This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg]

On: 14 November 2014, At: 22:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and Care

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Review of the relationship

between dramatic play and
creativity in young children
a
Eleni Mellou
a
University of Bristol , England
Published online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Eleni Mellou (1995) Review of the relationship between dramatic play
and creativity in young children, Early Child Development and Care, 112:1, 85-107, DOI:
10.1080/0300443951120108

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443951120108

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the
opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis
shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 112, pp. 85-107 ©1995 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)
Reprints available directly from the publisher Amsterdam B.V. Published under license by
Photocopying permitted by license Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SA
Printed in Malaysia

Review of the relationship between

dramatic play and creativity
in young children
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

ELENI MELLOU
University of Bristol, England
(Received 28 March 1995)

The relationship between dramatic play and creativity will be examined under three
aspects: (1) from the existing theories related to this association; (2) from the
research which has been done on this issue; and (3) from some situational factors of
dramatic play related to this relationship, and specifically to the tutor's intervention
and the use of materials (specific or non-specific defined props). Most of the research
that relates dramatic play to creativity falls into three categories: (a) correlational
studies, where descriptive studies have tried to determine the relationship between
dramatic play and creativity; (b) experimental studies, which use experimental controls
in order to determine whether dramatic play has a causal role in the development of
creativity; and (c) training studies, which are special types of experimental studies,
and where adults attempt to teach children how to engage in dramatic play, in
order to enhance their creative performance. The tutored dramatic play and the non-
specific defined props that children use in their dramatic play seem to be the proper
activities of enhancing young children's creativity. Finally, there are needs for more
careful experimental designs in order to support the already existed relationship
between dramatic play and creativity.

Key words: Young children, creativity, dramatic play, relationship, theories, props

INTRODUCTION

The connection between dramatic play, that is all pretend play (Mellou, 1993,
1994d) and creativity, that is seen under three conditions, such as interaction,
transformation and imagination (Mellou, 1993, 1994b), has been recognized since
Freud's (1908), 'Creative Writers and Daydreaming', as well as by Piaget (1962),
Liberman (1965, 1977), Almy (1967), Sutton-Smith (1967), Klinger (1969, 1971),
Bruner (1972), Singer (1973), Poole (1980), Singer & Singer (1985, 1990) and
Mellou (1993) among many others.
Singer (1973), for example, cites a considerable body of evidence indicating
both that the amount of reported fantasy play in childhood is correlated with
adult creative achievement, and that there is an association between fantasy play
and the kinds of divergent processes proposed by Guilford (1956,1959,1967) and

85
 86 ELENIMELLOU

Wallach & Kogan (1965). He also postulates that the imaginative element in
fantasy play is related to the ability to remove oneself from intellectual or artistic
constraints. He argues then, that if fantasy skills are enhanced in early childhood
there should be some beneficial effects on creative ability in later life. Lieberman's
(1977) thesis is similar to Singer's and her main claim is that "playfulness is an
ingredient of the creative individual's cognitive style" (p. 108).
Vandenberg (1980) also concludes that "both activities share a healthy disregard for
the familiar, and involve the creation of novelty from the commonplace" (p. 60). Moreover,
Fein (1987) illustrates the characteristics that mark pretend play (referential
freedom, denotative license, affective relationships, sequential uncertainty, and
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

self-mirroring), examining their implications for a theoretical model of pretence

as a creative activity. The major implication of Fein's (1987) theoretical framework
is that "creative processes cannot be studied independently of an affective symbolic system"
(p. 302). Pepler (1982), examining the influence of play on development, suggests
that play contribute to divergent thinking. Pepler (1982) proposes that dramatic
play enables the child: (a) to explore the object environment and thereby learn
about it; (b) to experiment with objects and generate novel responses, and (c) to
practise symbolic thinking.
Kneller (1965) explains: "The relation of creativity to childhood play is clearest,
perhaps, in the creative person's delight in playing with ideas for their own sake, in his habit
of exploring ideas and situations for the sheer joy of seeing where they will lead" (p. 29).
Johnson etal. (1987) also stress that "a residual of the preschooler's earlier active fantasy
social life persists in exerting a beneficial influence on the child's creativity, imagination, and
divergent and operational thinking abilities" (p. 58). This dramatic play, as Peter Slade
(1958) calls his 'Child Drama' (1954), is an inborn and vital part of young life.
Slade (1958) stated that dramatic play is "the child's way of thinking, ... remembering,
. . . testing, creating and absorbing" (p. 1).
On the other hand, there are researchers such as Hutt et al. (1989) who doubt
the alleged play benefits. They conclude: "We are thus moving to a position in which
we would seriously question the importance placed upon fantasy play as an aid to cognitive
development. Rather we see fantasy play from the child's point of view as possibly serving a
recuperative function ... and from the adults point of view, primarily as serving a diagnostic
function" (p. 116). Regarding concept learning, Brainerd (1982) concluding his
review says also that "the data of play-learning experiments are signaling us that dramatic
play is a poor way to do the job" (p. 127). Hughes (1981), further, concludes that
"there is no evidence that a child who disdains ludic symbolic play (i.e., fantasy play) is at
any disadvantage relative to his peers in his cognitive ability" (p. 196). Martin & Caro
(1985), finally, reviewing play in animals and humans support the view that "there
is no direct evidence that play has any important benefits, with the possible exception of some
immediate effects on children's behavior" (p. 97).
Nevertheless, dramatic play is the process by which the ability to conceptualise
and make abstractions — in short, to think — is developed (Mellou, 1993).
By pretending to be the baby, the father or the physician, young children
learn how the world about them functions and in the process learn new con-
cepts, make decisions and engage in problem solving creatively (Rosen, 1974;
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 87

Sylva et al., 1974; Vandenberg, 1980). As young children repeat dramatic play
many times, they lead themselves to increasingly accurate perceptions and
understanding of objective reality creating a new reality (Mellou, 1993, 1994b).
Winnicott (1971) states that "perhaps only in playing, the child or adult is free to
be creative" (p. 53).
Dramatic play and creativity, generally, seem to have much in common. The
transformations which are involved in this kind of play are similar to the novel,
imaginative combinations of ideas which are the product of creative thinking
(Mellou, 1993, 1994c). Since dramatic play involves interaction, imagination and
symbolic transformations in which objects and actions are used in new and unusual
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

ways, these two aspects seem to be related. This relationship will be examined
under three aspects: (1) from the existing theories related to this association;
(2) from the research which has been done on this issue; and (3) from some
situational factors of dramatic play related to this relationship, and specifically
to the tutor's intervention and the use of materials (specific or non-specific
defined props).

THEORIES WHICH RELATE DRAMATIC PLAY TO CREATIVITY

Some theorists have focused on the importance of play as a process which

allows the child to discover new behavioural combinations, ideas or strategies
(Sutton-Smith, 1967; Bruner, 1972). Both Sutton-Smith (1967) and Bruner
(1972), concentrated on the 'as if characteristic of play, but in slightly different
ways.
For example, Sutton-Smith (1967) emphasises the importance of substitution
whereby children treat things or people 'as if they were something else, develop-
ing alternative symbolic constructions. He believes that the symbolic transformations
that occur in dramatic play, have a similar effect on children's mental flexibility.
In this way, children engage in role reversal, learn how to break free from
'established' ideas, put ideas together in new and unusual ways, creating their
own, enhancing individual freedom and developing divergent thinking abilities
(Sutton-Smith, 1967).
Bruner (1972) on the other hand, has focused on the function of dramatic play
in the development ofbehaviouralflexibilityof motor skills. He suggests that in play
the children pay attention to their behaviour and do so without concern for their
end product, creating novel behavioural combinations and practices. When playing,
children do not worry about accomplishing goals, they experiment with new and
unusual combinations of behaviour they would not have tried if they were under
pressure to achieve a goal. The flexibility of play behaviour, may help the way that
children use tool strategies as well, incorporating them later into more complex
activities.
In both theories (Sutton-Smith and Bruner) one can see that dramatic play
contributes to creative development through the experimental and flexible nature
 88 ELENI MELLOU

of its activities. Once the children have mastered a skill or discovered the
properties of an object, they begin to experiment actively with the action or
object. The benefit of this experimental aspect of play is that it provides a broad
repertoire of skills and responses. In addition, it may provide a flexible way
of solution to a problem, that can be evoked to more effectively approach a
creative thinking task. Here lies also the difference that exists between modern
and classical play theories; while Groos' practice theory argued that play prepares
children for adult life, by practicing specific skills, Bruner's and Sutton-Smith's
theories contend that children do this by developing flexibility. Sutton-Smith's
theory of alternate symbolic transformations seems to offer the widest explanation
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

of the child behaviour. This theory provides the background for Mellou's (1993,
1994b) theory, which sees dramatic play as creating new environments in its way
of representing reality.
Sutton-Smith's and Bruner's theories of play are accepted by other psychol-
ogists who have developed their own conceptualisations of dramatic play. For
example, Dansky & Silverman (1973, 1975) and Dansky (1980a) have been
influenced by Sutton-Smith, and have examined the importance of dramatic play
for the development of associative fluency. Sylva (1977), Smith & Dutton (1979)
and Vandenberg (1981) also, have been influenced by Bruner's work, and studied
the role of play in the development of novel tool-using abilities, suggesting that
play is functional in problem solving.
However, contradictory findings have been claimed by Simon & Smith (1983,
1985, 1986) and Smith & Whitney (1987). Smith & Whitney (1987), for example,
who followed the studies of Dansky & Silverman (1973, 1975) fairly closely,
having taken precautions against experimenter bias in testing and scoring (blind
procedures were employed both in testing and in scoring subjects), failed to
confirm the general hypothesis that play favours associative fluency (an aspect of
creativity). They concluded: "The hypothesized link between play and creativity remains
interesting and provocative. Nevertheless, it seems that small-scale experimental studies have
so far failed to confirm it; apparent confirmations can plausibly be attributed to experimenter
effects. It remains a test of the ingenuity of researchers to find convincing ways of either
confirming or disconfirming this hypothesis" (pp. 52-53). Simon & Smith (1985) also
concluded that "there is little firm evidence to demonstrate the importance of play for
problem solving and creativity" (p. 276).
However, Dansky (1985) criticised these research findings and claimed that
"Simon & Smith's replication itself leaves too many questions unanswered to support
the conclusion that their findings seriously undermine the credibility of all experimental
studies of the functions of play that have been conducted to date" (p. 279). In addition,
after a re-evaluation of the 'play ethos', Smith (1988) nevertheless says, that it
would be perverse to argue that "nothing was learnt in play, since inevitably play
brings the child into experience with objects, and peers, the main sources of developmental
experience" (p. 223). Indeed, as Cheyne (1982) concludes: " Through a process of
careful description, imaginative experimentation, and playful modelling of process, we are
beginning to understand and may potentially optimize the child's understanding of the world
that is, and of worlds that might be" (p. 93).
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 89

RESEARCH ON THIS RELATIONSHIP

Kogan (1983) says that, "on the conceptual side, a strong relationship between divergent
thinking and play can be readily envisioned, and one can only express surprise that
so little empirical research on this topic was carried out prior to the 1970s" (p. 639).
Several correlational and experimental studies report a relation between play
and measures of divergent thinking in young children (see Fein, 1981; Pepler,
1982; Rubin et al., 1983; Johnson et al., 1987, Johnson, 1990; Smilansky &
Shefatya, 1990; or Mellou, 1993 for reviews of this literature). Generally, most
of the research that relates dramatic play to creativity falls into three categories:
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

(a) correlational studies, where descriptive studies have tried to determine the
relationship between dramatic play and creativity; (b) experimental studies, which
use experimental controls in order to determine whether dramatic play has a
causal role in the development of creativity; and (c) training studies, which are
special types of experimental studies, and where adults attempt to teach children
how to engage in dramatic play, in order to enhance their creative performance.

(a) Correlational studies

A number of correlational studies have demonstrated a positive relationship

between dramatic play and (various measures of) creativity. For example, in
an attempt to find out whether the measured quality of a child's play could
provide clues to divergent thinking abilities as an aspect of creativity, Lieberman
(1965, 1977) studied 93 kindergarten children (52 boys and 41 girls, age mean
5 years and 6 months) from middle-class homes. She explored the hypothesis that
there is a relationship between the quality of 'playfulness' (a major factor which
she identified) in young children's behaviour and divergent thinking abilities
(ideational fluency, spontaneous flexibility, and originality). Two teachers in each
of five classes rated each young child on five aspects of playfulness: physical,
social, and cognitive spontaneity; manifest joy; and sense of humour. Scores on
the divergent thinking factors were obtained from two tests adapted from tests
authored by Torrance and Guilford and the Monroe Language Classification
Test. She found that a "centroid-factor" (Lieberman, 1965:223) analysis showed
playfulness to be a unitary behaviour that correlates with these measures, and
the coefficients of correlation range from 0.21 to 0.36. Lieberman (1965, 1977)
has proposed a model for play and creativity: playfulness is evident in play which
affects creativity. Durrett & Huffman (1968) replicated Lieberman's study with
Mexican-American kindergarteners and found similar results.
Truhon (1983) used Lieberman's (1977) model to examine what happens
during play that affects creativity. At the same time the undimensionality of the
Playfulness Scale (Lieberman, 1977) was examined. Thirty (30) kindergarten boys
and girls were allowed ten (10) minutes to play and then given a battery of
creativity tests. Observers recorded their behaviour during play and rated them
on the Playfulness Scale. Cluster analysis of these variables resulted in six clusters:
 90 ELENIMELLOU

playfulness-intelligence, playfulness-fun, shifts, complexity, verbal creativity, and

non-verbal creativity. "Coefficients from the shifts and complexity clusters to the creativity
clusters were near zero" (Truhon, 1983:19). These results suggest that there are two
parts to the Playfulness Scale, such as playfulness-intelligence and playfulness-fun,
and that these parts reflect the cognitive and affective aspects of play. A major
finding of Truhon's (1983) study was "the lack of a relationship between play and
creativity" (p. 27). Nevertheless, the time allowed for children to play was very
short (10 minutes), before given a battery of creativity tests. More time is needed
(Christie el ah, 1988) for the effects of play to be integrated before they are
expressed in a child's creativity. Thus, the results of Truhon's (1983) study can
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

be easily questioned.
Singer & Rummo's (1973) study, of 79 white middle-class children (27 boys
and 52 girls, age range from 52 to 77 months), re-examines possible relationships
between ideational creativity and playfulness. These investigators employed a
teacher-rating scale that required the assessment of a large number of behaviours.
Factor analysis yielded three major factors, one of which was named 'playfulness'.
They finally demonstrated that playfulness was significantly correlated with
creativity in kindergarten boys but not in girls. This finding is consistent with
the Laurence & Sutton-Smith (1968) study. Singer & Rummo (1973) found that
highly creative boys were more communicative, curious, humorous, playful, and
expressive; so at least for boys, there is a relation between styles of play and
divergent thinking. This study is the first to show that differentiation between
the sexes in the implications of a creative thought style occurs by ages 5 or 6.
Exploration is associated with inventiveness in play. Hutt (1966) found that
the more exploratory children are, the higher their level of originality. Indeed,
Hutt (1966) demonstrated that 3-to 5-year-olds could be placed into one of
three categories on the basis of responses to a new toy: (1) nonexplorers who
merely approached and looked at the toy, but did not investigate it in any way;
(2) explorers who actively inspected the toy but did not go beyond specific
exploration; and (3) inventive explorers who, following investigation of the toy,
found imaginative ways to play with it, in diversive exploration. There was a sex
difference in group membership, with girls overrepresented as nonexplorers and
boys overrepresented as inventive explorers. After a divergent thinking test was
given to these children, inventive explorers were those who after investigating a
'supertoy' (a complex and novel object consisting of a red metal box on four brass
legs and a level ending in a blue wooden ball with the directional manipulations
of the lever registered on four counters which could be left open or covered)
proceeded to use the toy in many imaginative ways. Hutt suggested that children
typically proceed from specific exploration of the object to more playful behaviour.
Later on, a follow-up study involving the same children, then between seven
and ten years old, was made by Hutt & Bhavnani (1972). They found that
children who were less playful during their preschool years described themselves
as unadventurous and inactive, while those who were more playful during their
preschool years saw themselves as more assertive and independent, particularly
the girls. These children achieved higher originality scores on a creativity test.
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 91

For both sexes, the highest uniqueness scores were obtained by those children who
had been categorized as inventive explorers four to five years earlier; although the
effects were stronger for boys, than for girls. This result is consistent with Laurence
& Sutton-Smith's (1968) and Singer & Rummo's (1973) findings. Nunnally &
Lemond (1973) also proposed that 'specific exploration' facilitates convergent
learning, leading to play which consolidates and fosters creativity.
Shmukler (1982) in her effort to develop a model of creativity, studied
114 middle-class preschool children (56 boys, 58 girls, of an average age of
5 years 6 months) who were rated for their multidimensional imaginative quality
by independent observers. A factor analytic interpretation of the data produced
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

three factors: originality, expressive imagination and social competence. These

factors were linked, the first to imagination and creativity and both the second
and the third to the child's developing drive for mastery of his/her environment
and to his/her striving sense of competence. Validation data for the long-term
implications of these factors are provided by two studies, one in the first grade
(Shmukler, 1982) and the second in the third grade (Shmukler, 1983). The factors
of originality and expressiveness were consistently found to be related to divergent
thinking tests and other assessments of imagination and creativity; the factor
of social competence was related to its assessment by the teacher (Shmukler,
1983). This empirical evidence supports the link between imaginative (dramatic)
play and the capacity for divergent production. Shmukler (1983) concludes that
"imaginative predisposition is linked to motivational aspects, positive coping behaviour
and skill in the classroom and to divergent capacities, creative potential and imaginative
ability" (p. 239).
Moreover, Moran et al.'s (1984) research in fifteen (15) preschool children
(8 boys, 7 girls) of urban, middle-class background in a Western-oriented society,
using both quantitative and qualitative ways of collecting data, reports: "Ideational
fluency and fantasy predisposition were related to naturally occurring imaginative play
behaviour in preschool children, 0.59, p<0.05, and 0.50, p<0.07, respectively" (p. 93).
Litt (1973) also found support for the association between involvement in
imaginative play and divergent production or creative fluency measures derived
from the work of Guilford. In addition, Johnson's (1976) study, in economically
disadvantaged preschool children, attempted to examine the relationships be-
tween fantasy play and cognitive functioning in children. Estimates of intelligence
and divergent thinking were compared with fantasy-play behaviour scored for the
occurrence of social fantasy and non-social fantasy play. Finally, Johnson (1976)
concludes that "Intelligence appeared to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for social
make-believe play, with the strongest test correlates of social make-believe play the divergent
thinking measures" (p. 1200). This finding is consistent with the view that collective
symbolism requires greater cognitive maturity than does solitary symbolic play.
In the most of the previously mentioned correlational studies a variety of play
behaviours is related to creative thinking skills, such as playfulness, imaginative
predisposition, playing symbolically with objects, exhibiting novel responses,
manipulating objects, and exploring object properties. Nevertheless, 'playfulness'
measured in many of these studies does not seem to be just a personality trait
 92 ELENI MELLOU

that is synonymous with creativity, but rather than an environmental experience

which enhances creativity. Research also suggests that play and creativity may
have in common underlying factors, such as ideational fluency, originality and
expressiveness. However, the data provided is mainly correlational and therefore
very limited in providing causal explanations and is not conclusive. Indeed,
more definite and longitudinal investigations are needed in order to answer the
question of whether this early predisposition provides a reliable indication of what
is later to become recognizable as creative ability.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

(b) Experimental studies

A series of experimental studies, such as those by Dansky & Silverman (1973,

1975), has yielded evidence that there is a causal link between dramatic play and
creativity. The usual form of these studies is that a group of preschool children
is given some play experience with objects, while another group of children of
the same age and background is given an instructional session, or an alternative
materials condition or is put in a no-treatment control group. After the session is
over, children are given a creative thinking assessment (for example, thinking of
unusual uses for some objects).
Specifically, support for the notion that pretence acts as a causal agent in the
development of creativity skills stemmed from Sutton-Smith's (1968) findings. He
presented kindergarten children (boys and girls) with male and female sex-typed
toys, asking them for alternate uses for these toys. Children of both genders were
equally familiar with toys related with each sex, while they had differential play
experiences with same-sex and opposite-sex toys. He found that preschoolers
were able to generate more associations or usages for object that they routinely
played with than those that were not played with. Finally, the results indicated
that there is a relationship between play experiences and divergent thinking, in
view of the fact that children (boys and girls) gave unique responses for the toys
ascribed to their own sex. So, children's novel responses were related to an object
during play, associated with the creativity of responses for that object in the task
situation.
Laurence & Sutton-Smith (1968) replicated Sutton-Smith's (1968) study with
the only difference that the experimenter was a male rather than a female. The
results of this study showed that "boys not only gave more unique responses to all
categories, they gave significantly more unique responses than girls to female toys" (p. 160).
So, the sex of the experimenter (male) influences boys better to give more unique
responses than girls. This seems to be consistent with the findings of a recent study
by Katz& Walsh (1991).
Hughes (1987), using experimental conditions similar to her convergent
problem-solving study, performed a second experiment to test the hypothesis that
ludic behaviour facilitates divergent thinking as exploratory behaviour facilitated
convergent thinking in her first experiment. She found that children who
spontaneously played with familiar objects for six (6) minutes performed better
on a pattern-meaning test and on an alternative-uses task than children did
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 93

who performed an unrelated task (colouring). These findings are consistent to

Sutton-Smith's (1968) results.
However, Sutton-Smith (1968) failed to control for the amount of exposure to
the object, and it is unclear whether the differences were due to the play experi-
ence or the exposure time. Dansky & Silverman (1973) extended Sutton-Smith's
(1968) research by controlling for the amount of time the children were exposed
to the materials. Attempting to provide an experimental test of the relationships
explored in the Sutton-Smith (1968) investigation, Dansky & Silverman (1973)
found that symbolic play or playful activity can facilitate associative fluency.
Dansky & Silverman (1973) randomly assigned children (age range from 4.0 to
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

6.1 years, M = 5.0, from middle and upper-middle class background), to the three
experimental conditions: (a) children who were permitted to play with a particular
set of objects; (b) children who were asked to engage in imitative behaviour
with the same objects; and (c) children who were given a 'neutral' experience
not involving those objects. All children had equal previous experience with
objects like those employed in the study. After ten (10) minutes of play, they were
administered the Alternative Uses Test (Wallach & Kogan, 1965) using the same
materials. The results indicated that the play condition enhanced the number
of unique responses given on this .test of associative fluency (Wallach, 1971).
Nevertheless, the time (10 minutes) allowed for children to play, seems to be not
the appropriate one for testing children's associative fluency, afterwards. Indeed,
finally, they suggest that "a considerably more powerful experimental manipulation (e.g.,
extensive work with the children under each condition over a long period of time) and much
more comprehensive posttesting" (p. 43) is needed.
Dansky & Silverman (1973) also showed that an increased opportunity to
play with objects led to greater variety in the way the children play with them.
Familiarity with the means of creativity seems to make a difference to its quality
as well. Similarly, Sutton-Smith (1968) has shown that preschool children gave
more alternative uses for familiar than for unfamiliar toys. He claims that his
findings "could be used to support theories with either type of emphasis insofar as the
children's responses" (p. 157). Sutton-Smith (1967) says also that "when a child
plays with particular objects, varying his responses with them playfully, he increases the
range of his associations for those particular objects" (p. 365). Dansky & Silverman
(1973) nevertheless conclude that their results do not necessarily imply that "these
associations can, or will, be applied to subsequent creative pursuits" (p. 43). The specific
mechanisms then which led to the contribution of play to subsequent creativity
have remained unclear.
They subsequently designed' a second experiment (Dansky & Silverman,
1975), where 36 subjects, middle-class, ranging in age from 3.8 to 5.2 years
(M = 4.8 years), were assigned to either a play, imitation, or an intellectual task,
using one set of materials. This was the first phase of the experiment. A second
phase followed where children could provide uses for another set of previously
unseen materials. They attempted to show a proof that a playful attitude toward
the materials, is not based on the children's familiarity with the materials. They
found that the play condition experiences did enhance significantly associative
 94 ELENI MELLOU

fluency with new materials. More generally in this study it was suggested that,
"playful activity can provide children with an opportunity to organize their experiences and
exercise their cognitive abilities in a manner that is likely to facilitate imaginative adaptations
in future situations" (p. 104). However, Dansky & Silverman's results suggest that
the contribution of play may be ephemeral, and if the play set is broken, the effects
of the experience could be eliminated. This hypothesis was tested by Dansky
(1979). He interposed a brief digit span memory task to break the play set between
the play condition and the creativity task. Following such a break Dansky (1979)
found, that the play group performed no better on the other tasks (observer or
problem solving). These results highlight the tentative nature of the connection
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

between play and creativity.

Li (1978) replicated and extended the Dansky & Silverman (1973) study, by
examining two factors that might link play experience and superior performance
on the Alternative Uses Task. Like Dansky & Silverman (1975), Li (1978) included
an unfamiliar object in the posttest (when children were examined for a second
time), to assess whether children provide more associations for an object, even if
it had not been encountered in play. Li further attempted to examine the link
between the make-believe aspect of play and divergent thinking. Children 4 and
5 years old, were randomly assigned to one of four groups: free play, make-believe
play, imitation and control. After ten (10) minutes of individual experience (very
short time), children were given the Alternate Uses Task. The results showed
that the direction of make-believe play may have a greater facilitating effect on
divergent thinking, but only for the unfamiliar objects. These results are consistent
with those of the follow-up study of Dansky & Silverman (1975). Nevertheless, Li's
findings do not identify clearly the specific elements in play that facilitate creativity.
Smith & Whitney (1987) closely followed the Dansky & Silverman (1973, 1975)
research design. They only differ in that they use precautions to eliminate any
experimenter effects. Smith & Whitney (1987) found no significant differences
between the play, training, or control conditions. However, the different nation-
ality of subjects were used (British and not American, as they were in Dansky
6 Silverman, 1973, 1975), the slight difference in objects used and the slightly
younger age range of the subjects, could be the explanation of the different results
in this study.
Dansky (1980a) attempted to identify an important element, make-believe,
which aids in determining the playful set that contributes to creativity. After
naturalistic observation of 96 preschoolers he categorized them as either players
(displayed make-believe, mean age = 4.6 years) or nonplayers (mean age =
4.8 years), who were exposed to one of three conditions: free play, imitation
and problem solving. After 10-minute treatment sessions, where players and
non-players were given opportunities to participate in free play, imitation, or
problem solving, all children were administered an Alternate Uses Test. The re-
sults showed, as in similar earlier studies, that only the free play subjects especially
those who engaged in make-believe displayed heightened associative fluency.
Dansky (1980a) concludes that these findings "reinforce assumptions regarding the
presumed usefulness of such play training and suggest at least a partial answer to questions
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 95

about why sociodramatic play might enhance divergent problem-solving skills (i.e., because
make-believe can enhance associative fluency)" (p. 579). This study is supported by
Sutton-Smith (1967) who believes that the symbolic transformations that occur in
dramatic play are the key factor in the contribution of play to creativity.
However, it is difficult to believe that these brief experimental manipulation
(10 minutes) accounts for large amounts of variance in creativity; but the children
involved were selected also on the basis of their prior propensity for engaging in
make-believe play outside the intervention situation. It may then be that these
children were already relatively creative. Dansky's (1980a) results would seem to
support the idea that the play experience merely activates an already existing
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

construct. This research does not provide evidence for a causal link between
dramatic play and creativity.
Considering most of the above mentioned experimental studies, we can see that
children given play experiences perform better on divergent thinking tests than
children with imitative, intellectual, convergent or neutral experiences. Several
processes, such as playful attitudes, novel and flexible responses, investigation,
experimentation, symbolic activity or make-believe elements, may contribute to
creativity, as most of the research suggests. On the other hand, there is also some
evidence to question these results, taking into account the possible experimenter
bias. There are some methodological issues including the problem of confounding
variables. Indeed, since often the experimental manipulation seems to be playing
with toys in unusual ways and the dependent variable is often the Alternative Uses
test, it seems plausible that the play experience merely activates the child's existing
fluency skills rather than being causally'related to the development of those skills.
The brief nature of experimental manipulation (typically 10 minutes or less)
makes this alternative explanation seem likely. There is need for multiple, and
functionally relevant outcome measures in future experiments in play. Indeed,
the processes which contribute to creativity may also interact with individual and
situational factors, in order to mediate the link between play and creativity (e.g.,
Berreta, 1971; Pulaski, 1973; Johnson, 1976; Pepler, 1979, 1987; Johnson, 1983;
Aguilar, 1985; Mellou, 1993).

(c) Training studies

A series of play-training studies has provided further evidence that dramatic play
promotes creative thinking. Saltz & Brodie (1982) refer to many experiments
that indicate that training children to engage in dramatic play leads to superior
performance on various intellectual and perspective-taking tasks, compared to
children not so trained. There are several investigations that have provided
evidence that an improved ability to play increases scores on measures of creativity,
such as those obtained from tests of divergent thinking (e.g., Smilansky, 1968;
Freyberg, 1973).
Smilansky (1968) for example, conducted the first large-scale training experi-
ment. She introduced themes with which the children had previous experience,
such as going to the doctor, and encouraged the children to enact these expe-
 96 . ELENIMELLOU

riences. The training included an informal intervention of the experimenter in

order to enrich and prolong the children's dramatic play. Smilansky (1968) also
provided the children with props (toys), in order to help them in their play. Field
trips further had been previously attended by children, which would serve as
the bases for the play (e.g., a trip to a fire station, which was later re-enacted).
Smilansky (1968) finally claimed that sociodramatic play helps children to develop
cognitive, creative and social skills.
Joan Freyberg's (1973) study also demonstrates that direct teaching of pretend
play can increase children's ability to fantasize. She reports that her subjects,
a group of 80 urban disadvantaged American kindergarten children, exhibited
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

very little imaginative play on a rating scale in free play settings prior to the
introduction of a training programme. Freyberg (1973) writes: 'As the major result
of eight 20-minute training sessions over a period of 1 month, the experimental group
improved significantly in the imaginativeness of their play as well as in the expression of
positive affect and in the degree of concentration shown in their play. The control group
remained unchanged . . . the greater imaginativeness continued consistently during the
2 months post-training observations" (p. 142). She found that following the play
training sessions the amount of imaginative play increased and it appeared to
be more organized and integrated. Freyberg (1973) also reports that training in
dramatic play led children in more verbal communication to the use of longer,
more complex sentences, more sensitive responding to the cues of others, more
spontaneity, and generally more creativity.
Moreover, most of the research data clearly appear to reinforce the position
that training in dramatic play is a significant causal force in the development of
creativity (Feitelson & Ross, 1973; Dansky, 1980b; Li, 1985). Research by Feitelson
& Ross (1973), Dansky (1980b), and Li (1985) has shown that dramatic play tends
to prime or 'set' the children to think in more original fashions. Feitelson & Ross
(1973) have demonstrated that certain forms of play can have longer term effects
on creativity. They studied 24 white lower-middle class children (12 boys and
12 girls) from the kindergarten classes of a public school. Among other things,
each child was given a form of Torrance's (1966) picture completion subtest. The
child was scored on fluency, flexibility and originality. Form A of the test was
given to half of the subjects, and form B to the other half. Approximately two
weeks after they divided the children randomly into four groups and each group
randomly assigned to one of four treatments. Group A received a combination of
tutoring with play materials; group B received play materials but not tutoring;
group C received attention from a tutor, but had no contact with the toys; and
group D received neither tutoring nor exposure to toys from the project. After
training, they evaluated the children again and those who had received form A
of the Torrance on the pretest, were now given form B and vice versa. This study
found that there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the play-tutored
group and the other three groups on the originality score of the Torrance's tests;
but there was no difference between the groups on the fluency score of the same
test, as well as on the flexibility score of the Torrance test. Finally their study
(Feitelson & Ross, 1973), "did succeed in establishing a causal relationship between
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 97

increase in level of thematic play and improved performance on conventional tests designed
to measure innovative and original behaviour " (p. 218). However, Feitelson & Ross
(1973) administered only 10 training sessions to the children in their study and the
sample size was small (6 children per condition). Other than that, the experiment
was well controlled in other respects.
Similar results to Feitelson & Ross (1973) were obtained by Dansky (1980b),
when he compared a group trained in sociodramatic play with groups given
training in exploration and free play control. Dansky (1980b) found that low SES
preschoolers who received sociodramatic play training, as opposed to exploration
training and free play with no training at all, showed significant gains on several
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

measures of creativity, including an Alternate Uses Test (Wallach-Kogan, 1965).

The results of this study indicate that play facilitates associative fluency, the ability
to generate many original uses for objects. He finally concluded that sociodramatic
play helps the children's development of an 'as if attitude which improves
subsequent performance on creativity tests.
Moreover, Li (1985) studying 59 day care children, aged 2 to 5 years, and
employing a pretest-training-posttest design, found that the training was "effective
in enhancing children's pretend play and facilitating novel responses in children" (p. 70).
She concludes: "If make-believe play can be trained after even a short program of eight
20-minute sessions, over a two month period, and if such training can enhance a child's
creative, divergent ability, it follows that systematic training in pretend play would be
beneficial, at least in terms of immediate effects, and ought to be encouraged" (p. 78).
Nevertheless, investigations have had results that contradict the findings of
earlier studies. Indeed, the results of more recent play-training studies have
been less positive. Several researchers found that the gains of the play training
are no larger than those brought about by other training programmes (Smith
& Syddall, 1978; Guthrie & Hudson, 1979; Golomb & Bonen, 1981; Burns &
Brainerd, 1979; Smith et al., 1981; and Christie, 1983). These contradictory
outcomes were based on assessment instruments with limited reliability and/or
validity, sampling designs, or confounding variables (Smith, 1980,1988; Brainerd,
1982; Christie & Johnsen, 1983, 1985; Rubin et al., .1983; Smith & Simon,
1984; Simon & Smith, 1983, 1985, 1986; Martin & Caro, 1985; Smith, Simon &
Emberton, 1985).
Brainerd (1982), for example, doubts that dramatic play training is the key
source of cognitive development in early childhood, and he describes four general
results that are rather discouraging: (a) instability of effects, where dramatic play
training has produced learning effects that provided proof to be unstable from
experiment to experiment; (b) internal inconsistencies, where dramatic play training
has to do with inconsistencies that occur within particular experiments; (c) age
interaction, where dramatic play training as a learning treatment seems to interact
with age (e.g., treatment effectiveness increases with age, since kindergarteners
are improved more than preschoolers by dramatic play); and (d) size of effects,
where dramatic play training produces, from a purely quantitative stand-point,
tiny learning effects in both an absolute sense and in a relative sense (Brainerd,
1982). Christie & Johnsen (1985) have also questioned the results of play training
 98 ELENI MELLOU

research, including questions about context, individual differences, effect sizes,

durability of outcomes, and selection of dependent variables. Generally, the
main criticisms appear to be threefold: (a) selective interpretation of results;
(b) effects of experimenter bias; and (c) the use of inappropriate control groups
(Smith, 1988).
Concluding about the training studies, while there is some question as to whether
play and specifically dramatic play training is effective (Smith & Syddall, 1978)
the research clearly indicates that play training promotes children's cognitive
growth. Smith 8c Syddall (1978) have shown that a comparable duration of
contact with an adult in a play, as opposed to a skill-learning context, produces
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

a similar level of cognitive enhancement. They suggest that it is not the specific
tutoring for play which is effective in producing the outcomes in these studies so
much as adult interaction per se. Nevertheless, these authors failed to include a
divergent-thinking task among their cognitive assessments. This study suggests
that the tutor is the most important factor in play for the enhancement of
creativity. Nevertheless, Dansky & Silverman (1973, 1975) have clearly shown
that the mere opportunity to play with various toy materials in the absence
of adult instruction is sufficient to bring about an increase in the number
of unusual uses attributed to common objects. Generally, from all the above
mentioned, correlational, experimental and training studies, the latter seem to
be the more reliable to find the accurate relationship between dramatic play and
creativity.-

SOME SITUATIONAL FACTORS OF DRAMATIC PLAY THAT RELATE

TO CREATIVITY

The present paper will deal with only two of the situational factors: (a) the
intervention of tutors in children's dramatic play, and (b) the influence of the
materials (specific or non-specific defined props), in the development of creativity
in young children.

(a) The case of intervention in dramatic play in order to develop creativity

Beliefs about the intervention of tutors in children's dramatic play in order to
develop creativity (Mellou, 1994a) fall into three categories: (1) theorists who
believe that intervention is not needed at all; (2) researchers who support a balance
between intervention and non-intervention; and (3) researchers who suggest that
only through intervention of the tutor can children achieve the appropriate level
of creativity.
Firstly, there are some teachers who express concern that the intervention
in the child's play might negatively affect the children's mental health. Indeed,
especially the early theorists, such as Isaacs (1938) and Ericson (1939), feel that
it will inhibit children's play if adults intervene or participate. According to these
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 99

theorists, the adult's role (parent, teacher...) was to observe children's play closely
for clues about their emotional problems. The adult was never to enter into or
interfere in any way with the children's play. It was found that the non-intrusive,
non-authoritarian attitudes of parents are associated with creativity in children
(Drevdahl, 1964), while the more vigilant, intrusive, and demanding mothers have
more uncreative children (Getzels & Jackson, 1967; Olszewski, 1987).
Secondly, others such as Slade (1954, 1958), Singer (1973), Mandelbaum
(1975), Poole (1980) and Shmukler (1981) support a balance of intervention and
non-intervention. These theorists believe that this balance involves on the one
hand a close, secure relationship of 'holding' with a parent and on the other
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

hand the need for time and space for the child to be alone. According to Poole
(1980), for example, throughout the phase of what could virtually be called the
child's own "knowledge of learning explosion" (pp. 167-168), the teacher can be a
key figure in at least three major ways, in planning for creativity through play:
(a) designing play environments; (b) collecting play materials; and (c) developing a
range of interventionary and non-interventionary strategies. Finally, as Shmukler
(1985) states: "Too much direction leads to an unwelcome atmosphere, which saps any child's
self-confidence, though absence of guidance means that the child flounders, and still cannot
learn how to cope effectively; the middle road is the best" (p. 85).
Thirdly, there is research which claims that benefits to children's creativity
come only through tutor's intervention or play-tutoring (Markey, 1935; Marshall
& Hahn, 1967; Feitelson, 1972; Tizard, 1977; Smith etal, 1981; Saltz & Brodie,
1982; Tamburini, 1982; Christie, 1983; Udwin, 1983). Indeed, there are many
times in an early childhood classroom when a teacher's questions can extend
the play, deepen the participant's involvement, and perhaps help structure it so
that it does indeed result in a creative dramatic experience (Sylva et al., 1980;
Smith et al., 1981; Christie, 1986). These studies suggest that the unstructured
free play kinds of activities may be less cognitively useful than more structured
activities. Moreover, they demonstrate that adult intervention can be effective in
improving the creative and imaginative quality of children's dramatic play. The
simplest and least intrusive type of teacher involvement in children's dramatic play
is observation (Smilansky, 1968; Christie, 1982; Griffing, 1983; Christie, 1990). As
teachers watch children's play, they demonstrate that they are interested in their
activity and that they think this is a valuable, worthwhile one (Manning & Sharp,
1977).
As will be clear from the preceding discussion, most of the recent research
supports the view that the tutor should intervene in children's dramatic play
in order to enhance creative ability. Nevertheless, the effects of the intervention
should be expected to vary depending upon the preschool child's age, gender,
intelligence, personality, social class, cultural, ethnic and family background
(Kneller, 1965; Almy, 1967; Shmukler & Naveh, 1980; Udwin, 1983; Mellou,
1994a). Both the tutor's attitudes and personality seem to have an importance in
facilitating creativity in children. Finally, as Griffing (1983) say, "Our own enjoyment
of playful activity and our own creativity in developing it with children are . . . the most
influential factors . . . in fostering . . . creativity" (p. 20).
 100 ELENIMELLOU

(b) The role of props in creativity-enhancement

Research indicates, that the degree of realism and structure of available play
materials influence children's creativity. 'Realism' here refers to the degree to
which a toy resembles its real-life counterpart (e.g., Barbie dolls). Structure refers
to the extent to which toys have specific uses. High-realism toys are considered
to be highly structured and to have very specific uses (e.g., a realistic replica
of a police car lends itself to only one use, being a police car, unless the child
has highly-developed symbolic transformations). In the present paper instead
of the terms 'structured' and 'unstructured' materials the terms 'specific' and
'non-specific' defined props will largely be employed.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

Research generally supports the view that the non-specific defined props (e.g.,
pieces of materials) enhance the development of children's creativity, while the
specifically-defined props, inhibit both pretend play and creativity (e.g., Pulaski,
1973; Singer & Singer, 1990). Indeed if the props are non-specific defined
the child can use them in different ways and through trials and comparisons
develop new ideas, and thus enhance their imagination, and their thinking
(Simpson, 1922; Griffiths, 1938; Kneller, 1965; Starkwether, 1971; Pulaski, 1974;
Tamburini, 1974; McLoyd etal., 1984). Specifically-defined props can hinder free
creative play because ready-made toys can often only be used for what they were
originally intended (Smilansky, 1968; Sotamaa, 1980). It could be said also that
the structured materials, such as clothes etc., inhibit the freedom of movement in
young children (McCaslin, 1987; Brown & Briggs, 1989).
A number of researchers have investigated the effects of toy realism and
structure on children's dramatic play (McDowell & Howe, 1941; Dreyer & Rigler,
1969; Pulaski, 1970,1973; Enslein, 1979; Pepler, 1979, 1987; Pepler& Ross, 1981;
Olszewski & Fuson, 1982; Johnson, 1983; McLoyd, 1983; Mann, 1984; McLoyd
etal., 1984; Moran, Sawyers & Moore, 1988; Mellou, 1993). The findings of these
studies suggest that realistic, highly structured props encourage make-believe in
younger (two- and three-year-old) preschoolers but not in older children (Fein,
1975). In older children, play themes are more diverse when the materials are less
realistic (Phillips, 1945; Pulaski, 1973). By and large, research has indicated that
realism is decreasingly necessary to sustain pretence, although younger children
appear to need prototypic or at least tangible objects to stand as place holders for
imagined objects (Bretherton, 1984; Fenson, 1984). The relationship of pretend
behaviour to object prototypicality will change as the child becomes older.
However, this is not to suggest that highly structured materials should not be
included, but rather, as Tamburini (1974) says, "they are better conceived of as fulfilling
specific purposes for particular children to whom the extrinsic problem they embody is well
matched.", (p. 58). It may be, according to Woodard (1984), that for some children
"props contribute a degree of needed reality to the abstractness of the play" (p. 175). Indeed,
it is usual to hear a child vehemently argue that you cannot be a doctor without the
stethoscope. Enslein's (1979) findings indicate that even middle-class preschoolers
will engage in limited pretence when the setting lacks realistic props. Studies by
Matthews (1977) and McLoyd (1980) have also shown that boys especially are
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 101

dependent in their pretend play on the presence of objects in the environment.

There is some evidence (Jeffree & McConkey, 1976; Fields, 1979) which supports
that the specific defined props facilitate children's dramatic play better than the
non-specific ones.
In conclusion, there is no doubt, as most of the research has indicated, that as
far as creativity improvement is concerned, dramatic play props, which are used by
young children, should be simple, non-specifically defined and durable; otherwise
the children will quickly become bored with them. An important factor which
relates to materials and seems to have a big influence in young children's creative
ability during dramatic play is the self-made toys that children use sometimes in
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

their play (Vince-Bakonyi, 1969). Using their own made toys, children keep their
interest in play alive, obtain new ideas, and experience the joy of creation. It is
better also to have a collection of some different garments which become what the
child wants, offer various possibilities and improve young children's imagination.
The significance of the process of using non-specific defined props for creativity
as well may lie in the opportunity it provides for the child to focus beyond the
obvious to make novel associations and to engage in imaginative activity during
play and subsequent divergent problem solving.

CONCLUSION

After considering the relevant theories about the relationship between dramatic
play and creativity, the alternative symbolic constructions and flexibility are the
common elements they both have. In spite of the fact that there are some research
findings which doubt the relationship between play and creativity, most of the
research results support this relationship. As far as whether the intervention
of tutor is concerned, most of the research supports the view that a suitably
qualified tutor who knows when to participate and when not to, is the one
who encourages children's creativity more. Considering the props that children
use in their dramatic play the research encourages the use of the non-specific-
defined props which offer various possibilities and improve young children's
creativity more than the specific defined props. Generally, in spite of the fact
that the relationship between dramatic play and creativity is obvious, research
on this relationship should be continued, taking into account the methodological
problems of the previous studies.

A cknowledgements

This paper is a part of the author's Ph.D. The research topic was: 'The relationship
between dramatic play and creativity in young children'. This study was supported
by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation. The author thanks her supervisors
in the School of Education in Bristol University, Dr. Sara Meadows, Mr. Gordon
Reddiford and Dr. Roger Garrett who encouraged and motivated her thoughts.
 102 ELENIMELLOU

References
Aguilar, T.E. (1985) Social and environmental barriers to playfulness, in: J.L. Frost and S. Sunderlin
(Eds.) When children play: Proceedings of the international conference on play and play environments
(Wheaton, MD, Association for Childhood Education International).
Almy, M. (1967) Spontaneous play: An avenue for intellectual development, Young Children, 22,
pp. 265-276.
Berreta, S. (1971) Comparative effects of play on creative thinking: The immediate influence of art,
drama and playground experiences on children, PhD dissertation, Microfilm 71—28824 (University of
Southern Mississippi).
Brainerd, CJ. (1982) Effects of group and individualized dramatic play training on cognitive
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

development, in: DJ. Pepler and K.H. Rubin (Eds.) The play of children: Current theory and research,
contributions to human development (S. Karger, Basel).
Bretherton, I. (1984) Representing the social world in symbolic play: Reality and fantasy, in:
I. Bretherton (Ed.) Symbolic play: The development of social understanding (New York, Academic Press).
Brown D.L. and Briggs L.D. (1989) Free play in the early childhood classroom, Reading Improvement,
pp. 12-14.
Bruner.J.S. (1972) Nature and uses of immaturity, American Psychologist, August, pp. 687-708.
Burns, S.M. and Brainerd, C.J. (1979) Effects of constructive and dramatic play on perspective taking
in very young children, Developmental Psychology, 15(5), pp. 512-521.
Christie, J.F. and Johnsen, E.P. (1983) The role of play in social-intellectual development, Review of
Educational Research, 53, pp. 93-115.
Christie, J.F. and Johnsen, E.P. (1985) Questioning the results of play training research, Educational
Psychologist, 20(1), pp. 7-11.
Christie, J.F. (1982) Sociodramatic play training, Young children, 37(4), pp. 25-32.
Christie, J.F. (1983) The effects of play tutoring on young children's cognitive performance, Joumal of
Educational Research, 76(6), pp. 326-330.
Christie, J.F. (1986) Training of symbolic play, in: P.K. Smith (Ed.) Children's play: Research developments
and practical applications (Gordon and Breach).
Christie, J.F. (1990) Dramatic play: A context for meaningful engagements, The Reading Teacher,
pp. 542-545.
Christie, J.F., Johnsen, E.P., and Peckover, R.B. (1988) The effects of play duration on children's play
patterns, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 3, pp. 123-131.
Dansky, J.L. and Silverman, I.W. (1973) Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged
children, Developmental Psychology, 9(1), pp. 38-43.
Dansky, J.L. and Silverman, I.W. (1975) Play: a general facilitator of associativefluency,Developmental
Psychology, 11(1), p. 104.
Dansky, J.L. (1979) Temporary and enduring influences on play and children's creative thinking, The
Association for the Anthropological Study of Playewsletter, 5, pp. 7—8.
Dansky, J.L. (1980a) Make believe: A mediator of the relationship between free play and associative
fluency, Child Development, 51, pp. 576-579.
Dansky, J.L. (1980b) Cognitive consequences of sociodramatic play and exploration training for
economically disadvantaged preschoolers, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, pp. 47-58.
Dansky, J.L. (1985) Questioning "A paradigm questioned": A commentary on Simon and Smith,
Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 31, pp. 279-284.
Drevdahl, J.E. (1964) Some developmental and environmental factors in creativity, in: C.W. Taylor
(Ed.) Widening horizons in creativity (Wiley, New York).
Dreyer, A. and Rigler, D. (1969) Cognitive performance in Montessori and nursery school children,
Journal of Educational Research, 62, pp. 411—416.
Durrett, E. and Huffman, W. (1968) Playfulness and divergent thinking among Mexican-American
children, Journal of Home Economics, 60, pp. 355-358.
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 103

Enslein, J. (1979) An analysis of toy preference, social participation, and play activity in preschool-aged
children, Unpublished master's thesis (The Merrill-Palmer Institute).
Ericson, H. (1939) Nurturing sincerity in dramatics, in: G.Hartman and A. Shumaker (Eds.) Creative
expression: The development of children in art, music, literature and dramatics, 2nd ed. (E.M. Hale and
Company).
Fein, G.G. (1975) A transformational analysis of pretending, Developmental Psychology, 3, pp. 291-6.
Fein, G.G. (1981) Pretend play: An integrative review, Child Development, 52, pp. 1095-1118.
Fein, G.G. (1987) Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness, in: D. Gorlitz and J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.)
Curiosity, imagination and play, on the development of spontaneous cognitive and motivational processes
(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.).
Feitelson, D. and Ross, G.S. (1973) The neglected factor-play, Human Development, 16, pp. 202-223.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

Feitelson, D. (1972) Developing imaginative play in preschool children as a possible approach to

fostering creativity, Early Child Development and Care, 1, pp. 181-195.
Fenson, L. (1984) Developmental trends for action and speech in pretend play, in; I. Bretherton (Ed.)
Symbolic play: The development of social understanding (New York, Academic Press).
Fields, W. (1979) Imaginative play of four-year-old children, as a function of toy realism, Unpublished
master's thesis (Merrill Palmer Institute).
Freud, S. (1908) Creative writers and day-dreaming, in: P.E. Vernon (Ed.) Creativity (Penguin
Books, 1970).
Freyberg J. (1973) Increasing the imaginative play of urban disadvantaged kindergarten children,
through systematic training, in: J.L. Singer (Ed.) The child's world of make-believe: Experimental studies
of imaginative play (New York, Academic Press).
Getzels, J.W. and Jackson, P.W. (1967) Family environment and cognitive style: A study of the sources
of highly intelligent and of highly creative adolescenes, in: R.L. Mooney and T.A. Razik (Eds.)
Explorations in creativity (NYC, Harper and Row).
Golomb, C. and Bonen, S. (1981) Playing games of make-believe: The effectiveness of symbolic play
training with children who failed to benefit from early conservation training, Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 104, pp. 137-159.
Griffing, P. (1983) Encouraging dramatic play in early childhood, Young Children, January, pp. 13-22.
Griffiths, R.A. (1938) Imagination and play in childhood (Institute of Education and the Home and School,
London University, Council of Great Britain).
Guilford, J.P. (1956) Structure of intellect, Psychological Bulletin, 53, pp. 267-293.
Guilford, J.P. (1959) Traits of creativity, in: H.H. Anderson (Ed.) Creativity and its cultivation (NYC,
Harper and Row).
Guilford, J.P. (1967) The nature of human intelligence (NYC, McGraw-Hill).
Guthrie, K. and Hudson, L.M. (1979) Training conservation through symbolic play: A second look,
Child Development, 50, pp. 1269-1271.
Hughes, M.M. (1981) Motivation and function of play in early childhood, Unpublished thesis for degree
of Doctor of Philosophy (University of Keele).
Hughes, M.M. (1987) The relationship between symbolic and manipulative (object) play, in: D. Gorlitz
and J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.) Curiosity, imagination and play: On the development of spontaneous cognitive and
motivational processes (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.).
Hutt, C. and Bhavnani, R. (1972) Predictions from play, in: J.S. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (Eds.)
Play: Its role in development and evolution (New York, Penguin Books, 1985).
Hutt, C. (1966) Exploration and play in children, in: J.S. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (Eds.) Play: Its
role in development and evolution (New York, Penguin Books, 1985).
Hutt, S.J., Tyler, S., Hutt, C. and Christopherson, H. (1989) Play exploration and learning: A natural
history of the preschool (Routledge).
Isaacs, S. (1938) Intellectual growth in young children (London, Routledge, original work published
in 1930).
 104 ELENIMELLOU

Jeffree, D.M. and McConkey, R. (1976) An observation scheme for recording children's imaginative
doll play, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, pp. 189-197.
Johnson, J.E (1990) The role of play in cognitive development, in: E. Klugman and S. Smilansky (Eds.)
Children's play and learning: Perspectives and policy implications (New York, Teachers College Press).
Johnson, J.E. (1976) Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and
non-social make believe play of preschool children, Child Development, 47, pp. 1200-1203.
Johnson, J.E. (1983) Context effects on preschool children's symbolic behavior, The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 143, pp. 259-268.
Johnson, J.E., Christie, J.F. and Yawkey, T.D. (1987) Play and early childhood development (Glenview, IL,
Scott, Foresman).
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

Katz, P.A. and Walsh, P.V. (1991) Modification of children's gender-stereotyped behavior, Child
Development, 62, pp. 338-351.
Klinger, E. (1969) Development of imaginative behavior: Implications of play for a theory of fantasy,
Psychological Bulletin, 72(4), pp. 277-298.
Klinger, E. (1971) Structure and functions offantasy (New York, Wiley).
Kneller G.E (1965) The art and science of creativity (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.).
Kogan, N. (1983) Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive
style, in: P.H. Mussen (Ed.) with J. Flavell and E. Markman (Vol. Eds.) Handbook of child psychology,
pp. 630-706 (New York, Wiley).
Laurence, R. and Sutton-Smith, B. (1968) Novel responses to toys: A replication, Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 14, pp. 159-162.
Li, A.K.F. (1978) Effects of play on novel responses in kindergarten children, The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 24(1), pp. 31-36.
Li, A.K.F. (1985) Correlates and effects of training in make-believe play in preschool children, The
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 31, pp. 70-79.
Lieberman, J.N. (1965) Playfulness and divergent thinking: An investigation of their relationship at
the kindergarten level, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 107, pp. 219—224.
Lieberman, J.N. (1977) Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity (Academic Press, Inc).
Litt, H. (1973) Imagery in children's thinking, Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Liverpool University).
Mandelbaum, J. (1975) Creative dramatics in early childhood, Young Children, 30(2), pp. 84-92.
Mann, B.L. (1984) Effects of realistic and unrealistic props on symbolic play, in: T.D. Yawkey and
A.D. Pellegrini (Eds.) Child's play: Developmental and applied (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,
London).
Manning, K. and Sharp, A. (1977) Structuring play in the early years at school (London, Ward Lock
Educational).
Markey, F.V. (1935) Imaginative behavior of preschool children, Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, No. 18.
Marshall, H.R. and Hahn, S.C. (1967) Experimental modification of dramatic play,Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5, pp. 119-122.
Martin, P. and Caro, T.M. (1985) On the functions of play and its role in behavioral development,
Advances in the Study of Behavior, 15, pp. 59—103.
Matthews, W.S. (1977) Modes of transformation in the imitation of fantasy play, Developmental
Psychology, 13(3), pp. 212-216.
McCaslin, N. (1987) Creative drama in the primary grades (New York University).
McDowell, M.S. and Howe, S.R. (1941) Creative use of play materials by preschool children, Childhood
Education, 17, pp. 321-326.
McLoyd, V.C. (1980) Modes of transformation in the pretend play of black, low-income children, Child
Development, 51, pp. 1133-1139.
McLoyd, V.C. (1983) The effects of the structure of play objects on the pretend play of low-income
preschool children, Child Development, 54, pp. 626-635.
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 105

McLoyd, V.C., Warren, D. and Thomas, A.C. (1984) Anticipatory and fantastic role enactment in
preschool triads, Developmental Psychology, 20(5), pp. 807-814.
Mellou, E. (1993) The relationship between dramatic play and creativity in young children, Unpublished
PhD thesis (School of Education of Bristol University, Bristol).
Mellou, E. (1994a) The case of intervention in young children's dramatic play in order to develop
creativity, Early Child Development and Care, 99, pp. 53-61.
Mellou, E. (1994b) A theoretical perspective on the relationship between dramatic play and creativity,
Early Child Development and Care, 100, pp. 77-92.
Mellou, E. (1994c) Creativity: The transformational condition, Early Child Development and Care, 101,
pp. 81-88.
Mellou, E. (1994d) 'Dramatic play': Is the appropriate name, Early Child Development and Care, 102.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

Moran, J.D.III, Sawyers, J.K. and Moore A.J. (1988) Effects of structure in instruction and materials
on preschoolers' creativity, Home Economics Research Journal, 17(2), pp. 148-152.
Moran, J.D.III, Sawyers, J.K., Fu, V.R. and Milgram, R.M.(1984) Predicting imaginative play in
preschool children, Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 92-94.
Nunnally, J.C. and Lemond, L.C. (1973) Exploratory behaviour and human development, in: H.W.
Reese (Ed.) Advances in child development and behavior, 8 (Academic Press, London).
Olszewski, P. and Fuson, K.C. (1982) Verbally expressed fantasy play of preschoolers as a function of
toy structure, Developmental Psychology, 18(1), pp. 57-61.
Olszewski, P. (1987) Individual differences in preschool children's production of verbal fantasy play,
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(1), pp. 69-85.
Pepler, D.J. and Ross, H.S. (1981) The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving,
Child Development, 52, pp. 1202-1210.
Pepler, D.J. (1979) The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation (University of Waterloo).
Pepler, D.J. (1982) Play and divergent thinking, in: D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin The play of children:
Current theory and research, Contributions to human development (S. Karger, Basel).
Pepler, D.J. (1987) Play in schools and schooled in play: A psychological perspective, in: J. Black and
N. King (Eds.) School play: A source book (New York, Garland).
Phillips, R. (1945) Doll play as a function of the realism of the materials and the length of the
experimental session, Child Development, 16(3), pp. 123-143.
Piaget, J. (1962) Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (C. Gattegno and F.M. Hodgon [Trans.],
New York, W.W. Norton).
Poole, M., (1980) The child at play, in: M. Poole (Ed.) Creativity across the curriculum (George Allen and
Unwin, Sydney).
Pulaski, M.A. (1970) Play as a function of toy structure and fantasy predisposition, Child Development,
41, pp. 531-537.
Pulaski, M.A. (1973) Toys and imaginative play, in: J.L. Singer (Ed.) The child's world of make-believe:
Experimental studies of imaginative play (New York, Academic Press).
Pulaski, M.A. (1974) The rich rewards of make believe, Psychology Today, 7(8), pp. 68-74.
Rosen, C.E. (1974) The effects of sociodramatic play on problem-solving behavior among culturally
disadvantaged preschool children, Child Development, 45, pp. 920-927.
Rubin, K.H., Fein, G.G. and Vandenberg, B. (1983) Play, in: P.H. Mussen and E.H. Hetherington (Eds.)
Handbook of child psychology, 4th ed, vol. 4, pp. 693-774 (New York, Wiley).
Saltz, E. and Brodie, J. (1982) Pretend-play training in childhood: A review and critique, in: D.J. Pepler
and K.H. Rubin (Eds.) The play of children: Current theory and research, Contributions to human development
(S. Karger, Basel).
Shmukler, D. and Naveh, I. (1980) Modification of imaginative play in preschool children through the
intervention of an adult model, South African Journal of Psychology, 10, pp. 99-103.
Shmukler, D. (1981) Mother-child interaction and its relationship to the predisposition of imaginative
play, Genetic Psychology Monographs, 104, pp. 215-235.
 106 ELENI MELLOU

Shmukler, D. (1982) A factor analytic model of elements of creativity in preschool children, Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 105, pp. 25-39.
Shmukler, D. (1983) Preschool imaginative play predisposition and its relationship to subsequent third
grade assessment, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 2(3), pp. 230-231.
Shmukler, D. (1985) Foundations of creativity: The facilitating environment, in: J. Freeman (Ed.) The
psychology of gifted children: Perspectives on Development and Education (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.).
Simon, T. and Smith, P.K. (1983) The study of play and problem solving in preschool children: Have
experimenter effects been responsible for previous results? British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
1, pp. 289-297.
Simon, T. and Smith, P.K. (1985) Play and problem solving: A paradigm questioned, Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 31(3), pp. 265-277.
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

Simon, T. and Smith, P.K. (1986) Problems with a play paradigm: A reply to Dansky, Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 32(2), pp. 205-209.
Simpson, R.M. (1922) Creative imagination, American Journal of Psychology, 33, pp. 234-243.
Singer, D.G. and Singer, J.L. (1990) The house of make-believe: Play and the developing imagination (Harvard
University).
Singer, D.L. and Rummo, J. (1973) Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kindergarten age
children, Developmental Psychology, 8, pp. 154-161.
Singer, J.L. and Singer, D.G. (1985) Make-believe: Games and activities to foster imaginative play in young
children (Glenview, IL, Scott, Foresman).
Singer, J.L. (1973) The child's world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play (New York,
Academic Press).
Slade, P. (1954) Child drama (University of London Press Ltd).
Slade, P. (1958) Introduction to child drama (University of London Press Ltd.).
Smilansky, S. and Shefatya, L. (1990) Facilitating play (Gaithersburg, MD, Psychosocial and Educational
Publications).
Smilansky, S. (1968) The effects of'sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children (New York, Wiley)
Smith, P.K. and Dutton, S. (1979) Play and training in direct and innovative problem-solving, Child
Development, 50, pp. 830-836.
Smith, P.K. and Simon, T. (1984) Object play, problem-solving, and creativity in children, in: P.K. Smith
(Ed.) Play in animals and humans (Basil Blackwell).
Smith, P.K. and Syddall, S. (1978) Play and non-play tutoring in pre-school children: Is it play or
tutoring which matters? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, pp. 315-325.
Smith, P.K. and Whitney, S. (1987) Play and associative fluency: Experimenter effects may be
responsible for previous positive findings, Developmental Psychology, 23(1), pp. 49-53.
Smith, P.K. (1980) Play and it's role in Education, Educational Analysis, 2(1), pp. 15-24.
Smith, P.K. (1988) Children's play and its role in early development: A re-evaluation of the 'play ethos',
in: A.D. Pellegrini (Ed.) Psychological bases for early Education (John Wiley & Sons Ltd.).
Smith, P.K., Dalgleish, M. and Herzmark, G. (1981) A comparison of the effects of fantasy play tutoring
and skills tutoring in Nursery classes, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, pp. 421-441.
Smith, P.K., Simon, T. and Emberton, R. (1985) Play, problem solving and experimenter effects, British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, pp. 105-107.
Sotamaa, Y. (1980) Criteria for children's playthings and play environments, in: P.F. Wilkinson (Ed.)
In celebration of play: An integrated approach to play and child development (Croom Helm Ltd., London).
Starkweather, E.K. (1971) Creativity research instrument designed for use with preschool children,
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, pp. 245-255.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1967) The role of play in cognitive development, Young children, 22, pp. 361-370.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1968) Novel responses to toys, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 14, pp. 151-158.
Sylva, K. (1977) Play and learning, in: B. Tizard and D. Harvey (Eds.) Biology of play (London,
Heinemann).
 DRAMATIC PLAY AND CREATIVITY IN YOUNG CHILDREN 107

Sylva, K., Bruner, J.S. and Genova, P. (1974) The role of play in the problem-solving of children
3-5 years old, in: J.S. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (Eds.) Play: Its role in development and evolution
(Penguin books, 1985).
Sylva, K., Roy, C. and Painter, M. (1980) Childwatching at playgroup and Nursery school (Grant
Mclntyre Ltd).
Tamburini, J. (1974) Play and intellectual development, Paedagogica Europaea, 9, pp. 51-59.
Tamburini, J. (1982) Play and the role of the teacher, Early Child Development and Care, 8, pp. 209-217.
Tizard, B. (1977) Play: The child's way of learning? in: B. Tizard and D. Harvey (Eds.) Biology of play
(London, Heinemann).
Torrance, E.P. (1966) Torrance tests of creative thinking (Personal Press, Priceton).
Truhon, S.A. (1983) Playfulness, play, and creativity: A path analytic model, The Journal of Genetic
Downloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg] at 22:41 14 November 2014

Psychology, 143, pp. 19-28.

Udwin, O. (1983) Imaginative play training as an intervention method with institutionalised preschool
children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, pp. 32—39.
Vandenberg, B. (1980) Play, problem-solving and creativity, New Directions for Child Development, 9,
pp. 49-68.
Vandenberg, B. (1981) The role of play in the development of insightful tool-using strategies, Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 27, pp. 97-109.
Vince-Bakonyi, A. (1969) Self-made toys in children's games, International Journal of Early Childhood, 1,
pp. 15-18.
Wallach, M.A. and Kogan, N. (1965) Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence
distinction (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
Wallach, M.A. (1971) The intelligence/creativity distinction (Morristown, N.J., General Learning Press).
Winnicott, D.W. (1971) Playing and reality (New York, Basic Books).
Woodard, C.Y. (1984) Guidelines for facilitating sociodramatic play, Childhood Education, pp. 172-177.