The Imaginary Companions Created by Children Who Have Lived in Foster Care

Abstract

This study was designed to provide some preliminary information about the imaginary companions created by children who have lived in foster care, including prevalence rates and qualitative descriptions of the imaginary companions. We were also interested in how descriptions of the imaginary companions created by children who had lived in foster care compare to those of other children. Children with a history of foster care (n =21) and children from a low socioeconomic status community sample (n =39) were interviewed about imaginary companions. Twenty-six children (43.3%) reported having imaginary companions. Although having an imaginary companion has sometimes been believed to be more common in children with a history of maltreatment, in this preliminary study, prevalence rates did not differ between the two groups of children. In addition, both groups of children described companions that were a positive source of entertainment, friendship, and social support.

Parents’ Perceptions of Their Children’s Parasocial Relationships: The Recontact Study

“…Descriptive reports of children’s imaginary companions indicate that these relationships share similarities with children’s real and PSRs. For instance, young children view both their real and imaginary friends as affording opportunities for trust and companionship, and children frequently describe their imaginary friends in ways similar to attachment figures, providing comfort and security during difficult times (Aguiar, Mottweiler, Taylor, & Fisher, 2017; Gleason & Hohmann, 2006). Unlike children’s PSRs, most preschool-age children clearly recognize that their imaginary friends are not real (Taylor, 1999).…”

Connections Between Adolescents’ Parasocial Interactions and Recollections of Childhood Imaginative Activities

“…Perceptions of the social desirability of the behaviors studied might also have affected responses regarding both IA and PSI. Another shortcoming of our approach is that we did not assess current involvement in IA, despite evidence that these activities may last into adolescence (e.g., Aguiar, Mottweilier, Taylor, & Fisher, 2017). Lastly, this study did not make a distinction between PSI and PSRs as has been described in recent literature (Dibble et al, 2016).…”

A Review of Imaginary Companions and Their Implications for Development

“…Margaret Svendsen’s influential definition described ICs as “invisible characters having an air of reality for the child, but no apparent objective basis” (Svendsen, 1934). Although personified objects, or material objects given personality traits by a child, were explicitly excluded in Svendsen’s definition, some researchers have included them in their operational definitions (e.g., Aguiar et al, 2017; Gleason, 2005). For many young children, ICs are a stable and meaningful aspect of their daily lives with full personalities and a defined physical appearance (Taylor et al, 1993).…”