Learning & Behavior

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 432–440 | Cite as

The psychological significance of play with imaginary companions in early childhood



Although social play is common to many species, humans are unique in their ability to extract some of the benefits of social play through imagination. For example, in play with imaginary companions (ICs), children often practice skills that might be useful for later adaptive social, relational, and emotional functioning. While play with ICs does not provide the same immediate feedback that play with real others affords, this imagined, quasisocial context allows children to experiment with or rehearse events that might occur in real relationships. This symbolic enactment of social relationships might afford opportunities to experience not just social situations but all manner of positive and negative emotions in a risk-free way. In addition, children’s interactions with real others around their ICs allow for negotiation of social roles in real relationships. ICs also provide a forum for psychological distance that might help young children manage their real relationships and engage in processes such as negotiation and cooperation, which are needed for successful social adaptation. Although play with ICs is clearly not of adaptive value in an evolutionary sense, for the children who create them, ICs might hold psychological significance for adaptive social development.


Imaginary companions Play Social relationships Social competence Psychological distance 


  1. Ames, L., & Learned, J. (1946). Imaginary companions and related phenomena. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 69, 147–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekoff, M. (1995). Play signals as punctuation: The structure of social play in canids. Behaviour, 132, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekoff, M. (2001). Social play behaviour: Cooperation, fairness, trust, and the evolution of morality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 81–90.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, R., & Pryor, D. (1973). When friends fall out: Developmental interference with the function of some imaginary companions. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 21, 457–473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouldin, P., & Pratt, C. (2002). A systematic assessment of the specific fears, anxiety level, and temperament of children with imaginary companions. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowlby, J. (1979). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, S., & Davis, A. (2005). Executive function and pretense in preschool children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, S., & Taylor, M. (2005). Imaginary companions and impersonated characters: Sex differences in children’s fantasy play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connolly, J. A., & Doyle, A. (1984). Relation of social fantasy play to social competence in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 20, 797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durand, S., & Schank, J. C. (2015). The evolution of social play by learning to cooperate. Adaptive Behavior, 23, 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farver, J. A. M. (1992). Communicating shared meaning in social pretend play. Early Child Research Quarterly, 7, 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman, R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 80–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraiberg, S. (1959). The magic years. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Gleason, T. (2002). Social provisions of real and imaginary relationships in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 38, 979–992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleason, T. (2013). Imaginary relationships. In M. Taylor (Ed.), Handbook of the development of imagination (pp. 251–271). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gleason, T., & Hohmann, L. (2006). Concepts of real and imaginary friendships in early childhood. Social Development, 15, 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gleason, T., Jarudi, R., & Cheek, J. M. (2003). Imagination, personality, and imaginary companions. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31, 721–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gleason, T., & Kalpidou, M. (2014). Imaginary companions and young children’s coping and competence. Social Development, 23, 820–839. doi: 10.1111/sode.12078 Google Scholar
  19. Gleason, T., Sebanc, A., & Hartup, W. (2000). Imaginary companions of preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 36, 419–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleason, T., & White, R. (2005, April). Talking to a tiger: Children’s day-to-day interactions with their imaginary companions. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  21. Göncü, A. (2017). Constructing the ensemble: Negotiating life with (in) play. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  22. Gopnik, A. (2002). Bumping into Mr. Ravioli: A theory of busyness, and its hero. New Yorker, 80–84.Google Scholar
  23. Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 4th ed., pp. 103–196). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Henricks, T. S. (2015). Play as experience. American Journal of Play, 8, 18–49.Google Scholar
  25. Hoff, E. (2004–2005). A friend living inside me—The forms and functions of imaginary companions. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 24, 151–189.Google Scholar
  26. Kastenbaum, R., & Fox, L. (2007–2008). Do imaginary companions die? An exploratory study. Omega, 56, 123–152.Google Scholar
  27. Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G.,…Peterson, D. (1983). Analyzing close relationships. In H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger,…D. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 20–67). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, B. (1985). A child’s imaginary companion: A transitional self. Clinical Social Work Journal, 13, 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1–34. doi: 10.1037/a0029321 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lillard, A. S., & Witherington, D. C. (2004). Mothers’ behavior modifications during pretense and their possible signal value for toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 40, 95–113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Manosevitz, M., Prentice, N., & Wilson, F. (1973). Individual and family correlates of imaginary companions in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 8, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Masih, V. (1978). Imaginary play companions of children. In R. Weizman, R. Brown, P. Levinson, & P. Taylor (Eds.), Piagetian theory and the helping professions (pp. 136–144). Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Newson, E., & Newson, J. L. (1968). London. UK: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Partington, J., & Grant, C. (1984). Imaginary playmates and other useful fantasies. In P. Smith (Ed.), Play in animals and humans (pp. 217–240). New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Pearson, D., Rouse, H., Doswell, S., Ainsworth, C., Dawson, O., Simms, K.,…Falconbridge, J. (2001). Prevalence of imaginary companions in a normal child population. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 27, 13–22.Google Scholar
  36. Pelligrini, A. (1992). Rough-and-tumble play and social problem solving flexibility. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pellis, S. M., & Iwaniuk, A. (1999). The problem of adult play fighting: A comparative analysis of play and courtship in primates. Ethology, 105, 783–806. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.1999.00457.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pellis, S. M., & Pellis, V. C. (2007). Rough-and-tumble play and the development of the social brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roby, A. C., & Kidd, E. (2008). The referential communication skills of children with imaginary companions. Developmental Science, 11, 531–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shavel-Jessop, S., & Segal, H. (2005, March). The imaginary companion and the isolated child: Anxiety, loneliness, and self-worth in children with imaginary companions. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  41. Sigel, I. E. (1993). The centrality of a distancing model for the development of representational competence. In R. R. Cocking & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 141–158). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, D., & Singer, J. (1990). The house of make believe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stone, L. J., & Church, J. (1968). The preschool child: 1. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  44. Svendsen, M. (1934). Children’s imaginary companions. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 32, 985–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, M. (1999). Imaginary companions and the children who create them. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. (1997). The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child Development, 68, 436–455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. (2002). Imaginary companions and elaborate fantasy in childhood: Discontinuity with nonhuman animals. In R. Mitchell (Ed.), Pretending and imagination in animals and children (pp. 167–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor, M., Carlson, S., Maring, B., Gerow, L., & Charley, C. (2004). The characteristics and correlates of fantasy in school-age children: Imaginary companions, impersonation, and social understanding. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1173–1187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor, M., Carlson, S., & Shawber, A. (2007). Autonomy and control in children’s interactions with imaginary companions. Proceedings of the British Academy, 147, 81–100.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor, M., Cartwright, B., & Carlson, S. (1993). A developmental investigation of children’s imaginary companions. Developmental Psychology, 29, 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor, M., Hulette, A., & Dishion, T. (2010). Longitudinal outcomes of young high-risk adolescents with imaginary companions. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1632–1636.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, M., & Mottweiler, C. (2008). Imaginary companions: Pretending they are real, but knowing they are not. American Journal of Play, 1, 47–54.Google Scholar
  53. Trionfi, G., & Reese, E. (2009). A good story: Children with imaginary companions create richer narratives. Child Development, 80, 1301–1313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6–18.Google Scholar
  55. Weiss, R. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17–26). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  56. White, R. E., & Carlson, S. M. (2016). What would Batman do? Self-distancing improves executive function in young children. Developmental Science, 19, 419–426. doi: 10.1111/desc.12314 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWellesley CollegeWellesleyUSA

Personalised recommendations