NIn spite of touch being very significant as a communication means, very little is known on why and when touch takes place and what can be deduced when it takes place in opposite-gender or same-gender interactions. Studies focusing on this topic concerning gender and touch have had a focus on touch occurrences that are observed, those that are reported, the beliefs people hold on touch meanings, the perceptions of observers on the interactions taking place and the empirical assessments made on the responses registered for those acts of touch. Relevant methods and questions are few and the literature is also small given the vastness of touch variety. But the relevant literature is actually bigger than the amount that researchers in the field seem to be aware of. They always allude to the same studies over and over again (Stier & Hall, 2004). A study that was semi-structured did an investigation on the differences present in gender as concerns of aggression that are physical, relational, verbal as well as non-verbal. The sample was taken from preschool setting. Findings were made that the differences in responses to aggression can be observed in children as young as three years old. It was found out that girls delivered and received more relational aggression than their male counterparts did. It was found that boys did receive and deliver more physical aggression than their female counterparts. Physical and relational subtypes or received and delivered aggression were linked to social-psychological adjustment of preschoolers (Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casas & Crick, 2004). Introduction

The writings on the differences that exist between the genders can be divided into the following categories: the belief people have on the meaning and frequency, data available detailing the differences, observational studies carried out on frequency of touch as well as studies detailing how people respond to touch (Stier & Hall, 2004).The following are revealed by the observational studies: that there is no major discrepancy on the frequency females and males tend to touch each other; an interesting tendency for higher reception of touch among the females, females tending to touch each other more than men do; and a propensity for more touching among same-gender groups in the females than in the males, especially when there is no intimacy involved. The conclusions made above can still be debated due to the research methods applied (Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casa & Crick, 2004). Data detailing qualitative facets of touch are inconsistent and sparse and cannot be relied upon to give conclusive information on the different meanings the two genders apply to various kinds of touch. The available literature points to the fact that females are more receptive to touch than males. The hypothesis made by Henley which is a fundamental hypothesis on the differences of touch among men and women, is given more attention as a viable framework to explain the phenomenon. Researchers are also evaluating a model that is gender-balanced covering victimization among peers and significant others or friends. The ideal circumstance for such a perception was to a range, where subjects were performing every day routine work in an easygoing encompassing.

Physical victimization is about being constantly targeted by aggressive physical behavior from other people and is common in interactions among males. Given that the younger girls like to play with members of their own gender points to a situation suggesting that they may be prone to higher risks of their peers relationally victimizing them (Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casas & Crick, 2004). Furthermore, since girls always want to achieve closer interpersonal bonds and also tend to give their focus to relational characteristics of interactions, the girls might have higher risks of being affected after being victimized relationally. Boys, on the other hand, might be vulnerable to those physical actions that subvert their social dominance as they tend to engage more on group activities and dominance/instrumental interactions (Stier & Hall, 2004).

Problem Statement

In spite of the many efforts in the observation of aggressive and antisocial behavior among young children, the area has just began developing structures and systems to help in the capturing of relational aggression among young girls and boys. Another factor is that majority of the reported touches in the tables are actually not aggressive. In adults, the males are more physically aggressive, as evidenced by research. The males initiate more physical aggression and research also reveals that even among the children, the boys register more assault, either aggressive or playful (Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casas & Crick,...

There is consistency with the results recorded in the two observational results. The two show that handshaking was more common among the males than in the females (Stier & Hall, 2004). Studies show that men are touched less than women, showing that the women, when compared to men, are more approachable and show vulnerability to personal intrusion due to the low status they have in society.
Literature Review

There exists a widely accepted theory of differences present in touch. Researchers made proposals that males initiate touching females more frequently than females initiate touch towards the males. The difference in status as maintained affords men more privilege to touch and so is a contributor to men dominating women. Ideas presented by experts in this area have given inspiration to their colleague workers for quite some time now and also influenced the way psychologists involved in the study of nonverbal acts think. This paper aims at evaluating this theory given the findings made in the recent past. An approach based on gender to victimization and aggression study among children in early ages is crucial as it could significantly raise our comprehension of the social growth and development of children and may bring to light certain factors which are useful in figuring maladaptive developmental pathways of every gender. Because the recordings were made as soon as the touches occurred, the research is more valuable empirically, at least on face value, than the other studies that were based on self-beliefs and reports. Analyzing the recordings, it was realized that females initiated more touches than males. A portion of the results for the initiation of touch was left out because of its artificial nature. It was indicated that females touched less than males in greetings, considering touching, hugging and a touch on the shoulder or arm or during hand shaking. Males initiated this kind of touch and male-male touch was more than the numbers recorded for the females. The best study addressing the issue is intentional touch using the hands observational studies. In this study, it was realized that young male adults touched their female counterparts more than the young female adults did to them. In the article, other two samples of other groups failed to indicate a difference like that. Apart from the famous results, this literature gives other interesting results. The results were reported by focusing on rates of touch, frequency, number of pairs involving opposite genders showing male-female touches vs. female-male touches and also duration of touch. If we disregard statistical significance, the results are consistent in indicating that female-male touches were more than male-female touches. The study was conducted using preschoolers so the view may not be consistent with adults. In spite of the possible practical and scientific benefits that may accrue from such kind of research, a very small number of researchers have heeded to calls to do more research covering topics in this field. This has led to small empirical data being available. There are some progresses that have been made in the area but a number of limitations are still plaguing the field. The current study is targeted at addressing these limitations (Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casa & Crick, 2004).

Researchers making use of peer- and teacher-report methods found supporting evidence of physical and relational aggression as far as genders of U.S. Preschoolers is concerned. The same have been found in other locations abroad. Reports made by teachers on research done recently indicate that gender differences exist in physical and relational victimization among preschool going children. While the findings made may be in line with the model linked to gender, their basis is quite a small portion of literature since most of the studies done on victimization and relational aggression have been focused on children of school-going age and in adolescents. Further, in the studies that have been done in the past, overlap between relational and physical aggression has not been so high and more research going further into testing the many sided nature of the two constructs is required at childhood. The difference on initiation of touch based on gender would appear to depend on the specifics of the interaction the participants are having. Not included in the tables is a study that asked participants to note the touches they received and also not the gender of the person initiating the touch. The extant developmental writings have a serious limitation that there is no empirical research on young children in preschool focusing on relational aggression and victimization. Studies suggest that given their stature in the society, men have more freedom as…