Psychological Reports, 1992, 71, 83-103.

63 Psychological Reports 1992

THE ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE: AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT '

MARY ANN GLYNN AND JANE WEBSTER

School of Organization and Management College of Business Administration

k l e Universil)l The Pennsylvania State University

Summary.-We develop a theory-based measure of adults' playfulness, the Adult

Playfulness Scale. Five studies, conducted in laboratory and field sites with over 300
individuals, examine the psychometric properties and correlates of playfulness. As ex-
pected, playfulness relates to a set of psychological traits, including cognitive sponta-
neity and creativity, as well as to functional orientation and rank. No definitive telation-
ships were found, however, between adults' playfulness and gender or age, but playful-
ness related positively to work outcomes, including task evaluations, perceptions, in-
volvement, and performance, and provided more predictive efficacy than other psycho-
logical constructs studied here. Finally, the Adult Playfulness Scale demonstrates good
reliabihty and shows promise for the study of playhlness in the workplace.

We have long celebrated playfulness in children and animals; less atten-

tion has been paid to adults' playfulness, in spite of the recognition of its
existence. For example, adults have been known to evidence playful behav-
iors even when they are engaged in practical or serious activities (e.g., Bo-
logh, 1976) and in the workplace (e.g., Abramis, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi,
1975; Csikszentrnihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Pilcher, 1972; Roy, 1960), indi-
cating perhaps that work activities might be accomplished quite playfully at
times (Bowman, 1987). This literature suggests a need to study adults' play-
fulness rigorously and systematically and to consider its role in the work-
place. While playfulness exists on multiple levels, i.e., as a characteristic of
individuals (Lieberman, 1977), of interpersonal interactions (Goffman, 1974),
and of social systems (Blanchard, 1986; March, 1979), we focus on playful-
ness as an individual characteristic, i.e., a predisposition to define and en-
gage in activities in a nonserious or fanciful manner to increase enjoyment.
We examine playfulness at the individual level of analysis for two rea-
sons. First, conceptuahzing playfulness as an individual predisposition paral-
lels trends in the educational and anthropological literatures in which it is
argued that ". . . the definition of play should properly lie within the indi-
vidual" (Barnett, 1991, p. 52). Second, in the organizational literature, there

'The authors thank Ellen Auster, Dan Brass, Theresa Lant, Joe Martocchio, Lance Sandelands,
William Starbuck, and Michael Tushman for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. The
authors ratefully acknowledge support provided by the New York University Taggart Fellow-
ship, a n i the Division of Research of the Pennsylvania State University. Thanks go to students
of P e ~ s ~ l v a n State
i a University for participating in Study 1 and to the anonymous company for
providing access in Study 5. Narayan Pant, Sharon DeAngelo, and Paula Parascenzo provided
research assistance. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Professor
Mary Ann Glynn, School of Organization and Management, Yale University, Box l A , New
Haven, CT 06520.
84 M.A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

is a recognized need to develop measures of individual differences with

which to examine main and interaction effects in studies of work design
(Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986; Weiss & Adler, 1984) because personality has
been shown to affect work attitudes and performance (O'ReiUy, 1977). More
specifically, there have been calls for an appropriate individual difference
measure with which to assess interactions when tasks are labelled as "play"
(Cellar & Barrett, 1987; Tang & Baumeister, 1984). To address this need, we
describe a suitable and psychometrically sound instrument, the Adult Play-
fulness Scale.
The validity of examining adult playfulness is suggested by abundant
evidence indicating that playfulness is part of the normal personality (e.g.,
Barnett, 1990, 1991; Barnett & Kleiber, 1982, 1984; Cattell, 1950, 1979;
Lieberman, 1977; Singer & Rummo, 1973; Singer, Singer, & Sherrod, 1980).
Disappointingly, however, little empirical research on adults' playfulness has
been forthcoming, and virtually none is directed towards playfulness in the
workplace. One explanation may lie in our conceptions (or misconceptions)
of play as being marginal to adult life and work. However, we have ample
evidence that work does not preclude play and, in fact, playfulness may be
part of the fabric of organizational life (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Csikszentrni-
halyi & LeFevre, 1989; Roy, 1960).
Playfulness at work has important organizational implications. Research
has shown that playful behaviors at work can alleviate boredom, release ten-
sions, prevent aggression, and symbolize workgroup membership and solidar-
ity (Bowman, 1987). Playfulness often results in both individual and organi-
zational learning (Lieberman, 1977; Miller, 1973), adaptation (Blanchard,
1986; March, 1979; Weick, 1979), creativity (C~ikszentmihal~i, 1975; Ellis,
1973), community building (Bowman, 1987; Dandridge, 1986), greater atten-
tiveness to quality (Glynn, 1991), and better performance over-all (Webster,
1990; Webster, Heian, & Michelman, 1990). Thus, if playfulness is a rela-
tively stable characteristic, organizations may want to measure individual
employees' playfulness and consider this factor in job placement and the
design of different types of training programs.
In this paper, we conceptualize playfulness as a characteristic of the
player and position the trait within a constellation of personality, demograph-
ic, and organizationally defined characteristics. Because we are proposing'a
new theory-based measure of adults' playfulness with relevance to organiza-
tions, we provide an initial assessment of the construct validity and relia-
bility of the instrument. Data from five studies conducted in laboratory and
field settings with more than 300 adults are used to examine psychometric
properties and correlates of the scale.
The paper is divided into three parts. I n the first section, we review the
literature on playfulness as a component of personahty to delineate the char-
acteristics of playfulness. I n the next section, we develop a measure of
 THE ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 85

adults' playfulness and provide an initial assessment of its validity. In the

last section, we discuss the role of individual playfulness in organizations.
PLAYFULNESS
AND PERSONALITY
Despite the fact that playfulness is abundant in everyday life (Berger &
Luckman, 1966; Goffman, 1974), defining playfulness has proven difficult
and elusive (Berlyne, 1969). In part, this may be due to the ubiquitous na-
ture of playfulness: ". . . brief switchings into playfulness are everywhere
found in society, so much so that it is hard to become conscious of their
widespread occurrence" (Goffman, 1974, pp. 48-49). Further, conceptual
problems surround the term "play." In addition to describing individual
traits, play is also used to characterize experience, that is, the state of play-
fulness (e.g., Stevens, 1980), and even to represent a setting or an act op-
posing work (e.g., Tang & Baumeister, 1984). In this paper, we attempt to
define the concept of individual playfulness both conceptually and empirical-
ly.
We conceptualize adults' playfulness as an individual trait, a propensity
to define (or redefine) an activity in an imaginative, nonserious or meta-
phoric manner so as to enhance intrinsic enjoyment, involvement, and sat-
isfaction. Playfulness is a multidimensional construct, encompassing cogni-
tive, affective, and behavioral components, which together constitute a con-
tinuum along which individuals range from low to high. Starbuck and Web-
ster (1991) describe playfulness as a predisposition to extract immediate
pleasure from and become involved in activities. Playful interactions are en-
joyable, engaging, and not dependent on external needs (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975). A number of meanings are consistently associated with individual
playfulness; they can be summarized as:
IndividuaL with playful dispositions are said to be guided by internal motivation, an orientation
toward process with self-imposed goals, a tendency to attribute their own meanings to objects or
behaviors (that is, to not be dominated by a stimulus), a focus on pretense and nonliterality, a
freedom from externally imposed rules, and active involvement (Barnett, 1991, p. 52).

Correlates of Adults' Playfulness

The correlates of adults' playfulness are examined to study its concur-
rent, convergent, predictive, and incremental validities,' as well as its rela-
tionship to the demographic variables of gender and age.
Concurrent validity.-Concurrent validity is assessed by using the scores
on one variable to estimate scores on another, when both variables are rnea-
sured at the same time (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981). We examine

'In r h ~ spaper, we do not examine discriminant validity because it presupposes a well-established

nomolog~calnetwork; this network is what we are attempting to describe in thts study. Exarnin-
ing the d~scriminantvalidity is an important area for research with this scale.
86 M.A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

the concurrent validity of adults' playfulness by studying its relationships to

a set of psychological (i.e., cognitive spontaneity and creativity) and organi-
zationally based characteristics (i.e., functional orientation and organizational
rank).
Psychological correlates include cognitive spontaneity and creativity
which should relate positively to playfulness. Cognitive spontaneity is a con-
struct derived from observations of children's play (Lieberman, 1977). While
it represents a key facet of playfulness, i.e., curiosity, inventiveness, and
"playing with ideas," it does not fully describe playfulness because it does
not capture the emotional or social quality of play. We expect a direct, but
not perfect, relationship between cognitive spontaneity and playfulness.
Creativity has often been linked to playfulness (e.g., Amabile, 1988;
Lieberman, 1977). Although related, creativity is not synonymous with play-
fulness. Because creativity requires persistence, energy, and some level of
skill, it tends to be defined in terms of usefulness. In organizations, creative
invention and innovation typically arise in response to perceived needs, prob-
lems, or opportunities (Amabile, 1988; Daft, 1982). In contrast, highly
playful individuals tend to de-emphasize "needs" (Mdler, 1973). While play-
fulness and creative innovation overlap, they are distinguished by their dif-
ferent relationships to instrumentality and external demands (Glynn & Ibar-
ra, 1988) and seem to parallel the differences between adaptation and inno-
vation (Kirton & Pender, 1982).
Organizational correlates should include functional orientation. Since
highly playful people prefer social interaction over solitary activity (Goffman,
1974), we expect that highly playful individuals will populate those func-
tional areas that permit or encourage greater social interaction and expres-
siveness. As a means of approximating these social differences in functional
areas, we differentiate between relatively more qualitative fields (e.g., liberal
arts, management) which typically encourage greater social interaction and
relatively more quantitative fields (e.g., economics, finance), which typically
encourage more solitary action. Accordingly, we expect playfulness to be in-
versely related to quantitative orientation.
Playful behaviors have been observed at different levels in the organiza-
tional hierarchy, even on the shop floor (Roy, 1960). Similarly, joking has
been in evidence at different status levels (Duncan, 1985). I t is of interest,
therefore, to examine whether there is a relationship between individual
playfulness and organizational status.
Convergent validity.-Convergent validity is demonstrated if playfulness
converges more with a similar construct than with substantively different
constructs (GhiselLi, et al., 1981), that is, the magnitude of the correlation
between playfulness and one dimension of playfulness (cognitive spontaneity)
should be larger than the correlation between playfulness and other psycho-
logical constructs (creativity).
 THE ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 87

Predictive validity.-Predictive validity is an assessment of the accuracy

of estimating a future outcome from a current measure (Ghiselli, et al.,
1981). Individual playfulness has been shown to affect task evaluations, per-
ceptions, involvement, and performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Lieberman,
1977; Miller, 1973; Sandelands, Ashford, & Dutton, 1983). To assess predic-
tive vahdity, we examine the relationships of individual playfulness to the
following task outcomes.
In Task Evaluations it may be noted that playfulness is enjoyable and
pleasurable (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Starbuck & Webster, 1991). Sandelands
(1987, 1988) found that task evaluations were more favorable when tasks
were structured and signalled as "play" as opposed to "work." Because of
their internal disposition to define tasks in a playful manner and because a
playful definition of tasks tends to enhance evaluations, we expect highly
playful individuals to evaluate tasks more favorably.
Perceptions reflect playfulness as a cognitive frame or a mode for or-
ganizing experience (Miller, 1973; Schwartzman, 1980). Labelling a task as
"play" affects how it is perceived (Cellar & Barrett, 1987; Glynn, 1991;
Sandelands, 1987, 1988; Tang & Baumeister, 1984). For example, Webster
and her colleagues (1990) found that students were more likely to report a
playful experience for tasks labelled as "play" rather than as "work." In ad-
dition to social cues, personal orientation may also influence task perceptions
(O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1979): individuals are more likely to construct and in-
terpret tasks in ways that fit their dispositions. We expect that highly playful
individuals will tend to perceive and interpret tasks in ways that are less se-
rious and more fun and fanciful, i.e., playful.
Further, we propose that highly playful individuals will evaluate work
technologies more favorably than less playful individuals. Because hghly
playful individuals exhibit more curiosity and inventiveness, they should
perceive technological obstacles as less formidable and, consequently, find
technology easier to use. The playfulness of computer interactions depends
strongly on software's ease of use (Starbuck & Webster, 1991), i.e., the ex-
tent to which an individual believes that computer usage will be free of
effort (Davis, 1986). When employees perceive a computer technology easier
to use, they report more frequent experiences of pIayfulness (Trevino & Web-
ster, in press).
Involvement may be reflected in play so much that individuals relinquish
basic needs for its sake; highly playful individuals tend to become so ab-
sorbed that their focus of awareness is narrowed and involvement is height-
ened (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). We expect that playfulness will be positively
related to task involvement.
Performance, during playful task interactions, of individuals is reflected
in skills developed through exploratory behaviors; this results in enhanced
88 M. A . GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

learning (Miller, 1973). Such learning, in turn, often translates into higher
quality outputs. Several studies support thls argument. Computer trainees
who reported more playful spreadsheet interactions also learned more and
performed better (Webster, 1990; Webster, et a/., 1990). Similarly, Webster
and Martocchio (in press) found that individuals high in cognitive spontane-
ity learned more. Finally, Trevino and Webster (in press) indicated that
employees reporting higher playfulness in electronic and voice mail interac-
tions also reported increased system use and more positive changes in com-
munication-related work outcomes. We expect that playfulness will relate
positively to task performance.
Incremental validity.-Incremental validity, or predictive efficacy (Sech-
rest, 1963), refers to the incremental predictive power of a measure as com-
pared to other measures (Pierce, Garner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989).
That playfulness may show stronger relationships with task outcomes than
comparable predictor variables provides evidence of predictive efficacy. We
hypothesize that playfulness will have greater predictive power in explaining
outcomes, such as task evaluations, perceptions, involvement, and perform-
ance, than other personality constructs, i.e., cognitive spontaneity or crea-
tivity.
Demographic correlates.-Conflicting results on the link between playful-
ness and gender have been reported. For example, Costa and McCrae (1988)
found women to be more "socially" playful and men more "cognitively"
playful, while Csikszentmihalyi (1975) found women generally more playful.
While we do not offer any a priori hypothesis, we explore the relationship
between playfulness and gender.
As was the case for gender, mixed evidence on age has been reported.
Costa and McCrae (1988) found the need for social play to be inversely cor-
related with age, but 'intellectual curiosity' to be positively associated with
age. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) found a positive relationship between playful-
ness and age. Given these conflicting results, we explore the relationship
between adult age and playfulness.
To summarize our expectations for the individual correlates of adult
playfulness, we hypothesize that playfulness will relate positively to cognitive
spontaneity and creativity. Further, we propose that playfulness will relate in-
versely to quantitative orientation. We investigate the relationships of play-
fulness to organizational rank, gender, and age. Finally, we propose that play-
fulness will relate positively to task outcomes such as evaluations, percep-
tions, involvement, and performance and that it will relate more strongly to
these outcomes than other personality constructs studied here.
METHOD
Five studies provided an initial assessment of the validity and correlates
of the Adult Playfulness Scale. Internal consistency reliability, using coeffi-
 T H E ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 89

cient alpha (Cronbach, 1951), test-retest reliability (assessed over two time
periods one month apart), factor analysis, concurrent validity, and conver-
gent validity were examined.
Study Designs and Respondents
These studies were conducted at five different sites with over 300 indi-
viduals. The five studies encompass a wide range of individuals, from college
students to employees, and examine playfulness in different geographic re-
gions of the USA and under different research conditions: Studies 1, 4, and
5 are laboratory studies; Studies 2 and 3 are surveys. All participants took
part voluntarily and under conditions of anonymity and confidentiality. Ta-
ble 1 below (pp. 94-96) gives the descriptive statistics (i.e., means and
- -

standard deviations) for gender and age for each sample.

Study 1 consisted of 90 undergraduate students from a large, public,
northeastern university who took part in a laboratory study for course credit.
O n average, each had one year of full-time work experience. I n the study,
the students, who were all familiar with computer spreadsheet programs, ex-
plored a new spreadsheet program. I n Study 2, 52 graduate students of a
large, public, southeastern university completed a questionnaire measuring
individual characteristics. O n average, each participant had five years of full-
time work experience. In Study 3, 68 graduate students in management at
a small, private, northeastern university completed a questionnaire as part of
a classroom exercise on decision-making. O n average, each participant had
six years of full-time work experience. In Study 4, 82 Master of Business
Administration (MBA) students attending a large, private, northeastern uni-
versity participated in a laboratory experiment in which they solved a series
of word puzzles. O n average, each participant had three years of full-time
work experience. I n Study 5 [part of a larger study reported by Webster
(1989)], 42 employees of a large west-coast utility who were familiar with
spreadsheet programs explored a new spreadsheet program. O n average, each
participant had several years of postsecondary education and 10 years of
full-time work experience. No compensation was given to the studies' par-
ticipants except in Study 4, where participants had a 1-in-30 chance of win-
ning a $200 lottery.
Measures
The Adult Playfulness Scale.-There was a need to construct a measure
of adult playfulness suitable for the workplace because none existed. Jack-
son's (1984) "Play" scale, which loads on the major factor of "Extraversion"
(Costa & McCrae, 1988), with adjectives such as jovial, pleasure-seeking,
merry, and carefree, captures primarily the humorous, emotional, and social
nature of play; however, it lacks the behavioral or cognitive elements that
tend to facilitate playful interactions at work. I n addition, while Jackson's
(1984) "UnderstandingH scale, loading on the major factor of "Openness to
90 M. A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

Experience" (Costa & McCrae, 19881, captures cognitive aspects of playful-

ness, it is less suitable as a measure of playfulness because it contains some
adjectives (e.g., logical and rational) which should not be associated with
playfulness (March, 1979; Sandelands, 1987). The Adult Playfulness Scale
described herein represents a more comprehensive measure of adults' playful-
ness, incorporating the factors of spontaneity, expressiveness, fun, creativity,
and silliness that may affect organizational outcomes. These factors parallel
previous research on the trait of playfulness in children and adolescents
(Lieberman, 1977; Barnett, 1990, 1991). Existing measures of playfulness
for these younger groups were not usable for adults for two reasons. First,
they require assessments by a teacher, day-care provider, or educational sup-
port personnel, and second, they include items that ate unsuitable for adults,
e.g., "The child is willing to share playthings," or "The child sings and talks
while playing" (Barnett, 1991, p. 56).
The Adult Playfulness Scale uses the semantic differential, a highly gen-
eralizable technique of measurement which assesses the meaning of a con-
cept. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1955, pp. 76-77) have used the se-
mantic differential to examine concepts of "considerable variety" including
self-concepts such as "me" and "my ideal self." The Adult Playfulness Scale
was derived from a 63-item prototype tested on 90 volunteer adults (Glynn,
1988). The scale was developed with the goal of distinguishing high playful-
ness from low playfulness in the workplace. O n the prototype scale, respon-
dents were asked to make judgments independently about the meaning of
play and work on 7-point adjective scales. This 63-item prototype contained
the 50 items of the original semantic differential (Osgood, et al., 1955) plus
13 adjective scales believed to be particularly germane for differentiating
play from work, i.e., creative-uncreative, interesting-uninteresting, challeng-
ing-boring, efficient-inefficient, emotional-unemotional, inventive-uninven-
tive, imaginative-unimaginative, routine-variable, fun-boring, literal-expres-
sive, exciting-dull, and satisfying-unsatisfying. To enhance construct validity,
an additional pair of adjectives (playful-serious) was added.
The Adult Playfulness Scale was constructed by selecting those adjec-
tive pairs which evidenced good discriminant validity in differentiating work
from play (84% of items) and had face validity as a personality measure,
e.g., adjective pairs such as yellow-blue, bitter-sweet, and rich-poor were
omitted. Unlike the prototype that contrasted the meanings of play -and
work, the scale measures a relatively stable characteristic of the individual by
instructing the respondent "to describe how you would characterize yourself
in general." In sum, the scale is suitable for assessing playfulness in organiza-
tions because it was developed with the objective of differentiating play from
work, tested on adults with significant employment experience, and is a
short, self-rated, context-free measure designed to maximize the difference
between high and low playfulness in adults.
 THE ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 91

The final version of the scale, with directions to respondents, is pre-

sented in Appendix A (p. 103). Respondents mark the scale to indicate how
closely one member of a polar adjective pair relates to their concept of self.
Following other researchers, scores for the adjective pairs are summed (Ker-
linger & Pedhazur, 1973) to calculate a playfulness score. All items except
two (predictable-unpredictable and serious-playful) are reverse scored so that
higher scores indicate greater playfulness.
For each of the following measures, reliability estimates were calculated
with coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) and are reported by study on the di-
agonals of Table 1 below (pp. 94-96).
Cognitive xpontaneity.-The Cognitive Spontaneity Scale for adults was
constructed from Lieberman's (1977) cognitive spontaneity factor. Individu-
als characterize themselves on 7-point scales using adjectives such as spon-
taneous, unimaginative (reverse-scored), experimenting, curious, inquiring,
and playful. Based on a pilot study, the instrument was modified, resulting
in 11 items (Webster & Martocchio, 1990). Over Studies 1, 2, and 5 , coef-
ficients alpha ranged from .68 to .74.
Creativity.-In Studies 1, 2, and 5 , the 30-item, self-rated Creative Per-
sonality Scale, part of the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983),
was administered; coefficients alpha ranged from .67 to .71. This scale is
significantly related to other measures of creativity, shows strong correlations
with criterion evaluations (Gough, 1979), and evidences construct validity
and temporal stability (Barron & Harrington, 1981).
I n Study 4, an alternate and organizationally derived measure was used.
In a 5-point question adapted from the Job Descriptive Survey (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980), .l:spondents indicated whether they preferred "A job where
the pay is very good" or "A job where there is considerable opportunity to
be creative and innovative." Higher scores indicated a stronger preference for
creative work.
Quantitative orientation.-Students' major fields of study were coded.
We coded management, marketing, liberal arts, and international business as
lower in quantitative orientation (O), and accounting, information systems,
economics, finance, and quantitative analysis as higher in quantitative orien-
tation (1).
Organizational rank.-Employees were classified as either clerical (0) or
staff (1).
Evaluations.-Participants in Study 1 used a 26-item semantic differen-
tial scale with adjectives such as good-bad, valuable-worthless, and pleasant-
unpleasant. The scale is reported fully by Glynn (1988) and has high relia-
bility, i.e., coefficient alpha = .93. Higher scores indicate more positive task
evaluations.
Perceptions.-Task perceptions in Study 4 were assessed in terms of
72 M. A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

their resemblance to six activities, three of which were work-like and three
play-like. A dichotomous variable was created based on the participant's re-
sponse (0 = work activity, 1 = play activity). Study 5 utdized a measure de-
rived from Csikszentmihalyi's (1775) list of feelings during playful activities.
Respondents checked whether their experiences in the laboratory task were
similar to one of five activities, e.g., "designing or discovering something
new." In addition, Study 5 assessed perceived ease of use of work technol-
ogy with Davis' (1986) 5-item measure, which uses 7-point scales, anchored
by likely (1) and unlikely (7). For example, one item states: "I would find
the package easy to use" (reverse-scored). Davis reports high reliability
(Cronbach alpha = .91) for this scale.
Inuo1uement.-In Study 4, an 11-item scale was constructed to evaluate
participants' task involvement. Subjects used a 5-point scale, anchored on
strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5), to respond to statements such as
"I felt very involved." Higher scores indicate greater involvement; coeffi-
cient alpha was .63.
Performance.-In Study 5, employees' outputs (worksheets and graphs)
were graded by two independent evaluators on two criteria, accuracy and em-
bellishments (e.g., formatting numbers and adding a title). Coders' interrater
reliability was .83.
RESULTS
Scale Analyses
To conduct a factor analysis of scale meaning, Studies 3 and 4 were
combined to yield a total of 147 responses.' Factor analysis (conducted with
SPSS' procedure FACTOR, specifying principal components, varimax rota-
tion) resulted in 25 items loading on five factors; this is presented in Table
2. The factors, named for the adjective with the highest loading, are Sponta-
neous, Expressive, Fun, Creative, and Silly; together they account for
57.5% of the variance. These five factors capture key characteristics of play-
fulness described in the literature, i.e., that playfulness is unconstrained,
voluntary, and need independent (Factor I), evocative and enjoyable (Factor
11), humorous and fun-loving (Factor 111), inventive (Factor IV), and nonsen-
sical, purposeless, or irrational (Factor V). Subscales constructed from these
factors result in reliable measures: Cronbach coefficients alpha were .83 for
Spontaneous, .82 for Expressive, .78 for Fun, .81 for Creative, and .73 for
Silly. The existence of these factors substantiates theoretical ideas by incor-
porating cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of playfulness. This

'We combined the samples of graduate students in management because, as Nunnally (1978, p.
370) notes, "Unless one is specifically interested in factors relating to age and education, it is
wise to employ groups that are rather homogeneous in those regards." No significant differences
between the two student sarn les were found on the mean scale scores (t144<.50). Reliability,
measured by Cmnbach alpha, for the combined sample was .91.
 THE ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 93

factor structure for adults corresponds to that found for children. Three of
Lieberman's (1977) five factors, "cognitive spontaneity," "physical spontane-
ity," and "social spontaneity," are captured by Factors I (Spontaneity) and
IV (Creative); "manifest joy" corresponds to Factor I1 (Expressiveness) and
"sense of humor" corresponds to Factors I11 (Fun) and V (Silly). In addition,
Factors IV (Creative) and V (Silly) point to the transformational or framing
processes involved in playfulness, i.e., the creative or fanciful manner in
w h c h l~teralmeanings are rendered silly, meaningless, or nonsensical.
Whde it is possible to construct factor scales to differentiate finely
among aspects of playfulness, we did not. Our purpose was to use a con-
struct with maximum freedom to relate to other individual constructs.
Therefore, it was advisable to use the most comprehensive indicator of play-
fulness, i.e., the full, 25-item measure.
Table 1 below reports means, standard deviations, and coefficients alpha
for the Adult Playfulness Scale by study. The scale demonstrates good distri-
butional properties across the five studies: means ranged from 106.20 to
114.61, and, in all cases, skewness was less than 0.70 and kurtosis was less
than 0.88. Kendall and Stuart (1958) indicate that departures from normality
are extreme when the measure of skewness approaches 2 and that of kurtosis
exceeds 5. The consistently high scale reliabilities (alpha? .87), and a test-
retest reliability of .84 in Study 1, are evidence of the scale's internal con-
sistency and homogeneity of items.
Correlates of Adult Playfulness
Table 1 presents the correlations used to examine associations of playful-
ness with other constructs. As expected, playfulness relates significantly and
positively to cognitive spontaneity (aU rs 2 . 4 5 , p < .01) and creativity (all
r s r .29, p < .01), thereby providing evidence for concurrent validity. Further,
playfulness relates negatively to quantitative functional orientation (dr s S
-.34, p<.05), and clerical employees score higher in playfulness than staff
employees (r = -.40, p < .05, where 0 = clerical, and 1 = staff). In addition,
convergent validity is supported: except for one correlation (in Study S ) , the
magnitude of the correlation of the scale scores with one facet of playfulness
(cognitive spontaneity) was stronger than the correlation of the scale scores
with another personality trait, creativity.
Results support predictive validity: playfulness relates positively to task
evaluations, perceptions, involvement, and performance (all rs? .18, p < .05).
Further, these correlations are higher than those between either cognitive
spontaneity or creativity with the same outcomes, supporting incremental va-
lidity. In sum, results of these studies provide an initial validation of the
Adult Playfulness Scale.
Over-all, there were no consistent correlations between playfulness and
either gender or age. For gender, mixed results emerged: three studies yielded
 TABLE 1
MEANS,STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
AND PEARSON
CORRELATIONS
OF PRIMARY
VARIABLES

Studies M SD n Correlations '.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Undergraduate Students
Personality Characteristics
1. Playfulness 112.17 16.54 78 (87)
2. Cognitive Spontaneity 58.14 6.57 88 49$ (74)
3. Creativity 5.57 3.99 90 36$ 47$ (67)
Functional Orientation
4. Quantitative Orientation
(0: no, 1: yes) 0.13 0.34 83 -40$ -20' 26t (NA)
Demographic Characteristics
5. Gender (0: male, 1: female) 0.46 0.50 90 -09 -09 -25' 14 (NA)
6. Age 20.99 3.05 90 18' 07 -08 07 03 (NA)
Outcomes
7. Task Evaluation 136.87 18.01 88 24' 16 02 09 13 07 (93)
2. Graduate Students
Personality Characteristics
1. Playfulness 102.20 22.83 49 (93)
2. Cognitive Spontaneity 59.57 6.73 51 66$ (68)
3. Creativity 5.48 4.36 52 593 71t (72)
Functional Orientation
4. Quantitative Orientation
(0: no, 1: yes) 0.83 0.38 47 -34' -38t -31' (NA)
Demographic Characteristics
5. Gender (0: male, 1: female) 0.35 0.48 51 -14 -32' -29' 11 (NA)
6. Age 28.75 6.20 51 -10 18 17 -07 -08 (NA)
(continued on next page)
" Decimals omitted. Reliabilities on the diagonal. Interrater reliability.
'p<.05. t p c . 0 1 . Sp<.OOl.
 TABLE 1 (CONT'D)
MEANS,STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
A N D PEARSON
CORRELATIONS
OF PRIMARY
VARIABLES

Studies M SD n Correlations
1 -? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. Graduate Management Students
Personality Characteristics
1. Playfulness 113.06 18.42 64 (90)
Functional Orientation
2. Quantitative Orientation
(0: no, 1: yes) 0.41 0.53 22 -50* (NA)
Demographic Characteristics
3. Gender (0: male, 1: female) 0.44 0.50 68 13 02 (NA)
4. Age 30.40 4.46 68 -24* 25* -10 (NA)
4. MBA Students
Penonality Characteristics
1. Playfulness 114.61 18.85 82 (89)
2. Creativity 3.57 1.09 82 30$ (NA)
Demographic Characteristics
3. Gender (0: male, 1: female) 0.51 0.50 82 25$ 18 (NA)
4. Age 26.25 3.13 71 -22* 14 14 (NA)
Outcomes
5. Perceived Playfulness 0.44 0.50 82 18* 12 -23* 35t (NA)
6. Involvement 27.46 6.16 82 18* -16 08 -12 22* (63)
5. Utility Employees
Penonality Characteristics
1. Playfulness 107.82 17.82 36 (89)
2. Cognitive Spontaneity 59.21 6.24 42 457 (74)
3. Creativity 5.12 3.98 42 59$. 62$ (71)
(continued on next page)
' Decimals omitted. Reliabilities on the diagonal. Interrater reliability. ,
\D
i
 TABLE 1 (CONT'D)
MEANS,STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
A N D PEARSON OF PRIMARY
CORRELATIONS VARIABLES

Studies M SD n Correlations ' 8 %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ?
Organizational Rank 0
4. Organizational Rank
(0: clerical, 1: staff)
Demographic Characteristics
5. Gender (0: male, 1: female)
6. Age
0.61

0.79
37.93
0.49

0.42
6.45
41

42
42
-40*

-30'
-29"
07

-53$
-31'
-21

-43t
-15
(NA)

-06
30*
(NA)
30' (NA)
-i3
z
Z
R

Outcomes
7. Perceived Playfulness
8. Perceived Ease of Use
29.27
27.34
5.39
6.85
41
41
28*
32*
-13
08
24
19
-05
-11
09
14
05
01
(73)
427 (94)
2
rn
W
9. Task Performance 2.33 0.94 33 43t 10 14 -28 01 -01 21 38* (83)'
Decimals omitted. Reliabilities on the diagonal. ' Interrater reliability.
*p<.05. tp<.Ol. Sp<.OOl.
 T H E ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 97

no correlations, one a positive value, and one a negative value. We conclude

that there is no direct association between playfulness and gender in light of
these mixed results. Similarly, for age, mixed results were found: from one
study there was no correlation, from another study a positive value and three
negative values. While, on balance, more studies reported negative correla-
tions for age, we cannot conclude that any direct association exists between
playfulness and age.

TABLE 2
OF THE ADULTPLAYFULNESS
FACTORANALYSIS SCALEUSWG
PFXNCIPAL
COMPONENT,VARIMAX
ROTATION*

Item I I1 I11 IV V
Spontaneous Expressive Fun Creative Silly
SpontaneousJdisciplined .77
Impdsive/diligent .74
Ad~enturous/~urposeful .71
Carefree/careful .66
Free-spirited/disciplined .62
Fun/earnest .46
Expressive/self-controlled .75
Bouncylstaid .70
Open/reserved .68
Animatedlpassive .61
Emotional/intellectual .57
Excitable/serene .57
Fun/ boring .78
Bright/dd .77
Exciting/dull .68
Playful/serious .53
Brightldark .43
Creative/uncreative
Imaginative/unimaginative
AcdveJpasive
Silly/sensible
C hildlikelmature
Whimsical/practical
Frivolous/productive
Unpredictable/predictable
E~genvalue 8.39 4.58 2.42
% Var~ance 26.20 14.30 7.60
*Only factor loadmgs greater than or equal to .40 are reported.

DISCLJSSION
The objective of this research was to describe an initial validation of a
measure of adult playfulness applicable for the workplace, the Adult Playful-
ness Scale. Over the five studies, the scale evidenced good reliabllities and
validities. Playful individuals were characterized by high cognitive spontane-
98 M. A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

ity and creativity; playfulness was related inversely to organizational rank

and quantitative functional orientation. No definitive correlations between
playfulness and either gender or age were found. More playful individuals
showed higher task evaluations, involvement, and performance, as well as
more playful perceptions. Further, playfulness provided more predictive effi-
cacy than the other psychological constructs studied here. These results
suggest the viability of the scale and the importance of studying adults' play-
fulness in the workplace.
The research program encompassed five studies with over 300 individu-
als, representing considerable diversity in research settings (laboratory and
field sites) and types of respondents. Participants ranged from college stu-
dents to seasoned employees; such diversity enhances the generalizability of
the results. While there is variance in demographic characteristics across the
five studies, there is generally less variance within samples in terms of age,
education, and work experience. I n addition, examining the relationship of
the scale to other psychological correlates would be of great interest. Of par-
ticular merit would be an exploration of the scale to the Kirton Adaption-
Innovation Inventory (Kirton, 1976); we would expect playfulness and inno-
vation, particularly as measured by the "Originality" subscale, to be strongly
related. Researchers should continue to assess the validity of the playfulness
scale, particularly with different types of adult populations and with popula-
tions containing greater variance in age, education, and work experience.
Further, researchers should continue to examine the factor structure of play-
fulness and to relate the factors to outcomes of interest. For example, per-
haps the first factor (spontaneous) is more applicable for certain types of
tasks and situations than is the fifth factor (silly).
Previous research has shown that individual playfulness affects work
perceptions and attitudes, subjective experiences, work motivation, and per-
formance (Csikszentmlhalyi, 1975; Lieberman, 1977; Miller, 1973; Sande-
lands, et al., 1983). Research is needed on both the short-term and long-term
consequences of playfulness. For instance, there is an obvious need to under-
stand longer-term effects, such as adaptability, flexibility, and learning, that
can ensue from playfulness in the workplace. Qualitative or ethnographic re-
search offers a means of contextualizing play and understanding the fabric of
playfulness, and, in particular, its functional and dysfunctional aspects.
Worthy of further investigation is an examination of the relationship
between structural characteristics of activities and the expression of playful-
ness. If, as the results of this paper suggest, playfulness is a relatively stable
characteristic of individuals, organizational management may adopt different
types of training programs for those high and low in playfulness. The factor
structure of playfulness offers some clues as to how this might be accom-
plished. Tasks may be structured to de-emphasize goals and to emphasize the
 T H E ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 99

importance of individual expressiveness, spontaneity, and inventiveness. The

factor structure also provides sets of adjectives associated with playfulness.
These words may be used as subtle cues or labels for work activities so as to
make them more playful. Further, future research should tease apart the rela-
tive effects of different dimensions of playfulness (i.e., factor scales) on or-
ganizational outcomes.
Situationally grounded research exploring the kinds of tasks, situations,
and organizational cultures under which playfulness finds expression is like-
wise needed. I n addition, researchers might explore the applicability of the
scale in settings other than the workplace, such as in schools or recreational
contexts. Because the scale was developed to maximize differences between
work and play, was tested with MBA students, employees, and other adults
with considerable work experience and was correlated with task outcomes,
the question of its generalizability to settings other than the workplace is
open to future empirical inquiry.
The emphasis here has been on internal attributes. Individual character-
istics are most predictive of behavior when the environment is weak or
unstructured (Mischel, 1973). A complete model of playfulness must take
into account those contextual or environmental variables that facilitate as
well as impede the manifestation of individuals' playfulness. A potentially
playful individual may wither in an environment that does not foster, or that
actively inhibits, a display of creative behavior. Such work environments, un-
fortunately, are not rare. A complete theory of playfulness, therefore, will
ultimately be as much a theory of environments as of persons. Obviously,
there are as many approaches to exploring the playfulness of adults as there
are players. This work on play is but a beginning.

REFERENCES
ABRAMIS, D. (1990) Play in work: childish hedonism or adult enthusiasm? American Behavioral
Scientist, 33, 353.j71.
AMMILE,T. M. (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Curnrn~ngs(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Pp.
123-167.
BARNETT, L. A. (1990) Playfulness: definition, design, and measurement. Play and Culture, 3,
319-336.
BARNETT,L. A. (1991) The playful child: measurement of a disposition ro play. Pluy and
Culture, 4, 51-74.
BARNETT,L. A,, & KLEBER,D. A. (1982) Concomitants of playfulness in early childhood: cog-
nitive abilities and gender. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 115-127.
BARNETT,L. A,, & KLEIBER,D. A. (1984) Playfulness and the early environment. Journal of
Generic Psychology, 144, 153-164.
BARRON,F., & HARRNGTON, D. M. (1981) Creativiry, intelligence, and personality. In M. R.
Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews. Pp. 439-476.
BERGER,P. L., & LUCKMAN, T. (1966) The social conshuction ofreality. New York: Doubleday.
BERLYNE,D. E. (1969) Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook ofsocial psychology. Reading, M A : Addison-Wesley. Pp. 795-852.
100 M. A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

BLANCHARD, K. (1986) Play as ada tation: the work-play dichotomy revisited. In B. Mergen
(Ed.), Cultural dimensions orplay, games, and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Po. 79-87.
BOLOGH,R. W. (1976) On fooling around: a phenomenological analysis of playfulness. The
AnnaLr ofPhenomenologica1 Sociology, 1, 113-125.
BOWMAN, J. R. (1987) Making work play. In Meanindul phy, playful meanings. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics. PD. 61-71.
CATTELL, R. B. (1950) Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
CAITELL,R. B. (1979) Personality and learning theory. Vol. 1. The structure of personality in ik
environment. New York: Springer.
CELLAR,D. F., & BARRETT,G. V. (1987) Script processing and intrinsic motivation: the cogni-
tive sets underlying cognitive labels. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 40, 115-135.
COSTA,P T., & MCCRAE, R. R. (1988) From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.
CRONBACH, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297-334.
CSTKSZENTMMALYI, M. (1975) Play and intrinsic rewards. lournal of Humanistic Psychology, 15,
41-63.
CSMSZENTMIHALYI, M., & LEFEVRE,J. (1989) Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815-822.
D m , R. L. (1982) Bureaucratic versus nonbureaucracic structure and the rocess of innovation
and change. In S. Bachrach & N. D. Tomaso (Eds.), Research in t& sociology of organi-
zations. Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Pp. 129-166.
DANDRIDGE, T. C. (1986) Ceremony as an integration of work and play. Organization Studies, 7,
159-170.
DAVIS, F. (1986) A technolo acceptance model for empirically resting new end-user informa-
tion systems. unpubli%ed doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, MA.
DUNCAN, W. J. (1985) The superiority theory of humor at work. Small Group Behavior, 16,
556-564.
ELMS,M. J. (1973) Why people play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
GHISEWJ,E. E., CAMPBELL, J. P., & ZEDECK,S. (1981) Measurement theory for the behavioral
sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
GLYNN,M. A. (1988) The erceptual structuring of tasks: a cognitive approach to understand-
ing task attitudes mibehavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Univer., New
York.
GLYNN,M. A. (1991) Framing tasks: the effects of the work and play frames on task attitudes,
behaviors and information recessing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The
Association for the Study o h l a y , Charleston, SC.
GLYNN,M. A,, & IBARKA, H. (1988) Innovating and ludiology: elaborations on the technology
of foolishness. Paper presented at the m u d meeting of the Academy of Management,
Anaheim, CA.
GOFFMAN,E. (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
GOUGH,H. G. (1979) A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.
GOUGH,H . G . , & HEILBRUN,A. B. (1983) The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
HACKMAN, J. R., & OLDHAM, G . R. (1980) Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
JACKSON,D. N. (1984) Personality Research Form, manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psy-
chologists Press.
KENDALL, M. G., & STUART,A. (1958) The advanced theory of statistics. New York: Hafner.
KERUNGER, F. N., & P E D H A Z E.~ , J. (1973) Multiple regression in behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
K ~ T O NM., J. (1976) Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 622-629.
 T H E ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE 101

KIRTON,M. J., & PENDER,S. (1982) The adaption-innovation continuum, occupational type,
and course selection. Psychological Reports, 51, 883-886.
LIEBF.RMAN, J. N. (1977) Plnyfulness. New York: Academic Press.
MARCH, J. G . (1979) The technology of foolishness. In J. G . March (Ed.), Decisions and orga-
nizations. London: Blackwell. Pp. 253-265.
MILLER, S. (1973) Ends, means, and galumphing: some leitmotifs of play. American Anthro-
pologist, 75, 87-89.
MISCHEL, W. (1973) Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of
Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
NUNNALLY, J. C. (1978) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-W.
O'REILLY, C. A. (1977) Personality-job fit: implications for individual attitudes and
ance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 36-46.
O'REILLY, C. A,, & CALDWELL, D. (1979) Informational influence as a determinant of task
characteristics and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 157-165.
OSGOOD,C. E., SUCI, G. J., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. (1955) The measurement of meaning.
Urbana, IL: Univer. of Illinois Press.
PIERCE,J. L., GARNER,D. G . , CUMMINGS, L. L., & DUNHAM,R. B. (1989) Organiza-
tion-based self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management lournal, 32, 622-648.
PILCHER,W. W. (1972) The Portland longshoremen: a dispersed urban communily. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
ROY, D. F. (1960) 'Banana Time': job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organ-
ization, 18, 158-168.
SANDELANDS, L. E. (1987) Task grammar and attitudes. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 224-243.
SANDELANDS, L. E. (1988) Effects of work and play signals on task evaluation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1032-1048.
SANDELANDS, L. E., ASHFORD,S. J., & DUTTON,J. E. (1983) Reconceptualizing the overjus-
tification effect: a template-matching approach. Mohvahon and Emotion, 7, 229-255.
SCHWARTZMAN, H. B. (1980) Further studies of work and play. I n H. B. Schwartzman (Ed.),
Ploy and culiure. West Point, NJ: Leisure Press. Pp. 315-324.
SECHREST,L. (1963) Incremental validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23,
153-158.
SINGER,D. G., & RUMMO,J. (1973) Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kindergarten
aged children. Developmental Psychology, 3, 154-161.
SINGER,J. L., SINGER,D. G., & SHERROD,L. R. (1980) A factor analytic study of
pre-schooler's play behavior. American Psychology Bulletin, 2, 143-156.
STARBUCK, W. H., & WEBSTER, J. (1991) When is play productive? Accounting, Management, &
Information Technologies, 1, 71-90.
STAW,B. M., BELL, N. E., & CLAUSEN, J. A. (1986) The dispositional approach to job atti-
tudes: a lifetime longitudinal approach. Administrative Science Quar~rly,31, 56-77.
STEVENS,P (1980) Play and work: a false dichotomy? In H. B. Schwartzman (Ed.), Plny and
culture. West Point, NJ: Leisure Press. Pp. 316-324.
TANG,T. L., & BAUMEISTER, R. F. (1984) Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance,
and task labels on task preference: the ideology of turning play into work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 99-105.
TREVINO,L. K., & WEBSTER,J. (in press) Flow in computer-mediated communication: elec-
tronic mail and voice evaluation. Communications Research.
WEBSTER,J. (1989) Playfulness and computers at work. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New
York Univer., New York.
WEBSTER,J. (1990) The relationship between playfulness of computer interactions and em-
ployee productivity. In K. Kaiser & H. J. Oppelland (Eds.), Desktop information tech-
nology. Amsterdam: ElsevierlNorth Holland. Pp. 357-372.
WEBSTER,J. (1991) Studying the state of playfulness in human computer interactions. (Work-
ing Paper, Pennsylvania State Univer.)
WEBSTER,J., HEIAN,J., & MICHELMAN, J. (1990) Computer training and computer anxiety in
the educational process: an experimental analysis. In J. I. DeGross (Ed.), Proceedings of
102 M. A. GLYNN & J. WEBSTER

the Eleventh International Conference on Information Systems. Copenhagen: Conference.

Pp. 171-182.
Wmsm, J., & MARTOCCHIO, J. J. (in press) Microcomputer playfulness: development of a
measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly.
WEICK,K. (1979) The social prycholog~of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
WEISS,H. M., & ADLER,S. (1984) Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviol: Vol. 6 . Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pp. 1-50.

Accepted May 19, 1992.

 T H E ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE

APPENDIX A

THE ADULTPLAYFULNESS
SCALE
-- -- p~ -

Please describe ourselF by ~ l a c i n aa check mark in the space near the adjective which you feel
is more d e s c r i p t i v e o f .
Below are a number of ad'ectives that might be used to describe how you would characterize
yourself in ~eneral.The adjectives are grouped in pairs with the two adjectives in each pair re-
ferring to more or less opposite characteristics.
For example, if you feel that you are verv closelv associated with one end of the scale, you
might place your check mark as follows:
--- -- - X down
If you feel onlv sliahtlv related to one side as opposed to the other, you might check it as fol-
lows:
Up- -- X - - - -down
Work at fairly high speed, without worrying or puzzling over the individual items for long
periods. It is your f i t impressions that we want.

adventurous purposeful
animated -passive
bouncy - -staid
calm agitated
bright d d
carefree - careful
childlike -m a w
easy -austere
excitable - -serene
ex~ressive- - - - - - -self-controlled
free-spirited - - - - - - -disciplined

- - - - - - -full
frivolous -------productive
relaxed - - - - - - -tense
bright - - - - - - -dark
fun - - - - - - -earnest

spontaneous - - - - - - -disciplined
whimsical ~ractical

fun - - - - - - -boring
serious - - - - - - -~ l a v f u l
exciting - - - - - - -buil
competitive cooperative
- - -- -- -
This article has been cited by:

1. René T. Proyer. 2014. To Love and Play: Testing the Association of Adult Playfulness with the
Relationship Personality and Relationship Satisfaction. Current Psychology 33, 501-514. [CrossRef]
2. R.T. Proyer. 2014. Perceived functions of playfulness in adults: Does it mobilize you at work, rest,
and when being with others?. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied
Psychology 64, 241-250. [CrossRef]
3. Ji Eun Kim, Nary Shin. 2014. Effects of Playfulness, Play Support Beliefs and Parenting Stress on
Intimate Parenting in Mothers of Young Children. Korean Journal of Human Ecology 23, 571-585.
[CrossRef]
4. John E. Ettlie, Kevin S. Groves, Charles M. Vance, George L. Hess. 2014. Cognitive style and
innovation in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management 17, 311-326. [CrossRef]
5. R.T. Proyer. 2014. Playfulness over the lifespan and its relation to happiness. Zeitschrift für
Gerontologie und Geriatrie 47, 508-512. [CrossRef]
6. Peeranut Kanhadilok, Mike Watts. 2014. Youth at play: some observations from a science museum.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 1-16. [CrossRef]
7. René T. Proyer, Nicole Jehle. 2013. The basic components of adult playfulness and their relation with
personality: The hierarchical factor structure of seventeen instruments. Personality and Individual
Differences 55, 811-816. [CrossRef]
8. Cale D. Magnuson, Lynn A. Barnett. 2013. The Playful Advantage: How Playfulness Enhances
Coping with Stress. Leisure Sciences 35, 129-144. [CrossRef]
9. Sunil Erevelles, Nobuyuki Fukawa. 2013. The Role of Affect in Personal Selling and Sales
Management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 33, 7-24. [CrossRef]
10. Hye Jin Kwon. 2012. The Mediating Effect of Teachers' Positive Beliefs about Children's Play on
the Relationship between Playfulness in Teachers and Teaching Efficacy on Children's Play. Korean
Journal of Child Studies 33, 133-147. [CrossRef]
11. Myoung-Soon Kim, Gil-Sook Kim, Chan-Hwa Park. 2012. The Development and Validity of the
Children's Playfulness Rating Scale. Korean Journal of Child Studies 33, 69-89. [CrossRef]
12. René T. Proyer. 2011. Being playful and smart? The relations of adult playfulness with psychometric
and self-estimated intelligence and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences 21,
463-467. [CrossRef]
13. Alexander Serenko. 2008. A model of user adoption of interface agents for email notification.
Interacting with Computers 20, 461-472. [CrossRef]
14. GERALD A. FIX, CHARLES SCHAEFER. 2005. NOTE ON PSYCHOMETRIC
PROPERTIES OF PLAYFULNESS SCALES WITH ADOLESCENTS. Psychological Reports
96:3c, 993-994. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
15. Albert Caruana, Joseph Vella. 2004. The relationship between adult playfulness and viewers’ response
to advert execution: an initial exploration. Management Research News 27, 61-76. [CrossRef]
16. Dana L. Alden, Ashesh Mukherjee, Wayne D. Hoyer. 2000. The Effects of Incongruity, Surprise
and Positive Moderators on Perceived Humor in Television Advertising. Journal of Advertising 29,
1-15. [CrossRef]
17. NICHOLAS BOZIONELOS. 1997. PSYCHOLOGY OF COMPUTER USE: XLV. COGNITIVE
SPONTANEITY AS A CORRELATE OF COMPUTER ANXIETY AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD COMPUTER USE. Psychological Reports 80:2, 395-402. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
18. NICHOLAS BOZIONELOS. 1996. COGNITIVE SPONTANEITY AND LEARNING STYLE.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 83:1, 43-48. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
19. MARY ANN GLYNN, JANE WEBSTER. 1993. REFINING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET
OF THE ADULT PLAYFULNESS SCALE: PERSONALITY, MOTIVATIONAL, AND
ATTITUDINAL CORRELATES FOR HIGHLY INTELLIGENT ADULTS. Psychological
Reports 72:3, 1023-1026. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]