Non-Aversive Physical Contact Among SameSex Groups
Dion Loke
IB Psychology HL Y1
September 29, 2009
Word Count: 1759
ABSTRACT
In our study, the aim was to investigate the differences between the interactions among the
male social group, and the female social group. We focused on non-aversive physical
contact among the elementary school children. We hypothesized that children of the female
gender will display more contact among each other than their male counterparts. We
selected two tables during lunch, each consisting of only one gender and observed them for
two periods of 30 minutes, and recorded their behavior down. We found out it was true
that the children of the female gender engaged in non-aversive physical contact with their
peers than the male gender. This could probably be attributed to the social environment
that makes us feel that such behavior among female is more acceptable than such behavior
among males.
INTRODUCTION
This study aimed to investigate the differences in the interactions among male-male social
group, and female-female social group through how many times they had non-aversive
physical contact. Our study was conducted using via naturalistic observational study
methods. In a study of Observations of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Children on the School
Playground by Debra J. Pepler, Wendy M. Craig, and William L. Roberts, they observed the
differences in behavior and reaction between aggressive and nonaggressive behavior. They
had a different natural setting from us. Their focus was also different, and so was their
coding system. However, one important discovery they made was that only one gender
difference emerged for behaviors. It was that girls engaged in touching twice as frequently
as did boys. (Pepler). Another study that was interesting was Same-sex and opposite-sex
best friend interactions among high school juniors and seniors by Brenda Lundy, Tiffany
Field, Cami McBride, Tory Field, and Shay Largie. This study required participants to
complete a questionnaire and rate their ‘comfort level’ with friends of the same-sex and
friends of the opposite-sex. In the aspect of the same-sex portion, this tied in with our
study, as non-aversive physical contact would relate to the ‘comfort level’ between the
same-sex friends. In their study, they found that females rated their ‘comfort level’ with
female friends higher than males did. We thus hypothesized that the female gender would
display more touches in between their friends, compared to the male gender.
METHOD
DESIGN
As this project was to observe elementary students in their naturalistic environment,
it was our focus to conduct an experiment as such. A naturalistic design experiment is
beneficial as it allows us to observe children in their natural environment without external
influences, and thus reflects their realistic behavior.
We chose the cafeteria as it gives us a good variety of students to look at. We had in
mind that classes in elementary school have very little students. Therefore, by observing
them during lunch, we can a more suitable range of students to observe. On top of this, as
we wanted to observe their interactions within their own gender, a cafeteria setting allowed
us to do so as they could sit with their own gender. This would be harder in a classroom
setting. Moreover, elementary students will interaction more during lunch than compared
to during class due to the presence of a teacher.
However, trying to avoid their attention poses as a challenge. To do this, we observe
them from outside the cafeteria, through the windows. Even though if they spot us, we
would not interact with them. This would minimize the intrusive nature of our observations
although it does not eliminate it completely.
Ethical concerns including informed consent arise. As this is a naturalistic design
experiment, we could not tell the children that we were there to observe them. Instead, we
got permission from Mrs. McVean, the Elementary School Principal. (Appendix 1) This would
settle part of ethical concerns. Although the children did not know our purpose was to
observe the interactions between them, they knew, probably from the surge of visits from
high school students, that we were observing them, or conducting a survey of some sort.
To operationalized our behavior focus, we adopted a coding system (Appendix 2)
whereby we divide non-aversive physical contact into a few sub-categories, namely, hugs,
slaps, pokes, high fives, arm around shoulder, pats on back/shoulder, and holding hands.
This is useful for our analysis and during our observation period, as we know clearly what to
look out for. We used event sampling as we found it most appropriate. We were looking out
for a range of specific actions, and we would record it down when we see it happening.
PARTICIPANTS
Our sample population was children from the fourth grade in Shanghai American School,
Pudong campus. They are international children that have been exposed to cultures other
than their own. They mostly come from upper-middle class families. The fourth grade ate at
the elementary school cafeteria and had relatively fixed seating which ensured continuity in
our two days of observation. We picked two tables, each with only one gender as this one
the purpose of our observation.
MATERIALS
For this observation, I referenced two scientific observation studies (Appendix 3), used
request letters (Appendix 1) to attain permission for our observation, and coding systems
(Appendix 2) to aid us in our observation. We also used the Edexcel book throughout the
observation period.
PROCEDURES
1. Firstly, we settled on our aim of our observation and our focus, which is non-aversive
physical contact. We also decided on the grade to observe, and the time to do so.
2. Secondly, we typed out a request letter to Mrs. McVean to attain permission from
her to observe the elementary school students.
3. We then created a coding system (Appendix 2), and listed out the various types of
non-aversive physical contact we wish to record.
4. On each day, we went before their lunchtime, waiting for them to settle in, and
started to record our observations. It is important that we minimize the influence of
our presence.
5. My partner and I each observe different gender groups, one did the male gender,
and the other did the female gender group. Our target size was about 15 to 20
people in each gender group.
6. During the observation period, constantly look around the table and pay attention to
their behavior throughout lunchtime.
7. After the period, tally up your results and share them with your partner. Discuss your
results, and analyze them.
RESULTS
Graph 1: Total tally of both days of non-aversive physical contacts
70
60
50
Boy with Boy
(Frequency)
40
30
Girl with Girl
(Frequency)
20
10
0
Day 1
Day 2
Graph 2: Day 1 results of the different types of non-aversion physical contact.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Girl with Girl (Frequency)
Boy with Boy (Frequency)
Graph 3: Day 2 results of the different types of non-aversion physical contact.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Girl with Girl (Frequency)
Boy with Boy (Frequency)
DISCUSSION
Processing our raw data, we obtain the above three graphs. Looking at Graph 1, we
can easily tell that the number of non-aversive physical contacts of girls with girls is much
larger than the number of non-aversive physical contacts of boys with boys. Statistically
speaking, on Day 1, girls with girls contacts (63) is slightly more than double of the boys on
boys contact (31). On Day 2, the difference in contacts is slightly more than triple (52 and
17). Both days ties in with our hypothesis. Our results are also in line with the scientific
studies we found. In the Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Best Friend Interactions among High
School Juniors and Seniors study, authors attributed this pattern to a study be Sharabany et
al. (1981), “in which males were found to develop intimacy mere slowly than did females”
as males focus less on emotional support and understand, and stress “specific concrete
needs”. (Lundy) This is very true as we often show emotional support through non-aversive
physical contact like hugs, and high fives. These are also form of encouragement that we
display.
However, breaking down the non-aversive physical contacts into the various types,
and portrayed graphically in Graph 2, and 3, one interesting trend can be noticed.
Contradictory to our above findings, male students pat each other more often than female
students. This is the only type of non-aversive physical contact, which males perform more
than females on both days. This prompted me to revisit and think about the different types
of non-aversive physical contact we had on our coding system. Looking at the various types,
patting is probably the least intimate of the seven we had on our coding this system. This
then, does make sense with the reason given by the scientific study mentioned above. It
was also interesting to note that more intimate contacts such as hugs and holding hands,
male students displayed these forms of contacts significantly lesser than the female
students. Again, it relates to the development of intimacy. Given that our observation was
done on children in the fourth grade, and our scientific study reference was done on
teenagers of the junior and senior year of high school, we can see that slow intimacy
development of the male gender persists throughout the educational years.
It is undeniable that our research had limitations. Firstly, our participants were from
a very exclusive class. They are fourth grade children who come from upper-middle class
families, and have been exposed to many different cultures. Therefore, children of income
classes, and/or under one culture exposure may behavior very differently. Hence, we could
expand our experiment to local schools, and other international school in Shanghai or even
other places. We could also expand it to other grade levels. We might also wish to collect
bio-data so we can more effectively see relationships between cultures, gender and age.
On top of that, they did see us observing them, which may explain the higher
amount of contacts on Day 1, than on Day 2. Due to also confounding variables like the
sudden surge of visiting high school students, they were more active in more presence. This
can be improved if they absolutely did not know we were observing, however, we might
wish to obtain direct parental permission to do so. On top of this, we only had 1 observer
for each table each day. Although we had operationalized our observational study, the one
observer is still subjected to bias. Also, as we are observing up to 17 children at once, it may
not be that accurate. Therefore, we might want to use more observers.
There were also strengths in this experiment. Having them in naturalistic
environment allowed us to observe the undisrupted child behavior. Our coding system also
worked pretty well for us as we knew what to look out for. It is important that our coding
system did not have too much or too little for us to look out for, as either way, we would
not be able to collect accurate and reliable results for analysis.
From this experiment, we might want to expand to non-aversive physical contact of
boy on girl and vice versa. We can than compare the difference when they face a member
of a same sex and another of the opposite sex. We can also go beyond simply non-aversive
physical contact, and go beyond educational age, to see if the trend persists. This could be
useful in the military and sports where trust between the various personal and players are
essential. We can investigate social implications, like where we feel more comfortable see
females on the streets holding hands then males doing so. In our ever-changing society, we
might need to give the young new perspectives on same-sex and opposite-sex interactions.
In conclusion, our observations were consistent with pervious studies. We see that
gender does, in fact, affect our behavior in many ways. In our society where equality is a
dominant idea, we might be able to figure out how to play gender-based behavior to
increase our efficiency in work, and many other areas.
REFERENCES
Lundy, B., Field, T., Mcbride, C., Field, T., & Largie, S. (1998). Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex
Best Friend Interactions among High School Juniors and Seniors. Adolescence,
33(130), 279+. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Questia database:
http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001365724
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., & Roberts, W. L. (1998). Observations of Aggressive and
Nonaggressive Children on the School Playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44(1),
55. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from Questia database:
http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001414004
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
Request Letters
Dear Ms. McVean,
We are two IB Year 1 Psychology students in Ms.Leongs class, and our assignment is to do
an observational study on children in elementary school, during lunchtime, playtime or in
the classroom. We would like to ask your permission to be allowed to observe and take
notes on the Grade Four children during their lunchtime, we won't have any interaction
with them, and will be standing outside the cafeteria, looking through the window, so we do
not disturb the naturalistic aspect of our observation. It will only be for two days, on Friday
and Monday, for a period of 30 minutes each time. If neccasary, we can, in addition, ask the
teachers of the Grade Four students in order inform them too.
Thank you for your understanding,
Dion Loke and Anika Miller
Grade 11 IB Psychology
APPENDIX 2
Coding System
Observation Day __
Types of Non-Averssive
Physical Contact
Hugs
Slaps
Pokes
High Fives
Arm around shoulder
Pats on Back/Shoulder
Holding Hands
Total Contact
Girl with Girl
(Frequency)
Boy with Boy
(Frequency)
APPENDIX 3
Raw Data of Observations
Table 1: Non-Aversive Physical Contact during Lunchtime on Day 2
Observation Day 1 (18/09/09)
Types of Non-Averssive
Physical Contact
Girl with Girl
(Frequency)
Boy with Boy
(Frequency)
Hugs
IIIII IIIII IIII
II
Slaps
III
Pokes
IIIII IIIII
III
High Fives
III
IIIII II
Arm around shoulder
IIIII IIIII III
II
Pats on Back/Shoulder
IIIII IIIII IIIII
IIIII IIIII IIIII II
Holding Hands
IIIII
Total Contact
63
31
Table 2: Non-Aversive Physical Contact during Lunchtime on Day 2
Observation Day 2 (21/09/09)
Types of Non-Averssive
Physical Contact
Girl with Girl
(Frequency)
Hugs
IIIII IIIII III
Boy with Boy
(Frequency)
Slaps
Pokes
IIIII IIIII IIIII
I
High Fives
IIIII IIIII II
IIII
Arm around shoulder
IIIII IIIII III
III
Pats on Back/Shoulder
II
IIIII IIII
Holding Hands
I
Total Contact
52
17