Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking

skills in preschool children
Bronwen Lloyd, Nina Howe∗
Education Department, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve West, Montreal, Que., Canada H3G 1M8
Accepted 16 January 2003

Abstract
This study examined the relationship between multiple forms of solitary play (solitary-active, solitary-
passive, reticence) and convergent and divergent thinking. Seventy-two children (42 boys, 30 girls, M
age = 4.5 years) were observed and social and cognitive play, types and use of materials were recorded.
All children were administered the Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement Test (TCAM) (Tor-
rance, 1981) to assess divergent thinking and the PPVT test and the Picture Completion subtest (WISC-R)
to measure convergent thinking. Reticent behavior was more strongly negatively associated with conver-
gent and divergent thinking than either solitary-active or solitary-passive play, whereas solitary-active
play was more strongly positively related to divergent thinking. Associations between types of mate-
rials (open-, closed-ended) and use (intended, nonintended ways) and (a) types of solitary players and
(b) thinking skills were investigated. Findings are discussed in terms of recent theoretical advances in
understanding types of solitary activity and links with thinking skills. Practical recommendations are
advanced for supporting solitary play in the early childhood classroom.
© 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solitary play; Convergent thinking; Divergent thinking

1. Introduction

The value of solitary play for preschool children’s development has undergone serious re-
consideration 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,

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-514-848-2008; fax: +1-514-848-4520.
E-mail address: nina.howe@education.concordia.ca (N. Howe).

0885-2006/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00004-8
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 23

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 demon-
strates 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 ma-
terials (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.

1.1. Solitary play in the early childhood classroom

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, 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
24 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

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.

1.2. Multiple forms of nonsocial play behaviors

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, chil-
dren 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 en-
gaged 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 with-
drawn 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 be-
havior 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 in-
dicates 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).
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 25

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.

1.3. Play and 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, Gavinsky-Molina, Lagace-Seguin, and Wichmann
(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).
26 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

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, 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 ma-
terials 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.

1.4. The present study

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
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 27

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.

2. Method

2.1. 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.

2.2. Procedure

First, each classroom was rated on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS;
Harms & Clifford, 1980) to determine environmental quality. Second, children were individu-
ally and privately assessed in a quiet room in the day care centers. Convergent thinking skills
were assessed with (a) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) and (b) the
Picture Completion subtest of the Wechsler Primary and Preschool Intelligence Test-Revised.
Children’s divergent thinking skills were assessed by the Torrance Thinking Creatively in
Action and Movement Test. Administration of the convergent and divergent measures was
counterbalanced across participants and conducted by the first author. Third, play behaviors
were observed on 20 consecutive days during the free play period at each center. Each child
was observed in a random order for six 10-second intervals each day. The type (open- or
closed-ended) and use (intended or nonintended) of materials were also recorded. In all class-
rooms, the children had equal opportunity to use both open- and closed-ended materials.1

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Classroom quality

The six classrooms were observed using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale
(Harms & Clifford, 1980) to ensure that quality ratings were consistent across classrooms. This
28 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

scale consists of 37 items organized into seven subscales that assess personal care, furnishings,
language and reasoning activities, fine and gross motor activities, creative activities, social
development, and provision for adult needs. Each item on the ECERS can be scored from 1
to 7: 1 = barely adequate quality; 3 = minimal quality; 5 = good quality; and 7 = excellent
quality. A mean score for each center was then calculated. Good interrater reliability (0.93)
and internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.83) have been previously established (Harms &
Clifford, 1980).

2.3.2. Play
The Play Observation Scale (Rubin & Mills, 1988) was used to observe the children’s
social and cognitive play behaviors (see Table 1). This measure was developed by nesting
Smilansky’s (1968) cognitive play categories (i.e., functional, constructive, dramatic) within
Parten’s (1932) social participation categories (i.e., solitary, parallel, group). Other nonplay
categories were included to account for other behaviors (e.g., transitions, wandering). In the
present study, the scale was adapted to include two other aspects of play: (1) types of materials
(open-, closed-ended) and (2) use of materials (intended, nonintended). On each day, for 20
consecutive days, children were randomly selected and observed for six 10-second time inter-
vals, alternated with 10-second intervals for recording. This yielded a total of 120 10-second
coding intervals per child. When multiple behaviors were observed in the same 10-second
interval, the predominant play behavior, type, or use of materials was coded.

2.3.3. Convergent and divergent thinking

Convergent thinking was assessed by two measures: (a) the Picture Completion subtest
of the Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-R) (Wechsler, 1989)
and (b) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). On the Picture
Completion subtest, the children identified the missing portion of a picture. On the PPVT-R,
the children selected the picture considered to best illustrate the meaning of a stimulus word
presented orally by the first author. The WPPSI-R has acceptable reliability and validity (Sattler,
1992). Internal consistency for the PPVT-R ranges from 0.71 to 0.81 (Dunn & Dunn, 1981).
The PPVT-R score has been compared with other tests considered measures of convergent
thinking; significant positive associations have been reported with mental age scores on the
Stanford–Binet, WISC Verbal and Full Scale scores (Sattler, 1992).
Divergent thinking was assessed with the Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement Test
(Torrance, 1981), which consists of four subtests permitting children to respond in movement,
words, or a combination of both. In the first subtest, “How Many Ways?,” the child moves
his/her body across the room in as many ways he/she can demonstrate. In the second subtest,
“Can You Move Like?,” the child responds to six statements, such as “Can you move like you
are driving a car?” The child is scored on a 1–5 scale with 1 = no movement, 3 = adequate
movement, and 5 = excellent with very real actions. For the third subtest, “What Other Ways?,”
the child describes possible ways of putting a paper cup into a wastebasket, and for the fourth
subtest, “What Might It Be?,” the child names as many uses for a paper cup as possible. The
first, third, and fourth subtests were scored for fluency and originality. Fluency scores were
based on the number of appropriate or relevant responses. Originality scores were based on the
uniqueness of ideas and scores were assigned by consulting the TCAM Manual for possible
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 29

Table 1
Definitions of play and nonplay behaviors
Behavior Definition
Cognitive play categories
Functional play Child performs simple, repetitive movements with or without objects
Constructive play Child manipulates objects for the purpose of creating or constructing something
Dramatic play Child participates in role-taking and/or performs make-believe transformations of
objects and events
Games-with-rules Child engages in game-type activities with pre-established rules
Social play categories
Solitary play Child plays alone and with objects that differ from those used by other children. There is
no conversation with others
Parallel play Child plays independently, but among other children, using the same or similar toys.
Although the child is aware of the other children, there is no sharing or interaction
Group play Plays with others; there is a common goal/purpose to activity
Nonplay categories
Rough-and-tumble Child engages in playful physical contact with another child, mock fighting or wrestling,
chasing behavior
Onlooker Child watches other children playing but does not participate
Unoccupied Child is not involved in any type of play activity or consciously observing other children
play
Transition Child is between activities, tidying up, setting up an activity, or moving form one
activity to the next
Exploratory Child examines an object, situation, or event for the purpose of obtaining information
Reading Child is reading or leafing through a book
Conversation Child engages in verbal communications with child or adult
Wandering Child aimlessly walks about the room
Types of materials
Open-ended Using objects and materials in many new and different ways (e.g., blocks, materials that
focus on process and not end product such as finger-painting, play dough, sand, water)
(Essa, Young, & Lehne, 1998)
Close-ended Using objects and materials with only one solution or outcome (e.g., puzzles,
formboards, pegboards, art projects based on a model to copy)
Use of materials
Intended use Engaging objects and plays with materials in ways suggested by the toy’s form (e.g.,
doing a puzzle, using play dishes as dishes)
Nonintended use Engaging objects or plays with materials in unconventional ways, not restricted to the
toy’s form (e.g., using puzzle piece as a car, plate as a steering wheel, block as a
telephone)

responses. The second subtest was scored for imagination, where imagination was a rating
of the extent to which the child was able to enact various roles. Interrater reliabilities on the
TCAM have been reported as greater than 0.90 with test-reliability between 0.58 and 0.79
(Torrance, 1981).

2.4. Interrater reliability

The first researcher and two assistants were trained in all assessment and observation
techniques. Interrater reliability was calculated for the ECERS (Cohen’s κ = 0.90). For
30 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

the play observations, interrater reliability was established prior to data collection and sub-
sequently assessed for 20% of live data observations. For social play, interrater agreement
(agreements/agreements + disagreements) was: solitary (0.92), parallel (0.75), group (0.79)
and the overall (κ = 0.82). For cognitive play, interrater agreement was: functional (0.86),
constructive (0.93), dramatic (0.94) with an overall ␬=0.91. The overall kappas for the non-
play behaviors (0.78), and for types and use of materials (0.78). For activity 2 (“Can You Move
Like?”) of the TCAM, interrater reliability was established prior to the data collection and then
conducted on approximately 20% of the observations (κ = 0.83).

3. 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.

3.1. Quality of day care centers

Given the importance of obtaining data on representative programs, descriptive statistics

for the quality of the six child-care centers were examined. The mean overall ECERS rating
for the six centers was 4.84 (SD = 0.43, range = 4.16–5.38), which lies between a rating of
adequate to good on overall center quality. A one-way ANOVA comparing the mean scores
of the six centers was nonsignificant, F(5, 66) = 0.53, indicating centers were comparable in
quality.

3.2. Descriptive information

Next, the frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, and ranges were calcu-
lated for cognitive, social, and nonplay categories (see Table 2). Children engaged in a higher
percent of play than nonplay. The relative frequency of each type of play was calculated
as: mean score/120 observation intervals. When engaged in cognitive play, the highest rel-
ative frequency of children’s play was constructive, followed by dramatic, functional, and
games-with-rules. With respect to the social play categories, group play had the highest rel-
ative frequency, followed by parallel and solitary play. Given our focus on solitary play,
the combined categories of solitary and cognitive play were also calculated. The highest
relative frequency of solitary play was constructive, followed by functional, dramatic, and
games-with-rules. Play with open-ended materials was observed relatively more frequently
than with closed-ended and according to intended rather than nonintended uses. Following from
Coplan et al. (1994), we created three aggregate measures of solitary activity (see Table 2): (a)
solitary-active behavior (solitary-functional plus solitary-dramatic), (b) solitary-passive be-
havior (solitary-constructive), and (c) reticent behavior (onlooker, unoccupied, wandering).
Others (e.g., Rubin & Coplan, 1998) include exploration in solitary-passive play; unfortu-
nately we did not note the social level of exploration, therefore this category was not included
in solitary-passive behavior.2
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 31

Table 2
Frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, and ranges of social, cognitive, and nonplay behaviors
Frequency Percent M (SD) Range
Total play 4746 62 65.9 (20.9) 16–113
Total nonplay 915 38 40.5 (16.6) 8–86
Type of play Frequency Range M (SD) Relative frequency (%)
Cognitive play
Functional 1048 1–56 14.6 (9.6) 12
Constructive 1856 0–67 25.8 (16.2) 22
Dramatic 1621 0–52 22.5 (13.3) 19
Games-with-rules 221 0–29 3.1 (5.5) 3
Social play
Solitary 1100 0–53 15.3 (11.2) 13
Solitary-functional 396 0–30 5.5 (5.9) 4.5
Solitary-constructive 440 0–35 6.1 (6.8) 5
Solitary-dramatic 235 0–15 3.3 (3.6) 3
Solitary-games 29 0–8 0.4 (1.4) 0.003
Parallel 1530 0–61 21.3 (14.7) 18
Group 2116 2–72 29.4 (15.9) 25
Nonplay
Rough-and-tumble 15 0–5 .21 (.84) 0.02
Onlooker 373 0–18 5.2 (4.3) 4
Unoccupied 555 0–31 7.7 (6.0) 6
Transitional 551 2–25 7.7 (5.3) 6
Exploratory 109 0–9 1.5 (2.3) 1
Reading 333 0–37 4.6 (6.5) 4
Peer conversation 588 0–37 8.2 (6.2) 7
Teacher conversation 261 0–18 3.6 (3.4) 3
Wandering 119 0–9 1.7 (2.1) 1
Types of materials
Open-ended 3446 5–97 47.9 (18.1) 40
Closed-ended 972 0–40 13.5 (10.3) 11
Use of materials
Intended use 3955 11–98 54.9 (20.9) 46
Nonintended use 463 0–26 6.4 (5.9) 11
Types of solitary activity
Solitary-active 631 0–35 8.8 (7.8) 7
Solitary-passive 440 0–35 6.1 (6.8) 5
Reticent behavior 1047 1–45 14.5 (9.2) 12
The range indicates the number of intervals children were observed in the specific behavior over possible total
of 120 10-second observation intervals. The relative frequency of each category was calculated by dividing each
mean by 120. Also note that the four solitary categories equal the total for solitary play.

The descriptive statistics for the PPVT-R, the Picture Completion subtest, and the TCAM
were calculated (see Table 3). According to the TCAM norms for standard scores (Torrance,
1981), our sample was average in producing creative responses. As well, the mean for the
PPVT indicated our sample was within a normal range for receptive vocabulary skills.
Next, Pearson correlations were conducted to determine associations between age, gender,
and the dependent variables. Age was only significantly correlated with solitary-active play
32 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

Table 3
Means, standard deviations and ranges of scores for the PPVT-R, Picture Completion subtest, and the TCAM
Measures M SD Range
PPVT-R 107.25 21.10 43–154
Picture Completion subtest 12.46 3.12 1–19
TCAM
Fluency 108.70 16.01 81–164
Originality 109.90 18.44 86–173
Imagination 99.65 10.88 74–129
Total 105.07 13.78 51–155

(r = −.37, p < .01, two-tailed) and gender was only significantly correlated with closed-ended
materials (r = .31, p < .01, two-tailed) and with the TCAM imagination score (r = −.27,
p < .05, two-tailed). Girls were more likely to play with closed-ended materials than boys,
whereas boys were more likely to score highly on the imagination scale.

3.3. Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking

To test the hypotheses regarding associations between the three types of social activity and
convergent and divergent thinking skills, correlational analyses were conducted. Solitary-active
play (age controlled for only in these analyses) was positively associated with the total TCAM
score and the three subscales of fluency, originality, and imagination (see Table 4). Reticent
behavior was significantly negatively associated with all of the convergent and divergent think-
ing measures, however solitary-passive play was not significantly associated with any thinking
measure. In order to test the strength of the correlations, a technique comparing pairs of cor-
relations based on the same subjects was employed (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992). For
example, we wanted to know if the correlation between solitary-passive behavior and the PPVT
differed from the correlation between reticent behavior and the PPVT. Thus, we employed the

Table 4
Correlations between multiple forms of solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking
Type of play Convergent Divergent
PPVT-R PC TCAM
Total Fluency Originality Imagination
Solitary-passive 0.15 a 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04
Solitary-active 0.08 b 0.10 0.28∗∗ a 0.26∗∗ a 0.23∗ a 0.21∗ a
Reticent −0.31∗∗ a,b −0.25∗ −0.26∗ a −0.23∗ a −0.25∗ a −0.23∗ a
Comparisons between these letters are significantly different within columns (Meng et al., 1992). All the above
calculations are Pearson correlations, with the exception of solitary-active play, which are partial correlations
controlling for age. Omnibus tests of the null hypotheses determined that the correlational values of the matrix were
different from zero (using Fisher’s r to z transformation and chi-square critical evaluation; Cohen & Cohen, 1983)
and occurred at a rate greater than would be expected by chance: χ2 (36, N = 72) = 49.25, p < .05.
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 33

Table 5
Partial correlations between types and use of play materials and solitary play
Type of play Open-ended Closed-ended Intended use Nonintended use
Solitary-active 0.14 a 0.03 a 0.08 a 0.19∗∗∗ a
Solitary-passive 0.24∗ b 0.26∗ b 0.36∗∗ b −0.09
Reticent −0.32∗∗ a,b −0.43∗∗ a,b −0.44∗∗ a,b −0.15 a
Comparisons between these letters are significantly different within columns (Meng et al., 1992). Gender is
controlled for in associations with closed-ended materials and analyses with solitary-active play which are also
controlling for age. Omnibus tests of the null hypotheses determined that the correlational values of the matrix were
different from zero (using Fisher’s r to z transformation and chi-square critical evaluation; Cohen & Cohen, 1983)
and occurred at a rate greater than would be expected by chance: χ2 (21, N = 72) = 62.47, p < .01.
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.
∗∗∗
p = .06.

Meng et al. technique to compare pairs of correlations between the three types of solitary
activity with each of the convergent and divergent measures and significant differences are
indicated in Table 4. Given the number of comparisons we accepted a more stringent level
of significance (p = .025). Reticent behavior was more strongly negatively related to the
PPVT than solitary-passive or solitary-active behavior, while the latter two variables did not
differ in the strength of association with the PPVT. Reticent behavior was also more strongly
negatively related to the total and subscale TCAM scores, supporting for our hypothesis. In
contrast, solitary-active play was more strongly positively related to divergent thinking, which
was contrary to our prediction.

3.4. Types and uses of materials

We examined associations between open- and closed-ended materials and intended and non-
intended use of materials. Use of open-ended materials was significantly positively associated
with both intended and nonintended use of materials (r = .94 and .25, p < .05, respectively,
one-tailed, controlling for gender and closed-ended materials). Use of closed-ended materials
was significantly associated with intended but not nonintended use (r = .87, p < .01, and
−.05, ns, respectively, one-tailed, controlling for gender, open-ended materials). To test the
strength of the correlations, the Meng et al. (1992) procedure was applied and both open- and
closed-ended materials were significantly more strongly related to intended than nonintended
use of materials.

3.5. Solitary play and types and uses of materials

Next, we addressed our hypotheses concerning associations between the three types of
solitary behavior and open- or closed-ended materials (see Table 5). As predicted, the partial
correlations (controlling for gender) indicated that solitary-passive play was significantly pos-
itively associated with open-, closed-ended materials, and intended use, thus supporting our
hypothesis, whereas as also predicted, reticent behavior was significantly negatively associ-
ated with these variables. Finally, solitary-active play was only marginally correlated (p = .06)
34 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

with nonintended use. To test the strength of the correlations, the Meng et al. (1992) procedure
was again applied, thus, we compared pairs of correlations between the three types of solitary
activity with open- and closed-ended materials and intended and nonintended use variables;
significant differences are indicated in Table 5. Given the number of comparisons we adopted
a more stringent level of significance (p = .025). Two consistent patterns were evident in
the findings. First, solitary-active play was more strongly positively associated with open-,
closed-ended, intended, and nonintended use of materials, whereas reticent behavior was more
strongly negatively correlated with these variables. Second, solitary-passive behavior was more
strongly positively associated with open-, closed-ended materials and intended use, whereas
reticent behavior was more strongly negatively correlated with these measures.
The purpose of the next analyses was to investigate predictions regarding the three kinds of
solitary play and types and use of materials. Paired samples t-tests were employed to compare
the relative frequency of the type (open-, closed-ended) and the use of materials (intended,
nonintended) in the three kinds of solitary activity. We predicted that children who engaged in
solitary-passive activity would prefer both open- and closed-ended materials and use them in
intended and nonintended ways. First, a t-test comparing solitary-passive play with open-ended
versus closed-ended materials indicated that solitary-passive play was significantly more likely
to occur with open- than closed-ended materials, t(71) = −4.33, p < .001; M = 4.18
and 1.65, respectively. Second, solitary-passive players were more likely to use materials in
intended than nonintended ways, t(71) = 7.31, p < .001; M = 5.75 and 0.14, respectively.
Third, a t-test comparing solitary-active play and type of materials revealed that solitary-active
players were more likely to employ open- than closed-ended materials, t(71) = −4.90, p <
.001; M = 5.65 and 1.94, respectively. Finally, solitary-active players were more likely to
use materials in intended than nonintended ways, t(71) = 6.98, p < .001; M = 6.31 and
1.44, respectively. Our second set of t-tests compared how frequently solitary-passive versus
solitary-active players used open- or closed-ended materials and in intended or nonintended
ways. We conducted four t-tests and only the analysis comparing nonintended use of materials
by solitary-active and solitary-passive players was significant, t(71) = 5.1, p < .01; M = 1.44
and 0.14, respectively. Thus, solitary-active players were likely to use materials in nonintended
ways than solitary-passive players.

3.6. Materials and convergent and divergent thinking

Finally, a series of Pearson correlations were employed to determine the associations be-
tween types and use of materials and convergent and divergent thinking measures. There
were only two significant correlations, specifically the PPVT was positively associated with
closed-ended and intended use of materials (r = .22 and .26, p < .05, respectively, one-tailed).
To investigate these associations in greater depth, we examined whether solitary-active and
solitary-passive use of open-, closed-ended materials and intend, nonintended use were corre-
lated with the convergent and divergent measures. Significant associations included the follow-
ing: solitary-active play with intended use of materials was significantly positively associated
with the total TCAM score (r = .32), fluency subtest (r = .33), and originality subtest
(r = .33; p < .01, one-tailed, age, solitary-active play with nonintended use of materials
controlled). Solitary-active play with closed-ended materials was significantly correlated with
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 35

the originality subtest (r = .23, p < .05, one-tailed, age, solitary-active play with open-ended
materials controlled). Solitary-passive play with types and uses of materials was not correlated
with divergent or convergent thinking.

4. 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, 1978). In terms of solitary activity, reticent behavior
had the highest relative frequency followed by solitary-active and solitary-passive play. Given
our findings and recent claims that solitary play has positive benefits for young children,
especially concerning learning and problem-solving (Eddowes, 1991), a more detailed analysis
was warranted. Nevertheless, some types of solitary activity are associated with problematic
behaviors in young children (Coplan et al., 1994).

4.1. Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking

Our primary objective was to examine associations between types of solitary play and
thinking skills. First, the hypothesis that solitary-active play would be negatively related to
convergent thinking and divergent thinking was not supported, however a positive associa-
tion was found between solitary-active play and divergent thinking. These results were in-
triguing because past studies have associated solitary-active play or active-isolated behavior
with poorer cognitive processing (Harrist et al., 1997; Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream,
1984). Rubin (1982) found that solitary-functional and solitary-dramatic play (which com-
prised solitary-active play) were characterized as immature and somewhat disruptive behaviors.
The present findings may be clarified by considering that dramatic play was an important com-
ponent in the association between play and problem-solving, which supports Dansky’s (1980)
argument that fantasy play is an important component in this relationship. This is also consis-
tent with Singer’s view (1973) that make-believe is a cognitive skill that facilitates creative and
flexible problem-solving. However, there may be concerns when children engage in frequent
solitary pretense or solitary-functional play, because such children tend to be rejected by their
peers and have difficulty solving social problems (Coplan, Wichmann, & Lagace-Seguin, 2001;
Rubin, 1982). Although we did not assess social competence, future research should continue
to assess solitary-active play and its developmental implications for preschool children.
Second, the hypothesis that reticent behavior would be negatively related to both convergent
and divergent thinking was supported. Reticent behavior is believed to reflect social fear and
anxiety in a social context (Asendorpf, 1990) and our data revealed that the lack of physical and
social engagement with the environment was negatively associated with both convergent and
divergent thinking skills. One possible interpretation is that children who frequently engage in
reticent behavior are prone to be more shy and anxious. As such, they may perform more poorly
on interview assessments not because they do not have appropriate knowledge, but because
anxiety interferes with their performance (Coplan et al., 2001). Together these findings suggest
36 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

that reticent children may be at-risk for both academic and social–emotional problems (Hart
et al., 2000). Clearly, children who are not engaged physically or socially with the environment
warrant special attention from the teacher.
Finally, the third hypothesis predicting that solitary-passive play would be related to both
convergent and divergent thinking measures was not supported, in contrast to Rubin’s (1982)
report that solitary-constructive play was indeed beneficial and was just the sort of activity
that preschool teachers nurtured. Our findings suggest that some preschoolers were more
object- than person-oriented, nevertheless, they were not using their solitary playtime for the
goal-directed activities as frequently postulated by others (Moore et al., 1974; Rubin, Fein, &
Vandenberg, 1983). Perhaps this was not surprising given its low frequency during free play and
also that our measure of solitary-passive play did not include solitary exploratory. Both factors
may have contributed to the lack of association with thinking skills. Finally, although others
have reported gender differences in associations between solitary-passive play and academic
and social adjustment (Coplan et al., 2001), we found no correlation between gender and
solitary-passive play. Nevertheless, given the work of Coplan et al. (2001), this area may still
warrant further investigation.
In conclusion, the comparisons of the strength of the correlations indicated an interest-
ing pattern. Reticent behavior was more strongly negatively related to the PPVT than either
solitary-passive or solitary-active play and, in addition, reticent behavior was more strongly
negatively related to the TCAM total score and three subscale scores than solitary-active play.
Finally, solitary-active play was more strongly related to the TCAM than reticent behavior.
Again, these comparisons echo our earlier statements about the social and academic risks
for children who engage in more frequent reticent behavior. Additionally, a rethinking of the
cognitive value of solitary-active play, specifically for facilitating creativity, may be warranted.

4.2. Solitary play, types and uses of materials

An examination of correlations between the three kinds of solitary play and types and
use of materials revealed some interesting patterns. First, solitary-passive play was positively
correlated with open-, closed-ended materials, and intended use. Of course, teachers may be
important here, in that they may encourage traditional uses for play materials while discourag-
ing more unusual approaches. Certainly, this would be a question for future research. Second,
the hypothesis that reticent behavior would be negatively associated with open-, closed-ended
materials and intended use was clearly supported and indicates children were not engaged with
the materials, which is in line with the literature (Asendorpf, 1990). Third, there was a marginal
correlation between solitary-active play and nonintended use, a point that we discuss below.
Again, our comparisons of the strength of the correlations reinforced the notion that reticent
children were not engaged with the physical environment, whereas solitary-passive players did
interact with both kinds of play materials in intended ways.
The literature on preschoolers’ play suggests that the complexity of cognitive activity is,
in part, dependent on the types of materials available and how they are used (Johnson et al.,
1999). In this sample, during solitary-active and solitary-passive play, children were observed
more frequently with open-ended materials and using them in intended ways. In terms of types
of materials, Piaget and Inhelder (1969) stressed that meaningful play occurs when children
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 37

are given opportunities to interact with open-ended materials and invent alternative ways of
manipulating them. Open-ended activities (e.g., water, blocks, dramatic play) are particularly
appealing, can be used in a variety of contexts, and thus benefit the young thinker in many
ways.
Nevertheless, children were observed using the materials more frequently in intended than
nonintended ways, for example, putting together puzzles appropriately. However, solitary-active
players were more likely to use materials in nonintended ways than solitary-passive players.
For example, anecdotal observations indicated that in one play episode blocks were used as
medicine for a sick patient. In this case, a make-believe transformation was performed and our
findings converge with evidence from previous studies. For example, Dansky (1980) reported
that children whose play included make-believe elements benefited from free play experiences
and performed better on a creativity task. He concluded that play, specifically pretense, may
enhance divergent problem-solving tasks. Some children may be most creative and imaginative
on their own (Pulaski, 1974) and privacy may play a key role in the development of divergent
thinking. These children may need solitary time to think over and replay their experiences, and
perhaps generate further possibilities to a given problem. As demonstrated by our findings,
privacy may be key for solitary-active players to develop divergent thinking skills.

4.3. Types, uses of materials and convergent and divergent thinking skills

The PPVT was positively associated with close-ended and intended use of materials, which
supports Guilford’s (1967) contention that some materials lead to single or prescribed uses and
encourage convergent thinking. Our findings also demonstrated that engaging in more frequent
solitary-active play with close-ended materials was associated with higher imagination scores,
which indicates that for some children solitary opportunities may facilitate divergent thinking
skills. Perhaps, some children are able to use close-ended materials in imaginative ways (e.g.,
using a cup to drink from in pretense), and in fact, solitary-active players were most likely
to use materials in nonintended ways. This finding is inconsistent with literature investigating
the effects of toy realism on children’s pretend play (Sotamaa, 1980), which proposed that
high-realism toys (e.g., play dishes, telephones) may limit older preschoolers, because they
can only be used in their intended conventional ways, whereas low-realism toys have been
linked to increased richness of fantasy. Such objects are less structured and do not rely on
prearranged outcomes, thus the child can adapt the toy to suit his/her unique purposes. Of
course, bi-directional effects are important and may underlie our findings, namely play with
particular materials may facilitate certain forms of cognitive development, but it may also be
that children’s individual play styles or preferences may draw them towards particular materials
(Jennings, 1975). A more detailed content analysis of the materials and context (e.g., pretend
vs. constructive) would enable a richer and more meaningful interpretations of our findings.
The largest surprise in our results was the lack of significant findings between solitary-passive
play, types and use of materials, and thinking skills. Our observational data suggested that the
nature of such materials (e.g., puzzles) was not associated with mental activities during free
play activities. Perhaps, if our study had been conducted in a more controlled setting (e.g.,
Smith & Whitney, 1987) and if we had included exploration of objects within solitary-passive
category (e.g., Coplan & Rubin, 1998), our findings might have supported the literature.
38 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

4.4. Implications for solitary play in early childhood settings

If solitary play were to be considered a developmentally appropriate mode of play across

the preschool years, then creating an optimal environment in the early childhood classroom
would be appropriate. In fact, this research provides some recommendations for early childhood
educators who wish to make provisions for solitary play in the curriculum. First, a variety of
play materials should be available, specifically the environment should provide both open-
and close-ended materials that can be played with alone. Second, structuring traffic patterns
is important, that is educators should set up various areas in the center where children can
play privately, perhaps a book corner with a cozy chair or a table where one child can play
with a puzzle or paints. Third, teachers should facilitate a positive atmosphere by providing
the materials for solitary play, as well as allowing children opportunities to make the choice to
play alone. Fourth, teachers must be sensitive to individual’s play preferences for socialization
and/or solitary experiences. Fifth, allocating children’s playtime effectively is critical; planning
longer play periods allows children to pursue interests without interruption and to increase their
ability to concentrate and to persist in a task. In sum, once early childhood educators are aware
of how these factors determine the course of children’s play, they will be able to take the
necessary steps to establishing more optimal play environments for those who enjoy playing
alone. However, in the case of reticent children, teachers should be more active in intervening
to help children engage with their physical and social environments.

4.5. Conclusions

Our findings indicate that some solitary play experiences were associated with children’s
convergent and divergent thinking, thus adding to the literature indicating that not all forms
of solitary play are associated with a negative developmental prognosis. However, several
limitations caution against making definitive conclusions. First, the participants attended good
quality child-care centers, were predominately middle-class and of a restricted age range, thus
limiting generalizability of the findings. Second, the fact the children spent relatively little time
engaged in solitary play may be due to the fact that the preschool environment was designed
to facilitate more sophisticated types of play, such as cooperative play. Researchers could
examine teacher attitudes concerning solitary play. If teachers encourage and implement more
solitary play in the curriculum, will children engage in more solitary play, particularly of an
active or passive nature? Will this environment elicit higher levels of divergent and convergent
thinking? Finally, most empirical work has focused on the relationships between children’s
social competence and solitary play and only assessed cognitive performance via role-taking,
verbal abilities, and social information-processing measures (Harrist et al., 1997; Rubin, 1982).
Assessing problem-solving skills is notoriously difficult and may contribute to the patterns of
findings presented in this study. Based on these findings, future researchers need to learn
more about children’s previous experiences (e.g., type of curriculum, parent–child interaction
styles) to evaluate effectively the links between solitary play and convergent and divergent
thinking. Clearly, more research is needed to identify the precise function of play materials
in solitary play that provide opportunities for convergent and divergent thinking skills. Closer
attention from both researchers and teachers may reveal that solitary play can contribute to
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 39

the development of both convergent and divergent thinking skills and need not necessarily be
judged as a less mature behavior.

Notes
1. According to Government of Nova Scotia legislation, child care centers that provide
programs for preschool children must have at least seven core activity areas: art area,
library/book area, sand play area, water play area, block area, and dramatic/house area.
Thus, children were provided with a range of open- and closed-ended materials.
2. On the assumption that most of exploration was probably solitary, we did run all analyses
with a combined exploratory behavior and solitary-constructive score and found a sim-
ilar pattern of results to those reported using only solitary-constructive play. However,
caution recommended that we only employ the solitary-constructive score as a measure
of solitary-passive behavior.

Acknowledgments

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

Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Develop-
ment, 33, 250–259.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1991). Development of inhibited children’s coping with unfamiliarity. Child Development, 62,
1460–1474.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P., 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlational analyses for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coplan, R. J., Gavinski-Molina, M., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Wichmann, C. (2001). When girls versus boys play
alone: Nonsocial play and adjustment in kindergarten. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 464–474.
Coplan, R. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Exploring and assessing nonsocial play in the preschool: The Development
and validation of the preschool play behavior scale. Social Development, 7(1), 71–91.
Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D., & Stewart, S. L. (1994). Being alone, playing alone, and acting
alone: Distinguishing among reticence and passive and active solitude in young children. Child Development,
65, 129–137.
Coplan, R. J., Wichmann, C., & Lagace-Seguin, D. G. (2001). Solitary–active play behavior: A marker variable for
maladjustment in the preschool? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 164–172.
Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Berk, L. (1998). Play and social competence. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple
perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 116–143). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Dansky, J. L. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and associative fluency. Child
Development, 51, 576–579.
40 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41

Dansky, J. L., & Silverman, I. W. (1973). Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged children. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 9, 38–43.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Eddowes, E. A. (1991). Review of research: The benefits of solitary play. Dimensions, 20(1), 31–34.
Essa, E., Young, R., & Lehne, L. (1998). Introduction to early childhood education. Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson.
French, D. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive types. Child Development,
59, 976–985.
Garvey, C. (1990). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harms, T., & Clifford, R. (1980). The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University.
Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social withdrawal in
early childhood: Sociometric status and social–cognitive differences across four years. Child Development, 68,
278–294.
Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L. J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., Porter, C. L., Jin, S., Olsen, S.
F., & Wu, P. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of socially withdrawn behavior in China,
Russia, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 73–81.
Hartup, W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4. Social-
ization, personality and social development (pp. 103–196). New York: Wiley.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New
Haven.
Jennings, K. D. (1975). People versus object orientation, social behavior, and intellectual abilities in preschool
children. Developmental Psychology, 11, 511–519.
Johnson, J. E. (1976). Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and nonsocial
make-believe play of preschool children. Child Development, 47, 1200–1203.
Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (1999). Play and early childhood development. USA: Harper Collins.
Lyon, M. E., & Canning, P. M. (1995). The Atlantic day care study. Prepared for the Department of National Health
and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada
Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological
Bulletin, 111, 171–175.
Moore, N. V., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1974). Solitary play: Some functional reconsiderations. Develop-
mental Psychology, 10, 830–834.
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
27, 243–269.
Pepler, D. J., & Ross, H. S. (1981). The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving. Child
Development, 52, 1202–1210.
Petrakos, H., & Howe, N. (1996). The influence of the physical design of the dramatic play center on children’s
play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 63–77.
Phyfe-Perkins, E. (1980). Children’s behaviour in preschool settings: Review of research concerning the influence
of the physical environment. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (pp. 91–125).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pulaski, M. A. (1974, January). The rich rewards of make-believe. Psychology Today, 68, 70–72, 74.
Reddick, C. A. (1993). Solitary pursuits supporting children’s privacy needs in early childhood settings. Young
Children, 49(1), 60–64.
Rubin, K. H. (1977). Play behaviors of young children. Young Children, 32(6), 16–24.
Rubin, K. H. (1982). Nonsocial play in preschoolers: Necessarily evil? Child Development, 53, 651–657.
Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (1998). Social and nonsocial play in childhood: An individual differences perspective.
In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives in early childhood education. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
 B. Lloyd, N. Howe / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 22–41 41

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion regulations, and preschoolers’
social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 49–62.
Rubin, K. H., Daniels-Beirness, T., & Bream, L. (1984). Social isolation and social problem-solving: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 17–25.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 693–774). NY: Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1980). Changes in the play behaviors of preschoolers: A short-term longitudinal
investigation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 12, 278–282.
Rubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle and lower class preschoolers:
Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47, 414–419.
Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. L. (1988). The many faces of social isolation in childhood. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 6, 916–924.
Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1978). Free play behaviors in preschool and kindergarten children.
Child Development, 49, 534–536.
Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children: WISC-III and WPPSI-R supplement. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler.
Simon, T., & Smith, P. K. (1983). The study of play and problem solving in preschool children: Have experimenter
effects been responsible for previous results? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(3), 289–297.
Singer, J. L. (1973). The child’s world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play. New York:
Academic Press.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley.
Smith, P. K., & Whitney, S. (1987). Play and associative fluency: Experimenter effects may be responsible for
previous positive findings. Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 49–53.
Sotamaa, Y. (1980). The effects of realistic versus non-realistic play materials on young children’s symbolic trans-
formations of objects. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5, 27–36.
Strom, R. D. (1976). The merits of solitary play. Childhood Education, 52, 149–152.
Sylva, K., Bruner, J. S., Genova, P. (1976). The role of play in the problem-solving of children 3- to 5-years-of-age.
In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play-its role in development and evolution (pp. 24–257). New York:
Basic Books.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. New York: The Psychological
Corporation Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wolf, D., & Grollman, S. H. (1982). Ways of playing: Individual differences in imaginative style. In D. J. Pepler &
K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The play of children: Current theory and research (pp. 46–63). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.