Sex Roles

, Volume 30, Issue 3–4, pp 249–268

Serious and playful aggression in Brazilian girls and boys

  • Claudia Frey
  • Siegfried Hoppe-Graff
Article

Abstract

We report on an observational study on sex differences in serious and playful aggression in early childhood. The sample included 14 girls and 14 boys, aged 2 to 4. The study was carried out in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Half of the subjects attended a nursery school for children from a favela (slum district); the others attended a nursery school that was run by a local university and represented the life conditions of the middle class of the Brazilian society. Each of the children was observed at school for 3 hours (divided into 12–15 minutes episodes) through a focal sampling technique. Significant sex differences are found for the frequency of playful aggression for both the actor's and the “victim's” part of the aggressive act, but for the actor's role the effect holds only for the middle class setting. There are also tremendous differences between the frequencies of serious aggression in girls and some of the boys, although the effect is not statistically significant. When several types of aggression are compared, it becomes evident that sex differences are restricted to bullying (dominant aggression). The rates of instrumental and reactive aggression are similar in both sexes. Girls and boys from the favela setting do not differ in the relative importance of the different types of serious aggression, but in middle class children the proportion of acts of bullying is much higher in boys than in girls.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods.Behavior, 49 227–267.Google Scholar
  2. Boulton, M., & Smith, P. K. (1989). Issues in the study of children's rough-and-tumble play. In M. N. Bloch & A. D. Pellegrini (Eds.),The ecological context of children's play. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  3. Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41 687–699.Google Scholar
  4. Bretherton, I. (1989). Pretense: The form and function of make-believe play.Developmental Review, 9 383–401.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 37–46.Google Scholar
  6. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, R. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys' play groups.Child Development, 62 812–826.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In K. H. Rubin & D. J. Pepler (Eds.),The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Pettit, G. S., & Price, J. M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boys' groups: Developmental and contextual analyses.Child Development, 61 1289–1309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. DiPietro, J. A. (1981). Rough and tumble play: A function of gender.Developmental Psychology, 17 50–58.Google Scholar
  10. Fry, D. P. (1987). Differences between play fighting and serious fighting among Zapotec children.Ethology and Sociobiology, 8 285–306.Google Scholar
  11. Fry, D. P. (1988). Intercommunity differences in aggression among Zapotec children.Child Development, 59 1008–1019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fry, D. P. (1990). Play aggression among Zapotec children: Implications for the practice hypothesis.Aggressive Behavior, 16 321–340.Google Scholar
  13. Hoppe-Graff, S., & Frey, C. (1993).Ernsthafte und gespielte Aggressionen im Kindergarten [Serious and playful aggression in the nursery school]. Unpublished manuscript (submitted for publication), University of Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  14. Humphreys, A. P., & Smith, P. K. (1984). Rough-and-tumble play in preschool and playgrounds. In P. K. Smith (Ed.),Play in animals and humans. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis.Developmental Psychology, 20 722–736.Google Scholar
  16. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974).The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder.Child Development, 51 964–980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McCabe, A., & Lipscomb, T. J. (1988). Sex differences in children's verbal aggression.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34 389–401.Google Scholar
  19. Pellegrini, A. D. (1988). Elementary-school children's rough-and-tumble play and social competence.Developmental Psychology, 24 802–806.Google Scholar
  20. Piaget, J. (1962).Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton (Original publication 1945).Google Scholar
  21. Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),Handbook of child psychology. Vol. IV. Socialization, personality, and social development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Smith, P. K., & Boulton, M. (1990). Rough-and-tumble play, aggression and dominance: Perception and behaviour in children's encounters.Human Development, 33 271–282.Google Scholar
  24. Tieger, T. (1980). On the biological basis of sex differences in aggression.Child Development, 51 943–963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child.Soviet Psychology, 12 62–76.Google Scholar
  26. Waelder, R. (1933). The psychoanalytic theory of play.Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 2 208–224.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Frey
    • 1
  • Siegfried Hoppe-Graff
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychologisches InstitutUniversitaet HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations