Conceptualising physical playfulness

ABSTRACT

There is a broad consensus that appropriate levels of physical activity or sports are a vital element of a healthy lifestyle and physical well-being, with additional attributes to mental well-being. However, levels of physical activity and overall physical health are still declining. Education about health, the introduction of so-called ‘lifestyle’ activities in Physical Education, and a more extensive range of sports stimulating programmes have been part of the endeavours in the U.K. to increase physical activity levels. This article looks at the motivation for physical activity and sport from a play perspective. It endeavours to extrapolate physical playfulness from play discourse, as a distinct behavioural attribute. An attribute that underpins motivation in physical ‘play’ activity, through immersion, is the desire for repetition.

KEYWORDS:

• Play
• playfulness
• immersion
• physical activity

Introduction

This article considers the relationship between play and intrinsic motivation for movement and physical activity through the hypothetical construct of ‘physical playfulness’. Literature and research in physical education (PE), and physical activity and sport (PAaS) have increasingly focussed on obesity and associated health crisis (WHO, 2018). There is a good understanding of the causes: unhealthy lifestyles, including poor nutrition and lack of physical activity (NHS, 2020) . Solutions to this growing phenomenon have been less effective (WHO, 2018). Physical development and PE discourse have long argued that early education and involvement in PAaS might lead to better health outcomes and lifelong participation (Green, 2002). Controversially, not all childhood physical activity seems to have a positive impact on health. Miller (2012) criticises the North-American emphasis on competitive sports for children and recognises a lack of focus on enjoyment. He argues that something essential is missing on American sports fields for children, specifically the ability to enjoy PAaS as a ‘playful’ activity. Psychological dynamics have been explored to enhance understanding of reasons for PAaS participation over the last decades. These include a variation between the research of PAaS experiences such as enjoyment (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991) and engagement (Hagströmer, Oja, & Sjöström, 2006), or developed personality traits concerning PAaS such as self-efficacy and motivation (Chase, 2001), intrinsic motivation and self-determination (Ntoumanis, 2001), and psycho-social dynamics (Griffin, 1986). These aspects of PAaS research have allowed greater insight into the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for PAaS. There is little evidence that these deeper understandings have had a significant positive impact.

Lack of progress might stem from, first, limited longitudinal perspectives. Why do people continue their participation in PAaS throughout their life? Reinventing themselves as active participants, adapting to life-stages and changing lifestyles. Second, a broader perspective of intrinsic motivations that addresses the cyclic repetition of participation, from initial engagement, perseverance, evaluation, and reengagement.

The author suggests that the concepts of ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’ can give a renewed perspective. The rationale will be outlined through discussion of existing ‘play’, ‘playfulness’, and ‘physical play’ theory, finalising with a definition for ‘physical playfulness’, as a foundation for a model for practice and research.

Play: a working definition

The Magic Circle

There are many definitions and concepts of ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’, and a few definitions of ‘physical play’ (Pellegrini, 2009, 2011) and ‘exercise play’ (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). The concept of ‘physical playfulness’ is not yet defined. To establish the definitions for ‘physical play’ and ‘physical playfulness’, a working definition of play is required. The nature of ‘play’ or ‘Ludus’ has been debated since antiquity (Anderson, 2017). ‘Play’ behaviour is recognised in animals, as well as in human behaviour (Bateson, 1956). Lakoff (1973) describes ‘play’ as a fuzzy concept, without a clear and overarching definition. Lack of agreement for a definition is often due to the background of theorists and their subject of study. Early years educationalists typically view play as a means for progress (Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1967), occupational therapists as a means for well-being (Bundy, 1997; Chazan, 2002, 2012), artists as a form for subversion (Flanagan, 2013), and social scientists and anthropologists as a function of society (Caillois, 1961; Huizinga, 1955). There is a distinction between classic and modern (post World War I) theories of play (Gilmore, 1971; Mellou, 1994). Classical theories tend to focus on the general purpose of play, as well as its origins. Modern play theory aims to frame the purpose of play in relation to specific play content (Saracho & Spodek, 1994; Stagnitti, 2004). Huizinga (1955) reflected on the experience of play as being in ‘The Magic Circle’, a metaphor for play behaviour and experience. This idea of ‘play’ has been applied throughout ‘play’ discourse, upon the emergence of modern video gaming (Salen & Zimmerman, 2005). Although, ‘The Magic Circle’ fails to define play, there seems to be consensus that being in the ‘Magic Circle’ of ‘play’ is a special place, to which every person can relate. Huizinga defined three main attributes for the ‘Magic Circle’ of ‘play’.

• Play is unaffected by time and space: the purposeless nature of play and the distinct removal from ordinary life. ‘Play’ has its own timeline and space in which it defines its path and meaning.

• The seriousness of ‘play’ endeavour: although an activity such as a game might lack seriousness, the immersive engagement of players can be serious.

• There is no direct function for survival: ‘play’ stands outside our endeavours to fulfil our basic needs in daily life.

Fun and enjoyment

One of the recurring ideas within play discourse is that play is fun or enjoyable, or even that it has to be fun or enjoyable. The relationship between fun and play applies to a wide range of contexts. It is often a primary understanding of what play is. However, the distinct relationship between, fun or enjoyment, and play, is more complex and less logical than appears. Van Vleet and Feeney (2015) suggest the following definition that encapsulates the manifested psychological attributes of ‘play’. They claim that ‘play’ is: ‘an activity that is carried out for the purpose of amusement and fun, that is approached with an enthusiastic and in-the-moment attitude, and that is highly-interactive’ (Van Vleet & Feeney, 2015, p. 632). They align themselves with previous researchers (Ablon, 2001; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Lauer & Lauer, 2002; Terr, 1999), arguing that the primary element of ‘play’ activity is fun, amusement and enjoyment. They state that intrinsic motivation, in combination with fun, is the essence of ‘play’. This definition assumes to cover all aspects of ‘play’ experiences. It attributes the element of fun to be integral to ‘play’. This definition, however, omits aspects of play that are not by definition fun or amusing but may carry a form of suffering, such as muscle fatigue during ‘physical play’. Although fun is not dismissed, play researchers Huizinga (1955), Caillois (1961), Sutton-Smith (2001), or Sicart (2014), do not view it as a requirement of ‘play’ or of being in the ‘Magic Circle’. Csikszentmihalyi (2014) explicitly separates enjoyment from ‘play’. Enjoyment is a consequence of the immersive experience of ‘play’, rather than prerequisite. Also, Remmele and Whitton (2014) argue that play does not have to be a positive experience per se, and highlight some of the more dangerous aspects of play, such as play with extended risks or possibilities for social dissonance. Attribution of fun or enjoyment to play as a constant is thus disputed on several grounds.

Reoccurrence

DeKoven (1978), as well as Brown and Vaughan (2009), highlight the almost addictive nature of ‘play’: a desire to repeat a ‘play’ activity. However, there is a distinction between addiction and the desire to ‘play’. Addiction affects the real-world experience; the player loses the autotelic context of the ‘play’ activity. By being in ‘play’, the player stays in control of play-time, play-place, and the level of immersion. Play commences or is aborted on the player’s terms, without effect on the ‘real’ world (Huizinga, 1955).

Autotelic and immersive

Huizinga (1955) argues that ‘play’ is an activity outside the reality of daily life. Caillois (1961), Sicart (2014), and Csikszentmihalyi and Bennett (1971) take a different view; they consider that ‘play’ can be both an outside of reality and a real-world experience. ‘Play’ can be part of functional behaviour. This overlapping play experience is seen in the cultural and religious manifestation of ritual and the use of masks (Caillois, 1961), computer games (Flanagan, 2013; Salen & Zimmerman, 2005; Sicart, 2014) or rough and tumble play (Pellegrini, 2009). Sutton-Smith (2008) exposes the paradox between reality and the play, as a duality of dualities (dialudics). Whilst ‘play’ might occur in a separate safe ‘space’ it takes continues reference from the ‘real’ (often not as attractive) world. Behaviour developed in play affects how one influences reality. Sutton-Smith (2008) argues that this dualism between ‘play’ and ‘reality’ functioned at various levels of reality from an animalistic reflexive level to a highly complex reflective cultural exchange. However, the autotelic and immersive qualities of ‘The Magic Circle’, persist as a consistent determinative.

The purpose of play?

It is crucial to make a clear distinction between what, ‘play’ is, and, what the perceived purpose of ‘play’ could be. The focus of this article is on ‘play’ as a behavioural phenomenon or activity that captures one’s full attention, which is absorbing and that it has no direct purpose. A working definition does not exclude either perspective of ‘play’. It applies to all play contexts, from behaviour phenomenon to perceived purposes of play.

From the previous discussions of ‘play’, two distinct reoccurring and overarching attributes are selected. ‘Play’ is:

• Autotelic: a separated from reality without determined immediate beneficial purpose on reality (Huizinga, 1955). Or, according to Sutton-Smith (2008) view an ‘existential separately motivated reality’ (p. 100).

• Immersive: an active process unbound by time experience, self-consciousness, and outcome in which all awareness is invested in the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014).

Aligning play and playfulness

‘Play’ is considered an act or activity. ‘Playfulness’ is perceived as, either a cognitive behavioural attribute, being able to be creative (Barnett, 1991; Lieberman, 1977), or the disposition of an individual, being able to address the holistic relations within an environment playfully (Sicart, 2014; Sutton-Smith, 2001; Van Vleet & Feeney, 2015). There are different definitions of ‘playfulness’ derived from various logical arguments. Sutton-Smith (2001) suggests playfulness as, playing with the boundaries between play and reality. Sicart (2014) similarly describes playfulness as a disposition that allows appropriation: the recontextualisation of play, or reality. Psychological approaches in play research identified and attributed a range of manifested behavioural aspects to the definition of playfulness. There has been an emphasis on enjoyment (Ablon, 2001; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Lauer & Lauer, 2002; Terr, 1999), intelligence (Barnett, 2018; Proyer, 2012), spontaneity (Lieberman, 1977), intrinsic motivation (Betcher, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and the social disposition of the player through framing (Bateson, 1972; Bundy, 1997).

Playfulness and purpose

Humans are playful and exhibit playful behaviour as a species is evident (Bateson, 1972; Brown & Vaughan, 2009; Caillois, 1961; Huizinga, 1955; Lieberman, 1977; Proyer, 2012; Sutton-Smith, 2001; Vygotsky, 1967; Winnicott, 1971). A breath of studies in various disciplines argues for numerous existential benefits, from having a playful disposition. The paradox between ‘play’ as a purposeless activity and the understood benefits of having playful nature brings a particular dynamic and possible controversial relationship between ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’. For the current discussion, the definition of ‘playfulness’ and related disposition align with the stated definition of ‘play’, non-purposeful (Huizinga, 1955; Sutton-Smith, 2001) and autotelic (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). The distinct pathway for this is to assign a meaning to ‘playfulness’ that is solely related to ‘play’ itself and can facilitate the full range of ‘playfulness’ behavioural dispositions and attributes. Van Vleet and Feeney (2015) rightly argue that if the broad and varying range of characteristics of playfulness as a behavioural disposition are incorporated in a definition, this definition becomes impractical for use in both research and professional applications. They further recognise a lack of alignment between ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’ definitions and thus suggest the following definition: playfulness is a dispositional tendency to engage in play (i.e. an inclination to pursue activities with the goal of amusement or fun, with an enthusiastic and in-the-moment attitude, and that are highly interactive in nature) (Van Vleet & Feeney, 2015, p. 632). For the current exploration in ‘physical playfulness’, this definition is too vague. It facilitates Sutton-Smith’s (2001) suggestion that playfulness is ‘playing with the boundaries of play. It, however, fails to encapsulate the essence of playful behaviour as a disposition. As a similar but more logical alignment with the concept of play, the following definition of playfulness is suggested:

Playfulness: the behavioural disposition to access and maintain autotelic activity and immersion in play.

Limitations of play and playfulness definitions

It is not suggested that these definitions of ‘play’ and playfulness, based on concepts of autotelic activity and immersions, are complete. They might only cover a distinct area of play research that focuses on so-called ‘deep play’, ‘play’ in which participants are fully immersed (Brown & Vaughan, 2009). The suggested definitions, however, allow for the inclusion of a broad spectrum of behaviours that exceed assumptions of singular attributions to ‘play’ and playfulness, such as fun, enjoyment, spontaneity, or intrinsic motivation.

Physical play: a working definition

Physical play has been part of play discourse and research. Topics range from cultural manifestations, such as sports competitions; as part of child development progress, like climbing trees; or generically as a leisure activity. Physical play as a unique and separate experience throughout the human lifespan has not been defined. The next part of this article reviews existing concepts of physical, bodily and biological play, with the endeavour to extrapolate a definition of ‘physical play’ aligned with generic ‘play’ concepts. Defining ‘physical play’ as a separate aspect of holistic human play behaviour will give it its appropriate specification as a value, without disassociating it from the holistic and immersive context within the experience of human play behaviour.

Manifestation of physical play

‘Physical play’ is most used to identify ‘play’ behaviour of young children and animals (Barnett, 1991; Bateson, 1956; Lieberman, 1977). ‘Physical play’ is identifiable in its bodily manifestation, contrary to the range of social and or cognitive play possibilities (as described by Chazan, 2012; Flanagan, 2013; Sutton-Smith, 2001). ‘Physical play’ is recognised as one of the first forms of human developmental ‘play’ and used to underpin cognitive, social and physical developmental theory in young children (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Piaget, 1962; Thelen, 1981). Subsequent research methods of playfulness in young children incorporate observation of physical play as an element of assessment (Barnett, 1991; Bundy, 1997; Lieberman, 1977). However, the manifestation of physical play moves beyond childhood. It is seen throughout life in adult play in many forms, ranging from generic leisure activities to competitive sports, or from spontaneous to highly organised play.

Historical perspective of physical play

Anderson (2017) deliberates how physical activity, as a past time, to maintain both physical and emotional well-being, has been part of social practice in Western society since ancient Greek civilisation. Physical activity and training included the martial aspects of life, in which physical prowess and achievements were celebrated in related game forms such as archery and athletics. Breughel’s 1560 painting ‘Children’s Games’ shows how both adults and children are involved in social and individual bodily gameplay, as a diverting past time, bringing enjoyment. There is a carnivalesque and physical experience in many of the games (Sicart, 2014). Philosophers and writers in the eighteenth century, such as Nietzsche and Schiller, recommended daily physical activity as key for their cognitive and emotional well-being (Anderson, 2017). Beyond Western culture, there is a range of examples in which physical activity has been part of established civilisations. These range from religious spirituality, such as yoga (Samuel, 2008), social, spiritual practice, e.g. African cultural dance (James, 2010), tribal competition, the Aztecs played an early, somewhat violent, form of basketball and rugby (Wasserman, 2017) or Capoeira, the Afro-Brazilian play-fight-dance, developed in the sixteenth century by slaves as a social past time (Nestor, 2002).

Early play theorists Schaller (1861) and Lazarus (1883) considered ‘play’ as a means to recover energy or for energy recuperation. From the late eighteenth century, researchers have started to compile and analyse children’s play and games (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1971). It is worthwhile to contextualise this era as it represents the historical development of the concept of childhood in Western culture. From the mid eighteenth century, children were increasingly viewed as a separate social group rather than as small adults. At the same time, adult play tended to decrease, as time and space available to play diminished, due to the productivity surge during the industrial revolution (Stone, 1971). Thus in this period’ child play’ and ‘adult play’ became separate entities, with a range of activities specifically aimed at children. Analyses of game preference from the late eighteenth century up until 1959 show that a variety of physical games has continuously been in the top ten games for both boys and girls such as Tag, Jump Rope, or playing with balls (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1971). Subsequent research analyses and comparison of data throughout the twentieth century found that there were distinct changes in play behaviour of children as society changes. For example, the introduction of the television in every household changed children’s play behaviour after World War II, with a slow reduction of physical play (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1971). However, physical games such as Tag, swimming, and ball sports were still some of the most popular. Green (2002) highlighted the lack of physical activity of children and the increased time spent watching television and playing video games. These concerns are ongoing, with only 18% of children between 5 and 15 in the U.K., achieving recommended daily exercise levels between 2012 and 2014 (WHO, 2015). The development of technology also brings opportunities, by making physical exercise more game-like, for example, through Zombie game applications for interval running, Kinect movement tracking and WII-fit games. Additionally, virtual reality games are going to bring ‘play’ to video games that demand high levels of physical activity (Baranowski, 2017).

The social construct of physical play

Bourdieu (1993) argues that external social influences affect our play behaviour and influence our creative responses in society. The intricacy of the coalescence of these social influences increases the complexity of play behaviour. It raises questions such as, when are we playing? Where are we playing? How are we playing? Why are we experiencing certain activities as play? In contrast, Huizinga (1955) suggests a reversed concept; social construction is embedded in the elements of play interaction (Malaby, 2009). These two perspectives suggest that there is an evolutionary interaction between the social construct play influencing the individual player and the individual player influencing social construct play.

Physical activity and PE in Western society polarises physical activity in two different categories, health-related activities (such as jogging, hill walking or weight lifting) and (competitive) sports (Waddington, Malcolm, & Green, 1997). Competition in sports can develop self-determination to pursue a physically active lifestyle (Holt & Sehn, 2008). To ensure our populations stay healthy, minimum levels of physical activity are advised (NHS, 2020). Furthermore, there is a relentless pursuit of bodily aesthetic goals, stimulated by visual media (Wykes & Gunter, 2005). There is little consideration for the individual as a player and how ‘physical play’ is experienced. Whilst, rigorous competitive environments are often uninspiring for sports participation, non-competitive participants might still playfully incorporate competition in their movement experiences (Standage & Ryan, 2020). For example, the strife to perform all movements correct in a group exercise choreography.

The ritual of physical play

Social structure influences the experience of physical activity over time. Hamayon (2016) notes that the phenomenon of bodily games is founded upon the biological and physical play behaviour of species. This suggests an intricate relationship between the social manifestations of physical games such as sports and the defined physicality of our existence as humans. Caillois (1961) perspectives of physical play and games continue in the tradition of Huizinga, in which game forms are the construct of society. He identified games and ‘play’ as combinations of the following ‘play forms’: Agon (organised competitive games), Alea (games of chance), Mimicry (games of illusion and personification) and Ilinx (experienced based play that can heighten sensory experiences such as vertigo). He suggests a compelling argument that the games we play are partly rooted in early human spiritual ritual, in which one manifests a different personality, through Mimicry and Vertigo. Caillois (1961) also identifies two extreme experiences of play Ludus (organised play) and Padia (spontaneous play) and argues that our ritualistic experiences of ‘play’ can be placed on a continuum between these polar play experiences. The understanding of a flexible continuum of play experience facilitates both a social construct and a recognition of individual playfulness within and with ‘play’.

Ritual and subvergeance of ‘physical play’

Considering the social structure of sports, we can identify the ritualistic experience of cyclic competitive sports events on a grand scale (e.g. The Olympics or national sports competitions) and a personal level. We go through our daily or weekly rituals of physical activities (preparing equipment, travelling and participation). Identity can be derived from the type of physical activity we participate in, and our personalities can change to facilitate a social construct or image related to these activities (Dyck & Archetti, 2003). Examples are participation in banter in a football team or aggressive competitive behaviour in a rugby game. DeKoven (1998) argues that being caught up in the play context is part of ‘play’; however, it should be voluntary behaviour that can be terminated by the player on his own accord. With specialisation in physical activities by participants and identification with these activities, players tend to participate in a cyclic event. Preparation, activity experience, and evaluation are predictable and carry a sense of ritual (Houseman & Carlo, 1994), for example, preparing equipment or tactics, following a pre-designed session structure, or discussing the outcomes of physical performance. Within this context, we might also consider the most playful players, those who are subvergent (Flanagan, 2013). These players play with the boundaries of existing (physical) play contexts. Counter-movement cultures such as breakdance, skateboarding, and freerunning, can find their origin in dissatisfaction with or more in-depth exploration of existing movement cultures (Clegg & Butryn, 2011). In a paradox, these sub-movements cultures tend to develop new sets of rituals, creating social constructs that influence individual players. In this context, subversion as a capacity for ‘physical playfulness’ is thus an interaction between social ‘physical play’ construct and individual ‘physical play’ ability. Fluency in ‘physical play’ is required to participate in the existing rituals of movement culture, as well as being able to create new rituals through subvergeance.

The biological construct of physical play

Huizinga (1955) states that play is evident in both animal and human behaviour. There is a distinct connection between species’ biology (anatomy and physiology) and their capacity for physical play. For example, manipulation play can only be performed by species that have hands and certain forms of human physical performance are restricted to those with advantageous bodily development (e.g. the height of basketball players or the petit build of a ballerina). However, the question: ‘Why do we physically play?’ is more complex and contested. Graham and Burghardt (2010) compare evidence from both empirical research and theoretical discourse. They suggest that there is a more considerable significance of biology in ‘play’ than is currently realised by scientists. For this paper, two biological perspectives of ‘physical play’ will be discussed. First, the concept of ‘physical play’ for excess energy release. Second, ‘physical play’ for developmental purposes.

Excess energy

Lieberman (1977) critically discusses historical perspectives on play behaviour (in children). She dismissed Spencer’s (1873) idea that the purpose of ‘play’ was to burn off excess energy, based on limited evidence. Although this argument has been rejected, the notion that ‘physical play’ can have a positive energy release function in an age of movement austerity for children, has become increasingly popular (Biddiss & Irwin, 2010). The argument might seem logical when one observes a group of primary-aged pupils enter a playground and display a range of exuberant high intensity and often ‘spontaneous’ movement patterns, after having experienced sustained time in the classroom. There is evidence that children do play more vigorously when deprived of an opportunity for medium to intense movement engagement for an extended time (Smith & Hagen, 1980). However, energy expenditure relates to physical activity and health; there is no evidence that energy retention or expenditure determine the underlying motivation for children’s physical play behaviour patterns. Furthermore, aligning the concept of physical play with the energy expenditure of children excludes the idea of physical activity as a ‘play’ experience post-childhood.

Physical play for development

Bateson’s (1956) identifies a range of ‘play’ behaviour in animals, as well as humans as a form of meta-communication, in which actions have more than one meaning. Through ‘play’, we can communicate intent or possibility in a multi-layered, and at times, ambiguous contexts. Graham and Burghardt (2010) critically discuss evidence for functional assumptions of bodily play around four main topics; the development of motor skills, training for unexpected events, practice, and social benefits. Arguments suggesting synergy between neuro-motor development, physiological advances, and specific play periods of intense bodily play behaviour in young animals could not be supported by empirical evidence (Byers & Walker, 1995). Spinka, Newberry, and Bekoff (2001) suggest a theoretical model of ‘play’ for adaptation to unexpected events. Play is a form of allowing mammals specifically to exert themselves to their extreme potentials and so enhance their ability to deal with unforeseen events or environments. This argument does support the idea of play training for competence, mastery learning and self-assessment ‘play’. However, their assumptions about universal brain adaptation as a function of physical play are disputed, as brain size and function of many species are incomparable (Graham & Burghardt, 2010). The functional purpose of play for both human and animal development, as a way of practice for mature skills, was first considered by Groos (1898, 1901). He suggests that children’s play is preparation for grown-up tasks in society. For example, girls mothering their dolls, as preparation for motherhood. Although ‘play’ is not with direct survival purposes, play activity of the young is often attributed as learning for activities future adaptive behaviour, which can support survival as an individual or species. Examples are rough and tumble play between cubs develop fighting skills or, chasing, and searching games are attributed to hunting, fleeing, and gathering skills essential for survival. Incongruent, physical development such as strength, speed, and agility essential for later survival are developed (Graham & Burghardt, 2010). In contrast, research shows that animals that are not exposed to play in the early years, still attain necessary survival skills (Graham & Burghardt, 2010), probably as a genetic blueprint (Sutton-Smith, 2001, 2008). A further disputed perspective is physical play for social development. Bodily ‘play’ could enhance social behaviour (Fagen, 1981) such as co-operation, sharing, reciprocity, altruism or fairness. Some theorists point out that some mammals use ‘physical play’ to establish social hierarchies and to avoid real fights with a chance to injury (Paquette, 1994). There is, however, limited evidence that ‘play’ deprived juveniles mammals are not able to display necessary social skills as adults. Interestingly research by Brown and Vaughan (2009) on play deprivation extreme criminals in the U.S.A. suggests that the lack of play experienced may have contributed to the development of anti-social behaviour attributes.

Graham and Burghardt’s (2010) review of the biological study of ‘play’ analyses both theory and empirical research and concludes that there is not a linear rational to understand the biological ‘play’ of either animals or humans from a development perspective. Evidence of either function or purpose, if emergent, might be found in a complex combination of disciplines as we endeavour to deepen our understanding of ‘physical play’. Is it, however, a necessity to find a purpose in the biology of ‘play’?

After all play, itself is not a figure of speech, not a trope, not a metaphor. Play is first a kind of biological, prelinguistic enactment with its own claims on human existence, no matter how metaphorised it is in other claims. (Sutton-Smith, 2001, p. 142)

Sutton-Smith (2001) defies the explicit need to explain (biological) ‘play’ as a functional asset for development and progress. Arguments for play as development, have bypassed the essence of the purpose of ‘physical play’, to ‘physically play’. When placing the concept of physical playfulness in this perspective, a circular argument emerges. ‘Physical play’ sustains physical playfulness, and physical playfulness sustains ‘physical play’. A more ambitious argument would be that physical play develops physical playfulness, and increased physical playfulness allows one not to perform but to play better.

Established concepts of physical play

Pellegrini and Smith (1998) critically discuss the neglected aspect of physical activity play in the context of child development. They argue the nature of play to be purposeless and with an element of fun. They describe ‘physical play’ as:

Physical activity play, specifically, may involve symbolic activity or games with rules; the activity may be social or solitary, but the distinguishing behavioural features are a playful context, combined with what Simons-Morton et al. (1990) describe as moderate to vigorous physical activity, such that metabolic activity is well above resting metabolic rate. (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998, pp. 577–578)

They also addressed the paradox that physical play, to be ‘play’, is a purposeless activity for the player in itself at that moment in time. It can, however, have developmental benefits or purposes both immediate and long term. In their critical analyses of ‘physical play’ deprivation, Pellegrini and Smith (1998) analyse ‘play’ in the physical dimension and its developmental function throughout three stages of childhood: infancy (0–3yrs, rhythmic, repetitive movement), pre-school (3–5yrs, exercise play) and middle childhood (5–8yrs, rough and tumble play).

Infancy physical play

Thelen (1979) describes ‘rhythmical stereotypes’ in children between 0 and 1 years old. These are gross-motor movements that are purposeless and goalless, such as foot-kicking or body-rocking. These stereotypical movements are assumed to have developmental neuro-motor benefits. Broader child development perspectives connect these seemingly purposeless movements to the cognitive development aspects (Reybrouck, 2001). For example, initial uncoordinated grasping with the hands is a precursor for grasping with the mind.

Pre-school physical play

Exercise play is defined as: ‘gross locomotor movements in the context of play’ (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998, p. 578). Pelligrini (2011) also suggests separate aspects to define locomotor movement and play as behaviour and behavioural patterns that are exaggerated and non-functional. Examples are jumping, running, swimming, climbing, rolling, and play fighting. These gross locomotion movements, often identified in physical child development play, subsequently underpin the concept of exercise play.

Middle childhood physical play

Rough-and-tumble-play, also part of exercise play, is described as ‘vigorous behaviours such as wrestling, grappling, kicking, and tumbling that would appear to be aggressive except for the playful context’ (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998, p. 579). The authors emphasise the specific social learning benefits of rough and tumble play and purpose for long-term socialisation for children.

Pellegrini and Smith (1998) focus on children’s physical play and development excludes physical play behaviours of adults. Especially, physical play that does not fit the definition of exercise play. For example, some adult physical play might not exceed metabolic rest rate or be strenuous in any form. Additionally, these definitions do not encapsulate physical play experienced when physical learning, trying or practising new skills or techniques. When acquiring new gross motor movements, ‘physical play’ might lack a rigorous element, as more time and attention is invested in connecting to the movement conception and proprioception. Finally, the idea of exaggerated and non-functional movement is not compatible with many physical activity contexts, in which players aim to refine technical aspects of movement to increase fluency and performance. In later physical development stages, the physical play element is established in acquiring skill proficiency. Movement patterns are increasingly functional and economical in their performance and applied in physical play situations such as sports (Patel, Pratt, & Greydanus, 2002).

Truelove, Vanderloo, and Tucker (2017) suggest the following working definition of ‘active play’: ‘A form of gross-motor or total-body movement in which young children exert energy in a freely chosen, and unstructured manner’ (p. 162). They restrict their definition to a specific age group and incorporate the classic concept of energy exertion through play, thus excluding the physical play experiences of adolescents and adults. Furthermore, by combining the gross-motor movement perspective with exertion, they also excluded non-rigorous movements such as balance or object manipulation such as rolling, throwing and catching objects. Additionally, the concepts of freedom of choice or the unstructured context, exclude many other physical play contexts that humans engage in, such as playing sports or participation in predetermined PE lessons.

Defining physical play

From the previous considerations and arguments about the nature of ‘play’ and ‘physical play’, a suggested definition of physical play should hold a universality for population, gross-motor movement experiences, and movement contexts. The state of play, being in the ‘Magic Circle’, defines physical play, rather than external perceptions of what physical play should be or achieve. Like play in general, ‘physical play’ experiences need to possess immersive and autotelic qualities experienced by the player to be ‘play’. Aligned with the previous definitions of ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’, the following definition for ‘physical play’ is therefore proposed:

Physical play: is gross-motor activity that is autotelic and immersive.

Physical playfulness

‘Physical Playfulness’, a void

One of the first attempts to construct and measure playfulness was made by Lieberman (1977). The Test of Playfulness (ToP) aims to measure overall playfulness as a personality trait and predictor of creative and divergent cognitive attributes. She used the holistic spectrum, physical, cognitive, social, and emotive aspects of child behaviour, to identify playfulness components. Barnett (1991) adapts the questions of the ToP to increase validity and develops the Children Playfulness Scale (CPS). She continues to use separate physical, cognitive, social, and emotive strands in her research for playfulness in young children. Bundy (1997) later argues that including physical components to measure playfulness in children excludes children who are physically impaired. However, excluding the physical dimension of play in playfulness attribution creates a gap in the understanding of human behaviour towards, and engagement in, physical play. Bundy’s (1997) argument opens a perspective for playfulness specialisation and separating different playfulness attributes to distinct areas of preference and experience.

Beyond the infant years, physical play behaviour becomes more specialised (Patel et al., 2002). It would be hard to justify that one is more playful when being engaged in spontaneous outdoor activities than being immersed in finding innovative solutions to perform a complex movement problem. Brown and Vaughan (2009) recognise the distinct specialisation of play behaviour during maturation, where internal and external influences affect play interests. Typically, playfulness research in adolescents and adults has focussed on a range of cognitive, social and emotional aspects such as intelligence, humour, light-heartedness, other-directedness, being spontaneous or being whimsical (Glynn & Webster, 1992; Proyer & Jehle, 2013; Shen, Chick, & Zinn, 2014). There has also been some consideration regarding active leisure activities (Barnett, 2013; Staempfli, 2007). The aim of playfulness research in adolescents and adults concerns mostly with the ability to engage with reality flexibly. Here the focus on reality contrasts the conceptualisation of playfulness as a determent to engage in immersive ‘play’ that is outside the boundaries of reality. Existing playfulness research approaches do not allow for an understanding of why some people are capable of immersion in physical play activity, and others are not. Establishing ‘physical playfulness’ as a separate concept, outside the existing playfulness discourse, allows for more specific emphasis on the human attributes that enable immersive ‘physical play’.

Defining ‘physical playfulness’

It is essential to establish the relationship between ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’ through their definitions. The logical step is to propose a definition for ‘physical playfulness’ connected to its antecedent it ‘physical play`, because ‘physical playfulness’ as a behaviour disposition relates directly to ‘physical play’. Any such definition should encompass immersion in all possible ‘physical play’ activity, regardless of the wide variety of ‘physical play’ experience or the population of players.

Physical Playfulness: the behavioural disposition to access autotelic activity and immersion in physical play.

Limitations

By isolating physical playfulness as a separate characteristic of human behaviour, a new perspective and possibly a new research approach is taken to human physical activity engagement and physical well-being. It is also breaking with the concept of playfulness as a predominantly holistic aspect of human behaviour. It distils the current approach to playfulness research, which endeavours have focussed on cognitive development, the emergence of creative and divergent thinking (Lieberman, 1977) in children, and emotional well-being in adults (Staempfli, 2007). Although there is a sound argument for the conceptualisation of the idea of ‘physical playfulness’. The development of ‘physical playfulness’ research will need to be founded on a robust and sophisticated construct that allows for the development of validated measurement.

Physical playfulness and implication for practice

For practitioners in PE, ‘physical playfulness’ can give a different perspective regarding outcomes for their participants. ‘Homo Ludens’ can become central to personal physical development, with an objective of lifelong physical play. To develop ‘physical playfulness’ in pupils, it will need a reassertion and change of perspective of PE curriculum design and conceptual approaches to learning in PE. From the first experience in PE the primary objective could be ‘immersion’ in the activity, this means that lessons need to address the physical development needs of pupils within a context of learning that is intuitive and relevant to attain long stretches of sustained attention (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Educators might have to reconsider their practice in a broader holistic spectrum when they plan for pupil engagement and pupil progress. In practice, this might lead to more open teaching environments with modified and adapted games (Griffin & Butler, 2005; Mosston & Ashworth, 2005), or creating explorative gymnastics environments. It could also mean a more direct approach of teaching, in which pupils engaged with specific immersive performance goals through closed skill practice. Teaching for the development of physical playfulness should close the hiatuses of, what pupils need to learn, their emotive experience in PE, and connectivity to physical movement and exercise.

Future research in physical playfulness

The next steps in the development of ‘physical playfulness’ is first, to underpin the proposed holistic model of physical playfulness (physical, emotive, cognitive and social attributes) with a theoretical framework that can facilitate researchable elements to support the idea of, and the research in ‘physical playfulness’. Second, to develop a validated assessment tool for measuring physical playfulness. The initial proposal is to develop and validate a ‘physical playfulness’ questionnaire as an explorative research endeavour. Once a theoretical framework for physical playfulness is established, a width of approaches can be considered in qualitative and quantitative methodology.

Conclusion

Defining ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’ in the context of gross motor movement activity allows for a deeper understanding of the holistic drivers for participation in PAaS. It allows us to combine the current areas of research in PAaS, such as levels of activity, engagement, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and flow. Related concepts to ‘play’ from the field of positive psychology, immersion, and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014), as well as, playfulness research (Staempfli, 2007) have shown that regular immersion and play or a having playful disposition, influence on our well-being. Addressing ‘physical playfulness, as the ability for immersion to be physically active could be one of the most urgent health questions related to our well-being in modern times.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support of my supervisor Dr S. McNichol, who tirelessly corrected my drafts and continued to ask questions and give feedback throughout the writing of this paper. Also my wife, Dr G. Penitente, has been invaluable for her support and encouragement to complete this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jedde Pieter de Vries

Jedde de Vries is a senior lecturer in Physical Education (PE) at the Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). Throughout his teaching career, he has taught PE in a wide range of educational settings, Primary, Secondary, Further, and SEN Education. He has held positions as subject leader and head of department, in the Netherlands and Scotland. His first position in Higher Education at York St John’s University, lecturing on the undergraduate PE courses. He is currently the course leader of the PE post-graduate teaching programme in MMU and leads the Primary PE specialism units. In 2018 he started his doctorate studies within one of his main topics of interest physical play and playfulness.