From Make-Believe to Mediated Play:

Generational Shifts in Imaginative Development in the Context of Digital Media Proliferation.

By Dr. Gregory Lyons, PsyD, LCPC.
01/19/2026

In recent decades, the narrative of childhood play has undergone a significant transformation, which may be aligned with the rapid growth of digital media. The population group that is identified as Generation X experienced a dynamic where video games and screen-based entertainment existed but were somewhat relatively limited in scope. Since this time, it may be possible to present that the later generations have been exposed to a much broader array of portable, immersive, and algorithmically personalized digital environments from an early age, and within this source of media access represents a possible shift in the way children interact with play and entertainment.

This paper seeks to explore whether these generational shifts in access to and use of digital media are related to reported decreases in unstructured, imaginative, and make-believe play among children. Data will be presented from longitudinal time-use studies, observational research on play behaviors, and foundational literature in developmental psychology, which may support a displacement-based perspective.  A foundational element of the hypothesis is that the current widespread availability of portable digital media may reduce both the frequency and necessity of spontaneous imaginative play, and possibly impair children’s basic capacity for imagination and personal skill adaptation to be used later in life.

Generation X will serve as the baseline group in this analysis, providing a comparative reference point for understanding changes in play before the implementation of ubiquitous, always-accessible digital entertainment. This generation may be identified as one in which childhood shaped unscripted play and imagination primarily through unstructured, peer-driven play that existed within children, and may be used to reflect the new landscape, which seems to encourage children to “play”, using a practice that can be seen as dominated by digital media engagement.

Introduction.

In psychology, there has been a long-standing hypothesis that imaginative play, such as make-believe, role-playing, and the creation of symbolic narratives, is a foundational element of childhood development. (Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978; Singer & Singer, 1990). Data that can be found in developmental psychology literature suggest that engaging in imaginative play fosters cognitive flexibility, allowing children to adapt to their thinking and approach problems from multiple perspectives (Bruner, 1986; Bergen, 2002). Possible positive research shows that imaginative play supports emotional processing, as children experiment with different roles and scenarios that help them explore and understand feelings within a psychologically safe context (Harris, 2000; Russ, 2004).

Reports from the past suggest that through imaginative play, children engage in cognitive and emotional stabilization processes and develop social learning skills, as imagined interactions during make-believe and role-play activities support cooperation, negotiation, and the development of empathy (Vygotsky, 1978; Bodrova & Leong, 2007). These experiences can be considered integral to identity formation, which can enable children to try out different roles and construct personal narratives that can contribute to the development of a coherent sense of self (Erikson, 1968; Bruner, 1986).  Further studies suggest that pretend play can often emerge spontaneously during periods of unstructured moments of time during an individual's day, or through peer engagement, or moments of what the individual can identify as “boredom”. These situations can create a rich developmental context for an individual to subconsciously analyze, interpret, and possibly develop critical cognitive, emotional, and social skills. (Ginsburg, 2007; Gray, 2011; Whitebread et al., 2012).

Data suggest that contemporary childhood practices of play increasingly unfold within digitally mediated environments that provide continuous access to externally generated narratives, structured entertainment, and rapid stimulation (OECD, 2021; Rideout & Robb, 2020). Data from existing empirical research suggest that the conditions under which imagination is exercised have changed substantially, rather than indicating that the underlying capacity for imagination has been lost (Lillard et al., 2013; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020).

Empirical evidence further suggests that the nature of the context in which children’s imagination is exercised has undergone significant transformation, particularly as play environments have shifted toward screen-based and digitally structured formats (Hofferth, 2009; Gray, 2011). These changes can appear to reflect alterations in the circumstances and affordances that traditionally supported imaginative play, rather than a diminution of imaginative ability itself (Whitebread et al., 2012).

Generation X as a Transitional Developmental Cohort.

Individuals born between approximately 1965 and 1980 are commonly identified as members of Generation X (Gen X). This generation can be seen as inhabiting a distinctive position in the developmental history of childhood media exposure. It can be shown that children during this period encountered what can be identified as a relatively limited and constrained forms of electronic and digital entertainment (Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; Hofferth, 2009).

The primary forms of digital media consisted of early home video game consoles and broadcast television. These technologies could be seen as mostly stationary, sometimes requiring children to access media in fixed household locations such as living rooms or family dens. The use of these game consoles was further constrained by external factors, including parental regulation, shared household access, and in the case of localized scheduled programming of broadcast television networks (Anderson & Hanson, 2010; Rideout & Robb, 2020).

Another element available at this time for video gameplay involved visiting businesses that offered a variety of permanently installed gaming consoles. These establishments, which could be local restaurants, extracurricular sporting complexes, or “arcades,” required a financial commitment by requiring coins to be inserted into the machines to play. Both elements involve a locational and financial component in the availability of playing these types of games.  Arcades were often busy environments, and it was common for children to wait their turn before playing a specific game. The necessity of waiting, coupled with the cost of participation, further limited the amount of time spent on digital entertainment a

As a result, media engagement during this period was intermittent rather than continuous, and children routinely experienced extended periods of unstructured time in which alternative forms of play emerged. These circumstances fostered environments where imagination and peer-driven interaction were central to daily childhood experience, as children often relied on spontaneous, unscripted play to fill gaps left by limited access to electronic entertainment.

In addition, the digital content available during this era generally offered limited narrative complexity and interactivity when compared to contemporary internet-based platforms and modern gaming systems. Early video games relied heavily on simple mechanics, abstract visuals, and minimal storytelling, often requiring children to supply imaginative content to extend or elaborate the play experience beyond the screen itself (Gray, 2011; Singer & Singer, 1990). Portable digital devices were virtually nonexistent, meaning that media did not accompany children into outdoor environments, social gatherings, or transitional moments of daily life.

Taken together, these conditions shaped Gen X children’s daily routines in ways that preserved frequent opportunities for boredom, peer interaction, and spontaneous imaginative engagement. Because digital media was accessible only at specific times and in specific locations, unstructured, child-initiated play remained a dominant feature of childhood experience, supporting the development of symbolic play, social negotiation, and imaginative exploration across multiple settings (Whitebread et al., 2012; Ginsburg, 2007).

Longitudinal Evidence: Decline in Unstructured Play.

Longitudinal time-use studies conducted in multiple countries present with possible data that presents with a theme of a consistent decline in unstructured, child-initiated play. This trend seems to have begun in the late twentieth century and shows data suggesting it has continued into the early decades of the twenty-first century (Hofferth, 2009; Gray, 2011; OECD, 2021). The data suggests that there has been a notable reduction in outdoor play, accompanied by fewer opportunities for children to interact freely with their peers. It also presents with possible data showing that spontaneous imaginative activities have become less common, suggesting a broader transformation in the nature of childhood play (Clements, 2004; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; Whitebread et al., 2012).

Broader Cultural and Institutional Changes.

It can be observed that these changes may have coincided with significant cultural and institutional shifts that have reshaped the environments in which children spend their daily lives in the last few decades. It can be said that the decline in unstructured play, reduced outdoor activity, and diminishing opportunities for spontaneous peer engagement can reflect a reorganization of children’s routines and surroundings by the societal evolution on the developmental experiences of younger generations. One of these elements is the changes in family and educational systems, including increased reliance on after-school care programs, longer school days, and greater adult supervision of children’s time that has happened since 1980. These shifts can be interpreted to show reduced periods of unscheduled, child-directed activity in favor of structured, adult-organized settings, which may limit opportunities for spontaneous imaginative play (Hofferth, 2009; Gray, 2011). Another element that should be examined is the current educational policies which focus more on academic readiness, standardized testing, and measurable performance outcomes which can be seen to have contributed to a policy that seems to have narrow play-based learning opportunities within school environments. (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Miller & Almon, 2009). Within the current educational cultures of many school districts across America, the integration of digital technology into educational settings. Tablets, laptops, and educational applications are now commonly used for instruction, homework, and assessment, increasing children’s exposure to screen-based activities across both school and home contexts (OECD, 2021; Rideout & Robb, 2020). While these tools offer instructional benefits, they may further reduce time available for open-ended, imaginative play, particularly when digital tasks replace hands-on or symbolic learning activities (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020).

Since the late 90’s, there has been a noticeable, steady decline in arts education in courses such as visual arts, music, drama, and creative writing. There is data showing that many of these issues are evident in public school systems serving elementary and middle school populations (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012; Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). It can be deduced that elements such as budget constraints, increased emphasis on standardized testing, and curricular prioritization of STEM subjects may have contributed to reduced instructional time devoted to creative and expressive disciplines (Au, 2007; Winner, Goldstein, & Vincent-Lancrin, 2013). While creativity is frequently cited as a desired educational outcome, opportunities to practice creative thinking within formal curricula seem to have diminished, most notably in early developmental stages where symbolic and imaginative engagement may be the most crucial (Winner et al., 2013; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014).

Displacement Rather Than Deficit.

Recent studies present data that can be seen to interpret a view that children’s imaginative engagement can best be explained by the displacement of traditional forms of play, rather than by the deficit in children’s imaginative capacity (Lillard et al., 2013; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). These studies focused on early childhood screen use may indicate that as children spend more time engaged with digital devices, these activities often replace opportunities for peer interaction, which can otherwise serve as essential contexts for imaginative play and collaborative creativity.

The research goes on to suggest that screen exposure does not suppress developmental activities, but it may selectively reduce the frequency of unstructured, peer-driven play. This element may be recognized as central to the exercise of imagination and symbolic thinking (Vygotsky, 1978; Singer & Singer, 1990). “Digitally” mediated play can also differ qualitatively from traditional peer play, meaning it can present as more goal-directed, rule-bound, or focused on passive consumption of externally generated narratives, rather than facilitating open-ended imaginative construction (Lillard et al., 2013; Zosh et al., 2018). This can prevent children from engaging in spontaneous role creation, storylines, and symbolic transformations that typify imaginative play. The idea is that this should be reflected in a diminished capacity for creativity or imagination. The thought to consider is that it is relevant, as contemporary environments increasingly guide children’s attention toward structured and externally scaffolded forms of interactive, “playful” engagement (Whitebread et al., 2012; OECD, 2021). The developmental landscape can be shifted in ways that seem to alter when, where, and how imagination is exercised. Children’s imaginative potential appears to remain intact, but the way it is expressed can depend on the contextual factors such as peer availability, time allocation, and the structure of play environments (Gray, 2011; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). Contemporary changes in imaginative engagement may be best understood as context-dependent variations in opportunity and activation, rather than as evidence of an intrinsic decline in imaginative ability.

Quality of Play: Observational Evidence.

There are recent studies that reflect observational research highlights of qualitative differences between digital and traditional play modalities. These studies examining tablet and iPad use in early childhood settings that propose digitally mediated play by an individual who is alone can be seen as less ludic and less aligned with age-typical pretend play when compared to traditional play activities (Bird & Edwards, 2015; Kucirkova et al., 2014). Digital play frequently emphasizes task completion, rule adherence, or sensory exploration within pre-defined parameters, rather than open-ended narrative construction, symbolic transformation, or spontaneous role enactment (Lillard et al., 2013; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). This can be interpreted as the children may engage more with externally structured goals than with internally generated imaginative content during digital play experiences.

The use of traditional play materials, such as blocks, figurines, or costumes, has been linked to the potential to elicit higher levels of fantasy, symbolic transformation, and role assumption, particularly in peer-based contexts (Whitebread et al., 2012; Nicholson, 1971). These materials are diverse enough and enable greater flexibility, ambiguity, and opportunity for narrative invention, allowing children to generate meaning rather than respond to predetermined structures (Singer & Singer, 1990; Zosh et al., 2018). This data should not be interpreted as indicating that digital play is inherently harmful or devoid of developmental value, but it can be seen to present that different play modalities engage distinct cognitive and imaginative processes. This can show that not all forms of play equally exercise imaginative capacities, underscoring the importance of preserving and intentionally supporting play environments that promote symbolic and narrative

Portability, Boredom, and the Changing Ecology of Play.

In this time in history, the portability and constant accessibility of devices such as smartphones, tablets, and on-demand streaming platforms are an ever-present reality. Within the last two decades, the acceptance and widespread adoption of these technologies have substantially reduced periods of unstructured downtime that were once considered a routine part of children’s daily lives (OECD, 2021; Rideout & Robb, 2020).  In the past, these situations where the child was detained, waiting, bored, or presented with limited adult direction provided possible opportunities for children to use their imagination to entertain themselves; invent games, generate narratives, and engage in self-directed imaginative play without external prompts (Singer & Singer, 1990; Gray, 2011).

Portable digital devices now offer immediate access to entertainment, information, and structured activities across most daily contexts, rendering the experience of a child being bored much less of an event that needs to be dealt with (Gray, 2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2018). Developmental theory and observational research suggest that boredom has traditionally functioned as a catalyst for imaginative engagement, motivating children to create internal stimulation through symbolic play and creative exploration (Harris, 2000; Whitebread et al., 2012). When boredom is rapidly interrupted by screen-based alternatives, opportunities for spontaneous imaginative initiation may be reduced.

Moments that once invited imaginative or peer-driven play are now often filled by screen-mediated activities that provide externally generated structure and narrative content (Rideout & Robb, 2020; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020). This shift does not indicate a loss of imaginative capacity, but can reflect a transformation in the environmental conditions that prompt imaginative activation. Imagination may increasingly require intentional cultivation within contemporary childhood contexts, rather than emerging naturally during periods of unstructured time and boredom (Zosh et al., 2018; OECD, 2021).

Reframing the Question of Imagination.

The central question regarding childhood imagination today is not about whether children possess imaginative capacity, but instead concerns the circumstances under which they can actively participate in imaginative practices. These practices are instrumental in developing strategies, adaptation skills, and problem-solving abilities that benefit them throughout life. However, contemporary environments often supply externally generated narratives through digital media, which can lessen the need for children to create their own internal stories. This shift does not extinguish imagination, but it does modify the way imagination develops and is expressed in childhood. Creative Activation Therapy (CreATe™) responds to these changes by providing a structured yet non-directive framework that encourages the re-engagement of symbolic and imaginative processes, which may no longer arise spontaneously in today’s digital landscape. The foundation of CreATe™ is the belief that creativity is most therapeutically beneficial when it is supported by intentional introspection at the start and followed by reflective integration after creative activities.

Developmental Parallels and Contemporary Responsiveness.

This framework mirrors the developmental functions that unstructured imaginative play historically served, while also adapting to contemporary challenges and constraints placed on children’s play and creativity. CreATe™ is particularly appropriate for children and adolescents who find it challenging to verbalize their internal experiences or to initiate imaginative engagement on their own. In educational settings, the principles of CreATe™ align with curricula that prioritize the creative process over end products, support symbolic reasoning, and foster creative agency.

Conclusion: Environmental Shifts and the Evolution of Imaginative Play.

The observed decline in spontaneous imaginative play among children today is best understood as a reflection of broader environmental changes, not as an indication of inherent developmental deficits. Previous generations, such as Gen X, offer a valuable point of comparison. For this group of people, imagination seemed to flourish organically and could be seen to be fostered by a context characterized by limited access to media and plentiful unstructured time. Within such environments, children naturally engage in imaginative practices without the need for external prompts or structured interventions.

As the landscape of childhood has evolved it can be surmised that due to the increased digital media consumption and a reduction in opportunities for unstructured play, conditions that once supported the spontaneous emergence of imagination have shifted. In response to these changes, structured creative interventions such as Creative Activation Therapy (CreATe™) have become increasingly relevant. These approaches are designed to be developmentally responsive, providing mechanisms that sustain and nurture imaginative engagement even within digitally mediated environments, where traditional avenues for imaginative play may be less accessible.

References.

Anderson, D. R., & Hanson, K. G. (2010). From blooming, buzzing confusion to media literacy: The early development of television viewing. Developmental Review, 30(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2010.03.004

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 1–13.

Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (2015). Children’s learning and play in the digital age. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-5

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.

Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2004.5.1.10

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.

Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2697

Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443–463.

Harris, P. L. (2000). The work of the imagination. Blackwell Publishing.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. G. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford University Press.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2020). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620919661

Hofferth, S. L. (2009). Changes in American children’s time—1997 to 2003. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 6(1), 26–47.

Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. F. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00295.x

Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K., & Panadero, C. F. (2014). Children’s engagement with educational iPad apps: Insights from a cross-cultural study. Computers & Education, 78, 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.008

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. Alliance for Childhood.

Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 62(1), 30–34.

OECD. (2021). Children & young people’s mental health in the digital age: Shaping the future. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en

Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014.pdf

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. W. W. Norton & Company.

Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for arts participation. National Endowment for the Arts.

Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight, 2020. Common Sense Media.

Russ, S. W. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Toward empirically supported practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and the developing imagination. Harvard University Press.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive Medicine Reports, 12, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play: A report on the value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. Toy Industries of Europe.

Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264180789-en

Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread, D. (2018). Learning through play: A review of the evidence. LEGO Foundation.