playful people: fun is in the mind of the beholder€¦ · the beholder lynn a. barnett, ph.d....

IMAGINATION, COGNITION AND PERSONALITY, Vol. 31(3) 169-197, 2011-2012

PLAYFUL PEOPLE: FUN IS IN THE MIND OF

THE BEHOLDER

LYNN A. BARNETT, PH.D.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ABSTRACT

People who are playful are able to transform almost any situation into one

that is amusing and entertaining by cognitively and imaginatively manipu-

lating it in their mind. This investigation provides insight into the playfulness

quality and its component factors, by delineating relationships with measures

of personality, affective style, and motivational orientation for university

students. Findings revealed that, overall, playfulness could be largely

explained by the NEO personality dimensions, particularly extraversion, for

both males and females, and beyond that, relationships differed by gender.

Race/ethnicity also distinguished significant playfulness predictors, more

so for females than males, and to a lesser extent than gender. The four

playfulness components showed different relationships with the personality

measures, and gender and race/ethnicity again played a role in some. The

findings provide insight into the quality possessed by a number of people of

playing in one’s mind, with virtual disregard for the characteristics of the

external environment.

A number of authors have observed the abundance of playfulness in everyday

life (Gruner, 1997; Wickberg, 1998), noting that it can be found in virtually

every context or environment. Variously termed “comics,” “jokers,” “clowns,”

“jesters,” or “fools” (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999), they have been the topic

of recent scientific studies, in efforts to understand their motivation and explain

their prevalence. These individuals serve a number of important functions in

169

� 2012, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/IC.31.3.c

http://baywood.com

organizations, communities, and cultures (Plester & Orams, 2008; Rodrigues

& Collinson, 1995). In addition, some scholars who study playfulness have

suggested that playful adults demonstrate a higher level of resilience, which

in turn should lead to better physical and mental health (Hutchinson, Yarnal,

Son, & Kerstetter, 2008; Singer & Singer, 1990; Yarnal, 2006). They thus

call for increased research to inform our understanding of the playfulness

characteristic.

PLAYFUL CHILDREN

Efforts have been made to detail more exactly what playfulness consists of,

how it is typically manifested, and what it may mean or bring to the individual.

The study of this “playful” quality in children began in earnest with the work

of Lieberman (1965, 1966, 1977), who attempted to operationally define and

measure it. Lieberman found that children who were labeled high in the playful

quality showed play that was different in form, energy level, and sociability

from those who appeared to be low in playfulness. Studies with preschool and

school-aged children found that there were five underlying components of play-

fulness (physical spontaneity, cognitive spontaneity, social spontaneity, manifest

joy, sense of humor) (Barnett, 1990, 1991a, 1991b), but detected moderating

factors such as gender and the child’s home environment (Barnett & Kleiber,

1982, 1984).

Children who scored high in playfulness have been found to be more phys-

ically active and show more positive affect (Barnett, 1991b; Jenvey & Jenvey,

2002; Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg, 1983) and emotional expression and regu-

lation (Christiano & Russ, 1996; Elias & Berk, 2002; Fisher, 1992; Golomb &

Galasso, 1995; Russ, 2004; Russ, Robins, & Christiano, 1999) than their less

playful peers. Playfulness in children has been found to relate to problem-solving

(Singer & Singer, 1990; Sylva, Bruner, & Genoa, 1976; Vandenberg, 1978),

divergent thinking ability (Clark, Griffing, & Johnson, 1989; Dansky, 1980;

Kogan, 1983; Russ et al., 1999; Singer & Singer, 1990), creativity (Christie

& Johnson, 1983; Fein, 1987; Russ, 1993; Russ et al., 1993; Sawyer, 1997;

Vandenberg, 1980; but see Truhon, 1983), and a predisposition for imagina-

tion (Barnett, 1991b; Creasey, Jarvis, & Berk, 1998; Shmukler, 1982-83) and

fantasy (Rosenfeld, Huesmann, Eron, & Torney-Purta, 1982; Russ et al., 1999;

Sherrod & Singer, 1979; Wallach, 1970). The playfulness construct has been

shown to correlate with other personality dimensions, such as approach-

ability, adaptability, persistence, aggression, impatience, competitiveness, depen-

dence (Rogers, Meeks, Impara, & Frary, 1987), and imaginativeness, humorous

attitude, emotional expressiveness, novelty-seeking, curiosity, openness, and

communicativeness (Klinger, 1971; Singer, 1973a, 1973b; Singer & Rummo,

1973) in children.

170 / BARNETT

PLAYFUL ADULTS?

Empirical efforts have been undertaken to attempt to extend the work

with children to adolescents (Lieberman, 1977; Staempfli, 2007) and to adults

(Bozionelos & Bozionelos, 1999; Glynn & Webster, 1992, 1993; Rogers et al.,

1987; Starbuck & Webster, 1991; Tegano, 1990; Woszczynski, Roth, & Segars,

2002); however, they have proven to be less successful. Kruger (1995) argued

that the nature and/or complexity of playfulness yields a different concep-

tualization for adults and adolescents, and that studies should not utilize the

factor content or structure derived on children as a starting point. Following this

advice, Barnett (2007) was able to derive a definition and measurement of

playfulness in young adults (college students) by exploring personality descrip-

tors utilized to describe playfulness in themselves and others. Analyses con-

trasting high and low playfulness ratings showed that 15 descriptors consis-

tently differentiated between them in self and other ratings, and in males

and females. Factor analysis identified the four constituent dimensions of play-

fulness for both men and women: “gregarious” (cheerful, happy, friendly, out-

going, sociable), “uninhibited” (spontaneous, impulsive, unpredictable, adventur-

ous), “comedic” (clowns around, jokes/teases, funny, humorous), and “dynamic”

(active, energetic).

RELATIONSHIPS OF PLAYFULNESS WITH

PERSON CHARACTERISTICS

Personality

As research to derive an accepted definition and measurement of playfulness

in young adults evolved, questions about its relationship with other internal

attributes of the individual were raised. There currently is a paucity of research

systematically investigating the properties and correlates of adult playfulness,

yet there is a wealth of research upon which base preliminary hypotheses about

what relationships might be detected.

Studies investigating what people like to do in their free time and how this

represents an extension of one’s personality (cf. Diener, Larsen, & Emmons,

1984; Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1986; Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1986)

suggest relationships with playfulness. The extraversion personality dimension

has received the most attention in demonstrating such linkages, finding that

extroverts and introverts consistently differ in the extent to which they seek and

prefer social, stimulating, and risky activities in their free time leisure prefer-

ences and experiences (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Brandstatter, 1994; Caspi, Roberts,

& Shiner, 2005; Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, & Fujita, 1992; Lucas & Diener, 2001;

Lucas & Fujita, 2000; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). Zhiyan and Singer (2004)

PLAYFUL PEOPLE / 171

argued that extraversion is primarily social, and that there is a thinking-

daydreaming component that represents a subdimension.

Research has also shown that neurotic (emotionally unstable) people dislike

playful activities, experience less pleasure from the individual and social activities

in which they choose to engage, and have difficulty in achieving a deeper level

of involvement that typically leads to enhanced enjoyment (Kirkcaldy, 1989).

Open-minded individuals have different television viewing, movie, music, and

pleasure reading preferences (Krcmar & Greene, 1999; Krcmar & Kean, 2005;

Paunonen & Ashton, 2001) than those who are less imaginative, curious, or

broad-minded. Finally, people who are high in the conscientiousness personality

trait have been shown to be much less likely to have risky sex, eat unhealthily,

use tobacco, drink alcohol excessively, engage in risky driving, use drugs, or

lead an inactive lifestyle (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Roberts, Walton, & Bogg,

2005). These individuals are more likely to be committed to and involved with

their work (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007), suggesting that a negative relationship

with playfulness might be found.

In addition to the Big Five personality dimensions, relationships with

other aspects of personality might be found. Mannell’s (1984, 1985) self-as-

entertainment (SAE) construct appears to capture many similar essential qualities

observed in playful people, so that it is likely that connections with measures

of this quality would be found. In addition, there is also a plethora of research

describing certain types of individuals who appear to seek and enjoy excite-

ment, variety, stimulation, challenge, and adventure in their free time activities

more than others (Heino, vanderMolen, & Wilde, 1996; Zuckerman, 1979,

1994). While it might not necessarily be the case that highly playful adults

are more physically active or risk-taking, it was nevertheless predicted that

there would be relationships detected with some of the components of

sensation-seeking.

There is also literature that equates playfulness with a sense of humor

(Peterson & Seligman, 2004), perhaps drawing from studies that relate sense of

humor to playful descriptors and with proposed correlates of playfulness, such as

extraversion, sensation-seeking, affect intensity, mood, and activity level

(Kohler & Ruch, 1996; Ruch, 1994; Kohler, & vanThriel, 1996). For example,

investigations have shown that extraverts have a greater sense of humor than

introverts (Ruch, 1994; Thorson & Powell, 1993a), and sensation seeking has

also been found to relate positively to sense of humor (Ruch, 1988). While most

authors would stipulate that sense of humor and playfulness appear to be

inextricably related, studies have not tried to disentangle their joint appearance

and determine more specially their unique contributions. On the surface, sense of

humor appears to be more outwardly governed—relating more to a focus on

creating amusement for others—and it would be informative to more precisely

assess the extent to which playfulness and sense of humor share common

variance.

172 / BARNETT

Affectivity

Perhaps the most common element across various definitions, observations,

and conceptual accounts of playfulness has been the inclusion of positive

affect (smiling, laughing, giggling, etc.) in children and adults (Barnett, 1991b;

Lieberman, 1977; Rogers et al., 1987; Tegano, 1990). Several authors have also

reported significant positive correlations between how affect is displayed and

playfulness, with the degree of expressiveness thought to be a defining element

(Bozionelos & Bozionelos, 1999; Glynn & Webster, 1992; Jenvey & Jenvey,

2002; Russ, 2004). These findings—demonstrating that playful individuals are

generally more exuberant and expressive (Barnett, 1991b; Bozionelos &

Bozionelos, 1999; Lieberman, 1977)—further suggested that the intensity of

the affect that the individual shows, as well as their level of emotional expres-

sivity, might be implicated in further explicating the playfulness construct

(Russ, 1993, 2004).

Motivational Orientation

An individual’s characteristic motivational orientation was another primary

focus of study, based on the literature suggesting that intrinsic motivational

orientation is a pervasive or defining component of play and playful experiences

(Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Glynn & Webster, 1993; Johnson,

Christie, & Wardle, 2005; Rubin et al., 1983; Weissinger & Bandalos, 1995).

However, theory and research now demonstrating that intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation might well co-exist in many contexts, and that these two aspects of

motivation should no longer be regarded as opposite ends of a motivational

continuum (Amabile et al., 1994; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000),

mandates that closer scrutiny of these relationships be investigated.

FOCUS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The central focus of the present study was to contribute to a more extensive

understanding of the playfulness construct by delineating its relationships with

other person variables (personality, affectivity, motivational orientation) in an

attempt to further build and refine its nomological framework. In addition, a

secondary goal was to explore the extent to which gender (see reviews by

Hughes, 2010; Johnson et al., 2005; Maccoby, 1998) or race/ethnicity (Hale-

Benson, 1986; Sigelman, Miller, & Whitworth, 1986; Wardle, 2003) might

mediate these relationships. The few investigations that have searched for differ-

ences between men and women in playfulness have largely found minimal

distinctions (Glynn & Webster, 1992, 1993), although a few have found gender

effects but these have been in differing directions (Costa & McCrae, 1988;

Glynn & Webster, 1992). None of the previous studies with children, adoles-

cents, or adults has explored the possibility that there may be further differences


in playfulness as a function of the individual’s race or ethnic background.

Clearly, the relationship between adult playfulness and these significant demo-

graphic characteristics warrants further scrutiny and was explored in the

present study.

METHOD

Participants

Participants in the study were 627 undergraduate students from two large

midwestern universities. Students in a range of both lower- and upper-division

classes were invited to participate in the study, for which extra credit could be

earned. The classes were open to the general university, and students could obtain

credit for advancing social and behavioral sciences requirements. Initial analyses

indicated no differences between the classes or universities on any of the measures

in this study (all p > .05), thus, participants were combined across classes and

schools in subsequent analyses.

Of the sample of student participants, 47% (n = 295) were male; the mean age

of the sample was 20.89 years (SD = 2.31), with a range in age of 18 to 30

years. Forty-eight percent (n = 301) of the sample self-identified themselves

as Caucasian (159 male, 142 female), 29% (n = 182) reported being African

American (71 male, 111 female), 19% (n = 119) said Asian American (51 male,

68 female), and 4% (n = 25) labeled themselves as Hispanic (14 male, 11 female).

Virtually all (98%) of the final sample members were single (n = 614), the

remainder were married. Six percent (n = 38) of the sample was employed

full-time while they were also full-time students, 49% (n = 307) were employed

part-time, and 45% (n = 282) were not currently employed. Of those that were

employed, the range in the number of hours worked in a typical week was from

2 to 48 hours. Over one-third of the sample (38%) were seniors (n = 238),

27% were juniors (n = 169), 21% were sophomores (n = 132), and 14% had

completed only one semester at their university (n = 88).

Measures

Playfulness

Playfulness was measured using the Playfulness Scale for Young Adults

(Barnett, 2007). The instrument consists of 15 adjective descriptors to which

the respondent is asked to rate him or herself on each utilizing a 10-point scale

ranging from “very little” to “a lot.” Previous testing on the instrument with this

population confirmed its reliability and validity, and provided evidence of the

four component factors and their corresponding descriptors (Barnett, 2007).

Initial testing also indicated the validity of the scale when ratings were com-

pleted by others, as well as by oneself.

174 / BARNETT

Personality

The Big 5 personality dimensions (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscien-

tiousness, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience) were assessed through the

NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which

contains 240 statements to which the respondent reacts using a 5-point Likert

scale (“strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neutral,” “agree,” “strongly agree”).

A wealth of research has consistently found that these five dimensions are

accurate representations of individuals across a wide variety of ages and cul-

tures (McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998; Roberts, Walton, &

Viechtbauer, 2006).

Sensation Seeking

The Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS-V) is comprised of 40 items with a forced-

choice response format and includes four subscales: Thrill & Adventure Seeking

(TAS); Experience Seeking (ES); Disinhibition (DIS); and Boredom Suscept-

ibility (BS). SSS has been shown to be an accurate measure of sensation seeking

across a wide range of ages, and familial environments, and its use has been

extensively examined within different cultures, activities, and diverse environ-

ments (Zuckerman, 1979, 1994).

Sense of Humor

The Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (SH) is a 29-item instrument and

is comprised of four subscales: humor production and social uses of humor;

coping or adaptive humor; humor appreciation; and attitudes toward humor

(Thorson & Powell, 1991). The scale has high levels of reliability (.90), and has

been validated across a wide age range; it has also been found to be gender

neutral (Thorson & Powell, 1993b).

Self-as-Entertainment

The Self-as-Entertainment (SAE) Scale consists of 28 items, to which indi-

viduals respond on a 5-point Likert scale with endpoints labeled “doesn’t sound

like me” and “sounds a lot like me” (Mannell, 1984, 1985). Three modes of

SAE comprise this construct and have been shown to have high reliability

(Mannell, 1985): Self (the extent to which the individual believes s/he can fill

free time in an engaging and satisfying way); Mind Play (the extent to which

the individual uses imagination and escapes into fantasy to enjoyably fill free

time); and Environment (the extent to which the individual seeks resources in

the environment to fill free time).


Positive and Negative Affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

1988) contains two independent 10-item scales, with items consisting of a

single word to which the individual indicates the extent to which s/he feels

this way using the response choices of “very slightly or not at all,” “a little,”

“moderately,” “quite a bit,” or “extremely.” The scales have been shown to

be valid, internally consistent, and stable over 1 month and 1 year durations

(Watson et al., 1988).

Affect Intensity

The Affect Intensity Measure (AIM) (Larsen, 1984; Larsen, Diener, &

Emmons, 1986) measures the magnitude with which people experience both

positive and negative emotions, independent of the frequency of particular

affective states. It is a 40-item scale with a 6-point Likert response format

(“never,” “almost never,” “occasionally,” “usually,” “almost always,” “always”).

Test-retest reliabilities and psychometric testing has produced good results

(Larsen & Diener, 1985, 1987) with undergraduate students as well as with

members of the general population.

Emotional Expressivity

Kring, Smith, and Neale (1994) developed the Emotional Expressivity Scale

(EES) to assess “individual differences in the extent to which people outwardly

display their emotions” (p. 934), regardless of whether the emotion is positive or

negative, or the manner in which it is expressed (by voice, facial expressions,

or gestures). The EES is comprised of 17 items and uses a 6-point Likert scale

format (“always true” to “never true”). Reliability and validity have been highly

acceptable with undergraduate university students (Kring et al., 1994).

Motivational Orientation

The Work Preference Inventory (WPI) (Amabile et al., 1994) has been used

to assess individual differences in intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orien-

tations among university students and working adults (Amabile et al., 1994).

It is scored on the two primary scales of Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic

Motivation, and each is further subdivided into two secondary scales (Intrinsic

Motivation: Challenge, Enjoyment; Extrinsic Motivation: Outward, Compen-

sation). It is a 30-item scale with four response choices anchored by “always

or almost always true of me” and “never or almost never true of me.” It has

good internal consistency and test-retest reliability over a 6-month interval.

Participants were also asked to complete a confidential Demographic Infor-

mation Form asking for their age, gender, race, university standing, university

major, how long they had been in that major, marital status, number of children,

176 / BARNETT

outside employment (type and number of hours), and the type of employment

of each parent.

Procedures

All of the information collected from each respondent was completed in a

group setting to provide assurances that volunteer participants in the classes

were providing the information. At all times, an investigator was available to

answer questions or provide clarification if it was requested. The materials were

provided in a packet that was distributed to each individual. Packets were then

returned to the investigator when they were completed. A near perfect response

rate was obtained (one individual left the room without turning in his packet).

Data Analysis

In the first step in the analysis, zero-order correlation coefficients were com-

puted between each of the personality, affectivity, and motivational orientation

predictor variables and total playfulness and playfulness component scores. A

separate correlation matrix was computed for males and females, to examine

different strengths and directions of relationships as a function of sex. Inspection

of the correlations also provided an indication of the extent to which predictor

variables might be related, and would necessitate modifications to intended

statistical procedures.

A hierarchical regression analysis was then performed for the total playfulness

dependent variable, and each of the four playfulness components, for males

and females separately. Each regression was conducted in eight steps. The first

step introduced the race variable, dummy coded as Caucasian or minority. The

second through eighth steps examined the unique effects of the personality,

affectivity, and motivational orientation variables in the following order: the

Big Five dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, con-

scientiousness), the four sensation-seeking subscales (thrill/adventure seeking,

disinhibition, experience seeking, boredom susceptibility), the four sense of

humor subscales (production, coping, appreciation, attitudes), the three self-as-

entertainment subscales (self, mind, environment), the two affective types

(positive, negative), affect intensity and emotional expressiveness totals, and the

four motivational orientation subscales (intrinsic motivation–enjoyment, intrinsic

motivation–challenge, extrinsic motivation–outward, extrinsic motivation–

compensation). Tables 2 through 6 present the results of the regression analyses

for total playfulness, and its four constituent components (“gregarious,”

“uninhibited,” “comedic,” “dynamic”), respectively. To account for these multiple

statistical tests, the significance level for discussion and interpretation was set

at an alpha level of .01 rather than adopting adjustments using the Bonferroni

or Holm method which have been criticized as being too severe (Aickin, 1999;

Perneger, 1998).


RESULTS

Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations between the personality, affectivity,

and motivational orientation variables and the playfulness total and component

scores, as well as means and standard deviations for the playfulness measures.

They are displayed separately for males and females to permit an initial

examination of the extent to which different patterns of relationships might

be detected. Inspection of the correlations that were significant at the .01 alpha

level or better revealed some consistencies in relationships with playfulness

between the men and women in the study. Total playfulness scores were positively

related to the extraversion dimension of the Big Five, and to two of the three

self-as-entertainment subscales (self, environment). These were not surprising

findings, as many of the characteristics of playfulness relate to the extent to which

the individual is social and outgoing, and is able to amuse him or herself (as well

as others) through playful antics. It was interesting to find that total playfulness

related to sense of humor, but only for males, and that it correlated significantly

with various, but different, aspects of sensation seeking for women and men.

Further examination of Table 1 revealed significant relationships with

personality, affect, and motivational variables for each of the four playfulness

components. A number of significant correlations (p < .01) were found, and they

largely revealed different patterns for men and women. For example, the

gregarious aspect of playfulness was positively related to sense of humor for

males, and to sensation seeking for females. The uninhibited component showed

significant positive relationships with three of the personality dimensions for

males, but with only one (and a different one) for females. Sensation seeking,

correlated highly with the gregarious component for females, correlated highly

with the uninhibited component for males. Motivational orientation related to how

uninhibited males were in playfulness, but this did not occur for females. All four

sense of humor subscales correlated positively with the comedic element for males

but, for females, only humor production was found to relate. A number of

personality attributes related to this comedic component for the women, but not for

the men. Finally, the dynamic component correlated significantly with three of the

personality dimensions, but only for the women. Based on these observations, it

was anticipated that the regression analyses would further capture, elaborate, and

elucidate these significant relationships found differentially for the men and

women in the study.

What Predicts How Playful A Person Is?

Playfulness in men was significantly (p < .01) predicted by two of the Big

Five personality dimensions (high extraversion, low conscientiousness), appre-

ciating humor, frequently displaying negative affect, and by a lack of motivation

from tangible rewards (Table 2). For playful women, several (but not all) of

these predictors were also statistically significant. Females who were high in

178 / BARNETT


Table 1. Correlations (Decimals Omitted) between Predictor Variables

and Playfulness, and Means and Standard Deviations for

Playfulness Scores, for Males and Females

Predictor

variable

Males (n = 320-178) Females (n = 279-168)

PFT PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4 PFT PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4

NEO-N

NEO-E

NEO-O

NEO-A

NEO-C

SSS-TAS

SSS-DIS

SSS-ES

SSS-BS

SH-PRD

SH-COP

SH-APP

SH-ATT

SAE-SLF

SAE-MND

SAE-ENV

PANAS+

PANAS–

AIM

EES

WPI-IME

WPI-IMC

WPI-EMO

WPI-EMC

–05

38**

15

–19

–31**

25*

23*

26**

11

37**

25**

46**

32**

30**

11

38**

16

12

42**

27**

18

–20

05

–33**

–24*

46**

–09

–06

–12

22*

16

04

–09

31**

10

43**

31**

22*

–13

27**

18

–10

24**

32**

13

–12

–06

–25*

16

17

33**

–27**

–49**

10

25**

30**

32**

13

19

29**

11

18

42**

44**

12

30**

43**

15

20

–24**

16

–32**

08

19

11

–16

–22*

24*

14

13

19

47**

36**

37**

30**

16

08

21*

–01

13

27**

09

02

–11

05

–21

–20

20

–02

–06

12

13

00

29**

–09

15

–03

12

08

28**

–07

08

29**

–02

15

13

19

–07

04

–08

–14

72**

18

11

03

50**

38**

29*

11

24

04

05

06

56**

11

61**

42**

–28**

06

37**

14

21

–12

–15

–31**

71**

22

11

21

42**

35**

36**

–01

01

–12

–05

06

45**

11

68**

50**

–19

07

39**

14

13

–14

03

01

42**

12

27*

–20

37**

22

09

27

09

06

10

–05

41**

21

47**

39**

–11

20

31*

30*

25

–09

–27*

03

54**

20

07

–05

50**

22

27*

20

52**

21

10

04

55**

10

34**

09

–36**

–00

28*

12

12

–07

–15

–33**

56**

02

–15

34**

24

31*

21

–18

21

06

11

25

37**

–04

37**

46**

–22

–08

05

–06

33**

–17

00

M

SD

7.57

1.06

7.55

1.42

7.16

1.54

7.76

1.27

7.96

1.46

7.61

1.30

7.95

1.56

6.99

1.53

7.70

1.66

7.71

1.73

*p < .001. **p <.01.

Note: PFT = Total playfulness, PF1 = Gregarious, PF2 = Uninhibited, PF3 = Comedic,

PF4 = Dynamic, NEO-N = Big Five: Neuroticism, NEO-E = Big Five: Extraversion, NEO-O =

Big Five: Openness to Experience, NEO-A = Big Five: Agreeableness, NEO-C = Big Five:

Conscientiousness, SSS-TA = Sensation Seeking: Thrill & Adventure Seeking, SSS-DIS =

Sensation Seeking: Disinhibition, SSS-ES = Sensation Seeking: Experience Seeking,

SSS-BS = Sensation Seeking: Boredom Susceptibility, SH-PRD = Sense of Humor: Humor

Production, SH-COP = Sense of Humor: Coping/Adaptive Humor, SH-APP = Sense of

Humor: Humor Appreciation, SH-ATT = Sense of Humor: Attitude Toward Humor, SAE-SLF

= Self-as-entertainment: Self, SAE-MND = Self-as-entertainment: Mind Play, SAE-ENV =

Self-as-entertainment: Environment, AIM = Affect Intensity, EES = Emotional Expressivity,

WPI-IME = Intrinsic Motivation: Enjoyment, WPI-IMC = Intrinsic Motivation: Challenge,

WPI-EMO = Extrinsic Motivation: Outward, WPI-EMC = Extrinsic Motivation: Compensation.

180 / BARNETT

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting

TOTAL PLAYFULNESS for Males and Females

Predictor

variables

Males (n = 320-178) Females (n = 279-168)

Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p

Step 1. Race

Step 2. NEONEOAC

Step 3. SSSTASDISESBS

Step 4. SHPRDCOPAPPATT

Step 5. SAESLFMNDENV

Step 6. AFFCTPOSNEG

Step 7. AFFEXPAIMEES

Step 8. MOTIVIMEIMCEMOEMC

–.13

–.05.42.08

–.17–.34

.17–.18.11

–.05

.19–.15.28.15

.17–.10.12

.20

.27

.13

.01

–.03–.16.10

–.28

1.69

31.65

4.99

13.77

3.11

6.56

.73

5.15

1.94

10.25.23

20.77.94

3.9116.50

2.103.682.991.03

.24

7.193.761.936.991.93

2.242.96

.991.63

8.154.67

10.72

.911.57

.02

3.54.11

3.391.23

11.29

.16

.00

.63

.00

.34

.05

.00

.09

.06

.09

.31

.63

.00

.06

.17

.01

.17

.09

.09

.32

.20

.00

.03

.00

.41

.21

.89

.01

.75

.07

.27

.00

–.40

–.06.80

–.22.05

–.15

.09–.25.11.23

–.10.23

–.30.03

.19

.06

.22

.38

.39

–.06.01

–.14–.00–.13–.52

15.93

45.39

7.39

3.33

4.36

7.51

.18

9.00

13.26

15.26.55

59.465.40

.343.19

3.60.69

5.331.076.54

1.70.71

2.975.65

.07

3.333.19

.372.27

12.1416.3814.61

.28

.55

.00

14.975.49

.003.22

36.50

.00

.00

.46

.00

.02

.56

.08

.01

.41

.02

.31

.01

.16

.40

.09

.02

.79

.03

.08

.54

.14

.00

.00

.00

.76

.46

.95

.00

.02

.97

.08

.00

Note: NEO = Big Five, NEO-N = Neuroticism, NEO-E = Extraversion, NEO-O =

Openness to Experience, NEO-A = Agreeableness, NEO-C = Conscientiousness, SSS =

Sensation Seeking, SSS-TA = Thrill & Adventure Seeking, SSS-DIS = Disinhibition, SSS-ES

= Experience Seeking, SSS-BS = Boredom Susceptibility, SH = Sense of Humor, SH-PRD

= Humor Production, SH-COP = Coping/Adaptive Humor, SH-APP = Humor Apprecia-

tion, SH-ATT = Attitude Toward Humor, SAE = Self-as-Entertainment, SAE-SLF = Self,

SAE-MND = Mind Play, SAE-ENV = Environment, AFFCT-POS = Positive Affect, AFFCT-NEG

= Negative Affect, AFFIN = Affective Expression, AFFEXP-AIM = Affect Intensity, AFFEXP-

EES = Emotional Expressivity, MOTIV = Motivation, MOTIV-IME = Intrinsic Motivation:

Enjoyment, MOTIV-IMC = Intrinsic Motivation: Challenge, MOTIV-EMO = Extrinsic Moti-

vation: Outward, MOTIV-EMC = Extrinsic Motivation: Compensation.

playfulness also tended to be extraverted and unmotivated by tangible rewards,

and were also high in displays of both negative and positive affect. Conscien-

tiousness was not predictive, and humor appreciation approached adopted level

of significance here (p < .02). One of the more interesting findings was that

race was a highly significant predictor of playfulness for the women in the

study (p < .0005), but not for the men. The personality, affect, and motivation

variables combined to explain 67.64% of total playfulness for the men and

93.09% for the women. These combined variables were also highly but differen-

tially predictive of the individual components of playfulness, accounting for

74.37% to 49.26% of total variance for the men, and 92.19% to 77.27% for the

women. A more detailed look into these findings follows, as total playfulness

represents the sum of its four components.

What Predicts the Components of Playfulness?

For both men and women, the gregarious component of playfulness was

predicted by the extraversion personality dimension and by being unmotivated by

tangible rewards (Table 3). In addition, men who were low on conscientiousness,

indicating an impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification, were high on the

gregarious aspect of playfulness. Women who typically displayed more positive

affect, and who turned to their environment to entertain themselves, were pre-

dicted to be more gregarious. It was interesting to find that sense of humor related

to this aspect of playfulness for both men and women, but in different ways.

Significant predictors for men were the ability to appreciate humor and not

viewing humor as a coping mechanism for dealing with environmental stressors.

For women, low humor appreciation was a significant predictor, as was a low

frequency of telling jokes and funny stories. These contrasting findings indi-

cate a different role played by sense of humor in predicting playfulness in men

and women.

The regression analyses (Table 4) for the second playfulness factor—

“uninhibited”—revealed that there were both similarities and differences in the

findings for males and females. Extraverted and impulsive individuals (low

conscientiousness) scored high on this component, as did those who were high

in negative affect and low in being extrinsically motivated by tangible rewards.

In addition, high positive affect was also a significant predictor for the females,

as were openness to experience and use of the environment to self-entertain for

the males. Race did not predict differences in the uninhibited aspect of playfulness

for either sex.

It was not surprising to find that the “comedic” aspect of playfulness was

predicted by humor production for both the men and women. In addition, other

significant predictors of the comedic quality for women were a high susceptibility

to boredom, being low in disinhibition, and scoring high in the ability to entertain

oneself (Table 5). As with previous analyses, extraversion and lack of motivation


182 / BARNETT


GREGARIOUS playfulness for Males and Females

Predictor

variables

Males (n = 320-178) Females (n = 279-168)

Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p

Step 1. Race

Step 2. NEONEOAC




Step 6. AFFCTPOSNEG



–.07

–.10.52.17

–.04–.26

.18–.01–.06–.16

.15–.28.36.17

.14–.23.01

.09

.12

.06

.15

–.10–.04.05

–.22

.43

30.41

5.47

15.68

.04

1.36

1.88

2.96

.49

9.501.05

30.933.91

.239.22

2.234.21

.01

.282.73

8.162.236.75

11.412.49

2.702.045.48

.01

1.50.94

1.90

2.13.37

3.02

1.731.06

.14

.256.18

.49

.00

.31

.00

.05

.64

.00

.07

.04

.94

.61

.10

.00

.14

.01

.00

.12

.05

.16

.02

.94

.23

.33

.17

.12

.55

.09

.15

.31

.71

.62

.01

–.21

–.14.82

–.21–.04–.09

.01

.07

.28

.06

–.32.24

–.48.12

–.13.19.43

.35

.24

–.01.01

–.09–.13.02

–.35

4.22

51.06

5.76

10.63

5.38

4.85

.00

4.26

3.09

14.852.48

54.104.16

.21

.98

2.56.00.32

5.74.33

5.357.423.30

14.441.12

4.221.383.769.10

6.9712.25

4.91

.01

.01

.01

3.541.141.31

.058.30

.08

.00

.12

.00

.05

.65

.76

.07

.95

.57

.02

.57

.00

.01

.07

.00

.29

.01

.25

.06

.00

.00

.00

.03

.99

.92

.91

.01

.29

.26

.82

.01

Note: NEO=Big Five, NEO-N = Neuroticism, NEO-E = Extraversion, NEO-O = Openness

to Experience, NEO-A = Agreeableness, NEO-C = Conscientiousness, SSS = Sensation

Seeking, SSS-TA = Thrill & Adventure Seeking, SSS-DIS = Disinhibition, SSS-ES =

Experience Seeking, SSS-BS = Boredom Susceptibility, SH = Sense of Humor, SH-PRD =

Humor Production, SH-COP = Coping/Adaptive Humor, SH-APP = Humor Appreciation,

SH-ATT=Attitude Toward Humor, SAE = Self-as-Entertainment, SAE-SLF = Self, SAE-

MND = Mind Play, SAE-ENV = Environment, AFFCT-POS = Positive Affect, AFFCT-NEG =

Negative Affect, AFFIN = Affective Expression, AFFEXP-AIM = Affect Intensity, AFFEXP-

EES = Emotional Expressivity, MOTIV-IME = Intrinsic Motivation: Enjoyment, MOTIV-IMC =

Intrinsic Motivation: Challenge, MOTIV-EMO = Extrinsic Motivation: Outward, MOTIV-EMC =

Extrinsic Motivation: Compensation.



UNINHIBITED playfulness for Males and Females

Predictor

variables

Males (n = 320-178) Females (n = 279-168)

Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p

Step 1. Race

Step 2. NEONEOAC




Step 6. AFFCTPOSNEG



–.02

.04

.23

.29–.19–.48

.07–.21.04.06

.03–.08.12.09

.17

.11

.33

.16

.33

.12–.00

.02–.13.15

–.25

.06

43.63

2.58

2.13

12.57

8.35

.60

4.45

.07

16.74.20

7.2614.17

5.3537.48

1.25.83

4.43.17.49

1.04.09.58

1.22.61

10.413.151.50

14.24

12.924.04

20.62

.931.74

.00

3.86.08

2.953.22

11.78

.79

.00

.66

.01

.00

.03

.00

.29

.37

.04

.68

.49

.39

.77

.45

.27

.44

.00

.08

.22

.00

.00

.05

.00

.4019.98

.01

.79

.09

.08

.00

–.14

.09

.59–.18.23

–.28

.21–.14–.23.26

–.23.38

–.14–.05

.37

.05

.03

.48

.58

.02–.03

–.02.10

–.16–.45

1.96

32.12

9.29

4.01

7.91

14.12

.05

7.82

1.40

6.33.63

18.842.214.566.71

2.502.02

.972.734.58

1.082.044.32

.65

.11

3.186.30

.14

.03

12.0013.5017.07

.04

.03

.05

3.96.03.54

1.498.15

.24

.00

.43

.00

.14

.04

.01

.05

.16

.33

.10

.04

.37

.16

.04

.42

.74

.03

.02

.71

.86

.00

.00

.00

.96

.87

.82

.01

.86

.47

.23

.01



Sensation Seeking, SSS-TA = Thrill & Adventure Seeking, SSS-DIS = Disinhibition, SSS-

ES = Experience Seeking, SSS-BS = Boredom Susceptibility, SH = Sense of Humor,

SH-PRD = Humor Production, SH-COP = Coping/Adaptive Humor, SH-APP = Humor

Appreciation, SH-ATT = Attitude Toward Humor, SAE = Self-as-Entertainment, SAE-SLF =

Self, SAE-MND = Mind Play, SAE-ENV = Environment, AFFCT-POS = Positive Affect,

AFFCT-NEG = Negative Affect, AFFIN = Affective Expression, AFFEXP-AIM = Affect

Intensity, AFFEXP-EES = Emotional Expressivity, MOTIV-IME = Intrinsic Motivation: Enjoy-

ment, MOTIV-IMC = Intrinsic Motivation: Challenge, MOTIV-EMO = Extrinsic Motivation:

Outward, MOTIV-EMC = Extrinsic Motivation: Compensation.

184 / BARNETT


COMEDIC playfulness for Males and Females

Predictor

variables

Males (n = 320-178) Females (n = 279-168)

Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p

Step 1. Race

Step 2. NEONEOAC




Step 6. AFFCTPOSNEG



–.25

.01

.24

.11–.17–.18

.21–.21.08.12

.33

.07

.20

.13

–.02–.12–.05

.07

.17

.07–.12

–.01–.15–.06–.10

6.00

13.71

5.77

24.73

1.26

2.03

.91

1.79

7.21

3.69.01

5.741.453.033.97

2.015.123.21

.421.18

12.4211.02

.383.371.32

.84

.061.39

.25

2.07.48

3.49

.93

.401.79

.91

.072.11

.271.15

.01

.00

.91

.02

.23

.08

.05

.10

.03

.08

.52

.28

.00

.00

.54

.07

.25

.48

.81

.24

.62

.13

.49

.06

.40

.53

.18

.46

.94

.15

.60

.29

–.54

.05

.49–.08.09

–.12

.17–.66.04.34

.30

.05–.14–.12

.29–.10.03

–.07.05

–.11.03

–.10.05

–.20–.40

29.43

18.35

24.51

8.12

3.52

.33

.69

7.23

29.20

4.57.30

16.43.59.93

1.43

13.492.67

41.54.21

16.36

5.919.66

.201.931.53

3.9410.57

1.62.06

.54

.60

.21

1.152.26

.12

10.642.72

.316.38

18.49

.00

.00

.58

.00

.45

.34

.24

.00

.11

.00

.65

.00

.00

.00

.66

.17

.22

.01

.00

.21

.81

.58

.44

.65

.32

.14

.73

.00

.11

.58

.02

.00









Intensity, AFFEXP-EES = Emotional Expressivity, MOTIV-IME = Intrinsic Motivation:

Enjoyment, MOTIV-IMC = Intrinsic Motivation: Challenge, MOTIV-EMO = Extrinsic

Motivation: Outward, MOTIV-EMC = Extrinsic Motivation: Compensation.

by rewards were significant as well. An interesting finding was that for both

men and women, race was highly significant and revealed that Caucasian students

were higher on comedic playfulness than minority students.

The dynamic aspect of playfulness also showed differences due to race

(Table 6), but only for the female students (Caucasian females were more dynamic

than minority females). The aspects of personality, affect, and motivational style

that predicted this fourth playfulness factor for males were also significant for

females. Individuals who sought new and varied experiences, often displayed

positive affect, and were not motivated by compensation, were predicted to be

those highest in dynamic playfulness. Three of the Big Five personality dimen-

sions were also significant predictors for females: extraversion, emotional stability

(low neuroticism), and low agreeableness. In addition, women who also displayed

negative affect and who were not intrinsically motivated to seek enjoyment were

predicted to be higher in this component of playfulness.

DISCUSSION

What Determines How Playful a Person Is?

The data indicate that playfulness in young adults can be largely explained by

personality, affective style, and motivational orientation. The combination of

these variables accounted for a large amount of the variance in total playfulness

for females and males (93% and 68%, respectively), and were highly predictive

in explaining each of the four playfulness component factors (ranging from

92%–77% for females, and 74%–49% for males). While it appeared that playful-

ness in men might be more susceptible to environmental influences than for the

women, it is still reasonable to conclude that internal attributes play a significant

role. These findings also serve to confirm the measurement of playfulness, which

relies largely on descriptive characterizations of individuals across situations,

settings, and circumstances (Barnett, 2007).

The personality variables were shown to be more salient indicators of play-

fulness than were affect or motivation for both men and women. Personality traits

contributed to playfulness more than did other characteristics of the individual

(sense of humor, sensation-seeking, self-as-entertainment), particularly and con-

sistently, extraversion. This confirms and extends previous literature noting posi-

tive correlations between this Big Five dimension and play styles (Costa &

McCrae, 1988), and demonstrates strong predictive effects and consistency across

gender. In addition, the conscientiousness dimension showed negative relation-

ships for males, revealing that young adult men who are more impulsive and

less able to delay gratification are those who tend to be more playful. This result

fits well with most casual observations of playful individuals that have been

identified empirically in the literature with children (Barnett, 1991a) and adults


186 / BARNETT


DYNAMIC playfulness for Males and Females

Predictor

variables

Males (n = 320-178) Females (n = 279-168)

Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p Beta

R2 chg

(%) F p

Step 1. Race

Step 2. NEONEOAC




Step 6. AFFCTPOSNEG



–.08

–.12.13.05

–.17.09

–.05–.19.54

–.20

.06–.07.07.00

.29–.02.02

.39

.18

.17–.10

.05–.26.22

–.27

.71

6.53

17.48

.58

4.42

9.82

1.30

8.41

.81

1.521.041.51

.232.61

.79

6.04.32

2.5519.88

3.48

.19

.22

.29

.26

.00

2.035.36

.02

.02

7.7211.52

3.14

1.021.71

.82

3.69.22

5.813.716.79

.37

.19

.31

.22

.63

.11

.38

.00

.58

.11

.00

.06

.94

.64

.59

.61

.97

.11

.02

.90

.89

.00

.00

.08

.36

.19

.37

.01

.64

.02

.06

.01

–.43

–.29.53

–.24–.25.13

–.23.01.30

–.01

.01–.08–.01.22

.10

.01

.11

.58

.46

–.11–.00

–.33–.01–.10–.50

18.07

38.46

5.46

2.30

.99

14.52

.67

10.63

15.44

11.5010.6822.74

5.938.232.07

2.193.79

.017.03

.01

.92

.01

.30

.012.98

.52

.57

.01

.39

18.6830.7316.09

.861.70

.00

13.7324.43

.021.40

25.53

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.01

.15

.08

.06

.91

.01

.93

.46

.94

.59

.92

.09

.67

.46

.92

.54

.00

.00

.00

.43

.20

.98

.00

.00

.90

.24

.00









Intensity, AFFEXP-EES = Emotional Expressivity, MOTIV-IME = Intrinsic Motivation:

Enjoyment, MOTIV-IMC = Intrinsic Motivation: Challenge, MOTIV-EMO = Extrinsic

Motivation: Outward, MOTIV-EMC = Extrinsic Motivation: Compensation.

(Barnett, 2007; Glynn & Webster, 1992, 1993), although gender differences in

adults have not been examined.

Relationships between playfulness and sense of humor deserve particular atten-

tion, since recent work tends to equate the two constructs (Peterson & Seligman,

2004), and research has found positive connections between extraversion and

sense of humor (Ruch, 1994a, 1994b; Thorson & Powell, 1993a). In this study, it

was found that the ability to produce and inject humor relates strongly to one of

the components of playfulness—the comedic dimension—but its contribution

to the other three components or to the composite measure is minimal. In addition,

a comparison of the findings by gender revealed that a sense of humor is more

of a part of the playfulness quality in men than in women. For example, men

who were able to appreciate the humor of others were also more playful them-

selves, as were those who viewed humor as important for social encounters rather

than as a means of coping with environmental stressors. These results indicate

quite clearly that sense of humor is a very different attribute than the playfulness

quality. The ability to tell jokes and funny stories, and appreciate those told by

others, are more typical behaviors recognized in playful men than in their female

counterparts (Damico & Purkey, 1978; Holmes, 1992). For women, humor is

much less of a component of playfulness than for men.

The results for the affectivity measures revealed that more playful females

consistently displayed more affect—both positive and negative—while playful

men were found to be high in only negative affect. This finding is consistent with

literature that positions females as typically displaying more emotion than men

(Blum, 1998; Sax, 2005), yet it is curious in light of both theoretical and empirical

literature asserting positive emotion to accompany, or even signal, a play episode

(Hull, William, & Young, 1992). While these findings provide further evidence of

the independence between the two affective dimensions (Clark & Watson, 1988;

Watson & Tellegen, 1985), a closer inspection of the descriptors (high energy,

enthusiasm, full concentration, pleasurable engagement) suggests that those that

are more closely related to playful behaviors were not included (e.g., fun, enjoy-

ment, satisfaction). Previous research has detected the presence of both positive

and negative affect in children’s play episodes (Johnson et al., 2005; Russ, 2004)

and this may well extend to adult play. An additional finding was that the intensity

with which affect was displayed, whether positive or negative, correlated with but

was not predictive of playfulness for the men and women in the study. Clearly,

further research will need to delve more closely into relationships between play-

ulness and affect (in particular, negative affect), with continued scrutiny for

gender and other background differences. In addition, it appears that the most

obvious descriptors of playful children—their exuberance and joie de vivre—all

but disappear as playfulness moves from childhood through adolescence and

into young adulthood (Singer & Singer, 1990).

Motivational orientation was initially deemed to be an important consideration

in exploring relationships with playfulness, since play has been both defined and


heralded as one of the few predominantly intrinsically motivated behaviors in

the human repertoire (Johnson et al., 2005; Rubin et al., 1983; Weissinger &

Bandalos, 1995). More recent literature has posited that individuals can be both

intrinsically and extrinsically motivated simultaneously (Gagne & Deci, 2005;

Ryan & Deci, 2000), and that this confluence of motivating influences can be

observed in both play and work-like settings (Amabile et al., 1994; Gagne & Deci,

2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The only significant predictor in the present study

concerning motivational orientation was the finding, for both men and women,

that playful individuals were not motivated by tangible rewards. Perhaps this is a

reflection of the blurring of motivational lines detected across varying types of

settings, and results indicating that enjoyment and satisfaction can come from

work settings as much as from play or leisure ones (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). This,

and other similar findings, might stress the need to revisit some of these classic

definitions of play and leisure, particularly as we move to emphasize the qualities

of playful individuals that they bring into a diverse array of environments.

While gender has occupied a primary role in the design and data analyses, the

contributions of an individual’s race or ethnicity were also of paramount interest.

The relatively small sample sizes prohibited a more fine-grained test of such

differences in playfulness attributable to different racial/ethnic backgrounds,

yet the findings did demonstrate that race/ethnicity (defined herein as minority

versus Caucasian), at least for females, was a significant predictor of total playful-

ness and one or more of its component factors. It is not clear from the extant

playfulness literature why such differences between Caucasian students and

minority members might be detected, and why they appear to be stronger for

females than for males. Previous research has failed to test for such effects and,

thus, racial or ethnic differences have not been identified in previous studies

related to the playfulness construct. It may simply be that, for example, Caucasian

students are more comedic than minority students, and that personality predictors

are similar but at differing levels or frequencies. Alternately, race/ethnicity may

well interact with any of these (or other) predictors in suggesting a different

trajectory of association and/or direction. While both gender and race have been

prominent in detecting differences in the play of school-aged children (for reviews

see Hughes, 2010; Johnson et al., 2005; Maccoby, 1998), their extension to

adult play has yet to be investigated. This is clearly an important issue, and one

that should become a focal point for continued research exploring the playful-

ness construct.

What Did We Learn About the

Components of Playfulness?

Further study of each of the components of playfulness provided insight into

the construct itself, and also allowed closer scrutiny of where sex and race/

ethnicity differences occurred and how they were manifested. While previous

188 / BARNETT

research demonstrated that the same four factor solution worked well for both

men and women (Barnett, 2007), each of the factors was shown to be predicted

by different aspects of the individual. Generally, the results of the study showed

that playfulness in women is more complex than for men, whose manifestations

of it can be more readily and easily observed in social situations through its

component qualities.

While women rated themselves generally higher than men on the first playful-

ness component—gregarious—this quality appeared to reflect different internal

attributes. For men, being gregarious was characterized as the shared, joking,

peripheral style of communication typical of males in groups, as sociability and

the appreciation of humor were highly significant predictors. In contrast, sharing

jokes and funny stories, and laughing at those offered by others, were inversely

related to being gregarious in playfulness for women. These behaviors are

typically antithetical to the social bonding and style of communication that is

typical among females of this age, where intimacy and personal sharing of feelings

and experiences is more normative (Sax, 2005).

Uninhibited—the second component of playfulness—also showed substantial

differences between men and women in how it was perceived or observed. For

males, a lack of inhibition might mean seeking adventures and new experiences,

sometimes those containing elements of challenge or risk. While the uninhibited

quality was similarly viewed as a quality of a playful female, this referred to

exhibiting a wide range of emotions along the spectrum from positive to negative.

These findings are consonant with the more general observations that have been

consistently offered that males are generally more physical and action focused

than females (Blum, 1998; Sax, 2005).

The comedic aspect of playfulness for males was almost singularly defined

by telling jokes and funny stories—producing humor to entertain others. For

females, however, the comedic quality was not as clear—perhaps reflecting the

few studies of class clowns and other playful demonstrations that have largely

focused on males (Damico & Purkey, 1978; Holmes, 1992). For women, being

comedic was more internally focused, largely embodying the tendency to become

bored and seeking to amuse one’s self to alleviate this noxious state. The comedic

aspect was more focused on the self for the women, while it appeared to be

more outer-directed—striving to entertain others—for the men. Perhaps this

latter finding had led to the lack of distinction between playfulness and

humor/comedy (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and to the observation that males

are more playful than girls. Internal self-directed efforts at amusement are much

less apparent to observers, and measurement efforts should adopt self-report

instead of, or in addition to, other means of assessing this quality for females.

In addition, the finding that the comedic quality was more prevalent in

the Caucasian men and women in the study is relatively new to the literature,

in that previous studies have largely ignored race, ethnicity, and/or cultural

background.


The final component—dynamic—reflects the active and energetic aspect of

playfulness (readily observed in children; see Fagot & O’Brien, 1994, Maccoby,

1998; McNeilly-Choque, Hart, Robinson, Nelson, & Olsen, 1996; Smith &

Inder, 1993), and it was not surprising to find that this was more straightforward

for men than women. While dynamic men and women were similar in seeking

new and varied experiences, and being largely unmotivated by tangible rewards,

there were a number of additional predictors rooted in personality, affective

style, and motivational orientation for females. The additional finding that

racial differences were reliably observed for the women but not the men provides

further impetus to explore this playfulness aspect in more detail and with a more

ethnically diverse and larger sample. These results have not been obtained in

any of the prior research on the playfulness construct—largely due to the lack

of attention to this individual characteristic. Clearly this is a question to probe

in future research and, at the least, race/ethnicity should merit attention in the

selection of sample members and assignment to groups.

Limitations and Future Directions

As with any study, there are limitations inherent in the research of which

the reader should be aware. All of the measures in the present study—those

of playfulness, personality, affective style, motivational orientation, and demo-

graphic information—were self-reported by the participants. It can be argued

that some may have been influenced by the desire to provide socially acceptable

responses, although previous research on the construct has shown that the

factorial structure of personality measures does not change with those high on

social desirability (cf. Ellingson, Smith, & Sackett, 2001). However, it should

be acknowledged that the absence of any objectively determined data that

can be utilized to validate the obtained responses would have strengthened confi-

dence in the findings.

The nature of the sample—being students at universities located in the

Midwest—should render caution in generalizing to nonstudents of the same

age range, or to those taking up their studies in other areas of the country. Until

further research of this nature with different sample members can be conducted

and the findings confirmed, caution in generalizing these results is in order.

In addition, the results pointing to differences as a function of race/ethnicity

merit further testing and exploration as indicated above, and more adequate

sample sizes in recruiting members from many different backgrounds. The statis-

tical grouping of various racial/ethnic backgrounds into a “minority” group were

not meant to imply any equivalencies, but was rather a simple exploration of

majority vs. minority group membership. They were intended solely as a starting

point, and the findings strongly suggest this is a topic for future empirical work.

A significant limitation of this work is the inability to make causal inter-

pretations from the findings. The design of the study and accompanying statistical

190 / BARNETT

findings permitted conclusions about internal attributes of the individual and how

some, more than others, might predict the playful quality. Through these

techniques, discussion of the relative contributions of the variables under study

could be offered, yet it is also recognized that this can only go so far. These

questions of causality are more fundamental, and require a level of investigation

that differed from the present methods. Hence, the findings should be considered

as descriptive, and suggestive, at best.

Despite these caveats, the study expands and enriches our understanding of

what internal attributes contribute to playfulness in young adults. The results allow

us to conclude that playfulness is an internal predisposition, possessed in varying

degrees, and facilitated/fostered by aspects of personality and, to lesser extents,

affective style and motivational orientation. While the components of playfulness

in men and women appear the same, they mean very different things to individuals

in the ways they see themselves.

REFERENCES

Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, T. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. London: Sage.

Aickin, M. (1999). Other methods of adjustment of multiple testing exists. British Medical

Journal, 318, 127.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference

inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950-967.

Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and Individual

Differences, 11, 1011-1017.

Barnett, L. A. (1990). Playfulness: Definition, design, and measurement. Play and Culture,

3, 319-336.

Barnett, L. A. (1991a). The playful child: Measurement of a disposition to play. Play

and Culture, 4, 51-74.

Barnett, L. A. (1991b). 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 & Individual

Differences, 43, 949-958.

Barnett, L. A., & Kleiber, D. A. (1982). Concomitants of playfulness in early childhood:

Cognitive abilities and gender. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 115-127.

Barnett, L. A., & Kleiber, D. A. (1984). Playfulness and the early play environment.

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 144, 153-164.

Blum, D. (1998). Sex on the brain: The biological differences between men and women.

New York: Penguin.

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887-919.

Bozionelos, N., & Bozionelos, G. (1999). Playfulness: Its relationship with instrumental

and expressive 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.


Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and

change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.

Christiano, B., & Russ, S. (1996). Play as a predictor of coping and distress in children

during an invasive dental procedure. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25,

130-138.

Christie, J., & Johnson, E. (1983). The role of play in social-intellectual development.

Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-115.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily

life events and self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

296-308.

Clark, P., Griffing, P., & Johnson, L. (1989). Symbolic play and ideational fluency as

aspects of the evolving divergent cognitive style in young children. Early Child

Development and Care, 51, 77-88.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs

and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)

and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (ENO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Berk, L. (1998). Play and social competence. In O. Saracho

& B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education

(pp. 116-143). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:

Harper & Row.

Damico, S. B., & Purkey, W. W. (1978). Class clowns: A study of middle school students.

American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 391-398.

Dansky, J. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and asso-

ciative fluency. Child Development, 51, 576-579.

Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and subjective

well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of Research in Personality,

26, 205-215.

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, 580-502.

Elias, C., & Berk, L. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for

sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 216-238.

Ellingson, J. E., Smith., D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of

social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86(1), 122-133.

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.

Fagot, B., & O’Brien, M. (1994). Activity level in young children: Cross age stability,

situational influences, correlates with temperament, and the perception of problem

behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40(3), 378-398.

Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: Creativity and consciousness. In P. Gorlitz & J. Wohlwill

(Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and play (pp. 281-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

192 / BARNETT

Fisher, E. (1992). The impact of play on development: A meta-analysis. Play and Culture,

5, 159-181.

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

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.


Golomb, C., & Galasso, L. (1995). Make believe and reality: Explorations of the imaginary

realm. Developmental Psychology, 31, 800-810.

Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Hale-Benson, J. E. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Heino, A., vanderMolen, H. H., & Wilde, G. J. S. (1996). Differences in risk experience

between sensation avoiders and sensation seekers. Personality & Individual Differ-

ences, 20, 71-79.

Holmes, R. (1992). Play during snacktime. Play and Culture, 5, 295-304.

Hughes, F. P. (2010). Children, play, and development (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Hull, R. B. IV., William, P. S., & Young, K. Y. (1992). Experience patterns: Captur-

ing the dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 24,

240-252.

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.

Jenvey, V., & Jenvey, H. (2002). Criteria used to categorize children’s play: Preliminary

findings. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(8), 733-740.

Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development, and early education.

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1989). Gender and personality determinants of recreational interests.

Studia Psychologica, 30, 115-127.

Klinger, E. (1971). Structure and functions of fantasy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor,

and cognitive styles. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3,

pp. 631-706). New York: Wiley.

Kohler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in current sense of humor inventories:

How much substance, how much method variance? Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research, 9, 363-397.

Krcmar, M., & Greene, K. (1999). Predicting exposure to and uses of television violence.

Journal of Communication, 49, 24-45.

Krcmar, M., & Kean, L. G. (2005). Uses and gratifications of media violence: Personality

correlates of viewing and liking violent genres. Media Psychology, 7, 399-420.

Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, D. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional

expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 934-949.


Kruger, A. (1995). The adult playfulness scale: A review. Psychology: A Journal of Human

Behavior, 32, 36-38.

Larsen, R. J. (1984). Theory and measurement of affect intensity as an individual dif-

ference characteristic. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5, 22997B. University

Microfilms No. 84-22112.

Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1985). A multitrait-multimethod examination of affect struc-

ture: Hedonic level and emotional intensity. Personality and Individual Differences,

6, 531-636.

Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference charac-

teristic: A review. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1-37.

Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1986). Affect intensity and reactions to

daily life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 803-814.

Lieberman, J. N. (1965). Playfulness and divergent thinking ability: An investigation

of their relationship at the kindergarten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 107,

219-224.

Lieberman, J. N. (1966). Playfulness: An attempt to conceptualize the quality of play

and the player. Psychological Reports, 19, 1278.

Lieberman, J. N. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New

York: Academic Press.

Lodi-Smith, J. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-

analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family,

religion, and volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 68-86.

Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of social situa-

tions: The importance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

81(2), 343-356.

Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between Extra-

version and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6),

1039-1056.

Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap.

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 Leisure Research Symposium,

Dallas, TX.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J. P., & Parker, W. D. (1998).

Cross-cultural assessment of the Five-Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality

Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188.

McNeilly-Choque, M., Hart, C., Robinson, C., Nelson, L., & Olson, S. (1996). Overt and

relational aggression on the playground: Correspondence among different informants.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11, 47-67.

Paunonen S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction

of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.

Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with the Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical

Journal, 361, 1236-1238.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York:

Oxford University Press.

194 / BARNETT

Plester, B., & Orams, M. (2008). Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three

New Zealand IT companies. Humor, 21(3), 253-281.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Bogg, T. (2005). Conscientiousness and health across

the life course. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 156-168.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change

in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.

Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1-25.

Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. (1995). ‘Having fun’? Humor as resistance in Brazil.

Organization Studies, 16(5), 739-768.

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.

Rosenfeld, E., Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Torney-Purta, J. V. (1982). Measuring

patterns of fantasy behavior in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

42, 347-366.

Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 693-774). New York: Wiley.

Ruch, W. (1988). Sensation-seeking and the enjoyment of structure and content of

humour: Stability of findings across four samples. Personality and Individual Differ-

ences, 9, 861-871.

Ruch, W. (1994). A state-trait approach to cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood:

Assessing the temperamental basis of the “Sense of Humour.” Paper presented at the

5th International Society for Humor Studies Conference, Ithaca, NY.

Ruch, W., Kohler, G., & vanThriel, C. (1996). Assessing the humorous temperament:

Construction of the state-trait-cheerfulness-inventory—STCI. Humor: International

Journal of Humor Research, 9(3), 303-339.

Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Russ, S. W. (2004). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Toward empirically

supported practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Russ, S. W., Robins, D., & Christiano, B. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction

of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12,

129-139.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, W. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,

55(1), 68-78.

Sawyer, P. K. (1997). Pretend play as improvisation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters. New York: Broadway Books.

Sherrod, L., & Singer, J. (1979). The development of make-believe play. In J. Goldstein

(Ed.), Sports, games, and play (pp. 1-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shmukler, D. (1982-83). Early home background features in relation to imaginative

and creative expression in third grade. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 2,

311-321.

Sigelman, C., Miller, T., & Whitworth, L. (1986). The early development of stigmatizing

reactions to physical differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 330-336.

Singer, D. G., & Rummo, J. (1973). Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kinder-

garten aged children. Developmental Psychology, 3, 154-161.


Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and

the developing imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Singer, J. L. (1973a). Theories of play and the origins of imagination. In J. L. Singer

(Ed.), The child’s world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play

(pp. 1-26). New York: Academic Press.

Singer, J. L. (1973b). Some theoretical implications. In J. L. Singer (Ed.), The child’s

world of make-believe: Experimental studies of imaginative play (pp. 183-230).

New York: Academic Press.

Smith, A., & Inder, P. (1993). Social interaction in same- and cross-gender pre-school

peer groups: A participant observation study. Educational Psychology, 13, 29-42.

Staempfli, M. B. (2007). Adolescent playfulness, stress perception, coping, and well

being. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3), 393-412.

Starbuck, W. H., & Webster, J. (1991). When is play productive? Accounting, Manage-

ment, & Information Technology, 1, 71-90.

Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality

and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138-161.

Sylva, K., Bruner, J., & Genoa, P. (1976). The role of play in the problem solving of

children 3 to 5 years old. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play. New York:

Basic Books.

Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity.


Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1991). Measurement of sense of humor. Psychological

Reports, 69, 691-702.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993a). Sense of humor and dimensions of personality.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 799-809.

Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993b). Development and validation of a multidimensional

sense of humor scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 13-23.

Truhon, S. A. (1983). Playfulness, play, and creativity: A path analytic model. Journal

of Genetic Psychology, 143, 19-28.

Vandenberg, B. (1978, August). The role of play in the development of insightful tool-

using abilities. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association. Toronto,

Canada.

Vandenberg, B. (1980). Play, problem-solving, and creativity. New Directions for Child

Development, 9, 49-68.

Wallach, M. (1970). Creativity. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child

psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1211-1272). New York: Wiley.

Wardle, F. (2003). Introduction to early childhood education: A multi-dimensional

approach to child-centered care and learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological

Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of

brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

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.

Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and laughter in modern America. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press.

196 / BARNETT

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.

Yarnal, C. M. (2006). The Red Hat Society: Exploring the role of play, liminality, and

communitas in older women’s lives. Journal of Women and Aging, 18(3), 51-73.

Zhiyan, T., & Singer, J. L. (2004). Daydreaming styles, emotionality and the Big Five

personality dimensions. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 16(4).

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Lynn A. Barnett

Department of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

104 Huff Hall

1206 S. Fourth Street

Champaign, IL 61820

e-mail: [email protected]


playful people: fun is in the mind of the beholder€¦ · the beholder lynn a. barnett, ph.d....

Documents