Advertisement

Play Fighting and Real Fighting

Perspectives on Their Relationship
  • Peter K. Smith

Abstract

Rough-and-tumble play (R&T) is a distinctive form of behaviour, prominent in children. It has been studied by a variety of methods which complement each other in interesting ways.

Although superficially similar to real fighting, play fighting is distinct from it, and there are recognised cues which can be used in telling these two behaviours apart. These have been discerned by observational studies, and children too can verbalise many of these cues.

Play fighting is much more frequent than real fighting, in playgrounds. A proportion of play fighting can, however, turn into real fighting. The most usual reason, at least in middle childhood, appears to relate to ‘honest mistakes’ or accidental injury. However in some children, and more frequently by early adolescence, R&T may be used more deliberately as a social tool, consistent with a ‘cheating’ hypothesis.

Teachers make somewhat biased judgments about the relative frequency of play fighting and real fighting, and how often play fighting becomes real; possibly basing their perceptions on the small number of more aggressive children they may come into contact with in a disciplinary way.

Views on the functions of R&T may need modification. Social bonding and social skills may be incidental benefits of R&T, but fail to explain its distinctive features or the sex differences. Practice in fighting/hunting skills is a functional hypothesis consistent with design features and sex differences, but lacks direct support. The age changes and existence of ‘cheating’ suggest that, at least for some children and many adolescents, R&T can be used as a social tool in establishing or maintaining dominance in peer groups. The technique of interviewing participants in play fighting appears to have promise for further work in this area.

Keywords

Social Skill Middle Childhood Primary School Teacher Aggressive Child Accidental Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldis, O. (1975). Play fighting. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arrington, R. (1943). Time sampling in studies of social behavior: a critical review of techniques and results with research suggestions. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 81–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher, S.R. & Coie, J.D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blatchford, P. (1989). Playtime in the primary school. Windsor: NFER-NELSON.Google Scholar
  6. Blurton Jones, N. (1967). An ethological study of some aspects of social behaviour of children in nursery school. In D. Morris (Ed.), Primate ethology (pp.347–368). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  7. Boulton, M.J. (1991a). Partner preferences in middle school children’s playful fighting and chasing: A test of some competing functional hypotheses. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulton, M.J. (1991b). A comparison of structural and contextual features of middle school children’s playful and aggressive fighting. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boulton, M. J. (1992a). Rough physical play in adolescents: Does it serve a dominance function? Early Education and Development, 3, 312–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boulton, M.J. (1992b). Participation in playground activities at middle school. Educational Research, 34, 167–182.Google Scholar
  11. Boulton, M.J. (1993a). Children’s abilities to distinguish between playful and aggressive fighting: A developmental perspective. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 249–263.Google Scholar
  12. Boulton, M.J. (1993b). A comparison of adults’ and children’s abilities to distinguish between aggressive and playful fighting in middle school pupils: implications for playground supervision and behaviour management. Educational Studies, 19, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boulton, M.J. & Smith, P.K. (submitted). Peer social status, rough-and-tumble play and aggression: social skill and behaviour. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  14. Carson, J., Burks, V. & Parke, R.D. (1993). Parent-child physical play: Determinants and consequences. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play (pp. 197–220). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Collaer, M.L. & Hines, M. (1995). Human behavioral sex differences: A role for gonadal hormones during early development. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 55–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costabile, A., Smith, P.K., Matheson, L., Aston, J., Hunter, T. & Boulton, M. (1991). Cross-national comparison of how children distinguish serious and playful fighting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodge, K. & Frame, C. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagen, R. M. (1981). Animal play behavior. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Fassnacht, G. (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Finnan, C. R. (1982). The ethnography of children’s spontaneous play. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling (pp.358–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Fry, D.P. (1987). Differences between playfighting and serious fights among Zapotec children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groos, K. (1901). The play of man. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  23. Humphreys, A.P. and Smith, P.K. (1987). Rough and tumble, friendship, and dominance in schoolchildren: Evidence for continuity and change with age. Child Development, 58, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ladd, G. (1983). Social networks of popular, average and rejected children in a school setting. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283–307.Google Scholar
  25. Lever, J. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and games. American Sociological Review, 43, 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys. Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacDonald, K. (1992). A time and place for everything: A discrete systems perspective on the role of children’s rough-and-tumble play in educational settings. Early Education and Development, 3, 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacDonald, K. & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interactions and peer interactive competence. Child Development, 55, 1265–1277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neill, S.R.StJ. (1976). Aggressive and non-aggressive fighting in 12 to 13 year-old preadolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 213–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oswald, H., Krappmann, L., Chowduri, F. & von Salisch, M. (1987). Gaps and bridges: Interactions between girls and boys in elementary school. Sociological Studies of Child Development, 2, 205–223.Google Scholar
  31. Paquette, D. (1994). Fighting and playfighting in captive adolescent chimpanzees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellegrini, A.D. (1987). Rough-and-tumble play: Developmental and educational significance. Educational Psychologist, 22, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pellegrini, A.D. (1988). Elementary school children’s rough-and-tumble play and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 24, 802–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pellegrini, A.D. (1989). What is a category? The case of rough-and-tumble play. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pellegrini, A.D. (1994). The rough play of adolescent boys of differing sociometric status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 525–540.Google Scholar
  36. Pellegrini, A.D. & Smith, P.K. (submitted). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  37. Power, T. G. and Parke, R. D. (1981). Play as a context for early learning. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 147–178). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  38. Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O. & Yule, W. (1976). Adolescent turmoil: fact or fiction? Journal of Child and Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schåfer, M. & Smith, P.K. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of play fighting and real fighting in primary school. Educational Research, 38, 173–181.Google Scholar
  40. Sluckin, A.M. (1981). Growing up in the playground: The social development of children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, P.K. (1973). Temporal clusters and individual differences in the behaviour of pre-school children. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (eds), Comparative Ecology and Behaviour of Primates, (pp751–798). London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, P. K. (1982). Does play matter? Functional and evolutionary aspects of animal and human play. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 139–184.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, P.K. (1989). The role of rough-and-tumble play in the development of social competence: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In B.H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel & R.P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp.239–255). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, P.K. and Boulton, M. (1990). Rough-and-tumble play, aggression and dominance: perception and behaviour in children’s encounters. Human Development, 33, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, P.K., Carvalho, A.M.A., Hunter, T., & Costabile, A. (1992). Children’s perceptions of playfighting, play-chasing and real fighting: a cross-national interview study. Social Development, 1, 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, P.K. & Connolly, K. (1972). Patterns of play and social interaction in pre-school children. In N.G. Blurton Jones (Ed.), Ethological studies of child behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, P.K. & Lewis, K. (1985). Rough-and-tumble play, fighting, and chasing in nursery school children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Symons, D. (1978). Play and aggression: A study of rhesus monkeys. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together but mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary schools. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 167–184). Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter K. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology Goldsmiths CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations