The Good, the Bad, and the … Imaginary?

Working as a camp counselor, I was once yelled at by one of the children. As I went to sit down, a blood-curdling scream erupted from one of the students named Katie. My face went pale white and I stopped mid-squat. I mustered up the will to ask her what was wrong and she frantically said “You were about to sit on Mr. Snuffles!” After realizing that Mr. Snuffles was actually her imaginary friend, I calmed down, apologized to the chair I was about to sit on, and moved to a different seat.

Just like little Katie, many children create imaginary comrades to play with. These so-called imaginary friends are exactly what they sound like – an interpersonal relationship or camaraderie created by the mind that exists only in the imagination. Now although this may sound odd, it is an incredibly common psychological and social phenomenon that occurs in about 37% of children by the time they reach age 7 (Kennedy-Moore, 2013). Additionally, many may believe that talking to a fictitious creation as if they were real sounds like behavior that would be exhibited by someone that is troubled, however, this is not at all the case for these children and there is no cause for concern should a child have this type of relationship.

Now you may be asking yourself, why do only some children have imaginary friends while others never do? What makes those children different? Or even, why are these friends even created in the first place?  Well, based on the existing research in this area (and there’s a lot of it!), there are some patterns observed to answer these questions which will be further expressed in this article, some of which are very surprising!

So, What Types of Children Have Imaginary Friends?

In terms of the answer to what type of children create imaginary friends, there are several different components that have been researched from which certain conclusions have been drawn. First, we look at gender: it has been said that females are more likely to have imaginary friends (Hoff, 2011). In addition, there have actually been differences between the types of friends created by females as opposed to males. For example, females are more likely to have imaginary comrades that are inferior to them and that need to be cared for and nurtured, whereas males were more likely to have imaginary friends that they idealize, such as superheroes (Hoff, 2011). One potential explanation for this could be that females have a natural tendency for being ‘motherly,’ unlike males.

Another pattern detected among those that have imaginary friends compared to those that don’t was seen in the number of siblings or the order in which they were born. One study found that those that are either the firstborn in their line of siblings, or are an only child are more likely to create imaginary relationships (Gleason et al., 2003).

There are also other factors, such as personality or emotional state, that could affect whether a child forms an imaginary relationship or not. Several studies looked into creativity levels of a child to see if this could be a potential factor. It was wondered whether ‘gifted’ children that displayed higher levels of creativity were more likely to form such friendships and it was found that that was in fact the case (Seiffge-Krenke, 1997). Another study gave a group of children two different creativity assessments and found, once again, that those that did have imaginary companions scored much higher on both of the measures of creativity (Hoff, 2011).

Moreover, whether the self-image that a child holds could affect their likelihood to have imaginary friends can be focused on. One study looked at this in-depth and concluded that although some of the data indicated a lower self-image for those children that did have imaginary friends, the data was not significant enough to make any concrete decisions (Hoff, 2011). This means that it is not necessarily true that lower self-image would be related to imaginary companions in childhood.

With all of this being said, it can be concluded that those that are more likely to form imaginary relationships are females, those that are firstborns or only children, and those that are more creative.

But Why?

Now, here there are many components that can be analyzed, such as social development, friendship, and even other theories of psychology that come into play.

The reason for these friendships that most people will come up with is that these children lack social development and need imaginary friends to cope and fill in that gap. However, the complete opposite has actually been found! It has been said that being able to develop another being within their imagination is actually a symptom of developing social intelligence (Volpe, 2019). With this comes the idea of ‘ Theory of Mind,’ which involves understanding another individual’s beliefs, knowledge, emotions, intentions, and being able to use this to navigate social situations (Thompson, 2017). With this in mind, for a child to create an imaginary friend, they must be able to conceptualize beliefs and actions that are independent and different from their own which would indicate social intelligence based on the idea of Theory of Mind.

Another concept that could explain this phenomenon is the self-determination theory which can be defined as a theory of personality and motivation based on how an individual interacts with their social environment (Legault, 2017). This theory consists of three fundamental psychological needs – competence, relatedness, and autonomy – which an imaginary friend can fulfill (Volpe, 2019). More specifically, competence can be seen when children assume dominance or leadership over their companion. Then, we can see relatedness in the same way that it is displayed in ordinary friendships with real children as they find levels to relate to each other on. Lastly, autonomy is displayed when these children incorporate their imaginary friend into a situation in order to exert a sense of control and manipulation; for example, insisting that their friend be served a plate at dinner (Volpe, 2019).

The next and most basic idea is that these companionships are simply fulfilling a child’s need for friendship. An interesting take on this idea was observed in one study that looked at the relationships between personified inanimate objects among children compared to their imaginary friends. This study found that personified objects occurred when a new toy was acquired and was typically a nurturing relationship, whereas the bond formed with imaginary friends were more so sociable and friendly and were viewed as fulfilling a need for friendship (Gleason et al., 2003).

All in all, the “why” of such relationships cannot be fully answered as the points discussed are not universal to all children with these friendships and are not an indicator of greater intelligence either. In general, however, development of social intelligence, a need for friendship, and the fulfillment of social needs based on the theory of self-determination are all plausible explanations for this phenomenon.

So… Are They Bad?

The short answer is no. Should you encounter an imaginary friend, there is no reason to discourage this behavior as it is a sign of proper social development. It can be healthy to play along and not usurp control of this friend as it is important that the child has control. It is of course okay to lay down the law should behaviors become too disruptive, however, there’s no reason to try to get rid of that child’s ‘special friend’ as it could be a sign of healthy social development.

 

References

Gleason, T. R. (2002). Social provisions of real and imaginary relationships in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 979-992. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.979

Gleason, T. R., Sebanc, A. M., & Hartup, W. W. (2000). Imaginary companions of preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 36(4), 419-428. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.4.419

Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2-3), 167-180. doi:10.1080/10400419.2005.9651477

Kennedy-Moore, E. (2013, January 31). Imaginary friends. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/growing-friendships/201301/imaginary-friends

Legault, L. (2017). Self-Determination theory. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, 1-9. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1162-1

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1997). Imaginary companions in adolescence: Sign of a deficient or positive development? Journal of Adolescence, 20(2), 137-154. doi:10.1006/jado.1996.0072

Thompson, B. (2017, July 03). Theory of Mind: Understanding others in a social world. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/socioemotional-success/201707/theory-mind-understanding-others-in-social-world

Volpe, A. (2019, July 30). Why kids invent imaginary friends. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/07/why-do-kids-have-imaginary-friends/594919/

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.