Training Conservation Through Symbolic Play: A Second Look

Guthrie, Karen H.; Hudson, Lynne M.

doi:10.2307/1129366

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, we know of no research suggesting that false belief or conservation errors occur at certain ages only when experimenters are unmasked. However, for research on the benefits of pretend play there are several cases where results obtained with knowledgeable experimenters went away when masked ones were employed (Christie, 1983; Guthrie & Hudson, 1979; Pepler & Ross, 1981; Simon & Smith, 1983, 1985; P. K. Smith, Simon, & Emberton, 1985; P.…”

Section: Common Methodological Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two methodological problems hold for this and two further studies from Golomb's laboratory (Golomb & Bonen, 1981; Golomb, Gowing, & Friedman, 1982). First, the trainers were the posttesters; Guthrie and Hudson (1979) failed to replicate the result with masked experimenters. Second, better performance might have been due to the extensive and pointed questioning about how play objects could simultaneously have two identities.…”

Section: Nonsocial Cognitive Aptitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of pretend play on children's development: A review of the evidence.

Lillard¹,

Lerner²,

Hopkins³

et al. 2013

Psychological Bulletin

629

473

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pretend play has been claimed to be crucial to children's healthy development. Here we examine evidence for this position versus 2 alternatives: Pretend play is 1 of many routes to positive developments (equifinality), and pretend play is an epiphenomenon of other factors that drive development. Evidence from several domains is considered. For language, narrative, and emotion regulation, the research conducted to date is consistent with all 3 positions but insufficient to draw conclusions. For executive function and social skills, existing research leans against the crucial causal position but is insufficient to differentiate the other 2. For reasoning, equifinality is definitely supported, ruling out a crucially causal position but still leaving open the possibility that pretend play is epiphenomenal. For problem solving, there is no compelling evidence that pretend play helps or is even a correlate. For creativity, intelligence, conservation, and theory of mind, inconsistent correlational results from sound studies and nonreplication with masked experimenters are problematic for a causal position, and some good studies favor an epiphenomenon position in which child, adult, and environment characteristics that go along with play are the true causal agents. We end by considering epiphenomenalism more deeply and discussing implications for preschool settings and further research in this domain. Our take-away message is that existing evidence does not support strong causal claims about the unique importance of pretend play for development and that much more and better research is essential for clarifying its possible role.

show abstract

Section: Common Methodological Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nonsocial Cognitive Aptitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of pretend play on children's development: A review of the evidence.

Lillard¹,

Lerner²,

Hopkins³

et al. 2013

Psychological Bulletin

629

473

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several investigators have found that, while play training does result in cognitive gains, these gains are no larger than those brought about by other treatments (Christie, 1983;Golomb & Bonen., 1981;Smith, Dalgleish, & Herzmark, 1981). Several other investigations have had re--sults that contradicted th~e findings of earlier studies (Guthrie & Hudson, 1979;Sheffman, cited in Brainerd. 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Pretenseexplanation training, which is when an adult maneuvers a child into explaining the reversible nature of make-believe transformations, has been found to facilitate conservation in uppermiddle-class 4-year-olds but not in middle-class children of the same age (Golomb & Cornelius, 1977;Guthrie &Hudson, 1979). Evidence indicates that this type of training may not be effective with some low-SES children until age 6 (Golomb & Bonen, 1981), suggesting that age may interact with social class in determining play training effectiveness.…”

Section: Can We Ignore Maturity and Socialmentioning

confidence: 99%