Many of us remember cuddling with stuffed animals as children. Some of us could not say goodbye to our favorite teddy bear (or to an entire collection of stuffed animals), which now lies quietly somewhere in our house. The soft touch of their fur brings a sweet feeling of comfort and safety. What role do soft toys play in our lives and why do we like cuddling them so much?
Many of us remember cuddling with stuffed animals as children. Some of us could not say goodbye to our favorite teddy bear (or to an entire collection of stuffed animals), which now lies quietly somewhere in our house. The soft touch of their fur brings a sweet feeling of comfort and safety. What role do soft toys play in our lives and why do we like cuddling them so much?
Illustration by Anushka Sabhanam
Illustration by Anushka Sabhanam
The soft, comforting nature of stuffed animals can be appreciated by people of all ages, but usually children love them the most. Albeit limited in quantity, research about stuffed animals’ roles in children’s lives generally surrounds the idea that they aid in their development – ranging from biological needs to responses to stressful life events.
While stuffed animals cannot reciprocate attention like living animals, children still become particularly attached to these inanimate fluffy objects; especially when they feel tense or anxious. The more attached they are, the more they rely on them for comfort in distress (Barlow, et al., 2012). Although real animals are even more helpful for children (Barlow et al., 2012), a stuffed animal is easier to bring around and can still make a big difference in helping children to deal with their emotions.
Finding comfort in the touch of a furry object is perhaps something deeply ingrained in us. The now famous (unethical) studies of Harlow demonstrated this when infant monkeys preferred cuddling with a furry puppet mother compared to a wire puppet mother who even held a milk dispenser on which the infants could feed (Harlow & Zimmermann, 1959; Harlow, 1958). Recently, postpartum monkeys were also observed getting attached to plush toys, indicating that soft tactile sensations play an important role in forming connections (Livingstone, 2022). Humans also prefer touching fabrics that are soft, smooth and warm (Delong et al., 2012) and seek soft haptic sensations (touch) when they experience uncertainty (van Horen & Mussweiler, 2014).
Indeed, a toy that provides safety and reassurance in light of the unknown can promote children’s healthy development. Donald Winnicott (1953) coined the term transitional objects to describe blankets, items and toys to which children form strong attachments. Winnicott viewed such objects as essential to the development of childrens’ sense of self. According to him, a child learned to play symbolically by giving it a name and a personality that is reflective of a person. Symbolic play refers to using certain objects to represent other objects or people. The ability to engage in pretend play and fantasy is a keystone in children’s development as it promotes language development and understanding of the world (Zhao & Gibson, 2022). Winnicott theorized that stuffed animals could help children cope with the transition from dependence to (more) autonomy from parents (Winnicott, 1953). Children in Western countries, where it is common practice to separate young children from their parents at night, show a greater rate of object attachment than children who sleep near their parents for longer (Rai & Ybarra, 2000). Cuddling a stuffed animal at night can provide a sense of safety and representation of a parental figure when separated.
Prior to Winnicott’s research in 1952, a common misconception was that stuffed animals can be representative of “bad parenting” or “unhealthy attachments” (Litt, 1986). Although it was shown that stuffed animals can provide care that is lacking in a child’s life, as seen in neglected children, Winnicott posited that many children’s attachment to stuffed animals is representative of the care a parent gives, rather than a lack of it. Children learn about love and affection from their parents, and then can redirect it towards their stuffed animal (Litt, 1986).Even children who receive consistent affection from their parents need the comfort of a soft toy during brief moments of separation.
At the same time, a stuffed animal’s presence can make a difference in more sensitive situations, for instance when a child experienced something traumatic. The ‘Huggy Puppy intervention’ is a therapy technique where children who experienced traumatic events (often war-related) are encouraged to care for a ‘needy’ puppy stuffed animal. The findings supporting this technique follow a study conducted by Avi Sadeh on 74 Isreali children exposed to the second Israel-Lebanon war (Sadeh, et al., 2008). In this study, children with higher attachment to the stuffed animal demonstrated a reduced stress response than those with a lower attachment or those who only received standard care. This supports the idea that children can benefit from caring for an inanimate object in stressful experiences; even when receiving professional care as well. This technique offers parents and physicians an effective method that can be easily implemented at home to reduce stress in children who are experiencing difficulty.
“People of all ages can form attachments to such objects, but children are especially prone to do so as a means of coping with increasing independence.”
Stuffed animals can also be viewed more broadly as attachment objects – inanimate objects that one feels a strong emotional attachment to (Dozier & Ayers, 2020). People of all ages can form attachments to such objects, but children are especially prone to do so as a means of coping with increasing independence. Whilst still developing their sense of reality, children can more easily use their imagination to create personas for stuffed animals; figures that can provide safety, comfort, and a play companion in times of loneliness (Arya, 2022). This strong attachment continues throughout childhood and is reinforced in times of transition; such as moving to university (Barlow, et al. 2015).
In studies examining children’s behaviour attending daycare, researchers have found that children form stronger attachments to soft toys than to hard ones (Fortuna, et al., 2014). Here, stuffed animals can provide a multisensory experience, where the tactile warmth, smell, and soft sight of the toy can bring it to life, thus being more meaningful (Schreier, 2020). Furthermore, children who spend more time at daycare show a greater attachment rate to stuffed animals than those attending less. This is accounted for in both genders (Fortuna, et al., 2014). This shows that when children are separated from their parents, they tend to attach to objects that provide them with the comfort they are missing. Hence, these attachments reflect their parents’ previous comfort, attention, and love.
The role of attachment objects develops with age as childrens’ needs develop. As aforementioned, children learn about the world through play. Zero to one year olds prefer smaller items they can hold close to their mouths and skin, since these are the two primary mechanisms of exploration (Yamaguchi & Moriguchi, 2020). At this age, stuffed animals may play a role of providing physical comfort that resembles that of their mother. As their ability to play symbolically increases (two to three years old), children prefer soft toys they can personify. Here, the role of the stuffed animal may be to be a play partner and companion. In both roles, children’s stress responses are reduced in the presence of their attachment objects (Yamaguchi & Moriguchi, 2020). With stuffed animals, children can practice socioemotional skills (Schreier, 2020). By playing symbolically – through attributing names, personality, and importance – they can develop empathy, caretaking and nurturing.
“They can be life-long companions, calming us with their warmth and symbolizing the self-care we need to embrace during hard times.”
Although most people outgrow the phase of hugging a plush animal to sleep, having an inanimate fluffy companion can still help them cope with difficult times many years later. People who struggle with mental health find comfort and stability in plush toys (Barlow et al., 2012; Hooley et al., 2012). Plush toys are also used in the care of people with dementia to help them remain calm and be more willing to cooperate (Moyle, 2017). Items that give a similar cuddly sensation such as pillows or weighted blankets have been known to reduce anxiety. For example, hugging a pillow helped students become less anxious before a math test (Haynes et al., 2022).
The anti-stress, calming effect of hugging plush toys can further be explained by the release of oxytocin in response to the feeling of a soft, warm material (Uvnäs-Moberg, 2015). Oxytocin is a hormone that promotes well-being and stress relief and is also released when we play with pets, hug somebody or eat delicious food. Moreover, oxytocin has analgesic (pain-reducing) effects, which could explain why children who are given plush toys after having surgery report experiencing less pain (Godino-Iáñez, 2017; Ullán et al., 2014).
Stuffed animals play a multitude of roles beyond being a child’s favourite bear, penguin, or giraffe. They can provide support in times of anxiety, be it anxiety that comes from increased autonomy or from traumatic experiences. From a biological perspective, humans need the soft warmth of a parent, which soft toys mimic. Their role changes throughout development and can even be beneficial in adulthood because the cuddly sensation reduces anxiety. Ultimately, they can be life-long companions, calming us with their warmth and symbolizing the self-care we need to embrace during hard times. Now, go and find that plush toy you always loved so much – you are not too old for this!
References
-
Alice C. Haynes, Annie Lywood, Emily M. Crowe, Jessica L. Fielding, Jonathan M. Rossiter,
-
Christopher Kent. ( A calming hug: Design and validation of a tactile aid to ease anxiety. PLOS ONE, 2022; 17 (3): e0259838 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259838
-
Arya, H. (2022, June 23). Understanding a child’s attachment to a comfort object. ImmunifyMe. https://immunifyme.com/blog/understanding-a-childs-attachment-to-a-comfort-object/
-
Barlow, M. R., Cromer, L. D., Caron, H. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2012). Comparison of normative and diagnosed dissociation on attachment to companion animals and stuffed animals. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(5), 501.
-
Barlow, M. R., Hutchinson, C. A., Newton, K., Grover, T., & Ward, L. (2012). Childhood neglect, attachment to companion animals, and stuffed animals as attachment objects in women and men. Anthrozoös, 25(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712×13240472427159
-
W. Winnicott. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena; a study of the first not-me possession. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34(2), 89–97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13061115/
-
Delong, M., Wu, J., & Park, J. (2012). Tactile response and shifting touch preference. Textile, 10(1), 44-59.
-
Dozier, M. E., & Ayers, C. R. (2021). Object attachment as we grow older. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.012
-
Fortuna, K., Baor, L., Israel, S., Abadi, A., & Knafo, A. (2014). Attachment to inanimate objects and early childcare: A twin study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00486
-
Godino-Iáñez, M. J., Martos-Cabrera, M. B., Suleiman-Martos, N., Gómez-Urquiza, J. L., Vargas-Román, K., Membrive-Jiménez, M. J., & Albendín-García, L. (2020, July). Play therapy as an intervention in hospitalized children: a systematic review. In Healthcare (Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 239). Mdpi.
-
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional response in the infant monkey: Orphaned baby monkeys develop a strong and persistent attachment to inanimate surrogate mothers. Science, 130(3373), 421-432.
-
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American psychologist, 13(12), 673.
-
Hooley, J. M., & Wilson-Murphy, M. (2012). Adult attachment to transitional objects and borderline personality disorder. Journal of personality disorders, 26(2), 179.
-
Litt, C. J. (1986). Theories of transitional object attachment: An overview. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548600900308
-
Livingstone, M. S. (2022). Triggers for mother love. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(39), e2212224119.
-
Moyle, W., Jones, C. J., Murfield, J. E., Thalib, L., Beattie, E. R., Shum, D. K., … & Draper, B. M. (2017). Use of a robotic seal as a therapeutic tool to improve dementia symptoms: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 18(9), 766-773.
-
Rai, M., & Ybarra, G. (2014). Understanding children’s attachment to inanimate objects: An indian perspective. Andrean Research Journal, 3, 11–16. https://standrewscollege.ac.in/arj-issue-2014-2/
-
Sadeh, A., Hen-Gal, S., & Tikotzky, L. (2008). Young children’s reactions to War-Related stress: A survey and assessment of an innovative intervention. Pediatrics, 121(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1348
-
Schreier, A. B. (2020, October 22). Why do kids love stuffed animals? Experts weigh in. Romper. https://www.romper.com/p/why-do-kids-love-stuffed-animals-experts-weigh-in-39790807
-
Ullán, A. M., Belver, M. H., Fernández, E., Lorente, F., Badía, M., & Fernández, B. (2014). The effect of a program to promote play to reduce children’s post-surgical pain: with plush toys, it hurts less. Pain Management Nursing, 15(1), 273-282.
-
Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Handlin, L., & Petersson, M. (2015). Self-soothing behaviors with particular reference to oxytocin release induced by non-noxious sensory stimulation. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1529.
-
Van Horen, F., & Mussweiler, T. (2014). Soft assurance: Coping with uncertainty through haptic sensations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 73-80.
-
Yamaguchi, M., & Moriguchi, Y. (2020). Developmental change in attachment objects during childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 192(7), 1119–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1841756
-
Zhao, Y. V., & Gibson, J. L. (2022). Solitary symbolic play, object substitution and peer role play skills at age 3 predict different aspects of age 7 structural language abilities in a matched sample of autistic and non-autistic children. Autism &Amp; Developmental Language Impairments, 7, 239694152110638. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211063822
The soft, comforting nature of stuffed animals can be appreciated by people of all ages, but usually children love them the most. Albeit limited in quantity, research about stuffed animals’ roles in children’s lives generally surrounds the idea that they aid in their development – ranging from biological needs to responses to stressful life events.
While stuffed animals cannot reciprocate attention like living animals, children still become particularly attached to these inanimate fluffy objects; especially when they feel tense or anxious. The more attached they are, the more they rely on them for comfort in distress (Barlow, et al., 2012). Although real animals are even more helpful for children (Barlow et al., 2012), a stuffed animal is easier to bring around and can still make a big difference in helping children to deal with their emotions.
Finding comfort in the touch of a furry object is perhaps something deeply ingrained in us. The now famous (unethical) studies of Harlow demonstrated this when infant monkeys preferred cuddling with a furry puppet mother compared to a wire puppet mother who even held a milk dispenser on which the infants could feed (Harlow & Zimmermann, 1959; Harlow, 1958). Recently, postpartum monkeys were also observed getting attached to plush toys, indicating that soft tactile sensations play an important role in forming connections (Livingstone, 2022). Humans also prefer touching fabrics that are soft, smooth and warm (Delong et al., 2012) and seek soft haptic sensations (touch) when they experience uncertainty (van Horen & Mussweiler, 2014).
Indeed, a toy that provides safety and reassurance in light of the unknown can promote children’s healthy development. Donald Winnicott (1953) coined the term transitional objects to describe blankets, items and toys to which children form strong attachments. Winnicott viewed such objects as essential to the development of childrens’ sense of self. According to him, a child learned to play symbolically by giving it a name and a personality that is reflective of a person. Symbolic play refers to using certain objects to represent other objects or people. The ability to engage in pretend play and fantasy is a keystone in children’s development as it promotes language development and understanding of the world (Zhao & Gibson, 2022). Winnicott theorized that stuffed animals could help children cope with the transition from dependence to (more) autonomy from parents (Winnicott, 1953). Children in Western countries, where it is common practice to separate young children from their parents at night, show a greater rate of object attachment than children who sleep near their parents for longer (Rai & Ybarra, 2000). Cuddling a stuffed animal at night can provide a sense of safety and representation of a parental figure when separated.
Prior to Winnicott’s research in 1952, a common misconception was that stuffed animals can be representative of “bad parenting” or “unhealthy attachments” (Litt, 1986). Although it was shown that stuffed animals can provide care that is lacking in a child’s life, as seen in neglected children, Winnicott posited that many children’s attachment to stuffed animals is representative of the care a parent gives, rather than a lack of it. Children learn about love and affection from their parents, and then can redirect it towards their stuffed animal (Litt, 1986).Even children who receive consistent affection from their parents need the comfort of a soft toy during brief moments of separation.
At the same time, a stuffed animal’s presence can make a difference in more sensitive situations, for instance when a child experienced something traumatic. The ‘Huggy Puppy intervention’ is a therapy technique where children who experienced traumatic events (often war-related) are encouraged to care for a ‘needy’ puppy stuffed animal. The findings supporting this technique follow a study conducted by Avi Sadeh on 74 Isreali children exposed to the second Israel-Lebanon war (Sadeh, et al., 2008). In this study, children with higher attachment to the stuffed animal demonstrated a reduced stress response than those with a lower attachment or those who only received standard care. This supports the idea that children can benefit from caring for an inanimate object in stressful experiences; even when receiving professional care as well. This technique offers parents and physicians an effective method that can be easily implemented at home to reduce stress in children who are experiencing difficulty.
“People of all ages can form attachments to such objects, but children are especially prone to do so as a means of coping with increasing independence.”
Stuffed animals can also be viewed more broadly as attachment objects – inanimate objects that one feels a strong emotional attachment to (Dozier & Ayers, 2020). People of all ages can form attachments to such objects, but children are especially prone to do so as a means of coping with increasing independence. Whilst still developing their sense of reality, children can more easily use their imagination to create personas for stuffed animals; figures that can provide safety, comfort, and a play companion in times of loneliness (Arya, 2022). This strong attachment continues throughout childhood and is reinforced in times of transition; such as moving to university (Barlow, et al. 2015).
In studies examining children’s behaviour attending daycare, researchers have found that children form stronger attachments to soft toys than to hard ones (Fortuna, et al., 2014). Here, stuffed animals can provide a multisensory experience, where the tactile warmth, smell, and soft sight of the toy can bring it to life, thus being more meaningful (Schreier, 2020). Furthermore, children who spend more time at daycare show a greater attachment rate to stuffed animals than those attending less. This is accounted for in both genders (Fortuna, et al., 2014). This shows that when children are separated from their parents, they tend to attach to objects that provide them with the comfort they are missing. Hence, these attachments reflect their parents’ previous comfort, attention, and love.
The role of attachment objects develops with age as childrens’ needs develop. As aforementioned, children learn about the world through play. Zero to one year olds prefer smaller items they can hold close to their mouths and skin, since these are the two primary mechanisms of exploration (Yamaguchi & Moriguchi, 2020). At this age, stuffed animals may play a role of providing physical comfort that resembles that of their mother. As their ability to play symbolically increases (two to three years old), children prefer soft toys they can personify. Here, the role of the stuffed animal may be to be a play partner and companion. In both roles, children’s stress responses are reduced in the presence of their attachment objects (Yamaguchi & Moriguchi, 2020). With stuffed animals, children can practice socioemotional skills (Schreier, 2020). By playing symbolically – through attributing names, personality, and importance – they can develop empathy, caretaking and nurturing.
“They can be life-long companions, calming us with their warmth and symbolizing the self-care we need to embrace during hard times.”
Although most people outgrow the phase of hugging a plush animal to sleep, having an inanimate fluffy companion can still help them cope with difficult times many years later. People who struggle with mental health find comfort and stability in plush toys (Barlow et al., 2012; Hooley et al., 2012). Plush toys are also used in the care of people with dementia to help them remain calm and be more willing to cooperate (Moyle, 2017). Items that give a similar cuddly sensation such as pillows or weighted blankets have been known to reduce anxiety. For example, hugging a pillow helped students become less anxious before a math test (Haynes et al., 2022).
The anti-stress, calming effect of hugging plush toys can further be explained by the release of oxytocin in response to the feeling of a soft, warm material (Uvnäs-Moberg, 2015). Oxytocin is a hormone that promotes well-being and stress relief and is also released when we play with pets, hug somebody or eat delicious food. Moreover, oxytocin has analgesic (pain-reducing) effects, which could explain why children who are given plush toys after having surgery report experiencing less pain (Godino-Iáñez, 2017; Ullán et al., 2014).
Stuffed animals play a multitude of roles beyond being a child’s favourite bear, penguin, or giraffe. They can provide support in times of anxiety, be it anxiety that comes from increased autonomy or from traumatic experiences. From a biological perspective, humans need the soft warmth of a parent, which soft toys mimic. Their role changes throughout development and can even be beneficial in adulthood because the cuddly sensation reduces anxiety. Ultimately, they can be life-long companions, calming us with their warmth and symbolizing the self-care we need to embrace during hard times. Now, go and find that plush toy you always loved so much – you are not too old for this!
References
-
Alice C. Haynes, Annie Lywood, Emily M. Crowe, Jessica L. Fielding, Jonathan M. Rossiter,
-
Christopher Kent. ( A calming hug: Design and validation of a tactile aid to ease anxiety. PLOS ONE, 2022; 17 (3): e0259838 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259838
-
Arya, H. (2022, June 23). Understanding a child’s attachment to a comfort object. ImmunifyMe. https://immunifyme.com/blog/understanding-a-childs-attachment-to-a-comfort-object/
-
Barlow, M. R., Cromer, L. D., Caron, H. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2012). Comparison of normative and diagnosed dissociation on attachment to companion animals and stuffed animals. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(5), 501.
-
Barlow, M. R., Hutchinson, C. A., Newton, K., Grover, T., & Ward, L. (2012). Childhood neglect, attachment to companion animals, and stuffed animals as attachment objects in women and men. Anthrozoös, 25(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712×13240472427159
-
W. Winnicott. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena; a study of the first not-me possession. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34(2), 89–97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13061115/
-
Delong, M., Wu, J., & Park, J. (2012). Tactile response and shifting touch preference. Textile, 10(1), 44-59.
-
Dozier, M. E., & Ayers, C. R. (2021). Object attachment as we grow older. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.012
-
Fortuna, K., Baor, L., Israel, S., Abadi, A., & Knafo, A. (2014). Attachment to inanimate objects and early childcare: A twin study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00486
-
Godino-Iáñez, M. J., Martos-Cabrera, M. B., Suleiman-Martos, N., Gómez-Urquiza, J. L., Vargas-Román, K., Membrive-Jiménez, M. J., & Albendín-García, L. (2020, July). Play therapy as an intervention in hospitalized children: a systematic review. In Healthcare (Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 239). Mdpi.
-
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional response in the infant monkey: Orphaned baby monkeys develop a strong and persistent attachment to inanimate surrogate mothers. Science, 130(3373), 421-432.
-
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American psychologist, 13(12), 673.
-
Hooley, J. M., & Wilson-Murphy, M. (2012). Adult attachment to transitional objects and borderline personality disorder. Journal of personality disorders, 26(2), 179.
-
Litt, C. J. (1986). Theories of transitional object attachment: An overview. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548600900308
-
Livingstone, M. S. (2022). Triggers for mother love. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(39), e2212224119.
-
Moyle, W., Jones, C. J., Murfield, J. E., Thalib, L., Beattie, E. R., Shum, D. K., … & Draper, B. M. (2017). Use of a robotic seal as a therapeutic tool to improve dementia symptoms: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 18(9), 766-773.
-
Rai, M., & Ybarra, G. (2014). Understanding children’s attachment to inanimate objects: An indian perspective. Andrean Research Journal, 3, 11–16. https://standrewscollege.ac.in/arj-issue-2014-2/
-
Sadeh, A., Hen-Gal, S., & Tikotzky, L. (2008). Young children’s reactions to War-Related stress: A survey and assessment of an innovative intervention. Pediatrics, 121(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1348
-
Schreier, A. B. (2020, October 22). Why do kids love stuffed animals? Experts weigh in. Romper. https://www.romper.com/p/why-do-kids-love-stuffed-animals-experts-weigh-in-39790807
-
Ullán, A. M., Belver, M. H., Fernández, E., Lorente, F., Badía, M., & Fernández, B. (2014). The effect of a program to promote play to reduce children’s post-surgical pain: with plush toys, it hurts less. Pain Management Nursing, 15(1), 273-282.
-
Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Handlin, L., & Petersson, M. (2015). Self-soothing behaviors with particular reference to oxytocin release induced by non-noxious sensory stimulation. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1529.
-
Van Horen, F., & Mussweiler, T. (2014). Soft assurance: Coping with uncertainty through haptic sensations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 73-80.
-
Yamaguchi, M., & Moriguchi, Y. (2020). Developmental change in attachment objects during childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 192(7), 1119–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1841756
-
Zhao, Y. V., & Gibson, J. L. (2022). Solitary symbolic play, object substitution and peer role play skills at age 3 predict different aspects of age 7 structural language abilities in a matched sample of autistic and non-autistic children. Autism &Amp; Developmental Language Impairments, 7, 239694152110638. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211063822