Running Head: GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

Lab No. 3: Developing a Gender Social Interaction Coding System and Assessing Reliability
Authors: Erika Tibaut, Erin Walker, Shannon Wedge
Real Coders: Erika Tibaut Erin Walker
Reliability Coder: Shannon Wedge
University of Guelph
FRHD 3180*0101

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

Developing a Gender Social Interaction Coding System and Assessing Reliability

In many societies, males and females are expected to behave differently and assume
different roles based on gender role standards which are defined by Staffer, Wood &
Willioughby (2005) as values, motives and behaviors that are considered more appropriate for
members of one sex than the other. Parents and others influence and encourage females to
typically assume expressive roles in socialization that involve being kind, nurturing, cooperative
and sensitive to others; by contrast, males are encouraged to adopt an instrumental role which
expects them to be assertive, dominant, independent and competitive (Staffer et al., 2005). For
the purpose of this study socialization is defined as the process by which children acquire beliefs,
values and behaviours considered desirable or appropriate for the society in which they belong
(Hay, 2007).
Traditionally, research on social development has focused primarily on the childs
interactions with adults, particularly mothers (Ellis, Rogoff & Cromer, 1981). However, as
children between the ages of 2 and 12 begin to spend more time with peers defined by Staffer
et al. (2005) as one who has equal social standings and is operating at similar levels of
behavioural complexities and less with adults, developmentalists have begun to highlight the
importance of interactive play with peers in early childhood settings. Extensive research and
observational data by Hay (2007) concluded that boys and girls use different interacting styles
with peers in home and outdoor settings. This is similar to what the present research will strive
to do through its purpose and observational means. The purpose of this research is to develop a
valid coding system to measure the different types of social behaviours most prominently
displayed during free play in kindergarten children with same gender, opposite gender and both
gender (male and females together) interactions and assess its reliability. Once observations were

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

conducting through time sample recording on a specifically designed coding system, the results
were analyzed to determine whether there is a pattern between the type of preferred social
interaction, and the gender of the observed child.
Three major hypotheses guided this research. First, it was expected in free play that
gender segregation, that is same-sex interactions, would be more likely observed than opposite or
mixed gender interactions, regardless of gender. This hypothesis is consistent with earlier
findings by researchers who have documented that across cultures, gender segregation remained
stable and more common with children from early life to six years of age (Ellis et al.,1981;
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Powlishta, Serbin & Moller, 1993; Walker, Irving, Berthelsen, 2002).
Gender segregation defined by Staffer et al. (2005) as childrens tendency to associate with
same-sex playmates and to think of the opposite sex as an out-group, has been observed in both
natural and experimental contexts to become progressively stronger with every passing year
(Powlishta et al., 1993). Studies conducted at a nursery school in Sweden and across the United
States of America have shown that 60 percent of preschool girls and 20 percent of preschool
boys prefer to play with, and reliably selected, a same gendered peer (Staffer et al., 2005;
Powlishta et al., 1993). According to related research, this number will dramatically increase
within the years and by five or six years of age, the approximate age of children targeted for the
present study, children will spend ten times as much time with same sex peers than opposite sex.
(Staffer et al, 2005). Although reasons for these findings of gender segregation have not been
clearly established, it was hypothesized that it would be observed and replicated in this study.
A second hypothesis was that when engaged in same-sex social interactions, males would
exhibit more assertive behaviours and females would exhibit more pro-social behaviours. The
third, and final, hypothesis of the present study predicted that when engaged in opposite and

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

mixed-sex interactions, males and females would both display a tendency toward more prosocial
interaction. In a literature review on psychological sex differences, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974)
concluded that many differences between males and females are overstated, but males definitely
showed more aggressive and assertive behaviours than females (Hay, 2007). In the child care and
learning center that the observations for the current study took place, any obvious aggressive
behaviour is strictly prohibited in the classrooms, and because of this it was expected that males
would display more assertive behaviours as an outlet in their interactions with same gendered
peers. Within the first year of life, aggressive behaviours emerge at similar levels thus creating an
even balance between the two sexes (Hay, 2007), however as early as two years; boys begin to
emerge as more aggressive and assertive than girls (Staffer et al, 2005). Maccoby & Jacklin
(1974) believed this largely reflects differences between boys and girls play and interaction
styles. Boys tend to be more physically active throughout childhood and when engaging in
heightened activity with same gendered peers, boys display more dramatic, rough-and-tumble
behaviours, and teasing than when interacting with girls (Staffer et al., 2005; Rubin & Krasnor,
1983). These types of play most likely reflect pro-social, assertive, and possibly hostile
interactive styles, which would support each of the three hypotheses, for boys, in different ways.
In the same study, preschool and kindergarten girls used more pro-social problem solving
strategies for different given scenarios, regardless whether the children in the story were female,
male or mixed-sexes. (Rubin & Krasnor,1983; Green, Cillessen, Rechis, Patterson, Hughes,
2008). This supports the hypothesis that girls would engage in more pro-social behaviours,
regardless of gender. Although girls often engage in play that involves more turn taking, dual
decision making and sharing with other females, research has shown that girls often display these
behaviours with male peers as well (Green et al, 2008). These findings also support this

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

hypothesis because these play styles are highly reflective of pro-social interaction, which was
expected to be seen in female children over the other types of interaction being coded.
The observations were be taken during free play time in the kindergarten room which
allowed the children to engage in free social interactions without constraints of predetermined
tasks. Observers used time sampling recording in a private observation booth where children
were be unaware of their presence and observes had no previous relationship to the children, thus
decreasing the occurrence of biases.
Method
Development of coding system. The original coding system was developed based on
Olswang, Svensson, Coggins, Beilinson and Donaldsons (2006) coding system used to code
language ability, mainly with children who had speech impairments. This system was found to be
valid and reliable for the purpose of their study (Olswang et al., 2006). This coding system was
adapted for its coding categories: Hostile/Corrosive, Prosocial/Engaged, Assertive,
Passive/Disengaged, Adult Seeking and Irrelevant (Olswang et al., 2006). Each of these
categories was defined to be mutually exclusive and seemed to represent many of the important
categories that would be required to research social interaction in children.
The initial coding system for the current study used four gender categories: interacting
with same sex, interacting with the opposite sex, interacting with a group, and solitary. The initial
coding categories to measure social interaction were hostile, pro-social, assertive, passive, adult
seeking, and irrelevant. After live observation and feedback from peers, it was decided that the
sex categories would be changed to the following: same-sex interaction, opposite sex interaction,
interaction with both sexes, and miscellaneous. Group interaction needed to be altered because it
is possible for a child to be in a group with only girls or only boys. With the initial coding sheets,

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

a girl interacting with two or more girls would be coded as a group interaction, implying that the
child was interacting with both sexes. This study took into consideration sex differences in the
way children interact, therefore the use of a solitary category, nested in the sex categories, and
the irrelevant and adult seeking categories, nested in the social interaction categories, were not
important to the purpose of the study. In order to simplify coding, the miscellaneous category
was created so that these behaviours could still be recorded; this was important so that if these
behaviours became dominant at all, they could still be easily analyzed.
After live observation at a child care and learning center, it was established that some of
the operational definitions required alteration in order to be more mutually exclusive and
exhaustive. The prominent overlaps in observation occurred between the categories pro-social,
assertive, and passive interaction. Pro-social interaction was initially defined to be behaviour that
helped or benefited another child. Assertive interaction was defined as the child communicating
their needs, wants and feelings in a direct and honest way with respect. These two definitions
were intended to be inclusive of all positive and engaged behaviour; however, after observing the
way children interact, these categories needed to be expanded to be more exhaustive. While
performing initial observations, there was a lot of confusion and disagreement between which
behaviour would be considered pro-social or assertive, based on the initial definitions. It was also
difficult to code using the initial definitions because they relied a lot on spoken communication,
and hearing was sometimes difficult in the observation booth. For example, to code assertive
behaviour because a child was asking a question, the observer would have to hear the words
being spoken, which was not always feasible. To fix this issue, non-verbal interaction was added
to the definitions, and each category was expanded to be more mutually exclusive and
exhaustive.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

Passive behaviour was originally defined as being unoccupied and having no focus or
purpose. After doing observations, we found that children who were not speaking, but were still
involved with an activity and peers, were still interacting. We therefore altered this definition to
include interactions that could be considered positive but that were happening alongside peers.
For this reason, it was renamed parallel interaction, and the definition was altered to exclude any
behaviour that could be coded as unoccupied or absent; these behaviours were moved into the
miscellaneous category.
The final coding systems full operational definitions can be found in Appendix A. The
categories that were used to measure social interaction were: same-sex interaction, opposite sex
interaction, interaction with both sexes, and miscellaneous. The first three gender categories were
measured with the following social interaction categories nested within them: pro-social, hostile,
parallel, and assertive. Pro-social interactive behaviour was coded for any behaviour that that
demonstrated positive and cooperative interactive behaviour with peers. Hostile interactive
behaviour was recorded for behaviour that demonstrated negative and aggressive interactive
behaviour with or towards peers. Parallel interactive behaviour was recorded for activity that
occurred alongside a peer, without any verbal or direct communication. The final social category,
assertive interaction, was recorded when the childs behaviour demonstrated respectful but bold
communication of ideas and beliefs in their communication with peers. The miscellaneous
category had three alternate categories nested within it: unoccupied, adult seeking and
uncodeable.
A hierarchy was determined in the event that more than one behaviour occurred. If two
behaviours occurred during the same interval, the behaviour that occurred for the longest amount

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

of time was recorded. If, during any interval, two behaviours occur in equal proportions, the
hostile or assertive behaviour categories were to be coded over pro-social or parallel interaction.
Reliability assessment.
Subjects. There were four children observed in this study. Two were female and two were
male. The children were chosen for observation because they were completely visible to the
observers and because, at the time that they were chosen, they were not demonstrating any
unoccupied behaviour. Child 1, the boy in the white striped shirt, was observed for the majority
of time playing with the water sensory bucket with another boy and girl. There was a transitional
period before he went to play in the block area with a girl and a female teacher. The boy was last
observed in the drawing and colouring area. Child 2, a boy wearing a burgundy striped shirt, was
observed playing with a toy house in the middle of the block area. He was playing alongside a
second boy for the majority of the time. The children were instructed to clean up because free
play was over, at which time the boy was also observed putting away blocks and ended the
observation reading a book with a young girl, while the other children in the room cleaned. Child
3, a girl wearing a green shirt, was observed playing with a miniature house set in the carpeted
area. She spent most of her time playing beside two other boys. Child 4, a girl wearing a pink
shirt and black vest, spent approximately equal amounts of time at the craft table and the play
dough table (located on the opposite side of the room). The girl played alongside girls and boys
at the craft table, but spent the majority of time using the play dough alongside a girl and a
female teacher. A boy was seen at the table towards the end of the observation, but he was
ducking under the table for many of the intervals (out of sight).
Setting. The observations were conducted in a kindergarten room of a child care and
learning center. The observations took place over two days; approximately 15-18 children were

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

in the kindergarten room during each observation. There were 3-4 adults in the room, including
student helpers, who would interact with the children casually as they engaged in their activities.
The room was divided into several play areas including crafting, storybook, and block area
which were located towards the front of the room. A dramatic play and sensory area were located
towards the back of the room, and a separate drawing area was located at a table at the right side
of the room. The room was very open and each area was easily accessible to the children and
adults in the room. The room was appropriately sized for the amount of children it held; no one
seemed to be cramped in their working/play environment. In the play area, four microphones
hung from the ceiling to project the noise into the observation booth. Observers were located in
the observation booth, out of sight from the children in the room being observed.
The socio-emotional climate of the room seemed to be positive and balanced during both
observations. The children in the room, particularly the four observed children, were observed
for the majority of the time occupied in an activity; there were not many transitions taking place.
The interactions between the children and the adults in the room seemed to be helpful and
friendly; the children appeared to be enjoying their free play time.
Procedure. Data was collected using time interval sampling. Observations were
completed by marking down the predominant behaviour that was viewed within each fifteen
second interval, on a coding sheet. Each time an interval passed, the behaviour was to be
recorded immediately. This permitted each observer to be recording the behaviours at the same
time which allowed for increased intercoder reliability. Each child was coded for 40 intervals,
totaling 10 minutes of observation per child.
The observers for this study were three university students with some introductory
observation experience using coding systems to assess behaviour. The students practiced

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

10
observation using this coding system in a live setting before recording their final results. One
student was present for both observation periods; the other two students observed for one
observation period on two separate days, with the first observer. This could hinder the reliability
of the results, as the same two observers did not fill out coding sheets for all four children. The
data collected by the observer who was present for all observations was used as the real data,
while the information that other two observers collected was used for reliability purposes only.
Purpose of data collected. There were four children observed, and two coding sheets
filled out for each child. Each child was observed by two observers at the same time, using the
exact same time intervals. This was done in order to measure the coding systems reliability. Two
girls and two boys were chosen for observation so that each gender could be coded twice, for the
purpose of increasing reliability further. The data for Child 1 and Child 3 was collected by
observers Erika and Shannon. The data collected for Child 2 and Child 4 was collected by
observers Erin and Shannon. Shannon was present for both observations in order to maintain as
much consistency between observations as possible. The data was collected on four children, and
the children were chosen based on how well they represented their surroundings. A child
showing behaviours that represented the norm within the room was chosen over a child sitting
alone, or a child demonstrating eccentric behaviours. This was done to minimize the possibility
of outlier behaviours being included the results, which would greatly skew the data with such a
small sample size.
Results
The method in which the data is prepared makes a large difference when summarizing the
findings of a study, and must be taken into account. Similarly, the findings are meaningless if the
reliability is not calculated as this is a good way to determine how much the results can be

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

11
trusted and depended upon. The data preparation and reliability assessment give context to the
reporting of the findings of this study.
Data preparation. The focus of this study is to compare social and behavioural aspects
of interaction based on gender, in order to determine if there is a difference in the way that the
two sexes interact. Calculations were made to determine the relative frequencies for each child in
all of the gender, social interaction, and miscellaneous categories, and the mean relative
frequency for each category overall, and this data is presented in Table 1. These calculations
were then separated by sex, so that each gender and social interaction category combination had
a calculated mean relative frequency by sex. These results are displayed in Table 2. The mean
relative frequencies were also calculated by sex for each of the social interaction categories
overall, as well as the categories of solitary and adult seeking behaviour in order to be able to
consider these miscellaneous behaviours in comparison. Table 3 and figure 1 present these
results. In order to compare how social play differs by sex, the mean relative frequency was also
found by sex for each of the gender categories and the miscellaneous behaviours of solitary, and
adult seeking behaviour, which are presented in Table 4 and figure 2.
Reliability assessment. Reliability was assessed by using both percentage of agreement
and Cohens Kappa. Percentage of agreement simply compares the amount of agreement
between the two observers to the disagreement between them, to show how often they both
coded the same category. To further determine the reliability of the results, Cohens Kappa was
calculated to account for the portion of agreement expected by chance. The percentage of
agreement is 64.375%. The Kappa is 0.586. The confusion matrix can be found in Table 5.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

12
The most frequently occurring social category overall was interaction with the opposite
sex. The interaction behaviour that occurred the most often overall was parallel interaction.
Hostile behaviour was not recorded at any point in the observations.
Findings. In comparing males and females, in terms of their social behaviour, males were
most likely to participate in interactions involving both sexes. Females did not exhibit any
interactive behaviour involving both sexes at the same time. Females interacted the most often
with members of the opposite sex, and exhibited this type of behaviour far more often than males
did. Males and females were almost equally likely to interact with members of the same sex, and
this was the second most common behaviour for each of the sexes as well. Males played solitary
more often than did females, and females sought adult attention slightly more often than males,
however, this was not a very common behaviour observed.
The interactive behaviour that was shown most often from the males was pro-social
interaction. This was exhibited in males far more often than in females. Females showed parallel
interaction more often than any other social behaviour, and again it occurred far less often in the
males observed. While assertive behaviour did not occur very often, it occurred equally often in
both the males and females. As noted before, hostile behaviour was not exhibited by either
gender.
When examining the results for social and interaction behaviours together, the most
common behaviour for males was pro-social interaction with both sexes. Alternatively, the
females exhibited parallel interaction with the opposite sex far more often than any other
behaviour.
Discussion

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

13
Overall, the results of this study found clear differences in the social and behavioural
aspects of interaction between the two sexes, giving greater insight into the ways in which
children play, and the inherent sex differences that exist in interactive behaviours.
Reliability of coding system. The reliability of this study is poor, with a percentage of
agreement of only 64.375% and a Kappa of 0.586. This means that the two coders were only
coding the same things about 64% of the time, and some of that agreement could be due simply
to chance, making the Kappa even lower. This disagreement between the three coders could be
attributed to a couple of different factors. First of all, the observations occurred from a separate
room, making it difficult at times to see and hear what was happening in the play area. As a
result, the coders may have had a different interpretation of what the child was doing based on
their limited perspective. As well, the coders had to do their own timing for the observations. The
observers frequently looking down at the time may have impacted behaviours that they saw or
missed, and coded differently as a result. The lower reliability could also be due to observers
interpreting the operational definitions differently. Further analysis of the definitions, in order to
make them completely mutually exclusive, and more practice with the coding system could have
improved the reliability. The different interpretations could have caused the observers to see the
same behaviour but code them differently. In examining the confusion matrix found in Table 5, it
is clear that pro- social and parallel interactions are often coded simultaneously by the coders.
This indicates that there is a definition problem between these two terms that are caused the
coders to mistake the same observed behaviour for a different operational definition. There are
also several instances of one coder checking solitary while another codes parallel interaction.
Again, these terms may not be well enough defined. It could be that parallel interaction is not
mutually exclusive, as there seems to be low reliability when coding this behaviour in general.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

14
The overall low reliability of this study should be taken into consideration when evaluating the
findings of this study.
Interpretation of results. This study found that males were most likely to participate in
interactions with both sexes, while females were more likely to interact with the opposite sex
than any other type of interaction. This opposes our hypothesis, which stated that both sexes
would be most likely to interact with their own gender. This also opposes other findings, such as
those by Walker et al. (2002) which suggested that children are more comfortable interacting
with their same gender than with the opposite gender. Similarly, Ellis and colleagues (1981)
found that mixed sex companionship in children does not become very common until the ages of
seven or eight which is quite a bit older than the sample used in the present study. Alternatively,
the results could be a product of the unique environment that these children were observed in,
and the comfort level that may have been fostered between the children in this classroom over
time. It could be that the children got used to playing together in the same room and stopped
paying as much attention to gender. It could also be that the children were being selective of the
activity they wanted to do over the children they wanted to play with. If a girl wanted to draw a
picture, she may not pay much attention to the fact that the other people at the table are boys, or
at least it may not bother her enough to join another activity. Whatever the reason for the
findings, the results of the current study are very interesting, and suggest that children may not
be as selective in their peer choices as was previously thought.
Another finding of this study is that females were far more likely to participate in parallel
interaction than any other type of interaction. This opposes the hypothesis initially proposed, that
females would participate in pro-social behaviours over other types of play behaviours, no matter
who they were interacting with. The findings of this study are not congruent with other findings

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

15
either. Rubin and Krasnor (1983) found that girls exhibited more pro-social interactions in
general than boys did. However, Hay (2007) found that girls were more likely to exhibit
submissive behaviours, which could also be seen as parallel interactions. The current study did
find that girls showed no hostile behaviours and very little assertive behaviours, which does
correspond with the findings of Hay (2007). Overall, the findings of this study show that girls
may be reserved in their play behaviours. They generally played near, but not directly with, other
children acknowledging their presence but not initiating any contact.
This study hypothesized that males would exert mostly assertive behaviour with other
males, but play in a more pro-social manner when interacting with mixed gender groups or the
opposite gender. This hypothesis was found partially correct in this study. Pro-social behaviour
was found to be the most common interaction exhibited by males. Furthermore, pro-social
behaviour is the most occurring interaction in each social category, including interactions with
the same sex. It should also be noted that of the assertiveness that was observed, it occurred in
males with the same sex most often. Therefore, even though boys are generally pro-social, they
tend to be more assertive with their own gender than they are with the opposite gender or a
mixed group, according to these findings. These findings can be compared to those by Hay
(2007), who found that boys tend to be more aggressive when interacting with their own gender.
This is thought to be because of the way males are socialized. Since males generally play with
their own gender when young according to Hay (2007), the minority of highly aggressive males
in the population influence the rest of the population to be more aggressive than females.
Quality of the study. This study has many limitations. A very small sample was used to
conduct this study. This makes the study less valid, because each subjects individual differences
has the potential to have a significant effect on the results. There is no way to tell if the subjects

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

16
used are representative of the population as a whole, or if they would be outliers in the larger
population, without having sampled more children to compare. As well, very little information
was collected about the subjects being observed. This also reduces the validity of this study
because it makes it difficult to know if any external factors played a role in the results. For
example, having knowledge of the socioeconomic status, or the family status of the subjects
observed would help to determine whether these factors also influence play interactions. The
results are difficult to generalize to the whole population as well, because all of the children
observed were sampled in the same location. This makes it difficult to determine how much of an
effect that particular environment had on the behaviours that were observed. Sampling from a
number of kindergarten rooms would have allowed for greater generalizability. The reliability of
this study is poor as well, as has already been discussed. Overall, this study provides insight into
possible interactive behaviours of children, but the results should be taken lightly considering the
generalizability, validity and reliability problems that may exist.
Conclusions
The only hypothesis that is partially supported by the findings of this study was that
males would exert mostly assertive behaviour with other males, but play in a more pro-social
manner when interacting with mixed gender groups or the opposite gender. This study reports
that males interacted pro-socially more than assertively in general. However, the hypothesis is
supported by the finding that males interact more pro-socially with mixed gender groups even
though it was found that they act pro-socially with same gender interactions as well. The
hypothesis about both sexes being most likely to interact with their own gender was not
supported by the results of this study, or by past literature. Males interacted more with both sexes
in this study, while females interacted more with the opposite sex. The hypothesis that stated that

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

17
girls would participate in pro-social interaction over all other types was not supported in the
study, as girls were found to exhibit mostly parallel play. The low reliability of all of these
findings, evident by the low percentage agreement and Kappa, necessitate the need for future
research in this area. There were several limitations in this study that should be controlled for in
future research. All coders should be professionally trained and given multiple opportunities to
study and perfect the coding system before observation is recorded. The interaction behaviours
may need to be adjusted and further defined in order to encompass all possible interactions a
child may partake in. on the findings, four social categories may not have been enough to ensure
that each behaviour observed be coded with accurate agreement between coders. A future
research direction could be to incorporate sex roles into the coding.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

18
References
Carpenter , C. J., & Huston-Stein, A. (1980). Activity Structure and Sex-typed Behaviour in
Preschool Children. Child Development, 51(1), 862-872.
Ellis, S., Rogoff, B., & Cromer, C. C. (1981). Age Segregation in Childrens Social Interactions.
Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 399 407.
Green, V. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Rechis, R., Patterson, M. M., & Hughes, J. M. (2008). Social
Problem Solving and Strategy Use in Young Children. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 169(1), 92 112.
Hay, D. F. (2007).The Gradual Emergence of Sex Differences in Aggression: Alternative
Hypotheses. Psychological Medicine,37(1), 1527-1537.
Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Olswang, L.B., Svensson, L., Coggins, T.E., Beilinson, J.S. & Donaldson, A.L. (2006).
Reliability issues for coding social communication performance in classroom settings.
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Reasearch, 49, 1058-1071.
Powlishta, K. K., Serbin, L. A., & Moller, L. C. (1993). Stability of Individual Differences in
Gender Typing: Implications for Understanding Gender Segregation. Sex Roles,
29(11/12), 723 738.
Shaffer, D. R., Wood, E., & Willioughby, T. (2005). Developmental psychology: Childhood and
adolescence (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

19
Appendix
(A) Operational Definitions
(B) Tables and Figures

Table 1: Total and relative frequencies of gender, social interaction, and miscellaneous

categories.
Table 2: Mean relative frequency of the combined gender and interaction categories, by

gender of the observed child.

Table 3: Mean relative frequencies of social interaction categories, by sex of child

observed.
Figure 1: Mean relative frequencies of social interaction categories, by sex of child

observed.
Table 4: Mean relative frequencies of peer gender categories, by gender of child

observed.
Figure 2: Mean relative frequencies of peer gender categories, by gender of child

observed.
Table 5: Confusion matrix.

(C) Sample Coding Sheet

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

20
(A)
Operational Definitions: Coding for Social Interaction Behaviours between Genders
Gender Definitions
Same-sex Interaction:
Conceptual Definition: Social interaction between two or more peers of the same sex.
Operational Definition: A social interaction between the child and one or more peers of the samesex. To be considered interaction, the child must a) be within 2-3 feet of the peer and b) make an
attempt at communication or show interpersonal behaviour; involving words, gestures, sounds,
drawings, touch etc. The interaction can be a) brief or b) continue for extended periods of time.
Opposite sex Interaction:
Conceptual Definition: Social interaction between two or more peers of the opposite sex
Operational Definition: A social interaction between the child and one or more peer(s) of the
opposite sex. To be considered interaction, the child must a) be within 2-3 feet of the peer(s) and
b) make an attempt at communication or show interpersonal behaviour; involving words,
gestures, sounds, drawings, touch etc. The interaction can be a) brief or b) continue for extended
periods of time.
Interaction with both sexes:
Conceptual Definition: Social interaction between the child and peers of both genders.
Operational Definition: A social interaction that takes place between the child and two or more
peers of the same and opposite sexes. To be considered interaction, the child must a) be within 23 feet of the peer(s) and b) make an attempt at communication or show interpersonal behaviour;
involving words, gestures, sounds, drawings, touch etc. The interaction can be a) brief or b)
continue for extended periods of time.
Miscellaneous Definitions
The following definitions would not be coded as social interaction:
Unoccupied: The subject is demonstrating a lack of focus or intent in their behaviour. The child
is not attempting to engage or interact with peers, nor are they involved in a solitary activity. The
child may be a) staring blankly around the room; or b) wandering with no specific purpose and
without any identifiable attempts at making social contact with peers. The child could also be
engaged in transitional behaviour, moving from one activity to another
Adult Seeking: The child seeks the attention of an adult, either by asking for help or to join play.
Uncodeable: A behaviour that cannot be coded by the observer for the following reasons: a)the
child has left the observation room; b) the observer is unable to see what the child is doing
(Example: Could be blocked by a play object or by other peers) c) the child is told what to do or

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

21
restricted in their actions by an adult or teacher in the room (Example: If the child is instructed to
sit in a corner for a time-out, or to join a circle for circle-time).
Social Interaction Categories
Pro-social Interaction:
Conceptual Definition: A behaviour that demonstrates positive and cooperative interactive
behaviour with peers.
Operational Definition: Any composed verbal or nonverbal behaviour, within 2-3 feet of a peer,
that demonstrates a) sharing, b) helping, c) cooperation or d) following the rules. The interaction
is mutually beneficial to a) the child and b) the peer(s) involved; demonstrated through continued
engagement in the activity or conversation.
Examples: Jointly using a toy or object, active conversation, working together, sharing,
Coding Conventions: Wrestling for fun (Coded)
Hostile Interaction:
Conceptual Definition: A behaviour that demonstrates negative and aggressive interactive
behaviour with or towards peers.
Operational Behaviour: An aggressive verbal or non-verbal behaviour, within 2-3 feet of a peer,
that demonstrates a)breaking the rules, b) unsafe play or c) invasive actions. The interaction is
not mutually beneficial, the child initiating the behaviour may create a physically or verbally
rejected response from the peer(s) involved.
Examples: Pushing, kicking, poking, name calling
Coding Conventions: Calling across the room an insult (Coded)
Parallel Interaction:
Conceptual Definition: Interaction that occurs alongside a peer, without any verbal or direct
communication.
Operational Definition: Any nonverbal behaviour that demonstrates a) participation in an activity
b) 2-3 feet proximity to peer(s) participating in similar activity and c) unresponsive interaction
with peer(s). The child acknowledges the presence of the peer, but plays independently.
Examples: Doing a craft side-by-side, playing with similar toys on the floor but not engaged in a
game together
Coding Convention: Sharing classroom supplies (not toys or supplies that other children are
already using (coded as pro-social) but sharing from large bins)(Coded)
Assertive Interaction:
Conceptual Definition: An interaction that demonstrates respectful, but bold, communication of
ideas and beliefs to peers.
Operational Definition: Any verbal or non-verbal behaviour, within 2-3 feet of a peer, that
demonstrates a) initiative in conversation or activity, b) an overpowering voice, c) leader position

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

22
or d) asking for help. The child may be expressing an opinion or idea in a bold, but nonaggressive manner, that is not rejected by peers.
Examples: Directing another peer Dont do that, I dont like that,
Coding Conventions: Role play games, pretend play (pretending to be a mom or dad) (Not
coded)

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

23
(B)
Table 1
Total and relative frequencies of gender, social interaction, and miscellaneous
categories.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

24
Table 2
Mean relative frequency of the combined gender and interaction categories, by
gender of the observed child.
Gender of
Observed
Males

Social Interaction Categories

Same Sex:
Hostile
Prosocial
Assertive
Parallel
Opposite Sex:
Hostile
Prosocial
Assertive
Parallel
Both Sexes:
Hostile
Prosocial
Assertive
Parallel
Miscellaneous:
Solitary
Adult Seeking
Uncodeable

0
0.1
0.062
5
0.087
5
0
0.1125
0
0.012
5

Females
0
0
0.05
0.2125
0
0.1
0.025
0.4375

0
0.275
0.012
5
0.1125

0
0

0.175
0.0125
0.0375

0.0625
0.0375
0.075

0
0

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

25
Table 3
Mean relative frequencies of social interaction categories, by sex of child observed.

Gender of Observed

Social Interaction Categories

Males
Female
s

Prosocia Assertiv Paralle Solitar

Hostile l
e
l
y
Adult Seeking
0
0.4875
0.075 0.2125
0.175 0.0125
0

0.1

0.075

0.65

0.0625

0.0375

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

26
Figure 1
Mean relative frequencies of social interaction categories, by sex of child observed.
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Mean Relative Frequency

0.3
Males

0.2

Females

0.1
0

Social Interaction Categories

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

27
Table 4
Mean relative frequencies of peer gender categories, by gender of child observed.

Gender of Observed

Gender of Peers

Males
Female
s

Same
Oppisite Both
Sex
Sex
Sexes
Solitary Adult
0.25
0.125
0.4
0.175
0.0125
0.2625

0.5625

0.0625

0.0375

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

28
Figure 2
Mean relative frequencies of peer gender categories, by gender of child observed.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Mean Relative Frequency

0.2

Males
Females

0.1
0

Gender of Peers

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

29
Table 5
Confusion matrix.

GENDER SOCIAL INTERACTION

30
(C)
Sample Coding Sheet