The Psychology behind Violent Pretend Play: Monsters, Heroes and Guns

From backyard sword fights’ screams to sober “rescue missions” arranged with action figures, make-believe play is the most universal childhood activity. Make-believe play allows children to access fantasy worlds where they build, rehearse, and experiment with social roles, emotions, moral rules, and power relations. Developmental psychologists have historically held that play is not merely entertainment but a key learning and adjustment setting. Piaget, for instance, saw play as just one of the ways children incorporate experience into symbolic representation, and Vygotsky argued that play encourages self-regulation and social knowledge through shared rules and narratives.

When play becomes violent in theme — fake sword fights, pretend shooting, fighting monsters — it most often provokes concern. Parents and teachers tend to believe that such play instigates aggression, desensitisation, or antisociality. But research depicts a far more nuanced picture. Violent pretend play is not invariably an indicator of violent behaviour in life. Instead, it is integrated into profound processes of development that incline to help children manage overpowering affects, test social boundaries, and acquire moral codes. Given the right guidance, it is less a rehearsal for violence and more a rehearsal for life.

What “Violent” Pretend Play Looks Like

Violent make-believe play is extremely diverse, commonly combining physicality, narrative, and fantasy. Researchers tend to identify three broad types:

1. Rough-and-Tumble Play (RTP): Boisterous wrestling, chasing, and make-believe combat. Defined by smiling, laughing, and self-regulation cues that distinguish it from actual aggression. Pellis and Pellis (2013) argue that RTP provides children with a “neural workout” for self-control, as they are continually restraining excessive force to demonstrate reciprocity.
2. Themed Pretend Aggression: Children often script battles between heroes and villains, staging conflicts with clear moral arcs. For example, “We’re superheroes fighting the monster” is a common scenario. Smith and Vollstedt (1985) found that these role-based narratives allow children to practice perspective-taking, as they shift between protagonist and antagonist roles.
3. Object-Mediated Enactment: Toy weapons, swords, or even improvised props (sticks, cardboard tubes) take on symbolic roles as children’s scripts for aggression. The object allows them to anchor fantasy contexts in concrete play, both structuring and symbolising.

These forms frequently co-occur in a single play episode. A child will initiate rough-and-tumble wrestling, progress to a scripted fight among superheroes, and end with a toy-gun battle. Perhaps most interestingly, the symbolic significance of these actions changes with context. RTP is employed to build skill in negotiation, themed aggression to enhance moral reasoning, and object play to build symbolic thinking.

Read More: Role of Play in Child Development and Emotional Expression

Developmental Functions of Violent Pretend Play

1. Emotional Regulation

Fantasy aggression is a common mode of action employed by children to process intense feelings like fear, anger, or anxiety. According to psychologist Dorothy Singer, symbolic battles serve the function of allowing children to project internalised fears into manageable forms. For example, engaging in a pretend battle with a “monster” allows them to symbolically overcome fear of the dark, strangers, or bossy authority figures.

Empirical evidence supports this. Carlson and Taylor (2005), in a longitudinal investigation, found that children who used to engage in imaginative pretend play tended to have better emotion regulation skills. Violent themes, when symbolic, gave them healthy ways of releasing and mastering intense feelings. Mastery reduces the likelihood of explosive outbursts of aggression in real life, and it indicates that play is preventive and not evocative of aggression.

2. Social Negotiation and Role-Taking

Fantasy play is a social laboratory. In playing the hero, villain, or victim, children must keep track of others’ minds, negotiate conventions, and rectify transgressions. These episodes necessitate the theory of mind — the ability to understand others’ thoughts, desires, and purposes.

For instance, during pretend battles in superhero role-plays, a child may desire to be invincible, which will lead to protests and negotiations from other children regarding fairness. Such conflict resolution enhances greater resistance in children towards trading self-interest for group cohesion. According to Lillard et al.’s (2013) research, children who engage in pretending more often are linked with improved empathy and perspective-taking abilities, both essential components of prosocial development.

Read More: The Role of Theory of Mind in Autism Spectrum Development

3. Boundary Testing and Moral Rehearsal

Aggressive fantasy play helps children figure out morality in low-stakes situations. Experimenting with “what if” scenarios — What if you push too hard? Is it funny or is it hurtful? — allows kids to practice identifying boundaries and social norms. This rehearsal has long-term effects. Hart and Tannock (2009) observed that children who engaged in pretend fighting were more skilled at distinguishing between symbolic aggression and real harm. On the other hand, children who were denied such play sometimes developed more impulsive aggression since they had no symbolic rehearsal of self-control and reconciliations.

Children also use violent play strategically to control group hierarchies. Exaggerating play into mock battles can get attention, secure the best friendships, or deal with uncontrollable peers. Sutton-Smith (1997) called this the “playful contest” role, in which pretend violence is a way of experimenting with loyalty and power without harming.

In particular, peer relationships influence whether or not pretend violence remains symbolic. Pellegrini (1995) showed that when children experience mutual consent, mock fights remain playful; where coercion is present, the line between play and aggression blurs. This distinction underscores the importance of context.

Read More: The Psychological Impacts of Violent Films on Viewers

Evidence on Links Between Pretend Violence and Actual Aggression

The relationship between pretend violence and later aggression is complex and most commonly misconceived. Studies repeatedly confirm that, more than content, context plays an important role.

1. Rough-and-Tumble Play: As opposed to encouraging aggression, RTP has been linked to enhanced emotional regulation and social competence. To illustrate, play fighting in young rats and primates has been found in experiments to develop neural pathways for self-control, findings paralleling human results (Pellis & Pellis, 2007).
2. Themed Aggression: Violent scripts in themselves do not determine actual aggression. Instead, outcomes are a product of adult scaffolding, peer norms, and exposure to real violence. A study by Hughes (1999) found no correlation with classroom aggression in a classroom where teachers worked actively with reflective discussion.
3. Toy Weapons: Toy guns have come under attack, but research suggests they are not necessarily evil. Children who played symbolically with toy weapons were no more aggressive than those who didn’t, as long as adults enforced the distinction between make-believe and the real world (Holland, 2003). Pretend play violence, therefore, cannot be equated with violent behaviour. It is neither axiomatically dangerous nor always harmless, but context-dependent and governed.

Read More: Why we root for Villains: The Psychology behind our fascination with Anti-Heroes 

Moderators: When Violent Pretend Play Turns Hazardous

Several factors determine whether pretend violence remains healthy or turns dangerous.

1. Adult Responsiveness and Parent and Teacher Sensitivity: Scaffolding by adults is required. If parents ask reflective questions (“Was that fun for both of you?”) or interrupt when play becomes overactive, risks are minimised. Conversely, neglect or punitive responses might reinforce coercive scripts.
2. Peer Group Norms: In social groups, play violence is still symbolic but also consensual. In hostile groups, coercive play can have the effect of normalising hostility.
3. Exposure to Real Violence: Children who witness community or family violence are likely to re-enact abusive aggression in play. Garbarino (2001) observed that traumatised children make use of play as a coping device as well as projecting real threats, requiring sensitive adult intervention.
4. Individual Qualities: Impulse control is important. Children with ADHD or poor self-regulation may struggle to maintain the symbolic boundary, so monitoring them is especially important.

Read More: Understanding Intergenerational Trauma and Its Effects on Family Mental Health

Practical Tips for Parents and Teachers

To that end, violent fantasy play should not be banned but guided tactfully. Practical strategies are:

1. Deal With Pretend Violence as a Learning Experience: Have children reflect with good questions — “How did the monster feel when he was beaten?” — to encourage moral thinking.
2. Model Repair and Rule-Setting: As play gets hotter, adults can model setting boundaries and apologising.
3. Differentiate Between RTP and Aggression: Teachers need to distinguish between rough-and-tumble play (RTP) and coercive aggression, responding appropriately.
4. Control Media Exposure: Excessive exposure to realistic violence (video, computer games) can blur symbolic play with violent aggression. Contextual discussions allow children to distinguish.

Current Relevance and Inclusivity

In today’s digital, multicultural world, pretend play typically draws on globally transmitted media — comic book heroes, Japanese anime, computer games — as well as cultural mythology and local practices. This raises two important questions: inclusivity and sensitivity. For children from violent communities, violent play may be trauma processing. Symbolic battle can give the children a sense of mastery over overwhelming realities, play therapists add. Play with such content must be paired with diligent adult attention to ensure that it heals and is not re-traumatising.

For neurodivergent kids, especially autistic kids, violent play may be a challenge to decipher social cues. Explicit scaffolding can help them learn to read signs of consent and avoid hurting one another by accident. Specifically, inclusive scaffolding is responsive to differences in cultural norms. In some cultures, pretend fighting is an old way of bonding; in others, play weapons are forbidden. Being attuned to such differences allows teachers to support children without imposing blanket rules.

Read More: How Animated Stories and Anime Shape Emotional Intelligence in Children

Conclusion

Monsters, heroes, and guns in fantasy play are not harbingers of real violence but symbolic tools of development. In such contexts, children regulate feelings, rehearse morality, and negotiate social interactions. Consistently across studies, it is shown that when nurtured with reflective adult guidance, pretend aggression fosters rather than derails development. The key is to recognise violent pretend play as symbolic rehearsal, not literal violence.

Parents and teachers can take children’s combat games and transform them into empowering, healthful means of learning in terms of context, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity. Ultimately, violent play fantasy is kids’ effort to comprehend power, threat, and goodness within a complex world. Far from an alert signal, it’s typically rehearsal for resilience, empathy, and self-control — all more important than ever in navigating the demands of real life.

FAQs

1. How do violent tendencies develop in children?

Violent tendencies in children develop from a combination of factors, including family factors like exposure to abuse and neglect, environmental factors like exposure to violence in media and their community, psychological factors such as unresolved trauma, poor emotional regulation, and certain mental health conditions, and social factors like inadequate social skills and being a victim of bullying. 

2. What contributes to an increase in pretend violence over the years?

An increase in pretend violence is linked to increased exposure to media violence, societal factors like social inequalities and conflict, and psychological factors such as an inability to cope with anger or frustration. Children exposed to more violent media are more likely to incorporate it into their play, and they may also be “rehearsing” strategies to manage challenging social situations with aggressive peers. 

3. What can be done to reduce initial aggression from escalating to late violent behaviours?

To reduce the escalation of aggression to violence, one must first de-escalate the immediate situation by staying calm, using a calm and non-threatening body language and supportive verbal communication, listening actively to the person’s concerns, and maintaining a safe physical distance. In the longer term, creating a stable and predictable environment, identifying and managing triggers, teaching and reinforcing appropriate emotional regulation skills like taking breaks or using “I” statements, and seeking professional help when needed can help prevent future incidents. 

References +

Carlson, S. M., & Taylor, M. (2005). Imaginary companions and impersonated characters: Sex differences in children’s fantasy play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0003

Garbarino, J. (2001). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. Anchor Books.

Hart, C. H., & Tannock, M. T. (2009). Play and preschool children with disabilities. In K. A. Roskos & J. F. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early childhood: Research from multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 105–128). Routledge.

Holland, P. (2003). We don’t play with guns here: War, weapon, and superhero play in the early years. McGraw-Hill Education.

Hughes, F. P. (1999). Children, play, and development (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321

Pellis, S. M., & Pellis, V. C. (2007). Rough-and-tumble play and the development of the social brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00483.x

Pellis, S. M., & Pellis, V. C. (2013). The playful brain: Venturing to the limits of neuroscience. Oneworld Publications.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Boys’ rough-and-tumble play and social competence. Educational Psychology, 15(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341950150102

Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and the developing imagination. Harvard University Press.

Smith, P. K., & Vollstedt, R. (1985). On defining play: An empirical study of the relationship between play and other behaviours. Child Development, 56(4), 1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130114

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.