1. ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gender Segregation and Gender-Typing in Adolescence
Clare M. Mehta & JoNell Strough
Published online: 13 May 2010
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract We investigated correlates of gender segregation
among adolescent (15–17 yrs) boys (N=60) and girls (N=
85) from the Mid-Atlantic United States. Seventy-two
percent of peers nominated for “hanging out” were the
same gender as the adolescent. Girls’ gender segregation
was correlated with gender reference-group identity and
believing girls are more responsive communicative partners
than boys. Girls were more likely to endorse feminine,
expressive traits, a cooperative activity orientation, and to
believe in the greater communicative responsiveness of
same- vs. other-gender peers. Boys and girls were equally
likely to endorse masculine, instrumental traits, competitive
activity orientations, and to identify same-gender others
as a reference group. We consider implications of the
developmental persistence of gender segregation for
gender-typing.
Keywords Gender segregation . Gender-typing .
Adolescence . Peer relationships . Friendships
Introduction
Beginning as early as preschool, and continuing throughout
childhood and preadolescence into early and later adult-
hood, friendships are comprised predominantly of same-
gender peers (see Mehta and Strough 2009 for a review).
This phenomenon occurs across cultures (Whiting and
Edwards 1988) and is known as gender segregation
(Thorne and Luria 1986). Much of the developmental
research on gender segregation investigates links between
children’s segregation into same-gender groups and gender-
typing--the development of traits, interests, skills, attitudes
and behaviors that correspond to stereotypical masculine
and feminine social roles (Liben and Bigler 2002). Such
research is based on the supposition that boys’ and girls’
separate peer groups can be likened to separate peer
cultures in which gender socialization occurs (Maccoby
1998; Underwood 2007; Underwood and Rosen 2009).
Most research on gender segregation and gender-typing is
based on children (e.g., Martin et al. 2005). However, a few
studies suggest gender segregation in peer relationships also
is apparent during mid—adolescence (Poulin and Pedersen
2007; Strough and Covatto 2002). Beginning in mid
adolescence, peers play an important role in identity
development (Brown 2004; Collins and Steinberg 2006),
and identity development is a salient developmental task of
adolescence (Erikson 1968; Nurmi 1993). Accordingly,
gender segregation may be linked to aspects of identity
development during mid-adolescence.
In the current study, we examined links between
adolescents’ self-reports of gender segregation in their peer
relationships and their endorsement of gender-typed char-
acteristics, including two aspects of gender identity. We
drew from a social-constructionist approach that empha-
sizes that individuals’ endorsement of gender-typed char-
acteristics is best understood as developing within a social
context. We created a written questionnaire to assess gender
segregation and gender-typed characteristics. Our selection
of gender-typed characteristics was informed by research
C. M. Mehta :J. Strough
West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, USA
C. M. Mehta (*)
Children’s Hospital, Boston/Harvard Medical School
Division of Adolescent Medicine,
300 Longwood Ave,
Boston, MA 02115, USA
e-mail: clare.mehta@childrens.harvard.edu
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263
DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9780-8

2. and theory on the correlates of childhood gender segrega-
tion, a consideration of the developmental demands of
adolescence, and consideration of gender-typed character-
istics that may be differentially associated with gender
segregation for adolescent boys and girls. Most of the
extant research on gender segregation and its correlates is
based upon European-American samples or samples from
other western cultures such as Canada. As such, the
literature we review in this paper is based upon studies
conducted in the United States with mostly European-
American participants, unless otherwise noted.
Theoretical Model
Our investigation of the potential role of same-gender peers
in gender-typing in mid-adolescence was guided by a
social-constructionist model of gender development. Deaux
and Major (1987) contend that gender-typed characteristics
are best understood as created and maintained by the
transaction of the individual and the immediate context (see
also, Leaper 2000). Empirical research demonstrates that
the gender of others in the immediate context cues
adolescents’ gender-typed characteristics (Leszczynski and
Strough 2008). Over time, stable individual differences in
gender-typed characteristics may emerge from systematic
participation in contexts that cue gender-typed character-
istics (see Liben and Bigler 2002; Martin et al. 2002
for reviews). Our developmental social constructionist
approach emphasizes the important role of changes in
normative contexts across the life span for understanding
aspects of human development, such as gender typing.
Gender Segregation and Gender-Typing in Adolescence
The peer group emerges as a proximal context of devel-
opment during adolescence (Collins and Steinberg 2006).
Only a few studies have considered the degree to which
gender segregation characterizes adolescents’ peer groups.
Instead, researchers emphasize how relative to the fairly
extreme gender segregation that characterizes children’s peer
relationships, a shift occurs during adolescence such that
other-gender peer relationships become relatively more
common (Connolly et al. 2004). Other-gender peers are
thought to serve an important function in the development of
heterosexual romantic relationships (see Brown 1999 for a
review) and researchers have begun to consider the role of
peers in the development of gay and lesbian romantic
relationships (Diamond and Dubé 2002; Galupo 2007).
Perhaps as a reflection of the focus on the development of
heterosexual romantic relationships, a limited number of
studies have explicitly addressed the prevalence of gender
segregation in adolescence. Strough and Covatto (2002)
found that although the percentage of same-gender peers
nominated by adolescents for working on a project at school
and hanging out at home declined from preadolescence to
later adolescence, the majority of nominated peers (70%)
were of the same gender even among the oldest adolescents
in their sample (10th & 11th graders). Likewise, Poulin and
Pedersen (2007) found that ninth- and tenth- grade Canadian
adolescents asked to list up to ten friends listed on average
six same-gender friends and two other-gender friends. These
studies suggest that gender segregation is a persistent feature
of adolescents’ peer relationships.
The extent to which peer groups are associated with
gender-typing in mid adolescence has not been addressed. In
mid adolescence, aspects of gender identity may be associated
with gender segregation. Peers play an important role in
identity development by providing a supportive context in
which adolescents can express different aspects of their
developing identity or “possible selves” (Ungar 2000),
including their gender identity. Over the last decade, theorists
have increasingly emphasized that gender identity is multi-
faceted (Liben and Bigler 2002; Twenge 1999). Gender-
typed personality traits (i.e., masculine/instrumental or
feminine/expressive traits) and gender reference-group
identity (i.e., the extent to which one identifies with the
larger population of same-gender others and feels a sense of
belonging to the group) are important facets of gender
identity. In the current study, we examined associations
between gender segregation and two facets of adolescent
boys’ and girls’ gender identity (gender reference-group
identity and gender-typed personality traits). We also
investigated associations between gender segregation and
girls’ and boys’ beliefs about the greater communicative
responsiveness of same- versus other-gender peers, and their
cooperative and competitive orientations toward activities.
Gender Reference-Group Identity
Group identity is a person’s internal representation of
themselves as a member of a particular group and their
subsequent feelings of attachment to this group (Gurin and
Townsend 1986; Tajfel 1978). Group identity has also been
described as social collective identity (Ruble et al. 2004;
Ruble et al. 2006). Gender reference-group identity is a
form of group identity that refers to the extent to which a
person feels they identify and psychologically connect with
their gender (Wade 2008), and feel their gender is a positive
and important part of who they are (Michealieu 1997).
Social identity theorists suggest that identifying with a
group increases a person’s positive evaluation of that group,
which in turn may increase the amount of time a person
spends with the group (Arthur et al. 2008; Bigler et al.
1997). As such, those who identify strongly with same-
gender others as their gender reference group may choose
to spend time with same-gender peers. Strong racial identity, a
252 Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263

3. construct conceptually similar to gender reference-group
identity, is associated with selecting friends of the same race
(Wade and Okesola 2002). More generally, similarity plays a
role in friendship selection (Clark and Ayers 1992; Shrum
et al. 1988). Accordingly, strong gender reference-group
identity could be associated with selecting peers of the same
gender, perhaps as a reflection of perceived similarity to
same-gender others (Egan and Perry 2001; see also Liben
and Bigler 2002). Associations between gender reference-
group identity and gender segregation could also reflect that
peers socialize aspects of gender identity (Carter 1987) such
as group belongingness. Thus, spending time predominantly
with same-gender peers could result in a greater sense of
belongingness to that group. Over time, a reciprocal process
may emerge such that choosing same-gender peers increases
identification with others of the same gender which in turn
strengthens desire for same-gender peers.
Ruble et al. (2006) suggest there may be gender asym-
metries in gender reference-group identity due to status
differentials. Research investigating in-group identity in
children suggests that high status groups may have greater
own-group member biases than lower status groups (Bigler
et al. 2001). If this is the case, boys may identify with their
gender reference group to a greater extent than girls because
in contemporary U.S. culture, they are members of a higher
status group than are girls. Accordingly, we investigated
differences in the extent to which boys and girls identified
with same-gender others as a reference group and considered
associations between gender reference-group identity and
gender segregation among adolescent boys and girls.
Gender-Typed Personality Traits
Gender-typed personality traits are traits consistent with
socially prescribed stereotypical feminine and masculine
gender roles. Such traits have been the focus of much re-
search on gender development (Galambos 2004; Leaper
and Friedman 2007). Stereotypically feminine traits include
expressive and communal traits, while masculine traits
include agentic and instrumental traits (Bem 1987; Spence
1993). Boys tend to endorse masculine/instrumental traits to
a greater extent than girls; girls tend to endorse feminine/
expressive traits to a greater extent than boys (Leszczynski
and Strough 2008). Gender differences in masculine/
instrumental traits have, however, decreased among cohorts
born after the second wave of the women’s movement
(Strough et al. 2007; Twenge 1999).
The degree to which adolescents’ identification with gender-
typed personality traits may be systematically associated with
gender segregation in their social relationships has not been
addressed. However, research suggests feminine/expressive
girls prefer to play with others who are feminine/expressive—
typically other girls (Alexander and Hines 1994). Adolescent
girls are more likely to endorse feminine/expressive character-
istics after interacting with other girls to play a game,
compared to interacting with boys to play the same game
(Leszczynski and Strough 2008). If peers socialize gender-
typed personality traits, as is suggested by the gender
“cultures” approach (see Fabes et al. 2004; Underwood
2007; Underwood and Rosen 2009), or if personality traits
guide gender segregation, an association between identifica-
tion with gender-typed personality traits and gender segrega-
tion would be expected. We investigated whether there were
gender differences in adolescents’ endorsement of gender-
typed traits (e.g., endorsement of femininity/expressive traits
for girls and endorsement of masculinity/instrumental traits
for boys), and whether gender-typed traits were associated
with gender segregation in adolescence.
Beliefs About the Greater Communicative Responsiveness
of Same-Gender Versus Other-Gender Peers
Within the child development literature, gender-typed char-
acteristics such as “styles” of communication (Maltz and
Borker 1982) have been posited as “causes” and “con-
sequences” of gender segregation (e.g., Leaper 1994;
Maccoby 1998). Gender differences are often found in boys’
and girls’ use of language to influence others and respond to
others’ influence attempts. Although the magnitude of
gender differences is small, consistent differences are found
across the life span (see Hyde 2005; Leaper and Ayers 2007).
Preadolescent girls are relatively more likely to assert
influence while simultaneously taking into account the needs
of their conversational partners, by engaging in turn taking,
expressing agreement, acknowledging each others’ utter-
ances, and engaging in active listening (e.g., Strough and
Berg 2000). In contrast, boys are relatively more likely to
assert influence through demands and bragging, compete to
control the conversation, resist others’ attempts to influence
them, and are less skilled at listening than are adolescent
girls (e.g., Black 2000).
In her seminal paper, Maccoby (1990) suggested gender
differences in communication styles propel gender segre-
gation. Girls do not like interacting with those who are
unresponsive, and as such they avoid interacting with boys
because they believe other girls understand them better.
This hypothesis has intuitive appeal and has often been
cited as a cause of gender segregation. In addition to being
cited as a cause of gender segregation, differences in com-
munication styles have also been cited as a potential con-
sequence of gender segregation. Theorists have speculated
that socialization in gender segregated peer groups creates
separate gender cultures, in which the rules learned for com-
munication differ markedly (Maccoby 1998; Underwood
2007; Underwood and Rosen 2009). If this is the case,
gender segregation could facilitate gender differences in
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263 253

4. communication styles. To date, there is no published
empirical research that documents differences in girls’ and
boys’ beliefs about the greater communicative responsive-
ness of same- versus other-gender peers and the relation of
such beliefs to gender segregation. In the current study, we
considered gender differences in adolescents’ beliefs about
the greater communicative responsiveness of same- versus
other-gender peers, and investigated whether beliefs about
others’ communication responsiveness were associated with
gender segregation in adolescents’ peer groups.
Competitive and Cooperative Activity Orientation
Explanations of gender segregation in early childhood often
focus on behavioral compatibility in play styles and activity
orientations (e.g., Hoffmann and Powlishta 2001; Martin
and Fabes 2001; Martin et al. 2005). These explanations
emphasize that across cultures, girls and boys have different
styles of play and prefer different activities (Gibbons et al.
1997). As such, according to theories focusing on behavioral
compatibility, boys and girls seek peers with play styles that
complement their own. For example, gender segregation
may occur when children choose to interact with primarily
same-gender peers based on the expectation that same-
gender peers will have similar activity orientations.
One dimension that distinguishes boys’ and girls’ activities
is the extent to which activities are oriented toward compe-
tition or cooperation. Adolescent boys in the U.S. enjoy
competition and activities involving personal challenges and
physical exertion (Passmore and French 2001). As such, boys
are more likely than girls to engage in activities such as
playing with computers and sports (Olds et al. 2009). In
contrast, adolescent girls are relatively more likely to prefer
cooperative one-on-one activities and spend time visiting
friends in their homes (Garton and Pratt 1991; Olds et al.
2009). Boys who are oriented toward competitive activities
may prefer interactions with others who are likely to have
similar preferences, namely other boys. Girls who are
oriented toward cooperative activities may prefer interactions
with other girls who are more likely to share their pref-
erences for cooperative activities. Over time, if initial gender
differences in cooperative and competitive activity orienta-
tions are accentuated via repeated practice, participation in
gender-segregated groups may be associated with further
divergence in boys’ and girls’ competitive and cooperative
activity orientations. In this regard, cooperative and compet-
itive activity orientations may not only differ according to
gender, but may also be both a cause and a consequence
of gender segregation. In the current study, we investigated
gender differences in cooperative and competitive activity
orientations and whether gender segregation in adolescents’
peer groups was differentially associated with a preference for
competitive or cooperative activities among boys and girls.
Hypotheses
Drawing from prior research, we hypothesized that: (1)
adolescents would nominate more same-gender peers than
other-gender peers, (2) there would be gender differences in
gender-typed characteristics such that, (2a) relative to boys,
girls would be more likely to endorse femininine/expressive
personality traits, a cooperative activity orientation, and
beliefs about the greater communicative responsiveness of
same-gender peers compared to other-gender peers, and
(2b) relative to girls, boys would be more likely to endorse
gender reference-group identity, masculine/instrumental
personality traits, and a competitive activity orientation.
We also hypothesized that (3) greater gender segregation in
adolescents’ friendship groups would be associated with
greater gender reference-group identity and endorsement of
gender-typed characteristics. Specifically, for girls we
hypothesized that (3a) greater endorsement of feminine/
expressive traits, beliefs about the greater communicative
responsiveness of same-gender versus other-gender peers,
and cooperative activity orientations would be associated
with greater gender segregation. For boys we hypothesized
that (3b) greater endorsement of masculine/instrumental
traits and competitive activity orientations would be asso-
ciated with greater gender segregation.
Method
Participants
The initial sample consisted of 149 participants. Four cases
(2 boys and 2 girls) with missing data on the main variables
of interest (gender reference-group identity, gender-typed
personality traits, and beliefs about the greater communi-
cative responsiveness of same- versus other-gender peers)
were dropped leaving 145 participants.
Participants were 60 boys and 85 girls aged 15–
17 years (M=16.01, SD=.84) from public (22%) and
private (78%) high schools in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. Participants were fairly evenly distributed across
9th (21% of participants), 10th (27% of participants), 11th
(34% of participants), and 12th grade (18% of partici-
pants). Most participants self-identified as Caucasian
(81%), followed by Asian American (7%), other (7%),
African American (3%), and Hispanic (2%). Forty-six
percent of participants’ mothers and 37% of participants’
fathers were employed in professional occupations (e.g.,
accounting), and 41% of participants’ mothers and 37%
of participants’ fathers were employed in service occupa-
tions (e.g., retail), as classified by the U.S Census Bureau
occupational classification system (U.S. Department of
Labor 2006).
254 Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263

5. Procedure
Participants completed a packet of measures we labeled the
“My Friends Questionnaire”. Some of the measures in the
Questionnaire were ones we developed for the current
investigation. The measures we developed were based on
information from a preliminary study (Strough 2005) and
other research (Michealieu 1997)—these measures are
presented in the Appendix. Other measures were taken
from the literature (i.e., Boldizar 1991; Strough and Covatto
2002). Participants received both oral and written instruc-
tions for completing the measures in each section of the
questionnaire and then completed the questionnaire in their
classrooms, either during class time or their lunch period.
To maintain confidentiality and privacy, participants were
instructed not to discuss their answers with peers. Because
the Questionnaire contained some questions that were
specific to a participant’s gender (details provided below),
girls filled out a female version of the Questionnaire, and
boys filled out a male version. Incentives for participation
and return of consent forms were offered, including class-
room pizza parties, candy, and entry into a raffle to win
$100 gift certificate to a local mall.
Measure
Below, we describe the measures in the order in which they
were presented to participants. To assess gender segregation
in adolescents’ preferred partners for “hanging out,” we
used a peer nomination measure. To assess gender-typed
characteristics, participants rated items on six-point Likert-
type scales (1= strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Scale
scores (e.g., gender reference-group identity) were calcu-
lated by averaging the respective scale items. Boys’ and
girls’ scores on the scales from each measure can be found
in Table 1.
Peer Nomination
To assess gender segregation in adolescents’ groups of
friends, we used Strough and Covatto’s (2002) peer nomina-
tion measure. Participants nominated five people that they
would invite to their house to “hang out.” Participants were
instructed to list each person in order of preference and to
indicate the person’s gender. The proportion of same-gender
nominations was calculated by dividing the number of same-
gender friends nominated by 5. The average proportion of
same-gender friends listed was .72 (SD=.22). Proportion
scores ranged between .20 and 1.00. Eighty-three percent of
participants nominated a same-gender friend as the “top”
friend that they would like to invite over to their house to
hang out. Twenty-eight percent of participants nominated
only same-gender friends.
Gender Reference-Group Identity
Michealieu’s (1997) gender identity subscale (2 items) was
used to assess participants’ affiliation with their own-gender
as a gender reference group. For this scale, girls answered
questions about their identification with females, and boys
answered questions about their identification with males.
Michealieu’s scale was originally created for females. In the
current study, Michealieu’s items were used for girls and
parallel items were developed for boys. Cronbach’s alpha
was .75 for the boy’s scale and .65 for the girl’s scale.
Gender-Typed Personality Traits
The Children’s Sex Role Inventory (CSRI; Boldizar 1991)
was used to assess adolescents’ endorsement of gender-typed
personality traits (i.e., feminine, expressive, communal traits;
masculine, instrumental, agentic traits). The CSRI was
developed by Boldizar (1991) from the Bem Sex Role
Inventory (BSRI). The CSRI presents the traits included in
the BSRI in the context of a sentence and contains 48
statements. Sixteen of these statements comprise the femi-
nine trait score, 16 of the statements comprise the masculine
trait score and 16 statements are neutral. Boys and girls rated
all 48 statements.
The CSRI yields a masculine/instrumentality score and a
feminine/expressivity score. Based on these two scores,
participants can be further classified into the following
categories: “masculine,” “feminine,” “androgynous,” and
“undifferentiated.” Rather than classifying participants into
categories, we computed a continuous masculine and
feminine score for each participant (see also Leszczynski
and Strough 2008). Cronbach’s alpha for masculinity/
instrumentality was .87 for boys and .75 for girls. Cronbach’s
alpha for femininity/expressivity was .80 for boys and .78
for girls.
Beliefs about the Greater Communicative Responsiveness
of Same- Versus Other-Sex Peers
Four items assessed the extent to which adolescents felt that
they were understood and listened to by same-gender peers
relative to other-gender peers. Higher average scores across
the four items indicated that participants felt better
understood and listened to by same-gender peers relative
to other-gender peers. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was
.80 for boys and .76 for girls.
Cooperative and Competitive Activity Orientations
Six items assessed adolescent’s cooperative and competitive
activity orientations. Three items corresponded to preferences
for cooperation and three items corresponded to preferences
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263 255

6. for competition. Competition is stereotypically masculine
whereas cooperation is stereotypically feminine. We comput-
ed scores for cooperative and competitive orientations for both
boys and girls. For the competitive scale, Cronbach’s alpha
was .93 for boys and .90 for girls. For the cooperative scale,
Cronbach’s alpha was .93 for boys and .90 for girls.
Results
Gender Segregation in Adolescence
To address Hypothesis 1, that gender segregation would
exist in adolescence, we investigated whether the propor-
tion of same-gender peers nominated by adolescents was
significantly different than what would be expected by
chance. By chance, half of adolescent’s peers would be
same-gender peers. Accordingly, we conducted a one-sample
t-test and compared the proportion of gender segregation in
adolescents’ social relationships as indexed by our gender
segregation measure to .50.
Hypothesis 1 was supported. The proportion of same-
gender peer nominations (M=.70, SD=.26) was signifi-
cantly greater than would be expected by chance, t(1, 144)=
38.52, p<.01. This proportion was similar for boys
(M=.70, SD=.26, Range=.20–1.00) and girls (M=.73,
SD=.20, Range=.20–1.00, t(1, 143)=-80, p=.43.)
Boys and Girls’ Endorsement of Gender-Typed
Characteristics
To address Hypothesis 2, that boys and girls endorsement
of gender-typed characteristics would differ, and (2a) that
compared to boys, girls would be more likely to endorse
feminine/expressive traits, a cooperative activity orientation
and the belief that the communicative responsiveness of
same- versus other-gender peers differed and (2b) compared
to girls, boys would be more likely to identify with same-
gender others as a reference group, and to endorse masculine/
instrumental traits and a competitive activity orientation, a
one-way between groups MANOVA was conducted. There
was a statistically significant difference between girls and
boys on the combined dependant variables F(1, 137)=10.75,
p=<.001. When the variables were considered separately
using a Bonferoni adjusted alpha level of .008 we found that
for feminine/expressive traits, girls’ scores (M=2.93) were
higher than boys’ scores (M=2.69), F(1,137)=13.72, p=
<.001, partial η2
=.09. When beliefs about the relatively
greater communicative responsiveness of same- versus other-
gender peers were examined, girls’ scores (M=4.46) were
higher than boys’ scores (M=3.68), F(1, 137)=31.05, p=
<.001, partial η2
=.18. Similarly, for cooperative activity
orientation, girls’ scores (M=4.89) were higher than boys’
scores (M=4.33) F(1, 137)=12.15, p=001, partial η2
=.08.
All of these findings support Hypothesis 2a.
In contrast to Hypothesis 2b, boys’ and girls’ endorse-
ment of items that assessed gender reference-group identity
F(1,137)=3.65 p=.58, partial η2
=.03, masculine/instrumental
personality traits F(1,137)=2.57 p=.11, partial η2
=.02 and
competitive activity orientation were not significantly differ-
ent F(1,137)=2.82 p=.02, partial η2
=.04. Thus, Hypothesis
2b was not supported.
Gender Segregation and Gender-Typed Characteristics
To test Hypothesis 3, that gender-typed characteristics
would be associated with gender segregation in adoles-
cence, correlations between gender-typed characteristics
were computed (see Table 2). Because we hypothesized
different correlates of gender segregation for boys and girls,
analyses were conducted separately for boys and girls.
Correlations for Girls
In accord with Hypothesis 3a, for girls, gender segrega-
tion was associated with greater gender reference-group
Table 1 Means and standard deviations of gender-typed characteristics.
Males Females Total 95% CI
M SD M SD M SD
Gender-reference group identity 4.46 .89 4.25 .87 4.33 .88 [−.08, .50]
Feminine/expressive traits 2.69 .40 2.93** .37 2.83 .40 [−.37, −.11]
Masculine/expressive traits 2.87 .49 2.74 .44 2.79 .46 [−.02, .28]
Beliefs about the greater communicative
responsiveness of same- v. other-gender peers
3.68 .93 4.46** .93 4.14 .91 [−1.05, −.50]
Cooperative activity orientation 4.33 1.14 4.89* .81 4.66 1.00 [−.88, −.23]
Competitive activity orientation 4.54 1.25 3.99* 1.34 4.22 1.33 [.11, .98]
Scored using a six-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree).
* p=<.05, ** p=<.001
256 Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263

7. identity, and beliefs about the greater communicative
responsiveness of same- versus other-gender peers (see
Table 2). In contrast to Hypothesis 3a, correlations between
gender segregation and other gender-typed characteristics—
personality traits (expressive/feminine traits) and cooperative
activity orientations—were non-significant.
Correlations for Boys
Hypothesis 3b was not supported. For boys, gender segre-
gation was not associated with gender reference-group
identity, gender-typed personality traits (i.e., masculinity/
instrumentality), beliefs about the greater communicative
responsiveness of same-gender versus other-gender peers, or
competitive activity orientations.
Follow-Up Tests of Gender Differences in Correlations
Fisher’s r to z transformation was used to compare whether
the magnitude of the correlation between gender reference-
group identity and gender segregation for boys r(60)=.22,
p>.05 was significantly different from the correlation for
girls r(85)=.29, p<.01. The two correlations did not differ
significantly from each other, z=−.43, p>.05. Similarly, a
comparison of the correlations between beliefs about the
greater communicative responsiveness of same- versus other-
gender peers and gender segregation for boys r(60)=.21,
p>.05 and girls r(85)=.25, p<.01 indicated that the
correlations did not differ significantly, z=−.023, p>.05.
Discussion
Gender segregation was evident in adolescent boys’ and
girls’ friendships. This highlights how one of the proximal
contexts of adolescent development, peer relationships,
remains largely segregated by gender even at a time when
relationships with other-gender friends become more
normative. Indeed, the majority of peers nominated by
adolescents for “hanging out” were of the same gender,
with over a quarter of participants nominating only same-
gender peers. Importantly, as predicted on the basis of prior
theoretical work (e.g., Maccoby 1998), gender segregation
in girls’ friendships was related to their belief that other
girls are more responsive conversational partners than are
boys. Gender segregation was also linked to one aspect of
girls’ identity development—gender reference-group iden-
tity, supporting theoretical suppositions that peer groups are
an important context for identity development in mid-
adolescence (Brown 2004). Our findings are in line with
social contructionist models of gender development that
suggest participation in contexts that cue gender-typed
behaviors (i.e. same-gender peer groups) may increase
gender-typed characteristics over time. Together, these
findings contribute important information regarding the
role of same-gender peers in adolescent development.
Gender Segregation in Adolescence
Our findings add to the literature on peer relationships in
adolescence by illustrating that from adolescents’ perspec-
tives, the majority of peers preferred for “hanging out” are of
the same-gender. Researchers have considered the function
of mixed-gender adolescent crowds for facilitating romantic
relationships among heterosexual adolescents (e.g., Connolly
et al. 2004). Our findings suggest some aspects of
adolescents’ peer contexts remain largely segregated by
gender, despite the transition to other-gender peers among
heterosexual adolescents. Further research focusing on same-
gender peer relationships in adolescence and other ages may
be useful in understanding the extent to which developmen-
tal continuities exist in gender segregation across develop-
ment. For instance, although other-gender romantic pairs
may become increasingly common in later adolescence and
early adulthood, many aspects of peer relationships remain
gender segregated across the adult life span (see Mehta and
Strough 2009 for a review).
Table 2 Correlations among gender segregation and gender-typed behaviors.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Sex segregation 1.00 .22 .02 .04 .21 .19 .12
2. Gender reference-group identity .29** 1.00 −.16 .00 .33** −.14 .30*
3. Feminine/expressive traits −.06 .32** 1.00 .49** −.08 .11 .01
4. Masculine/instrumental traits −.032 −.03 .27* 1.00 .14 .19 .51
5. Beliefs about the greater communicative
responsiveness of same- v. other-gender peers
−.25* .30** .29* .21 1.00 .26* .14
6. Cooperative activity orientation .14 .27* .53** .18 .16 1.00 .17
7. Competitive activity orientation .05 .23* −.06 .41** .27* −.01 1.00
Intercorrelations for boys (n=60) are presented above the diagonal. Intercorrelations for girls (n=85) are presented below the diagonal.
*p<.05, **p<. 01.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263 257

8. Gender-Typed Characteristics and Gender Segregation
Gender Reference-Group Identity
When asked about their group identity, boys and girls were
equally likely to endorse same-gender others as a reference
group. That is, there were no gender differences in gender
reference-group identity. This finding was in contrast to
predictions (Hypothesis 2b). Some have suggested that
boys are a higher status group than girls and that those in
higher status groups emphasize their group identity to a
greater extent than those in lower status groups (Bigler
et al. 2001). In our sample of adolescents, the similarities in
endorsement of same-gender reference-group identity could
reflect that identity development is a salient concern during
this developmental period (Erikson 1968). The process of
identity development could lead adolescents to emphasize
their group identification, regardless of the perceived status
of that group. Because gender is a highly salient social
category for both genders (Ruble et al. 2006), perhaps
adolescents identify with a reference group based on
perceived similarity to that group rather than its status. For
example, although little research has investigated associ-
ations between gender segregation and sexual orientation,
some research suggests that adolescent boys who identify
as gay have more other-gender peers in their social group
and may identify more with other-gender peers than
adolescents who are heterosexual (Diamond and Dubé
2002; Schneider and Witherspoon 2000).
For girls, gender reference-group identity was related to
gender segregation (Hypothesis 3a), indicating that identify-
ing with the larger population of same-gender others and
feeling a sense of belonging to the group were associated with
preferring to affiliate with peers from that group. As girls’ peer
relationships tend to be closer and more supportive than boys
peer relationships, peers may be an important supportive
context for adolescent girls’ identity exploration. These
findings expand research on group identity which has linked
racial group identity to racial segregation (Wade and Okesola
2002). Our findings suggest that gender reference-group
identity may operate similarly to racial group identity in
terms of associations with segregation, at least among girls.
Among boys, gender reference-group identity was not
significantly associated with gender segregation (Hypothe-
sis 3b). Perhaps boys who identify and feel similar to same-
gender others are compelled to demonstrate their similarity
to heterosexual boys and men by adhering to heterosocial
norms that encourage spending time with girls (Flood 2008;
Monsour 2002). That is, the importance adolescent boys
place on demonstrating their masculinity via displays of
heterosexual competence to their peer group may explain
why gender segregation was not associated with gender
reference-group identity among adolescent boys.
Because our data are correlational, we cannot address the
direction of the association between gender reference-group
identity and gender segregation. The developmental literature
offers several plausible directional models of an association
between gender segregation and reference-group identity that
could be tested using longitudinal designs. For example, Egan
and Perry (2001) suggest that feeling similar to same-gender
others may contribute to an attachment to same-gender peers.
Similarly, Liben and Bigler (2002) propose that adolescents
who possess a stronger sense of belongingness to same-
gender others may choose to spend time with same-gender
peers over other-gender peers. These models suggest group
belongingness might guide peer selection. Alternatively,
peers may socialize group belongingness. Peers are powerful
socialization agents (Harris 1999; Ryan 2001) and are
thought to socialize aspects of gender identity (Carter 1987;
Maccoby 1998). From a social constructionist perspective,
individual difference characteristics such as reference group
identity may reflect systematic participation in contexts that
are gender segregated. Over time, choosing same-gender peers
to spend time with may increase a person’s identification with
others of the same gender. Identifying with same-gender peers
could strengthen the desire to spend time with same-gender
peers, which in turn could increase group identification. In this
manner, an individuals’ group identity may be continually
constructed within gender segregated social contexts.
Gender-Typed Personality Traits
Girls were more likely to endorse feminine/expressive traits
than boys (Hypothesis 2a). This finding is consistent with
prior research (Leszczynski and Strough 2008) as well as
stereotypical traits ascribed to women within contemporary
U.S. culture. That girls were more likely to endorse feminine
traits than boys may reflect that adolescent boys actively
reject femininity/expressivity (Oransky and Marecek 2009).
Homophobia has been suggested to be central to the devel-
opment of masculinity in U.S. adolescents (Pascoe 2005).
Contemporary U.S. culture often devalues men who display
traits that are traditionally considered to be feminine. Males
who transgress traditional masculine/instrumental gender roles
tend to be treated harshly by their peers (Sirin et al. 2004),
and may be labeled as “gay” or “girly” by their male peer
group (Oransky and Marecek 2009). Thus, in our study, boys
may have endorsed femininity to a lesser extent than girls
because femininity is a socially undesirable trait for boys.
In contrast to hypotheses (Hypothesis 2b) girls were just as
likely to endorse masculine/instrumental traits as boys. This
could reflect the social and cultural changes in the acceptability
of masculine/instrumental traits for women that have taken
place since the original BSRI scale (on which the CSRI used in
the present study was based) was created (Twenge 1999). For
example, drawing from Stewart and Healy’s (1989) work on
258 Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263

9. the developmental timing of life events, Strough et al. (2007)
suggested the second wave of the women’s movement has
systematic consequences for girls’ and women’s endorsement
of masculine/ instrumental traits. In their study, adolescent
girls and younger and middle-aged women who came of age
during or after the second wave of the women’s movement
were more likely to endorse masculinity than older women.
As such, in our sample, the similar endorsement of masculine/
instrumental traits by adolescent girls and boys may be
indicative of systematic cohort changes in girls’ identification
with masculine/instrumental traits within American culture
in past decades. Such cohort changes could have implications
for the use of measures such as the CSRI and the BSRI to
index gender typing among contemporary samples (see
Hoffman and Borders 2001 for a discussion of this issue).
Feminine/expressive traits and masculine/instrumental
traits were not associated with gender segregation in adoles-
cence for boys or girls. This finding was in contrast to
predictions (hypotheses 3a and 3b) based on theoretical work
which suggests that during adolescence peers model and
reinforce adherence to gender roles (Carter 1987; Galambos
2004). Although some researchers suggest that adolescence
is a period of rigid adherence to gender roles (Galambos
et al. 1991; Signorella and Frieze 2008), others have
suggested that identification with stereotypical gender-typed
traits is flexible during adolescence (Katz and Ksansnak
1994) and varies according to demands present in the
proximal context (Leszczynski and Strough 2008). If
adolescents’ identification with stereotypical traits vary
according to contextual demands, associations with gender
segregation may be more pronounced in specific peer
contexts (e.g., playing a game with same-gender peers) than
when a more global index of gender segregation is used,
such as was the case in the current study.
Our findings highlight the importance of moving beyond
conceptualizing gender identity as a person’s identification with
stereotypical personality traits to a more multi-faceted view of
gender identity (see also Egan and Perry 2001; Gurin and Markus
1988; Twenge 1999). Much research on gender focuses
exclusively on individuals’ identification with stereotypical
gender-typed personality traits (i.e., femininity/expressivity and
masculinity/instrumentality) as an index of gender identity
(Strough et al. 2007; Twenge 1999). Furthermore, our data
indicate for adolescent girls, gender segregation is associated
with aspects of gender identity that pertain to group belonging-
ness rather than endorsement of gender-typed personality traits.
Beliefs About the Greater Communicative Responsiveness
of Same- and Other-Gender Peers
In her seminal paper, Maccoby (1990) theorized gender
segregation could reflect that girls do not like interacting
with those who are unresponsive, and as such they avoid
interacting with boys. Our findings provide empirical
support for this theoretical supposition. First, as was
predicted (Hypothesis 2a), girls were more likely than boys
to endorse the belief that same-gender peers (other girls) are
more likely to listen and understand them compared to
other-gender peers (boys). Second, girls’ beliefs about the
greater communicative responsiveness of same- and other-
gender peers were associated with gender segregation in
their relationships with peers (supporting Hypothesis 3a). In
accord with Maccoby’s hypothesis, our data suggest that
adolescent girls may affiliate with same-gender peers
because they believe that other girls are more responsive.
In line with the developmental social constructionist
perspective that guided our research, over time, active
participation in gender-segregated contexts may perpetuate
gender differences in behaviors such as communication styles.
“Hanging out” is a context within which opportunities to share
ideas and receive validation and support are likely to arise.
Accordingly, girls may select peers who they believe are more
likely to offer such support—those from the same gender
culture who have a style of conversation that complements their
own. Thorne (1986) suggests that “rules” for interactions
differ in girls’ and boys’ gender-segregated peer groups and
likened these rules to differences in cultural norms. Sociali-
zation within “separate cultures” (Maccoby 1998; Underwood
2007; Underwood and Rosen 2009) could encourage the
desire to converse with those who have a similar communi-
cation style, and further perpetuate gender segregation.
For girls, the association between gender segregation and
beliefs about the likelihood of being understood and listened
to by communicative partners may have implications for the
development of heterosexual romantic relationships. For
instance, the association between gender segregation and
beliefs about being understood and listened to by other-gender
peers is consistent with the cultural approach to miscommu-
nication that has been advanced to explain difficulties adult
men and women may experience when speaking to each other
(Maltz and Borker 1982; Tannen 1990). This literature also
proposes girls place greater value upon feeling listened to and
understood compared to boys (Maccoby 1998). If adolescent
girls are relatively less likely to include other-gender peers in
their peer groups because of beliefs about boys’ relative lack of
communicative responsiveness, this may set the stage for
difficulties communicating within heterosexual romantic rela-
tionships later in the life span due to a lack of practice and/or
familiarity with other-gender peers as conversation partners
(Maccoby 1998; Underwood 2007; Underwood and Rosen
2009).
Activity Orientations
Boys’ and girls’ endorsement of gender-typed activity
orientations were only partially consistent with gender
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263 259

10. stereotypes. Specifically, in accord with Hypothesis (2a),
girls were more likely to endorse a cooperative activity
orientation than were boys. This finding is consistent with
prior research and theory which suggests that girls are more
likely than boys to prefer cooperative activities (Maccoby
1998; Stockdale et al. 1995). However, our Hypothesis (2b)
about gender differences in competitive activities was not
supported. Girls and boys were equally likely to endorse an
orientation toward competitive activities. This could reflect
the emphasis within contemporary U.S. culture that is
placed upon competitive sports at school for both boys and
girls—an emphasis that emerged along with the passage of
Title IX. Our results could also reflect that girls are oriented
toward competition in other contexts, such as their friend-
ships (Simmons 2002). Furthermore, boys’ and girls’
similar orientation toward competition could reflect the
importance of competition in cultures that value individual
achievement, such as the U.S.A. If cultural values shape
orientations, gender similarities in cooperative orientations
might occur in collectivist cultures.
Cooperative and competitive activity orientations were
unrelated to gender segregation for either boys or girls
(Hypothesis 3a and 3b). Other dimensions of activities
may be more closely aligned with gender segregation.
For example, sports teams (e.g., football, gymnastics)
may promote gender segregation by mandating separate
boys’ and girls’ teams (see Mehta and Strough 2009). It
may also be the case that the activities boys and girls
engage in within gender-segregated peer groups require
both cooperation and competition. For example, team
sports and some videogames require cooperation, as team
members work together toward a common goal (such as
World of Warcraft). As such, boys and girls may engage in
activities that equally encourage competition and cooper-
ation, therefore having a preference for either cooperative
or competitive activities may not be associated with gen-
der segregation.
Limitations and Future Directions
When interpreting the results of the present study, there are
several limitations that should be considered. First, similar
to many studies that assess peer relationships in adoles-
cence, we used self-report data to assess gender segrega-
tion. As such, our findings may not reflect the actual
number of same- and other-gender peers that adolescents
associate with or reflect the closeness of friends nominated
by adolescents with whom to “hang out.” Furthermore, our
measure does not allow for an assessment of how much
time adolescents spend with the peers they nominated.
For example, an adolescent may have nominated a boy
and a girl, but may not spend equal amounts of time with
each of them. Future research that uses methods such as
momentary/experience time sampling could address the
degree to which self-reported peer relationships corre-
spond to time spent with same- and other-gender peers.
As time with peers does not always represent the quality
of the relationship or the intimacy of the relationship,
this may also be other important factor to assess. Second,
for boys, none of the gender-typed characteristics sug-
gested to be associated with gender segregation were
significantly associated with gender segregation. This
could be because the sample size for boys was smaller
than the sample size for girls, resulting in insufficient
power to detect an effect. The small sample size may
also have contributed to the lack of significant differ-
ences when correlations for boys and girls were directly
compared.
Third, many of the measures we used were new, and
were based on a limited number of items. Accordingly,
there is a need for further development and validation of
measures that capture the constructs of interest. Fourth,
our sample is mainly White. Previous research has sug-
gested that minority adolescents have different peer
relationship patterns than majority (White) adolescents
(Clark and Ayers 1992; Kuttler et al. 1999). Thus,
research could be directed toward understanding associa-
tions between gender-typing and gender segregation in
other racial and ethnic groups. Fifth, sexual orientation
was not assessed and gender segregation may not
uniformly characterize peer relationships among adoles-
cents who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgen-
dered. For example, although adolescent girls who
identify as lesbian tend to have more same-gender friends
than heterosexual adolescent girls (Diamond and Dubé
2002; Galupo 2007), adolescent boys who identify as gay
reported more other-gender friends than heterosexual
boys. Finally, we considered gender segregation in a
limited age range—specifically, mid-adolescence. Adoles-
cence has been conceptualized as spanning from ages 12–
19 (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1983). As such, future
research could investigate gender segregation and its
correlates in a wider range of ages across adolescence,
paying attention to developmental trajectories.
Conclusion
Our findings demonstrate that gender segregation char-
acterizes some aspects of peer relationships even during
mid-adolescence, a time in the life span when the
emergence of close relationships with other-gender peers
has been the subject of much research. Aspects of
identity and interpersonal skills and beliefs socialized in
adolescent’s gender-segregated peer groups may impact
not only men and women’s career trajectories (e.g.,
Reskin 1993), but also romantic relationships with the
260 Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263

11. other gender for heterosexual people (e.g., Maccoby 1998;
Underwood 2007; Underwood and Rosen 2009). Ulti-
mately, socialization in gender-segregated peer groups
during mid-adolescence may contribute to power and
status differentials between men and women, and may
influence gender inequality in society at large (Leaper
1994). These wide-ranging consequences illustrate the
importance of continuing to investigate gender segregation
during adolescence, and across other periods of the
lifespan.
Acknowledgments Clare M. Mehta and JoNell Strough, Depart-
ment of Psychology, West Virginia University.
Clare M. Mehta is now at Division for Adolescent Medicine,
Children’s Hospital/ Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
This research was supported by a graduate student research grant
from the West Virginia University Department of Psychology Alumni
Fund, and by the Velma Miller Award, a graduate student research
grant from West Virginia University Department of Women’s Studies.
The authors thank Katherine Karraker and Kevin Larkin for their
contributions as members of the master’s thesis committee on which this
article is based, Brian Ayotte, Emily Keener, Ashley Kendall, and Lydia
Shrier for their comments on prior versions of this article, and Erin
Groves & Kristin Nicewarner for their assistance in conducting the study.
This article is based on a master’s thesis conducted by Clare Mehta
under the supervision of JoNell Strough and submitted to the
Department of Psychology at West Virginia University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for a master of science degree in life-
span developmental psychology. An earlier version of this article was
presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.
Appendix
Measures and Items
Items
Gender reference-group identity Usually I identify with [females]/
[males] more than with [males]/
[females]
I think of myself as having more
in common with [females]/
[males] than [males]/[females]
Children’s Sex Role Inventory
(see Boldizar 1991 for full
measure)
Example feminine item: I am a
kind and caring person
Example masculine item: I am
willing to take risks
Example neutral item: I am an
honest person.
Beliefs about the greater
communicative responsiveness
of same- v. other-gender peers
I would rather talk to [females]/
[males] than [males]/[females]
because [females]/[males] are
better listeners
I would rather talk to [females]/
[males] than [males]/[females]
because they understand me
better.
I would rather talk to [females]/
[males] than [males]/[females]
because [females]/[males] listen
to what I have to say.
I would rather talk to [females]/
[males] than [males]/[females]
because [females]/[males] see
my point of view.
Competitive activity orientation I like to compete against others.
I prefer to compete against
others.
I often compete against others.
Cooperative activity orientation I like to cooperate with others.
I prefer to cooperate with others.
I often cooperate with others
References
Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (1994). Gender labels and play styles:
Their relative contribution to children's selection of playmates.
Child Development, 65, 869–879.
Arthur, A., Bigler, R., Liben, L., Gelman, S., & Ruble, D. (2008).
Gender stereotyping and prejudice in young children: A
developmental intergroup perspective. In S. Levy & M. Killen
(Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through
adulthood (pp. 66–86). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1987). Gender schema theory and the romantic tradition.
In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender: A review of
personality and social psychology (pp. 251–271). Beverly Hills:
Sage publications.
Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social
categorization and the formation of intergroup categorization in
children. Child Development, 68, 530–543.
Bigler, R., Spears Brown, C., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are
not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation of
intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 72, 1151–
1162.
Black, K. (2000). Gender differences in adolescents’ behavior during
conflict resolution tasks with best friends. Adolescence, 35, 499–512.
Boldizar, J. P. (1991). Assessing gender typing and androgyny in
children: The children’s sex role inventory. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 505–515.
Brown, B. B., Furman, W., & Feiring, C. (1999). ‘You’re going out
with who?’ Peer group influences on adolescent romantic
relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.),
The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp.
291–329). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, B. B., Lerner, R. M., & Steinberg, L. (2004). Adolescents’
relationships with peers Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd
ed., pp. 363–394). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Carter, D. B. (1987). The roles of peers in gender role socialization. In
D. B. Carter (Ed.), Current conceptions of gender roles and
gender 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.
Collins, W., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in
interpersonal context. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. Lerner
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional,
and personality development (pp. 1003–1067). Hoboken: Wiley.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263 261

12. Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Peppler, D. (2004). Mixed-
gender groups, dating and romantic relationships in early
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 185–207.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1983). Being adolescent: Conflict
and growth in the teenage years. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An
interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological
Review, 94, 369–389.
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.
Egan, S., & Perry, D. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Develop-
mental Psychology, 37, 451–463.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2004). The next 50 years:
Considering gender as a context for understanding young child-
ren’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 260–273.
Flood, M. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality: How bonds between
men shape their sexual relations with women. Men and
Masculinities, 10, 339–359.
Galambos, N. (2004). Gender and gender role development in
adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook
of adolescent psychology (pp. 233–262). Hoboken: Wiley.
Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1991).
Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adoles-
cence: Exploring gender intensification. Annual Progress in
Child Psychiatry & Child Development, 77–91.
Galupo, M. (2007). Women’s close friendships across sexual orienta-
tion: A comparative analysis of lesbian-heterosexual and bisexual-
heterosexual women’s friendships. Sex Roles, 56, 473–482.
Garton, A. F., & Pratt, C. (1991). Leisure activities of adolescent
school students: Predictors of participation and interest. Journal
of Adolescence, 14, 305–321.
Gibbons, J., Lynn, M., & Stiles, D. (1997). Cross-national gender
differences in adolescents’ preferences for free-time activities.
Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social
Science, 31, 55–69.
Gurin, P., & Townsend, A. (1986). Properties of gender identity and
their implications for gender consciousness. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 25, 139–148.
Gurin, P., & Markus, H. (1988). Group identity: The psychological
mechanisms of durable salience. Revue Internationale de
Psychologie Sociale, 1, 257–274.
Harris, J. R. (1999). How to succeed in childhood. In S. J. Ceci & W.
Williams (Eds.), The nature nurture debate: The essential
readings (pp. 83–95). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the
Bem sex-role inventory: A reassessment and new issues
regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development, 34, 39–55.
Hoffmann, M. L., & Powlishta, K. K. (2001). Gender segregation in
childhood: A test of the interaction style theory. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 162, 298–313.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
Katz, P. A., & Ksansnak, K. R. (1994). Developmental aspects of
gender role flexibility and traditionality in middle childhood and
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 272–282.
Kuttler, A. F., La Greca, A. M., & Prinstein, M. J. (1999). Friendship
qualities and socialemotional functioning of adolescents with
close, cross-sex friendships. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
9, 339–366.
Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation
on social relationships. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender
segregation: Causes and consequences (pp. 67–86). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leaper, C. (2000). The social construction and socialization of gender
during development. In P. Miller & E. Kofsy Scholnick (Eds.),
Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 127–152).
Florence: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. 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., & Friedman, C. (2007). The socialization of gender. In J.
E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization:
Theory and research (pp. 561–587). New York: Guilford Press.
Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of
masculinity and femininity in early adolescence. Social Devel-
opment, 17, 719–736.
Liben, L., & Bigler, R. (2002). The developmental course of gender
differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating con-
structs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 67, 1–147.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental
account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two genders: Growing up apart, coming
together. Cambridge: Belknap.
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.
Martin, C., & Fabes, R. (2001). The stability and consequences of
young children’s same-gender peer interactions. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 431–446.
Martin, C., Fabes, R., Hanish, L., & Hollenstein, T. (2005). Social
dynamics in the preschool. Developmental Review, 25, 299–327.
Martin, C., Ruble, D., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of
early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–
933.
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships
and normative contexts across the lifespan. Developmental
Review, 29, 201–220.
Michealieu, Q. (1997). Female identity, reports of parenting, and
adolescent women’s self esteem. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion. Tempe: Arizona State University.
Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across
the lifespan in the 21st Century. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Nurmi, J. (1993). Adolescent development in an age-graded context:
The role of personal beliefs, goals, and strategies in the tackling
of developmental tasks and standards. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 16, 169–189.
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.
Oransky, M., & Marecek, J. (2009). ‘I’m not going to be a girl’:
Masculinity and emotions in boys’ friendships and peer groups.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 218–241.
Pascoe, C. J. (2005). Dude you’re a fag: Adolescent masculinity and
the fag discourse. Sexualities, 8, 329–346.
Poulin, F., & Pedersen, S. (2007). Developmental changes in gender
composition of friendship networks in adolescent girls and boys.
Developmental Psychology, 43, 1484–1496.
Reskin, B. (1993). Gender segregation in the workplace. Annual
Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.
Ruble, D., Alvarez, J., Bachman, M., Cameron, J., Fuligni, A., Coll,
C., et al. (2004). The development of a sense of ‘we’: The
emergence and implications of children’s collective identity. In
262 Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263

13. M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self
(pp. 29–76). New York: Psychology Press.
Ruble, D., Martin, C., & Berenbaum, S. (2006). Gender development.
In W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.), & N. Eisenberg
(Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social,
emotional, and personality development (pp. 858–932). Hobo-
ken, N.J: John Wiley
Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer groups as a context for development of
young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Develop-
ment, 72, 1135–1150.
Schneider, M., & Witherspoon, J. (2000). Friendship patterns among
lesbian and gay youth: An exploratory study. Canadian Journal
of Human Sexuality, 9, 239–246.
Shrum, W., Cheek, N., & Hunter, S. (1988). Friendship in school, gender
and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61, 227–239.
Signorella, M. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2008). Interrelations of gender
schemas in children and adolescents: Attitudes, preferences, and
self-perceptions. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 941–954.
Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression
in girls. Orlando: Harcourt.
Sirin, S., McCreary, D., & Mahalik, J. (2004). Differential reactions to
men and women’s gender role transgressions: Perceptions of
social status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. Journal
of Men’s Studies, 12, 119–132.
Spence, J. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence
for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 624–635.
Stewart, A., & Healy, J. (1989). Linking individual development and
social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30–42.
Stockdale, D. F., Galejs, I., & Wolins, L. (1995). Cooperative-competitive
preferences and behavioral correlates as a function of sex and age of
school age children. Psychological Reports, 53, 739–750.
Strough, J. (2005, April). Correlates of girls’ and boys’ enjoyment of
same- and other-sex peer interactions at home and at school.
Poster presented at the annual meetings of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA
Strough, J., & Berg, C. (2000). Goals as a mediator of gender
differences in high-affiliation dyadic conversations. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 36, 117–125.
Strough, J., & Covatto, A. M. (2002). Context and age differences in
same and other-gender peer preferences. Social Development, 11,
346–361.
Strough, J., Leszczynski, J., Neely, T., Flinn, J., & Margrett, J. (2007).
From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity,
and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57, 385–396.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the
social psychology of intergroup relations. Oxford: Academic.
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating
involvement in best friends talk. Discourse Processes, 13, 73–90.
Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together…but mostly apart: Gender
arrangements in elementary schools. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin
(Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 167–184). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thorne, B., & Luria, Z. (1986). Sexuality and gender in children’s
daily worlds. Social Problems, 33, 176–190.
Twenge, J. M. (1999). Mapping gender: The mulitfactorial approach
and the organization of gender-related attributes. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 23, 485–502.
Underwood, M. (2007). Girlfriends and boyfriends diverging in
middle childhood coming together in romantic relationships.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 520–526.
Underwood, M. K., & Rosen, L. H. (2009). Gender, peer relations,
and challenges for girlfriends and boyfriends coming together in
adolescence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 16–20.
Ungar, M. (2000). The myth of peer pressure. Adolescence, 35, 167–180.
US Department of Labor (2006). Women in the labor force: A
sourcebook (Report 1009). Washington, DC: US Department of
Labor.
Wade, J. (2008). Masculinity ideology, male reference group identity
dependence, and African American men’s health-related attitudes
and behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9, 5–16.
Wade, J. C., & Okesola, O. (2002). Racial peer group selection in
African-American high school students. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling & Development, 30, 96–109.
Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). A cross-cultural analysis of
gender differences in the behavior of children aged 3 through 11.
In G. Handel (Ed.), Childhood socialization (pp. 281–297).
Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:251–263 263