Table 1.

Summary of Studies Examining Sex Differences in Behavioral Relationship Styles with Peers

Construct	Reference	Method	Age/Grade	n Girls	n Boys	Significance Test	Effect Size
Group/Dyadic Interaction
Frequency of group interactions	Benenson, 1993	Observation	4–5 years	21	20	G = B	.32
	Benenson, Apostoleris, & Parnass, 1997	Observation	4 years	21	21g	G = B	−.20
			6 years	18	18g	G < B	−2.66
	Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2003	Observation	2–6 years	106	97	G < B	−.99
	Martin & Fabes, 2001	Observation	3–6 years	33	27	G = B	.47
Playgroup size	Ladd, 1983	Observation	Grades 3–4
		-popular		8	8	G < B	−8.17
		-average		8	8	G < B	−.38
		-unpopular		8	8	G = B	-
	Lever, 1976	Self report	Grade 5	90	91en	G < B	−.42esp
	Lever, 1978	Self report	Grade 5	90	91en, p	G < B	−.20esp
Frequency of dyadic interactions	Benenson, 1993	Observation	4–5 years
		-any dyadic		21	20	G = B	.15
		-extended dyadic		21	20	G = B	−.14
	Benenson, Apostoleris, & Parnass, 1997	Observation
		-number of interactions	4,6 years	39	39g	G < B	−.96
		-percent of time	4,6 years	39	39	G = B	.00
	Fabes, Martin, & Hanish, 2003	Observation	2–6 years	106	97	G < B	−.99
	Martin & Fabes, 2001	Observation	3–6 years	33	27	G = B	−.42
Length of dyadic interaction	Benenson, Apostoleris, & Parnass, 1997	Observation	4,6 years	39	39g	G > B	.84
Network Density
	Benenson, 1990	Sociometrics	Grades 4–5	73	81c	G < B	−1.38eswt
	Benenson, 1993	Sociometrics	4–5 years	21	20	G < B	−.87
	Parker & Seal, 1996	Sociometrics	8–15 years
		-time 1		33	33en	G = B	-
		-time 2		33	33en	G = B	-
		-time 3		33	33en	G < B	−1.17
Cooperation/Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial responses to hypothetical conflict situations	Chung & Asher, 1996	Self report	Grades 4–6	62	80	G > B	.64
	Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997	Self report	Grades 4–5
		-polite requests		63	77	G > B	.39
		-share/take turns		63	77	G > B	.49
	Rose & Asher, 1999	Self report	Grades 4–5	324	342	G > B	.56
Prosocial ratings	Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982	Peer report	Grades 3, 5, 8	233	253en	G > B	-
	Crick & Grotpeter, 1995	Peer report	Grades 3–6	235	256	G > B	.36
	Ladd & Profilet, 1996	Teacher report	Kindergarten
		-cohort 1		98	108	G > B	.31
		-cohort 2		105	101	G > B	.51
	Rys & Bear, 1997	Peer report	Grade 3	61	70	G > B	.80
			Grade 6	71	64	G > B	.36
		Teacher report	Grade 3	61	70	G = B	.34
			Grade 6	71	64	G = B	.32
Received prosocial acts from peers	Paquette & Underwood, 1999	Self report	Grades 7–8	36	37en	G > B	.73
	Phelps, 2001	Self report	Grades 3–6	251	240	G > B	.44
	Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2003	Self report	Grade 5	59	59	G > B	.20
	Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003	Self report	Grades 9–10	238	145	G > B	.91
	Storch, Nock, Masia-Warner, & Barlas, 2003	Self report	Grades 5–6	100	86en	G > B	.50
Collaborative speech/work/play	DiPietro, 1981	Observation	4 years	22	30en	G > B	.90
	Hops, Alpert, & Davis, 1997	Observation	Grades 9–12
		-days 1–2		45	44	G > B	.60
		-days 3–6		45	44	G = B	.40
	Leaper, 1991	Observation	3–6 years	28	30d	G = B	−.67
			5–9 years	16	16d	G > B	4.25
	Leaper, Tenenbaum, & Shaffer, 1999	Observation	7 years
		-verbal		28	42d	G = B	.15
		-nonverbal		28	42d	G = B	.37
		-verbal plus nonverbal		28	42d	G = B	.25
	Strough & Berg, 2000	Observation	Grade 6	36	34d	G > B	.75
Helping in friendship	Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994	Self report	Grades 5–7	216	168en	G > B	.20
	Furman & Buhrmester, 1985	Self report	Grades 5–6	85	91en	G = B	-
	Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1993	Self report	Grades 6–12	305	271	G > B	.62
	Parker & Asher, 1993	Self report	Grades 3–5	232	238	G > B	.19
	Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990	Self report	Grades 3–4	277	238	G = B	-
	Rose & Asher, 2004	Self report	Grade 5	239	263	G > B	.36
	Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hoffman, 1981	Self report	Grades 5, 7, 11	120	120	G = B	-
Social Conversations/Self-Disclosure
Time spent in social conversation	Ladd, 1983	Observation	Grades 3–4
		-popular		8	8	G > B	3.57
		-average		8	8	G > B	4.18
		-unpopular		8	8	G = B	1.94
	Moller, Hymel, & Rubin, 1992	Observation	Grades 2, 4	95	72	G > B	.35
Self-disclosure in friendship	Buhrmester & Furman, 1987	Self report	Grade 2	54	54en	G = B	−.11
			Grade 5	69	72en	G = B	.40
			Grade 8	59	66en	G > B	.64
	Camerena, Sarigiani, & Peterson, 1990	Self report	Grade 8	148	130	G > B	1.11
	Crockett, Losoff, & Peterson, 1984	Self report	Grades 6–8	59	58	G > B	.72
	Furman & Buhrmester, 1985	Self report	Grades 5–6	85	91en	G > B	-
	Lansford & Parker, 1999	Observation	Grades 3–5	66	102-t
		-intimacy				G > B	.92
		-information exchange				G > B	.73
	Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1993	Self report	Grades 6–12	305	271	G > B	.81
	McNelles & Connolly, 1999	Observation		67	61
		-time 1	Grade 9			G > B	.54
		-time 2	Grade 10			G > B	.72
		-time 3	Grade 11			G > B	.54
	Parker & Asher, 1993	Self report	Grades 3–5	231	238	G > B	.47
	Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990	Self report	Grades 3–4	277	238	G = B	-
	Rose, 2002	Self report	Grades 3, 5	150	131	G > B	.77
			Grades 7, 9	164	151	G > B	1.36
	Zarbatany, McDougal, & Hymel, 2000	Self report	Grade 5	37	31	G = B	.26
			Grade 6	69	51	G > B	.93
Rough and Tumble Play
	DiPietro, 1981	Observation	4 years
		-focal participants		22	30en	G < B	−.93
		-other participants		22	30en	G < B	−1.16
	Humphreys & Smith, 1987	Observation	7 years	13	16	G < B	-
			9 years	15	14	G = B	-
			11 years	18	18	G < B	-
	Ladd, 1983	Observation	Grades 3–4
		-popular		8	8	G = B	−1.58
		-average		8	8	G = B	−1.87
		-unpopular		8	8	G < B	−2.01
	Martin & Fabes, 2001	Observation	3–6 years
		-time 1		33	27	G < B	−1.40
		-time 2		33	27	G < B	−1.68
	Moller, Hymel, & Rubin, 1992	Observation	Grades 2, 4	95	72	G < B	−.81
Competitive/Organized Play
Organized play (i.e., play/games with rules)	Lever, 1978	Self report	Grade 5	90	91en, p	G < B	−.57esp
	Moller, Hymel, & Rubin, 1992	Observation	Grade 2	49	37	G = B	.10
			Grade 4	46	35	G < B	−.87
Sports participation	Zarbatany, McDougal, & Hymel, 2000	Self report	Grades 5–6
		-historically		106	82	G < B	−.38
		-currently		104	81	G < B	−.44
		-currently with friend		106	82	G < B	−.65
Ball games	Pellegrini, Blatchford, Kato, & Baines, 2004	Observation
		-UK, time 1	7–8 years	57	50en	G < B	−.72
		-UK, time 2	7–9 years	58	47en	G < B	−.92
		-USA, time 1	6–7 years	39	21en	G = B	−.23
		-USA, time 2	6–8 years	40	22en	G < B	−.53
Chasing games	Pellegrini, Blatchford, Kato, & Baines, 2004	Observation
		-UK, time 1	7–8 years	57	50en	G = B	.21
		-UK, time 2	7–9 years	58	47en	G > B	.39
		-USA, time 1	6–7 years	39	21en	G = B	−.27
		-USA, time 2	6–8 years	40	22en	G < B	−.68
Dominance Hierarchy
Agreement among peers	Omark, Omark, & Edelman, 1975	Peer report	3 years-Grade3	225	225en, pd	G < B	−.21
	Savin-Williams, 1979	Peer report	11–14 years	20	20	G < B	-
Agreement among counselors	Savin-Williams, 1979	Counselor report	11–14 years	20	20	G < B	-
Correctly estimate own rank	Savin-Williams, 1979	Self report	11–14 years	20	20	G < B	−.22

Notes. Studies are listed more than once if they involved more then one relevant construct.

Standardized mean difference effect sizes were computed from means and standard deviations or F/t values from a one-way ANOVA or t test unless otherwise noted.

^espEffect size computed using proportion scores.

^eswtEffect size computed using within-subjects t test.

^enns were estimated because exact ns were not available.

^gTotal ns are listed but playgroups of three are the units of analyses.

^cTotal ns are listed but classes at school are the units of analyses.

^dTotal ns are listed but dyads are the units of analyses.

^tTotal ns are listed but triads are the units of analyses.

^pTotal ns are listed but play episodes are the units of analyses.

^pdTotal ns are listed but all possible dyads in a group are the units of analyses.