Kenneth H Rubin: Child Development Theory, Play & Friendship

Key Takeaways:

• Play as a window: Rubin’s research highlights how play reflects children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development.
• Friendship matters: His studies show that peer relationships support emotional well-being and protect against social difficulties.
• Social & cognitive play: Rubin’s framework combines social participation categories with cognitive play levels to better understand child development.
• Practical applications: His insights guide early years educators in assessing and fostering children’s social interactions through play.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Introduction

Kenneth H. Rubin stands as a significant figure in developmental psychology whose research has profoundly influenced our understanding of children’s social development, particularly in the domains of play behaviour and friendship. As Professor of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology at the University of Maryland and Founding Director of the Center for Children, Relationships, and Culture, Rubin has dedicated his academic career to investigating how children develop socially and emotionally through their interactions with peers.

Rubin’s contribution to developmental psychology lies primarily in his innovative integration of existing theories of play with rigorous observational methodologies. His work has notably clarified the developmental levels of children’s play by connecting social participation categories (such as those developed by Parten) with cognitive play hierarchies (building on Piaget and Smilansky). This integration has provided educators and researchers with a more comprehensive framework for understanding the complexity of children’s play behaviours.

At the core of Rubin’s research is the recognition that play serves as a critical window into children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. His studies have demonstrated how play progresses from simple sensorimotor activities in infancy to increasingly complex forms of symbolic and dramatic play in early childhood. Through detailed observational studies, Rubin has documented how these developmental changes reflect children’s growing capacity to represent things, actions, roles, and relationships symbolically (Rubin et al., 1983).

Beyond his work on play, Rubin has made substantial contributions to our understanding of friendship development across the lifespan. His research illuminates how friendships function as voluntary, reciprocal, and egalitarian relationships that provide unique developmental contexts for learning about conflict resolution, compromise, perspective-taking, and empathy. Rubin’s studies have shown that having at least one mutual friendship can protect children from peer victimisation and its associated problems, whilst also fostering positive psychological wellbeing (Rubin & Bowker, 2018).

For Early Years practitioners and educators, Rubin’s work offers invaluable insights into how to observe, assess, and support children’s play and social interactions. His play categories provide a structured framework for understanding the developmental significance of different play behaviours, helping educators to create environments and activities that promote children’s social and cognitive growth. By recognising that play is not merely a recreational activity but an essential mechanism for normal development across the lifespan, Rubin’s research has elevated the importance of play in educational settings.

Rubin’s theories hold particular relevance for practitioners working with children who struggle socially. His research on social withdrawal, behavioural inhibition, and shyness has helped educators understand the challenges faced by socially reticent children and develop appropriate interventions to support their social development. This aspect of his work bridges developmental theory with practical applications in educational and clinical settings.

Kenneth H. Rubin’s enduring legacy lies in his empirically-grounded approach to understanding children’s social worlds. By combining meticulous observational methodologies with developmentally-informed theoretical frameworks, he has created a body of work that continues to influence how researchers study children’s social development and how practitioners support it. His integration of social and cognitive dimensions of play has provided a more nuanced understanding of play as a developmental phenomenon, one that emphasises its role in fostering cognitive growth, social competence, and emotional wellbeing throughout childhood and beyond.

Kenneth H Rubin’s Academic Background and Career

Kenneth H. Rubin began his academic journey with a Bachelor of Arts degree from McGill University in 1968, followed by a doctorate from Pennsylvania State University in 1971. This educational foundation laid the groundwork for what would become a distinguished career spanning several decades in the field of developmental psychology, with a particular focus on children’s social development, play, and peer relationships.

After obtaining his doctorate, Rubin began to build his research credentials at various institutions before settling into his long-term position at the University of Maryland. His professional trajectory demonstrates a consistent commitment to understanding the intricacies of children’s social and emotional development through rigorous empirical research. As Professor of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology at the University of Maryland, Rubin established himself as a leading figure in the study of children’s social competence, friendship, and play behaviours.

Perhaps most significantly, Rubin founded the Center for Children, Relationships, and Culture at the University of Maryland. This research centre has served as a hub for innovative studies on children’s social development, bringing together researchers from diverse backgrounds to collaborate on issues related to children’s peer relationships, cultural influences on development, and social adjustment. Under Rubin’s directorship, the centre has fostered interdisciplinary approaches to understanding children’s social worlds, emphasising the importance of cultural context in shaping developmental trajectories.

Rubin’s extensive publication record includes over 480 scholarly works, with his research cited more than 36,000 times according to academic profiles (Rubin & Smith, 2018). This impressive body of work spans multiple areas within developmental psychology, including social withdrawal, behavioural inhibition, shyness, peer relationships, friendship, parenting, and cross-cultural studies. His contributions have appeared in many high-impact journals and have significantly advanced our understanding of children’s social development.

Among his most influential publications is the 1983 chapter “Play” in the Handbook of Child Psychology, co-authored with Greta Fein and Brian Vandenberg. This seminal work outlined key characteristics that define play and established a comprehensive framework for understanding play’s developmental significance (Rubin et al., 1983). The characteristics they identified—including intrinsic motivation, attention to means rather than ends, and non-literal behaviour—continue to inform how researchers and practitioners conceptualise play.

Another significant contribution is Rubin’s development of the Play Observation Scale, which integrated Parten’s social play categories with cognitive play hierarchies based on Piaget and Smilansky’s work. This methodological innovation has provided researchers with a valuable tool for studying the developmental progression of children’s play behaviours and has been widely adopted in research settings (Rubin, 1977).

Rubin’s collaborative approach to research is evident in his numerous co-authored publications. He has worked extensively with researchers such as William M. Bukowski, Julie C. Bowker, and Kelly A. Smith, among others, fostering a network of scholars interested in children’s social development. These collaborations have resulted in comprehensive reviews, theoretical papers, and empirical studies that have collectively advanced our understanding of children’s social worlds.

In “Play in Human Development” (2018), co-authored with Kelly A. Smith, Rubin explored the historical theoretical perspectives on play and its role in human development, offering a synthesis of current understanding about play’s significance across the lifespan. Similarly, his work with Julie C. Bowker on friendship (2018) examined the universal nature of friendship experiences, their benefits, and associated risks from childhood through adulthood.

Throughout his career, Rubin has maintained a commitment to applying research findings to real-world contexts, particularly educational settings. His work has informed practitioners’ understanding of the importance of diverse play experiences in Early Years settings and has provided frameworks for assessing and supporting children’s social development. This bridge between research and practice represents an important aspect of Rubin’s professional legacy.

Rubin’s status as a respected researcher is further evidenced by his contributions to major handbooks and encyclopaedias in the field of developmental psychology, where he has been invited to share his expertise on topics related to children’s play, friendship, and social development. These contributions reflect his standing as an authoritative voice in the field and his commitment to disseminating knowledge to both scholarly and professional audiences.

Rubin’s Theoretical Framework of Play

Kenneth H. Rubin, in collaboration with Greta Fein and Brian Vandenberg, developed a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding play that continues to influence researchers and practitioners in Early Years education. Their approach moved beyond simplistic definitions to identify specific characteristics that, when taken together, distinguish play from other forms of activity. This framework has proven particularly valuable for observational research and has helped educators recognise the developmental significance of different play behaviours.

Defining Play

According to Rubin’s framework, play may be defined as a voluntary, intrinsically motivated activity characterised by active engagement, freedom from external constraints, and a focus on process rather than product. Rather than treating play as a single, uniform behaviour, Rubin conceptualised it as a multidimensional phenomenon that manifests differently across developmental stages and social contexts. This nuanced understanding acknowledges that play serves various functions in children’s development, from practising motor skills to developing symbolic thinking and social competence.

In their seminal work, Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg (1983) suggested that play is not merely the absence of work or learning but represents a unique behavioural disposition with its own characteristics and developmental significance. They wrote: “It is one thing to think about why play exists in the human repertoire; it is something else altogether to define it” (Rubin & Smith, 2018). This acknowledgement of play’s complexity led them to identify five key characteristics that, collectively, distinguish play from other activities.

Five Key Characteristics of Play

The first characteristic of play identified by Rubin is active engagement. Children who are playing are actively involved in their environment, exploring and constructing knowledge through interactions with people and objects around them. As described by Rubin and Smith (2018), “Children are active agents in their environments. They explore and figure out how to communicate and respond to events and people around them”. This active engagement stands in contrast to passive activities such as watching television, where children act primarily as recipients rather than co-constructors of experience.

Intrinsic motivation forms the second defining characteristic of play in Rubin’s framework. Play is undertaken for its own sake, driven by the child’s inherent interest rather than external rewards or pressures. As Rubin explains, intrinsic motivation is “the inherent yearning for children to do something tangible because they will learn something new from their experience” (Rubin, n.d.). When children play, they choose activities that interest them and persist in these activities because of the satisfaction derived from the experience itself, not because of external incentives or expectations.

The third characteristic, attention to means rather than ends, highlights that during play, children focus more on the process of their activity than on producing a particular outcome. Rubin and Smith (2018) note that “while in play, children are less worried about a particular goal than they are about various methods of reaching it”. This process-orientation allows children to explore multiple possibilities, change direction, and experiment with different approaches—all crucial aspects of creative thinking and problem-solving.

Nonliteral behaviour constitutes the fourth characteristic, referring to children’s ability to transform objects and situations according to their imagination. This symbolic aspect of play “begins as early as the first year of life” and is “the distinctive feature of symbolic play” (Rubin, n.d.). When a child pretends a block is a telephone or that they are a firefighter, they are engaging in this nonliteral, “as if” form of behaviour that helps develop abstract thinking and representational skills.

The fifth characteristic identified by Rubin is the existence of implicit rules or freedom from externally imposed rules. Unlike games with formal rules (such as football or chess), play involves flexible guidelines that can be negotiated and modified by the participants. Rubin notes that although there are no externally enforced rules in preschool play, “play often has implicit rules, maintaining the fantasy and reality distinction” (Rubin, n.d.). These self-governed parameters help children develop self-regulation and an understanding of social conventions.

Rubin’s framework emphasises that these five characteristics should be considered collectively rather than individually when identifying play. As he and his colleagues stated: “When taken together, [these characteristics] define play” (Rubin & Smith, 2018). This holistic approach acknowledges that play exists on a continuum, with activities exhibiting these characteristics to varying degrees.

For Early Years practitioners, Rubin’s theoretical framework offers a valuable lens through which to observe and understand children’s play. By recognising these defining characteristics, educators can distinguish between different types of play and non-play activities, assess the developmental level of children’s play, and design environments that support rich play experiences. This framework also helps practitioners explain to parents and policymakers why play deserves a central place in Early Years education—not as a mere diversion, but as a complex developmental phenomenon with profound implications for children’s learning and growth.

The Play Observation Scale and Social-Cognitive Play Hierarchy

One of Kenneth H. Rubin’s most significant methodological contributions to developmental psychology is his integration of separate taxonomies of play into a comprehensive observational framework. The Play Observation Scale (POS) developed by Rubin represents an innovative synthesis that combines Mildred Parten’s (1932) social participation categories with cognitive play categories derived from Jean Piaget’s work and elaborated by Sara Smilansky (1968). This integration has provided researchers and practitioners with a more sophisticated tool for understanding the multidimensional nature of children’s play.

Integration of Social and Cognitive Play Categories

Prior to Rubin’s work, researchers tended to study either the social aspects of play (who children played with) or the cognitive dimensions (what kind of play they engaged in), but rarely both simultaneously. Parten’s social play hierarchy—including unoccupied behaviour, solitary play, onlooker behaviour, parallel play, associative play, and cooperative play—had been used since the 1930s to understand the social development of children’s play. Meanwhile, cognitive play categories based on Piaget’s theory and refined by Smilansky included functional play (simple repetitive movements), constructive play (creating or constructing something), dramatic play (symbolic pretend play), and games with rules.

Rubin recognised that these two dimensions of play—social and cognitive—operated orthogonally to one another. As he explained, “any structural activity can be performed alone, near others, or cooperatively with others” (Rubin & Smith, 2018). For instance, children might engage in functional play (a cognitive category) while playing beside other children (parallel play, a social category), or they might collaborate with peers (cooperative play) while creating something together (constructive play).

This insight led Rubin to develop a matrix that crossed social participation categories with cognitive play categories, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of play development. As Rubin (1977) described it, “For the first study, we examined the free play of 40 four-year-old children who attended the University of Waterloo Early Childhood Education Centre… During the observation period the number of seconds each child engaged in a particular form of cognitive play within each social play category was denoted on an observation form”.

The Social-Cognitive Play Matrix

The combined social-cognitive play matrix created by Rubin provides a comprehensive framework for categorising and understanding children’s play behaviours. The basic structure includes the following combinations:

• Solitary-functional play
• Solitary-constructive play
• Solitary-dramatic play
• Parallel-functional play
• Parallel-constructive play
• Parallel-dramatic play
• Group-functional play (combining Parten’s associative and cooperative categories)
• Group-constructive play
• Group-dramatic play
• Group games with rules

This matrix allows observers to code not just whether a child is playing alone or with others, but also the cognitive level of their play activity. For example, a child building with blocks by themselves would be engaged in solitary-constructive play, while children pretending to run a shop together would be demonstrating group-dramatic play.

In his 1976-1977 studies, Rubin and colleagues used this matrix to systematically observe children’s play, recording the number of seconds children spent engaged in each play category during structured observation periods. This methodology provided a more detailed picture of play development than had previously been available, revealing patterns of play behaviour across different ages and socioeconomic groups.

Developmental Differences in Play Behaviours

Rubin’s research using the Play Observation Scale revealed clear developmental progressions in children’s play behaviours. In one important study comparing preschool and kindergarten children, Rubin et al. (1976) found that “kindergarten children displayed significantly more dramatic play and less functional play than did preschool children” (Rubin, 1977). This finding supported the theoretical expectation that play becomes cognitively more complex with age.

With regard to social participation, the research showed that “preschool children did engage in significantly more unoccupied, onlooker, and solitary activities and less group play than kindergarten children” (Rubin, 1977). Importantly, these age differences were not uniform across all types of play but varied according to the specific combination of social and cognitive dimensions. For instance, preschool children exhibited significantly more solitary-functional and parallel-functional play, while kindergarten children engaged in more parallel-constructive, parallel-dramatic, and group-dramatic play.

This research challenged and refined Parten’s original conclusion that solitary play represents the least mature form of play. Rubin discovered that solitary play actually becomes cognitively more mature with age: “With age, solitary play becomes cognitively more mature. I contend that solitary play has been much maligned during the past fifty years” (Rubin, 1977). For older children, playing alone often reflected a purposeful choice rather than social immaturity, particularly when the solitary play involved constructive or dramatic elements.

Socioeconomic and Cultural Differences in Play Patterns

Beyond age differences, Rubin’s work using the Play Observation Scale also uncovered significant socioeconomic status (SES) differences in children’s play patterns. In comparing lower and middle SES preschoolers, Rubin and colleagues found that “lower SES children in this group were significantly more likely to engage in sensorimotor (functional) and parallel play, and were significantly less likely to engage in associative, cooperative, and constructive play than their middle SES age-mates” (Rubin, 1977).

These findings suggested that lower SES children displayed less mature play behaviours both socially and cognitively compared to their middle SES peers. Specifically, they engaged in more solitary-functional and parallel-functional play and less associative-constructive and cooperative-dramatic play. Rubin hypothesised that these differences might stem from fewer play materials in lower SES homes or less familiarity with the types of materials found in typical Early Years settings (Rubin, 1977).

Importantly, Rubin’s work on socioeconomic differences also nuanced previous findings about dramatic play. While Smilansky (1968) had reported that lower SES children engaged in less dramatic play overall, Rubin found that this difference was primarily evident in cooperative social settings. As he noted, “there were no observed socioeconomic status dramatic play differences in solitary, parallel, and associative social situations” (Rubin, 1977), suggesting a more complex relationship between socioeconomic status and play development than had previously been understood.

These findings have significant implications for Early Years practitioners, highlighting the importance of understanding how social context and background influence children’s play patterns. Rubin’s research suggests that some children may benefit from additional support in developing certain types of play, particularly cooperative-constructive and cooperative-dramatic play, which are associated with advanced social and cognitive skills.

The Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin continues to be a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the complexity of children’s play. By integrating social and cognitive dimensions, Rubin provided a framework that acknowledges play as a multifaceted developmental phenomenon rather than a simple, uniform behaviour. This nuanced understanding allows for more targeted observations, assessments, and interventions to support children’s play development across diverse contexts and backgrounds.

Developmental Progression of Play

Kenneth H. Rubin’s research offers significant insights into how play develops and changes throughout early childhood. His work details the progression from simple sensorimotor play in infancy through increasingly complex forms in the preschool and primary years. This developmental trajectory reflects children’s growing cognitive, social, and representational abilities and provides a valuable framework for understanding play as a window into children’s development.

Sensorimotor Play in Infancy

According to Rubin’s analysis, play during infancy is predominantly sensorimotor in nature, reflecting the infant’s developing physical capacities and early cognitive structures. In the first year of life, babies engage with objects in ways that emphasise sensory exploration and repetitive physical actions. Rubin and Smith (2018) note that “in the first year of life, most play with objects is sensorimotor in structure and function. For example, babies tend to act on objects with little regard for their physical features (e.g., banging a plastic cup on the floor).”

This early form of play allows infants to explore the physical properties of objects and develop an understanding of how their actions affect the environment. Through repeated actions—such as shaking, banging, and mouthing objects—babies build neural connections and develop schemas about the physical world. While this play may appear simple to adult observers, it represents crucial exploratory behaviour that forms the foundation for more complex play in later development.

As infants approach the end of their first year, Rubin observes that their play begins to show signs of greater discrimination and representational thinking. Objects are no longer treated in identical ways but are combined in more “appropriate” and meaningful ways that reflect their specific properties and conventional uses. Rubin and Smith (2018) describe how “by the end of the first year, infants become more discriminating and representational in their play. Objects are combined in ‘appropriate’ and meaningful ways (e.g., an empty cup is brought to the mouth ‘as if’ the child is drinking from it).”

Functional, Constructive, and Dramatic Play Development

Building on the sensorimotor foundation established in infancy, Rubin’s research tracks how play develops into three main cognitive categories during the preschool years: functional, constructive, and dramatic play. These categories represent increasingly sophisticated levels of cognitive engagement and symbolic representation.

Functional play (also referred to as practice play) involves simple repetitive muscle movements with or without objects. While predominant in infancy, functional play continues into the preschool years, particularly when children encounter new materials or physical challenges. As Rubin describes it, this play helps children master physical skills and understand the basic properties of objects, but represents a relatively less mature form of cognitive engagement compared to other play types.

Constructive play emerges as children begin to create, build, or construct things with materials. This form of play involves goal-directed manipulation of objects to create something specific—whether it’s a block tower, a playdough creation, or an art project. Rubin’s research indicates that constructive play occupies a significant portion of preschoolers’ play time and represents an intermediate level of cognitive complexity. Through constructive play, children develop problem-solving skills, spatial awareness, and early mathematical understanding as they work with shapes, sizes, and spatial relationships.

Dramatic play (also called symbolic or pretend play) represents the most advanced form of cognitive play in early childhood. It involves the substitution of imaginary situations to satisfy the child’s wishes and needs. Rubin and Smith (2018) note that dramatic play begins to emerge around 12 months but develops significantly throughout the preschool years. Through dramatic play, children demonstrate their ability to think symbolically, to detach thought from objects, and to operate in the realm of ideas rather than just physical reality.

Rubin’s research shows that the balance between these play types shifts with age, with functional play decreasing and dramatic play increasing as children develop. His studies with colleagues found that “kindergarten children displayed significantly more dramatic play and less functional play than did preschool children” (Rubin 1977), confirming the developmental progression toward more cognitively complex forms of play.

Key Components of Representational Development in Play

Rubin’s work identifies four critical components that emerge during the first two years of life and reflect rapid growth in representational thinking. These components provide a more fine-grained analysis of how play develops from concrete, literal interactions to abstract, symbolic representation.

Decontextualized behaviour involves the “out of context” production of familiar behaviour. Rubin and Smith (2018) explain that “by the middle of the second year, the toddler coordinates the use of several objects in his or her demonstrations of decontextualized behaviour (e.g., a ‘Teddy Bear’ is fed from an empty cup).” This ability to reproduce actions outside their typical context demonstrates children’s growing capacity to hold mental representations of events and actions.

Self-other relationships in play reflect the child’s developing ability to differentiate between self and others and to attribute agency to entities beyond themselves. Rubin and Smith (2018) describe how “when pretense appears at about 12 months, it is centred around the child’s own body (e.g., the child pretends to feed herself). Beyond 20 months, and increasingly so up to about 30 months, the child gains the ability to ‘step out’ of the play situation and to manipulate the ‘other’ as if it were an active agent (e.g., a Teddy Bear ‘feeds’ a doll with a plastic spoon).” This progression from self-directed to other-directed pretend actions reflects important developments in perspective-taking and theory of mind.

Object substitutions represent another key component of representational development in play. This involves the child’s ability to use one object to represent another—a wooden block becomes a telephone, a stick transforms into a magic wand. Rubin and Smith (2018) describe this ability as “paradigmatic of symbolic representation,” highlighting its fundamental role in the development of abstract thinking. The capacity to mentally transform objects according to imaginative scenarios rather than being constrained by their physical properties marks a significant cognitive advance.

Sequential combinations in play involve the coordination of pretend acts into meaningful sequences. Rubin and Smith (2018) detail how “between the ages of 12 and 20 months, toddlers’ pretend acts become increasingly coordinated into meaningful sequences. At first, the child produces a single pretend gesture (drinking from a plastic cup); later, the child relates, in succession, the same act to the self and then to others (drinks from the cup, feeds the Teddy Bear from the cup).” This ability culminates in multi-scheme combinations, where the child coordinates different sequential acts (pours tea, feeds the Teddy Bear, puts bear to sleep), demonstrating increasingly sophisticated narrative thinking.

Increasing Complexity of Play with Age

Rubin’s research documents how play becomes more complex with age along both social and cognitive dimensions. This developmental progression is evident not only in the shift from functional to dramatic play but also in the increasing sophistication within each type of play.

Socially, Rubin’s studies show that “in general, play becomes increasingly complex and social over time. In early childhood, more time is spent engaged in solitary and parallel pursuits than in later childhood” (Rubin & Smith, 2018). By middle childhood, children spend the vast majority of their free time interacting with others, reflecting their growing social capacities and interests.

Cognitively, play complexity increases in terms of symbolic representation, narrative structure, and rule systems. Younger children’s dramatic play tends to involve simple role enactments and brief scenarios, while older children create elaborate narrative worlds with complex characters, plots, and social rules. Rubin observes that “with development, individuals become less involved in sensorimotor/functional activities and more involved in social pretense (and games-with-rules)” (Rubin & Smith, 2018).

An important insight from Rubin’s work is that these developmental changes in play reflect underlying cognitive and social developments rather than simply resulting from more experience with play itself. As he and Smith (2018) state, “advances in maturity of play reflect the young child’s increasing ability to symbolically represent things, actions, roles and relationships.” Play thus serves as a window into children’s developing representational capacities, social understanding, and cognitive flexibility.

For Early Years practitioners, understanding this developmental progression helps in assessing children’s development, designing appropriate play opportunities, and supporting children’s growth through play. Rubin’s detailed account of how play changes with age provides a valuable framework for recognising the significance of various play behaviours and creating environments that support children at different developmental stages. Rather than simply encouraging any form of play, Rubin’s work suggests that educators should consider how to scaffold children’s play experiences to support their progression toward more complex forms of representation and social interaction.

Friendship Theory and Research

Beyond his work on play, Kenneth H. Rubin has made substantial contributions to our understanding of friendship development across the lifespan. His research in this area examines how friendships form, function, and influence development from early childhood through adulthood. This body of work offers important insights for educators, parents, and clinicians seeking to support children’s social development.

Rubin’s Definition and Conceptualisation of Friendship

Rubin provides a clear and comprehensive definition of friendship that distinguishes these special relationships from other peer interactions. According to Rubin and Bowker (2018), friendships may be defined as “voluntary, reciprocal, egalitarian relationships in which both partners acknowledge the relationship and treat each other as equals.” This definition highlights several key elements that differentiate friendships from other types of relationships.

The voluntary nature of friendship is paramount in Rubin’s conceptualisation. Unlike family relationships or assigned classroom groupings, friendships are freely chosen relationships that individuals enter into willingly. This element of choice is present across the lifespan, from toddlers’ early preferences for specific play partners to adults’ selective maintenance of friendships.

Reciprocity forms another essential aspect of friendship in Rubin’s framework. True friendships involve mutual recognition and acknowledgment—both individuals consider each other friends, creating a balanced rather than one-sided relationship. This reciprocity extends to emotional investment, with friends caring about each other’s wellbeing and responding to each other’s needs.

The egalitarian quality of friendships distinguishes them from hierarchical relationships such as parent-child or teacher-student dynamics. As Rubin and Bowker (2018) note, “most friendships [are] relatively equal in power and control; this is in contrast to parent-child relationships that tend to be relatively asymmetrical in power.” This equality enables unique developmental experiences, including the negotiation of conflicts among relative equals.

Rubin’s research also highlights how friendship is typically characterised by companionship, a shared history, and mutual affection. Friends spend time together engaging in enjoyable activities, building a collection of shared experiences, and developing emotional bonds that include positive feelings toward one another.

An important aspect of Rubin’s conceptualisation is his recognition that the nature of friendship changes developmentally while retaining these core characteristics. As he explains, “the nature of friendship does change across the lifespan (e.g., from a relationship based on companionship and play in early childhood to one focused on intimacy in older ages)” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). These developmental changes reflect children’s growing cognitive and social capacities, particularly their ability to understand others’ perspectives and engage in intimate self-disclosure.

Benefits of Friendship Across the Lifespan

Rubin’s research documents numerous benefits associated with friendship experiences throughout development. These advantages span cognitive, social, and emotional domains and appear consistent across different cultural contexts.

In childhood and adolescence, Rubin has found that friendships promote positive developmental outcomes including enhanced perspective-taking and social-cognitive skills. He notes that friendships “lead to positive feelings about the self and others, and positive psychological health and well-being (e.g., lower levels of anxiety and depression, higher levels of self-esteem)” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). These findings suggest that friendship experiences contribute significantly to children’s social competence and emotional adjustment.

Particularly important in Rubin’s work is the finding that having at least one mutual friendship serves a protective function against peer victimisation. His research indicates that “having at least one mutual friend can protect youth from peer victimization and its associated internalizing (e.g., anxiety) and externalizing (e.g., aggression) problems” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This protective effect appears to operate through multiple mechanisms, including decreasing children’s vulnerability as targets and providing emotional support when negative peer experiences do occur.

Rubin’s studies also reveal that the mere presence of a friend can buffer against the negative effects of stressful experiences. As he and Bowker (2018) describe, researchers have “indicated that the actual presence of a friend (e.g., having a friend in the same room) can diminish the negative physiological effects (e.g., increased heart rate) of stressful peer experiences, such as peer rejection and peer exclusion.” This finding highlights the immediate stress-buffering role that friendships can play in children’s lives.

Beyond the benefits of friendship presence, Rubin’s work emphasises the importance of friendship quality. His research suggests that “individuals with high quality (e.g., high in positive qualities such as intimacy and help and low in conflict) and stable (or lasting) friendships fare the best psychologically” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). These findings indicate that not all friendships are equally beneficial—the specific characteristics of the friendship relationship matter for developmental outcomes.

Extending beyond childhood and adolescence, Rubin notes that friendships continue to offer important benefits throughout adulthood. Friendships serve as “important extra-familial sources of social and emotional support that can help individuals navigate life challenges and stressors” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This consistent support across the lifespan underscores the enduring importance of friendship for human development and wellbeing.

Risks Associated with Friendship Experiences

While acknowledging the many benefits of friendship, Rubin’s research also identifies potential risks associated with friendship experiences. These include the negative consequences of friendship absence or loss, the influence of friends’ characteristics on development, and potential problematic dynamics within friendship relationships.

Rubin’s work clearly documents the risks associated with friendlessness, particularly during adolescence. He notes that “those who are unable to form friendships typically suffer psychologically (e.g., friendless youth report high levels of loneliness)” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This finding underscores the fundamental human need for close peer relationships and the emotional cost when this need goes unmet.

Beyond complete friendlessness, Rubin identifies friendship loss as another significant risk factor. His research indicates that “losing a friendship, without forming a new or ‘replacement’ friendship, has also been shown to be a significant relationship stressor that increases risk for loneliness and depression, particularly for girls, during early adolescence” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This finding highlights the importance of helping children develop skills for both forming and maintaining friendships.

Rubin’s work also examines how friends’ characteristics can pose risks for development. He has found that “having friends who are delinquent (e.g., friends who engage in rule-breaking behavior) is a strong risk factor for delinquency and other types of externalizing problems, including aggressive behavior and substance use” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This influence operates through both selection processes (choosing similar friends) and socialisation processes (becoming more similar to friends over time).

Additionally, Rubin’s research identifies risks associated with certain friendship interaction patterns. For example, he has documented that some adolescent friends engage in co-rumination—”repetitive talk about their negative emotions and problems” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). While this pattern can foster intimacy, it also predicts increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, creating a complex mix of benefits and risks.

Friendship quality also factors into Rubin’s analysis of risks. He notes that “individuals who have unsupportive friendships tend to report higher levels of psychological distress, and the same is true for individuals with highly conflictual friendships” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This finding suggests that merely having friends is insufficient for positive adjustment—the nature and quality of those friendships significantly impact outcomes.

Gender Differences in Friendship Patterns

Rubin’s research identifies several important gender differences in friendship patterns across development, though he emphasises that these differences occur alongside many similarities in boys’ and girls’ friendship experiences.

One notable difference concerns intimate self-disclosure within friendships. Rubin observes that “girls and women of all ages and across cultures report higher levels of intimacy in their friendships than do boys and men” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This difference begins to emerge in middle childhood and becomes more pronounced during adolescence, reflecting both biological development and gender socialisation.

Rubin’s work also reveals gender differences in the activities that characterise friendships. During the elementary school years, his research indicates that “boys also participate more often in competitive activities in large groups, whereas girls more frequently engage in cooperative activity or conversation in small groups” (Rubin & Smith, 2018). These activity preferences shape the contexts in which friendships develop and the skills that are practiced within them.

An interesting paradox emerges in Rubin’s findings regarding gender differences in friendship satisfaction. Despite documenting that girls’ friendships typically involve higher levels of intimacy, he notes that “boys and girls indicate that they are similarly satisfied with their friendships” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This finding raises important questions about whether different genders value different aspects of friendship or express intimacy in ways that traditional research measures might not fully capture.

Regarding conflict in friendships, Rubin has found that “adolescent girls and adult women find conflict with their friends to be more stressful and worrisome than do their male counterparts” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). He attributes this difference to girls’ stronger interpersonal orientation, which may lead them to invest more emotionally in preserving harmony within their relationships.

These gender differences create what Rubin describes as “positive and negative trade-offs” in friendship experiences. As he explains, girls’ and women’s friendships “tend to be highly intimate and supportive but also lead to considerable stress, anxiety, and worry” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). This nuanced perspective avoids simplistically labelling one gender’s friendship style as superior to the other’s, instead recognising the complex advantages and challenges associated with each pattern.

Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Friendship

While much of the research on children’s friendships has been conducted in Western contexts, Rubin’s work includes valuable cross-cultural perspectives that highlight both universal aspects of friendship and cultural variations in friendship patterns.

A fundamental observation in Rubin’s cross-cultural research is that “friendship experiences are universal” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). Across diverse cultural contexts, including both Western societies (e.g., United States, the Netherlands) and non-Western societies (e.g., China, India), most individuals form at least one friendship during their development. This universality suggests that friendship fulfils basic human needs that transcend cultural boundaries.

Similarly, Rubin finds that “the benefits of having at least one friend and the ‘costs’ or risks of not having a friend or having difficulties with friends are also evident at all periods of development and in all cultures” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). The positive association between friendship experiences and psychological wellbeing appears to be culturally robust, underscoring friendship’s fundamental importance for human development.

However, Rubin also acknowledges important cultural variations in friendship patterns. He notes that “Western and non-Western societies tend to differ in cultural norms and expectations (such as the degree to which independence and group harmony are emphasized)” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). These differing cultural values may influence how friendships are formed, maintained, and expressed across contexts.

One area where cultural differences emerge is in friendship interaction styles. While Western cultures often emphasise self-disclosure and verbal intimacy in friendships, some non-Western cultures may place greater emphasis on loyalty, practical support, and shared activities. Rubin recognises that these different patterns reflect broader cultural values regarding individualism versus collectivism, expression of emotions, and appropriate social behaviour.

Despite these variations, Rubin’s cross-cultural research suggests that core friendship processes—such as mutual liking, reciprocity, and providing support—operate across diverse cultural contexts. The specific manifestations of these processes may vary, but their underlying function in supporting development remains consistent.

For Early Years practitioners working in multicultural settings, Rubin’s cross-cultural perspective offers important insights. It suggests that while supporting children’s friendship development is universally important, educators should be sensitive to cultural variations in how children express and experience friendship. Practices that support friendship formation should acknowledge and respect these cultural differences rather than imposing a single model of “successful” friendship interactions.

Practical Implications for Early Childhood Education

Kenneth H. Rubin’s research on play and social development offers a wealth of practical applications for Early Years educators. His detailed framework for understanding play provides teachers with tools to design environments, plan activities, and implement interventions that support children’s development across multiple domains. By applying Rubin’s insights, practitioners can create more intentional and developmentally appropriate educational experiences.

Small-Group and Large-Group Activities Based on Rubin’s Research

Rubin’s integration of social and cognitive play dimensions offers important guidance for structuring group activities in Early Years settings. His research demonstrates that different group sizes facilitate different types of play and learning experiences, making both small-group and large-group activities valuable in a balanced curriculum.

Small-group activities align with Rubin’s findings about the developmental progression of social play. For younger children who are still developing the skills for cooperative interaction, small groups create manageable social contexts where they can begin to practice turn-taking, sharing, and collaborative problem-solving. As Rubin (n.d.) notes in his theories in practice, practitioners should “do small-group and large-group activities” and “understand that children play together differently.”

Small groups are particularly conducive to supporting associative and early cooperative play, where children are beginning to share materials and ideas but may still need significant adult scaffolding. For example, a small group activity with three or four children working together at a water table allows teachers to observe and support emerging social skills while still providing each child with substantial opportunities for active participation.

Key information:

• Small groups (2-4 children) support the transition from parallel to associative and cooperative play
• Small groups allow educators to observe social interactions more closely and provide targeted support
• Small-group activities can be structured to encourage turn-taking, sharing, and collaborative problem-solving

Large-group activities serve different but complementary purposes in applying Rubin’s theories. Whole-class gatherings can build community and provide opportunities for children to observe diverse social interaction styles. However, Rubin’s research suggests that large groups may not be optimal contexts for supporting extended cooperative play, particularly for younger children or those with social challenges.

Rubin’s work on the relationship between materials and social interaction also informs group size decisions. His studies revealed that some materials (such as blocks and dramatic play props) tend to encourage more social interaction, making them well-suited for small group settings, while other materials (like puzzles and art activities) often elicit more parallel play (Rubin, 1976b). This knowledge allows teachers to match materials with group sizes to support specific play goals.

Importantly, Rubin’s emphasis on developmental progression reminds practitioners that children need experience with both group sizes. As he notes, “social play changes depending on the child’s stage” (Rubin, n.d.). A well-designed Early Years programme should therefore include a balance of individual, small-group, and large-group experiences to support children’s developing social competence across multiple contexts.

Supporting Different Types of Play in the Classroom

Rubin’s detailed taxonomy of play types provides Early Years educators with a framework for ensuring their classrooms support the full range of developmentally valuable play experiences. His research emphasises that functional, constructive, and dramatic play all serve important developmental purposes and should be intentionally supported in educational settings.

Functional play, though often considered less mature than other play types, serves critical developmental functions for children, particularly those who are younger or less experienced with specific materials. Rubin’s research suggests that even older preschoolers engage in functional play with new materials, exploring their properties before using them in more complex ways (Rubin, 1977). Supporting functional play might involve providing sensory materials like sand, water, and playdough that invite exploration of properties and cause-effect relationships.

Key information:

• Functional play supports sensory development, physical skills, and basic understanding of cause-effect relationships
• All children, regardless of age, engage in functional play with unfamiliar materials
• Sensory materials and simple manipulatives support functional play

Constructive play occupies a significant portion of preschoolers’ time and represents an intermediate level of cognitive complexity. Rubin’s research found that materials like blocks, art supplies, and building toys elicited high levels of constructive play, which supports cognitive skills like planning, problem-solving, and spatial reasoning (Rubin, 1976b). To support constructive play, teachers can provide a variety of open-ended materials, adequate time and space for complex constructions, and appropriate storage solutions that allow projects to be saved and revisited.

Dramatic play emerges as particularly important in Rubin’s framework, representing the most mature form of cognitive play in early childhood. His research indicates that dramatic play increases with age and is associated with higher levels of social and cognitive development (Rubin, 1977). Following Rubin’s theories in practice, educators should “encourage children in imaginative play” and provide “opportunities for children to collaborate and negotiate with others” (Rubin, n.d.).

Key information:

• Dramatic play supports representational thinking, language development, and social perspective-taking
• Children should be “encouraged to take on different roles and perspectives during pretend play” (Rubin, n.d.)
• Well-equipped dramatic play areas with diverse props support higher levels of symbolic play

Rubin’s work also highlights the importance of games with rules for older preschoolers and kindergarteners. Though less prevalent than other play types in early childhood, simple games with agreed-upon rules begin to emerge in the later preschool years and support important developments in self-regulation and social understanding. Teachers can introduce simple board games, circle games, and outdoor games with basic rules to support this development.

Notably, Rubin’s research challenges the common assumption that solitary play is always less mature than social play. His findings revealed that “with age, solitary play becomes cognitively more mature” (Rubin, 1977), with older children often engaging in complex constructive and dramatic play on their own. This insight encourages teachers to value and support high-quality solitary play rather than always pushing children toward group interactions.

Creating Environments That Encourage Diverse Play Experiences

Rubin’s research offers valuable guidance for designing physical environments that support diverse and developmentally appropriate play experiences. His studies connecting specific materials and areas with different types of social and cognitive play can inform intentional classroom design.

The arrangement of classroom space significantly influences the types of play that emerge. Rubin’s work suggests that well-defined activity areas support children’s engagement in specific types of play. For example, a clearly delineated block area encourages constructive play, while a home corner with appropriate props facilitates dramatic play. By creating distinct zones for different play types, teachers can support children in developing the full range of play skills identified in Rubin’s taxonomy.

Key information:

• Well-defined activity areas support children’s engagement in specific types of play
• Classrooms should include spaces for solitary, parallel, and group play
• The physical arrangement should facilitate smooth transitions between play types

Rubin’s studies on materials and their play values provide further guidance for environment design. His research found that certain materials tend to elicit specific types of play: art materials and puzzles encouraged constructive play but often in parallel social contexts, while dramatic play props and blocks were more likely to support cooperative interaction (Rubin, 1976b). This knowledge allows teachers to make informed decisions about which materials to include in different areas of the classroom.

Material selection should also consider Rubin’s findings about developmental progression. For younger children who engage in more functional and parallel play, providing duplicate materials can reduce conflicts and support extended engagement. As children develop more sophisticated social skills, materials that naturally encourage cooperation (such as large blocks, dramatic play props, and materials too heavy for one child to manage alone) become increasingly important.

Key information:

• Certain materials tend to elicit specific types of play: art materials and puzzles encourage constructive play but often in parallel contexts
• Dramatic play props and blocks are more likely to support cooperative interaction
• Material selection should consider developmental progression from parallel to cooperative play

Rubin’s research also highlights the importance of adequate time for play. His observational studies reveal that complex play sequences, particularly in the dramatic realm, develop over extended periods as children establish scenarios, negotiate roles, and enact their ideas. Early Years programmes should therefore include substantial uninterrupted play periods that allow these complex play sequences to unfold.

The social environment is equally important in supporting diverse play experiences. Rubin’s work on friendship suggests that having familiar peer groups supports the development of more mature play forms, as children build on shared experiences and established relationships. At the same time, his research on socioeconomic differences in play reminds practitioners of the importance of supporting children with diverse backgrounds and play experiences. As Rubin found, some children may need additional scaffolding to engage in cooperative-constructive or cooperative-dramatic play (Rubin, 1977).

Understanding the Developmental Value of Each Play Type

Rubin’s research provides a nuanced understanding of how different types of play contribute to children’s development, allowing Early Years practitioners to recognise and value the full range of play behaviours they observe. This knowledge helps educators move beyond simplistic notions of “good” or “bad” play to appreciate the developmental significance of various play forms.

Functional play, though often considered less mature, serves important developmental functions in early childhood. Through functional play, children develop sensory discrimination, fine and gross motor skills, and a basic understanding of how objects behave. Rubin’s research shows that even older preschoolers engage in functional play with new materials, suggesting it serves as an important exploratory phase before more complex play emerges (Rubin, 1977).

Key information:

• Functional play develops sensory discrimination, motor skills, and basic understanding of material properties
• Functional play serves as an important exploratory phase when children encounter new materials
• Teachers should recognise and support the value of appropriate functional play rather than always pushing for “more advanced” forms

Constructive play occupies a significant portion of preschoolers’ play time and supports numerous developmental domains. Through constructive play, children develop problem-solving skills, spatial awareness, fine motor coordination, and early mathematical concepts. Rubin’s research found that constructive play was the most common form of cognitive play among preschoolers, reflecting its developmental significance during this period (Rubin & Maioni, 1975).

Dramatic play emerges as particularly valuable in Rubin’s framework, supporting multiple aspects of development simultaneously. His research indicates that dramatic play “requires children to sustain attention and abide by agreed-upon rules” (Rubin & Smith, 2018), thus supporting executive function development. Additionally, it facilitates perspective-taking, language development, and emotional regulation as children negotiate roles and scenarios.

Key information:

• Dramatic play supports executive function, perspective-taking, language development, and emotional regulation
• The ability to take on different roles and perspectives during dramatic play is associated with social competence
• Dramatic play creates opportunities for children to collaborate and negotiate with peers

Social participation categories also carry distinct developmental values in Rubin’s framework. Rather than viewing solitary play as inherently less mature, Rubin’s research revealed that “solitary play has been much maligned during the past fifty years” (Rubin, 1977). His findings suggest that high-quality solitary play can support concentration, independence, and creative thinking, particularly when it involves constructive or dramatic elements.

Parallel play serves as an important transitional form between solitary and truly interactive play. Rubin’s observations suggest that children engaging in parallel play are often learning from observing peers while still operating within their comfort zone. This form of play provides a safe context for watching and learning from others without the demands of direct social negotiation.

Cooperative play represents the most socially mature play form in Rubin’s hierarchy and supports the development of collaboration, negotiation, and shared problem-solving. His research indicates that “sociodramatic play in which children generate imaginative scenarios together has a particularly strong relation with children’s cognitive and social development” (Rubin & Smith, 2018), highlighting the special value of combining cooperative social participation with dramatic cognitive play.

Teacher Interventions That Support Positive Play Development

Rubin’s research offers valuable guidance for how Early Years practitioners can effectively intervene to support and extend children’s play. His work emphasises that teacher interventions should be thoughtful and targeted, respecting children’s autonomy while providing appropriate scaffolding for development.

One key principle emerging from Rubin’s work is the importance of observation before intervention. His detailed play taxonomy provides a framework for educators to observe and interpret children’s play behaviours, understanding both their social and cognitive dimensions. By carefully observing play, teachers can identify appropriate moments for intervention and determine what type of support would be most valuable.

Key information:

• Careful observation using Rubin’s play categories helps teachers identify appropriate moments for intervention
• Effective interventions are based on understanding both the social and cognitive dimensions of children’s play
• Teachers should document play observations to track development over time

Rubin’s research suggests several effective intervention strategies for supporting different types of play. For functional play, teachers might introduce new ways to use materials, model more complex actions, or provide language to describe sensory experiences. For constructive play, asking open-ended questions about children’s constructions or suggesting additional challenges can extend their thinking and problem-solving.

For dramatic play, Rubin’s work highlights the value of occasionally participating in children’s pretend scenarios, taking on supporting roles that can help sustain and extend the narrative. His research suggests that “children should be encouraged to take on different roles and perspectives during pretend play” (Rubin, n.d.), a process teachers can facilitate through thoughtful participation and questioning.

Key information:

• Teachers can support functional play by introducing new ways to use materials and providing descriptive language
• For constructive play, open-ended questions and suggested challenges can extend thinking
• In dramatic play, teachers can take on supporting roles to sustain and extend narrative play

Rubin’s findings about the relationship between social participation and cognitive play also inform intervention strategies. For children engaging primarily in parallel play, teachers might introduce materials that naturally encourage interaction or create situations where two children need to collaborate to achieve a goal. For children struggling with cooperative play, providing explicit guidance about turn-taking, role negotiation, or problem-solving strategies can support their development of these complex social skills.

The timing of interventions emerges as critical in Rubin’s framework. His statement that “play should be informal, enjoyable and stress free” (Rubin, n.d.) reminds practitioners to be judicious in their interventions, avoiding unnecessary disruptions of productive play sequences. When children are deeply engaged in complex play, minimal intervention may be most appropriate, perhaps limited to providing additional materials or offering brief supportive comments.

Key information:

• The timing of interventions is critical—avoid unnecessary disruptions of productive play
• When children are deeply engaged, minimal intervention may be most appropriate
• Provide materials and support that extend rather than redirect children’s play intentions

For children experiencing play difficulties, Rubin’s research offers particularly valuable guidance. His work on socioeconomic differences in play suggests that some children may need additional support to engage in constructive and dramatic play (Rubin, 1977). For these children, more direct intervention might include explicitly modelling play scenarios, playing alongside them to demonstrate specific skills, or creating small group situations with more experienced peers who can serve as play models.

Rubin’s emphasis on the developmental progression of play reminds practitioners that interventions should be matched to children’s current capabilities while gently challenging them toward more complex forms. As he notes, “social play changes depending on the child’s stage” (Rubin, n.d.), suggesting that effective interventions acknowledge children’s developmental readiness while providing appropriate scaffolding for growth.

Finally, Rubin’s work highlights the importance of creating a classroom culture that values diverse play styles. His research challenging the traditional view of solitary play as immature (Rubin, 1977) encourages teachers to respect and support high-quality solitary play rather than always pushing children toward group interaction. This balanced approach recognises that different children have different play preferences and that all forms of play can contribute to healthy development when they occur in a supportive environment.

Assessment and Observation Techniques

Kenneth H. Rubin’s integrated framework of social and cognitive play provides Early Years practitioners with sophisticated tools for observing, assessing, and documenting children’s play development. His research-based approach offers educators practical methods for gathering meaningful information about children’s development across multiple domains through systematic play observation.

Using Rubin’s Play Categories as an Observational Framework

Rubin’s integration of social participation categories with cognitive play categories creates a comprehensive observational framework that captures the multidimensional nature of children’s play. This framework allows practitioners to move beyond simplistic observations of what materials children are using to document the quality and complexity of their play behaviours.

The Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin offers a systematic approach to observing children’s play. In its original research application, Rubin and colleagues observed each child for one minute per day over 30 consecutive school days, recording the number of seconds spent in each play category (Rubin, 1977). While this intensive observation schedule may not be practical in typical educational settings, the structured categories provide a valuable framework that can be adapted for classroom use.

Key information:

• Rubin’s Play Observation Scale combines social categories (solitary, parallel, group) with cognitive categories (functional, constructive, dramatic)
• This integrated framework captures both who children play with and the cognitive complexity of their play
• The framework can be adapted for practical use in Early Years settings

When using Rubin’s categories for observation, practitioners can focus on several key aspects of play. First, they can note the social context—whether the child plays alone (solitary), beside others with similar materials but minimal interaction (parallel), or in direct interaction with peers (group play, combining Parten’s associative and cooperative categories). Second, they can document the cognitive level of play—functional (repetitive physical actions), constructive (creating or building), dramatic (pretend), or games with rules.

Rubin’s research demonstrates the importance of considering these dimensions simultaneously rather than in isolation. For example, solitary play might encompass simple repetitive actions (solitary-functional) or complex imaginative scenarios (solitary-dramatic), representing very different levels of cognitive engagement (Rubin, 1977). By documenting both dimensions, practitioners gain a more complete picture of children’s developmental progress.

The framework also helps educators identify patterns in children’s play preferences and development over time. For instance, a child who consistently engages in parallel-constructive play but rarely participates in group play might need support in developing social interaction skills. Conversely, a child who engages primarily in group-functional play might benefit from experiences that encourage more complex cognitive engagement within social contexts.

Key information:

• Observing both social and cognitive dimensions reveals patterns in children’s play preferences
• Changes in play patterns over time indicate developmental progress
• Observations can identify areas where children might benefit from additional support

For practical implementation, Rubin’s methodology suggests using time sampling—observing a child for a brief period and recording their predominant play behaviour. As he describes, “After each one-minute observation, the observers recorded exactly what it was the children were doing and with whom” (Rubin, 1977). This approach can be adapted to classroom settings by conducting brief, focused observations during free play periods, perhaps observing each child for 3-5 minutes once or twice a week.

Analysing the Social and Cognitive Value of Different Materials and Activities

One of Rubin’s significant contributions to play assessment is his research on how different materials and activities elicit particular types of play. His studies provide guidance for practitioners in analysing the developmental value of classroom provisions and understanding their likely impact on children’s play experiences.

Rubin’s (1976b) study of materials and activities revealed clear patterns in how different resources tend to support particular types of play. For example, art materials and puzzles predominantly elicited constructive play in parallel social contexts, while dramatic play props and blocks were more likely to support both constructive and dramatic play in social settings. This knowledge helps practitioners make informed decisions about classroom provisioning and anticipate the developmental opportunities different materials might offer.

Key information:

• Different materials tend to elicit specific combinations of social and cognitive play
• Art materials and puzzles predominantly support parallel-constructive play
• Dramatic play props and blocks support both constructive and dramatic play in social contexts

When analysing materials, Rubin’s research encourages practitioners to look beyond surface engagement to consider the depth of cognitive involvement. For instance, he found that sand and water play were predominantly used for functional play (90% of such play was functional), while painting and drawing supported more constructive activity (78% constructive) (Rubin, 1976b). This analysis helps educators recognise when additional scaffolding might be needed to extend children’s engagement with particular materials toward more complex play forms.

The social value of materials also emerges as an important consideration in Rubin’s work. His research revealed that “the most social interaction (group play) occurred during house play and related themes (55 percent), during vehicle play (50 percent), and surprisingly in reading and number activities (63 percent)” (Rubin, 1976b). This finding highlights how certain materials naturally facilitate social interaction, while others may require more intentional teacher support to become contexts for collaborative play.

Rubin’s methodology for analysing materials invites practitioners to conduct similar investigations in their own settings. By observing how children use different resources and documenting the types of play that emerge, educators can build a nuanced understanding of the developmental value of their classroom provisions. This information can then inform decisions about which materials to introduce, remove, or modify to support children’s developing play skills.

Key information:

• Educators can conduct their own systematic observations of how materials are used in their classrooms
• Documentation of play behaviours with different materials informs provisioning decisions
• Understanding the typical play value of materials helps identify when additional scaffolding might be beneficial

Beyond individual materials, Rubin’s research also offers insights into analysing activity areas within the classroom. His findings suggest that well-defined areas supporting specific types of play—such as block corners, dramatic play centres, and art areas—help children engage in sustained play at higher cognitive levels. The physical organisation of these areas can significantly impact their play value, with accessible storage, clear boundaries, and adequate space all contributing to more complex play development.

Practical Tools for Educators to Assess Children’s Play Development

Building on Rubin’s research, several practical assessment tools can help Early Years practitioners document and analyse children’s play development in everyday contexts. These tools adapt Rubin’s detailed observational framework into formats that are feasible for regular use in educational settings.

A simplified play observation chart based on Rubin’s matrix provides an accessible starting point for practitioners. Such a chart typically includes rows for social participation categories (solitary, parallel, group) and columns for cognitive play types (functional, constructive, dramatic, games), creating a grid where observed play behaviours can be recorded. During brief observation periods, educators can place checkmarks or tallies in the appropriate cells, building a visual representation of each child’s typical play patterns over time.

Key information:

• A play observation grid based on Rubin’s matrix provides a systematic recording format
• Brief, regular observations build a comprehensive picture of play patterns over time
• Visual representation helps identify predominant play types and developmental progress

Play mapping offers another practical application of Rubin’s framework. This approach involves creating a physical map of the classroom and tracking where children choose to play, what materials they select, and what types of play they engage in during free play periods. Over time, this mapping reveals not only individual preferences but also how different areas of the classroom support various play types, as identified in Rubin’s research on materials and activities (Rubin, 1976b).

Anecdotal observation records complement more structured assessment tools by capturing the qualitative aspects of children’s play that might not be reflected in category-based recordings. When using Rubin’s framework to guide anecdotal observations, practitioners can focus on documenting specific indicators of play development, such as the complexity of dramatic scenarios, the sophistication of constructions, or the nature of social negotiations during collaborative play.

Key information:

• Anecdotal records capture qualitative aspects of play not reflected in categorical assessments
• Rubin’s framework helps focus anecdotal observations on developmentally significant behaviours
• Combining structured and narrative documentation provides a more complete picture of play development

Technology can support the practical implementation of Rubin’s assessment approach. Digital documentation tools allow practitioners to quickly record observations using predetermined categories based on Rubin’s framework, attach photos or videos as evidence, and generate reports showing patterns over time. While Rubin’s original research predates such technology, his systematic approach to observation readily translates to digital formats that can make regular assessment more manageable in busy Early Years settings.

For children who may be experiencing play difficulties, Rubin’s research supports more in-depth assessment approaches. His findings on socioeconomic differences in play (Rubin, 1977) and his later work on social withdrawal remind practitioners to consider how contextual factors might influence play behaviours. For children showing persistent play challenges, more focused observation periods using the full Play Observation Scale might provide valuable insights into potential intervention approaches.

Documentation Approaches Based on Rubin’s Theories

Effective documentation of children’s play not only captures current development but also supports planning, reflection, and communication with families. Rubin’s multidimensional approach to play assessment informs several documentation strategies that help practitioners translate observations into meaningful practice.

Learning stories provide a narrative approach to documenting play that aligns well with Rubin’s emphasis on understanding both social and cognitive dimensions of play. When crafting learning stories about play episodes, practitioners can use Rubin’s categories to highlight developmentally significant aspects of the observation. For example, a learning story might describe a child’s transition from parallel-constructive to group-constructive play during a block building activity, noting the social skills demonstrated and the increasing complexity of the construction.

Key information:

• Learning stories can use Rubin’s framework to highlight developmentally significant aspects of play
• Narrative documentation helps capture the context and progression of play episodes
• Stories can illustrate transitions between different play types that indicate developmental growth

Play portfolios offer another documentation approach informed by Rubin’s work. These collections of observations, photographs, children’s creations, and reflective notes provide a longitudinal record of play development across both social and cognitive dimensions. Organising portfolio entries according to Rubin’s play categories helps make developmental progressions visible, such as documenting a child’s increasing engagement in dramatic play or growing capacity for cooperative social participation.

Documentation panels displayed in the classroom can use Rubin’s framework to make children’s play learning visible to both the children themselves and visiting families. For example, a panel might showcase “Many Ways to Play with Blocks,” featuring photographs and descriptions of children engaging in functional, constructive, and dramatic play with blocks across different social contexts. This approach helps communicate the developmental value of play to families while also potentially inspiring children to explore different play possibilities.

Key information:

• Documentation panels can illustrate the different play types identified in Rubin’s research
• Visual documentation helps communicate the developmental value of play to families
• Organised documentation makes learning through play visible and valued

For planning purposes, play development summaries based on Rubin’s categories provide a structured format for tracking children’s progress over time. These periodic summaries might note each child’s typical play patterns, developmental changes observed, and potential next steps for support. By consistently using Rubin’s framework, these summaries create a coherent record that can inform individualised planning while also documenting overall development.

Technology-enhanced documentation aligns well with Rubin’s systematic approach to play observation. Digital portfolios can organise evidence according to Rubin’s play categories, making it easier to track development across multiple dimensions. Video documentation is particularly valuable for capturing the complex interplay between social and cognitive elements that Rubin’s framework emphasises, allowing for more detailed analysis than might be possible during in-the-moment observation.

Key information:

• Digital portfolios can organise documentation according to Rubin’s play categories
• Video documentation captures complex interactions between social and cognitive play elements
• Technology-enhanced approaches support more detailed analysis of play behaviours

Throughout all these documentation approaches, Rubin’s integrated perspective reminds practitioners to consider the whole child rather than focusing narrowly on isolated skills. His research demonstrates how play simultaneously engages social, cognitive, language, physical, and emotional development. Effective documentation based on his theories reflects this holistic understanding, recognising play as a window into children’s overall development rather than simply a recreational activity.

For Early Years teams, shared documentation formats based on Rubin’s framework support consistent assessment approaches across multiple practitioners. By establishing common understandings of play categories and developmental progressions, teams can develop more reliable observations and more coherent approaches to supporting children’s play development throughout the setting.

Contemporary Relevance and Modern Applications

Despite being developed several decades ago, Kenneth H. Rubin’s theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches maintain significant relevance in contemporary Early Years practice and research. His integrated perspective on play and social development continues to influence how educators understand, observe, and support children’s learning through play in modern educational contexts. Additionally, recent researchers have extended Rubin’s work in new directions, applying his insights to contemporary issues and diverse educational settings.

How Rubin’s Theories Continue to Influence Current Practice

The enduring influence of Rubin’s work is evident in current Early Years curriculum frameworks and observational practices across many educational contexts. His integration of social and cognitive dimensions of play has become embedded in how practitioners conceptualise and assess children’s play development. The understanding that play occurs along both social participation and cognitive complexity continua remains foundational to contemporary play-based approaches.

In current Early Years practice, Rubin’s challenge to the traditional view that solitary play represents immature behaviour has been widely accepted. His finding that “solitary play has been much maligned during the past fifty years” (Rubin, 1977) and can actually represent sophisticated engagement has influenced how practitioners interpret and support children’s independent play. This perspective aligns with contemporary emphasis on respecting children’s autonomy and recognising diverse learning preferences.

Key information:

• Rubin’s finding that solitary play can be cognitively sophisticated has influenced modern perspectives on independent play
• His integrated view of social and cognitive play dimensions remains foundational to contemporary play-based approaches
• Current Early Years frameworks often reflect Rubin’s emphasis on observing both who children play with and what type of play they engage in

The Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin continues to inform observation and assessment practices in Early Years settings. While practitioners may not use the exact format of Rubin’s original research tool, the conceptual framework of intersecting social and cognitive play categories has been incorporated into many contemporary observation systems. This approach provides a more nuanced alternative to simplistic developmental checklists by recognising the multidimensional nature of play development.

Rubin’s work on the relationship between play materials and play behaviours also maintains relevance in contemporary practice. His findings about how different materials tend to elicit different types of play (Rubin, 1976b) continue to guide educators in making intentional decisions about classroom provisioning. This research-informed approach to material selection has become increasingly important as Early Years settings face pressure to justify their practices and demonstrate how play environments support specific learning outcomes.

In the area of friendship and peer relations, Rubin’s contributions remain particularly influential. His emphasis on friendship as a “voluntary, reciprocal, egalitarian relationship” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018) continues to guide how practitioners support children’s social development. Contemporary applications of his work include friendship coaching programmes, social skills interventions, and classroom practices designed to foster positive peer relationships based on the understanding of friendship development that Rubin helped establish.

Recent Research Extending Rubin’s Work

Contemporary researchers have built upon Rubin’s foundations, extending his theories and methodologies in new directions that address current educational concerns. Recent studies have particularly focused on applying his frameworks to understanding play in diverse cultural contexts, examining digital play forms, and investigating relationships between play quality and specific developmental outcomes.

Researchers investigating cultural variations in play have used Rubin’s multi-dimensional framework to examine how play manifests across different cultural contexts. For instance, Chen and colleagues (2001) extended Rubin’s work on social withdrawal to Chinese children, finding that the meaning and consequences of solitary play differ across cultural settings. This work has refined our understanding of how cultural values and expectations shape play behaviours, adding nuance to Rubin’s original taxonomy.

Key information:

• Cross-cultural research has extended Rubin’s play categories to diverse cultural contexts
• Studies have revealed how cultural values influence the meaning and developmental implications of different play types
• Contemporary researchers use Rubin’s framework while acknowledging the importance of cultural context

Recent studies on the relationship between play quality and developmental outcomes have built directly on Rubin’s early findings. Contemporary researchers have used refined versions of the Play Observation Scale to investigate associations between specific play patterns and cognitive skills, social competence, and emotional regulation. For example, Lillard and colleagues (2013) examined relationships between different types of pretend play and executive function development, extending Rubin’s work on the cognitive benefits of dramatic play.

Longitudinal research approaches have also extended Rubin’s methodologies, tracking play development over extended periods to better understand developmental trajectories. While Rubin’s original studies provided cross-sectional snapshots of play at different ages, contemporary research has followed children over multiple years to document how early play patterns relate to later social and academic outcomes. These studies have supported Rubin’s emphasis on play as a significant developmental phenomenon with lasting implications.

Key information:

• Longitudinal studies have extended Rubin’s cross-sectional approach to examine play development over time
• Contemporary research has refined understanding of relationships between specific play types and developmental outcomes
• Modern studies use advanced statistical methods while building on Rubin’s conceptual framework

Neuroscience research provides another contemporary extension of Rubin’s work, examining the brain mechanisms underlying the developmental processes he identified. While Rubin’s research predated modern neuroimaging techniques, contemporary studies have investigated the neural correlates of pretend play, social interaction during play, and the executive function demands of different play types. This research provides biological support for many of Rubin’s behavioural observations about play’s developmental significance.

Recent play research has also increasingly incorporated children’s perspectives, extending Rubin’s observational approach to include children’s own understandings of their play experiences. While maintaining Rubin’s emphasis on systematic observation, these studies add children’s reflections on their play intentions, preferences, and experiences. This mixed-methods approach creates a more complete picture of play development that honours children’s agency while maintaining the empirical rigour that characterised Rubin’s work.

Applications in Diverse Educational Settings

One strength of Rubin’s theoretical framework is its adaptability to diverse educational contexts. Contemporary applications of his work extend beyond traditional Early Years settings to include special education environments, hospital play programmes, therapeutic contexts, and community-based early intervention services.

In special education settings, Rubin’s detailed play taxonomy has proven valuable for understanding the developmental profiles of children with various additional needs. For children with autism spectrum conditions, practitioners have adapted his observational framework to document patterns in object play, social engagement, and symbolic representation. These observations help identify specific areas for targeted support while recognising strengths and developmental progress that might be missed by standardised assessments.

Key information:

• Rubin’s play categories help document developmental patterns for children with additional needs
• The framework supports strength-based approaches by identifying capabilities across multiple play dimensions
• Practitioners adapt Rubin’s observational methods to suit specific diagnostic and intervention contexts

Hospital play programmes demonstrate another contemporary application of Rubin’s theories. These programmes use play-based approaches to support children’s coping and recovery during hospitalisation. Drawing on Rubin’s understanding of play as intrinsically motivated and stress-reducing, hospital play specialists create opportunities for children to engage in self-directed play that supports emotional regulation and provides a sense of control in the medical environment. The multi-dimensional nature of Rubin’s play framework helps practitioners recognise the therapeutic value of diverse play forms in this challenging context.

Therapeutic applications of Rubin’s work are particularly evident in play therapy approaches that draw on his understanding of play as a window into children’s internal experiences. His framework helps therapists interpret the developmental significance of play behaviours and track changes over time as indicators of therapeutic progress. The detailed observational categories he developed provide a common language for documenting play in clinical settings while recognising play’s complex relationship to cognitive, social, and emotional development.

Key information:

• Play therapists use Rubin’s framework to interpret the developmental significance of therapeutic play
• The multi-dimensional nature of his approach helps track changes across different developmental domains
• His emphasis on systematic observation supports evidence-based practice in therapeutic contexts

Community-based early intervention programmes represent another diverse application of Rubin’s work. These programmes often incorporate play-based assessment approaches influenced by his observational methods, using naturalistic play observations to identify developmental concerns and monitor progress. Rubin’s emphasis on understanding play in relation to broader development helps practitioners in these settings recognise when play patterns might indicate needs for additional support.

In culturally diverse educational settings, practitioners have adapted Rubin’s framework to better understand and support play across different cultural contexts. While maintaining his basic categories of social and cognitive play, these adaptations acknowledge cultural variations in play themes, materials, and social patterns. This culturally responsive application of Rubin’s work allows practitioners to recognise and value diverse play expressions while still identifying developmental patterns that might warrant attention.

Digital and Modern Play Contexts Through a Rubin Lens

Perhaps the most significant extension of Rubin’s work involves its application to digital and technological play contexts that did not exist when his original research was conducted. Contemporary researchers and practitioners have found his multi-dimensional framework valuable for understanding children’s engagement with digital media, virtual environments, and technology-enhanced play spaces.

Digital play presents both continuities and discontinuities with the traditional play forms that Rubin studied. His cognitive play categories—functional, constructive, dramatic, and games with rules—can be observed in children’s interactions with digital devices, though they may manifest in novel ways. For example, a child’s exploratory tapping and swiping on a tablet might represent functional digital play, while creating digital art or building in Minecraft could be considered constructive digital play.

Key information:

• Rubin’s cognitive play categories can be applied to digital contexts, though they manifest in novel ways
• Digital functional play might include exploratory interactions with devices
• Digital constructive play encompasses creation activities in apps and virtual environments

The social dimensions of Rubin’s framework also remain relevant in understanding digital play, though technology introduces new possibilities for social interaction. Children may engage in solitary, parallel, or group play with digital media, but technology also enables new forms of social play across physical distances. Recent researchers have extended Rubin’s social categories to include concepts like “connected play” or “virtual cooperative play” that maintain his emphasis on social participation while acknowledging technology’s ability to transcend physical proximity.

Rubin’s research on materials and their play affordances offers particularly valuable perspectives for understanding digital play environments. Just as he found that different physical materials elicit different types of play (Rubin, 1976b), contemporary researchers have examined how different digital applications and interfaces support various play behaviours. This research helps educators make informed decisions about digital resources, just as Rubin’s original work guided decisions about physical classroom materials.

Key information:

• Digital applications and interfaces, like physical materials, have distinct play affordances
• Rubin’s approach to analysing materials helps educators evaluate digital resources
• Understanding the play value of digital tools supports intentional decision-making about technology

Rubin’s emphasis on observing the quality and complexity of play rather than simply its surface features remains essential in digital contexts. Contemporary observers of digital play must look beyond children’s engagement with devices to consider the cognitive and social dimensions of their digital interactions. This nuanced approach, influenced by Rubin’s multidimensional framework, helps practitioners distinguish between different qualities of digital play experiences rather than making simplistic judgments about screen time.

Recent research on hybrid play—experiences that blend physical and digital elements—particularly benefits from Rubin’s integrated perspective. His recognition that play occurs along multiple dimensions helps researchers understand how physical and digital elements interact in contemporary play contexts such as augmented reality experiences, connected toys, or technology-enhanced playgrounds. This expanded application of his framework acknowledges modern play realities while maintaining his core insights about play’s developmental significance.

For Early Years practitioners navigating decisions about technology integration, Rubin’s work offers valuable guidance despite predating current technologies. His emphasis on play’s defining characteristics—active engagement, intrinsic motivation, attention to means rather than ends, nonliteral behaviour, and freedom from external rules—provides criteria for evaluating digital experiences. Digital activities that embody these qualities align with Rubin’s understanding of developmentally valuable play, while those lacking these characteristics might better be considered as different forms of engagement.

Ultimately, while the specific technologies and digital contexts were unavailable during Rubin’s original research period, his fundamental insights about play’s nature and development continue to provide valuable frameworks for understanding contemporary play forms. The enduring relevance of his work across such significantly changed play landscapes testifies to the robustness of his theoretical contributions and their continued value for both researchers and practitioners in the digital age.

Evaluation

A comprehensive assessment of Kenneth H. Rubin’s contributions to developmental psychology requires consideration of both the strengths and limitations of his research and theoretical frameworks. While his work has significantly advanced our understanding of children’s play and social development, critical examination reveals areas where his approaches may be limited or incomplete. This balanced evaluation helps contextualise Rubin’s work within the broader field and identifies both its enduring value and opportunities for further development.

Limitations and Criticism of Rubin’s Research and Theories

Methodological Concerns

Several methodological limitations have been identified in Rubin’s research approach. His original studies employed relatively small sample sizes that may limit generalisability. For example, in his foundational study integrating social and cognitive play categories, Rubin observed only 40 preschool children from a single university laboratory school (Rubin, 1977). He acknowledged this limitation himself, cautioning readers: “The findings reported above concerning possible socioeconomic status differences and age differences in play were based upon two studies conducted in only three different early education settings. It is most important that the reader not generalise from these findings to all preschool and kindergarten children” (Rubin, 1977).

The time-sampling methodology employed in Rubin’s observational studies, while innovative for its time, captures only brief snapshots of children’s play. This approach may miss the evolving nature of play episodes that unfold over extended periods. Critics suggest that this methodology might not fully capture the richness and complexity of children’s play narratives, particularly in dramatic play scenarios where themes develop gradually and may transform substantially over time.

Key information:

• Rubin’s original studies used relatively small, homogeneous samples that may limit generalisability
• Time-sampling methodology captures only brief snapshots that may miss the evolving nature of extended play episodes
• Observational approaches may not fully capture children’s intentions and meanings in play

Another methodological concern involves the potential for observer bias in Rubin’s observational framework. While his Play Observation Scale provides detailed categories, the assignment of observed behaviours to specific categories inevitably involves subjective judgment. For instance, distinguishing between associative and cooperative play can be challenging, as Rubin himself acknowledged when noting that “a number of researchers had lodged similar complaints concerning the difficulty of distinguishing associative from cooperative play” (Rubin, 1977).

Rubin’s research also predominantly focused on play in controlled educational settings rather than in homes or community contexts. This emphasis on institutional settings may not capture the full range of children’s play experiences, particularly for children from cultural backgrounds where play occurs primarily in multi-age, community-based contexts rather than in age-segregated educational environments.

Cultural and Contextual Limitations

Perhaps the most significant limitations of Rubin’s work relate to cultural context. His research was conducted primarily with North American children, and his theoretical frameworks may reflect Western cultural assumptions about child development and appropriate play. While he acknowledged cultural variations in some of his later work, his core play categories and developmental sequences were derived from observations in Western educational settings.

Cross-cultural researchers have questioned whether Rubin’s play categories and developmental progressions apply universally across diverse cultural contexts. For example, Gaskins (2000) found that Mayan children engaged in very little pretend play compared to North American children, challenging the assumption that dramatic play represents a universal developmental progression. Similarly, Göncü and colleagues (2000) demonstrated that participation in social pretend play varies significantly across cultural contexts, influenced by community values and childcare arrangements.

Key information:

• Rubin’s frameworks largely reflect Western cultural assumptions about play and development
• Cross-cultural research suggests significant variations in play patterns that may not fit neatly within his categories
• The developmental sequence from functional to dramatic play may not be universal across all cultural contexts

Rubin’s focus on age as the primary predictor of play development may also overlook important contextual factors. While he did examine socioeconomic differences in some studies, other factors such as family structure, parental play beliefs, available play spaces, and community resources received less attention in his research. These contextual factors may significantly influence children’s play opportunities and development independent of age.

The historical context of Rubin’s work represents another limitation. Most of his foundational research was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, reflecting the social structures, gender expectations, and educational practices of that era. Contemporary early childhood contexts differ substantially, with changes in family structures, increased cultural diversity in educational settings, and different approaches to early education potentially influencing how children play and develop friendships.

Areas Where His Theories May Be Incomplete

Despite the comprehensive nature of Rubin’s play taxonomy, certain aspects of play remain undertheorised in his work. Physical play, including rough-and-tumble play and risk-taking play, receives relatively little attention in his framework despite its developmental significance. This limitation may reflect gendered assumptions about play that were common during the period when his research was conducted, with greater emphasis placed on constructive and dramatic play forms that were more visible in educational settings.

Rubin’s theories also provide limited guidance for understanding atypical play development in children with developmental differences. While his framework can document developmental patterns, it offers fewer insights into the meaning and function of play behaviours that deviate significantly from typical patterns, such as the repetitive play sometimes observed in children with autism spectrum conditions.

Key information:

• Physical play and risk-taking receive limited attention in Rubin’s framework
• His theories provide limited guidance for understanding atypical play development
• The complex interplay between play and other developmental domains is not fully articulated

The role of adults in supporting play development is another area where Rubin’s work might be considered incomplete. While he acknowledges the importance of teachers in facilitating play, his research focuses primarily on describing children’s play rather than evaluating different approaches to adult intervention. This leaves open questions about the most effective ways for adults to scaffold play development across his different play categories.

Rubin’s approach to play assessment emphasises observable behaviours rather than children’s subjective experiences. Critics suggest this focus on external observations may miss important aspects of play meaning and motivation from children’s perspectives. Contemporary approaches increasingly incorporate children’s own accounts of their play experiences alongside observational data to create more complete understandings of play development.

Strengths and Support of Rubin’s Work

Empirical Evidence Backing His Frameworks

A significant strength of Rubin’s work lies in its strong empirical foundation. Unlike purely theoretical approaches to understanding play, Rubin’s frameworks emerged from systematic observations of children’s actual play behaviours. His methodological approach of combining existing theoretical categories with rigorous empirical investigation created taxonomies grounded in observable patterns rather than abstract speculation.

Rubin’s findings have been replicated across multiple studies, supporting the validity of his core observations about play development. For example, his finding that constructive play predominates in the preschool years while dramatic play increases with age has been consistently supported by subsequent research. Similarly, his observations about socioeconomic differences in play patterns have been replicated in various contexts, suggesting these represent robust developmental phenomena rather than chance findings.

Key information:

• Rubin’s frameworks emerged from systematic observations of actual play behaviours
• Core findings about play development have been replicated across multiple studies
• His methodological approach combined theoretical rigour with empirical investigation

Longitudinal research has provided particularly strong support for Rubin’s emphasis on the developmental significance of play and friendship. Studies tracking children over extended periods have confirmed his proposition that early play and friendship experiences predict later social adjustment and psychological wellbeing. This longitudinal validation strengthens the case for the developmental importance of the phenomena Rubin identified.

Rubin’s work on friendship has received especially strong empirical support. His conceptualisation of friendship as voluntary, reciprocal, and egalitarian has been validated across numerous studies, as have his findings about the protective benefits of friendship against peer victimisation and its association with positive psychological adjustment. These consistent findings across diverse samples support the robustness of his friendship framework.

Practical Applicability in Educational Settings

Perhaps the most significant strength of Rubin’s work is its practical applicability in educational contexts. His integration of social and cognitive play dimensions created a framework that practitioners can readily apply in everyday observations of children’s play. The clarity and observability of his play categories make them accessible tools for educators seeking to understand children’s development through play.

Rubin’s research on the relationship between materials and play behaviours offers particularly practical guidance for classroom design and provisioning. His findings about how different materials tend to elicit specific types of play (Rubin, 1976b) provide an evidence-based approach to environmental design that helps practitioners create intentional play spaces aligned with developmental goals.

Key information:

• Rubin’s play categories are observable and accessible for practitioners in everyday contexts
• His research on materials and play behaviours offers practical guidance for classroom design
• The developmental framework supports intentional planning for play progression

The developmental progression identified in Rubin’s work provides a valuable framework for curriculum planning in Early Years settings. By understanding how play typically develops across both social and cognitive dimensions, practitioners can design learning experiences that appropriately challenge children while respecting their current developmental capabilities. This developmental perspective helps avoid both underestimating and overwhelming children in educational contexts.

Rubin’s work bridges research and practice in particularly effective ways. His observational methodology is sophisticated enough to yield meaningful research insights while remaining adaptable to practical assessment contexts. This dual relevance to both research and practice communities has contributed significantly to the enduring influence of his frameworks in Early Years education.

Contributions to Developmental Psychology

Rubin’s most significant contribution to developmental psychology may be his integration of previously separate theoretical traditions. By combining Parten’s social participation categories with cognitive play hierarchies derived from Piaget and Smilansky, he created a more comprehensive framework for understanding play development than either tradition offered independently. This integrative approach demonstrated how social and cognitive development interact rather than proceeding along separate tracks.

His methodological innovations have also significantly influenced developmental research. The Play Observation Scale provided a model for systematic naturalistic observation that has been adapted for numerous subsequent studies. This methodological contribution extended beyond play research to influence observational approaches in other areas of developmental psychology.

Key information:

• Rubin integrated previously separate theoretical traditions into a comprehensive framework
• His methodological innovations influenced systematic observational approaches in developmental research
• His work highlighted the multidimensional nature of developmental phenomena

Rubin’s longitudinal research on friendship and social withdrawal has made particularly important contributions to developmental psychology. His documentation of both the benefits of friendship and the risks associated with friendlessness has informed a substantial body of research on peer relationships and their developmental significance. Similarly, his work on social withdrawal has advanced understanding of internalising difficulties in childhood.

By demonstrating play’s relationship to multiple developmental domains, Rubin contributed to a more holistic understanding of early development. His research showing associations between play patterns and cognitive skills, social competence, and emotional adjustment helped establish play as a significant developmental phenomenon rather than merely a recreational activity. This perspective has influenced how developmental psychologists conceptualise and study early childhood development more broadly.

Contradictory or Supporting Research

Studies That Challenge Aspects of His Theories

Several research strands have challenged or complicated aspects of Rubin’s theoretical framework. Cultural psychologists have questioned the universality of the play developmental sequence that Rubin described. For example, Lancy (2007) found that in many non-Western cultures, children engage primarily in work-like play rather than the pretend play emphasised in Rubin’s framework. Similarly, Rogoff and colleagues (2003) demonstrated that in many communities, children learn primarily through observation and participation in adult activities rather than through the play forms central to Rubin’s developmental model.

Research on gender differences has challenged some assumptions implicit in Rubin’s work. While he acknowledged gender differences in friendship patterns, some critics suggest his play categories may inadequately capture the complexity of boys’ play in particular. For instance, Maccoby (1998) argued that boys often engage in highly social, rule-governed physical play that might be misclassified as lower-level functional play in Rubin’s system despite involving sophisticated social negotiations and shared understandings.

Key information:

• Cultural psychologists have questioned the universality of Rubin’s play developmental sequence
• Research on gender differences suggests his categories may inadequately capture boys’ play patterns
• Contemporary studies emphasise the significance of physical play forms underrepresented in his framework

Neurodevelopmental research has complicated Rubin’s predominantly behavioural approach to understanding play development. Studies of children with conditions such as autism spectrum disorders have identified neurological differences that influence play development in ways not fully captured by Rubin’s observational framework. This research suggests that similar-appearing play behaviours may have different developmental meanings depending on children’s neurological profiles.

Some contemporary play researchers have challenged Rubin’s emphasis on the cognitive complexity of play as a primary indicator of developmental progress. For example, advocates of risky play and outdoor play have argued that physically challenging play forms, which might appear as simple functional play in Rubin’s taxonomy, actually involve complex risk assessment, emotional regulation, and physical skill development not fully acknowledged in his framework.

Research That Validates and Extends His Findings

Despite these challenges, a substantial body of research has validated and extended Rubin’s core findings. His observations about the developmental progression from functional to more complex play forms have been widely supported, even as researchers acknowledge cultural variations in this progression. Similarly, his findings about the protective benefits of friendship have been consistently replicated across diverse samples and contexts.

Rubin’s integrated approach to understanding play has been particularly influential in contemporary research. Current studies increasingly examine play as a multidimensional phenomenon involving simultaneous social, cognitive, emotional, and physical elements rather than reducing it to a single dimension. This holistic approach builds directly on Rubin’s integration of social and cognitive play categories.

Key information:

• Rubin’s observations about developmental progression have been widely supported despite cultural variations
• His findings about the protective benefits of friendship have been consistently replicated
• His integrated approach to understanding play has influenced contemporary multidimensional research

Intervention research has provided indirect support for Rubin’s theoretical framework by demonstrating that targeted support based on his play categories can enhance children’s development. Studies evaluating play-based interventions that incorporate his framework have shown positive effects on both play development and broader social-emotional and cognitive outcomes, suggesting the developmental significance of the play patterns he identified.

Longitudinal research has particularly validated Rubin’s emphasis on the developmental importance of friendship. Studies tracking children from early childhood into adolescence and adulthood have confirmed his proposition that early friendship experiences predict later social adjustment and psychological wellbeing. This longitudinal validation strengthens the case for the developmental significance of the friendship patterns Rubin described.

Contemporary Investigations Building on His Work

Contemporary researchers have built productively on Rubin’s foundations while addressing some of its limitations. Digital play researchers have extended his taxonomies to understand children’s engagement with technology, examining how his social and cognitive play categories manifest in digital contexts. This research maintains his core insights about play’s multidimensional nature while acknowledging new play forms that did not exist when his original work was conducted.

Researchers focusing on physical play have expanded Rubin’s framework to more fully incorporate physically active play forms. For example, Pellegrini and Smith (1998) developed taxonomies of physical play that complement Rubin’s cognitive categories, recognising the developmental significance of rough-and-tumble play, risk-taking, and physically challenging activities that received limited attention in his original work.

Key information:

• Digital play researchers have extended Rubin’s taxonomies to understand technology engagement
• Physical play researchers have expanded his framework to incorporate physically active play forms
• Contemporary methodologies include children’s perspectives alongside observational approaches

Mixed-methods researchers have enhanced Rubin’s predominantly observational approach by incorporating children’s own perspectives on their play experiences. These studies combine systematic observations using categories derived from Rubin’s framework with interviews, conversations, and other approaches to accessing children’s understandings. This methodological extension addresses one criticism of his approach while maintaining its empirical rigour.

Cross-cultural research has both challenged and enriched Rubin’s work by examining how play manifests across diverse cultural contexts. These studies have identified both universal elements that align with Rubin’s framework and cultural variations that extend beyond it. This nuanced approach recognises the value of his foundational work while acknowledging its cultural and historical situatedness.

Neuroscience researchers have begun exploring the neurological underpinnings of the developmental processes Rubin identified through behavioural observation. Studies examining brain activity during different types of play are beginning to reveal the neural mechanisms that support the developmental benefits of play that Rubin documented. This neurological perspective complements his behavioural approach, providing additional evidence for play’s developmental significance.

Intervention researchers have particularly built on Rubin’s work, developing and evaluating programmes to support children’s play and friendship development. These practical extensions demonstrate the applied value of his theoretical insights while providing opportunities to test and refine his models through intervention outcomes. The success of interventions based on his framework provides further validation of its developmental accuracy and practical utility.

Comparison with Other Theorists

Kenneth H. Rubin’s theoretical approach to understanding children’s play and social development exists within a rich landscape of developmental theories. Examining how his work relates to other prominent theorists helps clarify his distinctive contributions while also illustrating how different theoretical perspectives can complement one another to create a more comprehensive understanding of child development.

Comparison with Parten, Piaget, and Smilansky

Rubin’s work directly builds upon and integrates the play taxonomies developed by Mildred Parten, Jean Piaget, and Sara Smilansky. His innovative contribution was to recognise that these previously separate frameworks could be combined to create a more nuanced understanding of play development.

Mildred Parten’s (1932) social participation categories—unoccupied behaviour, solitary play, onlooker behaviour, parallel play, associative play, and cooperative play—focused exclusively on the social dimension of play. Parten’s framework assumed a developmental progression from less social to more social forms of play, with cooperative play representing the most mature form. Rubin’s research both built upon and challenged this framework. While he maintained Parten’s basic categories, his research demonstrated that the developmental significance of different social play forms is more complex than Parten suggested. Read our in-depth article on Mildren Parten here.

Key information:

• Rubin maintained Parten’s social play categories but challenged the assumption that social play is always more mature than solitary play
• His research showed that “with age, solitary play becomes cognitively more mature” (Rubin, 1977), contradicting Parten’s developmental hierarchy
• Rubin demonstrated that social participation must be considered alongside cognitive complexity for a complete understanding of play development

Jean Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory substantially influenced Rubin’s understanding of play development. Piaget (1962) described play as developing through successive stages—practice play (sensorimotor), symbolic play, and games with rules—reflecting children’s cognitive development from sensorimotor to concrete operational thinking. Rubin drew upon this framework but adapted it into his observational categories of functional, constructive, dramatic, and games with rules play. This adaptation maintained Piaget’s emphasis on play as reflecting cognitive development while creating more observationally distinct categories.

Where Rubin diverges from Piaget is in his greater attention to social context. While Piaget recognised social interaction as important for cognitive development, his theory emphasised individual cognitive construction. Rubin’s integrated framework explicitly acknowledges that cognitive play forms manifest differently depending on social context. This represented an important extension of Piaget’s predominantly cognitive perspective to incorporate social dimensions more fully. Read our in-depth article on Jean Piaget here.

Sara Smilansky’s (1968) elaboration of Piaget’s play stages—functional play, constructive play, dramatic play, and games with rules—provided the cognitive dimension of Rubin’s integrated framework. Rubin adopted Smilansky’s categories with minimal modification, recognising their utility for observational research. However, he extended her work by demonstrating how these cognitive play forms interact with social participation patterns and by developing more detailed observational protocols for documenting this interaction. Read our in-depth article on Sara Smilanksy here.

Key information:

• Rubin adopted Smilansky’s cognitive play categories (functional, constructive, dramatic, games with rules) with minimal modification
• He extended her work by demonstrating how cognitive play forms interact with social participation patterns
• Rubin developed more detailed observational protocols than Smilansky for documenting play development

Comparison to Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Approach

Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory offers an interesting contrast to Rubin’s approach, though both recognise the developmental significance of play. Vygotsky (1978) emphasised play, particularly pretend play, as creating a “zone of proximal development” where children perform beyond their typical capabilities. He viewed play as a leading activity that drives development rather than simply reflecting existing developmental levels.

Where Rubin’s approach focuses on observing and categorising play behaviours, Vygotsky was more concerned with understanding the psychological mechanisms through which play influences development. Vygotsky emphasised how play creates situations where children subordinate their immediate impulses to follow the rules of pretend scenarios, thereby developing self-regulation. Rubin acknowledges play’s contribution to development but pays more attention to documenting observable patterns than to theorising the psychological processes involved.

Key information:

• Vygotsky viewed play as creating a “zone of proximal development” where children perform beyond typical capabilities
• Rubin focused more on observing and categorising play behaviours, while Vygotsky emphasised understanding psychological mechanisms
• Both recognised the developmental significance of play, but from different theoretical perspectives

The two approaches also differ in their understanding of social influence. Vygotsky emphasised how children’s play reflects the cultural patterns and tools they encounter through interaction with more knowledgeable others. Play, in his view, is fundamentally shaped by cultural context rather than following universal developmental patterns. Rubin acknowledges socioeconomic and cultural influences on play but tends to emphasise more universal developmental progressions, though his later work shows increased recognition of cultural variation.

Despite these differences, Rubin’s findings about the relationship between play and development align with many of Vygotsky’s predictions. For example, Rubin’s documentation of how dramatic play relates to social competence and cognitive development supports Vygotsky’s emphasis on pretend play as a crucial developmental activity. Their different theoretical approaches ultimately reach complementary conclusions about play’s importance in early childhood. Read our in-depth article on Lev Vygotsky here.

Relationship to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides a broader context for understanding Rubin’s work on play and social development. Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasised how development is shaped by interactions between the individual and multiple environmental systems, from immediate settings like home and school (microsystem) to broader cultural contexts (macrosystem).

Rubin’s research focuses primarily on what Bronfenbrenner would call microsystem interactions—children’s direct experiences in classroom and peer settings. His detailed observations of play patterns within these immediate contexts provide a fine-grained picture of development at the microsystem level. However, Rubin’s approach generally pays less attention to the broader ecological systems that Bronfenbrenner emphasised as crucial for understanding development.

Key information:

• Bronfenbrenner emphasised multiple environmental systems affecting development, from immediate settings to broader cultural contexts
• Rubin focused primarily on microsystem interactions—children’s direct experiences in classroom and peer settings
• Bronfenbrenner’s theory provides a broader context for interpreting the play patterns Rubin documented

In his studies of socioeconomic differences in play patterns, Rubin does acknowledge some of the macrosystem influences that Bronfenbrenner highlighted. His finding that lower SES children displayed different play patterns than middle SES peers (Rubin, 1977) recognises how broader social structures influence microsystem experiences. However, his research typically focused more on documenting these differences than on analysing the complex ecological systems producing them.

Bronfenbrenner’s emphasis on connections between different settings (mesosystem) also offers a perspective missing from much of Rubin’s work. While Rubin primarily studied play in educational settings, Bronfenbrenner would emphasise the importance of understanding how play experiences connect across home, school, and community contexts. Some of Rubin’s limitations regarding cultural context might be addressed through greater attention to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective.

Despite these differences in scope, the two approaches are fundamentally compatible. Rubin’s detailed observations of play within specific settings can be situated within Bronfenbrenner’s broader ecological framework to create a more comprehensive understanding of how play development is shaped by multiple interacting systems. Read our in-depth article on Urie Bronfenbrenner here.

Contrasts with Montessori and Other Educational Philosophies

Maria Montessori’s educational philosophy offers an interesting contrast to the play-based approach that Rubin’s work supports. Montessori emphasised children’s engagement with specially designed materials in structured, individual activities that she termed “work” rather than play. While both approaches value children’s active engagement, they differ significantly in how they conceptualise children’s self-directed activity.

Rubin’s research highlighted the developmental value of diverse play forms, including functional, constructive, and particularly dramatic play. Montessori, by contrast, was sceptical of fantasy play, believing it distracted children from engaging with reality. This fundamental difference reflects contrasting views about the developmental significance of imaginative activity. Rubin’s research finding that dramatic play was associated with cognitive development (Rubin & Maioni, 1975) challenges Montessori’s dismissal of fantasy play’s value.

Key information:

• Montessori emphasised structured “work” with specially designed materials rather than free play
• Montessori was sceptical of fantasy play, while Rubin’s research highlighted its developmental value
• Rubin’s finding that dramatic play was associated with cognitive development challenges Montessori’s perspective

Another contrast involves social interaction. Rubin’s work emphasises the developmental significance of peer interaction, particularly in associative and cooperative play. Montessori’s approach, while not excluding social interaction, places greater emphasis on individual concentration and mastery. Beller, Zimmie, and Aiken (1971) found that Montessori children engaged in more constructive play and less dramatic play than traditionally educated children, a finding Rubin cited (1977) that aligns with these philosophical differences.

Reggio Emilia’s approach to early education shares more commonalities with the play-based perspective supported by Rubin’s research. Both recognise the importance of children’s self-directed activity, social interaction, and representational thinking. However, Reggio places greater emphasis on documentation as a tool for extending learning rather than primarily for assessment, representing a different application of observational approaches than Rubin’s more assessment-oriented framework.

Traditional academic approaches to early education contrast sharply with the play-based perspective supported by Rubin’s research. Where traditional approaches often emphasise direct instruction in academic skills, Rubin’s work highlights how play supports development across multiple domains. His documentation of the relationships between play quality and developmental outcomes offers evidence for the value of play-based approaches over more didactic methods in Early Years education. Read our in-depth article on Maria Montessori here.

Unique Contributions and Distinguishing Features of Rubin’s Approach

Rubin’s most distinctive contribution is his integration of previously separate theoretical frameworks to create a more comprehensive understanding of play development. By combining Parten’s social participation categories with cognitive play categories derived from Piaget and Smilansky, he created a two-dimensional framework that captures play’s complexity more effectively than either approach alone. This integration represents a significant theoretical advance that influences how researchers and practitioners conceptualise play development.

The empirical foundation of Rubin’s work also distinguishes his approach from more purely theoretical perspectives. His systematic observational studies provided empirical validation for theoretical propositions about play development while also revealing patterns that challenged existing assumptions. For example, his finding that solitary play becomes more cognitively mature with age contradicted the prevailing view that solitary play always represents immature behaviour.

Key information:

• Rubin integrated previously separate theoretical frameworks to create a comprehensive two-dimensional understanding of play
• His systematic observational studies provided empirical validation for theoretical propositions about play development
• His findings challenged existing assumptions, such as the view that solitary play always represents immature behaviour

Rubin’s attention to the relationship between play materials and play behaviours represents another distinctive contribution. While other theorists focused primarily on children’s developmental capabilities, Rubin demonstrated how physical and social environments influence the types of play that emerge. This ecological dimension of his work provides practical guidance for designing play environments while acknowledging how context shapes development.

His longitudinal research on friendship and peer relations extends beyond play to address broader aspects of social development. This work on friendship quality, friendship stability, and the protective effects of friendship provides a more comprehensive picture of social development than approaches focused exclusively on play. By examining both play and friendship, Rubin created a more complete understanding of children’s social worlds than either focus alone would provide.

Rubin’s approach is also distinguished by its accessibility to practitioners. His observational categories are defined in terms of observable behaviours rather than requiring inferences about internal states, making them particularly useful for classroom assessment. This practical orientation has contributed to his framework’s widespread adoption in educational contexts despite theoretical debates about certain aspects of his approach.

Areas of Complementary Insight Across Different Theoretical Perspectives

The various theoretical perspectives on children’s development—including Rubin’s integrated approach, Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective, and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory—each illuminate different aspects of development. Rather than viewing these as competing frameworks, they can be understood as offering complementary insights that together create a more comprehensive understanding.

Rubin’s detailed observational framework provides specific behavioural indicators that can be understood through multiple theoretical lenses. The play patterns he documents can be interpreted in terms of Piagetian cognitive construction, Vygotskian social mediation, or Bronfenbrenner’s ecological influences. His empirical observations thus provide a common foundation for diverse theoretical interpretations.

Key information:

• Different theoretical perspectives illuminate different aspects of development and can be viewed as complementary rather than competing
• Rubin’s observational framework provides specific behavioural indicators that can be interpreted through multiple theoretical lenses
• Integrating insights from diverse theories creates a more comprehensive understanding of children’s development through play

Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach offer complementary explanations for the play patterns Rubin observed. Piaget helps explain the cognitive structures that enable increasingly complex play forms, while Vygotsky illuminates how social interaction supports development beyond what children could achieve independently. Together with Rubin’s integrated observational approach, these perspectives create a more complete picture of how play develops and supports learning.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory complements Rubin’s microsystem focus by situating observed play patterns within broader social contexts. The socioeconomic differences in play that Rubin documented can be more fully understood through Bronfenbrenner’s analysis of how macrosystem factors influence children’s immediate experiences. This ecological perspective addresses some of the contextual limitations of Rubin’s predominantly microsystem-focused approach.

Educational philosophies like Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and traditional academic approaches can be evaluated in light of the empirical evidence Rubin provided about play’s developmental significance. His research offers a foundation for assessing how different educational approaches align with evidence about how children develop through play. This evidence-based perspective helps move debates about educational philosophy beyond purely ideological positions.

Contemporary neuroscience research provides another complementary perspective by illuminating the biological mechanisms underlying the developmental processes Rubin documented through behavioural observation. Studies of brain development during play offer physiological explanations for the cognitive and social benefits Rubin identified, creating a more complete understanding that spans multiple levels of analysis from neural to behavioural to social.

By recognising these areas of complementary insight, researchers and practitioners can draw upon multiple theoretical traditions to understand and support children’s development through play. Rather than adhering exclusively to any single perspective, this integrated approach acknowledges the complex, multidimensional nature of development that no single theory fully captures.

Conclusion

Kenneth H. Rubin’s research and theoretical contributions have significantly advanced our understanding of children’s play and social development, creating a lasting impact on both developmental psychology and Early Years education. His integrated approach to studying play has provided researchers and practitioners with valuable frameworks for observing, understanding, and supporting children’s development through play experiences.

Summary of Rubin’s Key Contributions

Rubin’s most significant contribution lies in his integration of social and cognitive dimensions of play into a comprehensive observational framework. By combining Parten’s social participation categories with cognitive play types derived from Piaget and elaborated by Smilansky, he created a multidimensional approach that captures the complexity of children’s play more effectively than either dimension alone. This integrated perspective has fundamentally influenced how researchers and practitioners conceptualise play development.

His research challenged and refined previous understandings of play development, particularly regarding solitary play. Where earlier theorists had dismissed solitary play as immature, Rubin demonstrated that “with age, solitary play becomes cognitively more mature” (Rubin, 1977). This finding represented an important reconceptualisation that recognised the potential developmental value of diverse play forms rather than privileging only highly social play.

Key information:

• Rubin integrated social and cognitive play dimensions into a comprehensive observational framework
• He challenged the view that solitary play always represents immature behaviour, demonstrating its potential cognitive complexity
• His empirical research approach provided evidence for play’s developmental significance across multiple domains

Rubin’s studies on the relationship between play materials and play behaviours offered practical insights for educational design. His finding that different materials tend to elicit particular types of play (Rubin, 1976b) has informed how practitioners create and provision play environments. This research connected theoretical understandings of play development with practical considerations of classroom design and material selection.

Beyond his work on play, Rubin made substantial contributions to understanding friendship development. His conceptualisation of friendship as voluntary, reciprocal, and egalitarian, and his documentation of friendship’s protective benefits, have informed both research and practice related to children’s social development. This work extended his impact beyond play research to influence broader understandings of social development across the lifespan.

Methodologically, Rubin’s Play Observation Scale provided a model for systematic naturalistic observation that has influenced developmental research beyond the specific topic of play. His detailed observational protocols demonstrated how complex developmental phenomena could be documented through careful behavioural observation, establishing an approach that balances scientific rigour with ecological validity.

Lasting Impact on Early Childhood Education

Rubin’s work has profoundly influenced how Early Years practitioners understand, observe, and support children’s play. His integrated play framework has been incorporated into numerous observation and assessment systems used in educational settings, helping practitioners recognise the developmental significance of diverse play forms. This influence has elevated play’s status in educational contexts from a mere recreational activity to a crucial developmental process worthy of thoughtful support.

The practical applicability of Rubin’s work has contributed to its lasting educational impact. His clear, observable play categories translate readily into classroom practice, allowing teachers to use his framework for everyday observations without extensive specialised training. This accessibility has facilitated the widespread adoption of his perspectives in educational settings around the world.

Key information:

• Rubin’s play framework has been incorporated into numerous observation and assessment systems used in educational settings
• His research has elevated play’s status in educational contexts from recreation to a crucial developmental process
• The practical applicability and accessibility of his observational categories have facilitated widespread adoption in classrooms

Rubin’s research has provided empirical support for play-based approaches to Early Years education. His documentation of relationships between play quality and developmental outcomes offers evidence-based arguments for maintaining play’s central role in early education despite increasing academic pressures. This research has equipped play advocates with scientific evidence to support play-based curricula in policy discussions and educational planning.

His findings about socioeconomic differences in play patterns have heightened awareness of the need for equity-focused approaches to play support. By documenting how children from different backgrounds may display different play patterns, his work has encouraged practitioners to consider how to support diverse play development rather than imposing a single model of “appropriate” play. This awareness supports more culturally responsive and equitable educational practices.

In friendship research, Rubin’s work has informed how schools approach social development and peer relationships. His findings about friendship’s protective benefits have influenced anti-bullying programmes and approaches to supporting children’s social inclusion. Similarly, his research on social withdrawal has increased sensitivity to the needs of socially reticent children in educational settings.

Future Directions for Research and Practice

While Rubin’s work has established a strong foundation for understanding play and social development, several directions for future research and practice would further extend and refine his contributions. Cultural variations in play development represent a particularly important area for continued investigation. Future research should examine how play manifests across diverse cultural contexts, moving beyond the predominantly Western samples of Rubin’s original studies to build more culturally inclusive understandings of play development.

Digital play presents another crucial frontier for extending Rubin’s framework. As children increasingly engage with digital technologies, researchers need to examine how his play categories apply to these new contexts. Questions about how functional, constructive, dramatic, and rule-governed play manifest in digital environments, and how social participation patterns operate in virtual spaces, represent important extensions of Rubin’s work for the digital age.

Key information:

• Cultural variations in play development represent an important area for continued investigation
• Research on digital play should examine how Rubin’s categories apply to these new contexts
• Integration of children’s perspectives with observational approaches would create more complete understandings of play

Methodologically, future research would benefit from integrating Rubin’s observational approach with methods that incorporate children’s own perspectives on their play experiences. Mixed-methods approaches that combine systematic observation with conversations, interviews, and other means of accessing children’s understandings would create more complete pictures of play development that acknowledge children’s agency and meaning-making.

Intervention research building on Rubin’s frameworks represents another productive future direction. While his work primarily focused on describing and understanding play development, future research could evaluate specific approaches to supporting children who show delayed or atypical play patterns. Such intervention studies would extend his descriptive work into more applied contexts with direct benefits for practice.

For practitioners, future applications of Rubin’s work might focus on developing more accessible tools for classroom-based play assessment. Digital applications that streamline observation and documentation processes while maintaining the theoretical integrity of his framework could make systematic play assessment more feasible in busy educational settings. Such tools would further bridge the gap between research and practice.

Future practice could also more fully integrate Rubin’s play framework with other influential Early Years approaches. Exploring how his observational categories might complement Reggio Emilia’s documentation approaches, for example, could create powerful new practices that combine the strengths of both traditions. Similarly, examining connections between his work and contemporary understandings of executive function development could create new insights for supporting children’s self-regulation through play.

Final Thoughts on Implementing His Theories in Contemporary Settings

Implementing Rubin’s theories in contemporary Early Years settings requires thoughtful adaptation rather than rigid application. While his fundamental insights about play development remain relevant, practitioners should consider how changing social contexts, family structures, and technological environments might influence how children play today. This contextual sensitivity allows his framework to remain useful while acknowledging shifts in childhood experiences since his original research.

Balance emerges as a key consideration when applying Rubin’s work in contemporary practice. His research demonstrates the developmental value of diverse play forms, suggesting that well-designed Early Years environments should support a balance of social and solitary experiences, functional and dramatic play opportunities, and structured and open-ended activities. This balanced approach respects children’s varied play preferences while supporting development across multiple domains.

Key information:

• Implementing Rubin’s theories requires thoughtful adaptation to contemporary contexts rather than rigid application
• Well-designed environments should support diverse play forms, recognising the value of different social and cognitive play types
• Observation should inform intentional planning that extends children’s play without undermining its intrinsic motivation

Observation, central to Rubin’s approach, should inform intentional planning in contemporary settings. His detailed play categories provide a framework for noticing patterns in children’s play that can guide curriculum decisions and environmental design. This observational foundation helps practitioners create responsive environments that extend children’s play development without undermining the intrinsic motivation that Rubin identified as essential to genuine play.

In diverse educational settings, Rubin’s work supports culturally responsive practices when implemented with cultural humility. While his categories provide useful observational tools, practitioners should remain open to cultural variations in how play manifests and what it means to children and families from different backgrounds. This openness allows his framework to be applied in culturally responsive ways rather than imposing a single model of “appropriate” play development.

For children with additional needs, Rubin’s multidimensional approach offers valuable perspectives for inclusive practice. By recognising that play develops along multiple dimensions, his framework helps practitioners identify both strengths and needs in children’s play patterns. This nuanced view supports differentiated approaches that build on each child’s capabilities while providing targeted support for areas of difficulty.

Digital contexts present both challenges and opportunities for implementing Rubin’s theories. While his research predated current digital technologies, his fundamental insights about play’s defining characteristics—active engagement, intrinsic motivation, attention to means rather than ends, nonliteral behaviour, and freedom from external rules—provide valuable criteria for evaluating digital experiences. These criteria help practitioners distinguish between digital activities that embody play’s developmental benefits and those that may not.

Ultimately, Kenneth H. Rubin’s enduring legacy lies in his empirically grounded approach to understanding children’s play and social development. By combining theoretical sophistication with methodological rigour and practical applicability, he created a body of work that continues to influence how researchers study children’s development and how practitioners support it. As Early Years education navigates contemporary challenges, Rubin’s focus on close observation, developmental progression, and play’s multifaceted nature remains a valuable foundation for research and practice that truly supports children’s development through play.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Kenneth H. Rubin’s Theory?

Kenneth H. Rubin’s theory centers on understanding children’s play and social development through an integrated framework that combines social participation categories with cognitive play categories. Rather than proposing a single comprehensive theory, Rubin’s major theoretical contribution was his integration of Parten’s social play hierarchy (solitary, parallel, associative, and cooperative play) with cognitive play categories derived from Piaget and Smilansky (functional, constructive, dramatic, and games with rules). This integration created a two-dimensional matrix for understanding play development that acknowledges both who children play with and the cognitive complexity of their play activities.

Rubin’s theoretical framework emphasizes that play develops along multiple dimensions simultaneously and that different forms of play serve important developmental functions. His work also highlights how friendship functions as a voluntary, reciprocal relationship that provides unique developmental opportunities and protections for children.

What is Rubin’s Play Observation Scale?

Rubin’s Play Observation Scale (POS) is a systematic observational tool for documenting children’s play behaviours across both social and cognitive dimensions. The scale combines social participation categories (solitary, parallel, group play) with cognitive play categories (functional, constructive, dramatic, games with rules) to create a comprehensive framework for observing and recording play development.

The POS involves time-sampling methodology, where observers record the type of play a child engages in during brief observation periods. Each observed play behaviour is categorized according to both its social context (who the child is playing with) and its cognitive level (what type of play activity they are engaged in). This creates a detailed picture of a child’s play patterns that reflects the multidimensional nature of play development. The scale has been widely adopted in research settings and adapted for educational use, providing a structured approach to documenting children’s play development in naturalistic contexts.

How Did Rubin Challenge Traditional Views of Solitary Play?

Rubin challenged the traditional view that solitary play represents immature or problematic behaviour by demonstrating that the developmental significance of solitary play depends on its cognitive quality. His research revealed that “with age, solitary play becomes cognitively more mature” (Rubin, 1977), with older children often engaging in complex constructive and dramatic activities while playing alone.

This finding contradicted Parten’s earlier assumption that solitary play always represented the least mature level of play development. Rubin demonstrated that solitary-constructive and solitary-dramatic play can reflect sophisticated engagement rather than social immaturity. This reframing encouraged practitioners to value high-quality solitary play rather than always pushing children toward group interaction, recognizing that different play forms serve different developmental functions. His work led to a more nuanced understanding that considers both the social context and cognitive complexity of play rather than evaluating play quality based solely on social participation.

What Are the Key Types of Play in Rubin’s Framework?

Rubin’s framework identifies play types along two dimensions: social participation and cognitive complexity. The social participation categories include solitary play (playing alone), parallel play (playing beside but not with others), and group play (combining Parten’s associative and cooperative categories, involving direct interaction with peers).

The cognitive play categories include functional play (simple repetitive actions with or without objects), constructive play (creating or building something), dramatic play (pretend or symbolic play), and games with rules (acceptance of prearranged rules). These categories combine to create specific play types such as solitary-functional, parallel-constructive, or group-dramatic play, each representing different combinations of social and cognitive engagement. By considering both dimensions simultaneously, Rubin’s framework provides a more complete picture of play development than either dimension alone would offer.

How Does Rubin’s Work Relate to Friendship Development?

Rubin defines friendships as “voluntary, reciprocal, egalitarian relationships in which both partners acknowledge the relationship and treat each other as equals” (Rubin & Bowker, 2018). His research demonstrates that friendships serve important developmental functions across the lifespan, providing contexts for learning about conflict resolution, negotiation, and perspective-taking.

Rubin’s studies show that having at least one mutual friendship protects children from peer victimization and is associated with positive psychological adjustment. He also identified potential risks in friendship, such as when friends reinforce problematic behaviours or engage in co-rumination about negative emotions. His work highlights gender differences in friendship patterns, with girls typically reporting higher levels of intimacy in their friendships but also experiencing more stress from friendship conflicts. This research has informed educational practices aimed at supporting healthy peer relationships and interventions for children experiencing friendship difficulties.

What Materials Best Support Different Types of Play According to Rubin?

Rubin’s research on materials and play (1976b) revealed that different materials tend to elicit specific types of play. Art materials and puzzles predominantly supported constructive play but often in parallel rather than interactive social contexts. Dramatic play props and blocks encouraged both constructive and dramatic play and were more likely to support cooperative interaction among children.

Sensory materials like sand and water were found to elicit primarily functional play (90% of such play was functional), making them valuable for exploring properties and cause-effect relationships but potentially requiring additional teacher scaffolding to support more complex play forms. Reading and number activities, surprisingly, elicited high levels of social interaction (63% group play) when teachers facilitated conversations around these materials. These findings help practitioners make informed decisions about classroom provisioning to support diverse play types and intentionally extend children’s play development through material selection.

How Can Educators Apply Rubin’s Theories in the Classroom?

Educators can apply Rubin’s theories by using his play categories as an observational framework to understand children’s development, designing environments that support diverse play forms, and implementing appropriate interventions to extend play development. Regular observations using adapted versions of Rubin’s play categories help teachers identify patterns in children’s play preferences and development over time.

Classroom design should include well-defined areas supporting different play types, with materials selected to encourage various combinations of social and cognitive play. Teacher interventions should be guided by observation, providing appropriate scaffolding while respecting play’s intrinsically motivated nature. For children showing limited play repertoires, educators might introduce new materials, model play possibilities, or create small group situations that support peer learning. Documentation based on Rubin’s categories creates a record of development that can inform curriculum planning and communication with families about the developmental value of play experiences.

What Did Rubin Find About Socioeconomic Differences in Play?

Rubin’s research revealed significant socioeconomic differences in children’s play patterns. He found that “lower SES children in this group were significantly more likely to engage in sensorimotor (functional) and parallel play, and were significantly less likely to engage in associative, cooperative, and constructive play than their middle SES age-mates” (Rubin, 1977).

Specifically, lower SES children displayed more solitary-functional and parallel-functional play and less associative-constructive and cooperative-dramatic play. Rubin hypothesized that these differences might stem from fewer play materials in lower SES homes or less familiarity with materials typically found in early childhood settings. Notably, while Smilansky (1968) had reported lower levels of dramatic play overall among lower SES children, Rubin found this difference primarily in cooperative social contexts, with no significant differences in solitary, parallel, or associative dramatic play. These findings highlight the importance of supporting diverse play development while considering how children’s background experiences might influence their play patterns.

How Has Rubin’s Work Been Extended to Digital Play Contexts?

While Rubin’s original research predated current digital technologies, contemporary researchers have extended his framework to understand children’s engagement with digital media. His cognitive play categories (functional, constructive, dramatic, games with rules) have been applied to digital contexts, with researchers examining how these play types manifest in children’s interactions with touchscreens, digital games, and virtual environments.

Digital functional play might include exploratory tapping and swiping on tablets or experimenting with digital effects. Digital constructive play encompasses creation activities in applications like digital art tools or building in virtual environments like Minecraft. Digital dramatic play includes role-playing in virtual worlds or using apps that support pretend scenarios. Rubin’s social participation categories have been extended to include concepts like “connected play” that acknowledge how technology enables social interaction across physical distances. These extensions maintain Rubin’s emphasis on understanding both the cognitive complexity and social context of play while recognizing the unique affordances of digital environments.

References

• Beller, E. K., Zimmie, J., & Aiken, L. (1971). Levels of play in different nursery settings. Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Liege, Belgium.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
• Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Li, B. (2001). Social and school adjustment of shy and aggressive children in China. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 937-951.
• Gaskins, S. (2000). Children’s daily activities in a Mayan village: A culturally grounded description. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(4), 375-389.
• Göncü, A., Mistry, J., & Mosier, C. (2000). Cultural variations in the play of toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(3), 321-329.
• Lancy, D. F. (2007). Accounting for variability in mother-child play. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 273-284.
• Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1-34.
• Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Harvard University Press.
• Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243-269.
• Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69(3), 577-598.
• Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. W. W. Norton.
• Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chávez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 175-203.
• Rubin, K. H. (1976b). The social and cognitive value of preschool toys and activities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Waterloo.
• Rubin, K. H. (1977). Play behaviors of young children. Young Children, 32(6), 16-24.
• Rubin, K. H. (n.d.). Kenneth H Rubin. Unpublished manuscript.
• Rubin, K. H., & Bowker, J. C. (2018). Friendship. In R. Lerner (Series Ed.), M.H. Bornstein & T. Leventhal (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 4: Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. In R. Lerner (Series Ed.), M.H. Bornstein & T. Leventhal (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 4: Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 693-774). Wiley.
• Rubin, K. H., & Maioni, T. L. (1975). Play preference and its relationship to egocentrism, popularity, and classification skills in preschoolers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 171-179.
• Rubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle and lower class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47, 414-419.
• Rubin, K. H., & Smith, K. A. (2018). Play in human development. In The SAGE encyclopedia of lifespan human development. SAGE Publications.
• Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1976). Free play behaviors in preschool and kindergarten children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Waterloo.
• Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. Wiley.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Further Reading and Research

Recommended Articles

• Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 1-13.
• Coplan, R. J., & Rubin, K. H. (2010). Social withdrawal and shyness in childhood: History, theories, definitions, and assessments. In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 3-20). Guilford Press.
• Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: Social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 961-974.
• Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67(3), 1103-1118.
• Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). The role of play in human development. Oxford University Press.
• Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 571-645). Wiley.
• Trawick-Smith, J. (2012). Teacher-child play interactions to achieve learning outcomes: Risks and opportunities. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Handbook of early childhood education (pp. 259-277). Guilford Press.
• Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics, 142(3), e20182058.

Suggested Books

• Broadhead, P., Howard, J., & Wood, E. (2010). Play and learning in the early years: From research to practice. SAGE.
  • Connects theory and practice with practical ideas for implementing play-based learning, drawing on a range of theoretical perspectives including Rubin’s work.
• Fromberg, D. P., & Bergen, D. (Eds.). (2015). Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  • Comprehensive overview of play development across childhood with contributions from leading researchers, including sections on play observation and assessment.
• Hughes, B. (2012). Evolutionary playwork (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • Offers a complementary perspective on play that extends beyond Rubin’s framework to include risk, physical play, and playwork approaches.
• Rubin, K. H. (2002). The friendship factor. Viking.
  • Accessible book for practitioners and parents on friendship development, written by Rubin himself and presenting his research for a non-academic audience.
• Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Laursen, B. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Guilford Press.
  • Definitive scholarly resource on peer relations with extensive coverage of friendship and social development by leading researchers including Rubin.
• Schofield, J. (2010). The play observation kit: A tool for observing play patterns and learning outcomes. Open University Press.
  • Practical guide to play observation that incorporates elements of Rubin’s framework in an accessible format for practitioners.
• Wood, E. (2013). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  • Explores how play supports learning across the curriculum with practical suggestions for implementing play-based approaches informed by research.

Recommended Websites

• Center for Children, Relationships, and Culture at the University of Maryland
  • Founded by Kenneth Rubin, this research centre provides publications, resources, and information about current studies on children’s social and emotional development.
• Early Childhood Research & Practice (ECRP)
  • Open-access journal with numerous articles on play development, many of which reference or build upon Rubin’s work.
• Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
  • Research-based information on play and peer relations, including sections written by Rubin and colleagues with practical implications for educators and parents.
• Harvard Center on the Developing Child
  • Research-based resources on child development including play and its role in executive function development, with video resources and practical guides for practitioners.
• National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
  • Professional organisation website with numerous practice-focused articles on play observation and supporting play development in Early Years settings.
• Play Wales/Play Scotland/Play England
  • National play organisations with practical resources for supporting play in diverse settings, including observation frameworks and environment design guidance.
• The SAGE Encyclopedia of Contemporary Early Childhood Education
  • Online resource with scholarly entries on play development, including material on Rubin’s contributions to understanding play and social development.
• Zero to Three
  • Professional organisation focused on early development with resources on play observation and supporting play across different developmental domains.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV Kenneth H Rubin: Child Development Theory, Play & Friendship. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/kenneth-h-rubin-child-development-theory (Accessed: 25 March 2025).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile