Examining Canadian Parents’ Attitudes Toward Outdoor Free Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free, child-led play has been identified as a developmental requirement for all children (Brussoni et al., 2015; Grey, 2011; Gray et al., 2015; Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978; Yogman et al., 2018). Parents’ attitudes towards allowing and restricting outdoor free play opportunities have been found to be a leading factor in why children do not engage in outdoor free play like previous generations did (Clements, 2004; Kepper et al., 2020; Murray, 2018; Niehues et al., 2013). Parental attitudes appear to be influenced by many factors (i.e., Clark & Dumas, 2020; Holloway et al., 2018; James 2014) including the social context in which they live and raise their children (Kepper et al., 2020; Kracht & Sissons, 2018; Lee et al, 2015; Riazi et al., 2019). Parents have become increasingly uncomfortable permitting outdoor free play alongside the prevalence of single-child families, and family structures in which there has been less sibling support to build in peer relationships (Loebach et al., 2021; Pynn et al., 2019; Shaki et al, 2022). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore Canadian parents’ attitudes toward free outdoor play and how variations in the structure of families and social relationships may influence the extent to which parents allow or restrict their children’s outdoor free play. Six hundred and nine (609) Canadian parents completed an online version of the Parental Attitudes Towards Their Child's Recreation (PACOR) scale (McFarland et al., 2011, 2014) to explore attitudes towards outdoor free play. A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there were any significant differences between the means of the dependent variable (i.e., parental attitudes) and the groups of independent variables (i.e., family structure or number of children, reported community cohesion). Post-hoc comparisons were used to explore differences and interactions between the group means while controlling for the experiment-wise error rates using Bonferroni corrections (Wilkinson, 1999). Findings included parents of single children reporting the lowest comfort level ratings related to allowing their children to engage in outdoor free play opportunities. Parents who had more children reported more positive attitudes towards allowing their children outdoor free play opportunities. In relation to the student researcher created variable that sought to measure parents’ ratings of community cohesion by having participants respond to three questions, parental attitudes appeared to become more restrictive when there were more than two children in the family and when community cohesion was rated highest. This finding was most likely due to how the variable of community cohesion was created and analyzed (i.e., student researcher created variable may not be measuring the construct of community cohesion, arbitrarily set cut points). However, there are likely other factors influencing parental attitudes towards outdoor free play in more socially connected communities (i.e., peer pressure increasing societal expectations, etc.). These findings can help to improve our limited understanding of Canadian parents’ attitudes toward free outdoor play. Future research should consider how the construct of community cohesion could be better represented and measured, parents’ considerations of the importance of playmates in the absence of siblings, and the significance of community socialization for smaller families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".