![\"This](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/child-play-neurodevelopment-neuroscience.jpg\")
Researchers suggest that educators and parents should prioritize \u201cplay feeling\u201d over adult standards of what play \u201cought\u201d to look like. Credit: Neuroscience News<\/p>\nSummary: What makes play \u201cgood\u201d? While adults often judge play by its educational value or \u201cniceness,\u201d a new study went straight to the source: the children themselves. Researchers surveyed hundreds of schoolchildren to identify the core elements of a great play experience.<\/p>\n
They discovered a \u201cPlay Qualities Inventory\u201d consisting of seven critical factors, including a mysterious, nearly universal \u201cplay feeling.\u201d The findings suggest that \u201cgood play\u201d often involves \u201ctransgression\u201d\u2014going wild, teasing, and flouting social norms\u2014and that well-meaning adult intervention is often the \u201ckryptonite\u201d that ruins the magic.<\/p>\n
Key Facts<\/p>\n
The Play Qualities Inventory: Scientists identified seven universal factors that define the play experience: social inclusion, imagination, transgression, accessibility, wild\/exciting play, having something to do, and \u201cplay feeling.\u201dThe \u201cPlay Feeling\u201d: This was the most significant factor. Described by kids as something that is \u201cjust totally perfect\u201d where you \u201cjust laugh,\u201d it is an intangible state similar to love or fun that adults often recognize but cannot easily define.The Power of Transgression: \u201cGood play\u201d isn\u2019t always \u201cnice.\u201d For many children, the ability to \u201cgo nuts\u201d and break playground or societal rules is what makes the experience special.Anti-Play \u201cKryptonite\u201d: The study found that \u201cdisharmony\u201d or a loss of social alignment\u2014often caused by adults trying to force a child into a game\u2014is what turns good play into bad play.<\/p>\n
Source: Frontiers<\/p>\n
If you need good play to have a good childhood, then we need to know what good play looks like. But studies of play often start from an adult perspective, leaving out kids\u2019 perspectives. <\/p>\n
To overcome this, scientists surveyed schoolchildren about play and used statistical analysis to identify the themes which came up most often. While some components of \u2018good play\u2019 seem to depend on individual preferences, others could be universal.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Researchers suggest that educators and parents should prioritize \u201cplay feeling\u201d over adult standards of what play \u201cought\u201d to look like. Credit: Neuroscience News<\/p>\n
\u201cPerhaps we have made the first steps to describing the magic and intangible thing we call play in a very new way,\u201d said Dr Andreas Lieberoth of Aarhus University, lead author of the article in\u00a0Frontiers in Psychology.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis can help educators and carers to nurture different sorts of play, even if they\u2019re not \u2018done right\u2019, \u2018educational\u2019, or even \u2018nice\u2019 according to adult standards.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cAdults should stop explaining to children how they ought to play,\u201d said co-author\u00a0Dr Hanne Hede J\u00f8rgensen of VIA University College, \u201cand put faith in children\u2019s ability to work things out. We don\u2019t make space for either good or bad play \u2014 and we must make space for both, because good play to one child might be bad to another.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
In their own words\u00a0<\/p>\n
The scientists started by interviewing 104 children about play. Using these interviews, they identified recurring elements that described what made play \u2018bad\u2019 or \u2018good\u2019, and developed a list of 83 statements from the interviews that represented these recurring elements. They then asked 504 other children to recall either a good or a bad play experience and rate it by saying whether they agreed or disagreed with the different statements. \u00a0<\/p>\n
Using principal component analysis, the team then identified two sets of important elements in play: seven critical factors that were generally applicable to as many play experiences as possible, and 22 elements that captured a wider variety of experiences. Because a scale based on the 22 elements would be too long for practical use in research, they used the first seven factors to form the \u2018play qualities inventory\u2019.<\/p>\n
These were social inclusion, imagination, transgression, accessibility, wild and exciting play, having something to do, and something the scientists named \u2018play feeling\u2019. This last factor explained more variation in good or bad play experiences than any other. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you have ever felt it, you know what it means,\u201d said Lieberoth. \u201cYou know it when you see it, like love, evil, or fun. In the words of kids, it\u2019s an experience where you feel that\u2019s \u2018just totally perfect\u2019, and maybe you \u2018just laugh\u2019 or \u2018get a smile on your mouth\u2019. When the feeling is not there, play is \u2018annoying\u2019, \u2018boring\u2019, or maybe you \u2018think the rules should be different\u2019.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Fun and games\u00a0<\/p>\n
High levels of accessibility and play feeling were usually present in good play, but the other five themes could be present in good play or bad play. Importantly, good play experiences weren\u2019t always those supervising adults might consider nice. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIn many cases, good play will have no transgression,\u201d said Lieberoth. \u201cBut in some cases, what really makes play fun and special is the ability to go nuts, tease each other, and generally flout the norms of society \u2014 or the playground.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The scientists also learned that disharmony makes play bad. Losing social alignment with other children turned good play into bad play. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSome of the factors we discovered showed the anti-play kryptonite many of us can recognize from childhood or painfully awkward team-building exercises,\u201d said Lieberoth.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe absence of alignment is highest on my personal list. I have seen many well-intentioned adults try to interject a hapless kid into someone else\u2019s game, basically ruining the shared alignment. Sometimes an adult is needed to scaffold, initiate, inspire, and support, but sometimes they should shut up and go away.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
But the scientists point out that different kids like different things. Good play for one kid could be bad play for another, especially across different cultures. Providing larger-scale play opportunities where children can choose to try different games or activities could maximize inclusion.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe last thing we want is for people to use this work to make up rules for \u2018correct play\u2019,\u201d said Lieberoth.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no such thing. I\u2019m convinced that the same protocol would yield different stories, different memories, and different agreements in a different time and place. But within the dataset the findings appear quite robust across many kids, so it could be that some features are indeed universal. I would be very excited to see the scales used in different settings.\u201d<\/p>\n
Key Questions Answered:Q: Why do kids like \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cnaughty\u201d play so much?<\/p>\n
A: The researchers call this transgression. For children, play is a safe space to test boundaries and flout the norms of the \u201cadult world.\u201d Teasing, being a bit wild, or \u201cgoing nuts\u201d isn\u2019t necessarily a sign of bad behavior; it\u2019s often the very thing that makes the play feel \u201ctotally perfect.\u201d<\/p>\n
Q: How do I know if my child has achieved \u201cplay feeling\u201d?<\/p>\n
A: You\u2019ll know it when you see it. It\u2019s characterized by spontaneous laughter and a sense of total immersion. If a child says the game is \u201cboring\u201d or starts arguing about the rules excessively, the \u201cplay feeling\u201d has likely vanished, replaced by \u201cdisharmony.\u201d<\/p>\n
Q: Should I stop helping my kids play together?<\/p>\n
A: Sometimes, yes. The study found that forced social alignment\u2014like an adult interjecting a \u201chapless kid\u201d into an existing game\u2014can act as \u201canti-play kryptonite.\u201d Unless there\u2019s a safety issue, the researchers suggest that adults should often \u201cshut up and go away\u201d to let kids work out their own social alignment.<\/p>\n
Editorial Notes:This article was edited by a Neuroscience News editor.Journal paper reviewed in full.Additional context added by our staff.About this child development research news<\/p>\n
Author:\u00a0Angharad Brewer Gillham<\/a>
Source:\u00a0Frontiers<\/a>
Contact:\u00a0Angharad Brewer Gillham \u2013 Frontiers
Image:\u00a0The image is credited to Neuroscience News<\/p>\n