scale (Russ, 1993; 2004). Raters achieve good interrater
reliability (usually in the .80 s and .90 s). Split-half
reliability for frequency of affect was good (r ¼ .85; Seja
& Russ, 1999). A variety of validity studies have been
carried out with different researchers and child popula-
tions that have found relationships between the APS
and theoretically relevant criteria. For example, the
APS has been related to divergent thinking, coping abil-
ity, amount of emotion in memories, and emotional
understanding (Russ & Grossman-McKee, 1990; Russ
et al., 1999; Russ & Schafer, 2006; Seja & Russ, 1999,
respectively). Most of the relationships between the
APS and criteria were independent of intelligence. The
APS has not related to verbal intelligence in most
 CHANGES IN PRETEND PLAY 333

studies. Occasionally, there has been a low positive Data Analytic Strategy
correlation between imagination and verbal IQ. Several
We analyzed how the five main APS scores may have
studies have supported the conceptualization behind the
changed over time. This was done by performing a
scale of two separate but related factors, one cognitive
cross-temporal meta-analysis, examining correlations
and one affective (Russ, 2004).
between mean scores and year of data collection. The
All the studies included in this comparison used the
means were weighted by the sample size of each study
same props, administration, and scoring manual. Only
to give better estimates of the population mean. This
very minor scoring changes have been made over the
data analytic procedure followed that used by Jean M.
years.
Twenge examining similar changes in test scores over
time (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman,
Inclusion of Studies 2008; Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004).
The analyses were performed using SPSS. It is impor-
All studies that used the APS with a school-based popu-
tant to note that there were varying numbers of data
lation were included. There were a total of 14 studies
points for each of the main APS scores because different
over a 23-year period from 1985 to 2008. These included
studies focused on different scores, and not every study
published studies, as well as unpublished Masters Theses
used or reported every score. For example, some studies
and Dissertations. All were carried out in the research
did not examine positive or negative affect scores, thus
program of Sandra Russ at Case Western Reserve Uni-
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013

the number of studies included in the cross-temporal

versity. There were a number of different examiners and
meta-analysis for these scores is fewer. Table 2 presents
raters. All raters had been trained and checked for
a breakdown of APS mean scores by study and year.
adequate interrater reliability.
We also calculated the magnitude of the change in
Possible data points for the analysis were included or
APS scores, by using regression equations and the aver-
excluded on the basis of specific inclusion rules. To be
aged standard deviation (SD) of the individual samples.
included in the analysis, a study had to meet the following
To find the mean scores for specific years, we used the
criteria: (a) participants were children between the ages of
regression equation produced by the statistical analyses
6 and 10; (b) participants were taken from school-based
to draw the regression line. The regression equation fol-
samples, not clinical groups or at-risk populations; (c)
lows the formula: y ¼ Bx þ C, where y ¼ the predicted
means were reported for unselected groups of parti-
mean APS score, B ¼ the unstandardized regression
cipants, not those chosen for scoring in any particular
coefficient, x ¼ the year, and C ¼ the constant or inter-
way on the APS or any other measure; and (d) the study
cept. This formula yielded the position of the regression
had used the original version of the APS, not the brief
line for certain years. We then calculated the difference
rating version or the preschool version. Table 1 lists the
between a score’s predicted value in the earliest year that
author(s), year the APS was administered, publication
score was obtained and the predicted value in the most
status, number of children in the sample, type of school,
recent year that score was used, obtaining a number
and grades included in the study.

TABLE 1
Data Sets Included in the Analysis

Sources Year Data Collected Published n School Type Grade

Grossman-McKee (1985); Russ and Grossman-McKee 1990) 1985 Yes 60 Suburban public 1, 2
Grossman-McKee (1989) 1988 No 89 Military base 1, 2
Russ and Peterson (1988); Russ, Robins, and Christiano (1999) 1988 Yes 121 Suburban public 1, 2
Niec (1994); Niec and Russ (1996) 1993 Yes 49 Suburban parochial 1, 2, 3
Russ and Kaugars (2001) 1995 Yes 80 Suburban public 1, 2
Niec (1998); Niec and Russ (2002) 1996 Yes 86 Suburban public 3, 4
Seja (1998); Seja and Russ (1999) 1997 Yes 66 Suburban public 1, 2
Goldstein (1999); Goldstein and Russ (2001) 1997 Yes 55 Suburban public 1
Russ and Schafer (2006) 1999 Yes 46 Suburban public 1, 2
Goldstein (2002) 1999 No 76 Suburban public 3, 4
Russ, Moore, and Pearson (2007) 2002 No 45 Inner city public 1, 2
Sacha Cordiano, Russ, and Short (2008) 2006 Yes 30 Suburban parochial 1, 2
Cain Spannagel, Russ, and Niec (2008); Niec and Spannagel (2006) 2006 No 58 Suburban parochial 1, 2, 3, 4
Christian, K. (2009) 2008 No 33 Suburban parochial 1, 2, 3
Inner city parochial
 334 RUSS AND DILLON

TABLE 2
Affect in Play Scale (APS) Mean Scores by Study

Affect in Play Scale (APS) Scores

Frequency Variety Positive Negative

Sources Year n Organization Imagination Comfort of Affect of Affect Affect Affect

Grossman-McKee (1985); Russ, and 1985 60 2.03 2.40 12.35

Grossman-McKee (1990)
Grossman-McKee (1989) 1988 89 2.46 1.90 2.33
Russ and Peterson (1988); Russ, Robins, 1988 121 2.76 2.58 2.96 10.99 2.97
and Christiano (1999)
Niec (1994); Niec and Russ (1996) 1993 49 2.41 13.96 2.57
Russ and Kaugars (2001) 1995 80 14.80 8.50 6.30
Niec (1998); Niec and Russ (2002) 1996 86 2.15 2.20 2.78 16.58 3.58
Seja (1998); Seja and Russ (1999) 1997 66 2.48 2.41 3.53 12.71 2.77
Goldstein (1999); Goldstein and Russ (2001) 1997 55 2.40
Russ and Schafer (2006) 1999 46 2.26 2.57 3.13 9.04 5.00 4.17
Goldstein, A. (2002) 1999 76 22.23 4.01 7.76 14.47
Russ, Moore, and Pearson (2007) 2002 45 3.16 2.91 3.22 8.78 2.82 5.58 3.20
Sacha Cordiano, Russ, and Short (2008) 2006 30 2.25 2.54 3.04 11.07
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013

Cain Spannagel, Russ, and Niec (2008); Niec 2006 58 2.93 2.76 3.57 7.72 2.66 5.38 2.34
and Spannagel (2006)
Christian (2009) 2008 33 2.73 2.82 3.21 9.39 2.48 6.82 2.58

representing the predicted amount a score would change
across those years.
We also calculated the average SD by averaging the
within-sample SDs reported in the data sources; thus,
this reflected the average variance of the measure in a
sample of individuals. The previously calculated pre-
dicted amount that a score would change across years
was divided by this average variance across those years,
to determine the number of SDs a score was predicted to
shift across time. This, too, was the exact procedure
used by Twenge et al. (2008).
It is important to note, as Twenge et al. (2008),
pointed out, that this method avoids the ecological fal-
lacy, also known as alerting correlations (Rosenthal,
Rosnow, & Rubin, 2000) by using the SD of the individ-
ual studies to capture the variance of the scale, rather
than using the variation in mean scores.
RESULTS
Organization
For children ages 6 to 10 in nonclinical samples, there
was no evidence of change in their scores of Organiza-
tion on the APS across time. No significant correlation
was found between APS scores of Organization and
the year of data collection when weighted by sample size
(b ¼ .146, p ¼ .707, k ¼ 9). No correlation between score
and time suggests that there has not been a significant
change in how well children are able to organize their
pretend play over time, from 1988 to 2008.
Statistical analyses gave an unstandardized regression
coefficient (B) of .006 and a constant (C) of
9.86. The
regression equation (y ¼ Bx þ C, detailed in the method)
is: Predicted APS Organization score ¼ .006  year of
data collection
9.86. When the oldest and most recent
years with data on Organization were plugged into the
regression equation, APS Organization scores of 2.07
for the year 1988 and 2.19 for the year 2008 were pre-
dicted. By subtracting the predicted score for 1988 from
the predicted score for 2008, we obtained a difference of
0.12, meaning that the regression equation, being linear,
predicted the APS Organization score would increase
0.12 every 20 years.
This predicted change over time is more meaningful
when reported in terms of how many SDs the score has
changed or is predicted to change. For APS Organization
scores, the average SD reported for the individual sam-
ples was 1.33. We divided the APS Organization mean
score change of 0.12 units by the average SD of 1.33, to
calculate that APS Organization scores have changed
.09 SDs over the 20 years from 1988 to 2008. This further
confirmed the nonsignificant relationship between year
and children’s organization in pretend play.
Imagination
Unlike Organization scores, children ages 6 to 10 from
nonclinical samples were found to score progressively
higher on Imagination in pretend play between 1985
and 2008 (see Figure 1). There was a significant and
positive correlation between APS scores of Imagination
and year of data collection when weighted by sample

FIGURE 1 Children’s imagination scores over time.
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013
size (b ¼ .663, p ¼ .026, k ¼ 11). Thus, more recently,
children were more imaginative in their play.
The regression equation produced by the statistical
analysis is: Predicted APS mean Imagination scor-
e ¼ .028  year
53.65. The regression equation yielded
a score of 1.93 for the year 1985, and 2.57 for the year
2008. The average SD reported for the individual sam-
ples (from all the studies collected) was 1.25. Thus,
APS scores of Imagination increased 0.51 SDs from
1986 to 2008. This is a medium effect size using Cohen’s
(1977) guidelines.
Comfort
Children also scored progressively higher on scores of
Comfort between 1985 and 2008 (see Figure 2). There
was a significant and positive correlation between APS
scores of Comfort and the year of data collection when
weighted by sample size (b ¼ .710, p ¼ .014, k ¼ 11).
More recently, children displayed more comfort engag-
ing in fantasy play. The regression equation (predicted
APS mean imagination score ¼ .041  year
78.87)
yielded a score of 2.52 for the year 1985 and 3.46 for
the year 2008. The average SD reported for the individual
samples (from all the studies collected) was 1.40. Thus,
APS scores of Comfort increased 0.67 SDs from 1985
to 2008. This is a medium-to-large effect size (between
.50 and .80) according to Cohen’s (1977) guidelines.
Frequency of Affect
Children, ages 6 to 10, from nonclinical samples showed
no clear directional change in their scores on Frequency
of Affect on the APS across time. No significant corre-
lation was found between APS scores of Frequency of
Affect and year of data collection when weighted by
CHANGES IN PRETEND PLAY 335
FIGURE 2 Children’s comfort scores over time.
sample size (b ¼
.132, p ¼ .659, k ¼ 11). Thus, there
was no evidence of a change in how much affect children
express during their pretend play over time. The unstan-
dardized regression coefficient was
.081, thus the
regression equation (predicted APS frequency of affect
score ¼
.081  year þ 175.38) yielded a score of 14.60
for 1985, and 12.73 for 2008, a difference of 1.87. The
average SD reported for the individual samples was
14.22. Thus, APS scores of Frequency of Affect
decreased 0.13 SDs from 1985 to 2008, further confirming
no effect of time on frequency of affect in pretend play.
Variety of Affect
No changes in children’s scores on the Variety of Affect
expressed on the APS across time were found. No signifi-
cant correlation was found between APS scores of Fre-
quency of Affect and the year of data collection when
weighted by sample size (b ¼
.107, p ¼ .801, k ¼ 8).
The regression equation (predicted APS variety of affect
score ¼
.009  year þ 20.16) yielded a score of 2.27 for
1988, and a score of 2.09 for 2008, a difference of 0.19.
The average SD reported for the individual samples
was 2.05. Thus, APS scores of Variety of Affect decreased
.09 SDs from 1988 to 2008, confirming no effect of time
on variety of affect expressed during pretend play.
Positive Affect
No evidence of changes in scores of positive affect
across time was found. No significant correlation was
found between APS scores of Positive Affect and the
year of data collection when weighted by sample size
(b ¼
.627, p ¼ .183, k ¼ 6). Thus, there has not been a
change in the amount of positive affect that children
express during their pretend play across time. The
 336 RUSS AND DILLON
regression equation (predicted APS positive affect
score ¼
.197  year þ 401.27) yielded a score of 8.26
for 1995 and a score of 5.69 for 2008. The average SD
reported for the individual samples was 6.91; therefore,
APS scores of Positive Affect have decreased .37 SDs
from 1995 to 2008, confirming no effect of time on the
amount of positive affect expressed during pretend play.
Negative Affect
No significant correlation was found between APS
scores of Negative Affect and the year of data collection
when weighted by sample size (b ¼
.472, p ¼ .345,
k ¼ 6). However, the regression equation (predicted
APS score of negative affect ¼
.496  year þ 999.02)
yielded a score of 9.50 for 1995 and a score of 3.05 for
2008. The average SD reported for the individual sam-
ples was 9.29, therefore, APS scores of Negative Affect
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013
have decreased .69 SDs from 1995 to 2008, a medium-
to-large effect size (between .50 and .80) according to
Cohen’s (1977) guidelines.
An examination of Table 2 revealed that one data set
(Goldstein, 1999) had an unusually high negative affect
score; the rest of the data points showed a relatively lin-
ear decrease in Negative Affect scores over time. To
explore this further, the Goldstein (1999) data point
whose score was unusually high was removed from the
analysis. With this study removed, the regression equa-
tion was recalculated, showing a significant negative
relationship between time and Negative affect
expression (b ¼
.318, p ¼ .01, k ¼ 5). This result sug-
gests that the amount of negative affect that children
express during pretend play is decreasing over time
(see Figure 3). The regression equation (predicted APS
score of negative affect ¼
.318  year þ 640.63) yielded
a score of 6.22 for 1995 and a score of 2.09 for 2008.
Since the average SD reported for the individual samples
changed to 7.35, APS scores of Negative Affect have
decreased .56 SDs from 1995 to 2008, again producing
a medium-to-large effect size (between .50 and .80)
according to Cohen’s (1977) guidelines. Similar analysis
excluding Goldstein (1999) did not change results for the
other APS scores.
DISCUSSION
The main findings of this study were that there was no
evidence of change in some aspects of children’s pretend
play and improvements in other areas. There has been
no evidence of change in children’s pretend play, from
1985 through 2008, in terms of organization of the play
story and amount and range of affect expression.
Imagination has increased in recent play samples as
has comfort engaging in the play task. It is encouraging
FIGURE 3 Children’s negative affect scores over time with outlier
removed.
that these cognitive and affective processes in play have
remained the same or improved, given the decline in
unstructured time for children.
What can we make of these results in light of the fact
that there has been a reduction in time for free play over
these decades? There are several possible explanations.
First, children are resilient and may be finding ways to
develop imagination and make-believe abilities other than
through play. These abilities are then reflected in the pre-
tend play task. For example, Singer and Singer (2005)
explored whether the use of videogames and computer
games could enhance imagination in some ways. It is also
possible that children are finding time to play in spite of
their heavily structured schedules. Elkind (2007) sug-
gested that children maintain the same desire to play, even
though there are fewer opportunities to play. Children
continue to play games and create learning experiences.
It is also possible that the complexities and challenges
of modern culture require creative problem-solving and
imagination to function from day to day.
Second, it is possible that the play task used in these
studies is not sensitive to aspects of play that are in
decline. For example, the imagination scale is a 1–5
Likert scale that is a global measure of imagination in
play. Perhaps if one looked at specific imagination beha-
viors, like number of transformations of the blocks, the
results would differ. However, this global rating is based
upon consideration of a number of specific indicators of
imagination and has related to measures of divergent
thinking in a number of studies.
Third, it is possible that there were other differences
between the most recent samples of children and earlier
samples that confounded the results. More recent sam-
ples were parochial schools when compared to earlier
samples. However, the type of neighborhood was similar
to earlier samples. Because there are only 14 studies, it is

possible that these samples are not representative of the
larger population.
The finding that negative affect expression in play
decreased, after removing one outlier, is suggestive of
a downward trend and should be explored in future
research. If this finding is supported with more play stu-
dies, then the implications are important. The
expression of negative affect themes in play has related
to divergent thinking (Russ & Schafer, 2006). Russ
and Schafer also found that positive and negative affect
themes related to expression of emotions in memory
narratives. Russ and Grossman-McKee (1990) found a
relationship between affect-laden primary process think-
ing on the Rorschach and affect in play. The results of
these two studies suggest that expression of affect and
affect-laden themes is a cross-situational ability. Access
to affect-laden imagery could be especially important to
creativity in the arts (Russ, 2009). Constriction of nega-
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013
tive affect expression in play, if supported in future
research, could have consequences for creative
expression. It is important to point out that negative
affect expression in pretend play is still pretend and chil-
dren know it is pretend. Many negative affect themes are
accompanied by positive affect (e.g., a child might say
that a shark is happily eating the small fish).
In general, the major findings of this study are not con-
sistent with the recent findings reported by Kim (2011)
that creativity scores, as measured by the Torrance Tests
of Creativity (Torrance, Ball, & Saften, 1992) have signifi-
cantly decreased since 1990. Kim reported that this
decrease was especially clear in younger children, kinder-
garten through sixth grade. Given the large body of
research that shows that pretend play ability correlates
with creativity, with the APS as well, how do we account
for the finding that play ability is either stable or increas-
ing? One explanation could be that even though children
are finding ways to develop different abilities in play, they
are not using the abilities to transfer to creativity tasks.
This possibility should be explored in future research.
The findings with these samples of children that play
ability has remained stable or increased is encouraging
and may speak to the resilience of children living in com-
plex times. Nevertheless, given recent evidence that play
time can facilitate development, society should continue
to address the issue of reduced time for unstructured play.
REFERENCES
Data sets included in the meta-analysis are preceded by
an asterisk.
Baas, M., Carsten, K. W., & Nijstad. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25
years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone activation or regu-
latory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
CHANGES IN PRETEND PLAY 337
Berk, M., Mann, T., & Ogman, A. (2006). Make-believe play: Well-
spring for development of self-regulation. In D. Singer, R.
Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play ¼ Learning: How plan
motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social–emotional
growth (pp. 74–100). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cain Spannagel, S. A., Russ, S. W., & Niec, L. N. (2008, August). The
relationship between pretend play, prosocial moral reasoning, and
prosocial behavior. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Christian, K. (2009). Effects of anxious mood induction on play pro-
cesses. Unpublished master’s thesis, Case Western Reserve Univer-
sity, Cleveland, OH.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experi-
ence. Grand Rapids, MI: Harper and Row.
Dansky, J. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between
play and associative fluency. Child Development, 51, 576–579.
Dansky, J. (1999). Play. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclo-
pedia of creativity (pp. 393–408). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: Learning what comes naturally.
New York: Da Capo.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness. In P.
Gorlitz & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination and play (pp.
281–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fisher, E. (1992). The impact of play on development: A
meta-analysis. Play and Culture, 5, 159–181.
Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy
child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds.
Pediatrics, 119, 182–191.

Goldstein, A. (1999). Children’s fantasy ability and its relationship to
understanding literature. Unpublished master’s thesis, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Goldstein, A. (2002). The effect of affect-laden reading passages on
children’s emotional expressivity in play. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Goldstein, A., & Russ, S. W. (2001). Understanding children’s litera-
ture and its relationship to fantasy ability and coping. Imagination,
Cognition, and Personality, 20, 105–126.

Grossman-McKee, A. (1985). Affective expression in fantasy play and
its relationship to divergent thinking and achievement: an exploration
of sex differences among first and second grade children. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Grossman-McKee, A. (1989). The relationship between affective
expression in fantasy play and pain complaints in first and second
grade boys. (Doctoral Dissertation, Case Western Reserve Univer-
sity, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their education impli-
cations. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
Harris, P. (2000). The work of the imagination. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2003). Einstein never used flash-
cards: How our children really learn—and why they need to play more
and memorize less (Revised ed.). Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Berk, L., & Singer, D. (2009). A man-
date for playful learning. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kim, K. H. (2011, August). Creativity crisis in children. Paper presented
at meeting of American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Niec, L. (1994). The relationship between affect and interpersonal themes
in children’s fantasy and interpersonal functioning. Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Niec, L. (1998). Relationships among children’s internal representa-
tions, affect and fantasy in play, and interpersonal functioning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve Univer-
sity, Cleveland, OH.
 338 RUSS AND DILLON
Niec, L., & Russ, S. (1996). Relationship among affect in play, inter-
personal themes in fantasy and children’s interpersonal behavior.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 645–649.
Niec, L., & Russ, S. (2002). Children’s internal representations, empa-
thy and fantasy play: A validity study of the SCORS-Q. Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 14, 331–338.
Niec, L., & Spannagel, S. (2006). [Pretend play, prosocial moral
reasoning, and prosocial behavior]. Unpublished raw data.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2010, February). The State of
Play: Gallup Survey of Principals on School Recess. Retrieved
September 5, 2010 from http://d6test.naesp.org/resources/1/
Gallup_Poll/StateOfPlayFeb2010.pdf
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. R. (2000). Contrasts
and effect sizes in research: A correlational approach. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect in creativity: The role of affect and play in the
creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russ, S. W. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy:
Toward empirically supported practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Russ, S. W. (2009). Pretend play, emotional processes and developing
Downloaded by [95.146.221.128] at 23:56 28 November 2013
narratives. In S. Kaufman & J. Kaufman, (Eds.), The psychology of
creative writing (pp. 247–263). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Russ, S. W., & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression in
children’s fantasy play, primary process thinking on the Rorschach,
and divergent thinking. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54,
756–771.

Russ, S. W., & Kaugars, A. (2001). Emotion in children’s play
and creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 13,
211–219.

Russ, S. W., Moore, M., & Pearson, B. (2007). The effects of play
training on play, creativity and emotional processes. Unpublished
manuscript, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Russ, S. W., & Peterson, N. (1988). [The Affect in Play Scale: Predict-
ing creativity and coping in children]. Unpublished raw data.
Russ, S. W., Robins, A., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play: Longi-
tudinal prediction of creativity and affect in fantasy in children.
Creativity Research Journal, 12, 129–139.

Russ, S. W., & Schafer, E. D. (2006). Affect in fantasy play, emotion
in memories, and divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal,
18, 347–354.

Sacha Cordiano, T. J., Russ, S. W., & Short, E. J. (2008). Develop-
ment and validation of the Affect in Play Scale–Brief Rating
Version (APS-BR). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 52–60.

Seja, A. L. (1998). Children’s fantasy play and emotional understand-
ing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH.
Seja, A. L., & Russ, S. W. (1999). Children’s fantasy play and emotion-
al understanding. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 269–277.
Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Chil-
dren’s play and the developing imagination. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Singer, D., & Singer, J. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic
age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity
conundrum. New York: Psychology Press.
Torrance, E. P., Ball, E. O., & Safter, H. T. (1992). Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking: Streamlined score guide Figural A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., &
Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal
meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of
Personality, 76, 875–901.
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A
cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of con-
trol, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 308–319.
Vandenberg, B. (1980). Play, problem-solving, and creativity. New
Directions for Child Development, 9, 49–68.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Vaobraszeniye i tvorchestvov deskom voraste
[Imagination and creativity in childhood]. Moscow: Prosvescheniye.
(Original work published 1930).