Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood

Social and Personality Psychology Compass 9/11 (2015): 630–643, 10.1111/spc3.
12205
Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood

Meredith Van Vleet* and Brooke C. Feeney
Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
Although research has established play behavior and playfulness as important to the well-being of children
and animals, researchers have not typically considered the importance or implications of play in human
adults. This is surprising given that play behavior is a topic of high relevance to social psychology. Defi-
nitional issues, a lack of a theoretical framework, and a dearth of standardized measures have posed obsta-
cles in the advancement of this interesting research area, which is ripe for investigation. In this review, we
summarize the extant literature, identify strengths and weaknesses of this literature, propose definitions to
guide future work in this area, identify relevant theories that may be expanded to provide a framework for
programmatic research on play in adulthood, and elucidate avenues for future research. Our aim is to
encourage the development of this research area within social psychology.
Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood
We don’t stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing
-George Bernard Shaw
Play is thought to be universal and essential to the healthy development and well-being of
young mammals (e.g., Power, 2000; Thorpe, 1966; Wilson, 1975). Play has been associated
with social, emotional, and cognitive development (including problem-solving abilities) in
young animals (Fagan, 1981; Harlow & Harlow, 1962) and children (e.g., Coolahan, Fantuzzo,
Mendez, & McDermott, 2000; Fantuzzo & McWayne, 2002; Fantuzzo, Sekino, & Cohen,
2004; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Play behavior and playfulness also have been linked with
creativity and imagination (Singer, Singer, & Sherrod, 1980), adaptability (Sutton-Smith,
1970), high self-esteem, and autonomy (Barnett, 1991) in children (see also Tamis-LeMonda,
Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004).
Surprisingly, however, research on play and playfulness in human adults is scarce. Despite the
paucity of empirical attention devoted to play in adulthood, adults often describe the most
enjoyable element of their romantic relationships as interactions in which they play with their
partner (Betcher, 1981; Lauer & Lauer, 2002). When a sample of married couples were asked
what they would miss most if their relationship were to dissolve, couples most often reported
their inside jokes and games (Betcher, 1981). Along similar lines, Lauer and Lauer (2002) found
that highly satisfied couples described play as an essential feature of their relationship – even
more important than sex or shared humor. Why, then, have researchers, particularly social
psychologists, not further explored this phenomenon?
One possible explanation for the void of research examining play in adulthood is that some
propose that play is not socially accepted in adulthood, and adults play little or not at all as a result
(Lieberman, 1977; Solnit, 1998). Adults are expected to be productive – whether at work or at
home. If play is not viewed as a productive means to spend one’s time, then play among adults
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Play and Playfulness 631
may be perceived as frivolous, over-indulgent, or irresponsible (Sutton-Smith, 2008). Consis-

tent with this claim, Betcher (1981) found that while couples reported thoroughly enjoying play
in their relationship, they also reported embarrassment and concern over appearing childish
when describing their play to others outside the relationship. A second explanation, and argu-
ably the greatest difficulty for play research, has been the development of satisfying definitions
of play and playfulness. Existing definitions differ substantially in their conceptualizations of the
terms. Defining play may be challenging in part because there are many forms that play can take,
and it may occur in a wide variety of settings (Berlyne, 1969).
The purposes of this review are to describe the current state of the research on play and play-
fulness in adulthood and to provide information and insights that will be useful for researchers
who wish to pursue these interesting topics of research. We consider both play (viewed as a
behavior or activity) and playfulness (viewed as a disposition) in order to comprehensively
represent the existing literature and point to the need for emerging work in this area. First,
we discuss and propose definitions of play and playfulness. Second, we review existing literature
that has centered on identifying functions, consequences, and forms of play in adulthood. Third,
we identify relevant theories that may be extended to provide frameworks for developing a pro-
grammatic body of work on play and playfulness in adulthood. Finally, we highlight important
avenues for future investigation in this emerging research area. Our aims are to draw attention to
the importance of the phenomena and to provide a foundation for future research focused on
play and playfulness in adulthood, which is ripe for investigation.
Defining Play
It is important to begin by defining the constructs of play and playfulness. Existing defini-
tions of play have been varied. Play has been described as an activity that is enjoyable
(Ablon, 2001; Casado-Kehoe, Vanderbleek, & Thanasiu, 2007; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975;
Lauer & Lauer, 2002; Terr, 1999), intrinsically-motivated (Betcher, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi,
1975), spontaneous (Betcher, 1981), involves a focus on the process of the activity rather
than end-goals related to the activity, requires a suspension of self-consciousness (Casado-
Kehoe et al., 2007), and involves a non-serious approach (Betcher, 1981; Terr, 1999).
Some have proposed that play involving two or more people must involve verbal or non-
verbal interaction and ref lections on the partners’ shared personal experiences or knowledge
of each other (Betcher, 1981).
Including all of these characteristics into a single definition of play would constrain the
construct to a limited set of behaviors or situations and lack both practical and empirical utility.
Here, we identify essential features that demarcate play and incorporate these features into a
standardized definition of play that may guide future research in this area.
In line with previous researchers (Ablon, 2001; Casado-Kehoe et al., 2007; Csikszentmihalyi,
1975; Lauer & Lauer, 2002; Terr, 1999), we regard play as a behavior or activity that is
carried out with the goal of amusement, enjoyment, and fun. Activities pursued with this aim
are likely to be intrinsically-motivated (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000); however, it is the goal
of enjoyment and fun that distinguishes play from other activities that also may be
intrinsically-motivated such as providing support to a loved one or learning a difficult
concept. Individuals may possess additional goals when engaging in play (e.g., to learn
something new, to connect with others); however, such activities would be deemed play
as long as the primary goal is to have fun.
The word play also invokes images of children enacting silly or imaginative scenes in a care-
free fashion, fully immersed in the activity. Thus, it seems essential to its definition that play
require an enthusiastic and in-the-moment approach. This approach may momentarily draw
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 9/11 (2015): 630–643, 10.1111/spc3.12205
632 Play and Playfulness
attention away from outside stressors and responsibilities, rendering play a particularly liberating
and enjoyable experience (Ablon, 2001; Betcher, 1981; Casado-Kehoe et al., 2007;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Lauer & Lauer, 2002; Terr, 1999).
We also propose that play is a highly-interactive activity – either interactive with others or inter-
active with the activity itself. An activity that requires little interchange between participants or
with the activity itself, verbally or nonverbally, would be too passive to be deemed play. For
example, watching television or reading would not be considered play because they are passive
activities that involve little or no interaction with others or with the activity itself. However,
playing a video game or a solitary card game could be considered play ( given that it is
approached with the goal of having fun and an enthusiastic, in-the-moment attitude) because
these activities require interaction with the activity itself.
Thus, we propose a definition of play that incorporates these core components of play: Play is
an activity that is carried out for the purpose of amusement and fun, that is approached with an enthusiastic
and in-the-moment attitude, and that is highly-interactive (see also Van Vleet & Feeney, in press). A
wide variety of activities are likely to fit this definition (e.g., board games, joking, socializing,
physical play such as dancing or throwing a Frisbee for fun, sexual play). We discuss specific play
forms identified in the literature later.
Defining Playfulness
Existing definitions of playfulness (a dispositional construct) have also been varied. To date,
playfulness has been described as a tendency to approach activities in a non-serious manner
for one’s own enjoyment (Glynn & Webster, 1992), a proclivity for fun (Schaefer & Greenberg,
1997), a disposition characterized by creativity, curiosity, pleasure, humor, and spontaneity
(Guitard, Ferland, & Dutil, 2005), and a tendency to enjoy and become engrossed in activities
(Starbuck & Webster, 1991). Barnett (1991) described playful people as intrinsically-driven,
focused on the process of activities, fully-absorbed in activities, and unconstrained by others’
prescribed rules or meanings of behavior. Playful people have also been described as gregarious,
uninhibited, comedic, and dynamic (Barnett, 2007).
All of these definitions suggest that playfulness is a stable personality trait (Barnett, 1991;
Glynn & Webster, 1992; Guitard et al., 2005; Schaefer & Greenberg, 1997; Starbuck &
Webster, 1991). There is also some agreement that playful people get more enjoyment out of
activities than less playful people (Guitard et al., 2005; Schaefer & Greenberg, 1997; Starbuck
& Webster, 1991) and pursue activities with a non-serious attitude (Glynn & Webster, 1992;
Schaefer & Greenberg, 1997). There is less consistency regarding other characteristics of playful-
ness, such as whether playfulness involves dispositionally high internal motivation, a focus on
the process of activities, a tendency to feel less constrained by rules or conventions in engaging
in activities (Barnett, 1991), an active engagement pattern (Barnett, 1991; Starbuck & Webster,
1991), creativity, curiosity, spontaneity, and humor (Guitard et al., 2005).
As with defining play behavior, including all of the enumerated characteristics in a definition
of playfulness would yield an overly-constraining definition that lacks both practical and empi-
rical utility. Also, many definitions of playfulness include abstract terms that are themselves
undefined, making the construct difficult for researchers to investigate empirically. Moreover,
there has been a disconnect in the literature between the constructs of play and playfulness,
although they are related and each should inform the other. Following from these concerns,
we offer a definition of playfulness that is linked to our refined definition of play and offers
empirical utility in its specificity: Playfulness is a dispositional tendency to engage in play (i.e., an inclination
to pursue activities with the goal of amusement or fun, with an enthusiastic and in-the-moment attitude, and that
are highly-interactive in nature).
A Review of the Play in Adulthood Literature

Research on play in adulthood is currently scattered across several psychological fields; thus, the
existing literature has not benefited from cross-collaboration or a programmatic approach that
connects the empirical work. Further, there has not been a focus on this topic within social psy-
chology. This is surprising given that play in adulthood clearly falls within the domain of social
psychology as it often occurs within a social context. Also, researchers have used labels other
than ‘play’ (e.g., “shared leisure”) when describing or studying this behavior (Ablon, 2001;
Baxter, 1992; Betcher, 1981; Casado-Kehoe et al., 2007; Vanderbleek, Robinson, Casado-Kehoe,
& Young, 2011). Our goal is to piece together the disconnected literature to illuminate the state of
the research on play in adulthood, which we hope will provide a springboard for future program-
matic work on this topic within social psychology.
Aside from developing definitions of the construct, the literature devoted to play in adult-
hood has been correlational and cross-sectional in nature and has focused on determining the
functions of play in adulthood, identifying consequences of play using self-report measures of
overall frequency of play, and identifying specific forms of play in adulthood and their out-
comes. We begin with a review of the proposed functions of play, followed by a discussion
of the consequences of play identified in the literature. Last, we consider specific forms of play
and describe how each form has been linked with specific functions and consequences.
Functions of play
Thus far, the existing literature has considered functions of play within the context of close
relationships. These functions include the following: indicating or enhancing intimacy (Baxter,
1987, 1992; Betcher, 1981; Dicks, 1963; Johnson, 2003; Oring, 1984), trust, security (Betcher,
1981; Johnson, 2003), and interdependence (Betcher, 1981); moderating conf lict and facilitat-
ing communication (Betcher, 1981; Terr, 1999); generating excitement (Baxter, 1987; Betcher,
1981); and relieving stress (Orthner, 1975, 1976; Winnicott, 1971). Few of these proposed
functions, which we elaborate below, have been empirically examined.
First, play has been described as an expression of intimacy between play partners (Baxter,
1987, 1992; Betcher, 1981; Dicks, 1963; Johnson, 2003; Oring, 1984). Some support for this
assertion is found in interviews of married couples who identified play as one of the most plea-
surable experiences in their relationships because they felt particularly ‘in sync’ with each other
during play. Betcher (1981) also posited that play provides opportunities for self-disclosure,
which is a common marker of intimacy, and that public forms of play allow couple-
members to communicate simultaneously to the partner and outsiders that the partners
share a special bond.
Relatedly, play is thought to establish a safe and secure relationship context that is essential to
building trust and a strong emotional connection between partners ( Johnson, 2003). Some
speculate that play involves regression to a vulnerable, child-like state (Betcher, 1981; Dicks,
1963) – or we suspect that it often involves behaving in a silly, carefree manner that is not gen-
erally exposed to everyone (Van Vleet & Feeney, in press). Consequently, a certain level of trust
and comfort with one’s partner must be achieved before play can take place (in order to let one’s
guard down to play). An important function of play, therefore, may be signifying
acceptance/validation of play partners, and both signifying and augmenting partners’ feelings
of trust and security.
Play is also thought to reduce relational conf lict (Betcher, 1981; Terr, 1999). Through rou-
tine play, partners build reservoirs of positive experiences and feelings for each other from which
they can draw during times of conf lict (Terr, 1999). As a result, partners who play frequently
should be more resilient to relationship stressors (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). Routine play may
also facilitate effective communication (Betcher, 1981) by providing a safe context in which
couples can express themselves and become more adept at reading each other’s cues. This
may translate into greater ability to resolve conf licts and discern cues for support when needed
(Van Vleet & Feeney, in press). Play may also de-escalate conf lict, a communication pattern that
is associated with positive relational outcomes (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998).
Play may help stabilize conf lict because it reminds partners that the argument took place within
the context of a happy relationship. Additionally, because individuals only play when they feel
safe and secure (Betcher, 1981; Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988), juxtaposing conf lict with play may
help partners perceive the conf lict as non-threatening. Furthermore, play may foster one’s abil-
ities to think f lexibly or unconventionally (Betcher, 1981; Lauer & Lauer, 2002), which may
prove adaptive in reaching conf lict resolutions (Van Vleet & Feeney, in press). Play may there-
fore moderate conf lict by predisposing individuals to encounter conf lict less, or by endowing
individuals with skills that facilitate effective conf lict resolution.
Another proposed function of play is to spark feelings of excitement and positive affect
(Baxter, 1987; Lauer & Lauer, 2002). Through simple association, sharing exciting activities
may generate feelings of excitement toward one’s partner (Dutton & Aron, 1974). Work by
Aron and colleagues (Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, & Heyman, 2000; Reissman, Aron,
& Bergen, 1993) supports this claim, revealing that shared novel, exciting activities combats
relationship boredom and enhances relationship quality.
Finally, play may alleviate daily stress by providing an escape from the hassles, conventional-
ities, and mundanities of everyday life (Lauer & Lauer, 2002; Orthner, 1975, 1976; Winnicott,
1971). Consistent with this idea, Holman and Jacquart (1988) found that highly-stressed wives
were more satisfied with their relationships if they reported more time in highly-interactive
joint leisure activities (some of which may be play) with their spouses. Unfortunately, few of
the proposed functions of play have been examined empirically. Currently, only the proposed
function of expressing intimacy has been examined in any detail (Baxter, 1987, 1992), and these
investigations focused on a particular form of play (personal idioms, discussed below). There-
fore, the proposed functions of play should be understood as speculative until empirically
supported. Further adding to the complexity, some play functions may be specific to particular
play forms (described below), while other functions may be representative of all play forms.
Endeavors to test these theoretical functions would make valuable contributions to this emerging
area and establish play in adulthood as a phenomenon worthy of attention.
Consequences of play
Research examining play in adulthood has focused on identifying outcomes of play using
self-report measures. Betcher (1977) developed two play questionnaires (PQI and PQII) to
assess play behavior in romantic relationships. To the best of our knowledge, only the PQII
has been used to assess consequences of play in empirical studies. The PQII (Betcher, 1977),
measures perceptions of play in one’s romantic relationship and loads on five factors:
novelty/spontaneity (e.g., “We try out new things together”), control/dominance (e.g., “When
we play, one of us is always the more dominant one”), asynchrony (e.g., “My partner likes to
play more than I do”), rigidity (e.g., “When we play games, winning and losing becomes
most important”), and in-phase (e.g., “Our spontaneity can be so couple-mentary, it feels like
we’re doing a duet”.). This measure emphasizes shared sense of humor, frequency of shared
novel activities, and spontaneity, which may not represent all forms of play. Nonetheless, high
scores on this measure have been strongly linked with closeness (Baxter, 1992), positive affect,
and satisfaction within the relationship (Aune & Wong, 2002).
More recently, Vanderbleek et al. (2011) devised the Couple Play Assessment (CPA), in
which respondents indicate the frequency and enjoyment of sharing 30 activities with one’s
partner. Activities fall into six categories: social play (e.g., “attending parties”), cultural play
(e.g., “going to museums or art galleries”), humor (e.g., “telling and listening to jokes or
funny stories”), games (e.g., “playing board games”), physical play (e.g., “participating
in sports”), and love play (e.g., “taking a bath or shower with your partner”). High scores were
associated with self-reported marital satisfaction, better communication skills, better conf lict
resolution, and idealistic views of the partner (Vanderbleek et al., 2011). However, responses
were not associated with self-reported health and well-being.
Taken together, when measured as frequency of participation in a heterogeneous set of
activities, play has been linked with relationship quality and positive emotions. However, it is
important to note that this research focuses on shared play. Measures and consequences of
individual play have yet to be developed and examined; this will be an important focus for
future research.
Play forms and outcomes
Other play research has focused on identifying specific play forms and their consequences. Cur-
rently identified play forms include private verbal code, role-play, verbal teasing, games, antiso-
cial physical play, pro-social physical play, gossip, and public performance (Baxter, 1992). Only
three of these forms have been studied in more than a single study, and not all would fit our
definition of play. However, the few empirical studies of such forms may provide insight into
the types of play that may be beneficial or detrimental to one’s personal or relationship well-
being.
Private verbal code play, also referred to as personal idioms (communication between partners
that references information only the partners would understand, e.g., secret code names,
inside jokes) has been linked with relationship quality (Baxter, 1987, 1992; Bell, Buerkel-
Rothfuss, & Gore, 1987; Bruess & Pearson, 1993). Research thus far has revealed that
recalling more personal idioms in one’s relationship was linked with feeling closer to one’s
friend (Baxter, 1992), and with greater satisfaction (Bruess & Pearson, 1993), love, commit-
ment, and closeness (Bell et al., 1987) among couples. Research also suggests that partners
are aware that personal idioms have a positive impact on their relationship (Baxter, 1987;
Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981), and that they may intentionally use them to enhance
the quality of their relationships as this behavior demonstrates little-known personal knowl-
edge of the partner and communicates feelings of intimacy (Baxter, 1987, 1992; Betcher,
1981; Oring, 1984). The private nature of idioms can also communicate to outsiders that
the partners are a special, tightly-knit unit, which may be especially important in develop-
ing stages of relationships. In established relationships, couples may use personal idioms to
spark nostalgia (Baxter, 1987; Hopper et al., 1981).
Frequency of role-playing (mimicking or impersonating others) has been strongly linked with
feelings of closeness to one’s same-sex friend (Baxter, 1992). Other research (Aune, Aune,
Dawson, & Pena, 1993) also found that observers perceived videotaped interactions as more
intimate when role-play was a part of the conversation than when no such role-play occurred.
No other research has considered the effects or functions of this form of play.
Verbal teasing (taunting or mocking the partner) has been largely unrelated to relationship
well-being (Baxter, 1992; Bell et al., 1987; Bruess & Pearson, 1993), although it is thought to
express closeness. Teasing someone with whom one is not especially close could be risky,
resulting in conf lict or dissolution of the relationship, because the teasing may be misread as hos-
tile. Thus, individuals are thought to only poke fun at those whom they trust not to interpret the
teasing as an attack (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998). Some research sug-
gests that teasing involving a clear indication that it is not genuine or should not be taken to
heart elicits positive emotions in both partners. Teasing that lacks such signals, however, elicits
negative emotions in both partners (Keltner et al., 1998). Other research (Kruger, Gordon, &
Kuban, 2006) indicates that even when partners tease in a way that clearly communicates benign
intent, the teased partner still tends to interpret the act as hostile. Thus, outcomes of teasing are
mixed.
Baxter (1992) found no link between frequency of playing games (structured activities that
have rules regarding one’s behavior and a declared winner, e.g., board games) and relationship
quality. Similarly, an experiment in which dyads were assigned to play a game, watch TV, or
relax revealed no relational benefit for dyads in the game condition (Flora & Segrin, 1998).
No other research has examined the effects of games on personal or relational well-being; how-
ever, more work is needed in this area (e.g., using non-undergraduate participants in longer-
term relationships and assessing different types of games).
Other play forms identified thus far (Baxter, 1992) have remained relatively unexplored.
These include pro-social physical play (acting out nonverbal pro-social behavior together in an
exaggerated manner, e.g., dancing at the dinner table together), antisocial physical play
(performing nonverbal acts that are typically considered antisocial with a light-hearted air,
e.g., mock-fighting), gossiping (discussing other people when they are not present), and public
performance (secretly acting unusually in public together, e.g., talking in phony accents for an
evening out). None of these play forms were linked to relationship outcomes in Baxter’s
(1992) work. Some of these (pro-social physical play and public performance) were uncom-
mon, and at least one ( gossip) in most cases would not fit our definition of play. Most forms
of play have been examined only in a single study involving particularly young couples or
friendships, and using retrospective self-report methods. Much additional work using multiple
methods (e.g., observational, experimental, longitudinal) is needed to empirically establish the
functions and consequences of various forms of play in adulthood. Also, it will be important
to reconsider play forms in light of the definition of play advanced here.
We propose that although all play activities are approached with the goal of amusement/fun,
an enthusiastic in-the-moment approach, and are highly-interactive, play activities may differ
on the following dimensions: cooperation, competition, novelty/familiarity, spontaneity, crea-
tivity, physicality, and structure. Cooperative play activities (involving teamwork) are especially
likely to improve listening skills, communication, and attending to partners’ bids for sup-
port. Play activities in which partners compete against each other may be particularly excit-
ing (with good-natured “winning” at stake) and should reinforce being a gracious winner
and loser – which may translate into more gracious behavior in serious contexts (e.g., being
empathic during conf lict or another’s need for support). Novel play (unfamiliar
play activities) may promote learning/growth, self-expansion, and excitement, while familiar
(routine) forms of play may communicate that the relationship is stable and secure and
boost feelings of intimacy, trust, and security between partners. Spontaneous play, being
unexpected, should be a potent predictor of excitement, whereas creative play (which
involves using one’s imagination) should improve f lexible thinking and problem-solving
skills as it involves thinking in unexpected or unconventional ways. Physical play should
be particularly predictive of physical and mental health over time, as physical exercise has
been linked with such benefits (Fox, 1999; Shiroma & Lee, 2010). Although structured
play activities (involving rules regarding one’s demeanor and behavior and clearly
defined goals) may offer the least sense of freedom that may be garnered from play, this
play form may be especially beneficial for adults who are less playful or less comfortable
with unstructured play activities.
A Review of the Playfulness in Adulthood Literature

We have defined playfulness as a disposition to approach activities with the goal of having fun,
and with an enthusiastic and in-the-moment attitude (i.e., a disposition to engage in play). Play-
fulness is important to consider for a variety of reasons. First, understanding playfulness can help
researchers identify and learn about the type of people who are most likely to engage in play.
Second, a consideration of playfulness will enable researchers to examine interactions between
playfulness and play behavior in predicting outcomes. For example, although play is thought to
benefit all who engage in it, playful individuals may benefit more from play than less playful
individuals. Third, playfulness is interesting and important to examine in its own right and to
relate to other personality constructs identified in the psychological literature (e.g., the Big 5
personality characteristics, attachment style). Like other personality characteristics, playfulness
is likely to prove useful in understanding a wide variety of psychological phenomena.
Researchers have proposed that playfulness should have many benefits, including adaptabi-
lity, openness to new ideas, learning, growth, and a tendency to interpret situations as challenges
rather than threats (Guitard et al., 2005). Yet, almost all of these links remain unexamined, and
existing research has yielded inconsistent findings, most likely due to differences in the ways that
playfulness has been measured.
The most widely used measure of playfulness in adulthood is the Adult Playfulness Scale
(Glynn & Webster, 1992, 1993). This scale loads on five factors including spontaneity, expres-
siveness, fun, creativity, and silliness. There is debate as to whether the scale exhibits good con-
struct and content validity (Kruger, 1995), and we believe the scale confounds playfulness with
other constructs such as extraversion, creativity, and conscientiousness. However, high scores on
this measure have been linked with better academic performance and completing extra assign-
ments among college students (Proyer, 2011), productivity and job satisfaction among workers
(Glynn & Webster, 1992, 1993), and trait instrumentality and expressiveness (Bozionelos &
Bozionelos, 1997).
Other assessments of playfulness have been developed for specific study purposes. Staempf li’s
(2007) measure of playfulness (e.g., “I like to clown around”) was associated with greater in-
volvement in and enjoyment of leisure pursuits which, in turn, was linked with psychological
health among adolescents. However, playfulness also was associated with use of both optimal
(active) and suboptimal (withdrawal) coping strategies (Staempf li, 2007). In a smoking cessation
study, O’Connell, Gerkovich, Bott, Cook, and Shiffman (2000) measured playfulness with
three items, which pitted “playful” behaviors against “important” behaviors and likely elicited
social-desirability concerns (e.g., ‘Wanting to accomplish something versus trying to
have fun’). It is therefore not surprising that this assessment of playfulness was linked with poorer
coping during urges to smoke. We suspect that this measure ref lects impulsivity rather than
playfulness.
The only other measure of adult playfulness to date is Schaefer and Greenberg’s (1997) Play-
fulness Scale for Adults, which has yet to be used in an empirical investigation. This scale loads
on four factors: fun-loving, humor, silliness, and whimsical (Schaefer & Greenberg, 1997) and
demonstrates good internal-consistency and validity. However, some items appear too specific
or arbitrary to capture playfulness (e.g., “I would rather go to a museum than an amusement
park (reverse-scored)”, “I enjoy watching Star Trek and other science fiction shows”). Endorse-
ments of these items do not necessarily ref lect a dispositional tendency to approach activities
with the goal of having fun and an enthusiastic, in-the-moment attitude.
As is obvious from this review, an important goal for future research is to devise an
empirically-sound and well-validated measure of playfulness that fits a well-specified definition
of the construct. This is imperative in advancing this research area as it will enable researchers to
identify people who possess this characteristic, examine long-term outcomes of being playful,
examine interactions between playfulness and play behavior in predicting outcomes, uncover
mechanisms underlying effects of playfulness on outcomes, and both differentiate this construct
from and relate it to other dispositional constructs in the psychological literature.
Theories Relevant to Play and Playfulness

An important limitation of the current play and playfulness research is that both lack guiding
theoretical frameworks. Perhaps as a result of this atheoretical approach, investigations have
been disconnected from one another and exploratory in nature. The development of theories
of play and playfulness in adulthood will be imperative in moving this research area forward.
In a recent perspective to advance research on play in adulthood (Van Vleet & Feeney, in press),
we proposed a model depicting potential immediate and long-term outcomes of play to test. It
may also be useful to build on existing psychological theories that, although not focused on play,
have relevance to play and may provide a foundation from which to build programmatic
investigations.
First, attachment theory may inform research on play in adulthood. Attachment theory
describes three innate, interconnected behavioral systems – attachment, exploration, and care-
giving – that work together to promote security and facilitate effective engagement with the
environment (Bowlby, 1988). Caregivers who provide a safe haven demonstrate responsive
accessibility that underlies secure attachment, and caregivers who provide a secure base enable
their partners to successfully explore and engage with the environment. Recent extensions of
attachment theory (Feeney, 2004, 2007; Feeney & Thrush, 2010; Feeney & Van Vleet,
2010) conceptualize a secure base as establishing a stable center from which a partner can ven-
ture out to independently explore the environment, take on challenges, and accomplish per-
sonal goals. Play is relevant to this theory in two respects. First, play is one form of
exploration. Novel play activities that involve challenges and opportunities to learn may be
viewed as exploration behaviors that may be facilitated or hindered by partners in attachment
relationships. Second, play may provide one means by which partners promote and establish se-
curity within the relationship. Routine shared play that is indicative of partners’ familiarity with
one another (e.g., personal idioms, Baxter, 1987) may be a means of supporting a partner’s at-
tachment needs. Thus, play may serve both safety and exploration functions.
Consistent with this idea, research shows that routine shared play may be important in com-
municating that a relationship is secure (Bruess & Pearson, 1993). Once individuals feel they are
part of a stable and secure relationship, the type of play that couples share (or consider to
be important) may shift to be more exploratory over time. In short, attachment theory can be
expanded to incorporate play as an important and valued experience in close relationships be-
cause it provides a context in which an individual can feel safe, learn, grow, and thrive (see also
Feeney & Collins, 2014).
Evolutionary theory also may inform research on play in adulthood. Play has been described
as a universal phenomenon among mammals (e.g., Burghardt, 1998; Power, 2000; Thorpe,
1966; Wilson, 1975), suggesting that play has been naturally-selected. Some theorists propose
that, through play, young animals and children learn and practice important survival skills in a
time of optimal cognitive plasticity (Power, 2000). Because play often occurs within a social
context, young mammals also acquire social skills such as cooperation and compromise that
aid in initiating and continuing play episodes (Boulton & Smith, 1992; Fagan, 1981; Fry,
1987). Others claim that the evolutionary advantage of play is that it fosters behavioral diversity,
which may be important to a species’ survival, similar to genetic diversity (Vandenberg, 1978).
Shared play may also facilitate and maintain pair bonds, thereby ensuring reproductive success.
Although adults have less brain plasticity than children, play should continue to serve as a mech-
anism through which adults, too, can learn, bond, practice important skills, and acquire cognitive
and behavioral f lexibility.
Self-expansion theory (Aron & Aron, 1986) may shed light on potential consequences of
shared play and mechanisms through which such benefits are attained. Self-expansion theory
posits that individuals desire to expand the self by acquiring new skills, interests, and resources.
In developing relationships, partners typically experience rapid self-expansion as they integrate
their partners’ interests, skills, and resources into their own identity through self-disclosure. This
is an exhilarating experience, generating heightened levels of attraction and arousal (Aron &
Aron, 1986). Play also may be a means through which couples can attain shared self-expansion.
Aron and colleagues found that shared activities spark self-expansion if they are exciting (Aron,
Norman, Aron, & Lewandowski, 2002; Reissman et al., 1993), novel or challenging (Aron
et al., 2000; Aron et al., 2002), and make the partner salient (Aron et al., 2002). By sharing forms
of play that fit this description, couples may achieve shared self-expansion. Furthermore, when
relationships become established and opportunities to achieve self-expansion through self-
disclosure decline, play may be an important vehicle for achieving shared self-expansion and
sparking excitement.
Another theory that may guide researchers interested in play and playfulness in adulthood is
the Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning (Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001).
According to this theory, core leisure activities (the family’s typical leisure pursuits) are thought
to promote family cohesion (interconnectedness among family-members), while balance leisure
activities (novel or challenging activities) are thought to facilitate family adaptability (the family’s
ability to overcome obstacles and learn from new situations/challenges). Research thus far has
linked both leisure patterns with greater family cohesion and adaptability, with core activities
being particularly predictive of family cohesion (Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). This perspec-
tive and related findings (consistent with attachment theory) suggest that some forms of play
may be important in establishing security, while others may have implications for personal or
familial growth.
Conclusion
The goals of this manuscript were to review and integrate the existing research on play and play-
fulness in adulthood and to elucidate important directions for future theoretical and empirical
work in this area. Here, we highlight a few basic steps we view as critical for launching this area
of research. First, measures of play and playfulness that accurately ref lect the definition of the
phenomena must be developed. We proposed working definitions of each construct based
on our review of the literature, which we hope will provide a foundation for developing em-
pirically useful measures. It is also important that future research consider the effects of play (as a
behavior or activity) and playfulness (as a disposition) in the same study to assess whether play
behavior is equally beneficial to playful and non-playful individuals, and to assess whether these
constructs differentially predict outcomes.
Furthermore, the development and use of observational and experimental methodologies
will be important in advancing this research area. To date, almost all research in this area has
been correlational, self-report, and cross-sectional in nature. Although it is presumed that play
is a causal agent in predicting outcomes, we cannot currently (based on existing evidence) make
claims about direction of causality. It will be important for future research to experimentally
manipulate play behavior to establish its causal effects. Moreover, it will be important for future
research to assess participants’ perceptions of play activities, given that genuine play hinges on
individuals’ goals and demeanor during such activities. Once measures have been devised,
researchers can examine the functions and outcomes of play and playfulness proposed, as well as
questions regarding mechanisms (including physiological biomarkers and neural pathways)
through which play and playfulness exert their effects. The impact of play (as a behavior
or activity) and playfulness (as a disposition) on personal and relational well-being should be
explored longitudinally, and findings gleaned from such research could serve as a basis for play
interventions to enhance the well-being of individuals and families/relationships.
Short Biographies
Meredith Van Vleet’s research thus far has been grounded in attachment theory and has focused
on the effects of a relationship partner’s support provided in both positive contexts (such as
when a partner pursues a new independent interest or goal) and support provided in times of
adversity on personal and relationship well-being. She is also excited about studying the routine
positive processes that inf luence relationship quality and stability. Recently, she has been
researching the long-term impact of play activities on relationship quality and couples’ ability
to handle conf lict among newlyweds, dating couples, and older adult populations. Meredith
Van Vleet received her PhD in Personality/Social/Health Psychology from Carnegie Mellon
University in 2014, where she worked with Dr. Brooke C. Feeney. She received her BS in
Psychology from Grand Valley State University.
Brooke C. Feeney is a Professor in the Psychology Department at Carnegie Mellon Univer-
sity. Her research focuses on the study of interpersonal relations. Much of her work examines
questions about how close relationships help people to thrive through adversity and through
the pursuit of life challenges. Her program of research focuses on topics including social support
and caregiving, attachment, exploration, touch, and play – and the effects that these relationship
processes have on important outcomes such as personal health/well-being, personal growth,
and relationship stability/well-being. This research involves the use of observational and physio-
logical assessments of relational dynamics, as well as longitudinal methods to identify predictors of
health and longevity. Examples of research projects involve investigations of (a) the importance
of relationships in the lives of the older adults, the impact of relationship dynamics on the
happiness, health, and quality of life of the elderly; (b) the importance of the marital relationship
in facilitating the transition to retirement; (c) relationship processes in newlyweds that predict
f lourishing, stable relationships versus decline and divorce; and (d) predictors and consequences
of support/caregiving, play, and various forms of touch, within relationships. This work has
been funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Mental Health, and
the National Science Foundation.
Note
* Correspondence: Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Email:
mvanvlee@andrew.cmu.edu
References
Ablon, S. L. (2001). Continuities of tongues: A developmental perspective on the role of play in child and adult
psychoanalytic process. Journal of Clinical Psychoanalysis, 10, 354–365.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction. New York, NY:
Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., & Lewandowski, G. (2002). Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive
effects on experienced marital quality. In Noller P. & Feeney J. (Eds.), Understanding Marriage: Developments in the Study of
Couple Interaction (pp. 177–193). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and
arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284.
Aune, R. K., Aune, K. S., Dawson, E. J., & Pena, E. F. (1993). Relational messages associated with persona-sharing.
Communication Research Reports, 10, 129–139.
Aune, K. S., & Wong, N. C. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of adult play in romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 9, 279–286.
Barnett, L. A. (1991). Characterizing playfulness: Correlates with individual attributes and personality traits. Play and Culture,
4, 371–393.
Barnett, L. A. (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 949–958.
Baxter, L. A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
261–280.
Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships. Human Communications Research, 18,
336–363.
Bell, R. A., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., Gore, K. E. (1987). “Did you bring the yarmulke for the cabbage patch kid?” The
idiomatic communication of young lovers. Human Communication Research, 14, 47–67.
Berlyne, D. (1969). Laughter, humor and play. In Lindzey G. & Aronson E. (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 795–852). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publication Company.
Betcher, R. W. (1977). Intimate play and marital adaptation: Regression in the presence of another. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Boston University.
Betcher, R. W. (1981). Intimate play and marital adaptation. Psychiatry, 44, 13–33.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1992). The social nature of play fighting and play chasing: Mechanisms and strategies under-
lying cooperation and compromise. In Barkow J. H., Cosmides L., & Tooby J. (Eds.), The Adapted Mind (429–444). New
York: Oxford.
Bozionelos, N., & Bozionelos, G. (1997). Playfulness: Its relationship with instrumental and expressive traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 26, 749–760.
Bruess, C. J., & Pearson, J. C. (1993). ‘Sweat pea’ and ‘pussy cat’: An examination of idiom use and marital satisfaction over
the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 609–615.
Burghardt, G. M. (1998). The evolutionary origins of play revisited: Lessons from turtles. In M. Bekoff and J. A. Byers (Eds.).
Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Casado-Kehoe, M., Vanderbleek, L., & Thanasiu, P. (2007). Play in couples counseling. The Family Journal, 15, 133–136.
Coolahan, K., Fantuzzo, J., Mendez, J., & McDermott, P. (2000). Preschool peer interactions and readiness to learn:
Relationships between classroom peer play and learning behaviors and conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 458–465.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 41–63.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Dicks, H. V. (1963). Object relations theory and marital studies. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 35, 125–129.
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510–517.
Fagan, R. (1981). Animal Play Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fantuzzo, J., & McWayne, C. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in the family context and dimensions
of school readiness for low-income preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 79–87.
Fantuzzo, J., Sekino, Y., & Cohen, H. L. (2004). An examination of the contributions of interactive peer play to salient
classroom competencies for urban head start children. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 323–336.
Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships.
Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependence paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2014). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relation-
ships. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004–1017.
Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and
function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 57–76.
Feeney, B. C., & Van Vleet, M. (2010). Growing through attachment: The interplay of attachment and exploration in
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 226–234.
Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (1998). Joint leisure time in friend and romantic relationships: The role of activity type, social skills and
positivity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 711–718.
Fox, K. R. (1999). The influence of physical activity on mental well-being. Public Health Nutrition, 2, 411–418.
Fry, D. P. (1987). Differences between playfighting and serious fights among Zapotec children. Child Development, 49,
459–465.
George Bernard Shaw Quotes (n.d). Quotes.net. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://www.quotes.net/quote/404.
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, 1023–1023.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed
interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5–22.
Guitard, P., Ferland, F., & Dutil, E. (2005). Toward a better understanding of playfulness in adults. Occupation, Participation
and Health, 25, 9–22.
Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientific American, 207, 137–146.
Holman, T. B., & Jacquart, M. (1988). Leisure–activity patterns and marital satisfaction: A further test. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 50, 69–77.
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. (1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication,
31, 23–33.
Johnson, S. M. (2003). The revolution in couple therapy: A practitioner-scientist perspective. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 29, 365–384.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate
relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–1247.
Kruger, A. (1995). The adult playfulness scale: A review. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 32, 36–38.
Kruger, J., Gordon, C. L., & Kuban, J. (2006). Intentions in teasing: When “just kidding” just isn’t good enough. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 412–425.
Lauer, J. C., & Lauer, R. H. (2002). The Play Solution: How to Put the Fun and Excitement Back into Your Relationship. Chicago,
IL: Contemporary Books.
Lieberman, A. F. (1977). Preschoolers’ competence with a peer: Relations with attachment and peer experience. Child
Development, 48, 1277–1287.
O’Connell, K. A., Gerkovich, M. M., Bott, B., Cook, M. R., & Shiffman, S. (2000). Playfulness, arousal-seeking and
rebelliousness during smoking cessation. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 671–683.
Oring, E. (1984). Dyadic traditions. Journal of Folklore Research, 21, 19–28.
Orthner, D. K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over the marital career. Journal of Marriage and Family,
37, 91–102.
Orthner, D. K. (1976). Patterns of leisure and marital interaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 8, 98–111.
Power, T. G. (2000). Play and Exploration in Children and Animals. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Proyer, R. T. (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.
Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-
expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243–254.
Schaefer. C., & Greenberg, R. (1997). Measurement of playfulness: A neglected therapist variable. International Journal of Play,
6, 21–31.
Shiroma, E. J., & Lee, I. M. (2010). Physical activity and cardiovascular health lessons learned from epidemiological studies
across age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Circulation, 122, 743–752.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Singer, J. L., Singer, D. G., & Sherrod, L. R. (1980). A factory analytic study of preschoolers’ play behavior. Academic
Psychology Bulletin, 2, 143–156.
Solnit, A. J. (1998). Beyond play and playfulness. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 53, 102–110.
Staempfli, M. B. (2007). Adolescent playfulness, stress perception, coping and well-being. Journal of Leisure Research, 39,
393–412.
Starbuck, W. H., & Webster, J. (1991). When is play productive? Accounting, Management, & Information Technologies, 1,
71–90.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1970). A descriptive account of children’s play between one and five years. New York: Teacher’s College.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2008). Play theory: A personal journey and new thoughts. American Journal of Play, 1, 82–125.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. ., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and
3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75, 1806–1820.
Terr, L. (1999). Beyond love and work: Why adults need to play. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Thorpe, W. H. (1966). Play: Ritualization in Ontogeny Animal Play. Royal Society of London (Philosophical
Transactions “B”), 251, 311–319.
Van Vleet, M., & Feeney, B. C. (in press). Young at heart: A perspective for advancing research on play in adulthood.
Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Vandenberg, B. (1978). Play and development from an ethological perspective. American Psychologist, 33, 724–738.
Vanderbleek, L., Robinson, E. H., Casado-Kehoe, M., & Young, M. E. (2011). The relationship between play and couple
satisfaction and stability. The Family Journal, 19, 132–139.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Oxford, England: Penguin.
Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2001). The influences of family leisure patterns on perceptions of family functioning.
Family Relations, 50, 281–289.

Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social and Personality Psychology Compass 9/11 (2015): 630–643, 10.1111/spc3.

Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood

Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

may be perceived as frivolous, over-indulgent, or irresponsible (Sutton-Smith, 2008). Consis-

A Review of the Play in Adulthood Literature

A Review of the Playfulness in Adulthood Literature

Theories Relevant to Play and Playfulness

You might also like