Play Fighting

Play is a common feature of many young mammals, including humans. Although difficult to define objectively, play is readily recognized by observers and has several consistent features: It is engaged in voluntarily, has no obvious utilitarian value, and appears to be enjoyable to the participants. Play can be solitary or social. The most striking form of play seen in both humans and nonhuman animals is “rough-and-tumble play” or “play fighting,” where the participants jostle for some advantage over one another. Unlike serious fighting, play fighting has an organization that ensures that it remains playful, and, remarkably, playful encounters rarely escalate to serious fights.

For play fighting to remain playful, there must be a reciprocal exchange, where enough effort is expended by the participants to ensure that victory does not come too easily, but not so difficult as to make it impossible to attain. By not abusing their advantage once gained, victors ensure that play fights are reciprocal, and, indeed, a common marker of that reciprocity is the presence of frequent role reversals between attackers and defenders. That is, both participants have a chance to gain the advantage. In contrast, in serious fighting, participants do

all that is possible to prevent their opponent from gaining the advantage. The reciprocity inherent in play fighting allows participants to use this experience in functionally beneficial ways.

Although most often associated with the prepu-bertal period, in many species, play can continue into adolescence and even adulthood. However, play fighting before and after puberty can differ strikingly. Prior to puberty, it is more cooperative. Studies on rats and monkeys provide considerable evidence that the experience of play fighting in this period is important for the development of social skills. An animal that has had the experience of play as a juvenile will have a greater ability to solve novel social problems, be less likely to antagonize its fellows, and not be so stressed by novel social situations. The reciprocity needed to maintain play fighting as playful has the right mixture of competition and cooperation to provide the experience of uncertainty and unpredictability in vigorous social interactions. This experience seems critical for animals to learn to not be flummoxed by the unexpected. The same is likely true for people.

After puberty, play becomes more overtly competitive. When an animal transgresses the bounds of acceptable behavior during play, the partner must determine whether that transgression was intentional. This ambiguity allows an animal to explore the boundaries of its relationships. There are two situations among adolescents and adults in which play fighting is most commonly reported: in social groups between males of differing status and during courtship.

Following puberty, male rats use play fighting to negotiate social relationships with other males and so learn their place in the social hierarchy. A subordinate partner may play in a juvenile-like manner with a dominant animal to ensure that their relationship remains intact. Alternatively, a subordinate can become rougher in its play, thus using it to determine whether its relationship with the dominant can be reversed. Similarly, the dominant partner can increase the roughness of its play, subtly punishing the other animal, thus reinforcing the status quo. Such uses of play fighting seem to be widespread. For example, among adolescent boys, a gentle form of play fighting occurs within the group, which reinforces social bonds. Playing with a boy who is not from the group can be rougher, reinforcing his outsider status.

...