Developmental Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 52, No. 10, 1578 –1592 0012-1649/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000200

Peer Influence on Gender Identity Development in Adolescence

Olga Kornienko, Carlos E. Santos, Carol Lynn Martin, and Kristen L. Granger
Arizona State University

During adolescence, gender identity (GI) develops through a dialectic process of personal reflection and
with input from the social environment. Peers play an important role in the socialization of gendered
behavior, but no studies to-date have assessed peer influences on GI. Thus, the goal of the present study
was to examine peer influences on four aspects of adolescents’ GI in racially and ethnically diverse 7th-
and 8th-grade students (N ⫽ 670; 49.5% boys, M age ⫽ 12.64) using a longitudinal social network
modeling approach. We hypothesized stronger peer influence effects on between-gender dimensions of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

GI (intergroup bias and felt pressure for gender conformity) than on within-gender dimensions of GI
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(typicality and contentedness). Consistent with expectations, we found significant peer influence on
between-gender components of GI–intergroup bias among 7th and 8th graders as well as felt pressure for
gender conformity among 8th graders. In contrast, within-gender components of GI showed no evidence
of peer influence. Importantly, these peer socialization effects were evident even when controlling for
tendencies to select friends who were similar on gender, gender typicality, and contentedness (8th graders
only). Employing longitudinal social network analyses provides insights into and clarity about the roles
of peers in gender development.

Keywords: gender identity, peer influence, social network analysis, stochastic actor-based modeling,
adolescence

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000200.supp

Although gender development has been a focus of adolescent are related to social and psychological adjustment outcomes (e.g.,
research for many years, much of this research has been concen- Carver, Yunger, & Perry, 2003; Smith & Leaper, 2006).
trated on the development of gender stereotypes or attitudes (see As adolescents consolidate their identities, questions about GI
Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006, for a review) rather than become relevant to their emerging sense of self and peer experi-
changes in gender-related self-concepts. However, in 2001, with ences may influence how youth think about and experience aspects
the introduction of a multidimensional view and measure of gender of GI. Individual differences in GI self-concepts emerge through
identity (GI) by Egan and Perry (2001), research on GI flourished. an increased capacity for making social comparisons (Ruble &
This model posits that young children develop a single component Dweck, 1995) and due to pressure from parents or peers to con-
of GI—membership knowledge—and by middle childhood, they form to gender norms (Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004). Although
develop four additional self-concepts, all of which comprise the some attention has been paid to the role of peers in gender typing
construct of GI: gender typicality, gender contentedness, inter- (Jewell & Brown, 2014; Smith & Leaper, 2006) and sexism
group bias, and felt pressure to conform to gender norms. Once (Leaper & Brown, 2008), and theoretical arguments have been
reaching adolescence, normative changes occur in these four di- made about the importance of peers in influencing gender devel-
mensions of GI, and individual differences in these aspects of GI opment (Leaper & Friedman, 2007; Maccoby, 1998; Harris, 1995),
to our knowledge, no studies have empirically tested peer influ-
ence on dimensions of GI. This gap is surprising given a large
number of studies documenting the potent role of peer influence on
This article was published Online First September 1, 2016.
adolescent socioemotional and behavioral development (for re-
Olga Kornienko, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University; views, see Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Dishion & Tipsord, 2011;
Carlos E. Santos, Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Arizona State Veenstra, Dijkstra, Steglich, & Van Zalk, 2013).
University; Carol Lynn Martin and Kristen L. Granger, T. Denny Sanford We address this gap by examining peer influence on GI in
School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University. adolescent friendship networks. Because GI is, by definition, an
This research was supported in part by funds provided by the T. Denny evolving aspect of the self, its development needs to be considered
Sanford School of Social Dynamics at Arizona State University as part of using longitudinal designs (Egan & Perry, 2001). When examining
the Lives of Girls and Boys Research Enterprise (http://lives.clas.asu.edu/). the role that friendship networks play in contributing to changes in
We thank the graduate and undergraduate students who contributed to this
GI self-concepts, it is particularly important to control for how
project and the students, teachers, principal, staff, and parents for their
participation. We are grateful for the helpful comments regarding analyses
adolescents initially select their friends (to prevent inflated esti-
provided by David R. Schaefer. mates of peer influence; Snijders, van den Bundt, & Steglich,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Olga 2010). In other words, do friends become similar to one another on
Kornienko, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box dimensions of GI over the course of their friendships (influence),
871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. E-mail: [email protected] or does this similarity between adolescents and friends result from

1578
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1579

adolescents preferring to befriend others with similar levels of GI ality traits (Egan & Perry, 2001). Additionally, as children grow
self-concepts (selection)? Answering the former question requires older, peers take on even greater importance in their social lives
also considering the latter, and involves employing longitudinal (Harris, 1995), and peer group comparisons may begin to contrib-
designs to study the changes in GI dimensions and friendship ute to feelings of typicality. Another, albeit less studied, aspect of
networks. Because we are interested in examining contributions of GI is gender contentedness, which describes the degree to which
a broader network of social relationships (i.e., multiple friends of one feels positive toward one’s gender group. Gender contented-
the focal individual, friends of friends, etc.; for a review, see ness is more likely to occur when children are happy with their
Veenstra et al., 2013), we do not restrict our examination to best gender (Carver, Yunger, & Perry, 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001).
friendships, which are commonly a focus of developmental re- These within-gender aspects of GI appear to be positively related
search (for reviews, see Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003; Bagwell with psychological adjustment, social skills, and peer acceptance
& Schmidt, 2011). Accordingly, we use longitudinal social net- (Carver et al., 2003; Smith & Leaper, 2006; Yunger et al., 2004).
work analysis (SNA) methods that have been developed to disen- Regarding between-gender dimensions of GI, felt pressure for
tangle peer influence from confounding processes of network gender conformity captures the extent to which children feel pres-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

selection (Snijders et al., 2010). Thus, the main objective of this sure from parents, peers or themselves to conform to gender norms
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

study is to examine the role of peer influence on changes in (Egan & Perry, 2001). For instance, this dimension addresses
dimensions of adolescent GI. We also describe the role of gender pressures not to behave in cross-gender ways (e.g., for a girl,
and GI for network selection (who adolescents select as friends) “Other kids, who are girls like me, would get upset if someone
and explore gender differences in the magnitude of influence on GI who is a girl acts like a boy”). Finally, intergroup bias describes
self-concepts. the extent to which youth tend to associate more positive and fewer
negative traits to their own gender group compared with the other
Development of Multiple Dimensions of GI gender (Powlishta, 1995; Yee & Brown, 1992; Zosuls, Miller,
Ruble, Martin, & Fabes, 2011). These between-gender GI dimen-
The Egan and Perry (2001) model of GI consists of five com- sions operate through magnification of gender differences and
ponents, including: self-identification (typically as ‘female’ or expanded stereotype use (Powlishta, 1995), and can translate into
‘male,’ though it is plausible for a young person to identify outside challenges with peer relations and can potentially result poor
of the gender binary, and less is known about how such identifi- psychological adjustment (Carver et al., 2003; Smith & Leaper,
cation might alter GI development), gender typicality (the degree 2006; Yunger et al., 2004).
to which one feels as a typical member of one’s gender group),
gender contentedness (the degree to which one is happy with one’s
gender group), felt pressure for gender conformity (the degree to The Role of Peer Context and Peer Influence for
which one feels pressure from parents, peers, and self for confor- Development of GI Dimensions
mity to gender stereotypes), and intergroup bias (the extent to
which one believes one’s own gender is superior to the other; Although peers are theorized to have a major impact on chil-
Carver et al., 2003). After achieving self-identification early in dren’s gender development (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Maccoby,
life, the four remaining dimensions involve adolescents making 1998), few studies have tested their influence, and the few that
global, summary judgments about themselves and others, which have, focused on gendered behaviors such as interests and activi-
are constructed through a dialectical process involving personal ties among preschool children (see Martin & Fabes, 2001; Martin
reflection and input from the social environment (Yunger et al., et al., 2013). No research has examined peer influence on GI
2004). Research has shown that GI dimensions are relatively stable development in adolescents. However, existing research has illus-
but undergo changes (Priess, Lindberg, & Hyde, 2009; Yunger et trated links between GI and peer relationships. For instance, stud-
al., 2004). It is also useful to distinguish between-gender and ies have revealed how aspects of GI are associated with various
within-gender facets of GI (Pauletti, Cooper, & Perry, 2014), such dimensions of peer relations including peer popularity, acceptance,
that intergroup bias and felt pressure focus more on how an teasing, and victimization. Specifically, youth who describe them-
individual relates to the other gender, typicality and contentedness selves as being gender typical and being content with their gender
concern how an individual relates to his or her own gender. These tend to be more accepted by, and popular with their peers, whereas
different facets find some support in the correlations among di- adolescents who score low in gender typicality are more likely to
mensions. For both genders, typicality and contentedness are pos- be teased by peers (Egan & Perry, 2001; Jewell & Brown, 2014;
itively related, but only for girls are intergroup bias and felt Young & Sweeting, 2004). Adolescents who report feeling a
pressure related (also related to contentedness; Egan & Perry, strong pressure to conform to gender norms tend to become less
2001; Carver et al., 2003). accepted by their peers over time (Yunger et al., 2004). Felt
Considering within-gender GI self-concepts, gender typicality is pressure for gender conformity has been found to mediate the
the dimension of GI that has received the largest share of empirical relation between gender atypicality and peer victimization, under-
attention. To appraise oneself as being gender typical involves scoring the importance of peer dynamics surrounding GI develop-
considering both the specific and more abstract features of one’s ment for adolescent psychosocial adjustment (Drury, Bukowski,
gender to derive a global view of oneself (e.g., “Overall, I am/am Velásquez, & Stella-Lopez, 2013). Finally, little is known about
not a good fit for my gender category”; Spence, 1985; Egan & peer relations correlates or antecedents of gender intergroup bias.
Perry, 2001). Younger children may appraise their typicality based However, evidence regarding gender-related biases (e.g., ho-
on their activities and playmate preferences, whereas older chil- mophobic biases; Poteat, 2007) has documented peer contributions
dren may expand their perspectives and take into account person- in influencing such attitudes.
 1580 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

The notion that the peer context may shape emerging self- ethnic, socioeconomic background, and other characteristics (Aboud
concepts of GI is consistent with a large body of evidence docu- & Mendelson, 1996; Mehta & Strough, 2009; McPherson, Smith-
menting that the peer group is a potent source of influence for Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Second, given that preference for similarity
adolescents (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Dishion & Tipsord, on gender-typed behaviors has been shown in children’s peer
2011). Adolescents spend increasingly higher amount of time in networks (Martin et al., 2013), preferences to affiliate with friends
the company of their peers (Larson & Richards, 1991), whose who have similar levels of GI self-concepts may also contribute to
motivational and affective salience is heightened (Parker, Rubin, friendship network selection. The final contribution to network
Erath, Wojslawowicz, & Buskirk, 2006), making peer experiences selection comes from structural processes describing how connec-
relevant for shaping GI. Youth may be susceptible to peer influ- tions between individuals depend on the nature of their ties with
ence due to an increased capacity for making social comparisons other members of a group (e.g., triad closure, or a tendency to form
(Ruble & Dweck, 1995), or due to increased peer pressure to ties with friends of friends; Snijders et al., 2010). Triad closure, as
conform to social norms (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Yunger, well as other structural processes (i.e., reciprocity, popularity), will
Carver, & Perry, 2004). Specifically, social comparisons to own- further amplify network selection on individual attributes, such as
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

gender peers allow youth opportunities to weigh how they com- gender and GI (Wimmer & Lewis, 2010). The consequence of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

pare to others in their gender group and change their behaviors to these multiple, intertwined processes generating networks is that if
become more similar to perceived peer group norms. Becoming we attempt to study peer influence on GI within a network without
more similar to peer group norms may foster a positive self- statistically controlling for network selection processes, we are
concept (Gibbons, Gerrard, & Lane, 2003) and increase a sense of likely to obtain inflated estimates of peer socialization effects. For
belongingness (Walton, Cohen, Cwir, & Spencer, 2012). Overall, these reasons, SABM methods are gaining popularity in develop-
emerging mastery of social comparison (Ruble & Dweck, 1995) mental science research focusing on peer socialization of various
combined with an increasingly rich peer environment, may lead to outcomes (e.g., Veenstra et al., 2013).
changes in adolescent’s social and personal identities, including
GI.
The Present Study
Another source of peer influence on GI involves peer rewards
and punishments for gender-related behaviors. A number of stud- Decades of research underscore the role of peers in gender
ies have illustrated that negative sanctions (or less acceptance) for socialization, but no studies to-date have examined whether youth
certain behaviors may be directed toward adolescents who are become more similar to their friends on dimensions of GI. Because
gender atypical or who behave in atypical ways (Horn, 2008; GI is an evolving aspect of the self, its development needs to be
Jewell & Brown, 2014; Leaper & Brown, 2008; Lee & Troop- considered over time; thus, our use of SABM permits estimating
Gordon, 2011). It is likely that adolescents are sensitive to mes- changes in GI as a part of the network-behavior co-evolution,
sages from peers about gender typicality expressed through gender which is an important methodological advantage. For each dimen-
teasing or bullying (Drury, Bukowski, Velásquez, & Stella-Lopez, sion of GI, SABM estimates peer influence on GI while controlling
2013). Peers may also play a role in contributing to youth’s sense for confounding processes including the effects of youth selecting
of felt pressure for gender conformity through peers’ acceptance or peers who are similar to themselves on gender and GI dimensions,
nonacceptance of youth’s behaviors, appearance, or interests. In- as well as network structural processes. We examined peer influ-
deed, adolescents, who felt strong pressure to conform to gender ence on GI by using panel data on GI and friendship networks
norms, became less accepted by their peers (Yunger et al., 2004). collected from seventh- and eighth-grade students from an ethni-
Presumably, peers may also influence each other to develop gender cally diverse public middle school. We hypothesized that adoles-
group-related biases because these comments are likely expressed cents would change their GI self-concepts to become similar to
overtly and can be easily overheard or observed. Although the their friends, and that these effects would occur even when net-
evidence is limited, these studies suggest that peers express the work selection effects were controlled. We also explored the
norms of their group and are involved in the reinforcement of possibility of peer influence being more pronounced on certain
similar views within their group. dimensions of GI rather than others, informed by the distinction
between between-gender and within-gender dimensions of GI
Contributions From SNA to the Study of Peer (Pauletti et al., 2014). We hypothesized stronger peer influence
effects on between-gender dimensions of GI (intergroup bias and
Influence on GI Development
felt pressure for gender conformity) than on within-gender dimen-
Investigating peer influence on GI dimensions without control- sions of GI (typicality and contentedness). This pattern was ex-
ling for how adolescents come to have a particular network of pected due to the differences in salience of peer feedback and
friends (i.e., network selection) risks overestimating the impor- social norms for the two dimensions. Specifically, we expected
tance of peer influence in GI development. Fortunately, stochastic stronger socialization effects for between-gender dimensions be-
actor-based modeling (SABM) methods have been developed to cause this information may be made very salient: youth may
estimate peer socialization effects while controlling for alternative engage in discussions about the other gender collective, similar to
processes implicated in peer network selection (Snijders et al., how they discuss stigmatized racial groups (Kiesner, Maass,
2010). Consider the following processes linking gender and GI Cadinu, & Vallese, 2003), which would contribute to reinforce-
self-concepts to network selection. First, developmental and social ment and magnification of gender differences and peer socializa-
networks literatures show that homophily, or preference for similar tion of between-gender identity self-concepts. Increased salience
others, contributes to friendship formation such that friend choices of social categories, such as gender could occur in these peer
are driven by preferences for friends who are of the same gender, discussions, and it is one factor that has been proposed as contrib-
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1581

uting to social stereotyping and prejudice in developmental inter- Table 1

group theory (Bigler & Liben, 2007). We anticipated weaker Descriptive Statistics on Sociodemographic Characteristics of
socialization effects for within-gender dimensions because these the Sample
aspects of self-concept appear to be driven largely by private
cognitive processes comparing how adolescents view themselves Characteristic Grade 7 Grade 8
in relation to their own gender, although there may be some Boy 46% 53%
contribution by external social forces. Given the largely private Age, M (SD) 12.12 (0.53) 13.15 (0.52)
nature of gender typicality and contentedness, we expected these Ethnic/racial background
aspects of GI to be less susceptible to peer influence than the other European American 12% 11%
African American 16% 19%
two aspects of GI. Native American 8% 7%
A related goal of this study is to explore how peers select their Latina/o 57% 56%
friends (i.e., network selection). Consistent with large literature Other race/ethnicity 7% 8%
documenting gender segregation in peer groups (e.g., Maccoby, Free/reduced lunch 79.9% 79.2%
Generational status of parents
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1998; Mehta & Strough, 2009), we expected that adolescents

Both U.S. born 47.2% 43.5%
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

would have a tendency to select peers based on being of the same One parent foreign born 11.7% 12.8%
gender. Because past research has documented that children prefer Both parents foreign born 40.5% 42.2%
to affiliate with others who have similar levels of gender-typed Languages spoken at home
activities (Martin et al., 2013), it is possible that youth may prefer English 37.8% 37.6%
Spanish 3.0% 1.6%
to form friendships with those who have similar levels of GI dimen- English and Spanish 54.8% 53.7%
sions (both between- and within-gender self-concepts). Given that Other language 4.3% 6.7%
past research has documented that intergroup bias and felt pressure Family structure
for gender conformity can translate into externalizing problems Two-parent family 63.6% 57.2%
Single-parent family 29.8% 32.6%
and peer difficulties (Carver et al., 2003; Smith & Leaper, 2006;
Yunger et al., 2004), we anticipated that these between-gender Note. Each categorical variable was dummy-coded (1 ⫽ yes, 0 ⫽ no).
self-concepts would be deleterious for friendship selection dynam-
ics and thus negatively associated with the number of friendship loca parentis of the study. All study recruitment and measurement
nominations sent out to and received from grade-mates. On the procedures were approved by the school district and the universi-
other hand, because the same research has shown that within- ty’s institutional review board. Rates of participation of the student
gender dimensions have positive effects on peer acceptance and population in our study were high in any given wave by grade,
social skills, we expected that gender typicality and contentedness ranging from 89% to 96% across waves.
would promote friendship network selection processes and be The present study includes all students who participated in the
associated with higher number of friendship nominations sent and study from seventh and eighth grades between Fall 2011 and
received. Past research has documented that relative to girls, boys Spring 2012 (i.e., Wave 2 and 3 of the larger study). Wave 1 data
endorse higher levels of some of the GI dimensions (e.g., felt of the larger study were rendered unusable for two reasons. First,
pressure; Ruble et al., 2006); thus, as a final exploratory goal, we the questionnaire at Wave 1 (Spring 2011) did not include the final
examine whether gender differences exist in network selection and version of the felt pressure subscale. Second, due to another
in the magnitude of peer network influence. school’s closure in the district, 142 new students were added to
seventh grade (48% of total seventh-grade population at Wave 2)
Method and 95 new students from another school were added to Grade 8
(30% of total eighth-grade population at Wave 2) during the fall of
Participants 2011. Given this addition of large number of new students due to
the closing of a nearby school, the proportion of stable ties based
Participants of the present study were part of a large study on Jaccard index between Spring 2011 (Wave 1) and Fall 11
examining longitudinal associations between identity develop- (Wave 2) fell below 13.5%, which violates SABM assumption that
ment, psychological adjustment, friendship networks and educa- network ties represent stable states (as opposed to brief events,
tional outcomes (Kornienko & Santos, 2014; Santos, Kornienko, & Snijders et al., 2010). Thus, we focused on Waves 2 and 3 of the
Rivas-Drake, in press; Santos & Updegraff, 2014). This study was larger study, and, unfortunately, also had to exclude 6 graders who
conducted at a large Title I public middle school in a southwestern participated in Waves 2 and 3 from the current analysis because
U.S. metropolitan city, where 89.7% students were racially and only 16% of the friendships present at both time points were
ethnically diverse, including 62.5% Latina/o students, and 85.5% present at either one of the time points (based on Jaccard index, see
of students were eligible for a free and reduced-price lunch (see Snijders et al., 2010). This indicates there was not enough stability
Table 1 for a more detailed description of sociodemographic in 6th graders’ friendships to support the SABM assumption that
characteristics of this sample). All students (N ⫽ 1052) attending friendships represent stable states. Because 19% of seventh grad-
sixth, seventh, and eighth grades were invited to participate in the ers’ friendships and 22% of eighth graders’ friendships remained
study. Teachers introduced the study to students and parents via an stable from Wave 2 to 3 (based on Jaccard index), the analytical
informational letter in either English or Spanish (to accommodate sample was restricted to students from seventh and eighth grades
Spanish-speaking parents). In this letter, parents were given the from Waves 2 and 3 of the larger study. For simplicity, they are
option to opt out of their child’s participation in the study as the herein referred to as Wave 1 and 2 of this longitudinal network-
study used a passive consent procedure since the school served as behavior study.
 1582 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

Our analytic sample (N ⫽ 670) consisted of 330 students from were .86 across the grades at Wave 1 and .89 at Wave 2). A higher
seventh grade and 340 students from eighth grade for whom peer score indicates feelings that one is a typical member of their
nomination and survey data were obtained. In Wave 1, 95% of gender category. We also adapted Egan and Perry’s gender peer
seventh graders and 96% of eighth graders completed our survey. felt pressure scale because the original scale includes 10 items
In Wave 2, 92% of seventh graders and 94% of eighth graders assessing felt pressure from peers as well as family. Because these
completed our survey. Considering the percentage of students who may represent distinct sources of pressure, and because we are
participated in the study at both time-points, 84.9% of students particularly interested in felt pressure from peers, we kept only
from seventh grade and 87.2% of students from eighth grade four adapted items that assessed felt pressure from peers (e.g.,
completed assessments at both time points. Boys comprised 46% “Other kids, who are girls like me, would get upset if someone
of seventh and 53% of eighth grades. The mean age for seventh who is a girl acts like a boy”). The gender peer felt pressure scale
graders was 12.12 (SD ⫽ .53) and for eighth graders, it was 13.15 was shown to be internally consistent and reliable (Cronbach’s
(SD ⫽ .52). For each grade, we provided descriptive information alpha’s were .75 across the grades at Wave 1 and .92 at Wave 2).
(see Table 1) on the percentage of students receiving free/reduced
The gender intergroup bias scale adapted for the present study
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

lunch (school-district reported proxy for socioeconomical status),

consisted of three items (original measure consists of eight), and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

generational status of parents, languages spoken at home, and

the adapted version of this scale was shown to be internally
family structure.
consistent and reliable (Cronbach’s alpha’s were .85 across the
grades at Wave 1 and .85 at Wave 2). A higher score indicates
Procedure negative feelings toward the other gender group. In order to
All participating students completed a survey packet in their measure gender contentedness (the degree to which one feels
classrooms. Nonparticipating students were asked to read a book content with one’s gender group), we adapted Sellers, Smith,
or complete homework assignment during survey administration. Shelton, Rowley, and Chavous (1998) measure of private regard (3
Student assent was obtained on the day of data collection. The items). We did so because the items in the Sellers et al. (1998)
survey was completed in English as all students were fluent in scale are already in Likert-format and due to similarities to the
English. Research staff read the survey aloud to the students to Egan and Perry measure of contentedness (for a boy, e.g., “I feel
facilitate comprehension, and individual assistance was provided good about being a boy”). In keeping with our use of Egan and
to students if needed. The survey took approximately two class Perry’s framing, we refer hereafter to this adapted scale as gender
periods (⬃90 min) total to complete, and students responded contentedness. The gender contentedness scale was shown to be
questions about their identity, psychological and educational out- internally consistent and reliable (Cronbach’s alpha’s were .64
comes on Day 1, and completed friendship nominations on Day 2. across the grades at Wave 1 and .76 at Wave 2). A higher score
To thank participants for their time, all students received a small indicates feelings that one is content with one’s gender category.
gift (i.e., a pen and a water bottle with the school’s logo). Because SABM requires discrete ordinal behavioral outcome vari-
ables, we recoded each of the continuous GI variables into ordinal
Measures variables. Each was recoded to four levels, using increments of 1
SD of the continuous z-score (z ⬍ ⫺1, ⫺1 ⱕ z ⬍ 0, 0 ⱕ z ⬍ 1,
GI. We developed a modification of Egan and Perry’s (2001) z ⱖ 1; e.g., Delay, Ha, Van Ryzin, Winter, & Dishion, 2016).
measure of GI to assess the five dimensions of GI: self- Friendship networks. Participants received a roster listing all
identification as a member in a gender category (assessed as a students from their grade and were asked to nominate up to 10
categorical question in the demographic section of our survey), and friends of either gender. These friendship nomination data were
four continuous measures of GI: gender typicality (the degree to used to construct friendship network matrices of seventh and
which one feels as a typical member of one’s gender group), felt eighth grade students for Wave 1 and Wave 2 such that these
pressure from peers for gender conformity (the degree to which
matrices contained unilateral (i.e., A nominated B) friendship
one feels pressure from peers to conformity to gender stereotypes),
nominations that were coded in a binary fashion such that 1
and intergroup bias (the degree to which one holds negative views
denoted that a friendship tie existed between A and B, and 0
toward the other gender). In a study with a similar sample (i.e.,
indicated no tie existed between A and B.
multiethnic, 9 to 14-year-olds) conducted in the same region as the
Demographic variables. Adolescents reported their gender
present study, the Harter response format (originally used by Egan
and Perry) was shown to be confusing to children (Michaels, Barr, (male ⫽ 1, female ⫽ 0) and race/ethnicity (dummy-coded: 1 ⫽
Roosa, & Knight, 2007), therefore, we used a Likert format to yes, 0 ⫽ no, for the following categories: English European
assess the four continuous measures of GI with response options to American, African American, Native American, Latina/o, Other
the items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Race/Ethnicity), language spoken at home (dummy-coded: 1 ⫽
In order to use a Likert scale, we also had to make minor modi- yes, 0 ⫽ no, for the following categories: English, Spanish,
fications in the wording of the questions. For gender typicality, both English and Spanish, and other language), family structure
questions included, for example (for girls), “I feel that I am just (two parent ⫽ 1 vs. single parent ⫽ 0), and generational status
like all other girls” (see the appendix in the Online Supplemental (dummy-coded: 1 ⫽ yes, 0 ⫽ no, for the following categories:
materials for all items in these scales). The gender typicality both U.S. born, one parent foreign born, both parents foreign
adapted scale for the present study consisted of five items (original born). The district provided data on each student’s free and
measure consists of six), and the adapted version of this scale was reduced lunch status (a proxy for socioeconomic status, coded
shown to be internally consistent and reliable (Cronbach’s alpha’s 1 ⫽ yes, 0 ⫽ no).
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1583

Overview of Stochastic Actor-Based Modeling iprocity captured whether adolescents were more likely to nomi-
nate peers who had nominated them. We used geometrically
Employing SABM approach provides key advantages for the weighted edgewise shared partners (GWESP) effects and an inter-
study of peer influence on GI dimensions because it allows for action of GWESP and reciprocity to model triadic closure pro-
estimation of the degree of peer influence on changes in GI cesses by assessing whether having multiple friends in common
dimensions while controlling for a host of potentially confounding increased the likelihood of friendship formation. The indegree
processes, including (a) initial selection into friendships based on popularity effect estimated whether students who previously re-
gender and similar levels of GI aspects and (b) network structural ceived more nominations were more likely to receive additional
processes (e.g., reciprocity and popularity). nominations over time. The indegree activity effect estimated
Model overview. The SABM consists of two submodels that whether students who received more nominations were more likely
are simultaneously estimated (Snijders et al., 2010). The network to send out a greater number of nominations. Finally, the outde-
submodel tests the likelihood of friendship ties between adoles- gree activity effect estimated whether students who previously sent
cents based on various network selection processes. The behavior out a higher number of ties were more likely to subsequently send
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

submodel captures effects related to changes in GI over time. The many ties. We used a square-root transformation of these activity
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

model estimates changes between the observed networks using a and popularity effects to give greater weight to differences in
continuous-time Markov process that allows for a sequence of a popularity and activity at low versus high levels. The network
large number of unobserved microsteps to be taken between ob- function also included effects for outdegree, which controlled for
servation points (one network tie or a behavior can be changed in the number of ties. Finally, network rate effect represented net-
one microstep). An evaluation function describes the “rules” that work change opportunities.
guide actors’ decisions, which are the model parameters for the Turning to the behavior submodel, we tested two effects that
hypothesized selection and influence effects. A rate function de- represent feedback on the four dimensions of GI. The linear shape
termines how many opportunities for change occurs between effect expresses the basic tendency toward higher or lower values
waves. Model estimation uses a method of moments procedure to of GI, whereas the quadratic shape effect allows for the self-
estimate parameters. This procedure calculates summary statistics reinforcement of GI that can result in a bimodal distribution of GI.
based on the effects included in the model. These statistics are We then estimated the peer influence effect on each of the four GI
counts that represent various network structures, such as the num- dimensions using total similarity effect. This effect predicts
ber of gender homophilous dyads, observed at Time 2 (for details, changes in GI based upon how similar an adolescent’s GI is to the
see Snijders, Steglich, & Schweinberger, 2007). The goal during total levels of GI across all of his or her friends. A positive effect
estimation is to identify parameter values that allow the model to indicates that changes in GI bring an adolescent closer to his or her
produce networks whose summary statistics match those observed friends’ level of GI. This effect is weighted by the total number of
in the data (i.e., at Time 2). The estimation algorithm reaches friends, and thus it considers the overall level of a particular aspect
convergence when t statistics representing deviations between the of GI in a friendship network. Lastly, for each of GI dimensions,
observed and model-implied networks are less than 0.1 for each the models included distinct rates representing behavior change
model parameter and less than 0.25 across all of the model pa- opportunities.
rameters. Model parameters are tested for significance based on a
t-ratio (estimate divided by the standard error). Results
Model effects. With respect to the SABM specification, for
the network submodel, we considered three types of effects on
Descriptive Analyses
network selection for each of the four dimensions of GI. The GI
ego effect estimates the effect of GI (e.g., typicality, felt pressure) For each grade, we present descriptive statistics for the sample
on an adolescent’s tendency to nominate others as friends. A in Table 1. Zero-order correlations among GI dimensions are
positive effect would indicate that adolescents with greater levels presented for each grade by gender in Table 2. Results indicated
of GI nominated more friends over time. The GI alter effect relative stability in GI dimensions from Time 1 to 2: significant
describes how GI affects adolescents’ likelihood of receiving nom- and positive correlations were found between Waves 1 and 2 for
inations from peers. A positive effect would indicate that adoles- gender typicality, intergroup bias, felt pressure, and contentedness,
cents with higher levels of GI (e.g., typicality, felt pressure) were for both boys and girls from seventh and eighth grades. Correla-
more likely to be nominated as friends by their peers. In our tions across GI dimensions are presented for each grade and by
preliminary models, we also considered alter squared effect that gender in Table 2. Results reveal relatively low but significant
accounts for nonlinearity in the associations between GI dimen- associations and somewhat similar patterns across the two grades.
sions and incoming friendship ties; however, these effects were not To examine gender differences in GI dimensions, we used
significant and thus were omitted from the final models. The GI independent samples t tests and reported Cohen’s d values, which
similarity effect estimates the tendency of adolescents to nominate assessed the magnitude of mean-level differences in GI dimen-
friends who have similar levels of respective GI self-construct sions that is attributable to each gender (Cohen, 1988; Table 3).
(measured by their absolute difference). A positive effect of GI For seventh graders, results showed gender differences at Waves 1
similarity would mean that adolescents were more likely to form and 2 in typicality, intergroup bias, and felt pressure. Specifically,
friendships among peers with similar levels of GI. Additionally, at both waves, boys reported feeling more gender typical and
we estimated the effect of similarity on gender and ethnic/racial reported more felt pressure for gender conformity from peers than
background on the likelihood of network selection. Finally, we girls. However, girls reported higher intergroup bias than boys at
included parameters for several network structural processes. Rec- both waves. Interestingly, there were no significant gender differ-
 1584 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

Table 2
Correlations Among GI Dimensions Per Grade

Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 grade
1. GI typicality Wave 1 — .475ⴱⴱ .259ⴱⴱ .125 ⫺.103 .080 .150 ⫺.017
2. GI typicality Wave 2 .578ⴱⴱ — .134 .395ⴱⴱ ⫺.023 ⫺.057 .069 .001
3. GI contentedness Wave 1 .438ⴱⴱ .329ⴱⴱ — .317ⴱⴱ .100 .023 .106 ⫺.013
4. GI contentedness Wave 2 .450ⴱⴱ .438ⴱⴱ .549ⴱⴱ — .064 .140 ⫺.012 .120
5. GI intergroup bias Wave 1 .267ⴱⴱ .334ⴱⴱ .258ⴱⴱ .214ⴱⴱ — .250ⴱⴱ ⫺.130 .071
6. GI intergroup bias Wave 2 .241ⴱⴱ .233ⴱⴱ .306ⴱⴱ .470ⴱⴱ .395ⴱⴱ — .056 .120
7. GI felt pressure Wave 1 ⫺.068 ⫺.11 ⫺.183ⴱ ⫺.226ⴱ .163ⴱ ⫺.003 — .429ⴱⴱ
8. GI felt pressure Wave 2 ⫺.108 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ .141 ⫺.213ⴱ ⫺.071 ⫺.119 .412ⴱⴱ —
8 grade
1. GI typicality Wave 1 — .522ⴱⴱ .434ⴱⴱ .210ⴱ .042 ⫺.044 .093 .020
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2. GI typicality Wave 2 .685ⴱⴱ — .274ⴱⴱ .388ⴱⴱ .086 .086 .161 .213ⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

3. GI contentedness Wave 1 .402ⴱⴱ .495ⴱⴱ — .398ⴱⴱ .035 ⫺.091 .226ⴱⴱ .035

4. GI contentedness Wave 2 .306ⴱⴱ .570ⴱⴱ .538ⴱⴱ — ⫺.054 .055 .125 .254ⴱⴱ
5. GI intergroup bias Wave 1 .075 .188ⴱ .180ⴱ .141 — .424ⴱⴱ ⫺.025 ⫺.156
6. GI intergroup bias Wave 2 .294ⴱⴱ .382ⴱⴱ .246ⴱⴱ .230ⴱ .316ⴱⴱ — ⫺.141 ⫺.025
7. GI felt pressure Wave 1 .018 ⫺.057 ⫺.011 ⫺.028 ⫺.033 ⫺.022 — .274ⴱⴱ
8. GI felt pressure Wave 2 .001 .091 .028 .045 .111 .165 .465ⴱⴱ —
Note. GI ⫽ gender identity. Boys are above the diagonal and girls below the diagonal. Ns range from 240 to 333.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

ences in contentedness at either waves. Results were similar for 2246 among eighth-grade students; at Wave 2, there were 1881
eighth grade, with the exception of contentedness at Wave 1, in and 2306 friendships in these grade-level networks. To assess the
which girls reported feeling more gender contentedness than boys. degree of network change, we calculated the Jaccard index, which
Considering network characteristics for the two grade-level net- denotes the proportion of ties that are present at both waves. These
works, our descriptive analyses revealed that at Wave 1, on aver- indices were .19 for seventh and .22 for eighth grades suggesting
age, seventh graders nominated 6.33 friends and eighth graders a sufficient balance of stability and change in friendships over
reported 6.83 friendship ties (at Wave 2, the respective average time, making the SABM approach suitable (Snijders et al., 2010).
outdegrees were 6.02 and 6.98). We observed that the grade-level
networks had a fairly low density (i.e., proportion of existing
Overview of SABM Analyses
friendship ties relative to the total possible ties) of .02, sug-
gesting that most of the total possible ties in the network do not We estimated two types of models for each of the two grades.
exist. In Wave 1, there were 2032 ties among seventh-grade and The first model addressed our main goal of examining peer net-

Table 3
Gender Differences in GI Dimension Per Grade

7 Grade 8 Grade
Dimension M SD t df Cohen’s d M SD t df Cohen’s d
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Girl GI typicality Wave 1 3.51 0.93 ⫺4.46 295 ⫺0.52 3.43 0.88 ⫺3.80 311 ⫺0.43
Boy GI typicality Wave 1 3.95 0.73 3.81 0.87
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Girl GI typicality Wave 2 3.38 0.90 ⫺4.60 271 ⫺0.56 3.32 0.84 ⫺4.81 288 ⫺0.57
Boy GI typicality Wave 2 3.86 0.813 3.80 0.85
Girl GI intergroup bias Wave 1 3.52 1.03 8.20ⴱⴱ 295 0.95 3.41 0.91 7.54ⴱⴱ 310 0.86
Boy GI intergroup bias Wave 1 2.61 0.86 2.65 0.86
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Girl GI intergroup bias Wave 2 3.50 0.96 6.85 269 0.83 3.26 0.93 6.21 287 0.73
Boy GI intergroup bias Wave 2 2.75 0.82 2.60 0.88
Girl GI felt pressure Wave 1 2.49 1.06 ⫺11.05ⴱⴱ 294 ⫺1.29 2.41 0.98 ⫺13.68ⴱⴱ 309 ⫺1.56
Boy GI felt pressure Wave 1 3.84 1.03 4.02 1.07
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Girl GI felt pressure Wave 2 2.40 1.05 ⫺8.77 268 ⫺1.07 2.420 .95 ⫺11.70 287 ⫺1.38
Boy GI felt pressure Wave 2 3.65 1.27 3.85 1.11
Girl GI contentedness Wave 1 4.37 0.67 ⫺0.02 295 0 4.33 0.62 1.98ⴱ 311 0.22
Boy GI contentedness Wave 1 4.37 0.56 4.20 0.58
Girl GI contentedness Wave 2 4.25 0.72 ⫺0.72 271 ⫺0.09 4.13 0.79 ⫺1.55 287 ⫺0.18
Boy GI contentedness Wave 2 4.32 0.67 4.26 0.65
Note. GI ⫽ gender identity. The effect size corresponding to Cohen’s d is determined using the following ranges (Cohen, 1988): small (.2–.3), medium
(.31–.50), and large (⬎.8) effect sizes.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1585

work influence on GI dimensions while controlling for contribu- mity. We also observed significant and positive peer influence on
tions of gender and GI to network selection as well as network intergroup bias among both seventh and eighth graders (est. ⫽ .80,
structural effects. A second model addressed our exploratory goal p ⬍ .001; est. ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .001). Considering the magnitude of
of examining whether gender moderated peer network influence these effects, the results show that for seventh graders, having one
and network selection on the four dimensions of GI. We conducted additional friend who felt higher levels of intergroup bias than the
these analyses using RSiena 4.0 (version 1.1–290; Ripley, Sni- focal individual increased the odds for the focal youth to also
jders, Boda, Voros, & Preciado, 2016) in R (version 3.3, R-Project; increase their levels of intergroup bias compared with no change
http://www.r-project.org). We followed the recommended forward- by a factor of exp(.80/3) ⫽ 1.31, or a 31% increase in the odds of
fitting model specification approach to avoid multicollinearity GI change. Among eighth graders, the same scenario of peer
among network effects (Snijders et al., 2010). This iterative ap- influence would result in an increase of intergroup bias change by
proach uses a score-type test to compare the fit of statistics a factor of exp(.52/3) ⫽ 1.19, or an 19% increase in the odds of GI
representing potential effects with the effect included versus ex- change. Finally, we did not document significant peer influence
cluded from the model (Schweinberger, 2012). Effects that are effects for gender typicality and gender contentedness (i.e., the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

significant, indicating that they are likely to improve the fit of the within-person dimensions of GI) in the networks of seventh or
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

model, are sequentially included. Our preliminary score-type test eighth graders.
analyses indicated that there were no significant gender differences Network selection on gender and GI dimensions. To deter-
in contributions of GI components to network selection, but there mine whether influence occurred and to obtain unbiased estimates
were potential gender differences in magnitude of peer influence of influence, we examined these processes in a model that also
and GI dimensions levels, which were examined in the second controlled for network selection on GI dimensions of interest (i.e.,
model. Additionally, because students were given an option to how GI affects initial selection of friends; Network Selection
nominate up to 10 friends, we initially specified maximum outde- Dynamics, Model 1, Table 4). Thus, we assessed how the four GI
gree to be 10. When evaluating the goodness of fit, which com- dimensions were associated with network selection. Our results
pares characteristics of model-implied simulated networks to the showed that eighth graders befriended others with similar levels of
characteristics of the observed network at Time 2, we discovered gender contentedness (est. ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .01) and gender typicality
that our model implied simulated data had fewer networks with (est. ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .05). We found that both seventh and eighth
outdegrees of 9 and 10 compared with the observed data. This graders who reported higher levels of gender contentedness were
lower simulated count of outdegrees occurred because for those more like to send out a higher number of friendship ties (est. ⫽ .12,
individuals with 10 outgoing ties, the model proceeded by drop- p ⬍ .05; est. ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .01). Our results showed that seventh
ping ties and adding new ties, not necessarily exchanging ties. graders with higher levels of intergroup bias were less likely to be
Thus, in the final models we specified maximum outdegree to be nominated as friends by their peers (est. ⫽ ⫺.08, p ⬍ .05). We
11 to approximate the number of higher outdegrees in simulated found no evidence that adolescents selected friends based on
networks and improve the goodness of fit. We present the good- similarity on levels of intergroup bias or on felt pressure for
ness of fit for the first model for seventh and eighth grades (see gender conformity.
Figures 1A and 1B in the online supplementary materials). Finally, Network selection on control variables and network struc-
in the presented models, convergence was achieved because t tural processes. Our modeling approach obtained estimates of
statistics representing deviations between the observed and model- network influence and selection on GI dimensions, while control-
implied networks were less than 0.1 for individual model param- ling for several confounding network selection and network struc-
eters and less than 0.25 across all of the model parameters. tural processes. When studying associations between GI self-
Peer influence on GI dimensions. We begin by considering concepts and networks, the key process to control for is gender
the results of Model 1, which addressed our goal of examining peer segregation in friendship networks. Our models included such
influence on GI while controlling for network selection dynamics controls and revealed a significant homophily on gender in both
(GI Dynamics, Model 1, Table 4). Whereas we expected to find grades (est. ⫽ .43, p ⬍ .001, OR ⫽ 1.54 for seventh graders; est. ⫽
network influence on GI, we considered the possibility that the .25, p ⬍ .001, OR ⫽ 1.28 for eighth graders) suggesting that
four dimensions of GI may show differing levels of influence, with friendship ties were 54% more likely to be formed among seventh
influence being greater for the between-gender aspects of GI. As graders of the same gender and 28% more likely among eighth
anticipated, we found evidence for significant and positive peer graders of the same gender. We also controlled for contribution of
influence on felt pressure for gender conformity for eighth graders similarity on ethnic/racial background as affecting the likelihood
(est. ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .05) suggesting that, over time, these students’ of friendship ties. In both grades, we found significant and positive
levels of gender felt peer pressure became similar to those of their Latina/o similarity effect suggesting that friendships were more
friends compared with those with whom they were not friends. To likely to form among Latina/o youth (est. ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .001; est. ⫽
assess the magnitude of this effect, we calculated odds ratio for .10, p ⬍ .001). Among eighth graders only, we also documented
change in these dimensions of GI (see Ripley et al., 2016 for that students were more likely to select each other as friends if both
details). Having one additional friend who felt higher level of of them were African American (est. ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .001). In both
pressure for gender conformity than the focal individual increased grades, being in the same Social Studies classroom increased the
the odds for the focal youth to also increase their levels of felt odds of friendship ties (est. ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .001; est. ⫽ .51, p ⬍ .001).
pressure by a factor of exp(.31/3) ⫽ 1.11, compared with no In addition to estimating these confounding network selection
change in this GI dimension. This means that eighth-grade students processes, we also included network structural effects (e.g., reci-
had an 11% increase in the odds of GI change when at least on procity, transitivity) in our models. We found that adolescents’
their friends had a higher level of felt pressure for gender confor- networks were formed through several common network structural
 1586 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

Table 4
SABM Results for Peer Influence on GI and Network Selection on GI

7th grade 8th grade

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Effects Est. St. Er p Est. St. Er p Est. St. Er p Est. St. Er p

GI dynamics
GI typicality linear shape ⫺.02 .08 ⫺.03 .10 .10 .09 .12 .10
GI typicality quadratic ⫺.12 .19 ⫺.30 .24 .01 .18 ⫺.21 .24
Peer influence on GI typicality .10 .22 ⫺.08 .26 .32 .22 .13 .25
ⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
GI typicality from Boy .56 .26 .62 .21
Peer influence on GI Typicality ⫻ Boy ⫺.29 .21 .02 .21
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
GI contentedness linear shape .31 .09 .30 .09 .11 .07 .11 .07
GI contentedness quadratic shape ⫺.18 .21 ⫺.17 .18 .09 .14 .09 .15
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Peer influence on GI contentedness ⫺.23 .25 ⫺.23 .23 .13 .17 .13 .18
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ⴱ
GI contentedness from Boy .11 .16 .34 .15
Peer influence on GI Contentedness ⫻ Boy .03 .18 .06 .17
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Intergroup bias linear shape .10 .10 .05 .11 .28 .09 .27 .10
Intergroup bias quadratic shape .26 .18 .01 .23 .13 .15 ⫺.04 .18
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Peer influence on intergroup bias .80 .29 .61 .32 .52 .19 .36 .21
Intergroup bias from Boy ⫺.45 .29 ⫺.33 .20
Peer influence on intergroup bias ⫻ Boy .59 .35 ⫺.12 .21
Felt pressure linear shape .10 .07 .09 .07 .05 .08 .05 .08
Felt pressure quadratic shape .15 .11 ⫺.05 .20 .15 .11 ⫺.15 .19
ⴱ
Peer influence on felt pressure .24 .14 .02 .22 .31 .15 .05 .20
ⴱ
Felt pressure from Boy .46 .31 .68 .30
Peer influence on felt pressure ⫻ Boy ⫺.11 .18 ⫺.23 .20

Network dynamics
GI effects on network selection
GI typicality alter ⫺.02 .03 ⫺.02 .04 ⫺.03 .03 ⫺.03 .03
ⴱ
GI typicality ego ⫺.01 .05 ⫺.01 .04 ⫺.10 .05 ⫺.11 .06
ⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
GI typicality similarity .34 .17 .34 .19 .31 .15 .31 .16
GI contentedness alter .06 .05 .06 .05 ⫺.02 .04 ⫺.02 .04
ⴱ ⴱ ⴱⴱ
GI contentedness ego .12 .06 .12 .06 .12 .05 .11 .06
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
GI contentedness similarity ⫺.08 .26 ⫺.08 .24 .42 .17 .42 .16
ⴱ
Intergroup bias alter ⫺.08 .04 ⫺.08 .05 .04 .04 .05 .04
Intergroup bias ego ⫺.02 .06 ⫺.02 .07 .05 .06 .05 .07
Intergroup bias similarity ⫺.39 .20 ⫺.40 .26 ⫺.07 .19 ⫺.07 .23
Felt pressure alter .01 .04 .01 .05 .02 .03 .02 .04
Felt pressure ego ⫺.01 .05 ⫺.01 .06 .05 .05 .06 .06
ⴱ ⴱ
Felt pressure similarity ⫺.39 .18 ⫺.42 .21 .03 .14 .03 .15
Individual attributes effects on network selection
Boy alter ⫺.11 .08 ⫺.11 .09 ⫺.02 .07 ⫺.02 .07
Boy ego ⫺.01 .09 ⫺.01 .11 ⫺.04 .08 ⫺.06 .10
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Boy similarity .43 .05 .44 .06 .25 .04 .24 .05
European American similarity .07 .07 .06 .08 .12 .07 .12 .07
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
African American similarity .08 .06 .08 .06 .19 .05 .19 .05
Native American similarity .06 .08 .07 .08 .03 .08 .04 .08
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱ
Latina/o similarity .16 .05 .16 .05 .10 .04 .10 .04
Other ethnicity similarity .09 .09 .09 .10 ⫺.11 .07 ⫺.11 .08
Same wave started .06 .04 .06 .04 .00 .04 .00 .04
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Same classroom .44 .06 .44 .06 .51 .06 .51 .06
Network structural processes
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Network rate 22.93 1.11 22.95 1.41 22.99 .95 22.98 1.22
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Outdegree (density) ⫺1.43 .31 ⫺1.40 .38 ⫺1.87 .33 ⫺1.87 .35
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Reciprocity 1.83 .14 1.82 .15 2.01 .11 2.01 .11
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Number of actors at distance 2 ⫺.16 .04 ⫺.16 .05 ⫺.11 .04 ⫺.11 .03
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
GWESP i ¡ k ¡ j .62 .20 .62 .23 .44 .18 .44 .17
ⴱ
GWESP i ¢ k ¢ j ⫺.04 .12 ⫺.04 .12 ⫺.19 .09 ⫺.19 .11
ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
GWESP i ¡ k ¢ j .50 .23 .50 .21 .84 .12 .83 .20
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
GWESP i ↔ k ↔ j ⫺.60 .15 ⫺.60 .17 ⫺.62 .19 ⫺.62 .12
ⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
Indegree—popularity (sqrt) .09 .04 .09 .05 .07 .03 .07 .03
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Indegree—activity (sqrt) ⫺.09 .11 ⫺.10 .12 ⫺.30 .10 ⫺.29 .12
Outdegree—activity (sqrt) ⫺.09 .07 ⫺.10 .09 .14 .08 .14 .08
Note. Peer influence was parameterized as total similarity. Categorical variables (boy, ethnic/racial categories, same school wave started, same social
studies classroom) were dummy-coded (1 ⫽ yes, 0 ⫽ no). SABM ⫽ stochastic actor-based modeling; GI ⫽ gender identity; GWESP ⫽ geometrically
weighted edgewise shared partners; sqrt ⫽ square root.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001 (all two-tailed).
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1587

processes. Specifically, a high degree of reciprocation of friend- 2011). Using the sienaGOF function, goodness of fit is assessed by
ship nominations was observed (est. ⫽ 2.51, p ⬍ .001; est. ⫽ 3.05, comparing the observed values at the end of the period (i.e., Time
p ⬍ .001). To model transitivity, we examined several GWESP 2) with simulated values from the model (Ripley et al., 2016).
effects that represented relevant triadic configurations. First, a These differences are assessed by the Mahalanobis distance, which
significant and positive GWESP i ¡ k ¡ j effect indicated that at p ⬎ .05 levels suggests that the predicted auxiliary statistic
individual i was increasingly likely to form a connection to j when distribution does not significantly depart from the observed statis-
they had at least one mutual friend k such that i nominated k and tic, indicating adequate fit of the model to the data. Considering
k nominated j, whereas having additional mutual friends beyond k GOF for the seventh-grader network (see Figure 1A in the online
contributed to a smaller extent to this likelihood (est. ⫽ .62, p ⬍ supplemental materials), our results show that the distributions of
.001; est. ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .001). Next, a significant and positive indegrees (p ⫽ .34), triadic configurations (p ⫽ .70), GI content-
GWESP i ¡ k ¢ j effect indicated that individual i was increas- edness (p ⫽ .41), and gender intergroup bias (p ⫽ .26) in the
ingly likely to form a connection to j when they had at least one model-implied simulated networks were not different from the
mutual friend k such that both i and j nominated k, whereas having
distribution of these configurations in the observed network at
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

additional mutual friends beyond k contributed to a smaller extent

Time 2. Our GOF results demonstrated that for the eighth graders
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

to this likelihood (est. ⫽ .50, p ⬍ .05; est. ⫽ .84, p ⬍ .001).

(see Figure 1B in the online supplemental materials) the distribu-
Finally, a significant and negative GWESP i ↔ k ↔ j effect
tions of indegrees (p ⫽ .50), gender typicality (p ⫽ .22), gender
showed that i was less likely to form a connection to j when they
intergroup bias (p ⫽ .30), and felt pressure for gender conformity
had at least one mutual friend k to whom they were connected
through reciprocated ties, whereas having additional mutual recip- (p ⫽ .08) in the model-implied simulated networks were not
rocally connected friends beyond k contributed to a smaller extent different from the distribution of these configurations in the ob-
to this likelihood (est. ⫽ ⫺.60, p ⬍ .001; est. ⫽ ⫺.62, p ⬍ .001). served network at Time 2. These analyses suggest that, overall, our
The negative parameter for the number of actors at distance of 2 is model did a good job at reproducing these properties of the
another indicator of transitivity in the network, suggesting that observed networks. The GOF for outdegree distributions for the
individuals are not friends when they do not have several friends seventh graders (p ⫽ .004) and eighth graders (p ⫽ .007) and
in common (est. ⫽ - 0.16, p ⬍ .001; est. ⫽ - 0.11, p ⬍ .001). In geodesic distance distributions for both age groups (p’s ⫽ .00)
both grades, the positive indegree popularity effect (est. ⫽ .09, p ⬍ showed a significant difference between the model-implied sim-
.05, est. ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05) showed that students who received a high ulated networks and the observed network, suggesting that the
number of friendship nominations were more likely receive addi- model is not perfectly reproducing the distribution of outdegree
tional friendship ties (i.e., network popularity reinforces itself). and geodesic distances. To convey why the outdegree distribu-
Among eighth-grade students, a significant and negative indegree tion was just shy of fitting, we present Figure 1 (see the Online
activity effect indicated that students who received a high number Supplemental materials). In these figures, the red dots and
of friendship nominations were less likely to send out friendship values represent the observed network properties, and gray lines
ties (est. ⫽ ⫺.30, p ⬍ .001). represent 90% confidence intervals for the model-implied sim-
Gender differences in peer influence processes. Our final ulated networks. The placement of the red line within the 90%
goal was to explore whether the strength and magnitude of peer confidence interval boundaries indicates that our model pro-
influence processes were different for boys and girls (GI dynamics, duced adequate to good goodness-of-fit statistics for the key
Model 2, Table 4). Our results revealed no significant gender auxiliary statistics. The lack of fit for outdegree for the seventh
differences in the magnitude of peer influence on any dimensions and eighth-grade network was because the model was not able
of GI. Finally, several gender differences are noteworthy in the to account for the “jump” in the cumulative outdegree distri-
mean levels of GI constructs. Specifically, boys from eighth grade bution from 9 and 10 suggesting that there is a higher number
reported significantly greater levels of gender typicality, content- of individuals who send out 9 and 10 friendship nominations,
edness and felt pressure for gender conformity compared with
compared with what is expected under the model. The lack of fit
girls. Boys from seventh grade reported significantly greater levels
for geodesic distance appears to be due to the model producing
of gender typicality only.
significantly higher levels of geodesic distance of 4 suggesting
Assessing goodness of fit. As the final step, we followed
that model-implied networks are more connected than the ob-
established procedures for evaluating goodness of fit for statistical
served network. The lack of fit in triad census statistic in eighth
network models (Hunter, Goodreau, & Handcock, 2008; Ripley et
al., 2016). Conventional model fit indices (e.g., AIC and BIC) are grade (p ⫽ .027) appears to be driven by abundance of a
not appropriate in network modeling because “observations are not particular triadic configuration in our data (030T, or A ¡ B ¢
independent and identically distributed sample” (Hunter et al., C, A ¡ C). Finally, our model shows deviations between
2008, p. 257). Alternative methods have been developed to eval- model-produced distributions of the following three behavioral
uate goodness of fit of network models, which involve a compar- outcomes: GI typicality (p ⫽ .03) and felt pressure for gender
ison of model-implied simulated networks to the observed data in conformity (p ⫽ .02) for seventh graders and GI contentedness
regards to various network properties. We assessed fit for the final (p ⫽ .01) for eighth graders. In summary, although the statis-
Model 1 with respect to the following auxiliary statistics: distri- tical test of GOF for these parameters suggested significant
butions of outgoing friendship ties (outdegree), incoming friend- differences between simulated and observed networks because
ship ties (i.e., indegree), geodesic distance distributions, triad the red line remained within grey bands, representing 90% CI,
census as well as behavior distribution for each of the four GI we concluded that overall the model produced an adequate fit to
self-concepts (Lospinoso, Schweinberger, Snijders, & Ripley, the data.
 1588 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

Discussion theories (e.g., Bigler & Liben, 2007), we might expect that the
adolescents who make the other gender salient by making these
The main goal of this study was to investigate peer influences in negative comments will develop even more negative stereotypes
between- and within-gender dimensions of GI in young adoles- over the course of the year as compared with the group who has
cents’ peer networks. In doing so, we used a state-of-the-art
not focused such negative attention on the out-group of other-
analytical approach that allowed us to examine whether friends
gender peers.
become similar to one another on dimensions of GI over time (peer
Our results also document evidence of peer influence for eighth
influence), while statistically controlling for similarities in GI
graders on felt pressure from peers for gender conformity, such
self-concepts that may stem from peers preferring to befriend
that adolescents changed their levels of peer felt pressure to
others with similar levels of GI (peer selection). Consistent with
become similar to the levels of felt pressure experienced by their
our expectations, we found significant and positive peer socializa-
friends. Because this particular dimension of gender self-concept
tion effects on between-gender dimensions of GI: intergroup bias
focuses on the adolescents’ perceptions of what is accepted and
among seventh and eighth graders and felt pressure for gender
enforced by their peer group, it may be less surprising that we
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

conformity for adolescents in eighth grade. In addition, and as

found peer influence on this aspect of GI among friends. Felt
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

expected, adolescents in both grade cohorts formed friendships

pressure for gender conformity is a relevant aspect of social
with students of the same gender, and among eighth graders,
cognition for this developmental age because adolescents are par-
friendship network selection was also based on similarity on
ticularly sensitive to peer evaluations (O’Brien & Bierman, 1988).
within-gender dimensions of GI: gender typicality and contented-
This finding takes on added significance, given research showing
ness. Additionally, adolescents who were more content with their
that experiencing high levels of pressure for gender conformity has
gender sent out a higher number of friendship nominations,
detrimental consequences in terms of psychological well-being
whereas those seventh graders holding more negative attitudes
(Egan & Perry, 2001; Yunger et al., 2004).
toward other gender were less attractive as a potential friend.
Finally, we did not observe gender differences in the magnitude of The findings concerning intergroup bias and felt pressure for
peer network influence on GI self-concepts. Despite decades of gender conformity were consistent with our expectation that the
research highlighting the role of peers in gender socialization, this between-gender group dimensions of GI might be more suscepti-
is the first study, to the best of our knowledge, to document that ble to peer influence than the within-gender dimensions of GI. It is
adolescents become similar to their friends on certain dimensions interesting to consider how this influence occurs. We hypothesized
of GI. These findings make important conceptual contributions to this pattern because statements about intergroup bias and pressure
the body of work concerning the role of peers and social context to conform to gender norms might be shared among friends or
for identity and gender development more broadly (e.g., Egan & overheard, similar to what has been documented for discussions of
Perry, 2001; Yunger et al., 2004). Methodological advances in different ethnic-racial groups (Kiesner et al., 2003). Due to these
longitudinal social network analysis (Snijders et al., 2010) enabled overt conversations and greater visibility, between-gender dimen-
the current investigation to provide a nuanced description of the sions of GI appear to be easier targets of peer influence than
role that the peer context plays in shaping GI. within-gender GI self-concepts GI (gender typicality and content-
Our findings regarding peer influence on between-gender di- ment) which are more internal cognitive and affective states. As a
mensions of GI are that, over the course of the school year, seventh result, both felt pressure and intergroup bias are likely to be
and eighth graders changed their levels of gender intergroup bias influenced through direct peer actions of modeling bias, or rein-
(i.e., negative feelings toward the other gender) to become similar forcing, punishing, or ignoring particular statements made in the
to the intergroup bias levels of their friends. That is, youth who peer group. Indirect means are also likely effective in promoting
reported being low on gender intergroup bias, who were friends socialization as adolescents have strong motivation to “fit in” with
with adolescents with high gender intergroup bias, moved toward their peers by showing similar intergroup biases, recognizing
their friends’ levels of bias, whereas youth who reported initial peers’ attitudes about gender nonconformity or conformity, and
high levels of gender intergroup bias, whose friends reported low changing their behavior to better match their friends. Although
levels of bias, moved their levels of gender bias to better match specific mechanisms of peer influence were not explicitly tested,
those of their friends. The observed pattern of peer influence on they likely involve a combination of direct or indirect social
gender intergroup bias is in line with theoretical proposals that transmission of ideas, rewards and punishments, and modeling.
social stereotyping and prejudice develop through establishing Investigation of the specific methods of peer influence and the
psychological salience of the other group, explicit discussions of directionality of these effects are worthy topics for future research.
salient group’s attributes, and development of affective compo- One of the issues in understanding peer influence is that friends
nents of intergroup bias (Bigler & Liben, 2007). Because gender often select others similar to themselves thereby confounding peer
intergroup bias stems from magnification of gender differences influence effects with network selection effects. Our use of longi-
and expanded stereotype use (Powlishta, 1995), our findings of tudinal SNA methods permitted controlling for these confounding
significant peer influence effects contribute not only to GI research network selection processes including the role of gender in net-
but also to applications of intergroup theory within the develop- work selection and the contributions of GI dimensions in network
mental literature. Consider, for instance, that for some adolescents, selection. Our results on network selection by gender demonstrated
peers appear to make the other gender group more salient and more that adolescents across both grades tended to befriend each other if
susceptible to negative comments, but for other adolescents, peers they were of the same gender. This observation is in line with
appear to make the other group less salient and less susceptible to nearly universal patterns observed in childhood and adolescence in
negative comments. In keeping with social identity and intergroup which preferences are shown for same-gender peers (e.g., Mac-
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1589

coby, 1998; Mehta & Strough, 2009) as well as with other social intergroup bias are less attractive as a friend to their peer group. In
network studies of gender development (Martin et al., 2013). contrast, this pattern indicates that greater openness to the other
The present study was also the first to examine whether adoles- gender may be adaptive in terms of allowing for greater opportu-
cents select peers based on the four dimensions of GI. We antic- nities to form friendships among youth during middle school,
ipated that adolescents may prefer to form friendships with others when adolescents’ social, emotional, cognitive, and physical attri-
who have similar levels of GI dimensions, including both between- butes change and their potential pool of friends increases com-
and within-gender self-concepts, because past research has shown pared with elementary school. It is interesting, however, that this
that homophily or similarity on gender-typed behaviors drives peer feature of network selection did not continue to be of importance
affiliation dynamics among young children (Martin et al., 2013). in older middle schoolers.
Consistent with these expectations, we found that eighth graders Turning to association between within-gender self-concepts and
were more likely to select each other if they reported similar levels friendships network selection, we expected positive associations
of gender typicality. This finding is intriguing since it suggests between gender typicality and contentedness with the number of
that, although gender typicality is an internal and global part of friendship nominations sent and received because these aspects of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

personal identity, there may be external manifestations of typical- GI have been linked to greater peer acceptance and social skills.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ity that are apparent to adolescents at least by eighth grade. Egan Our results provided partial support and showed that gender con-
and Perry (2001) found that gender typicality was positively cor- tentedness was also positively associated with the number of
related with gender-typed activities, so it could be that adolescents friendship nominations that seventh and eighth-grade students sent
use gender typed activity engagement as signals or cues of simi- out suggesting a better social integration in peer networks. Al-
larity in gender typicality. However, if that is the case, it is though these findings are intriguing, the question of how adoles-
surprising that younger adolescents do not also use engagement in cents evaluate and determine others’ gender contentedness is an
gender-typed activities as signals. Further research is needed to important direction for future research. Contrary to our expecta-
explore whether younger adolescents are less motivated to select tions, we documented that gender typicality was negatively asso-
friends based on similar levels of gender typicality or whether they ciated with the number of friendship ties that eighth graders sent
are less susceptible to the cues that suggest gender typicality. out. It is plausible that having higher levels of perceived proto-
As anticipated, we found that homophily on gender contented- typicality with one’s gender group might operate similar as inter-
ness also increased the likelihood of friendship ties among seventh group bias in that it might also restrict the range of opportunities
and eighth graders. Being content with one’s gender appeared to be afforded to form friendships with peers who possess low forms of
a salient cue for friend selection. Contentment may be marked by typicality (this pattern is supported in our models by a significant
acceptance of one’s gender category and may not be visibly preference to select friends who have similar levels of gender
manifested; however, lack of contentment, that is, expressions or typicality). For example, it could be that adolescents who view
actions that signal a lack of happiness with being of one’s gender, themselves as very typical of their gender group prefer to affiliate
may be more salient (Carver et al., 2003; Yunger et al., 2004). with others who also view themselves that way, thus potentially
Because past research has shown that gender contentedness and restricting the range of friendship formation options.
typicality are positively correlated with social skills, self-esteem, Our final exploratory goal was to examine whether the magni-
and greater peer acceptance (Carver et al., 2003; Smith & Leaper, tude of peer influence differed between boys and girls. Our results
2006; Yunger et al., 2004), future research would benefit from do not reveal any gender differences. This finding is somewhat
examining these associations within mediation analytical frame- surprising given that other studies have suggested boys experience
work to elucidate the mechanisms linking within-gender self- stronger peer pressures to conform to gender norms than do girls
concepts, peer relationships, and wellbeing. (Bussey & Bandura, 1992) and given that boys report higher levels
We expected that between-gender aspects of GI would be del- of felt pressure from parents, teachers, peers, and self than do girls
eterious for friendship selection dynamics and subsequently neg- (Egan & Perry, 2001; Carver et al., 2003; Yunger et al., 2004).
atively associated with the number of friendship nominations sent What is not clear from earlier studies that ask adolescents and
out to and received from the grade-mates because the past research older children to report on felt pressure is the source of felt
has shown that intergroup bias and pressure for gender conformity pressure. That is, the felt pressure scale combines items about
often translate into externalizing problems and difficulties with pressure from parents, peers, and self; therefore, it is unclear which
peers (Carver et al., 2003; Smith & Leaper, 2006; Yunger et al., of these sources is stronger for boys than girls. It may be that
2004). Our findings provided partial support to these hypotheses parents hold more strict expectations in terms of gender norm
and revealed that in seventh grade, intergroup bias (i.e., holding conformity for boys than for girls, or that boys hold themselves to
negative feelings toward the other gender) was negatively associ- stricter standards for conformity than do girls. Future research
ated with the likelihood of being nominated as a friend by others. exploring gender differences and similarities in actual versus per-
It is plausible that holding more negative attitudes toward the other ceived peer pressures for conformity, and whether conformity
gender constrains friendship formation opportunities (i.e., across pressures are explicit or implicit may provide additional insight
gender lines), which may result in lower attractiveness of an into this finding.
individual with higher levels of intergroup bias as a friend. This Overall, our study adds to a growing body of research highlight-
pattern replicates a previously suggested idea that intergroup bias ing the impact that peers have on gender development. Previous
may be linked to peer relationship difficulties (Powlishta, 1995) research using the same approach to the study of social network
because youth with higher negative attitudes toward the other influence on gender development illustrated that younger children
gender grouping may be perceived as immature and hostile. Our became more similar to peers in their gender-typed behaviors over
finding confirms such a view because youth with higher levels of a few months time (Martin et al., 2013). The present study was the
 1590 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

first to explore peer effects on GI explicitly, and showed that peers Brownell, 2003) in identifying the mechanisms through which
influence one another on several dimensions of GI. The latter is an peers influence GI. The present study employed a longitudinal
important addition to this body of work as behaviors may be SNA approach to study peer influence to allow the modeling of
relatively easily influenced among peers because they are overt peer effects of multiple friends of the focal individual while
(Martin et al., 2013); however, the present study shows that peers statistically controlling for how these friendships have been cre-
also exert influence even on less visible processes such as the ated and are being maintained. Assessing the influence of multiple
development of one’s representations of gender. Our research friends has advantages of capturing peer group dynamics, how-
further illustrates the dialectic and social nature of how GI devel- ever, if the close or best friends are the primary source of peer
ops within the context of peer networks. Thus, we expand the influence on GI, then dyadic, or actor-partner interdependence
current understanding of multiple socialization contexts of GI modeling may provide the appropriate analytical framework to
development (i.e., family, peers, mass media; Galambos, 2004; study peer influence on GI (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Close
Leaper & Friedman, 2007). friendships, as enduring and high quality reciprocated relationships
(for reviews, see Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011; Berndt, 2002) also
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

represent a rich social context in which identity evolves. Finally,

Limitations and Future Directions
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

using experimental paradigms would be beneficial in establishing

Although the present study has numerous strengths including causal mechanisms of peer influence. For instance, young chil-
the use of longitudinal SNA and employing a large sample of dren’s choices of toys have been influenced by how peers respond
ethnically diverse students, it also has limitations. One is that the to those choices in experimental studies (e.g., Langlois & Downs,
data on friendship networks was constrained to each grade rather 1980). Although it might be challenging to design studies that
than to the whole school. This choice of network boundary was manipulate potential peer responses to adolescents’ aspects of GI,
informed by prior research demonstrating that grade level is the it would be possible to develop scenarios in which adolescents
relevant sampling frame for middle school students (Cairns, Xie, indicate how they would respond to unfamiliar peers given differ-
& Leung, 1998). Nonetheless, if children have broader networks ent types of GI, similar to the study conducted by Jewell and
spanning beyond the grade level, then we may have missed older Brown (2014).
or younger peers who also could be salient sources of influences
on GI. Also, we did not attempt to gather information about
adolescents’ out-of-school networks in their neighborhoods, again Conclusion
potentially missing some potential sources of peer influence. Sec- To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to
ond, some might question our use of self-report measures; how- assess how peers influenced changes in adolescents’ GI. Using a
ever, Egan and Perry (2001) have argued forcefully that GI must large sample of ethnically diverse seventh and eighth graders, we
be self-reported as these are personal, internal summary judgments found evidence that adolescents use gender typicality, contented-
about one’s view of self and others. Third, we modified the Egan ness, and gender when they select their friends. The evidence
and Perry’s (2001) scale and complemented it with Sellers et al.’s concerning selection based on GI dimensions was relatively lim-
(1998) measure of identity, which may have subtly altered how ited, although gender selection played a large role in structuring
participants responded to them. However, we believe that it is adolescents’ networks. Most interestingly, we provided strong
unlikely that these subtle variations influenced how adolescents evidence that friends’ self-reported levels of felt pressure and their
responded to these scales. intergroup attitudes were influential in changing adolescents’ GI,
Future directions to pursue include exploring how and through such that youth became similar to their friends in these beliefs over
which mechanisms (i.e., adherence to group norms or reinforce- time. This research extends prior research on peer influence in
ment) GI attitudes and feelings of pressure are transmitted (Brech- adolescence by illustrating that attitudes about gender and internal
wald & Prinstein, 2011). Another line of related research could pressures to conform to gender norms also have the potential to be
focus on identifying the role of individual differences in socio- transmitted among youth.
evaluative concerns and rejection sensitivity (Downey, Lebolt,
Rincón, & Freitas, 1998) as contributing factors to make some
adolescents more or less susceptible to peer influence. Because References
between- and within-gender self-concepts are posited to be shaped Aboud, F., & Mendelson, M. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection
by sociocognitive processes transpiring within own- and other- and quality: Developmental perspectives. In W. Bukowski, A. New-
gender collectives (Pauletti et al., 2014), future work would be comb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in
prudent to examine the role of proportion of same-gender friends childhood and adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional
in peer influence and network selection on GI dimensions. It would development (pp. 87–113). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
also be interesting to explore other methods assessing GI that Press.
might provide somewhat different findings during adolescence, Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood and
such as separating own-gender and other-gender typicality. Fur- adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current
thermore, research on related aspects of GI, such as centrality or
Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 7–10. http://dx.doi.org/10
salience, may provide additional insights into how adolescents .1111/1467-8721.00157
develop their identities and how they influence their peers during Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory
this developmental transition. explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice.
Future research would benefit from use of diverse methodolo- Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166. http://dx.doi
gies and conceptualizations of peer relationships (Gifford-Smith & .org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x
 PEER INFLUENCE ON GENDER IDENTITY 1591

Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Re- New York, NY: Guilford Press.
search on Adolescence, 21, 166 –179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532- Kiesner, J., Maass, A., Cadinu, M., & Vallese, I. (2003). Risk factors for
7795.2010.00721.x ethnic prejudice during early adolescence. Social Development, 12,
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing 288 –308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00234
gender development. Child Development, 63, 1236 –1250. http://dx.doi Kornienko, O., & Santos, C. E. (2014). The effects of friendship network
.org/10.2307/1131530 popularity on depressive symptoms during early adolescence: Modera-
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender tion by fear of negative evaluation and gender. Journal of Youth and
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676 –713. Adolescence, 43, 541–553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676 9979-4
Cairns, R., Xie, H., & Leung, M. C. (1998). The popularity of friendship Langlois, J. H., & Downs, A. C. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as
and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. New Direc- socialization agents of sex-typed play behaviors in young children. Child
tions for Child and Adolescent Development, 109, 25–53. http://dx.doi
Development, 51, 1237–1247. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129566
.org/10.1002/cd.23219988104
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and
childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95–109. http://dx.doi

Child Development, 62, 284 –300. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131003
.org/10.1023/A:1024423012063
Leaper, C., & Brown, C. S. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79, 685–704. 0009-3920/
(2nd ed., pp. 284 –285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2008/7903-0013
DeLay, D., Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M., Winter, C., & Dishion, T. J. (2016).
Changing friend selection in middle school: A social network analysis of Leaper, C., & Friedman, C. (2007). The socialization of gender. In J.
a randomized intervention study designed to prevent adolescent problem Grusec & P. Hasting (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and
behavior. Prevention Science, 17, 285–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ research (pp. 561–587). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
s11121-015-0605-4 Lee, E. E., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2011). Peer processes and gender role
Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and development: Changes in gender atypicality related to negative peer
adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psy- treatment and children’s friendships. Sex Roles, 64, 90 –102. http://dx
chology, 62, 189 –214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008 .doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9883-2
.100412 Lospinoso, J. A., Schweinberger, M., Snijders, T. A. B., & Ripley, R. M.
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection (2011). Assessing and accounting for time heterogeneity in stochastic
sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, actor oriented models. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 5,
69, 1074 –1091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06161.x 147–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11634-010-0076-1
Drury, K., Bukowski, W. M., Velásquez, A. M., & Stella-Lopez, L. (2013). Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together.
Victimization and gender identity in single- and mixed-sex schools: United States: First Harvard University Press.
Examining variations in pressure to conform to gender norms. Sex Roles, Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences of
69, 442– 454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0118-6 young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychol-
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional ogy, 37, 431– 446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.431
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Martin, C. L., Kornienko, O., Schaefer, D. R., Hanish, L. D., Fabes, R. A.,
Psychology, 37, 451– 463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4 & Goble, P. (2013). The role of sex of peers and gender-typed activities
.451 in young children’s peer affiliative networks: A longitudinal analysis of
Galambos, N. L. (2004). The gender and gender role development in selection and influence. Child Development, 84, 921–937. http://dx.doi
adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.) Handbook of .org/10.1111/cdev.12032
adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 233–262). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780471726746.ch8 Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–
Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., & Lane, D. J. (2003). A social reaction model 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
of adolescent health risk. Social psychological foundations of health and
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and
illness, 107–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470753552.ch5
normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29,
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relation-
201–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001
ships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of
Michaels, M. L., Barr, A., Roosa, M. W., & Knight, G. (2007). Self-
School Psychology, 41, 235–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
esteem: Assessing measurement equivalence in a multiethnic sample of
4405(03)00048-7
youth. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 269 –295. http://dx.doi
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socializa-
.org/10.1177/0272431607302009
tion theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458 – 489.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458 O’Brien, S. F., & Bierman, K. L. (1988). Conceptions and perceived
Horn, S. S. (2008). The multifaceted nature of sexual prejudice: How influence of peer groups: Interviews with preadolescents and adoles-
adolescents reason about sexual orientation and sexual prejudice. In cents. Child Development, 59, 1360 –1365.
S. R. Levi & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S. A., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk,
childhood through adulthood (pp. 173–188). New York, NY: Oxford A. A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A
University Press. developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J.
Hunter, D. R., Goodreau, S. M., & Handcock, M. S. (2008). Goodness of Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and
fit of social network models. Journal of the American Statistical Asso- methods (2nd ed., pp. 419 – 493). New York, NY: Wiley.
ciation, 103, 248 –258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000446 Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., & Perry, D. G. (2014). Influences of gender
Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Relations among gender typicality, identity on children’s maltreatment of gender-nonconforming peers: A
peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. Social De- person ⫻ target analysis of aggression. Journal of Personality and
velopment, 23, 137–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12042 Social Psychology, 106, 843– 866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036037
 1592 KORNIENKO, SANTOS, MARTIN, AND GRANGER

Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer group socialization of homophobic attitudes and Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., & Schweinberger, M. (2007).
behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 78, 1830 –1842. http:// Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In K. van Mont-
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01101.x fort, H. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral
Powlishta, K. K. (1995). Intergroup processes in childhood: Social cate- and related sciences (pp. 41–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
gorization and sex role development. Developmental Psychology, 31, Snijders, T. A., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. (2010). Introduction
781–788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.781 to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Net-
Priess, H. A., Lindberg, S. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Adolescent gender- works, 32, 44 – 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004
role identity and mental health: Gender intensification revisited. Child Spence, J. T. (1985). Gender identity and its implications for concepts of
Development, 80, 1531–1544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624 masculinity and femininity. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Sym-
.2009.01349.x posium on Motivation: Psychology and gender (Vol. 32, pp. 59 –96).
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Voros, A., & Preciado, P. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
(2016). Manual for RSiena. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Depart- Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Van Zalk, M. H. W. (Eds.).
ment of Statistics; Nuffield College. Retrieved from http://www.stats (2013). Network and behavior dynamics in adolescence. Journal of
.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/siena/RSiena_Manual.pdf Research on Adolescence, 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.120700
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Ruble, D. N., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Self-perceptions, person concep- Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere
tions, and their development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of person-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and

ality and social psychology: Vol. 15. Social development (pp. 109 –139).
Social Psychology, 102, 513–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025731
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily:
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender devel-
ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. Amer-
opment. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg
ican Journal of Sociology, 116, 583– 642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and
653658
personality development (6th ed., pp. 858 –932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Yee, M. D., & Brown, R. (1992). Self-evaluations and intergroup attitudes
Santos, C. E., Kornienko, O., & Rivas-Drake, D. (in press). Peer influence
in children aged three to nine. Child Development, 63, 619 – 629. http://
on ethnic-racial identity development: A multi-site investigation. Child
Development. dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131350
Santos, C. E. & Updegraff, K. A. (2014). Feeling typical, looking typical: Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships,
Physical appearance and ethnic identity among Mexican-origin youth. psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diag-
Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2, 187–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ nostic approach. Sex Roles, 50, 525–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:
lat0000023 SERS.0000023072.53886.86
Schweinberger, M. (2012). Statistical modelling of network panel data: Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity
Goodness of fit. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental Psychol-
Psychology, 65, 263–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011 ogy, 40, 572–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.572
.02022.x Zosuls, K. M., Miller, C. F., Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A.
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., & Chavous, (2011). Gender development research in Sex Roles: Historical trends and
T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptu- future directions. Sex Roles, 64, 826 – 842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
alization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social s11199-010-9902-3
Psychology Review, 2, 18 –39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957
pspr0201_2
Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and the Received May 17, 2015
peer context during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, Revision received June 17, 2016
16, 91–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00123.x Accepted June 29, 2016 䡲