Sex differences in human gregariousness

Abstract

Research on human sociality rarely includes kinship, social structure, sex, and familiarity, even though these variables influence sociality in non-human primates. However, cross-cultural ethnographic and observational studies with humans indicate that, beginning after age 5 years, males and females form differing social structures with unrelated individuals in a community. Specifically, compared with females, human males exhibit greater tolerance for and form larger, interconnected groups of peers which we term “gregariousness.” To examine sex differences in gregariousness early in life when children first interact with peers without adult supervision, 3- to 6-year-old children were given the choice to enter one of three play areas: an empty one, one with an adult, or one with a familiar, same-sex peer. More males than females initially chose the play area with the same-sex peer, especially after age 5 years. Sex differences in gregariousness with same-sex peers likely constitute one facet of human sociality.

Resource availability differentially influences women’s perceptions of same- (versus cross-) sex others’ competitiveness.

“…Although women report having closer and more supportive relationships with their same-sex peers than do men (Baumgarte & Nelson, 2009), beginning in childhood, women are less affiliative with, tolerant of, and invested in these peers than are men (Benenson & Alavi, 2004;Benenson et al, 2009Benenson et al, , 2015. Girls are commonly thought to be more social than boys, however, research shows that girls spend less time with their same-sex peers than boys, a tendency that arises in early childhood (Benenson et al, 1998(Benenson et al, , 2012(Benenson et al, , 2015. For instance, Benenson and colleagues (2012) studied this phenomenon using a paradigm where 3-to 5-year-old children could choose to play with an adult, a familiar same-sex peer, or alone.…”

Values in adolescent friendship networks

“…According to teleological theory (March & Olsen, 1979;Merton & Merton, 1968;Berger & Luckmann, 1971), adolescents can be seen as purposeful and adaptive entities that are evolving toward a specific state in a cycle of goal formation, action formation, outcome evaluation, and goal adjustment based on social experiences.…”

“…On the one hand, teenagers' utility functions determine the traits that they consider in friendship selection. On the other hand, teenagers' utility functions can determine whether these traits have an impact on their own sociability, a tendency that is known as gregariousness (Benenson et al, 2015;Gifford & Gallagher, 1985), whether favorable expressions of these traits among their peers are considered as inclusion or exclusion criteria-and thus determine their popularity as potential friends (Bukowski et al, 1993)-or whether they prefer their friends to be similar on such traits, a tendency that is referred to as homophily (McPherson et al, 2001;Lazarsfeld et al, 1954). We expect that gregariousness, popularity and homophily are both shown in the tendency to form new friendship ties, as well as the tendency to dissolve existing friendship ties (Hallinan & Williams, 1989;Tuma & Hallinan, 1979).…”