Content uploaded by David F. Bjorklund
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David F. Bjorklund on Jan 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by David F. Bjorklund
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David F. Bjorklund on Nov 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Child Development, June 1998, Volume
69,
Number
3,
Pages
604-606
Physical Play and Cognitive Development: Integrating Activity,
Cognition, and Education
David
F.
Bjorklund and Rhonda
Douglas
Brown
We
propose
that
humans
may
have evolved
a
special sensitivity
to
certain
types
of
social
information
during
rough-and-tumble
play
that
facilitates
social
cognition. The
cognitive
benefits
of
physical play
are
described
as
providing
a
break
from
demanding intellectual
tasks,
and
are
hypothesized
to
be
related
to
gender
differ-
ences
in
spatial cognition.
INTRODUCTION
Play is not a new topic for cognitive developmental-
ists. Pretend, or fantasy, play has been investigated
both as an indicator and facilitator of symbolic func-
tioning in young children, and Piaget proposed that
it is through cooperative, social play that moral rea-
soning develops. But cognitive developmentalists
have generally steered clear of
physical
play, in part
because cognition and physical activity have been
seen as inhabiting mutually exclusive domains, at
least beyond infancy. The rediscovery of Vygotsky‘s
ideas led many to realize that social and cognitive
development are not truly separable; perhaps Pelle-
grini and Smith’s (1998) article will produce a similar
mind set about physical activity and cognitive devel-
opment. This would be consistent with the currently
popular developmental systems perspective of de-
velopment, which posits the need to examine bidirec-
tional influences among multiple levels to under-
stand development (e.g., Gottlieb, Wahlsten,
&
Lickliter, 1997).
ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE PLAY AND THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF
SOCIAL COGNITION
Pellegrini and Smith (1998) make the traditional dis-
tinction between cognitive and social aspects
of
phys-
ical play. The greatest impact of rough-and-tumble
play
(R
&
T), for example, is in the social domain, fa-
cilitating, perhaps, the encoding and decoding of
so-
cial signals. Despite the social consequences
of
such
activity, the mechanisms involved are every bit as
”cognitive” as are those associated with math seat-
work, thus expanding the realm of cognitive benefits
afforded by physical play. In fact,
it
would be consis-
Commentary
on
Pellegrini and Smith, “Physical Activity Play:
The
Nature and Function
of
a Neglected
Aspect
of
Play.”
tent with the tenets of evolutionary psychology (e.g.,
Tooby
&
Cosmides, 1992)
to
hypothesize that do-
main-specific brain modules may have evolved to
process social information. Such modules may be de-
velopmentally (and possibly gender) sensitive, mak-
ing children biased toward certain classes of social
information
in
R
&
T
contexts.
If
such
a
hypothesis
were confirmed, it would suggest that some of the
cognitive benefits of physical play are not ”incidental
or serendipitous,” but a direct consequence of a spe-
cific type of physical play.
RECESS
AS
A
FACILITATOR
OF
SCHOOL
LEARNING
Although such a hypothesis has theoretical appeal,
we believe that the potentially most practical aspect
of Pellegrini and Smith’s arguments about the rela-
tion between physical play and children’s thinking
has to do with the narrower definition of cognition,
specifically as it relates to school learning. Here, the
benefits are proposed to be incidental to the play ac-
tivity itself, mainly in the form of a break from de-
manding tasks. Pellegrini and Smith invoke the cog-
nitive immaturity hypothesis (Bjorklund, 1997) to
highlight the importance of considering children’s
cognitive abilities
at
particular points in develop-
ment. Young children in particular may require more
breaks from seahvork and more frequent changes in
activities. Their immature nervous systems may be
more sensitive to interference. Providing opportuni-
ties for breaks from intellectual tasks, such as those
afforded by physical play, may allow for a release
from interference. Pellegrini and Smith cited some
experimental support for this hypothesis (e.g., Pelle-
grini, Huberty,
&
Jones, 1995), and there is anecdotal
0
1998 by the Society for Research
in
Child Development,
Inc.
All
rights reserved. 0009-3920 /98
/
6903-0005$01
.00
Bjorklund
and
Brown
605
evidence that the success of some Asian school sys-
tems is based, in part, on their recognition of the lim-
ited cognitive capacities of young children. For exam-
ple, it is commonly believed that Asian schools offer
a
more rigorous educational experience for children
in comparison to American schools. However, people
often do not know that in Asian schools the number
of hours children spend in class and the opportuni-
ties for breaks vary with age. As noted by Pellegrini
and Smith, Stevenson and Lee
(1990)
documented
that first graders in Taipei in Taiwan and Sendai in
Japan spend fewer hours per day in school than do
first graders in Minneapolis. Furthermore, children
in those schools have more than twice
as
many
recesses as children in American schools. Thus,
although Asian schools presumably provide
more intensive instruction, they complement their
requirements with more opportunities for breaks (in
the form
of
recesses) and shorter school days for the
youngest children. Although their policies may not
be explicitly theory-based, children’s limited cogni-
tive abilities are implicitly taken into consideration
in the design of curricula in Asian schools.
GENDER DIFFERENCES
In their functional analysis
of
physical play, Pelle-
grini and Smith seek explanations for age trends and
gender differences, concluding that the cognitive
benefits afforded by exercise play in the forms of
arousal, distributed practice, and release from inter-
ference may relate to age trends, but do not explain
gender differences. One possible relation between
physical play and cognitive development that the
au-
thors did not address concerns gender differences in
spatial cognition. Although Pellegrini and Smith fo-
cus their review on the immediate benefits of physi-
cal play, consideration of distal functions of gender
differences in spatial cognition may shed light on
possible links between physical play and cognitive
development. Returning to the tenets of evolutionary
psychology, domain-specific brain modules may
have evolved within the realm of spatial cognition to
be sensitive to developmental level and gender. For
example, Silverman and Eals
(1992)
suggest that the
activities of males during the period of evolutionary
adaptation likely involved hunting and navigation,
whereas the activities
of
females likely involved the
type of fine-motor coordination required for forag-
ing,
a
sexual division of labor. Such differential activ-
ities may have led to the evolution
of
gender differ-
ences in spatial cognition. Indeed, Silverman and
Eals
(1992)
report
a
male bias on mental rotation and
spatial relations
tasks
and a female bias on object-
location memory tasks.
Physical play, particularly in boys, often involves
activities that require eye-hand coordination, such
as
playing football, climbing trees, or playing on gym-
nastic equipment. One hypothesis about the nature
of
gender differences in spatial abilities is that boys’
greater experience with such activities promotes the
development of spatial cognition to
a
higher level
than seen in girls. In fact, in research with adults,
a
significant relation has been found between females’
spatial cognition and the frequency with which they
engage in everyday tasks involving high spatial con-
tent (Newcombe, Bandura,
&
Taylor,
1983).
Addi-
tionally, Connor and Serbin
(1977)
found similar ef-
fects with preschoolers, reporting gender differences
in spatial play activities and a significant correlation
between the amount of boys’ spatial play and perfor-
mance on several measures of spatial abilities. Future
research concerning relations between physical play
and cognitive development should examine the
types
of physical play engaged in by boys and girls.
If
boys
participate in physical play that involves eye-hand
coordination, estimating trajectories of moving ob-
jects (such
as
footballs), or moving about within fairly
complex spatial configurations (basketball plays) to
a
greater extent than girls, then we would hypothe-
size that such physical play activities contribute to
gender differences in spatial cognition. Furthermore,
we would predict individual differences within gen-
der; for example, girls who engage in such spatial
ac-
tivities more frequently should show greater spatial
cognitive abilities relative to girls who do not engage
in such activities (see Newcombe et al.,
1983).
The
gender differences observed in physical play during
childhood may thus mediate some of the gender dif-
ferences observed in spatial abilities.
Pellegrini and Smith’s review of the physical play
literature notes possible intellectual benefits of an
as-
pect of play that has traditionally been ignored by
cognitive developmentalists, specifically,
as
provid-
ing a break from demanding cognitive tasks. We con-
cur with this interpretation, but also hypothesize that
early social cognition may be mediated by aspects of
R
&
T and propose that gender differences in spatial
cognition may be causally related to the kinds
of
physical play activities typically engaged in by boys
and girls.
ADDRESS AND AFFILIATION
Corresponding author: David
F.
Bjorklund, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University,
606
Child
Development
Boca Raton, FL
33431;
e-mail: DBjorklund@fau.edu.
Rhonda Douglas Brown
is
also at Florida Atlantic
University.
REFERENCES
Bjorklund, D.
F.
(1997). The role
of
immaturity in human
development.
Psychological Bulletin,
122,
153-169.
Connor,
J.
M.,
&
Serbin,
L.
A.
(1977). Behaviorally based
masculine- and feminine-activity-preference scales for
preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors
and cognitive tests.
Child Development,
48,
141 1-1416.
Gottlieb,
G.,
Wahlsten,
D.,
&
Lickliter,
R.
(1997). The sig-
nificance
of
biology for human development:
A
devel-
opmental psychobiological systems view. In
R.
M.
Ler-
ner (Ed.),
W.
Damon (Gen.
Ed.),
Handbook
of
child
psychology:
Vol.
1.
Theory.
New York: Wiley.
Newcombe, N., Bandura,
M.
M.,
&
Taylor,
D.
C. (1983). Sex
differences in spatial ability and spatial activities.
Sex
Roles,
9,
377-386.
Pellegrini,
A.
D.,
Huberty,
P.
D.,
&
Jones,
I.
(1995). The ef-
fects of recess timing on children’s playground and
classroom behaviors.
American Educational Research Jour-
nal,
32,
845-864.
Pellegrini,
A.
D.,
&
Smith, P.
K.
(1998). Physical activity
play: The nature and function
of
a neglected aspect of
play.
Child Development,
69,
577-598.
Silverman,
I.,
&
Eals,
M.
(1992). Sex differences in spatial
ability: Evolutionary theory and data. In
H.
Barkow,
L.
Cosmides,
&
J.
Tooby (Eds.),
The adapted mind: Evolution-
ary psychology and the generation
of
culture
(pp. 533-549).
New York Oxford University Press.
Stevenson,
H.
W.,
&
Lee,
S.
Y.
(1990). Contexts
of
achieve-
ment.
Monographs
of
the Society
for
Research in Child De-
velopment,
55(1-2,
Serial No. 221).
Tooby,
J.,
&
Cosmides,
L.
(1992). The psychological founda-
tions of culture. In
J.
H.
Barkow,
L.
Cosmides,
&
J.
Tooby
(Eds.),
The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychologj and the
generation
of
culture
(pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford
University Press.
