Short Playful Interactions Improve Executive Functions in Children

Short Playful Interactions Improve Executive Functions in Children | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Short Playful Interactions Improve Executive Functions in Children Daniela Yaffe, Limor Shtoots, Omer Kochav Isakow, Yuval Daniel, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4788930/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Executive Functions (EFs) are foundational for lifelong flourishing, supporting crucial capacities such as planning, decision-making, and self-regulation. Research indicates that EFs in children are malleable, with both long-term and short-term interventions facilitating the acquisition of these vital skills. Consequently, there is significant interest in enhancing EFs from early childhood. Social playfulness, a natural core aspect of children's lives, supports broad developmental benefits and may improve EFs. This study examined the effect of a short playful interaction compared with an active control interaction on children’s EF performance and mood. Sixty-two children aged 6 to 10 years participated in either a playful or control interaction with an adult female. The results showed that the playful interaction, but not the control interaction, improved attentional performance as measured with the Flanker task. Furthermore, playful interaction enhanced children’s positive mood and led to stronger social bonds with the co-player. These promising findings imply that playful interactions are multidimensional natural activities that target cognitive, emotional, and social functions simultaneously. We suggest that social playfulness holds unique potential for interventions aimed at training EFs in primary school children, as it is highly enjoyable and easy to learn and integrate into daily activities. Biological sciences/Psychology Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Social playfulness Executive functions Attention Children Physical exercise Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Executive functions (EFs), i.e., the more deliberate top-down cognitive control functions, are key cognitive abilities necessary for success throughout life 1–4 . To be successful takes creativity, flexibility, self-control, and discipline, all of which are integral components of EFs 5 . In childhood, EFs are crucial for school readiness 6 and predict performance in school activities throughout all school years 7 . Hence, it is essential to expand the ways to improve EFs in children, opening the door for significant shifts and improvements in children’s functioning later in life. Notably, significant research has shown that EFs in children are malleable. Diverse activities have been shown to have a positive effect on children’s EF, including long-term intervention programs - certain school curricula such as a special arts and culture-rich intervention (Art of Learning) 8 , or short intervention in computer-based training, aerobics, traditional martial arts, yoga, and mindfulness 5 . The most effective programs for enhancing children's EFs are those that directly engage and challenge these skills while also providing the necessary social and emotional support. This can be achieved by reducing stress, improving stress management, increasing joy, and fostering a sense of belonging and support from others 9 . It is also important to note that as children’s EFs develop, the complexity of the tasks must also increase to ensure progress; otherwise, improvements will be minimal 10–14 . Centrally, interventions that are applied in the context of children’s everyday activities have more ecological validity, which helps to generalize the learned abilities and apply them in other contexts 15 . One such candidate is social playfulness. Social play is an inherent part of children’s life and is integrated into daily activities. A few studies have suggested that interventions incorporating social playful activities have positive effects on children’s cognitive functions and working memory 16–18 . However, interventions are complex processes integrating multiple components, besides playful responses per se. The current study focuses on playful interactions and examines whether a short episode of playfulness as compared with active control can have immediate positive effects on the EFs performance in primary school children. Play lies at the core of children's life experiences, serving as a primary means through which children explore, learn, and make sense of the world around them 19 . According to Winnicott, 1971, the ability to play is fundamental because it forms the basis for communicating with oneself and others. During play, one can enter a mental space that holds both objective reality and subjective experience, which is the basis for creativity and the capacity to expand concrete daily experiences: “It is in playing and only in playing that the individual, child or adult, is able to be creative and to utilize the whole personality” 20 . Play can be defined as a spontaneous and rewarding behavior in which individuals engage simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, devoid of any immediate utility beyond the act of playing. Unlike rule-governed competitive game activities, play occurs outside ordinary reality while maintaining a connection to it. It involves novel combinations of actions or thoughts, such as when a parent takes on the role of a child, and is accompanied by a particular positive mood that fosters spontaneity and flexibility in behavior and thought 21,22 . Early social play occurs when infants engage in playful turn-taking with caregivers, such as imitating sounds or movements. These early playful interactions benefit not only bonding and relationships but also the development of cognitive skills 23 . Activities such as pretend and imaginary play allow and encourage the exploration of various social roles (“you will be the mother and I will be your child”) and the use of advanced social skills to communicate and establish shared scenarios 24 , and cultivate cooperation skills 19 . The importance of playful activities in children's development has been demonstrated 25 . Research shows that engaging in appropriate and safe play with both parents and peers offers a unique opportunity to enhance various skills, such as social-emotional understanding, language proficiency, problem solving, creativity, and emotional regulation 17,19,24,26 . Theories suggest that social play, especially pretend play, significantly contributes to the development of children’s cognitive functioning 18 . Vygotsky 27 asserts that social pretend play plays an important role in the development of children's social-cognitive skills by helping them understand the social world. According to Piaget 28 and others 29 , social play is linked to the development of meta-representation (the ability to ‘represent mental representations,’ such as our ability to think about our own thoughts and beliefs). It has also been suggested that social play is a manifestation of the development of counterfactual thinking (our ability to create possible alternatives to life scenarios) 30 . Recent theories in neuroscience and cognition emphasize the role of play in learning processes through the predictive processing framework 19 . These theories propose that play is a behavior where the individual intentionally seeks out or creates surprising situations and further resolves them to reduce uncertainty. Despite these positive theoretical claims, only a handful of studies on social play have focused on cognitive mechanisms and outcomes, mainly focusing on the effects of pretend play 16,31 . For instance, a study conducted with 104 preschool children showed a correlation between EFs performance battery and pretense representation measures 32 . Another study conducted with preschool children over six weeks showed that children with greater social pretend play competence had greater social-cognitive skills as well as social-emotional skills, such as Theory of Mind, emotion understanding, and language comprehension 33 . Finally, one study examined the effect of a 5-week pretend-play intervention on preschool children. The study results showed that the pretend-play intervention yielded a significant improvement in working memory and attentional skills compared to the control conditions of nonimaginative play and care-as-usual 34 . These studies provide initial positive evidence that programs incorporating social playfulness may improve EFs in children. EFs describe a set of cognitive control abilities that help children develop self-regulated behavior and do well in their schooling 35 . Inhibitory control is one of the core aspects of EFs in addition to working memory and cognitive flexibility 36 . These EFs abilities are of critical importance for mental 37,38 and physical health 39,40 , as well as for success at school 41 and in life. In addition, EFs are essential for cognitive, social, and psychological development 42 . It has been conclusively demonstrated that EFs can be cultivated through training regimens that require the use of prefrontal cortical circuits 43 . Much of the research in this field has focused on the preschool years 5 and has indicated not only behavioral improvements but also corresponding changes in neural function (e.g., 44 ). Nevertheless, the question remains: what types of intervention are the most beneficial and easiest to implement in children’s everyday activities? Crucially, social playfulness inherently incorporates cognitive, social and emotional factors, as it is a fun activity in which players co-create novel and unpredictable situations and responses through positive social exchanges. Previous research has indicated that interventions that include not only cognitive but also physical, social and emotional aspects have the best chance of inducing sustainable effectts 45 . Accordingly, playful interactions hold potential to serve as a high impact, multi-dimensional EF activity for children, yet its effects on children’s cognition have not been examined before. In the current study, our goal was to study the effect of a short playful interaction on attention performance and in particular inhibitory control in primary-school children. We developed a fifteen-minute playful social activity with an adult, involving both co-created physical movement and imaginative processes (see Methods for details). This short intervention adhered to the core principles of social playfulness, i.e. involving high levels of novelty and unpredictability through positive social exchanges. The control interaction included physical activity with an adult, since physical activity is one of the most frequently used interventions in the field of EFs 46 . The effects on EF were tested using a Flanker task, which is a well-established test of selective function and inhibitory control 47 that is easily adapted to young children 48 . As part of this task, the participants are asked to respond quickly to the target in the center of the screen and ignore other stimuli that are designed to distract them on the screen. Previous research has employed the Flanker task to investigate EFs in children, including selective attention 49 and inhibitory control 50,51 . Children completed a computerized flanker test and answered mood scales before and immediately following a fifteen minutes interaction. In addition, they reported their social feelings toward their interaction partner at the end of the activity. We hypothesized that short playful interaction, compared with control physical interaction, would increase selective attention performance, positive mood and social connection in primary school children. Method Participants Participants were recruited through advertisements in relevant Facebook groups. Parents were offered an hour of babysitting for their children in exchange for participating in the experiment during this hour. Overall, 75 participants were recruited for the research and were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. Twelve participants were excluded due to difficulties completing parts of the Flanker task or computer malfunction during the task. Additionally, one participant chose to discontinue their participation. The final sample included 62 children divided into an experimental group (playful interaction group, N = 31, M age = 7.74, SD age = 1.18, female = 23) and a control group (physical activity group, N = 31, M age = 7.48, SD age = 1.02, female = 17). Two and three participants in the experimental and control groups, respectively, were diagnosed with ADHD. The ethics committee of Reichman University approved the experiment. All research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Procedure An adult female arrived at the participant’s home, was introduced to the participant and her parents and explained the experimental procedures. Parents signed informed consent forms and completed a demographic questionnaire and an attention characterization questionnaire. After that, participants answered an adapted version of the emotions questionnaire (PANAS) and performed the computerized Flanker task. Afterwards, the children performed a joint activity with the experimenter (see the detailed description of the playful and control activities below). After the activity, the children completed the PANAS questionnaire, answered several questions about their feelings toward the experimenter and performed the Flanker task for the second time. At the end, the participants received a small gift as a reward for their participation. Measures Demographic Questionnaire The participants’ parents completed a demographic questionnaire, which included information about the education level of both parents and the city of residence. Parents also provided information about their child (the participant), such as gender, age, and whether the child had previously been diagnosed with ADHD. Attention Characterization Questionnaire The parents of the participants completed a questionnaire to assess the individual attention abilities of each child 52 . The questionnaire includes six items that rate the level of children's attentional function on a scale of 0 (“never”) to 3 (“very often”). For example, " To what extent would you describe your child's mood as changing quickly? " and " To what extent would you describe your child as unable to stay still? ". The Cronbach’s coefficient for attention characterization was α = 0.87. Positive and Negative Emotions (PANAS) Emotional state was measured with the PANAS questionnaire adapted for children 53 , which included ten emotional items to be rated. The items were rated on a scale of 1 ("not at all") to 5 stars ("extremely"). In this way, the child estimated how " sad ", " proud ", or " enthusiastic " they felt at the current moment. The Cronbach’s coefficient for positive emotions was α = 0.79, and for negative emotions α = 0.62. Positive social perception Each participant rated their feelings towards the adult player following the interaction on a scale of 1–5 stars (from "not at all" to "extremely"). Items included: “To what extent was the researcher nice?”; “To what extent was it enjoyable to perform the activity with the researcher?”; “To what extent would you want to play again with the researcher?”; “To what extent would you want to share your experiences with the researcher?”. The Cronbach’s coefficient for positive emotions was α = 0.59. Items were aggregated to form a continuous score of positive social perception. Flanker Task To measure the dependent variable, each child performed the computerized attention Flanker task. The task is based on Eriksen's attention task 47 with modifications designed for children based on prior studies using fish stimuli 48–50,54,55 and was administered using PsychoPy (v.2022.1.3) 56 . In this modified task, participants were instructed to press the arrow key corresponding to the direction of the central fish while ignoring the surrounding flanking fish. The central fish could be in one of three conditions: congruent (facing the same direction as the flanking fish), incongruent (facing the opposite direction to the flanking fish), or neutral (no flanking fish displayed). The direction the fish faced could be either left or right. Before starting the main task, the participants underwent a 12-step practice phase. After each step, feedback was given indicating whether the response was correct or incorrect. Upon completion of the practice phase, participants proceeded to the main task, which consisted of two blocks. Each block had 24 steps, with a rest interval between steps. Each trial began with a fixation cross displayed at the center of the screen, serving as the focal point for participants' attention, lasting for 1 second. Next, the task stimuli (central and flanking fish) were presented for 200 milliseconds. Participants were allowed a response window of 1.7 seconds, starting from the moment the fish appeared and continuing for 1.5 seconds after its disappearance. The intertrial interval (ITI) was set at 1.5 seconds. To investigate the intervention’s effect, participants performed the Flanker Task twice: once before and once after either a playfulness or a control intervention. Playful Interaction: experimental group Playful interaction was conducted with an adult female player. Three of the authors, i.e. D.Y., O.K.I., and Y.D., were trained to conduct the interaction by S.K., who developed the intervention. As part of the activity, both the child and the adult player shared three hobbies from their personal lives and then invented movements that manifested each one of the hobbies. They combined these movements into a dance, practiced the dance together, and then performed the dance in synchrony three times, without speaking. Afterwards, they repeated the dance again; only this time they included “surprise movements” during the dance. The experimental playful activity lasted for approximately fifteen minutes. Physical Interaction: control group Similarly to the experimental interactions, the control interactions were conducted by D.Y., O.K.I., and Y.D. and supervised by S.K. Children in the control group performed physical activity with the adult experimenter. The experimenter demonstrated five typical physical exercises simulating a physical education class, such as lunges, and stretches. Each movement was presented three times, after which the child repeated the same movements. The physical activity lasted for approximately fifteen minutes. Statistical analysis Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS v. 28. Our initial step was to ensure that there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of demographic variables or preintervention outcome measures. To assess these baseline differences, chi-square tests were utilized for categorical variables, while independent sample t-tests were employed for continuous variables. To evaluate changes in negative and positive affect, we adopted a mixed-model design. This involved conducting two repeated-measures ANOVA with a 2 (group: intervention vs. control) x 2 (time: pre- vs. post-intervention) factorial design for each affect outcome variable. The analysis was aimed at discerning the main effects of time, group, and their interaction on affective outcomes. Performance on the Flanker task, for both response time (RT) and accuracy, was analyzed using two three-way repeated-measures ANOVA. This analysis incorporated a 2 (group: intervention vs. control) x 2 (time: pre- vs. post-intervention) x 3 (attentional conditions: congruent, incongruent, and neutral) factorial design. Age was included as a covariate in these analyses to account for its potential moderating effect on both task accuracy and RT. Results Group Differences No baseline group differences were found in demographic characteristics between the experimental and control groups, including gender distribution ( χ² ( 1 ) = 2.536, p = .111), attention problems ( χ² ( 2 ) = 0.610, p = .737), age ( t ( 60 ) = 0.917, p = .363), and Conners' scale ratings ( t ( 58 ) = 0.168, p = .867), which were comparable across groups. The outcome measures assessed pre-intervention also showed no significant differences between the groups. The PANAS scores for negative affect ( t ( 60 ) = -0.586, p = .560) and positive affect ( t ( 60 ) = 0.450, p = .655), as well as for accuracy (congruent t ( 60 ) = 1.020, p = .312; incongruent t ( 60 ) = 1.205, p = .233; neutral t ( 60 ) = 0.894, p = .375(, and RT )congruent t ( 60 ) = -0.359, p = .721; incongruent t ( 60 ) = 0.297, p = .768; neutral t ( 60 ) = 0.166, p = .869), for the Flanker task were similar between groups. Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Interaction Effects of Playfulness Intervention Measure Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Group X Time M SD M SD F p η² Negative Affect 2.520 .118 .040 Playfulness 6.77 2.03 5.48 1.06 Control 7.13 2.69 6.71 2.64 Positive Affect 16.878 < .001 .220 Playfulness 20.71 3.39 22.71 3.05 Control 20.32 3.39 19.19 4.54 Social Perception 10.37 < 0.002 .147 Playfulness -- -- 4.75 0.38 Control -- -- 4.31 0.65 Flanker Accuracy .016 .900 .000 Playfulness 0.80 0.18 0.86 0.14 Control 0.75 0.21 0.81 0.22 FlankerRT (seconds) 4.086 .048 .065 Playfulness 0.97 0.28 0.88 0.29 Control 0.96 0.30 0.95 0.26 Mood and Social Perception Next, we examined the effect of Group (playful interaction and control) on changes in children’s positive and negative affect. A significant effect of time on negative affect was identified, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 9.711, p = .003, η² = .139, indicating a reduction in negative affect for both groups from pre- to post-intervention. The Time * Group interaction was not significant, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 2.520, p = .118, η² = .040 (Table 1 ). However, simple effects analysis using Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons revealed a significant decrease in negative affect for the experimental group, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 11.062, p = .002, η² = .156, but not for the control group, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 1.168, p = .284, η² = .019. This finding highlights the effectiveness of the intervention for reducing negative affect in the experimental group, despite the nonsignificant interaction. For positive affect, while the main effect of time was not significant, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 1.308, p = .257, η² = .021, a significant Time * Group interaction emerged, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 16.878, p < .001, η² = .220 (Table 1 ). Simple effects analysis using Bonferroni adjustments indicated a significant increase in positive affect for the experimental group, with a substantial effect F ( 1 , 60 ) = 13.791, p < .001, η² = .187. Conversely, the control group revealed a significant decrease in positive emotions, F ( 1 , 60 ) = 4.395, p = .040, η² = .068, reflecting a differential impact of the intervention on positive affect across groups (Fig. 1 ). In addition, we examined the effect of Group on positive social perceptions, reported after the interaction. While children in general rated their feelings towards the adult player very positively (see Table 1 for group means), their scores were significantly higher following the playful as compared with the control interaction ( F ( 1 , 60 ) = 10.37, p < 0.002, η² = .147). Flanker task scores We next examined the effect of Group on performance in the Flanker task. The 2 Groups X 2 Times X 3 Attentional conditions repeated measures design testing accuracy scores in the Flanker task indicated no significant main effect of time, F ( 1 , 59 ) = .003, p = .954, η² = .000; condition, F (2, 118) = 1.491, p = .229, η² = .025; or group, F ( 1 , 59 ) = .992, p = .323, η² = .017. Additionally, the Time * Group interaction was not significant, F ( 1 , 59 ) = .016, p = .900, η² = .000 (Table 1 ), suggesting that the intervention did not differentially affect the accuracy of the two groups over time. No significant interaction effects were found for Time * Condition, F (2, 118) = .202, p = .817, η² = .003; Group * Condition, F (2, 118) = .060, p = .942, η² = .001; nor was there a three-way interaction of Time * Condition * Group, F (2, 118) = 1.223, p = .298, η² = .020. These results imply that the overall task accuracy remained consistent from pre- to post-intervention for both groups, irrespective of the type of stimulus presented. A similar design was used to test the RT in the Flanker task. No significant main effects of time, F ( 1 , 59 ) = 2.395, p = .127, η² = .039; condition, F (2, 118) = 2.269, p = .108, η² = .037; or group, F ( 1 , 59 ) = .125, p = .725, η² = .002, were found. However, a significant Time * Group interaction was observed, F ( 1 , 59 ) = 4.086, p = .048, η² = .065 (Table 1 ). This indicates that the changes in RT from pre- to post-intervention differed between the two groups. Specifically, the experimental group demonstrated a significant reduction in RT, F ( 1 , 59 ) = 10.441, p = .002, η² = .150, while for the control group, this change was not significant, F ( 1 , 59 ) = .131, p = .718, η² = .002 (Fig. 2 ). No other significant interaction effects were observed with Time * Condition, F (2, 118) = .136, p = .873, η² = .002; Condition * Group, F (2, 118) = 2.143, p = .122, η² = .035; or the three-way interaction Time * Condition * Group, F (2, 118) = .607, p = .547, η² = .010. Discussion The main goal of this study was to examine the impact of a short playful interaction on the EF performance of primary-school children using the well validated attention performance Flanker task. The results supported our hypotheses. Specifically, the experimental group demonstrated a general improvement in reaction times across all conditions of the Flanker task. Importantly, this increase in the speed of response did not come at the cost of accuracy, which was comparable between the pre- and post-intervention times. We also hypothesized that social playfulness, being a highly multidimensional activity, will benefit children’s mood. In line with this expectation, results showed a reduction in negative affect, an increase in positive mood, observed exclusively following playful interaction. Finally, in comparison with control condition, playful interaction elicited higher levels of positive social feelings. These results support and extend our previous findings of the effects of short-term social playfulness on cognition, mood and social indexes in older adults 57 . While previous research has shown the benefits of prolonged interventions based on creativity, art and imagination 16,31,34 , the current study stands out, as it examines the immediate effects of a short playful interaction on EFs performance in young children. The results showed that this short, highly engaging and enjoyable activity improved attentional performance; specifically, it made the correct identification and rejection of stimuli faster, supporting both selective attention and inhibitory control. Moreover, the observed enhancements, in our results, in attentional performance without compromising accuracy, suggest that short playful interactions might offer a balanced approach to EFs training compared to traditional cognitive intervention programs 45 . No significant changes in performance were observed following the physical exercise interaction. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that exercise alone or just being cognitively challenged 5,9,45 may be less effective in improving children’s EFs than activities involving both exercise and character development (e.g., martial arts, yoga). They are also consistent with our previous findings showing the effect of playful interaction on cognition in older ages 57 . These findings strongly support the suggestion that social playfulness imposes high demands on EFs. Playful interactions unfold spontaneously and not in accordance with a set of rules. During playful activity, individuals co-create and share an imaginative world together, interacting spontaneously without preplanning. They continuously move in space while exchanging cues and signs in surprising ways. They are required to optimally allocate attention, interpret events, and co-adapt their future actions. These processes actively engage all components of EFs, including selective attention, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility 58 . Our findings align with previous literature highlighting the critical role of early childhood experiences in shaping EFs 36,59 , which are foundational for academic achievement and socioemotional well-being later in life. EF impairments are prominent features of various clinical conditions, such as ADHD and other externalizing problems 60 , which originate in early childhood and peak during adolescence. Although individual differences in EFs appear to be relatively stable across the lifespan, EFs can be improved through practice, with corresponding changes in neural function 44 . This combination of stability and plasticity underscores the potential value of promoting the development of healthy EFs, providing lasting opportunities for what Bacon referred to as “second cogitations”, becoming second nature. The preschool and primary school years may be a particularly valuable period for promoting EFs development through activities such as playful interactions. By engaging children in activities that challenge EFs, such as the playful interactions explored in our study, educators and caregivers can potentially cultivate stronger cognitive skills that hopefully extend beyond the immediate intervention period. Literature suggests that the most effective programs for enhancing children's EFs are those that directly engage and challenge these skills while also providing the necessary social and emotional support 9 . Unlike the narrow, goal oriented structured interventions that focus solely on cognitive tasks, playful interactions integrate cognitive demands with social and emotional engagement, potentially amplifying their beneficial effects on EFs development 35,61 .This is apparent from our results indicating that children in the playful group showed elevated levels of positive mood, formed a stronger social bond with the adult player and enjoyed the interaction more, as compared to the participants in the control group. Two curricula that incorporated playful activities have been shown to improve EFs. Tools of the Mind (Tools) is a curriculum developed for preschool and kindergarten by Bodrova and Leong 61 based on Vygotsky 27 . Vygotsky emphasized the importance of social pretend play for the early development of EFs. During pretend play, children must inhibit acting out of character, remember their own and others' roles, and flexibly adjust as their friends improvise. Children plan who they will be in a pretend scenario, and the teacher holds them accountable for following through. 5-year-olds children in the Tools program outperformed children in the control group on EFs measures. Notably, as reported by the authors, one school, impressed by how much better Tools children were doing, withdrew from the study and switched all classes to Tools 61 . Another intervention program aimed at improving EFs is the arts and culture rich intervention (Art of Learning) 8 . The intervention attributed its success in part to the teachers’ involvement in the program and the teacher‒pupil interaction. This integrated approach resonates with developmental theories emphasizing the interplay between cognitive processes and socioemotional experiences in shaping children's cognitive abilities 59 . The study reported here showed profound results on EFs after a short episode of social playfulness, which can serve as the building block for future interventions. Future research could further explore the optimal duration and frequency of playful interactions needed to sustain and generalize improvements in EFs, exploring the best way to move from short interactions to prolonged interventions. Longitudinal studies could also clarify whether gains in attentional performance translate into broader academic outcomes and social skills across different developmental stages. Additionally, investigating the underlying neural mechanisms through neuroimaging techniques could provide further insights into how playful interactions affect brain networks involved in EFs, offering a more comprehensive understanding of their impact on cognitive development. To summarize, in the current research we showed that even a short playful interaction can induce profound effects on primary-school children’s EF performance, corroborated by effects on positive mood and social bonding. These findings highlight the unique multidimensionality of social playfulness which seamlessly recruits a broad array of mechanisms, including cognitive, social and affective processes. Above and beyond the significant effects on cognition, children loved the playful activity, as measured by one of the items in the positive social feelings report. Such rewarding value may promise higher levels of retention in the intervention programs 5 . The enhanced social feelings may also contribute to the rewarding aspects of playful activities. In addition, EFs decline when we experience loneliness 45 . An enthusiastic adult who is committed and who has a strong belief in the effectiveness of the intervention can often increase the children`s interest in the intervention and contribute to the efficacy of the program 9,45 . Previous research indicate that for benefits to generalize, EFs training needs to be part of what children do all day at school and therefore were interwoven into all academic activities 5 . Interventions that are applied in the context of children’s everyday activities have more ecological validity, which helps to generalize the learned abilities and apply them in other contexts 15 . Short playful interventions, such as the one examined in the current research can be easily incorporated into the daily routine of children in various settings. Declarations Additional Information - Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author Contribution D.Y., O.K.I., Y.D., O.R., S.K. and Y.G. designed the study. S.K. and Y.G. provided supervision. D.Y., O.K.I. and Y.D. performed the research. D.Y., L.S., S.K. and Y.G. have written the manuscript. O.R. created the task software and performed the main analysis. D.Y., L.S., O.K.I., and Y.G. contributed to analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement We acknowledge Prof. Anat Shoshani for her valuable advices on conducting research with young children Data Availability "Data will be provided upon request to the correpsonding author" References Dunn, J. R. Health behavior vs the stress of low socioeconomic status and health outcomes. JAMA 303, 1199–1200 (2010). Eakin, L. et al. The marital and family functioning of adults with ADHD and their spouses. J. Atten. Disord. 8, 1–10 (2004). Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T. & Greenberg, M. T. Neuropsychological and Cognitive Functioning in Children With Anxiety, Externalizing, and Comorbid Psychopathology. J. Clin. Child Psychol. 22, 172–195 (1993). Prince, M. et al. No health without mental health. Lancet Lond. Engl. 370, 859–877 (2007). Diamond, A. & Lee, K. Interventions Shown to Aid Executive Function Development in Children 4 to 12 Years Old. Science 333, 959–964 (2011). Blair, C. & Razza, R. P. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Dev. 78, 647–663 (2007). Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C. & Stegmann, Z. Working memory skills and educational attainment: evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 18, 1–16 (2004). Andersen, P. N., Klausen, M. E. & Skogli, E. W. Art of Learning – An Art-Based Intervention Aimed at Improving Children’s Executive Functions. Front. Psychol. 10, 1769 (2019). Diamond, A. Activities and Programs That Improve Children’s Executive Functions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 335–341 (2012). Aksayli, N. D., Sala, G. & Gobet, F. The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 27, 229–243 (2019). Bergman Nutley, S. et al. Gains in fluid intelligence after training non-verbal reasoning in 4‐year‐old children: a controlled, randomized study. Dev. Sci. 14, 591–601 (2011). Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E. & Dunning, D. L. Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in children. Dev. Sci. 12, (2009). Klingberg, T. et al. Computerized Training of Working Memory in Children With ADHD-A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 44, 177–186 (2005). Diamond, A. & Ling, D. S. Review of the Evidence on, and Fundamental Questions About, Efforts to Improve Executive Functions, Including Working Memory. in Cognitive and Working Memory Training (eds. Novick, J. M., Bunting, M. F., Dougherty, M. R. & Engle, R. W.) 143–431 (Oxford University PressNew York, 2019). Takacs, Z. K. & Kassai, R. The efficacy of different interventions to foster children’s executive function skills: A series of meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 145, 653–697 (2019). Gibson, J. L., Cornell, M. & Gill, T. A Systematic Review of Research into the Impact of Loose Parts Play on Children’s Cognitive, Social and Emotional Development. School Ment. Health 9, 295–309 (2017). Kızıldere, E., Aktan-Erciyes, A., Tahiroğlu, D. & Göksun, T. A multidimensional investigation of pretend play and language competence: Concurrent and longitudinal relations in preschoolers. Cogn. Dev. 54, 100870 (2020). Whitebread, D. & O’Sullivan, L. Preschool children’s social pretend play: supporting the development of metacommunication, metacognition and self-regulation. Int. J. Play 1, 197–213 (2012). Yogman, M. et al. The Power of Play: A Pediatric Role in Enhancing Development in Young Children. Pediatrics 142, e20182058 (2018). D. W. Winnicott. Playing and Reality . vol. 1 (Tavistock Publications, England, 1971). Barnett, L. A. The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personal. Individ. Differ. 43, 949–958 (2007). Bateson, P. & Martin, P. Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation . (Cambridge University Press, 2013). Amodia-Bidakowska, A., Laverty, C. & Ramchandani, P. G. Father-child play: A systematic review of its frequency, characteristics and potential impact on children’s development. Dev. Rev. 57, 100924 (2020). Jaggy, A.-K. et al. The impact of social pretend play on preschoolers’ social development: Results of an experimental study. Early Child. Res. Q. 64, 13–25 (2023). Ginsburg, K. R., American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communications, & American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics 119, 182–191 (2007). Richard, S., Clerc-Georgy, A. & Gentaz, E. Pretend play-based training improves some socio-emotional competences in 5–6-year-old children: A large-scale study assessing implementation. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 238, 103961 (2023). Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes . (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1978). Piaget, J. The stages of the intellectual development of the child. Bull. Menninger Clin. 26, 120–128 (1962). Singer, J. L., S., D. G. The House of Make-Believe: Children’s Play and the Developing Imagination . (Harvard University Press., 1990). Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychol. Bull. 138, 1085–1108 (2012). Lillard, A. S. et al. The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychol. Bull. 139, 1–34 (2013). Carlson, S. M., White, R. E. & Davis-Unger, A. C. Evidence for a relation between executive function and pretense representation in preschool children. Cogn. Dev. 29, 1–16 (2014). Jaggy, A., Mainhard, T., Sticca, F. & Perren, S. The emergence of dyadic pretend play quality during peer play: The role of child competence, play partner competence and dyadic constellation. Soc. Dev. 29, 976–994 (2020). Thibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Gilpin, A. T., Nancarrow, A. F., Pierucci, J. M. & Brown, M. M. Fantastical pretense’s effects on executive function in a diverse sample of preschoolers. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 68, 101137 (2020). Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C. & Domitrovich, C. E. Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Dev. Psychopathol. 20, 821–843 (2008). Diamond, A. Executive Functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168 (2013). Penadés, R. et al. Impaired response inhibition in obsessive compulsive disorder. Eur. Psychiatry 22, 404–410 (2007). Taylor Tavares, J. V. et al. Distinct Profiles of Neurocognitive Function in Unmedicated Unipolar Depression and Bipolar II Depression. Biol. Psychiatry 62, 917–924 (2007). Will Crescioni, A. et al. High trait self-control predicts positive health behaviors and success in weight loss. J. Health Psychol. 16, 750–759 (2011). Riggs, N., Chou, C.-P., Spruijt-Metz, D. & Pentz, M. A. Executive cognitive function as a correlate and predictor of child food intake and physical activity. Child Neuropsychol. J. Norm. Abnorm. Dev. Child. Adolesc. 16, 279–292 (2010). Borella, E., Carretti, B. & Pelegrina, S. The Specific Role of Inhibition in Reading Comprehension in Good and Poor Comprehenders. J. Learn. Disabil. 43, 541–552 (2010). Bailey, C. E. Cognitive Accuracy and Intelligent Executive Function in the Brain and in Business. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1118, 122–141 (2007). Hebb, D. O. The Organization of Behavior . (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1949). Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L. & Posner, M. I. Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 14931–14936 (2005). Diamond, A. & Ling, D. S. Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 18, 34–48 (2016). Shi, P., Tang, Y., Zhang, Z., Feng, X. & Li, C. Effect of Physical Exercise in Real-World Settings on Executive Function of Typical Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 12, 1734 (2022). Eriksen, B. A. & Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 143–149 (1974). Rueda, M. R., Checa, P. & Cómbita, L. M. Enhanced efficiency of the executive attention network after training in preschool children: Immediate changes and effects after two months. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2, S192–S204 (2012). Senzaki, S., Wiebe, S. A., Masuda, T. & Shimizu, Y. A cross-cultural examination of selective attention in Canada and Japan: The role of social context. Cogn. Dev. 48, 32–41 (2018). Oeri, N., Voelke, A. E. & Roebers, C. M. Inhibition and behavioral self-regulation: An inextricably linked couple in preschool years. Cogn. Dev. 47, 1–7 (2018). Kao, S.-C. et al. Aerobic Fitness Is Associated With Cognitive Control Strategy in Preadolescent Children. J. Mot. Behav. 49, 150–162 (2017). Purpura, D. J. & Lonigan, C. J. Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale for Preschool Children: A Revised, Brief, Age-Specific Measure. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 38, 263–272 (2009). Ebesutani, C. et al. The 10-Item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, Child and Parent Shortened Versions: Application of Item Response Theory for More Efficient Assessment. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 34, 191–203 (2012). Ludyga, S. et al. An event-related potential investigation of the acute effects of aerobic and coordinative exercise on inhibitory control in children with ADHD. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 28, 21–28 (2017). Rueda, M. R. et al. Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia 42, 1029–1040 (2004). Peirce, J. et al. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behav. Res. Methods 51, 195–203 (2019). Keisari, S. et al. Synchrony in Old Age: Playing the Mirror Game Improves Cognitive Performance. Clin. Gerontol. 45, 312–326 (2022). Felsman, P., Gunawardena, S. & Seifert, C. M. Improv experience promotes divergent thinking, uncertainty tolerance, and affective well-being. Think. Ski. Creat. 35, 100632 (2020). Blair, C. & Raver, C. C. School Readiness and Self-Regulation: A Developmental Psychobiological Approach. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 711–731 (2015). Barkley, R. A. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol. Bull. 121, 65–94 (1997). Leong, DJ, B., E. Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. (Merrill/Prentice Hall, New York, 2007). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 18 Oct, 2024 Reviews received at journal 18 Sep, 2024 Reviews received at journal 17 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Aug, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Aug, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 20 Aug, 2024 Editor invited by journal 20 Aug, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Aug, 2024 First submitted to journal 23 Jul, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4788930","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":352084875,"identity":"2f06929f-822c-4fbc-926d-68a3e7f830f8","order_by":0,"name":"Daniela Yaffe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniela","middleName":"","lastName":"Yaffe","suffix":""},{"id":352084876,"identity":"9fcc266b-82f1-4d9b-897f-85ea36ce9543","order_by":1,"name":"Limor Shtoots","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Limor","middleName":"","lastName":"Shtoots","suffix":""},{"id":352084877,"identity":"7de55336-3450-4c3d-a3a5-b7701c88101e","order_by":2,"name":"Omer Kochav Isakow","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Omer","middleName":"Kochav","lastName":"Isakow","suffix":""},{"id":352084879,"identity":"f726f030-7dac-4cee-b937-c9fb8602f245","order_by":3,"name":"Yuval Daniel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuval","middleName":"","lastName":"Daniel","suffix":""},{"id":352084881,"identity":"a251156b-5319-41b8-b99e-3bb7dd11b1fb","order_by":4,"name":"Omer Reuveni","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Omer","middleName":"","lastName":"Reuveni","suffix":""},{"id":352084883,"identity":"7fad8c63-7c70-4f26-9827-7b9b7b4789b5","order_by":5,"name":"Keisari Shoshi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Haifa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keisari","middleName":"","lastName":"Shoshi","suffix":""},{"id":352084885,"identity":"bac5ae3d-2c2a-49eb-bafa-e8d6d2132ac1","order_by":6,"name":"Yulia Golland","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Reichman University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yulia","middleName":"","lastName":"Golland","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-23 12:57:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4788930/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4788930/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07028-z","type":"published","date":"2025-07-02T15:57:51+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":66563238,"identity":"bae3d603-a70d-4642-968e-73c416eb573a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-14 10:24:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17567,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePANAS scores for positive affect and negative affect, pre and post the short playful or control intervention.\u003c/strong\u003e Error bars indicate Mean ± SEM; * p \u0026lt; 0.05; ** p \u0026lt; 0.01; *** p \u0026lt; 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1ShortPlayfulInteractionImprovesExecutiveFunctionsinChildren.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4788930/v1/c8d84c62ebe833ce7dba459b.jpg"},{"id":66563237,"identity":"4ae3f988-d6ab-4af4-9813-64c0ea4a65cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-14 10:24:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16598,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlanker mean response time in seconds, pre and post the short playful or control intervention.\u003c/strong\u003eError bars indicate Mean ± SEM; ** p \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2ShortPlayfulInteractionImprovesExecutiveFunctionsinChildren.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4788930/v1/8ee7c828f10fd5aec76a8af0.jpg"},{"id":86179070,"identity":"158e0f88-52a5-4f47-9dad-10d4d7ca9637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-07 16:15:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":936158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4788930/v1/edf70bb1-aa6c-4ad3-850d-b430f3f56d0a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Short Playful Interactions Improve Executive Functions in Children","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eExecutive functions (EFs), i.e., the more deliberate top-down cognitive control functions, are key cognitive abilities necessary for success throughout life\u003csup\u003e1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/sup\u003e. To be successful takes creativity, flexibility, self-control, and discipline, all of which are integral components of EFs\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. In childhood, EFs are crucial for school readiness\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e and predict performance in school activities throughout all school years\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. Hence, it is essential to expand the ways to improve EFs in children, opening the door for significant shifts and improvements in children\u0026rsquo;s functioning later in life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, significant research has shown that EFs in children are malleable. Diverse activities have been shown to have a positive effect on children\u0026rsquo;s EF, including long-term intervention programs - certain school curricula such as a special arts and culture-rich intervention (Art of Learning)\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e, or short intervention in computer-based training, aerobics, traditional martial arts, yoga, and mindfulness\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. The most effective programs for enhancing children's EFs are those that directly engage and challenge these skills while also providing the necessary social and emotional support. This can be achieved by reducing stress, improving stress management, increasing joy, and fostering a sense of belonging and support from others\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. It is also important to note that as children\u0026rsquo;s EFs develop, the complexity of the tasks must also increase to ensure progress; otherwise, improvements will be minimal\u003csup\u003e10\u0026ndash;14\u003c/sup\u003e. Centrally, interventions that are applied in the context of children\u0026rsquo;s everyday activities have more ecological validity, which helps to generalize the learned abilities and apply them in other contexts\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e. One such candidate is social playfulness. Social play is an inherent part of children\u0026rsquo;s life and is integrated into daily activities. A few studies have suggested that interventions incorporating social playful activities have positive effects on children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive functions and working memory\u003csup\u003e16\u0026ndash;18\u003c/sup\u003e. However, interventions are complex processes integrating multiple components, besides playful responses per se. The current study focuses on playful interactions and examines whether a short episode of playfulness as compared with active control can have immediate positive effects on the EFs performance in primary school children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlay lies at the core of children's life experiences, serving as a primary means through which children explore, learn, and make sense of the world around them\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e. According to Winnicott, 1971, the ability to play is fundamental because it forms the basis for communicating with oneself and others. During play, one can enter a mental space that holds both objective reality and subjective experience, which is the basis for creativity and the capacity to expand concrete daily experiences: \u0026ldquo;It is in playing and only in playing that the individual, child or adult, is able to be creative and to utilize the whole personality\u0026rdquo;\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e. Play can be defined as a spontaneous and rewarding behavior in which individuals engage simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, devoid of any immediate utility beyond the act of playing. Unlike rule-governed competitive game activities, play occurs outside ordinary reality while maintaining a connection to it. It involves novel combinations of actions or thoughts, such as when a parent takes on the role of a child, and is accompanied by a particular positive mood that fosters spontaneity and flexibility in behavior and thought\u003csup\u003e21,22\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarly social play occurs when infants engage in playful turn-taking with caregivers, such as imitating sounds or movements. These early playful interactions benefit not only bonding and relationships but also the development of cognitive skills\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e. Activities such as pretend and imaginary play allow and encourage the exploration of various social roles (\u0026ldquo;you will be the mother and I will be your child\u0026rdquo;) and the use of advanced social skills to communicate and establish shared scenarios\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e, and cultivate cooperation skills \u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe importance of playful activities in children's development has been demonstrated\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e. Research shows that engaging in appropriate and safe play with both parents and peers offers a unique opportunity to enhance various skills, such as social-emotional understanding, language proficiency, problem solving, creativity, and emotional regulation\u003csup\u003e17,19,24,26\u003c/sup\u003e. Theories suggest that social play, especially pretend play, significantly contributes to the development of children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive functioning\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e. Vygotsky\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e asserts that social pretend play plays an important role in the development of children's social-cognitive skills by helping them understand the social world. According to Piaget\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e and others\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e, social play is linked to the development of meta-representation (the ability to \u0026lsquo;represent mental representations,\u0026rsquo; such as our ability to think about our own thoughts and beliefs). It has also been suggested that social play is a manifestation of the development of counterfactual thinking (our ability to create possible alternatives to life scenarios)\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e. Recent theories in neuroscience and cognition emphasize the role of play in learning processes through the predictive processing framework\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e. These theories propose that play is a behavior where the individual intentionally seeks out or creates surprising situations and further resolves them to reduce uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these positive theoretical claims, only a handful of studies on social play have focused on cognitive mechanisms and outcomes, mainly focusing on the effects of pretend play\u003csup\u003e16,31\u003c/sup\u003e. For instance, a study conducted with 104 preschool children showed a correlation between EFs performance battery and pretense representation measures\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e. Another study conducted with preschool children over six weeks showed that children with greater social pretend play competence had greater social-cognitive skills as well as social-emotional skills, such as Theory of Mind, emotion understanding, and language comprehension\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e. Finally, one study examined the effect of a 5-week pretend-play intervention on preschool children. The study results showed that the pretend-play intervention yielded a significant improvement in working memory and attentional skills compared to the control conditions of nonimaginative play and care-as-usual\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e. These studies provide initial positive evidence that programs incorporating social playfulness may improve EFs in children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEFs describe a set of cognitive control abilities that help children develop self-regulated behavior and do well in their schooling\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e. Inhibitory control is one of the core aspects of EFs in addition to working memory and cognitive flexibility\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e. These EFs abilities are of critical importance for mental\u003csup\u003e37,38\u003c/sup\u003e and physical health\u003csup\u003e39,40\u003c/sup\u003e, as well as for success at school\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e and in life. In addition, EFs are essential for cognitive, social, and psychological development\u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e. It has been conclusively demonstrated that EFs can be cultivated through training regimens that require the use of prefrontal cortical circuits\u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e. Much of the research in this field has focused on the preschool years\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e and has indicated not only behavioral improvements but also corresponding changes in neural function (e.g.,\u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e). Nevertheless, the question remains: what types of intervention are the most beneficial and easiest to implement in children\u0026rsquo;s everyday activities? Crucially, social playfulness inherently incorporates cognitive, social and emotional factors, as it is a fun activity in which players co-create novel and unpredictable situations and responses through positive social exchanges. Previous research has indicated that interventions that include not only cognitive but also physical, social and emotional aspects have the best chance of inducing sustainable effectts\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e. Accordingly, playful interactions hold potential to serve as a high impact, multi-dimensional EF activity for children, yet its effects on children\u0026rsquo;s cognition have not been examined before.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the current study, our goal was to study the effect of a short playful interaction on attention performance and in particular inhibitory control in primary-school children. We developed a fifteen-minute playful social activity with an adult, involving both co-created physical movement and imaginative processes (see Methods for details). This short intervention adhered to the core principles of social playfulness, i.e. involving high levels of novelty and unpredictability through positive social exchanges. The control interaction included physical activity with an adult, since physical activity is one of the most frequently used interventions in the field of EFs\u003csup\u003e46\u003c/sup\u003e. The effects on EF were tested using a Flanker task, which is a well-established test of selective function and inhibitory control\u003csup\u003e47\u003c/sup\u003e that is easily adapted to young children\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e. As part of this task, the participants are asked to respond quickly to the target in the center of the screen and ignore other stimuli that are designed to distract them on the screen. Previous research has employed the Flanker task to investigate EFs in children, including selective attention\u003csup\u003e49\u003c/sup\u003e and inhibitory control\u003csup\u003e50,51\u003c/sup\u003e. Children completed a computerized flanker test and answered mood scales before and immediately following a fifteen minutes interaction. In addition, they reported their social feelings toward their interaction partner at the end of the activity. We hypothesized that short playful interaction, compared with control physical interaction, would increase selective attention performance, positive mood and social connection in primary school children.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through advertisements in relevant Facebook groups. Parents were offered an hour of babysitting for their children in exchange for participating in the experiment during this hour. Overall, 75 participants were recruited for the research and were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. Twelve participants were excluded due to difficulties completing parts of the Flanker task or computer malfunction during the task. Additionally, one participant chose to discontinue their participation. The final sample included 62 children divided into an experimental group (playful interaction group, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.74, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.18, female\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23) and a control group (physical activity group, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.48, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.02, female\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17). Two and three participants in the experimental and control groups, respectively, were diagnosed with ADHD. The ethics committee of Reichman University approved the experiment. All research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn adult female arrived at the participant\u0026rsquo;s home, was introduced to the participant and her parents and explained the experimental procedures. Parents signed informed consent forms and completed a demographic questionnaire and an attention characterization questionnaire. After that, participants answered an adapted version of the emotions questionnaire (PANAS) and performed the computerized Flanker task. Afterwards, the children performed a joint activity with the experimenter (see the detailed description of the playful and control activities below). After the activity, the children completed the PANAS questionnaire, answered several questions about their feelings toward the experimenter and performed the Flanker task for the second time. At the end, the participants received a small gift as a reward for their participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDemographic Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe participants\u0026rsquo; parents completed a demographic questionnaire, which included information about the education level of both parents and the city of residence. Parents also provided information about their child (the participant), such as gender, age, and whether the child had previously been diagnosed with ADHD.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAttention Characterization Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe parents of the participants completed a questionnaire to assess the individual attention abilities of each child\u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e. The questionnaire includes six items that rate the level of children's attentional function on a scale of 0 (\u0026ldquo;never\u0026rdquo;) to 3 (\u0026ldquo;very often\u0026rdquo;). For example, \"\u003cem\u003eTo what extent would you describe your child's mood as changing quickly?\u003c/em\u003e\" and \"\u003cem\u003eTo what extent would you describe your child as unable to stay still?\u003c/em\u003e\". The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s coefficient for attention characterization was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePositive and Negative Emotions (PANAS)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional state was measured with the PANAS questionnaire adapted for children\u003csup\u003e53\u003c/sup\u003e, which included ten emotional items to be rated. The items were rated on a scale of 1 (\"not at all\") to 5 stars (\"extremely\"). In this way, the child estimated how \"\u003cem\u003esad\u003c/em\u003e\", \"\u003cem\u003eproud\u003c/em\u003e\", or \"\u003cem\u003eenthusiastic\u003c/em\u003e\" they felt at the current moment. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s coefficient for positive emotions was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.79, and for negative emotions \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.62.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePositive social perception\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach participant rated their feelings towards the adult player following the interaction on a scale of 1\u0026ndash;5 stars (from \"not at all\" to \"extremely\"). Items included: \u0026ldquo;To what extent was the researcher nice?\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;To what extent was it enjoyable to perform the activity with the researcher?\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;To what extent would you want to play again with the researcher?\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;To what extent would you want to share your experiences with the researcher?\u0026rdquo;. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s coefficient for positive emotions was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.59. Items were aggregated to form a continuous score of positive social perception.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFlanker Task\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo measure the dependent variable, each child performed the computerized attention Flanker task. The task is based on Eriksen's attention task\u003csup\u003e47\u003c/sup\u003e with modifications designed for children based on prior studies using fish stimuli\u003csup\u003e48\u0026ndash;50,54,55\u003c/sup\u003e and was administered using PsychoPy (v.2022.1.3)\u003csup\u003e56\u003c/sup\u003e. In this modified task, participants were instructed to press the arrow key corresponding to the direction of the central fish while ignoring the surrounding flanking fish. The central fish could be in one of three conditions: congruent (facing the same direction as the flanking fish), incongruent (facing the opposite direction to the flanking fish), or neutral (no flanking fish displayed). The direction the fish faced could be either left or right.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Before starting the main task, the participants underwent a 12-step practice phase. After each step, feedback was given indicating whether the response was correct or incorrect. Upon completion of the practice phase, participants proceeded to the main task, which consisted of two blocks. Each block had 24 steps, with a rest interval between steps. Each trial began with a fixation cross displayed at the center of the screen, serving as the focal point for participants' attention, lasting for 1 second. Next, the task stimuli (central and flanking fish) were presented for 200 milliseconds. Participants were allowed a response window of 1.7 seconds, starting from the moment the fish appeared and continuing for 1.5 seconds after its disappearance. The intertrial interval (ITI) was set at 1.5 seconds. To investigate the intervention\u0026rsquo;s effect, participants performed the Flanker Task twice: once before and once after either a playfulness or a control intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePlayful Interaction: experimental group\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlayful interaction was conducted with an adult female player. Three of the authors, i.e. D.Y., O.K.I., and Y.D., were trained to conduct the interaction by S.K., who developed the intervention. As part of the activity, both the child and the adult player shared three hobbies from their personal lives and then invented movements that manifested each one of the hobbies. They combined these movements into a dance, practiced the dance together, and then performed the dance in synchrony three times, without speaking. Afterwards, they repeated the dance again; only this time they included \u0026ldquo;surprise movements\u0026rdquo; during the dance. The experimental playful activity lasted for approximately fifteen minutes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePhysical Interaction: control group\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly to the experimental interactions, the control interactions were conducted by D.Y., O.K.I., and Y.D. and supervised by S.K. Children in the control group performed physical activity with the adult experimenter. The experimenter demonstrated five typical physical exercises simulating a physical education class, such as lunges, and stretches. Each movement was presented three times, after which the child repeated the same movements. The physical activity lasted for approximately fifteen minutes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analyses were conducted using SPSS v. 28. Our initial step was to ensure that there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of demographic variables or preintervention outcome measures. To assess these baseline differences, chi-square tests were utilized for categorical variables, while independent sample t-tests were employed for continuous variables. To evaluate changes in negative and positive affect, we adopted a mixed-model design. This involved conducting two repeated-measures ANOVA with a 2 (group: intervention vs. control) x 2 (time: pre- vs. post-intervention) factorial design for each affect outcome variable. The analysis was aimed at discerning the main effects of time, group, and their interaction on affective outcomes. Performance on the Flanker task, for both response time (RT) and accuracy, was analyzed using two three-way repeated-measures ANOVA. This analysis incorporated a 2 (group: intervention vs. control) x 2 (time: pre- vs. post-intervention) x 3 (attentional conditions: congruent, incongruent, and neutral) factorial design. Age was included as a covariate in these analyses to account for its potential moderating effect on both task accuracy and RT.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGroup Differences\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo baseline group differences were found in demographic characteristics between the experimental and control groups, including gender distribution (\u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.536, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.111), attention problems (\u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.610, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.737), age (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.917, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.363), and Conners' scale ratings (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.168, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.867), which were comparable across groups. The outcome measures assessed pre-intervention also showed no significant differences between the groups. The PANAS scores for negative affect (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e) = -0.586, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.560) and positive affect (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.450, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.655), as well as for accuracy (congruent \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.020, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.312; incongruent \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.205, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.233; neutral \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.894, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.375(, and RT )congruent \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e) = -0.359, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.721; incongruent \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.297, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.768; neutral \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.166, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.869), for the Flanker task were similar between groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans, Standard Deviations, and Interaction Effects of Playfulness Intervention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 11.7069%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-Intervention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 12.3072%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-Intervention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 3.7902%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup X Time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNegative Affect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.520\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlayfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive Affect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.220\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlayfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Perception\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlayfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlanker Accuracy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlayfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlankerRT (seconds)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlayfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6086%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.2031%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 8.8052%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.8034%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1042%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\" \" style=\"width: 5.103%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.1018%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMood and Social Perception\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we examined the effect of Group (playful interaction and control) on changes in children\u0026rsquo;s positive and negative affect. A significant effect of time on negative affect was identified, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.711, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .139, indicating a reduction in negative affect for both groups from pre- to post-intervention. The Time * Group interaction was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.520, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.118, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .040 (Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). However, simple effects analysis using Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons revealed a significant decrease in negative affect for the experimental group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.062, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .156, but not for the control group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.168, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.284, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .019. This finding highlights the effectiveness of the intervention for reducing negative affect in the experimental group, despite the nonsignificant interaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor positive affect, while the main effect of time was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.308, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.257, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .021, a significant Time * Group interaction emerged, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.878, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .220 (Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Simple effects analysis using Bonferroni adjustments indicated a significant increase in positive affect for the experimental group, with a substantial effect \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.791, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .187. Conversely, the control group revealed a significant decrease in positive emotions, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.395, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.040, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .068, reflecting a differential impact of the intervention on positive affect across groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, we examined the effect of Group on positive social perceptions, reported after the interaction. While children in general rated their feelings towards the adult player very positively (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for group means), their scores were significantly higher following the playful as compared with the control interaction (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.002, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .147).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFlanker task scores\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe next examined the effect of Group on performance in the Flanker task. The 2 Groups X 2 Times X 3 Attentional conditions repeated measures design testing accuracy scores in the Flanker task indicated no significant main effect of time, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.954, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .000; condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.491, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.229, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .025; or group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.992, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.323, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .017. Additionally, the Time * Group interaction was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.016, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.900, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .000 (Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that the intervention did not differentially affect the accuracy of the two groups over time. No significant interaction effects were found for Time * Condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.202, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.817, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .003; Group * Condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.060, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.942, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .001; nor was there a three-way interaction of Time * Condition * Group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.223, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.298, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .020. These results imply that the overall task accuracy remained consistent from pre- to post-intervention for both groups, irrespective of the type of stimulus presented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA similar design was used to test the RT in the Flanker task. No significant main effects of time, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.395, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.127, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .039; condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.269, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.108, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .037; or group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.125, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.725, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .002, were found. However, a significant Time * Group interaction was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.086, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.048, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .065 (Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates that the changes in RT from pre- to post-intervention differed between the two groups. Specifically, the experimental group demonstrated a significant reduction in RT, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.441, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .150, while for the control group, this change was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.131, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.718, η\u0026sup2; = .002 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). No other significant interaction effects were observed with Time * Condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.136, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.873, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .002; Condition * Group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.143, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.122, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .035; or the three-way interaction Time * Condition * Group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 118)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.607, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.547, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .010.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe main goal of this study was to examine the impact of a short playful interaction on the EF performance of primary-school children using the well validated attention performance Flanker task. The results supported our hypotheses. Specifically, the experimental group demonstrated a general improvement in reaction times across all conditions of the Flanker task. Importantly, this increase in the speed of response did not come at the cost of accuracy, which was comparable between the pre- and post-intervention times. We also hypothesized that social playfulness, being a highly multidimensional activity, will benefit children\u0026rsquo;s mood. In line with this expectation, results showed a reduction in negative affect, an increase in positive mood, observed exclusively following playful interaction. Finally, in comparison with control condition, playful interaction elicited higher levels of positive social feelings. These results support and extend our previous findings of the effects of short-term social playfulness on cognition, mood and social indexes in older adults\u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile previous research has shown the benefits of prolonged interventions based on creativity, art and imagination\u003csup\u003e16,31,34\u003c/sup\u003e, the current study stands out, as it examines the immediate effects of a short playful interaction on EFs performance in young children. The results showed that this short, highly engaging and enjoyable activity improved attentional performance; specifically, it made the correct identification and rejection of stimuli faster, supporting both selective attention and inhibitory control. Moreover, the observed enhancements, in our results, in attentional performance without compromising accuracy, suggest that short playful interactions might offer a balanced approach to EFs training compared to traditional cognitive intervention programs\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e. No significant changes in performance were observed following the physical exercise interaction. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that exercise alone or just being cognitively challenged\u003csup\u003e5,9,45\u003c/sup\u003e may be less effective in improving children\u0026rsquo;s EFs than activities involving both exercise and character development (e.g., martial arts, yoga). They are also consistent with our previous findings showing the effect of playful interaction on cognition in older ages\u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e. These findings strongly support the suggestion that social playfulness imposes high demands on EFs. Playful interactions unfold spontaneously and not in accordance with a set of rules. During playful activity, individuals co-create and share an imaginative world together, interacting spontaneously without preplanning. They continuously move in space while exchanging cues and signs in surprising ways. They are required to optimally allocate attention, interpret events, and co-adapt their future actions. These processes actively engage all components of EFs, including selective attention, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility\u003csup\u003e58\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings align with previous literature highlighting the critical role of early childhood experiences in shaping EFs\u003csup\u003e36,59\u003c/sup\u003e, which are foundational for academic achievement and socioemotional well-being later in life. EF impairments are prominent features of various clinical conditions, such as ADHD and other externalizing problems\u003csup\u003e60\u003c/sup\u003e, which originate in early childhood and peak during adolescence. Although individual differences in EFs appear to be relatively stable across the lifespan, EFs can be improved through practice, with corresponding changes in neural function\u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e. This combination of stability and plasticity underscores the potential value of promoting the development of healthy EFs, providing lasting opportunities for what Bacon referred to as \u0026ldquo;second cogitations\u0026rdquo;, becoming second nature. The preschool and primary school years may be a particularly valuable period for promoting EFs development through activities such as playful interactions. By engaging children in activities that challenge EFs, such as the playful interactions explored in our study, educators and caregivers can potentially cultivate stronger cognitive skills that hopefully extend beyond the immediate intervention period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature suggests that the most effective programs for enhancing children's EFs are those that directly engage and challenge these skills while also providing the necessary social and emotional support\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. Unlike the narrow, goal oriented structured interventions that focus solely on cognitive tasks, playful interactions integrate cognitive demands with social and emotional engagement, potentially amplifying their beneficial effects on EFs development\u003csup\u003e35,61\u003c/sup\u003e.This is apparent from our results indicating that children in the playful group showed elevated levels of positive mood, formed a stronger social bond with the adult player and enjoyed the interaction more, as compared to the participants in the control group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo curricula that incorporated playful activities have been shown to improve EFs. Tools of the Mind (Tools) is a curriculum developed for preschool and kindergarten by Bodrova and Leong\u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e based on Vygotsky\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e. Vygotsky emphasized the importance of social pretend play for the early development of EFs. During pretend play, children must inhibit acting out of character, remember their own and others' roles, and flexibly adjust as their friends improvise. Children plan who they will be in a pretend scenario, and the teacher holds them accountable for following through. 5-year-olds children in the Tools program outperformed children in the control group on EFs measures. Notably, as reported by the authors, one school, impressed by how much better Tools children were doing, withdrew from the study and switched all classes to Tools\u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e. Another intervention program aimed at improving EFs is the arts and culture rich intervention (Art of Learning)\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e. The intervention attributed its success in part to the teachers\u0026rsquo; involvement in the program and the teacher‒pupil interaction. This integrated approach resonates with developmental theories emphasizing the interplay between cognitive processes and socioemotional experiences in shaping children's cognitive abilities\u003csup\u003e59\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study reported here showed profound results on EFs after a short episode of social playfulness, which can serve as the building block for future interventions. Future research could further explore the optimal duration and frequency of playful interactions needed to sustain and generalize improvements in EFs, exploring the best way to move from short interactions to prolonged interventions. Longitudinal studies could also clarify whether gains in attentional performance translate into broader academic outcomes and social skills across different developmental stages. Additionally, investigating the underlying neural mechanisms through neuroimaging techniques could provide further insights into how playful interactions affect brain networks involved in EFs, offering a more comprehensive understanding of their impact on cognitive development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo summarize, in the current research we showed that even a short playful interaction can induce profound effects on primary-school children\u0026rsquo;s EF performance, corroborated by effects on positive mood and social bonding. These findings highlight the unique multidimensionality of social playfulness which seamlessly recruits a broad array of mechanisms, including cognitive, social and affective processes. Above and beyond the significant effects on cognition, children loved the playful activity, as measured by one of the items in the positive social feelings report. Such rewarding value may promise higher levels of retention in the intervention programs\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. The enhanced social feelings may also contribute to the rewarding aspects of playful activities. In addition, EFs decline when we experience loneliness\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e. An enthusiastic adult who is committed and who has a strong belief in the effectiveness of the intervention can often increase the children`s interest in the intervention and contribute to the efficacy of the program\u003csup\u003e9,45\u003c/sup\u003e. Previous research indicate that for benefits to generalize, EFs training needs to be part of what children do all day at school and therefore were interwoven into all academic activities\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. Interventions that are applied in the context of children\u0026rsquo;s everyday activities have more ecological validity, which helps to generalize the learned abilities and apply them in other contexts\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e. Short playful interventions, such as the one examined in the current research can be easily incorporated into the daily routine of children in various settings.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdditional Information - Competing interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eD.Y., O.K.I., Y.D., O.R., S.K. and Y.G. designed the study. S.K. and Y.G. provided supervision. D.Y., O.K.I. and Y.D. performed the research. D.Y., L.S., S.K. and Y.G. have written the manuscript. O.R. created the task software and performed the main analysis. D.Y., L.S., O.K.I., and Y.G. contributed to analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge Prof. Anat Shoshani for her valuable advices on conducting research with young children\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Data will be provided upon request to the correpsonding author\"\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunn, J. R. Health behavior vs the stress of low socioeconomic status and health outcomes. \u003cem\u003eJAMA\u003c/em\u003e 303, 1199\u0026ndash;1200 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEakin, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The marital and family functioning of adults with ADHD and their spouses. \u003cem\u003eJ. Atten. Disord.\u003c/em\u003e 8, 1\u0026ndash;10 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKusche, C. A., Cook, E. T. \u0026amp; Greenberg, M. T. Neuropsychological and Cognitive Functioning in Children With Anxiety, Externalizing, and Comorbid Psychopathology. \u003cem\u003eJ. Clin. Child Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 22, 172\u0026ndash;195 (1993).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrince, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e No health without mental health. \u003cem\u003eLancet Lond. Engl.\u003c/em\u003e 370, 859\u0026ndash;877 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamond, A. \u0026amp; Lee, K. Interventions Shown to Aid Executive Function Development in Children 4 to 12 Years Old. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e 333, 959\u0026ndash;964 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlair, C. \u0026amp; Razza, R. P. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 78, 647\u0026ndash;663 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C. \u0026amp; Stegmann, Z. Working memory skills and educational attainment: evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. \u003cem\u003eAppl. Cogn. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 18, 1\u0026ndash;16 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersen, P. N., Klausen, M. E. \u0026amp; Skogli, E. W. Art of Learning \u0026ndash; An Art-Based Intervention Aimed at Improving Children\u0026rsquo;s Executive Functions. \u003cem\u003eFront. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 10, 1769 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamond, A. Activities and Programs That Improve Children\u0026rsquo;s Executive Functions. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 21, 335\u0026ndash;341 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAksayli, N. D., Sala, G. \u0026amp; Gobet, F. The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eEduc. Res. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e 27, 229\u0026ndash;243 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergman Nutley, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Gains in fluid intelligence after training non-verbal reasoning in 4‐year‐old children: a controlled, randomized study. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 14, 591\u0026ndash;601 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolmes, J., Gathercole, S. E. \u0026amp; Dunning, D. L. Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in children. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 12, (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlingberg, T. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Computerized Training of Working Memory in Children With ADHD-A Randomized, Controlled Trial. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e 44, 177\u0026ndash;186 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamond, A. \u0026amp; Ling, D. S. Review of the Evidence on, and Fundamental Questions About, Efforts to Improve Executive Functions, Including Working Memory. in \u003cem\u003eCognitive and Working Memory Training\u003c/em\u003e (eds. Novick, J. M., Bunting, M. F., Dougherty, M. R. \u0026amp; Engle, R. W.) 143\u0026ndash;431 (Oxford University PressNew York, 2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakacs, Z. K. \u0026amp; Kassai, R. The efficacy of different interventions to foster children\u0026rsquo;s executive function skills: A series of meta-analyses. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Bull.\u003c/em\u003e 145, 653\u0026ndash;697 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGibson, J. L., Cornell, M. \u0026amp; Gill, T. A Systematic Review of Research into the Impact of Loose Parts Play on Children\u0026rsquo;s Cognitive, Social and Emotional Development. \u003cem\u003eSchool Ment. Health\u003c/em\u003e 9, 295\u0026ndash;309 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKızıldere, E., Aktan-Erciyes, A., Tahiroğlu, D. \u0026amp; G\u0026ouml;ksun, T. A multidimensional investigation of pretend play and language competence: Concurrent and longitudinal relations in preschoolers. \u003cem\u003eCogn. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 54, 100870 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhitebread, D. \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Sullivan, L. Preschool children\u0026rsquo;s social pretend play: supporting the development of metacommunication, metacognition and self-regulation. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Play\u003c/em\u003e 1, 197\u0026ndash;213 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYogman, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The Power of Play: A Pediatric Role in Enhancing Development in Young Children. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e 142, e20182058 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD. W. Winnicott. \u003cem\u003ePlaying and Reality\u003c/em\u003e. vol. 1 (Tavistock Publications, England, 1971).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarnett, L. A. The nature of playfulness in young adults. \u003cem\u003ePersonal. Individ. Differ.\u003c/em\u003e 43, 949\u0026ndash;958 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBateson, P. \u0026amp; Martin, P. \u003cem\u003ePlay, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation\u003c/em\u003e. (Cambridge University Press, 2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmodia-Bidakowska, A., Laverty, C. \u0026amp; Ramchandani, P. G. Father-child play: A systematic review of its frequency, characteristics and potential impact on children\u0026rsquo;s development. \u003cem\u003eDev. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e 57, 100924 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaggy, A.-K. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The impact of social pretend play on preschoolers\u0026rsquo; social development: Results of an experimental study. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child. Res. Q.\u003c/em\u003e 64, 13\u0026ndash;25 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGinsburg, K. R., American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communications, \u0026amp; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e 119, 182\u0026ndash;191 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichard, S., Clerc-Georgy, A. \u0026amp; Gentaz, E. Pretend play-based training improves some socio-emotional competences in 5\u0026ndash;6-year-old children: A large-scale study assessing implementation. \u003cem\u003eActa Psychol. (Amst.)\u003c/em\u003e 238, 103961 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVygotsky, L. S. \u003cem\u003eMind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes\u003c/em\u003e. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1978).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiaget, J. The stages of the intellectual development of the child. \u003cem\u003eBull. Menninger Clin.\u003c/em\u003e 26, 120\u0026ndash;128 (1962).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinger, J. L., S., D. G. \u003cem\u003eThe House of Make-Believe: Children\u0026rsquo;s Play and the Developing Imagination\u003c/em\u003e. (Harvard University Press., 1990).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGopnik, A. \u0026amp; Wellman, H. M. Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Bull.\u003c/em\u003e 138, 1085\u0026ndash;1108 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLillard, A. S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The impact of pretend play on children\u0026rsquo;s development: A review of the evidence. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Bull.\u003c/em\u003e 139, 1\u0026ndash;34 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarlson, S. M., White, R. E. \u0026amp; Davis-Unger, A. C. Evidence for a relation between executive function and pretense representation in preschool children. \u003cem\u003eCogn. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 29, 1\u0026ndash;16 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaggy, A., Mainhard, T., Sticca, F. \u0026amp; Perren, S. The emergence of dyadic pretend play quality during peer play: The role of child competence, play partner competence and dyadic constellation. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 29, 976\u0026ndash;994 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Gilpin, A. T., Nancarrow, A. F., Pierucci, J. M. \u0026amp; Brown, M. M. Fantastical pretense\u0026rsquo;s effects on executive function in a diverse sample of preschoolers. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Dev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 68, 101137 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C. \u0026amp; Domitrovich, C. E. Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychopathol.\u003c/em\u003e 20, 821\u0026ndash;843 (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamond, A. Executive Functions. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 64, 135\u0026ndash;168 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePenad\u0026eacute;s, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Impaired response inhibition in obsessive compulsive disorder. \u003cem\u003eEur. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e 22, 404\u0026ndash;410 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor Tavares, J. V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Distinct Profiles of Neurocognitive Function in Unmedicated Unipolar Depression and Bipolar II Depression. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e 62, 917\u0026ndash;924 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWill Crescioni, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e High trait self-control predicts positive health behaviors and success in weight loss. \u003cem\u003eJ. Health Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 16, 750\u0026ndash;759 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiggs, N., Chou, C.-P., Spruijt-Metz, D. \u0026amp; Pentz, M. A. Executive cognitive function as a correlate and predictor of child food intake and physical activity. \u003cem\u003eChild Neuropsychol. J. Norm. Abnorm. Dev. Child. Adolesc.\u003c/em\u003e 16, 279\u0026ndash;292 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorella, E., Carretti, B. \u0026amp; Pelegrina, S. The Specific Role of Inhibition in Reading Comprehension in Good and Poor Comprehenders. \u003cem\u003eJ. Learn. Disabil.\u003c/em\u003e 43, 541\u0026ndash;552 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBailey, C. E. Cognitive Accuracy and Intelligent Executive Function in the Brain and in Business. \u003cem\u003eAnn. N. Y. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 1118, 122\u0026ndash;141 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHebb, D. O. \u003cem\u003eThe Organization of Behavior\u003c/em\u003e. (John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, New York, NY, 1949).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L. \u0026amp; Posner, M. I. Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 102, 14931\u0026ndash;14936 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamond, A. \u0026amp; Ling, D. S. Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not. \u003cem\u003eDev. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e 18, 34\u0026ndash;48 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi, P., Tang, Y., Zhang, Z., Feng, X. \u0026amp; Li, C. Effect of Physical Exercise in Real-World Settings on Executive Function of Typical Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eBrain Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 12, 1734 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEriksen, B. A. \u0026amp; Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. \u003cem\u003ePercept. Psychophys.\u003c/em\u003e 16, 143\u0026ndash;149 (1974).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRueda, M. R., Checa, P. \u0026amp; C\u0026oacute;mbita, L. M. Enhanced efficiency of the executive attention network after training in preschool children: Immediate changes and effects after two months. \u003cem\u003eDev. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e 2, S192\u0026ndash;S204 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSenzaki, S., Wiebe, S. A., Masuda, T. \u0026amp; Shimizu, Y. A cross-cultural examination of selective attention in Canada and Japan: The role of social context. \u003cem\u003eCogn. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 48, 32\u0026ndash;41 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOeri, N., Voelke, A. E. \u0026amp; Roebers, C. M. Inhibition and behavioral self-regulation: An inextricably linked couple in preschool years. \u003cem\u003eCogn. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 47, 1\u0026ndash;7 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKao, S.-C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Aerobic Fitness Is Associated With Cognitive Control Strategy in Preadolescent Children. \u003cem\u003eJ. Mot. Behav.\u003c/em\u003e 49, 150\u0026ndash;162 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePurpura, D. J. \u0026amp; Lonigan, C. J. Conners\u0026rsquo; Teacher Rating Scale for Preschool Children: A Revised, Brief, Age-Specific Measure. \u003cem\u003eJ. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 38, 263\u0026ndash;272 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEbesutani, C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The 10-Item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, Child and Parent Shortened Versions: Application of Item Response Theory for More Efficient Assessment. \u003cem\u003eJ. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess.\u003c/em\u003e 34, 191\u0026ndash;203 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLudyga, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e An event-related potential investigation of the acute effects of aerobic and coordinative exercise on inhibitory control in children with ADHD. \u003cem\u003eDev. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e 28, 21\u0026ndash;28 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRueda, M. R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Development of attentional networks in childhood. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e 42, 1029\u0026ndash;1040 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeirce, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. \u003cem\u003eBehav. Res. Methods\u003c/em\u003e 51, 195\u0026ndash;203 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeisari, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Synchrony in Old Age: Playing the Mirror Game Improves Cognitive Performance. \u003cem\u003eClin. Gerontol.\u003c/em\u003e 45, 312\u0026ndash;326 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFelsman, P., Gunawardena, S. \u0026amp; Seifert, C. M. Improv experience promotes divergent thinking, uncertainty tolerance, and affective well-being. \u003cem\u003eThink. Ski. Creat.\u003c/em\u003e 35, 100632 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlair, C. \u0026amp; Raver, C. C. School Readiness and Self-Regulation: A Developmental Psychobiological Approach. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 66, 711\u0026ndash;731 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarkley, R. A. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Bull.\u003c/em\u003e 121, 65\u0026ndash;94 (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeong, DJ, B., E. \u003cem\u003eTools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education.\u003c/em\u003e (Merrill/Prentice Hall, New York, 2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Social playfulness, Executive functions, Attention, Children, Physical exercise","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4788930/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4788930/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eExecutive Functions (EFs) are foundational for lifelong flourishing, supporting crucial capacities such as planning, decision-making, and self-regulation. Research indicates that EFs in children are malleable, with both long-term and short-term interventions facilitating the acquisition of these vital skills. Consequently, there is significant interest in enhancing EFs from early childhood. Social playfulness, a natural core aspect of children's lives, supports broad developmental benefits and may improve EFs. This study examined the effect of a short playful interaction compared with an active control interaction on children\u0026rsquo;s EF performance and mood. Sixty-two children aged 6 to 10 years participated in either a playful or control interaction with an adult female. The results showed that the playful interaction, but not the control interaction, improved attentional performance as measured with the Flanker task. Furthermore, playful interaction enhanced children\u0026rsquo;s positive mood and led to stronger social bonds with the co-player. These promising findings imply that playful interactions are multidimensional natural activities that target cognitive, emotional, and social functions simultaneously. We suggest that social playfulness holds unique potential for interventions aimed at training EFs in primary school children, as it is highly enjoyable and easy to learn and integrate into daily activities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Short Playful Interactions Improve Executive Functions in Children","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-10-14 10:24:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4788930/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-10-18T16:25:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-09-18T04:57:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-09-17T16:54:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"253189432338111827152916609675663590847","date":"2024-09-04T09:58:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"237146049346249313382332778389002054731","date":"2024-08-26T13:59:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-08-26T01:48:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-08-20T23:47:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-08-20T19:03:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-08-16T07:04:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-07-23T12:56:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c0c8d148-12e8-4206-9628-67d31f61b569","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 14th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":37388917,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":37388918,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-07T16:03:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4788930","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07028-z","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-02 15:57:51","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 2nd, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-10-14 10:24:13","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-025-07028-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07028-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4788930","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4788930","identity":"rs-4788930","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}