This article examines the association between gender-segregated peer preferences and sexism in adolescents. It studies 145 adolescents between 15-17 years old, assessing their preferences for same-gender peers in social and school contexts as well as their levels of two types of modern sexism: denial of continuing discrimination and antagonism towards women's demands. The results found gender differences - for boys, antagonism towards women's demands was associated with gender-segregated peer preferences in school and home, while for girls, denial of continuing discrimination was associated with gender-segregated peer preferences at home. The study provides insight into how gender segregation relates to sexist attitudes in adolescents.
An exploration into a patriarchal society that devalues anything that emasculates male children, while simultaneously celebrating female children who become more masculine.
Get out!!! black male suspensions in california public schools #BMIUCLA #SDSUGary Clarke
This report is a joint publication of the Black Minds Project (an initiative of the Community College Equity Assessment Lab (CCEAL) at San Diego State University (SDSU) and the Black Male Institute at the University of California, Los-Angeles (UCLA). In this report, we present analyses of publicly available statewide data on the suspension of Black males in California’s public schools.
The statewide suspension rate for Black males is 3.6 times
greater than that of the statewide rate for all students. Specifically, while 3.6% of all students were suspended in 2016-2017, the
suspension rate for Black boys and young men was 12.8%.
• Since 2011-2012, the suspension rates of Black males in California
has declined from 17.8% to 12.8%.
• The highest suspension disparity by grade level occurs in early
childhood education (Grades K through 3) where Black boys are
5.6 times more likely to be suspended than the state average.
• Black male students who are classified as “foster youth” are
suspended at noticeably high rates, at 27.4%. Across all analyses,
Black males who were foster youth in seventh and eighth grade
represented the subgroup that had the highest percentage of
Black male suspensions, at 41.0%.
• The highest total suspensions occurred in large urban counties,
such as Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, San
Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Contra Costa County.
In fact, these five counties alone account for 61% of Black
male suspensions.
• The highest suspension rates for Black males occur in rural
counties that have smaller Black male enrollments. In 2016-2017,Glenn County led the state in Black male suspensions at 42.9%.
• Other Counties with high suspension rates included Amador
County, Colusa County, Del Norte County, and Tehama County.
San Joaquin county has especially high suspension patterns.
In the past 5 years, they have reported suspension rates
at 20% or above. Four counties have reported similarly high
suspension patterns across the past 4 of 5 years, they include:
Modoc County, Butte County, Merced County, and Yuba County.
• A number of districts have large numbers of Black boys
and young men who were suspended at least once. Some
of these districts included Sacramento City Unified (n = 887),
Los Angeles Unified (n = 849), Elk Grove Unified (n = 745), Fresno
Unified (n = 729) and Oakland Unified (n = 711).
• There are 10 school districts in the state with suspension rates
above 30%. Of these, the highest suspension rates are reported
at Bayshore Elementary (San Mateo County, at 50%), Oroville
Union High (Butte County, at 45.2%), and the California School for
the Deaf-Fremont (Alameda County, at 43.8%).
• There are 88 school districts in the state of California that have
suspension rates for Black males that are below the state
average. These schools vary in size, urbanicity, and region.
#BMIUCLA
This article discusses how masculinity vs feminism works. (This article has not been proof read). This work was done due to a curiosity generated through communication studies in my sophomore year of college.
This research study intends to explore the educational and social considerations of spouse selection preferences of people with and without special needs. This study was quantitative in its nature and survey research design was used. The population of the study was the students from four universities in Lahore city. Sample of the study delimited to four Universities, University of the Sargodha Lahore Campus University of the Punjab, University of Lahore & University of the Gujarat Lahore campus Total 98 students were selected through convenient sampling. Researchers have used self-developed questionnaire for data collection. Researchers have personally collected the data. Descriptive and inferential statistical procedures were used to analyze the data. Findings of this study reveals that youngsters prefer to marry in the age of 21-25 years with the age difference of 4-6 years of their spouses. Educational considerations, personality traits and same religious background were the top preferred features of the spouse selection criteria. People with special needs prefer the spouse selection considering the above characteristics plus of disability of the same nature. People without special needs not prefer the spouse with disability. There is significant difference in the spouse selection preferences between the gender and disability status of the respondents. In Pakistan, there is no comprehensive study about the preferences in spouse selection of males and females so there is need to more work on broad level in terms of spouse selection preferences.
An exploration into a patriarchal society that devalues anything that emasculates male children, while simultaneously celebrating female children who become more masculine.
Get out!!! black male suspensions in california public schools #BMIUCLA #SDSUGary Clarke
This report is a joint publication of the Black Minds Project (an initiative of the Community College Equity Assessment Lab (CCEAL) at San Diego State University (SDSU) and the Black Male Institute at the University of California, Los-Angeles (UCLA). In this report, we present analyses of publicly available statewide data on the suspension of Black males in California’s public schools.
The statewide suspension rate for Black males is 3.6 times
greater than that of the statewide rate for all students. Specifically, while 3.6% of all students were suspended in 2016-2017, the
suspension rate for Black boys and young men was 12.8%.
• Since 2011-2012, the suspension rates of Black males in California
has declined from 17.8% to 12.8%.
• The highest suspension disparity by grade level occurs in early
childhood education (Grades K through 3) where Black boys are
5.6 times more likely to be suspended than the state average.
• Black male students who are classified as “foster youth” are
suspended at noticeably high rates, at 27.4%. Across all analyses,
Black males who were foster youth in seventh and eighth grade
represented the subgroup that had the highest percentage of
Black male suspensions, at 41.0%.
• The highest total suspensions occurred in large urban counties,
such as Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, San
Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Contra Costa County.
In fact, these five counties alone account for 61% of Black
male suspensions.
• The highest suspension rates for Black males occur in rural
counties that have smaller Black male enrollments. In 2016-2017,Glenn County led the state in Black male suspensions at 42.9%.
• Other Counties with high suspension rates included Amador
County, Colusa County, Del Norte County, and Tehama County.
San Joaquin county has especially high suspension patterns.
In the past 5 years, they have reported suspension rates
at 20% or above. Four counties have reported similarly high
suspension patterns across the past 4 of 5 years, they include:
Modoc County, Butte County, Merced County, and Yuba County.
• A number of districts have large numbers of Black boys
and young men who were suspended at least once. Some
of these districts included Sacramento City Unified (n = 887),
Los Angeles Unified (n = 849), Elk Grove Unified (n = 745), Fresno
Unified (n = 729) and Oakland Unified (n = 711).
• There are 10 school districts in the state with suspension rates
above 30%. Of these, the highest suspension rates are reported
at Bayshore Elementary (San Mateo County, at 50%), Oroville
Union High (Butte County, at 45.2%), and the California School for
the Deaf-Fremont (Alameda County, at 43.8%).
• There are 88 school districts in the state of California that have
suspension rates for Black males that are below the state
average. These schools vary in size, urbanicity, and region.
#BMIUCLA
This article discusses how masculinity vs feminism works. (This article has not been proof read). This work was done due to a curiosity generated through communication studies in my sophomore year of college.
This research study intends to explore the educational and social considerations of spouse selection preferences of people with and without special needs. This study was quantitative in its nature and survey research design was used. The population of the study was the students from four universities in Lahore city. Sample of the study delimited to four Universities, University of the Sargodha Lahore Campus University of the Punjab, University of Lahore & University of the Gujarat Lahore campus Total 98 students were selected through convenient sampling. Researchers have used self-developed questionnaire for data collection. Researchers have personally collected the data. Descriptive and inferential statistical procedures were used to analyze the data. Findings of this study reveals that youngsters prefer to marry in the age of 21-25 years with the age difference of 4-6 years of their spouses. Educational considerations, personality traits and same religious background were the top preferred features of the spouse selection criteria. People with special needs prefer the spouse selection considering the above characteristics plus of disability of the same nature. People without special needs not prefer the spouse with disability. There is significant difference in the spouse selection preferences between the gender and disability status of the respondents. In Pakistan, there is no comprehensive study about the preferences in spouse selection of males and females so there is need to more work on broad level in terms of spouse selection preferences.
CHAPTER ONE But Im Not Gay What Strainht Teachers .docxchristinemaritza
CHAPTER ONE
"But I'm Not Gay": What Strainht
Teachers Need to Know about
Qyeer Theory
Elizabeth]. Meyer
Introduction
Most scholars and educators steer clear of queer theory because the word
"queer" has a long history of being a pejorative term for gays and lesbians or
anyone perceived to be different. What many people do not understand is that
in the past twenty years, this term has been actively under reconstruction and
has been infused with new meanings and applications. Although "queer" is still
often used with the intent to harm, in scholarly contexts it has come to repre
sent new concepts that, when applied in the school setting, can have a libera
tory and positive influence on the way schools work today.
Another common misunderstanding about queer theory is that it is a syno
nym for gay and lesbian studies. Although queer theory emerged from the
work of scholars in this field, it has evolved to become much more broad and
encompassing than gay and lesbian studies. Queer theory goes beyond explor
ing aspects of gay and lesbian identity and experience. It questions taken-for
granted assumptions about relationships, identity, gender, and sexual orienta
tion. It seeks to explode rigid normalizing categories into possibilities that ex
ist beyond the binaries of man/woman, masculine/feminine, student/teacher,
and gay I straight. Queer theory offers educators a lens through which educa
tors can transform their praxis so as to explore and celebrate the tensions and
new understandings created by teaching new ways of seeing the world. This
chapter will introduce some key tenets of queer theory and describe how the
application of these ideas by all educators can create classrooms that are more
liberatory, inclusive of diversity and socially just.
16 "But I'm Not Gay"
r
The first section describes how the persistence of homophobia and the re
lated tool of sexism in schools harm everyone in the community and how the
most basic expectation of school safety for all cannot be attained until these
issues are addressed. The second section describes how gender codes work to
limit the opportunities available to students and teachers in schools and soci
ety. The third section addresses the concepts of language and discourse and
how understanding this form of power is essential to understanding how to
transform school cultures. The fourth section explains several of the key ideas
in Queer Theory that are most relevant to educators working in schools today.
Finally, this chapter concludes with a brief summary of key points and a de
scription of how queer theory and an application of queer pedagogies can
move schools toward being more liberatory, inclusive, and socially just.
The Harmful Effects of Homophobia and Heterosexism
In recent years there has been growing attention paid to the important issue of
violence in schools. The issue of bullying and harassment is one aspect ...
Learning OutcomesThis week students will1. Apply the concep.docxsmile790243
Learning Outcomes
This week students will:
1. Apply the concept of inclusion to educational settings.
2. Describe how to implement the Four S’s of inclusion within a physical education lesson.
3. Reflect on the influence of home and school environment on motivation and motor development.
Introduction
This week you will discuss how inclusion extends beyond formally recognized disabilities, and into having more sensitivity and respect for others. In the text, you will read how inclusion can relate to children from different cultural backgrounds, where certain beliefs, values, and practices are different from traditional American ones. Therefore, you extend the notion of inclusion to children who may face barriers while engaging in physical education, not only from a particular disability, but also perhaps due to their body composition, the language they speak, or their cultural background. You will discuss how you can use teaching strategies to provide an enjoyable physical education for every child.
Required Resources
Required Text
1. Foundations of Moving and Learning
a. Chapter 8 – Including All Children for Success
· This chapter explores the concept of inclusion as it applies to educational settings
.
Recommended Resources
Multimedia
1. Goodman, R. (Director) & Read, M. R. (Producer). (2005). Special needs students in regular classrooms? Sean’s story [Television series episode]. In J. Tomlin (Executive producer) Turning point. New York, NY: ABC News. Retrieved from Films on Demand.
· This is the story of an 8-year-old boy with Down syndrome who was part of a battle over "inclusion," the practice of placing mentally or physically challenged students in regular classrooms.
Running head: GENDER DISCRIMINATION; A CONSEQUENCE OF INEQUALITY 1
GENDER DISCRIMINATION; A CONSEQUENCE OF INEQUALITY 2
Gender Discrimination; a Consequence of Inequality
Student’s Name:
Course Name and Number:
Instructor’s Name:
Date Submitted:
Gender Discrimination; a Consequence of Inequality
Introduction
Description
Inequality is a theme that has become rampant in society over the years receiving interest from big organizations. It is an unseen ailment that arises from poverty, gender disparity, educational level, age, and even race. With the far reach of inequality, it is no surprise several bodies are looking into the issue with the aim of closing that chapter and advancing to newer issues.
Gender Discrimination (Social Problem)
Associated to Meyer (2004), we contemplate the definition of sex to be all practices that are communal, traditional and dialectal that result in processes which differ males from females. Some cultural aspects in our communities have pre-programed individuals to adhere to certain norms that create the disparity between genders. Those of the male gender are usually given the upper hand in some populations, leaving out women and children to the mercy of the men in their lives. There is a constant scuffle for ...
"But I'm Not Gay": What Strainht Teachers Need to Know about Queer Theory. ...eraser Juan José Calderón
"But I'm Not Gay": What Strainht Teachers Need to Know about Queer Theory. Elizabeth ]. Meyer .
Introducción
La mayoría de los académicos y educadores se mantienen alejados de la teoría queer porque la palabra "queer" tiene una larga historia de ser un término peyorativo para gays y lesbianas o cualquier persona percibida como diferente. Lo que muchas personas no entienden es que en los últimos veinte años, este término ha sido activamente en reconstrucción y ha recibido nuevos significados y aplicaciones. Aunque "queer" todavía se usa a menudo con la intención de dañar, en contextos académicos ha llegado a representar nuevos conceptos que, cuando se aplican en el entorno escolar, pueden tener una influencia liberadora y positiva en la forma en que funcionan las escuelas hoy en día.
Yuming Liu
1630005
Professor Arthur
Writ 2-Essay One
Oct 31,2018
Xxx
Hi Katharine Mitchell,
I am Jessica Waldorf, a scholar research in Sex and Gender for 5 years, who just travel to Santa Cruz. And I write this paper for suggesting that UCSC should add a new major or some courses for students, which deal with the topic of Sex and Gender.
Over the last couple of years, significant changes have taken place in the world. As the world has entered the “Internet Age”, it has changed the entire face of the world, how life used to be and how things are right now. With this border context, some emerging problems which might be only cared for by a small group of people might evolve a heated discussion. Nowadays, with more and more incident and city news came out, like Harvey Weinstein’s and Trump’s sexual harassment news, more and more people start to care about “Sex and Gender” problems. What’s more, recently, in the scientific community, interdisciplinary research become a general trend of subject development. Because of this, the research of “Sex and Gender” as a cross-disciplinary subject must have more and more scientists to commit. The importance of Sex and Gender research can also be understood by the statement of Carol Colaterlla who is the associate dean at the Ivan Allen CLA and also co-director of the Center for the Study of Technology at the Georgia Institute of Technology, “Gender students as a field illustrates the potential of interdisciplinary scholarship in today’s scientific and technical university” (Carol, 2014). How can we miss the chance to build up such a subject, which is popular and have scientific research value, in such a beautiful campus?
In the United States, sex and gender education has always remained a hot debate or issue. “While the debate about sex and gender studies are mostly related to grad school and high school, there were rarely any talk about the discussion of sex and gender course at the collegiate level or graduation level” (Sollie, Donna & Kaetz, 1992). This actually tells a lot about as educationists and as a nation, we have failed to understand the importance of this education for students and how it will help them in the rest of their lives. Because of the resource available nowadays, there remains no reason why gender and sex courses should not become a part of educational institutions and teach to students. This is a humble effort of convincing the school to include gender and sex courses in their curriculum and play their part in educating students and prepare them for life completely. It should be taught as an essential course to all students – regardless of their fields. Just like language composition, report writing and math is taught to every student, sex and gender courses should also be introduced in the school. This task can be accomplished by creating multiple courses that meet the health science general education requirements. Although, we are always debate about when sex education shoul.
Similar to Keener, Mehta & Strough_Should educators and parents encourage other-gender interactions (20)
Keener, Mehta & Strough_Should educators and parents encourage other-gender interactions
1. This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]
On: 04 November 2014, At: 08:40
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Gender and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgee20
Should educators and parents
encourage other-gender interactions?
Gender segregation and sexism
Emily Keener
a
, Clare Mehta
bc
& JoNell Strough
d
a
Department of Psychology, Slippery Rock University, Slippery
Rock, PA, USA
b
Department of Psychology, Emmanuel College, Boston, MA, USA
c
Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA,
USA
d
Department of Psychology, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, USA
Published online: 25 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Emily Keener, Clare Mehta & JoNell Strough (2013) Should educators and
parents encourage other-gender interactions? Gender segregation and sexism, Gender and
Education, 25:7, 818-833, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2013.845648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.845648
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
2. Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
4. and diversity and that in order to live together as adult co-workers or family members,
children should learn together in co-educational settings (see American Counsel for
Coeducational Schooling – http://lives.clas.asu.edu/acces/index.html). Thus, the
present study aims to examine the link between gender-segregated peer preferences
and sexism. Specifically, we examined preference of same-gender peers in home and
school settings where adolescents have the choice to associate with (work with or
hang out with) same- or other-gender peers. We hope to expand the conversation of
the benefits of mixed-gender peer settings (e.g. co-educational settings) to the benefits
of mixed-gender peer interaction in the home context.
According to Leaper (1994) childhood gender segregation and the socialisation of
children in gender-segregated peer groups play a role in creating differential power and
status between men and women, and thus may contribute to gender inequality and
sexism in society. Sexism is a particularly important potential correlate of gender seg-
regation. As some educators and parents promote gender segregation (e.g. dividing the
groups of boys and girls by gender during activities), it is important to understand cor-
relates of gender segregation relating to equality and diversity issues such as sexism.
Because of the wide ranging implications of sexism in adulthood such as cross-cultural
gender inequality in terms of political and economic power (Brandt 2011), women’s
unequal pay (Lips 2003), and negative evaluations of women leaders (Eagly and
Karau 2002; Rudman and Glick 2001), it is important to investigate whether adoles-
cents’ social contexts are related to their sexist attitudes. Relationships with peers
increase in importance from childhood to adolescence (Buhrmester 1990; Opotow
1991) and the degree to which gender segregation characterises adolescents’ peer
relationships varies as a function of the specific setting – home versus school
(Strough and Covatto 2002). In the present study, we considered whether the associ-
ation between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences varied according to
gender, type of sexism, and the social context of home versus school.
Gender-segregation and sexism
The association between racial segregation and prejudice has been widely documented
(cf. Pettigrew 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006); however, little research has investi-
gated the associations between gender-segregated peer preferences and prejudice.
When theorising about the association between gender segregation and sexism,
researchers (Clark 1994; Leaper 1994) have drawn on Bem’s gender schema theory
(Bem 1989). Bem’s gender schema theory posits that as children learn the category
of gender, they develop an in-group bias, favouring their own gender while differentiat-
ing themselves from the other gender (see also Tajfel 1978; Tobin et al. 2010). There-
fore, sexism may lead to gender segregation: girls and boys avoid interactions with the
other gender due to their in-group biases.
During adolescence, the peer group is a proximal developmental context (Collins
and Steinberg 2006). Adolescents’ peer groups are segregated by gender, even
though the degree of gender segregation declines relative to earlier age periods (see
Mehta and Strough 2009, for a review). Adolescents’ same-gender peers may socialise
attitudes and values (Mackey and La Greca 2008). For example, some research has
found that same-gender peers socialise gender-stereotyped attitudes towards women
(McHale et al. 2004). Furthermore, stereotyped beliefs about the other gender are
thought to develop in gender-segregated peer groups and to fuel further gender segre-
gation (Karpiak et al. 2007; Leaper 1994; Maccoby 1998). Thus, it is important to
Gender and Education 819
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
5. investigate the association between adolescents’ gender-segregated peer groups and
their sexist attitudes.
Sexism
In the present study, we examined associations between gender-segregated peer prefer-
ences in adolescents’ normative contexts and modern sexism. Modern sexism is a mul-
tidimensional construct comprising covert attitudes supporting the unequal treatment of
men and women (Swim et al. 1995). Modern sexism includes covert beliefs that gender
discrimination no longer exists – Denial of Continuing Discrimination – and beliefs that
feminist issues are unimportant or of little concern – Antagonism towards Women’s
Demands. Researchers suggest that modern or covert forms of sexism often go unno-
ticed because they are built into societal norms (Swim et al. 1995). Children as young as
10 understand covert forms of prejudice (Brown and Bigler 2005).
Although research has yet to examine the association between gender segregation
and modern sexism and whether the association varies depending on a person’s
gender and the dimension of modern sexism examined, prior research investigating
the association between other forms of sexism – ambivalent sexism, and gender segre-
gation suggests that the strength of the association depends on the dimension of sexism
and a person’s gender.
Studies using ambivalent sexism measures (cf. Glick and Fiske 1996, 1999) show
that the association between gender segregation and sexism varies by the dimension of
sexism (benevolent sexism towards women, benevolent sexism towards men, hostile
sexism towards women, and hostile sexism towards men) and a person’s gender. For
example, although sexism was not found to be the most important predictor of cross-
gender friendships, Lenton and Webber (2006) found that for young adult men, but
not women, gender segregation was associated with benevolent sexism towards men
(e.g. ‘men are more willing to take risks than women’), but not towards women
(‘a good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man’). Gender segregation was
not associated with hostile sexism towards men or women (‘men act like babies when
they are sick’ or that ‘women seek to gain power by getting control over men’). Similarly,
research with adolescents also indicates that the relation between a specific type of gender
segregation, experience with other-gender romantic partners, and sexism depends on the
dimension of sexism and a person’s gender. Among Spanish adolescent boys, lesser
experience with other-gender romantic partners was associated with greater benevolent
sexism towards girls. For Spanish girls, lesser experience with other-gender romantic
partners was associated with greater hostile sexism towards girls (de Lemus, Moya,
and Glick 2010). Together, these studies show that the association between sexism
and gender segregation varies depending on a person’s gender and the dimension of
sexism examined for young adults and adolescents.
Based on this research, we examined whether the association between gender-seg-
regated peer preferences would vary depending on the dimensions of a different form of
sexism – modern sexism, which has yet to be examined in association with gender seg-
regation. We predicted that the associations between gender-segregated peer prefer-
ences and sexism would vary depending on a person’s gender and the dimension of
modern sexism measured: Antagonism towards Women’s Demands and Denial of Con-
tinuing Discrimination.
In terms of whether the associations between gender-segregated peer preferences
and dimensions of modern sexism would vary by a person’s gender, consistent with
820 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
6. the research just reviewed (i.e. de Lemus, Moya, and Glick 2010; Lenton and Webber
2006), theoretical work suggests that associations between gender segregation and
sexism vary by a person’s gender. According to Maccoby (1998) gender segregation
may be associated with sexism for boys more than for girls because of the higher
status assigned to boys and men compared to girls and women in contemporary Amer-
ican culture. Leaper (1994) suggests that in-group biases – preferences for members of
the same group – are more likely to occur in high-status groups than in low-status
groups. Drawing from theoretical work and prior research, we examined dimensions
of modern sexism as correlates of gender-segregated peer preferences and expected
that associations would be moderated by gender such that associations would be stron-
ger for boys than for girls.
Social context
Our investigation of gender-segregated peer preferences and sexism is informed by our
developmental social-constructionist model of gender development (Mehta and
Strough 2009) which builds upon Deaux and Major’s (1987) social-constructionist
theory. Our model emphasises that gender-typed behaviours and attitudes are created
and maintained by the transaction of the person and his or her age-graded normative
developmental contexts (e.g. peer relationships at home and at school). Empirical
work is consistent with this model. Specifically, adolescents’ gender-typed behaviours
vary according to the social context of interacting with a same- or other-gender peer
(Leszczynski and Strough 2008; Strough and Berg 2000). Adolescents’ interactions
with peers often occur at school and at their homes when friends get together to
‘hang out’. Adolescents’ expectations of enjoying of interactions with same- and
other-gender peers vary depending upon whether interactions occur at home versus
at school (Strough and Covatto 2002). Given theory and empirical research, we pre-
dicted that sexism, which is related both to gender-typed behaviours and expectations
of interactions with others, may vary based on the social context in which they interact
with peers
Prior research indicates that gender segregation at school (Karpiak et al. 2007) and
outside of or independent of the school setting (Lenton and Webber 2006) is associated
with gender-stereotypical or sexist attitudes. Specifically, for gender segregation at
school, Karpiak et al. (2007) found that boys who attended single-gender schools
were less likely to have egalitarian gender-role attitudes in marital, parental, employ-
ment, social, and educational domains than boys who attended co-educational high
schools. For gender segregation outside of or not related to the school setting,
gender segregation (experience with other-gender friendships, Lenton and Webber
2006; or experience with other-gender romantic relationships, de Lemus, Moya, and
Glick 2010) was related to sexism. Although researchers have examined the association
between gender segregation in the school and home contexts, we are unaware of any
research that has simultaneously compared gender segregation and sexism in both
contexts.
To address this gap in the literature and based on theory suggesting gender-typed
behaviour varies as a function of the social context, the present study predicted that
the association between gender-segregated peer preferences and sexism would vary
depending on the social context. Because compared to peers chosen to work with on
a project, peers with whom an adolescent chooses to hang out with at home might
be closer in terms of relationship satisfaction and thus have a greater impact on
Gender and Education 821
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
7. attitudes, we predicted that the association between sexism and gender-segregated peer
preferences would be stronger in the home context compared to in the school context.
To address this gap in the literature and based on theory suggesting gender-typed be-
haviour varies as a function of the social context, the present study predicted that the
association between gender-segregated peer preferences and sexism would vary
depending on the social context.
Hypotheses
Based on theory and the findings of prior empirical research, we predicted: (a) gender-
segregated peer preferences would be associated with sexism, and would be moderated
by (b1) the type of sexism measured: Antagonism towards Women’s Demands and
Denial of Continuing Discrimination, (b2) the social context: hanging out at home
and working on a project at school, and (b3) gender: boys and girls.
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 143; 58 boys and 85 girls) were adolescents aged 15–17 years (M age
= 16.02 years, SD = 0.84) in grades 9 (21%), 10 (27%), 11 (34%), and 12 (18%) from
small town, suburban private (78%) and public schools (22%) in West Virginia and
Pennsylvania. Participants identified their race as European American (81%), Asian
American (7%), African American (3%), Hispanic (2%), and other (7%).
Procedure
In this paper, we report unpublished data from a larger study of gender segregation
(Mehta and Strough 2010). Here, we provide information on the procedures and
measures pertaining to the research questions we addressed in this paper. Consent
forms were distributed to potential participants by research assistants or teachers. Of
consent forms distributed, 70% were returned. Participants with parental consent com-
pleted an assent form to indicate whether they agreed to participate. All of the students
with parental consent assented to participate. After assenting, participants completed a
series of measures, including measures of gender-segregated peer preferences in which
they were asked to nominate peers with whom they would like to hang out with at home
and peers with whom they would like to work with on a project at school. Participants
were also asked to complete a measure of sexism and to report basic demographic infor-
mation. The survey was completed in a single session.
Measures
Gender-segregated peer preferences
Strough and Covatto’s (2002) measure was used to assess gender-segregated peer pre-
ferences in two social contexts: home and school. To assess preferred peers for causal
interactions at home, participants were asked to list the names and gender of five people
whom they would like to invite over to their house to hang out. To assess preferred
peers for working on a project at school, participants were asked to list the names
and gender of five people with whom they would want to work on a project at school.
822 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
8. Scores were calculated to indicate the proportion of the five nominated peers who
were the same gender as the participant. Separate scores were calculated for the
home (M = .72, SD = .23; Mgirls = .73, SDgirls = .20; Mboys = .70, SDboys = .26) and
school (M = .72, SD = .23; Mgirls = .75, SDgirls = .22; Mboys = .67, SDboys = .24) con-
texts (Table 1). Although the two measures of gender-segregated peer preferences
could be used together as one score, by using separate scores we were able to
examine whether the association of sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences
varied by the social context.
Modern sexism
Swim et al.’s (1995) Modern Sexism Scale (eight items) was used to measure modern
sexism. Participants responded to each of the items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree) numerical scale. The Modern Sexism Scale includes items assessing
three constructs: Denial of Continuing Discrimination, Antagonism towards
Women’s Demands, and resentment about special favours for women. These constructs
were originally conceptualised by Sears (1988) to describe covert or modern racism.
When applied to sexism, Denial of Continuing Discrimination reflects the view that
women have made enough progress towards equality such that sexism is a thing of
the past (e.g. ‘Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United
States’); the construct Antagonism towards Women’s Demands reflects animosity
towards women who work towards political or economic advancement for women
(e.g. ‘It is easy to understand the anger of women’s groups in America’ reverse
scored); and resentment about special favours for women reflects anger or dislike
when special concern is given to women (e.g. ‘Over the past few years, the government
and news media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is
warranted by women’s actual experiences’).
Two successful validation studies of Swim et al.’s (1995) Modern Sexism
Scale have been conducted with college student samples (Campbell et al. 1997;
Swim et al. 1995). However, a validation study conducted with a community sample
(16–58 years old) was unsuccessful (Morrison et al. 1999) and indicated that the
original scale may need to be modified in samples comprising non-college students.
Because our sample comprises adolescents, we explored the factor structure of the
Modern Sexism Scale.
Preliminary results
To determine the structure of Swim et al.’s (1995) Modern Sexism Scale for the ado-
lescents in our study, and to create subscales to use in the analyses, a principal
Table 1. Means (standard deviations) by gender for all study variables.
Girls Boys Total p
Antagonism Towards Women’s Demands 2.97 (0.95) 3.34 (1.08) 3.12 (1.02) 0.03*
Denial of Continuing Discrimination 3.65 (0.75) 3.30 (0.82) 3.51 (0.80) 0.01*
Gender Segregation: School .75 (0.22) .67 (0.24) .72 (0.23) 0.04*
Gender Segregation: Home .73 (0.20) .70 (0.26) .72 (0.23) .41
*p < .05.
Gender and Education 823
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
9. components analysis was performed.1
Based on the results of the initial analyses, two of
the eight items were excluded from the final principal components analysis. First, to
avoid a single-item indicator of a construct, the item representing resentment about
special favours for women (i.e. ‘Over the past few years, the government and news
media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is war-
ranted by women’s actual experiences’) was excluded. Second, one of the five items
representing Denial of Continuing Discrimination (i.e. ‘Women often miss out on
good jobs due to sexual discrimination’) was excluded because the item loaded on
more than one factor. When this item was included on either factor, the internal consist-
ency of the scale was poor. After these two items were removed, the remaining six
items from the original Modern Sexism subscale were included in a principal com-
ponents analysis with varimax rotation of the axes.
Two components with eigenvalues greater than one were retained on the basis of
Cattell’s (1966) scree test. The two components accounted for 63.42% of the variance
in the data after rotation. Items with loadings greater than .45 were used for interpret-
ation (Comrey and Lee 1992). After rotation, the first component, Denial of Continu-
ing Discrimination (four items), accounted for 34.47% of the variance (M = 3.51, SD
= .80; Mgirls = 3.65, SDgirls = .75; Mboys = 3.30, SDboys = .80, α = .68) and the second
component, Antagonism towards Women’s Demands (two items), accounted for
28.96% of the variance (M = 3.12, SD = 1.02; Mgirls = 2.97, SDgirls = .95; Mboys =
3.34, SDboys = 1.08, α = .78; see Table 1). To create subscales to be used in the
analyses, the ratings of items that loaded above .45 on the respective
component were summed and averaged. Reverse scoring was used when necessary
so that on each of the subscales, higher scores indicated a greater degree of
sexism than lower scores. Each item was included on only one subscale
(see Table 2 for final measure). See Table 3 for bivariate correlations by gender for
all study variables.
Table 2. Final items by subscale.
Subscale Item
Antagonism Towards
Women’s Demands
It is easy to understand the anger of women’s groups in
Americaa
It is easy to understand why women’s groups are still
concerned about societal limitations of women’s
opportunitiesa
Denial of Continuing
Discrimination
Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the
USA
It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner on television
On average, people in our society treat husbands and wives
equally
Society has reached the point where women and men have
equal opportunities for achievement
a
Items that required reverse scoring.
824 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
10. Results
We tested our predictions simultaneously with path analysis using Analysis of Moment
Structures software (Arbuckle 2005). Specifically, the two dimensions of sexism
(Antagonism towards Women’s Demands and Denial of Continuing Discrimination)
were entered into the model as predictors of the two measures of gender segregation
(home and school) with the error terms covaried (Figure 1).
Gender as a moderator
To test the hypotheses that the specified model (Figure 1) would vary by sex, we used a
procedure recommended by Kline (2005) for conducting path analyses with multiple
groups (girls versus boys). This procedure allowed for a statistical comparison of
the χ2
values of two models via a nested model comparison. In the first model (the
Table 3. Bivariate correlations by gender for all study variables.
Antagonism
Towards
Women’s
Demands
Denial of
Continuing
Discrimination
School
Gender
Segregation
Home Gender
Segregation
Antagonism Towards
Women’s Demands
1 −.15 .15 −.04
Denial of Continuing
Discrimination
−.08 1 .10 .23*
School gender
segregation
.46** .01 1 .32**
Home gender segregation .46** −.12 .54** 1
Note: Girls: upper diagonal values are given in bold and boys: lower diagonal.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Figure 1. Standardised beta weights are reported; *p <.05. **p <.001. Error terms were covar-
ied, but are not pictured. CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .03, χ2
(1, 142) = 2.20, p = .33, R2
sex segre-
gation at school for boys =.24 and for girls =.05. R2
sex segregation at home for boys = .22 and
for girls = .04.
Gender and Education 825
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
11. unconstrained model), the regression coefficients for each path for boys and girls were
able to vary. In the second model (the constrained model), the regression coefficients
for each path for boys and girls were set to equal and could not vary. If the model
where the paths for boys’ and girls’ paths were free to vary provided a better fit than
the model where boys’ and girls’ paths were equal, this would indicate that the
associations between sexism and gender segregation are moderated by gender (see
also Table 4).
In the present study, the nested model comparison showed that the χ2
values for the
two models were significantly different (χ2
difference (4) = 14.61, p = .01), indicating
that the model was moderated by gender. Thus, the coefficient values for each path
were calculated separately for boys and for girls. To assess the fit of the model indicat-
ing moderation, we examined the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)
values, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and χ2
values (Kline 2005; Tabachnick and
Fidell 2007). The model indicating moderation by gender fits the data2
: CFI = 1.00,
RMSEA = .03, χ2
(1, 142) = 2.20, p = .33. Thus, results suggest that the model with
two measures of sexism and two measures of segregation, with the paths for boys
and girls being allowed to vary, fits the data. Therefore, the results supported the pre-
diction that the associations between sexism and gender segregation would vary by
gender.
Sexism and gender segregation at school by gender and type of sexism
To test the hypotheses that (a) sexism would be related to gender-segregated peer pre-
ferences at school and (b) that this association would be stronger for boys than for girls,
we examined the paths from Antagonism towards Women’s Demands to gender-segre-
gated peer preferences at school and Denial of Continuing Discrimination to gender-
segregated peer preferences at school. We also examined whether the association
between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences at school would depend on
the type of sexism. For Antagonism towards Women’s Demands, the standardised
regression coefficient for the path from sexism to gender-segregated peer preferences
at school was significant for boys (.47, p < .001), but not for girls (.17, p > .05).
Thus, for Antagonism towards Women’s Demands, our hypothesis that the association
between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences at school would be associated
for boys was supported. However, for Denial of Continuing Discrimination, our
hypothesis was not supported. Specifically, the standardised regression coefficient
for the path from Denial of Continuing Discrimination to gender-segregated peer
Table 4. Associations between sexism and sex segregation: boys versus girls.
Antagonism towards Women’s
Demands
Denial of Continuing
Discrimination
Home School Home School
Girls 0.00 0.17 −0.23* 0.13
Boys 0.45** 0.47** 0.09 0.14
Note: Standardised beta weights are reported.
*p < .05.
**p < .001.
826 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
12. preferences at school was not significant for boys (−.14, p > .05) and was also not sig-
nificant for girls (.13, p > .05). Because the associations between sexism and gender-
segregated peer preferences at school varied as function of the type of sexism measured,
the model indicates type of sexism is a moderating factor in the association between
sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences.
Sexism and gender segregation at home by gender and type of sexism
If the pattern of findings between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences at
home differed from those reported above for the associations between sexism and
gender-segregated peer preferences at school, then the social context of gender-
segregated peer preferences would be a moderating factor in the association
between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences. To explore whether associ-
ations between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences varied by the social
context of gender-segregated peer preferences, we examined the paths from Antag-
onism towards Women’s Demands to gender-segregated peer preferences at home
and Denial of Continuing Discrimination to gender-segregated peer preferences at
home (Figure 1). For Antagonism towards Women’s Demands, the standardised
regression coefficient for the path from sexism to gender-segregated peer preferences
at home was significant for boys (.46 p < . 01), but not for girls (.00, p > .05). This
was the same pattern of results reported above for the association between Antagon-
ism towards Women’s Demands and gender-segregated peer preferences at school
for boys and for girls. Thus, for this type of sexism, we concluded that the social
context was not a moderating factor in the association between sexism and
gender-segregated peer preferences for boys and girls. For Denial of Continuing Dis-
crimination, the standardised regression coefficient for the path from sexism to
gender-segregated peer preferences at home was significant for girls (−.23,
p < .01), but not for boys (.09, p > .05). This was a different pattern of results
than those reported above for the association between Denial of Continuing
Discrimination and gender-segregated peer preferences at school. Thus, for this
type of sexism, we concluded that the social context was a moderating factor in
the associations among Denial of Continuing Discrimination, gender-segregated
peer preferences, and gender.
Summary
The results supported our hypotheses: sexism was related to gender-segregated peer
preferences at school and this association was moderated by gender. Furthermore,
our findings showed a three-way interaction such that the association between
sexism and segregation depended on gender, the type of sexism, and the social
context of gender-segregated peer preferences. Specifically, for boys, Antagonism
towards Women’s Demands, but not Denial of Continuing Discrimination, was associ-
ated with gender-segregated peer preferences at home and at school. Thus, for boys,
the association between gender-segregated peer preferences and sexism was moder-
ated by the type of sexism, but not by the social context. For girls, less denial of dis-
crimination (but not Antagonism towards Women’s Demands) was associated with
greater gender-segregated peer preferences at home, but not with gender-segregated
peer preferences at school. Thus, for girls, the association between gender-segregated
Gender and Education 827
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
13. peer preferences and sexism was moderated by the social context as well as by the
type of sexism.
Discussion
Our findings fill a gap in the literature by comparing the associations between sexism
towards women and gender-segregated peer preferences in the home and school con-
texts. Our study furthers the research on segregation and prejudice by providing empiri-
cal support for the theoretical supposition that gender-segregated peer preferences are
associated with sexism towards women during adolescence. Even though theorists have
suggested that gender segregation has important correlates, the number of studies doc-
umenting such associations is very small. Our findings suggest that gender segregation
may facilitate the development of sexist attitudes towards women – either through the
selection of peers with similar attitudes, or via the socialisation of these attitudes within
same-gender peer groups (Leaper 1994). Given that sexist attitudes towards women
may be linked to inequalities in the treatment of men and women, understanding the
development of sexism and its link to gender-segregated peer preferences has impli-
cations for educators, parents, and social policies that promote equality.
Gender segregation and Antagonism towards Women’s Demands
For boys, Antagonism towards Women’s Demands was associated with gender-segre-
gated peer preferences at home and at school. This finding replicates prior research
demonstrating a link between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences. The
association between sexism and gender-segregated peer preferences for boys may
reflect that boys and men may have a greater in-group bias towards their own gender
than girls and women due to the higher status of males in contemporary American
culture (Leaper 1998; Maccoby 1998). When boys interact with same-gender peers,
concerns about maintaining the relatively higher status of their in-group could facilitate
antagonism towards the demands of lower status groups – especially when those
demands are aimed at promoting group equality. If so, a similar association between
segregation and antagonism towards demands for equality would be expected when
high- and low-status groups are defined by social demographic characteristics other
than gender, such as race or ethnicity.
For boys, the association between gender-segregated peer preferences and Antagon-
ism towards Women’s Demands was not moderated by the social context. Antagonism
towards Women’s Demands was associated with gender-segregated peer preferences in
boys’ peer relationships, both at home and at school. Together, our findings suggest that
Antagonism towards Women’s Demands, but not Denial of Continuing Discrimination,
may be a type of sexist attitude that persists across two normative contexts of adolescent
boys’ relationships with other boys.
Gender segregation and Denial of Continuing Discrimination
For girls, less denial of discrimination (i.e. greater belief that discrimination against
women continues to exist) was associated with greater gender-segregated peer prefer-
ences when selecting peers with whom to hang out at home, but not when selecting
partners with whom to work on a project at school. This finding is in accord with devel-
opmental theory. Specifically, Maccoby (1990) suggests that girls avoid interacting
828 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
14. with boys to avoid unpleasant interactions such as being dominated by boys’ assertive
behaviour. Girls who believe that gender discrimination is a concern in contemporary
society may choose to spend their free time at home in mostly same-gender groups to
avoid unequal treatment by boys. The association between gender-segregated peer
preferences at home and the belief that gender discrimination exists also could
reflect a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton 1948). If a girl believes that discrimination
against women exists, she may limit her exposure to boys who could potentially
change her belief by treating her as an equal; perpetuating her belief that discrimination
still exists.
For girls, the association between gender-segregated peer preferences and denial of
sexism towards women was moderated by the social context. The friends that adoles-
cent girls nominated to hang out with at home may be close friends who are part of an
adolescent’s ‘inner circle’. These close friends may have a greater impact on adoles-
cents’ attitudes, including attitudes about the unequal treatment of women in compari-
son to men, compared to friends selected for working with on a project at school. The
moderation of the association between girls’ attitudes about sexism and gender-segre-
gated peer preferences as a function of the social context highlights the need to measure
gender segregation in multiple contexts. Such investigations may lead to a greater
understanding of how interactions with peers within specific contexts relate to the atti-
tudes adolescent girls develop about the equality of men and women in contemporary
American culture.
Reducing sexism: advice for educators and parents
According to contact theory (Allport 1954; Pettigrew 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp
2006), increasing intergroup contact between boys and girls may reduce sexist atti-
tudes. A fairly recent meta-analysis (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006) examining 515
studies confirmed the contact hypothesis by finding a highly robust negative corre-
lation between contact and prejudice – not limited to racial prejudice. Although
findings suggest that simple contact may be sufficient to change attitudes, the
association appears to be stronger under certain optimal or facilitating conditions.
Specifically, when contact involves members of an in-group (e.g. boys) cooperating
with members of an out-group (e.g. girls) under conditions of equal status and insti-
tutional or authority support, negative or prejudicial attitudes may be reduced –
especially, when the intergroup interaction occurs as part of a structured programme
(see Allport 1954; Sherif et al. 1961; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). Currently,
members of The Sanford Harmony Program (http://sanford.clas.asu.edu/index.html)
are developing and testing structured educational programmes and activities
designed to reduce gender segregation in educational settings to promote equality,
diversity, and healthy, productive other-gender interactions. Our study informs
such interventions by showing a link between gender-segregated peer preferences
and sexism.
Adolescence is a period of the life span providing unique opportunities and chal-
lenges to promote cooperative, equal-status interactions between boys and girls. In
childhood, it is difficult to promote positive other-gender peer relationships (Bigler
1995; Johnson et al. 1985). Even though gender segregation characterises adolescents’
peer groups, preferences for same-gender friends do decline during adolescence in
comparison to childhood and preadolescence (Poulin and Pedersen 2007; Strough
and Covatto 2002). Thus, because adolescence is a time in the life span when other-
Gender and Education 829
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
15. gender interactions are relatively more likely, adolescents may be more receptive than
children to interventions that encourage cooperative interactions between boys and
girls, interventions that could, perhaps, reduce sexism. Alternatively, heightened inter-
est in the other gender among heterosexual adolescents could present challenges to such
interventions.
Limitations and future directions
Our correlational design limits the conclusions we can draw from the present study.
Sexism may be a either a cause or consequence of gender-segregated peer preferences.
The relation may also be bidirectional or indicative of a relation with a third variable.
Future studies using longitudinal designs will allow a better understanding of the role of
gender segregation in the development of sexism. Although our sample comprises
mostly students from private school, which might limit the generalisability of the find-
ings, we are unaware of any research suggesting that gender segregation or sexism
varies according to school context or to factors related to the type of school such as
social economic status.
Conclusion
Our findings add to those of others to begin to provide empirical support for the theor-
etical supposition that gender segregation is related to sexism towards women. We
found the association between gender-segregated peer preferences and sexism
towards women to vary depending on the social context (home versus school), dimen-
sion of sexism (Antagonism towards Women’s Demands and Denial of Continuing
Discrimination), and gender (boys versus girls). Specifically, for boys, Antagonism
towards Women’s Demands, but not Denial of Continuing Discrimination, was associ-
ated with gender-segregated peer preferences at home and at school. For girls, less
denial of discrimination (but not Antagonism towards Women’s Demands) was associ-
ated with greater gender-segregated peer preferences at home, but not with gender-seg-
regated peer preferences at school. These findings underscore the importance of
studying gender segregation during adolescence and in multiple social contexts and
of studying the association between gender segregation and multiple dimensions of
sexism. Understanding the association between gender segregation and sexism is
important because sexism is associated with inequalities that have tangible conse-
quences (e.g. gender pay gap). As such, interventions aimed at decreasing sexism,
perhaps by increasing equal-status interactions between boys and girls should be
developed.
Acknowledgement
Research funded through the West Virginia University Department of Psychology’s Alumni
Fund.
Notes
1. Field (2009) reviews the literature on sample size and factor analysis. Based on his review of
the various rules of thumb (e.g. 10–15 participants per variable) and empirical investigations
of sample size and factor analyses (e.g. based on communalties, factor loadings, and the
830 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
16. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic), we concluded that our sample of 143 participants was
sufficient to explore the factor structure of the Modern Sexism Scale. Specifically, in the
current investigation using 6 indicator variables, our results showed a 2-factor structure
with factor loadings ranging between .67–.89, KMO = .63, and communalities ranging
.48–.82. Taken together this evidence suggests that our sample size is sufficient to interpret
the results of our principal components analyses.
2. Note, the model indicating no moderation did not fit the data, CFI = .76, RMSEA = .05, χ2
(1, 142) = 16.81, p = .01.
References
Allport, G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.
Arbuckle, J. L. 2005. Amos 6.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS.
Bem, S. L. 1989. “Genital Knowledge and Gender Constancy in Preschool Children.” Child
Development 60 (3): 649–662.
Bigler, R. S. 1995. “The Role of Classification Skill in Moderating Environmental Influences on
Children’s Gender Stereotyping: A Study of the Functional Use of Gender in the
Classroom.” Child Development 66 (4): 1072–1087.
Brandt, M. J. 2011. “Sexism and Gender Inequality Across 57 Societies.” Psychological Science
22 (11): 1413–1418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420445.
Brown, C. S., and R. S. Bigler. 2005. “Children’s Perceptions of Discrimination: A
Developmental Model.” Child Development 76 (3): 533–553.
Buhrmester, D. 1990. “Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal Competence, and Adjustment
During Preadolescence and Adolescence.” Child Development 61 (4): 1101–1111.
doi:10.2307/1130878
Campbell, B., E. Schellenberg, S. Glenn, and Y. Charlene. 1997. “Evaluating Measures of
Contemporary Sexism.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 21 (1): 89–101.
Cattell, R. B. 1966. “The Scree Test for the Number of Factors.” Multivariate Behavior
Research 1 (2): 245–276.
Clark, R. A. 1994. “Children’s and Adolescent’s Gender Preferences for Conversational
Partners for Specific Communicative Objectives.” Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 11 (2): 313–319.
Collins, W. A., and L. Steinberg. 2006. “Adolescent Development in Interpersonal Context.” In
Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by
N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner, 1003–1067. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Comrey, A. L., & H. B. Lee. 1992. A First Course in Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Deaux, K., and B. Major. 1987. “Putting Gender into Context: An Interactive Model of Gender-
Related Behavior.” Psychological Review 94 (3): 369–389.
Eagly, A. H., and S. J. Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female
Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–598.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and
Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (3): 491–512.
Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 1999. “The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating
Hostile and Benevolent Beliefs about Men.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 23 (3):
519–536.
Halpern, D. F., L. Eliot, R. S. Bigler, R. A. Fabes, L. D. Hanish, J. Hyde, L. S. Liben, and C. S.
Martin. 2011. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling.” Science 333 (6050): 1706–
1707.
Johnson, R. T., D. W. Johnson, L. E. Scott, and B. A. Ramolae. 1985. “Effects of Single-Sex and
Mixed-Sex Cooperative Interaction on Science Achievement and Attitudes and Cross-
Handicap and Cross-Sex Relationships.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 22 (3):
207–220.
Karpiak, C. P., J. P. Buchanan, M. Hosey, and A. Smith. 2007. “University Students from
Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in Majors and Attitudes at a
Catholic University.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 31 (3): 282–289.
Gender and Education 831
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
17. Kline, R. B. 2005. Principals and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Leaper, C. 1994. Childhood Gender Segregation: Causes and Consequences. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Leaper, C. 1998. “Decision Making Processes Between Friends: Speaker and Partner Gender
Effects.” Sex Roles 39 (1–2): 125–133.
de Lemus, S., M. Moya, and P. Glick. 2010. “When Contact Correlates with Prejudice:
Adolescents’ Romantic Relationship Experience Predicts Greater Benevolent Sexism in
Boys and Hostile Sexism in Girls.” Sex Roles 63 (3–4): 214–225.
Lenton, A. P., and L. Webber. 2006. “Cross-Sex Friendships: Who has More?” Sex Roles 54
(11): 809–820.
Leszczynski, J. P., and J. Strough. 2008. “The Contextual Specificity of Masculinity and
Femininity in Early Adolescence.” Social Development 17 (3): 719–736.
Lips, H. M. 2003. “The Gender Pay Gap: Concrete Indicator of Women’s Progress Toward
Equality.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP) 3 (1): 87–109.
Maccoby, E. E. 1990. “Gender and Relationships: A Developmental Account.” American
Psychologist 45 (4): 513–520.
Maccoby, E. E. 1998. The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart Coming Together. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Mackey, E., and A. M. La Greca. 2008. “Does This Make Me Look Fat? Peer Crowd and Peer
Contributions to Adolescent Girls’ Weight Control Behaviors.” Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 37 (9): 1097–1110.
McHale, S. M., J. Kim, S. Whiteman, and A. C. Crouter. 2004. “Links Between Sex-Typed
Time Use in Middle Childhood and Gender Development in Early Adolescence.”
Developmental Psychology 40 (5): 868–881.
Mehta, C. M., and J. Strough. 2009. “Sex Segregation in Friendships and Normative
Developmental Contexts Across the Lifespan.” Developmental Review 29 (3): 201–220.
Mehta, C. M., and J. Strough. 2010. “Gender Segregation and Gender-Typing in Adolescence.”
Sex Roles 63 (3–4): 251–263.
Merton, R. K. 1948. “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” Antioch Review 8 (2): 193–210.
Morrison, M. A., T. G. Morrison, G. A. Pope, and B. D. Zumbo. 1999. “An Investigation
of Measures of Modern and Old-Fashioned Sexism.” Social Indicators Research 48 (1):
39–50.
Opotow, S. 1991. “Adolescent Peer Conflicts: Implications for Students and for Schools.”
Education and Urban Society 23 (4): 416–441.
Pettigrew, T. F. 1998. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T. F., and L. R. Tropp. 2006. “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022–
3514.90.5.751.
Poulin, F., and S. Pedersen. 2007. “Developmental Changes in Gender Composition of
Friendship Networks in Adolescent Girls and Boys.” Developmental Psychology 43 (6):
1484–1496.
Ruble, D. N., and C. L. Martin. 1998. “Social, Emotional, and Personality Development.” In
Handbook of Child Psychology, edited by W. Damon and N. Eisenberg, 933–1016.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Rudman, L. A., and P. Glick. 2001. “Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward
Agentic Women.” Journal of Social Issues 57 (4): 743–762.
Sears, D. O. 1988. “Symbolic Racism.” In Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, edited
by P. A. Katz and D. A. Taylor, 53–84. New York: Plenum Press.
Sherif, M., O. J. Harvey, J. White, W. Hood, and C. W. Sherif. 1961. Intergroup Conflict and
Cooperation. The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma, Institute of
Intergroup Relations.
Strough, J., and C. A. Berg. 2000. “Goals as a Mediator of Gender Differences in High-
Affiliation Dyadic Conversations.” Developmental Psychology 36 (1): 117–125.
Strough, J., and A. M. Covatto. 2002. “Context and Age Differences in Same- and Other-Gender
Peer Preferences.” Social Development 11 (3): 346–361.
832 E. Keener et al.
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
18. Swim, J. K., K. J. Aikin, W. S. Hall, and B. A. Hunter. 1995. “Sexism and Racism: Old-
Fashioned and Modern Prejudices.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (2):
199–214.
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
Thorne, B., and Z. Luria. 1986. “Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds.” Social
Problems 33 (3): 176–190.
Tobin, D. D., M. Menon, M. Menon, B. C. Spatta, E. V. E. Hodges, and D. G. Perry. 2010.
“The Intrapsychics of Gender: A Model of Self-Socialization.” Psychological Review
117 (2): 601–622. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018936.
Whiting, B., and C. P. Edwards. 1988. “A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Sex Differences
in the Behavior of Children Aged 3 Through 11.” In Childhood Socialization, edited by
G. Handel, 281–297. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gender and Education 833
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014
![This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]
On: 04 November 2014, At: 08:40
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Gender and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgee20
Should educators and parents
encourage other-gender interactions?
Gender segregation and sexism
Emily Keener
a
, Clare Mehta
bc
& JoNell Strough
d
a
Department of Psychology, Slippery Rock University, Slippery
Rock, PA, USA
b
Department of Psychology, Emmanuel College, Boston, MA, USA
c
Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA,
USA
d
Department of Psychology, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, USA
Published online: 25 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Emily Keener, Clare Mehta & JoNell Strough (2013) Should educators and
parents encourage other-gender interactions? Gender segregation and sexism, Gender and
Education, 25:7, 818-833, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2013.845648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.845648
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/f56467ce-fd62-415d-882d-bec7800b6011-160507150930/85/Keener-Mehta-Strough_Should-educators-and-parents-encourage-other-gender-interactions-1-320.jpg)
![Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloadedby[HarvardLibrary]at08:4004November2014]()