Fathers’ Rough and Tumble Play in Relation to a Child’s Social and Socio-Emotional Outcomes
Geertje Hulzebos University of Amsterdam
Student number: 10759913
Course: Thesis Honours
Professor: prof. dr. Renske Keizer
Date: 29-01-2017
Contents
Contents p. 2
Abstract p. 4
Perspectives on RTP and a child’s social and socio-emotional functioning p. 5
An ethological perspective on RTP p. 5
An activation perspective on RTP p. 6
Differences between the two perspectives p. 7
Hypotheses p. 8
Method p. 9
Domains of functioning p. 9
Literature research p. 10
Interpretation of coefficients p. 10
Table 1: Conceptualisation of RTP quality as to the concepts used in studies p. 11
Results p. 12
The contribution of RTP on a child’s outcomes p. 12
Social functioning p. 12
RTP quantity p. 12
RTP quantity and sex p. 12
RTP quality p. 13
RTP quality and sex p. 14
Conclusions regarding social functioning p. 15
Socio-emotional functioning p. 15
RTP quantity p. 16
RTP quantity and sex p. 16
RTP quality p. 17
RTP quality and sex p. 19
Conclusion & discussion p. 20
Conclusion p. 20
Discussion p. 22
Practical implications p. 24
Abstract
This paper systematically reviews literature on the relation between father-child rough and tumble play (RTP) and a child’s social and socio-emotional outcomes. Findings are discussed in the light of the activation theory and ethological theory. RTP quantity, RTP quality and a child’s sex were taken into account as moderating variables. RTP quantity relates to more peer popularity, socio-emotional competencies and less anxiety. RTP quality is important to enjoyable RTP interactions. However, RTP quality is conditional on beneficial RTP interactions. Low quality was related to behavioural and peer problems. As to child sex, it was found that boys benefit more from RTP than girls do. Interventions might use these results to foster a child’s functioning by enhancing father-child RTP quality.
Keywords: RTP quality, RTP quantity, father, social functioning, socio-emotional functioning, ethological perspective, activation theory.
Perspectives on RTP and a Child’s Social and Socio-Emotional Functioning Recently more attention has been given to fathers in science (Varghese & Wachen, 2016; Paquette & Dumont, 2013a). For example, studies emphasise more and more that fathers1 have an important place in the upbringing of their children (Meece & Robinson; Lamb, 2004). More importantly, fathers have unique physical ways in which they interact with their children, the so-called rough-and-tumble play (RTP) (Cielinski & Vaughn, 1996). RTP encompasses quasi-agonistic behaviours such as wrestling, tumbling, tackling, and romping (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). RTP is inherently social, and is engaged in for its own sake (Pellegrini, 1988). Because of the highly physical character of RTP, RTP interactions can become quite intense. This triggers a wide range of behaviours and emotions, which needs to be coped with by the child. Hence, RTP is found to be important to a child’s social and socio-emotional functioning2 (Isly, O’Neil, Clatfelter, & Parke, 1999; Leidy, Schofiel, & Parke, 2013; Majdandžić, De Vente, & Bögels, 2013). Father-child RTP occurs most
frequently during the developmental period between the ages of two and six (Pelligrini & Smith, 1998). As to the function that RTP has in children’s skills acquisition, two separate views exist, which I will discuss below.
An ethological perspective on RTP
The ethological theory of RTP is based mostly upon animal research, especially on primates. For male primates it has been found that the role of dominance in RTP is
unmistakable and it is argued that this is also true for humans (Flanders et al., 2010). Dominance in RTP is thought to have a function in establishing hierarchy (Paquette, 1994), that is the capability to defeat someone in a dyadic and affiliate relation (Fletcher, StGeorge, & Freeman, 2013; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Parental dominance has a central place in this
1 In this paper fathers are considered as father figures, that is, also non-biological father figures are included,
such as stepfathers.
2 I will focus on functioning instead of development because of the cross-sectional nature of most studies which
perspective (Flanders, Leo, Paquette, Pihl, & Séguin, 2009). Through paternal dominance during RTP the youngster is socialised to learn to know his3 place, and to translate his aggression into socially acceptable competition (Boulton & Smith, 1992; Paquette,
Carbonneau, Dubeau, Bigras, & Tremblay, 2003). This is thought to be especially true for boys. Boys have an evolutionary disposition to be more aggressive, to acquire status and goods by physical means or toughness in comparison to girls (Sánchez-Martın et al., 2000). According to several authors, this explains boys’ higher engagement in RTP (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Paquette, 2004). High RTP frequency is related to establishing peer standing, regulation and competition skills (Paquette et al., 2003; Neville & Parke, 2009). In primates, RTP contributes to the acquisition of fighting skills, socialisation in dominant and submissive roles, judging others’ strength and retaining dominance (Paquette, 2004). This ultimately results in a social hierarchy (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998).
However, even in the animal world, it is not all about dominance. Self-handicapping of the father is an important mechanism in the acquisition of social skills (Narvaez, Panksepp, Schore, & Gleason 2013). Self-handicapping means that the stronger partner sometimes lets the weaker partner win in order to keep the interaction playful. This strategy allows children, and especially boys, to develop both the competitive and cooperative skills that are necessary to establish a dominant position among others (Fletcher et al., 2013). Thus, this perspective has its main focus on dominance. It acknowledges a role of paternal sensitivity in the function of self-handicapping.
An activation perspective on RTP
Scholars, such as Fletcher et al. (2013), have criticised the evolutionary perspective for shedding only relatively little attention to the role of sensitivity in RTP, and only in a very one-dimensional way (e.g., Paquette & Bigras, 2010; Flanders et al., 2009; 2010). According
3
to Paquette (2004) it is the strong emotional bond between father and child that is crucial to RTP interactions. These scholars have therefore proposed the ‘activation theory’ which devotes much more attention to the quality of fathers’ RTP. In RTP interaction of high quality the child is encouraged to explore the world around him, and to bravely encounter risks and unfamiliarity (Gaumon & Paquette, 2010). Furthermore, it is stressed that paternal surprising, teasing, limit setting and stimulation are characteristic for RTP. Through these arousing, destabilizing interactions the child learns how to regulate these intense emotions, and develops competencies to interact appropriately with the father (Majdandžić et al., 2013; Paquette, 2004; Stevenson & Crnic, 2013). Both paternal sensitivity and non-punitive
dominance are important conditions in considering these RTP interactions as stimulating development. Children who experience less than optimal RTP are less empowered to go out of their comfort zone. Hence, they have fewer chances to develop social and socio-emotional skills, which puts them at risk of peer rejection and problem behaviours.
Proponents of the activation theory argue that RTP quality seems to be crucial to a child’s socio-emotional developmental outcomes. RTP quality occurs in a challenging, safe context in which the father shows firm discipline, but at the same time is aware and
responsive to the child’s needs. The first is known as the dominance dimension, and the latter is known as the sensitivity dimension (Fletcher et al., 2013; Stevenson & Crnic, 2013).
Differences between the two perspectives
In comparison to the ethological view, the activation theory goes beyond the socialization function of a boy’s dominance acquisition (Paquette, 2004). The ethological theory stresses a child’s peer standing (i.e., popularity) and regulation skills. Mainly paternal dominance and the amount of RTP are stressed. The activation theory stresses RTP quality as a condition for RTP quantity to be beneficial. They recognize the importance of parental dominance, but they attach greater value to parental sensitivity in RTP. Thus, parental
dominance and sensitivity are endorsed by both theories, but the emphasis differs.
This different emphasis on parental sensitivity versus dominance might reflect the inconsistencies in literature. To illustrate this, researchers who focused on ethological theory found a positive association between RTP quantity, and aggression (Paquette et al., 2003). While studies that RTP quality found negative associations between RTP and aggression (StGeorge, Fletcher, & Palazzi, 2016). This paper systematically reviews how RTP relates to a child’s social and socio-emotional outcomes in the light of these two perspectives.
Hypotheses
Ethological theory. Regarding the ethological theory, it is hypothesised that:
(1a) RTP quantity is related to emotion regulation, and hence less aggression.
(2a) RTP contributes to a child’s competition skills and hence his social status, i.e., popularity ratings at school.
(3a) Since, aggression needs to be regulated in order to be valued, it is expected that the parental dominance side of RTP quality is necessary.
(4a) It is thought that these relations are stronger for boys. This is because boys have a greater need to regulate their aggression and to acquire dominance among peers.
Activation theory. With respect to the activation theory it is expected that:
(1b) High RTP quantity contributes to a child’s sophisticated emotional and social skills, such as emotional decoding skills and peer competencies.
(2b) However, hypothesis (1b) only holds when RTP quality is high, that is there is an adequate balance between parental dominance and sensitivity.
(3b) Low RTP quality relates to problem behaviour, such as dysregulation.
(4b) As to RTP quantity and RTP quality, no significant sex differences are present.
In order to investigate these hypotheses, this paper looks into how RTP is related to the social and socio-emotional functioning of two- till six-year-old children, in which,
quantity, quality and child’s sex are taken into account as moderators.
In summary, we have seen that fathers have unique, physical ways to interact with their children. RTP is linked to social and socio-emotional functioning through the
acquisition of emotional regulating skills, and social competencies. However, the role of RTP gets a different treatment in the ethological and activation theory. The first stresses RTP as most important to a boy’s socialization, RTP quantity, and parental dominance as well as a child’s regulation skills and popularity. The latter stresses RTP quality and sensitivity in relation to a child’s broader social and socio-emotional skills. This study investigates which pattern occurs most often in the literature by taking into account RTP quantity, quality and a child’s sex as moderators. This might be the first study which systematically reviews these two theories in their findings on RTP, since research on RTP has been scarce so far (Paquette et al., 2003).
Method
Domains of functioning
In the relevant literature a division is apparent between social and socio-emotional functioning. Social behaviour consists of all behaviours that are focused on approaching or avoiding other people (Tak, Bosch, Begeer, & Albrecht, 2014; Van Dijk & Orobio de Castro, 2016). Socio-emotional development is defined as expressed affect and emotional regulation, which means that the child is able to initiate and accomplish regulating his emotions in a goal-orientated and voluntary manner (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004; Isley, O’Neil, Clatfelter, & Parke, 1999). This systematic review will retain this division as well.
Literature research
For this systematic review I have used the database PhychINFO. Inclusion criteria were that the independent variable focused on RTP quantity and/or RTP quality, that the child was between the ages of 2 and 6, that the article was published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal, that the articles were written in English, and that the outcome variable centred on socio-emotional and/or social functioning of the child. Exclusion criteria were articles focusing on therapies or teachers, studies that focused on types of play other than RTP, and studies that did not incorporate child outcomes.
For the search the following keywords were used in the following combinations: physical play, or rough and tumble play, or activation, & child* or preschool* & father* & emotion*, or anxiety, or aggression, or behaviour or social*. Using the definition of socio-emotional functioning, fifteen hits were found in this domain. Based on the inclusion criteria and the abstracts, eight studies were useful. As to the social domain, eighteen hits were found. Based on criteria and abstracts, six could be used. Finally, a snowball method was conducted by using the references in the selected articles and this resulted in ten additional studies for the socio-emotional domain, and in seven for the social domain. Seven of these studies were used for both domains. In total 24 studies were used. With respect to the many definitions of RTP quality, Table 1 is meant to function as the conceptualization of what is understood by RTP quality.
Interpretation of correlation coefficients
As to the interpretation of the correlation coefficients in the reviewed studies, correlations between the .10 and .30 are small, between the .30 and .50 moderate and above .50 strong.
Table 1
The conceptualization of RTP quality as to the concepts used in studies
Author (s) Year of Publication Conceptualization of RTP quality
Paquette & Dumont 2013a Paquette & Dumont 2013b
Gaumon & Paquette 2012 Paquette & Bigras 2010
Paquette 2004
Majdandžić et al. 2016
Lazarus et al. 2016
StGeorge et al. 2016 Fletcher et al. 2013
Stevenson & Crnic 2013
Isley et al. 1999
MacDonald & Parke 1984
Resu
Paternal risk encouragement in the context of disciplinary limits and the balance between winning and losing.
Encouraging the child affectionately to go out of his comfort zone and to push the child’s limits both physically and socio-emotionally, while safety is guaranteed.
The expression of affection, control, sensitivity, enjoyment, and a balance between winning and losing.
Parental destabilizing behavior, sensitivity and exercising non-punitive control.
Horizontal interaction patterns.
Being affectionate while maintaining excitement. Parental engagement and dominance.
Results
The contribution of RTP on a child’s outcomes
RTP seems to be an important factor in acquiring social and socio-emotional competencies, but it is unclear whether RTP works out positively or negatively. In the introduction section it was mentioned that the variables RTP quantity, RTP quality, and a child’s sex, might moderate the relation with child outcomes. Below, the results of RTP on the social functioning, and socio-emotional functioning are discussed. In each section first the general findings are discussed, which will later be modified by discussing the moderating variables.
Social functioning
Social functioning was defined as approaching and avoiding others (Tak et al., 2014; Van Dijk & Orobio de Castro, 2016). RTP has a fundamental role in this domain, because RTP is inherently social (Pellegrini & Smith 1998). A child’s social functioning is
fundamental to his popularity and peer competencies, which, in turn, are important to both his current and later development (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2006; Leidy, Schofield, & Parke, 2013).
RTP quantity
Three studies revealed a positive association between RTP and social functioning. MacDonald and Parke (1984) studied social development in forty-four children during peer interactions in relation to paternal RTP at home. Based on teacher reports, both boys and girls that engaged in RTP were more dominant during peer interactions. This relation can be interpreted as moderately strong.
RTP quantity and sex
Taking sex into account, it was found that more associations and more desirable outcomes were found for boys. For girls it was found that the more they engaged in RTP, the
fewer harmonious peer interactions they had with peers as rated by teachers. This relation can be interpreted as moderately strong. These girls were strongly less withdrawn (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). With respect to boys, MacDonald and Parke (1984) found that RTP quantity with the fathers was related strongly with less sharing, and abrasiveness with peers. They also found strong positive associations between RTP quantity and attention tracking, harmonious peer interactions, taking up a leader role more often and orientating towards peers instead of adults (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). In addition, in two out of the three sub-samples
researched by Paquette and Bigras (2010), boys who experienced high RTP quantity scored strongly higher on sociability, while no association was found for girls. This finding was replicated by Lindsey and Mize (2000).
Conclusion: RTP quantity. Thus, more, and more desirable associations were found
for boys in relation to RTP quantity and social skills. For both sexes, RTP frequency was related to dominance during peer interactions and peer competencies. Fewer harmonious peer interactions in girls, and a decrease in the ability of boys to share might also be a reflection of dominance with peers. Boys, however, seemed to benefit more from RTP quantity than girls, since they were relatively more likely to behave in a socially desirable way.
RTP quality
Sensitivity. Fletcher et al. (2013) and Renk et al. (2011) argue that paternal sensitivity
is needed for the child to explore the world and to enjoy RTP interactions. Four studies confirmed this idea. MacDonald (1987) revealed that paternal insensitivity during RTP was related to rejection and neglect by peers in a school context. In addition, MacDonald and Parke (1984) showed that paternal insensitivity correlated with a child’s avoidance of RTP. This has likely to do with the lack of enjoyment these children experience (Isley et al., 1999). Paternal sensitivity is positively related to peer popularity, and a boy’s behavioural and social adaptation (StGeorge et al., 2016; Isley et al., 1999). This is found even after controlling for
individual behaviours (Lindsey & Mize, 2000).
Dominance. Lindsey, Mize, and Pettit (1997) and Lindsey and Mize (2000), argue
that RTP interactions are of higher quality when the father is less dominant, because these children had highly developed social skills (e.g. Leidy et al., 2013). These studies were contradicted by Paquette and Bigras (2010) and StGeorge, Fletcher, Freeman, Paquette, and Dumont (2015). An observational study of Paquette and Bigras (2010) showed that low parental dominance is associated with low RTP quality. For example, low-dominant fathers, had reckless and disobedient children which was also associated with higher injury risk (StGeorge et al., 2015). Their sample was relatively large.
In accordance with this, in a large sample Flanders et al. (2009) found that the more dominant the father was, the better a child’s social outcomes. Children who engaged in RTP with low-dominant fathers showed more aggression, a relation which holds over five years (Flanders et al., 2010). Hence, it can be concluded that the absence of dominance is found to be harmful to a child’s social functioning.
RTP quality and sex
Dominance. Optimal levels of dominance during RTP seem to differ according to the
sex of the child. A study of MacDonald and Parke (1984) revealed that boys engaging in RTP with dominant fathers, showed more hesitations in their interactions with peers. They were also more likely to be a spectator and to withdraw from excitement (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). These relations can be interpreted as strong and were based on reports from teachers. Furthermore, when RTP quantity and father’s engagement were held constant, dominance correlated strongly negative with boys’ attention tracking and limit testing (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Girls seemed to be less sensitive to paternal dominance. For girls, paternal dominance was not related to their social outcomes (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Lindsey and Mize (2000) found that, for girls, a lack of paternal dominance in RTP was positively related
to their popularity during RTP.
Conclusion: RTP quality. Sensitivity and dominance were found to be important
components of RTP quality. Regarding sensitivity, it was found that sensitive fathers had more popular, socially competent children. No sex differences were found concerning
sensitivity. As to dominance, findings were more complex. It may be concluded that for boys and girls parental dominance that was too low was associated with problem behaviour. High parental dominance was found to be detrimental to a boy’s social functioning, girls seemed to be less affected.
Conclusions regarding social functioning
Recapitulating, RTP was moderately to strongly associated with the child’s social functioning in the light of RTP quantity, and RTP quality. Boys seemed to be more affected by RTP quantity in their social outcomes compared to girls. Both of them, however, were found to have more dominant peer interactions when engaging in more RTP. Regarding the quality of RTP, we found that fathers who were sensitive during RTP had both sons and daughters that benefitted in terms of their social functioning. Regarding dominance, we saw important differences in a child’s sex. High parental dominance affected a boy’s social functioning strongly negatively, while girls do not seemed to be affected.
Socio-emotional functioning
Emotional function of children is closely linked to their social interactions. Socio-emotional functioning consists of expressed affect and the child’s ability to regulate his emotions (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004). Although emotional regulation has a stronger
biological basis, RTP does affect emotional regulation (Isley et al., 1999). For example, RTP is associated with more emotional knowledge, and skills which, in turn, are related to regulation.
RTP quantity
RTP quantity seems to prevent internalizing problems in children. This was found in three studies. In a relatively large sample it was found that the negative relationship between RTP, depression and anxiety was moderately to strong and holds after controlling for a child’s sex and temperament (Gaumon & Paquette, 2012; Lazarus et al., 2016). Controlling for RTP quality, MacDonald and Parke (1984) found that RTP quantity was related to less anxiety and withdrawn behaviours. Furthermore, a study of Lazarus et al. (2016) showed that RTP contributed to a decrease in anxiety symptoms of the child, but not to the elimination of an anxiety diagnosis.
In a large sample of low- and middle-class children, Fliek, Daemen, Roelofs, and Muris (2015) found that a father’s anxiety level moderated the relation between child anxiety and RTP quantity. Anxiety was positively related to RTP quantity, only when the child had an anxious temperament and the father did not. This is inconsistent with the general idea that paternal anxiety is a risk factor (Bögels & Phares, 2008; Majdandžić, Möller, De Vente, Bögels, & Van den Boom, 2013). Fliek et al.’s study showed that having a more anxious father might protect anxious children from further anxiety. Maybe this is because anxious fathers have a greater tendency to overprotect, and anxious children need some
overprotection in order to engage in RTP (Gaumon & Paquette, 2012; Majdandžić et al., 2013). In summary, RTP quantity contributes to a decrease in anxiety, independent of a child’s sex. For anxious children, this protective function is also found when they have an anxious father.
RTP quantity and sex
Looking beyond anxiety, it was found that there were sex differences. MacDonald and Parke (1984) found that RTP quantity was moderately to strongly related to more socio-emotional competencies. For girls more RTP related to their level of assertiveness. That is, to
a girl’s expression of emotions, and physical bravery according to their teachers (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Boys who often engaged in RTP were rated by their teachers as having moderately higher emotional competencies and knowledge (Lindsey & Colwell, 2003). In a large sample, Paquette et al. (2003) found that RTP quantity and competition were positively related. They argued that the degree of competition in children and their fathers’ level of dominance were potentially moderating variables in the relation between aggression and RTP, especially for boys. When boys and fathers were more competitively engaged in RTP, this was associated with less aggression and higher popularity (Paquette et al., 2003; Majdandžić, De Vente, & Bögels, 2016).
Conclusion: RTP quantity. There was a consistent, negative relation between RTP
quantity and anxiety. For anxious children that engaged in RTP, an anxious father seemed to protect them from further anxiety. Higher RTP quantity was related to a girl’s increase in assertiveness and a boy’s emotional knowledge. For boys specifically, the degree of competition and parental dominance was associated with less aggression and popularity among peers.
RTP quality
RTP quality is specifically related to a child’s emotional knowledge, competence and regulation skills (Isley et al., 1999). Children who experience less than optimal RTP quality show more problem behaviours. For example, children of highly dominant fathers showed more anxiety compared to children who experienced higher degrees of sensitivity (Fliek et al., 2015).
Sensitivity. Stevenson and Crnic (2013) found that insensitivity during RTP
negatively related to a child’s socio-emotional outcomes. Fletcher et al. (2013) confirmed this: by stressing the sensitivity aspect of RTP quality, they found that this was moderately to strongly associated with fewer behavioural and peer problems. However, StGeorge et al.
(2016) were not able to confirm these findings, although the same measurements were used. Both studies had a relatively small sample. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the protective function of sensitivity in both studies might be explained as a result of their small sample sizes.
Dominance. According to Gaumon and Paquette (2012) high parental dominance was
moderately related to more internalizing problems for both boys and girls. These fathers might be less sensitive to the a child’s needs by overprotecting them (Majdandžić et al., 2013; Phares & Bögels, 2008). This idea was confirmed by StGeorge et al. (2016) who found that, controlling for other variables, paternal intrusiveness was the strongest predictor of
dysregulation, as measured with an inhibitory task.
However, high RTP quality was not necessary related to fewer socio-emotional problems. For example, children who experience a balanced level of parental dominance were strongly more impulsive compared to children with fathers that were too dominant or not dominant enough (Paquette & Bigras, 2010). They also showed higher degrees of dysregulation and frustration (Stevenson & Crnic, 2013; Paquette & Dumont, 2013b). A reason for these findings might reflect a validity problem: Stevenson and Crnic (2013) made no distinction between a child’s risk taking and dysregulation. The first was considered a desirable outcome, while the latter was viewed as maladaptive. As to a child’s frustration, this could be explained by the fact that paternal limit setting was likely to elicit frustration in their children (Paquette & Dumont, 2013b). Taking these alternative explanations into account, some parental dominance seemed to contribute to a child’s development. These explanations were in accordance with an observation in-home study of Flanders, et al. (2009). In a large sample they found that, when controlling for age and aggression, less dominant fathers had strongly more dysregulated children than children with dominant fathers engaging in RTP. Low RTP quality, and not RTP quantity, was responsible
for the relation with higher aggression levels. This holds over a period of eight years, even after controlling for aggression at time 1 (Flanders et al., 2010).
RTP quality and sex
Dominance. Controlling for RTP quantity and parental sensitivity, MacDonald and
Parke (1984) found that, for boys, higher dominance of the father was moderately to strongly related to shyness and uncertainty. That is, according to their teachers, these boys were more afraid to be rejected, and were less assertive (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Paquette and Bigras (2010) found that dominance in RTP quality was positively related to aggression in impulsive boys. For girls and non-impulsive boys no relation between RTP quality and aggression emerged. In all likelihood, this had to do with the lack of self-regulation.
Conclusion: RTP quality. When a child’s sex was not taken into account it was
found that a balanced level of dominance seemed to be crucial to RTP quality. However, boys were more vulnerable to the level dominance, especially when they were impulsive. Paternal sensitivity was equally beneficial to behavioural adaptation in both sexes. However, the role of sensitivity was not always found.
Conclusions regarding socio-emotional functioning
It seemed that both quantity as well as RTP quality contributed to a child’s socio-emotional outcomes, that is his socio-emotional regulation and expressed affect. For anxiety it was found that anxious children might benefit from anxious fathers, due to the overprotection they provide. In addition, RTP quantity in girls was associated with assertiveness, and in boys with emotion regulation, especially when they are highly competitive. Therefore, both boys and girls seemed to equally benefit from RTP quantity.
As to the sensitivity aspect of RTP is was found that this was linked to a child’s social adaptation, independent of sex. In general it could be concluded that the balanced level of parental dominance was crucial to a child’s socio-emotional outcomes. When compared to
girls, boys were more affected by less than optimal dominance level, but flourished also more in the context of optimal dominance levels. In all likelihood this had to do with a boy’s greater sensitivity to parental dominance.
Conclusion and discussion
The goal of this systematic review was to investigate the question of how RTP relates to a child’s social and socio-emotional functioning. This was researched in the light of RTP quantity, RTP quality and the role of a child’s sex. First, a summary and interpretation is given with respect to the hypotheses. Next, some limitations and future directions are discussed. Finally, I will discuss some practical implications.
Conclusion
Ethological theory. From an evolutionary point of view it was hypothesised that (1a)
RTP quantity was related to a child’s regulation and aggression, (2a) competition and popularity. As to quality, it was thought (3a) that parental dominance in RTP would be important to these acquisitions. Lastly, it was expected that (4a) boys would benefit more from both RTP quantity and RTP quality.
The first and second hypotheses can be maintained. Children who engage in more RTP are better liked by peers, and are less aggressive. Both boys and girls were found to be more dominant in peer interactions. Girls had higher levels of assertiveness when engaging in more RTP.
The third hypothesis must be rejected. Although parental dominance is crucial to the regulation of a child’s aggression, this is only true in combination with sensitivity. That is, dominance alone is harmful to a child’s functioning, since it is related to peer rejection, and internalizing problems. Without sensitivity RTP will be experienced as unpleasant and a child’s need for parental warmth and acceptance is not met.
compared to boys, less so. When boys are highly competitive, this was related to peer
popularity and less aggression, which in all likelihood, has to do with social adaptation. After all, high levels of aggression will not contribute to one’s status. However, willingness to win (i.e., competition) does. Probably a boy’s greater susceptibility to parental dominance reflects a higher need for it, because of a boy’s biological disposition to engage in more risk taking. Evolutionary, the null findings for girls might be explained by their lesser tendency to engage in these socially risky behaviours.
Activation theory. Regarding the activation theory it was thought that (1b) RTP
quantity would be related to a child’s sophisticated social and socio-emotional skills, (2b) on the condition that RTP quality is high. Therefore, (3b) low RTP quality was expected to contribute to a child’s problematic behaviour. As to RTP quality and quantity (4b) no significant sex differences were expected.
For the first hypothesis, support was found. The relation with anxiety, however, was not expected, but can be well explained by the activation theory. As to the negative relation with anxiety, the activation theory explains that children learn to interpret risky phenomena as fun and excitement during RTP activities with their fathers, which makes children less anxious in these situations (Bögels & Phares, 2008). Higher RTP quantity also contributed to a girl’s emotion expression and a boy’s emotional knowledge.
The second hypothesis holds that RTP quantity was only beneficial when its quality is high. It was found that RTP quality related to both boys’ and girls’ social competencies, popularity and enjoyable RTP interactions. Although some studies reported the importance of sensitivity to a child’s functioning, its importance was not always found. The moderating role of dominance between RTP and sociability, however, is consistent with Paquette’s activation theory. This was supported by the finding that RTP quality was related to higher socio-emotional skills. Thus, this hypothesis is only partly supported, because sensitivity was not
always found to be important to a child’s social and socio-emotional functioning.
Regarding the third hypothesis, most, but not all, studies found a negative relation between RTP quality and problematic behaviours. In general it was reported that children who experienced high quality RTP were better able to regulate themselves and were socially more competent in comparison with children who engaged in less than optimal RTP. In addition it was found that parental dominance was predominant. For example, only the dimension of parental dominance seemed to affect emotional dysregulation. Thus, the importance that this theory places upon parental sensitivity instead of parental dominance is only partly justified by this paper.
Lastly, no significant sex differences were expected. However, this hypothesis must be rejected because in most studies boys showed more desirable outcomes than girls did. In conclusion, I think it is safe to conclude that the ethological theory has greater predictive power.
Discussion
However, the above mentioned conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution because of some limitations of the reviewed studies and this systematic review itself. A first limitation on both the reliability and validity of some of the studies was that they (partly) relied upon teacher reports. Although multi-informant data and multiple contextual data can be considered to be a strong point, teacher reports seem to be less reliable to assess RTP and aggression: teachers often tend to confuse real fighting with play fighting. For example, teachers think that 30% of RTP ends in fighting, whereas this is actually 1% (Paquette et al., 2003). In addition, MacDonald and Parke (1984) argued that the validity of teacher reports is even lower for girls. Another limitation with respect to validity, was that two studies used non-validated questionnaires, and two other researched RTP as a sedentary activity or used large toys during RTP observation. This might have biased the nature of RTP.
As to this review, both the internal and external validity are problematic. The internal validity seems to be especially limited, because of the correlation nature of the studies’ data. Hence, in this paper one cannot determine what cause and effect is. For example, it was reported that a lack of paternal dominance was related to more dysregulation of the child, while it is equally possible that impulsive, reckless children might provoke this
submissiveness in their father during RTP (e.g., Isley et al., 1999).
As to the external validity, it must be noted that all studies used self-selection
samples, which may have resulted in biased reporting. For example, most samples consisted mainly of WEIRD people, that is White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic participants (Jones, 2010). Socio-economic status and RTP are moderately to strongly
correlated (Stevenson & Crnic, 2013; Shannon, Tamis-LeMonda, London, & Cabrera, 2002). Therefore, results cannot be generalized to the entire population.
A last limitation that must be mentioned relates to the construct validity, namely the different operationalization of concepts reviewed. It was necessary to combine several concepts with one another, as was the case with RTP quality. However, treating concepts as synonyms might have eliminated the nuances and the differences in concepts. A cohesive limitation is that I was not able to define what the right level of dominance was. This was because the studies used did not define this balance and used different methods and instruments to assess dominance. A strength of this systematic review was the strong
theoretical framework, which is often absent in father research (Downer, Campos, McWayne, & Gartner, 2008)
Future research, therefore should maintain a strong father-orientated theoretical framework. A suggestion would be to synthesise the ethological and activation theory, to see if this contributes to more clear-cut findings. In addition, future research may overcome some of the limitations mentioned. For example, it would be interesting to treat parental dominance
as a continuous variable instead of a dichotomous variable in order to clarify its role in a child’s outcomes. However, such a research design will not solve the problem of opposite directions. Therefore, it would be interesting to conduct more longitudinal and experimental studies on parental dominance, and in that way determine cause and effect. Spending more attention on a child’s characteristics in this way is also recommended. Lastly, future research on RTP should also pay more attention to less privileged strata of the population in order to assess cultural differences and to strengthen external validity.
Practical implications
In the end, we can conclude that children, and especially boys, that engage in high quality RTP have better developed social and socio-emotional skills and competencies when compared to children who engage in less, and less than optimal RTP. RTP has a moderate to strong influence on a child’s important developmental tasks. Because RTP has such a significant contribution to a child’s functioning, interventions could enhance a child’s social and socio-emotional development through father-child RTP. In addition to stimulating child development, RTP might also be a fruitful factor in enhancing the father-child relationship. For example, with respect to the importance of RTP quality, fathers could be taught how to adequately vary between dominance and sensitivity in RTP (Gaumon & Paquette, 2012). Because RTP is so closely related to the nature of the father-child interactions, stimulating RTP might enhance the emotional bond between father and child. For example, 40% of father-child interactions consist of RTP (Yeung, Sandberg, Davis‐Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). A warm father-child relationship is crucial to a child’s outcomes (Lamb, 2004) and RTP seems to be ‘the’ means to accomplish this. That is, in the end, a fathers’ strict but just love is the answer to a child’s emotional and social growth!
References
Bögels, S., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers' role in the etiology, prevention and treatment of child anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 539-558. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.011
Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1992). The social nature of play fighting and play chasing: Mechanisms and strategies underlying cooperation and compromise. In: J. H. Barkow, Jerome H., L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 429-444). New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Cielinski. K. L., & Vaughn, B. E. (1996). Fathers’ roles in the development of young children: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of paternal involvement. Infant Behaviour and Development, 19, 395-395. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90449-X
Downer, J., Campos, R., McWayne, C., & Gartner, T. (2008). Father involvement and children's early learning: A critical review of published empirical work from the past 15 years. Marriage & Family Review, 43, 67-108. doi:10.1080/01494920802010264 Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion‐related regulation: Sharpening the
definition. Child development, 75, 334-339. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498
Flanders, J. L., Leo, V., Paquette, D., Pihl, R. O., & Seguin, J. R. (2009). Rough‐and‐tumble play and the regulation of aggression: An observational study of father–child play dyads. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 285-295. doi:10.1002/ab.20309
Flanders, J. L., Simard, M., Paquette, D., Parent, S., Vitaro, F., Pihl, R. O., & Séguin, J. R. (2010). Rough-and-tumble play and the development of physical aggression and
emotion regulation: A five-year follow-up study. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 357-367. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9297-5
Fletcher, R., StGeorge, J., & Freeman, E. (2013). Rough and tumble play quality: Theoretical foundations for a new measure of father–child interaction. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 746-759. doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.723439
Fliek, L., Daemen, E., Roelofs, J., & Muris, P. (2015). Rough-and-tumble play and other parental factors as correlates of anxiety symptoms in preschool children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2795-2804. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0083-5
Gaumon, S., & Paquette, D. (2013). The father–child activation relationship and internalising disorders at preschool age. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 447-463.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.711593
Isley, S. L., O'Neil, R., Clatfelter, D., & Parke, R. D. (1999). Parent and child expressed affect and children's social competence: Modeling direct and indirect pathways. Developmental psychology, 35, 547-560. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.547
Jones, D. (2010). A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists' studies. Science, 328, 1627-1627. doi:10.1126/science.328.5986.1627
Lamb, M. (2004). Handbook of father involvement. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Lazarus, R. S., Dodd, H. F., Majdandžić, M., de Vente, W., Morris, T., Byrow, Y., ... &
Hudson, J. L. (2016). The relationship between challenging parenting behaviour and childhood anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 190, 784-791.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.032
Leidy, M. S., Schofield, T. J., & Parke, R. D. (2013). Fathers’ contributions to children’s social development. In: N. J. Cabrera & C. S. Tamis-LeMonde (Eds.), Handbook of
father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 151-167). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2000). Parent-child physical and pretense play: Links to
children's social competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 565-591. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23092565
Lindsey, E. W., Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mutuality in parent-child play: Consequences for children's peer competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 523-538. Retrieved from: spr.sagepub.com
Majdandžić, M., de Vente, W., & Bögels, S. M. (2016). Challenging parenting behavior from infancy to toddlerhood: Etiology, measurement, and differences between fathers and mothers. Infancy, 21, 423-452. doi:10.1111/infa.12125
Majdandžić, M., Möller, E. L., De Vente, W., Bögels, S. M.,& Van den Boom, D. C. (2013). Fathers’ challanging parenting behavior prevents social anxiety development in their 4-year-old children: A longitudinal observational study. Journal of Child
Psychopathology, 42, 301-310. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9774-4
Meece, D., & Robinson, C. M. (2014). Father–child interaction: Associations with self-control and aggression among 4.5-year-olds. Early Child Development and Care, 184, 783-794. doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.818990
Narvaez, D., Panksepp, J., Schore, A. N., Gleason, T. R. (2013). Evolution, early experience and human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Neville, B., & Parke, R. D. (1997). Waiting for paternity: Interpersonal and contextual implications of the timing of fatherhood. Sex Roles, 37, 45-59.
Paquette, D. (1994). Fighting and play fighting in captive adolescent chimpanzees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 49-65. doi:10.1002/1098-2337
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193-219. doi:10.1159/000078723
Paquette, D. & Bigras, M. (2010). The risky situation: A procedure for assessing the father-child activation relationship. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 33-50. doi:10.1080/03004430903414687
Paquette, D., Carbonneau, R., Dubeau, D., Bigras, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003). Prevalence of father-child rough-and-tumble play and physical aggression in preschool children. European Journal Of Psychology Of Education, 18, 171-189.
doi:10.1007/BF03173483
Paquette, D., & Dumont, C. (2013a). Is father–child rough-and-tumble play associated with attachment or activation relationships? Early Child Development and Care, 183, 760-773. doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.723440
Paquette, D., & Dumont, C. (2013b). The father-child activation relationship, sex differences, and attachment disorganization in toddlerhood. Child Development Research,
2013(1), 1-9. doi:10.1155/2013/102860
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child development, 69, 577-598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06226.x
Pellegrini, A. D. (1988). Elementary-school children's rough-and-tumble play and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 24, 802-806. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(89)80006-7
Renk, K., Scott, S. L., Weaver, R., Lauer, B. A., Middleton, M., & White, R. (2011). The importance of fathers and play. In: C. H. Leyton (Eds.), Fatherhood: Family issues in
the 21st Century. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Sánchez-Martın, J. R., Fano, E., Ahedo, L., Cardas, J., Brain, P. F., & Azpıroz, A. (2000). Relating testosterone levels and free play social behavior in male and female preschool children. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25, 773-783. doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(00)00025-1
Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., London, K., & Cabrera, N. (2002). Beyond rough and tumble: Low-income fathers' interactions and children's cognitive development at 24 months. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 77-104.
doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0202_01
Stevenson, M. & Crnic, K. (2013). Intrusive fathering, children's self‐regulation and social skills: A mediation analysis. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 500-512. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01549.x.
StGeorge, J., Fletcher, R., & Freeman, E., Paquette, D., & Dumomt, C. (2015). Father-child interactions and children's risk of injury. Early Child Development and Care, 186, 1409-1421. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.1000888
St George, J., Fletcher, R., & Palazzi, K. (2016). Comparing fathers' physical and toy play and links to child behaviour: An exploratory study. Infant and Child Development, 2016(1), 1-22. doi:10.1002/icd.1958
Tak. J. A., Bosch, J. D., Begeer, S., & Albrecht G. (2014). Handboek psychodiagnostiek voor de hulpverlening aan kinderen en adolescenten. [Manual Psychodiagnostics for counseling in children and adolescents]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: De Tijdsboom.
Van Dijk, A., & Orobio de Castro, B. (2016). Relaties tussen kinderen op school. [Relations between children in school]. In: K. Verschuren & H. Koomen (Eds.), Handboek diagnostiek in de leerlingbegeleiding: Kind en context (pp. 255-273). Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Belgium/the Netherlands: Garant.
Varghese, C., & Wachen, J. (2016). The determinants of father involvement and connections to children's literacy and language outcomes: Review of the literature. Marriage & Family Review, 52, 331-359. doi:10.1080/01494929.2015.1099587
Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J. F., Davis‐Kean, P. E., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children's time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136-154. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00136.x
