IN AN EARLIER ARTICLE, titled "The Psychology of Childlore," I have suggested that one who is both psychologist and folklorist has the unique problem of conjoining these two disciplines without subordinating the one to the other.' If he is a developmental psychologist, moreover, he must also deal with the fact that juvenile folklore has traditionally handled games, rhymes, jokes, riddles and other such lore, while developmental psychology has handled dreams, play, fantasies, humor, and comics. It would seem to make sense that the conjoint treatment of both-say games and play, jokes and humor-would be likely to provide more explanatory power than their treatment separately. In part, this division of function seems to have been based on the mutual suspicion of both parties, on the one hand, that the folklorist would be concerned with the accumulation of endless forms without reference to their functional significance and, on the other, that the psychologist would persist in his psychogenic reductionism without respect to the meaning of the formal expression he was attempting to explain. In this article I will act as if no such scholarly boundaries need exist, and proceed to look at a variety of expressive forms such as dreams, stories, folktales, rhymes, cartoons, and games as if they could all be part of the same conceptual domain. It is assumed that the understanding of any one of these will be increased by a study of its parallels and interactions with the others. There are four different categories of expressive forms to be dealt with here: (i) the imaginative phenomena such as dreams, stories, and fantasies whose normative character can be traced; (2) the folk forms such as games, tales, rhymes, and jokes; (3) the mass media forms, particularly those found in cartoons, comics, and movies; and finally (4) the art forms of drama, art, music, dance, and poetry. Although the term "childlore" applies only to the second of these categories, the point to be established is that childlore is best explicated within the context of all four, if all four indeed have a unity as expressive forms. By expressive forms it is meant that these are all ways of presenting or representing human experience, sufficiently consistent across individuals to permit functional and formal analyses. Given such unity, then, it might follow that analyses