Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionII. Psychodynamic
Theories- Sullivan: Interpersonal
Theory
© The McGraw−Hill^243
Companies, 2009depression and anxiety. For girls, however, the research paints a different picture: If
girls are engaging in co-rumination with their friends, then no matter how supportive
those friends are and no matter how good the friendship is, girls are at increased risk
for developing depression.
Imaginary Friends
More than any other personality theorist, Sullivan recognized the importance of hav-
ing an imaginary friend, especially during the childhood stage. He believed that these
friendships can facilitate independence from parents and help children build real re-
lationships. In support of Sullivan’s notion, research has found that children do tend
to view imaginary friends as a source of nurturance (Gleason, 2002; Gleason &
Hohmann, 2006). Moreover, evidence supports Sullivan’s theory that children who
develop imaginary friends—in contrast to those who do not—are more creative,
imaginary, intelligent, friendly, and sociable (Fern, 1991; Gleason, 2002). Of course
it’s hard to get by on imaginary friends alone, but there is some evidence that sug-
gests imaginary friends are just as important as real friends, at least in the eyes of
children (Gleason & Hohmann, 2006).
To explore how children view imaginary friends in relation to their real
friends, Tracy Gleason and Lisa Hohmann (2006) conducted a study of preschool-
age children. The researchers had 84 children enrolled in preschool complete an ac-
tivity in which they listed who their friends were at preschool, described their imag-
inary friend if they had one, and rated each friend (including the imaginary ones) on
several dimensions. Specifically, the children rated how much they liked playing
with each friend, whether they told secrets to one another, how much they liked each
friend in general, and how good each friend made them feel about their own abili-
ties. Of course, because the participants in this study were young children, they
could not respond to a standard self-report measure. Instead, the questions were read
aloud to each child, and the questions were carefully worded to use language that
preschoolers could easily understand. Additionally, because children can get con-
fused easily, their responses had to be corroborated by their parents and preschool
teachers.
What Gleason and Hohmann (2006) found was generally supportive of
Sullivan’snotion that imaginary friends are important and help to model how real
friendships should work. Twenty-six percent of the preschoolers sampled reported
having an imaginary friend and that their imaginary friend was a source of real sup-
port and one of their highest rated sources of enjoyment (Gleason & Hohmann,
2006). The researchers were also able to compare children’s ratings of imaginary
friends with those of their real friends and found that imaginary friends very closely
modeled the enjoyment derived from reciprocal friendships but not that derived from
friendships that were essentially one-way. That is, relationships with imaginary
friends were enjoyable at about the same level as those friendships in which both
children described each other as friends (a reciprocal friendship), but not in which
one child says the other is a friend but the other one does not reciprocate (one-way
friendships).
In summary, research tends to support Sullivan’s assumptions that having an
imaginary playmate is a normal, healthy experience It is neither a sign of pathology
Chapter 8 Sullivan: Interpersonal Theory 237