A Critique of Tracy R.

Gleasons Research in Social Provisions of Real and Imaginary Relationships in Early Childhood

November 21, 2002

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Psychology 200: Child Development

Gleason, Tracy R. (2002). Social Provisions of Real and Imaginary Relationships in Early Childhood. Developmental Psychology, 38-6, 979-992. Summary of the Study Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the three main social relationships in a preschool-aged childs lifethose with the parents, siblings and best friendsin comparison with a fantasy relationship with an imaginary companion. Special attention was paid to the childs perception of the disparities between all four relationships to see if distinction actually took place, and if so, to what extent. As Gleason was familiar with previous research that supported that children younger than seven can differentiate between types of social relationships (979), she predicted that she would find three sets of information: 1) children would make a connection between the social provisions they should relate to a particular relationship partner (i.e. parents would be seen by children as important sources of instrumental help, and clearly identified as more powerful than other relationship partners (981) 2) imaginary companions would fit the mold of other real relationships that the child had encountered (981) 3) The creation of imaginary companions would signify a child with a higher evolved, more complete understanding of differentiated relationship concepts (981)

Participants: This experiment consisted of 60 local four year old children (average child was 4 years 7 months) selected to give a balanced gender and group from 85 willing families. Primary care givers (57 mothers and 3 fathers) were included, as they confirmed of denied the existence of an imaginary companion (982). Most of the studys participants were White and the vast majority of families had two parents present in the home. Children were then split into three groups: children with invisible imaginary friends (IFs), children with personified objects (POs), and children without either type of imaginary companion (NICs). Research Methods: The experiment began via telephone interview with the subjects parents to determine into which of the three groups the child fell. Once at the lab, parents reconfirmed that information and provided ethnic and socioeconomic background. Next, an interviewer asked the child 36 questions each with two alternatives only. The questions indirectly asked the child about relationships in terms of four social provisionsconflict, instrumental help, power, and nurturance. IFs and POs answered questions concerning a parent, a best friend, and an imaginary companion, while NIC childrens questions could be answered with a parent, a best friend, or a sibling. Major Findings: Since all of the questions asked of the child had only two possible answers (it was believed that free-response answers would be less revealing due to the young age of the children involved), the results of this experiment are comparative in nature. Clearly, not all of the outcomes can be considered major findings, but a few results stand out. More PO children associated parents with conflict, while IFs and NICs

chose best friends (986). IF children thought best friends were more likely than invisible friends to offer instrumental help, the only comparison in which there was a clear victor between real and imaginary companions (986). PO children also saw their parents as larger sources of power and conflict than their imaginary companion, but were highly likely to associate nurture with their imaginary companion (985). In the IF group, the children did chose the imaginary companion over parents for nurture, but the score was too similar to that of chance (through Chi-Square Analysis) to be nearly as conclusive as with the PO group (986). Authors Conclusions: The results of this study greatly support previous research into the social schemas of pre-school aged children, in that basic social differentiations are clearly being refined and clarified in the mind of a normal four year old. For example, instrumental help and power were largely and universally identified with parents (988). Sibling relationships tended to be more conflictual than relationships with best friends, illustrating that children of this age understand the old adage that they can chose their friends but not their family--meaning that friendships are often ended or damaged by conflict, making siblings the ideal testing ground for honing conflict resolution skills (989). However, the research continues farther than the previous studies in social cognition by showing that children are conscious of the social provisions of all the relationships examined, but they form individual differences in ability to associate certain provisions based upon their understanding of relationships (991).

Research Analysis: The main construct being measured in this experiment is the childs understanding of the social relationships in his or her own life. It was decided that measuring degrees of four social provisionsconflict, nurturance, power and instrumental help in this casewould beneficial to understanding the childs perception. These four representations of the construct were operationalized by having the child complete a series of questions with two possible answers (the variables), which relationship best fit which social provision. For example, a child with a keen understanding of social relationships would likely chose his parents for power and instrumental help over a sibling or best friend. For each combination of relationship contrasts, paired with one of the four provisions, children earned a score. Pearsons ChiSquared Analysis was then used to check the twelve scores against chance. The results of IF and PO groups were then compared against themselves and against the NIC group, which acted as the control group for this expirement. Gleason owes a fair amount of her research design to those who came before her. In fact, the relationships interview is based on Furman and Buhrmesters Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI), which is designed to identify the social provisions that children associate with different relationships (979). Gleason, however, made the NRI more concise, reduced the number of social provisions to four, and incorporated forced choices with two alternates instead of using the more traditional five point Litkert-type rating scale (982). These changes made her experiment much more suited to the mental capabilities of the four year old subjects.

The limitations of this experiment are readily acknowledged by Gleason, who describes them as three-fold: the complexity of the imaginary companion in the mind of the child is not specified, the forced choice format might mask other important associations, and not all children were included in all relationship comparisons (990). Another possible limitation that is not addressed is that the sample is not very representative of the actual population of American pre-schoolersa majority of whom are not white, middle to upper class, and living in a two-parent household. Although these limitations mean that this experiment raise questions that can only be addressed by more research, they are not inherently fatal to the success of Gleasons expirement. In fact, her experiment is successful because of its relative simplicity and straitfowardness, not in spite of those attributes. While more social provisions and a more exact rating method for each of the relationships could have been incorporated, it is likely that these changes could have also negatively affected the subjects ability to respond appropriatelyso perhaps Gleason is correct to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately, making the interview portion of the experiment less rigidly structured to explore certain relationships in more depth is not a viable option in collecting non-subjective, scientifically based research data (i.e. implementing the clinical method). Meta-analysis might yield some interesting results, especially considering the large number of similar studies Gleason cites. Relevance of the Study: Although this experiment is not extremely broad scoped, it is certainly relevant and of consequence to the study of child development. It builds on previous studies in an orderly and linear fashion, without getting ahead of itself. Gleason

does a particularly good job of conducting thorough pre-experimental research, that helps present her results and conclusions in a logical manner. While it seems logical given the knowledge known about child development that children of this age are individually increasing in the accuracy of cognition about social provisions in relationships, it opens new doors to say with certainty that those with the ability to create imaginary companions have an advantage in social development. Due to the limitations in this experiment documented earlier, there are several possible routes causal research could take. Initially, a qualitative study between the complexity of the imaginary companion and the childs social development in regards to real relationships might be interesting. Certainly, there might be a point when too complex of a fantasy may hinder social development and result in an introverted personality. Also, since children with a personified object tend to be predisposed to nurturing their POs, perhaps a longitudinal study might show that such a disposition often carries over to adult life. Of the three groups of childrenIF, PO and NICwhich go on to have the most friends or the best quality friends? Also, issues of class, ethnicity and family-life remain unaddressed in the study of how children perceive social provisions of relationships. There is still much research to be done on this aspect of social relationship cognition in child development. However, it is refreshing to know that there are researchers like Gleason slowly but thoroughly chipping away at the subject,