A group of children make room for Sasha in the kiddy pool. They encourage Sasha to jump into the pool and ask her if she wants to throw the ball with them in the pool. They talk with each other about how much they enjoy throwing around the ball and playing in the pool together. According to Mildred Parten's classic 1932 study, this group of children is engaging in .

Associative group play

Explanation:

The stage theory by Mildred Parten explains how children communicate with one another. Parten observed American preschool age (age 2 to 5) free-playing children (defined as something unrelated to life, development or profit).

Associative group play is defined as when a child expresses interest in the people playing but not in the activity they are playing, The children begin to learn how to make real friendships by associative play. They get more interested in the other kids than the games.

Sasha want to associate more with the kids and is not intrested in the pool game.

Associative group play

Explanation:

Through associative play, children learn how to make real friendships. They tend to be more interested in other children than in the toys. They develop skills in socialization, problem solving, sharing, cooperation, and language development. This results to collective play where play is organized by group goals. It is the first stage where social interaction is required in children’s play as they engage in a give and take activities.

In 1932, Mildred Parten, at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development, developed a system for classifying participation in play by children that has been widely accepted. Her six stages were unoccupied play, solitary play, onlooker play, parallel play, associative play, and cooperative play. Her theory was that as children grew older with improved communication skills and more opportunities for interaction with other children, their solitary play would become more social.

51% were unhappy, i think .   ; )

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )