Aggression, friendship and reconciliation of children of primary school age

1. Introduction

Conflict and aggression are integral parts of equal relations, however, social success is determined not only by winning fights and controlling equal rights. Aggressive children face difficulties in solving social problems, while socially successful children are skilled social manipulators who easily make peace with a former adversary and intervene in conflicts between other members of the group, thus maintaining social balance. They are able to use a combination of coercive and cooperative strategies. Therefore, it is essential for children to master the skill of restoring social ties and the ability to cope with conflict situations. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that children are able to cope with conflict situations and make peace in a couple at the age of 6-7 years without the help of adults. The following hypotheses were tested in this study:

— reconciliation is used by children;

— aggressors initiate reconciliation more often than victims;

— close friends make up more often than other members of the group (who are not friends);

— the quality of the relationship affects the reconciliation of boys and girls in different ways.

2. Materials and methods.

For the study, a group of 6-7 year old primary school children was selected, consisting of 20 children (11 boys and 9 girls) in the city of Elista, the capital of Kalmykia. Experimental observations were completed in April-May 1996. Ethological methods of experimental observation were used, data collection took place in two ways, using video filming and direct observation. All information was collected during voluntary gaming sessions, which were held five days a week for an hour and a half daily. The focal individual technique was used. Methods for the study of post-conflict behavior were largely those developed in the study of reconciliation in humanoid primates. We conducted 3-minute post-conflict behavior (PC) observation sessions immediately after the interaction that included aggressive behavior, and mutually controlled behavior (MC) observation sessions of the same children, which were recorded the next day at the same time. This article analyzed only mutual aggression, which included punching and kicking, insulting, pushing, throwing objects to hurt the child with whom there is a quarrel, and fighting (excluding gu.e.st). Whereas bonding activities include friendly expressions (apologies, reconciliation poems, invitations to play), offers to share (offering toys, candy, etc.), establishing proximity, kissing, hugging, touching, shaking hands with a past adversary, sharing game and joint laughter and smiles. To check whether reconciliation is used, we used two methods simultaneously: the conjugate pair method and the time fixation method. Two criteria were involved. One of the most widely used criteria so far is the V — full reconciliation criterion (also known as the amended reconciliation criterion). Another criterion introduced by us is the criterion of relative reconciliation — R. After the ethological data were collected, the subjects were interviewed to assess their attitudes towards conflicts and ways to restore relations with former opponents. Each child was asked to answer several questions (see Table 3). In addition to observing the group, we also interviewed children of the same age belonging to a different group attending the same school. A total of 34 children (19 boys and 15 girls) were interviewed.

3. Results

3.1. Post-conflict interaction: conjugated pair method and time fixation method.

There were 151 PC-MC pairs in the Kalmyk group, 116 friendly pairs, 11 scattered and 24 neutral pairs. Differences between members of attractive and disparate couples were extremely significant (c² = 85.2, df = 1, p

Table number 1. The number of attractive (a), separated (d) and neutral couples (n) as an indicator of friendly contacts among Kalmyk children

Nfc is the number of friendly contacts in dyads during the main observation (excluding RS-MS data); T is the total number of MS-MS cases observed in dyads with different numbers of friendly contacts; Tot is the total number of attractive, disconnected and neutral couples observed during the study; V — criterion of absolute reconciliation; R is a criterion of relative reconciliation.

The time fixation method was used to estimate the time of the first friendly contacts in the periods of MS and MS. The interval between the end of the conflict and the beginning of the RS was 4 seconds. Both RS and MS were subdivided into 30-second intervals.

Table number 2. The time of distribution of the first partner contacts in RS and MS in relation to the initiator and the post-conflict time interval

Note: *p

According to the Kalmykov-Smirnov study, the differences between the distribution time of partnerships in SW and MS were significant (D = 0.46, n1 = 114, n2 = 14, p

3.2. Who initiates the post-conflict partnership?

To test for any differences in existing models of reconciliation for aggressors and victims, we analyzed the frequency of first partner contacts in SWs and MSs separately for victims and aggressors (Table 2). Reconciliation has been demonstrated using the artificial pairing method for both the aggressor and the victim. Victims tended to initiate reconciliation within a short time interval (5 to 30 seconds after the conflict), compared to aggressors who did so for twice as long (5 to 60 seconds). However, the aggressors continued to actively initiate post-conflict relations even after the victims’ tendency to partner relations decreased. The first collaborative contact was much more likely initiated by the aggressors. In Kalmykia, in the time interval from 5 seconds to 1 minute, aggressor children initiated a cooperative interaction in SW twice as often as the victims did (73 vs. 34, c13.50 = 1, df = 0.001, p

3.3 Reconciliation and previous friendly contacts.

We investigated the impact of friendly interactions on the tendency to reconciliation in Kalmyk children (Table 1), by dividing the data into three categories corresponding to the level of friendly interactions in dyads. Dyads where there was no more than one friendly interaction were previously designated as non-friendly, where there were 2-3 friendly contacts — “acquaintance” and dyads where there were 4 or more friendly contacts — as friendly. In all three categories of dyads, attractive couples were more numerous than disparate ones (Table 1). It was the same in all categories of dyads (non-friendly: p

The influence of the gender composition of dyads on reconciliation without a relation to the number of previous friendly interactions was analyzed in Kalmykia. For the boy-boy couple, reconciliation was more frequent only if the partners had many friendly interactions than if the number of these interactions was small (c² = 36.6, df = 1, p

3.4 Attitude of children towards reconciliation.

Kalmyk children were individually interviewed on a list of questions regarding their attitude towards reconciliation with a couple. The results of interviews unlimited in time are presented in Table 3. all the children were convinced that it would be easier to make up after a verbal altercation than after a fight. They acted differently after an argument and after an incident of aggression: while a verbal altercation was resolved immediately, after a fight, the children usually dispersed. They also said that they use different behaviors in these two situations. After a squabble, they train themselves to say, «Let’s forget about everything and be friends,» and begin to play together as if nothing had happened. After the fight, however, it was necessary to use a more effective means of conciliation, such as rhymes, close bodily contact (kissing, shaking hands, hugging) and exchanging gifts. There was also a pervasive belief that «it is easier to make up with a friend than with a non-friend.» Many children said that the one who initiated the conflict should initiate reconciliation. They also explained that they could come first if they felt responsible for the conflict. Many children argued that one should always protect the victim. In two groups, the majority of girls expressed a preference for delayed reconciliation (Table 3).

Table No. 3 Attitude of Kalmyk children to reconciliation with a couple

4. Conclusion

As has been shown, even preschoolers can reconcile after conflict. Their post-conflict partnership behavior can be expressed in the form of staying together after the conflict. Their post-conflict behavior can be expressed in the form of staying together after the conflict. Our study of Kalmyk children is supported by previous findings that post-conflict meeting of friends (reconciliation) in children usually takes place sometime after 1-2 minutes after the end of the conflict. 6-7 year olds apologize, use reasoning and reasoning, they have already learned certain cultural ideas about norms and rules in post-conflict situations. In fact, all the children were convinced that the person should always repair the «damaged» relationship with the couple and that the aggressors should be apologized for their misbehavior. Our findings in some way confirm the dual nature of conflict behavior patterns. Soon after the conflict, children’s behavior should probably be directed towards demonstrating non-aggressive intentions. Apology should be the first step of children. The first stage of the meeting of friends, therefore, should be mainly intended to show that the conflict is over, over. And the second stage follows already in the form of friendly verbal or non-verbal actions. Thus children seem to repair and expand social bonds damaged by conflict. It is the second stage that can be beneficial for the socially competent child, who can use active partnership models and thus bring their relationship with past adversaries even closer than before the conflict. Our findings raise certain questions about the motivations for post-conflict partnerships. It seems reasonable to distinguish between two main factors: one is emotional, based on attachment, the other is rational, based on the recognition of group membership and the need for unity with the group (cultural meanings). Children at this age recognize certain rules of group identity and are actively interested in being part of a group. Non-friends are the more vulnerable link in the whole group chain because these children are not attached to each other and it is no coincidence that the highest level of interconnected reconciliations was recorded in this category of children. Cultural stereotypes have not completely replaced certain universal patterns in children aged 6-7 years: many children reported in their interviews that they would like to delay reconciliation for at least 10 minutes, in fact each of them reconciled within one or two minutes after the conflict

Translation: Shamansurova Kamilla