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.