(Schaffer, 1996 pp. 266-7)
These interactions and play between peers and siblings are fundamental for the development of key social skills. Smith et al. (1999) argued that interactions such as play fighting can demonstrate important social skills and that these skills and abilities are developed and practised. Communication skills are apparent in playful encounters where displaying and understanding one another’s signals and codes are expressed frequently; in play fighting laughter is used as a code to distinguish play from real fighting. Skills requiring physical and emotional controls are also important when involved in boisterous encounters which means play can continue between even unequally matched partners. The ability to understand perspective and another person’s point of view enables children to take turns and reverse roles which demonstrates greater co-operation in interactions. These skills acquired through play are not only important during childhood but also for a successful adult social life.
Smith also recognised the indistinctness of play fighting, that in the seemingly harmless interaction one child may purposely harm another to gain dominance and perhaps social status within the peer group. Pelligrini (2003) supports this notion through his study of ‘rough and tumble’ play. He highlighted two key points relating to the issue of dominance and aggression. He found that for adolescent males rough and tumble play is related to physical aggression and this may be used to establish peer status in the form of dominance; in contrast juveniles engaged in rough and tumble play are not found to be associated with aggression and dominance. The second key point noted is that for adolescent girls rough and tumble play with boys appears to be an early and relatively low risk form of heterosexual interaction, girls see the interaction as playful.
Blatchford and her colleagues (1990) conducted a longitudinal study in inner city primary schools of children’s playground experiences. The study showed that most children liked to socialise and play games at breaktime. It found that younger children tended to play chasing and ball games; and with the exception of football, older children preferred to talk with friends. This would suggest that as children mature they lose the incentive to play and youth culture develops with social life and friendships more independent of specific activities. There was also a sizable minority, mostly girls, who expressed their concerns of the bullying, fighting and teasing that took place in the playground. Blatchford concluded that for children of all ages there is a separate child break time culture to which adults are excluded and this is important for children as it allows them freedom from adults. This freedom does not go without dispute, racist and sexist teasing and fighting can occur. Without adults children learn how to regulate games and how to manage bullying and teasing developing a sophisticated set of skills in social understanding (Blatchford, 1994). Whitney and Smith (1993) argue that although playground experiences help shape new skills studies have shown that bullying and aggression are wide spread and a great cause for concern. It is important to recognise that while it is important for children to learn to manage difficult interpersonal skills independently, intervention from adults may be needed to teach children how to constructively handle conflict in order to prevent potential bullying and serious problems.
Conflicts and disputes are not necessarily negative experiences for a child’s development. They are inevitable in life and it is important for children to recognise the existence of conflicts of interest and the skills required to negotiate and respect each others point of view. The aspect of ‘conflict’ through ‘rough and tumble’ play enables children to understand peer culture, the cultural codes and emotional tone of voice set the boundaries of what is acceptable and the rules that regulate infringement about what is ‘fair’. Smith et al (1999) insinuate play fighting is not only normal but enjoyed as an intimacy within a relationship between peers. However, teasing can become highly provocative between children and intentional, unprovoked and repeated behaviour can be identified as bullying and dominate and can result in a negative experience. Smith acknowledges that there is not a sharp dividing line between play and conflict and that distinguishing a ‘positive’ from ‘negative’ conflict cannot be determined from simple observation of behaviours. The analytical criteria can be highly dependant on cultural ‘norms’ of the peer group in question and the customs and beliefs of the adult responsible for regulating the children’s behaviour. It is also difficult to differentiate as positive and negative experiences as they are subjective to the child. The fine line between play and real aggression is defined between the individual involved, their sub cultural groups and the wider cultural aspect in which the behaviour takes place.
Maccoby (1999) maintains that boys play frequently on the edge of aggression and notes the common assumption held that boys are quarrelsome and girls are co-operative. However, there is clear evidence of girls’ conflicts and disputes through their discourse which highlights the differing styles of disagreements and disputes. Sheldon (1992) supports this in his studies of discourse analysis in the disputes between boys and girls. He suggests that more commonly boys have a ‘single voice discourse’ they tend not to negotiate or make attempts of persuasion; they pursue their own objectives with no adaptation of behaviour in light of another point of view which consequently can cause conflict to develop. On the other hand girls more commonly have a ‘double voiced discourse’; whilst clearly pursuing their own objective there is evidence of negotiation with their partner and the other persons wishes are taken into account. Negotiation, managing differences of perspective, and competent aims and ideas are not only relevant in play but are also important for learning and intellectual development. Vass (2004) provides a discourse analysis for two girls working together on a story, it shows clear differences of opinion and orientation to be resolved in the formulation of the story between the girls. The discourse shows the negotiation, contemplation and modification; each part of the story is challenged and then immediately reflected upon, evaluated and then challenged again. Through this process it can be seen that knowledge and understanding are created jointly and this is crucial for children to learn effectively. It is important to distinguish between conflict and criticism which in this context are constructive whereas personal criticism and interpersonal conflict are not.
Whilst there has been a lot of discussion about conflict and aggression; interactions between children can be harmonious, joint interaction requires social awareness and a mutual understanding in order to co-ordinate moods and action successfully. Children are able to engage in joint play at an early age. The significance of complementary and reciprocal features can be seen in sibling interactions proving insight into the development of social competence in young children. Work by Dunn (1998) shows that older siblings guide their younger sibling with specific role play instruction and direction, this help them make appropriate and relevant contributions to the play and this instruction appears to be welcomed. Dunn also found that during a child’s third year their ability to contest and negotiate in pretend play with older siblings increased dramatically. Another observation was that joint play was more frequently observed where there was a friendly and affectionate relationship as opposed to less frequent interactions where the sibling relationship was not harmonious. Sameroff (1991) argues that children actively relate to their environment, and their environment, (which includes interactions with other people) also correlates with them. He calls this a ‘transactional model’ of development. The transactional model highlights the mutual effects that children’s interactions with others have on modifying each others behaviour, effecting their environment and subsequently effecting development. Chess and Thomas (1984) use the term ‘goodness of fit’ to describe the mutual effects of the transactional model, they state:
‘goodness-of-fit’ results when a child’s capacities, motivations and temperament are adequate to master the demands, expectations and opportunities of the environment’.
(Chess and Thomas, 1984 p.380)
This shows that the relationship between siblings and peer groups are not simply cause and effect; they are complex with multiple influences involved.
Pretend play can be broadly divided into two forms socio-dramatic play and thematic fantasy play. Fantasy play is creative and diverse and can take on themes such as lost and found or danger and rebirth, this allows children to develop their feelings, coping strategies and gain interpersonal skills that are needed in later life. Corsaro (1986) highlights the different discourse in socio-dramatic play than fantasy theme play. Socio-dramatic play reflects the routine exchanges between adults engaging in everyday activities, these enactments are repeated and are essentially identical each time developing the child’s understanding of everyday social events. Stone (1981) suggests that socio-dramatic play is an ‘anticipatory socialisation’ device preparing children for roles they may adapt in adult life. He reviewed gender studies which were available and found socio-dramatic play involving domestic themes were more characteristic or girls than boys in western societies with boys more commonly engaging in thematic play. Although, this is not true of all cultures, Stone found in Malawi boys also used socio-dramatic play to perform tribal court scenarios which will function to prepare them for adulthood.
The skills of co-operation and collaboration are not only seen in play but also can be observed in classroom or ‘work’ settings. As indicated by Vass (2004) it is hard to distinguish between playful and work related interactions. Children often add banter and combine play with work. Creative ideas can originally be presented as a joke and this can act as a positive interface helping children create ideas and dissolving and potential conflict from differences of opinion. Work by Vygotsky (1978) suggests that learning can be supported when there is a degree of inequality of skills and collaboration with more capable peers encourages development into a new level of competence.
The argument presented in this paper aims to provide an antithesis to attachment theory diverting the emphasis away from the focus of mother-child relations to that of the wider social context. It shows interactions between children are fundamental in the development of their social skills and understanding. It enables them to negotiate, resolve conflict and to see another person’s point of view. The ability to initiate, maintain and sustain friendships gives children vital skills in childhood but are also important for a successful adult social life. Children’s interactions can also support learning a significant developmental process. Through play children are able to experience situations and emotions that may present to them in adult life. These processes are fundamental to a child’s development and why interactions with peers and siblings are so influential.
References:
Blatchford, P., Creeser, R., and Mooney (1990) ‘Playground games and play time: the children’s view’, Educational Research, vol.32, pp. 163-74.
Blatchford, P. (1994) ‘Pupil perceptions of breaktime and implications for breaktime improvements: evidence from England’, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, New Orleans, April 1994.
Chess, S. and Thomas, A. (1984) Origins and Evolution of behaviour disorders, New York, Brunner Mazel.
Corsaro, W. (1986) ‘Discourse processes within peer culture: from a constructivist to an interpretative approach to childhood and socialisation’, Sociological Studies of Child Development, vol. 1, pp. 81-101.
Dunn, J. (1998) The Beginnings of Social Understanding, Oxford, Blackwell.
Dunn, J. (2004) Children’s Friendships: the beginnings of intimacy, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Harris, J. R. (1998) The Nurture Assumption: why children turn out the way they do, New York, Free Press.
Littleton, K. and Miell, M. (2009) ‘Children’s Interactions: Siblings and Peers, in Ding, S. and Littleton, K., in Children’s Personal and Social Development, Oxford/Milton Keynes, Blackwell Publishing/The Open University
Maccoby, E. (1999) The Two Sexes: growing up apart, coming together, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Pellergrini, A. D. (2003) ‘Perceptions and functions of play and real fighting in early adolescence’, Child Development, vol. 74, pp. 1522-33.
Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate: the modern denial of human nature, London, Allen Lane.
Sameroff, A. J. (1991) ‘The social context of development’, in Woodhead, M., Carr, R., and Light, P. (eds) Becoming a Person, pp. 61-81, London, Routledge.
Schaffer, H. R. (1996) Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Schaffer, H. R. (2003) Introducing Child Psychology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Sheldon, A. (1992) ‘Preschool girls’ discourse competence: managing conflict and negotiating power’, in Bucholtz, M., Hall, K. and Moonwomon, B. (eds) Locating power, Volume 2 of the Proceedings of the 1992 Berkeley Women and Language Conference, pp. 528-39, Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Smith, P. K., Bowers, L., Binney, V. and Cowie, H. (1999) ‘Relations of children involved in bully/victim problems at school’, in Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D., and Littleton, K. (eds) Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood, London, Routledge.
Stone, G. P. (1981) ‘The play of little children’, in Stone, G. P., and Famberman, H. A. (eds) Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, New York, NY, Wiley.
Vass, E. (2004, unpublished) ‘Understanding collaborative creativity: an observational study on the effects of the social and educational context on the processes of young children joint creative writing’, PhD thesis, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Whitney, I. and Smith, P. K. (1993) ‘A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools’, Educational Research, vol. 35, pp. 3-25.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
