Back to recent texts

Outdoor Risky Play

1Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, PhD, 2Rasmus Kleppe, PhD

1Queen Maud University College of Early Childhood Education, Norway

2Kanvas Foundation and Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

May 2019

Introduction

Risky play has emerged as a topic of interest for researchers, parents, early childhood education and care (ECEC) practitioners/teachers and policymakers and authorities over the last twenty years. The reason for the emergence is manifold, but one point of departure might be the ambivalent wording of mixing the positive connotation of “play” with the more negative intuitive connotations attached to “risk.” Nevertheless, a growing body of research investigates various aspects of risk taking, including playful activities, indicating that the concept reflects a basic aspect of human life.

Subject

What is Risky Play?

Risky play shares some characteristics with various play types included in prior categorizations of play. For example, it could involve elements from locomotor1 and physically activity play,2 rough-and-tumble play,2-4 as well as play with objects.2 It also shares characteristics with deep play (confronting risks and fears and interfacing mortality/death), exploratory play (exploration of the unknown) and mastery play (testing own physical and psychic abilities).5

A common definition of risky play is: “thrilling and exciting forms of physical play that involve uncertainty and a risk of physical injury.”6 Eight categories of risky play have been identified through observations and interviews with children and ECECs:7-9 1) Play with great heights – danger of injury from falling, such as all forms of climbing, jumping, hanging/dangling, or balancing from heights; 2) Play with high speed – uncontrolled speed and pace that can lead to a collision with something (or someone), for instance bicycling at high speeds, sledging (winter), sliding, running (uncontrollably); 3) Play with dangerous tools – that can lead to injuries, for instance axe, saw, knife, hammer, or ropes; 4) Play near dangerous elements – where you can fall into or from something, such as water or a fire pit, 5) Rough-and-tumble play – where children can harm each other, for instance wrestling, fighting, fencing with sticks; 6) Play where children go exploring alone, for instance without supervision and where there are no fences, such as in the woods; 7) Play with impact – children crashing into something repeatedly just for fun; and 8) Vicarious play – children experiencing thrill by watching other children (most often older) engaging in risk.1  

Research Context and Results

Initial research on children’s risky play was situated mostly within ECEC contexts (preschool, kindergarten, child care centers etc.). Smith,10 Greenfield11,12 and Stephenson13 were early in pointing out how children sought risk in their play; how staff handled the risk in children’s play and what benefits this kind of play might have for children. Building on this research, Sandseter6-8 explored the phenomena of four to six-year-old children’s risky play and how it can be defined and categorized. Recently, Kleppe et al.9,14 identified such play among even younger children, down to one year old. Overall, the existing research shows that children between the age of one and six years all are engaged in risky play in some way, and on a level that suits their individual competence and courage. The concept of risky play is studied in a range of countries, indicating some cross-cultural commonalities of this type of play.15,16

Both observations and interviews reveal that children’s emotional experiences in risky play range from pure exhilaration, through exhilaration and fear at the same time (exhilaration bordering fear), to pure fear. This ambiguous feeling is probably what makes this type of play attractive to children.6,13,17 The highly aroused feeling children have when engaging in risky play is expressed by joyful, happy and enthusiastic facial expressions, children looking ecstatic and verbal expressions, such as laughing, shrieking, showing their exhilaration and expressions of fearful joy.13,18 However, these typical expressions are individual and suggested to be partly related to age, as young children’s risky play might appear subtler and less exhilarated.9 Regardless of age or level of expressed arousal, such activity seems to be repetitive and induce deep engagement.18,19

Despite this well-documented interest and willingness among children towards risky play, there are indications that this type of play is being restricted in ECEC settings.20,21 There are probably several reasons for this, but, first of all, restrictions are affected by ECEC practitioners’ perceptions, attitudes and practices, which often are influenced by societal factors, not least parents’ opinions.22,23 Although some research indicates that ECEC practitioners allow children to test their abilities, thereby developing necessary skills to cope with real-life challenges,23-27 practitioners face an obvious balancing act between the potential short- and long-term benefits of such play and the cost of injuries. This balancing act is not an easy task, and it is understandable that both ECEC practitioners and parents want to avoid injuries. However, the trend of a general decrease in children’s opportunities for risk-taking in play,28,29 might have wider negative consequences. First, it is already documented that an increased safety focus has resulted in more restricted freedom of movement, but also, more specifically, in more boring playgrounds.21,30-36 Second, albeit less documented, there is a worry that this lack of play opportunities might result in negative long-term consequences such as reduced well-being, excessive risk taking or, on the other hand, increased anxiety.37,38 In many ways, the growing research on children’s risky play, and its possible benefits, might be seen as a reaction to the safety discourse. 

Saliently, there is not one similar way that the safety discourse has been noticeable in different cultural contexts. How to handle and practice risk in children’s play seems to be highly culturally dependent. Studies from central Africa describe common child-rearing practices with risk levels that would be unacceptable in the present Western context, such as eight-months-old infants playing with knives, helping to chop tinder for the household fire39 or two-year-olds independently roaming the village and the surrounding forests and fields.40 However, comparative studies indicate variations also between Western countries. New, Mardell and Robinson41 compared Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Italian and American ECEC-teachers and found that the European teachers are less worried about children’s risk-taking than are their American colleagues. Similarly, Little, Sandseter and Wyver23 found that Scandinavian, and particularly Norwegian ECEC practitioners are more liberal towards children’s risky play than practitioners in Australia. Explanations might be found in different theoretical-pedagogical approaches,42 but certainly also rooted in cultural beliefs and values, often related to varying emphasis on outdoor play and learning between countries.41,43

However, regardless of cultural context, play appears to be an ideal context to develop the ability to assess and handle risk, where the pretend- or nonliteral aspect allows the players to test out behaviour, situations or actions without the severe consequences of real-life. With this as a backdrop, studies have argued that the ability to handle risk has been a favorable evolutionary trait.38 Additionally, it is found that experience from risky play will result in children being able to assess risk in a better and more accurate way,44 and that outdoor risky play have several positive health effects among children.45 From a different angle, there are indications of negative effects of children being overly protected; that curbing risky play and autonomy will increase the likelihood of anxiety, both in childhood37,46 and in adolescence and adulthood.38,47-51

Key Research Questions and Gaps

The existing research is largely descriptive and less is documented regarding actual benefits of risky play. This knowledge gap invites further investigations, particularly regarding benefits to health, development and learning. We assume that engagement in risky play in childhood protects against anxiety, faulty decisions and/or excessive risk taking later in life. However, most studies consist of small samples and/or lack the appropriate longitudinal design, randomization and control groups, rendering them unfit to properly address this assumption. Not least, this assumption is difficult to test empirically. There are obvious ethical issues with conducting studies designed to let children take risk (with the potential of injury), while restricting children from playing freely and thereby assessing long-term effects of play deprivation would be equally problematic. Creative methods such as Kretch and Adolph’s52,53 experiments with the visual cliff (allowing children to cross narrow bridges without the real possibility of falling) should be further developed, suggestively with virtual reality as a promising methodological field. However, transferability of results from laboratory conditions or controlled environments to real life contexts will be an apparent issue. There are also challenges in finding appropriate ways of measuring long term effects of risky play considering what to measure in adolescence and/or adulthood, and finally, to have comparable control groups. Notwithstanding, research on risky play is a rather new and promising field, but future projects need to handle these methodological issues to move the field forward. 

Implications for Parents, Services and Policy 

The existing research base could be used to guide both parents and ECEC practitioners in how to appropriately support children engaged in risky play. The best available evidence suggests that allowing children a certain level of autonomy strengthens children’s self-awareness and ability to self-regulate and reduces the likelihood of anxiety – present and later in life. 

ECEC owners, playground developers and policymakers should include knowledge of risky play in the development of play environments.54 Research suggests versatile, complex and flexible play environments to accommodate children’s diverse interests, varied competence and risk tolerance. 

References

  1. Sawyers JK. The preschool playground. Developing skills through outdoor play. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 1994;65(6):31-33.
  2. Smith PK. Play. Types and functions in human development. In: Ellis BJ, Bjorklund DF, eds. Origins of the social mind Evolutionary psychology and child development. New York: Guilford; 2005:271-91.
  3. Blurton Jones N. Rough-and-tumble play among nursery school children. In: Bruner JS, Jolly A, Sylva K, eds. Play: It's role in development and evolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books; 1976:352-63.
  4. Humphreys AP, Smith PK. Rough and tumble, friendship, and dominance in schoolchildren: Evidence for continuity and change with age. Child Development. 1987;58:201-212.
  5. Hughes B, Sturrock G. Playtypes: Speculations and possibilities. London: London Centre for Playwork, Education and Training; 2006.
  6. Sandseter EBH. Scaryfunny: A qualitative study of risky play among preschool children. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2010.
  7. Sandseter EBH. Categorizing risky play - How can we identify risk-taking in children’s play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2007;15(2):237-252.
  8. Sandseter EBH. Characteristics of risky play. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 2009;9(1):3-21. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729670802702762
  9. Kleppe R, Melhuish E, Sandseter EBH. Identifying and characterizing risky play in the age one-to-three years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 2017;25(3):370-385. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1308163
  10. Smith SJ. Risk and our pedagogical relation to children: On playground and beyond. New York: State University of New York Press; 1998.
  11. Greenfield C. Outdoor play - The case of risks and challenges in children's learning and development. Safekids News. 2003(21):5.
  12. Greenfield C. 'Can run, play on bikes, jump the zoom slide, and play on the swings': Exploring the value of outdoor play. Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 2004;29(2):1-5.
  13. Stephenson A. Physical risk-taking: Dangerous or endangered? Early Years. 2003;23(1):35-43.
  14. Kleppe R. One-to-three-year-olds’ risky play in early childhood education and care [Doctoral thesis]. Oslo Metropolitan University; 2018.
  15. Little H. Young children's physical risk-taking behaviour during outdoor play: The influence of individual, social and environmental factors [Doctoral thesis]. Macquarie University, 2010.
  16. Sandseter EBH, Little H, Ball D, et al. Risk and safety in outdoor play. In: Waller T, Ärlemalm-Hagsér E, Sandseter EBH, et al, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2017.
  17. Coster D, Gleave J. Give us a go! Children and young people's views on play and risk-taking. http://playday.gn.apc.org/resources/research/2008-research/. Published July 2008. Accessed April 30, 2019.
  18. Sandseter EBH. Children's expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2009;10(2):92-106.
  19. Sutton-Smith B. The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1997.
  20. Ball D, Gill T, Spiegal B. Managing risk in play provision: Implementation guide: Play England for the Play Safety Forum, 2012.
  21. Sandseter EBH, Sando OJ. "We Don’t Allow Children to Climb Trees": How a focus on safety affects Norwegian children’s play in early-childhood education and care settings. American Journal of Play. 2016;8(2):178-200.
  22. Little H, Eager D. Risk, challenge and safety: implications for play quality and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2010;18(4):497-513. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2010.525949
  23. Little H, Sandseter EBH, Wyver S. Early childhood teachers' beliefs about children's risky play in Australia and Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2012;13(4):300-316. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.4.300
  24. Greatorex P. Risk and play: Play providers' experience and views on adventurous play. http://playday.gn.apc.org/resources/research/2008-research/. Published July 2008. Accessed April 30, 2019.
  25. Sandseter EBH. Restrictive safety or unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC practitioners' perceptions and practices concerning children's risky play. Childcare in Practice. 2012;18(1):83-101.
  26. Little H, Wyver S, Gibson F. The influence of play context and adult attitudes on young children's physical risk-taking during outdoor play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2011;19(1):113-131.
  27. Kleppe R. Characteristics of staff–child interaction in 1–3-year-olds’ risky play in early childhood education and care. Early Child Development and Care. 2017;188(10):1487-501. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1273909
  28. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child U. General comment No. 17 on the right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts (art. 31). UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations, 2013.
  29. Ball DJ, Ball-King L. Public safety and risk assessment. London/New York: Routledge; 2011.
  30. Wyver S, Bundy A, Naughton G, et al. Safe outdoor play for young children: Paradoxes and consequences. In: Howard S, ed. Proceedings of the AARE International Education Research Conference: AARE; 2010.
  31. Wyver S, Tranter P, Naughton G, et al. Ten ways to restrict children’s freedom to play: the problem of surplus safety. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2010;11(3):263-277.
  32. Brussoni M, Olsen LL, Pike I, et al. Risky play and children’s safety: Balancing priorities for optimal child development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2012;9(9):3134-3148.
  33. Ball DJ. Playgrounds - Risks, benefits and choices. London: Health and Safety Executive (HSE) contract research report, Middlesex University; 2002.
  34. Herrington S, Nicholls J. Outdoor play spaces in Canada: The safety dance of standards as policy. Critical Social Policy. 2007;27(1):128-38. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261018307072210
  35. Spiegal B, Gill TR, Harbottle H, Ball DJ. Children’s play space and safety management: Rethinking the role of play equipment standards. SAGE Open. 2014;4(1):1-11.
  36. Gill T. The evolution of policy on risk management in outdoor play. In: Waller T, Ärlemalm-Hagsér E, Sandseter EBH, et al, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning London. UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2017.
  37. Affrunti NW, Ginsburg GS. Maternal overcontrol and child anxiety: the mediating role of perceived competence. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2012;43(1):102-112. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-011-0248-z
  38. Sandseter EBH, Kennair LEO. Children's risky play from an evolutionary perspective: The anti-phobic effects of thrilling experiences. Evolutionary Psychology. 2011;9(2):257-284.
  39. Hewlett BS. Intimate fathers: The nature and context of Aka Pygmy paternal infant care. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1991.
  40. Gottlieb A. The afterlife is where we come from : the culture of infancy in West Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2004.
  41. New RS, Mardell B, Robinson D. Early childhood education as risky business: Going beyond what’s “safe” to discovering what’s possible. Early Childhood Research and Practice. 2005;7(2):1-21.
  42. Sandseter EBH, Little H, Wyver S. Does theory and pedagogy have an impact on provisions for outdoor learning? A comparison of approaches in Australia and Norway. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 2012;12(3):167-182. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2012.699800
  43. Guldberg H. Reclaiming childhood. Freedom and play in an age of fear. Oxon: Routledge; 2009.
  44. Lavrysen A, Bertrands E, Leyssen L, et al. Risky-play at school. Facilitating risk perception and competence in young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2015:1-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102412
  45. Brussoni M, Gibbons R, Gray C, et al. What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015;12(6):6423-6454. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606423
  46. Bayer JK, Hastings PD, Sanson AV, et al. Predicting mid-childhood internalising symptoms: a longitudinal community study. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2010;12(1):5-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2010.9721802
  47. Segrin C, Woszidlo A, Givertz M, et al. The association between overparenting, parent-child communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits in adult children. Family Relations. 2012;61(2):237-252. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00689.x
  48. Segrin C, Woszidlo A, Givertz M, et al. Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2013;32(6):569-595. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.6.569
  49. LeMoyne T, Buchanan T. Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum. 2011;31(4):399-418. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2011.574038
  50. Schiffrin HH, Liss M, Miles-McLean H, et al. Helping or hovering? the effects of helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2013;23(3):548-557. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9716-3
  51. Perry NB, Dollar JM, Calkins SD, et al. Childhood self-regulation as a mechanism through which early overcontrolling parenting is associated with adjustment in preadolescence. Developmental Psychology. 2018;54(8):1542-1554. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000536
  52. Kretch KS, Adolph KE. No bridge too high: Infants decide whether to cross based on the probability of falling not the severity of the potential fall. Developmental Science. 2013;16(3):336-351. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12045
  53. Adolph KE, Kretch KS. Infants on the edge: Beyond the visual cliff. In: Slater A, Quinn P, eds. Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies. London: SAGE Publishing; 2012:36.
  54. Dietze B, Kashin D. Building Capacity to Support Outdoor Play in Early Childhood Education. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Brussoni M, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/outdoor-play/according-experts/building-capacity-support-outdoor-play-early-childhood-education. Published May 2019. Accessed May 2, 2019.

How to cite this article:

Sandseter EBH, Kleppe R. Outdoor Risky Play. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Brussoni M, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/outdoor-play/according-experts/outdoor-risky-play. Published May 2019. Accessed October 14, 2019.