The Development of Substitute Object Pretense: The Differential Importance of Form and Function

Abstract

Substitute object pretense is one of the earliest-developing forms of pretense, and yet it changes considerably across the preschool years. By 3.5 years of age, children can pretend with substitutes that are highly dissimilar from their intended referents (Elder & Pederson, 1978), but even older children have difficulty understanding such pretense in others (Bigham & Bourchier-Sutton, 2007). The present studies had 3 aims: 1) to examine the relative influence of the form and function of substitute objects; 2) to replicate the age gap between pretense production and comprehension using a tightly controlled procedure; and 3) to investigate whether preschoolers’ comprehension of substitute object pretense is predicted by a) theory of mind (ToM), because it involves reading pretender intent, and (b) executive function (EF), because it involves inhibiting the substitute object’s identity. In Study 1, 3- to 5-year-old children performed at ceiling on a test of substitute object pretense production, whereas pretense comprehension improved considerably across this age range. Study 2 provided evidence that the function of a substitute object is more influential than its form in determining whether a child can comprehend pretense actions with the object. The results of Study 2 also provided support for the role of ToM in comprehending another’s pretense. Finally, Study 3 replicated the results regarding form, function, and ToM in a sample drawn from a different community. The effects of EF on pretense comprehension were inconsistent across conditions and studies, suggesting that EF may not play a major role in the comprehension of pretense with substitute objects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Joseph Eldredge, Andreina Andueza, Jane Reznik, Sirmina Dremsizova, Lody Friedman, Carla Hernandez, Candace Mariso, Connor McLaren, and Natasha Rivera for their assistance in data collection.

FUNDING

This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant #1024293, a grant from the Brady Education Foundation to A. S. L., and a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to D. S. W.

Notes

¹ Children also completed two additional measures: a functional fixedness measure (German & Barrett, 2005) and the Moe task (adapted from Lillard, 1993). There were no significant results involving functional fixedness, and its inclusion did not affect any other analyses. The percentage of children who passed the Moe task was very low (13% of 3-year-olds, 17% of 4-year-olds, and 38% of 5-year-olds), and therefore, this variable was not included in any analyses.

² As in Study 1, the Moe task (Lillard, 1993) was also administered, but because only 14% of children passed, this task was not used in any analyses.

³ We initially included random intercepts for objects as in Studies 1 and 2. However, the variance attributable to this random effect was near 0, so it was removed from the model. Its removal did not have any effect on the rest of the model.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant #1024293, a grant from the Brady Education Foundation to A. S. L., and a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to D. S. W.