This article was downloaded by: [Tongji University]

On: 06 August 2014, At: 22:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary

Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

How Do Playful People Play? Gendered

and Racial Leisure Perspectives, Motives,
and Preferences of College Students
a
Lynn A. Barnett
a
Department of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism , University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Champaign, IL, USA
Published online: 27 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Lynn A. Barnett (2011) How Do Playful People Play? Gendered and Racial Leisure
Perspectives, Motives, and Preferences of College Students, Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 33:5, 382-401, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2011.606777

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2011.606777

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Leisure Sciences, 33: 382–401, 2011
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online

DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2011.606777

How Do Playful People Play? Gendered

and Racial Leisure Perspectives, Motives,
and Preferences of College Students

LYNN A. BARNETT
Department of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, IL, USA
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

Playfulness is an aspect of personality that predisposes individuals to reframe boring

situations into more amusing ones for themselves. This study extends knowledge about
the playfulness construct by contrasting college students who were high or low in
playfulness relative to the activity preferences they make, the motives they have, and
their perspectives on their leisure time. Significant differences were found in perspectives
and motives but not in activity preferences, leading to the conclusion that playfulness
relates more to how individuals view their leisure and what they seek than in what they
do. Only minor differences due to gender or race were observed.

Keywords playfulness, leisure motives, leisure participation, boredom, leisure activ-

ities, gender, race

Possessing a quality of playfulness is an asset for physical and psychological health

and well-being. Observations of playful individuals at various life stages, supplemented
by interviews and their personal accounts, provide some support for these predictions
(Barnett, 1998, 2008; Hutchinson, Yarnal, Son, & Kerstetter, 2008; Son, Yarnal, & Ker-
stetter, 2010; Staempfli, 2007; Yarnal, 2008). Some preliminary empirical data have noted
significant relationships between playfulness and stress reduction and coping strategies.
Yet causal mechanisms have proven difficult to precisely capture (Barnett & Magnuson,
2011; Hutchinson et al., 2008; Staempfli, 2007).
Researchers have identified and studied individuals who appear to be “playful” and
have suggested that this playful tendency is an internal personality predisposition (e.g.,
Bjorklund, 2007; Lieberman, 1977). Playfulness has been empirically studied more in-
depth in children than in adults, and measures of its appearance and correlates have been
documented (Barnett, 1990, 1991a, b; Lieberman; Rogers, Meeks, Impara, & Frary, 1987;
Tegano, 1990; Truhon, 1983). Although authors have conjectured that playfulness carries
over from childhood into adulthood (Bjorklund, 2007; Lieberman, 1977; Solnit, 1998),
research with adults has not been as fruitful in efforts to capture and document playfulness.
Our study attempted to build upon the scant research on playfulness in adults and to
extend this literature by examining relationships with leisure and free time. Because the

Received 18 December 2010; accepted 25 March 2011.

Address correspondence to Lynn A. Barnett, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department
of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism, 104 Huff Hall, 1206 S. Fourth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail:
lynnbm@uiuc.edu

382
 Playfulness and Leisure 383

leisure arena has been heralded by many authors as the one in which individuals are
least externally constrained and rule-governed, and hence freer to be their “natural selves”
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984; Emmons, Diener, & Larsen,
1986), we hypothesized that leisure would provide an ideal arena from which to explore
and examine the playfulness construct in more depth. This study contrasted low and high
playful individuals in a number of aspects of their leisure: (a) preferences—the activities
they typically participate in and enjoy; (b) motives—the specific outcomes they sought to
derive from these activities; and (c) perspectives—their awareness of leisure opportunities,
the likelihood they will become bored in their free time, the extent to which they actively
seek challenge, and their need to plan and anticipate leisure activities in advance.

Review of Related Literature

Leisure as a Function of Personality
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

The notion that leisure be considered from the vantage point of the participant is one that
has been expressed by scholars. The shift from explanations and definitions of leisure
experience focusing on descriptors of the activity or setting to the state of mind of the
individual has been well established. Any setting or activity can be viewed as amorphous
and ambiguous—people project onto it their own predispositions and perceptions. Given
the variety of possible settings and activities, personal choice determines the focus of
attention and action, and research has shown that these choices are influenced by individual
personality differences (Hills & Argyle, 1998). Researchers confirm that people will search
for leisure environments that are congruent with their personality type (Holland, 1997;
Melamed & Meir, 1991; Melamed, Meir, & Samson, 1995).
Researchers also have demonstrated that needs and motivations that people seek during
their free time can be fulfilled by several types of activities (Lounsbury & Hoopes, 1988;
Mannell, 1989; Tinsley & Eldridge, 1995), strongly suggesting that the qualities of the
activity are less critical than the characteristics of the participant. In addition, personality
has been found to influence the propensity to become absorbed, immersed, and enjoy
some activities more than others, and this propensity has been relatively stable (Keele &
Hawkins, 1982; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). Personality differences consistently predict
the extent to which individuals are able to experience joy in their chosen activities and in
the stimulation that they seek and acquire (Brandstatter, 1994). For example, individuals
classified as having a Type-A personality (i.e., those who tend to be more driven, impatient,
and competitive) show different leisure preferences, patterns, and affective responses than
Type-B personalities who are more laid-back and easy-going (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974;
Tang, 1986; Weissinger & Iso-Ahola, 1987). Similarly, the likelihood that individuals would
be bored with their free time and view leisure as burdensome has been shown to be strongly
predicted by their personality (Barnett & Klitzing, 2006).

Identifying an Individual Personality Predisposition for Play and Leisure

A wealth of evidence links personality and an array of leisure-related variables.
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) recognized that people differ in their tendency to seek out in-
trinsic rewards in an activity, and proposed that this difference in personality accounted for
the myriad degrees of enjoyment and engagement experienced within the same, and across
different, leisure activities. Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990) hypothesized an autotelic per-
sonality as descriptive of individuals who are able to find interest and enjoyment in almost
 384 L. A. Barnett

everything they do; such people are able to create leisure-like experiences in unleisure-like
circumstances.
Deci and Ryan (1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) posited that individuals differ in the degree
to which they desire and seek intrinsic rewards, and that personality differences, in con-
junction with situational factors, are responsible for understanding intrinsically motivated
behaviors. These authors sought to more precisely identify individual differences in the
tendency to seek or experience intrinsic motivation in activities and environs and termed
it autonomy orientation. Weissinger and her colleagues (Weissinger, 1985; Weissinger &
Bandalos, 1995; Weissinger & Iso-Ahola, 1987) hypothesized an intrinsic leisure motiva-
tion personality disposition and detected differences in the desire for self-determination,
skill development, commitment, social involvement, boredom, and challenge in the leisure
pursuits of those high versus low on their measure (Weissinger & Bandalos, 1995). Mannell
(1984, 1985) postulated a “self-as-entertainment” construct and defined it as “individual
differences in the capacity/ability to fill one’s free or discretionary time with activity that
is perceived by the individual as personally satisfying and meaningful” (p. 1).
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

With attention thus shifted to the playfulness quality in adults, researchers were able to
identify the salient descriptors that differentiated more and less playful individuals, viewed
from the perspective of both self and others (Barnett, 2007). Based on these findings,
playfulness was defined as “the predisposition to frame (or reframe) a situation in such a way
as to provide oneself (and possibly others) with amusement, humor, and/or entertainment”
(Barnett, 2007, p. 955). Testing of the playfulness construct with young and middle-
aged adults provided preliminary evidence to suggest that it possesses trait-like properties
(Webster, 1990; Webster & Martocchio, 1992; Yager, Kappelman, Maples, & Pryutok,
1997). In addition, playfulness has been shown to relate to several aspects of personality,
and its position within nomological personality space has recently been detailed (Barnett,
2011).

Individual Differences in Playfulness and Leisure

Gender. Characteristics of the individual have been shown to moderate relationships
between personality and leisure expression. The construct that has achieved the most
attention in relation to leisure has been gender (for reviews see Henderson, 1996; Larson &
Verma, 1999; Shaw, 1999). While this literature has identified many differences between
men and women in how they view and experience their leisure, investigations on personality
have resulted in mixed findings. Some studies have detected male-female differences (e.g.,
Barnett, 2006, 2007; Barnett & Klitzing, 2006) while others have not found any (e.g.,
Melamed & Meir, 1991; Melamed et al., 1995).
Although studies of the playfulness disposition have documented pervasive gender
differences in children (Barnett, 1991b), studies with adults have yielded conflicting find-
ings. In research that has explored male-female differences in playfulness, researchers have
noted the similarities between subjects (Barnett, 2007; Bozionelos & Bozionelos, 1999).
For example, Barnett (2007) found that both the characterization and defining elements
of playfulness were the same for men and women, although follow-up research detected
some gender differences in relationships with personality (Barnett, 2011). Of five studies
conducted by Glynn and Webster (1992, 1993), three showed no gender relationship in
playfulness, one other showed similarities between men and women, and the fifth demon-
strated dramatic differences. Clearly, further research is needed to probe the extent to which
gender plays a role in directing the trajectory of playful expression.
 Playfulness and Leisure 385

Race. Only one of the previous studies examining playfulness in adults has explored
possible differences or interrelationships as a function of race (Barnett, 2011). In this
study, race/ethnicity played a secondary role and interacted with gender in revealing some
differences in adult playfulness. In particular, Black and Hispanic females tended to be less
playful than their White counterparts, while fewer differences as a function of race were
found for males. The results of the study did not allow for a more in-depth examination of
why these differences occurred. Hence, an unexplored question is whether playfulness is
recognized to the same extent, thought about in the same way, and manifested similarly, in
individuals of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
A substantial literature, however, has explored race and/or ethnicity and leisure. These
studies have largely determined consistent differences as a function of race/ethnicity in the
ways in which individuals participate in, allocate time to, assign and derive meaning from,
experience benefits from, and feel constrained within, their leisure (Gómez, 2002; Gramann
& Allison, 1999). For example, in comparison with White students, Black students differed
in the extent to which they became bored or sought challenges in their leisure (Barnett, 2005;
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

Barnett & Klitzing, 2006), in their preferences for urban developed locations compared
to natural outdoor areas (Virden & Walker, 1999), and in the benefits they derived from
leisure participation related to self-expression, social interaction, relaxation, and self-esteem
(Philipp, 1997). Differences have also been found in how individuals of different races
perceived barriers to their leisure participation as a function of perceptions of prejudice or
discrimination (cf. Floyd & Gramann, 1995; Philipp, 1995; West, 1993). With this evidence
strongly leading to the conclusion that studies of leisure expression consider the cultural
background of the individual, and the lack of any empirical work relating playfulness to
culture, we expanded this study to examine this issue. Following the caution by scholars
(e.g., Floyd, Shinew, McGuire, & Noe, 1994; Philipp, 1995, 1997), we examined the extent
to which race and gender influences might simultaneously be detected.

Research Questions Under Investigation

The overarching research question guiding our study was: How do leisure perspectives,
motives, and preferences differ between more and less playful individuals? Because the
study of adult playfulness is in its early stages, and with little literature providing direction,
we chose to formulate our hypotheses without a priori specifying a direction. More specif-
ically, we hypothesized that we would be able to detect differences between more and less
playful individuals, and within these groups between males and females and Whites and
Blacks, in the following aspects of leisure:

(a) perspectives: awareness of leisure opportunities, the likelihood that one becomes bored
during one’s leisure, the search for leisure activities that are challenging, and the extent
to which one desires planned activities during leisure and becomes distressed in the
absence of plans;
(b) motives: the types of outcomes and experiences one would like to derive from free
time; and
(c) preferences: the types of leisure activities that are typical and enjoyed.

In addition, the wealth of literature detecting differences in leisure as a function of

gender and race, combined with the paucity of research exploring their possible relationship
with playfulness, provided the impetus to include gender and race in our study. Thus, we
also hypothesized that these playfulness-leisure relationships might well be detected to
 386 L. A. Barnett

different degrees and/or in different ways as a function of the gender and racial background
of the individual.

Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 1,021 undergraduate students from three large midwestern
universities. The sample was fairly evenly split between male (47.80%) and female students.
Students ranged in age from 18 to 26 years, with a mean age of 20.66 (SD = 1.62) years.
There were more seniors (38.88%) than students in other classes (17. 53% freshmen, 21.25%
sophomores, 22.33% juniors). The data from three graduate students and one student over
the age of 30 were omitted from later analyses. Students in the sample were either White
(57.69%) or Black (46.6%), and the vast majority was unmarried (94.31%).
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

Instruments
Playfulness. The measure of playfulness was derived from the most recent literature
that demonstrated appropriate psychometric properties of an instrument to assess it with
this population (Barnett, 2007). The global assessment of individual levels of playfulness
came from self-assessments on the 15 individual descriptors that comprised the construct.
Participants were asked to rate themselves on each of these descriptors using a 10-point
Likert-type scale ranging from “very little” to “a lot.” A box was provided at the end of
the scale that could be checked if the individual was “unsure.” The numerical ratings were
summed and the mean was computed to yield an indication of the individual’s degree of
playfulness. Students were also asked elsewhere in the directions to rate themselves about
how generally playful they thought they were. Because the sum of the descriptors correlated
high with this single independent rating (r = .91), and based upon previous psychometric
testing demonstrating the utility of the scale, the mean of the ratings on the descriptors
served as the measure of playfulness in the study.

Perspectives on leisure experience. Four aspects (awareness, boredom, challenge, dis-

tress) have been identified as salient perspectives of leisure (Barnett, 2005; Caldwell, Smith,
& Weissinger, 1992; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987). These individual perspectives have
been successfully captured with adolescents (Caldwell et al., 1992) and, with some minor
modifications, with college students (Barnett, 2005). The college student version (Barnett)
was used in this study; its psychometric properties had previously been demonstrated to be
satisfactory. Pilot testing confirmed the relative independence of the four subscales (aware-
ness, boredom, distress, and challenge), thus indicating that these four leisure perspectives
should be treated separately; there is no interpretable summative score. All four subscales
were scored using a 5-point Likert scale with response choices labeled “strongly disagree,”
“disagree,” “unsure,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.”
The first construct, boredom, was defined as “ . . . the subjective perception that avail-
able leisure experiences are not sufficient to instrumentally satisfy needs for optimal arousal.
Perceptions of leisure as boredom are associated with negative affect and can be manifested
as beliefs that available leisure experiences are not sufficiently frequent, involving, excit-
ing, varied or novel” (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990, pp. 4–5). Internal consistency for the
five items comprising the scale was found to be satisfactory, and construct validity was
 Playfulness and Leisure 387

demonstrated through interrelationships with extant measures of the propensity to experi-

ence more generalized boredom.
Leisure anxiety was the second individual perspective coined by Caldwell et al. (1992).
A certain level of anxiety about unplanned free time was observed in adolescents. In
subsequent testing with college students, Barnett (2005) found support for this construct
but, based upon the comments from young adults, it was renamed “distress.” Four items
were found to adequately measure this construct, and demonstrated acceptable internal
consistency with university students.
Leisure awareness related to individuals’ knowledge of opportunities available for
leisure in their neighborhood and surrounding community (Barnett, 2005; Caldwell et al.,
1992). While previous research has shown an inverse relationship between the awareness
of leisure opportunities and the likelihood of becoming bored in leisure (Iso-Ahola &
Weissinger, 1990), these two constructs were relatively independent (Barnett, 2005). Four
items constituted the leisure awareness perspective.
The inclusion of a challenge perspective was based to a large extent on
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) and other researchers’ (e.g., Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989; Robin-
son, 1992) suggestion that environmental challenge was one of the key dimensions of
a leisure experience. Previous research with university students (Barnett, 2005) demon-
strated both the internal consistency and construct validity of the five items that assessed
the individual’s desire for leisure activities that pose a challenge.
Motives for selecting and engaging in leisure activities. An instrument (“Your Free
Time”; Barnett, 2006) was included to measure the reason(s) why individuals engaged in
their chosen leisure activities (motives). The individual was asked to first “think about all the
things you do in your free time that are enjoyable for you” and to then rate the importance
of each of 32 possible reasons/anticipated outcomes using the Likert-type response options
of “extremely important,” “very important,” “somewhat important,” “not very important,”
and “not at all important.” The 32 items were the result of suggestions from the literature
and extensive pilot testing in which three focus groups of college students provided insights
and descriptors stemming from their own leisure and those of their peers (Barnett, 2006).
Preliminary analyses and factor analytic procedures were employed to determine general
groupings of motives for choosing and engaging in leisure activities.
Leisure activity preferences. The measures of leisure preferences included in the study
were taken from earlier research with this population (Barnett, 2006). These variables
collectively provided a general indication of the extent and diversity of leisure interests
and a characterization of the extent to which a student preferred and was committed to a
particular style/type of leisure in his/her free time. The leisure preference items began with
the invitation to participants to respond to the statement: “What do you like to do in your
leisure?” and through factor analysis culminated in seven preference factors (“General
Interest,” “Health/Fitness,” “Performing Arts,” “Outdoor Activities (nonsport),” “Water
Activities/Aquatics,” “Sports/Athletics,” and “Social”). Inter-rater reliability among pairs
of panel members in initially coding responses was very high (range: r = .977 to .992), and
intra-rater reliability within coders was also excellent (range: r = .940 to .987).
After placing individual activities into these categories, a scoring system was created
to depict the individual’s leisure preferences (see Barnett, 2006). For each of the seven
categories, a score was assigned that reflected the number of activities the individual
named that were members of that category. For example, if the individual listed the three
activities of being with friends, swimming, and listening to music, there would be a score
of “1” in each of the three categories of Social, Water/Aquatics, and Performing Arts,
and the other categories would be assigned a score of “0.” Thus, for each individual,
 388 L. A. Barnett

a possible range of scores from 0 to 3 resulted for each category. These scores were
then converted to proportions (i.e., divided by 3). However, since the variances of these
variables violated the homogeneity of variance assumption required for many statistical
tests, an arcsine transformation was applied to these data (cf., Hogg, Craig, & McKean,
2004; Roberts, 2008). While these transformed data were used in the ensuing analyses of
leisure preferences, the descriptive statistics (i.e., means and standard deviations) present
the untransformed data for ease of comprehension and interpretation.

Procedures
Study participants were recruited from seven leisure/recreation classes that offered social
or behavioral science general education credit to those enrolled. The sample represented 52
areas of study. A large percentage (91.4%) responded positively to the opportunity. After
indicating their willingness to participate, students were able to access a file containing
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

a cover letter and the instruments to be completed. The cover letter informed students of
their rights as participants, and they were assured of the confidentiality of their responses.
To maintain anonymity of students’ responses, the cover sheet with their identifying infor-
mation was immediately separated from their responses when they were submitted. Two
weeks before the scheduled due date, a reminder was sent to students via e-mail and an-
nounced in all classes. Of those who initially elected to participate, virtually all completed
the instruments; one student elected not to return completed materials.

Data Analysis
Preliminary Analyses
The first stage in the analysis reconfirmed the utility of the measures employed in the study.
The reliability of the playfulness scale (α = .890) and the four leisure perspective scales
drawn from the Leisure Experience Battery for Young Adults were each tested for internal
consistency (Cronbach, 1951). All were found to equal or exceed those found in previous
research (boredom: α = .833, distress: α = .784, awareness: α = .822, challenge: α = .795).
The Your Free Time measure of 32 reasons for engaging in leisure (motives) was tested
to determine whether the items could be combined into distinct factors that replicated those
found in earlier research (Barnett, 2006). Factor analysis with Varimax rotation, item-to-
total correlations, and changes in alpha reliabilities with the successive deletion of each
item were inspected. The factor analysis showed that six factors could be obtained (“In-
ternal Rewards,” “Social Interaction,” “Skill Development,” “New Experiences,” “Active
Engagement,” and “Home-Related”) with eigenvalues greater than 1, and with a combined
explained variance of 62.33%. Six items were eliminated because they either did not load
on a single factor, or they simultaneously loaded on more than two factors. The results of
the factor analysis with individual item factor loadings, eigenvalues, explained variance,
and internal consistency reliability are shown in Table 1. Mean scores across the items
comprising each factor were used in subsequent analyses.

Hypothesis Testing
In the next phase, three multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted uti-
lizing a 2 × 2 × 2 (playfulness by gender by race) factorial design: one for the four leisure
perspectives, a second for the six factors of motives, and a third for the seven types of leisure
preferences. In the event of a significant multivariate finding, univariate step-down F-tests
 Playfulness and Leisure 389

TABLE 1 Factor Loadings∗ , Eigenvalues, Explained Variance, and Internal Consistency

Reliability for Motives for Choosing Leisure Activities

IR∗∗ SI∗∗ CS∗∗ NE∗∗ AE∗∗ HM∗∗

have fun 75 24 16 08 12 07
do things I enjoy 76 20 01 14 24 01
be able to laugh 68 17 12 11 09 04
play my favorite games 61 11 11 08 18 00
feel a sense of accomplishment 60 07 11 14 20 05
feel good about myself 62 21 22 00 17 00
express how I feel 57 20 14 15 22 14
be with my friends 04 72 22 14 14 11
meet new people 02 68 23 16 08 14
help others 08 59 10 14 12 07
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

develop new skills 10 07 70 20 21 07

practice my skills 14 15 71 18 09 15
be physically challenged 13 24 77 24 14 07
be mentally challenged 07 24 71 15 01 17
take risks 14 00 65 23 22 00
do new things 15 24 14 70 24 01
try new things 22 27 07 69 12 03
create things 09 11 15 60 15 00
go new places 21 07 14 62 04 01
build things 20 12 12 54 07 03
do something active 21 11 24 12 81 17
get rid of extra energy 14 24 28 30 69 11
relieve stress 12 05 21 14 70 20
be with my family 18 10 08 12 21 64
be in my house 12 08 12 18 07 61
be around my house 20 00 01 00 09 58
Eigenvalue 7.19 5.44 4.62 3.88 2.48 1.06
% of common variance 21.62 14.23 11.06 8.49 4.57 2.36
Cumulative% explained variance 35.85 46.91 55.40 59.97 62.33
Internal Consistency Reliability: .8481 .7870 .8103 .7255 .7166 .6810
∗
Numbers in bold indicate item membership for the indicated factor
∗∗
Factor labels: Internal Rewards (IR), Social Interactions (SI), Challenges and Skills (CS), New
Experiences (NE), Active Engagement (AE), Home-Related (HM)

further illuminated the nature of the significance. Differences among cell means for statisti-
cally significant interactions were further probed using Newman-Keuls post hoc procedures.
Because of the large number of analyses, the p-value indicating a statistically significant
relationship warranting further scrutiny was set at .01 (Aickin, 1999; Perneger, 1998).
To test for differences in leisure as a function of playfulness, individuals were divided
into high and low playfulness groups based on the mean playfulness score for their race
and gender. To maximize the distance between the low and high playfulness groups, those
scoring within 10% on either side of the mean (for their particular gender by race group)
were eliminated. The cell means and standard deviations for each gender by race cell were
computed to be as follows: (a) Black males, M = 7.40, SD = 1.17; (b) Black females, M =
7.00, SD = 1.50; (c) White males, M = 7.75, SD = .93; and (d) White females, M = 7.99,
 390 L. A. Barnett

SD = .99. Using this information, high and low playfulness groups were identified as: (a)
Black males, high playfulness ≥ 8.58 (n = 81) and low playfulness ≤ 6.22 (n = 69); (b)
Black females, high playfulness ≥ 8.51 (n = 94) and low playfulness ≤ 5.49 (n = 79); (c)
White males, high playfulness ≥ 8.69 (n = 131) and low playfulness ≤ 6.81 (n = 102);
and (d) White females, high playfulness ≥ 8.99 (n = 129) and low playfulness ≤ 6.99
(n = 98).

Results
Playfulness and Perspectives on Leisure Experience
Results of the MANOVA indicated that levels of playfulness showed differences (at p < .01
or less) in three of the four leisure perspectives that were examined: awareness, boredom,
and challenge (Table 2). A significant multivariate main effect was found for playfulness,
gender, and race, and the interaction of playfulness by gender was also statistically signifi-
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

cant (p < .01 or better). Univariate findings indicated that highly playful individuals were
less likely to be bored in their leisure and were more aware of leisure opportunities. These
results were similar for the Black and White students.
Differences in the extent to which students sought challenging experiences in leisure
were found to be a function of their gender, race, and degree of playfulness. While the
analyses revealed that more playful people were more prone to seek challenges in their
leisure in contrast to their less playful peers, a closer inspection of the highest order
interaction was warranted. Univariate findings revealed that it was the less playful group of
female Black students who were significantly less challenge seeking, which accounted for
the effects that were found. No other differences were detected among the other individual
groups, which suggested that there was something unique about these participants in relation
to their peers.

Playfulness and Motives for Choosing Leisure Activities

The results of the multivariate analysis, follow-up statistical procedures, and cell means for
leisure motives are shown in Table 3. The MANOVA revealed that all three main effects
of playfulness, gender, and race were statistically significant, as was the playfulness by
gender interaction. Further examination of the univariate F-tests and cell means showed
that highly playful people were likely to indicate that deriving internal rewards, social
interactions, skill development, new experiences, and active engagement from their leisure
was important. These findings were observed with no gender or race differences. Post hoc
analysis on the New Experiences factor indicted that more playful females were higher
than all other groups, thus indicating that more playful males were as likely to seek new
experiences as were those low in playfulness. In addition to playfulness, some significant
gender and race effects were found. White students were more likely than their Black peers
to seek internal rewards, social interactions, and to want to be actively engaged in their
leisure.

Playfulness and Leisure Activity Preferences

The multivariate findings (Table 4) for the activity preference types revealed that playfulness
did not relate to the types of leisure in which students typically participated. Individuals
who were highly playful did not have different preferences for types of leisure activities
 Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

TABLE 2 Results from Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Cell Means, and Univariate Analyses of Variance (following a significant multivariate
finding) for Perspectives on Leisure Experience (Boredom, Distress, Awareness, Challenge)

CELL MEANS

UNIVARIATES Low Playfulness High Playfulness

(if MANOVA
MANOVA significant) White Black White Black

Source F (df = 4,188) DV F (1,191) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Playful (PF) 8.09∗∗ Awareness 5.99∗ 3.70b 3.68b 3.55b 3.07b 3.76a 3.71a 3.78a 3.75a
Boredom 18.86∗∗ 2.08a 2.01a 2.07a 1.93a 1.81b 1.73b 1.63b 1.38b
Challenge 19.99∗∗ 3.53a 3.42a 3.77a 2.71a 3.71b 3.84b 3.63b 3.79b
Gender 3.68∗ Challenge 6.34∗ 3.53a 3.42b 3.77a 2.71b 3.71a 3.84b 3.63a 3.79b
Race 5.98∗∗ Distress 5.58 2.08b 2.39b 2.30a 2.48a 2.18b 1.98b 2.75a 2.28a
PF × Gender 6.58∗∗ Distress 5.31 2.08 2.39 2.30 2.48 2.18 1.98 2.75 2.28
Challenge 18.36∗∗ 3.53b 3.42a 3.77b 2.71a 3.71b 3.84b 3.63b 3.79b
PF × Race 1.68
Gender × Race 2.68 Challenge 7.34∗ 3.53b 3.42b 3.77b 2.71a 3.71b 3.84b 3.63b 3.79a
PF × Gender × Race 2.38
∗
p<.01 ∗∗ p<.001
Note: Cell means with different subscripts are significantly different

391
 Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

392
TABLE 3 Results from Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Cell Means, and Univariate Analyses of Variance (following a significant multivariate
finding) for Motives for Choosing and Engaging in Leisure Activities

CELL MEANS

UNIVARIATES Low Playfulness High Playfulness

(if MANOVA
MANOVA significant) White Black White Black

Source F (df = 6,194) DV F (1,199) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Playful (PF) 6.14∗∗ InternlRewd 21.15∗∗ 3.90a 3.83a 3.61a 3.63a 4.05b 4.22b 4.13b 3.83b
SocialIntern 22.80∗∗ 3.55a 3.63a 3.15a 3.05a 3.69b 4.19b 3.77b 3.79b
Skills 19.27∗∗ 3.44a 3.17a 3.24a 2.86a 3.61b 3.64b 3.54b 3.50b
NewExper 19.96∗∗ 3.28a 2.87a 3.20a 2.60a 3.30b 3.71b 3.44b 3.53b
Engagemnt 19.92∗∗ 3.59a 3.28a 3.39a 3.05a 3.84b 3.98b 3.67b 3.50b
Gender 3.76∗∗ Home 5.23 2.88b 3.26a 2.94b 2.67a 2.90b 3.41a 2.80b 3.22a
Race 2.99∗ InternlRewd 8.30∗∗ 3.90a 3.83a 3.61b 3.63b 4.05a 4.22a 4.13b 3.83b
SocialIntern 9.38∗∗ 3.55a 3.63a 3.15b 3.05b 3.69a 4.19a 3.77b 3.79b
Skills 4.10 3.44a 3.17a 3.24b 2.86b 3.61a 3.64a 3.54b 3.50b
Engagemnt 8.28∗∗ 3.59a 3.28a 3.39b 3.05b 3.84a 3.98a 3.67b 3.50b
PF × Gender 3.09∗ NewExper 3.09∗ 3.28b 2.87b 3.20b 2.60b 3.30b 3.71a 3.44b 3.53a
PF × Race .85
Gender × Race .65
PF × Gender × Race 1.92
∗
p<.01 ∗∗ p<.001
Notes: Cell means with different subscripts are significantly different;
InternlRewd = Internal Reward, SocialIntern = Social Interaction, Skills = Skill Development, NewExper = New Experiences, Engagement = Active Engagement,
Home = Home-Related
 Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

TABLE 4 Results from Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Cell Means, and Univariate Analyses of Variance (following a significant multivariate
finding) for Leisure Activity Preferences

CELL MEANS

UNIVARIATES Low Playfulness High Playfulness

MANOVA (if MANOVA significant) White Black White Black

Source F (df = 7,272) DV F (1,278) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Playful(PF) .65
Gender 4.04∗∗ Outdoor 5.98∗ .20b .27a .00b 25a .20b .18a .07b .29a
Sports 16.35∗∗ .73a .27b .57a .25b .50a .24b .36a .29b
Social 4.12 .45b .60a .43b .50a .41b .32a .29b .71a
Race 4.42∗∗ General 7.30∗ .78a .95a 1.00b 1.13b .85a .77a 1.29b 1.00b
Health/Fitness 7.27∗ .15a .11a .07b .00b .09a .18a .07b .00b
Perform 12.53∗∗ .20b .19b .29a .50a .17b .09b .43a .29a
PF × Gender 1.67
PF × Race .96
Gender × Race 1.84
PF × Gender × Race 1.10
∗
p<.01 ∗∗ p<.001
Notes: Cell means with different subscripts are significantly different; Perform = Performing Arts

393
 394 L. A. Barnett

compared to their less playful peers. They reported participating at the same levels in sports,
health/fitness, outdoor, performing arts, water, social, and general activities.
The analyses further revealed that there were significant differences in activity prefer-
ences attributable to both gender and race. Males participated in sports more than females,
and females partook more frequently in outdoor (nonsport) activities. Black students were
more involved in performing arts and general activities than White students, and they were
less likely to be in health/fitness activities.

Discussion
The results of the study provide insights that allow for more fully characterizing and
understanding playful people. The findings indicate that playfulness lies more in one’s
approach to one’s leisure than it does in the one’s preferences for activities. The significant
differences between more and less playful individuals related to their perspectives on their
leisure experiences and to the motives that individuals sought to experience in their free
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

time and not to the specific preferences for activities in which they participate. These
results lend support to the suggestion that playfulness can be considered an individual
difference characteristic that lies more in the way individuals think about and seek leisure
experiences and less in what they are observed to do. These findings add to recent literature
linking leisure and internal attributes (i.e., personality, motivational style, and characteristic
affective response) and in demonstrating fewer associations with specific activity types
(Barnett, 2006; Hills & Argyle, 1998; Lee, Dattilo, & Howard, 1994; Watkins & Bond,
2007).
The consistent inverse relationship found between boredom and playfulness for all
student groups provided further support for the conceptualization of playfulness (Barnett,
2007) as one’s ability to transform an environment so as to provide stimulation and amuse-
ment to oneself (and possibly others). Playful people were shown to be significantly less
prone to experience boredom in their free time, which most likely was attributable to their
ability to entertain themselves regardless of the features of the environment. This aspect of
playfulness has been observed by other authors in specific locations, such as the workplace
(Maxwell, Reed, Saker, & Story, 2005) and computer laboratory (Webster & Martocchio,
1992; Woszczynski, Roth, & Segars, 2002). The literature is replete with empirical stud-
ies relating boredom to leisure (e.g., Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990; Shaw, Caldwell, &
Kleiber, 1996), specifically to activity participation (Ragheb, 1990; Ragheb & Merydith,
2001), leisure attitudes (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987), and satisfaction (Iso-Ahola &
Weissinger, 1987; Ragheb, 1990), and it may be that these relationships can be explained
by a more consistent internal predisposition to approach one’s environment in a playful
way (see also Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Mannell, 1984, 1985; Ryan
& Deci, 2000; Weissinger & Bandalos, 1995; Weissinger & Iso-Ahola, 1984; Weissinger,
Caldwell, & Bandalos, 1992). Further research will need to be conducted to more conclu-
sively support this speculation, yet the suggestion that outcomes and external behaviors
may be a function of one’s cognitive and affective approach and appraisal is not at all new
to psychological approaches to human behavior.
In our study, more playful individuals were more aware of leisure opportunities than
their less playful counterparts. One’s awareness of avenues for leisure participation has
been addressed in the literature and viewed as both a constraint and an affordance in
leisure education programs (Jackson & Scott, 1999). In addition, boredom and awareness
have been shown to be inversely related in other studies (e.g., Ragheb & Merydith, 2001;
Samdahl & Kleiber, 1989). Therefore, to avoid being bored in free time, a knowledge of
venues and opportunities for leisure in one’s surroundings needs to be present. However, this
 Playfulness and Leisure 395

relationship was not one prominently included in discussions about the nature and meaning
of playfulness. For example, if playfulness may be posited to be an internal predisposition to
approach and interact with one’s environment in a self-entertaining way, one’s knowledge
of community offerings should show a minimal effect. In contrast, our data showed a higher
level of awareness of leisure resources among playful people, suggesting rather that the
environment may play a greater role in determining or eliciting playful expression than had
previously been conjectured. This finding tentatively supports the conclusion by Iwasaki
and Mannell (1999) that environmental factors interact with personality in influential ways
regarding leisure choices and expression.
Playful college students were found to have different motives for what they chose to
do during their free time, and they rated these as more important than those who were
less playful. The importance of having internally rewarding interactions (fun, enjoyment,
feeling good), new, social, and challenging experiences, and active involvement in free
time were reported by highly playful individuals as more important to experience in their
free time than less playful individuals. These results support the literature which has fo-
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

cused on the intrinsically rewarding (Harper, 1981; Podilchak, 1991a, b), social nature
of leisure (Freysinger, 1995) and on linkages with leisure activities that present a chal-
lenge for the individual and encourage the further development of skills and competencies
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The findings provide empirical support for the definition of play-
fulness advanced by Barnett (2007) and for identification of its underlying dimensions as
including factors related predominantly to internal gratification, through experiencing in-
trinsic rewards, social interactions, and active involvement. The findings that highly playful
people regard all of these motives for leisure enjoyment as more important than those who
are less playful suggests that they may well assign higher priority in their personal life to
their free time and how they spend it.
In an effort to more fully investigate the playfulness construct, it was also informative
to examine the findings where no differences were detected between high and low playful
college students. In the present study, participants’ distress at having unplanned or unfilled
free time did not relate to how playful they were, which contrasted to the prediction
that playful individuals should be significantly less distressed because they are able to
internally reframe situations to make them more enjoyably stimulating. Little information
was gleaned from these data to explain this apparent contradiction. Yet, this one aspect of
leisure experience has proven to be more troublesome to define and capture than the others
in previous research (Barnett, 2006; Caldwell et al., 1992), particularly with this college
age group. Previous research (Barnett, 2005) using this subscale with college students
found that these items actually tapped two different but related types of experience (i.e.,
having planned activities, negative emotions toward free time). The finding here that the
internal consistency across these items was lower (but still significant) than that found
for the other Leisure Experience Battery subscales supports this finding. In addition, in
previous research there were strong differences in responses to this scale as a function of
the gender and/or race of the participant, further suggesting that consistent relationships
with playfulness might not be readily detected. In addition, these results demonstrated that
the desire to have new experiences was not consistently related to playfulness, nor was it
related to the likelihood of being bored in free time. Hence, playful college students did
not necessarily seek novelty in their leisure externally. Perhaps they can internally concoct
novel and unique experiences through their disposition to be playful, that is, to transform
situations in ways in which they do not naturally present themselves. Finally, the lack of
any relationships found for the home-related motive might be because the majority of the
student respondents were living away from their home. Hence, experiencing leisure with
 396 L. A. Barnett

family or at their home residence was not an option. Alternatively, perhaps it was unclear to
many participants who were more itinerant in their childhood what “home” might signify.
The results summarized above were surprisingly consistent for men and women and
college students of White and Black backgrounds. While some minor differences in leisure
were found for some of these student groups in comparison to others, relationships with
playfulness were largely similar. These findings confirmed earlier research on playfulness,
in which the factorial model for the playfulness dimensions was shown to apply equally
well to male and female students (Barnett, 2007). The findings here extend this earlier work
by investigating differences as a function of race and gender simultaneously, as well as
by contrasting playfulness levels with each factor individually. The conclusions that can
be drawn suggest that playfulness carries more predictive power in explaining aspects of
leisure experience than does gender and/or race. Our study confirmed previous conclusions
that playfulness can be considered to be a more generic and ubiquitous construct among
American young adults (i.e., college students).
Although interactions between playfulness, race and gender were negligible, some
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

consistent differences largely attributable solely to race and gender were detected among
the measures in the study. The few gender differences that were observed in the study
were consistent with those found previously across a range of ages, populations, and
locations, with males showing a stronger preference for sports and females showing a
preference for social activities (e.g., Belle, 1989; Larson & Verma, 1999; Lever, 1976;
McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 1999). The differences solely attributable to race primarily
occurred in the data reflecting the motives for outcomes that students wanted to derive
from their leisure. In particular, White compared to Black students felt having internal
rewards, social interactions, challenges, and active engagement in their free time was more
important. The fact that White individuals were higher in most motives but not in their
perspectives for activities compared to their Black counterparts represents a new finding in
the literature, and certainly one in need of further in-depth study. The lack of significant
gender by race interactions throughout the study does not detract from the admonition
of scholars that gender and race be considered simultaneously (e.g., Floyd et al., 1994;
Henderson, Hodges, & Kivel, 2002; Philipp, 1997, 1998; Virden & Walker, 1999) but
rather illustrates the stronger predictive power of playfulness, and the consistency among
White and Black students in how they think about and define playfulness at this stage of their
life.

Limitations
One of the limitations of this study was the lack of generalizability to populations other
than college students (although see similar work with older adults by Yarnal, 2006), the
White/Black dichotomy (e.g., Latino, Asian, and Native American groups were not consid-
ered). The literature with preschool and school-aged children (e.g., Barnett, 1990, 1991a, b;
Lieberman, 1977; Tegano, 1990; Truhon, 1983) is generally consistent in specifying the
dimensions and nature of the playfulness construct, but the findings are vastly different
when playfulness is investigated with college students. A few studies have attempted to
define and measure playfulness in adolescents, but these studies been largely unsuccessful
in either adequately defining or measuring playfulness (e.g., Lieberman, 1977; Staempfli,
2007). These apparent discrepancies suggest that at least age and circumstance are impor-
tant stipulations inherent in the playfulness construct. For this reason, our investigation
focused on college students, since previous research has been conducted virtually solely
with this population, and one of the major objectives was to build on, and extend, the
extant literature with this population. It was thus important to hold constant some of the
 Playfulness and Leisure 397

demographic characteristics of the population under study, but at the same time it must be
recognized that this growing knowledge base about playfulness is in its early stages, and
playfulness may be qualitatively different with those of a different age, life-cycle stage, or
lifestyle.

Conclusions
In conclusion, our study further illuminated the nature of playfulness in young adults and
contributed to its more comprehensive conceptualization. Playfulness was found to be a
concept that college students could recognize, understand, relate to, and assess, thus at-
testing to its ecological validity. Comparisons of the leisure experiences and preferences
of highly playful people with their less playful counterparts provided empirical support
for most recent definitions and the identification of component factors (“gregarious,” “un-
inhibited,” “comedic,” “dynamic”; Barnett, 2007). These data revealed that while playful
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

people do not participate in different leisure activities, they do perceive and experience them
differently, and they have different motives and desire different experiences and outcomes
from their free time. Playful young adults are more likely to want to experience internal
rewards, active and novel engagements, opportunities to be challenged and further develop
their skills, and have social interactions, and they regard these motives as more important
than their less playful peers. In addition, they are less likely to be bored in their free time,
primarily because they possess this internal ability to transform their surroundings to amuse
themselves if they find it to be less than stimulating. Finally, they are also more aware of
opportunities in their community to experience leisure. A significant finding of the study,
further adding to our conceptualization of playfulness, is the relative consistency across
men and women, and Black and White students, in what playfulness is and how it can be
seen in leisure.

References
Aickin, M. (1999). Other methods of adjustment of multiple testing exists. British Medical Journal,
318, 127.
Barnett, L. A. (1990). Playfulness: Definition, design, and measurement. Play and Culture, 3,
319–336.
Barnett, L. A. (1991a). Characterizing playfulness: Correlates with individual attributes and person-
ality traits. Play and Culture, 4, 371–393.
Barnett, L. A. (1991b). The playful child: Measurement of a disposition to play. Play and Culture, 4,
51–74.
Barnett, L. A. (1998). The adaptive powers of being playful. In M. C. Duncan, G. E. Chick, & A.
Aycock (Eds.), Play and culture studies: Diversions and divergences in fields of play. Greenwich,
CT: Ablex Publishing.
Barnett, L. A. (2005). Measuring the ABCs of leisure experience: Awareness, boredom, challenge,
distress. Leisure Sciences, 27(2), 131–156.
Barnett, L. A. (2006). Accounting for leisure preferences from within: The relative contributions of
gender, race or ethnicity, personality, affective style, and motivational orientation. Journal of
Leisure Research, 38(4), 445–474.
Barnett, L. A. (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality & Individual Differences,
43, 949–958.
Barnett, L. A. (2008, March). Playfulness, development, and healthy aging in young adults. Paper
presented at the meeting of The Association for the Study of Play, Austin, TX.
Barnett, L. A. (2011). Personality traits predict desired leisure outcomes regardless of gender or race.
Manuscript under review.
 398 L. A. Barnett

Barnett, L. A., & Klitzing, S. W. (2006). Boredom in free time: Relationships with personality, affect,
and motivation for different gender, racial, and ethnic student groups. Leisure Sciences, 28,
223–244.
Barnett, L. A., & Magnuson, C. (2011, November). The therapeutic value of being playful. Paper
presented at the Leisure Research Symposium, Atlanta, GA.
Belle, D. (1989). Gender differences in children’s social networks and supports. In D. Belle (Ed.),
Children’s social networks and supports (pp. 173–188). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2007). Why youth is not wasted on the young. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Bozionelos, N., & Bozionelos, G. (1999). Playfulness: Its relationship with instrumental and expres-
sive traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 749–760.
Brandstatter, H. (1994). Pleasure of leisure – pleasure of work: Personality makes the difference.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16(6), 931–946.
Caldwell, L.L., Smith, E. A., & Weissinger, E. (1992). Development of a leisure experience battery
for adolescents: Parsimony, stability, and validity. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(4), 361–376.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297–334.
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York, NY: Plenum.
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations
and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580–602.
Emmons, R. A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1986). Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and
affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 815–826.
Ewert, A. W., & Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the adventure model: Empirical support for a model
of risk recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 124–139.
Floyd, M. F., & Gramann, J. H. (1995). Perceptions of discrimination in a recreation context. Journal
of Leisure Research, 27, 192–199.
Floyd, M. F., Shinew, K. J., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Race, class, and leisure activity
preferences: Marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 158–173.
Freysinger, V. J. (1995). The dialectics of leisure and development of women and men in mid-life:
An interpretive study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 61–84.
Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type-A behavior and your heart. New York, NY: Fawcett.
Glynn, M. A., & Webster, J. (1992). The adult playfulness scale: An initial assessment. Psychological
Reports, 71, 83–103.
Glynn, M. A., & Webster, J. (1993). Refining the nomological net of the Adult Playfulness Scale:
Personality, motivational and attitudinal correlates for highly intelligent adults. Psychological
Reports, 72, 1023–1026.
Gómez, E. (2002). The ethnicity and public recreation participation model. Leisure Sciences, 24(2),
123–142.
Gramann, J. H., & Allison, M. T. (1999). Ethnicity, race, and leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton
(Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 283–297). State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Harper, W. (1981). The experience of leisure. Leisure Sciences, 4(2), 113–126.
Henderson, K. (1996). One size doesn’t fit all: The meaning of women’s leisure. Journal of Leisure
Research, 28(3), 139–157.
Henderson, K. A., Hodges, S., & Kivel, B. D. (2002). Context and dialogue in research on women
and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(3), 253–271.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness
and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 523–535.
Hogg, R. V., Craig, A. T., & McKean, J. (2004). Introduction to mathematical statistics (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Playfulness and Leisure 399

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environment (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hutchinson, S. L., Yarnal, C. M., Son, J. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2008). Beyond fun and friendship:
The Red Hat Society as a coping resource for older women. Ageing & Society, 28, 979–999.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1987). Leisure and boredom. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 5, 356–364.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure: Conceptualization,
reliability, and validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 1–17.
Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell, R. C. (1999). Situational and personality influences on intrinsically motivated
leisure behavior: Interaction effects and cognitive processes. Leisure Sciences, 21, 287–306.
Jackson, E. L., & Scott, D. (1999). Constraints to leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.),
Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 299–321). State College, PA: Venture
Publishing.
Keele, S. W., & Hawkins, H. L. (1982). Explorations of individual differences relevant to high skill
level. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 3–23.
Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work,
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701–736.

Lee, Y., Dattilo, J., & Howard, D. (1994). The complex and dynamic nature of leisure experience.
Journal of Leisure Research, 26(13), 195–212.
Lever, J. (1976). Gender differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23, 478–487.
Lieberman, J. N. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Lounsbury, J. W., & Hoopes, L. L. (1988). Five-year stability of leisure activity and motivation
factors. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 118–134.
Mannell, R. C. (1984). Personality in leisure theory: The self-as-entertainment construct. Loisir et
Societe/Society and Leisure, 7, 229–242.
Mannell, R. C. (1985). Reliability and validity of a leisure-specific personality measure: The self-as-
entertainment scale. Paper presented at the Leisure Research Symposium, Dallas, TX.
Mannell, R. C. (1989). Leisure satisfaction. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding
leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (pp. 281–301). State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Maxwell, S., Reed, G., Saker, J., & Story, V. (2005). The two faces of playfulness: A new tool to
select potentially successful sales reps. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25,
215–229.
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Family context and gender role socialization
in middle childhood: Comparing girls to boys and sisters to brothers. Child Development, 59(2),
990–1004.
Melamed, S., & Meir, E. I. (1991). The relationship between interests-job incongruity and selection
of avocational activity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 310–325.
Melamed, S., Meir, E. I., & Samson, A. (1995). The benefits of personality-leisure congruence:
Evidence and implications. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 25–40.
Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with the Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 361,
1236–1238.
Philipp, S. J. (1995). Race and leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17, 109–120.
Philipp, S. J. (1997). Race, gender, and leisure benefits. Leisure Sciences, 19, 191–207.
Philipp, S. F. (1998). Race and gender differences in adolescent peer group approval of leisure
activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 214–232.
Podilchak, W. (1991a). Distinctions of fun, enjoyment and leisure. Leisure Studies, 10, 133–148.
Podilchak, W. (1991b). Establishing the fun in leisure. Leisure Sciences, 13, 123–136.
Ragheb, M. G. (1990). The contribution of leisure participation, leisure satisfaction, and a set of
social psychological variables to boredom. Paper presented at the Leisure Research Symposium,
Phoenix, AZ.
Ragheb, M. G., & Merydith, S. P. (2001). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale
measuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies, 20, 41–59.
 400 L. A. Barnett

Roberts, S. (2008). Transform your data. Nutrition, 24, 492–494.

Robinson, D. W. (1992). A descriptive model of enduring risk recreation involvement. Journal of
Leisure Research, 24, 52–63.
Rogers, C. S., Meeks, A. M., Impara, J. C., & Frary, R. (1987). Measuring playfulness: Development
of the child behaviors inventory of playfulness. Paper presented at the Southwest Conference on
Human Development, New Orleans, LA.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, W. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic moti-
vation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Samdahl, D. M., & Kleiber, D. A. (1989). Self-awareness and leisure experience. Leisure Sciences,
11, 1–10.
Shaw, S. M. (1999). Gender and leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies:
Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 271–281). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Shaw, S. M., Caldwell, L. L., & Kleiber, D. A. (1996). Boredom, stress, and social control in the
daily activities of adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 274–292.
Solnit, A. J. (1998). Beyond play and playfulness. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 53, 102–110.
Son, J. S., Yarnal, C. M., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2010). Engendering social capital through a leisure
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014

club for middle-aged and older women: Implications for individual and community health and
well-being. Leisure Studies, 29(1), 67–83.
Staempfli, M. B. (2007). Adolescent playfulness, stress perception, coping and well being. Journal
of Leisure Research, 39(3), 393–412.
Tang, T. L. (1986). Effects of Type-A personality and task labels (work vs. leisure) on task preference.
Journal of Leisure Research, 18, 1–11.
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psycho-
logical Reports, 66, 1047–1056.
Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (‘ab-
sorption’), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268–
277.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Eldridge, B. D. (1995). Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A
taxonomy of leisure activities based on their need-gratifying properties. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42(2), 123–132.
Truhon, S. A. (1983). Playfulness, play, and creativity: A path analytic model. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 143, 19–28.
Virden, R., & Walker, G. (1999). Ethnic/racial and gender variations among meanings given to and
preferences for the natural environment. Leisure Sciences, 21, 219–239.
Watkins, M., & Bond, C. (2007). Ways of experiencing leisure. Leisure Sciences, 29, 287–307.
Webster, J. (1990). The relationship between playfulness of computer interactions and employee
productivity. In K. Kaiser & H. J. Oppelland (Eds.), Desktop information technology (pp.
357–372). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/North Holland.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with
workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16, 201–226.
Weissinger, E. (1985). The development and validation of an intrinsic leisure motivation scale.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D. L. (1995). Development, reliability, and validity of a scale to measure
intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 379–400.
Weissinger, E., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1984). Intrinsic leisure motivation, personality and physical
health. Loisir et Societe/Society and Leisure, 7, 217–228.
Weissinger, E., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Relationship between Type-A behavior and self-reported
leisure activity patterns. Wellness Perspectives, 4, 9–14.
Weissinger, E., Caldwell, L. L., & Bandalos, D. L. (1992). Relation between intrinsic motivation and
boredom in free time. Leisure Sciences, 14, 317–325.
West, P. C. (1993). The tyranny of metaphor: Interracial relations, minority recreation, and the
wildland-urban interface. In A. W. Ewert, D. J. Chavez, & A. W. Magill (Eds.), Culture, conflict,
and communication in the wildland-urban interface (pp. 109–115). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
 Playfulness and Leisure 401

Woszczynski, A. B., Roth, P. L., & Segars, A. H. (2002). Exploring the theoretical foundations of
playfulness in computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 369–388.
Yager, S. E., Kappelman, L. A., Maples, G. A., & Prybutok, V. R. (1997). Microcomputer playfulness:
Stable or dynamic trait? The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 28, 43–52.
Yarnal, C. M. (2006). The Red Hat Society: Exploring the role of play, liminality, and communitas
in older women’s lives. Journal of Women & Aging, 18(3), 51–73.
Yarnal, C. M. (2008, March). Playfulness, development, and healthy aging in older adults. Paper
presented at the meeting of The Association for the Study of Play, Tempe, AZ.
Downloaded by [Tongji University] at 22:52 06 August 2014