Playing‘In-Side-Out of the Box: The Role of Setting in the
Relationship between Play and Creativity
Play - engagement in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or
practical purpose (Oxford dictionary) - has long been suggested as a major
catalyst of creativity (Piaget, 1962; Winnicot, 1971). Successful organizations such as
Google, IDEO and 3M seek to encourage creativity at work by enabling play time and
designing play settings (Kark, 2011). However, most research on play and creativity has been
conducted on children, who are expected to play as part of their development process (e.g.,
Moore & Russ, 2008; Russ, 1998). Play research on adults and in work settings is very scarce
(Kark, 2011), and little is known about the effect of play on creativity at work. In fact, in
many organizations until recently, play has been considered as a distraction from work
(Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006). However, during the last three decades, play has become more
central in workplaces and organizations (Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006). In a recent review of the
play and creativity literature, Mainemelis and Dionysiou (2015) highlight the importance of the
context and setting of play contending that: “Considering that play is sensitive to the social
context in which it is enacted, future studies should carefully identify factors that contribute to
the success and the failure of the process by which play is introduced into organizations.” (p.
127). Following their call, the current study is among the first to examine empirically the
effect of play on individual creativity and identify mediating processes and moderating
conditions that explain why and when play is likely to enhance or hinder creativity.
Play is a mindset or behavioral orientation in which the activity does not matter, but
rather the player's state of mind, and his/her view the activity as play. Play is an
autonomous action done of one's own free will and accord. Play takes place outside of realityit is not part of “real” life. It is bound by the limits of time and place, since it is separated
from “ordinary” life, and has a lose association between means and ends (Mainemelis &
Ronson, 2006). We suggest that engaging in play can fuel individual creativity because it
increases vitality and psychological availability. Yet, the effect of play on creativity depends
1
on the extent to which individuals feel they are in a play setting: psychologically and
physically. Play contributes to creativity when individual feel safe and when the work setting
encourages play. When feeling unsafe and when working in a non-playful setting, playing may
deplete psychological resources (vitality and availability) and hinder creativity.
We tested our predictions in five studies. In Studies 1, 2 and 3 we established the
effect of play mindset on creativity using different manipulations of play and various creativity
tasks. In Studies 4 and 5 we examined the mediation of vitality and psychological availability
and the moderation of safety and setting. In Study 1 (n = 102, 63% female; Mage = 34.5),
participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (play mindset vs. work mindset).
We manipulated play mindset by showing the participants a picture of an office and asking
them to describe it. In the work mindset condition the office was designed like an official
office. In the play mindset condition the same office included games and toys. After they
described the office picture, participants completed a divergent thinking task that tested their
originality (Osbron, 1953). Participants in the play condition generated ideas that were more
original than the ideas generated by those in the work mindset condition (Mplay = 2.99, SDplay =
0.48; Mwork = 2.70, SDwork =0.66; t
(101)
= -2.43, p < .05). In Study 2 (n=75, 69% female, Mage =
23.74), participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (play mindset vs. noplay mindset) and received a description of one of three characters (travel guide, fashion
designer or journalist), and a matching hat (e.g. the travel guide character was given a travel
hat). The participants were asked to imagine and describe what the character does and feel
during their work day, who do they meet and what happens during their work day. Participants
in the no-play mindset were asked to write the same descriptions with regards themselves in a
few sentences. Then they performed a structured imagination task (Kim, Vincent & Goncalo,
2013) and a category inclusion task (Isen & Daubman, 1984). Results suggest that participants
in the play mindset condition performed better on both tasks relative to those in the no-play
mindset (Structured imagination: F(1,71) = 6.17, p < .05, η2 = .08; Mplay = 2.14, Mno-play = 1.66;
2
Category inclusion: F (1,71) = 8.37, p < .01, η2 = .11; Mplay = 8.16, Mno-play = 7.36). In Study 3
(n=54, 69% female, Mage = 23.74), we used the same design and play mindset manipulation and
tested creativity using the Remote Association Task (Mednick, 1962). Similar to the previous
studies, participants in the play mindset condition solved more RAT problems than those in
the no-play mindset condition t(52)=2.02, p < .05 Mplay = 8.16, Mno-play = 7.36.
In Study 4 (n = 80, 70% female, Mage = 22.9) we tested for the moderation of
psychological safety, by manipulating both play mindset (play vs. no play) and psychological
safety (high vs. low) using a 2X2 between subject design. We assessed creativity using a
divergent thinking task (Goncalo & Staw, 2006; judges evaluation ICC= .92). Psychological
safety enhanced creativity F (1, 76) = 8.67, p < .01, η2 =.10; Msafe = 3.14, Mno-safe = 2.50), and
moderated the effect of play on creativity F (2 ,76) = 4.56, p < .05, η2 = .06. Participants in
the play and high psychological safety condition were more creative than those in the play and
low safety condition (Mplay/safe = 3.53, Mplay/no-safe = 2.43, p < .05); and more creative than
participants in the no-play and low psychological safety condition (Mno-play/low-safe = 2.58, p <
.05). Finally, in Study 5 (n = 109, 80% female, Mage = 22.6) we examined the mediation of
vitality and psychological availability and the moderating role of play setting. Participants
were assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (play mindset: yes vs. no) X2 (play setting: yes
vs. no) between subject design. We manipulated play setting by assigning the participants to
work either in a regular laboratory room, or in a room that includes many toys and games. We
manipulated play mindset by inviting the participants to play (play mindset) or asking them to
review and article (no-play mindset) while waiting for the experiment to start. We then
assessed their creativity using a Remote association task (Mednick, 1962), and asked them to
report their vitality (Kark & Carmeli, 2009) and psychological safety (May, Gilson & Harter,
2004). We found a significant interaction between play and play setting conditions on
creativity F (1,103) = 6.10, p = .05, η2 = .06, with participants in the play and play setting
condition scoring higher on creativity than participants in the play and no-play-setting.
Interestingly, participants in the no-play and no-play setting were more creative than
3
participants in the play and no-play setting. Similar interactions were also found on vitality F
(1,104)
= 8.75, p < .01, η2 = .08 and psychological availability F
(1,104)
= 4.80, p < .05, η2 = .04
as dependent variables. Mediated moderation analyses revealed that the interaction between
play and play setting on creativity was mediated by vitality and psychological safety (indirect
effects: vitality .128, 1.372; availability; .020, 1.130).
Discussion
Play has been long assumed to enhance creativity, however its actual effect on adults
in general and more specifically on employees at work has been seen as related to the social
context and at times questioned (Mainemelis and Dionysiou, 2015). In five studies, using
different manipulations of play and creativity tasks, we showed that play mindset fosters
creative thinking, because it increases psychological and emotional resources (i.e., vitality
and availability). Yet, to reap the benefits of play, employees should feel they are in ‘play
spaces’: settings characterized by psychological safety and by a playful setting, that signals
that play is appropriate. Play can hinder creativity when employees are afraid of making
mistakes and the setting signals that play is inappropriate.
References
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 47(6), 1206.
Kark, R. (2011). Games managers play: Play as a form of leadership development. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 10: 507–527.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A., (2009). Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness
in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785-804. .
Kim, S. H., Vincent, L. C., & Goncalo, J. A. (2013). Outside advantage: Can social rejection fuel
creative thought?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 605.
Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. (2006). Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play
and creativity in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 69–81.
4
Mainemelis, C., & Dionysiou, D. (2015). Play, flow, and timelessness. In C. Shalley, M. Hitt, &
J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (pp.
121–140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., & Harter, L.M. (2004).The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work., Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 (1), 11-37.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69,
220–232.
Moore, M., & Russ, A.W., (2008). Follow-up of a pretend play intervention: effects on play,
creativity, and emotional processes in children. Creativity Research Journal, 20 (4), 427-436.
Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. (2010). Identity workspaces: The case of business schools.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9: 44–60.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton.
Russ, S. W. (1998). Play, creativity, and adaptive functioning: Implications for play
interventions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27 (4), 469-480.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Tavistock.
Winnicott, D. W. (1975). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. In D. W. Winnicott
(Ed.), Through pediatrics to psychoanalysis: 229–242. London: Karnac.
5