Content uploaded by René Proyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by René Proyer
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH Open Access
The virtuousness of adult playfulness: the relation
of playfulness with strengths of character
René T Proyer
*
and Willibald Ruch
* Correspondence: r.
proyer@psychologie.uzh.ch
Department of Psychology,
Division on Personality and
Assessment, University of Zurich,
Binzmühlestrasse 14/7, 8050 Zurich,
Switzerland
Abstract
Background: It was hypothetisized that playfulness in adults (i.e., the predisposition
to play) is robustly associated with the “good character.”Playfulness in adults can be
tested via a global cognitive evaluation and an instrument for distinguishing five
different facets of playful behaviors (spontaneous, expressive, creative, fun, and silly).
Character strengths can be assessed within the framework of the Values-in-Action
(VIA) classification of strengths.
Results: Data were collected in an online study and the sample consisted of 268
adults. A regression analysis revealed that adult playfulness was best predicted by
humor, the appreciation of beauty and excellence, low prudence, creativity, and
teamwork. As expected, single strengths (e.g., creativity, zest, and hope)
demonstrated strong relations with facets of playfulness with its fun-variants yielding
the numerically highest relations. The fun-variant of playfulness was most strongly
related with emotional strengths while intellectual strengths yielded robust relations
with all facets of playfulness. Strengths of restraint were negatively related with
spontaneous, expressive, and silly-variants of playfulness.
Conclusions: The findings were in line with expectations and are discussed within a
broader framework of research in playfulness in adults. The results indicate that
playfulness in adults relates to positive psychological functioning and that more
studies further illuminating the contribution of playfulness to well-being in adults are
warranted.
Keywords: adult playfulness, character strengths, humor, playfulness, VIA,
virtuousness
Background
Researchers have spent much effort in the study of play–especially of play in children
(e.g., Barnett 1990; Schaefer et al. 1991). However, there is comparatively little litera-
ture on playfulness as a personality characteristic and even less on playfulness in
adults. Playfulness is the predisposition to engage in playful activities and interactions
(Barnett 1991a, b). Barnett (2007) suggested as a definition: “Playfulness is the predis-
position to frame (or reframe) a situation in such a way as to provide oneself (and pos-
sibly others) with amusement, humor, and/or entertainment. Individuals who have
such a heightened predisposition are typically funny, humorous, spontaneous, unpre-
dictable, impulsive, active, energetic, adventurous, sociable, outgoing, cheerful, and
happy, and are likely to manifest playful behavior by joking, teasing, clowning, and act-
ing silly”(p. 955).
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
© 2011 Proyer and Ruch; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access articl e distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creative commons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, pro vided the original work is properly cited.
Adult playfulness has not been in the main focus of mainstream research in psychol-
ogy. However, there is theoretical work but also empirical data that speak for more
research in this area. To name but a few, there is empirical evidence on relations of
playfulness in adults with flow-experiences (Csikszentmihalyi 1975), enhanced group
cohesion (Bowman 1987), creativity and spontaneity (Barnett 2007; Glynn and Webster
1992, 1993), intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al. 1994), quality of life (Proyer et al.
2010), decreased computer anxiety (Bozionelos and Bozionelos 1997), positive attitudes
towards the workplace, job satisfaction and performance, and innovative behavior (Yu
et al. 2007), and even academic achievement (Proyer 2011). Several of these findings
argue for a positive relation of adult playfulness with various indicators of well-being.
Playfulness, however, has not yet been systematically studied within a broad framework
of positive psychological functioning. This study represents such an approach by using
a comprehensive classification system of positive traits.
Positive psychology, the study of what is good in people (Seligman and Csikszentmi-
halyi 2000), may serve as a new “home”for research in playfulness in adults and may
further stimulate research efforts for a better understanding of the role of playfulness
within positive psychological functioning. Several research directions within positive
psychology have great potential for linking up with the further exploration of playful-
ness. Research in positive emotions may serve as one example. For example, Fredrick-
son (1998) argues that to play and to be playful can facilitate the experience of joy
("[...] over time and as a product of recurrent play, joy can have the incidental effect of
building an individual’s physical, intellectual, and social skills”, p. 305), which, in turn,
may broaden a persons’action-thought-repertoire and facilitate the development of
new coping resources.
A different link, pursued in this study, is testing how playfulness relates to the “good
character.”Thus far, playfulness in adults has not yet been studied in relation to a
compendium of positive traits. Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) Values-in-Action classi-
fication (VIA) of strengths and virtues can serve as a framework for such a study. They
argue that strengths are positively valued traits that enable the good life. Strengths are
psychologically fulfilling and contribute to the well-being of a person. In the VIA-clas-
sification, three to five strengths are theoretically assigned to one of six universal vir-
tues (wisdom and knowledge, justice, courage, humanity, temperance, and
transcendence; see Dahlsgaard et al. 2005). The strengths are seen as the processes and
mechanisms, which enable the practice of a virtue (e.g., pursuing love of learning, curi-
osity, or creativity for practicing wisdom).
Peterson and Seligman give synonyms for each of the strengths in their classification.
One of the synonyms for humor is playfulness; which they briefly define as “humor
[playfulness]: liking to laugh and joke; bringing smiles to other people.”This strength
is assigned to the virtue of transcendence (along with appreciation of beauty and excel-
lence, gratitude, hope, and religiousness). In their analysis of the virtuousness of item
contents of current humor questionnaires, (Beermann and Ruch 2009a, b) found that
humanity and wisdom were the virtues most frequently referred to. However, the other
virtues in the classification could also be retrieved. Interestingly, Beermann and Ruch
also found several references to playfulness in their analyses such as intellectually play-
ing with language was related to the virtue of wisdom (see also Müller and Ruch
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 2 of 12
2011). Taken together, these findings substantiate the idea of playfulness being related
to different strengths other than humor.
As said, Peterson and Seligman (2004) use playfulness as being synonymous to
humor. However, the chapter on humor [playfulness] in the book describing the classi-
fication deals almost exclusively with humor in its narrow sense but less so with play-
fulness. For example, only tests for (various aspects of) humor but no playfulness
measures are listed in an overview of instruments. Among the current meanings of
humor these three are listed “(a) the playful recognition, enjoyment, and/or creation of
incongruity; (b) a composed and cheerful view on adversity that allows one to see its
light side and thereby sustain a good mood; and (c) the ability to make others smile or
laugh”(p. 584). There is one direct reference to playfulness ("playfully”dealing with
incongruity) and, perhaps implicitly, the idea that playful behavior or a playful outlook
helps making others smile or laugh. Thus, one of the aims of the present study is test-
ing how humor in the VIA-classification relates to playfulness-scales that were inde-
pendently developed from research on character strengths.
It is evident that there should be a positive relation between greater playfulness and
the strength of humor, but it is expected that also other strengths demonstrate robust
relations. For example, creativity is frequently seen as incremental to playfulness (e.g.,
creative playfulness in Glynn and Webster 1992). Lieberman (1977) sees spontaneity
(with manifest joy and sense of humor) as one core component of playfulness. Sponta-
neous behavior (assigned to gregariousness) was one of the facets identified by Barnett
(2007) as one of the underlying components of playfulness. There are also data towards
a positive relation between playfulness and divergent thinking (e.g., Barnett and Kleiber
1982; Truhon 1983).
Also, curiosity and love of learning are expected to relate positively to playfulness.
Similar explanations might apply as given above for creativity but one might also argue
that greater playfulness relates to exploratory behavior that may facilitate learning and
curiosity. Additionally, there is also evidence that playfulness should be related to the
perception of aesthetics and the approval (and low disapproval) of abstract, complex
pieces of art (Proyer RT: Development and initial assessment of a short measure for
adult playfulness: The SMAP, submitted), which may manifest itself in the appreciation
of beauty and excellence.
Furthermore, it was expected that playfulness relates negatively to strengths relating
to restraint and temperance (e.g., prudence or self-regulation)–i.e., those strengths that
protect against excess. Playful adults are seen as being spontaneous, active, creative,
and willing to take certain risks (e.g., joking around in social relationships, which may
or may not be perceived as playful by others, too). This opposes restraining oneself
and ones playful behavior. Contrarily, it was expected that strengths assigned to the
virtue of humanity relate positively to playfulness (i.e., love, kindness, and social intelli-
gence). Playfulness seems to be a way of effectively displaying interpersonal strengths;
for example, when playfully expressing love towards other people or, for example, in
social interaction situations (e.g., discussions, group meetings, or interviews) playfully
easing tension or enabling creative processes in a group. Furthermore, playful adults
are seen as approaching life with excitement and energy, which is Peterson and Selig-
man’s (2004) short definition of zest.
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 3 of 12
The main aim of the present study was to examine the relations of adult playfulness
with strengths of character. This was tested by means of a global assessment of playful-
ness as an indicator for an easy onset and high intensity of playful experiences along
with the frequent display of playful activities. Additionally, a scale that covers five dif-
ferent facets of playfulness (i.e., spontaneous, expressive, creative, fun, and silly) was
used. This allows differentiating between various aspects of playful behavior and to test
which of these relate to virtuousness and which do not. In more detail, spontaneous
playfulness (e.g., free-spirited, impulsive) was expected to relate to the strengths of
creativity but also humor. However, some of the strengths (like prudence or self-regu-
lation) seem to oppose spontaneous playful behavior and were, therefore, expected to
demonstrate negative relations. Expressive (e.g., excitable, open) playfulness was
expected to demonstrate robust relations with strengths that indicate activity and
engagement (e.g., zest, bravery) but also with strengths that may be related to produ-
cing something and seeking or being able to appreciate excellence such as creativity or
awe (appreciation of beauty and excellence). For creative playfulness (e.g., imaginative,
active), the main research question was, what strengths would demonstrate relations
beyond creativity. One might argue that the other strengths of the virtue of wisdom
and knowledge should demonstrate positive relations (e.g., curiosity) but also that
appreciation of beauty and excellence and humor should be strongly related with crea-
tive playfulness. Again, also zest was expected to demonstrate robust relations as
greater creative playfulness should manifest itself in actual activities. Strongest relations
were expected with fun-oriented (e.g., exciting, bright) playfulness as this may serve as
a lubricant in social situations and, therefore, relate to strengths of humanity but also
help and facilitate acquiring wisdom and knowledge (e.g., via enjoying curious explora-
tions or experiencing joy in learning). Furthermore, engagement in the sense of zest
was expected to relate to exhibiting fun-oriented playfulness. Finally, silly-variants of
playfulness (e.g., childlike, whimsical) were expected to exist independently from
strengths or may even yield negative relations (e.g., with strengths assigned to the vir-
tue of temperance such as self-regulation or modesty).
Additionally to these analyses, a regression analysis was conducted for testing the
contribution of strengths to the explanation of variance in playfulness; especially, for
testing whether the whole variance was accounted for by humor and which strengths
were predictive beyond humor.
Methods
Sample
The sample consisted of 268 adults. Two were 17 years old and the others were
between 18 and 65 (M= 29.0, SD = 9.1). Slightly more than one quarter were males (n
= 69; 25.7%). More than a third (n= 94; 35.1%) held a degree from university or were
currently students, while 48.9% (n= 131) had a degree from school that would allow
them to study. About one fifth (n= 55; 20.5%) reported being married.
Instruments
The Adult Playfulness Scale (APS; Glynn and Webster 1992, 1993) is a list of 32 adjec-
tives. Of these, twenty-five are being scored and five facets of adult playfulness can be
computed; i.e., spontaneous (e.g., spontaneous vs. disciplined, impulsive vs. diligent; the
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 4 of 12
alpha-coefficient in this sample was .74), expressive (e.g., bouncy vs. staid, open vs.
reserved; a=.66),fun (e.g., bright vs. dull, excitable vs. serene; a= .65), creative (e.g.,
imaginative vs. unimaginative, active vs. passive; a= .66), and silly (e.g., childlike vs.
mature, whimsical vs. practical; a= .69). Answers are given on a 7-point scale. Glynn
and Webster (1992) report satisfying internal consistencies and test-retest correlations
and a robust factor solution for their instrument. The APS has been used widely in
research; e.g., Bozionelos and Bozionelos studied its relation with computer anxiety
(1997) or instrumental and expressive traits (1999); it has been used in research in
advertisement (Caruana and Vella 2003) or in work-related research in intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation Amabile et al. 1994). As in the study by Proyer (2011), the Ger-
man version of the scale has been used.
The Short Measure of Adult Playfulness (SMAP; Proyer RT: Development and initial
assessment of a short measure for adult playfulness:TheSMAP,submitted)isafive-
item questionnaire for the assessment of playfulness in adults. It was developed for
providing a global, cognitive self-description of playfulness. A sample item is “Iama
playful person.”All items are positively keyed and answers are given on a 4-point
answer format (from 1 = “strongly disagree”to 4 = “strongly agree”). High scores in
the SMAP indicate an easy onset and high intensity of playful experiences along with
the frequent display of playful activities. Proyer reports best fit for a one-dimensional
solution of the data (in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and high internal
consistencies (≥.80 in different samples). Furthermore, he found correlations in the
expected direction and range with the need for play scale of the Personality Research
Form (Jackson, 1984), Glynn and Webster’s (1992), (1993) Adult Playfulness Scale, and
a total score out of a list of adjectives set together based on Barnett’s (2007) study,
which was interpreted as support for its convergent validity. Support for the divergent
validity of the instrument was found in negative relations with the seriousness scale
out of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness Inventory (Ruch et al. 1996). Additionally, high and
low scorers in the SMAP differed in the expected way in ratings for approval and dis-
approval of high and low complexity in workplaces and pieces of art. The alpha-coeffi-
cient in this sample was .86.
The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson et al. 2005; in the Ger-
man adaptation by Ruch et al. 2010) consists of 240 items for the subjective assess-
ment of 24 character strengths of Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) VIA classification
(10 items per strength). It uses a 5-point Likert-style format (from “very much like
me”through “very much unlike me”). A sample item is “I never quit a task before it is
done”(persistence). Ruch et al. (2010) reported good internal consistencies (median =
.77), stabilities (the median test-retest correlation across nine months was .73), and
provide information on the factorial as well as convergent validity of the German form,
which has already been used in several studies (e.g., Peterson et al. 2007; Proyer and
Ruch 2009; Ruch et al. 2010). The alpha-coefficients in this sample ranged from .71
(honesty) to .92 (religiousness; median = .78).
Design
Participants completed all questionnaires in an online study. This was advertised by
means of leaflets handed out at public transport stations, via mailing lists, and it was
posted in several online forums. Participants were not paid for their services but
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 5 of 12
received a feedback on their individual strengths profile (VIA-IS) after completion of
the study.
Correlational analyses (Pearson correlations) were conducted for testing the relation
between playfulness and character strengths. A hierarchical regression analysis with
playfulness (SMAP) as criterion has been conducted; demographics were entered in a
firststepfollowedbythetwenty-fourVIA-strengths. A principal component analysis
has been conducted for the VIA-IS. The inspection of the Eigenvalues suggested the
extraction of five factors, which were rotated to the Varimax criterion. The five factor
scores were correlated (Pearson) with the playfulness scales.
Results
An analysis of the descriptive statistics for all scales that entered the study indicated
that they were normally distributed. Mean scores and standard deviations were com-
parable with earlier studies that used these instruments and the scales showed the
same (small) correlations with demographics; e.g., greater religiousness in higher age (r
(265) = .17, p< .01). Therefore, all subsequently conducted analyses controlled for a
potential impact of demographics. Correlation coefficients among the scales are given
in Table 1 (for the interpretation of single correlation coefficients it needs to be
Table 1 The Relation of Adult Playfulness and its Facets with Strengths of Character
(Partial Correlations Controlling for Sex and Age)
VIA-IS SMAP SPO EXP CRE FUN SIL R
2
Creativity .33** .27** .28** .65** .21** .19** .45
Curiosity .21** .16* .20** .43** .44** -.10 .32
Open-mindedness .00 -.24** -.22** .09 -.01 -.22** .14
Love of learning .13* -.04 .07 .29** .19** -.12* .15
Perspective .07 -.10 -.08 .20** .19** -.22** .14
Bravery .25** .19** .30** .45** .36** .02 .23
Persistence -.03 -.30** -.03 .17** .18** -.34** .29
Honesty .02 -.09 -.02 .07 .12* -.26** .10
Zest .20** .22** .32** .43** .60** -.09 .46
Love .22** .19** .32** .33** .53** -.02 .35
Kindness .23** .12* .19** .15* .28** .00 .11
Social Intelligence .15* .07 .15* .31** .42** -.07 .24
Teamwork .21** .06 .14* .11 .32** -.06 .12
Fairness .13* -.02 .00 -.02 .22** -.12* .10
Leadership .19** .06 .11 .18** .27** -.07 .09
Forgiveness .09 .02 -.06 .03 .22** -.13* .11
Modesty .02 -.25** -.30** -.24** -.07 -.24** .15
Prudence -.08 -.41** -.34** -.03 .02 -.41** .29
Self-regulation -.09 -.32** -.13* .10 .09 -.37** .21
Beauty .35** .22** .28** .40** .31** .11 .21
Gratitude .24** .13* .20** .16* .40** -.07 .22
Hope .15* .14* .15* .28** .59** -.15* .44
Humor .41** .42** .29** .33** .49** .32** .30
Religiousness .09 .10 .14* .16* .26** -.02 .09
Median .15 .06 .14 .18** .27** -.10 .21
N= 261-263. VIA-IS = Values in Action Inventory of Strengths; SMAP = Short Measure of Adult Playfulness; SPO =
spontaneous; EXP = expressive; CRE = Creative; SIL = silly; R
2
= multiple correlation coefficient between all facets of the
APS and a strength.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 6 of 12
highlighted that those ≥.23 were significant at p< .05 after controlling for multiple
comparisons; Bonferroni-correction).
Table 1 shows that primarily the strengths of creativity, appreciation of beauty and
excellence, and humor (all r
2
≥.11) were associated with greater playfulness in the
sense of an easy onset and high intensity of playful experiences along with the frequent
display of playful activities (SMAP). At a global level, those strengths theoretically
assigned to the virtues of temperance (e.g., self-regulation) demonstrated the compara-
tively lowest correlations.
The creative- (i.e., imaginative, active) and the fun-variants of playfulness (i.e., bright,
exciting) yielded the numerically comparatively highest correlations with strengths at
the level of the facets of playfulness. Particularly (based on the squared multiple corre-
lation coefficient), the strengths of creativity, zest, love, hope, and humor yielded
strong relations with the five facets of playfulness while religiousness, leadership, for-
giveness, fairness, kindness, and honesty yielded comparatively numerically lower coef-
ficients. It was evident that the strengths of the virtue of temperance (i.e., forgiveness,
modesty, prudence, and self-regulation) yielded negative relations with playfulness. The
silly variants of playfulness (i.e., childlike, whimsical) yielded (with the exception of
creativity and humor) negative relations (or zero-correlations) with strengths of charac-
ter indicating that not all exhibits of playfulness could be seen as being related to char-
acter strengths. Creativity and humor seemed to be an incremental part of playfulness;
the global score as well as all variants of playfulness yielded significantly positive rela-
tions. The same was true for hope with the exception that a greater expression in silly-
variants of playfulness was associated with lower endorsement of hope.
Predicting adults’playfulness from character
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was computed with global playfulness as cri-
terion. Age and gender entered the equation first (method: enter), followed by the
twenty-four strengths in a second step (stepwise). This analysis yielded a multiple cor-
relation coefficient of R
2
= .29 (F[7, 266] = 14.99, p< .001) indicating that there was a
substantial relation between playfulness and the “good character”(regression coeffi-
cients are in Table 2).
Table 2 shows that demographics accountedforonlyaminorpartofthevariance.
Humor entered the equation as the most important predictor (17% overlapping var-
iance) followed by appreciation of beauty and excellence, low prudence, creativity, and
teamwork in the final step. Overall, the analysis shows that playfulness was robustly
related to humor and that humor is its best predictor out of the VIA-classification, but
that other strengths also contributed to the prediction to playfulness.
Five broader dimensions of virtuousness
Ruch and colleagues (2010) report a five-factor solution for the German version of the
VIA-IS. When analyzing the present data in the same way was as in the Ruch et al.
study (not reported here in detail), the five factors could be well replicated (this is also
the solution that has been reported for the US-version of the VIA-IS; Peterson and
Seligman 2004); i.e., interpersonal strengths (e.g., leadership, teamwork), emotional
strengths (e.g., zest, humor), strengths of restraint (e.g., prudence, self-regulation), intel-
lectual strengths (e.g., creativity, curiosity), and theological strengths (e.g., religiousness,
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 7 of 12
gratitude). It was also tested how these broader factors were related to playfulness. The
respective factor scores were correlated with the SMAP and the scales of the APS (see
Table 3).
Table 3 shows that adult playfulness was primarily related to intellectual and emo-
tional strengths. Strengths of restraint were negatively associated (or uncorrelated)
with playfulness. It also existed widely independently from theological and interperso-
nal strengths. The numerically highest relations were found between fun-variants of
playfulness and emotional strengths (r
2
= .41), between intellectual strengths and crea-
tive playfulness (r
2
= .30), and between greater spontaneous (r
2
= .26) and silly-variants
(r
2
= .27) of playfulness and lower endorsement of strengths of restraint.
As for the single strengths, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was computed
with global playfulness as criterion but, this time, with the five factors as predictors.
Table 2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Adult
Playfulness in Demographics and Character Strengths (N = 266)
Variable B SE B b
Step 1
Sex -0.05 .09 -.03
Age 0.00 .00 -.04
Step 2
Sex -0.03 .08 -.02
Age 0.00 .00 -.05
Humor 0.45 .06 .41***
Step 3
Sex -0.07 .08 -.05
Age -0.01 .00 -.08
Humor 0.36 .06 .33***
Beauty 0.29 .07 .25***
Step 4
Sex -0.12 .08 -.08
Age -0.01 .00 -.10
Humor 0.37 .06 .34***
Beauty 0.35 .07 .29***
Prudence -0.23 .07 -.20***
Step 5
Sex -0.09 .08 -.06
Age -0.01 .00 -.12
Humor 0.34 .06 .31***
Beauty 0.27 .08 .23***
Prudence -0.23 .06 -.20***
Creativity 0.16 .06 .17**
Step 5
Sex -0.10 .08 -.06
Age -0.01 .00 -.10
Humor 0.29 .07 .26***
Beauty 0.24 .08 .20***
Prudence -0.29 .07 -.25***
Creativity 0.18 .06 .19**
Teamwork 0.17 .08 .14*
Note. Beauty = Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence. ΔR
2
= .002 for Step 1 (n.s.); ΔR
2
= .17 for Step 2 (p< .001); ΔR
2
=
.05 for Step 3 (p< .001); ΔR
2
= .04 for Step 4 (p< .01); ΔR
2
= .02 for Step 5 (p< .01); ΔR
2
= .01 for Step 6 (p< .05).
*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 8 of 12
Again, demographics were entered first followed by the strengths factors (stepwise). In
this analysis (not shown here in detail; R
2
= .24 (F[5, 266] = 13.85, p<.001),intellec-
tual strengths (ΔR
2
= .11; b= .34, p< .001), lack of strengths of restraints (ΔR
2
= .06;
b=-.26,p< .001), emotional strengths (ΔR
2
=.05;b= .29, p< .001), and interperso-
nal strengths (ΔR
2
=.02;b= .14, p< .05) were significant predictors in the final step
(demographics did not contribute significantly to the prediction).
Discussion
This study tested adult playfulness for the first time in its relation to a framework of
positive psychological functioning. Two different approaches were used for assessing
playfulness: (a) an overall indicator of playfulness in the sense of an easy onset and
high intensity of playful experiences along with the frequent display of playful activities
and (b) five facets of playfulness (spontaneous, expressive, fun, creative, and silly) for
being able to comment on different levels of playful behavior. Playfulness can be well
described in terms of specific character strengths. Humor is used synonymously with
playfulness in the VIA-classification of character strengths (Peterson and Seligman
2004). This is also reflected in the empirical findings. Out of the twenty-four VIA-
strengths, humor is the best predictor for global playfulness. This fits well to theoreti-
cal accounts in playfulness research. Lieberman (1977) sees playfulness as a combina-
tion of spontaneity, manifest joy, and the sense of humor. McGhee (2010) describes
humor as a form of play–the play with ideas and a playful frame of mind is one of the
preconditions for humor to occur. Thus, in this sense, humor appears to be narrower,
a variant of play. However, some forms of humor do not relate to play at all, so humor
and playfulness are best seen as strongly overlapping without being identical.
While this study provides support for the notion of a close relation between humor
and playfulness, the operationalization of the measurement of humor in the VIA-IS
(Peterson et al. 2005), however, seems to refer more strongly to humor than to playful-
ness. When examining the content of the items of the VIA-IS humor-scale, it can be
noted that only three out of the ten items refer to playfulness while the others refer to
humor directly (e.g., having a good sense of humor, or feeling good when smiling at
others or making others laugh). Of these three, only one has a direct reference to play
(i.e., seeing life more as a playground than a battlefield) while the other two (i.e., trying
to have fun in lots of different situations and trying to make everything one does with
some humor) refer only indirectly to playfulness (e.g., by facilitating experiencing fun/
humor in a broad range of daily situations). This may provide ground for a future
more in-depth analysis of the inter-relation between humor and playfulness as strength
Table 3 Correlations between Indicators of Adult Playfulness and Factor Scores for a
Five-factor Solution for the Values-in-Action Inventory of Strengths
VIA-factors SMAP SPO EXP FUN CRE SIL
Interpersonal .14* -.04 -.10 .09 -.14* -.08
Emotional .22** .32** .42** .64** .25** .04
Restraint -.24** -.51** -.34 -.07 .00 -.52**
Intellectual .33** .26** .26** .24** .55** .18**
Theological .08 .13* .14* .13* .14* .06
Note.N= 268. SMAP = Short Measure of Adult Playfulness; SPO = spontane ous; EXP = expressive; CRE = Creative; SIL =
silly-playfulness.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 9 of 12
of character. Also, it would be interesting to test the impact of interventions of humor
in comparison to interventions of playfulness on well-being and in whether they have
distinct effects (McGhee 2010; Ruch et al. in press).
Clearly, humor was the single strongest predictor to the strength-based prediction of
playfulness. However, the strengths of appreciation of beauty and excellence, (lower)
prudence, creativity, and teamwork were also predictive. There is a long tradition of
research that relates playfulness to creativity (see e.g., Barnett and Kleiber 1982, 1984;
Lieberman 1977). This relation was expected as well as the association with apprecia-
tion of beauty and excellence. One might argue that awe can be more easily experi-
enced with greater flexibility and willingness to engage in arts or related fields. In a
recent study (Proyer RT: Development and initial assessment of a short measure for
adult playfulness: The SMAP, submitted), greater playfulness was associated with
greater approval and lower disapproval of complex, abstract paintings while playful and
nonplayful participants did not differ in their (dis-)approval of simple geometrical
figures.
Inthecaseofteamwork,onemightarguethattherearesomestudiestowardsan
increase in group cohesion in playfulness at work (Bowman 1987) but also that, more
generally spoken, playfulness may serve as a lubricant in productive work-relations. A
playful interaction may help releasing tension or open up the field for new ideas in a
brainstorming situation. This, in turn, may facilitate the experience of positive emo-
tions, which could stimulate an upward spiral towards a broadened action-thought
repertory and the building of new personal resources (Fredrickson 1998). Recently,
Kolb and Kolb (2010) described a case study in which a playful activity in a team cre-
ated a “ludic learning space,”which evidently helped to promote learning.
Lower prudence in playful adults may be a hint on extending the study of playfulness
towards its “darker sides.”There may be a relation to sensation or risk seeking or of
crossing borders in social interactions (e.g., when joking around or teasing others play-
fully turns into laughing at others instead of laughing with; see Ruch and Proyer
2009). Along with the finding that not all variants of playfulness seem to be virtuous–
the exception were the silly-variants (e.g., childlike, whimsical) of playfulness–this may
be seen not only as a call for more studies towards playfulness in adults in general but
also towards a classification that also encompasses its darker, more negatively con-
noted aspects.
Findings suggest clearly that the strengths assigned to the virtue of temperance (i.e.,
forgiveness, modesty, prudence, and self-regulation) or strengths of restraint were
negatively related to playfulness. Thus, strengths like self-regulation or modesty do not
seem to be among the core strengths of playful adults. Of course, the present data
does not allow for causal inferences but it seems evident that too much of self-regula-
tion or modest behavior may hinder the production or sharing of unconventional or
new ideas or may hinder spontaneity to occur.
Primarily intellectual and emotional strengths were positively related to playfulness in
adults. The latter might be of interest when thinking of the role that playfulness can
play in social situations; for example, as a mean of facilitating or strengthening social
bonds. Also, the field of intimate partnership and relationships has hitherto not exten-
sively been studied. In any case, the results clearly support the notion that playfulness
can be described in terms of the good character. This study can serve as a starting
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 10 of 12
point for further examinations of the role of playfulness in relation to the “good life”
from a positive psychology-perspective. Its contribution to subjective and psychological
well-being and its role in a productive and healthy stance towards work will be
addressed in follow-up studies.
Limitations of the study are the sample that was collected for this study, which con-
sisted of more women than men (at a ratio of 1 : 4) and mainly of younger partici-
pants. Thus, a replication of the findings with a more balanced sample but also by
including further data (e.g., observer reports) would be needed for further substantiat-
ing the findings. Additionally, it needs to be acknowledged the APS has been criticized
in the literature as play in this conceptualization is seen as opposite of work on a sin-
gle continuum and for psychometric shortcomings (see e.g., Barnett 2007; Krueger
1995). Therefore, follow-up studies should also consider alternative measures but also
different data sources (e.g., behavior observations, diary methods, etc.).
Conclusions
There is a robust relation between playfulness and strengths of character. Humor is the
best predictor of adult playfulness without indicating redundancy. At a theoretical
level, humor was interpreted as being a variant of play. Overall, greater inclinations
towards intellectual but also emotional strengths and lower towards strengths of
restraint seem to relate with playfulness. One might argue that playfulness can be seen
as an intellectual act, which opposes the view of playfulness in adults as being childish
and without any greater sense. Playfulness also may have a potential in serving as a
lubricant in social situations but also helping in work-related settings (e.g., in meetings
or group efforts). This study provides ground for a more thorough analysis of the con-
tribution of playfulness to the well-being in adults. Clearly, there is a relation between
exhibiting playfulness and the experience of positive emotions. However, playfulness
also seems to contribute to the good life in various forms and further studies are
needed for a better understanding of this relation.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Fabian Gander and Sara Wellenzohn for their help with the data collection and Tracey Platt
for proofreading the manuscript.
Authors’contributions
RTP designed the study, collected the data, and provided the first draft of the manuscript. WR contributed to the
design and revised the manuscript critically. The interpretation of the data and completing the manuscript was a joint
process. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 14 June 2011 Accepted: 24 October 2011 Published: 24 October 2011
References
Amabile, TM, Hill, KG, Hennessey, BA, Tighe, EM (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66(5), 950–67.
Barnett, LA (1990). Playfulness: Definition, design, and measurement. Play and Culture,3, 319–336.
Barnett, LA (1991a). The playful child: Measurement of a disposition to play. Play and Culture,4,51–74.
Barnett, LA (1991b). Characterizing playfulness: correlates with individual attributes and personality traits. Play and Culture,4,
371–393.
Barnett, LA (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences,43, 949–958.
Barnett, LA, & Kleiber, DA (1982). Concomitants of playfulness in early childhood: Cognitive abilities and gender. Journal of
Genetic Psychology,141, 115–127.
Barnett, LA, & Kleiber, DA (1984). Playfulness and the early play environment. Journal of Genetic Psychology,144, 153–164,
doi:10.1080/00221325.1984.9923421.
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 11 of 12
Beermann, U, & Ruch, W (2009a). How virtuous is humor? Evidence from everyday behavior. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research, doi:10.1515/HUMR.2009.023.
Beermann, U, & Ruch, W (2009b). How virtuous is humor? What we can learn from current instruments. The Journal of
Positive Psychology,4(6), 528–539, doi:10.1080/17439760903262859.
Bowman, JR (1987). Making work play. In Fine GA (Ed.), Meaningful play, playful meanings (pp. 61-71). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Bozionelos, N, & Bozionelos, G (1997). Psychology of Computer use: XLVIII: Relation between playfulness and Computer
anxiety. Psychological Reports,81, 956–958.
Bozionelos, N, & Bozionelos, G (1999). Playfulness: its relationship with instrumental and expressive traits. Personality and
Individual Differences,26, 749–760, doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00207-4.
Caruana, A, & Vella, J (2003). The relationship between adult playfulness and viewer’s response to advert execution: An initial
exploration. Management Research News,27,61–76.
Csikszentmihalyi, M (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,15,41–63.
Dahlsgaard, K, Peterson, C, Seligman, MEP (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture
and history. Review of General Psychology,9, 203–213, doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203.
Fredrickson, BL (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,2(3), 300–319, doi:10.1037//1089-
2680.2.3.300.
Glynn, MA, & Webster, J (1992). The Adult Playfulness Scale: An initial assessment. Psychological Reports,71,83–103,
doi:10.2466/PR0.71.5.83-103.
Glynn, MA, & Webster, J (1993). Refining the nomological net of the Adult Playfulness Scale: Personality, motivational, and
attitudinal correlates for highly intelligent adults. Psychological Reports,72, 1023–1026.
Jackson, DN (1984). Personality Research Form manual, 3rd Edition. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press,3:23,26–50.
Kolb, AY, & Kolb, DA (2010). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic learning space. Journal of
Organizational Case Management, doi:10.1108/09534811011017199.
Krueger, A (1995). The Adult Playfulness Scale: A review. Psychology,32,36–38.
Lieberman, NJ (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity, New York: Academic Press.
McGhee, PE (2010). Humor: The lighter path to resilience and health, Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Müller, L, & Ruch, W (2011). Humor and strengths of character. The Journal of Positive Psychology,6(5), 368–376.
Peterson, C, Park, N, Seligman, MEP (2005). Assessment of character strengths. In Koocher GP, Norcross JC, Hill SS III (Ed.),
Psychologists’desk reference 2 edition. (pp. 93-98). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C, Ruch, W, Beermann, U, Park, N, Seligman, MEP (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life
satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology,2, 149–156.
Peterson, C, & Seligman, MEP (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Proyer, RT (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.
Proyer, RT, & Ruch, W (2009). How virtuous are gelotophobes? Self- and Peer-reported character strengths among those who
fear being laughed at. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,22(1-2), 145–163.
Proyer, RT, Ruch, W, Müller, L (2010). Sense of humor among the elderly: Findings with the German version of the SHS.
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, doi:10.1007/s00391-009-0082-0.
Ruch, W, Köhler, G, van Thriel, C (1996). Assessing the “humorous temperament": Construction of the facet and standard trait
forms of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory –STCI. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,9, 303–339.
Ruch, W, & Proyer, RT (2009). Extending the study of gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and katagelasticists. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research,22(1-2), 183–212.
Ruch, W, Proyer, RT, Harzer, C, Park, N, Peterson, C, Seligman, MEP (2010). Adaptation and validation of the German version
of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual
Differences,31(3), 138–149.
Ruch, W, Proyer, RT, Weber, M (2010). Humor as character strength among the elderly: Empirical findings on age-related
changes and its contribution to satisfaction with life. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie,43(1), 13–8.
Ruch, W, Rodden, FA, Proyer, RT (in press). Humor and other positive interventions in medical and therapeutic settings. In
Kirkcaldy B (Ed.), The art and science of health care: Psychology and human factors for practitioners Göttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe Publishers.
Seligman, MEP, & Csikszentmihalyi, M (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist,55(1), 5–14.
Schaefer, CE, Gitlin, K, Sandgrund, A (1991). Play diagnosis and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Truhon, SA (1983). Playfulness, play, and creativity: A path analytic model. Journal of Genetic Psychology,143,19–28.
Yu, P, Wu, J-J, Chen, I, Lin, YT (2007). Is playfulness a benefit to work? Empirical evidence of professionals in Taiwan.
International Journal of Technology Measurement,39(3/4), 412–29.
doi:10.1186/2211-1522-1-4
Cite this article as: Proyer and Ruch: The virtuousness of adult playfulness: the relation of playfulness with
strengths of character. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011 1:4.
Proyer and Ruch Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice 2011, 1:4
http://www.psywb.com/content/1/1/4
Page 12 of 12
