Read the article and answer questions pertaining to the research articleFS 6693 – ADVANCED QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
RESEARCH BRIEF
Please read the attached article by Lee & Troop-Gordon (2011) and answer the questions below.
For this assignment you may NOT work with anyone else. All answers must be the result of your
own work.
1. List the article reference in correct APA format.
2. What type of research design was used in the study? (select all that apply)
___ Experiment
___ Survey
___ Interview
___ Observation
___ Case study
___ Cross-sectional
___ Longitudinal
___ Physiological
___ Archival analysis
3. Is this the best method to answer the research questions/hypotheses? If so, why? If not, is
there another method that would be more appropriate, and why?
4. What were the main study hypotheses?
a.
b.
c.
4. What were the main independent and dependent variables? List them below and indicate in
parenthesis after each variable whether it was an IV, DV, or COV.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
5. What were the level of measurement for each of the independent and dependent variables?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
6. On p. 95 the authors describe a MANOVA conducted to test for gender and grade differences.
Why was a MANOVA used? (think about the number of variables and levels of measurement)
7. What were the results of the MANOVA referenced above?
8. On p. 95 the results of one of the follow-up ANOVAs are listed as follows: F(1, 362) = 4.31, p
< .05. Explain what each of these numbers mean.
9. Look at the table on p. 96. What is the bivariate correlation between same-sex friends (in the
fall) and gender atypicality (in the fall) for boys?
10. Explain what the correlation results referenced above mean.
11. The relationship between negative peer treatment, amount of same- and cross-sex friends,
and gender atypicality were measured with hierarchical linear regression. Why was this test
chosen? (think about the number of variables and levels of measurement)
12. What was found to be the association between these variables for the boys?
13. On p.96 the results of one of the regression analyses are: b = .08, t(856) = 2.46, p < .05.
Explain what each of these numbers mean.
Sex Roles (2011) 64:90–102
DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9883-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Peer Processes and Gender Role Development: Changes
in Gender Atypicality Related to Negative Peer Treatment
and Children’s Friendships
Elizabeth A. Ewing Lee & Wendy Troop-Gordon
Published online: 6 October 2010
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Peer socialization has been proposed to elicit
gender norm adherence through: a) rebuke for exhibiting
gender nonnormative characteristics and b) engagement in
same-sex interactions. However, there is little evidence
supporting these assumptions. Accordingly, the current
study examined the unique and interactive contributions
of negative peer treatment and same-sex and cross-sex
friendships to gender conformity over one school year.
Children from the upper-Midwest of the USA (196 girls;
170 boys; Mage =9.34 years) participated. Data included
peer-ratings of harassment, friendship nominations, and
teacher-ratings of gender atypicality. Peer harassment
predicted decreased gender atypicality for children with
many male friends and increased gender atypicality for
boys with many female friends and few male friends.
Implications for theories of gender development are
discussed.
Keywords Gender socialization . Gender atypicality . Peer
relationships . Cross-sex friendship . Same-sex friendship
Introduction
Gender role theorists have long emphasized the impact that
peers have on children’s adoption of gendered characteristics
and the internalization of gender norms (Bem 1981; Bussey
and Bandura 1999; Egan and Perry 2001; Fabes et al. 2004;
Ruble et al. 2006). In their social cognitive theory of gender
development, for example, Bussey and Bandura (1999)
ascribe multiple socialization functions to peers, including
the modeling of gendered characteristics within same-sex
peer groups, reinforcement of gender typical behaviors, and
sanctioning of deviations from gender norms. Although there
is ample evidence from North American samples that
children respond negatively to peers who display cross-sex
behaviors and characteristics (Carter and McCloskey 1984;
Fagot 1977, 1984; Lamb and Roopnarine 1979; McAninch
et al. 1996; Owen Blakemore 2003) and that children engage
predominantly in same-sex play and relationships (Kovacs et
al. 1996; Maccoby 1998; Martin and Fabes 2001), there is
little evidence that these processes impact children’s gender
role development. The current study begins to address this
gap in the empirical literature by examining associations
between negative peer treatment, engagement in same-sex
and cross-sex friendships, and children’s gender atypicality. A sample of children from the upper-Midwest of
the USA was studied longitudinally, allowing for an
investigation of whether these peer processes forecast
subsequent decreases or increases in children’s gender
atypicality. Moreover, negative peer treatment and samesex and cross-sex friendships were examined within the
same analyses, allowing for tests of their unique and
interactive effects.
E. A. Ewing Lee (*)
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University,
P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58105-6050, USA
e-mail: Elizabeth.Ewinglee@ndsu.edu
Gender Atypicality and Children’s Negative Treatment
from Peers
W. Troop-Gordon
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University,
P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58105-6050, USA
e-mail: Wendy.Troop@ndsu.edu
It has been argued that gender roles are multifaceted (Aube
et al. 1995; Katz and Boswell 1986; Whitley 1983),
encompassing personality traits, activity preferences,
Sex Roles (2011) 64:90–102
emotional dispositions, social interactive patterns, physical
attributes, and mannerisms. Moreover, individuals vary
significantly as to their adherence to traditional gender
roles (Sandberg et al. 1993; Young and Sweeting 2004).
The focus of the present study was gender atypicality, that
is, the extent to which a child adopts gender role characteristics viewed as primarily normative for the other gender.
While many children occasionally act in gender atypical
ways, a small percentage (10% of boys and 20% of girls) are
significantly more gender atypical than their peers (Sandberg
et al. 1993). Children high in gender atypicality receive more
frequent negative reactions from peers and less positive
reinforcement from agemates than children whose behavior
is more gender stereotypical. For example, children resist
befriending peers whose behavior is gender-atypical (Fagot
1977, 1984; Hayden-Thomson et al. 1987; Lobel 1994), and
children labeled “tomboys” or “sissies” are often disliked
and marginalized by peers (Hall 2008; Martin 1989).
Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that gender
atypicality places children at risk for being the target of more
direct forms of bullying. In a study utilizing hypothetical
vignettes (Carter and McCloskey 1984), over 55% of
children indicated that they would respond to peers’
gender-atypical behavior with verbal or physical aggression.
Negative peer reactions have long been thought to elicit
greater gender conformity among children. Support for this
proposition comes from research examining children’s
responses to displays of gender atypical behavior (e.g.,
Carter and McCloskey 1984; Fagot 1977, 1984; Owen
Blakemore 2003). Fagot (1977, 1984) observed that
preschool children react negatively to peers’ gender nonnormative behavior, and several studies have found that
older children respond negatively to hypothetical children
described as behaving in gender atypical ways (Carter and
McCloskey 1984; McAninch et al. 1996; Owen Blakemore
2003; Zucker et al. 1995). There is little direct evidence,
however, that negative peer feedback results in reduced
gender atypicality.
Accordingly, the first objective of this study was to test
the proposition that negative peer treatment educes
decreases in gender atypicality. Assessments of children’s
gender atypicality were collected in the Fall and Spring of
one school year, allowing for tests of changes in gender
atypicality as a function of negative peer treatment. We
focused on middle childhood, as research suggests that,
with age, children become increasingly hostile in their
responses to gender non-normative behavior (Carter and
McCloskey 1984; Owen Blakemore 2003).
Gender Atypicality and Sex Segregation
By the age of three, children are more likely to associate
with same-sex peers than cross-sex peers (Maccoby 1998;
91
Rose and Rudolph 2006), and as they grow older, children
become increasingly sex-segregated in their social interactions (Maccoby and Jacklin 1987). Perhaps as a consequence of this sex-segregation, the vast majority of
children’s friendships are also with same-sex peers (Rose
and Rudolph 2006). For example, only 15% of girls and
12% of boys from the US have been shown to have crosssex friendships (Kovacs et al. 1996).
Engagement in primarily same-sex play and relationships is believed to have an influential role in children’s
gender role development. Play behaviors, as well as
communicative styles and forms of social influence, have
been shown to differ significantly between males and
females (Eagly 1987; Humphreys and Smith 1987; Huston
1985; Leaper 1987; Maccoby and Jacklin 1987). Maccoby
(1990) has argued that these differing interactive styles
become increasingly entrenched, generalizing across contexts and later social relationships. Others have similarly
argued that same-sex peer groups act as important socializing
contexts in which gender normative behaviors are modeled
and reinforced (Bussey and Bandura 1999).
Findings regarding the impact of sex segregation on
children’s gender development are mixed. Some research
has shown no relation between sex segregation and use
of gender-typed toys (Powlishta et al. 1993), while others
have found that preschoolers who spend more time with
same-sex peers demonstrate increased engagement in
gender normative activities (Martin and Fabes 2001).
Furthermore, children whose primary friendships are with
cross-sex peers hold less sex-stereotypic attitudes than
children whose primary friendships are with same-sex
peers (Kovacs et al. 1996).
However, with the exception of the Martin and Fabes
(2001) study, there is little longitudinal data linking
engagement in same-sex or cross-sex peer interactions and
relationships to changes in gendered behaviors and traits.
Thus, the second objective of the present study was to
examine whether the number of same-sex and cross-sex
friends that children have predicts changes in gender
atypicality. We anticipated that greater numbers of samesex friends would forecast decreased gender atypicality
over the school year. In contrast, having a larger number of
cross-sex friends was expected to be predictive of increased
gender atypicality.
Interactive Effects of Negative Peer Treatment
and Friendships on Gender Atypicality
Although much has been gained by examining the main
effects of peer relationship processes on children’s development, it is often the confluence of these factors which
best accounts for the role of peers in children’s development (Caravita et al. 2009; Ladd 2005; Ladd and Troop-
92
Gordon 2003). To this end, the third objective of the present
study was to examine the joint influence of negative peer
treatment and friendships with same-sex and cross-sex
peers on children’s gender atypicality. More specifically, we
tested two competing hypotheses regarding the interactive
effects of peer maltreatment and friendship on changes in
children’s gender atypicality.
Based on research on stereotype threat (Ryan and Ryan
2005; Steele 1997; Steele and Aronson 1995), we propose
that cross-sex friendships may serve as a context in which
stereotypes of “tomboy” or “sissy” are elicited. Such
stereotype activation may heighten self-awareness of
those traits which deviate from gender norms and
increased concern that others will attribute negative
stereotypes to them. Accordingly, children with many
cross-sex friendships should be more aware of their
gender atypical traits than children with few cross-sex
friends. When harrassed, these children’s gender stereotypes are likely activated, motivating them to minimize
gender atypical traits which might place them at risk for
peer harassment. Involvement in same-sex friendships, in
contrast, should minimize activation of negative gender
stereotypes, therefore reducing the link between peer
maltreatment and decreased gender atypicality. To test
this stereotype-activation hypothesis, we examined whether
same-sex or cross-sex friendships moderated associations
between negative peer treatment and changes in gender
atypicality.
Alternatively, involvement in cross-sex friendships
may lead to heightened gender atypicality in the face of
negative peer treatment. In response to being bullied,
children may turn to friends for support (Hodges et al.
1999; Kochenderfer and Ladd 1997), as well as for
validation and companionship. Based on interpersonal
theory (Kiesler 1983; Sadler and Woody 2003), individuals develop similar traits and behaviors as the people with
whom they interact. Thus, for children with many crosssex friends, negative peer treatment may lead to increased
time spent with friends of the other gender, and as a result,
to increased gender atypicality. In contrast, for children
with primarily same-sex friends, negative peer treatment
may elicit greater adherence to traditional gender norms as
these children increasingly affiliate with same-sex peers.
Therefore, we refer to the second hypothesis as homophily
amplification to emphasize the potential of negative peer
treatment to elicit greater adherence to the norms of one’s
current peer group—whether those peers are predominantly of the same-sex or cross-sex.
Gender Differences in the Proposed Relations
According to a recent model of peer socialization (Rose and
Rudolph 2006), boys and girls form different social
Sex Roles (2011) 64:90–102
dynamics and relationship processes, and therefore, the
mechanisms through which peer socialization occurs may
differ for boys and girls. Most notably, although tomboys
do report being marginalized and bullied by peers (Carr
2005; Hall 2008), boys receive more rebuke than girls in
response to gender atypical behavior and perceive more
social pressure to behave in gender-normative ways (Carter
and McCloskey 1984; Fagot 1977; Katz and Walsh 1991;
Rachkowski and O’Grady 1988). It was expected, therefore, that links between negative peer treatment and
declines in gender atypicality would be significant for both
genders, but stronger for boys. Furthermore, because crosssex behaviors are more normative for girls than for boys
(Sandberg et al. 1993), whether one engages in same-sex or
cross-sex friendships may have less of an impact on gender
role development for girls than for boys. Thus, it was
similarly expected that number of same-sex and cross-sex
friendships would have a stronger relation to changes in
gender atypicality for boys than for girls.
Summary of the Current Study
The current study used longitudinal data from a sample
of third- and fourth-grade children to test three hypotheses: a) negative peer treatment forecasts decreased
gender atypicality over the course of a school year, b)
having same-sex friends is predictive of decreased gender
atypicality, and c) having cross-sex friends is predictive
of increased gender atypicality. To test these hypotheses,
hierarchical regressions were conducted in which Fall
negative peer treatment and number of same-sex or
cross-sex friends were entered as predictors of Spring
gender atypicality after controlling for children’s Fall
gender atypicality, grade, and gender. Furthermore,
interactions between gender and the peer variables (i.e.,
negative peer treatment, same-sex friendships, cross-sex
friendships) were included in the regression analyses to
test the hypothesis that links between these variables
and changes in gender atypicality would be stronger for
boys than girls. The interaction between negative peer
treatment and same-sex or cross-sex friendships was
also included in order to test two competing hypotheses, the stereotype-activation hypothesis which states that
negative peer treatment will elicit gender stereotypes
among children with many cross-sex friends and few
same-sex friends resulting in greater adherence to gender
norms and a homophily amplification hypothesis which
states that negative peer treatment will elicit increased
adherence to the norms of the peer group to which one is
associated. Three-way interactions were also included to
test for possible gender differences in the interactive
effects of negative peer treatment and gender of children’s
friends.
Sex Roles (2011) 64:90–102
Method
Participants
Children from five public elementary schools located in three
rural communities and two midsized towns within the upperMidwest of the USA were recruited to participate in a twoyear longitudinal study. Data for this investigation were
collected in the Fall and Spring of the first year of the project.
Prior to data collection, all third- and fourth-grade teachers in
the five schools were invited to participate. In all of the five
schools, children remained within self-contained classrooms
with one teacher and the same set of classmates throughout the
majority of the school day. Thus, teachers and peers had
extensive opportunities to observe each child’s behaviors and
characteristics. Twenty-four teachers (22 females; two males;
80% of all teachers invited to participate) consented to have
data collected in their classrooms and to complete the teacherreport measures. All children in these 24 classes were
sent home parental consent forms. Of these children, 366
received parental consent (74.1%; 196 girls; 170 boys; Mage =
9.34; SD=.07). The children were predominately Caucasian
(87.7%, Native American 4.6%, mixed ethnicities 3.8%, and
other ethnicities 3.9%), and the number of children receiving
free or reduced lunch at each of the five schools ranged from
4.6% to 44.2%. The majority of the students were from
middle to upper-middle class families. On parental reports of
annual income, 13 (3.6%) reported earning less than
$20,000, 39 (10.7%) reported earning between $20,000 and
$40,000, 184 (50.3%) reported earning above $40,000, and
130 parents (35.4%) did not report their family income.
Parental income was not associated with any study variables.
Missing data occurred primarily as the result of participating children or teachers not completing one or more of the
measures. In addition, in the Spring, one child withdrew from
the study, and an additional child was added (both are
included in the 366 children reported above). Although the
amount of data missing for each variable was small (0.3–
2.7%), listwise deletion would have resulted in a significant
loss of subjects (6.7%). Thus, all analyses were conducted
using multiple imputation (Schafer and Graham 2002) with
Schafer’s (1999) NORM program. A total of m=5 imputed
data sets were created, and analyses were conducted
separately for each imputed data set. All findings (e.g.,
descriptives, correlations, regression coefficients, and simple
slopes) were combined in NORM using Rubin’s (1987)
formulas.
Procedures
Data were collected in the Fall and Spring in children’s
classrooms. Children not participating in the study were
instructed to work quietly at their desks or leave the
93
classroom (e.g., to go to the library) according to the
classroom teacher’s discretion. Children provided written,
informed assent prior to completing questionnaire packets.
All questionnaire instructions and items were read aloud,
and two to four research assistants were available to answer
children’s questions and provide additional assistance. Data
collection took approximately 45 minutes. Peer-reports of
negative peer treatment and friendships collected in the Fall
of the school year were used for the current study.
At each wave of data collection, the classroom teacher
was asked to complete a set of questionnaires for each
student in the class participating in the study. Questionnaires included assessments of children’s peer relationships,
mental health, and school adjustment, as well as the two
gender atypicality items. Questionnaires were distributed to
each classroom teacher at the time of data collection.
Teachers were instructed to mail the packets to the
researchers at their convenience and were compensated $5
for each child for whom they completed questionnaires and
$5 for completing self-report measures. Only teachers’
reports of children’s gender atypicality in the Fall and
Spring of the school year were used in the current study.
Measures
Gender Atypicality
Much of the previous research on gender atypicality in
childhood has relied on adults’ retrospective reports of their
childhood behaviors and characteristics (e.g., D’Augelli et
al. 2006; Hockenberry and Billingham 1987; Zucker et al.
2006). Researchers studying children more directly often
obtain child self-report measures of play activities to assess
gender nonconformity (e.g., Hall and Halberstadt 1980;
Kurdek and Siesky 1980; Thomas and Robinson 1981).
However, children may be viewed as gender-atypical for a
number of reasons, and measures that tap specific toy or
activity preferences may not be sensitive to the gender
nonconformity of all children. Therefore, researchers also
often rely on parent (Achenbach 1991), teacher (Flammer
1971; Vroegh 1968; Vroegh et al. 1967), and observer
(Fagot 1977, 1984; Rieger et al. 2008) reports of children’s
gender nonconformity. These adults can provide global
assessments of children’s adherence to gender norms which
are not bound to predetermined lists of behaviors and
characteristics. Adult assessments have the additional
advantage of being sensitive to local and community norms
for masculinity and femininity. For example, while hunting
is traditionally considered a masculine behavior, it is not
unusual for the young females from the rural areas in which
these data were collected to hunt or fish with their families.
Therefore, a measure of gender atypicality was desired
which would allow for the flexible assessment of each
94
child’s gender non-normative traits by someone with
knowledge of the gender norms of the child’s community
and peer group.
Accordingly, we relied on global assessment by children’s teachers to measure gender atypicality. Specifically,
teachers rated each child on a four-point scale from 1
(Never) to 4 (A lot of the time) as to the extent to which
each participating student “acts in ways not typical for his
or her sex,” and “might be considered a ‘tomboy’ or ‘sissy’
by other kids.” These items are similar to those used in
retrospective reports of childhood gender atypicality
(D’Augelli et al. 2006; Hockenberry and Billingham
1987; Zucker et al. 2006) and parent or observer assessments of children’s gender nonconformity (Achenbach
1991; Rieger et al. 2008). Moreover, previous studies have
established the predictive validity of teacher-reports of
children’s gender conformity (Flammer 1971; Vroegh 1968;
Vroegh et al. 1967), and teacher-reports of masculinity and
femininity have been shown to be highly congruent with
peer-reports of the same constructs (Vroegh 1971).
A series of analyses was conducted to examine the internal
reliability of these two items. First, Cronbach alphas and
bivariate correlations were computed for the two items (girls:
α=.80, r=.70 for the Fall and α=.60, r=.45 for the Spring;
boys: α=.82, r=.70 for the Fall and α=.80, r=.68 for the
Spring) providing initial evidence of adequate internal
reliability. Next, stability coefficients for the individual items
were computed and compared to cross-item correlations
from the Fall to the Spring. The stability coefficients for the
two items were .53 and .64, ps
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.