本研究主要探討幼年時期的想像友伴現象，採用「質性研究法」，探究不同研究對象（幼兒、幼兒家長、成人）所回應之想像友伴的情形，研究資料取自：三位8歲以下幼兒的訪談內容以及圖畫、幼兒家長問卷、13位成人的訪談內容。本研究之重要發現摘述如下：
一、 幼兒若擁有「看不見的友伴」，則有較多想像性的描述，推測是因「看不見的友伴」較不受限於實物是否存在於眼前，幼兒較能發揮想像。
二、 年紀稍長的幼兒雖然會和想像友伴互動，但可能已知想像友伴是自己「假裝」的。
三、 幼兒會因當下的情境脈絡，而影響其所述的想像友伴故事，推測幼兒隨時接收到外在訊息，因此使其所述的故事不一致而充滿變化。
四、 成人對於想像友伴的記憶得以長存的原因可能包括：想像友伴多為擬人化物體，得以藉物回憶；另想像友伴帶給他們的情感或是與特殊事件有關聯，可能使得其印象深刻。
五、 關於想像友伴出現的時間點可約略歸結如下：受訪者創造想像友伴起始年齡約為2至3歲，互動高峰約在幼兒園階段至小學中、高年級，而於小學中、高年級之後想像友伴逐漸消逝，推測可能是受訪者著重現實世界的比重，大過包含想像友伴在內的想像世界。
六、 成人受訪者大多賦予想像友伴正向的意義，除了認為有助於心理健康，其他益處包括：促進想像力、更能換位思考、獲得成就感、感受到主控權、對於未曾經歷的事情也能產生自信、與自我對話的機會…等。但據受訪幼兒的回應，他們可能只是為了遊戲樂趣而創造想像友伴，尚未思考到其中的意義。
七、 若受訪者擁有一群想像友伴，他們幾乎都會讓這些友伴套用現實中常見的人際關係。他們可能透過設想其想像友伴的關係與互動，揣摩現實生活複雜的人際社會互動。
八、 想像友伴的故事題材大多皆為現實與虛構的情節交錯，推測故事題材或許受到以下因素影響：玩具、影視節目與故事、自身生活經驗。
對於未來研究的建議包括：對想像友伴消失階段的小學中、高年級學童進行訪談、探討想像友伴在手足間的共享性、探討家長對於想像友伴的態度與影響。

This study focuses on the phenomenon of imaginary companions in early childhood. Qualitative research method was used to investigate different subjects’ (children, the parents of young children, and adults) responses to imaginary companions. The information was obtained from: interviews with three children under the age of 8 years old, pictures from these children, and questionnaires from the parents of these children. In addition, 13 interviews were conducted with adults . The important findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1.A young child with an “invisible friend”, can provide more imaginative descriptions. This is presumably as the “invisible friend” is not limited to the physical plane, the young child is better at exercising his or her imagination.
2.The older children still interact with their imaginary companion, even though they definitely know that their imaginary companion is what they pretend.
3.Due to the influence of the context of interview, children may also change the story what they told about their imaginary companions. Suppose childern always receive external information, that makes their stories various and inconsistent.
4.For adults, the reasons that they still remember their imaginary companions may include: for most, their imaginary companions were personified objects, and so these memories could be recalled; and for others, they gave emotions to their imaginary companions or imaginary companions were related to special events, which may have led to a deeper impression within their memory.
5.The periods about imaginary companions can be approximately summarized as follows: respondents created their imaginary companion at about the age of 2 or 3, with the peak of this interaction around from high grades in elementary school. However, after that, these imaginary companions gradually disappeared. It can be speculated that as the respondents were placing more emphasis on the real world, giving less attention to their imaginary companions in their imaginary world.
6.Most adults have a positive association with their imaginary companions, in addition to believing that they help with mental health, other benefits include: promoting imagination, greater empathy, a sense of accomplishment, mastery over emotions, producing self-confidence for experiences that have yet to be undertaken, and providing opportunities for self-dialogue. However, according to the children's responses, they might just create an imaginary companions in order to engage in imaginary play with them, without considering the significance or benefits.
7.If any respondents had a group of imaginary companions, these imaginary companions almost always copied frequently seen real-life relationships. Perhaps they would use these imaginary companions’ relationships and interactions to analyze complex real-life interpersonal social interactions.
8.The story themes of imaginary companions all interweave aspects of reality and fiction, which suggests that stories may be subject to the following factors: toys, TV shows and stories, and their own life experiences.
The suggestions of that future studies could include: interviews with high grade elementary students(in this periods, imaginary companions gradually disappeared), to investigate the commonalities or shared experiences with imaginary companions. The attitude of parents towards imaginary companions, and the influence on their children, could also be investigated.

一、中文部分
孔美惠（2013）。國小陶藝欣賞教學之研究--以繪畫性陶藝欣賞為例（線上期刊論文）。取自http://www.aerc.nhcue.edu.tw/paper/%E9%99%B6%E8%97%9D%E6%AC%A3%E8%B3%9E%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E4%B9%8B%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6/index-1.htm.htm
王俊紅、周宗奎（2004）。兒童"想像友伴"研究及其對教育的啟示。心理學探新，24（2），58-61。
白瓊英、李紅（2010）。國外想像友伴功能研究述評。學前教育研究，2，52-55。
任凱、陳仙子（譯）（2008）。兒童發展心理學（原作者：H. Rudolph Schaffer）。臺北市：學富文化。
朱錦鳳（2013）。兒童在畫人測驗的投射評量。臺北市：心理。
吳幸玲（2011）。兒童遊戲與發展。新北市：揚智文化。
吳鷰儀、張佩玉、蔡其蓁、林聖曦、陳雅惠、林玉霞、梁珀華（譯）（2008）。幼兒遊戲─以0-8歲幼兒園實務為導向（原作者：James E. J., James F. Christie ＆ Francis W.）。臺北市：華騰文化。
李玉真（2008）。幼兒對妖怪認知之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
李秀珊、李紅、雷怡、孫忻怡、李秀麗（2009）。兒童假裝遊戲中假想角色現象初探。心理發展與教育，2，8-12。
林心智、張宜玲（2005）。小孩的泛靈觀及其對故事中擬人化情節的接受性。幼兒保育學刊，3，153-166。
信誼基金出版社（2010）。3~6歲發展與教養對策。臺北市：信誼基金。
洪文東（2007）。兒童的科學觀。幼兒保育學刊，5，1-11。
洪慧娟、趙姿婷（1998）。皮亞傑泛靈觀在幼兒思想中之呈現。臺南師院學生學刊，19，280-311。
胡心慈、宋維村、林寶貴（2001）。自閉症兒童在引發情境下的表徵性遊戲之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，21，89-107。
常銳（2005）。起名的學問。小康生活，1，44-46。
張治遙（2012）。幼稚園兒童夢境之調查研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，33，1-23。
張治遙、吳秀碧、程小蘋（2008）。童年開始的重複夢境分析之研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，24，1-31。
張春興（1991）。現代心理學。臺北市：東華。
張盈堃（譯）（2008）。兒童的田野工作（原作者：Robyn M. Holmes）。臺北市：心理。
張慧芝（譯）（2004）。人類發展─兒童心理學（原作者：Diane E. Papalia, Sally Wendkos Olds & Ruth Duskin Feldman）。苗栗縣：桂冠。
張慶華、林豔豔、李群（2013）。假想遊戲夥伴對兒童心理發展的影響。濟寧學院學報，34（2），49-52。
教育大辭書（2015）。後設認知Meta-Cognition（線上辭典）。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/927058/
教育部（2012）。幼兒園教保活動課程暫行大綱。
教育部重編國語辭典修訂本（2015）。擬人化（線上辭典）。取自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi
梁世英（譯）（2013）。想像的力量：心智、語言、情感，解開「人」的祕密（原作者：松澤哲郎）。臺北市：經濟新潮社。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳李綢（2000）。後設認知Meta-Cognition（線上辭典）。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1307383/
陳育含（譯）（2010）。訪談研究法（原作者：Steinar Kvale）。新北市：韋伯文化。
陳淑敏（2005）。幼兒遊戲（第二版）。臺北市：心理。
陳筱宛（譯）（2010）。寶寶也是哲學家（原作者：Alison Gopnik）。臺北市：商周出版。
陶明潔（譯）（1992）。人的教育（原作者：Friedrich Wilhelm August Fröbel）。台北縣：揚智文化。
傅銳、李丹（2010）。兒童的想像友伴: 理論與實證研究。心理科學，33（1），78-82。
游雅婷（譯）（2011）。發展心理學：以生物、心理與社會架構探討人類的發展（原作者：Robert V. KaIL, John C. Cavanaugh）。臺北市：新加波商聖智學習。
黃志成、林少雀、王淑楨（2010）。幼兒遊戲。新北市：揚智文化。
楊維玉（譯）（2012）。3-5歲幼兒為什麼問不停？（原作者：L. Emanuel & L. Maroni）。臺北市：心靈工坊。
葉乃靜（2012）。質性研究qualitative research（線上辭典）。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678706/
趙雲（1997）。兒童繪畫與心智發展。臺北市：藝術家出版社。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與應用。台北市：心理。
蔡春美、洪福財、邱瓊慧、盧以敏、張明傑（2008）。幼兒行為觀察與記錄。臺北市：五南。
蔡敏玲、陳正乾（譯）（1997）。社會中的心智－高層次心理過程的發展（原著者：L.S.Vygotsky）。臺北市：心理。
蔡淑苓（2004）。遊戲理論與應用‒以幼兒遊戲與幼兒教師教學為例。臺北市：五南。
鄧運林（2009）。兒童心理學-教育取向。臺北市：華騰文化。
鄭良儀（譯）（1999）。兒童遊戲與觀察（原作者：Patricia Monighan-Nourot, Barbara Scales, Judith Van Hoom & Millie Almy）。臺北市：桂冠。
鄭雅文（2000）。幼兒遊戲中的教師--以娃娃家為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
錡寶香（2009）。兒童語言與溝通發展。臺北市：心理。
謝如山（譯）（2004）。進入兒童心中的世界（原作者：Herbert P. Ginsburg）。臺北市：五南。
鍾鳳嬌（2002）。幼兒自發性扮演遊戲之內容分析。屏東師院學報，17，1-34。
簡楚瑛、陳淑芳、黃譯瑩（2001）。「創造力教育政策白皮書」子計畫：幼兒教育創造力教育政策規劃。教育部專題研究計畫報告。
顏寧（譯）（2011）。質性研究：設計與施作指南（原作者：Sharan B. Merriam）。臺北市：五南。
二、西文部分
American Psychological Association(2005, January). Imaginary friends last into the school-age years [Online news]. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan05/imaginary.aspx
Bouldin & Pratt(1999). Characteristics of Preschool and School-Age Children With Imaginary Companions. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(4), 397-410.
Donaldson, M.(1978).Children's minds. New York: W. W. Norton.Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Eills, M. J.(1973). Why People Play. N. J.:Prentice-Hall. . Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Elder, J. L. & Pederson, D. R.(1978). Preschool Children’s Use of Objects in Symbolic Play. Child Development, 49, 500-504.
Estes, D., Wellman, H. M., & Woolley, J. (1989). Children’s understanding of mental phenomena. In H. Reese(Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. New York: Academic Press. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Farver, J. M., & Lee, Y.(1997). Social pretend play in Korean-and Anglo-American preschoolers. Child Development,68, 544-556.Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Fein, G. G. (1975). A transformational analysis of pretending. Developmental Psychology, 11, 291-296.
Florin, D., Kevin S. L. & Roberto C.(2004).Interaction between the Amygdala and the Medial Temporal Lobe Memory System Predicts Better Memory for Emotional Events. Neuron, 42, 855–863.
Gleason, T.R. & Kalpidou M.(2014). Imaginary Companions and Young Children's Coping and Competence. Social Development,23(4),820-839.
Harvey, N. (1918). Imaginary playmates and other mental phenomena of children. Ypsilanti, MI: State Normal College. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Kidd, E., Rogers, P., & Rogers, C. (2010). The personality correlates of adults who had imaginary companions in childhood. Psychological Reports, 107,163-172.
Klausen, E. & Passman, R. H.(2007).Pretend Companions (Imaginary Playmates): The Emergence of a Field. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(4), 349–364.
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretence and representation: The origins of theory of mind. Psychological Review, 94, 412-426.
Lowenfeld, V., (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Merriam-Webster dictionary(2016).companion.[Online dictionary]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/companion
Mills, A.(2003).Are Children with Imaginary Playmates and Children Said to Remember Previous Lives Cross-Culturally Comparable Categories?.Transcultural psychiatry, 40(1), 62-90.
Nicolich , L M .(1977). Beyond sensorimotor intelligence: Assessment of symbolic maturity through analysis of pretend play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2,88-99. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Overton, W. F. & Jackson, J. P.(1973). The representation of imagined objects in action sequences: A developmental study. Child Development,44(2), 309-314. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Papalia, D. E., Olds, S. W., Feldman, R. D. & Gross, D. (2004). Human Development . McGraw-Hill: New York, United States of America. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 136–147. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Partington, J., & Grant, C. (1984). Imaginary companions. In P. Smith(Ed.), Play in animals and humans(pp.217-240). New York: Harper & Row. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Phillips, J. L. (1969). The origins of intellect: Piaget’s theory. W H. Freeman & Company. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play dreams and imitation in children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Roby, A.C. & Kidd, E.(2008).The referential communication skills of children with imaginary companions. Developmental Science, 11(4), 531-540.
Samuel, A., & Taylor, M. (1994). Children’s ability to distinguish fantasy events from real-life events. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 417-427. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Schaefer, C(ed.)(1979).The therapeutic use of child’s play. New York: Jason Aronson.Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Singer, D., & Singer, J.(1990). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and developing imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Sugarman, S. (2013). An investigation into parents’ attitudes to their children having imaginary companions. D.Ed.Psy thesis, University of London.
Svendsen, M. (1934). Children’s imaginary companions. Archives of Neurology and Psychology, 122, 315-318.
Tahiroglu, D., Mannering, A. M.& Taylor, M.(2011). Visual and Auditory Imagery Associated with Children's Imaginary Companions. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 31(1-2), 99-112.
Taylor, B., & Howell, R. (1973). The ability of three-, four-,and five-year-old children to distinguish fantasy form reality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 122, 315-318. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Taylor, M.(1999).Imaginary companions and the child who create them. New York: Oxford university press.
Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. M. (1997). The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child Development, 68,436–455. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Taylor, M., &Mottweiler, C. M. (2008). Imaginary Companions: Pretending They Are Real but Knowing They Are Not.American Journal of Play., 1, 47-54.
Taylor, M., Carlson, S., & Gerow, L.(2001). Imaginary companions: Characteristics and correlates. Play & Culture Studies, 3, 179-198. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Taylor, M., Cartwright, B. S., & Carlson, S. M. (1993). A developmental investigation of children’s imaginary companions. Developmental Psychology, 29, 276–285.
Ungerer, J. A., Zelazo, P. R., Kearsley, R.B., & O’Leary, K. (1981). Developmental changes in the representation of objects in symbolic play from 18 to 34 monthsof age. Child Development, 52, 186-195. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Valentine, C. W.(1956). The Normal Child. Penguin Books. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Vostrovsky, C.(1895). A STUDY OF IMAGINARY COMPANIONS. Education, 15 (7), 393-398.
Vygotsky, L. S.(1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6-18. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Westby, C. E. (1991). A scale for assessing children’s pretend play. In C. E. Schaefer, K. Gitlin, & A. Sandgrund (Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment. (pp.131-162). NY: John Wiley & Sons. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Wolfberg, P., & Schuler, A. L. (1992).Integrated play groups: A model for promoting the social and cognitive dimensions of play. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23(3), 1-23. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Woolley, J. D., & Wellman, H. M. (1990). Young children’s understanding of realities, non-realities, and appearances. Child Development, 61, 946-961. Abstract retrieved from Secondary Source.
Woolley,J. D.(1997). Thinking about Fantasy: Are Children Fundamentally Different Thinkers and Believers from Adults? Child Development, 68, 991-1001.