464 observations were carried out in public places of 3- or 4-person, mixed sex, free-forming groups who spontaneously divided into subgroups. An analysis of sex composition of the subgroups showed that significantly more single-sex subgroups were formed than expected by chance. This was significantly more pronounced among women than among men. Several explanations were considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerP. A.KlessS. J., & AdlerP. (1992) Socialization in gender roles: popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169–187.
2.
BankB. J., & HansfordS. L. (2000) Gender and friendship: why are men's best samesex friendships less intimate and supportive?Personal Relationships, 7, 63–78.
3.
BillsonJ. M., & ManciniK. (2007) Inuit women: their powerful spirit in a century of change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
4.
ChodorowN. (1978) The reproduction of mothering: psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley, CA: Univer. of California Press.
5.
DionK. L. (1985) Sex, gender, and groups: selected issues. In O'LearyV. E.UngerR. K., & WallstonB. S. (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 293–347.
6.
ExlineR. V. (1963) Explorations in the process of person perception: visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation. Journal of Personality, 31, 1–20.
FelmleeD., & MuracoA. (2009) Gender and friendship norms among older adults. Research on Aging, 31, 318–344.
9.
HaydukL. (1983) Personal space: where we stand now. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 293–335.
10.
JacklinC. N., & MaccobyE. E. (1978) Social behavior at 33 months in same sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 49, 557–569.
11.
JamesJ. (1953) The distribution of free-forming small group size. American Sociological Review, 18, 569–570.
12.
KaffenbergerC.GibbD., & MurphyS. (2002) A model for using empathy in counselor education at George Mason University. In BregginP. R.BregginG., & BemakF. (Eds.), Dimensions of empathic therapy. New York: Springer. Pp. 101–115.
13.
KiersteadD.D'AgostinoP., & DillH. (1988) Sex role stereotyping of college professors: bias in students' ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 342–344.
14.
KirkeD. M. (2009) Gender clustering in friendship networks: some sociological implications. Methodological Innovations Online, 4, 23–36.
15.
KramerD.BerR., & MooreM. (1989) Increasing empathy among medical students. Medical Education, 23, 168–173.
16.
MayhewB. H.McPhersonJ. M.RotoloT., & Smith-LovinL. (1995) Sex and race homogeneity in naturally occurring groups. Social Forces, 74, 15–52.
McPhersonM., & Smith-LovinL. (1987) Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370–379.
19.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL., & CookJ. M. (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
RosenB., & JerdeeT. H. (1973) The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 44–48.
22.
RudmanL. A., & GlickP. (2008) The social psychology of gender: how power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford.
23.
RueffM.AldrichH. E., & CarterN. M. (2003) The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 66, 195–222.
24.
WrightP. H., & ScanlonM. B. (1991) Gender role orientation and friendship: some attenuation, but gender differences abound. Sex Roles, 24, 551–566.
