Introduction

Executive functions (EFs), deliberate, top-down cognitive control functions, are key cognitive abilities necessary for success throughout life1,2,3,4. To be successful takes creativity, flexibility, self-control, and discipline, all of which are integral components of EFs5. In childhood, EFs are crucial for school readiness6 and predict performance in school activities throughout all school years7. Consequently, 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.

EFs comprise a family of three interrelated skills or processes: inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and working memory8. These processes enable children develop self-regulated behavior and excel in school9. Notably, 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)10, or short intervention in computer-based training, aerobics, traditional martial arts, yoga, and mindfulness5. The most effective programs are those that directly engage and challenge EFs while also providing the necessary social and emotional support11, such as stress reduction, improved stress management, increased joy, and fostering a sense of belonging. As EFs develop, tasks must increase in complexity to ensure continuous improvement; otherwise, improvements are minimal12,13,14,15,16.

Interventions embedded in children’s everyday activities are particularly impactful, as their ecological validity facilitates the generalization of learned skills to other contexts17. Social playfulness is one such promising candidate. 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 memory18,19,20. However, real life interventions are complex processes integrating multiple components, besides playful responses per se. Hence, the current study focuses on the short-term effects of episodes of social playfulness on EF 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 them21. According to Winnicott22, the ability to play is fundamental because it forms the basis for communicating with oneself and others. “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”22. 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 thought23,24.

Early social play, such as playful turn-taking with caregivers, supports bonding and relationships as well as development of cognitive skills25. Activities like pretend and imaginary play encourage the exploration of social roles and the development of advanced communication, cooperation21, and social-emotional skills26. Research underscores the importance of social play in enhancing various developmental domains27.For example, a study exploring the relationship between symbolic play and EFs in young children revealed that the ability to inhibit prepotent responses was positively correlated with children’s symbolic play skills28. Furthermore, symbolic play is considered an early diagnostic marker in certain neurodevelopmental conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Children with ASD experience greater challenges in engaging in symbolic play compared to children with other neurodevelopmental disorders and typically developing peers, with these difficulties being particularly pronounced in free or spontaneous play29. In the social realm, research shows that engaging in social play with parents or peers offers a unique opportunity to enhance various skills, such as social-emotional understanding, language proficiency, problem solving, creativity, and emotional regulation19,21,26,30,76. Furthermore, social play, especially pretend play, significantly contributes to the development of children’s cognitive functioning20. Vygotsky31 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 Piaget32 and others33, 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)34.

Despite these positive theoretical claims, only a handful of studies on social play have investigated cognitive outcomes, mainly focusing on the effects of pretend play18,35. For instance, a study conducted with 104 preschool children showed a correlation between EFs performance battery and pretense representation measures36. 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 comprehension37. 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-usual38. These studies provide initial positive evidence that programs incorporating social playfulness may improve EFs in children.

Given the critical role of EFs in mental39,40 and physical41,42 health, academic success43, and overall development44, identifying accessible and impactful interventions is vital. Social playfulness, a fun activity in which players co-create novel and unpredictable situations and responses through positive social exchanges, inherently combines cognitive, social, and emotional elements. As such, it may represent a high-impact, ecologically valid multidimensional approach for EF enhancement. 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 effectts45. Yet, the specific effects of social playfulness on children’s cognition remain unexplored.

In the current study, we aimed to investigate the effects of a short playful interaction on EF performance, specifically attention 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. As a control, we employed a physical activity interaction, given the established efficacy of physical activity in enhancing EFs46.

We assessed EF outcomes using the Flanker task, a well-established measure of selective attention and inhibitory control47, which has been adapted to young children48. 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 attention49 and inhibitory control50,51. In young children, inhibition is a core skill for self-regulation and impulse control, making it a strong indicator of EF changes within a limited timeframe52. Inhibitory control is one of the core aspects of EFs in addition to working memory and cognitive flexibility8 and has shown sensitivity to short -term interventions5. Participants completed a computerized Flanker task and mood scales before and after the interactions and reported their social feelings toward their playing partner post-activity. We hypothesized that a short playful interaction, compared with the control one, would enhance 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 (three participants were excluded from the intervention group and nine participants were excluded from the control group). Additionally, one participant from the control group chose to discontinue their participation. The final sample included 62 children divided into an experimental group (playful interaction group, N = 31, Mage = 7.74, SDage = 1.18, female = 23) and a control group (physical activity group, N = 31, Mage = 7.48, SDage = 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 carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Procedure

An adult female arrived at the participant’s home, was introduced to the participant and the 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). Immediately 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. Post intervention tasks were performed in this order across all participants. 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 child53. 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 children54, 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 social perceptions 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 task47 with modifications designed for children based on prior studies using fish stimuli48,49,50,55,56 and was administered using PsychoPy (v.2022.1.3)57. 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 s. Next, the task stimuli (central and flanking fish) were presented for 200 milliseconds. Participants were allowed a response window of 1.7 s, starting from the moment the fish appeared and continuing for 1.5 s after its disappearance. The intertrial interval (ITI) was set at 1.5 s. 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., a drama therapist. The activity is based on a familiar improvisational theatre exercise called “the choreography game”. Below is a step-by-step description of the activity as it was conducted in the study. First, the child and the adult partner each shared three personal hobbies—six in total. Second, they created one physical movement to represent each hobby. For example, for cooking, they could create a circular hand movement that mimicked stirring a pot, or a hand-shaking motion to represent adding salt; for basketball, they could use a motion of throwing a ball into the basket, or raise their hands to represent winning a championship.

Third, the participants were instructed to link the six movements together into a continuous sequence. They were encouraged to add simple transition movements, so that the sequence would flow like a short dance. Fourth, they practiced the full sequence and then performed it together in synchrony three times, without speaking. Finally, they repeated the same dance, but this time they were invited to add a few “surprise movements” at unexpected moments. These could be for example exaggerated versions of the original movements or new movements that were not part of the original dance. The entire playful interaction lasted approximately fifteen minutes.

Physical activity-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 engaged in a simple physical activity session with the adult experimenter. The session consisted of five typical physical exercises commonly used in school physical education classes, such as lunges, stretches, side bends, and arm circles. Each movement was demonstrated by the adult and repeated three times, followed by the child repeating the same movements. The movements were simple and low in physical intensity, in order to match the playful activity condition in terms of physical demand. There was no verbal exchange beyond brief instructions, and the activity was performed in a neutral tone and rhythm to avoid any emotional or playful elements. The entire session lasted 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. For these analyses, Bonferroni adjustments were applied to all post hoc and simple effect comparisons to account for multiple comparisons. 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 and physical Interventions.
Full size table

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 = 0.139, 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 = 0.040 (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 = 0.156, but not for the control group, F(1, 60) = 1.168, p = .284, η² = 0.019. 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 = 0.021, a significant Time * Group interaction emerged, F(1, 60) = 16.878, p < .001, η² = 0.220 (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 = 0.187. Conversely, the control group revealed a significant decrease in positive emotions, F(1, 60) = 4.395, p = .040, η² = 0.068, reflecting a differential impact of the intervention on positive affect across groups (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PANAS scores for positive affect and negative affect, pre and post the short playful or physical interactions. Error bars indicate Mean ± SEM; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Full size image

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 interaction as compared with the control interaction (F(1,60) = 10.37, p < .002, η² = 0.147).

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) = 0.003, p = .954, η² = 0.000; condition, F(2, 118) = 1.491, p = .229, η² = 0.025; or group, F(1, 59) = 0.992, p = .323, η² = 0.017. Additionally, the Time * Group interaction was not significant, F(1, 59) = 0.016, p = .900, η² = 0.000 (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) = 0.202, p = .817, η² = 0.003; Group * Condition, F(2, 118) = 0.060, p = .942, η² = 0.001; nor was there a three-way interaction of Time * Condition * Group, F(2, 118) = 1.223, p = .298, η² = 0.020. 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 = 0.039; condition, F(2, 118) = 2.269, p = .108, η² = 0.037; or group, F(1, 59) = 0.125, p = .725, η² = 0.002, were found. However, a significant Time * Group interaction was observed, F(1, 59) = 4.086, p = .048, η² = 0.065 (Table 1). This indicates that the changes in RT from pre- to post-intervention differed between the two groups. Specifically, Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons revealed a significant reduction in RT for the experimental group, F(1, 59) = 10.441, p = .002, η² = 0.150, while for the control group, this change was not significant, F(1, 59) = 0.131, p = .718, η² = 0.002 (Fig. 2). No other significant interaction effects were observed with Time * Condition, F(2, 118) = 0.136, p = .873, η² = 0.002; Condition * Group, F(2, 118) = 2.143, p = .122, η² = 0.035; or the three-way interaction Time * Condition * Group, F(2, 118) = 0.607, p = .547, η² = 0.010.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flanker mean response time in seconds, pre and post the short playful or physical interactions. Error bars indicate Mean ± SEM; ** p < .01.

Full size image

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. The observed enhancements in attentional performance without compromising accuracy, suggest that short playful interactions might offer a balanced approach to EFs training compared to traditional cognitive intervention programs45. 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 challenged5,11,47 may be less effective in improving children’s EFs than activities involving both exercise and character development (e.g., martial arts, yoga). 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 and an increase in positive mood, observed exclusively following playful interaction. Finally, in comparison with physical activity, 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 adults63.

What could explain the positive effects of playful interactions on children’s EFs, observed in the current study? It has been suggested that programs that produce the most consistent effects are those that challenge the EFs, consistently pushing the person out of the comfort zone and current level of competence45. Social playfulness significantly and continuously pushes the person towards novelty and exploration, requiring flexibility, creativity and allocation of resources. In playful interactions people co-create and share an imaginative world together, spontaneously and not in accordance with a set of rules. They are required to optimally allocate attention, interpret events, and swiftly co-adapt their future actions64. Accordingly, social playfulness actively engages the core EF processes, including working memory, selective attention, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility65, hence providing an excellent substrate to continuously challenge executive functions. We recently proposed a neurobiological framework that may account for such EF improvements driven by episodes of social playfulness64. Specifically, we suggested that the high levels of novelty and uncertainty, inherent to playful interactions, recruit the neuro-modulatory noradrenergic arousal system originating in the Locus Coeruleus (LC), which is known to affect multiple cognitive processes66,67,68. Activation of LC in a positive social environment creates a “sweet spot” of optimal arousal69, characterized by heightened energy, a sense of vitality, enhanced focus and EF performance, and a warm feeling of connection. The results of the present study are aligned with this framework, as they show both enhancement of EF based performance in the flanker paradigm, which was previously linked with LC activity70, and increases in positive mood, indicative of positive arousal.

Previous research has demonstrated that physical activity influences children’s executive functions, particularly inhibitory control and attentional performance. For instance, Hillman et al.58, observed significant improvements in Flanker task performance following acute aerobic exercise interventions in preadolescent children, specifically enhanced cognitive control and accuracy. These cognitive benefits are attributed to mechanisms such as increased physiological arousal, improved neural efficiency, and optimized allocation of attentional resources during and immediately after physical activity58,59,60. Furthermore, previous research has suggested that physical activity increases arousal and LC activity, as demonstrated by LC peripheral markers71,72. In the current study, in order to explore whether playfulness could offer distinct cognitive benefits, we chose to compare a physical activity intervention with a playfulness intervention and explore their effects on cognitive outcomes. The lack of measurable improvements in executive function following the physical activity intervention in our study may be explained by its characteristics: it was a short single session, low in intensity, and involved repetitive, non-aerobic movements. Research suggests that repetitive moderate to vigorous aerobic exercises are more effective at enhancing cognitive functions because they increase heart rate, oxygen delivery to the brain, and neurotrophic factors like BDNF, which support neural plasticity58,59. Additionally, activities that lack cognitive engagement, such as coordination or decision-making, may not sufficiently stimulate executive control systems61,62. These factors are likely to account for the absence of measurable cognitive benefits in the group exposed to the physical activity intervention in our study. Future research should directly compare the effects of physical activity optimal for EF enhancement with playful interaction in children.

While our study focused on the immediate effects of brief playful interactions on children’s EF performance, its implications extend beyond these short-term effects. By isolating the specific impact of social playfulness on EF - without the confounding factors typically present in long-term interventions - our findings can potentially inform the development of more comprehensive, developmentally appropriate EF training programs. Research consistently demonstrates that early childhood experiences play a crucial role in shaping EFs8,73, which form the foundation for academic achievement and socioemotional well-being later in life. While individual differences in EFs show relative stability across the lifespan, these cognitive functions remain malleable and can be enhanced through practice, with corresponding changes in neural function44. This combination of stability and plasticity highlights the value of early interventions, which provide lasting opportunities for what Bacon referred to as “second cogitations” – learned behaviors that become second nature. The preschool and primary school years, in particular, may represent an optimal period to promote EF development through playful, engaging activities, fostering lasting cognitive benefits.

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 support11. 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 development9,74. Our results support these claims, showing that children in the playful group not only showed improved EF performance but also demonstrated elevated positive mood and stronger social bonds with adult players compared to the control group.

Demonstrating the benefits of playfulness-based interventions, 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 Leong74 based on Vygotsky31. 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. Indeed, 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 Tools74. Another intervention program aimed at improving EFs is the arts and culture rich intervention (Art of Learning)10. 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 abilities73. Taken together, our results in the current study combined with the success of previous playfulness- based intervention programs, suggest that the effectiveness of playful interactions in improving children’s EF may be attributed to their multidimensional nature.

There were several methodological limitations to this study which should be considered when interpreting the results. The research team was not blind to the study’s hypotheses during participant interactions, which could have introduced unintended bias. While this was unavoidable due to procedural constraints, future studies should implement double-blind protocols where possible. Although our mood and social perception scales were previously validated with young children53, they showed only modest reliability in the current study. Future research would benefit from developing or employing more robust measurement tools for assessing these constructs in young populations or complement self-reports with behavioral and physiological measures, such as facial expressions or sympathetic arousal. Our study primarily focused on inhibitory control as an indicator of executive functions. While this provides valuable insights, caution should be exercised in generalizing these findings to other EF components. Further research is needed to examine how social playfulness affects additional aspects of executive functions, such as cognitive flexibility.

Our findings of significant EF improvements following short playful interactions open several promising avenues for future research. To optimize intervention programs, research should examine the optimal duration and frequency of playful interactions, exploring effective ways to transition from brief episodes to sustained interventions. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether EF gains translate into broader academic and social outcomes. Additionally, neuroimaging studies could illuminate the underlying neural mechanisms mediating the effects of playful interactions on cognition. As suggested by our theoretical framework, the subcortical noradrenergic LC structures and their connection with prefrontal regions and saliency network are of a particular interest75.

Conclusions

Our research demonstrates that even brief playful interactions can significantly enhance primary-school children’s EF performance while promoting positive mood and social bonding. The unique strength of social playfulness lies in its multidimensionality, seamlessly integrating cognitive, social, and affective processes. Notably, children’s enjoyment of the playful activity, as evidenced by positive social feelings reports, suggests potential for program adherence - a crucial factor for intervention success5.

The potential effectiveness of playfulness-based interventions for EFs improvement appears to be amplified by two key factors: the social context and the ease of implementation. The presence of an enthusiastic, committed adult can enhance children’s engagement and program efficacy11,45. Moreover, these brief playful interactions can be readily integrated into children’s daily school routines, aligning with research suggesting that EF training is most effective when embedded within regular academic activities5. This naturalistic integration enhances ecological validity and promotes the generalization of learned abilities across different contexts17.

These findings point to a practical and promising approach for supporting children’s cognitive development: incorporating short, enjoyable playful interactions into educational and developmental settings. Such an approach combines the benefits of structured cognitive enhancement with the natural appeal of play, offering a sustainable path for promoting children’s executive function development.