Children’s use of positive affect during interactions with same- and other-sex peers

1. 16 2.5 14 2.0 12 10 1.5 8 1.0 6 4 0.5 2 0.0 0 Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Female Peers Male Peers 5 4 3 2 1 0 Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Command Compliance Questioning Children’s use of positive affect during interactions with same- and other-sex peers Julie Sallquist, Matthew D. DiDonato, Laura D. Hanish, Carol Lynn Martin, and Richard A. Fabes Background & Aims Results • Researchers have reported positive relations between children’s positive expressivity (PE) and aspects of social competence (e.g., McDowell & Parke, 2005; Lengua, 2003). However, behaviors (e.g., prosocial, aggression, questioning) that accompany children’s PE have not been extensively investigated. The behaviors that accompany children’s PE may vary depending on the context of interaction (e.g., smiling while bidding for play or smiling while requesting a toy), and these variations are important in understanding how children strategically use PE during peer interactions. A related issue of interest is whether PE and behaviors matter more for some child pairings than others. The most fundamental basis upon which children select peer interaction partners is gender (see Martin & Fabes, 2001). It is likely that children’s PE as well as the behaviors that accompany boys’ and girls’ PE may differ depending on the gender of their interaction partner. • Aims: • To examine PE during same- vs. other sex peer interactions • To examine behavioral strategies in PE during same- vs. • other sex peer interactions • Do boys’ and girls’ PE differ depending on the gender of their • interaction partner? • Yes, in frequency. Boys displayed more PE than girls with male peers, and girls • displayed more PE than boys with female peers • No, in rate. When controlling for gender segregation, girls and boys had similar • rates of PE, Fs(1, 163) = .06 and .06, ns, η2s = .00 and .00, with male and female peers • Do behaviors that accompany boys’ and girls’ PE differ depending on the gender of their interaction partner? • Yes, for some behaviors Positive Interactions with Male Peers Positive Interactions with Female Peers 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 Boys Girls Boys Girls t(131.98) = 4.22, p < .01 t(90.22) = 5.05, p < .01 Positive Interactions with Male Peers Positive Interactions with Female Peers 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 Boys Girls Boys Girls All children used more prosocial behavior when interacting with same-sex peers than other-sex peers When interacting with male peers, bids for play were used more often by boys than girls Method • Participants • 166 preschoolers (54% boys) fromHead Start • classrooms • M age = 52 months • 74% Mexican American • Procedure • Children were observed throughout the school year during free- • play and semi-structured play periods • Children’s behaviors, positive emotions, and play partners were • recorded • Observational Measures • Children’s affect • Coded on a 5-point scale (1 = high negative; 5 = high positive) • Only interactions in which children displayed PE were included • Children’s Behaviors • Aggression • Prosocial • Bid for play • Command • Compliance • Questioning When interacting with female peers, command, compliance, and questioning behaviors were used more often by girls than boys Conclusions Although children’s PE was similar when controlling for rates of same- and other-sex play, the behaviors associated with PE depended on children’s and their peers’ gender. Boys used PE as a way to initiate peer interactions more than girls when interacting with other boys. Girls used PE as a way to direct or change peer interactions with other girls. These findings shed light on children’s differential use of PE. Additionally, these findings have important implications for interventions targeting the promotion of positive social interactions among same- and other-sex peers and suggest that the link between girls’ and boys’ emotion and behavior depends on the gender pairing of their interaction partner. Acknowledgments: Thanks to the families of the Understanding School Success Project, the numerous research assistants who collected data, and Stacie Foster, project director. Support for this research is in part by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 1R01HD045816, awarded to Carol Lynn Martin, Richard A. Fabes, and Laura D. Hanish. This study also was supported by the T. Denny Sanford Foundation.