Adult Playfulness: An Update on an Understudied Individual Differences Variable and its Role in Romantic Life

Abstract

There is increasing interest in the study of individual differences in playfulness in adults; the way people frame or reframe situations in a way that they are experienced as personally interesting, and/or intellectually stimulating, and/or entertaining. In this review, we describe and discuss its role for romantic life. After a brief introduction, we will describe theoretical approaches as to why playfulness is important in romantic life (e.g., the signal theory of playfulness) and give an overview on empirical findings on assortative mating and its role in romantic relationships (e.g., for relationship satisfaction). Finally, we discuss future directions on playfulness in romantic life and singles and open research questions.

Full text

Received: 16 October 2020
-
Revised: 22 January 2021
-
Accepted: 1 February 2021
DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12589
ARTICLE
Adult playfulness: An update on an understudied
individual differences variable and its role in
romantic life
Kay Brauer
1
|René T. Proyer
1
|Garry Chick
2
1
Department of Psychology, Martin Luther
University Halle‐Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
2
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism
Management, Pennsylvania State University,
State College, Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence
Kay Brauer, Martin Luther University Halle‐
Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Email: kay.brauer@psych.uni-halle.de
Funding information
Open access funding enabled and organized
by ProjektDEAL.
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the study of individual dif-
ferences in playfulness in adults; the way people frame or
reframe situations in a way that they are experienced as
personally interesting, and/or intellectually stimulating,
and/or entertaining. In this review, we describe and discuss
its role for romantic life. After a brief introduction, we will
describe theoretical approaches as to why playfulness is
important in romantic life (e.g., the signal theory of play-
fulness) and give an overview on empirical findings on as-
sortative mating and its role in romantic relationships (e.g.,
for relationship satisfaction). Finally, we discuss future di-
rections on playfulness in romantic life and singles and
open research questions.
1
|
INTRODUCTION
Love was such an easy game to play
(Lennon & McCartney, 1965)
Adult playfulness describes individual differences in the way people frame or reframe situations in a way that
they are experienced as personally interesting, and/or entertaining, and/or stimulating (Proyer, 2017; see also
Barnett, 2007). Playfulness is conceptualized at the trait‐level (i.e., relatively stable across time and situations). At
the behavioral level, it is expressed through play. Those high in playfulness have been described as having “[…] an
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2021 The Authors. Social and Personality Psychology Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2021;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spc3
-
1

easy onset and high intensity of playful experiences along with the frequent display of playful activities”
(Proyer, 2012, p. 989). While play and playfulness have been studied comparatively well in children, their structure
and consequences are understudied in adults; especially its role in romantic life. In a 2015 published article in this
journal, Van Fleet and Feeney (2015) encouraged more research on play and playfulness in adults. Since then, the
field has seen substantial progress. We give a brief overview of the state of the art and focus on why playfulness is
of importance in relationships.
Establishing a romantic relationship is among people's most desired life goals and affects one's physical and
mental well‐being (Weidmann et al., 2016). Adult playfulness supports fostering and maintaining social relation-
ships (e.g., Betcher, 1981,1988; Lieberman, 1977; Proyer, 2014a,2014b; Shen et al., 2017). This quality has been
observed in animals as well; for example, animals practice skills through different types of play (e.g., rough‐and‐
tumble play) and signal low seriousness through facial expressions (i.e., the so‐called play face) that also helps social
exchange (e.g., Bekoff, 1984; Burghardt, 2005; Siviy, 2016).
2
|
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ADULT PLAYFULNESS
There is no agreement yet about a structural model or even a definition of adult playfulness. The majority of
structural models suggest the existence of a social component (see Table 1for an overview). When testing what is
shared among different models, Proyer and Jehle (2013) subjected responses to 17 playfulness questionnaires to a
joint hierarchical factor analysis. They found the best fit for a five‐factor solution, one of which addressed social
characteristics that they labelled Other‐directedness (i.e., “Preferring to work with others than working alone;
expressing one's mood and sharing joy and fun; liking to play with children; preferring to laugh with others than
laughing at others; being sensitive”; p. 813). While this supports the notion of an association between playfulness
and social relationships, concerns remain. Proyer and Jehle also applied a measure for the Big Five personality traits
TABLE 1Occurrence of social functions of adult playfulness
Author(s) Year Name of components
Empirically derived models
Knox 1996 Curiosity; imagination, creativity; physical activity; joy; social and verbal flexibility
Lieberman 1977 Cognitive spontaneity; physical spontaneity; sense of humor; joy; social spontaneity
Lyons 1987 Effectance; arousal; social interaction; release
Peterson & Seligman 2004 Playfulness is used synonymously with humor (i.e., liking to laugh and joke; bringing smiles
to other people)
Proyer 2017 Other‐directed; lighthearted; intellectual; whimsical
Proyer and Jehle
a
2013 Humorous; cheerful‐uninhibited; expressive; other‐directed; intellectual‐creative
Shen, Chick, and Zinn 2014 Fun‐seeking motivation; uninhibitedness; spontaneity
Staempfli 2007 Physical animation; social engagement; mental spontaneity; emotional fluidity; humorous
perspective
Functions of playfulness
Proyer 2014a Well‐being, humor and laughter, mastery orientation, creativity, relationships, coping
strategies, coping with situations
Proyer 2012 Cheerful‐engaged, whimsical, impulsive, intellectual‐charming, imaginative, lighthearted,
kind‐loving
Note: Social characteristics are highlighted by italicization.
a
Joint factor analysis of 17 instruments assessing adult playfulness.
2
-
BRAUER ET AL.

and found considerable overlap between some of the facets of playfulness and the Big Five traits (18.5% for Other‐
directedness).
As Table 1shows, there is heterogeneity among the models; for example, regarding the dimensionality (uni-
dimensional vs. multidimensional) or type (e.g., state‐like, trait‐like, or neutral vs. morally positively valued). Some of
the current measures and operationalizations also lack distinctiveness by using items such as “I have a good sense
of humor” or “creative versus noncreative” for both the assessment of playfulness and (sense of) humor/creativity
(for details, see Proyer, 2018; Proyer et al., 2019b). This leads to biases in testing the overlap with external var-
iables and limits understanding the predictive power of playfulness for different outcomes.
Recent models aimed to increase the distinctiveness of playfulness (e.g., not seeing it and humor synonymously;
cf. Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and also broaden its meaning (Proyer, 2014a,2017; Shen et al., 2014). The latter
acknowledges that fun or entertainment are central tenets, but that playfulness also plays a role in, for example,
social relationships and intellectual achievements (e.g., Proyer, 2011,2014a). A recent definition, therefore,
suggests:
Playfulness is an individual differences variable that allows people to frame or reframe everyday sit-
uations in a way such that they experience them as entertaining, and/or intellectually stimulating, and/
or personally interesting. Those on the high end of this dimension seek and establish situations in which
they can interact playfully with others (e.g., playful teasing, shared play activities) and they are capable
of using their playfulness even under difficult situations to resolve tension (e.g., in social interactions, or
in work type settings). Playfulness is also associated with a preference for complexity rather than
simplicity and a preference for—and liking of—unusual activities, objects and topics, or individuals.
(Proyer, 2017, p. 114)
This definition is accompanied by the OLIW‐model (Proyer, 2017), which is an acronym of its components
Other‐directed,Lighthearted,Intellectual, and Whimsical. Table 2gives an overview of each facet's core characteristics
and sample items taken from the questionnaire that assesses the facets with seven items each for adults
(Proyer, 2017). Also, a 12‐item short measure (three items per facet) is available for applications in intensive panel
or dyadic studies (Proyer et al., 2019a).
3
|
ADULT PLAYFULNESS IN ROMANTIC LIFE: THEORETICAL VIEWS AND
INITIAL FINDINGS
There are several pathways for explaining the association between playfulness and positive outcomes in
(romantic) relationships. Frequently, it has been argued that to play and being playful elicits positive emotions,
which helps people building and strengthening social bonds. Fredrickson (2001) suggested in her Broaden‐and‐
Build theory of positive emotions that playfulness contributes to experiencing positive emotions, as “[...] over time
and as a product of recurrent play joy can have the incidental effect of building an individual's physical, intel-
lectual, and social skills” (Fredrickson, 1998, p. 305). In turn, the elicitation of positive emotions is beneficial for
relationships; for example, by fostering social skills and, thereby, contributing to relationship satisfaction (RS; e.g.,
Aune & Wong, 2002). Furthermore, there may be behavioral and other characteristics that make those highly
playful particularly attractive and visible to others: Chick's (2001)Signal Theory of Play proposes that playfulness
is of importance in mate choice, as it has an indicator function and communicates underlying qualities. Support
comes from studies showing that playfulness is easily perceived in others as data from peers, romantic partners,
or even zero‐acquaintance studies show (see Proyer, 2017; Proyer & Brauer 2018; Proyer et al., 2019a). Proyer
and Brauer (2018) have identified cues in written language that people themselves and others may use for
communicating and/or observing playfulness; for example, linguistic analyses of textual self‐descriptions have
BRAUER ET AL.
-
3

TABLE 2Descriptions and definitions of adult playfulness
Trait Description Sample items
Global playfulness Global playfulness is an individual differences variable
that allows people to frame or reframe everyday
situations in a way such that they experience them
as entertaining, and/or intellectually stimulating,
and/or personally interesting
“It does not take much for me to change from a serious to a playful frame of mind”
OLIW model
Other‐directed The facet of other‐directed playfulness is
characterized by the use of playful behaviors in
social situations. High scorers use playfulness to
ease tense situations, and cheer other people up,
they enjoy horsing around with friends and engage,
generally, in a playful interaction style with other
people
“I enjoy re‐enacting things with close friends that we have experienced together (e.g., a
funny incident that we like to remember)”
Lighthearted The facet of lighthearted playfulness is characterized
by a spontaneous, carefree view of life. High
scorers do not think much about possible
consequences of their behavior but prefer and
enjoy improvising in comparison with elaborate
preparation
“Many people take their lives too seriously; when things don't work you just have to
improvise”
Intellectual The facet of intellectual playfulness is characterized by
the enjoyment of playing with ideas. High scorers
like to puzzle over problems and to come up with
new, creative solutions for problems
“I do not like tasks where you have to try a few things out and have to puzzle something
out, before arriving at a good solution” (R)
Whimsical The facet of whimsical playfulness is characterized by
a preference for breaking ranks. High scorers are
amused by oddities and have a preference for
extraordinary things and people. Others often
regard them as extravagant
“I like to surround myself with unusual people or objects”
Note: Adapted from “The positive relationships of playfulness with indicators of health, activity, and physical fitness,” by Proyer, R.T., Gander, F., Bertenshaw, E., and Brauer, K.
(2018c). Frontiers in Psychology,9. Adapted with permission.
4
-
BRAUER ET AL.

shown that those high in Other‐directed systematically refer more to others (e.g., first person plural words). As
we will discuss in more detail later, playfulness is a desired quality in potential partners and might carry a signal
function for mating.
Another perspective for the importance of playfulness in relationships can be found in biological explanations.
Panksepp (1998,2005) suggested a neuro‐evolutionary model of six primary (i.e., innate but yet adaptive)
subcortical bio‐emotional systems (brain circuits) of which one is PLAY (capitalization by original author). The PLAY
system modulates the tendency to play and is shared by all mammals with cortical adaptations to play contributing
to activate brain circuits that support neuronal growth and emotional homeostasis (for overviews, see e.g., Davis &
Montag, 2019; Panksepp, 2005). Based on his studies in animals and humans, Panksepp (1998) concludes that
playing “promotes the establishment of social structures and helps ensure the learning of social skills, which can
facilitate reproductive success” (pp. 223–224). Overall, this contributes to experiencing emotions such as joy, glee,
and happiness. However, further studies on the neuropsychological effects, structures, and processes are needed to
understand potential biological mechanisms of playfulness, especially for relationships.
Burghardt (2001,2005) argues that play facilitates social learning in animals. Similar observations have been
made in children, as playing with others during early childhood contributes to learning social skills and bonding; for
example, by experiencing and learning social norms, rules, and boundaries during play (e.g., Lieberman, 1977;
Youell, 2008). One might argue that inclinations to play affect the development of social and emotional skills of
children and adolescents, thus, potentially contributing to how people engage in their relationships in adult life.
Taken together, several bio‐psycho‐social pathways might account for why playfulness is of importance for re-
lationships but further research on the unique and interactive effects of those components is needed.
When Proyer (2014a) examined laypeople's perceived functions and everyday uses of play, their responses
could be classified into seven broad categories (Table 1), including “relationships,” which is characterized by
statements such as “show affection” and “flirt.” Furthermore, psycho‐lexical studies have investigated the usage and
occurrence of “playfulness” in natural language: A hierarchical factor analysis of a large written corpus of the
German‐language revealed seven factors with a kind‐loving factor that includes concepts such as “romantic,”
“loving,” “benevolent,” and “tender” (Proyer, 2012,2014a). Hence, there seem to be implicit psycho‐linguistic
theories about a role for playfulness in social interactions. Similar findings have been derived from interview‐based
studies (e.g., in focus groups; Wheeler, 2020).
As discussed, many structural models of playfulness include facets covering interpersonal characteristics (see
Table 1). Taking the OLIW‐model into account, the Other‐directed facet can be expected to be most important for
close relationships, as it conveys ways that contribute to maintain and facilitate relationships (see Table 2); for
example, liking to surprise the partner with nicknames or retelling joint experiences. Moreover, Other‐directed
playfulness is accurately perceived by others, with self‐other agreement correlations between 0.33 (zero ac-
quaintance; Proyer & Brauer, 2018) and 0.57 for romantic partners (Proyer et al., 2018b). Hence, Other‐directed
playfulness is expressed behaviorally and can be well observed by others. Taken together, findings support the
existence of an Other‐directed component of playfulness in adults.
Scholars of play(fulness) have highlighted its social functions and role for intimate relationships. Berne (1964)
suggested that adults' communication and interactions follow certain types of play (games) that are frameworks for
relationships with different degrees of intimacy. For close relationships, he describes how marital and sexual games
allow people to playfully act out and communicate their desires toward their partner. Similarly, Betcher (1981)
argued that interacting playfully with others is “[...] spontaneous, creative, flowing out of the self within a dyadic
relationship” (p. 14). Studies have tested narrow behaviors that one could argue are expressions of a playful attitude
toward their partner. For example, Bruess and Pearson (1987) examined the usage of idioms for one's spouse in
couples (e.g., calling the partner “sweet pea”), which one might assume to be a prototypical expression of Other‐
directed playfulness. Their findings showed that greater idiom use was positively associated with RS across couples.
Playfulness also relates to physical intimacy and sexuality. For example, Metz and McCarthy (2007) have argued
in their “good‐enough sex model” that couple's sexual satisfaction is partially characterized by playfulness. This is
BRAUER ET AL.
-
5

based on findings (e.g., Metz, 1988; Metz & Lutz, 1990) showing that playfulness is a consequence of partners' “trust,
mutual acceptance, priority on pleasure, freedom to be oneself, and deep valuing of the relationship” (Metz &
McCarthy, 2007, p. 360), that allows them to open up to their partner and to reframe their sex life; for example, by
trying new ways to engage in their sexuality (e.g., trying role play). Moreover, Turley et al. (2017; see also Weiss, 2006)
conceptualized sexual preferences such as bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and
masochism (BDSM) as a type of intimate adult play that allows experimenting with social roles, conventions, and
language. Using a qualitative focus group approach with BDSM practitioners, they conclude that “play permits entry
into a world of make believe which is only constrained by the limits of imagination” (p. 329). Overall, the findings
support the notion that engaging in play contributes to establish and maintain intimate relationships.
However, individual differences in play and playfulness were sparsely acknowledged in the early literature.
Baxter (1992) examined individual differences in playfulness and found that play behaviors (e.g., “We always say
“blye” instead of “bye” to each other since the time when one of us was drunk and mispronounced “bye;” p. 353;
other examples can be found in the Playful Love Checklist [PLC]; Proyer et al., 2018b) related to relationship length
and closeness in opposite‐sex friendships and romantic couples. He concluded that playfulness and play (under-
stood as the consequence of being playful) provide means to indicate intimacy and reducing tension in interper-
sonal conflict by creating meaning systems across partners through forms of pro‐social teasing, role‐playing, and
playful interactions (see also Betcher, 1981,1988).
Playfulness has been localized in Peterson and Seligman's (2004) VIA‐classification of character strengths (i.e.,
morally positively valued traits). Proyer and Ruch (2011) found positive associations between a global measure of
playfulness and the interpersonal strengths of love (i.e., valuing close relationships; e.g., making time to spend with
close others; r=0.23), kindness (i.e., being compassionate and caring about others; e.g., surprising the partner with a
dinner; r=0.22), and social intelligence (i.e., being aware of others' motives and needs; e.g., attempting to solve
conflicts constructively; r=0.15). Pending further verification in experimental and longitudinal settings, one might
hypothesize that playfulness goes along with enacting ways that support facilitating and maintaining social re-
lationships. Furthermore, Farley et al. (2020) localized playfulness into the well‐being dimensions of Positive
Emotions,Engagement,Positive Relationships,Meaning, and Accomplishments (PERMA; Seligman, 2011). Using the
OLIW playfulness questionnaire, they found that Other‐directed and Intellectual playfulness were positively
associated with the relationships component of well‐being. They also incorporated a measure of loneliness and
reported that greater Other‐directed, Lighthearted, and Intellectual playfulness were negatively related to expe-
riencing loneliness (Whimsical playfulness being independent).
Based on the initial findings, we argue that playfulness contributes to forming relationships and that research
on playfulness in romantic life should address two major points; namely, (1) initiation or whether playfulness is a
desired or important trait in the mating process; and (2) maintenance or the role of playfulness for indicators of
romantic life, most importantly for RS.
4
|
PLAYFULNESS AS A DESIRED TRAIT IN MATING, ITS SIGNAL FUNCTION, AND
PARTNER SIMILARITY
4.1
|
Signal theory of play
Chick (2001) proposed in his “signal theory of play” that play and playfulness among adult humans could be
explained, at least in part, by sexual selection. Specifically, he claimed that males may seek playful females for long‐
term mates because playfulness signals youth, health, and, therefore, fecundity. For females, however, playfulness
in males may signal nonaggressiveness, both toward themselves and their children. Chick et al. (2012) hypothe-
sized, therefore, that being “playful,” as well as with presumably related concepts such as having a “good sense of
humor” and being “fun loving,” would be sought in potential mates. They also hypothesized traits, such as “kind and
6
-
BRAUER ET AL.

understanding” and “easygoing,” which suggest nonaggressiveness, would be preferred more by females in males
than by males in females while “being healthy,” “physically attractive,” and having “good heredity,” possible in-
dicators of fecundity, would be preferred by males in females more than by females in males. Chick et al. (2012)
added “playful,” “fun loving,” and “good sense of humor” to a 13‐item mate preferences survey developed by Buss
and Barnes (1986; see ESM). They asked 254 university students to rate the 16 characteristics regarding their
desirability. Participants rated “playful” fifth overall but fourth as a trait desired in males by females. Having a “good
sense of humor” ranked first overall, second as a trait desired in males by females and first as desired by males in
females, while both females and males rated “fun loving” as the third most desirable trait in a partner. These results
support Chick's (2001) general hypothesis regarding the importance of playfulness and associated traits. The
findings replicated well in German‐speaking adults (Proyer & Wagner, 2015), additionally providing initial evidence
that people in relationships might be more playful compared to singles (d=0.25).
4.2
|
Assortative mating and partner similarity
Following the notion that playfulness serves an indicator function, one would expect assortative mating (Luo, 2017).
To the best of our knowledge, only Olson et al. 2001 have examined genetic assortative mating for playfulness:
Analyses of 195 monozygotic (“identical;” sharing the same genotype) and 141 dizygotic (“non‐identical”) twins
showed that monozygotic twins yielded higher similarity coefficients (r=0.29) than “non‐identical” twins (r=0.14).
This supports the notion that genetic assortative mating exists for playfulness to a certain degree. When testing
epigenetic similarity in 77 and 211 heterosexual couples, Proyer et al. (2018b) and Proyer et al. (2019a) found the
expected similarity when using a global measure of playfulness (rs=0.22). The findings were differentiated when
discriminating across the OLIW‐facets: In both studies, Other‐directed and Whimsical types of playfulness showed
robust partner similarity (0.21 ≤rs≤0.47), while similarity in Intellectual playfulness was small (r=0.08 and 0.16).
For Lighthearted playfulness, there were small effects of complementarity (rs= −0.10). Moreover, the 2019 study
also found profile similarity across the four OLIW facets (r=0.55; r=0.12 when controlling for stereotype effects,
cf. Furr, 2008). Chick et al. (2020) assessed assortative mating by correlating participants' self‐ratings and ideal‐
partner ratings, showing again robust similarity (r=0.32). Taken together, the notion of partner similarity and
assortative mating is supported. However, the fine‐grained differentiation across the facets showed that this
particularly applies to the facets of Other‐directed and Whimsical playfulness. One could argue that those are of
particular interest in romantic life. Replication and extension of studies are needed to understand assortative
mating in different phases of relationships; for example, whether partner similarity changes over the course of the
relationship or if people seek similar partners initially. Finally, Proyer and colleagues (2019a) tested whether
partner similarity in playfulness is associated with RS. In line with similarity effects of broad personality traits
(Weidmann et al., 2016), similarity did not incrementally contribute to RS in couples.
5
|
PLAYFULNESS AND INDICATORS OF ROMANTIC LIFE
5.1
|
Relationship satisfaction
Aune and Wong (2002) tested Fredrickson's (1998,2001) hypothesis that playfulness facilitates the experience of
positive emotions and thereby contributes to RS. Path analyses supported this assumption and the bivariate cor-
relation between RS and playfulness was robustly positive (r=0.55). Aune and Wong discussed the role of play-
fulness as a resource that contributes to solve tension, enhance communication, and strengthen positive
experiences within couples. However, their findings must be interpreted as preliminary since the sample size was
comparatively small (N=133). Proyer (2014b) replicated their findings in two independent samples (N=161 and
BRAUER ET AL.
-
7

598). Using a global measure of playfulness assessing the easy onset and frequent display of playful behaviors (Short
Measure of Adult Playfulness [SMAP]; Proyer, 2012), he also found positive but substantially lower associations
(r=0.14 and 0.16) than Aune and Wong. The discrepancy in findings is a good example for the importance of
considering how playfulness is conceptualized as the choice of assessment instruments contributes to differences in
findings across studies. A second caveat is the usage of a global approach to RS, which does not allow to examine
narrower aspects such as sexuality, mistrust, or future orientations (Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002).
Few studies have examined playfulness in dyadic designs (i.e., using data of both partners). Betcher (1981)
conducted interviews with married couples and discussed the importance of intimate play for “intrapsychic structures
and interpersonal processes” (p. 13) by highlighting its functions of facilitating bonding, reducing conflict, and
consequentially stabilizing the relationship. To the best of our knowledge, Metz and Lutz (1990) were the first to
examine playfulness and RS quantitatively by comparing 77 couples who attended sex and marital therapy with
controls. Playfulness was assessed with Betcher's (1977)Couple Play Questionnaire (e.g., “I don't like to be surprised by
my partner”). As expected, less satisfied couples were also lower in playfulness. However, it must be noted that Metz
and Lutz did not test within‐and between‐partner associations of playfulness and RS.
With the introduction of nuanced methods to analyze dyadic data (Kenny et al., 2006), particularly the Actor‐
Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), a fine‐grained analysis of the role of personality traits in couples is possible. The
APIM examines the predictor‐outcome associations by modeling within‐person (actor effects) and between‐partner
(partner effects) relationships while also accounting for partner similarity in predictor and outcome variables. To date,
only Proyer and colleagues' (2019a) study used the APIM to study playfulness (OLIW) and RS (global and facets) in
couples. They found that Other‐directed playfulness showed robust positive actor effects for three indicators of
global satisfaction, independently from gender. On the facet level, positive effects existed with regard to being
fascinated by their partner, showing greater engagement and future expectations for their relationship, physical and
psychological affection, and greater satisfaction with sexuality. The analysis of partner effects showed positive as-
sociations with physical and psychological affection and global RS for both partners whereas males' sexual satis-
faction related positively to their partner's Other‐directed playfulness. An overview of the findings is displayed in
Table 3. Overall, initial findings support the notion of the positive role of Other‐directed playfulness for romantic
relationships. Furthermore, Lighthearted playfulness was widely independent from RS except for two effects; namely,
an actor effect for being fascinated by the partner and a partner effect for mistrust (i.e., greater mistrust toward the
partner is reported when their partner is high in Lighthearted playfulness). One might argue that lighthearted types
appear less committed to exclusive close relationships, which is associated with lower experiences of trust, but this
remains unclear. For Intellectual playfulness, they found positive actor effects for global RS and the facet analysis
showed specifically greater fascination toward the partner, engagement for the relationship, and higher sexual
satisfaction. However, Intellectual playfulness was independent of the partner's satisfaction. Finally, whimsical
playfulness also accompanied greater satisfaction in actors, and the facet‐level analysis indicated that whimsical
accounts for higher fascination and engagement. Taken together, the OLIW facets related differentially to facets of
RS, which allows to understand which types of playfulness relate to satisfaction in couples. However, the findings
await replication and extension in samples comprising non‐German participants, same‐sex couples, and with regard
to potential mediator variables (e.g., attachment styles), and methodological extensions (e.g., using longitudinal de-
signs to clarify the direction of associations and momentary assessment approaches).
5.2
|
Love styles
Lee's (1977) love styles describe individual differences in how people enact and experience “loving.” He distin-
guishes between six types: eros (romantic, passionate love; e.g., feeling strong physical and emotional connection
through the relationship), storge (familial love; e.g., believing that love develops from friendship and is not seen as
goal of life), agape (altruistic love; e.g., viewing the partner as blessing and caring about him), pragma (pragmatic
8
-
BRAUER ET AL.

love; e.g., holding clear expectations toward potential partners and being characterized by rational choices than out
of passion), mania (manic love; e.g., obsessive engagement with the partner), and ludus (playful love; e.g., wanting to
have fun and uncommitted relationships). Interestingly, the ludic style implies that there is a playful way of loving.
Lee describes the ludic lover as
[…]not ready to commit himself (“settle down”). He likes a variety of physical types and can switch
easily from one to another. He does not “fall in love” but goes on with life as usual, expecting love
relationships to fit into his existing schedule of activities. He carefully avoids future commitment to the
relationship (never planning a summer vacation with the partner the previous January!). He avoids
seeing too much of the beloved, to prevent over‐involvement on either side. Ludus can be played as an
open game, with fair warning to the partner, or with deception, leading the partner on (p. 187).
TABLE 3Findings of playfulness in dyadic studies on relationship satisfaction and love styles differentiated
with regard to gender
Study Outcome Facet Women only
Men
only Invariant from gender
Proyer et al.
(2019a)
Relationship
Satisfaction
Other‐
directed
Sexual
Satisfaction
P
Fascination with the partner
Engagement
Sexual satisfaction
Future orientation
Physical and emotional
satisfactionHappiness
Lighthearted Fascination with the partner
Mistrust
P
Intellectual Fascination
Engagement
Sexual satisfaction
Whimsical Fascination
Engagement
Sexual satisfaction
P
Proyer et al.
(2018b)
Love styles Global EROS
P
PRAGMA (−)
P
PLC
P
EROS PLC
Other‐
directed
PRAGMA (−)
P
EROS
PLC
Lighthearted STORGE (−)
PRAGMA (−)
Intellectual EROS
PRAGMA (−)
STORGE(−)
P
PLC
P
PLC
Whimsical STORGE (−)
P
AGAPE (−)
P
PLC
Note: If not indicated by (−), the effect is positive. P =Partner Effect; that is, greater expressions in playfulness relate to
greater expressions in the partner's outcome.
Abbreviation: Playful Love Checklist.
BRAUER ET AL.
-
9

Lee's ludic love style is characterized by a detached attitude, preferring non‐monogamous relationships,
seeing love and relationships as a type of game, and being willing to manipulate potential partners. Sample items
for the assessment of the ludic love style are “It has happened before that I had two love affairs at the same
time,” “I prefer to keep quiet about infidelities in order not to hurt my partner,” and “When my partner isn't
there, I like to flirt with others” (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Based on findings that such Casanova‐like char-
acteristics are detrimental to long‐term relationships (e.g., Frey & Hojjat, 1998; Richardson et al., 1988; Vedes
et al., 2016), Proyer et al. (2018b) argued that Lee's ludic lover shares only minor overlap with playfulness as
understood in current conceptualizations and that a playful love style might exist in contrast to the ludic lover.
As expected, the correlations between Lee's ludic love style and measures of playfulness (OLIW and SMAP) were
small (rs≤0.19; Proyer et al., 2018b; see also Woll, 1989). Thus, Lee's concept of a ludic love style is not
isomorphic with what might be understood as playfulness or a playful love style. Furthermore, Proyer et al.
compiled a tentative list of items that might be more suitable to assess how people might express their love and
affection in relationships, the PLC. Example items are “Sharing jokes that only both of us know makes me feel
closer to my partner” and “Often, I imitate other persons (e.g., friends, actors) or animals for my partner.” The
PLC showed good psychometric properties (e.g., α=0.72; loadings between 0.44 and 0.70) and emerged as
distinct factor from Lee's love styles in a joint factor analysis. Contrary to Lee's ludic love style, the PLC
correlated with global playfulness (r=0.42) and the OLIW facets (0.27 ≤r≤0.53; Lighthearted playfulness being
the exception, r=0.18/0.10 in men/women) and was widely unrelated from the ludic love style (r=0.12). Taken
together, we argue that there is a jingle fallacy concerning the ludic love style and what is understood as
playfulness in general and how it is expressed in relationships. While the findings show that the playful love style
can contribute to understand how people express love and shape their romantic relationships, the presented
findings are a good example for why it is important to disentangle what is understood as playful and how it is
assessed. However, it must be noted that the PLC is only a preliminary list of items that does not compre-
hensively assess the full repertoire of how people express their playfulness in relationships and toward their
partner. Future research could use the PLC to examine the mediating role of playful attitudes on the associations
between trait‐playfulness, as the disposition that describes the tendency to show playful behaviors, and satis-
faction as outcome variable. We expect that the playful disposition predicts playful behaviors and thereby affect
relationship indicators.
When testing the association with the remaining love styles, mainly the women's love styles related to play-
fulness with actor and partner effects, predominantly demonstrating negative associations to pragma and storge
(see Table 3).
5.3
|
Relationship personality
Andresen (2012) proposed the so‐called relationship personality, a classification of traits that are considered
important for romantic life. This classification allows to describe individual differences regarding expectations
toward romantic relationships and how people want to engage with their partner and the relationship. Andresen
differentiates between Love (i.e., understanding and romanticism; need for closeness; being emotionally invested),
Sexuality (i.e., valuing physical passion and adventure), Insecurity (i.e., being anxious in relationships and feeling
ambivalent toward close others; being less trusting toward the partner), Dominance (i.e., being verbally and
physically aggressive; degrading the partner), Attachment (i.e., need for closeness; fear of disconnectedness;
idealizing the partner), Seduction (i.e., being charming and convinced of being able to seduce others), Faithfulness (i.e.,
preferring consistent relationships and routine in those), and Market Orientation (i.e., sense of entitlement toward
one's [potential] partner; being oriented toward a partner's status and attractiveness). Proyer (2014b) has tested
the associations between a global measure of playfulness and the relationship personality traits in 558 German‐
speaking participants. He reported positive associations with seduction (r=0.31) and sexuality (r=0.23), and
10
-
BRAUER ET AL.

inclinations to love (r=0.19) and attachment (r=0.18) while finding independence from the remaining relationship
personality traits (rs≤0.02). The findings converge with Proyer et al. (2019a) who reported similar patterns
concerning greater sexual satisfaction and inclinations to mistrust (cf. Andresen's attachment scale). However,
replication and extension toward the OLIW model is desirable to disentangle which types of playfulness relate to
the relationship personality traits.
6
|
OPEN QUESTIONS
While the majority of findings suggests that playfulness contributes positively to relationships, no study has yet
examined negative consequences of playfulness in relationships. Drawing on Berger et al.'s (2017) hypothesis that a
maladaptive reframing process might contribute to develop psychiatric disorders that are related to cognitive
biases (e.g., anxiety disorder); one might expect that some types of playfulness are associated with phenomena such
as jealousy, the perceived threat of one's relationship (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Taking the findings on relations with
the mistrust facet into account (Proyer et al., 2019a), one might expect that whimsical playfulness accounts for
actor effects in jealousy, whereas partners of those high in Lighthearted playfulness might show greater jealousy
due to perceptions of lower commitment to the relationship and greater concern of the dissolution of the rela-
tionship. Furthermore, attachment styles describe how people approach and deal with close relationships (Fraley &
Roisman, 2019) based on the two orthogonal dimensional anxiety (i.e., worries over close relationships) and
avoidance (i.e., reducing interdependence by avoiding closeness). It would be desirable to examine potential con-
sequences (e.g., mediator effects) of attachment on the associations between playfulness and relationship out-
comes. One might argue that playfulness would go along with secure attachment (i.e., low anxiety and avoidance) as
playful people have learned to adopt positive views on their relationships when learning their social skills,
boundaries, and needs of others in childhood, as discussed with regard to the literature on children's playfulness
(e.g., Burghardt, 2005; Lieberman, 1977; Youell, 2008).
Couple‐centered variables have not yet been examined. For example, dyadic coping describes how couples deal
with stress by examining the interactions and coping strategies of each partner (Bodenmann, 2005). Prior studies
have shown that playfulness relates to adaptive coping mechanisms, which permits dealing with stressors and
stress positively (Chang et al., 2013; Magnuson & Barnett, 2013; Qian & Yarnal, 2011). Amongst others, those high
in playfulness actively seek social support and companionship to reduce stress. However, no study has yet
examined how couples deal with stressors from within (e.g., disagreement) and outside the relationship (e.g., child
loss). While one might expect that playfulness would contribute to dyadic coping, this needs to be empirically tested
since Herzberg (2013) has shown that individual and dyadic coping are not redundant (e.g., dyadic coping being the
stronger predictor of RS and mediating the association between individual coping efforts and RS). Thus, it would be
desirable to examine whether playfulness relates to dyadic coping similarly to findings from individuals and to study
its effects for outcomes such as RS or disagreement.
Longitudinal studies could help clarifying relationships with criteria such as dissolution or having children and
also address partners' co‐development of playfulness over time. The latter could clarify whether partners might
become (1) more similar in their playfulness and (2) whether one's playfulness might spillover to the partner's
playfulness. There is evidence that playfulness is malleable through minimal interventions (e.g., raising awareness of
how one uses playfulness in everyday life; Proyer et al., 2020; Proyer et al., 2021) and it is feasible that one could be
stimulated by their partner to be more playful—or, at least, do more playful things and behave more playful.
Moreover, effects of co‐development on outcomes such as the quality and quantity of conflicts and RS would be of
interest (e.g., Allemand & Martin, 2016).
Prior research has relied mainly on self‐reports of playfulness. An extension to partner/peer reports of play-
fulness and instruments that allow a good description of playful behaviors in couples is desirable. For the latter, the
PLC (Proyer et al., 2018b) might be a good starting point, pending revision of the initial list of items. Also,
BRAUER ET AL.
-
11

FIGURE 1 Tentative model of the potential consequences of adult playfulness for romantic relationships (dotted lines indicate potential mediator/moderator effects)
12
-
BRAUER ET AL.

observational designs could help to learn more about how playfulness is expressed and used in couples. For
example, how partners use their playfulness to solve practical problems and behave in situations that potentially go
along with conflict could be examined.
7
|
CONCLUSION
Overall, current research supports the notion that playfulness contributes positively to establishing and main-
taining relationships. Taking the findings together, we suggest a working model for potential mechanisms on the
individual and dyadic level (see Figure 1). The literature suggests that playfulness facilitates the experience of
positive emotions, relates to potential biological processes, and how people communicate and interact with others
(i.e., social skills such as dealing with stress by seeking social companionship and surprising others in daily in-
teractions). We assume that individuals' playfulness affects the partner and the couple as an interdependent unit as
well; for example, by contributing to RS, reducing conflict (e.g., by solving interpersonal tension) and monotony (e.g.,
by engaging in an active and fulfilling sexual life), and building trust with the partner. The literature supports the
notion that high RS, trust, and low conflict are robust predictors of stable and satisfying relationships (e.g.,
Weidmann et al., 2016). Hence, we expect that playfulness indirectly contributes to the longevity of relationships
(Figure 1). However, it must be noted that several components of this suggested model have not been tested
empirically yet; for example, there is no knowledge on playfulness and trust. We suggest interpreting the com-
ponents of the working model as interactive instead of being serial because (1) no longitudinal data exist to clarify
causal relationships and (2) components and partners might relate to each other reciprocally. Taking the inter-
personal nature of playfulness into account, it seems feasible that one's playfulness not only affects the partner's
playfulness but also how they mutually experience and shape the relationship (e.g., by adapting behaviors to solve
conflict in a playful way). Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to clarify developmental aspects; for
example, it is of interest how playfulness and its suggested consequences contribute to changes and the stability of
prime indicators of close relationships (e.g., trust is built over time). As discussed previously, the knowledge on third
variables is sparse. Hence, the study of moderator and mediator variables is a future aim. Again, one could expect
bidirectional associations with third variables; for example, attachment styles are malleable (Fraley & Roisman,
2019) and playfulness might contribute to secure attachment on basis of positive relationship experiences during
childhood and adolescence, whereas changes from insecure to secure attachment styles in adulthood might
contribute to expressing and enacting playfulness with the partner and beyond the relationship.
In conclusion, the study of adult playfulness contributes to the understanding of how people experience,
facilitate, and maintain close relationships. However, it is important to clarify how playfulness is understood and
assessed to minimize potential confounder effects. While the discussed studies offer initial insights into the role of
playfulness in romantic life, it must be noted that ambiguity in the conceptualization and assessment of playfulness
make it difficult to generalize the findings across the field (e.g., distinguishing between the ludic and playful love
style). Although only a few published studies exist, we conclude that they account for important domains of
romantic life, such as assortative mating, partner similarity, and relationship outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are grateful to Rebekka Sendatzki for her help in preparing the manuscript.
Open access funding enabled and organized by ProjektDEAL.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, the authorship, and publication of
this article.
BRAUER ET AL.
-
13

ORCID
Kay Brauer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7398-8457
REFERENCES
Allemand, M., & Martin, M. (2016). On correlated change in personality. European Psychologist,21, 237–253. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1016‐9040/a000256
Andresen, B. (2012). Beziehungs‐und Bindungs‐Persönlichkeitsinventar (BB‐PI) [Relationship‐and Bonding Personality Inventory].
Hogrefe.
Aune, K. S., & Wong, N. C. H. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of adult play in romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships,9, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6811.00019
Barnett, L. A. (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences,43, 949–958. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.018
Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships. Human Communications Research,18,
336–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2958.1992.tb00556.x
Bekoff, M. (1984). Social play behavior. Bioscience,34, 228–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/1309460
Berger, P., Bitsch, F., Bröhl, H., & Falkenberg, I. (2017). Play and playfulness in psychiatry: A selective review. International
Journal of Play,7, 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1383341
Berne, E. (1964). Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. Penguin.
Betcher, R. W. (1977). Intimate play and marital adaptation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University.
Betcher, R. W. (1981). Intimate play and marital adaptation. Psychiatry,44, 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00332747.1981.11024088
Betcher, R. W. (1988). Intimate play. Penguin.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, &
G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Decade of behavior. Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031‐002
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1993). “Sweet Pea” and “Pussy Cat”: An examination of idiom use and marital satisfaction
over the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10, 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407593104009
Burghardt, G. M. (2001). Play: Attributes and neural substrates. In E. M. Blass (Ed.), Developmental Psychobiology. Handbook
of behavioral Neurobiology (Vol. 13, pp. 317–356). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4615‐1209‐7_9
Burghardt, G. M. (2005). The genesis of animal play: Testing the limits. Bradford Books.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50,
559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.50.3.559
Chang, P.‐J., Qian, X., & Yarnal, C. (2013). Using playfulness to cope with psychological stress: Taking into account both
positive and negative emotions. International Journal of Play,2, 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21594937.2013.855414
Chick, G. (2001). What is play for? Sexual selection and the evolution of play. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Theory in context and out
(pp. 3–26). Ablex Publishing.
Chick, G., Proyer, R. T., Purrington, A., & Yarnal, C. (2020). Do birds of a playful feather flock together? Playfulness and
assortative mating. American Journal of Play,12, 178–215.
Chick, G., Yarnal, C., & Purrington, A. (2012). Play and mate preference: Testing the signal theory of adult playfulness.
American Journal of Play,4, 407–440.
Davis, K. L., & Montag, C. (2019). Selected principles of Pankseppian affective neuroscience. Frontiers in Neuroscience,8,
1025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.01025
Farley, A., Kennedy‐Behr, A., & Brown, T. (2020). An investigation into the relationship between playfulness and well‐being
in Australian adults: An exploratory study. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health,41, 56–64. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1539449220945311
Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons.. Current Opinion in
Psychology,25, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.008.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,3, 300–319. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1089‐2680.2.3.300
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist,56, 218–226. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.56.3.218
Frey, K., & Hojjat, M. (1998). Are love styles related to sexual styles? The Journal of Sex Research,35, 265–271. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224499809551942
Furr, R. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of
Personality,76, 1267–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.2008.00521.x.
14
-
BRAUER ET AL.

Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship quality. Personal Relationships,9, 253–270. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1475‐6811.00017
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 392–402.
Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on
relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress & Coping,26, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.655726
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,3, 173–182. https://doi.org/
10.1177/014616727700300204
Lieberman, N. J. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. Academic Press.
Luo, S. (2017). Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass,11, 12337. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12337
Magnuson, C. D., & Barnett, L. A. (2013). The playful advantage: How playfulness enhances coping with stress. Leisure
Research,35, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.761905
Metz, M. E. (1988). Sexual playfulness. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality,31, 96–97.
Metz, M. E., & Lutz, G. (1990). Dyadic playfulness differences between sexual and marital therapy couples. Journal of
Psychology & Human Psychology,3, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v03n01_09
Metz, M. E., & McCarthy, B. W. (2007). The “Good‐Enough Sex” model for couple sexual satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy,22, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990601013492
Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,80, 845–860. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022‐3514.80.6.845
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. (2005). Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Consciousness and Cognition,
14, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psycho-
logical Association.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,6, 181–196.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758900600203
Proyer, R. T. (2011). Being playful and smart? The relations of adult playfulness with psychometric and self‐estimated
intelligence and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences,21, 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2011.02.003
Proyer, R. T. (2012). Development and initial assessment of a short measure for adult playfulness: The SMAP. Personality
and Individual Differences,53, 989–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.018
Proyer, R. T. (2014a). Perceived functions of playfulness in adults: Does it mobilize you at work, rest, and when being with
others? European Review of Applied Psychology,64, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.06.001
Proyer, R. T. (2014b). To love and play: Testing the association of adult playfulness with the relationship personality and
relationship satisfaction. Current Psychology,33, 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144‐014‐9225‐6
Proyer, R. T. (2017). A new structural model for the study of adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an
understudied individual differences variable. Personality and Individual Differences,108, 113–122. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.011
Proyer, R. T. (2018). Playfulness and humor in psychology: An overview and update. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research,31, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor‐2016‐0080
Proyer, R. T., & Brauer, K. (2018). Exploring adult playfulness: Examining the accuracy of personality judgments at zero‐
acquaintance and an LIWC analysis of textual information. Journal of Research in Personality,73, 12–20. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.10.002
Proyer, R. T., Brauer, K., & Wolf, A. (2020). Assessing other‐directed, lighthearted, intellectual, and whimsical playfulness in
adults: Development and initial validation of a short form of the OLIW using self‐and peer‐ratings. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment,36, 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015‐5759/a000531
Proyer, R. T., Brauer, K., Wolf, A., & Chick, G. (2018b). Beyond the ludic lover: Individual differences in playfulness and love
styles in heterosexual relationships. American Journal of Play,10, 265–289.
Proyer, R. T., Brauer, K., Wolf, A., & Chick, G. (2019a). Adult playfulness and relationship satisfaction: An APIM analysis of
romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality,79, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.001
Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Bertenshaw, E., & Brauer, K. (2018c). The positive relationships of playfulness with indicators of
health, activity, and physical fitness. Frontiers in Psychology,9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01440
Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Brauer, K., & Chick, G. (2021). Can playfulness be stimulated? A randomised placebo‐controlled
online playfulness intervention study on effects on trait playfulness, well‐being, and depression. Applied Psychology:
Health and Well‐Being.13(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12220
Proyer, R. T., & Jehle, N. (2013). The basic components of adult playfulness and their Relation with personality: The
hierarchical factor structure of seventeen instruments. Personality and Individual Differences,55, 811–816. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2013.777767.
BRAUER ET AL.
-
15

Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2011). The virtuousness of adult playfulness: The relation of playfulness with strengths of
character. Psychology of Well‐Being: Theory, Research and Practice,1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2211‐1522‐1‐4.
Proyer, R. T., Tandler, N., & Brauer, K. (2019b). Playfulness and creativity: A selective review. In S. R. Luria, J. Baer, & J. C.
Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity and humor (pp. 43–56). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐813802‐
1.00002‐8
Proyer, R. T., & Wagner, L. (2015). Playfulness in adults revisited: The signal theory in German speakers. American Journal of
Play,7, 201–227.
Qian, X. L., & Yarnal, C. (2011). The role of playfulness in the leisure stress‐coping process among emerging adults: An SEM
analysis. Leisure,35, 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2011.578398
Richardson, D. R., Medvin, N., & Hammock, G. (1988). Love styles, relationship experience, and sensation seeking: A test of
validity. Personality and Individual Differences,9, 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191‐8869(88)90161‐4
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. Simon & Schuster.
Shen, X., Chick, G., & Pitas, N. A. (2017). From playful parents to adaptable children: A structural equation model of the
relationships between playfulness and adaptability among young adults and their parents. International Journal of Play,
6, 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382983
Shen, X., Chick, G., & Zinn, H. (2014). Validating the Adult Playfulness Trait Scale (APTS): An examination of personality,
behavior, attitude, and perception in the nomological network of playfulness. American Journal of Play,6, 345–369.
Siviy, S. M. (2016). A brain motivated to play: Insights into the neurobiology of playfulness. Behaviour,153, 819–844.
https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X‐00003349
Turley, E. L., Monro, S., & King, N. (2017). Adventures of pleasure: Conceptualising consensual bondage, discipline, domi-
nance and submission, and sadism and masochism as a form of adult play. International Journal of Play,6, 324–334.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382984
Van Fleet, M., & Feeney, B. C. (2015). Play behavior and playfulness in adulthood. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
9, 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12205
Vedes, A., Hilpert, P., Nussbeck, F. W., Randall, A. K., Bodenmann, G., & Lind, W. R. (2016). Love styles, coping, and rela-
tionship satisfaction: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships,23, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12112
Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2016). The interdependence of personality and satisfaction in couples. European
Psychologist,21, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016‐9040/a000261
Weiss, M. D. (2006). Working at play: BDSM sexuality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Anthropologica,48, 229–245. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25605313
Wheeler, S. (2020). An exploration of playfulness in coaching. International Coaching Psychology Review,15, 44–58.
Woll, S. B. (1989). Personality and relationship correlates of loving styles. Journal of Research in Personality,23, 480–505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0092‐6566(89)90016‐0
Youell, B. (2008). The importance of play and playfulness. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling,10, 121–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642530802076193
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Kay Brauer is a PhD student working at the section Psychological Assessment and Differential Psychology at
the Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg, Germany. His research interests are in the field of romantic
relationships, interpersonal perception, and psychological assessment. In his research he examines the per-
sonality traits adult playfulness and dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at.
René T. Proyer is a full professor of Psychological Assessment and Differential Psychology at the Martin Luther
University Halle‐Wittenberg, Germany. He received his PhD (2006) and completed his habilitation thesis
(2014) at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. His research interests lie in the study of adult playfulness,
dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at, and positive psychology.
Garry Chick is professor emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University, PA. He received his PhD at the Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh. His research interests are playfulness and play theory, culture and health, and the culture‐
behavior relationship.
16
-
BRAUER ET AL.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: Brauer K, Proyer RT, Chick G. Adult playfulness: An update on an understudied
individual differences variable and its role in romantic life. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2021;1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12589
BRAUER ET AL.
-
17