Child Development

would do in social situations that are potentially em-
barrassing (e.g., you arrive at what you thought was
a costume party but you are the only person in a
costume). More recently, Daniel Lapsley and his
colleagues described imaginary audience as reflect-
ing the developmental process of separation-
individuation and measured it by assessing the fre-
quency of adolescents’ daydreams about themselves
and others.

See also: ADOLESCENCE

Bibliography
Elkind, David. ‘‘Egocentrism in Adolescence.’’ Child Development 38
(1967):1025–1034.
Elkind, David, and Robert Bowen. ‘‘Imaginary Audience Behavior
in Children and Adolescents.’’ Developmental Psychology 15, no.
1 (1979):38–44.
Lapsley, Daniel K., David P. Fitzgerald, Kenneth G. Rice, and Sara
Jackson. ‘‘Separation-Individuation and the ‘New Look’ at the
Imaginary Audience and Personal Fable: A Test of an Integra-
tive Model.’’ Journal of Adolescent Research 4, no. 4 (1989):483–
505.
Vartanian, Lesa Rae. ‘‘Separation-Individuation, Social Support,
and Adolescent Egocentrism: An Exploratory Study.’’ Journal
of Early Adolescence 17 (1997):245–270.
Marjorie Taylor

IMAGINARY PLAYMATES

Imaginary playmates have fascinated psychologists,
parents, and teachers for many years. Although psy-
chologists have been writing about imaginary play-
mates since the late 1800s, only a handful of articles
and book chapters exist on this topic, with only a few
of those empirically based. Some experts think that
children with imaginary playmates are likely to be be-
tween the ages of three and six, be of at least average
intelligence, possess good verbal skills, be character-
ized as creative and cooperative with adults, and be
an only child. They also tend to come from families
that value active rather than passive behavior and who
watch less television than their peers. Imaginary play-
mates are drawn from television, stories, or real peo-
ple, or can also be original characters developed by
the child.

Having an imaginary playmate is typically as-
sumed to have a positive effect on children’s social
and cognitive development. Contributions to social
development are thought to include increased oppor-
tunities for practicing positive social skills, taking an-
other’s perspective, and experimenting with
relationships. The assumed cognitive benefits associ-
ated with having an imaginary playmate include the
ability to engage in creative and original thought, as
well as to use abstract reasoning skills. In a 1992 arti-

cle, however, S. Harter and Christine Chao reported

that children with imaginary playmates were rated as

less competent in cognitive, physical, and social skills

than their peers who did not have imaginary play-

mates, though the researchers cautioned that these

findings had to be replicated before they could be

viewed with confidence.

There are significant differences in reported

prevalence rates. Older studies found that about 15

percent to 30 percent of preschool children had an

imaginary friend, whereas Dorothy Singer and Je-

rome Singer found in 1990 that 65 percent of the

young children had an imaginary playmate.

Regarding gender differences, in one study boys

tended to have imaginary friends who were more

competent than they were and girls tended to have

imaginary friends that were less competent (Harter

and Chao 1992). Another study found that while the

majority of both boys and girls had same-sex imagi-

nary friends, more girls than boys had friends of the

opposite gender, and boys had more nonhuman

imaginary friends than girls did (Manosevitz, Pren-

tice, and Wilson 1973).

Clearly more research is needed in order to un-

derstand the characteristics of the children who de-

velop an imaginary playmate, the benefits associated

with having an imaginary playmate both long- and

short-term, and the role of adults in supporting social

and cognitive development through interactions re-

lated to the imaginary playmate.

See also: FRIENDSHIP

Bibliography

Gilbertson, S. A. ‘‘Play Behavior in Preschool Children: Relations

to Imaginary Companions.’’ Paper presented at the meeting

of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Denver,

CO, 1981.

Harter, S., and Christine Chao. ‘‘The Role of Competence in Chil-

dren’s Creation of Imaginary Friends.’’ Merrill-Palmer Quar-

terly 38 (1992):350–363.

Hurlock, E. B., and W. Burstein. ‘‘The Imaginary Playmate.’’ Jour-

nal of Genetic Psychology (1932):390–392.

Manosevitz, Martin, Norman M. Prentice, and Frances Wilson.

‘‘Individual and Family Correlates of Imaginary Companions

in Preschool Children.’’ Developmental Psychology 8 (1973):72–

79.

Singer, Dorothy G., and Jerome L. Singer. ‘‘Imaginary Playmates

and Imaginary Worlds.’’ In The House of Make-Believe. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Somers, Jana U., and Thomas D. Yawkey. ‘‘Imaginary Play Com-

panions: Contributions of Creative and Intellectual Abilities

of Young Children.’’ Journal of Creative Behavior 181

(1984):77–89.

Svendsen, Margaret. ‘‘Children’s Imaginary Companions.’’ Ar-

chives of Neurological Psychology 32 (1934):985–999.

200 IMAGINARY PLAYMATES