Sex differences in social networks
Halverson, 1975). This difference may be explained by diverse play interests with girls’ underlying
preference for intimacy-enhancing activities causing them to form small networks (Belle, 1989;
Sutton-Smith, 1979; Zarbatany et al., 2000) and boys’ interest in playing team games leading to
numerous players and thus larger networks (Hartup, 1983). An alternative explanation suggests that
boys have an inherent preference for forming larger networks and that boys play team games
because of this (Belle, 1989; Benenson et al., 1998). This model would predict that boys may
sustain large networks whether they are playing team games or not. The ‘activity influences network
size’ view would, by contrast, allow for the possibility of smaller networks forming for the playing
of non-team games but would suggest that the greater tendency of boys to play team games means
that generally their social networks are larger. In a study aimed at distinguishing between these
explanations, Benenson, Apostoleris & Parnass (1997) reported that in an experimental situation
where team games were not possible, there was evidence of a 'centripetal social force' causing boys
to remain together as a larger group than girls. It is unclear, however, whether this finding was due
to pre-formed friendships and former interaction history, a 'natural' difference in interaction style or
some other factor. Another way of comparing the two explanations for boys' larger social networks
is to examine the groups of children when involved in team and non-team activities as they occur in
the naturalistic context of the school playground. However, examining the extent to which large
enduring social networks (as based on an aggregation of playground groups) are determined by the
playing of team games will also be important. These comparisons were made in this study. The
‘centripetal force’ hypothesis would predict that male networks are larger than those of females
regardless of game type while the ‘two worlds’ hypothesis would indicate that male networks would
only be larger than those of girls when boys are playing team games.
The second area addressed by this paper concerns the internal structure of male and female
social networks. Few studies have examined this in detail except to indicate that because of an
interest in intimacy, girls may spend substantial amounts of time together and may form more
egalitarian cliques (Maccoby, 1998). In relation to boys’ networks, research suggests that boys