11111111111111111]Mfiifliiiiil'flfi1 L

31293 00619 4132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

THES‘S

Michigan 5“
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PLAY WITH PEERS: A COMPARISON OF
THE SOCIAL INTERACTION OF

PRESCHOOL GIRLS AND BOYS
presented by

E. Salome Green-Merritt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PH.D. Jag-gem EDUCATION

 

    

Major professor

Date 12.20.1978

 

0-7639

 

 

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

© 1978

ESTHER S . GREEN-MERRI TT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PLAY WITH PEERS: A COMPARISON OF
THE SOCIAL INTERACTION OF

PRESCHOOL GIRLS AND BOYS

BY

E. Salome Green-Merritt

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary Education

1978

ABSTRACT
PLAY WITH PEERS: A COMPARISON OF
THE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF
PRESCHOOL GIRLS AND BOYS
BY

E. Salome Green-Merritt

The subject of this dissertation was the free play
of four and five year old children. The problem addressed
by the research was: is there a difference between the
way that preschool boys interact in play groups and the
way that preschool girls interact in play groups?

The research was conducted in a private c00perative
nursery school which served predominantly white middle
class children. The center had three year old children
in one classroom and four to five year old children in
another classroom. Children attended school either on
Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings, on Tuesday and
Thursday mornings, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday after-
noons, or on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. The population
for this investigation was comprised of all the four and

five year old children who attended the preschool on

E. Salome Green-Merritt
Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings and those who
attended on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons. A
total of thirty children were studied, fifteen of whom
attended school in the mornings and fifteen of whom attended
school in the afternoons.

The children's spontaneous group play with their
peers was examined through time sampling. Narrative
descriptions of the children's activities during 10-minute
time observations were recorded on tape and subsequently
transcribed and analyzed. Each child was observed, accord-
ing to a prearranged list, over a period of five weeks,
yielding to a total of 70 minutes of observation per child.

The research sought an answer to the following
question: is there a difference in the social interactions
of preschool girls and boys in terms of (l) the means they
use to get into a play group? (2) the means they use to
incorporate other children into existing groups? (3) the
way they participate in group play? The Chi-Square Test
for homogeneity used for statistical analysis of the data
revealed no difference between the interactions of boys and
girls in two areas of interest (1) means of getting into a
group; (2) means of incorporating others into a group.

The data revealed a difference between the way that boys
participate in group activities and the way that girls
participate in group activities. Eight strategies were

categorized for group participation, but the children used

E. Salome Green-Merritt

only six. Of the six techniques employed, boys and
girls demonstrated no difference in their use of
"cooperative sharing". However, there was a significant
difference in the way that boys used the other five means
and the ways that girls used these five strategies as
they participated in group play. Two strategies,
"Associative sharing" and "Cooperative asserting" were
used more frequently by boys while three techniques,
"Associative helping", "Associative asserting" and
"Cooperative helping" were used more frequently by girls.
The results of the present research were in accord
with previous investigations in two areas of interest.
There was agreement in the literature that no difference
exists (1) in the way that boys use strategies to get
into groups and the ways that girls use strategies to
get into groups, (2) in the ways that boys incorporate
other children into existing groups and the way that girls
incorporate others into existing groups. The present I
investigation afforded evidence in support of the literature
in these areas. There was very little commentary in the
literature concerning the ways that boys and girls
participate in group play. The evidence suggested that
there was no difference in the way that boys participate
in group play and the way that girls participate in group
play. The present investigation was at variance with such

a finding.

Dedicated
to
Asa's mother Emma Merritt
and

My mother Enid Green

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe more than gratitude to my husband Reuben Asa
for his constant encouragement, patience, and understanding
during these many months of study. Without his love,
devotion and sacrifices I would not have succeeded.

A particular kind of gratitude belongs to my mother
Mrs. Enid Green who always radiated joy and love. She
helped me build the confidence I needed to undertake this
project.

Appreciation is extended to my brothers Al Green
and Ben Green, and my sister Mrs. Grace Kerr who lovingly
united to make it possible for me to leave my homeland so
that I could read for the Ph.D. degree.

I am grateful to my cousin Miss Fay Green who
besides giving me encouragement, typed a portion of the
rough draft of this work and assumed some of my domestic
responsibilities. I am also thankful to Miss Vanita Arrindell
who helped with my household duties, drove for me and helped
with my library search. Thanks are also due Mrs. Alma
Elliott-Long who helped to type and duplicate materials
for my work.

Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to Dr. Don
Nickerson, Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, Dr. Louise Sause and Dr. James

Snoddy, who comprised an excellent understanding guidance

iii

committee. In particular I thank Dr. Louise Sause, co-
director of my dissertation, whose friendship I treasure
and whose concern, understanding and support will always

be remembered. My gratitude to Dr. James Snoddy, chairman
of my guidance committee goes back a few years. The
immediate occasion is for his insightful suggestions and
his patient, conscientious supervision of this dissertation.
I am also grateful for his genuine concern for my health
during this endeavor.

I am especially indebted to the children of the
school, their parents, and their teacher Mrs. Pat Mitchel
without whom this research would not have been possible.

Thanks are due my typist Mrs. Mary Haji who was
impeccable in her ability to type very often with time
pressure.

An expression of gratitude is extended to my minister,
Bishop Hugh Levy and my other friends who continually
prayed for and were a source of encouragement to me.

Above all, I thank God.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES Vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1
Background 2
The Research 6
Importance of the Study 6
The Problem 7
Population 8
Definition of Terms 8
Research Questions 11
Limitations of the Study 12
Overview 13
References 14
CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 16
Sociability of Boys and Girls 17
Social Collaboration in Play 20
Sex-Typing 22
Agents of Sex-Role Typing 25

The Specificity of Sex Differences in
Play Behavior 30
Getting Into Groups 34
Cooperation 36
CHAPTER III - RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD 52
Statistical Design 52
Research Setting 52
Population 55
Methodology 55
Pilot Study 56
Data Gathering 59
Requirements for Observation 59
Selection of the Observational Method 64
Summary of Design and Methodology 65

Classification and Scoring of

the Data 65
Summary 68
References 69
CHAPTER IV - ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 70
Research Questions 71
Question One 71
Question Two 76
Question Three 81
Summary of Results 87
CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 89
Discussion of Findings 89
Implications for Program Development
and Research 93
General Conclusions on Sex
Differences 95
Final Observations 97
References 101
APPENDICES 102

Appendix A - Sample Transcriptions
Appendix B - Permission Letter

BIBLIOGRAPHY 105

vi

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Categories for Peer Group
Interaction

Coding Form
Means of Getting into a Group

Incorporating Others into a
Group

Difference in Participation

Summary of Results

vii

62
63
73

77
83
88

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Means of Getting into a
Group

Figure 2 Incorporating Others into
a Group

Figure 3 Difference in Participa-
tion

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The subject of this dissertation is preschoolers'
play. The interest lies in discerning differences that
may exist between specific behaviors of boys and of girls
in a freeplay setting. This investigation is based on
the following developmental principles evidenced by re-
search, reported by Almy, Cazden, and Stone.

A. Almy (1967) finds that preschoolers will
interact with their peers.1
B. Cazden (1972) suggests that preschoolers will
converse.2
C. Stone (1971) purports that preschoolers will on
their own initiative play in groups.3

Free or spontaneous play gives the observer of social
interaction an advantage because of the absence of adult
imposed restrictions. There should then be greater give-
and-take since the children are in charge, can create their
own realities and adapt their own situations. In a freeplay
setting one should be able to see clearly how the social

interaction of boys differs from that of girls.

2

Background

 

The subject of play is addressed by scholars of
diverse theoretical orientations, all of whom emphasize its
importance. Aristotle (1928) feels that play is a necessary
activity for children;4 Rousseau (1763) infers that play
is natural to young children who engaged in the activity
to release excess energy;5 Dewey (1915) defines play as
activities not consciously performed for the sake of any
result beyond themselves.6 Froebel (1899) regards play as
the highest phase of a child's development, the purest and
most spiritual aspect of man at this stage.7 Parten (1932)
and Isaacs (1937) both speak of the importance and social
nature of play.8 More recently, Piaget (1962) sees play
as a basis of cognitive functioning. His writings suggest
that as the young child plays with the objects in his
environment, his cognitive awareness expands. Piaget
further indicates that the child's social, physical and
emotional capacities also grow. Play expresses needs and
an understanding of experiences because it is directed
towards an understanding of the world.9

Inherent in what Piaget has said is the suggestion
that play is skills enhancing. This includes the skill or
ability to socialize. Wenar (1971) thinks that young

children seem to have an innate capacity to respond positively

3

and vigorously to social stimulation.10

If this is so,

then one should expect to find various studies on the social
nature and social interactions of children's play. However,
within the last decade, most of those psychologists who have
been focussing on the play of young children have tended to
concentrate on the value of play in the develOpment of dis-
advantaged preschoolers. One of the major contributors of
many years in the field, Smilansky (1968) makes a thorough
investigation of the effects of socio-dramatic play on pre-
schoolers. Because of the emphasis from Head Start in the
late 1950's Smilansky's subjects are socio economically

11 Other investigators have followed

disadvantaged children.
in Smilansky's footsteps. Among them are Rosen (1973),
Freyberg (1973) who experimented with increasing the
"Imaginative Play of....Children..." and Lovinger (1973).12
Those empirical studies which have addressed play as
a social behavior have tended to deal with the role of ethnic
identity, sex and age in determining the choice of play
activities or partners. Herron and Sutton-Smith (1971) re-
cord several studies which treat settings as independent
variables affecting physical or psychological features of
play.13 But there still exists a paucity of conceptualiza-
tions in the area of peer relations. This relatively meager
data exists because even those studies that have examined

play as social behavior have not really dealt with the

questions of how interaction is carried out or what kinds

4
of skills are involved in play interchanges.
Wenar (1971) expresses it quite succintly when he

says:

Under the impact of Freud, attention has

been focussed on feeding, toileting, sex

and aggression while early peer relations

have receded into the background. Yet

the change from parallel to cooperative

p1ay...may be as significant as any develop-

ment in the preschool period. We know

almost nothing of the factors which deter—

mine this transition and nothing of the

conditions which facilitate or impede its

progress....l4

It is possible that the seeming neglect of children's

play with their peers is a result not of lack of interest
in the subject, but rather the persuasive influence of more
traditional theories of socialization which have concentrated
on the egocentric components of children's actions. Respected
psychologists, especially Piaget, describe in great detail
the egocentric nature of the young child. Piaget (1962)
uses the term "egocentricism" to describe the condition which
the child conceives of the world exclusively from his own
point of view. The child, unable to distinguish "me" from
"not me", marks by his egocentricism his early transactions
with the social world. But Piaget also suggests that the
child becomes less egocentric and more sociable as he grows
older.15 Murphy (1937) points out that all kinds of social
interactions are on the increase between two and four years

16

of age. Swift (1964) confirms and extends Murphy's report.

The child's social behavior increases as he comes face to

5

face with various situations.17 In her study of sociability
among preschoolers Isaacs (1937) suggests that there is more
identification and togetherness among children. "Taking
turns, for example, reflects the child's growing awareness
of reciprocity, as does his occasional pride in reporting
what 'we' did rather than what 'I' did".18

It would be possible to make only a few generalizations
on peer relations had it not been for the study of Parten
(1932). Her extensive observational study of the social
behavior of preschool children reveals that they are social
creatures and that the subject of play with peers needs
further exploration.19 The most recent relevant studies on
preschool social interactions have been conducted by Garvey
and Hogan (1973) and Garvey (1974).20 These on going
studies have been examining the ways in which young children
learn from one another and have underscored that "through
early interpersonal experience the child becomes, and can
be shown to become, a practising social being".21 'It is
necessary for other scholars to make a contribution to the
new analytic dimensions of the study of the social develop-
ment of young children. It is with this in mind that the
present investigator plans to draw and document conclusions
concerning the play of preschoolers with their peers. Perhaps
an insight into who initiates play and an awareness of how

boys and girls interact in their play group will help demon-

strate to those concerned, that children acquire behavioral

6
skills at an early age and that boys and girls learn a
great deal from their peers.

The Research

 

The present research is undertaken to gain informa-
tion on the social interactions of preschool boys and
girls in spontaneous play situations. The findings of
relevant literature which gives guidance to this investiga-
tion are discussed in Chapter II. In the remainder of this
chapter specific aspects of the research are discussed.

Importance of the Study

 

The preschool period is rich in development and
those who work with young children, particularly parents,
teachers and psychologists, may from a study of child-child
interactions, become more cognizant of the significance of
preschool behavior.

This study of play with peers is significant insofar
as it provides knowledge that may be used to evaluate what
children are learning from one another. This has implica-
tions for educational settings. Wenar (1971) makes
reference to..."the meagerness of richness of the social
experiences available to the young child. Social behavior
expands as the child encounters a variety of situations
which must be mastered. In an impoverished setting, his

social techniques will be limited".22

7

This investigation may give further insights into
the differences, if any, between the social development
of girls and boys. If it is necessary to provide adult
intervention to facilitate the social maturity of four
and five year old prescchoolers, this research may offer
insights into the nature of that intervention. The impli-
cation is that ultimately knowledge gained from this
study could be useful in evaluating the substance of pre—
school programs.

It is expected that the findings from this research
will lead to a better understanding or awareness of the
dimensions of the preschoolers' social development in such
areas as friendliness or cooperation, the extent of progress
from their initial egocentric stage of development. Know-
ledge gained from the terms of children's interaction may

indicate the effects of early sex-role stereotyping.

The Problem

 

The research described here addressed the following
questions: Do boys use different means from girls to gain
entrance to a group? Do boys use different means from girls
to bring in new group members? Do boys interact differently
from girls in their play groups? In order to answer the
foregoing, specific research questions were formulated, a
population for the investigation identified, and a

methodology developed.

Population

 

The population for this study is two groups of
middle class four and five year old children in a co-
operative preschool in East Lansing, Michigan. Thirty
children are sampled, fifteen of whom attend school in
the mornings (9 a.m. - 12:00) Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays, and fifteen in the afternoons (12:30 - 3:30 p.m.)
of these same days. The selected group consists of a
total of fifteen boys and fifteen girls. These children
can be identified as middle class on the dimensions of the

educational standards and financial status of their parents.

Definition of Terms

 

The usage of some terms may be unique to the present

research. Therefore the following definitions are provided.

Sample: A child from the population.
Preschoolers: Children between the ages of forty-
five months and sixty-five months,
linked by their membership in a class-
room situation.
Free Play: Any indoor situation in which the
class activities of the children, in
general are free from (1) adult direction
(2) unsolicited adult intervention or
suggestion. The materials are usually

provided by the teacher.

 

Spontaneous
Play:

Interaction:

Group:

Outsider:

Onlooker:

Solitary Play:

Associative
Play:

Co-operative
Play:

Peers:

9

See Free Play

All verbal and physical contact

with another child or adult. Physical
contact includes gestures and all
other non-verbal means of communica-

tion.

A collection of three or more children
in close proximity engaged in play

activity.

A child who is not a member of a
group.

A child who watches others playing
and derives pleasure without active
participation.

The playing by him/herself of a
child.

Play in which children are loosely
organized around a common activity and
share interests and materials.

One with a marked sense of belonging,
where there is a leader(s) and the
assigning of different roles to group
members.

See Preschoolers.

Props:

Incorporate:

Sharing:

Helping:

Asserting:

Means:

Round of
Observation:

Sample Time:

10
Toys; demonstration of strength,
ability or activity.
Admitting as members of existing

groups, children who desire to join.

Making or receiving an interaction
with the quality of mutuality such as,

"Hey, look at the ship".

The subject asks or is asked for

information, material or effort. The
subject gives or receives assistance,
eg. "How do you make a ladder?" The

interaction is not one of mutuality.

The subject is involved in an inter-
action attempt, the intent of which is
to gain attention or admiration, eg.
"Look what I have". "I can do that.

I am the leader".

Strategies or techniques employed by

the children in social interaction.

The ten minute period during which each

subject is observed.

See round of observation.

11

Research Questions

 

The following are the questions to which the research

seeks answers:

1. Is there a difference between the way that boys

find a means to get into a group and the way that

girls find a means to get into a group?

(a)

(b)

Is there a difference between the way that

boys use props and the way that girls use props?

Is there a difference between the kinds of
utterances that help boys gain entrance to a
group and the kinds of utterances that help

girls?

2. Is there a difference between the way that boys and

girls incorporate other children into existing

groups?

(a)

(b)

Is there a difference between the frequency
of language of boys and the frequency of

language of girls in incorporation?

Is there a difference in the frequency with which
boys grant the request of outsiders to join

their groups and the frequency with which girls
grant the request of outsiders to join their

groups?

12
3. Is there any difference between the way that boys
and girls participate in group activities?

(a) Is there a difference in the frequency of
sharing demonstrated by boys and the fre-

quency of sharing demonstrated by girls?

(b) Is there a difference in the frequency of
assertiveness used by boys and the frequency

of assertiveness used by girls?

Limitations of the Study

 

Pursuant to a commitment to the school that the re-
search will have no, or minimal effect on the children and
the class' daily activities, this research was conducted
solely by the investigator. This constitutes a limitation
to the study even though the investigator is experienced
with young children. The size of each group (15 children)
attending at particular times (morning and afternoon) consti-
tutes another limitation to the study. The study is also
limited to a population of primarily white, middle class,
urban children. Another limitation of the research lies in
the absence of a comparison group for the p0pulation studied.
Consideration was given to including in the research the
population from one of the many preschools in the area. How-
ever, because no cooperative nursery school could be found
whose general staff, curriculum characteristics and teacher
expectations do not depart significantly from those of the

center selected, the decision was taken to confine the

13
investigation to the single population described. The
findings of the research are therefore not statistically

generalizable beyond the confines of the population.
Overview

In this chapter, the background to the research was
discussed and the specific problem to be addressed was de-
fined: Do preschool girls and boys exhibit the same degree
of sociability as they interact with their peers in free
play situations? The choice of a preschool setting for
the research was discussed, and the specific cooperative
center and population selected were described. Time
sampling, the methodology chosen, utilizing narrative,
and descriptive recordings of the activities of interest
was identified. A definition of the terms significant to
the present research was listed. The research questions
to be addressed were specified, and the limitations of
the study noted.

Following this chapter, the literature relevant to
the present investigation is reviewed. In Chapter III, a
more detailed discussion of the research setting and methodolo-
gy are outlined. The results of the data analysis are
presented in Chapter IV. A summary of the findings, conclu-
sions and recommendations for further investigation are

included in the final chapter.

10.

11.

REFERENCES
Chapter I

Almy, M., Young Children‘s Thinking: Studies of Some
Aspects of Piaget's Theory, New York: Teachers College
Press, 1967, p. 138: "Spontaneous Play: An Avenue

for Intellectual Development", Young Children, XXII,
(1967), p. 272.

 

Cazden, C., Child Language and Education, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1972, p. 204.

Stone, G., "The Play of Little Children", in Herron,
R., and Sutton-Smith, B. eds., Child's Play, John
Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1971, p. 11.

 

Aristotle, C., Aristotle on Education, Howie, G. ed.,
New York, MacMillan, 1928, p. 26.

 

Rousseau, J., An Essay on Education, translated by
R. Nugent. Norse and Valliant, London, 1763, p. 14.

 

Dewey, J., Schools of Tomorrow, E. Datton and Co.,
1915, p. 79.

 

Froebel, F., Education by Development, Appleton, D.,
ed., New York, 1899, p. 29.

 

Parten, M., "Social Participation among Preschool
Children", Journal ofIAbnormal Psychology, 1932, 27,
p. 263. Isaacs, 8., Social Development in Young
Children, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1937, p. 82.

 

 

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood,
New York, W. W. Norton, 1962, p. 91.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, Houghton Miflin
Co. Boston Mass, 1971, p. 283.

 

Smilansky, S., The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on
Disadvantaged Preschool Children, New York, John Wiley
and Sons, 1968, p. 46.

 

14

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

15

Rosen, C.,“Effects of Sociodramatic Play on
Problem-Solving Among Culturally Disadvantaged
Preschool Children", in Child Development, 1974,
45, p. 82. Freyburg, J. "Increasing the Imaginative
Play of Urban Disadvantaged Preschool Children
through Systematic Training" in J. Singer, ed.,

The Child's World of Make-Believe, N. Y. Academy
Press, 1973. pp. 129-54. Lovinger, S., "Socio—
dramatic Play and Language Development in Preschool
Disadvantaged Children", Psychology in the Schools,
Vol. 11 (13) pp. 313-20.

 

 

 

Herron, R. and Sutton-Smith, B., Childls Play,
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1971. p. 45.

 

Wenar, C., PerSonalityDevelopment, p. 283.

 

Piaget, J., P1ay,Dreams and Imitation, p. 82.

 

Murphy, L.,"Infants' Play and Cognitive Development",
in Piers, M., ed., Play and Development, New York:
W. W. Norton, 1972. p. 10.

 

Swift, J., "Effects of Early Group Experience: The
Nursery School and Day Nursery", in M. Hoffman and

L. Hoffman, eds., Review of Child Development Research,
Vol. 1, New York, 1964. p. 64.

 

Isaacs, 8., Social Development in Young Children, p.80.

 

Parten, M.,"Social Participation", p. 275.

Garvey, C., and Hogan, R., "Social Speech and Social
Interaction: Egocentrism Revisited", Child Develop-
ment, 44 (3): 1973. p. 564.

Ibid. p. 42.

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 283.

CHAPTER II

A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Little boys and girls play together. This is a
simple statement of undeniable fact. But how do they play?
What is happening as children play? Scholars have
addressed these and numerous other questions related to
children's play in a wide variety of ways. In the review
that follows, consideration will be given to the social
collaboration, sociability, sex-typing, cooperation and
group interaction of preschoolers at play.

In discussing Piaget, Almy (1977) notes that the pre—
schooler's experience which is necessary for his intellectual
development, is made up of physical activity and social
interactions.1 Arnaud (1971) suggests that when play is
shared among other children it is a "major vehicle for
constructive socialization, widening empathy with others
and lessening egocentrism". Perhaps the main reason
that middle class parents send their three, four and five
year old children to nursery school is to enhance the
dimensions of the preschoolers' social development. For

several educators (among them Garvey 1975) say that

16

17
preschoolers are social creatures. Garvey believes that
the development of sociability is as important as other

aspects of the child's growth.3

The Sociability of Boys and Girls

 

Although Barnes (1971) believes that today's pre-
schoolers are less social than preschoolers of forty years
ago, there is no denying that young children are social
beings. Barnes believes that present day nursery school
children exhibit significantly less social behavior than
three to four year old children of forty years past be-
cause of (l) the change in the number of hours that pre-
schoolers are exposed to mass media, (2) marked reduction
in family size in the past two decades.4 Inherent in
what Barnes is saying is the suggestion that the social
nature of children is best developed and demonstrated as
they interact with various peers.

As stated earlier’many psychologists have underscored
this thinking as they believe that human beings have an
innate (though dormant) social tendency and this sociability
or "involvement" as Eckerman (1974) puts it, increases
with age.5 From her classic study of social participation
of preschoolers, Parten finds that age has an important
influence on social participation. The older the child

the more sociable he is.6

18

The young child begins to play during the first few
months of life, concentrating his actions upon his/her
body. There is some disagreement as to when in the early
months, playful activity is said to begin. For instance,
McFarland (1972) and Murphy (1971) suggest that play
starts when the baby's energies first begin to exceed his/her
requirements for basic need fulfillment.7 Piaget (1962)
sees their onset some weeks later, when certain activities
first cease to be "instructive" and are repeated for purely
functional pleasure.8 It seems however,that there is
agreement that the child's play gradually moves from its
focus on his/her own body towards other persons in the en-
vironment. Wenar' finds that between two and a half to
three years, the child begins to show a keener understanding
of others and a wider range of social behavior and this
proliferation of social behavior continues through pre-
school.9

The infant extends his play from his/her own body to
playful interactions with his/her mother and/or primary
caretaker. Piaget's studies are replete with references
to the parent's role in offering the infant objects for
play, and for making himself/herself available for the

10 Furth (1970)

child's self initiated activities and play.
interprets Piaget as stating that as the young children

play with objects, they consolidate their knowledge of

 

19

these objects. They also become aware that the objects
have an existence apart from their actions upon them and
thus children lay the foundation for their ongoing matura-
tion and development. Children move from the knowledge of
objects gained, Furth (1970) goes on to say, in part
through manipulations and exploring play, to a new level
of capability, wherein objects begin to be used as substi-
tutes for others.11

Opinions in the literature vary as to the functional
significance of others in the environment. But Erickson's
(1972) extensive observations of young childrens' play
indicate that the child has both experienced and observed
others in the environment. Moreover,the child needs
others.12 Piaget (1962) refers to the symbolic use of
objects as a means of assimilating life experiences
restoring "daily conflicts" and realizing "unsatisfied
desires", uses which strongly infer the presence and

13 In the writings

significance of others in the environment.
of Wenar (1971), young children seem to be made to respond
positively and vigorously to social stimulation. Preschoolers
may play and quarrel. They know the label "friend" though
not the concept, since in these early years their friendly
relations cannot always compete successfully with their

egocentric needs to win or be first.14

20

It is interesting to note that Wenar finds that:

Preschoolers are attracted to qualities
which facilitate social interaction; co-
Operativeness, respect for property,
compliance. Sociability involves among
other attributes: sympathy and empathy
arising from identification with feelings

of another child. But there is a new,
deeper kind of identification with others
which gives rise to a sense of oneness or
togetherness. Taking turns, for example
reflects the child's growing awareness

of reciprocity, as does his occasional

pride in reporting what "we" did rather than
what "I" did. Finally, and most importantly,
sociability depends on the capacity for
giving to another child whether it be
tangible things or helpful services.15

Isaacs (1937) finds this to be true of preschoolers as
is their desire to protect younger pupils and newcomers in

the class.16

Social Collaboration in Play

 

As mentioned earlier, Piaget (1962) notes, that as young
children grow, their capacity for meaningful interaction
with their peers increases markedly and their interest in
incorporating other children into their play rises similarly}7
Almy (1967) further elaborates on this view by stating
that girls and boys learn more readily from their peers
whose views are somewhat closer to their own, than from
adults, who may be expected, as a matter of course to
engage in less egocentric more logical forms of thought.18
Social collaboration with peers in play then serves
to enhance cooperative development. Equally important is

the fact that it provides opportunities for social companion-

ship and assistance and for resolution of problems.

21
As Millar (1965) puts it, "Play relationships to real
people serves as an opportunity for solving problems...
the child 'needs' other children with whom crisis can be
played out".19 The play of the young child then is social
in nature. For through their play children are learning
how to cope with the society into which they are born. As
he/she learns more about him/herself in play, the young
child also learns more of and develops relationships with
others. The formulation of social relationships is
important for as Erikson states, (1972) the child in playing
becomes oriented to the possibilities and boundaries of
what is imaginative and possible, and then to what is most

2° "The child

effective and permissible in the culture.
may thus be seen as learning to conform to society", in

the words of Mydral (1972)21 or, according to Erikson
(1972) learning what society's version of reality is.
Through his/her play, the young child is seen both as pene—
trating reality and as confronting it more effectively.
He/she is learning by trial and error how to cope as an
individual as he/she grows up in society.22 The lessons
that young children learn as they grow in society are
numerous. Among them is that the society is heterogeneous

in various ways - the most striking being sexually. The

fact that society has male and female sexes poses numerous

 

22
questions on their differences and similarities. In the
opinions of many writers, boys and girls behave differently
because they are biologically different. Yet there are
other scholars who maintain that in spite of biological
differences there exists a great deal of similarity in the
play interactions of girls and boys. It is to the question

of sex differences that this review now turns.

Sex-Typing

 

Sex-typing is the individual's learning of what is
socially acceptable for his or her sex. Mischel (1966) sees
the patterning of sexual attitudes as a reflection of the
patterning of sex-typing of the culture. Cultural
socializing agents sex—type their own and the child's
behavior, and the child's resultant "acquisition and
performance and sex-typed behaviors can be described as the

same learning principles used to analyze any other aspects

23

of an individual's behavior". That the child learns what

is his/her sex type is borne out by Gessell (1952) who

says:

Physically the child inherits nothing
fully formed. Each and every part of
his nature has to grow-~his sense of
self, his fears, his affections and
curiosities, his feelings towards
mother, father, playmates and sex...
all his sentiments, concepts, and
attitudes are products of growth and
experience....24

23

Hence a child is born with certain biological givens
related to his or her sex and he or she learns the roles
of that sex through social interaction within the society.
Wenar (1971) says, "The neonate must learn that he is a
'boy' or a 'girl', since he or she has no innate knowledge
of the matter". Wenar goes on to state that "gender is one
of the most significant labels a child will come to apply
to itself, and barring exceptional circumstances, this label
will last a lifetime. A child will also learn that as a
boy or a girl, society prescribes behaviors and feelings
which are appropriate and inappropriate. These prescriptions
define the sexual role and extend to many areas of function-

25

ing". Gordon (1969) says, "a major task of early child-

hood consists of identification with one's own sex --
learning the appropriate male or female adult role".26
There does not appear to be any firm evidence that females
and males are destined by nature for the arbitrary roles
and characteristics assigned to both sexes. Baller and
Charles (1968) believe that only in late childhood and onward
is there any physiological reason for different behavior
between males and females. But our culture insists that
girls and boys behave differently; learn different sex roles.
"No doubt it is well known", suggest Mussen, Conger and

Kagan (1974) that during the preschool years most parents

pay attention to the sex appropriateness of their child's

24

behavior.28 Some mothers tell their little girls, "Don't
you laugh so loudly - you are not a boy". "I will not have
you screaming and climbing like a tomboy". So often a

little boy who has had a fall is told to take it like a man.
Howe (1971) finds that children learn about sex roles early
in their lives, probably before they are eighteen months

old...certainly before they start school.29

By the time

she is three years old, a girl in any society knows her
identity as a girl and is rapidly learning what is considered
appropriate sex-typed behavior.

By the age of four years, it would appear that the
child has already divided the world into male and female
people. And in nursery school the girl extends her concept
of self as "female", and the boy as "male" primarily perhaps
through her/his relationships with her/his peers.

The question of the development of sex-typed behaviors
is interpreted by some psychologists as a social learning
process. Among them is Mischel (1966) who says that sex-
typed behaviors "...typically elicit different rewards for
one sex than for the other". In other words, sex-typed
behaviors have consequences that vary according to the sex
of the performer. "Observational learning from life and
symbolic models (i.e. films, television, books) is the
30

first step in the acquisition of sex-typed behavior".

On the other hand cognitive-developmentalists like Kohlberg

25

(1966) suggest that sexuality constitutes the most signifi-
cant area of interaction between biological givens and
cultural values in human emotional life. Kohlberg says,
"Basic sexual attitudes are...patterned...by the child's
cognitive organization of his social world along sex-role
dimensions. The patterning of sex-role attitudes is
essentially 'cognitive' in that it is rooted in the child's
concepts of physical things".31

Although it is important to mention some of the theo-
retical orientations towards the question of sex typing,
it is beyond the scope of the present discussion to delineate
these ideas further. It may be, however, that these two

views are not entirely opposing. Sex role typing may be

taught directly and indirectly by various agents.

Agents of Sex Role Typing

 

Elkin (1960) says, "A status is a position in the
social structure, and a role is the expected behavior of

32 The child is naturally

someone who holds a given status".
endowed with the status of sex and acquires his or her sex
role through socialization which occurs in interaction with
organized groups such as the family, the school and peer
groups. Each socializing agency molds the young child into
its own patterns and its own mores.

Socialization is defined by Guskin and Guskin (1970)

as the process by which an individual learns the ways of

a given society "...the behaviors, values and expectations

26

of others---so that he can take on particular roles in

33 Elkin (1960) feels

the society and function with it".
that "socialization includes both learning and internalizing
appropriate patterns, values and feelings".34 Some of the

agents responsible for sex-typing will be considered next.

(a) The Family. Within the institution of the family the

 

child not only knows what is expected of him/her and behaves
accordingly, he or she also feels that this is the pr0per
way to think and behave.

The family has certain rituals that are to be followed
and Elkin (1960) indicates that this agency is pre-eminent.35
In Western culture, girl babies are dressed in pink frilly
clothes and boys wear blue pants-type garments. Girls get
dolls to play with while boys receive trucks. Gordon (1972)
states that "parent behavior in the first six years of life
influences the child's identity and the standards he/she

36 Parents tell

will set for typical sex-related behavior".
and/or demonstrate to their little boys that they will expect
them to be smart and athletic. Traditionally most mothers
will not change their clothes in front of their sons but may
do so in the presence of their daughters. The little girl

is taught to keep her dress down and is praised for keeping
herself neat and clean and for acting in a lady-like manner.

Thus, very early in the children's lives parents are actually

directing the sex-appropriateness of their behavior.

27
Fauls and Smith (1956) find that "children rapidly learn
differences in parental expectations concerning sex-

appropriate behavior".37

In addition, parents serve as
models for the child. "Little boys will practice being
men", say Fauls and Smith, "and being a man means acting
like daddy. Similarly girls may model much of their be-

havior after their mothers".38

(b) The School. By the time boys and girls get to pre—

 

school they have learnt that they belong to different
culturally determined emotional atmospheres. Piaget (1964)
defines learning as "a process provoked by external situa-
tions (a psychological environment) and limited in scope".39
Young children are aware of differential treatment towards
them. Elkin (1960) says that men and women behave different-
ly before the child and treat the boy differently. Women
kiss him, dress him, prepare his meals and use feminine
expressions in talking to him. Men shake his hand, handle
him roughly, play ball with him and take him fishing.40
Generally the preschool girl knows that in school she is
rewarded if she plays in the doll corner, and she may dress
up and go to parties and the beauty shop. She is not a
cowboy nor the fireman. The attitudes of some teachers

of nursery school, however, have been changing in recent

years so sex roles may not be as stereotyped everywhere.

28

Levy (1972) feels that schools are supposed to educate
everyone and equalize Opportunities for all. He says that
what schools are succeeding in doing, however, is perpetuat-
ing the social and economic irregularities that exist.

"Boys and girls...even from their preschool years...learn
differential status of men and women just by looking at how
many men are principals and how many females are teachers".41
Most teachers of preschoolers are females.

To support Levy, Gillespie (1973) notes that sex-
role stereotyping has been documented as beginning in
nursery school. The basal reader is the biggest early
agent. Women are shown as housewives, girls are dependent

42 "In the

on their brothers; boys are problem solvers.
books written for young children boys are trained to
express themselves; girls to please and to be cooperative",

echoes Joffee (1971).43

(c) Peer Groups. Even if the school makes a conscious

 

effort to avoid fostering the contemporary notions of sex
roles, young children will still learn sex-role socializa-
tion. Piaget (1964) finds that what is learnt at any given
point is at least in part determined by what has gone on
before, not merely by what the child has experienced, but
more by the elements to which he/she has paid attention.
"Every construction from without presupposes a construction

44

from within". The young child comes to nursery school

with some acquired knowledge of sex-typing and he/she has

29

more and more Opportunity to interact with other children,
peers play increasingly important roles in sex—identifica—
tion. Garvey (1975) says one vehicle through which this
takes place for the preschool child is the social play
situation.45

The peer group has its codes and games. As mentioned
earlier, girls know that it is the domain of boys generally
to be the fireman, superman, baker, policeman or steel
worker. Socialization in the peer groups is taught in the
course of interaction as children abide by the codes.
Elkin (1960) finds that the group rewards its members by
bestowing attention, approval, or leadership or by giving
permission to participate or employ certain symbols. For
behaving otherwise the peer group punishes by disdain,
ostracism, or other expressions of disapproval.46

As peers play they practice adult activities and
inculcate adult standards and expectations. Goodman (1970)
states this succintly, "Through mimicry, a universal type
of play, and particularly mimicking of adult activities,
through observation and imitation of that world the culture
of childhood comes to include versions of adult values".47
The devotion of many hours of the preschoolers' time to
role—playing is a part of their identifying with the models
in their society...parents, teachers, and other people
important to them.

It has been suggested that boys behave differently

from girls. But what are some of the specific sex differen—

ces in their play behavior? The following section attempts

30

to throw some light on the question.

The Specificity of Sex Differences
in PIay Behavior

 

Much of the research on the development of sex
differences has been guided by Freudian-derived concepts
like "identification", "incorporation", "internalization"
and "introjection". Mischel (1966) feels that no distinc-
tion between the terms is necessary as they refer to the
tendency for a person to reproduce the actions, attitudes,
and emotional responses exhibited by real-life or symbolic

models.48

The ongoing social environment into which a

child is born allows for the first lessons in being a girl
or a boy. Children learn behaviors of both sexes but they
differ in the degree to which they perform and value these

behaviors. Mischel states:

The present definition of sex-typed
behavior stresses the difference in
outcome as a function of performer's
sex. Boys and girls discover that
the consequences for performing such
behaviors are affected by their sex
and therefore soon perform with
different frequency. 49

In most societies differences between the play of
boys and girls are not merely expected but actively encourag-
ed. It is for this reason that in our culture only very
young boys may be allowed to play with their sister's
dolls without ridicule. Millar (1968) finds that girls

are labelled "tomboys" if they do not conform to quieter,

31
gentler, less aggressive activities. Boys who eschew
rough games are in danger of being labelled 'sissy'. Some
three year old boys are found to show sex differences in
the aggressiveness with which they play with miniature
dolls. Four year old boys engage in more romping activi-
ties involving large muscles, while girls tend to play

house and paint.50 Gibson (1978) echoes the same thought:

"By age three, boys in our culture tend

to exhibit significantly more aggressive
behavior at play than do girls. They

also engage in play activities involving
the large muscles, more often than do
girls. Boys spend much of their play time
involved in sports such as ball-playing,
while young girls tend more often to play
games involving observed household activi-
ties or work rules. When raised at home
they also respond in ways that reflect
significantly more dependence on their
mothers than do boys".51

That sex influences the play of young children has
been attested to by several authors. Sutton-Smith (1971)
reports that according to Angell, imitation of people he
admires is common in a boy's play. Sutton-Smith also quo-
tes Tanner as saying that both boys and girls of preschool
age imitate such matter-of-fact actions as going to the

store and family life.52

Benjamin (1932) reports that a
doll proves to be the favorite toy of girls while an automo-
bile, airplane and cowboy are more often chosen by preschool
boys.53 The works of Shallit (1932) and of Bridges (1929)
support Benjamin's as they find that sex differences in

play materials do exist for four and five year olds. Both

32

writers say that in dramatic play the real sex differences
show up in boys' choice of boats, cars and trains as their
favorite toys.54

Most of the instruments designed to measure sex-
typed behavior in children have preference items. On some
tests children are asked to choose between pictures of
various toy objects and play activities. For example
"The I T Scale for Children" (D. G. Brown 1956) requires
the child to choose toys and activities which "I T" (a
non-sex identifiable cardboard figure) would like best.
Sex-typing is measured by the number of appropriate choices
the child makes. Shallit (1962) says that toys such as
a doll buggy, dishes, beads, and a purse, for instance
are classified as feminine choices while a dump truck,
carpentry tools, a gun or an erector set are classified as
masculine.55 Spencer (1967) says "the influence of sex
roles does not stop at children's performance on 'preference'

"tests".56

Wenar (1971) finds that it spreads to games and
toys actually used. Boys prefer sports, machines, and
activities capitalizing on speed and power; girls prefer
games and activities involving babies, home, personal
attractiveness and "fantasy" themselves as nurses or
secretaries. Boys' preference for active games starts as
early as three years of age and becomes increasingly
stronger, while girls are more variable in their preferences

until nine or ten years of age.57

33

It is not surprising that boys and girls of three
behave differently in play situations. For as has been
pointed out, boys are usually rewarded for playing with
objects that are considered "male" and for behaving in
ways that are "male". Gibson (1978) finds that girls are
often rewarded for different activities and different play
objects.58

Derived from a recent study of the play of preschool-
ers, Millar (1968) notes that the greatest difference is
in the manner of their play. Both girls and boys may play
the same game, but boys by and large are more boisterous

and energetic than girls.59

Such a finding seems consis-
tent with the expectations of our culture. The association
between maleness and aggression is firm and pervasive.
Wenar (1971) finds that preschool boys are more aggressive
than girls in their overt behavior and in their fantasies.
Adults expect more aggression from boys than girls.60
Several studies have been devoted to the study of aggression
in young children. In fact aggression has become one of

the main variables in delineations of masculine and faminine
behavior. "Fairly consistently", Mischel (1966) says,

"boys show greater physical aggression and more 'negativistic'
behavior. Boys are often encouraged to fight back, if
another child starts a battle. But in girls aggression

is less sanctioned".61

34

In school, constructiveness in cooperative activi-
ties and high energy output in physical activities are
important in boys' play and friendships. Maybe this is
why there tends to be more conflict and overt aggression
in boys, while girls tend to exhibit more general gregari-

ousnes S .

Getting Into Groups

 

Wenar (1971) reports that the child's craving for
companionship and cooperative play are apparent before the
age of three. But by age four the need becomes paramount

62

and potent. Swift reiterates the situational factors

that affect group formation:

We learn, for instance that physical

equipment such as dolls, clay, blocks,

swings and wagons facilitate the forma—

tion of cooperative groups.63
Murphy (1972) takes this a step further by saying that
also important to the formation of groups are maturity,
security, initiative, imaginativeness and active engagement

64 Wenar (1971) also

in similar or interdependent activity.
finds that preschoolers use various means to become members
of a group. They may show off objects, demonstrate their
strength or agility or they may copy the behavior of another
child. Wenar feels that imitation can be the initial step

in becoming a member of a group, and children's social

repertoire is constantly being enlarged by observing and

35

copying the behavior of their contemporaries'GS

Four year olds are not as constrained by as limited
a vocabulary as two year olds. They can therefore use
less crude techniques to initiate and sustain social inter-
actions. In his discussion of "Boundaries", Sutton-Smith
(1971) makes reference to the way children smile, giggle,
and make an exaggerated gesture. He says they use mainly
ludic techniques to cross boundaries, i.e they get into
each others' play territory by making a play gesture such
as a mock attack or a stunt, by inaugurating a fantasy or
by making a ludicrous expression.66 Quite often the ex—
pressions of the four and five year olds are egocentric:
"Look what I've got". "Hey, I'm superman".

Since sharing interest and activities is one of the
corner stones of peer relations according to Wenar (1971),
peers attract because they naturally do mutually interest-
ing things.67 Quite often young boys and girls are heard
to say "Let's play house and you be the mother". "Do you
want me to share my airplane with you and be your friend?"

The foregoing commentaries support the findings
which Parten (1932) makes. In the course of her intensive
study she notes six different techniques used by the child-

ren to gain entrance into a play group:

36

The most direct technique consisted in
the outsider's asking a member of the
group, "Can I play too?" Somewhat more
round-about requests to join? the group
were addressed to the teacher, "I want

a place to paint". Sometimes the
outsider gained entrance into the group
more subtly by commenting on the activi-
ties of some of the members, "My, that's
high. What are you making? Again the
outsider merely presumed that he was
accepted and joined the play, perhaps
with a comment, "Play I'm Aunty" or a
question, "Shall I be the little brother?"
Occasionally the child formed his own
group by displaying toys he brought from
home or by assigning roles to the other
children, or by inviting others to play,
"This chair is for Harriett". The least
aggressive method of gaining entrance was
by invitation from the group, "Paul come

play with us". 68

It seems that groups do not always remain fixed.

Some children will leave one group for another or
form a new one if they find it necessary. Parten
observes that preschoolers usually play in groups
four or five. Only on rare occasions do they get

larger groups for spontaneous play. In order for

will
further
of three,
into

group

play to be successful, preschool girls and boys display

cooperative behavior.69

Cooperation

 

COOperation is defined as two or more individuals

joining their efforts to reach a goal which is mutually

desirable. Smith (1960) considers c00peration to

advanced than competition because it is dependent

be more

upon the

growth of social awareness, social skills, adaptability

and altruism - qualities which are only budding in most

preschoolers.7o

37

Sharing interest and activities is important in any
peer relationship. Fitzgerald, Strommen and McKinney (1977)
suggest that during the years from two to five, peer social
interaction diversifies and true mutual give and take begins
to develop. First friendships are made, cooperative play
increases and first peer groups are formed.71 Support for
this statement is found in the writing of Gibson (1978) who
feels that relating satisfactorily to others requires co-
operation, sharing and generosity. And, although preschool-
ers are still egocentric at age four and five, they like the
qualities of comparativeness and compliance.72 Apart from
liking these qualities, preschoolers strive towards and
develop them over time. Gibson goes on to say that co-
Operation develops after age three when children learn to
interact cooperatively with each other. Cooperation involves
learning how to use peers for help and also how to provide
help for others. Children may take turns at different
activities, for example, pushing each other on the swing.73
Inherent in what Gibson says is the suggestion that the
ability to cooperate increases with age. Piaget (1962)
writes extensively about the innate egocentrism of children
but notes also the growth in social skills as boys and
girls get older. Gradually by preschool they get to the
stage where they can distinguish "me" from "not me"
74

and the first signs of a "we" feeling begin to emerge.

Isaacs takes this observation a step further and reports

38

how joyful children are in the realization of "ourness".
She speaks of the sense of reciprocity taking the place of
the monadic outlook. For example, her subjects cooperated
in modelling the things for a "birthday party" and were
happy because they worked together. This would not have
been an easy task at three. And Isaacs concludes,
"The pleasure and pride which togetherness in loving
services may bring is shown when Harold and Paul carry a
chair for Mrs. I. to sit on, and Paul says proudly, 'We
brought it together'".75

Further support for this is provided by Millar (1968)

who states:

There is little doubt that children
become more capable of cooperating
as they grow older. The difficulty
of the task which depends on co-
operation, as well as ability to
communicate with each other, are
involved in this. In an investiga-
tion in which the apparatus was so
arranged that a child could only
receive a sweet if the partner pulled
a string, older children succeeded
easily. They simply told the other
what to do. 76

Garvey (1975) says that the ability to cooperate is learned

. 77

by experience.
It seems then that cooperation is essential to any

amicable play relationship. A preschooler may not always

be dependent on his/her peers for encouragement and consola-

tion, but he/she will always need them for any associative

venture. Fitzgerald et a1. (1977) find that during the

39
preschool years, many of the child's attempts to gain
effective control of the environment and autonomy occur in
the context of cooperative social interaction with peers.
Moreover, play enhances language competence.78 In her
observations, Garvey (1975) finds that preschoolers play
with language socially. Though one child might start first,
the play very quickly becomes a joint production. Typical

of a jointly created poem is:

I need this

You need that

You go way up high

You go way up high

You go high in the sky. 79
So there is cooperation in social acts as well as in social
speech among peers. It is the topic of speech that will be

considered next.

Children's Social Speech

 

One of the most important social interchanges -
communication - starts with conversation. Speech itself is
essentially a social act, taking place in a social context.
This statement is made by Garvey (1975) who goes on to
explain:

It is common tradition for instance that
much of speech is not chitchat, or a dis-
cussion of something apart, but is actually

a social act itself. When someone says

"I congratulate you", he's...performing a
social act. Saying becomes doing. And

all other things we say have act characteris-
tics of some kind..."Close the door" is a
request for action...Even a "What?" is a

40

request for information that requires

an action or response. So when these

children talk together, or communicate

in play, they are performing a series

of social acts.80

If the foregoing is true, then the preschooler's

language may be able to tell us a good deal about his/her
social development. It is the view of Erickson (1963)
that somewhere about the age of three years children first
develop what is called "socialized speech" - speech that
communicates to others what the child is doing as well as

what other people are doing.81

Garvey (1975) agrees,
suggesting that as early as age three, children have already
worked out, in the way they make requests or respond to

them, well - advanced social - cognitive patterns or schemata
that systematically use conventional language and vocabu-

82 Gibson's (1978) interpretation of Piaget is that

lary.
he assumes that the reason young children use egocentric
speech before socialized speech is simply that they have
not learned yet how to socialize or communicate and there-

fore are not interested in the rest of the world.83

Vygotsky
(1962) disagrees with Piaget on this matter. For Vytogsky
egocentric speech has a function different from that of
socialized speech and the use of egocentric speech does not
indicate lack of interest in communicating. According to
Vygotsky, egocentric speech is used by young children as a

method of guiding behavior: they tell out loud what is

happening or what should happen. Later this overt speech

41

disappears and is replaced by what Vygotsky calls "non—
verbalized or inner speech. Four year old children need
not tell themselves out loud what they are doing or how they
should behave; their inner speech communicates these
messages without being apparent to others".84

The differences in opinion concerning the purpose of
egocentric speech are not significant enough to negate the

fact that little children progress from egocentricity to

sociability in speech. For as Garvey (1975) attests:

Through early interpersonal experience
and conversation the child becomes and
can be shown to become, a practising
social being. The nursery school child
prattling away in the sand box with a
playmate in a game of "pretend" is
actually involved in a subtle and compli—
cated give - and - take which includes
mutually understood rules, implied

goals to be achieved together, shifting
tactics, the exchange of information and
definitions and the like. 85

It is interesting to examine what children say to
one another as they play. There are not many reports on
what children say during spontaneous play, but sufficient
evidence exists to testify that both girls and boys use

language in much the same way as adults do. Isaacs (1937)

says that they make requests and promises - "Can I play too?
I'm going to buy you a helicopter"; they give orders and
reports - "Tom you leave that doll alone! Pauline hit May";

they express feeling and desires - I love you Mrs. I. Oh

86

I wish my Mommy had a baby too". Garvey (1975) postulates

42

that preschoolers "exhibit uncanny competencies in their
social speech in their attempt to influence another child.
And the preschooler knows how to use strategies to get what
he wants". To illustrate her point Garvey records the follow—
ing conversation between two four year olds:

A: Pretend this was my car.

B: No!

A: Pretend this was our car.

B: All right.

A Can I drive your car?
B Yes, okay.

"B smiled and moved away from the car and A climbed on and
made driving noises. The strategy worked. Although B did
not at first want to give up the large toy car on which he
was sitting, A got it".87
Quite a few studies of language production have measur-
ed the relationship with the sex of the child. McCarthy
(1954) indicates that these studies show girls to be higher
in language production at early levels.88 One of the
scholars to whose findings McCarthy refers is Maccoby (1966)
who suggests that through the preschool years, girls exceed
boys in most aspects of verbal performance. They say their
first word sooner, articulate more clearly and at an earlier

89 Gibson

age use longer sentences, and are more fluent.
(1978) also attests to this. According to her the sex of
a child is related to language acquisition and production:
girls tend to speak earlier than do boys. The mean age for

speaking fifty words for girls is eighteen months; for boys,

43

it is twenty two months.90

Fitzgerald, Strommen and
McKinney (1977) are among those investigators who find that
girls surpass boys in nearly all aspects of language behavior,
including the length of utterances, comprehension of speech,
articulation, the number of words spoken, the number of
different words spoken, amount of speech, and sentence
complexity.91 One important area of speech that investigators
have examined is the difference in verbal aggression in
the speech of girls and boys. It has been said that pre-
school girls demonstrate more verbal aggression than, or as
much of this as boys. This is the finding of Durret (1959»
Sears (1951); Bandura (1961); Sears (1957); McKee and
Leader;(l955) Sear (1965); Muste and Sharpe (1947); Jersild
(1935” and Sears et a1 (1953). But opinions differ on this
question as some investigators find boys to be more verbally
aggressive, just as they are more physically aggressive than
girls. These authors include Green (1933); Dawe (1934);
Walters et al. (1957); Beller and Turner (1962); Beller
and Neubauer (1963); Bandura et a1. (1963) and Gordon and
Smith (1965).92

Garvey (1975) finds that during play children like
nonsense syllables. Other investigations have testified that
fantasy and nonsense are popular with preschoolers. Here

is a classic piece. A "wrote“ this letter while B listened:

44

A: Dear Uncle Poop, I would like you to give

me a roasted meatball and some chicken-pox...

and some tools.

Signed Mrs. fingernail.

(She smiles and looks expectantly at partner).
B: Toop poop: (laughs) Hey are you Mrs.Fingernail?
A: Yes, I'm Mrs. Fingernail .
B: poop, Mrs. Fingernail.93

Summary

A review of literature related to the play of pre-
schoolers was presented in this section. This review
focussed on sociability , social collaboration, sex role
typing, agents of sex typing and specificity in sex differen-
ces as seen in play. Also examined was relevant literature
or group formation, cooperation and children's speech in
social play. The review emphasized a number of major areas
which are relevant to the present research. The first is
that children have innate sociable tendencies which with
time supercede their egocentric nature. Next is that among
the various agents of sex role typing, three stand supreme,
the family, the school and the peers. As children get
older the number of day-to-day contacts with others increase.
Children participate more frequently in activities with
peers and at the same time they gradually increase the com-
plexity of the responses they are able to make toward one
another. Similarly, they decrease in the amount of solidarity
play, and increase in cooperative play. The literature
also reveals that aggression defines masculinity. Girls are
expected to be soft and emotional. Through play children are
stimulated to use language to solve problems, ask questions,

share experiences and direct activities. The few writers

45
who address the question of the language children use
during free play, agree that preschoolers use social speech
in their play interactions.

Only a few investigators discuss the means used by
boys and girls to gain entrance to a group. These authors
agree that boys and girls use the techniques in the same
way. There is also agreement in the literature that boys
and girls use similar strategies in similar ways to bring
new members into their groups. Apart from one classic
study by Parten on peer relations, there is very little
if any evidence on the way that boys and girls participate
in group play. Evidence is from Parten's study which
suggests that boys participate in play groups in the same
way that girls do. Other studies did not systematically
address the participation in groups of preschool boys and
girls. Parten studied three and four year old children

but made a statement about boys and girls.

10.
ll.

12.

13.

REFERENCES

CHAPTER II

Almy, M., Young Children's Thinking, p. 16.

 

Arnaud, 8., "Introduction: Polish for Play's Tarnish-
ed Reputation", Play: The Child Strives Toward Self-
Realization, Washington D.C.: National AssociatiOn for
the Education of Young Children, 1971. p. 5.

 

 

Garvey, C., Children's Play and Social Speech, National
Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, MaryIand, p. 14.

 

Barnes, K., "Preschool Play Norms: A Replication",
Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5 pp. 99-103.

 

Eckerman, C., "Growth of Social Play with Peers During
the Second Year of Life", Developmental Psychology, 1974.
50. p.364.

 

Parten, M., "Social Participation among Preschool
Children", p. 261.

Mc Farland, M., "The First Year of Life" in Arnaud, 8.,
"Introduction: Polish for Play's Tarnished Reputation",
p. 7; Murphy, L., "Infants Play and Cognitive Develop-
ment", p. 10.

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation, p. 91.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 28.

 

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation, pp.92-93.

 

Furth, H.,Piaget for Teachers, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall,41970. p. 34.

 

Erikson, E., "Play and Actuality", in Piers, M., ed.,
Play and Development, p. 152.

 

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation, p. 140/

 

46

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

47

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 223.

Ibid. p. 223.

Isaacs, 8., Social Development in Young Children, p. 82.
Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation, p. 91.

Almy, M., Young Children's Thinking, p. 260.

Maier, H., Three Theories of Child Development, New York:
Harper & Row, 1965. p. 25.

Erikson, E., "Play and Actuality", p. 52.
Mydral, A., "Opportunities and Dangers for Children's

Play in Today's Efficiency Minded Society", International
Journal of Education Supplement, 1972. p. 27.

 

Erikson, E., "Play and Actuality", p. 56.

Mischel, W., "A Social-Learning View of Sex Differences
in Behavior" in Maccoby, E., Ed., The Development of
Sex Differences, Stanford University Press, California.
1966. p. 56.

 

Gesell, A., Infant Development, New York: Harper Brothers,
1952. p. 83.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 284.

 

Gordon, 1., Human Development, 2nd ed. New York: Harper,
1969. p. 114.

 

Baller, W., Charles, D., The Psychology of Human Growth
and Development, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1968. pp. 252-253.

 

 

Mussen, P., Conger, J., and Kagan, J., Child Development
and Personality, New York: Harper & Row, 1974. p. 398.

 

 

Howe, F., "Sexual Stereotypes Start Early", in Saturday
Review 54, Oct. 16, 1971. p. 76.

Mischel, W., "A Social-Learning View of Sex Differences
in Behavior", p. 56.

Kohlberg, L., "A Cognitive Developmental Analysis of
Children's Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes", in Maccoby's
Sex Differences, p. 83.

 

32.

33.

34.
35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.
45.
46.
47.

48

Elkin, F., The Child and Society: The Process of
Socialization, New York University, Random House, New
York. 1960. p. 8.

 

Guskin, A., and Guskin, S., A Social Psycholo of
Education, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, l 0. p. 98.

 

 

Elkin, F., The Child and Society, p. 4.

 

Ibid. pp. 53-54.

Gordon, L., "The Beginnings of Self: The Problem of
the Nuturing Environment", in Bernard, H., and Huckins,
W., eds. Exploring Human Development, Boston: Ally
and Bacon, 1972. p. 260.

 

Fauls, L., and Smith, W., "Sex-Role Learning of Five-
Year-Olds", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 89, 1956.
p. 43.

 

Ibid. p. 44.

Piaget, J., "Cognitive Development in Children: The
Piaget Papers", in M. Almy, E. Chittenden and P. Miller,
Young Children, Cornell University, 1964. p. 20.

 

Elkin, F., The Child and Sociepy, p. 54.

 

Levy, B., "Do Schools Sell Girls Short?" Today's Education:
Journal of N.E.A., Dec. 1972. p. 30.

 

Gillsepie, P., "Boys, Things, Girls, Things", Instructor,
Nov. 1973. p. 32.

 

Joffee, C., "As the Twig is Bent", Journal of Marriage
and Family, August 1971. p. 60.

 

Piaget, J., "Cognitive Development in Children", p. 21.

Garvey, C., Children's Play, p. 12.

 

Elkin, F., The Child and Society, p. 70.

 

Goodman, M., The Culture of Childhood, New York: Teachers
College Press, 1970. p. 143.

 

Mischel, W., "A Social-Learning View of Sex Differences",
p. 57.

49.
50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.
56.

57.
58.
59.
60.
61.

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

49

Ibid. p. 60.

Millar, S., The Psychology of Play,Baltimore: Penguin,
1968. p. 195.

 

Gibson, G., Growing Up: A Study of Childreo, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Reading Mass, 1978. p. 302.

 

Herron, R., and Sutton-Smith, B., Child's Ploy, p. 54.

 

Benjamin, H., "Age and Sex Differences in Toy Preferences
of Young Children", Ped. Sem. and Journal of Genetic
Psychology. 1932. 41. pp. 417-429.

 

Shallit, R., "The Dramatic Play of Ten Nursery School
Children", Child Development, 1932, 3. pp.359-362;
Bridges, K., "The Occupational Interest and Attention
of Four Year Old Children", Ped.Sem. and Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 1929, 36. pp. 551-570.

 

 

Shallit, R., "The Dramatic Play of Children", p. 419.

Spencer, T., "Sex-Role Learning in Early Childhood", in
W. Hartup and N. Smothergill, eds., The Young Child,
N.A.E.Y.C. Washington D.C. 1967, p. 195.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 224.

 

Gibson, J., Growing Up, p. 302.

 

Millar, S., The Psychology of Play, p. 195.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 224.

 

Mischel, W., "A Social-Learning View of Sex Differences
in Behavior", p. 73.

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 292.

 

Swift, J., "Effects of Early Group Experience", p. 7.
Murphy, L., "Infant's Play", p. 72.

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 282.

 

Sutton-Smith, B., Child's Play, p. 104.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 269.

 

Parten, M., "Social Participation", p. 275.

69.
70.

71.

72.
73.
74.
75.
76.

77.

78.
79.
80.
81.

82.
83.
84.

85.
86.
87.

88.

89.

50

Ibid. p. 278.

Smith, A., "A Developmental Study of Group Processes",
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1960, 97. p. 30.

 

Fitzgerald, H., Strommen, B., and McKinney, J.,
Developmental Psychology: The Infant and Young Child,
Dorsey Press, Homeword, Illinois 1977. p. 43.

Gibson, J., Growing Up, p. 287.

 

Ibid. p. 301.

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation, p. 83.

 

Isaacs, 8., Social Development, p. 276.

 

Millar, S., The Psychology of Play, p. 180.

 

Garvey, C., Children's Playyand Social Speech, National
Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Maryland 1975, p.1.

 

Fitzgerald, H.et a1. Developmental Psychology, p. 243.

 

Garvey, C., Children's Play, p. 3.

 

Ibid. p. 8.

Erikson, B., Child and Society, New York: Norton, 1963.
p. 40.

 

Garvey, C., Children's Play, p. 6.

 

Gibson, J., Growing Up, p. 318.

 

Vygotsky, L., Thoughtand Language, Cambridge, Mass:
M.I.T. Press, 1962, Translated by E. Hanfmann and G.
Vakar, p. 30. .

 

Garvey, C., Children's Play, p. 10.

 

Isaacs, 8., Social Development, pp. 272-4.

 

Garvey, C., Children's Play, pp. 6-7.

 

McCarthy, D., "Language Development in Children", in
A Manual of Child Psychology, 2nd ed.L. Carmichael ed.,
New York: John Wiley 1954. p. 41.

 

Maccoby, E., The DevelOpment of Sex Differences, Stanford
University Press, California, 1966. p. 26.

90.
91.
92.
93.

51

Gibson, J., Growing Up, p. 318.

 

Fitzgerald, H. et a1. Developmental Psychology, p.243.

 

Maccoby, B., Sex Differences, pp. 323-326.

 

Garvey, C., Children's Ploy, pp. 15—16.

 

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
In this chapter the research setting, the population

studied and the methodology used are discussed. In addi-

tion a pilot study is described.

Statistical Design

 

The Chi-Square Test for homogeneity with subjects
nested within the independent variable of sex was used for
the statistical analysis of the research data. (See Chapter
IV page 70 for a complete rationale for the selection of

Chi-Square as a statistical design.)

Research Setting

 

The investigation was conducted in a cooperative
preschool in East Lansing, Michigan which serves 60 children
between the ages of three and five years, five days per
week. School lasts from 9:00 a.m to 12:00 noon for morning
students and 12:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. for afternoon students.

Several characteristics of the school and the classes
observed made it particularly apprOpriate for the research.
First, the two classes observed served children from homes

representing a relatively homogeneous group in terms of

52

S3

economic status and race. The children were middle class
whites. Secondly, the parents (usually two per class
session) took turns to come to the school and assist the
class teacher. This provided an excellent Opportunity

for each child to know and work with the parents of his/her
peers. Of considerable importance is the third factor.
All children within the ages of interest were allowed free
access to all toys, equipment and other children. NO
adult imposed barriers (eg. related to sex or age) were
placed in the way of the children's free choice of activi-
ties and companion(s) in spontaneous play. Significant
blocks of time were allotted for spontaneous play at each
session by the teacher.

Two other characteristics of these classes deserve to
be noted. First, parents of both sexes assisted the
teacher. Secondly, the teacher and her assistants avoided
typing any toy or activity as belonging to or appropriate
for "girls” or "boys". The children were not expected to
play or refrain from playing with any toy, substance or
equipment because of their sex.

The school was housed on the second floor to the
rear of a church building. The pupils had free access to
several rooms; one contained large muscle equipment, blocks
"dress up" equipment, sand tray and a piano. Another room
had equipment for painting, water play and woodwork. In

yet another were smaller toys and equipment and there was

54

a gymnasium where the children were taken for certain

specific games and activities.

For the children observed, the daily schedule was

quite flexible.

The children went on several trips, for

example, to the Public Library, the museum, shopping centers

and the arboretum.

On the days that the observations were

conducted, the daily schedule approximated the following:

9:00

10:30
11:30

12:30
12:50
1:05
2:00

Morning Students

9:20

9:35

10:30

11:30
12:00

Arrival of children, indoor free play
Calendar, news, "show and tell"
Introduction of new class activity
Free play, sewing, woodwork, painting,
drawing, craftwork, specific class
activity (eg. siphoning).

Story time, music, rest.

Snack time (Children help to prepare
tables and eat family style with staff)

Clean up and dismissal.

Afternoon Students

Arrival of children, indoor free play.

1:05
2:00
3:00
3:30

Calendar, news....
Free play, art and craft...
Story time

Snack....and dismissal.

55
Time sampling of the children's spontaneous play,
activities took place at the school, indoors, generally
between 9:00 to 9:20 and 9:35 to 10:30 in the mornings.
In the afternoons, observations were conducted between

12:30 to 12:50 and 1:05 to 2:00.

Population

 

Thirty children were a part of this study. Fifteen
of them attended preschool in the mornings (9:00 a.m. to
12:00) Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Fifteen attended
in the afternoon (12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.) of these same
days.

The morning group consisted of six girls and nine
boys while the afternoon group was comprised of nine girls
and six boys. Altogether there were fifteen girls with a
mean age of 4.5 years and fifteen boys with a mean age of
4.7 years.

These children were designated middle class because
of the educational standards and financial status of their
parents. Permission was granted by the school and all the

parents of sample children to participate in the study.

(See Appendix B.)

Methodology

 

Time sampling of children's activities undertaken
during periods of spontaneous play was the data gathering
methodology selected for this investigation. The investi-

gator observed groups of children for ten minute intervals.

56
Narrative descriptions of each group's interaction and
some of the direct speech were recorded with a portable
casette recorder. The narrative descriptions were

subsequently transcribed for analysis.

Pilot Study. A pilot study at the preschool was undertaken
from March 27 to May 5, 1978. The pilot study was conducted
to give the children, teacher and those parents who help
from time to time, an opportunity to become acquainted with
the presence of the investigator. After a week of participa-
tion in the daily activities of the class, the researcher
began to use the tape recorder to record various activities
of the children.

For the investigator the trial use of the machine
served as a field test by which the proposed procedures to
gather the data necessary for the research could be examined.
For the children, the trial use of the tape recorder
provided them with the opportunity to become familiar with
a machine that would be in their room. Within two days
of describing and recording classroom activities, curiosity
about the tape recorder and the investigator's use of it
waned. Only once during the five weeks of research did
curiosity occur.

Several procedures used in the investigation were
tested and adopted during the period of pilot study. The
machine, a Sony portable cassette tape recorder, with
built in microphone, was found to be appropriate with

regard to size, portability and recorded sound quality.

57
The investigator carried it around openly as narrative
descriptions of the children's activities were recorded.
A stopwatch was used to time each observation, after
recording information such as the child's name, the time
and the activity engaged in or about to be started. At the
end of the sample time, the oservation was terminated.

One of the important objectives of the pilot study
was familiarization of the investigator with the require-
ments of narrative description recording in the classroom.
Some of the questions addressed: (1) How long should a
sample or round of Observation last? (2) Should the
observer remain stationary while recording given interaction
or should she follow the child under observation if
necessary? (3) By what criteria should an observation be
commenced, terminated and cancelled?

For the investigator, the pilot study served to
determine how long each observation should be, whether
three, five, ten or twelve minutes. The shorter time periods
of three and five minutes were found unsuitable because
they did not, in general, allow sufficient time for oservation
of interaction in play among the children. Twelve minute
observations were impractical since groups began to
disintegrate during the latter part of the period. The
decision was made after trying observations for the fore-
going periods, to concentrate on groups of children for ten
minute intervals. Seven individual time samples were taken

for each subject in the research population, yielding to

58
70 minutes of Observation time per child.

It was found during the pilot study that it was
common practice for the children to move their play to
various locations, depending on the activity. The investi-
gator decided therefore, tO follow the subjects under
observation when necessary. Remaining stationary for an
observation often meant that the investigator had to
terminate an observation before its completion as children
moved out of focus. On the other hand, the investigator
discovered that following a group of children did not
interfere with the activities because the children had
become accustomed to the investigator walking around the
classroom "mumbling" into the tape recorder; the machine
was sufficiently sensitive to enable the investigator to
use a soft voice in recording; the investigator could
follow the children from a distance discrete enough to
avoid the impression of pursuit. If, as happened in one
instance, the children reacted to the investigator's
following them, the observation was cancelled and a new
subject selected.

During the pilot study the criteria for commencing
and terminating an observation were established. The order
of observation was determined by a pre-arranged list of
the children's names that varied systematically from day

to day.

59

Data Gathering. Observation of individual children were

 

then made according to their position on the list. If the
child whose name appeared at the top of the list met the

other criteria for observation the sampling commenced.

Requirements for Observation. A child whose name appeared
at the top had to meet the following criteria before the
sample could be taken: (1) He had to join or be joined
by two or more children. If one minute after the child had
been selected for observation he or she did not attempt to,
or was not joined by other children for play, the investiga—
tor put an "S" for solitary or "U" for unoccupied (which-
ever applied), beside his or her name and chose another
subject. (2) The child had to engage in spontaneous (free)
play. At various times during the free play period, the
teacher called children to paint, do woodwork, sew, make
pictures or practice lacing. A child thus engaged would
not be eligible for sampling. If a child did not fulfill
all the requirements for an observation that child was left
and the one next on the list was evaluated for observation.
Selection of a child was always made from the top of the
list with the investigator working down until all samples
were obtained.

By pre-arranging the list of children to be observed
at each session, the investigator ensured that spectacular
behavior on the part of a given child would not be a factor

in the transition from group to group. To further guard

60

against errors of sampling, the free play period was
divided into ten minute intervals so that so far as possible,
each child was seen in his or her group for the first ten
minutes of play time, the second ten and so on to the
seventh ten minutes. The free play usually went from
9:00 - 9:20 and about 9:35 - 10:30 in the mornings. In the
afternoons this session lasted from 12:30 — 12:50 and from
1:05 - 2:00.

Following are the circumstances in which an Observation
was terminated and cancelled. (1) If the child entered
the bathroom. (2) If the child had to leave his or her
group for specialized work with the teacher. (3) If the
child became overtly aware and reacted to the presence of
the Observer. (4) If the child was approached and given
directions by an adult.

With a subject selected, the observer unobtrusively
followed the child to his or her place of play such as
the toy corner. If the child met the criteria for observa-
tion, the investigator recorded the names of the other
children in his or her group and activated the stopwatch
as she spoke into the tape recorder the interactions of the
children. At the end of the sample period, the observation
was terminated.

When all samples for the children in the population
had been taken, the data recorded on tape were transcribed.
The transcription included notation of the activities in

which the child was engaged and the duration of such

61

activities, a recording of the nature of the interaction,
and things the child said as he or she played were noted.
A notation was also made of the number and names of the
children in each group observed.

A sample transcription is included in Appendix A.

After all the samples had been transcribed, the
transcriptions were coded. A list of the categories
formulated for group interactions is presented in Table
3.1 and the form used in coding is contained in Table 3.2.
The first section of Table 3.2 records information
concerning the means that children use to get into agroup.
The second section contains coding as to how children
incorporate others into their groups, while the third
section contains coding as to the differences that children

demonstrate in their participation in play.

Selection of the Observational Method. The observational

 

method was chosen for this study because it was expected

that this method would yield information not as readily
accessible through controlled, laboratory studies. In direct
observational studies, no planned arrangements stand between
the investigator and the target phenomenon. Rowen (1973)
made the foregoing suggestion along with the fact that
recording of data should follow the observation closely.l
Rowen's method of observational research was employed as

a basis upon which the methodology was develOped for the
current study. Additional information on and support for

the use of observational studies came from other writers.

62

.moaon

vocwnmmc nuns anonw m an

conuconuw oxomm
wnunnommm

hufiamanna

anonw o cw mam:
on no non mxmm
wafimfiwz

goofinsm < u
m>nnmnoaooo

en cocoon
now buxom
nowfincm < n
o>numnoaooo

uufiamsuae

mo wcwamom can nocmma w

sunk anonw m on
no owned a
wannmnm

nouumnnspm no

wanwaoamp

runs send u
o>finmnonooo

conucmuuo

mxmmm noofiASm m gowns
an hnn>nuom coaaoo w
caponm wmnwnmwno hammoog u

wannnommm

0>Humnoomm<

Hannouoa no nouumanomcn
now coxmo on no oxmm
nomhnsm m mnos3 connmn

Incowno cocoa an wcnhmam I

wcnaams

m>numnoomm<

huHHmSuDE mo mafiamom
m nun: hun>nnom :05300 a
masons ponacmwno hammooq n

wannmnm

o>finmnoomm<

Mum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Ammov wanunommm o>numnmaooo Amy
.Asov wsnanms manuwnsaooo Any
.Amuv wnwnmsm o>numnwoooo on
.Amm<v wcnunommc o>nuonoomn< Amy
.A£<V wcfioaoa w>nnmfioomm< Aqv
.Arw<v manners manuanaoaw< Amv
.Aaoo sans saroonso Ame
.Admv send suspense any

.Aumv mononu an conumononunwm .HHH
.AUV Anamnmnama now unmaomn m.nmvnmu=o no waancmnu Aqv
.A<v nounmuso cm on mHon m wcncwnmm< Amv
.Amv anon» can mo mmou no monuw>nuom can mmo wcnsoSm va
.Auv unnumow an no naamnnm> wnnaamo Any

.AOHV masono cw mnmsuo wcnumnoonoucH now monouanooa no momma .HH
.Anav mavenno nonno no kau wnnhmaomna Acv
.AGHV ozonw m snow on mnmnuo wcnun>cH Amv
.Aoov mnmnsma aaonw mo monun>nuoo can no wcnucmaaoo Aev
.nomv asonw m such an haamano> wanumocomm Amv
.AEHV anonm m :« concawso nmsuo mo cannonwaH ANV
.Awnv huanmm no :uwamnum mo nonumnumcoawa AHV

.Aucv asono m OucH wcnuumo mo mononcnome no menu: .H

 

 

 

wcowuomnounH acono nmmm now wonnowmumo
a.m manna

 

63

muomnnsw mo muwucmcw Humanoo

On com: mamcocsomms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.om
sands .n
so o no son msownsnm .o
moo m EH Hnwu fiaoncmao .m
mwo < s< nor ineoeewe .e
sea 6 so has ends .m
mm< u on anno mmom .N
ea m me nor dense .n
Aomv masono an AOHV mnosno Auov muono New «mmamz
wcnumcnonunmm wanumnoanoocH OncH wcnunmo
Enom manpoo

N.m mHan

 

64

Isaacs (1930) in studying the intellectual growth of
young children, obtained the data through an observational
study of the children's spontaneous play. Isaacs wrote
that watching the spontaneous cognitive behavior of a
group of children, under conditions designed to further
free inquiry and free discussion, may reveal facts which
would scarcely yield to the direct assault of tests or
experimentation.2 The present investigator developed
questions to explore the nature of the social interactions
of preschool boys and girls engaged in spontaneous play.
Mussen (1960) cited Goodenough (1928), Thomas (1929,1933)
and Arrington (1939), as supporting the use of observational
studies for the purpose of establishing norms. Mussen
stated: "Norms based on direct observations of spontaneous
behavior may have greater validity than those established

by tests or other interference techniques".3

Summary of Design and Methodology. This observational

 

investigation consisted of recording the behavior of child-
ren during selected time periods, and analyzing the data
Obtained. The data were classified so that conclusions

could be drawn.

Data-Gathering Instrument. The instrument used to collect
the data was a Sony portable tape recorder. The suitability
of this instrument was explained in the section entitled
"Pilot Study". The transcription sheet (see Appendix A)

on which was recorded at the beginning of each observation

65

the name of the child being observed, the names of other
children in the group, and the date and time of sampling,
was a supplementary data gathering instrument. At the

end of each day's observations, the data recorded on the
tape recorder were transcribed to complete on the transcrip-

tion sheet.

Classification and Scoring of the Data. An observational

 

study which plans to use data for interpretive conclusions
must be aware of those limitations of reliability and
validity inherent in the procedures employed in the data
gathering, data classifying, and data treatment. The
experienced, qualified Observer methodology of data
gathering is an established technique in child develOpment
research. The technique is the basic tool for much of
the research cited in Chapter II of this dissertation. The
experience gained by the research-observer during the
pilot study, her professional experience in the development
field, and her extensive training in early childhood
education were enough to establish her as a reliable
observer.

For the present research, some categories were formulat-
ed and others were adopted from previous investigations to
classify the interaction of the preschool children in
spontaneous (free) play. The pilot study was used as
a means of establishing these categories as valid representa-

tions of the behavior of these four and five year old

66

children as well as the professional credibility of the
authors in human growth and development who originally
employed the categories in observational research. These

categories were:

I Techniques (means) used for gaining
entrance to a group (GG) recorded in

Table 3.1.

II Strategies (techniques) used to incorporate
other children into existing groups (IO)

recorded in Table 3.1.

III Differences in the way children participated

in group (PG) shown in Table 3.1.

The strategies or means used for group interaction were
coded (see Table 3.1. For example De = "Demonstration of
strength or agility"; C = "Calling verbally or by gesture";
Ash = "Associative sharing"). These codes were inserted
appropriately in the interaction column on each child's

transcription form (see Appendix A).

On completion of the coding, all samples were scored
so that the data could be analyzed. The raw data were
converted to abbreviations and these were assigned arbitrary

numerical quantities so that the statistical analysis could

67

be undertaken. Following is the description of the scores

based on the research question and the play categories used:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Means of Getting into group (GG)

Demonstration of strength or agility (De).
Imitation of other children in group (Im).

Request verbally (Re).

Commenting on the activities of group members (Co).
Appointing oneself as a group member (Ap).

Inviting others to form a group (In).

Displaying the toys or other objects (Di).

Incorporating others into group (IO)
Calling verbally or by gesture (C).
Showing off activities (S).
Assigning a role to an outsider (A).

Granting outsider's request for entry (G).

Differences in participation (PG)
Solitary play (Sp).

Onlooker Play (Op).

Associative sharing (Ash).
Associative helping (Ah)
Associative asserting (Aas).
Cooperative sharing (Cs).
Cooperative helping (Ch).

Cooperative asserting (Cas).

68

Sp 1, Op = 2, Ash = 3, Ah = 4, Aas = 5, Cs = 6,
Ch = 7, Cas = 8.
The data were collected over a five week period.
There were forty hours of time sampling of childrens'
interactions in spontaneous play situations. The procedures
for the data analysis included the selection of appropriate
information from the information sheets so that the re-

search questions could be tested. The information was

converted to percentage data for the analysis.

Summary

In this chapter, the research design, the setting,
population and methodology were described. The objectives
and results of the pilot study were specified. The study
included 30 children ages four and five, from a cooperative
preschool in Michigan. Timed observations of the children
engaged in spontaneous play were undertaken to obtain
evidence on the differences in the social interactions of
preschool boys and girls. A systematic method was used to
gather the data. These data organized into meaningful
units and used to test the three research questions. In

Chapter IV which follows, the research analysis is presented.

REFERENCES

CHAPTER III

Rowen, B., The Children We See, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, 1973. pp.*1-30.

 

Isaacs, 8., Intellectual Growth in Young Children,
New York: Schocken Books, 1930. p. 6.

Mussen, P., Handbook of Research Methods in Child
Development, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960.
p. 78.

 

 

69

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In this chapter the results obtained for each
research question are presented. Where necessary, additional
discussion of the methodology used in analyzing the data
is included.

The Chi-Square Test for homogeneity was appropriate
for this study since the data were categorical and nominal.
The independent variable of sex was cross tabulated with
three dependent variables: Means or strategy of getting
into a group (GG), Means or technique of cooperating with
others in a group (IO) and difference in participation
(PG). The complete data are indicated in Tables 1-4. The
researcher decided from the outset of the study that if in
the samples a difference was found which exceeded the
alpha level of .05, this would be interpreted as a signifi-
cant difference. The level of significance (or p value)
for statistical tests was arbitrarily set at .05 because:
(1) only 30 subjects were tested in the research project:
(2) there were 3 tests and by using the .05 level, the
research would be better able to control the error rate.
This seemed reasonable since the error rate would be just

15%.

7O

71

Research Questions

 

Question One

 

Is there a difference between the way that boys find
a means to get into a group and the way that girls find a

way to get into a group?

There were seven categories or means of getting into

a group:

1. Demonstration of strength or agility (De).

2. Imitation of other children (Im).

3. Requesting verbally to join a group (Re).

4. Commenting on the activities of group members (Co).
5. Appointing self as group member (Ap).

6. Inviting others to form a group (In).

7. Displaying toys or other objects (Di).

From the results of the Chi-Square Test for
homogeneity the Raw Chi-Square: x2 = 4.487 with six
degrees of freedom was obtained. No significant difference
was found at the level of significance of .05. To reach
significance a x2 of .6110 was needed. This suggests
that there is little if any difference between the ways
boys find means or strategies to get into a group and the
ways that girls find strategies to get into a group.

Of the thirty subjects sampled, 15 were boys and
15 were girls. The 210 observations were equally divided

among the subjects, each subject being observed seven times.

72

Therefore there were 105 "boy observations" (hereafter
referred to as "boys"), and 105 "girl observations" (here-
after referred to as "girls"). The data in Table 4.1
indicate that 11 or 10.5% of the "boys" showed the use of
"Demonstration of strength or agility" to gain entrance to
a group. Of the 105 "girls" sampled, 7 or 6.7% used
"Demonstration of strength or agility" as a technique of
getting into a group. Of the total number of subjects that
used this means, 61.1% were "boys" and 38% were "girls".

From the 210 observations made there was a yield of
8.6% for the use of this method. Of this percentage 5.2%
were "boys" and 3.3% were "girls".

Boys most frequently used "Appointing of the self as
group members" as a strategy of gaining entrance to a group.
Of the 105 observations which covered seven means of group
entrance, "boys" used "Appointing of the self as group
member" 29 times or 25.7% of the observations on this
variable. "Displaying of toys and other objects" was the
method least used by boys to gain entrance to a group. Only
7.6% of the "boys" used "Displaying of toys and other objects"
as a means of getting into a group.

As with boys, the girls used "Displaying of toys and
other objects" least as a method of group entrance. Only
3.8% of the total number of observations of "girls" showed
a use of this technique. On the other hand, the means most

frequently used by girls to get into a group was "Imitation

onne.o u moz<oHnnonm .soemdne no assumes e emnme.e u mr<=om nro 3am

 

 

73

 

 

 

 

0.00H 5.0 ¢.~H n.0N «.mfi 5.0a 0N 0.0 A<HOH
0.0~N Na 0N an 0N mm N0 0H ZZDAOU
m.H 5.0 <.H~ 5.0 0.0 0.HH m.m HNUOH
m.mm 0 .mm ~.5< N.0¢ m.¢m n.0m 0.0m N G83HOU N de0
0.00 0.0 m.m~ 0.NN ¢.- a.m“ w.m~ 5.0 N 30m
00H 0 «a «N Na 0H mm 5 mcowum>nwm00
m.m 5.0 0.N~ 5.0 0.5 a.m N.m N HmuOH
5.00 N.0¢ 0.Nm w.mm 5.00 0.00 ~.~0 N GEDHOU H >00
0.00 0.5 0.- 5.0m m.m~ N.mH N.0H m.0~ N 30m
mou 0 Na 5N 0a 0a 5g Ha mGOHum>nmm£0
5 5 0 m c m N H
A<HOH mz<m2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ouonu m oncn wannuwo mo mama:
~.e OHQMH

 

74
of others". The data presented in Table 4.1 indicate that
25% of the "girls" (each observation of a girl is counted
as one unit, hence there were 105) or 23.8% used "Imitation
of others" to gain entrance to a group.

The data in Table 4.1 indicate a negative answer to
sub questions (a) and (b) of Research Question One (see
Chapter I). No difference was found between boys and girls
in their use of props to get into a group. Although
girls tended to use verbal request more frequently than
boys, the difference between the kinds of utterances that
helped boys gain entrance to a group and the kinds that helped
girls was not significant.

The graph in Figure 4.1 shows, in addition to
substantiating the foregoing, that boys and girls used a
similar pattern of means to enter a group. The strategy
least used by boys and girls was "Displaying toys and
other objects". This yielded a total of 5.7% of the 210
Observations. The means most frequently used by boys and
girls together was "Appointing the self as group members"
which totalled 24.3% of the 210 observations, 12.9% being
for boys and 11.4% being for girls. The difference between
the boys' use of "Commenting on the activities of group
members" as a means of getting into a group and the girls'
use of this method was 1%. Boys used "Commenting on
activities of group members" for 6.7% if the total observa-

tions and girls used this technique for 5.7%.

75

Means of Getting into a Group

 

 

13
12
11
10

Percentage

 

De Im

 

Re

Co Ap

 

17 _ Means

In Di

 

Boys

Girls

Figure 4.1

76

Question Two

 

Is there a difference between the way that boys
incorporate other children into existing groups and the

way girls incorporate other children into existing groups?

In order to organize the data relevant to this
question, four categories were formulated by which a

subject could make another a member of a group:

1. Calling verbally or by gesture (C).

2. Showing off the activities or toys of the group (S).
3. Assigning a role to an outsider (A).

4. Granting to an outsider his request for membership

in the group (G).

The tabled or Raw Chi-Square with three degrees of
freedom obtained at an alpha level of .05 was 2.755
testing for homogeneity. No significance was found at
the level of .05. To reach significance a x2 of .5995 was
needed. This suggests that there is no overall difference
between the way that boys incorporate other children
into existing groups and the way that girls incorporate
others into existing groups.

The data presented in Table 4.2 indicate that of
the 104 "boys" 22 or 21.1% of them used "Granting to out-
siders their request for group entry" as a means of
incorporating others into an existing group. Among the

"girls" there were 24 or 23.1% who used this method to

77

mamm.o u moz<o~nnzonm
soesssu so sssnmse m runs wemmn.~ n mm<=0m Hmo 3am

 

 

 

 

 

 

00H H.NN H.m~ o.m~ a.mm A<HOH
mom cc we 00 «m 220400
m.~H o.m~ m.¢~ 0.0g N Hmuoa
N.Nm n.0m n.~m 5.00 N cabaoo
0.0m a.mN 0.0m w.o~ ~.~N N 30m
cod «N NN an Nu mcowum>nmmno .N AMHQ
0.0a ~.oH a.mfi «.mfi N Hmuoa
w.5¢ w.m< m.wq m.mm N canaoo
0.0n H.- ~.o~ ¢.5N 0.0m N 36m
«an NN LN mm mm mnowum>nmmno .~ won
q e m N H
A<HOH mz<mz
30M 0 < m o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moono ouaH wnmsuo wcnumnoonooaH
N.¢ wanna

 

78

bring other children into a group. Of the total number of
subjects that used this technique to incorporate other
children into a group, 10.6% were "boys" and 11.5% were
"girls". It is indicated in the data presented in Table
4.2 that the means least frequently used by boys to bring
in new group members was assigning of a role. Of all the
"boys” 21 or 20.2% used this strategy. The yield from all
observations was therefore 10.1%.

The means most frequently used by boys to bring other
children into their groups was "Calling verbally or by
gesture". Of the 104 units which used four strategies to
incorporate other children into an existing group "boys"
used "Calling verbally or by gesture" 32 times or for 30.8%
of the observation on this variable. "Assigning of a role
to an outsider" was the means least used by boys to bring
other children into a group. Of the 104 "boys" 20% used
this technique to gain new group members.

Unlike boys, the method used least by girls to in-
corporate other children into existing groups was "Calling
verbally or by gesture”. Of the 104 observations on the
girls the data showed a use of 21.0% for this strategy. The
means that girls used most frequently was "Showing off the
activities or toys of the group". Of the 104 "girls" 31
or 29.8% used this means. There was a yield of 14.9% for)

girls using "Showing off the activities and toys of the

79

group" from the total 208 observations, i.e. (104 "boys"
and 104 "girls").

As is indicated in the data in Table 4.2 there was
a difference in the frequency of language that boys used to
incorporate children in the groups and the frequency of
language that girls used to incorporate children in their
groups. But the approximately 10% difference (30.8% -
21.1%) does not reach the level of significance. The data
indicate no difference in answer to the question (b) on
the diffrence between the kinds of utterances that help
boys gain entrance to a group and the kinds of utterances
that help girls.

The graph presented in Figure 4.2 shows the pattern
of the strategies used by both boys and girls to incorporate
other children into existing groups. The means most
frequently used by boys was "Calling verbally or by gesture"
but it was the technique least frequently used by girls.
In both groups there was a more frequent use of "Showing
off the activities and toys of the group" than there was
of "Assigning roles to an outsider" and boys used both means
less frequently than girls did. For girls, "Granting an
outsider's request for group entry" was used less frequently
than "Assigning of roles to an outsider" while for boys the
reverse is true. However, boys used "Granting an outsider's
request for group entry" and "Assigning of roles to an
outsider" less frequently than girls used these two means

to incorporate others in a group.

Incorporating Other Children into Group

80

 

16.
15.
14
13
12
ll.
10

crews»

Percentages

TB

 

1

(G

 

Means

 

 

 

 

w
ll

0
ll

Figure 4.2

81

The graph shows that the difference between the
strategy used most frequently by girls, "Showing off
activities and toys of the group" and the means used least
frequently, "Calling verbally or by gesture" to incorporate
new group members was 9%. The difference between the means
most frequently used by boys, "Calling verbally or by
gesture", and the technique least frequently used,"Assigning
a role to an outsider" was 11%. This is an example of
the similarity in the patterns of means used by both sexes.

Question Three

 

Is there a difference between the way that boys parti-
cipate in group activities and the way that girls participate
in group activities?

Eight means of group participation were categorized:

Solitary play (Sp).

Onlooker play (Op).

Associative sharing (Ash).

Associative helping (Ah).

Associative asserting (Aas).
Cooperative sharing (Csh).

Cooperative helping (ch).

”\IO‘U'I-bWNH
O

Cooperative asserting (Cas).

The subjects did not use the first two strategies.

From the results of the Chi-Square Test for homogeneity
was obtained the following value: Raw Chi-Square is equal
to 12.708 with five degrees of freedom. The observed x2 of
Loop; exceeded the tabled x2. At the level of .05,

significance was found, suggesting a difference between

the way that boys participate in groups and the way that

82
girls participate in groups.

The data presented in Table 4.3 indicate that 21%
of the "boys" used "Associative sharing" as a means of
group participation while only 12.4% of the "girls" did.
From the total 210 subjects sampled only 10.5% were boys
using "Associative sharing" and 6.2% were girls who did.

For boys the technique of participation most fre—
quently used was "Cooperative asserting". Of the 105
”boys" 32 or 30.5% used this means of group participation.
Of the 210 units observed in group participation, 15.2%
was the yield for "boys". The strategy of participating
in groups that boys used least frequently was "Associative
asserting". Only 3 or 2.9% of the "boys" used this means.
The data presented in Table 4.3 indicate that of the total
(210) observations on group participation there was only
2.4% of "boys" who used "Associative asserting" as their
means of participation.

Similarly for girls the means of participating in
groups that was least frequently used was "Associative
asserting". Eight or 7.6% of the "girls" participated
in their groups through this strategy. From the total
observations of boys and girls, the data presented in Table
4.3 indicate a 3.8% use of "Associative asserting" by
"girls" as they incorporated other children into their
groups. On the other hand, the means of participation

that girls used most frequently was "Cooperative helping".

83

m0N0.0 l moz<0HmquHm

.aocomnw mo moonwov m nuns muwo~.mn n mm<DOm Hmo 3<M

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.oon m.e~ a.n~ a.mm ~.m a.m n.en dance
onu an we we en an an zzssoo
a.m e.~n e.nn a.m n.s ~.e N nsuon
a.mm m.nm c.om n.~n a.mn n.nm N seanoo ~ send
o.om o.sn m.a~ a.- s.n m.m~ a.mn N roe
men on on an m an an ssonss>sssso
~.mn o.s e.nn «.2 a.m m.on N nsson
m.ne a.ma o.om m.n~ m.e~ s.~e N sssnoo 2 nos
o.em n.om H.wn a.mu a.m m.a o.n~ N 3am
won an an an m m «N ssonssssssso
e s n e m e m
awwmn see so rso ssa s< rsa mzsmz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:oHumanowunmm an mocmnmmmno

m.e snssn

 

84
From the 210 "girls" 26 or 24.8% used this technique as
they participated in group play. This figure represented
57.8% of the subjects who used this means of group partici—
pation.

Further analysis of the data in Table 4.3 shows a
marked similarity between boys and girls in their strategy
of group participation. Both boys and girls used "Coopera—
tive sharing" with equal frequency. There was 24 or 22.9%
of "boys" and the same number of "girls" who used this means
as they participated in their groups. Of the total number
of Observations, both "boys" and "girls" displayed an 11.4%
usage of "Cooperative sharing" as a means of group participa-
tion. These results provide an answer to the question on the
difference in the frequency of assertiveness used by boys
and the frequency of assertiveness used by girls. There is
no difference in the frequency of sharing demonstrated by
boys and the frequency of sharing demonstrated by girls.

The two categories used to measure the sharing dimension
in the play of boys and girls were "Associative sharing"
and "Cooperative sharing".

But this is the only similarity demonstrated by boys
and girls in their group participation. The data presented
in Table 4.3 provides the answer to sub question (a) of
Research Question Three. Two categories were combined to
constitute the assertiveness of the subjects. These
categories were "Associative asserting" and "Cooperative

asserting". In their group participation, three boys (2.9%)

85

used "Associative asserting". This figure represented
27.3% of the total subjects who used this means of group
participation. The remaining 72.7% was for girls in as
much as "Associative asserting" was the strategy least
frequently used by these "girls" in group participation.
The girls still used this means much more frequently than
the boys did. The data indicate that there is a difference
in the frequency of assertiveness used by boys and the
frequency of assertiveness used by girls. As mentioned
previously, the technique of group participation most
frequently used by boys was "Cooperative asserting". Of the
total subjects who used this means 61.5% were boys. Girls
were the remaining 38.5%. Only 20 or 19.0% of all the
"girls" used this technique of group participation. Of

the 210 observations 9.5% were "girls" using "Cooperative
asserting".

The graph presented in Figure 4.3 shows the pattern
used by boys and girls during their group participation.
The means of participation most frequently used by boys
was "Cooperative asserting" but this strategy ranked third
for girls. The means most frequently used by girls was
"Cooperative sharing" which ranked fourth on the list of
techniques used by boys in group participation. Both boys
and girls used "Associative sharing" more frequently than
they did "Associative asserting", "Associative helping" and

"Associative sharing". But boys used "Associative sharing"

86

Differences in Participation

 

 

16.
15
14
13
12
1L

IQ

Percentages

 

 

1H3

 

:6 “G

 

 

Means

I g 0 L 1 A 1

Ash Ah Aas Csh Ch Cas

 

G = Girls

B = Boys

Figure 4.3

87

more frequently than girls did.

In girls' play, there was a more even distribution
of the strategies of group participation than there was in
boys' play. The graph in Figure 4.3 shows that the highest
percentage for girls was 12.4% and the lowest was 3.8%.
The highest percentage for boys was 15.2% and the lowest
was 1.4%. There was a significant difference in the way

that boys participated in groups and the way that girls did.

Summary of Results

 

Two of the Research Questions received a sign of
no difference. Although in the use of strategies for in-
corporating others into a group, a difference was found
between boys and girls, no significance was reached. On
the other hand, the question on participation in groups
received a sign in the affirmative. In one minor instance,
no difference was found between the two groups but this
could not maintain significance on comparison with six
other techniques. There was an overall difference between
the two groups. In general, preschool boys and girls were
found to be similar in: (l) the way they find a means to
get into a group, and (2) the way they incorporate other
children into existing groups. Preschool boys and girls
were found to be different in the way they participate in
play groups. The data in Table 4.4 offer a summary of

the results.

88

 

 

 

 

 

mocmonmncmwm mo Hm>ma mo. no nGMOfimwcmnm mw «x a
«memo. m mou.~n dsono an sonusdnonunss
mmmm. m mmb.~ mnmsno manumnomnoocH
oaam. m 5m¢.¢ masonu
oncw manunww mo memos
cocoonmncmnm Eocmmnm mo mmmnmma «x

 

 

 

 

¢.v OHQME

mmxmm man an annocmmoeom now puma wnmnomunno

 

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this section, the conclusions and generalizations
of the study are discussed and recommendations for further
research are given. The subject of this dissertation was
young children's spontaneous play with their peers. In an
effort to determine the degree of difference in the social
interactions of preschool bovs and girls, the freeplay
activities of four and five year old children in a private
cooperative nursery school in East Lansing, Michigan were
studied. Analvsis of the results revealed, in some respects,
a lack of significant difference between the interactions
of boys and girls on two factors of interest: (1) means
of getting into a group; (2) means of incorporating others
in a group. A significant difference between boys and
girls was found on one factor: the way that boys and girls

participated in groups.

Discussion of Findings

 

The results of this research were in general accord
with the findings of some previous studies on the sociabilitv
of preschoolers. Wenar (1971) suggested that the preschooler
demonstrates a proliferation of social behavior.1 Wenar

further stated that they are attracted to qualities which

89

90

facilitate interaction: cooperativeness, respect for
property and compliance. Finally, and most important,
sociability depends on the capacity for giving to another
child, whether it be tangible things or helpful services.2
The children in this investigation engaged in meaningful
social interactions which showed an enjoyment of COOperative
play. Their freeplay was marked by the children's interest
in incorporating other boys and girls into existing groups.
Piaget (1962) found this to be true and stated that the
child (preschooler) is less egocentric and more sociable.3
In elaboration of Piaget's view, Almy (1967) indicated that
girls and boys learn more from their peers whose views are
somewhat closer to their own, than from adults, who...may
be expected to be more logical.4 It was also found in this
investigation that boys and girls imitate adult activities.
Tanner (1978) found that both boys and girls of preschool
age imitate such matter-of-fact actions as going to the
store and family life.5

In more specific areas of interest, this investiga-
tion was in accord with previous findings. Wenar (1971)
stated that the preschooler used various means to become a
member of a group. Among these were demonstration of
strength or agility and imitation of another child. Accord-
ing to Wenar, imitation can be the initial step in becoming
a group member.6 Sutton-Smith (1971) gave an extension

of Wenar's view, referring to the way that children smile,

91
giggle and make an exaggerated gesture. They use mainly
ludic techniques (a mock attack or a stunt) to get into
each other's play territory.7 The foregoing commentaries
support the findings which Parten made years before in
the course of her extensive study of preschoolers' play.
Parten (1932) noted six different techniques used by both
boys and girls to gain entrance into a play group.8 The
present research employed Parten's techniques as categories
for observation. The children in this study used only the
techniques developed by Parten to gain entrance to a group.
The present Observational research discovered no other
techniques employed by the children to gain entrance to a
group.

Parten (1932) reported from her investigation (and
Sutton-Smith, 1971 agreed) that there was no difference
between boys and girls in the techniques used to gain
entrance to a play group. She stated that preschoolers
usually played in groups of three or four or five.9 The
present research obtained results which offered evidence
that there was little difference between the way that boys
find a means to get into a group and the way that girls find
a means to gain entrance to a play group.

The data from the present investigation offered
evidence that the strategies used by boys and girls to in-
corporate others into play groups do not differ. Erikson

(1972) made insightful observations of children's play in

92

which there is a need for companions.10

Several authors
attested to the similarity of social collaboration in the
play of preschoolers. Along with Piaget, Millar and Almy,
Arnaud (1971) seemed to feel that boys demonstrated in
the same way as girls, their need for peer relationships
in spontaneous play.11 There were no discrepancies between
previous research and the present investigation, on the
matter of the similarity in the means used by boys to in-
corporate other children into groups and the strategies
employed by girls to incorporate others into groups.
However, the present study did not concur with all
the findings of previous investigators on the way that boys
and girls participated in play groups. Wenar (1971) seemed
to feel that preschool boys and girls alike were sharing

12 And the

and cooperative in their play with peers.
classic extensive study of Parten seemed to suggest that
preschool boys were the same as girls in their use of the
techniques of group participation in freeplay (see Table
4.3). In all but one of the categories classified for
social participation, the present investigation was at
variance with previous research, in that no difference was
found between boys and girls in their use of "Cooperative
sharing" as a technique of participating in group play.

In general, however, the data did afford evidence that
there is a difference between the way that boys participate

in group activities and the way that girls participate in

group activities.

93

Implications for Program Development
and Research

 

The findings of this investigation have programatic
as well as educational implications. First, the time
allotted each day for spontaneous unhindered peer inter-
action in play is noteworthy. The teachers were always
available to assist the children but the latter were
granted the privilege to create and solve their own problems;
they had the opportunity to explore, discover, fail and
succeed; they could develop peer relationships. Perhaps
the similarities and differences found in the social inter-
actions of these children were due largely to the amount
of time they were permitted to engage in freeplay.

Secondly, parents of both sexes assisted the class
teacher. This has implications for the staffing of nursery
schools. Neither the teacher nor her assistants imposed
any pressures on the children to engage in "typically sex-
appropriate activities" or to use any toys labelled male
or female. An abundance of toys and equipment were pro-
vided and the staff was supportive of each child's choice
of these and of playmates. A boy was as free to play
nurse or stenographer as a girl was to play race-car
driver or road builder. Perhaps the teacher and parents
were more aware of sex role expectations, and were particu-
larly careful especially with an educated group such as

East Lansing.

94

The present investigator knows nothing of the
kinds of sex typing if any that went on in the homes of
the preschoolers who were studied. To collect such
information was beyond the scope of this observational
study. It may be assumed that due to the nature of a
cooperative nursery, the program of this nursery school
is in general philosophical agreement with the views of

the parents regarding sex role typing.

In addition to the implications for program develop-
ment, this investigation has implications for further
study into the play of preschool children. Naturally,
this research generates a need for replication. A
similar setting must be available in another community

where the sample could be drawn from middle class children.

This study derived its data from observation of
the indoor freeplay of preschool boys and girls. It may
be beneficial to study outdoor freeplay of a similar
population. This could provide an examination of teachers'
attitudes towards and provisions for the outdoor spontaneous
play of the children. An assessment could be made of how
these influence or affect the social interactions of the
children. For certain elements may enter into outdoor

play which do not exist in indoor play.

95
General Conclusions on Sex Differences

This observational study and previous research have
indicated that one of the variables affecting the play
behavior of preschool children is sex. In many societies
of the western world differences in the play of boys and
girls are not just expected but actively encouraged.
Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) state that parents are likely
to buy sex-typed toys for their children (for example dolls
or cookstoves for girls and trucks or electric trains for
boys) and that these toys can have a long term effect on

the sex-typing of the children.13

But a great deal of the
literature reviewed indicated that boys and girls are
similar in their social interactions. The present research
discerned sex differences in the play interactions of pre-
school boys and girls. Many four and five year Old boys
engaged in romping activities and many of their female

peers tended to play house as a great deal of the literature
suggested. But no global statement can be made concerning
sex differences. In some instances in this research pre-
school boys and girls demonstrated no significant difference
in their social interactions while in other instances a
significant difference was observed in the play of these
boys and girls. Perhaps the methodology and instrument

employed were not sophisticated enough to discern fully

sex differences in the play of boys and girls.

96

Getting into groups is the beginning of certain
types of activities like cooperation and sharing. The
children in the present study displayed cooperative
behavior as they joined their efforts to reach mutually
desirable goals. Such a finding concurred with the
views of several writers who made mention of the pre-
schooler's love for and demonstration of cooperation,
social collaboration, sharing and caring in group play.
Only one of the children studied engaged in solitary play
for one and a half minutes of her 70 minutes of observa—
tion time, and the same child engaged in onlooker play
for one minute of the 70 minutes of observation time. As
the children in the present study played, they demonstrated
their development in the use of socialized speech. They
used social speech, in accord with the literature reviewed,
to solve problems, share experiences, direct activities
and make requests. An interesting example of a request
was one girl's question "B, can I be your wife and cook
dinner and have a baby?" The child's social speech was
not without some aggression. Most of the verbal aggression
was demonstrated by girls, as some authorities purported.
But contrary to the literature, the few demonstrations
of physical aggression observed in the present study were

made by more girls than boys.

97

A detailed analysis of what children say in their
play groups and how this affects their interaction would be
valuable. The present investigation measured the frequency
with which boys and girls used language for a specific
purpose and the differences between the kinds of utterances
that help boys gain entrance to a group and the kinds that
help girls. It was observed in the pilot study as well as
the research that speech itself as Cazden (1972) purported,
can define a situation and change it for the participants -
as when during dramatic play a child says "You be the
Mommy".l4

Finally, this investigation examined the play of
children who attended preschool at two different periods of
the day - morning and afternoon. A study should be conduct-
ed comparing the freeplay social interactions of boys and
girls who attend nursery school in the mornings and the
interactions in spontaneous play groups of boys and girls
who attend school in the afternoons. This could have

implications for nursery school programs.

Final Observations

 

This observational research was designed to examine
the social interactions of thirty preschoolers in relation
to the independent variable of sex. In Chapter I the
objectives of the study were outlined, the Specific interest

being to discern differences that may exist between the

98

behaviors of four and five year old boys and girls in a
free (spontaneous) play setting. The literature cited in
Chapter I attested that there is a need for intensive
study of children's freeplay as it relates to their social
and emotional development. This investigator could not
glean much from previous research on the peer relationships
of preschoolers.

In Chapter II, literature pertinent to the disserta-
tion was reviewed. The literature suggested that pre-
schoolers have social tendencies; the family, the school
and peer groups sex-type young children in various subtle
and overt ways; in spite of the sex-typing preschool boys
and girls demonstrate no difference in their freeplay
interactions with one another.

The preschools in this study were observed over a
five week period during their spontaneous play sessions in
order that evidence could be gathered concerning the
differences if any in the interactions of boys and the
interactions of girls. The independent variables of in—
terest were (1) getting into groups, (2) incorporating
.other children into groups and (3) participation in groups.
Observational data extracted from the children's verbal
exchanges and physical activities in spontaneous play were
collected, organized and analyzed for the purpose of dis-
cerning possible sex differences in the social interactions

of preschool boys and girls. Within the scope of this

99

investigation certain conclusions seem justifiable.

I. There is little if any difference between the ways
that boys find strategies to get into a group and the way
that girls find means to get into a group. Of the thirty
subjects sampled, fifteen were boys and fifteen were girls.
The data revealed that boys used some techniques more fre-
quently than girls (for example "Appointing themselves as
group members") and girls employed some strategies more
frequently than boys (for example "Requesting verbally")
to gain entrance to a group. But the difference as indicated

by the Chi-Square Test with an alpha level of .05 was not

 

significant.

II. There is not much difference in the way that boys add
new members to their groups and the way that girls incorporate
others into group membership.

The children used four strategies to get non-members
to join groups. The difference in the frequency with which
boys employed some means to incorporate new group members
and the frequency with which girls used these techniques was
not statistically significant. For example, the greatest
difference was in the use of "Calling verbally or by gesture"
as a means of gaining new group members. Boys yielded a
usage of 15.4% and girls demonstrated a usage of 10.6%. The
findings of the present research in this and the preceding
area of interest concurred with previous investigations on

children's play.

 

100
III. Preschool boys and girls participate in somewhat
different ways in play groups. The data revealed that
boys and girls used "Cooperative sharing" (one of the
techniques categorized in this research for group parti-
cipation) with the same frequency. But the difference
in the frequency with which the boys and girls employed
the other five strategies categorized for participation
in group play was statistically significant. Such a
finding was at variance with the findings of a few
previous investigations. It is critical to note that
the present research set out to determine these differences
in the frequency of technique usage, while such evidence
was uncovered incidentally in the earlier studies.

This investigator agrees with those writers who
report that spontaneous play settings allow greater
freedom for the young child to express true preferences
of toys and play partners than do laboratory or "test-

like" settings.

 

10.
11.

12.
13.

14.

REFERENCES
CHAPTER V

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 28.

 

Ibid. p. 223.

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation, p. 82.

 

Almy, M., Young Children's Thinking, p. 260.

 

Gibson, J., Growing Up, p. 302.

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 281.

 

Sutton-Smith, B., Child's Play, p. 104.

 

Parten, M., "Social Participation among Preschool
Children", p. 275.

Ibid. p. 281; Sutton-Smith, B., Child's Play, p. 105.

 

Erikson, E., "Play and Actuality", p. 154.

Arnaud, 5., "Introduction: Polish for Play's Tarnished
Reputation", p. 5.

Wenar, C., Personality Development, p. 269.

 

Maccoby, E. and Jacklin, C., The Psychology of Sex
Differences, Stanford, California, 1974, p. 127.

 

 

Cazden, C., Child Language and Education, p. 201.

 

101

T

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTIONS

 

102

 

wsnrnsn n n

Ammoa no mouscna omnnuv mEnn unozm %nm> n >

mmupcns con can mo ago: n z

GOHUN>H0wDO MO mwu—JCHE GUU @HHUEW U m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me
.a: now .hbmn snow sou
OEOU .HH00 %mcmm U
> owsom so: m o>os H H q nmaon> cH
.poom coow snow :0 .E.o
on once .xnso o oohon
> onconm on» on om m.nmu a m annoy EH qn\n
.nopmma
onn onm :05 30 undue mmu .B.m
noon son ssnons < oono
m xmaanmnmz menu onpmmoa H coo a q «Honpmao no o~\m
.5658 on ownmno
u.cOp mwmoaa no snow moo .E.m
.mHmE o moa omnpc known 0 owuoH
o nOuoon n90» 30px no: cap H H q zmnmn oo o~\e
wmnsom mm 5Ho>oH mm anon .E.m
nap: 5B oxma =05 nonnmu nmo omum
coo .Hsmnnpmon zmcmm u ¢~\m
a gmnOanoom xooa so» nmop 5: H m umaon> mm omom who“
conumnsa hww>nno< mxnmawm cOnu [moono mnonuo conuom mamz sumo
039 loono>coo an .02 InmuaH

 

coauonnomcmns manamm

 

 

 

 

103

 

 

 

caonw an mnosno wcnuounan I EH
wannnommm o>nuonomooo I moo
oncunow 50 no haamnnm> wcwaago I o wannozm o>numnoaooo I coo
mmo wGNSOsm I m nopnonao on mHon wgncwamoo I <
nonun>nuom so wannnoaaoo I oo nonawa asonw no «How wannanomao I n<
“mm.
.umnaw on pom pom
ncnsu oxen can +chn3finmm

Hmcnpu osu an magmannm no .a.n

Hanna moan ow m.uou nonnoo m ouuH

o Hoacpa .Hmop m obs; H H m anomwmn EH aH\<

node;

has poop so» on >>H moo .a.n

asses: .nns sseos sssr nnng o cons

a Inseam wanononm now mxcmsh H q wnonno> a< 5\¢

nonnoo sou .E.o

.onss an; osn so espouse m omunn

o wcnhmam .poom onm Ham now a m tampnwawnm oo ma\m

.a.o

msnens n>n rso omumn

xomn .ow noaonna oo oflflss < m\m
a mono; .vaos coo n: no HH< H e Odom o< anon whoa
aonumnsa >uw>nno< nxnmamm connmo oponu mnonuo conuoonOncH maoz mung

639 Ino>aou an .oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conuannomsmne oaosom

 

APPENDIX B

PERMISSION LETTER

PERMISSION LETTER

March 1, 1978

To the Parents of

 

I am doing a study approved by my Advisor, Dr. James
Snoddy, Chairman of the Department of Elementary Education,
Michigan State University. Your child's school has been
randomly selected. This preschool is one of two participat-
ing in the study.

It is a study on children's play with their peers:
how they interact. Your child has been randomly selected
to participate. The only personal information required
concerning your child is the birth date.

I will observe your child for forty two-minute
periods during the free play sessions in the class. I will
record what your child says and does during the observation
period on a tape recorder.

Your child will remain anonymous in the study of 45
children. A report of the study will be available at the
school.

If you have any questions please call me. I will be
most appreciative of your child's participation.

Sincerely yours

Esther Green-Merritt
M.S.U. Doctoral Candidate
Phone: 355-9917

.00... .......... O. ..... I ....... OOOOOOIOOCOOOOOOO ..... O... .....

Please indicate (X) whether you wish your child to

participate, and return on or before

 

My child may participate in the study. His/her

 

birthdate is

 

My child may not participate in this study.

 

Parent's Signature

 

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almy, Millie, "Spontaneous Play: An Avenue for Intellectual
Development", Young Children, XXII (1967).

 

Almy, Millie, Young Children's Thinking: Studies of Some

Aspects of Piaget's Theory. New York: Teachers College
Press, 1967.

Aristotle, C., Aristotle on Education, edited with an intro-
duction by G. Howie, London, Collier-MacMillan, 1968.

Arnaud, Sara, "Introduction for Play's Tarnished Reputation",
Play: The Child Strives Toward Self-realization,
Washington D.C.: National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children, 1971.

Baller, W. R., and Charles, D. C., The Psychology of Human
Growth and Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1968.

 

Bales, Robert, E., Interaction Process Analysis, Cambridge,
Mass: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1950.

Barnes, K. E., "Preschool Play Norms: A Replication",
Developmental Psychology, 1971. 5, 99-103.

Bateson, G., "The Message fThis is Play'" in B. Schaffner,
ed. Group Process, New York: Macy Foundation, 1956.

 

Benjamin, H., "Age and Sex Differences in the Toy Preferences
of Young Children", Ped, Sem and Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 1932, 41, 417-429.

 

 

Borg, W., and Meredith, D., Educational Research, an
Introduction. David McKay Company, Inc., New York,
1971.

 

 

Bower, Eli, M., "Play's the Thing", Today's Education —
NEA Journal, September 1968.

 

105

106

Bridges, K. M., "The Occupational Interests and Attention
of Four Year Old Children", Ped. Sem. and Journal of
Genetic Psychology: 1929, 36. 551-570.

 

Brown, D. G., "Sex-Role Development in a Changing Culture",
Psychological Bulletin, 55, 1958, 232-242.

 

Cazden, C., Child Language and Education, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., New York,’1972.

 

Charlesworth, R., and Hartup,W.W.,"Positive Social Reinforce-
ment in the Nursery School Peer Group", Child Develop-
ment, 1967, 381. 4, 993-1002.

 

Dewey, J., Schools of Tomorrow, E. Dutton and Company, Inc.,
1915.

 

Dunlop, K., Young Children's Play: A Comparison of Fee-
Paying and Non-Fee-paying Enrollees in a Day Care
Center. Doctoral Dissertation, 1974.

 

 

Eckerman, C., "Growth of Social Play with Peers During the
Second Year of Life", Developmental Psychology, 1974,
50, 360-364.

 

Elkin, F., The Child and Society: The Process of Socializa-
tion, York University, Random House, New York, 1960.

 

El'Konin, D., "Symbolics and its Functions in the Play of
Children" in Herron, R.E., and Sutton-Smith, B. eds.
Child's Play, New York: J. Wiley, 1971.

 

Erikson, E., Child and Society, New York: Norton, 1963.

 

Erikson, Erik, H., "Play and Actuality" in Piers, Maria, ed.,
Play and Development, New York: W. W. Norton, 1972.

 

Fitzgerald, H., Strommen, E., and McKinney, J., Developmental
Psychology: The Infant and Young Child, Dorsey Press,
Homewood, Illinois, 1977.

 

Frankel, E., "The Social Relationsips of Nursery School
Children", Sociometry, 1946, 9, 210-225.

 

Freud, A., and Dann, S.,"An Experiment in Group Upbringing",
In R. Eisler et al. eds., The Psycho-analytic Study
of_the Child, Vol. 6, New York International University
Press, 1951.

 

107

Freyberg, J. T., "Increasing the Imaginative Play of
Urban Disadvantaged Preschool Children through
Systematic Training" in J. L. Singer, Ed., The
Child's World of Make-Believe, New York AcadEmic
Press, I973, 129-54.

Fauls, L., and Smith, W. D., "Sex Role Learning of Five-
Year-Olds", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 89,
105-17, 1956.

 

Froebel, F., Education by Development, theySecond Part of

the Pedagogics Of the Kindergarten, D. Appleton and
Company, New York, 1899.

Furth, H., Piaget for Teachers, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

 

Garvey, C., and Hogan, R., "Social Speech and Social
Interaction: Egocentrism Revisited", Child Develop-
ment, 1973, Vol. 44, 562-568.

 

Garvey, C., "Some PrOperties of Social Play", Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 20:163-168, 1974.

 

Garvey, C., Children's Play and Social Speech, National
Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Maryland,
1974. ‘

 

Gesell, A., Infant Development, New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1952.

 

Gibson, J., Growing Up: A Study of Children, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Reading Massachusetts,
1978.

 

Gillespie, P., "Boy Things, Girl Things....",Instructor,
1973.

 

Goodman, M. E., The Culture of Childhood, New York: Teachers
College Press, 1970.

 

Gordon, 1., Human Development, 2nd ed. New York: Harper,
1969.

 

Gordon, 1., "The Beginnings of Self: The Problem of the
Nurturing Environment", in H. W. Bernard and W. C.
Huckins eds., Exploring Human Development, Boston:
Alkin and Bacon, 1972.

 

108

Guskin, A. B., & S. L. Guskin, A Social Psychology of
Education, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley,’I970.

 

 

Hartley, R., "Play, the Essential Ingredient", Childhood
Education, XLVIII, No. 2, Nov.1971, 80-84.

 

 

Hartup, W., "Peer Interaction and Social Organization",
in P. Mussen, ed., Carmichael's Manual of Child
Psychology, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1970.

 

 

Hartup, W. and Zook, E., "Sex-Role Preferences in Three-
and-Four Year -Old Children", Journal of Consultiog
Psychology, 1960, 24, 420-26.

 

 

Herron, R. E., and Sutton-Smith, B., Child's Play, New 5
York: Wiley & Sons, 1971.

 

Howe, F., "Sexual Stereotypes Start Early", Saturday
Review, 56, October 16, 1971, 76-77.

 

Isaacs, 5., Intellectual Growth in Young Children, New York, -
Schocken Books, 1930. *

Isaacs, 8., Social Development in Young Children, New York:
Harcourt Brace, 1937.

Isaacs, S., The Nursery Years, New York: Schocken Books,
1968.

 

Joffe, C., "As the Twig is Bent", Journal of Marriage and
the Family, August 1971.

 

 

King, E. W., & Kerber, A., The Sociology of Early Childhood
Education, New York: American 1968.

 

Kohlberg, L., "A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of
Children's Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes" in
Eleanor Maccoby, ed. The Development of Sex
Differences, Stanford University Press, California,
1966.

 

Lavatelli, C.S., ed. Language Training in Early Childhood
Education, University of Illinois Press, 1971.

 

109

Lavatelli, C. S., and Stendler, F., eds., Readings igChild
Behavior and Development, New York: Harcourt Brace,
Jovanovich, 1972.

 

 

Liebert, R., McCall, R., and Hannpatty, M., "Effects of
Sex-Typed Information on Children's Toy Preferences",
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 119, 1971, 133-136.

 

Levy, B., "Do Schools Sell Girls Short?". Today's Education:
Journal of NBA, December, 1972.

 

 

Lichtenberg, P., and Norton, D., Cognitive and Mental
Development in the First Five Years of Life: A Review
of Recent Research, Washington D. C.: Superintendent
of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

 

 

 

 

Maccoby, E., and Jacklin, C., The Psychology of Sex Differences,
Stanford University Press, California, 1966.

Maccoby, E., The Development of Sex Differences, Stanford
University Press, California, 1966.

 

Maier, H., Three Theories of Child Development, New York:
Harper and Row, 1965.

 

Marshall, H., and McCandless, B., "A Study in Prediction of
Social Behavior of Preschool Children",Child Development,
1957, 28, l49-59(a).

McCandless, B. R., and Marshall, H. R., "A Picture-sociometric
Technique for Preschool Children", Child Development,
1957, 28, 139-49(a).

McCandless, B. R., and Marshall, H. R., "Sex Differences in
Social Acceptance and Participation of Preschool
Children", Child Development, 1957, 28, 421-25(b).

 

McCarthy, D., "Language Development in Children", In A Manual
of Child Psychology, 2nd ed. Edited by L. Carmichael,
New York: John WiIey, 1954.

 

McFarland, M., "The First Year of Life", in Arnaud, Sara,
"Introduction: Polish to Play's Tarnished Reputation"
in Play: The Child Strives Toward Self-Realization,
Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Educa-
tion of Young Children, 1971.

110

Millar, S., The Psychology of Play, Baltimore: Penguin, 1968.

 

Mischel, W., "A Social-Learning View Of Sex Differences in
Behavior" in Eleanor Maccoby ed., The Development
of Sex_Differences, Stanford University Press, California,
1966.

 

Montagu, A., Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin,
New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Murphy, L. B., "Infants' Play and Cognitive Development",
in Maria Piers ed., Play and Development, W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc., New York, 1972.

 

Mussen, P., Handbook of Research Methods in Ehild Develop-
ment, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960.

Mussen, P. H., Conger, J. J. and Kagan,J., Child Development
and Personality, New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

 

Mussen, P. and Eisberg-Berg, N., Roots of Caring, Sharing
and Helping: The Development of Prosocial Behavior
in Children, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1977.

 

Mydral, A., "Opportunities and Dangers for Children's Play
in Today's Efficiency Minded Society", International
Journal of Education, Supplement 1, 1972, 27-32.

 

Newson, J. and Newson, E., Four Year Olds in an Urban
Community, Hamworth, England, Pelican Books, 1968.

 

Parten, M. B., "Social Participation among Preschool Children",
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1932, 27,
243-269.

Piaget, J., "Cognitive Development in Children. The Piaget
Papers", in Piaget Rediscovered: A Report of the
Conference on Cognitive Studies and_Curriculum., eds.,
R. E. Ripple and V. A. Rockcastle, Itfiaca: Cornell
University School of Education, March, 1964. pp 6-48.
Cited by M. Almy, E. Chittenden and P. Miller, Young
Children, Cornell University, 1964.

Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, New
York: W. W. Norton, 1962.

Rosen, C. E., "Effects of Socio-Dramatic Play on Problem
Solving among Culturally Disadvantaged Preschool Children"
Child Development, 1974, #45.

 

111

Rousseau, J., An Essgy on Education, J. Norse and P. Vaillant,
London, 1763.

Rowen, B., The Children We See, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1973.

Scholtz, G., and Ellis, M., "Repeated Exposure to Objects
and Peers in a Play Setting", Journal of Experimental
Psyohology 19, 1975, 448-455.

 

 

Shallit, R., "The Dramatic Play of Ten Nursery School Chil-
dren",Chi1d Development, 1932, 3, 359-362.

 

Slobin, D., "Imitation and Grammatical Development in Chil-
dren", in Endler, N., Boulter, L., and Osser, H., eds.
Contemporary Issues in Developmental Psychology, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. 437-43.

 

Smilansky, S., The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Dis-
advantaged Preschool Children, New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1968.

 

 

Smith, A. J., "A Developmental Study of Group Processes",
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1960, 97, 29-39.

 

Smith, P., and Connolly, K., "Patterns of Play and Social
Interaction in Preschool Children", in Jones, N., ed.
Ethological Studies of Child Behavior, London: Cambridge,
1972.

 

Spencer, T., "Sex-Role" in Willard Hartup and Nancy Smothergill
eds., The Young Child, N.A.E. Y.C. Washington D.C.,l967.

 

Stone, G., "The Play of Little Children" in Herron, R. E.,
and Brian Sutton-Smith, eds., Child's Play, New York,
John Wiley, 1971.

 

Swift, J. W., "Effects of Early Group Experience: The
Nursery School and Day Nursery" In M. L. Hoffman and
L. W. Hoffman, eds., Review of Child Development
Research, Vol. 1, New York, 1964.

 

Szal, J., Sex Differences in the Cooperative and Competitive
Behaviors of Nursery School Children. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Stanford University, 1972.

 

Thompson, G. G., Child Psychology, (2nd ed.), Boston: Houghton
Miflin, 1962.

 

112

Thompson, G. G., "Children's Groups" in P. H. Mussen,
ed., Handbook of Research Methods in Child Develop-
ment, New York: Wiley, 1960.

 

Thompson, G. G., "The Social and Emotional Development of
Preschool Children Under Two Types of Educational
Programs", Psychological Monographs, 1944, 56 C 5,Whole
No. 57.

 

Vygotsky, L., "Play and its Role in the Mental Development
of the Child", Soviet Psychology. Vol. 53, 1967, 6-18.

 

Vygotsky, L., Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.
Press, 1962. (Translated by E. Hanfmann and G.
Vakar.)

 

Wenar, C., Personality Development, Houghton Miflin Company,
Boston, 1971.