Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children
Introduction
The value of solitary play for preschool children’s development has undergone serious reconsideration since Parten (1932) first conceptualized it as the least mature level of social participation (Rubin, 1982). Developing social skills to get along with others is an important developmental task, nevertheless there are clear benefits for children who play alone (Eddowes, 1991). In fact, solitary play has been linked to emotional development (Strom, 1976), physical skills (Piaget, 1962), language development (Garvey, 1990), and social information-processing abilities (Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997). Moreover, play with objects fosters creativity and problem-solving (Creasey, Jarvis, & Berk, 1998). Recent literature demonstrates that solitary players can be distinguished according to three subtypes (solitary-active, solitary-passive, reticent) by the quality of their social interactions and interest in play materials (Asendorpf, 1991; Coplan & Rubin, 1998), but links with convergent and divergent thinking skills have received little attention in the literature. In particular, the preference of solitary players for open- or closed-ended play materials and their approaches to the materials (intended, nonintended use) have not been addressed. The present study investigated solitary play in relation to cognitive development, specifically associations between forms of solitary play (solitary-active, solitary-passive, reticent), types and use of play materials, and convergent and divergent thinking skills.
One of the major theoretical debates in the study of play is whether solitary play is a mature or immature form of play. From a developmental perspective, the frequency of solitary play does not particularly decrease with age, as once assumed by Parten (1932), but rather remains common and becomes more cognitively mature with age (Moore, Evertson, & Brophy, 1974; Rubin, 1977, Rubin, 1982). Rubin and associates (Rubin, 1982; Rubin, Watson, & Jambor, 1978) reported that the quality of 5-year-olds’ play was more complex than younger children. Specifically, preschoolers were observed in more solitary-functional play, whereas kindergarten children engaged in more solitary-constructive play. Thus, social maturity cannot be judged solely on the basis of the level of social interaction without considering the cognitive aspects.
There is also evidence to support the notion that the physical arrangement of play settings in the early childhood classroom may influence solitary play (Hartup, 1983). Petrakos and Howe (1996) demonstrated that the physical design of the dramatic play center could be manipulated to facilitate greater or lesser amounts of solitary and group interaction. Children’s ability to focus on solitary activity may also be enhanced by physically bounded workspaces, clear paths between play areas, accessibility and types of materials (Phyfe-Perkins, 1980, Reddick, 1993). Moreover, Rubin (1977) reported that nonsocial play occurred more than social play during painting, play dough, sand, water, and puzzle activities. In terms of gender differences, girls engage in more solitary-constructive play (e.g., puzzles, books), whereas boys engage in more solitary-functional play, for example during large-muscle activities (Moore et al., 1974; Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung, 1976). Following from this literature, we argue that further research is required to identify the function of play materials in solitary play, particularly for facilitating cognitive skills.
If solitary play is beneficial to the young child’s development, why is so little attention given to it in the early childhood classroom? In terms of levels of social interaction, the frequency of solitary play ranges from 17 to 23% for preschoolers to approximately 17% for kindergarten-aged children (Lyon & Canning, 1995; Rubin et al., 1976, Rubin et al., 1978). We speculate about why solitary play has received little attention from educators. First, educators may focus on normative trends indicating slight decreases in the frequency of solitary play and increases in group play over the preschool years (Rubin & Krasnor, 1980; Rubin et al., 1978), thus they promote more frequent group interactions. Second, perhaps early childhood educators encourage more sophisticated types of social play (i.e., cooperative play), because they view solitary play as immature behavior. Third, some 4-year-olds who spend a large amount of time in solitary play may be at-risk for later social and social–cognitive problems (Coplan, Rubin, Fox, Calkins, & Stewart, 1994), a topic discussed below.
Three subcategories of nonsocial behavior have been identified and each reflects a different psychological paradigm with different implications for children of various ages (Asendorpf, 1991; Coplan & Rubin, 1998; Coplan et al., 1994). First, solitary-passive behavior consists of constructive play and exploratory activity; children are alone and manipulating objects for the purpose of creating something or learning about the object’s properties. In fact, children who frequently engage in solitary-passive play appear to be more object-oriented than people-oriented (Coplan & Rubin, 1998). According to Asendorpf (1990), children who engaged in solitary-passive activities may be making a conscious choice to remove themselves from their peers and focus on objects in the environment, however they were not viewed as less socially skilled or emotionally regulated (Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins, 1995). This type of nonsocial play is positively accepted by parents, teachers, and peers and is associated with competent problem-solving skills (Rubin, 1982). Similarly, Harrist et al. (1997) reported withdrawn children identified as passive-anxious demonstrated competent information-processing skills. Nevertheless, there is little information about solitary-passive players’ preferences for types of materials (open- vs. closed-ended), or the ways they engage the materials (intended, nonintended ways), or how these factors are linked to children’s thinking skills.
Second, solitary-active behavior consists of dramatic and functional play. Solitary-dramatic play occurs when children engage in pretense when alone, whereas, solitary-functional play is defined by repetitive muscle movements performed with or without an object. Asendorpf (1990) suggested that children who engage in this type of solitary play may want to play with others, but they have been isolated by their peers. In fact, solitary-active behaviors were associated with immaturity, impulsivity, peer rejection, and externalizing behaviors (Asendorpf, 1991, Coplan et al., 1994, Rubin, 1982). Withdrawn children who were active-isolates also had social information-processing deficits (Harrist et al., 1997). In sum, these findings suggest that such children are at-risk for social and cognitive problems.
Third, reticent behavior consists of onlooker and unoccupied behaviors signaling a lack of engagement with the physical and social environment. Onlooker behavior occurs when the child watches the activities of others but is not an active participant, whereas unoccupied behavior occurs when the child appears to be doing nothing or is not clearly observing others. We speculate that aimless wandering around the classroom is also reticent behavior, because it indicates a lack of social and physical engagement. Asendorpf (1990) interprets reticent children as wanting to play with others, but as also being fearful and anxious. Among preschoolers, this nonsocial behavior has been typically viewed as representative of social fear and anxiety and has been associated with hovering behavior (Asendorpf, 1990, Coplan et al., 1994), suggesting that reticent behavior may reflect nonoptimal patterns of peer relations (Hart et al., 2000).
In sum, to understand why some forms of solitary play may be beneficial to development whereas other forms have been associated with less optimal outcomes, we ask the question: what are children doing with the play materials when alone? In particular, we were interested in links between the role of materials during solitary play and children’s convergent and divergent thinking skills.
Problem-solving can involve either convergent (i.e., single means) or divergent (i.e., multiple means) thinking strategies to obtain successful solutions. Some research demonstrated that children who played with objects prior to engaging in a task were more successful convergent problem-solvers (Dansky & Silverman, 1973; Sylva, Bruner, & Genova, 1976). The experience of working with single use toys may teach children that there are correct answers and encourage them to seek out the answers. However, findings on the play-problem-solving connection have been inconsistent. Several studies by Smith and colleagues (Simon & Smith, 1983; Smith & Whitney, 1987), employing tighter controls for experimenter bias, failed to replicate the previously reported association. Apparently, the role of play materials in facilitating children’s problem-solving skills, particularly for solitary players, requires further clarification.
In addition, literature on the relationship of play to thinking skills may provide valuable information about the role of different types of cognitive activity for solitary players (Dansky, 1980; Pepler & Ross, 1981). Johnson (1976) reported that pretend play with peers facilitated divergent thinking compared to nonsocial play; perhaps when children engage in group pretend activities they may help others generate a variety of ideas to a given problem. However, other children may be most imaginative when playing alone; Pulaski (1974) argued that privacy may play a key role in the development of imagination skills, whereby children can replay their experiences, generate further hypotheses about the world, and foster their potential creativity. Nevertheless, children rejected by their peers, who also exhibited frequent solitary and onlooker behavior, were less likely to provide unique solutions to hypothetical problems than popular children (French, 1988). Finally, the relations between nonsocial play and outcomes may be quite different for boys and girls. Coplan et al., 2001, Coplan et al., 2001 reported solitary-passive play was positively associated with social adjustment and early academic skills for girls, but negatively related to these variables for boys.
Children may also have very distinct play styles (Wolf & Grollman, 1982). Jennings (1975) identified two distinct types of children: object-oriented and people-oriented children. Object-oriented children showed interest in exploring and manipulating objects, whereas socially-oriented children were more engaged with the peer group. Furthermore, children who interacted in solitary play with objects engaged in more constructive activities, whereas person-oriented children engaged in more group dramatic play. This work is in line with literature suggesting children who engage in solitary-passive play with objects do not mind playing with others, but instead prefer to play alone with objects (Asendorpf, 1991).
Although different types of play have been associated with promoting creativity, clearly this behavior has to be nurtured, particularly by the teacher who can foster creativity by providing a variety of materials. Closed-ended materials (e.g., wind-up toys, puzzles) have a single use, are intended to be used in specific ways, and may encourage convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). Other materials are open-ended (e.g., blocks, sand), lead to multiple uses, offer many intended and nonintended possibilities, and thus encourage divergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). In fact, nonintended use of materials may partly define the notion of divergent thinking. Nevertheless, we do not know if solitary-passive or solitary-active players prefer particular kinds of materials and how their intended or nonintended use might be associated with convergent and divergent thinking skills. This forms one of the central questions of the present study.
In sum, by definition, reticent children exhibit poor engagement with the physical and social environment and such behavior has been negatively related to different cognitive skills (Rubin, 1982), thus we would also expect to observe little material use and negative associations with convergent and divergent thinking. In contrast, solitary-passive players use materials to build or create something; given the cognitive planning required in creation, we would expect positive associations with both convergent and divergent thinking, perhaps depending on the types of materials that children employ (Guilford, 1967). Children engaged in solitary-active play use materials in a functional way, which is considered a low-level cognitive activity (Rubin et al., 1976, Rubin et al., 1978). Given the association of actively-isolated solitary behavior with poor cognitive functioning (e.g., Harrist et al., 1997), we would also expect to find a negative association with both convergent and divergent thinking skills since children are not using materials in a cognitively sophisticated manner. Nevertheless, Guildford has argued that open-ended materials may facilitate divergent thinking and closed-ended materials may promote convergent thinking, particularly we argue for solitary-passive players. Similarly we would expect positive associations between using materials in intended ways and convergent thinking since children are focusing on the prescribed way to play with a toy, whereas divergent thinking would be defined by nonintended use. Clearly, understanding the links between subtypes of solitary activity, children’s preferences for types and use of materials, and divergent and convergent thinking skills is an area that has not been adequately addressed.
In conclusion, little empirical work has examined the relationship between solitary play and children’s cognitive skills, although there is some literature linking solitary play with creativity and problem-solving abilities (Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey, 1999). Nevertheless, questions about what children are actually doing with the play materials when in solitary play have received little systematic attention. Therefore, in the present study, we identified three forms of solitary play in preschool children (solitary-active, solitary-passive, reticent) and examined associations with convergent and divergent thinking, which were assessed with several measures (e.g., PPVT, Torrance Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM) Test). Children’s social and cognitive play was observed (Rubin, 1982; Rubin & Mills, 1988), in addition, to noting the type (open-, closed-ended) and use of materials (intended, nonintended use). Based on the literature reviewed above, the following hypotheses were advanced. First, given findings that actively-isolated solitary behavior was associated with poorer cognitive processing (e.g., Harrist et al., 1997), we predicted that solitary-active play would be negatively related to both convergent and divergent thinking skills. Second, based on Rubin (1982), who reported negative associations between the PPVT, cognitive complexity and reticence, we predicted that reticent behavior would be negatively related to both convergent and divergent thinking skills due the lack of engagement with the physical and social environment. Third, based on Jennings’ (1975) findings that solitary players preferred object to social play, we predicted that solitary-passive behavior would be positively related to both convergent and divergent thinking. Fourth, we examined associations between solitary behavior categories and types and uses of materials. Solitary-passive play with open-ended materials (i.e., block, art) was predicted to be positively related to divergent thinking, whereas solitary-passive play with closed-ended materials (i.e., puzzles) would be positively related to convergent thinking. Given the spare literature, we were uncertain how solitary-active players would be related to open- versus closed-ended materials. Finally, both solitary-active and solitary-passive players’ intended use of materials (i.e., using a toy telephone as such) would be positively related to convergent thinking, whereas solitary-active and solitary-passive play with nonintended use of materials (i.e., using a cup as an airplane) would be positively related to divergent thinking.
Section snippets
Participants
Participants included 72 children (42 boys, 30 girls), with a mean age of 60 months (SD=5 months, range=4–5 years). Children were enrolled in six child-care centers in a mid-sized Canadian city and came from middle to upper-middle-class families based on the Hollingshead (1975) Four Factor Index of Social Status (M=46; SD=11; range possible=8–66). Parental permission was obtained before the study commenced.
Procedure
First, each classroom was rated on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS;
Results
The results are presented as follows: (1) descriptive data for day care quality, play, and thinking measures, (2) the relationship between the type, use of materials and thinking skills, and (3) associations between multiple forms of solitary play and thinking skills.
Discussion
For decades, solitary play has been considered to be the least mature form of social play behavior and has not been promoted by preschool teachers. In the present study, solitary play had the lowest relative frequency of the three social play categories and was somewhat lower than reported elsewhere (Rubin et al., 1976, Rubin et al., 1978). In terms of solitary activity, reticent behavior had the highest relative frequency followed by solitary-active and solitary-passive play. Given our
Acknowledgements
We thank the teachers and children in the six day care centers in Halifax, NS who participated in the study, Vanessa Barry and Tracey Eberle for reliability coding, Marie-Hélène Brody for editorial assistance and the anonymous reviewers for their very constructive advice. The study was funded by a grant from the Social Science and Research Council of Canada to the second author.
References (56)
- et al.
The influence of the physical design of the dramatic play center on children’s play
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
(1996) Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance
Human Development
(1990)Development of inhibited children’s coping with unfamiliarity
Child Development
(1991)- Cohen, J., & Cohen, P., 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlational analyses for the behavioral sciences....
- et al.
When girls versus boys play alone: Nonsocial play and adjustment in kindergarten
Developmental Psychology
(2001) - et al.
Exploring and assessing nonsocial play in the preschool: The Development and validation of the preschool play behavior scale
Social Development
(1998) - et al.
Being alone, playing alone, and acting alone: Distinguishing among reticence and passive and active solitude in young children
Child Development
(1994) - et al.
Solitary–active play behavior: A marker variable for maladjustment in the preschool?
Journal of Research in Childhood Education
(2001) - Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Berk, L. (1998). Play and social competence. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple...
Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and associative fluency
Child Development
(1980)
Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged children
Developmental Psychology
Review of research: The benefits of solitary play
Dimensions
Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive types
Child Development
Subtypes of social withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social–cognitive differences across four years
Child Development
Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of socially withdrawn behavior in China, Russia, and the United States
International Journal of Behavioral Development
People versus object orientation, social behavior, and intellectual abilities in preschool children
Developmental Psychology
Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and nonsocial make-believe play of preschool children
Child Development
Comparing correlated correlation coefficients
Psychological Bulletin
Solitary play: Some functional reconsiderations
Developmental Psychology
Cited by (68)
Overexcitabilities and creative potential in the kindergarten context: The mediating role of children's playfulness
2022, Thinking Skills and CreativityCitation Excerpt :The operationalization of children's creative potential is diverse and challenging. Prior research has employed different assessment measures such as picture drawing production (Hui, Chow, Chan, Chui & Sam, 2015) or divergent and convergent thinking tasks (Lloyd & Howe, 2003). In the present study, the creative potential was assessed by informants’ ratings of children's creative personality traits, an approach employed in prior research (e.g., Butcher & Niec, 2005; Fung et al., 2021).
Guide to build YOLO, a creativity-stimulating robot for children
2019, HardwareXCitation Excerpt :The robot does so by using techniques of creativity training [3]. Particularly, it stimulates two core elements of the creative thought: divergent and convergent thinking [26,22,50], two modes of creative thinking that usually are naturally stimulated through play [39]. This robot is called YOLO, short for Your Own Living Object (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Factor structure of PPBS with Chinese preschoolers from low-income families
2015, Children and Youth Services ReviewCitation Excerpt :Coplan et al. (2004) reported that reticent behavior was significantly and positively associated with conflicted shyness (i.e., a desire to interact socially coupled with fear and anxiety). Reticent behavior is hypothesized to be a marker variable for social anxiety (Coplan, 2000; Coplan et al., 1994; Coplan et al., 2004) and has been linked in early childhood to numerous indices of maladjustment, such as peer rejection (Hart et al., 2000), lower motor abilities (Bar-Haim & Bart, 2006), convergent and divergent thinking (Lloyd & Howe, 2003), and internalizing problems (Coplan & Rubin, 1998; Coplan et al., 1994). Solitary-passive withdrawal in young children (ages 4–5) is characterized by the quiet exploration of objects and constructive activities while playing alone (e.g., building with blocks, reading books; Coplan et al., 1994).
Overexcitabilities and Bidirectional Development in Playfulness and Creative Potential Among Kindergarten Children
2023, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the ArtsThe effectiveness of an educational program to develop kindergarten female teachers' critical thinking skills
2023, Journal of Education and Child CultureOn the Meanings of Functional Play: A Review and Clarification of Definitions
2022, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education