Acceptance by peers is an important part of children’s positive school experience (Masten and Coatsworth 1998). Social acceptance is positively linked to many measures of children’s well-being, including academic success and self-confidence (Estell et al. 2002; Ladd et al. 1997). The social experiences of rejected children are often negative, in part due to the maladaptive behaviors and cognitions that characterize these children, such as aggression, poor social skills, and feelings of loneliness (Buhs and Ladd 2001; Perry et al. 1988; Rubin et al. 2005). In fact, suicide, the second leading cause of death in U.S. children 10–14 years-old, is often linked to negative social experiences (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2016; Kidd et al. 2006; Rubenstein et al. 1989). Various studies suggest children’s peer acceptance in middle childhood is influenced by their conformity to gender norms (Carter and McCloskey 1984; Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2012). An understudied aspect of this research is the interplay between a child’s own gendered behavior and the gendered behavior of his or her friends and preferred peers. To extend previous work on gender conformity and peer acceptance in middle childhood, the present study focused on 9–10 year-old children’s own and their friends’ reports of gender-typed behavior and the explanations children gave when they preferred a gender conforming or nonconforming hypothetical classmate.

Gender Homophily in Middle Childhood

Studies of elementary-aged peer relationships reveal the strength of homophily, the tendency for individuals to gravitate towards and befriend like-minded, similar peers (Martin et al. 2013; Shrum et al. 1988). Farmer and colleagues (2009) found that elementary children were likely to nominate children in their peer group, rather than outside their peer group, as people whom they liked the most. Consistent with this process, children’s own gender affects how well they like, and are liked by, other students. Gender segregation is salient in the early elementary years, and although it decreases from third to twelfth grade, it remains prominent throughout middle childhood (Maccoby 1990; Shrum et al. 1988; Underwood 2007). Theories and research on inter-group processes support the widespread finding that children tend to identify with, and actively prefer, same-gender peers as friends; the elementary school years are marked by almost exclusive same-gender nominations for best friendships (Shrum et al. 1988). Martin and colleagues (2013) found that participation in gendered activities partially contributed to friend-selection in preschool, but the primary explanation for choosing a friend was the gender of the peer. Together, these findings indicate that gender and shared activities are salient factors by which children form friendships.

Gendered Behavior and Peer Acceptance

Although no one theory of gender development fully explains the origins and causes of gender segregation, engagement in gender-typed activities, or peer social acceptance among girls and boys during middle childhood, we believe that a social constructionist view of gender is useful for interpreting gendered behaviors, friendships, and peer preference during this period (Leaper 2000). This perspective conceptualizes gender as socially constructed and context-dependent, offering a helpful lens for understanding the dynamics of gender in elementary school classrooms in Western societies. According to this theory, gender is not something children have, but rather, it is something they learn and do through social interactions. Children receive external pressures from parents, teachers, and media to conform to specific gender norms, and they are granted differential opportunities and access to particular contexts. For example, girls have more access to doll play whereas boys have more access to tools and trucks (Wood et al. 2002). These norms (e.g., to play with dolls and be nice, or to play with tools and be assertive) become reinforced, internalized, and strengthened within gender-segregated peer contexts as girls and boys engage in distinct practices, activities, and interaction styles over and over again (Leaper and Friedman 2007; Maccoby 1990).

When gender norms are transcended, challenges can arise because of societal pressures to maintain a normative gender identity. In this way, a social constructionist perspective on gender is consistent with cognitive developmental theory, which emphasizes gender categorization and explains gender development through the child’s internalized value system (Bem 1983; Martin and Ruble 2004). In an effort to reach cognitive consistency, children seek out and place value on the gendered objects, activities, and behaviors with which they identify. Accordingly, girls are likely to identify as female and value the activities typically associated with being female. They are likely to be accepting of other girls because they share both gender identity and activity preferences. This perspective gives reason to expect that friends would share both gender and gendered behavior, a question we explored in the present study.

Gender differences in middle childhood can also be explained by traditional societal values of gender that work together with political, environmental, and religious beliefs to create the larger macrosystem that shapes the particular microsystems in which children develop. According to social dominance theory, historical and social factors have resulted in social dominance and anti-egalitarian ideology that is present in high-status groups, particularly among men (Sidanius et al. 2000). Whereas gender differences may be socially constructed, they also are consistent in that they maintain male dominance—reflected by the fact that, across cultures, men typically control power and resources (Buss 1996; Sidanius et al. 2000). Social dominance theory posits that boys exhibit more masculine and less feminine behaviors as they mature because of societal valuation of masculine over feminine behaviors. This theory suggests that children, overall, assign greater value to masculine behaviors than to feminine behaviors. It is possible that these societal beliefs might reverse the benefits of gender conformity for girls, as a cognitive developmental perspective would lead us to expect. In other words, despite the salience of gender segregation in middle childhood and the vast body of theoretical and empirical work which suggests children prefer peers who share both gender and activity preferences that are consistent with gender stereotypes, it is possible that nonconforming girls who exhibit masculine-typed behaviors (i.e., activities valued more highly by society as a whole) will be more preferred than gender conforming girls in some contexts.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), which postulates that patterns of interactions and behaviors perpetuate men’s control over women, may provide an additional explanation for boys’ gendered behavior in middle childhood. This theory argues that maintaining a pattern of male dominance requires the policing of men (and boys), as well as the exclusion or discrediting of women (and girls), in order to preserve a conceptualization of masculinity as power, strength, self-reliance, and assertiveness that is elevated and valued above all other masculinities (e.g., “softer,” “sissy” behavior). From this perspective, we might expect many boys to reject forms of masculinity among their male peers that challenge or threaten masculine stereotypes and status. In the present study, we explored gender differences in masculine and feminine behaviors and the acceptability of gender conforming versus gender nonconforming behavior for girls and boys.

Crossing the Gender Line

Developmental shifts in gender segregation reflect changes in social and cultural pressures to conform to gender stereotypes at different stages of childhood (Adler et al. 1992). Less strict patterns of gender segregation later in middle childhood indicate that it may be easier for older children to cross the gender line than for younger children (Shrum et al. 1988). Still, research on the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community revealed that adolescents’ retrospective reports of exhibiting gender nonconforming behaviors in childhood was associated with experiencing more victimization and mental health issues in childhood and adolescence compared to their gender conforming counterparts (D’Augelli et al. 2006; Carver et al. 2003). These findings are consistent with the social constructionist theory described previously (Leaper 2000).

Research suggests that the female activity domain expands more readily than the male domain does, such that it is more socially acceptable for girls to exhibit traditionally masculine behaviors than it is for boys to exhibit traditionally feminine behaviors (Adler et al. 1992; McGuffey and Rich 1999). This is consistent with a social dominance perspective (Sidanius et al. 2000), which postulates that engaging in masculine-typed activities is desired due to associations with higher status and power, and it is consistent with research that showed engaging in masculine activities predicted high peer acceptance for both boys and girls, whereas participating in feminine activities predicted low peer acceptance (Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2012). Further, research indicates that girls are more accepting of the other gender than boys are and that boys tend to be stricter reinforcers of male stereotypes than girls are of female stereotypes, findings consistent with hegemonic masculinity (Garrett et al. 1977; McGuffey and Rich 1999; Zimmer-Gembeck et al. 2010).

The Present Study

Considering the importance of peer social acceptance in middle childhood and assuming a social constructionist approach to gender (Leaper 2000), the current study utilized a mixed methods approach to investigate the associations among gender, gender-typed behavior, friendship, and peer preference among Year 5 (9–10 year-old) children in the United Kingdom. First, we explored the extent to which girls and boys differed in terms of masculine- and feminine-typed behavior. Consistent with previous research (Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2012; Martin et al. 2013), we hypothesized that boys would report engaging in more masculine activities than feminine activities (Hypothesis 1a), that girls would report engaging in more feminine activities than masculine activities (Hypothesis 1b), and that boys would report engaging in more masculine activities than girls do (Hypothesis 1c). Second, we explored the relationship between children’s reported engagement in gender-typed activities and that of their friends. Informed by work on homophily and gender segregation, we expected that most reciprocal friends would be the same gender (Hypothesis 2a) and that friends would report similar levels of engagement in masculine and feminine activities (Hypothesis 2b; Martin et al. 2013; Shrum et al. 1988).

We examined whether engagement in gender-typed behavior was associated with children’s gender and preference for a hypothetical new classmate. Based on the research of McGuffey and Rich (1999) and Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd (2012), and informed by social dominance theory (Sidanius et al. 2000), we hypothesized that children, overall, would prefer other children who exhibit masculine-typed behaviors: gender conforming boys and gender nonconforming girls over gender conforming girls and gender nonconforming boys (Hypothesis 3a). We expected that boys, in particular, would prefer individuals who engage in masculine-typed activities (Hypothesis 3b) and would cite these activities when describing their choice (Hypothesis 3c). In line with the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), we expected that boys would least prefer the gender nonconforming boy (Hypothesis 4a), and we expected girls to be more accepting than boys are of this hypothetical peer (Hypothesis 4b). Additionally, we expected that participants would cite feminine activities in describing why they did not like a hypothetical classmate (Hypothesis 4c), and they would cite gender nonconformity in describing why they did not like boys who did not conform to the masculine stereotype (Hypothesis 4d). Consistent with research on gender homophily (Martin et al. 2013), we hypothesized that participants would be the most excited about a potential classmate who was similar to themselves in terms of gendered activities. We hypothesized that children’s preference for a potential new classmate would be associated with their own engagement in masculine activities (Hypothesis 5a) and feminine activities (Hypothesis 5b).

Method

Participants

Data were collected in three primary schools located in Southampton, England at the end of the 2012–2013 academic year. Participants were recruited through opportunity sampling and included 54 Year 5 students who were 9 or 10 years old (M = 10.33, SD = .38). In total, there were 22 (41 %) male and 32 (59 %) female participants. Schools were ethnically and economically diverse (5–40 % students spoke English as a second language; 30–54 % received free school lunches).

Procedure

The authors’ Institutional Review Board approved this study. All Year 5 students in the participating schools were briefed about the study, and we distributed the parent informed consent forms one week prior to data collection. The following week, students with parent consent were briefed about the purpose and procedure of the study, and they provided informed assent. Class participation varied from 25–56 %. One student withdrew from the study, and those data were not included in analyses. Incentives to participate varied at each school according to policy: one did not allow any type of compensation, another used a ticket system, and the final school permitted the use of candy. Upon giving informed assent, students completed the survey portion of the study individually or in groups.

At the time of data collection, the first author provided instructions for the peer nomination and Likert scale sections of the survey. To ensure students’ reading comprehension and fluency would not confuse the results, she read all questions aloud, pausing after each prompt for participants to fill in their answers. When they were finished, participants could revisit any questions and could continue nominating peers. Upon completion, the researcher collected the surveys and thanked the participants. This procedure was repeated in classes or small groups until all children completed the survey.

Feminist researchers emphasize the strength of qualitative methods to understand the lived experiences of individuals. It was important to give children the opportunity to elaborate on their answers in individual interviews. Their insight allowed us to delve deeper into the associations found in the quantitative data so that we could better understand each student’s perspective and reasons behind peer preference. Thus, individual participants engaged in a short, one-on-one interview with the first author after completing the survey. They sat in a quiet classroom or hallway, reviewed the scenarios presented in the survey, and conducted the interview. The researcher thanked students for their participation and they rejoined the class. The interviews ranged from directly after completion to the next morning, due to scheduling restrictions. Survey results were inputted in Microsoft Excel and SCAN and were analyzed using SPSS and R Studio.

Measures

Masculine and Feminine Activities

Students assessed the frequency with which they participated in specific activities using a 4-point Likert-type scale culturally adapted from Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd (2012) to apply to British students; response options included 0 (Never), 1 (Rarely), 2 (Sometimes), and 3 (A lot). Participants self-reported on 18 activities, nine stereotypically masculine activities (“How often do you…play videogames; play with remote control cars, trucks, or helicopters; play wrestle; play with action figures; play football; watch sports on TV; read car magazines or watch car racing on TV; play with Legos; watch action films?”), and nine stereotypically feminine activities (e.g., “How often do you… do cartwheels or somersaults; play school or pretend to be a teacher; play with dolls; make bracelets or other jewelry; dance or take dance lessons; jump rope; sing; play dress-up; watch movies about falling in love?”). Two responses from the original scale, “collect baseball cards” and “skateboard,” were removed, and “Barbies and Bratz” were replaced with “dolls” in consultation with primary school teachers regarding the relevance of these items to their students. Responses within the masculine and feminine activities subscales were averaged so that each participant received a masculine (M = 1.28, SD = .71) and feminine (M = 1.02, SD = .64) score representing their reported engagement in gender-stereotyped activities.

Friendship

Participants identified the first name and last initial of up to ten students in Year 5 whom they liked the most (“liked most”). Students who received a nomination for “liked most” from someone they also nominated were called “reciprocal friends.” Boys (M = 1.92, SD = 1.61, range = 0–4) and girls (M = 2.50, SD = 1.68, range = 0–6) did not differ significantly in their number of reciprocal friends, t(37) = −1.03, p = .37.

To minimize biases in nomination, students engaged in free recall of their peers (Poulin and Dishion 2008). Research indicates that allowing an unlimited number of nominations, rather than restricting students to three nominations, is a more effective method for capturing accurate senses of liking within the classroom (Hughes and Kwok 2006; Terry 2000). This research shows that when an unlimited number of nominations are allowed, nomination results are valid with participation rates above 40 % (Hughes and Im 2016; Terry 2000). In the present study, we allowed students to nominate up to ten peers to encourage recall and inclusion of the classmates liked the most. We also assumed that when children nominate some peers as those they like the most, there are other peers in the class whom they do not like as much. Consistent with previous literature (Graham et al. 2014; Hughes and Chen 2011; Hughes and Im 2016; Jackson et al. 2006; Rubin et al. 2009), we analyzed reciprocal friend data from participants in the two schools where participation rates exceeded 40 % (54–56 %). These analyses included 39 students, 66 % (n = 26) girls. The school with low participation had a larger student body and a higher percentage of students for whom English was their second language compared to the two schools with higher participation. Data from all 54 participants were included in the other analyses.

Vignettes and Individual Interviews

Included in the survey were four hypothetical scenarios (a within-subjects variable) describing potential new classmates: a gender conforming boy, a gender conforming girl, a gender nonconforming boy, and a gender nonconforming girl. Each scenario included at least one favorite activity (masculine: football, basketball, running; feminine: jump rope, arts and crafts; Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2012), academic interest (masculine: math; feminine: reading; Jacobs et al. 2002), character trait (masculine: strong, independent, self-confident; feminine: polite, caring, interpersonal problem-solving; Bem 1981; Blanchard-Fields et al. 1994; Prentice and Carranza 2002), and physical characteristic (masculine: short hair; feminine: long hair) that were either consistent with or contrary to gender stereotypes. The vignettes were presented to each student in the following order and read:

(a) There is a student named Emily who is thinking about joining your class. She plays jacks and jump rope during playtime, and enjoys reading and dancing. Emily is a good story-teller and uses hand gestures when she talks. Her favourite stories are fairytales. She is polite and caring. She has long hair and often wears skirts and nice tops to school. [Gender conforming girl]

(b) Josh is thinking about joining your class. He likes to play outside and go fishing. He is good at football and basketball, which is his favourite sport. In the classroom, his favourite subject is maths. Josh is strong, independent, and self confident. He has short hair and often wears trousers and a shirt to school. [Gender conforming boy]

(c) A student named Lauren is thinking about joining your class. She likes to play football and doesn’t mind getting her clothes dirty if there’s a good game going on outside. She is a good runner and likes camping and being outdoors. Her favourite sport is football. She is strong and competitive. Lauren has short hair and often wears trousers and a T-shirt to school. [Gender nonconforming girl]

(d) Matthew is thinking about joining your class. He likes to do arts and crafts, play jump-rope outside, swing, and read. His favourite thing to do is to dress up like characters in stories and act out the plot. He is caring and is good at solving quarrels. Matthew has long hair and wears trousers and a shirt to school. [Gender nonconforming boy]

On the in-class survey, participants indicated whom they were the “most excited” and “least excited” to have in their class. Although this was a forced choice design, students could opt out of answering the question; this happened on one occurrence when one participant did not want to select whom she was “least excited” about joining her class. During the individual interview, participants described the reason behind their preference. One participant chose not to elaborate on his “least excited” choice. Notes taken during interviews were later transcribed. Students’ interview results were coded using a grounded theory approach, focusing on preliminary themes that emerged from the reasons provided for their preference choice (Strauss and Corbin 1994).

These thematic categories, or codes, include: Masculine Activity, Feminine Activity, Academics, Character, Physical, Gender Nonconformity, and Miscellaneous. Operational definitions were created for each code. These codes are presented with descriptive information in Table 1. Multiple codes could be present in a single student’s response. Two researchers coded every response to the “most excited” question for the presence or absence of each code. Inter-rater reliability between the two coders was calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes and Krippendorff 2007), which allows for various levels of measurement and numbers of coders. Krippendorff’s α was at or above = .88 for all categories, excluding Miscellaneous. The coders discussed discrepancies together, clarified the definition for Miscellaneous, and agreement was reached on each of the instances of discrepancy. Responses to the “least excited” question were examined in the second phase of coding. All categories had an inter-rater reliability of over α = .85. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. Frequencies of each reason are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Code, description, example, and frequency by boys, girls, and total for “most excited” and “least excited” choice
Full size table

Results

Data were analyzed to determine the extent to which girls and boys differed in terms of engagement in masculine and feminine activities (Hypotheses 1); similarities between friends in gender-typed behavior (Hypotheses 2); and associations among gender, gender-typed behavior, and preference for a potential new classmate (Hypotheses 3–5).

Gender Differences in Activities

We first tested Hypothesis 1a that boys would report significantly higher engagement in masculine activities than in feminine activities, and Hypothesis 1b, that girls would engage in more feminine activities than in masculine activities. Two paired samples t-tests indicated that boys’ reports of masculine activities (M = 1.93; SD = .37) were higher than their reports of feminine activities (M = .45, SD = .32), t(21) = 21.58, p < .001, d = 4.28, and girls’ reports of feminine activities (M = 1.42, SD = .50) were higher than their masculine activities (M = .83, SD = .50), t(31) = −5.68, p < .001, d =1.18, supporting Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Next, we tested Hypothesis 1c, which predicted boys would have higher masculine activity scores and lower feminine activity scores than girls. A series of independent samples t-tests supported this hypothesis for masculine activity scores, t(22) = 9.32, p < .001, d =2.50, and feminine activity scores, t(32) = −8.58, p < .001, d = 2.31.

Gender Homophily

To test Hypotheses 2, we first examined the percentage of same-gender reciprocal friendships. Of these friend dyads, 87 % were same-gender, supporting Hypothesis 2a that most reciprocal friends would be of the same gender. We examined the correlations between children’s masculine and feminine activity scores and the average masculine and feminine activity scores of their reciprocal friends by gender to test Hypothesis 2b (see Table 2). Girls’ feminine activity scores were positively associated with the feminine activity scores of their reciprocal friends (r = .48, p = .02), and their reciprocal friends’ feminine and masculine activity scores were positively correlated (r = .42, p = .05). Associations between boys’ feminine/masculine activity scores and those of their reciprocal friends were not statistically significant. In sum, for girls, but not for boys, our findings supported Hypothesis 2b that friends would similarly engage in masculine and feminine activities.

Table 2 Similarities in gender-typed behavior of friends for girls and boys
Full size table

Gender and Preference for a Potential Classmate

To investigate the associations between gender stereotypes and peer preference among elementary-aged boys and girls, we tested Hypothesis 3, that preference would relate to gender conformity, particularly for boys. Participants chose the potential classmate they were “most excited” and “least excited” about having in their class (see Table 3). Overall, participants were “most excited” about the gender nonconforming girl (33 %), followed by the gender conforming boy (32 %), the gender conforming girl (28 %), and the gender nonconforming boy (7 %). Participants were “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy (36 %) gender conforming girl (25 %), gender nonconforming girl (21 %), and gender conforming boy (19 %). Results supported Hypothesis 3a: children preferred more masculine classmates, that is, the gender nonconforming girl and gender conforming boy.

Table 3 “Most excited” and “least excited” choices by child’s gender and total sample
Full size table

Next, we examined whether boys and girls differed in who they were “most excited” and “least excited” about having in their class. A Chi-square test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in girls’ and boys’ preference for a potential new classmate, χ 2 (3, n = 54) = 18.52, p < .001, ΦCramer = .60 (see Table 3). Whereas over 60 % of boys were “most excited” for the gender conforming boy to join their class, less than 10 % of girls indicated this response. Hypothesis 3b predicted that boys would prefer individuals who engage in masculine-typed activities: the gender conforming boy and gender nonconforming girl over the gender conforming girl and gender nonconforming boy. This hypothesis was supported; 86 % of boys were “most excited” about one of these two potential peers.

Next, we tested Hypothesis 3c, that children, especially boys, would cite masculine activities in describing their choice for “most excited,” by examining the rationales children provided for their “most excited” choice. Over 60 % of participants cited masculine activities when describing why they were “most excited” about the potential student (e.g., “Because he likes to play football and I like football;” see Table 1). This was the most frequently cited reason for both boys (82 %) and girls (47 %). Other reasons for why participants were “most excited” about the potential peer included a specific character trait (28 %; e.g., “I like that she’s polite and caring”), split relatively equally by gender, and engagement in a stereotypically feminine activity (24 %; e.g., “She likes the things that I like, like jumping [rope]”), which was overwhelmingly driven by girls’ responses (34 % of girls; 9 % of boys). Only 6 % of students reported gender nonconformity as a reason for being “most excited” about a potential peer, and these were all girls describing their preference for the gender nonconforming girl (e.g., “She likes to play football and doesn’t mind getting dirty. People think girls always have to be uptight about getting their clothes dirty”). These findings supported Hypothesis 3c.

We tested Hypotheses 4a and 4b using a Chi-square test, which indicated that there was also a statistically significant difference in girls’ and boys’ choice of the potential classmate that they were “least excited” about joining their class, χ 2 (3, N = 53) = 11.75, p < .001, ΦCramer = .47 (see Table 3). In support of Hypothesis 4a, 45 % of boys were “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy and 41 % were “least excited” about the gender conforming girl; 32 % of girls were “least excited” about the gender nonconforming girl, followed closely by 29 % who were “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy and 26 % who were “least excited” about the gender conforming boy. Findings supported Hypothesis 4b: compared to boys, girls were less rejecting of the gender-nonconforming boy.

To test Hypotheses 4c and 4d, qualitative analysis of participants’ rationales for these preferences revealed that they most often (51 %) cited feminine activities (e.g., “He likes dressing up and jump rope and I’m not into those things”; see Table 1) when describing their choice for “least excited.” This was the top reason provided by boys (71 %) and the second most frequent reason given by girls (39 %). This explanation for “liked least” choice was followed by 32 % of participants who cited masculine activities (e.g., “He does football, and I don’t like football”)—the majority of these were girls—and 25 % of participants who cited gender nonconformity (e.g., “I especially don’t like boys who like dressing up,” “she sounds a bit boyish”). More than two-thirds of this 25 % who cited gender nonconformity as a reason for their “least excited” selection were girls. Girls’ citations for nonconformity were split across the gender nonconforming girl (33 %) and nonconforming boy (56 %). In contrast, all the boys who cited gender nonconformity as the reason for their “least excited” choice were describing the gender nonconforming boy. As hypothesized, engagement in feminine activities and gender nonconformity were major reasons for nonpreference, particularly for the gender nonconforming boy.

In describing their choice for “most excited,” boys cited masculine activities more than girls did, and girls cited feminine activities more than boys did. But, it was also the case that girls more often cited masculine activities than feminine activities in describing their “most excited” choice. Still, it is important to note that there was variability in children’s responses for why they were “most excited” and “least excited” about a potential peer. Whereas 61 % of students reported masculine activities as their reason for preferring a potential classmate, a quarter of students also cited feminine activities.

Finally, we tested Hypotheses 5a and 5b, that children’s selection of a potential new classmate would be associated with their gender-typed behavior even when their own gender was taken into account. We analyzed and compared the masculine scores and feminine scores of students who were “most excited” about each of the four students described in the vignettes using a series of two-way ANOVAs. The first tested Hypothesis 5a, which focused on masculine activities, by examining the main effects for gender and “most excited” choice, and the interaction between gender and “most excited” choice on the masculine score. In addition to the main effect of gender on masculine score, F(1, 53) = 30.03, p < .001, ηp 2 = .40, such that boys (M = 1.93, SD = .37) had higher masculine scores than did girls (M = .83, SD = .50), there was a moderately significant main effect for “most excited” choice on masculine score, F(3, 53) = 2.31, p = .09, ηp 2 = .13 (see Table 4). To reduce the likelihood of committing a Type I error with six simultaneous post-hoc comparisons for “most excited” choice on masculine score, we applied a Bonferroni correction (α/n), which yielded an adjusted alpha level of .008 (Shaffer 1995). One of the six Tukey post-hoc comparisons was statistically significant at this adjusted alpha level: Students “most excited” about the gender conforming boy had a significantly higher masculine score (M = 1.74, SD = .50) than those choosing the gender conforming girl (M = .84, SD = .52), p < .001. The interaction between gender and “most excited” choice did not reach statistical significance, F(3, 53) = 1.70, p = .18.

Table 4 Gender-typed score by gender and preference for “most excited” choice
Full size table

A second ANOVA tested Hypothesis 5b, which focused on feminine activities, by assessing the main effects of gender and “most excited” choice on feminine score. Results indicated a significant main effect for gender on feminine score, F(1, 53) = 27.55, p < .001, ηp 2 = .38, such that girls (M = 1.42, SD = .50) had higher feminine scores than boys did (M = .45, SD = .32). There was no main effect for “most excited” choice on feminine score F(1, 53) = 1.07, p = 37. In sum, findings provided partial support for Hypothesis 5a, and they did not support Hypothesis 5b.

Discussion

The present study investigated associations among gender, gender-typed behavior, and peer preference among British primary school children. Results suggested that boys and girls engaged in activities stereotypical to their gender, and that friends, particularly girls, were similar in terms of gender and engagement in gender-typed activities. Students were “most excited” about a potential gender conforming boy and gender nonconforming girl to join their class, as well as “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy. Students most often cited masculine activities as reasons why they liked the potential peer, and feminine activities as reasons why they did not like them. After accounting for participants’ gender, their choice of a potential peer also was associated with their reported engagement in gendered activities: students who were “most excited” about the gender conforming boy had higher masculine scores than children who were “most excited” about the gender conforming girl.

Gender Differences in Masculine and Feminine Activities

Consistent with previous research (Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2012; Martin et al. 2013), boys were more likely than girls were to endorse activities such as watching action films, playing football, and wrestling, whereas girls were more likely to dance, do cartwheels, and play with dolls. A social constructionist approach posits that these differences stem from socialization practices, including the reinforcement and pressure to conform to culturally appropriate gender norms (Leaper 2000; Leaper and Friedman 2007). As a result of these gender norms, girls and boys are granted differential opportunities and access to activities (e.g., jumping rope vs. playing football). Consistent exposure to some contexts and exclusion from others shapes children’s expectations, beliefs, preferences, and values regarding gender and appropriate activities. Thus, differences in gendered behavior found in the present study are likely a result of social expectations rather than of underlying gender differences in ability or interest.

Friend Similarity in Gender and Gendered Behavior

In line with previous work on gender homophily (Martin et al. 2013; Shrum et al. 1988), results partially supported the hypothesis that children would be similar to friends in gender and engagement in gender-typed behavior. Almost 90 % of reciprocal friendships were same-gender in the present study, and girls’ own feminine-typed behavior was associated with that of their reciprocal friends. These findings can be understood when we consider the gendered play contexts in which children engage during middle childhood: Children prefer to engage with same-gender peers who embody the activities that are culturally acceptable for their gender (Bem 1983; Shrum et al. 1988). By surrounding themselves with same-gender peers who are socialized to embody gendered stereotypes and engage in particular activities, adherence to gender norms is reinforced and differences between genders may be strengthened (Maccoby 1990).

Social and cognitive processes that emerge from these distinct contexts both reflect and create differences between girls and boys (Leaper 2000). These perspectives provide support for the notion that friendship emerges out of an attraction to same-gender peers and the shared socialization of these groups. Associations between girls’ own and their friends’ masculine-typed behavior did not reach statistical significance, nor did associations between boys’ own and their friends’ masculine- or feminine-typed behavior; however, the correlation coefficients were positive and similar to that for girls’ own and their friends’ feminine-typed behaviors. These associations likely did not reach statistical significance because of the lack of statistical power with our small sample size. Still, results indicate that similarity in gender-typed behavior only partly explains friendship ties. Children may value their relationships with friends, in part, because they have the opportunity to learn from and interact with peers who engage in the world in interesting and different ways than they do (Boud et al. 2001; Senior and Howard 2014).

Results from our analysis of children’s preference for a hypothetical classmate indicated that participants were “most excited” about a potential peer joining their class who was similar to them in terms of engagement in masculine activities, providing further support for the notion that similarity in gender-typed behavior is a component of peer preference. For example, even after taking into account the fact that boys had higher masculine scores than girls did, children who were “most excited” about the gender conforming boy had significantly higher masculine scores than those who were “most excited” about the gender conforming girl. These findings are in line with research that showed children formed friendships based on activity homophily (Martin et al. 2013; Shrum et al. 1988).

Students’ preference for a hypothetical classmate was not associated with their feminine scores. A likely possibility is that because feminine score and gender were so strongly correlated (r = .74), there was only approximately 45 % of the remaining variance in feminine score to be explained by classmate preference. Future studies should tease apart the relative contributions of activity preferences and gender to friendship over time. Recent research has revealed higher proportions of same-gender friendships to be associated with more negative views of the other gender, possibly a product of the in-group bias developed within these groups (Robnett and Susskind 2010). Future research should examine the makeup of children’s social circle in relation to their acceptance of peers who engage in various gendered behaviors.

Valuing Masculinity and Devaluing Femininity

The finding regarding children’s overall preference for potential classmates who embodied masculine characteristics (the gender conforming boy and gender nonconforming girl) is consistent with social dominance theory (Sidanius et al. 2000) because it reflects a societal emphasis on masculine over feminine behaviors. Further, it suggests that feminine behaviors are devalued by children as young as 9-years-old. Children model behavior after same-gender adults, but they also emulate those who are most successful, who hold power and authority; in most societies, those individuals tend to be men. Regardless of the gender of the potential classmate, engaging in more masculine-typed activities was associated with higher preference whereas engaging in more feminine-typed activities was associated with lower preference for children overall. This also meant that, despite children’s preference for same-gender peers and for engagement in gender-typed behavior, nonconforming girls who exhibited masculine-typed behaviors (those activities valued more highly by society as a whole) were preferred over gender conforming girls.

We also observed gender differences in children’s preference for a potential new classmate. Boys most preferred potential classmates who engaged in masculine behaviors (the gender nonconforming girl and the gender conforming boy), and they least preferred potential classmates who engaged in feminine behaviors (the gender conforming girl and the gender nonconforming boy). Boys’ choice for “least excited” may have been driven by disdain for feminine norms. In contrast, girls most preferred a potential classmate who was a girl (the gender conforming and nonconforming girl), but they showed more variability than boys in choosing a least preferred classmate—their choices were evenly split among the gender conforming boy and the gender nonconforming girl and boy. Students’ choice for the potential peer they were “most excited” and “least excited” about having in their class, in conjunction with the qualitative responses in which they elaborated on their choices, indicated that feminine activities were not valued by boys, whereas both boys and girls valued masculine activities. Consistent with past research, these findings also indicated that it was more socially acceptable for girls to cross the gender boundary into the male sphere than for boys to cross into the female sphere (Adler et al. 1992; McGuffey and Rich 1999).

Further, our findings suggest that boys were more rigid and girls more flexible in their preference and nonpreference for potential classmates and the explanations they gave for these preferences. More boys than girls were “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy; whereas girls cited gender nonconformity as a reason for being “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy and girl, boys who cited gender nonconformity used it exclusively as a rationale for being “least excited” about the gender nonconforming boy. These findings support past research and our hypothesis that boys would be more rejecting than girls would be of gender nonconformity in boys (McGuffey and Rich 1999). They are also consistent with the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), which postulates that maintaining a pattern of male dominance requires the policing of boys in order to preserve a conceptualization of masculinity as power and strength. When other boys do not conform to this stereotype (or actively reject the stereotype by acting in ways that contradict it), it may threaten this group’s top reputation as masculine. As expected, girls were lenient with other girls who crossed into the masculine sphere, indicated by the finding that girls were equally excited about the gender conforming girl and the gender nonconforming girl. In fact, qualitative data revealed that, in some cases, girls cited gender nonconformity as a reason for their “most excited” choice.

Conceptualizing these gender differences in terms of a ladder of social hierarchy provides a useful metaphor for interpreting these findings regarding crossing gender boundaries (Sidanius et al. 2000). Girls adhering to feminine standards are positioned at the bottom social rung and their only possible movement is up to the masculine realm. The qualitative data indicating that girls valued gender nonconformity in other girls provide support for this idea. Boys who adhere to the masculine stereotype begin on the top rung, and engaging in feminine activities pushes them down the ladder. We saw this exhibited through boys’ rationale for their “least excited” choice: engagement in feminine activities and gender nonconformity were reasons for rejecting other boys. Girls may be more accepting than boys are because girls have less to lose by doing so.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Ideally the four vignettes would be counterbalanced to ensure that order effects do not influence participants’ choice for “most excited” and “least excited” new peer. Logistical challenges prevented this from occurring in the present study; each student was presented with the gender conforming girl, gender conforming boy, gender nonconforming girl, and gender nonconforming boy, in that order. Thus, we have no way to insure against potential carryover effects.

Each vignette included multiple gendered activities and characteristics that were informed by previous gender research. Our goal was to provide a stereotypical example of a gender conforming or nonconforming boy and girl. The inclusion of multiple elements as masculine and feminine created a more realistic portrayal of these hypothetical classmates, but also precluded us from creating scenarios in which all elements were identical except for the gender of the classmate. This issue also calls into question the extent to which each activity and characteristic described in the vignette was gendered. This measure would be strengthened in future studies by the systematic inclusion of activities and characteristics that are gendered to a similar degree to ensure the vignettes are as similar as possible.

Each potential classmate in the vignette was identified by name to make the characters relatable. We aimed to be culturally relevant by selecting names based on top popularity in the United Kingdom. When asked why they were “most excited” about one potential peer and “least excited” about another, several students reported the name as a factor in their decision. In these cases, the researcher rephrased the prompt and asked participants if they would feel the same if the potential peer had a different name. In future studies, researchers should crosscheck names from the survey with class rosters to minimize the probability of name as a deciding factor, as well as ensuring that names are largely accepted in the target population.

The method of name selection used ensured the names were common in the target area, but it did not attend to ethnic variation in name selection. No student referred to ethnicity as a deciding factor for the “most excited” or “least excited” choice in the present study. The inclusion of a traditionally ethnic name or activity in these scenarios would allow for further exploration of the intersectionality of gender and race in the study of peer preference.

The present study examined participants’ choice for a classmate that they were “most excited” and “least excited” about joining their class; the “least excited” choice was considered to be similar to a student who is rejected by their peers. However, there are limitations to this forced choice method; it may not indicate actual rejection. Further, this method only allows for the assessment of two potential classmates. The use of a rating scale whereby participants rate their excitement regarding each hypothetical classmate would allow for more nuanced data to help elucidate the associations between gender conformity and peer acceptance.

The relatively small sample size resulted in an unequal, and sometimes small, number of participants who were “most excited” about each potential peer. In the 2 x 2 ANOVA examining masculine (or feminine) score with regards to gender and choice for a potential peer, the unequal balance limited the statistical power and likelihood of detecting statistically significant results. Although the data suggested that children who chose the gender conforming boy as their preferred hypothetical classmate had higher masculine scores than did children who chose any of the other three classmates, only the comparison with children who chose the gender conforming girl was statistically significant after we adjusted the alpha level to correct for the six simultaneous comparisons. We look forward to future studies with larger samples to uncover the interesting associations among gender, gendered behavior, and peer preference.

As cited in the present study, much of the work on this topic was performed decades ago. The social, historical, and cultural contexts in which children learn gender are shifting from the time when these original landmark studies were conducted. We expect children to become more accepting and less confined to stereotypical gender boundaries with the passing of time. Although the results of our study lead us to worry about the acceptance and well-being of gender nonconforming boys, we were encouraged that gender nonconforming girls were widely accepted by their peers. More work should be done on this topic to tease apart the ways in which changing social, historical, and cultural contexts are influencing the relationship between gender (non)conformity and peer relations. In addition, it is important that measures used to capture these phenomena are not just taken from past studies, but rather are currently relevant to children. We culturally adapted a recent scale to assess gendered activities (Kreiger and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2012) that included items such as jumping rope and playing with dolls. Despite our modification of the original scale, the prompts inquiring into feminine activities may not accurately reflect students’ engagement in modern feminine pastimes.

It is possible that these results are specific to British elementary school students (Hesse-Biber 2014). Although social dominance theory (Sidanius et al. 2000) and hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005) suggest that gender nonconforming boys would face harsher social consequences than gender nonconforming girls across cultures, our study should be replicated in other western and non-western cultures to determine if these trends transcend cultural boundaries.

Practice Implications

Findings from the present study are useful for teachers who aim to understand the social trends in their own classrooms. Knowing the role of homophily in peer relationships is important for managing social dynamics, which is done through everyday practices such as structuring seating charts, tables, and work groups. Teachers can use this knowledge to better integrate students into classrooms by grouping according to existing peer groups, shared activities, or contrasting activities in the hopes of widening students’ peer groups.

Gender conformity or nonconformity becomes an issue when children feel unsupported and isolated because these feelings may lead to low self-esteem, depression, or even suicide (DeRosier et al. 1994; Ollendick et al. 1992). Gender nonconforming boys appeared to be most at-risk for social exclusion in the present study. These results will help teachers to identify students who are potentially at risk for social problems. When teachers are aware of these trends and attuned to children’s gendered behaviors, they can intervene on behalf of children at risk for social isolation. This task may be accomplished in a variety of ways: by facilitating mixed-gender groups; encouraging engagement in traditionally feminine, as well as masculine activities; and using language and planned activities to resist traditional gender stereotypes. Additional research is necessary to identify which strategies are the most effective methods of intervention. By making proactive efforts to include these students, teachers may be able to circumvent the bullying, victimization, and mental health issues that children who exhibit gender nonconforming behaviors often face (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2016; D’Augelli et al. 2006).

Conclusion

The present study augments the existing literature on peer acceptance by elucidating the associations among gender, gendered behavior, and peer preference. We discovered that regardless of gender, students who engaged in masculine activities were more likely to be preferred than were those who engaged in feminine activities. Activity homophily also emerged from our research, as girls’ engagement in feminine activities was associated with that of their friends’. This trend also emerged in students’ preference for a potential peer. Results suggest that masculine-typed behavior is valued by both boys and girls, and feminine-typed behavior is devalued, particularly by boys. Specifically, gender nonconforming boys were the most at risk for peer rejection. Understanding the complex associations between gendered behavior and peer acceptance is vital for teachers who strive to create an inclusive, diverse, and positive social environment for their students.