The formation of same-sex play and social groups is one of the most consistently found features of children’s behavior (Maccoby, 1988, 1998; Strayer & Santos, 1996; Whiting & Edwards, 1988).Read more at location 6449
In a longitudinal study of children in the United States, Maccoby and Jacklin (1987) found that 4- to 5-year-olds spent 3 hours playing with same-sex peers for every single hour they spent playing in mixed-sex groups. By the time these children were 6 to 7 years old, the ratio of time spent in same-sex versus mixed-sex groups was 11:1.Read more at location 6451
The same pattern has been documented in Canada, England, Hungry, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Japan, and India (Strayer & Santos, 1996; P. J. Turner & Gervai, 1995; Whiting & Edwards, 1988), although the degree of segregation varies across these societies.Read more at location 6454
The social segregation is most common in situations that are not monitored by adults, that is, when children are free to form their own groups (Maccoby, 1988; Strayer & Santos, 1996).Read more at location 6456
In situations in which access to a desired object, such as a movie viewer that can be watched by only one child at a time, is limited, boys and girls use different strategies, on average, for gaining access to this object (Charlesworth & Dzur, 1987). More often than not, boys gain access by playfully shoving and pushing other boys out of the way, whereas girls gain access by means of verbal persuasion (e.g., polite suggestions to share) and sometimes verbal commands (e.g., “It’s my turn now!”).Read more at location 6460
children are unresponsive to the styles of the opposite sex.Read more at location 6464
The sex difference in play interests is related to prenatal exposure to male hormonesRead more at location 6472
same-sex segregation occurs before many children consistently label themselves and other children as a boy or a girl,Read more at location 6478
The net result of sex segregation is that boys and girls spend much of their childhood in distinct peer cultures (J. R. Harris, 1995; Maccoby, 1988). It is in the context of these cultures that differences in the social styles and preferences of girls and boys become larger and congeal (C. L. Martin & Fabes, 2001).Read more at location 6490
children’s attentional, behavioral, and social systems are inherently biased such that they will recreate the forms of relationship (e.g., as in mother–infant attachment) and experience that help them navigate the developmental process and that prepare them for the survival and reproductive demands of our adult ancestors (Caporael, 1997).Read more at location 6497
The coalitions are of course fluid because the gains of victory are distributed—often unequally according to dominance rank—among coalition members. The result is a balance between the benefits of having a large enough ingroup coalition to be competitive against the costs of having to share gains with ingroup members.Read more at location 6513
In comparison with girls and women, boys and men are predicted to have a lower threshold for forming cooperative same-sex social relationships; their relationships are predicted to be more easily maintained (e.g., with less time-intensive disclosure) and evince a greater tolerance for interpersonal conflict. The results from studies of peer relationships support all of these predicted sex differences (Benenson & Christakos, 2003; Benenson et al., 2009; Eder & Hallinan, 1978; Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Whitesell & Harter, 1996). Tolerance for conflict is necessary to maintain the coalition and at the same time compete for within-coalition status. Dominance striving must, at the same time, be balanced against the cost of potentially losing the coalitional support of other boys and men,Read more at location 6539
women’s relationships are more heavily dependent on reciprocal altruism than those of boysRead more at location 6555
The principle benefit for girls and women is a core set of relationships that provide social, emotional, and interpersonal stability, particularly support during times of interpersonal conflict with other individuals, such as a spouseRead more at location 6560
Within these same-sex groups, both boys and girls formed dominance hierarchies and frequently used ridicule to establish social dominance, such as name calling (“homo,” “perverted groin”) or gossiping; socialRead more at location 6579
In some groups, boys began their bid for dominance within hours of arriving in the cabin, whereas most of the girls were superficially polite for the first week and then began to exhibit dominance-related behaviors.Read more at location 6586
Boys’ dominance-related behaviors included ridicule, as noted previously, as well as directives (“Get my dessert for me.”), counterdominance statements (“Eat me.”), and physical assertion (e.g., play wrestling, pillow fights, sometimes actual physical fights). More than 90% of the time these behaviors were visible to all group members, were clearly directed at one other boy, and were attempts to establish dominance over this individual.Read more at location 6588
Girls used ridicule, recognition, and verbal directives to establish social dominance but used physical assertion only one third as frequently as did boys. In contrast to boys’ blatant behaviors, more than one half of the girls’ dominance behaviors were indirect.Read more at location 6591
As documented in other studies (J. G. Parker & Seal, 1996), Savin-Williams (1987) found that by the end of summer camp boys’ groups showed greater stability and cohesiveness relative to the 1st week of camp. Most of the girls’ groups, in contrast, were on the verge of splintering or had already split into “status cliques based on popularity, beauty, athletics, and sociability” (Savin-Williams, 1987, p. 124).Read more at location 6599
Note: GRUPPO UOMINI PIÙ STABILE ALLA FINE. LO STANDARD FEMMINILE È PIÙ ELEVATO. VEDI ISOLA DEI FAMOSI Edit
Andy [the alpha male] immediately grabbed the flag cloth and penciled a design; he turned to Gar for advice, but none was given. Otto [low ranking] shouted several moments later, “I didn’t say you could do it!” Ignoring this interference, Andy wrote the tribal name at the top of the flag. Meanwhile, Delvin and Otto were throwing sticks at each other with Gar watching and giggling. SW [the counselor] suggested that all should participate by drawing a design proposal on paper and the winning one, as determined by group vote, would be drawn on the flag…. Andy, who had not participated in the “contest,” now drew a bicentennial sunset; it was readily accepted by the others. Without consultation, Andy drew his design as Gar and Delvin watched. Gar suggested an alteration but Andy told him “Stupid idea,” and continued drawing. Otto, who had been playing in the fireplace, came over and screamed, “I didn’t tell ya to draw that you Bastard Andy!” Andy’s reply was almost predictable, “Tough shit, boy!” (Savin-Williams, 1987, p. 79)Read more at location 6606
[Her] style of authority [was] subtle and manipulative, she became the cabin’s “mother.” She instructed the others on cleanup jobs, corrected Opal’s table manners (“Dottie, pass Opal a napkin so she can wipe the jelly off her face.”), and woke up the group in the morning …. Ann became powerful in the cabin by first blocking Becky’s [the beta female] dominance initiations through refusing and shunning and then through ignoring her during the next three weeks. By the fifth week of camp Ann effectively controlled Becky by physical assertion, ridicule, and directive behaviors. (Savin-Williams, 1987, p. 92)Read more at location 6619
For both boys and girls, the achievement of social dominance was related to athletic ability, physical maturity, and leadership.Read more at location 6624
Ahlgren and Johnson found that at about the time of puberty, girls’ social motives become more cooperative and less competitive than those of their younger peers.Read more at location 6632
Boys’ relationships changed as well. By late adolescence, boys’ group-level games were characterized by greater focus and organization, with fewer negative criticisms and more encouragement directed toward ingroup peers than was found with younger boys (Savin-Williams, 1987).Read more at location 6637
Whereas the typical boy is engaged in some form of activity that involves groups of his friends, the typical girl is talking with one of her friendsRead more at location 6642
In comparison with boys’ friendships, girls’ friendships are characterized by higher levels of emotional support and more frequent intimate exchanges (e.g., talking about their problems) and are a more central source of help and guidance in solving social and other problems (Maccoby, 1990; J.Read more at location 6652
Conflicts of interest are common among friends of both sexes, but girls invest more in resolving these conflicts and attempt to do so through accommodation, compromise,Read more at location 6658
girls are more sensitive to personal slights on the part of their best friend and respond with more initial and lingering negative affect (e.g., sadness, anger) than do boys (Whitesell & Harter, 1996).Read more at location 6661
boys’ and men’s concerns about social dominance and their relative hierarchical position and girls’ and women’s social agreeableness and tendency to nurture is found across modern and traditional societies (e.g., Del Giudice, 2009a; Feingold, 1994; Whiting & Edwards, 1988).Read more at location 6667
“tender-mindedness” (i.e., nurturance and empathy), favoring women, and assertiveness (e.g., dominance-related activities), favoring men;Read more at location 6678
At all grade levels, girls endorsed cooperative social behaviors more frequently did than boys, whereas boys endorsed competitive social behaviors more frequently than did girls.Read more at location 6688
girls and women consistently endorse a moral ethos that espouses equality in social relationships and an avoidance of the harm of others.Read more at location 6704
The sex differences in rough-and-tumble play, the process of friendship formation among boys, and the embedding of these dyadic relationships into a larger ingroup flow easily with an evolutionary history of coalitionary male–male competition and the formation of dominance hierarchies within the coalition.Read more at location 6884
