Opinion - News Analysis   

Imaginary friends

Oliver James

I KNOW a three-year-old girl whose best friend is her Bear and who shares her life with a warren-full of imaginary rabbits (`The Wabbits'). When this tranquillity was interrupted by the arrival of a baby brother, she registered no direct disgust at this misfortune or towards him.

Instead, The Wabbits' lives became distinctly uncongenial. They were given food that the girl believed would kill them. They were dropped into holes and attempts to rescue them impeded. Her previously maternal attitude to them was replaced by murder.

Revealing facts

Very little scientific investigation (and almost none in Britain) has been done into the implications of the fantasy life of children for their adult life. However, some facts on fantasy friends reveal just how rich the inner lives of many children are.

One American study asked three- to four-year-old children and their parents about fantasy friends and returned to see what had happened at age seven. Some 65 per cent had had a fantasy friend at some point (surprisingly, the older children were slightly more likely to have one). Of these pals, 57 per cent were human and 41 per cent animal; 67 per cent were invisible, 27 per cent were stuffed animals or dolls, and one was based on the child's reflection in the mirror.

The imaginary friends' ages ranged from two months to 100 years, although the majority were within three years of the child. Interestingly, a quarter of the parents said that their child did not have a fantasy friend.

Of the children who had reported a friend at three to four, only three were still playing with the same one at seven. At that age, two-thirds couldn't remember that the original existed. The proportion of friends who were invisible increased with age, and their nature varied markedly: at seven there were invisible snowmen, squirrels and elephants. On top of this, almost all the kids had pretended to be an animal or another person when aged three to four.

Here, then, is hard evidence that at least two-thirds of us start out with very vivid imaginations. But the study raises far more questions than it answers. In the cases where parents did not realise their child had a fantasy friend, was that a symptom of parental maltreatment, neglect, lack of a close relationship — or perhaps a good predictor of these things? Do fantasy friends serve important purposes in some cases, but not in others — will the girl who persecuted her Wabbits be better adjusted in later life for dealing with her sibling rivalry in this way? Above all, does the way in which parents relate — and relate from birth — to their children affect the purpose of the fantasies and their consequences, if any?

It is a sad indictment of British developmental psychology that these and so many other significant issues (how parents react to children's sexuality; are Gina Ford methods of care damaging? What is the best age gap when having more than one child?) have never received funding for research projects. Alas, it seems that the psychology of rats is far too important for money to be spent on such questions. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Bihar Assembly election, Mark II
Mubarak and his political shell game
France looks to firm up ties with India
America bids farewell to the rule of law
Flat tax is economic nonsense
Imaginary friends
Clash of Titans
She is Indian first
Who is to blame?
A welcome decision
"Science without conscience is worse than no science"

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu