Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Playing with technology: Mothertoddler interaction scores lower during play with
electronic toys
Michaela B. Wooldridge , Jennifer Shapka
The University of British Columbia, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To investigate play with electronic toys (battery-operated or digital), 25 mothertoddler (1624 months old)
Received 18 October 2010 dyads were videotaped in their homes playing with sets of age-appropriate electronic and non-electronic
Received in revised form 30 April 2012 toys for approximately 10 min each. Parentchild interactions were coded from recorded segments of both
Accepted 26 May 2012
of the play conditions using the PICCOLO checklist. Mean scores for each play session were compared and
Available online 20 July 2012
the result showed signicantly lower scores in the electronic toy condition for three of the four domains of
Keywords:
the PICCOLO. Family demographic and play pattern data were also collected, via self-report questionnaire.
Play These data indicated that the play experiences of toddlers were compromised by the lower quality of
Toddler development parentchild interaction during joint play with electronic toys. The potential impact on early child develop-
Motherchild interaction ment and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Toys 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Electronic toys

With the homes of infants and toddlers saturated in screen media
technologies (Rideout & Hamel, 2006), and exponential growth in the
production of hardware and software specically aimed at children
under three years (e.g., Garrison & Christakis, 2005), children are
now born into, and being raised in, technology-rich environments.
Paralleling this is a noted decline in the quantity and quality of
children's play (Berk, 2010; Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, & Singer,
2009; Singer, Singer, D'Agostino, & DeLong, 2009); a trend that
began in the early 1980s when daily play time for school-aged chil-
dren fell from 40% in 1981 to 25% by 1997 (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff,
2004). It is now evident that even very young children spend less
time playing as they spend increasing amounts of time viewing
screenstelevision, computers, and/or videos (Anand & Krosnick,
2005; Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Sigman, 2009).
Most research looking at the impact of technology on young chil-
dren has focused on screen technology (e.g., Wartella, Vandewater, &
Rideout, 2005), however, the toys provided to infants and toddlers
are becoming increasingly technological (Business Wire, 2007;
Ritchel & Stone, 2007; Wall, 2006). There are now laptop computers
for infants and toddlers, electronic talking books, animated stuffed
animals and dolls, digital cameras for little hands, and battery-
driven materials of every kind, including infant rattles and mobiles.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of information about the impact of
such electronic materials on toddlers (e.g., Wartella et al., 2005).
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 604 822 3000, + 1 604 786 7302 (mobile); fax: + 1
604 822 3302.
E-mail addresses: micha13@interchange.ubc.ca (M.B. Wooldridge),
jennifer.shapka@ubc.ca (J. Shapka).
The current study recties this by comparing the quality of early
parenttoddler play interactions when using toys with and without
embedded electronic features.
Play and toddler development
Play is what children do, (Bjorklund, 2007, p. 140). Throughout
history, and across cultures, play is often considered the dening ac-
tivity of childhood, with adaptive value (e.g., Bruner, Jolly, & Sylva,
1976). Play, in all its forms, is inextricably linked to children's healthy
development across multiple domainscognition (e.g., Piaget, 1962;
Vygotsky, 1978); emotional regulation and mental health (Berk,
Mann, & Ogan, 2006; Lyons-Ruth & Zeanah, 1993; Singer & Singer,
2005); social development, language and literacy skills (Krafft &
Berk, 1998; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1993; Zigler, Singer, &
Bishop-Josef, 2004); and physical health and growth (e.g., Pellegrini
& Smith, 1998). While older children play as a matter of course, in-
fants and toddlers are uniquely dependent on their caregivers to
learn the social interactions that undergird the development of inde-
pendent and social play skills required for future peer play and friend-
ships (e.g., Singer & Singer, 2005). In the rst year, infant play occurs
within parentchild affective social exchanges (e.g., Bornstein &
Tamis-LeMonda, 2004) and sensorimotor exploration of the environ-
ment (e.g., Piaget, 1954). In the second year, toddlers begin to engage
in representational play as they develop cognitive capacities to un-
derstand and use symbols (e.g., DeLoache, 1991; Piaget, 1962). Par-
ents and caregivers are preferred play partners as children engage
in increasingly social, reciprocal interactions. Indeed, even when
peers and siblings are available, toddlers prefer to play with their

0193-3973/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2012.05.005
212 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
mothers, who typically scaffold their play in ways that appeal to the
child (Haight & Miller, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978).
Parent behaviours
Given the important role of caregivers in a child's play experience,
a fundamental aspect of young children's play is the quality of the
interactions they have with their parent(s) (Brazelton & Greenspan,
2000; Shmukler; 1981; Singer & Singer, 2005). Children play more,
and in more varied ways with a skilled play partner (Hirsh-Pasek &
Golinkoff, 2004), which as noted, leads to improved outcomes across
social and emotional domains (Carpendale & Lewis, 2004; Shonkoff
& Phillips, 2000). Qualities of parent behaviour linked to positive
child developmental outcomes have been grouped in the research
literature into construct domains such as affection (warmth, care),
responsiveness (sensitivity), encouragement (scaffolding, autono-
my support), and teaching (language and literacy support, cognitive
simulation).
Parent affect. The construct domain of affection (warmth) includes par-
ent behaviours such as positive comments and warm tone of voice,
spontaneity, acceptance, sympathy, and empathy (e.g., Caspi et al.,
2004; Estrada, Arsenio, Hess, & Holloway, 1987; MacDonald, 1992).
For example, a positive affective relationship between mother and
four-year-old child was positively correlated with child mental ability
at age four, school readiness at age four, IQ at age six, and school
achievement at age 12 (Estrada et al., 1987). Also, parental warmth
and support, along with socioeconomic status, were found to opti-
mize cognitive skills and task orientation (Petgill & Deater-Deckard,
2004).
Parent responsiveness. Responsiveness (sensitivity) is characterized by
parents paying attention to the child, adapting to his/her changing in-
terests, and responding to the child's communicative attempts and
emotions. Responsiveness predicts children's emotional self-regulation
(Davidov & Grusec, 2006) and, when started with infants and
maintained across early childhood, enhances cognitive growth such as
cause-and-effect understanding, active exploration of the environment,
language, and learning (Baumwell, Tamis-LeMonda, & Bornstein,
1997; Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010; Bradley, Caldwell, &
Rock, 1988; Landry, Smith, Swank, Assel, & Vellet, 2001; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983). For example, maternal responsiveness at 9 and
13 months predicted the timing of ve milestones in expressive
language development (Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell,
2001), and toddlers showed greater exploration when mothers
demonstrated emotional availability as compared to mothers who
were physically nearby but otherwise preoccupied (Sorce & Emde,
1981).
Parent autonomy support. Autonomy support (encouragement) in-
cludes four elements of parent behaviour: (a) acknowledgement of
child thoughts and feelings (also called mind-mindedness), (b) pro-
viding meaningful rationale, (c) offering choices, and (d) avoidance
of controlling language and behaviour (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, &
Leone, 1994; Grolnick, Gurland, DeCourcey, & Jacobs, 2002;
Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, & Houlfort, 2004). Autonomy support is
rst seen with maternal mind-related comments in infancy and has
been shown to predict attachment security (Meins, Fernyhough,
Fradley, & Tuckey, 2001); cognitive-language and social growth outcomes
(e.g. Landry, Smith, Miller-Loncar, & Swank, 1997); exploration, intrinsic
motivation, and task persistence (e.g., Kelly, Brownell, & Campbell,
2000; Whipple, Bernier, & Mageau, 2011); theory of mind tasks (e.g.,
Meins et al., 2003); and academic achievements and social adjustment
(e.g., Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, & Landry, 2005). Conversely, parents
who are intrusive, directive, or non-emotionally engaged lower the
quality of the child's play experience with poorer child outcomes
(e.g., Ispa et al., 2004).
Parent teaching behaviours. Parents provide cognitive stimulation
through shared play and conversation that includes explanations and
questions (e.g., Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 1998). The temporal se-
quence of child-action and mother-response within interactions charac-
terized by joint attention provides fertile ground for optimal child
learning during the infant and toddler periods of development (e.g.,
Bloom, 1998; Meins, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). For example,
young children best acquire new linguistic information when engaged
in joint activities with a more mature language user (Moore &
Dunham, 1995). Maternal behaviours such as expanding infants'
level of functioning in social interactions and symbolic play are
most effective for child learning (Laakso, Poikkeus, Eklund, & Lyytinen,
1999).
The role of toys in parentchild interactions
Within parentchild interactions, toys and objects often serve as a
focus for joint attention. Toys are specically provided to children to
aid in exploration and provide platforms for developing skills and
learning concepts (e.g., Bjorklund, 2007). It has been suggested that
the mark of a "good" toy is one that is 10% design and 90% the child's
actions with it (Hirsh-Pasek, 2006). Indeed, the level of control a child
has over the material has been shown to be positively related to the
amount of learning (Buckleitner, 2006; Calvert, Strong, & Gallagher,
2005; Resnick, 2006). Parents convey the toy's features, the role of
toys in play, and the social co-construction of knowledge within the cul-
tural context of the interaction (Bornstein, Haynes, Pascual, Painter, &
Galperin, 1999; Rakoczy & Tomasello, 2005). For example, in a dyadic
play scenario, when mothers were highly interactive with their two-
year olds, the addition of play materials was found to result in higher
child problem-solving scores (Hron-Stewart, Lefever, & Weintraub,
1990).
With the shift to more electronic toys, there is concern for the poten-
tial impact on infanttoddler play and development (Hirsh-Pasek &
Golinkoff, 2008; Linn, 2009; Sigman, 2009; Winerman, 2009), and, in
particular, how this may be mediated through parentchild interac-
tions. To date, research on technology and parentchild interaction
has been largely limited to investigating the effects of background
screen and has suggested an inverse correlation between the amount
of screen media present in a young child's environment and positive
parentchild interaction (Kirkorian, Pempek, Murphy, Schmidt, &
Anderson, 2009; Masur & Flynn, 2008). Lacking is research that ex-
plores the potential impact of infant-directed, manipulative elec-
tronic materials on the quality of parentchild play interactions.
The current observational study does just this by examining the dif-
ferences in parentchild interactions during play when children's
toys are digitally enhanced. Given results from screen media re-
search, and that current electronic toys for toddlers are pre-
programmed with a narrow range of possible uses, our hypothesis
is that such toys will have a negative impact on the quality of the
interaction between parent and child.
Method
Participants
Participants were volunteers recruited from two cities in southern
British Columbia, Canada, in response to notices placed publicly and
through community services. Eligibility was based on the child's
age, and the mother identied as the primary caregiver. The mother
was deemed primary caregiver if the child was living with her full-
time, or the majority of the week if in shared custody. Of 32 contacts,
25 mothertoddler dyads participated in this observational study. The
average age of the child was 19.75 months (range 1624.5 months, 10
males). Most families (92%) indicated English as their rst language,
with Mandarin identied as the rst language in two families (8%).
The majority (72%) indicated no second language, while 28% indicated
 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
using at least one language in addition to English. Child ethnicity was
composed of 76% Caucasian/European, 12% East Asian, and 12% mixed.
Most children (88%) lived in two-parent homes, and 12% lived in
extended families (no children lived in single-parent homes). A ve-
point scale was used for maternal education level (1 = some secondary
school, 2 = secondary school completion, 3 = some post-secondary
training/trade, 4 = college graduate, 5 = post-graduate). For this sample,
the level of maternal education was moderately high (M = 3.56;
SD = 0.87), with no mothers having less than secondary school
completion.
Setting and apparatus
Upon agreeing to being in the study, a time and day was arranged
for the researcher to visit the family's home. Mothers chose the space
in their homes for the play sessions, but were encouraged to play
where they normally would. All play sessions were with the mother
and her toddler only. In two families, newborn infants were asleep
in the room, but without any interaction by either the mother or
the toddler during recording. When older children were in the
home during the play sessions, mothers had made arrangements for
their child to be occupied elsewhere. In no cases were the play ses-
sions interrupted by other family members.
Toys were purchased from a variety of stores to represent where
families normally shop, and currently available on the market.
These toys were all novel to the mothers and their children. In
only one instance did a child recognize one of the electronic toys
from a babysitter's home. Toys chosen were designed and marketed
for children between 12 and 24 months, as indicated on the packag-
ing. Two sets of toys were assembled (one electronic, one tradition-
al or non-electronic) designed to facilitate three types of play,
namely language, cognitive, and pretend play. For language play, a
board book, Stop, Look & Learn, First Words by Brendon Publishing
International, 2003, and an electronic book, Touch & Teach Busy
Books by V-Tech, were selected. With the power on, the electronic
book asked the child to use an attached bee to touch various im-
ages of objects on each page of the book, receiving a correct or
try again response. Shape sorters were used to elicit cognitive
play. A six-shape block and wooden box model, The Shape & Sort It
Out by Plan Toys, and the Cookie Shape Surprise by Fisher-Price,
represented the non-electronic and electronic versions respective-
ly. With the power on, the electronic shape sorter ashed lights and
played music when a shape was placed either into the shaped
opening or into the open top, and also named the shape or the col-
our when inserted through the shaped holes. Pretend play was
encouraged with animal gures. The non-electronic set consisted of
a plastic barn, ve animals, and a person. The electronic animals,
Funderful Roll Along Safari, consisted of three plastic animal gures
on wheels (giraffe, tiger, duck), each of which ashed lights and played
classical music, or named shapes and colours corresponding to the
activating buttons.
Procedures
Prior to the play sessions, mothers completed a self-report ques-
tionnaire about their family's play patterns and signed the consent
form. The questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to com-
plete and reported demographic information and typical play expe-
riences for the child. The mothers then engaged in a 20- to 30-
minute video-recorded play session with their toddler. The obser-
vational part of the study involved having each motherchild dyad
participate in two sequential, 10- to 15-minute, play sessions.
Mothers were informed that one set of toys consisted of tradition-
al or manipulative toys and that the others were battery-operated
or electronic. Mothers were instructed to try to explore all the toys
and play with your child as you normally would. The researcher
213
provided the toy sets, with a different set (traditional or electronic)
used in each play session, in counterbalanced order. In some sessions,
children briey approached and/or incorporated their own toys into
the interaction, but most of the interaction centered on the novel toys
provided. At the end of the rst session, the recording stopped briey,
while the rst bag of toys was removed and the second bag of toys
was presented. Recording recommenced at that point. Following the
recorded sessions, mothers and children were thanked for their
participation.
Measures
Self-report play questionnaire
Via open-ended questions, mothers answered, in their own
words, the perceived benet of play for their child and identied
their child's normal play partner(s). They were asked about the
proportion of battery-operated/electronic toys in the home (5
point scale: none, a few, about half, most, almost all). Finally, they
were asked about the frequency and average duration of engage-
ment in seven play contextsplay with toys, books and/or literacy ma-
terials, language or vocal play (e.g., songs and rhymes), watching screen
media (television, videos, computers), household activities, physical
games (e.g. chasing), and community excursions. A seven-point scale
was used for frequency (>1/day, 1/day, 34/week, 1/week, b1/week, spo-
radic, never). A ve-point scale was used for length of play episodes
(b5 min, 510 min, 1020 min, 2030 min,>30 min).
PICCOLO
The Parents Interacting with Children: Checklist of Observation
Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO; Roggman, Cook, Jump, Innocenti, &
Christiansen, 2009) is an observational measure and was the main
outcome for this study. The PICCOLO codes 29 parentchild interac-
tion behaviours using a three-point scale, grouped in four domains:
Affection (seven items), Responsiveness (seven items), Encourage-
ment (seven items), and Teaching (eight items).
A new measure, the PICCOLO was developed as an observational
measure of parenting behaviours that support development for zero
to three year-olds. In developing the measure, Roggman et al. (in
press) utilized data from the national Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project and had a group of observers independently rate
over 4500 video clips of parents and toddlers. Analyzing these obser-
vations in conjunction with feedback from infanttoddler practi-
tioners, they identied 29 behaviour items, which were then tested
by new observers (observers matched for ethnicity to families) on
over 2000 fteen-minute video clips of children aged 14, 24, and
36 months playing with their primary caregiver.
The 29 items represent four domains of parentchild interactions:
Affection (e.g., parent smiling, warm tone of voice, expressions of
praise); Responsiveness (e.g., parental interest, following child's lead,
making eye contact); Encouragement (e.g., supports autonomy and
creativity, offers help without interference); and Teaching (e.g., labels
objects or actions, repeats or expands on child's words, asks questions,
models pretend play). It should be noted that domain indicators
describe specic interactions between parents and children at home
and scoring is not determined by the presence of specic materials
or toys. Rather, the PICCOLO's emphasis is on what parents do with
the materials on hand in their interactions with the child. (Cook &
Roggman, 2009).
With the extant data available, the developers of the PICCOLO
have been able to show good reliability and validity, including predic-
tive validity with other child outcomes, such as language and literacy
(as measured by the Peabody and Woodcock-Johnson), emotion-
regulation (as measured by the Bayley), and aggressive behaviour
(as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist). Regarding reliability,
the four domains were identied through factor analysis and each
has shown good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas ranging
214 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
from .75 to .80 across the four domains (Cook & Roggman, 2009). The
developers of the PICCOLO note that the four domains are
moderately-highly correlated to each other, but not so much as to
measure the same construct, with correlations weakening over time.
Each domain score is moderately stable over time in that early scores
predict later scores within the same domain (Cook & Roggman,
2009).
Alphas for the current study are lower than the ones reported by
Cook and Roggman (2009) and ranged from .47 to .65 across the
four domain scales. The lower scores are not surprising given the
impact of sample size on the precision of alpha estimates. As rec-
ommended by Duhachek, Coughlan, and Iacobucci (2005), we
have also reported the standard errors as ranging from 0.29 to
0.55, which are considered good for a small sample, producing nar-
row condence intervals.
To score the play sessions, each behaviour was scored on a three-
point scale, where zero represented not seen; one represented some-
times seen; and two represented frequently seen. A three-point scale
is used to eliminate the need for coders to count behaviours, and pur-
portedly limits the bias inherent in larger scales (Roggman et al., in
press). In general, if a behaviour is clearly seen more than once or
twice during a 10-minute play session, it is deemed frequent, or a
score of two. To create the domain scores, each dyad received a score
out of 14 (seven items each with a score of zero, one, or two) for the Af-
fection, Responsiveness, and Encouragement domains. The Teaching
domain yielded scores out of 16 because it has an additional item.
Scores were obtained from each observer/coder independently and av-
eraged for statistical analysis. In each domain, the lowest 5% of scores
are considered high risk and the lowest 11% deemed as moderate risk.
The highest scores are considered to be strengths (Roggman et al., in
press).
Inter-observer reliability
To become competent and reliable coders, the PICCOLO developers
recommend approximately eight hours of observation and coding train-
ing under their tutelage. Two experienced infanttoddler practitioners
completed such training in 2008 and 2009, followed by extensive
joint practice in the eld. As training was provided by two of PICCOLO's
authors (Lori Roggman and Mark Innocenti), it can be assumed that
coding procedures for this study followed the same procedure as was
used in reliability and validity studies. To minimize the inuence of
observer bias, each videotaped play session was coded independently
with the exception of one dyad where the coders jointly viewed but
separately coded the recordings. One observer/coder was blind to the
study's hypothesis. Recorded play sessions were transferred from
video camera to separate DVDs to permit coding in small batches across
several weeks. At no time were dyads viewed or coded in both play
conditions in the same time period. The overall inter-rater reliability
for this study averaged 96% (range 8798% across domains), which
exceeds inter-rater reliability for this tool reported as 85% across the
four domains (range 8192%; Cook & Roggman, 2009). For additional
inter-rater reliability data, average measures for intraclass correlations
were as follows: Affection at .91 (traditional) and .82 (electronic);
Responsiveness at .70 (traditional) and .86 (electronic); Encouragement
at .72 (traditional) and .88 (electronic), and Teaching at .92 (traditional)
and .95 (electronic).
Results
Self-report data
The parent-completed questionnaire yielded information about the
child's play opportunities and the families' play patterns and resources.
Specically, mothers were identied as the child's most common play
partner (44%), while parents equally were identied in almost one-
third of families (32%). Only one family identied someone other than
one or both parents as the child's primary play partner. Secondary
play partners consisted of siblings, other relatives, paid caregivers, and
unrelated adults and children. In terms of the proportion of the child's
toys that were battery-operated, on a ve-point scale where zero repre-
sented none and four represented almost all, this sample's proportion of
battery-operated toys was M = 1.36, SD = 0.81, or somewhere be-
tween a few and half.
Mothers reported on how frequently and for how long their child
typically engaged in seven different modes of play. Means and stan-
dard deviations for frequency and duration of typical play are sum-
marized in Fig. 1. Most of the children in this sample were afforded
experiences in all seven modes of play. On average, toys, books,
vocal play, and physical play were experienced daily. One exception
was exposure to screens (television, videos, computers) where expo-
sure was less than weekly for almost a third (32%) of children, and
16% had no exposure whatsoever. However, for parents who did per-
mit their toddlers to view screens, they did so frequently with 52% of
this subset of children engaged in this activity daily or more often.
This apparent split approach to toddlers' use of screen technology
may explain some of the high variability in scores for this activity.
Children engaged in all play modes for at least 510 minutes per ses-
sion. As might be expected, excursions had the longest mean duration
at close to 30 min. Time spent viewing screens was over 20 min per
session for 44% of toddlers. At the same time, 16% of toddlers were
reported to engage with screens for less than ve minutes per session,
with 12% reporting no time at all in this activity. In general, there was
greater variability for duration than frequency of play.
An open-ended question on the survey asked parents to answer
how does your child benet from play? Specic answer options
were purposely omitted so as not to lead to particular responses. To
group mothers' responses, categories were created based on research
literature where play is linked to developmental outcomes. Cognition
included words such as learning, cognition, problem-solving, and
concepts. The perceptual-motor category included gross motor, ne
motor, spatial awareness, exercise, and coordination. Social develop-
ment includes responses such as relationships, friends, and socialization.
Creativity includes words such as imagination, curiosity, and explora-
tion. Language includes words such as talking, words, language, and
vocabulary. The theme of emotional development includes responses
such as happy, self-esteem, condence, competence, and patience. Be-
haviour includes words such as life skills, perseverance, occupied, and
proper behaviour. Each response was placed into a category and each
category was counted for frequency of responses. Multiple words consis-
tent with one category were counted as a single entry. For purposes of
inter-rater reliability, responses were placed into categories indepen-
dently by another developmental expert. Of 27 types of response (inclu-
sive of multiples), the coders disagreed on only one placement into the
categories, representing an agreement rate of 96%. An overwhelming
majority of mothers (88%) listed cognitive benets as the primary bene-
t of play for their toddlers. Play was also seen as important for the
Fig. 1. Frequency and duration of child's typical play by parent report.
 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
development of social skills (48%), perceptual-motor skills (44%), crea-
tivity (36%), language (24%), and emotional and behavioural domains
(20% each). These mothers appeared to recognize the importance of
play for children across developmental domains.
Preliminary analyses
Before analysing the PICCOLO data, preliminary analyses were run
to examine order effects. Specically, two one-way ANOVAs were
conducted to explore the effects of order of toy presentation on
total PICCOLO scores for each play condition (traditional; electronic).
Thirteen dyads received the traditional toys rst and twelve dyads
received the electronic toys rst. The ANOVAs showed no signicant
differences between groups (p > .05), which suggests that the order
of toy presentation did not impact the PICCOLO scores.
Observational data PICCOLO
To explore differences in parentchild interaction, a one-way
within-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
performed to investigate toy type (electronic versus non-electronic)
on PICCOLO scores. The four domains of the PICCOLO (Affection,
Responsiveness, Encouragement, and Teaching) were included as the
dependent variables and the independent variable was toy type (elec-
tronic, non-electronic). Preliminary testing was conducted to check for
assumptions of normality, linearity, homogeneity of variancecovariance
matrices, multicollinearity, as well as to identify any univariate or multi-
variate outliers. These analyses resulted in the removal of one extreme
outlier due to multivariate non-normality.
Results of the MANOVA indicated a statistically signicant difference
between toy conditions on the combined dependent variables, F (4,
43) = 6.65, p = .000; Wilks' = .62; partial eta squared = .38. When
the results for the dependent variables were considered separately,
using an alpha level of .01, three variables reached statistical signicance:
Responsiveness, F (1, 46) = 7.68, p = .008, Cohen's D = 0.80; Teaching
F (1, 46) = 21.67, p = .000, Cohen's D = 1.34; and Encouragement, F
(1, 46) = 6.72, p = .01, Cohen's D = 0.75. An inspection of the mean
scores indicated that the non-electronic toy condition yielded statistically
signicant higher scores than the electronic condition for three domains:
Responsiveness (M = 12.77, SD = 0.93, range 1114 vs. M = 11.73,
SD = 1.59, range 914); Teaching (M = 11.92, SD = 1.96, range
7.515 vs. M = 9.17, SD = 2.13, range 3.513); and Encouragement
(M = 13.17, SD = 0.62, range 1214 vs. M = 12.40, SD = 1.32, range
1214).
Although the scores on the PICCOLO were higher in the traditional
toy play condition across the four domains, the affection and encour-
agement domains had higher percentages of participants who scored
higher in the electronic toy condition (20% and 12%, respectively). In
contrast, only 4% of the sample had higher scores in the electronic toy
condition for each of the responsiveness and teaching domains. This
suggests that the electronic toy condition had a stronger negative
effect on the behaviours related to responsiveness and teaching.
Discussion
Results for this study show that in two of the four domains of
parentchild interaction (as measured by the PICCOLO), mother's
behaviours were signicantly less positive in the responsiveness and
teaching dimensions, and they were marginally less encouraging with
their children while playing with electronic toys. These results support
our hypothesis that electronic toys may have a negative impact on the
quality of parentchild interactions. The generally high PICCOLO scores
in the traditional toy condition, combined with our demographic infor-
mation (education), suggest this sample of mothers to be competent in
dyadic interactions in the domains measured. Further, the self-report
questionnaire indicated that this sample of children did not suffer
215
deprivation of play opportunities, materials, or play partners. Moreover,
in terms of practical signicance, for the teaching domain, the scores on
parentchild interaction were an average 2.5 points lower compared
with electronic toys, which, in real terms, reects an absence of three
to ve of the eight behaviours in this domain. Given the links between
the items in the Teaching domain and the development of language
and cognition (e.g., repetition, labeling; Carpenter et al., 1998), these
ndings have very real implications for development of emergent liter-
acy (e.g., Pellegrini & Galda, 1993) and pretend play (e.g., Berk et al.,
2006).
One explanation for lower scores in the electronic sessions might
be attributed to the distinct absence of child language, which was an-
ecdotally noted by the observers. More specically, it was noted that
during these sessions, the predominant sounds were the electronic
voices and noises often coming from several toys simultaneously.
The most poignant examples occurred when playing with the elec-
tronic book, which asked the child to nd an item in its pages by
touching the bee onto a particular object. In no cases did a child re-
spond directly to the toy's request. Once or twice, a child did repeat
the toy-initiated word(s), but only after the mother rst repeated
the toy's words, effectively mediating the interaction. In a couple of
cases, a child did point to a picture in the electronic book, but only
in response to his/her mother asking him/her a where is question.
Similar to emerging evidence that screen media is associated with re-
duced parental language input, child language output, and conversa-
tional turn-taking (Christakis et al., 2009; Lavigne et al., 2011), these
results suggest that electronic toys also may be interfering with
children's language development by reducing parentchild commu-
nication and by failing to serve as a language-learning partner.
Embedded within the Teaching domain, pretend play was not spe-
cically examined as an individual item. However, the lack of observ-
able pretend play in the electronic toy condition was obvious to, and
discussed by, both observers/coders. Specic comments were that
most mothers tried to follow the dictates of the electronic toys with
only a few attempts made to use the toys creatively (e.g., outside of
their intended purpose). For example, one mother paraded the elec-
tronic animals across a ledge, made corresponding animal sounds
over the electronic music output, and had the animals talk to each
othersimilar to the actions she performed in pretend play with
non-electronic animal gures. This was no observed difculty for
mothers using non-electronic toys in pretend scenarios. Given the
weight of evidence about the critical value of pretend play in healthy
development, and particularly so during toddlerhood (Berk et al.,
2006; Elias & Berk, 2002; Howes & Matheson, 1992; Singer & Singer,
2005), it is notable that mothers had difculty using electronic toys
creatively when they were able to easily demonstrate pretend play
with traditional toys during the same play period. As it is the adult
who models and mediates the symbolic use of toys and actions in pre-
tend scenarios, it may be that the technological design and software
of these electronic toys failed to stimulate the parents' ability to en-
gage in make-believe play. Exploring ways in which language and
pretend play are impacted by technologically enhanced toys is an im-
portant area for future research.
Regarding the signicantly lower scores in the Responsiveness do-
main, and given the known links between parent responsiveness and
self-regulation (e.g., Davidov & Grusec, 2006), the results of this study
suggest that children's socio-emotional development may also be
compromised by playing with electronic toys. More specically, in
the electronic toy session, there were fewer incidents of mothers
matching the child's pace and preferences in play, and less exibility
shown upon child shifts in activity or focus. It has been argued that a
narrower range of outcomes associated with electronic toys may limit
the child's (and parents') ability to play in novel ways and/or may
elicit more directive or intrusive parent management of play, which
may, in turn interfere in the child's learning process (Isenberg &
Quisenberry, 2002).
216 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
Similarly, lower scores in the Encouragement domain (which argu-
ably hold little practical signicance in isolation) may reect lower
levels of maternal exibility, characterized by impatience, prevention
of exploration, or verbally intrusive directives, as the child is guided to
the correct way of engaging with electronic toys. For example, if a
mother did not permit her child to place the shapes into the top opening
of the container and only allowed the child to play with the toy in a
specically desired manner.
Limitations and strengths
A strength of this study was the use of a quasi-experimental design
that recorded sequential play sessions in which only the toy type was
manipulated. In addition, data were collected in the child's natural envi-
ronment with the child's primary caregiver, which enhances the valid-
ity of the study (e.g., Aspland & Gardner, 2003). Further, we utilized a
measure of positive parentchild interaction, which is a departure
from many studies on play and/or development in which the focus is
on decits in developmental skills or parentchild interaction. A focus
on positive behaviours is most appropriate for a community sample
where no assumption is made about maladaptive functioning in the
motherchild dyad, and reects a strength-based approach to family
support and early intervention services (Barnard, Morisset, & Spieker,
1993; Bernstein, 2003).
Despite these strengths, there were some limitations to this study.
One of the main limitations was the small sample size, which precluded
the opportunity to explore other explanatory factors, including moder-
ating effects. However, it is notable that despite the small sample size,
the effect sizes for this study were large. The lack of socioeconomic
and ethnic diversity in the sample likely contributed to this, and limits
our ability to generalize beyond this sample. Another limitation in-
volved the use of a new measurement tool. Although the PICCOLO has
had extensive testing, with good psychometric properties, it has not
yet stood the test of time. A possible further limitation, inherent to all
videotaped data, is the inability to guarantee that the parentchild in-
teractions were accurate representations of typical dyadic behaviour.
However, given the ubiquitous nature of video cameras in the lives of
modern families, it is unlikely that this study failed to capture natural
parentchild interaction.
Future research in this area might explore parentchild interac-
tions more broadly by incorporating longitudinal and/or event sam-
pling methods that capture parent and child language and play
interactions at different times of the day/week (with all signicant
adults instead of just mothers), as well as how these interactions
change with developmental milestones. In addition, a more compre-
hensive assessment of children's opportunities for various types of
play combined with factors that facilitate or impede these opportuni-
ties is needed. This could include a qualitative exploration of when
and why parents make the decision to introduce digital media and
technology to very young children.
Implications for practice
This study provides evidence that electronic toys potentially compro-
mise the quality of parenttoddler interactions. It is possible that parents
believe that their role in play is less important in the face of a highly en-
tertaining electronic toy, or that a digital program has the power to teach
a child through simple exposure. To avoid this, it is important for practi-
tioners to help parents and caregivers become critical consumers of play
materials, especially those deemed educational. As well, it is critical to
educate parents and caregivers about the broad spectrum of children's
play, and to help them ensure that children engage in a healthy diet
of play, including activities from all forms of play, on a regular basis.
Practitioners are also well situated to help parents learn how to
use electronic toys as a stimulus for creative play interactions that go
beyond the toy design. More specically, practitioners can help parents
understand that children learn by experiencing play as self-expression,
and in interaction with people, and help children move beyond simple
stimulusresponse patterns of activity. Indeed, recent research on tech-
nology has found that children at 30 months learn better from an inter-
active computer game coupled with live observation than they do from
video alone (Lauricella, Pempek, Barr, & Calvert, 2010). Although 24-
month-old children have consistently shown greater difculty learning
to use information from video alone (Schmitt & Anderson, 2002;
Troseth & DeLoache, 1998), emerging evidence suggests that parents
can learn to augment the quality of interaction with their infants when
combining co-viewing of infant-directed videos with learned media-
tion skills during subsequent free-play (Pempek, Demers, Hanson,
Kirkorian, & Anderson, 2011).
In terms of interactive digital materials (computers, internet), there
is also evidence that adults are able to mediate the use of these technol-
ogies in the home for their school-aged children (six to nine years) to
realize their learning value (Espinosa, Laffey, Whittaker, & Sheng,
2006). Perhaps parents can similarly be taught how to mediate manip-
ulative and interactive electronic products to more positively support
their infants' and toddlers' development and learning. One method
may be for practitioners to model, support, and encourage parents to
play with their children with electronic materials. In general, educating
parents and caregivers about the value of social interaction and pretend
play, for enjoyment and without pre-determined outcomes, could form
the cornerstone of service provision in early childhood development
and family support programs.
Conclusion
Certainly, many researchers and advocates are sounding the alarm
bells regarding technology's potential role in the decline in children's
play, with concomitant concerns about children's developmental
wellbeing (Azar, 2002; Berk, 2010; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Sigman,
2009; Winerman, 2009). However, it is theoretically possible that
well-designed, age-appropriate digital toys could be developed, and
it would be ideal if experts in child development and toy design
could come together to harness the power of technology and create
electronically-embedded toys that enhance development.
As an exploratory study, we have provided evidence that extends
the concerns associated with screen technology to include technologies
that have become integrated into materials directed at infants and
toddlers. It is not just screen media (television, video, computers) or
background television in the home (Garrison & Christakis, 2005;
Kirkorian et al., 2009; Masur & Flynn, 2008; Mendelsohn et al., 2008;
Rideout & Hamel, 2006) that compromises rich parentchild play, but
child-directed electronic materials may have a similarly negative im-
pact. This study's sample included mothers who were well-educated,
lived in two-parent families, and who provided a healthy array of play
opportunities for their toddlers. Indeed, they were interested enough
in this topic to volunteer for the study. The capabilities of these mothers
makes the ndings of this study potentially more alarmingthat even
the most well-intentioned mothers cannot compensate for decits in
parentchild interactions associated with playing with electronic toys.
The impact of electronic toys might be more pronounced and/or have
greater impact on children already at risk for poor developmental
outcomes due to a variety of socio-economic, mental health, or develop-
mental factors. Perhaps future developments in children's play mate-
rials will provide guidance for developmentally appropriate use so
that parents can learn how to incorporate the use of technological
toys in ways that best scaffold their child's development within the
context of positive parentchild interactions.
References
Anand, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Demographic predictors of media use among infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 539561. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271512.
 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506.
Aspland, H., & Gardner, F. (2003). Observational measures of parentchild interaction:
An introductory review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8(3), 136143.
Azar, B. (2002). It's more than fun and games. Monitor on Psychology, 30(3), 5051.
Barnard, K. E., Morisset, C. E., & Spieker, S. (1993). Preventive interventions: Enhancing
parentinfant relationships. In C. H. ZeanahJr. (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental
health (pp. 386401). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1997). Maternal verbal sensi-
tivity and child language comprehension. Infant Behavior & Development, 20(2),
247258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(97)90026-6.
Berk, L. E. (2010). Make-believe play: Wellspring for development of self-regulation. Ple-
nary presentation at The Early Years Conference: The Rights of the Child, Victoria,
B.C.
Berk, L. E., Mann, T. D., & Ogan, A. T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for devel-
opment of self-regulation. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.),
play = learning (pp. 74100). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). From external regulation to self-regulation:
Early parenting precursors of young children's executive functioning. Child Development,
81(1), 326339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397x.
Bernstein, V. (2003). Standing rm against the forces of risk: Supporting home visiting
and early intervention workers through reective supervision. Imprint, 35, 25.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2007). Why youth is not wasted on the young: Immaturity in human
development. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bloom, L. (1998). Language acquisition in its developmental context. In D. Kuhn & R.S.
Siegler (Eds.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 12. Cog-
nition, perception, and language (5th Ed., pp. 309370). New York:, NY Wiley.
Bornstein, M. H., Haynes, O. M., Pascual, L., Painter, K. M., & Galperin, C. (1999). Play in
two societies: Pervasiveness of process, specicity of structure. Child Development,
70(2), 317331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00024.
Bornstein, M. H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2004). Motherinfant interaction. In G. Bremner, &
A. Fogel (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of infant development (pp. 269295). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Bradley, R., Caldwell, B., & Rock, S. (1988). Home environment and school performance: A
ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmental action. Child
Development, 59, 852867.
Brazelton, T. B., & Greenspan, S. I. (2000). The irreducible needs of children: What every
child must have to grow, learn, and ourish. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Bruner, J., Jolly, A., & Sylva, K. (Eds.). (1976). Play: Its role in development and evolution.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Buckleitner, W. (2006). The relationship between software design and children's engage-
ment. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 489505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15566935eed1703_8.
Business Wire (2007). The worldwide market for edutainment toys is predicted to
reach $7.3 billion by 2011. Author. Retrieved from www.allbusiness.com/services/
business-services/4330080=1.html
Calvert, S. L., Strong, B. L., & Gallagher, L. (2005). Control as an engagement feature for
young children's attention to and learning of computer content. American Behavioral
Scientist, 48, 578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271507.
Carpendale, J. I. M., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: The
development of children's social understanding within social interaction. The Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 27(1), 7996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000032.
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and
communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 63(4) (Serial No. 255).
Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., Arsenault, L., et al. (2004).
Maternal expressed emotion predicts children's antisocial behavior problems: Using
monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral devel-
opment. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 149161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.40.2.149.
Christakis, D. A., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Zimmerman, F. J., Garrison, M. M., Xu, D., et al.
(2009). Audible television and decreased adult words, infant vocalizations, and
conversational turns. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(6), 554558.
Cook, G., & Roggman, L. (2009). Parenting interactions with children: Checklist of observations
linked to outcomes, technical report. Logan, UT: Early Intervention Research Institute
and Family, Consumers, & Human Development Department, Utah State University.
Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to
distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77(1), 4458. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x.
Deci, E., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 118142.
DeLoache, J. S. (1991). Symbolic functioning in very young children: Understanding of
pictures and models. Child Development, 62, 8390.
Duhachek, A., Coughlan, A. T., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Results on the standard error of the
coefcient alpha index of reliability. Marketing Science, 24(2), 294301. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0097.
Elias, C., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for
sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216238. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00146-1.
Espinosa, L. M., Laffey, J. M., Whittaker, T., & Sheng, Y. (2006). Technology in the
home and the achievement of young children: Findings from the Early Child-
hood Longitudinal Study. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 421441.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1703_5.
Estrada, P., Arsenio, W. F., Hess, R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1987). Affective quality of the
motherchild relationship: Longitudinal consequences for children's school-relevant
cognitive functioning. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 210215.
217
Garrison, M. M., & Christakis, D. A. (2005). A teacher in the living room? Educational
media for babies, toddlers, and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload.7427.pdf
Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacobs, K. (2002). Antecedents and
consequences of mothers' autonomy support: An experimental investigation.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 143155.
Haight, W. L., & Miller, P. J. (1993). Pretending at home: Early development in a socio-cultural
context. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). How to choose toys for your baby. In S. Ettus (Ed.), The experts'
guide to the baby years. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group Retrieved from
http://astrotemple.edu/~khirshpa/download/PLAY_toys_for_your_baby.pdf
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2004). Einstein never used ashcards. New York, NY:
Rodale.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. (2008). Brains in a box: Do new age toys deliver on the
promise? In R. Harwood (Ed.), Child development in a changing society (1st ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. (2009). A mandate for playful
learning in preschool: Applying the scientic evidence. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Howes, C., & Matheson, C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with
peers: Social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961974. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.961.
Hron-Stewart, K. M., Lefever, G. B., & Weintraub, D. (1990). Correlates and predictors
of mastery motivation: Relations to motherchild problem-solving, temperament,
attachment, and home environment. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Paper presented at Sev-
enth International Conference on Infant Studies, Montreal. Handbook of Infant Mental
Health. (pp. 1437) New York: Guildford Press.
Isenberg, J. P., & Quisenberry, N. (2002). Play: Essential for all children. A position paper
of the Association for Childhood Education International Available at http://www.
acei.org
Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. D., Harper, S., Robinson, J., Boyce, L., et al. (2004).
Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and mother-toddler relationship outcomes:
Variations across low-income ethnic and acculturation groups. Child Development,
75(6), 16131631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00806.x.
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Houlfort, N. (2004). Introducing uninteresting
tasks to children: A comparison of the effects of rewards and autonomy support.
Journal of Personality, 72(1), 139166.
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Landry, N. (2005). A longitudinal study of the
relationship of maternal autonomy support to children's adjustment and achievement
in school. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 12151236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2005.00347.x.
Kelly, S., Brownell, C. A., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Mastery motivation and self-evaluative
affect in toddlers: Longitudinal relations with maternal behavior. Child Development,
71(4), 10611071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00209.
Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Murphy, L. A., Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2009).
The impact of background television on parentchild interaction. Child Development,
80(5), 13501359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01337.x.
Krafft, K. C., & Berk, L. E. (1998). Private speech in two preschools: Signicance of
open-ended activities and make-believe play for verbal self-regulation. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 637658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80065-9.
Laakso, M. L., Poikkeus, A. M., Eklund, K., & Lyytinen, P. (1999). Social interactional be-
haviors and symbolic play competence as predictors of language development and
their associations with maternal attention-directing strategies. Infant Behavior &
Development, 22(4), 541556.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997). Predicting
cognitive-language and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children
at varying degrees of biological risk. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 10401053.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Assel, M. A., & Vellet, S. (2001). Does early
responsive parenting have a special importance for children's development or is
consistency across early childhood necessary? Developmental Psychology, 37(3),
387403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.3.387.
Lauricella, A. R., Pempek, T. A., Barr, R., & Calvert, S. L. (2010). Contingent computer
interactions for young children's object retrieval success. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 31, 362369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.002.
Lavigne, H. J., Hanson, K. G., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., Demers, L. B., & Anderson, D. R.
(2011). Baby video viewing and the quantity and quality of parent language. Poster
presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Montreal, P.Q.
Linn, S. (2009). Too much and too many: How commercialism and screen technology
combine to rob children of creative play. Child Care Exchange, March/April. Re-
trieved from www.ChildCareExchange.com
Lyons-Ruth, K., & Zeanah, C. H., Jr. (1993). The family context of infant mental health: I.
Affective development in the primary caregiving relationship. In C. H. ZeanahJr.
(Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 1437). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Maccoby, E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parentchild
interactions. In P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E.M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology, Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th Ed., pp.
1102). New York, NY: Wiley.
MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: Evolutionary analysis.
Child Development, 63(4), 753773.
Masur, E. F., & Flynn, V. (2008). Infant and motherinfant play and the presence of
television. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 7683. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.001.
Meins, E. (1997). Security of attachment and maternal tutoring strategies: Interaction
within the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
15, 129144.
218 M.B. Wooldridge, J. Shapka / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 211218
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Fradley, E., & Tuckey, M. (2001). Rethinking maternal sensitivity:
Mothers' comments on infants' mental processes predict security of attachment at
12 months. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(5), 637648.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Wainwright, R., Clark-Carter, D., Das Gupta, M., Fradley, E.,
et al. (2003). Pathways to understanding mind: Construct validity and predictive
validity of maternal mind-mindedness. Child Development, 74(4), 11941211.
Mendelsohn, A. L., Berkule, S. G., Tomopoulis, S., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Huberman,
H. S., Alvir, J., et al. (2008). Infant television and video exposure associates
with limited parentchild verbal interactions in low socioeconomic status
households. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 162(5), 411417
(Retrieved from www.archpediatrics.com).
Moore, C., & Dunham, P. (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play
and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 162175.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of
a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69, 577598.
Pempek, T. A., Demers, L. B., Hanson, K. G., Kirkorian, H. L., & Anderson, D. R. (2011).
The impact of infant-directed videos on parentchild interaction. Journal
of Applied Development Psychology, 32, 1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.appdev.2010.10.001.
Petgill, S. A., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2004). Task orientation, parental warmth and SES
account for a signicant portion of the shared environmental variance in general
cognitive ability in early childhood: Evidence from a twin study. Developmental
Science, 7, 2532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00319.x.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton.
Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). On tools and toys: How children learn to act on
and pretend with virgin objects. Developmental Science, 8, 5773.
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society.
In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), play = learning (pp. 74100).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rideout, V., & Hamel, E. (2006). The media family: Electronic media in the lives of infants,
toddlers, preschoolers and their families. Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA:
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/
upload/7500.pdf.
Ritchel, M., & Stone, B. (2007, November 29). For toddlers, toy of choice is a tech device.
The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/technology/
29techtoys.html.
Roggman, L., Cook, G. A., Jump, V. K., Innocenti, M. S., & Christiansen, K. (in press).
Parenting interactions with children: Checklist of observations linked to outcomes
(PICCOLO). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Schmitt, K. L., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Television and reality: Toddlers' use of visual
information from video to guide behaviour. Media Psychology, 4, 5176.
Shmukler, D. (1981). Motherchild interaction and its relationship to the predisposition of
imaginative play. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 104, 215235.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The
science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Sigman, A. (2009). Well connected? The biological implications of social net-
working. Biologist, 56, 1420.
Singer, D., & Singer, J. L. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Singer, D. G., Singer, J. L., D'Agostino, H., & DeLong, R. (2009). Children's pastimes and
play in sixteen nations: Is free-play declining? American Journal of Play, 1(3),
283312.
Sorce, J. F., & Emde, R. N. (1981). Mother's presence is not enough: Effect of emotional
availability on infant exploration. Developmental Psychology, 17(6), 737745 doi:
0012-1649/81/1706-0737S00.75.
Tamis-LeMonda, C., & Bornstein, M. (1993). Play and its relations to other mental functions
in the child. In M. Bornstein, & A. O'Reilly (Eds.), The role of play in the development of
thought: New directions in child development, Vol. 59. (pp. 1727)San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness
and children's achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72, 748767.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00313.
Troseth, G. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1998). The medium can obscure the message: Young
children's understanding of video. Child Development, 69(4), 950965.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wall, B. (2006, November 24). Ambitious parents spend on educational toys for
toddlers. Your Money International Herald Tribune. The New York Times.
Retrieved from www.nytimes/com/2006/11/24/your-money/24int-mtoys.3654661.
html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Wartella, E. A., Vandewater, E. A., & Rideout, V. J. (2005). Introduction: Electronic media
use in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. American Behavioral Scientist,
48, 501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271511.
Whipple, N., Bernier, A., & Mageau, G. A. (2011). Broadening the study of infant se-
curity of attachment: Maternal autonomy support in the context of infant ex-
ploration. Social Development, 20(1), 1732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2010.00574.x.
Winerman, L. (2009). Playtime in peril. APA Monitor, 40(8), 50 (Retrieved September
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/09/child-play.html)
Zigler, E. F., Singer, D. G., & Bishop-Josef, S. J. (Eds.). (2004). Children's play: The roots of
reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three.