Mehta & Strough_2009_ Sex segregation across the lifespan

Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts
across the life span
Clare M. Mehta *, JoNell Strough
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 June 2008
Revised 15 June 2009
Available online 16 July 2009
Keywords:
Gender segregation
Sex segregation
Same-sex friends
Other-sex friends
Mixed-sex friendships
Friendships
Peer relationships
Life span
a b s t r a c t
Sex segregation (the separation of boys and girls into same-sex
groups in their friendships and casual encounters; [Thorne, B., &
Luria, Z. (1986). Sexuality and gender in children’s daily worlds.
Social Problems, 33, 176–190]), has typically been viewed as a child-
hood phenomenon. In the present paper, we review research that
suggests the phenomenon of sex segregation persists across the life
span. We draw from a social-constructionist model to synthesize
literature documenting sex segregation in friendships and aspects
of individuals’ socio-cultural contexts in childhood, adolescence,
and early and later adulthood. We consider developmental conti-
nuities in mechanisms that may be associated with sex segrega-
tion, including behavioral compatibility, communication styles,
third-party resistance to other-sex relationships, and institutional
barriers to other-sex relationships. We discuss how these factors
may, through a reciprocal process, contribute to and result from
sex segregation. Finally, we offer recommendations for future
research.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
This review examines sex segregation across the life span. Sex segregation, the separation of boys
and girls into same-sex groups in their friendships and casual encounters (Thorne & Luria, 1986), is
well documented (Hoffman & Powlishta, 2001; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987; Thorne, 1986). Indeed, sex
segregation has been referred to as one of the most persistent and reliable of developmental phenom-
ena (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). Yet an integrated understanding of sex segregation across the
life span does not exist. Investigations of sex segregation typically focus on young children. Moreover,
sex segregation is typically examined as a feature of social groups such as friendships. The primary
0273-2297/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Clare.Mehta@childrens.harvard.edu (C.M. Mehta).
Developmental Review 29 (2009) 201–220
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Developmental Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dr

purpose of our review is to demonstrate that sex segregation persists across the life span and occurs
not only in friendships, but also in other aspects of normative developmental contexts such as class-
rooms and workplaces.
It is important to develop an integrated understanding of sex segregation because of its wide-rang-
ing consequences. Broadly speaking, the study of sex segregation is important because same-sex peers
may act as active agents in the socialization of gender-stereotyped attitudes, interests, personality
traits, and skills. Gender-stereotyped attitudes, interests, traits, and skills are thought to lead to power
asymmetries in male and female relationships where males are afforded greater power and status
(Leaper, 1994; Maccoby, 1998). As such, theorists suggest socialization in same-sex peer groups
may be associated with the inequality of men and women in society (Leaper, 1994).
In addition to this broad social consequence, a variety of other consequences of sex segregation—
both positive and negative—exist during different periods of the life span. For example, in childhood,
sex segregation may have positive consequences for girls’ academic success. Skills that girls learn in
their same-sex peer groups (e.g., turn-taking, listening) may facilitate classroom performance. For
boys, however, sex segregation might have negative consequences for academic success. Boys’
same-sex peer groups encourage boisterousness, a potential hindrance in classrooms where students
are expected to sit still and listen to the teacher (Connolly, 2004). During adolescence, sex segregation
may have positive consequences for girls by protecting girls from risky behavior; girls with primarily
other-sex friends are more likely than girls with primarily same-sex friends to engage in substance use
(Arndorfer & Stormshak, 2008; Stattin, Kerr, Mahoney, Persson, & Magnusson, 2005). For boys, sex-
segregated friendships may have negative consequences by increasing the likelihood of risky behavior.
Boys with primarily same-sex friends engage in risk behaviors to a greater extent than boys with pri-
marily other-sex friends (Arndorfer & Stormshak, 2008). Rose and Rudolph (2006) suggest that rela-
tionship processes occurring within sex-segregated peer groups have consequences for boys’ and
girls’ mental health. For example, the greater prevalence of externalizing behaviors (aggression, anti-
social behavior) among boys and the greater prevalence of internalizing behaviors (depression and
anxiety) among girls may emerge in part from interpersonal processes occurring within sex-segre-
gated peer groups.
During adolescence and adulthood, sex segregation is thought to have implications for the quality
of heterosexual romantic relationships. Both popular media and empirical research suggest that
romantic relationships between men and women are sometimes strained by gendered interaction
styles learned in same-sex peer groups (Aries, 1996; Gray, 1992; Maccoby, 1998; Underwood & Rosen,
2009). When men and women enter the workforce, sex segregation in occupations (Reskin, 1993) may
have negative consequences, especially for women. Jobs traditionally held by men typically have high-
er wages than jobs traditionally held by women (Gibelman, 2003; Guy & Newman, 2004). Finally, in
later adulthood, sex segregation may have implications for men’s well being (e.g., loneliness, depres-
sion). Social norms that discourage friendships with other-sex peers along with sex differences in lon-
gevity may prevent men from establishing friendships within an already limited pool of same-age
peers (O’Connor, 1993). Together, the above examples illustrate that sex segregation has both positive
and negative consequences that differ by age. As such, it is important to consider both sex segregation
and its consequences from a life span perspective.
Researchers typically focus on sex segregation as a phenomenon of childhood (e.g., Martin & Fabes,
2001; Powlishta, 1995; Shirley & Campbell, 2000). Martin, Fabes, Hanish, and Hollenstein (2005) discuss
children’s sex segregation as an exemplar of homophily, or selective afﬁliation with similar others (Dijk-
stra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2007; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Rose, 1985). The terms ‘‘gen-
der cleavage” (Smith, Davidson, & Ball, 2001) and ‘‘sex cleavage” (LaFreniere, Strayer, & Gauthier, 1984)
are used to describe the segregation of peer groups by sex in childhood. Very few studies have considered
that sex segregation persists in adolescence (cf., Strough & Covatto, 2002). Instead, research on adoles-
cents focuses on the transition to heterosexual romantic relationships (e.g., Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, &
Pepler, 2004; Dunphy, 1963; Kuttler & La Greca, 2004). A similar focus pervades research on younger and
older adults’ interpersonal relationships (see Monsour, 2002; Rawlins, 1992, for reviews).
To demonstrate that sex segregation persists across the life span and is evident in many of the nor-
mative contexts of development, we ﬁrst outline the theoretical approach that guides our consider-
ation of sex segregation. Second, we review literature demonstrating that sex segregation occurs in
202 C.M. Mehta, J. Strough / Developmental Review 29 (2009) 201–220

friendships and normative developmental contexts across the life span. In our review, we limit our fo-
cus to contemporary Western culture and emphasize how age-graded changes in normative develop-
mental contexts may contribute to sex segregation across the life span. We focus primarily on the
causes and consequences of sex segregation for heterosexual people. This focus on the causes and con-
sequences of sex segregation among heterosexual people reflects that much of the extant research has
been conducted from a ‘‘heterosexist world view” (Rawlins, 2009), with researchers failing to
acknowledge that heterosexuality is not universal (Monsour, 2002). Accordingly, the number of stud-
ies examining sex segregation as it applies to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people is
sparse (see Diamond & Dube, 2002, for an exception).
Third, we consider developmental continuities in possible causes and consequences of sex segrega-
tion. Specifically, we focus on behavioral compatibility, communication styles, third-party resistance
to other-sex relationships, and institutional barriers as mechanisms that may, through a reciprocal
process, contribute to and result from sex segregation. Finally, we conclude by offering recommenda-
tions for future research.
Theoretical approach
Our review of sex segregation across the life span is informed by the developmental social-construc-
tionist model of gender development that guides our empirical research (e.g., Leszczynski & Strough,
2008; Strough & Berg, 2000; Strough & Covatto, 2002). Our developmental social-constructionist model
builds upon Deaux and Major’s (1987) theory which contends that gender-typed behaviors are best
understood as created and maintained by the transaction of the individual and the immediate context.
In our model, we draw from bio-ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) to empha-
size the nested nature of contexts within which gender development occurs. We view normative, devel-
opmental, socio-cultural contexts, in combination with individual characteristics (e.g., beliefs, skills), as
facilitating and constraining the degree of sex segregation in individuals’ social relationships. Thus, to
understand sex segregation across the life span we focus on age-graded changes in normative develop-
mental contexts because these contexts contain the most immediate contexts within which gender
socialization may occur. Accordingly, we view sex segregation as emerging not only from individuals’
choices (which may reflect their beliefs and skills), but also as constrained by immediate contexts
(e.g., the presence of same-sex peers), which are nested within age-graded normative developmental
contexts (e.g., family, school, workplace), which are, in turn, nested within a larger socio-cultural and
temporal context (e.g., cultural practices pertaining to formal education and history-graded events such
as Title IX, a US law enacted in 1972 that made it illegal for any educational institution receiving federal
funds to exclude anyone from participating in any activity or program based on sex).
Sex segregation from infancy to older adulthood
Precursors of sex segregation in infancy
Precursors of sex segregation are apparent very early in life. Infants as young as 3 months of age are
able to categorize adults by sex and demonstrate a preference for adult female faces (Quinn, Yahr,
Kuhn, Slater, & Pascalis, 2002). Infants’ ability to use sex as a category suggests that a cognitive cate-
gorical system necessary for sex segregation is in place very early in development. In addition, infants
prefer to look at photographs of same-sex babies (Campbell, Shirley, Heywood, & Crook, 2000) and
spend longer looking at same-sex babies than other-sex babies (Brooks-Gunn & Lewis, 1979; Leeb &
Rejskind, 2004). Infants’ preference for faces of same-sex peers may be a precursor to sex segregation
and demonstrate an early orientation toward those who are similar.
Sex segregation in early childhood
Around 2 years of age, sex segregation is evident in children’s peer interactions (Fagot, 1994;
Howes, 1988; LaFreniere et al., 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). For example, toddler-aged boys are
C.M. Mehta, J. Strough / Developmental Review 29 (2009) 201–220 203

more likely to respond when a boy asks them to play than when a girl asks them to play (Howes,
1988). Sex segregation is not, however, absolute. Some toddlers play equally with same- and other-
sex peers (Campbell, Shirley, & Caygill, 2002).
Variation in the degree of sex segregation in early childhood may reflect the degree of control chil-
dren have over playmate selection and the availability of same-sex peers in their normative develop-
mental contexts. When children, rather than adults (such as teachers and parents), control playmate
selection, sex segregation occurs more consistently (Demetriou & Hay, 2004; Fabes, Martin, Hanish,
Anders, & Madden-Derdich, 2003; Powlishta, Serbin, & Moller, 1993; Serbin, Poulin-Dubois, Colburne,
Sen, & Eichstedt, 2001). As children move into preschool, they frequently select same-sex playmates
over other-sex playmates, although individual differences are apparent (Hoffman & Powlishta,
2001; Maccoby, 2002; Martin, Fabes, Evans, & Wyman, 1999; Martin et al., 2005; Serbin, Moller, Gulko,
Powlishta, & Colburne, 1994; Urberg & Kaplan, 1989).
Sex segregation in school-aged children
Segregation into same-sex groups increases from the preschool years to the school years (LaFren-
iere et al., 1984), and stable individual differences emerge (Martin & Fabes, 2001; Powlishta et al.,
1993). This increase co-occurs with a shift from the more variable contexts of preschool children
(e.g., daycare, home care) to school as the normative developmental context of school-aged children.
During this period of development, children may look down on the other sex and the activities in
which they engage, while increasing the value that they ascribe to their own sex (Carter, 1987).
Accordingly, preferences for same-sex friends dominate social interactions and friendships (Thorne,
1997).
Preferences for social interactions with same-sex peers are apparent when the time children spend
with peers and aspects of children’s peer networks are examined. Of time spent with peers in groups,
less than 10% of time is spent with other-sex peers (Fabes, 1994). Across a given day, 6% of fifth and
sixth grade girls’ free time was spent with same-sex peers, compared to 1% with other-sex peers. Fifth
and sixth grade boys spent 11% of their total free time with same-sex peers, compared to 1% with
other-sex peers (Richards, Crowe, Larson, & Swarr, 1998). Sex segregation is also evident when exam-
ining children’s self-reported peer networks. Lee, Howes, and Chamberlain (2007) found that only 11%
of the social networks reported by children in grades one through six contained other-sex peers.
The deliberate practice of self-imposed sex segregation continues into preadolescence. Time spent
with same- and other-sex peers remains stable from fifth to eighth grade and is associated with po-
sitive psychological states (Richards et al., 1998). Preadolescents’ friendship groups and cliques are al-
most always sex-homogeneous (Carter, 1987; Hallinan, 1980; Sippola, Bukowski, & Noll, 1997). When
asked to nominate friends to hang out with at home or work with on a school project, over 90% of
peers nominated by preadolescents were of the same-sex (Strough & Covatto, 2002). Poulin and Peder-
sen (2007) found that only 19% of preadolescents’ friends were of the other sex.
Preadolescents’ preferences for same-sex peers are also apparent in their expected enjoyment of
hypothetical interactions with peers at school and at home (Strough & Covatto, 2002), their expected
enjoyment of actual interactions with peers on a class project (Strough, Swenson, & Cheng, 2001), and
their preferred workmates in the classroom (Webb, Baxter, & Thompson, 1997). Together, this re-
search indicates that preferences for same-sex peers pervade not only friendships, but also relation-
ships with classroom peers during preadolescence.
Sex segregation in adolescence
Compared to children, adolescents spend more time with peers and friends in social settings and
gain greater freedom to select the contexts within which their peer interactions occur (Klieber, Larson,
& Csikszentmihalyi, 1986; Larson & Verma, 1999). In adolescence, preferences for same-sex friends de-
cline relative to preadolescence (Poulin & Pedersen, 2007; Strough & Covatto, 2002). Time spent with
other-sex peers increases from early to later adolescence (from eighth to twelfth grade), especially for
girls (Richards et al., 1998), and most adolescents report having at least one other-sex friend (McDou-
gall & Hymel, 2007). Increases in the amount of time spent with other-sex peers often are discussed as

reﬂecting normative expectations in Western cultures regarding the formation of heterosexual roman-
tic relationships. As such, research often examines the function of same- and other-sex friends in the
development of adolescents’ heterosexual romantic relationships (Connolly et al., 2004). As adoles-
cents begin to date, they are likely to have same- and other-sex friends in their friendship groups
(Bukowski, Sippola, & Hoza, 1999; Connolly et al., 2004; Darling, Dowdy, Van Horn, & Caldwell,
1999; Kuttler, La Greca, & Prinstein, 1999; Lundy, Field, McBride, Field, & Largie, 1998; McBride &
Field, 1997; Poulin & Pedersen, 2007). These mixed-sex friendship groups facilitate heterosexual
romantic relationships and adolescents who have more other-sex friends engage in romantic relation-
ships earlier than adolescents with more same-sex friends (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000; Con-
nolly et al., 2004; Fiering, 1999).
Even though social groups become relatively less segregated in adolescence compared to child-
hood, sex segregation is still apparent in dyadic friendships and in other aspects of adolescents’ peer
relationships (Clark & Ayers, 1992; Dijkstra et al., 2007; Mehta & Strough, 2009; Pelligrini & Long,
2003). For example, although other-sex friendships increase in adolescence in comparison to
childhood, friendships with same-sex peers do not decrease in importance, and are still predominant
during adolescence (Poulin & Pedersen, 2007). In addition, adolescents report feeling closer to their
same-sex friends than to their other-sex friends (Bukowski et al., 1999; Lundy et al., 1998). Friends
who provide psychological closeness (e.g., intimacy and support) are beneﬁcial for adolescents’
socio-emotional development (Hartup, 1996; Hartup & Stevens, 1997). Thus, same-sex friendships
are an important resource for socio-emotional development during adolescence.
Although less pronounced than in childhood, adolescents’ preferences for same-sex friends are
apparent when nominations for preferred peers and time spent with peers are examined. The majority
of peers selected by adolescents for ‘‘hanging out” at home and working on a school project were of
the same sex among eighth graders (79%), and tenth and eleventh graders (70%; Strough & Covatto,
2002). When eighth-grade students selected groups for performing a classroom skit, sex segregation
of groups was overwhelming (with all but one student working in a sex-segregated group), even
though this required boys to play female roles and vice versa (Strough, Berg, & Meegan, 2001). When
asked to list all their close friends from home and from school, 72% of the friends nominated by ado-
lescents were of the same-sex (Mehta & Strough, 2009). When asked to list up to ten friends, ninth-
and tenth-grade adolescents listed on average six same-sex friends and two other-sex friends (Poulin
& Pedersen, 2007).
In their study of adolescents’ time use, Larson and Richards (1991) found that of total time spent in
social contexts, 17% of boys’ time was spent in same-sex dyads or same-sex groups compared to 10% of
time spent in either other-sex dyads or mixed-sex groups. For girls, differences in social time spent
with same- versus other-sex peers were somewhat less pronounced. Of total time spent in social con-
texts, girls spent 18% of their time in same-sex dyads or groups, and 16% of their time in mixed-sex
groups or in other-sex dyads.
Together, this research suggests that adolescents’ newly emerging romantic relationships are only
one facet of the peer groups within which adolescents spend much of their time. Other aspects of ado-
lescents’ peer groups (e.g., dyadic friendships, preferred workmates in the classroom) may remain lar-
gely segregated by sex during this developmental period.
Sex segregation in early adulthood
As adolescence ends and the transition to adulthood begins, most young adults either enter the
workforce, military service, or pursue further training and education at technical schools, colleges,
and universities. The vast majority of research on friendship in early adulthood is based on college
and university students, perhaps because college students are readily available to researchers. Friend-
ships within other demographic groups are an important yet neglected area of research. Below we re-
view literature that examines sex segregation in two normative contexts of early adulthood—college
and the workplace.
For young adults who do not immediately enter the workforce or military service after graduating
from high-school, colleges and universities are an age-graded normative developmental context with-
in which social interactions with peers occur. College students have frequent opportunities to interact

with same-age peers of the same- and other-sex in their classes, during social activities, and for stu-
dents who reside on campus, in their dormitories. Although other-sex friendships occur (Monsour,
2002; Wright, 1989), Reeder (2003) found that 65% of young adult men’s friendships, and 80% of
young adult women’s friendships were with same-sex peers. In addition, young adults prefer to talk
to same-sex friends rather than other-sex friends about hypothetical tasks and relationships (Barbee,
Gulley, & Cunningham, 1990). This may be because college students’ same-sex friendships are less
conflictual and have greater warmth than their other-sex friendships (Sherman, Lansford, & Volling,
2006). Thus, even during a developmental period when college students’ age-graded contexts facili-
tate interaction with other-sex peers and heterosexual dating relationships are frequent (Surra, Gray,
Boettcher, Cottle, & West, 2006), sex segregation not only exists but same-sex friends are an important
source of socio-emotional support.
Among college students, sex segregation may occur not only in voluntary social relationships such
as friendships, but may also be present in classrooms. Sex-segregated classrooms may be an inadver-
tent consequence of the selection of an academic major. Although not all majors are sex-segregated,
many majors are sex segregated in that either men or women are overrepresented. For example, men
are represented to a greater extent than women in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and
math). In a study of 4-year colleges, Goyette and Mullen (2006) found that 13% of college men chose to
major in engineering, compared to just 2% of women. In 2008, 34,342 men compared to 7828 women
attending American 4-year colleges majored in computer science and information technology (Snyder,
Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009). Fields in which women are overrepresented include English and nursing.
Goyette and Mullen found 17% of women chose to major in education compared to 7% of men;
51,278 of women attending American 4-year colleges majored in nursing in 2008, compared to
5794 men (Snyder et al., 2009).
Not all majors are sex segregated. For example, of those attending 4-year colleges in 2008, rela-
tively equal numbers of males (11,781) and females (11,120) choose to major in business studies (Sny-
der et al., 2009). However, sex segregation in selected academic majors may create college classrooms
that are dominated by one sex, especially among upper division classes required for majors.
Not all young adults attend universities or colleges. Instead they, along with college graduates, en-
ter the workplace. The workplace is also an important social context in middle-age and later adult-
hood. In the workplace, sex segregation reflects the tendency of men and women to work in
different occupations (Blackburn, Browne, Brooks, & Jarman, 2002; Guy & Newman, 2004; Reskin,
1993). In some occupations, men and women are employed in similar numbers; however, in other
occupations, and in some industries and firms, sex segregation is pervasive (Blackburn et al., 2002; Jac-
obsen, 1994). For example, more men are construction workers and more women are preschool teach-
ers (US Department of Labor, 2006).
One explanation for sex segregation in the workplace is an economic model of supply and demand
(Hultin, 2003). This model suggests self-selection plays an important role in sorting men and women
into different types of employment. Through gender socialization, men and women develop skills and
interests considered appropriate for their gender. Men and women then aspire to ‘‘gender appropri-
ate” employment, such as engineering (men) or nursing (women). In turn, this self-selection produces
sex-segregated workplaces for some occupations (Okamoto & England, 1999). Thus, similar to sex-seg-
regated classrooms resulting from college students’ selection of academic majors, sex-segregated
workplaces may result in part from men’s and women’s occupational choices.
Sex segregation in middle-age and later adulthood
Friends continue to be an important dyadic relationship in midlife and later adulthood (Nussbaum,
1994; Phillipson, 1997; Wagner, Schütze, & Lang, 1999), providing individuals with both social and
instrumental support (Himes & Reidy, 2000; Rawlins, 2004; Strough, Patrick, Swenson, Cheng, &
Barnes, 2003). Yet, friendship in middle-age and later adulthood is understudied, especially when
compared to the large body of research on children and adolescents, a point noted in reviews of adults’
friendships (Cameron, 2005; Monsour, 2002; Roberto & Scott, 1986; Sherman, De Vries, & Lansford,
2000). Accordingly, there is a relative paucity of research that examines the prevalence of other-sex
friendships in midlife and later adulthood. Instead, research on other-sex relationships in these age

periods focuses primarily upon heterosexual marital relationships (Mares & Fitzpatrick, 2004; Noller,
2006).
Among middle-aged adults, same-sex friendships are more common than other-sex friendships.
For example, in a study of friendships in a housing project, 73% of friends nominated by participants
were of the same sex (Lawton & Nahemow, 1975). Among married people, almost half of women (47%)
and a third of men (33%) report that they do not have any other-sex friends besides their spouse (Rose,
1985). When other-sex friendships exist in adulthood they may do so in the form of ‘‘couple friends.”
When heterosexual people form lasting romantic relationships, their social networks increasingly be-
gin to overlap such that partners share friends (Milardo, 1982). Marriage appears to expand interper-
sonal relationships, especially for men. Men’s social networks link them to their spouse who in turn
links them to family and friends whereas women’s social networks link them concurrently to their
spouse, family and friends (Antonucci, 2001). Bendtschneider and Duck (1993) suggest that sharing
couple friends makes friendships outside of the romantic partnership seem less threatening. In this
way, adults may engage in other-sex friendships in a group setting where the romantic partner is also
engaged in the friendship.
Older adults’ friendships are typically age- and sex-segregated (Adams, 1985; Adams, Blieszner, &
De Vries, 2000; Babchuk & Anderson, 1989; Cameron, 2005; Jones & Vaughan, 1990; O’Connor, 1993).
In their social networks, married older adults (men and women) and older single women have more
same-sex friends than other-sex friends (Akiyama, Elliot, & Antonucci, 1996). When asked to identify a
best friend, 100% of single and married older women and 90% of married men identified same-sex best
friends (Jones & Vaughan, 1990).
Some research suggests that sex-segregated friendships are particularly pronounced for older wo-
men (Akiyama et al., 1996; Dykstra, 1990). For older women, sex segregation in friendship may reflect
decreased opportunities to form other-sex friendships. Due to sex differences in longevity, same-age
peers are predominately female during older adulthood. Accordingly, older adult women may form
friendships with other women because of the absence of men among their age peers (Akiyama
et al., 1996; Cameron, 2005; Fischer & Oliker, 1983). Consistent with this theory, other-sex friendships
are more common among older men than among older women (Jones & Vaughan, 1990; Wright,
1989). Unmarried older men are two times as likely to identify an other-sex person as a close friend
in comparison to women (Akiyama et al., 1996). This could reflect that women are overrepresented
among older men’s age peers.
Summary
In sum, although the relative degree of sex segregation may wax and wane across the life span, sex
segregation is a persistent feature of individuals’ friendships and normative developmental contexts.
For example, although sex segregation in friendships may wane during adolescence and early adult-
hood, at least in comparison to childhood, sex segregation may again characterize friendships after
early adulthood. Culturally normative age-graded contexts of childhood and adolescence (e.g., school),
early adulthood and midlife (e.g., colleges and universities, the workplace) and later adulthood (e.g.,
differential availability of age peers for men versus women) offer varying degrees of access to same-
and other-sex peers. However, the availability of same- and other-sex peers is only one aspect of the
process of sex segregation. In the following section, we review research examining possible causes and
consequences of developmental continuities in sex segregation.
Causes and consequences of sex segregation
Below, we review four mechanisms we believe are related to sex segregation across the life span.
First, we extend research and theory on behavioral compatibility as a mechanism that propels and
perpetuates children’s sex segregation to adolescence and adulthood. Second, we consider research
that posits gender differences in communication styles (e.g., collaborative versus domineering com-
munication styles) are both a cause and a consequence of sex segregation. Third, we review research
that suggests third-parties actively discourage other-sex friendships. Fourth, we consider institutional

practices that perpetuate sex segregation, including single-sex schooling, organized sports, and sex
segregation in the workplace. Conceptually, we view associations between sex segregation and each
of these mechanisms as a reciprocal process. In naturally occurring contexts, the nature of the associ-
ation is difficult to disentangle. As such, we suggest that these mechanisms may be both causes and
consequences of sex segregation.
Behavioral compatibility
Theories focusing on behavioral compatibility (e.g., Hoffman & Powlishta, 2001; Martin et al., 2005)
posit that play styles and activity preferences propel sex segregation in childhood. Gender differences
in activity preferences and play styles are well documented (e.g., Carter, 1987; Fabes, 1994; Hoffman &
Powlishta, 2001; Martin et al., 2005). For example, boys are relatively more likely to play competitive
games (Colley, Griffiths, Hugh, Landers, & Jaggli, 1996; Passmore & French, 2001; Stoneman, Brody, &
MacKinnon, 1984; Thorne, 1986) while girls are relatively more likely to play cooperative games (Mol-
ler, Hymel, & Rubin, 1992; Stoneman et al., 1984). According to behavioral compatibility theory, chil-
dren seek playmates whose interests and play styles are similar to their own to engage in preferred
activities (Fagot, 1973; Martin & Fabes, 2001; Martin et al., 2005; Urberg & Kaplan, 1989). Because
same-sex peers are more likely to share interests and play styles, children are more likely to choose
to interact with same-sex peers, resulting in sex segregation. Sex segregation may not only propel
but also perpetuate gender differences in activity preferences and play styles (Martin et al., 2005).
The more time children spend in sex-segregated peer groups, the greater their gender-typed activity
preferences (Martin & Fabes, 2001; Martin et al., 2005). The activity preferences of children who do
not segregate are less gender-typed (Serbin et al., 1994).
To the extent that there is continuity in gender-typed activity preferences across age, behavioral
compatibility may be important for understanding sex segregation across the life span. If there is
developmental continuity in activity preferences, further socialization of gender-typed preferences
could persist in sex segregated groups. In this manner, activity preferences could emerge as a conse-
quence of sex segregation that also serves to maintain sex-segregated friendships.
Childhood and adolescence
In childhood, one aspect of behavioral compatibility is toy preferences. The availability of gender-
typed toys to children in their larger developmental contexts and children’s interest in such toys
provide children opportunities to interact with peers who share similar interests. Gender-typed toy
preferences are present in early childhood (O’Brien, Huston & Risley, 1983). Girls spend more time
playing with dolls, stuffed animals, brushes, and combs; boys spend more time playing with balls,
trains, cars, and guns (Ausch, 1994; Campbell et al., 2002; Colley et al., 1996; Roopnarine, 1986).
According to behavioral compatibility theory, if children prefer gender-typed toys, they will seek
out others with similar preferences, who are likely to be children of the same sex. Interest in
gender-typed toys, therefore, could be associated with sex segregation in early childhood.
Gender-typed play styles are observable as early as preschool. For example, preschool-aged boys
engage in more aggressive rough and tumble play than girls of the same age (Fabes, Martin, & Hanish,
2004; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Moller et al., 1992). As such, in boys’ play groups there are often dis-
plays of direct aggression. In late childhood, boys’ activities involve large groups and frequently take
place outdoors (Fabes et al., 2003; Lever, 1976; Thorne, 1986). Boys spend more time than girls engag-
ing in physical activities (Jacobs, Vernon, & Eccles, 2005; Lever, 1976; Passmore & French, 2001) and
are relatively more likely to play competitive games and team sports (Colley et al., 1996; Passmore &
French, 2001; Stoneman et al., 1984; Thorne, 1986). When they engage in pretend play or write cre-
ative stories, themes pertaining to danger, conflict, aggression, physical strength, and heroism are rel-
atively more likely to emerge in boys’ groups than in girls’ groups (Lever, 1976; Strough & Diriwächter,
2000).
Girls are more likely than boys to spend their time in small intimate groups, usually made up of
two or three people (Fabes et al., 2003; Maccoby, 2002; Moller et al., 992). Girls engage in relatively
less physical activity than boys and are more likely than boys to engage in individual physical activ-
ities rather than in team play (Passmore & French, 2001). Girls are relatively more likely to play coop-

eratively than competitively (Moller et al., 1992; Stoneman et al., 1984). In pretend play, themes in
girls’ groups tend to center on social relationships, incorporating romance, and domesticity (Colley
et al., 1996).
As in childhood, adolescent boys tend to prefer to participate in physical activities and enjoy spend-
ing time in large groups (Garton & Pratt, 1991). Adolescent boys enjoy activities that are competitive
and that provide personal challenges (Passmore & French, 2001). As such, boys are more likely than
girls to engage in activities such as playing with computers and sports (Garton & Pratt, 1991; Olds
et al., 2009; Willoughby, 2008). Adolescent girls demonstrate a preference for activities that are relax-
ing, such as listening to music and watching television (Garton & Pratt, 1987; Passmore & French,
2001). Adolescent girls also engage in social leisure such as visiting friends in their homes, going to
parties, discos, and to the cinema (McMeeking & Purkayastha, 1995; Olds et al., 2009). In addition,
adolescent girls enjoy expressive activities such as playing musical instruments, dancing, or painting
(Passmore & French, 2001).
Early, middle, and later adulthood
Gender differences in activity preferences in early adulthood are similar to those observed in child-
hood. For example, young adult men engage more frequently in activities involving physical skill,
strategy, and chance, such as sports. Women, on the other hand, engage more frequently in social
activities, such as spending time with friends and family (Klonsky, 1985; Mobily, Leslie, Lemke, & Wal-
lace, 1986). Differences in men’s and women’s activities also are apparent in midlife and later adult-
hood (Freysinger, 1995). Similar to younger women and girls, middle-aged and older women are
relatively more likely than men to engage in social interaction during their leisure time (Adams &
Blieszner, 1998).
During the transition to parenthood and continuing through adulthood, leisure time is reduced,
with women losing more leisure time than men (Crawford & Huston, 1993). Sex inequities emerge
from women’s ‘‘double burden,” or the tendency for women to work both outside and inside of the
home (Bittman & Wajcman, 2000; Thrane, 2000). As such, women juggle work, family, and leisure
to a greater extent than men (Bryant & Zick, 1996). Whereas older adult women spend more time than
men engaged in instrumental activities such as shopping and household chores, older adult men tend
to spend more time than women engaged in leisure activities such as watching television, playing golf
and horseshoes, and exercising (Smith & Baltes, 1998). Thus, across adulthood, men who wish to en-
gage in leisure activities with other people may spend time primarily with others unconstrained by a
double burden, resulting in sex-segregated friendships.
Conversation styles
Another mechanism that may be associated with sex segregation across the life span is differences
in verbal behavior occurring during interpersonal interactions. Men tend to be relatively more likely
than women to use assertive or domineering speech—speech that focuses on asserting one’s own
agenda whereas women are relatively more likely than men to use collaborative speech—speech that
asserts one’s own agenda while simultaneously acknowledging the partner (Leaper & Ayres, 2007).
Such differences in males’ and females’ verbal behavior are often referred to as gendered ‘‘styles” of
conversation (Tannen, 1990). The prevalence of this terminology is widespread despite notable simi-
larities in many aspects of men’s and women’s language use and cautionary statements regarding the
relatively small magnitude of many of the differences (see Aries, 1996; Hyde, 2005; Leaper & Smith,
2004 for reviews).
Gender-typed conversation styles have been discussed both as a ‘‘consequence” and as a ‘‘cause” of
sex-segregated peer groups (Ladegaard & Bleses, 2003; Maccoby, 1990; Underwood, 2003). A focus on
consequences suggests that within sex-segregated peer groups, children learn gendered norms for
appropriate conversation that differ as radically as the conversational norms learned by members
of different cultures (Leaper & Ayres, 2007; Maltz & Borker, 1982; Tannen, 1990; cf., Underwood,
2003, 2007). For example, boys learn norms for dominating the conversation and ‘‘holding the ﬂoor;”
boys also learn to resist peers’ attempts to inﬂuence them (e.g., Leaper, 1994; Leman, Ahmed, & Oza-
row, 2005; Lockheed & Harris, 1984). Focusing on causes, Maccoby (1998) hypothesized that girls do

not like interacting with those who are unresponsive, and therefore girls avoid interacting with boys.
To the extent that friendships remain segregated by sex, gender-typed aspects of conversation are
likely to persist in adulthood as a reflection of the continuing reinforcement of different patterns of
speech in same-sex friendships. Below, research documenting gender-typed conversation styles is
summarized and discussed in relation to sex segregation across the life span.
Gender-typed conversation styles have been observed in children as early as preschool. For exam-
ple, when preschoolers interact with same-sex peers, boys switch topics and are sidetracked in their
conversations more frequently than girls (e.g., Black & Hazen, 1990). Sheldon (1990) suggests that at
this early age, preschool girls have better interpersonal skills than preschool boys. Mastery of interper-
sonal skills is demonstrated during toy disputes where girls use language that focuses on maintaining
their relationship while working to resolve the conflict. Boys engaged in similar disputes use language
to assert dominance and have difficulty in reaching a resolution (Sheldon, 1990).
In childhood and adolescence, gender-typed conversation styles become more pronounced than in
middle childhood, although effect sizes are small (see Leaper & Smith, 2004 for a review). Girls’ lan-
guage is relatively more likely to be collaborative and affiliative, with girls expressing agreement with
one another, acknowledging each others’ utterances, and engaging in turn-taking (e.g., Leaper, 1991;
Strough & Berg, 2000). Adolescent girls tend to engage in active listening, using techniques such as
paraphrasing and probing, while also showing respect, awareness, and concern for their conversation
partners (e.g., Black, 2000; Hunter, Gambell, & Randhawa, 2005). In contrast, boys’ language is rela-
tively more assertive, controlling, and competitive, and incorporates more demands (Leaper & Smith,
2004). Adolescent boys are less skilled at listening than adolescent girls, perhaps because they view
these skills as unimportant (Black, 2000).
Early and later adulthood
Men’s and women’s differential use of assertive and affiliative styles of conversation are similar to
differences exhibited in childhood and adolescence. Men use assertive language relatively more fre-
quently; women use affiliative language relatively more frequently (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). Theorists
have posited that when men and women form heterosexual romantic unions during late adolescence
and young adulthood, they are faced with a relatively new situation because they have been apart for
so long in their sex-segregated peer groups (Maccoby, 1998; Underwood & Rosen, 2009). In mixed-sex
groups, men respond negatively to women, reject or ignore women’s suggestions (Leaper, 1998), and
frequently interrupt (Anderson & Leaper, 1998; Zimmerman & West, 1975). Researchers have specu-
lated that men, accustomed to power assertion and bids for dominance in their conversations within
same-sex peer groups, find that women partners primarily agree with them and offer enabling re-
sponses (Leaper, 1994). Women, accustomed to reciprocal agreement within their same-sex peer
groups, find agreement lacking in conversations with men (Maccoby, 1990). In mixed-sex groups, wo-
men speak more tentatively than men (Carli, 1990), have a greater number of silences (Zimmerman &
West, 1975), use clarification requests (Leaper, Carson, Baker, Holliday, & Myers, 1995), offer comfort
(MacGeorge, Feng, Butler, & Budarz, 2004), and agree with men (Leaper, 1998). Thus, in accord with
Maccoby’s (1998) hypotheses about girls’ avoidance of boys, women may seek same-sex peers as con-
versation partners because they find men to be unresponsive. If so, gender-typed conversational styles
may contribute to sex segregation in interpersonal relationships in adulthood as well as in childhood.
Third-party determinants
Third-party determinants of sex segregation refer to the influence of parents, peers, spouses, and
social norms regarding the formation of other-sex friendships. A powerful social norm pertaining to
sex segregation is the homosocial norm, the understanding that people approve of same-sex friend-
ships over other-sex friendships (Rose, 1985). Although specific responses to violations of the homo-
social norm may differ according to age (e.g., public sanctions from the peer group in childhood;
gossip and jealousy of romantic partners in adolescence and adulthood) the homosocial norm may
contribute to sex segregation by discouraging other-sex friendships across the life span. As such, when

forming other-sex friendships, friends must not only privately negotiate their friendship with each
other, but also present their relationship as authentic and viable to third-parties in their larger social
contexts (Rubin, 1985). Even when other-sex relationships demonstrate authenticity, third-parties
may discourage these relationships because of the homosocial norm, thus perpetuating sex segrega-
tion. Sex segregation may, in turn, reinforce the homosocial norm by giving the impression that spend-
ing time with same-sex friends is normative. Thus, the homosocial norm may be both a cause and
consequence of sex segregation. Below, we discuss how third-parties such as parents, peers, and
romantic partners may directly or indirectly promote the homosocial norm.
During infancy and toddlerhood, parents are the third party with the greatest influence over chil-
dren’s peer interactions. Parents decide with whom their children spend time (Maccoby, 1998). Par-
ents may expect that their children will enjoy associating with same-sex over other-sex peers.
Parents who hold these beliefs may promote sex segregation, by setting up ‘‘play dates” with same-
sex children. They may also be more likely to provide their children with gender-typed toys, which
may impact their later activity preferences (Bradley & Gobbart, 1989; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Roopn-
arine, 1986).
As children move into preschool and kindergarten, they gain more freedom to select playmates.
During this age period, mixed-sex play groups are not uncommon and do not attract resistance from
third-parties (Campbell et al., 2002). However, around first grade, children become aware of third-
party resistance to other-sex relationships as they learn the social norms and rules that govern social
relationships (Hallinan, 1980). Children demonstrate awareness of the homosocial norm in their belief
that other people show greater approval of same-sex playmates than of other-sex playmates; these
beliefs are in turn associated with sex segregation in social relationships (Martin et al., 1999).
Continuing throughout childhood, the peer group goes to great lengths to preserve the homosocial
norm. Rules and rituals govern the conditions under which interactions with the other-sex are allow-
able (Shaw, 1995; Sroufe, Bennett, Englund, Urban, & Shulman, 1993). Violating these rules may result
in sanctions that include bullying, teasing, taunting, accusations of romantic involvement, and ostra-
cism from the peer group (Sroufe et al., 1993; Thorne, 1986). For many children, being accused of lik-
ing or loving a child of the other sex can be one of the most hurtful charges leveled at them (Shaw,
1995).
Peer group sanctions may ultimately result in the child abandoning other-sex friendships during
school time. Shaw (1995) posits that children recognize that failure to adhere to group norms and
rules may result in a loss of status within the peer group. Indeed, children who disobey the homosocial
norm and pursue other-sex friendships tend to be less popular with both same- and other-sex peers
(Kovacs, Parker, & Hoffman, 1996; Sroufe et al., 1993). Thus, in childhood, peers are third-parties who
use social sanctions to enforce the homosocial norm.
For adolescents, normative developmental tasks in contemporary Western culture emphasize that
adolescents should begin to form heterosexual romantic relationships. As such, the homosocial norm
may present itself differently during this period of the life span. For example, in childhood, those with
other-sex friendships tend to be less popular with both same- and other-sex peers (Kovacs et al., 1996;
Sroufe et al., 1993). In adolescence, however, those who have other-sex friendships are more likely to
be popular with both same- and other-sex peers (Bukowski et al., 1999). The status accorded to ado-
lescents with other-sex friends by their peer group may reflect the extent to which contemporary
Western culture values heterosexual romantic relationships above other forms of relationships,
including friendships and other types of romantic relationships (Rawlins, 2009). Accordingly, in ado-
lescence, enforcement of the homosocial norm may depend on the degree to which an adolescent affil-
iates with and spends time with other-sex peers relative to same-sex peers.
Spending the majority of one’s time with same-sex peers is considered gender-typical behavior
(Ruble et al., 2006). Having other-sex friends may be allowed and encouraged as long as the individual
also has same-sex friends. If a girl has few or no same-sex friends and instead spends the majority of
her time with boys, she may be concerned that people will gossip and label her as promiscuous (Mon-
sour, 2002). Similarly, a boy whose friendships are exclusively or primarily with girls may worry that
peers might label him as ‘‘gay” (Phoenix, Frosh, & Pattman, 2003). Thus, as in childhood, peers are

third-parties who enforce the homosocial norm in adolescence even though the peer groups’ tolerance
for other-sex friendships may increase relative to childhood.
Early, middle, and later adulthood
In adulthood, members of individuals’ social networks may enforce the homosocial norm. Other-
sex friendships are unusual in adulthood and face ongoing judgments, insinuating remarks, and sug-
gestions of deviance from those outside of the relationship (Rawlins, 2004). O’Meara (1989) suggests
that adult men who maintain friendships with women may, similar to adolescents, face accusations of
being gay. Thus, homophobia in men’s stereotypical gender roles may be a significant barrier to other-
sex friendships for men (O’Meara, 1989).
Romantic partners and spouses are third-parties who may encourage sex segregation in their part-
ner’s social relationships (Sherman et al., 2000). Because other-sex relationships arouse suspicion and
jealousy in romantic partners (Rawlins, 2009), marriage inhibits other-sex friendships; such friend-
ships are viewed as a danger that is not to be tolerated (O’Meara, 1989; Rose, 1985; Rubin, 1986). Old-
er adults with other-sex friends are quick to note that ‘‘nothing immoral” is taking place, suggesting
awareness of social taboos against other-sex friendships (Patford, 2000). Moreover, it is often assumed
that needs fulfilled by other-sex friends are fulfilled by spouses after marriage (O’Meara, 1989; Pat-
ford, 2000). Therefore, having an other-sex friend may suggest to others that something is lacking
in a person’s marriage (Bell, 1981). As such, if a person attempts to initiate a friendship with a married
person of the other-sex, there is a hint of infidelity (Hiebert, 1996). Other-sex friendships may be
allowable under certain conditions such as when the married couple befriends another couple (Bend-
tschneider & Duck, 1993). Together, these factors may lead married individuals to conclude that the
only ‘‘safe” relationships are those with same-sex peers and those that are couple-based (Rubin,
1986). Accordingly, developmental continuity in sex-segregated friendships may persist across
adulthood.
Institutional practices
Societies are composed of many different institutions that govern attitudes and behaviors and offer
differential opportunities for interactions with same- and other-sex peers. Institutional practices that
may encourage sex segregation are apparent in schools, organized sports and workplaces. Below we
consider institutions that serve as age-graded normative contexts during different developmental
periods across the life span and link practices of these institutions to sex segregation.
One consequence of laws and cultural values regarding compulsory education of children is that
schools, along with family, serve as an age-graded normative context for children’s development.
Some research suggests that sex segregation in friendships is greater at school than in contexts outside
of school such as the neighborhood or at home (Poulin & Pedersen, 2007; Strough & Covatto, 2002;
Thorne, 1986). For example, Poulin and Pedersen found that on average, adolescent females nomi-
nated a greater percentage of other-sex friends (29%) at home than at school (16%). In part, the greater
prevalence of sex segregation at school may reflect institutional practices that condone and encourage
sex segregation.
At school, teachers provide students with information about gender appropriate behavior via their
teaching practices (Myhill & Jones, 2006). For example, Lockheed and Harris (1984) posit that when
teachers allow children to separate into same-sex groups when using peer learning as an instructional
technique, teachers signal to students that sex-segregated groups are normative. Practices such as say-
ing ‘‘good morning boys and girls” (Lloyd & Duveen, 1991), having children form boys’ and girls’ lines
at recess (Thorne, 1997), dividing children into boys’ and girls’ teams (Bigler, 1995) or separating ros-
ters according to sex (Lockheed & Harris, 1984) are thought to highlight gender as a social category
and affirm its importance to children (Bem, 1983). In turn, the salience of gender as a social category
could encourage sex segregation.
The pervasiveness of sex segregation in elementary school classrooms makes it challenging to as-
sess whether sex segregation increases when teachers verbally categorize boys and girls into gender

groups. For example, experimental research that assessed the consequences of elementary school
teachers’ verbal categorization of boys and girls into separate gender groups found increases in chil-
dren’s gender stereotypes as a function of teachers’ verbal categorization, but did not find an increase
children’s sex segregation, perhaps because of the near ceiling levels of sex segregation prior to the
experimental manipulation (Bigler, 1995). Although working with peers under cooperative conditions
can facilitate positive interpersonal relationships between diverse students (such as students from dif-
ferent racial backgrounds, Johnson & Johnson, 1981), positive other-sex peer relationships are the
most difficult type of peer relationship to promote (Bigler, 1995; Johnson, Johnson, Scott, & Ramolae,
1985).
In addition to teachers’ practices, the structure of schools and classrooms may explicitly promote
sex segregation. For example, some private schools are aimed at either boys or girls exclusively. Most
public schools in the USA are coeducational, meaning that boys and girls are taught the same curric-
ulum together in the same classrooms. However, in recent years, within public schools, single-sex
classrooms have been used in an attempt to close the gap between boys’ and girls’ achievement in
math, science, reading, and language (Marsh, 1989; Salomone, 2006; US Department of Education,
2006). Single-sex schools and classrooms institutionalize sex segregation. Although little research
has addressed the consequences of institutional practices for social relationships, some research sug-
gests that moving from coeducational classrooms to single-sex classrooms increases boys’ same-sex
friendships but has no impact on girls’ friendships (Barton & Cohen, 2004).
In addition to the recent trend toward an increase in single-sex classrooms, military schools such as
the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel, were, until recently, examples of institutionalized sex
segregation. These schools were the only remaining all-male public schools in the USA until 1996
when the Supreme Court ruled that sex-segregated military schools violated the 14th amendment
to the constitution, which states that all citizens should be treated equally (Epstein, 1998). Even after
it was clear that sex segregation in these institutions was unlawful, both schools fought hard in an
unsuccessful attempt to maintain their sex-segregated campuses (Epstein, 1996).
It has also been suggested that boys who attend single-sex high-schools have less egalitarian atti-
tudes toward girls than boys who attend coeducational high-schools (Karpiak, Buchanan, Hosey, &
Smith, 2007). Thus, for boys, institutional practices pertaining to sex-segregated classrooms have
unintended consequences that may extend beyond classroom walls.
Early and later adulthood
Anti-discrimination laws in American culture promote equality within the work place. Increasingly,
women enter fields that were once dominated by men. Yet, as discussed previously, sex segregation
in the workplace—the separation of men and women into ‘‘gender appropriate” careers—persists
(Blackburn et al., 2002). Few occupations employ both sexes in proportion to their representation in
the workforce (Guy & Newman, 2004; Reskin, 1993).
Employers’ discriminatory actions or stereotyped beliefs directly influence job segregation within
organizations (Okamoto & England, 1999; Reskin, 1993). Employers who believe that one sex is better
suited to a position than the other sex may use these beliefs as a basis for hiring employees (Reskin,
1993; Shauman, 2006). Employers’ actions may also be a response to the supply of available workers.
For example, when people select gender-typed careers, this narrows diversity in the pool of candidates
for promotion. A limited pool may serve to strengthen employers’ beliefs that people are ineffective in
gender-atypical careers, thus reducing employers’ demand for employees in gender-atypical careers
(Jacobsen, 1994). Together, these supply and demand factors create an institutional form of sex seg-
regation in many peoples’ workplaces.
Sports are another example of an institutional form of sex segregation (Anderson, 2008; Cunning-
ham, 2008). In 1972, Title IX made it unlawful for educational institutions receiving federal funding to
discriminate on the basis of sex. One consequence of Title IX is a dramatic increase in the number of
women who play sports in high-school and college since 1972 (Auster, 2008). Even though girls’ and
women’s sports participation have increased, the majority of both high-school and college sports
teams remain sex segregated (Anderson, 2008; George, 2002). This is especially true of contact sports
such as football, basketball, boxing, and ice hockey (George, 2002). Similar to high-school and colle-
giate sports, professional sports in adulthood tend to be segregated by sex (Anderson, 2008) and

are to a large extent dominated by men (Whisenant, 2008). Across age, coed neighborhood leagues
and city teams typically exist for sports such as softball and volleyball (Snyder & Ammons, 1993).
However, these coed leagues are one option along with separate leagues for men, women, boys,
and girls.
Summary of causes and consequences of sex segregation
We identified behavioral compatibility, conversation styles, third-party determinants and institu-
tional practices as potential causes and consequences of sex segregation across the life span. Although
we presented each component individually, these potential causes and consequences do not exist in
isolation from one another. Separation of peers in school by teachers for example (institutional prac-
tices), may influence children’s understanding of the homosocial norm (third-party determinants),
which may in turn lead to the development of different activity preferences (behavioral compatibility)
and communication styles. As such behavioral compatibility, conversation styles, third-party determi-
nants, and institutional practices may be parts of a reciprocal process that promotes and perpetuates
sex segregation across the life span.
Future directions and conclusions
Our review of the literature suggests several directions for future research. First, our review dem-
onstrates that sex segregation is a phenomenon that persists beyond childhood and should be inves-
tigated as such. There is a need for research investigating sex segregation in adolescence and
adulthood. Such research could address the relative prevalence of sex segregation across different
age periods. It may be the case that adolescence and early adulthood represent a peak in the preva-
lence of other-sex friendships. Subsequent to these developmental periods, romantic relationships
may emerge as the predominant type of other-sex relationship, at least among heterosexual persons.
In adulthood, there is a paucity of research examining friendships. As such, sex segregation in friend-
ships in early, middle, and later adulthood are areas especially in need of further investigation.
Second, future research should be aimed at understanding the mechanisms that produce and main-
tain sex segregation. Experimental manipulations of the variables we have identified will be important
in this regard. Much research examining sex segregation has relied upon correlational designs. As
such, our understanding of causal mechanisms remains underdeveloped. When investigating sex seg-
regation across the life span, researchers could address whether factors associated with sex segrega-
tion are the same during childhood as in later life, demonstrating continuity, or whether they differ
across the life span, demonstrating discontinuity. Focusing on mechanisms will lead to a greater
understanding of how the demands of specific developmental contexts (e.g., school, home, and the
workplace) may facilitate and constrain sex segregation.
Third, the sex segregation literature has largely focused on the occurrence and consequences of sex
segregation in heterosexual people. Future research should consider whether sex segregation exists to
the same extent among people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered (GLBT). The limited
research that does exist on the friendships of gays and lesbians in adolescence suggests that patterns
of sex segregation in sexual minority adolescents differ from heterosexual adolescents. For example,
lesbian adolescents have more same-sex friends than heterosexual adolescent girls (Diamond &
Dubé, 2002; Galupo, 2007). Gay adolescent boys have fewer same-sex friends than heterosexual ado-
lescent boys (Diamond & Dube; Galupo, 2007). However, lesbian women, similar to heterosexual wo-
men, have more women than men in their social networks (75% women), and gay men have more men
than women in their social networks (26% women; Grossman, D’Augelli, & Hersberger, 2000). This re-
search suggests that the prevalence of sex segregation in friendships may differ based on sexual ori-
entation, and that differences may be more or less pronounced at different points across the life span.
In addition to similarities and differences in the prevalence of sex segregation among sexual minor-
ities, there also may be similarities and differences in the correlates of sex segregation within GLBT
populations. For example, we would expect that institutional practices of sex segregation would pro-
mote segregation by sex regardless of sexual orientation. Activity preferences and styles of communi-

cation however, may be differentially associated with sex segregation for sexual minorities depending
on whether their interests align with that of same- or other-sex peers.
A fourth area for further investigation is the function that sex segregation may serve, and whether
sex segregation should be encouraged or discouraged. For example, it has been suggested that sex-
segregated friendships serve an important function for those who are heterosexual: dividing people
by sex enhances gender-related identities and attraction to the other sex, increasing the chance of het-
erosexual unions (Bem, 2000; Lafreniere et al., 1984; Pelligrini & Long, 2003; Shaw, 1995). Sex-segre-
gated classrooms are predicated on the assumption that they reduce achievement gaps. If such
assumptions are accurate, then sex segregation might be viewed positively and encouraged. Con-
versely, sex segregated classrooms may encourage sexism (Karpiak et al., 2007) which in turn may
perpetuate gender inequality in society (Leaper, 1994). If this is the case, sex segregation might be
viewed negatively and social scientists should intervene to eradicate it. The function of sex segrega-
tion and whether it should be encouraged or discouraged should be considered from a life span per-
spective. The functions of sex segregation (positive or negative) and its impact on development vary
across different developmental periods.
Finally, our review, along with the majority of the sex segregation literature, has focused on sex
segregation in Western cultures. In some Eastern cultures, especially cultures governed by Islamic
law, sex segregation is an institutional practice where males and females are purposefully kept sepa-
rate in education, employment, and leisure (Ibrahim, 1982; Vidyasagar & Rea, 2004). The experiences
and consequences of sex segregation in cultures where segregation is required rather than elected are
likely to differ signiﬁcantly. As such, there is a need for research investigating the effects of sex seg-
regation in Eastern cultures.
Conclusions
Our review demonstrates the pervasiveness of sex segregation across the life span. Precursors of
sex segregation are present in infancy. Sex segregation is present in all age groups, in dyadic relation-
ships and other aspects of the socio-cultural context of childhood, adolescence and adulthood. The
pervasiveness of sex segregation across the life span makes it an important area in need of further
investigation by developmental psychologists. The wide range of the potential consequences of sex
segregation—from marital relationships to the development of skills and beliefs that channel career
choices—underlines the importance of further investigating the mechanisms underlying sex segrega-
tion in social relationships across the life span.
Acknowledgments
We thank Brian Ayotte, Amy Gentzler, Katherine Karraker, and Emily Keener for their comments on
earlier versions of this manuscript. Correspondence should be sent to Clare Mehta who is now at Chil-
dren’s Hospital, Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, or JoNell Strough, Department of Psy-
chology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6040. Email may be sent to
Clare.Mehta@childrens.harvard.edu or JoNell.Strough@mail.wvu.edu.
References
Adams, R. (1985). People would talk: Normative barriers to cross-sex friendships for elderly women. The Gerontologist, 25,
605–611.
Adams, R., & Blieszner, R. (1998). Structural predictors of problematic friendship in later life. Personal Relationships, 5, 439–447.
Adams, R., Blieszner, R., & De Vries, B. (2000). Deﬁnitions of friendship in the third age: Age, gender, and study location effects.
Journal of Aging Studies, 14, 117–133.
Akiyama, H., Elliot, K., & Antonucci, T. (1996). Same-sex and cross-sex relationships. The Journal of Gerontology: Psychological and
Social Sciences, 51, P374–P382.
Anderson, E. (2008). ‘‘I used to think women were weak”: Orthodox masculinity, gender segregation, and sport. Sociological
Forum, 23, 257–280.
Anderson, K., & Leaper, C. (1998). Emotion talk between same- and mixed-gender friends: Form and function. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 17, 419–448.
Antonucci, T. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social support, and sense of control. In K. W. Schaie & J.
E. Birren (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 427–453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Arndorfer, C., & Stormshak, E. (2008). Same-sex versus other-sex best friendship in early adolescence: Longitudinal predictors of
antisocial behavior throughout adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1059–1070.
Ausch, L. (1994). Gender comparisons of young children’s social interaction in cooperative play activity. Sex Roles, 31, 225–239.
Auster, C. (2008). The effect of cohort on women’s sport participation: An intergenerational study of collegiate women ice
hockey players. Journal of Leisure Research, 40, 312–337.
Babchuk, N., & Anderson, T. (1989). Older widows and married women: Their intimates and confidants. International Journal of
Aging & Human Development, 28, 21–35.
Barbee, A., Gulley, M., & Cunningham, M. (1990). Support seeking in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 7, 531–540.
Barton, B., & Cohen, R. (2004). Classroom gender composition and children’s peer relations. Child Study Journal, 34, 29–45.
Bell, R. (1981). Worlds of friendship. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bem, S. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a
gender-schematic society. Signs, 8, 598–616.
Bem, D. (2000). Exotic becomes erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29,
531–548.
Bendtschneider, L., & Duck, S. (1993). What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours: Couple friends. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.),
Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 169–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bigler, R. (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, 1072–1087.
Bittman, M., & Wajcman, J. (2000). The rush hour: The character of leisure time and gender equity. Social Forces, 79, 165–189.
Black, K. (2000). Gender differences in adolescents’ behavior during conflict resolution tasks with best friends. Adolescence, 35,
499–512.
Black, B., & Hazen, N. (1990). Social status and patterns of communication in acquainted and unacquainted preschool children.
Developmental Psychology, 26, 379–387.
Blackburn, R. M., Browne, J., Brooks, B., & Jarman, J. (2002). Explaining gender segregation. British Journal of Sociology, 53,
513–536.
Bradley, B., & Gobbart, S. (1989). Determinants of gender-typed play in toddlers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 453–455.
Bronfenbrenner, U., Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.)
& R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793-828).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Lewis, M. (1979). The effects of age and sex on infant’s playroom behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 134,
99–105.
Bryant, W., & Zick, C. (1996). An examination of parent–child shared time. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 58, 227–237.
Bukowski, W., Sippola, L., & Hoza, B. (1999). Same and other: Interdependency between participation in same- and other-sex
friendships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 439–459.
Cameron, R. (2005). Aging and gendering. Language and Society, 34, 23–61.
Campbell, A., Shirley, L., & Caygill, L. (2002). Sex-typed preferences in three domains: Do two-year-olds need cognitive
variables? British Journal of Psychology, 93, 203–217.
Campbell, A., Shirley, L., Heywood, C., & Crook, C. (2000). Infants’ visual preference for sex-congruent babies, children, toys and
activities: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 479–498.
Carli, L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.
Carter, D. B. (1987). The roles of peers in sex role socialization. In D. B. Carter (Ed.), Current conceptions of sex roles and sex typing
(pp. 101–121). New York: Praeger.
Clark, M. L., & Ayers, M. (1992). Friendship similarity during early adolescence: Gender and racial patterns. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 126, 393–405.
Colley, A., Griffiths, D., Hugh, M., Landers, K., & Jaggli, N. (1996). Childhood play and adolescent leisure preferences: Associations
with gender typing and the presence of siblings. Sex Roles, 35, 233–245.
Connolly, P. (2004). Boys and schooling in the early years. London, UK: Routledge.
Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-gender groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 185–207.
Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in
adolescence. Child Development, 71, 395–1408.
Crawford, D., & Huston, T. (1993). The impact of the transition to parenthood on marital leisure. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 39–46.
Cunningham, G. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58, 136–145.
Darling, N., Dowdy, B., Van Horn, M., & Caldwell, L. (1999). Mixed-sex settings and the perception of competence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 28, 461–480.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological
Review, 94, 369–389.
Demetriou, H., & Hay, D. (2004). Toddlers’ reactions to the distress of familiar peers: The importance of context. Infancy, 6,
299–318.
Diamond, L., & Dubé, E. (2002). Friendship and attachment among heterosexual and sexual-minority youths: Does the gender of
your friend matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 155–166.
Dijkstra, J., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their
relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing
approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1377–1389.
Dunphy, D. C. (1963). The social structure of urban adolescent groups. Sociometry, 26, 230–246.
Dykstra, P. (1990). Next of (non)kin: The importance of primary relationships for older adults’ well-being. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets
& Zeitlinger Publishers.

Epstein, C. (1996). Sex segregation and the war between the states. Dissent, 43, 12–13.
Epstein, C. (1998). Great divides: Deceptive distinctions and rhetorical strategies in the VMI and Citadel cases. Gender Issues, 16, 34.
Fabes, R. (1994). Physiological, emotional, and behavioral correlates of gender segregation. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender
segregation: Causes and consequences (pp. 19–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fabes, R., Martin, C., & Hanish, L. (2004). The next 50 years: Considering gender as a context for understanding young children’s
peer relationships. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 50, 260–273.
Fabes, R., Martin, C., Hanish, L., Anders, M., & Madden-Derdich, D. (2003). Early school competence: The roles of sex-segregated
play and effortful control. Developmental Psychology, 39, 848–858.
Fagot, B. (1973). Sex-related stereotyping of toddlers’ behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 9, 429.
Fagot, B. (1994). Peer relations and the development of competence in boys and girls. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender
Fagot, B., & Leinbach, M. (1989). The young child’s gender schema: Environmental input, internal organization. Child
Development, 60, 663–672.
Fiering, C. (1999). Other-sex friendship networks and the development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 28, 496–512.
Fischer, C., & Oliker, S. (1983). A research note on friendship, gender, and the life cycle. Social Forces, 62, 124–133.
Freysinger, V. J. (1995). The dialectics of leisure and development for women and men in midlife: An interpretive study. Journal
of Leisure Research, 27, 61–84.
Galupo, M. P. (2007). Women’s close friendships across sexual orientation: A comparative analysis of lesbian-heterosexual and
bisexual-heterosexual women’s friendships. Sex Roles, 56, 473–482.
Garton, A. F., & Pratt, C. (1987). Participation and interest in leisure activities by adolescent school children. Journal of
Adolescence, 10, 341–351.
Garton, A., & Pratt, C. (1991). Leisure activities of adolescent school students: Predictors of participation and interest. Journal of
Adolescence, 14, 305–321.
George, B. G. (2002). Fifty/fifty: Ending sex segregation in school sports. Ohio State Law Journal, 63, 1–33.
Gibelman, M. (2003). So how far have we come? Pestilent and persistent gender gap in pay. Social Work, 48, 22–32.
Goyette, K. A., & Mullen, A. L. (2006). Who studies the arts and sciences? Social background and the choice of consequences of
undergraduate field of study. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 497–538.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Grossman, A., D’Augelli, A., & Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Social support networks of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults 60 years of
age and older. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, B55, P171–P180.
Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration
Review, 64, 289–298.
Hallinan, M. (1980). Patterns of cliquing among youth. In H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman, & J. R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social
relations in children (pp. 321–342). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hartup, W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.
Hartup, W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355–370.
Hiebert, D. (1996). Toward adult cross-sex friendship. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 24, 271–283.
Himes, C., & Reidy, E. (2000). The role of friends in caregiving. Research on Aging, 22, 315–336.
Hoffman, M. L., & Powlishta, K. K. (2001). Gender segregation in childhood: A test of the interaction style theory. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 162, 298–313.
Howes, C. (1988). Same- and cross-sex friends: Implications for interaction and social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
3, 21–37.
Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Career consequences of occupational sex
segregation. Work and Occupations, 30, 30–61.
Hunter, D., Gambell, T., & Randhawa, B. (2005). Gender gaps in group listening and speaking: Issues in social constructivist
approaches to teaching and learning. Educational Review, 57, 329–355.
Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
Ibrahim, H. (1982). Leisure and Islam. Leisure Studies, 1, 197–210.
Jacobs, J. A., Vernon, M., & Eccles, J. (2005). Activity choices in middle childhood: The roles of gender, self-beliefs, and parents’
influence. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular
activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 235–254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Jacobsen, J. (1994). Sex segregation at work: Trends and predictions. Social Science Journal, 31, 153–169.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444–449.
Johnson, R., Johnson, D., Scott, L., & Ramolae, B. (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,
207–220.
Jones, D., & Vaughan, K. (1990). Close friendships among senior adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 451–457.
Karpiak, C., Buchanan, J., Hosey, M., & Smith, A. (2007). University students from single-sex and coeducational high schools:
Differences in majors and attitudes at a Catholic University. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 282–289.
Klieber, D., Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1986). The experience of leisure in adolescence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18,
169–176.
Klonsky, B. (1985). Gender-role and sex differences in recreation. Psychological Reports, 56, 480–482.
Kovacs, D., Parker, J., & Hoffman, L. (1996). Behavioral, affective, and social correlates of involvement in cross-sex friendship in
elementary school. Child Development, 67, 2269–2286.
Kuttler, A., & La Greca, A. (2004). Linkages among adolescent girls’ romantic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 395–414.
Kuttler, A., La Greca, A., & Prinstein, M. (1999). Friendship qualities and social–emotional functioning of adolescents with close,
cross-sex friendships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 339–366.

Ladegaard, H., & Bleses, D. (2003). Gender differences in young children’s speech: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 222–233.
LaFreniere, P., Strayer, F., & Gauthier, R. (1984). The emergence of same-sex affiliative preferences among preschool peers: A
developmental/ethological perspective. Child Development, 55, 1958–1965.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental
contexts. Child Development, 62, 284–300.
Larson, R., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play, and developmental
opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701–736.
Lawton, M., Nahemow, L., & Teaff, J. (1975). Housing characteristics and the well-being of elderly tenants in federally assisted
housing. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 601–607.
Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62,
797–811.
Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender
Leaper, C. (1998). Decision-making processes between friends: Speaker and partner gender effects. Sex Roles, 39, 125–133.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative
speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363.
Leaper, C., Carson, M., Baker, C., Holliday, H., & Myers, S. (1995). Self-disclosure and listener verbal support in same-gender and
cross-gender friends’ conversations. Sex Roles, 33, 387–404.
Leaper, C., & Smith, T. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in children’s language use: Talkativeness, affiliative
speech, and assertive speech. Developmental Psychology, 40, 993–1027.
Lee, L., Howes, C., & Chamberlain, B. (2007). Ethnic heterogeneity of social networks and cross-ethnic friendships of elementary
school boys and girls. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 53, 325–346.
Leeb, R., & Rejskind, F. (2004). Here’s looking at you, kid! A longitudinal study of perceived gender differences in mutual gaze
behavior in young infants. Sex Roles, 50, 1–5.
Leman, P., Ahmed, S., & Ozarow, L. (2005). Gender, gender relations and the social dynamic of children’s conversations.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 64–74.
Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of masculinity and femininity in early adolescence. Social
Development, 17, 719–736.
Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23, 478–487.
Lloyd, B., & Duveen, G. (1991). Expressing social gender identities in the first year of school. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 6, 437–447.
Lockheed, M. E., & Harris, A. M. (1984). Cross-sex collaborative learning in elementary classrooms. American Educational
Research Journal, 21, 275–294.
Lundy, B., Field, T., McBride, C., Field, T., & Largie, S. (1998). Same-sex and opposite-sex best friend interactions among high
school juniors and seniors. Adolescence, 33, 279–289.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Maccoby, E. E. (2002). Gender and group process: A developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11,
54–58.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and
behavior (pp. 239–287). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
MacGeorge, E., Feng, B., Butler, G., & Budarz, S. (2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework
and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30, 42–70.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male–female miscommunication. In J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and
social identity (pp. 197–216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mares, M., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2004). Communication in close relationships of older people. In J. F. Nussbaum & J. Coupland (Eds.),
Handbook of communication and aging research (pp. 231–249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Marsh, H. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex
differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 70–85.
Martin, C., & Fabes, R. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 431–446.
Martin, C., Fabes, R., Evans, S., & Wyman, H. (1999). Social cognition on the playground: Children’s beliefs about playing with
girls versus boys and their relations to sex segregated play. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 751–771.
Martin, C., Fabes, R., Hanish, L., & Hollenstein, T. (2005). Social dynamics in the preschool. Developmental Review, 25, 299–327.
McBride, C., & Field, T. (1997). Adolescent same-sex and opposite-sex best friend interactions. Adolescence, 32, 515–522.
McDougall, P., & Hymel, S. (2007). Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions: Similar or different? Merrill–Palmer
Quarterly, 53, 347–380.
McMeeking, D., & Purkayastha, D. (1995). ‘‘I can’t have my mom running me everywhere”: Adolescents, leisure, and
accessibility. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 360–378.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology,
27, 415–444.
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Factors Associated with Sex Segregation in Adolescence, submitted for publication.
Milardo, R. (1982). Friendship networks in developing relationships: Converging and diverging social environments. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 45, 162–172.
Mobily, K., Leslie, D., Lemke, J., & Wallace, R. (1986). Leisure patterns and attitudes of the rural elderly. Journal of Applied
Gerontology, 5, 201–214.
Moller, L., Hymel, S., & Rubin, K. (1992). Sex typing in play and popularity in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 26, 331–353.
Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the lifespan in the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2006). ‘She doesn’t shout at no girls’: Pupils’ perceptions of gender equity in the classroom. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 36, 99–113.
Noller, P. (2006). Marital relationships. In P. Noller & J. Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes
(pp. 67–88). Hove, England: Taylor & Francis.
Nussbaum, J. (1994). Friendship in older adulthood. In M. L. Hummert, J. M. Wiemann, & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Interpersonal
communication in older adulthood: Interdisciplinary theory and research (pp. 209–225). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Brien, M., Huston, A., & Risley, T. (1983). Sex-typed play of toddlers in a day care center. Journal of Applied Developmental
O’Connor, P. (1993). Same-gender and cross-gender friendships among the frail elderly. The Gerontologist, 33, 24–30.
Okamoto, D., & England, P. (1999). Is there a supply side to occupational sex segregation? Sociological Perspectives, 42, 557–582.
Olds, T., Wake, M., Patton, G., Ridley, K., Waters, E., Williams, J., et al (2009). How do school-day activity patterns differ with age
and gender across adolescence? Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 64–72.
O’Meara, J. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.
Passmore, A., & French, D. (2001). Development and administration of a measure to assess adolescents’ participation in leisure
activities. Adolescence, 36, 67–75.
Patford, J. (2000). Partners and cross-sex friends: A preliminary study of the way marital and defacto partnerships affect verbal
intimacy with cross-sex friends. Journal of Family Studies, 6, 106–119.
Pelligrini, A., & Long, J. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early
adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 257–278.
Phillipson, C. (1997). Social relationships in later life: A review of the research literature. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 12, 505–512.
Phoenix, A., Frosh, S., & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing contradictory masculine subject positions: Narratives of threat, bullying
and homophobia and bullying in 11–14 year old boys. Special Issue: Youth Perspectives on Violence and Injustice, 59, 179–195.
Poulin, F., & Pedersen, S. (2007). Developmental changes in gender composition of friendship networks in adolescent girls and
boys. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1484–1496.
Powlishta, K. (1995). Intergroup processes in childhood: Social categorization and sex role development. Developmental
Powlishta, K., Serbin, L., & Moller, L. (1993). The stability of individual differences in gender typing: Implications for
understanding gender segregation. Sex Roles, 29, 723–737.
Quinn, P., Yahr, J., Kuhn, A., Slater, A., & Pascalis, O. (2002). Representation of the gender of human faces by infants: A preference
for female. Perception, 31, 1109–1121.
Rawlins, W. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rawlins, W. (2004). Review of growing together: Personal relationships across the life span. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 21, 711–712.
Rawlins, W. (2009). The compass of friendship: Narratives, identities, and dialogues. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Reeder, H. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same- and cross-sex friendship formation. Sex Roles, 49, 143–152.
Reskin, B. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.
Richards, M., Crowe, P., Larson, R., & Swarr, A. (1998). Developmental patterns and gender differences in the experience of peer
companionship during adolescence. Child Development, 69, 154–163.
Roberto, K. A., & Scott, J. P. (1986). Friendships of older men and women: Exchange patterns of satisfaction. Psychology and Aging,
1, 103–109.
Roopnarine, J. (1986). Mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors toward the toy play of their infant sons and daughters. Sex Roles, 14,
59–68.
Rose, S. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63–74.
Rose, A., & Rudolph, K. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional
and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Rubin, L. B. (1986). On men and friendship. Psychoanalytic Review, 73, 165–181.
Ruble, D., Martin, C., & Berenbaum, S. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality
development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 858–932). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
Salomone, R. (2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record, 108, 778–802.
Serbin, L. A., Moller, L. C., Gulko, J., Powlishta, K. K., & Colburne, K. A. (1994). The emergence of gender segregation in toddler
playgroups. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender segregation: Causes and consequences (pp. 7–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Serbin, L., Poulin-Dubois, D., Colburne, K., Sen, M., & Eichstedt, J. (2001). Gender stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for
and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 7–15.
Shauman, K. (2006). Occupational sex segregation and the earnings of occupations: What causes the link among college-
educated workers? Social Science Research, 35, 577–619.
Shaw, J. (1995). Education, gender and anxiety. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13, 5–31.
Sherman, A., De Vries, B., & Lansford, J. (2000). Friendship in childhood and adulthood: Lessons across the life span. International
Journal of Aging & Human Development, 51, 31–51.
Sherman, A., Lansford, J., & Volling, B. (2006). Sibling relationships and best friendships in young adulthood: Warmth, conflict,
and well-being. Personal Relationships, 13, 151–165.
Shirley, L., & Campbell, A. (2000). Same-sex preference in infancy. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 2, 3–18.
Sippola, L., Bukowski, W., & Noll, R. (1997). Dimensions of liking and disliking underlying the same-sex preference in childhood
and early adolescence. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 43, 591–609.
Smith, J., & Baltes, M. (1998). The role of gender in very old age: Profiles of functioning and everyday life patterns. Psychology and
Aging, 13, 676–695.

Mehta & Strough_2009_ Sex segregation across the lifespan

Mehta & Strough_2009_ Sex segregation across the lifespan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Mehta & Strough_2009_ Sex segregation across the lifespan

Similar to Mehta & Strough_2009_ Sex segregation across the lifespan (20)

Mehta & Strough_2009_ Sex segregation across the lifespan