Differences between playfighting and serious fighting among Zapotec children

Differences Between Playfighting and Serious Fighting Among Zapotec Children Douglas P. Fry Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, Department Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

of

Patterns of fighting and playfighting were observed among Zapotec-speaking children of Oaxaca, Mexico, as part of an ethological field study. Focal and incident sampling techniques were employed to record the behavior of 3-8 year olds. It was found that real fighting could be distinguished from playfighting on the basis of facial and vocal intention signals displayed by the children of this age group. These two classes of behavior differed in a number of ways, including rate of occurrence, mean duration of episodes, variability of constituent actions, frequency of wrestling and chase-flee behaviors, level of restraint, number of partners, and reactions of nonparticipating children. The findings are discussed in relation to information on fighting and playtighting from other studies of human children. Limited phylogenetic comparisons are also made. It is suggested that in studies of human children, play aggression should not be lumped together with real aggression, as is sometimes done, because these are motivationally distinct types of behavior.

Aggression; Playfighting; Rough-and-tumble play; Child ethology; Zapotec; Mexico.

KEY WORDS:

INTRODUCTION

S

tudies from the United Kingdom and the United States indicate that serious aggression can be distinguished from playfighting among young children (Aldis 1975; Blurton Jones 1967, 1972; Humphreys and Smith 1984; Smith and Lewis 1985). In both these countries, children participating in playfighting display certain facial and vocal signals such as smiles, play faces, and laughs, while children engaging in serious aggression display a different set of signals, notably fixated gazes and low frowns (Aldis 1975; Blurton Jones 1967; McGrew 1972; Smith and Lewis Received

July 7, 1986; revised

March

15, 1987.

Address reprint requests to: Douglas P. Fry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Bureau

of Applied

Research

in Anthropology,

286

D. P. Fry

1985). Although the distinction between play aggression and serious aggression might seem obvious, this is apparently not always the case. As Smith and Lewis (1985:175) point out, some social scientists simply “have failed to distinguish between aggressive and play fighting.” For example, the distinction is ignored in much of the literature on children’s aggression. Often play and aggression are considered together and all observed hits, pushes, kicks, and so on are counted uniformly as aggressive acts (cf Ginsburg 1980; Missakian 1980; Nucci and Nucci 1982; Reynolds and Guest 1975; Strayer and Strayer 1976, 1978; Smetana 1984). In many such studies, no consideration is given to the possibility that some of the hits, pushes, and kicks do not stem from aggressive intentions. Ignoring this issue can lead to confusion as to what types of behavior-aggressive, play, or both-are actually being measured and discussed. It is in this context, for example, that Weigel (1985, p. 35) cautions. “In neither the current nor previous studies is it unambiguously established that the behaviors labelled as ‘aggression’ were primarily aggressive rather than playfully motivated.” Does playfighting occur across human cultures? Can play and aggression be distinguished in children from non-Western cultures? Although data on this topic are scant, at least three studies on non-Western cultures mention the occurrence of play aggression as distinct from real aggression. In their six-cultures study, Whiting and Whiting (1975, p. 61) use the behavioral categories assault sociably, which they define simply as “ ‘horseplay,’ for example, friendly wrestling and back-slapping,” and assault, by which they mean “striking or slapping someone with stick or hand, or kicking them.” The Whitings report that both categories of behavior occurred in all six cultures, but they do not describe or compare these two types of behavior in any detail. Similarly, Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1974) provides examples of aggression among !Ko hunter-gatherer children, but he does not describe playfighting other than to state that it could be distinguished from real aggression by laughs and smiles. Additional information on playfighting and real aggression in these culture would greatly facilitate cross-cultural comparisons. Konner (1972) notes that patterns of rough-and-tumble play, as described by Blurton Jones (1967) for British children, also occur among Zhun/ twa hunter-gatherer children. This rough-and-tumble pattern includes laughing, chasing, fleeing, jumping, play-noise, and play-face. Konner (1972, p. 301) also reports what he terms gentle-and-tumble play, consisting of “mutual touching, tangling of legs, clinging and rolling while lying on the gentle-and-tumble play entails ground.” As opposed to rough-and-tumble, slow movements, prone positions, and a lack of laughter. Finally, during real aggression, young Zhan/twa children may hit each other or snatch away objects while they frown, grimice, or cry (Konner 1972, pp. 300-301). Although Konner (1972) provides more information than either Whiting and Whiting (1975) or Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1974) on how fighting and playfighting behaviors differ among young children from non-Western cultures, detailed analyses of exactly what constitutes playfighting and serious fighting-and

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

287

consequently how these patterns can be systematically distinguished-are lacking from the literature. Additional specific information from a variety of cultures would prove useful in assessing the variability and possible evolutionary significance of these behaviors in humans. One of the goals of the present study is to provide a detailed account of lighting and playfighting in young Zapotec children. In a recent review of the primate literature, Jolly (1985, p. 406) writes that “chasing and wrestling with peers is ubiquitous. Every species has rough-and-tumble. Two unequivocal play-markers almost always go with rough-and-tumble: the open-mouthed play face and a bobbing invitation gait.” In fact, several primatologists emphasize that the play face and other play markers convey the message that playfighting is not real aggression (Blafer Hrdy 1977; van Hooff 1976; Owens 1975; Sade 1973; Symons 1978). After reviewing the literature on playlighting in animals, Smith (1982, p. 140) concludes that real aggression and play aggression are structurally different in the species where sufficient evidence has been gathered on the subject. For example, play aggression and true aggression differ substantially in polecats (Mustela putorius L.), American black bears (Ursus americanus), eastern coyotes (Canis latrans), common marmosets (Callithrixjacthus jacchus), baboons (Papio anubis), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mufatta), and Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) (cf Bekoff and Byers 1981, 1985; Fagen 1981; Smith 1982). During playfighting, threats are absent or infrequent, the muscle tone is relaxed, movements are free and easy, biting is inhibited, play signals such as the play face and play vocalizations are evident, dominance relationships are absent or relaxed, roles frequently reverse, animals of different sizes are partners, and sequences of behavior vary (cf Aldis 1975; Bekoff and Byers 1981, 1985; Fagen 1978, 1981; Hill and Bekoff 1977; Pellis 1984; Smith 1982; Symons 1978). In the light of such contrasts, Bekoff (1981, p. 166) writes, “while the differences between playfighting and true aggressive behaviour have only been studied in a few mammals, detailed analysis indicate that the two behavioural patterns can be distinguished.” Based on such reports for mammalian species and the fact that various human ethologists have been able to differentiate serious fighting from playfighting in the young children they have observed, it was suspected at the start of the present study that fighting and playlighting would also be distinguishable among young Zapotec children of Oaxaca, Mexico. Again based on existing phylogenetic and limited cross-cultural data, it was predicted that Zapotec children would display play faces, laughs, and smiles as signals of playful intent, and it was suspected that certain agonistic signals (e.g., low frowns, fixated gazes) would indicate true agonistic intentions among Zapotec children. Finally, it seemed highly probable that some of the characteristics of playfighting noted among primates and other mammalian species would also be apparent as Zapotec children engaged in playlighting. In this article, patterns of fighting and playfighting among Zapotec chil-

288

D. P. Fry

dren are described and systematically contrasted. This treatment will contribute to the sparse literature on agonistic behavior patterns in children from non-Western cultures. The Zapotec data on playfighting and fighting are also discussed in relation to other studies of human children and certain mammalian species. This discussion will relate to the issue of cross-cultural universals in patterns of child agonism and will help to put human playfighting and fighting in a phylogenetic perspective. Finally, a case will be made against the a priori classitication of all rough physical contact behavior as aggression.

THE SETTING The Zapotec of the Valley of Oaxaca are peasant agriculturalists growing maize, beans, and squash as their principal subsistence crops (cf De la Fuente 1960; Nader 1969a). This study was conducted in two neighboring Valley Zapotec communities, San Andres and La Paz.’ In both places the primary language spoken is Zapotec. With a population of about 3000, San Andres is somewhat larger than La Paz, which has a population approaching 2000. The communities have been in existence in their present locations since at least the 1500s. Politically, they are semiautonomous units, reflecting to some degree what Wolf (1957) has termed closed corporate communities. In both places, citizens are elected to till positions (cargos) in a local civil/ religious hierarchy, as is common among Mexican peasant communities (cf Greenberg 1981; Vogt 1970).

Levels of Zapotec Aggression Overall, Zapotec culture emphasizes the importance of respect and cooperation in social relationships (cf Beals 1970; O’Nell 1979, 1981; Selby 1974). Maintaining equality among individuals also is considered a social virtue (Nader 1969b; O’Nell 1981). O’Nell (1981, p. 354), for instance, writes that “If the Zapotec as an individual or a group, continues to strive for anything, he strives to keep things in balance.” Such social values are incompatible with the overt expression of aggressive behavior. In most Zapotec communities, a series of formal controls (e.g., the local authority structure) and informal controls (e.g., gossip, the ethics of respect, cooperation, and equality) appear to work together to control aggressive behavior. Levels of expressed aggression vary markedly among indigenous communities in the state of Oaxaca. Greenberg (1981) reports on a Chatino community in south central Oaxaca that has a very high level of violence, and Romney and Romney (1966) discuss the nonaggressive life-style among the Mixtec citizens of a town in the western part of the state. Levels of violence ’ San Andres communities.

and La Paz are pseudonyms

used to protect the identities

of the two stud-,

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

289

also vary among the Zapotec communities neighboring San Andres and La Paz in the eastern part of the Valley of Oaxaca (Paddock 1975, p. 1982). The average homicide rate for 24 communities in this part of the Valley of Oaxaca is 36 per 100,000 persons per year (Paddock, personal communication).’ This is about one half the homicide rate for the state of Oaxaca overall, which is about 73 per 100,000 persons per year (Paddock 1978, p. 5), and very much lower than the rate in the Chatino community studied by Greenberg (1981), which recently had a homicide rate of 480 per 100,000. Both La Paz and San Andres fall below the mean for Zapotec communities in the vicinity, but San Andres has a somewhat higher rate of homicide (18.1 per 100,000) than does La Paz (3.4 per 100,000) (Paddock, personal communication). The expression and control of aggression in these two Zapotec communities are discussed further in Fry (1986a,b).

The Life of Children In both locations, primary schools staffed by teachers from outside the communities have been in operation for several decades. During the school year, most children between 5 and 11 years of age spend the mornings in class and most afternoons in their family compounds. Young children help their parents with small tasks such as hauling water or washing cooking utensils. However, children under 7 or 8 years old have very few responsibilities and are basically allowed to play or rest as they so desire. In both communities, the diet consists largely of tortillas and beans. Squash, wild greens, chiles, fruit, and eggs are also eaten less regularly. Meat is consumed on holidays, and occasionally small portions of meat form part of a Sunday dinner. Malina and Himes (1978) report a high rate of child mortality for one Valley Zapotec community, and child mortality would seem to be high in both San Andres and La Paz. Children in the two communities engage in many types of play. For instance, boys are likely to “plow” furrows in the ground with small sticks in imitation of their father’s work. A very popular game of young girls is the making of pretend tortillas. Several girls usually play this game together as they chat and switch tasks in much the same manner as women cooperatively making real tortillas. The number of realistic details that children employ in their play is impressive. In both communities, a variety of toys such as kites, yoyos, and tops pass in and out of fashion. Although not abundant, nearly every compound has a small collection of purchased toys such as plastic animals, trucks, and dolls. Young girls, as caretakers of their infant siblings, play with them in much the same way that girls in the United States play with dolls: they carry them about, clean their faces, rock them to sleep, and dress and undress * Paddock

(1982) reports

that all but

1 or 2 of these 24 communities

are ethnically

Zapotec.

290

D. P. Fry

them. Children in the 2-4-year old range often seem content just to sit and manipulate rocks, sticks, and dirt. Children in both locations engage in considerable locomotor activities. They climb on walls, household furnishings, trees, and boulders. Running is common, whereas skipping, hopping, jumping, running on all-fours, and the like occur regularly but less frequently than running. In San Andres, young children were observed “rain dancing,” wherein they skipped, jumped, turned, held hands, and laughed as the rain began to fall. The children of the communities also sing songs from time to time. One 6-year-old girl from La Paz repeatedly sang with obvious joy: “Machete, the machete, helps me to cut the firewood . . . My father is a farmer; my mother is a farmer; we are all farmers; together we struggle.” Young children seldomly engage in any type of organized sports. On rare occasions, children play catch with small rubber balls and even less frequently boys play a loosely structured type of soccer. Soccer balls are not generally available for their use. Thus Zapotec children engage in a variety of playful activities besides playfighting. As is discussed shortly, playfighting sometimes is mixed with other types of playful and locomotor activities.

METHODS Subjects and Sampling Ethological behavior observations were conducted on 3-f&year-old children in San Andres and La Paz using focal individual sampling and incident (event) sampling techniques (Altmann 1974). A total of 48 children were observed during focal sampling procedures (Table 1). No more than one focal child was selected from any given household. Incident sampling was conducted in each community on small groups of children. These groups consisted of all males (31.6%), all females (20.6%), and both sexes of children (47.7%). Group size during incident sampling ranged from two to nine chil-

Table 1.

Background

Information

on Focal and Incident Observations San Andres

Number of focal children Males Females Age of focal children (yr) Mean SD Range Number of focal observations Hours of focal observations Number of incident observations Hours of incident observations

La Paz

Total

Sample

24 11 13

24 13 I1

48 24 24

5.5 1.7 (3-8) 309 77.63 73 10.12

5.6 1.7 (3-W 279 72.42 82 10.97

5.6 1.7 (3-8) 588 150.05 155 21.09

Zapotec Fighting and Playtighting

291

dren with an average of just over three individuals. Overall, a total of 743 focal and incident observations were conducted in the course of 171 hours of behavioral sampling (Table 1).

Observation

Procedures

Fieldwork was conducted for 18 months between August 1981 and September 1983. Initially, children were observed in public places (e.g., streets and town squares) on an ad libitum basis in order to compile an ethogram of their behavior. Once rapport had been established in both communities and permission had been granted by the parents of focal children, focal sampling and incident sampling were begun. Several preobservation visits were made to most of the focal households so that by the time focal and incident observations were recorded, children were accustomed to the observer as someone who lived in their community and as a periodic visitor to their household. Most observations were conducted with the aid of Zapotec assistants who timed observations and wrote summaries of what the children were saying. Formal ethological observations were made between May and September in 1983, and children were observed on each day of the week over the course of the daylight hours. Most observations (84%) were conducted within familial compounds, although children were also observed in the streets, town squares, school yards, fields, and hills. The researcher alternated sampling between the two communities on a weekly to biweekly basis. The observer carried a lightweight tape recorder in a small backpack. At the beginning of each observation, background information (e.g., date, time, location, etc.) was entered onto the tape. McGrew’s (1972) approach regarding interaction with children was employed (i.e., the researcher neither encouraged nor remained rigidly opposed to interaction). Most focal and incident observations were recorded by narrating accounts of ongoing behavior onto tape using the behavioral elements defined in an ethogram of Zapotec children’s behavior (cf Fry 1986a). Additionally, a few observations were recorded in written form using a shorthand for behavioral elements. During observations, the researcher remained sufficiently close to the focal child (or group of children during incident sampling) to observe and record behavior, and yet not so close as to interfere with actions or unduly attract attention. The observer moved with the subject(s) as necessary in order to maintain continuous visual contact (cf Altmann 1974). When children were involved in any type of fighting or playtighting, the observer recorded the specifics of the episode, noting the actions and facial expressions. For example: “Focal girl beats brother of six as she smiles; brother backhand slaps the focal girl as he laughs.” Behavioral episodes were not classified as playfighting or real aggression at the time they were observed. Following transcription, episodes were coded on the basis of facial and vocal expressions as playful, aggressive, or undetermined. Undetermined episodes were those

292

D. P. Fry

in which the observer either could not see or else failed to note intention signals. Durations of playfighting and fighting episodes were timed from the tapes (Hutt and Hutt 1970). Analyses on both incident and focal data were performed on rates of occurrence of behavior per child per hour (cf Altmann 1974; Dunbar 1976). Twenty-five episodes were rated as either play or aggression by two observers independently. Interobserver reliability was 96%.

RESULTS Play Signals and Agonistic Signals Many facial and vocal expressions reported in other groups of human children were also observed among Zapotec children. Two distinct constellations of intention signals were apparent. On the one hand, play faces, laughs, smiles, and normal faces tended to co-occur in close temporal proximity during certain interactions entailing rough physical contact. On the other hand, low frowns, bared teeth, fixated gazes, face thrusts, crying/weeping, and pucker faces also tended to co-occur during rough physical contact behavior. Hardly ever did elements from one of these constellations appear in conjuction with elements from the other. Smiles did not mix with pucker faces, for instance, nor did laughs occur with face thrusting and fixated gazing. Occasionally, however, a child displaying play elements would be injured and then perhaps display some combination of agonistic elements. Generally though, a mixing of play and agonistic signals occurred in less than 2% of the episodes.

Rates and Durations On the basis of the facial and vocal expressions displayed by the participants, it was possible to classify the vast majority of behavioral episodes involving rough physical contact as either playful or aggressive. However, 16% of the episodes were classified as undetermined because information on intention signals was missing, usually due to the actor’s face being turned away from the observer. Undetermined episodes were dropped from further analysis. The rates of occurrence of playful and aggressive episodes are presented in Table 2. Play aggression occurred nearly nine times as often as true aggression. More than five occurrences of play aggression took place in a typical hour, whereas less than one aggressive episode occurred in the average hour. This is a very significant difference in rates (Table 2). Not only did playfighting episodes occur more frequently than episodes of serious fighting, but on the average playfighting lasted longer than true fighting. The average aggressive episode among these Zapotec children lasted about one quarter as long as the average playtighting episode. This is a very significant difference in durations (Table 2).

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

Table 2.

293

Rates and Durations of Serious Agonism and Playfighting Compared” Agonistic Episodes

Average rate (episodes per hour) Average duration (set)

0.6 4.1

Playtighting Episodes 5.3 15.9

Probability p < 0.0002 p = 0.0008

’ Probabilities are for two-tailed, matched pairs t tests run using the focal individual data set.

Table 3 lists further contrasts between playfighting and serious fighting observed among young Zapotec children. Each of these factors will be discussed in sequence.

Variability

of Content

Play agonism was more varied ihan true agonism in a number of ways. For instance, a greater repertoire of motor patterns were apparent during playfighting. Aldis (1975) discusses the variability of playfighting and makes a distinction between wrestling for superior position and fragmentary wrestling. Both types of playfighting were observed in Zapotec children. In the former, children attempted to get on top of, or “pin,” an opponent, and this type of playfighting included behavioral elements such as wrestle, physical contact, push, pull, and roll. Fragmentary wrestling on the other hand usually took place from a standing or sitting position and contained behavioral elements such as beat, punch, pull, push, slap, kick, knuckle rap, backhand slap, karate chop, push kick, and burro kick. The motor patterns observed during real aggression were less varied. Serious aggression predictably consisted of beats, punches, pushes, and kicks, whereas certain patterns observed during playfighting (e.g., karate chops, roundhouse kicks) were rare or absent. As noted, true aggressive episodes tended to be brief. Two typical examples of real aggression follow. A boy of 9 or 10 years

Table 3.

Some Differences Between Playfighting and Fighting Observed Among Zapotec Children

Playtighting 1. More variable in content; other types of behaviors may be interspersed 2. Chase-flee sometimes interspersed 3. Wrestle common 4. Roles reverse, especially during wrestle and chase-flee 5. Self-handicapping occurs 6. Blows delivered with restraint 7. Sometimes more than two children are involved 8. Does not draw a crowd of spectators if prolonged

Fighting 1. Less variable in content; other types of behaviors not interspersed 2. Chase-flee not interspersed 3. Wrestle very uncommon 4. No role reversals 5. Self-handicapping absent 6. Blows are less restrained 7. Rarely are more than two children involved 8. Draws a crowd of spectators if prolonged

294

D. P. Fry

momentarily put his arms around 4-year-old Rafael from behind. Once released, Rafael responded to being briefly constrained by intention kicking, and then kicking the older boy while low frowning. As the boy turned to face Rafael after receiving the kick from him, Rafael turned and ran away. Carmela, age 5, and several female companions were taking turns giving rides to each other in a wheelbarrow. The wheelbarrow suddenly toppled over, spilling two little girls onto the ground. Although Carmela had had nothing to do with upsetting the wheelbarrow, another girl of 8-9 years old told the adults at the opposite end of the yard that she had. Upon hearing this, Carmela open beat the girl twice as she low frowned and then ran to her mother. A variety of behaviors were interspersed with or incorporated into play agonism, but this was not the case for true agonism. For example, locomotor activities such as skipping, running, jumping, crouching, twirling, and running on all-fours were at times mixed with rough-and-tumble playfighting, but rarely if ever with true aggression. Object manipulation was also mixed with playfighting, but rarely with agonism. One 5-year-old boy tied his own feet together with a ribbon and participated in playfighting with other boys. He then sat down and untied the ribbon, tied it around his head, and then rejoined the playfighting. Playful children, but not agonistic children, sometimes clapped their hands and assumed somewhat unusual positions such as leaning their heads way back. Eating was another activity that was interspersed on occasion with play aggression. By contrast, true aggression was never seen to be interrupted for snacks or meals.

Chasing

and Fleeing

Another difference between Zapotec play agonism and serious agonism involved the frequencies and patterns of chasing and fleeing. Among the children of San Andres and La Paz, chasing and fleeing tended to precede, follow, or in some cases be intermixed with playtighting more often than with true fighting. During playful interactions, the fleeing child usually ran at half-speed, frequently looked over his shoulder at the chaser, and displayed play signals. Fleeing children also altered their direction suddenly (cf Blurton Jones 1967). By contrast, if a child ran from an agonistic encounter, he or she tended to run faster, straighter, and not look over his or her shoulder, at least initially. Play signals were not evident, and chances were that the fleeing child would not be pursued or pursued very far.

Wrestling Serious fighting and playfighting among Zapotec children also differed regarding rates of wrestling. At the end of many agonistic encounters (such as in the two accounts involving Rafael and Carmela), one interactant rapidly

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

295

left the vicinity of the other (cf McGrew 1969; Smith and Lewis 1984). In truly agonistic contexts, wrestling could prevent or inhibit escape and consequently increase the chance of injury to one or both participants. Therefore, the hypothesis that wrestling was primarily a behavior seen during playtighting was tested. A comparison of the rates with which children participated in play-wrestling as opposed to agonistic wrestling showed a significant difference in the predicted direction (p 5 0.005, t = 2.51, df = 154), demonstrating that in fact wrestling tended to occur more often during play.

Role Reversals

and Self-Handicapping

Role reversals and handicapping behaviors occurred during playful interactions but not during serious fighting. For example, partners sometimes took turns fleeing and then chasing. Or during wrestling bouts, one child pinned an opponent and then wds pinned in turn. Often, if the partners were of different ages and/or sizes, the older or larger child would handicap himself, allowing his partner to catch him during a play chase or to pin him during a play wrestle. Self-handicapping behavior was apparent as an 8-year-old focal girl played with a 3-4-year-old boy. The focal girl received a push from the boy as he displayed a normal face expression. Again he pushed her while showing a normal face. The girl twice his age then pushed and pulled him while smiling. The little boy ran at her and she fled. Smiling, she glanced over her right shoulder as she ran. She then laughed. The boy chased the focal girl, and he smiled as he pushed her again. The focal girl stepped back, and turned repeatedly, twirling around and around on her feet. Of note is the fact that the older girl could have easily outrun the little boy. Instead, she fled slowly enough to allow him to catch up and push her.

Restraint

During Playfighting

When engaging in playfighting, Zapotec children exercised restraint. Blows were delivered relatively softly or stopped before contact was actually made. In illustration, many children were quite skilled at halting a karate chop or a kick just a couple of centimeters from a moving opponent. On one occasion, five playtighting boys wrestled in a street, employing beats, karate chops, roundhouse kicks, and attempting to get their rivals in “headlocks.” A section of fieldnotes comments on the restraint used by the boys during playfighting: “the interaction was generally between pairs. Partners switched often. There were various ‘time outs’ where the boys rested between wrestling/fighting bouts. . . . Many kicks and karate chops, punches, etc. were only threatened, or if carried out, they stopped short of physical contact. Also, in wrestling, once a boy was down, the wrestling ceased until he got up and continued to interact. The downed individual was seldom kicked, punched, or otherwise ‘aggressed’ against as might be done in a real fight.”

296

D. P. Fry

Blows delivered during true lighting appeared to land with greater force. This was judged to be the case based on the velocity of the striking limb, sounds of contact, and the reaction of the recipient (e.g., falling, stepping backward to regain balance, and/or crying and weeping). Occasionally, an agonistic blow missed its mark due to miscalculation or an evasive movement on the part of the intended recipient, but the type of intentional last-second restraint seen during play- wherein blows were stopped short of contactwas not witnessed during serious agonism. Lack of restraint was apparent as a 6-year-old boy and a 7-year-old boy began a real light near the school. The 6-year-old managed to get on top of the prone 7-year-old and repeatedly punched and beat him. The blows were forceful. A crowd of other boys gathered around to watch the light. The principal of the school came running, and the winning 6-year-old ran away as the principal arrived. The losing boy cried.

Number

of Partners

Rough-and-tumble playfighting occurred in relaxed, nonthreatening contexts. By contrast, agonism by its very nature created, or augmented, a threatening, hostile atmosphere. It was hypothesized that playfighting episodes would include multiple participants more often than would truly agonistic occurrences, because additional children would be more inclined to participate in playful activities than in serious, possibly pain-inducing activities. In general, most playfighting and most aggressive episodes were dyadic. The rate of occurrence of playtighting episodes with more than two participants was compared with the rate of occurrence of true agonism with more than two participants using a matched-pairs t test on the focal individual data. Episodes of playfighting were found to have several participants significantly more often than did serious episodes (p = 0.036, t = 1.85, df 47). The following account illustrates playtighting involving multiple partners. Five-year-old Tomas joined his wrestling brothers. He jumped in the sand, laughed, and then smiled. As he turned to get up, his older brother, Eloy, pushed him downward on his head. Tomas fell down and then stood up once again. This time another brother, Jesus, pushed Tomas down and he fell forward, laughing. Tomas lay on the ground. His brother Eloy fell over him while laughing, pinning him, and Tomas laughed as well. Eloy laughed again and Jesus laughed with them. Jesus pushed Eloy. Tomas stood up and received a push from Jesus. Tomas started to stand up again, and again his brother Jesus pushed him, while smiling. Tomas fell down, laughing.

Onlookers A final difference ment. Playftghting

between play agonism and real agonism deserves was never observed to draw a crowd of onlookers,

comeven

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

297

if the playlighting lasted for several minutes. At times a nonparticipating child or two watched others wrestle and perhaps joined the rough-and-tumble play later. However, a crowd of children was never observed to gather around the playfighters. By contrast, if true aggression lasted more than several seconds or was particularly severe, other children in the vicinity of the disputants flocked to watch what was happening. An example of this phenomenon was mentioned earlier in the description of a 6-year-old fighting with a 7-year-old.

DISCUSSION Play Signals and the Normal Face “Play-signals appear in all sensory modalities used by mammals. The relaxed, open-mouth grin or play-face is near-universal.” (Fagen 1981, p. 414). The present study and others indicate that in addition to using play faces, human children communicate playful intentions through laughs and smiles (Aldis 1975; Blurton Jones 1967, 1972; Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1974; Humphreys and Smith 1984; Konner 1972; McGrew 1972). Smith (1982, p. 140) points out that in some species, “play signals are not always present in what, by other structural criteria, are sequences of social play. . .” [italics in original]. Pertaining to rhesus monkeys, Symons (1978, p. 98) writes, “the absence of agonistic signals-indeed, the absence of a ‘bone of contention’-may be at least as important as the presence of play signals in identifying the activity.” The absence of agonistic signals during playfighting has been noted for various species (cf Bekoff and Byers 1981; Hole and Einon 1984; Pellis 1984; Symons 1978, p. 110). Among young Zapotec children, the normal face expression (i.e., the lack of both explicit play signals and explicit agonistic signals) may also convey a message of nonserious intent during rough contact behavior. At times, normal face expressions were interspersed between play faces, laughs, and smiles during playful exchanges. On other occasions-especially if the contact behavior was brief-children displayed the normal face expression in the absence of other play signals. However, normal face expressions tended not to be interspersed with or occur in repeated temporal association with clearly agonistic signals such as low frown, gaze fixate, pucker face, and so on. Based on these observations, it seems appropriate to view the normal face expression as an indicator of nonserious intent when it is displayed during rough physical contact behaviors. Some additional behaviors also seemed to indicate playful motivation or mood. In agreement with the findings of Blurton Jones (1967), jumping occurred during play aggression but rarely if ever during agonistic interactions. On the other hand, many playfighting episodes among Zapotec children did not include jumping. High-pitched shrieks or squeals of excitement

298

D. P. Fry

also sometimes accompanied playfighting, as did high-pitched “happy sounding” vocalizations and verbalizations (cf Humphreys and Smith 1984; Smith 1974).

Agonistic

Signals

The most commonly witnessed agonistic signals among young Zapotec children included low frowns, bared teeth, fixated gazes, face thrusts, as well as cry/weep and pucker face. Fists, closed mouth (with lips pressed together), and leaning forward were also noted during agonism from time to time. In agreement with researchers such as Blur-ton Jones (1967, 1972), Camras (1980), and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1974), low frowns and gaze fixating were very frequently observed signals. Nose wrinkling by itself was not associated with agonism, but it was often a component of pucker face and sometimes occurred with bared teeth and low frowns (cf Camras 1980; McGrew 1972).

Mixed Signals? It would appear that in mammals generally, and in young human children specifically, a play mood is antithetical to an agonistic mood (cf Darwin 1872). Among Zapotec 3-8 year olds, the two classes of signals very rarely intergraded. And rarely was a playful act misinterpreted as an aggressive act. This indicates that the Zapotec children were generally adept at assessing the playful intent of others. It is significant that in the rare instances (less than 2%) when the playful act of one child was responded to with aggressive threatening or aggressive action by the recipient, the recipient was likely to have been facing away from the actor and thus did not see the actor’s play signals. For example, in one case, the recipient of a backhand slap and then a hug from behind (apparently as an invitation to wrestle) responded by clenching fists and low frowning, seemingly unaware of the playful context of the attack. Humphreys and Smith (1984, p. 251) point out, “Several studies have found that play and serious fighting can be clearly distinguished in young children. In older children, however, it has been suggested that these two types of behaviour are less easily separated.” Here the evidence is limited. Neill’s (1976) study of 12-13-year-old British boys suggests that there may be greater overlap of play and aggressive elements in this age group than in younger children. During the course of this Zapotec field project, several ad libitum observations of Zapotec teenagers also indicate that the clear distinction between play and aggression apparent among 3-S-year-old Zapotec children may blur somewhat for Zapotec 12-16 year olds. At times, horseplay among teenagers appeared on the basis of facial expressions to become somewhat serious, but then shifted back to obvious play once again. Along similar lines, Neil1 (1976, pp. 218-219) discusses the greater “intermingling of hostility and rough-and-tumble in the older boys. . . . [During a

Zapotec Fighting and Playtighting

299

rough-and-tumble fight] . . . once the weaker boy has registered distress the bond can be maintained by the fight taking a more playful form, but if he does not do so at the start of the fight, the stronger boy may increase the intensity of the fight until he does.” On the other hand, Humphreys and Smith (1976, p. 255) propose “although rough-and-tumble becomes rougher with age, it is still fundamentally distinct from fighting.” It is important to keep in mind that studies focusing on fighting and playfighting among children over 8 years of age are practically nonexistent. Further data will help to clarify the extent to which patterns of fighting and playfighting change with age in human children and adolescents.

Rates and Durations Among 3-&year-old Zapotec children, playfighting occurred more often and on the average lasted longer than serious fighting. This finding concurs with data presented by Smith and Lewis (1985) for 3-4-year-old British children. Although the Zapotec children playfought about nine times as often as they fought agonistically, the young British children playfought almost five times as often as they engaged in agonism (calculated from data in Smith and Lewis 1985:176). Humphreys and Smith (1984) report that for 7-, 9-, and ll-yearold children at a single British school, rough-and-tumble playfighting occupied about 10% of the children’s playground time, whereas serious fighting was very rare (three instances). Findings of Neil1 (1976) also show playfighting to occur more commonly than serious agonism. This also seems to be the case among some animal species, as in anubis baboons (cf Owens 1975, p. 758; Smith 1982, p. 140; but cf Hill and Bekoff 1977 for a possible exception in eastern coyotes). These findings suggest that playfighting is more enjoyable or rewarding than serious fighting. The evolutionary function or functions of playfighting in human children remains unclear, although this topic recently has been the subject of much discussion and debate (cf Humphreys and Smith 1984; Smith 1982 and commentaries; Symons 1978).

Qualitative

Differences

between Play and Agonism

Zapotec playfighting was more variable and qualitatively different from true fighting in a number of ways. During play aggression, Zapotec children chased and fled, wrestled, reversed roles, self-handicapped themselves, and exercised restraint. Such behaviors did not generally occur during real agonism. To a remarkable degree, such contrasts between play and serious aggression have been noted in other mammalian species. For instance, Bekoff and Byers (1981, p. 308) write, “a number of characteristics such as the presence or absence of specific signals or motor acts, changes in the acts themselves (duration, frequency, rate, form), differences in sequential coupling of individual acts, and changes in interaction patterns (e.g., contact

300

D. P. Fry

time, chase-flee relationships, role reversals) may be observed and contrasted.” The greater degree of variability during play than during true agonism has been noted for rats (Rattus norvegicus) (Fagen 1978, p. 395), eastern coyotes (Bekoff and Byers 1981), American black bears (Henry and Herrero 1974), and rhesus monkeys (Symons 1978), among other species (Smith 1982). Instances of chasing and fleeing interspersed with playfighting episodes have been observed in rats, black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), several species of marmots (Marmota marmota, M. Olympus, M. caligata, M. flaviventris) (Hole and Einon 1984), polecats (Poole 1978), eastern coyotes (Hill and Bekoff 1977), various nonhuman primates (Bekoff and Byers 1981), and certain groups of human children (Aldis 1975; Fagen 1981, p. 116). Regarding wrestling behavior, Owens (1975) reports that baboons engage in this activity significantly more often during play than during serious agonistic interactions. Hole and Einon (1984) discuss how the rough-andtumble wrestling of young rats differs from patterns of serious aggression in adult rats in which wrestling is very infrequent. Role reversals during playful interaction have been reported for some rodents (Hole and Einon 1984), polecats (Poole 1966, 1967, cited in Bekoff and Byers 1981), eastern coyotes (Hill and Bekoff 1977), rhesus monkeys (Symons 1978), baboons (Owens 1975), and human children (Aldis 1975; Fagen 1981). Self-handicapping behaviors have been noted in rats, prairie dogs, Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilis columbianus), several social marmot species (Hole and Einon 1984), polecats (Bekoff and Byers 1981), rhesus monkeys (Symons 1978), lions (Panthea lea), meerkats (Suricata suricatta), and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) (Fagen 1981, p. 396), as well as in other mammalian species including young humans (cf Aldis 1975; Fagen 1981, p. 116). Zapotec 3-8 year olds exercised more restraint during playfighting than during serious aggression. Likewise, Fagen (1981, p. 395) notes that “playing animals seldom if ever use damaging tactics.” Nips that do not break the skin are delivered instead of true bites; claws remain retracted and horns are not used forcefully. Inhibited biting has been described for various mammals (Bekoff and Byers 1981; Fagen 1981; Henry and Herrero 1974; Hole and Einon 1984; Pellis 1984; Poole 1978; Symons 1978). Humphreys and Smith (1984, p. 249) also comment on the restraint employed during playfighting by British preadolescent children; “boxing, kung-fu type, and spythriller type fighting all occurred in which blows rarely connected but lavish sound effects were added” [italics added]. Sluckin (1981) also notes that British school children employed restraint during playfighting. For instance, he describes the use of the special word “mercy” that one opponent could employ to stop a play-attack. However, saying “mercy” did not stop real fights. Overall, the patterns of fighting and playtighting show considerable sim-

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

301

ilarities across species. These patterns were quite similar among Zapotec children and the limited number of other human groups and nonhuman mammalian species where information on such behaviors is available. The patterns observed among Zapotec children certainly did not contradict the generalization phrased by Aldis (1975, p. 276) that “human play-fighting, like animal play-fighting, occurs at comparatively low intensities; it is relaxed; it is accompanied by play signals; a stronger partner will often handicap himself in various ways; role reversal is common; and children remain on Humphreys and Smith (1984, p. 241) friendly terms after play-fighting.” propose that the prevalence of playfighting across species “suggests some functional value, but precisely what remains unresolved (Smith 1982).” One difference between human fighting and playfighting and fighting and playfighting in many other mammalian species is the very low frequency in humans of both playbiting and real biting (cf Aldis 1975; Symons 1978). The similarities in patterns of playfighting among American, British, Zapotec, and Zhun/twa children tentatively suggest that at least some components of this play pattern may be universal in humans. For instance, it seems likely that human children everywhere display and learn to recognize the play face as a signal of nonserious intent and engage in rough-and-tumble wrestling and chase-flee behavior. Almost certainly, cultural and ecological factors impose some variation on a central theme. Further data on patterns of fighting and playfighting in children from various cultures will contribute to an understanding of the extent of intercultural variability and also, perhaps, of the evolutionary significance of playfighting in humans.

Partners Zapotec children were significantly more likely to playfight with more than one partner than to fight with multiple partners, and Smith and Lewis (1985) also found this to be the case for British preschool children. Agonistic confrontations were almost exclusively dyadic among young Zapotec children, while multiple partners sometimes took part in the “fun” activities of roughand-tumble playfighting. The findings of this study reinforce Smith and Lewis’s (1985, p. 180) suggestion that rough-and-tumble playfighting “is an enjoyable activity that children tend to carry out with friends,” while agonism is neither enjoyable nor friendly.

Onlookers Severe or prolonged agonism in Zapotec children attracted a crowd of onlookers. Regarding high-intensity agonistic fighting among 12-13-year-old British boys, Neil1 (1976, p. 218) notes that such infrequent “fights usually attract the attention of all the boys in the playground and intervention by staff.” Humphreys and Smith (1984) and Sluckin (1981, pp. 38, 56) also report that serious fights drew crowds of spectators. This phenomenon in-

302

D. P. Fry

dicates that serious agonism is readily differentiated from playful interaction by both British and Zapotec children. It seems quite probable that children flocking to observe a real tight are noting some of the behavioral differences between play agonism and true agonism discussed here (for further discussion, cf Sluckin 1981; Smith and Lewis 1985).

CONCLUSIONS Often in studies of children’s behavior, all occurrences of particular rough physical contact behaviors are counted as aggression. For example, Ginsburg (1980) defines aggression in terms of hitting, jumping upon, pushing, pulling, and kicking. Similarly, Reynolds and Guest (1975) code all acts such as hit, kick, wrestle, slap, bump into, and pinch as aggressive. In both these studies, and many others (e.g., Missakian 1980: Nucci and Nucci 1982; Strayer and Strayer 1976, 1978), it seems likely that a certain percentage of such actions are actually instances of play aggression rather than serious aggression. Weigel (1985) independently suggests this possibility. And one line of indirect evidence supporting this contention is derived from the findings that Zapotec 3-g-year-old children and British nursery-age children (Smith and Lewis 1985) engage in much more play aggression than serious aggression. Rarely do authors such as Ginsburg (1980) or Reynolds and Guest (1975) discuss the possibility that some of the physical acts they classify as aggression might more reasonably be classified as play. McGrew (1969) comments on how quasi-agonistic behavior superficially appears similar to real aggression. “Because of the overlap of some constituent elements, observers often have difficulty in differentiating the two when watching children” (McGrew 1969, p. 149). And Blurton Jones (1967, p. 358) notes that most “rough-and-tumble play consists of behaviour which on the surface looks very hostile: violent pursuit, assault and fast evasive retreat” [italics added]. Thus it is not surprising that many researchers have combined certain playful activities with truly aggressive behavior under the same behavioral category, namely, aggression. The data presented here indicate that playtighting and serious fighting can be distinguished as separate classes of behavior in young human children, and that there is a strong phylogenetic precedent for making such a distinction. The findings of this study illustrate some of the many differences between these two behavioral systems and furthermore indicate that these differences are not limited to members of British and American culture. The extent of the differences relative to the similarities, coupled with the fact that these two behavioral systems only rarely intergrade into each other, suggests that they represent motivationally distinct behavioral patterns and should not be lumped together on the basis of superficial similarities such as the observation that beats, kicks, pushes, and so on occur during both types of behavior.

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

303

Identical motor patterns can stem from different underlying motivations. A child may beat in anger or in play. A beat is a beat, but the intentions of the actor vary, as do the meanings of the beat to the recipient. Camras (1980) and Jolly (1985) have emphasized the importance of context in understanding the meanings of an action. A major set of contextual markers both in many mammalian species and in young human children involves facial and vocal expressions and to a lesser degree gestures and postures. Such behavioral markers enable researchers to distinguish beats delivered with aggressive intent from identical or nearly identical beats delivered with playful intentions. Usually, facial and vocal (and sometimes gestural and postural) signals can be used to classify a given act or episode between children as true agonism or play agonism, because distinct constellations of signals provide reliable indicators of the underlying motivations of the actors (cf Hinde 1982). Agonistic signals convey a message that the actor is seriously competitive and/or enraged and may attempt to inflict harm; by contrast, play signals carry a message that the actor’s intentions are friendly and not harmful. However, when play and aggression are included under the same behavioral heading, as is frequently done, Aldis’s (1975, p. 8) warnthat are too broad or too crude, can be mising applies: “classifications leading or meaningless. . . .” Thus it is recommended that researchers interested in the behavior of young children distinguish between play and serious aggression.

I wish to thank Drs. Paul Jamison, Robert Meier, Emilio Moran, and Craig Nelson for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. I am also grateful to Kathy Fry for helping to improve the readability of the paper and for assisting with the reliability check. Helpful comments by editors Nick Blurton Jones and Michael McGuire and two referees are also gratefully acknowledged. Of course, any remaining deficiencies are my responsibility. The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the Indiana University Anthropology Department provided financial assistance for conducting this research, and I am most grateful to these institutions for their help. Additionally, this material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant 81-17478. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES Aldis, 0. Play Fighting. New York: Academic, 1975. Altmann, J. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227-267, 1974. Beals, R. Gifting, reciprocity, savings, and credit in peasant Oaxaca. Southwesrern Journnl of Anrhropology

26: 231-241,

1970.

Bekoff, M. The communication of play intention: are play signals functional. Semiotica 15: 231-239, 1975. Development of agonistic behaviour: ethological and ecological aspects. In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Aggression Research, P. F. Brain and D. Benton (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland, 1981, pp. 166-177. -, and Byers, J. A critical reanalysis of the ontogeny and phylogeny of mammalian social

304

D. P. Fry

play: An ethological hornet’s nest. In Behavioral Development: The Project, K. Immelmann et al. (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 296-337. --, and Byers, J. The development of behavior from evolutionary and ecological perspectives in mammals and birds. In Evolutionary Biology, Volume 19, M. Hecht et al. (Eds.). New York: Plenum, 1985, pp. 215-286. Blaffer Hrdy, S. The Langurs of Abu. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Blurton Jones, N. An ethological study of some aspects of social behaviour of children in nursery school. In Primate Ethology, D. Morris (Ed.). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967, pp. 347-368. -Categories of child-child interaction. In Ethologicnl Studies of ChildBehaviour, N. Blurton Jones (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 97-127. Camras, L. Animal threat displays and children’s facial expressions: a comparison. In Dominance Relations: An Etho/ogical View of Human Conflict and Social Interaction, D. Omark et al. (Eds.). New York: Garland STPM Press, 1980, pp. 121-136. Darwin, C. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animnls. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1872 (1965 edition). De la Fuente, J. La cultura Zapoteca. Rev&a Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos 16: 233and locomotor

BielefeldInterdisciplinary

246, 1960.

Dunbar, R. Some aspects of research design and their implications in the observational study of behavior. Behaviour 58: 78-98, 1976. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. The myth of the aggression-free hunter and gatherer society. In Primate Aggression, Territorinhty, andXenophobia, R. Holloway (Ed.). New York: Academic, 1974, pp, 435-457. Fagen, R. Evolutionary biological models of animal play behavior. In The Development of Behavior: Comparative and Evolutionmy Aspects, G. Burghardt and M. Bekoff (Eds.). New York: Garland STPM Press, 1978, pp.- 385-404. Animal Play Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Fry, D. An Ethological Study of Aggression and Aggression Socialization among Zapotec Chi/dren of Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1986a. Contrasting patterns of childrearing: The socialization of aggression and prosocial behaviors in two Zapotec communities. Manuscript 1986b. Ginsburg, H. Playground as laboratory: Naturalistic studies of appeasement, altruism, and the omega child. In Dominance Relations: An Ethological View of Human Conjlict and SocialInteraction. D. Omark, F. Strayer, and D. Freedman (Ed?..). New York: Garland STPM Press, 1980, pp. 341-357. Greenberg, J. Santiago’s Sword. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981. Henry, J., and Herrero, S. Social play in the American black bear: Its similarity to canid social play and an examination of its identifying characteristics. American Zoologist 14: 371389, 1974.

Hill, H., and Bekoff, M. The variability of some motor components of social play and agonistic behaviour in infant eastern coyotes, Canis latrans var. Animal Behaviour 25: 907-909, 1977.

Hinde, R. Ethology: Its Nature and Relations with Other Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Hole, G., and Einon, D. Play in rodents. In Play in Animals and Humans, P. K. Smith (Ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984, pp. 95-I 17. Hooff, J. van A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution, J. Bruner et al. (Eds.). New York: Basic Books, 1976, pp. 130-139. Humphreys, A.P., and Smith, P.K. Rough-and-tumble in preschool and playground. In Play in Animals and Humans, P. K. Smith (Ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984, pp. 241266. Hutt, S., and Hutt, C. Direct Observation and Measurement of Behavior. Springtield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1970. Jolly, A. The Evolution of Primate Behavior, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1985. Konner, M.J. Aspects of the developmental ethology of a foraging people. In Ethological Stud-

Zapotec Fighting and Playfighting

305

ies of Child Behaviour,

N. Blurton Jones (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 285-304. Malina, R., and Himes, J. Patterns of childhood mortality and growth status in a rural Zapotec community. Annals of Human Biology 5: 517-531, 1978. McGrew, W.C. An ethological study of agonistic behavior in preschool children. In Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Primatology, C. R. Carpenter (Ed.). Basel: Karger, 1969, vol. I, pp. 149-159. An Ethological Study of Children’s Behavior. New York: Academic, 1972. Missakian, E. Gender differences in agonistic behavior and dominance relations of Synanon communally reared children. In Dominance Relations: An Ethological View of Human ConfZict and Social Interaction, D. Gmark, F. Strayer, and D. Freedman (Eds.). New York: Garland STPM Press, 1980, pp. 397-413. Nader, L. The Zapotec of Oaxaca. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, R. Wauchope (Ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, vol. 7, 1969a, pp. 329-359. Styles of court procedure: To make the balance. In Law and Culture in Society, L. Nader (Ed.). Chicago: Aldine, 1969b, pp. 69-91. Neill, S. Aggressive and non-aggressive fighting in twelve-to-thirteen year old pre-adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 213-220, 1976. Nucci, L., and Nucci, M. Children’s social interactions in the context of moral and conventional transgressions. Child Development 53: 403-412, 1982. O’Nell, C. Nonviolence and personality dispositions among the Zapotec. Journal of Psychological Anthropology -

2: 301-322,

1979.

Hostility management and the control of aggression in a Zapotec community. Aggressive

Behavior 7: 351-366, 1981. N. A comparison of aggressive play and aggression in free-living baboons, Pupio anubis. Animal Behaviour 23: 757-765, 1975. Paddock, J. Studies on antiviolent and “normal” communities. Aggressive Behavior 1: 217-

Owens,

233, 1975. The face of human nature. Paper presented at the meetings of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Washington D.C., 1978. Antiviolence in Oaxaca, Mexico: Archive research. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Society for Ethnohistory, Nashville, TN, 1982. Pellis, S. Two aspects of play-fighting in a captive group of oriental small-clawed otters Am-

-

blonyx cinerea.

Zeitschrtft fur Tierpsychologie

65: 77-83,

1984.

Poole, T. An analysis of social play in polecats (Mustelidae) with comments on the form and evolutionary history of the open mouth play face. Animal Behaviour 26: 36-49, 1978. Reynolds, V., and Guest, A. An ethological study of 6-7 year old school children. Biology and Human Affairs 41: 16-29, 1975. Romney, A., and Romney, R. The Mixtecans ofJuxtlahuaca, Mexico. New York: Wiley, 1966. Sade, D. An ethogram for rhesus monkeys, 1: Antithetical contrasts in posture and movement. American

Journal

of Physical Anthropology

38: 537-542,

1973.

Selby. H. Zapotec Deviance. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1974. Sluckin, A. Growing Up in the Playground: The Social Development of Children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. Smetana, J. Toddler’s social interactions regarding moral and conventional transgressions. Child Development‘55:

1767-1776,

1984.

Smith, P.K. Does play matter? functional and evolutionary aspects of animal and human play. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 139-158, 1982. -, and Lewis, K. Rough-and-tumble play, fighting, and chasing in nursery school children. Ethology

and Sociobiology

6: 175-181,

1985.

Strayer, F., and Strayer, J. An ethological analysis of social agonism and dominance relations among preschool children. Child Development 47: 980-989, 1976. Strayer, J., and Strayer, F. Social aggression and power relations among preschool children. Symons,

Aggressive Behavior 4: 175-182, 1978. D. Play and Aggression: A Study of Rhesus Monkeys.

New York:

Columbia Uni-

versity Press, 1978. Vogt, E. The Zinacantecos ofMexico:A and Winston, 1970.

Modern Maya Way ofLife.

New York: Holt, Rinehart,

q

306

D. P. Fry

Weigel, R.M. Demographic factors affecting assertive and defensive behavior in preschool children: an ethological study. Aggressive Behavior 11: 27-40, 1985. Whiting, B., and Whiting, J. Children of Six Cultures:A Psycho-Cultural Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Wolf, E. Closed corporate peasant communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java. Southwesrern Journal ofAnthropology 13: 1-18, 1957.