The second example of an ethological analysis of children’s behavior is the work of M. Boulton and P. Smith [Boulton, Smith, 1992]. These authors analyze the nature of game struggle and game-pursuit (both phenomena are combined under the name «goo game»). Boulton and Smith believe that hormonal mechanisms have a significant impact on the motivation to go.e.y game. The effect of male sex hormones on the fetus leads to the fact that in early childhood, boys get more pleasure from the goo game than girls. The impact of male sex hormones on the female fetus is significantly lower, hence the lower interest of girls in the goo game. It is indicative that girls who have experienced a strong effect of androgens in the prenatal period are more likely to demonstrate increased physical activity and prefer boyish games, including game wrestling [Money, Ehardt, 1972].
The assumption that the higher level of goo play in boys is the result of directed parental upbringing does not find real confirmation. Observations of children aged 20 to 24 months at home (a total of 12 boys and 12 girls were studied) showed that parents react positively to the game of children of both sexes with approximately the same frequency [Fagot, 1978]. Selective stimulation of GU play in boys can occur at a later age — after three years, when an increase in the frequency of GO play between father and sons is clearly seen. On the other hand, such stimulation on the part of parents may be a response to a more pronounced interest of boys in game wrestling compared to normal girls (recall the connection between male sex hormones and an orientation towards greater physical activity).
The second important mechanism in the formation of behavior patterns (guy games in this case) is imitation and reinforcement. Observations of two Zapotec-speaking communities in Mexico have shown that patterns of aggressive and friendly behavior are largely transmitted from generation to generation, and their expression is regulated by adults (Fry, 1987). If adults (first of all, parents) use physical punishment to control the behavior of children, then such a model of behavior is acquired in the process of education [Bandura, 1973]. As shown in the La Paz and San Andrés communities [Fry, 1994], parents from a more peaceful community were less likely to physically punish their children, but more likely to use verbal persuasion and explanation. Residents from the peaceful community of La Paz disapproved of aggression in children and even considered gooey play as a negative phenomenon. On the contrary, parents from the San Andres community, although they did not approve of aggression between children, believed that it was inevitable and part of children’s nature. One of the local women, watching their sons throwing stones at each other, remarked in passing, «Boys always fight.» Observations of children between the ages of three and eight showed that children in San Andres fight twice as often. The model that children show mirrors the behavior of their parents. According to the observation of the same researcher, the inhabitants of La Paz were less prone to physical aggressive contacts, and if they started to fight, they were able to stop themselves in time, without waiting for others to drag them away. The ability to master social patterns of behavior in early childhood and form an adequate style of communication is the most important, ethological universal. Similar processes operate in the communities of social animals. Cubs adopt the behavior of others and their success in life is largely due to this. Although the set of behavioral elements (ethogram) is a species-specific characteristic, the context in which a particular element is used and its frequency can vary greatly depending on social experience and social environment. Waal and Joganovich showed that the level of reconciliation in adolescents of one species of macaque (rhesus monkey) can be greatly modified (increased) if they are brought up in a group of adolescents of another species (brown macaques), which is characterized by higher sociability, increased social tolerance and a pronounced orientation towards maintenance. social stability [Waa1, Johanowicz, 1993].
Children are able to recognize a partner’s hostile and playful intentions and rarely confuse goofy play with true aggression. This is facilitated by different facial expressions that accompany this and that activity (smile and laughter in the case of a game, frowned eyebrows and a gaze in an aggressive context).
Goo game seems to be found in all human societies. It could have arisen in human evolution as a behavior that makes it possible from an early age to train the skills necessary in a situation of intraspecific aggressive contacts. Role reversal, a kind of «giveaway» when opponents change roles, is noted in different types of primates (hussars, baboons, gibbons), as well as in children from different cultures (English, American, Mexican). Perhaps an important function of the gooey game is to develop the skills of cooperation and compromise so that both partners can benefit from such training.