Boys and Girls on the Playground: Sex Differences in

Social Development Are Not Stable across Early

Childhood
Stéphanie Barbu1*, Guénaël Cabanes1, Gaı̈d Le Maner-Idrissi2
1 Laboratoire EthoS - Ethologie animale et humaine, UMR 6552-CNRS, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, 2 Centre de Recherche en Psychologie, Cognition et
Communication, Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l’Education, Université de Rennes 2, Rennes, France

Abstract
Sex differences in human social behaviors and abilities have long been a question of public and scientific interest. Females
are usually assumed to be more socially oriented and skilful than males. However, despite an extensive literature, the very
existence of sex differences remains a matter of discussion while some studies found no sex differences whereas others
reported differences that were either congruent or not with gender stereotypes. Moreover, the magnitude, consistency and
stability across time of the differences remain an open question, especially during childhood. As play provides an excellent
window into children’s social development, we investigated whether and how sex differences change in social play across
early childhood. Following a cross-sectional design, 164 children aged from 2 to 6 years old, divided into four age groups,
were observed during outdoor free play at nursery school. We showed that sex differences are not stable over time
evidencing a developmental gap between girls and boys. Social and structured forms of play emerge systematically earlier
in girls than in boys leading to subsequent sex differences in favor of girls at some ages, successively in associative play at
3–4 years, cooperative play at 4–5 years, and social interactions with peers at 5–6 years. Preschool boys also display more
solitary play than preschool girls, especially when young. Nevertheless, while boys catch up and girls move on towards
more complex play, sex differences in social play patterns are reversed in favor of boys at the following ages, such as in
associative play at 4–5 years and cooperative play at 5–6 years. This developmental perspective contributes to resolve
apparent discrepancies between single-snapshot studies. A better understanding of the dynamics of sex differences in
typical social development should also provide insights into atypical social developments which exhibit sex differences in
prevalence, such as autism.

Citation: Barbu S, Cabanes G, Le Maner-Idrissi G (2011) Boys and Girls on the Playground: Sex Differences in Social Development Are Not Stable across Early
Childhood. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16407. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016407
Editor: Malcolm Semple, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
Received July 29, 2010; Accepted December 23, 2010; Published January 28, 2011
Copyright: ß 2011 Barbu et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research was funded by the French National Agency of Research with the Young Researchers Program. The funders had no role in study design,
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction and men [4–6]. There is some evidence in support of this view.
From birth to the first year, infant females show stronger social
Human sex differences are a perennially hot topic that not only orientation responses than infant males, with a stronger interest in
grips the public interest, but that has triggered a great deal of scientific human faces [7–8], a greater amount of eye contact [9–11], and
focus from biological to social sciences. One of the many, and perhaps more accurate imitative abilities [12]. Throughout childhood and
most striking, paradoxes of gender studies is that, despite decades of adulthood, girls and women continue to be more socially
concerted efforts, the very existence of sex differences remains expressive and responsive than age-matched males. Females
debated [1–3]. Discrepancies between studies undoubtedly feed the display more emotional expression and are more skilled at
continuing debate. Some studies found no sex differences whereas decoding others’ emotions [13,14] and understanding others’
others reported differences that were either congruent or not with thoughts [15–17]. They are also more prone to behave prosocially
gender stereotypes. Such discrepancies are especially marked in [18]. In childhood, these abilities are related to general social
childhood. Here, we present evidence that sex differences are not competence, especially in dealing with peers [17,19], and to
stable over time. Between-sex differences appear during a limited different interaction and communication styles that prefigure
window of development and even change direction with age. Our differences in women’s and men’s interpersonal goals [20,21].
findings contribute to resolve the puzzling null or contradictory Finally, a variety of clinical conditions with marked social deficits,
conclusions drawn from limited age-range samples or collapsed age- such as autism, occurs more often in males than in females, and
groups and raise important methodological issues such as the has been described as an extreme manifestation of some male-
representativeness of samples in studies. Developmental studies are typical traits, suggesting a continuum between typical and atypical
thus especially needed in order to go beyond the current debate. social development [22].
One pervasive stereotype about sex-related differences is that Although the literature provides some empirical evidence,
girls and women are more socially oriented and skilful than boys the picture is not as simple and univocal as described. Beyond a

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407

 Sex Differences in Social Development

great heterogeneity in methodologies, whether studies found recorded social interactions with peers when children are not
differences or not seems dependent on children’s ages. playing, but are involved in sustained social exchanges (mostly
Moreover, the differences reported are not especially large or conversations, which are more frequent in older children [26]),
consistent throughout childhood [6]. Yet the developmental and social interactions with adults, as adults were present on
dynamics of sex differences has been rarely investigated, with playgrounds. We investigated whether girls show consistently more
one notable exception, but that focused on within-sex variation socially oriented and skilful forms of peer play and interactions
rather than between-sex differences [23]. Thus, the magnitude, than same-age boys from 2 to 6 years old, when most children
consistency and stability across time of between-sex differences begin to experience peer social interactions, or whether the sex
remain questioned [5,6,18]. As play is at least to some extent a difference changes as children grow older. To this end, children’s
universal activity of childhood [24] and provides an excellent play behavior was observed under naturalistic conditions at
window into children’s social development [25,26] and nursery schools during self-selected activities and spontaneous
psychosocial adjustment [27], we investigated sex- and age- peer-groups.
related trends in social play development throughout early
childhood. Results
Both the amount and the quality of children’s play are
associated with measures of social motivation and competence, Developmental trends over the preschool years
in particular with peers [28–30]. It is well documented that with Children’s social play showed important changes during the
increasing age, children are more likely to engage in social play, preschool period, becoming more peer-oriented and structured
proceeding from less to more mature forms of social interactions with age (Fig. 1; see also Table S1). We found significant effects of
[25,26,29,31]. However, there are also marked individual age for all the social categories: interactions with adults,
differences in the degree to which children are willing to unoccupied and onlooker behavior, solitary and parallel play
participate in peer play [27]. Among available peer play scales, decreased, while associative play, cooperative play and interactions
we adapted the seminal Parten’s [32] framework which covers the with peers increased over the preschool years (two-way ANOVAs,
social spectrum of children’s participation in peer play, with non- all F3,156.5.2, all P,0.002; see Table S2). Thus, age groups were
social activities: unoccupied behavior (absence of focus or intent) characterized by distinct social participation profiles (Fig. 1, see
and solitary play (playing alone or independently); semi-social also Table S3). 2–3 years old children were observed more
activities: onlooker behavior (observing others’ activity, but frequently playing alone or beside other peers or even unoccupied,
without entering into the activity) and parallel play (playing although associative play occupied a not negligible part of their
beside, but not with); and social play: associative play (playing with activities. They were also observed more frequently interacting
other children, but with no role assignment or organization of with adults than older children for whom this proximity became
activity) and cooperative play (playing in organized and coordi- rare. The social profile of 3–4 year olds remained quite similar to
nated activities). To cover all children’s social activities, we also that of 2–3 year olds, except that associative play became as

Figure 1. Developmental trends of children’s social play from 2 to 6 years. Interactions with adults (Adu), unoccupied behavior (Uno),
solitary play (Sol), onlooker behavior (Onl) and parallel play (Par) decreased significantly over the preschool years while associative play (Aso),
cooperative play (Cop) and interactions with peers (Int) increased, notably with an abrupt change at 4–5 years with the predominance of associative
play, and thereafter of cooperative play at 5–6 years. Bars and error bars represent mean + standard error of the percentages of children’s playtime
allocation within social participation categories. *P,0.05, **P,0.01, ***P,0.001 by Fisher’s PLSD post hoc comparisons among age groups (see also
Table S1 for complete descriptive statistics and S2 for true P values).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016407.g001

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407

 Sex Differences in Social Development

frequent as solitary play and more frequent than parallel play. became the main form of play for both sexes (all P,0.01). Thus
From the age of 4–5 years, children’s sociality changed abruptly, from 3–4 years old, girls were actually more associative than same-
notably associative play predominated at 4–5 years and cooper- age boys, but in the later stages, both girls’ and boys’ play was
ative play predominated at 5–6 years. mostly associative at 4–5 years and mostly cooperative at 5–6
years.
Sex differences over the preschool years
We evidenced important sex differences in children’s social play, Discussion
differences that stress a developmental gap between girls and boys
(Fig. 2; see also Table S1). Solitary play was influenced by sex Our study highlights that although all children progress towards
(two-way ANOVA, sex: F1,156 = 14.30, P = 0.0002; age6sex: more socially oriented and skilful forms of play during early
F3,156 = 2.02, P = 0.11): preschool boys played alone more childhood, girls develop social and structured forms of play at
frequently than preschool girls (Fig. 2e, top right). This difference younger ages than boys. Preschool boys also display more solitary
was especially marked at 3–4 years (Fisher’s PLSD, 3–4 years: play than preschool girls. However, boys catch up at the following
P = 0.0001; 2–3 years: P = 0.08; 4–5 years: P = 0.15; 5–6 years: developmental stages. Sex differences are not stable throughout
P = 0.59). Moreover, we found significant interactions between age social development, but they rather reflect a developmental gap
and sex for associative play (age6sex: F3,156 = 4.22, P = 0.005; between girls and boys. While boys catch up and same-age girls
sex: F1,156 = 0.03, P = 0.85), cooperative play (F3,156 = 10.20, move on towards more complex social play and interactions, a sex
P,0.0001; F1,156 = 0.45, P = 0.50), and interactions with peers difference recorded in favour of girls in a particular social play
(F3,156 = 4.13, P = 0.008; F1,156 = 8.36, P = 0.004), indicating that pattern at a given age can be reversed the following year, as we
differences between sexes changed over time. At 3–4 years, girls evidenced for associative and cooperative play. Therefore, it is not
were involved in associative play more frequently than boys surprising that some studies based upon limited age-range samples
(Fig. 2f) (Fisher’s PLSD, P = 0.05), but at 4–5 years, boys were or collapsed age-groups failed to find significant results or found
involved in associative play more frequently than girls (P = 0.02). results that were not congruent with gender stereotypes [6],
No significant differences were found in the youngest or the oldest making the case for more developmental studies to capture the
children (2–3 years: P = 0.34; 5–6 years: P = 0.06). Sex differences dynamics of sex differences.
in cooperative play (Fig. 2g) appeared a year later than in Moreover, discrepancies between studies can also be related
associative play. They appeared again first in favour of girls at 4–5 to differences in the operationalization of sex differences and
years (P = 0.005), but afterwards in favour of boys at 5–6 years comparisons [5]. There are two ways to measure sex differences,
(P,0.0001). No significant differences were found before these which can provide quite different pictures of sex differences and
ages (2–3 years: P = 0.99; 3–4 years: P = 0.61). Thus, for both conclusions: asking whether the behavior is more frequent in
associative and cooperative play, sex differences first in favour of one sex than in the other or asking whether the behavior is the
girls were reversed the following year. Sex differences in main form expressed by one sex compared to the other. Here,
interactions with peers (Fig. 2h) appeared only during the final we show that, despite the advance of girls, both girls’ and boys’
preschool year (5–6 years: P,0.0001; 2–3 years: P = 0.66; 3–4 play is associative at 4–5 years and cooperative at 5–6 years.
years: P = 0.11; 4–5 years: P = 0.56), when this form of social Therefore, girls’ advantage appears systematically the year
involvement was observed gradually more frequently in girls than before that the play activity becomes the predominant one for
in boys. Finally, we evidenced neither effects of sex nor age6sex both sexes.
interactions for interactions with adults (F1,156 = 1.49, P = 0.22; As play involves communication, role taking and cooperation,
F3,156 = 1.86, P = 0.14), unoccupied behavior (F1,156 = 1.41, P = sex differences in social play may be a by-product of sex
0.24; F3,156 = 0.36, P = 0.79), onlooker behavior (F1,156 = 0.72, differences in socio-cognitive skills, as girls develop language
P = 0.40; F3,156 = 1.48, P = 0.22), and parallel play (F1,156 = 2.42, [6,33] and theory-of-mind [15–17] skills earlier than boys do.
P = 0.12; F3,156 = 0.27, P = 0.85) (Fig. 2a–d, left column). These sex differences may also appear during a limited window of
development (during the preschool years in particular) and
Girls’ and boys’ social profiles disappear in later ages. It is clear that there is a linkage between
To get an overall picture of sex differences, the relative children’s socio-cognitive skills and some aspects of social play
frequencies of the different forms of social play at each age for both [34,35]. However, the relation between social play, skills and
sexes must be taken into consideration (Fig. 2, see also Tables S1 cognition must be further explored as more mature forms of play
and S4). At 2–3 years, the profiles of girls and boys were quite may also promote children’s social and socio-cognitive skills. Play
similar: children of both sexes were observed either in solitary, and associated interactions with peers is considered to both reflect
parallel and associative play or unoccupied in significantly similar children’s social competence and to provide children with a
proportions (pairewise t-tests, all P.0.08; except solitary vs. unique environment where they can acquire important social and
unoccupied for boys: P = 0.0003). Interactions with adults by boys socio-cognitive skills [27,28,36]. Although there are a number of
were less frequent than the above activities (all P,0.04), but this correlational studies, there is very little relevant experimental
was not so for girls (all P.0.20). At 3–4 years, associative play, evidence, remaining open the question of cause-and-effect
which was more frequent in girls than in boys, was also the main between play and children’s skills.
form of girls’ social activity (all P,0.04), whereas associative play Sex differences in social play patterns may also result in
was still as frequent as solitary play (P = 0.27) and parallel play children’s sex-typed toys and activities. Sex differences in toys and
(P = 0.17) for boys. At 4–5 years, although cooperative play was activities represent one of the largest non-reproductive physical or
more frequent in girls than in boys and associative play more psychological sex differences that have been widely observed
frequent in boys than in girls, associative play was however the across cultures and taxa [37,38]. Children’s preferences for sex-
main form of social activity for both sexes, ahead of the other typed toys are apparent as early as infancy [39] and increase over
activities (all P,0.001). Similarly, at 5–6 years, although girls the preschool years [5,6]. The context of play (e.g., play areas and
interacted with peers more frequently than boys did, whereas materials) has significant effects on the quantity and quality of play
cooperative play was more frequent in boys, cooperative play and attendant social interactions [40]. Both girls and boys show

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407

 Sex Differences in Social Development

Figure 2. Girls develop social and complex forms of play earlier than boys, but boys catch up. Bars and error bars represent percentages
(mean + s.e.m.) of children’s playtime allocation within social participation categories (girls: dark bars, boys: white bars). No sex differences are found
for interactions with adults (a, Adu), unoccupied behavior (b, Uno), onlooker behavior (c, Onl) or parallel play (d, Par). Sex differences appear at some
ages successively in solitary play (e, Sol), associative play (f, Aso), cooperative play (g, Cop), and interactions with peers (h, Int). Significant P values are
given for Fisher’s PLSD post hoc comparisons between girls and boys within age groups. (See also Table S1 for complete descriptive statistics.)
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016407.g002

the greatest play complexity when playing with female stereotyped and experiences suggesting a differential effect of the early
toys than with neutral or male stereotyped toys [41]. Therefore, environment. In particular, boys are more vulnerable to disruptive
early sex differences in interests may impact upon the evaluation of events and adverse home environments than girls [43,44]. Sex
children’s play quality and related social and socio-cognitive skills. differences at birth [7,12] and correlations with prenatal
The contribution of the socio-cultural and biological factors in testosterone in normally developing children (such as in eye
human sex social differences is not yet known given their complex contact [11], vocabulary size [45], and sex-typed play [46])
interplay [3,38]. Many of these differences may to some extent be strongly suggest that biological factors play a role as well, at least in
the result of socialization. Differences in styles of parenting early sex differences. During atypical social development, foetal
towards the sexes [6] and in peer cultures within sex-segregated testosterone is also associated with the severity of autistic traits
peer groups [42] may enhance the development of different [47]. Prenatal hormonal exposure may shape the neural
interests and skills in boys and girls. Nevertheless, sex differences mechanisms underlying early social development during both
were also reported despite seemingly similar social environment typical and atypical development [22].

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407

 Sex Differences in Social Development

The questions why girls are more socially precocious than boys, Table 1. Age and sex composition of the sample.
and how boys eventually catch up in normally developing
children, but not in children with some social developmental
deficits must be studied in much depth. Understanding the 2–3 years 4–5 years
developmental dynamics of relationships between social compe- old 3–4 years old old 5–6 years old
tence, social cognition and sex should provide new insights on how
M s.d. n M s.d. n M s.d. n M s.d. n
the nature and the weight of underlying biological and social
processes change over time [48] and even between sexes [49,50] Boys 35.6 2.8 17 44.9 3.0 22 55.6 2.0 20 69.8 3.1 23
during both typical and atypical development [22]. Girls 34.1 2.3 13 44.9 2.8 23 56.2 2.4 25 69.2 3.4 21
Overall 34.9 2.7 30 44.9 2.9 45 56.0 2.3 45 69.5 3.2 44
Materials and Methods
(M: Mean age in months, s.d.: standard deviation, n: number of children).
Ethics Statement doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016407.t001
The study consisted in non-invasive and unconstrained
behavioral observations of children at nursery schools during children’s activities were recorded every 2 minutes during playtime
daily activities. According to the current French laws on the that lasted on average 30 minutes. As it was not possible to observe
protection of persons in biomedical research (law No 88-1138, so- all the children who were present on the playground at the same
called Huriet-Sérusclat law of the 20th December 1988, amended time, the observer followed a same-age group of fifteen children
in 2004 - law of the 9th August 2004), such protocol does not during a session. The same number of observations was conducted
require the approval of an ethics committee. The study complies for each child (i.e. 120 scans that is 4 hours of observation per
with the ethics guidelines given by the National Consultative child). On average, 10 free-play sessions over two weeks were
Ethics Committee of the French Centre National de la Recherche needed to collect data for a group. Observation sessions were
Scientifique (COMETS). Only children, for whom parental counterbalanced daily (morning and afternoon) and for a school
written consent was obtained, participated in the study. The term (beginning and end) among age groups. The daily
observations started after receiving written consent from the local observation order of the children was also randomized within a
Inspection of French National Education and permission from the group. Two trained observers (both male), one in each school,
schools. The data were analyzed anonymously. collected data. They were unaware of the purpose of the study (i.e.
investigation of sex differences). The observer remained visible to
Subjects and setting the children during observation sessions and adopted an
Children were selected from 16 classes in two nursery schools integrative non-participant attitude. After a preliminary habitua-
from urban surrounding (Rennes, France). The selection criteria tion period of two weeks, the observer recorded children’s
were (1) that the parents provided a written consent, (2) that the activities on a check sheet, using a stopwatch.
child attended school fulltime, and (3) that the child age pertained to
the second half of the year in order to reduce age range within age- Coding and reliability
groups and to avoid overlap between age-groups. Following a cross- Coding was derived from Parten’s [32] peer play categories: (1)
sectional design, the children (n = 164: 82 boys), ranging in age from unoccupied behavior (wandering around aimlessly, watching
29 to 74 months, were divided into four age groups corresponding anything of passing interest or staring off into space) (k = 0.67);
to the four French school grades: 2–3 year olds, 3–4 year olds, 4–5 (2) solitary play (playing apart from other children or playing
year olds, and 5–6 year olds (see Table 1 for age and sex independently without acknowledging peers playing in close
composition of the sample). Age groups differed significantly in age proximity) (k = 0.71); (3) onlooker behavior (observing the activity
(two-way ANOVA, F3,156 = 1080.93, P,0.0001) and contained of other children, within speaking distance, making eventually
equal numbers of children, except the youngest group as only 20% some comments on the activity, but with no entry into the activity)
of the 2-year-old children attend school in France whereas near all (k = 0.72); (4) parallel play (playing beside – within 3 feet, with
children do while they are 3 years old. In each group, girls and boys materials that are similar to those being used by others in close
(in roughly equal numbers) did not differ in age (sex: F1,156 = 0.64, proximity, but independently without substantial interaction) – in
P = 0.42; age6sex: F3,156 = 0.99, P = 0.40), nor they did in family order to introduce a more clear-cut distinction between parallel
backgrounds. The children were from diverse socioeconomic and solitary play, we relied on parallel aware play [29] that is
backgrounds (20.1% upper-class, 37.8% middle-class, 25.6% accompanied with eye-contacts and/or a few brief social
lower-class, 7.3% unemployed and 9.2% no reply). exchanges (e.g., vocalization, smile) (k = 0.93); (5) associative play
Children were observed during outdoor playtimes that occurred (being involved in similar playful activities accompanied with
twice a day (morning and afternoon). Playgrounds were large sustained social exchanges and following a common plan, but with
outdoor areas fully equipped for children (e.g., slides, sandbox, a mild control of group membership and no role assignment or
tricycles, balls). Numbers of children in the playground varied with organization of activity) (k = 0.90); (6) cooperative play (playing in
the size of the school (2 to 3 classes in one school and 5 to 6 classes organized and coordinated activities, that is showing group
in the other). Peer groups were mixed-aged, generally including membership control, division of labour and differentiation of
classes from two successive grades. The adult-children ratio was roles, mostly enacting complementary roles within social pretend
approximately the same in all playgrounds and schools as teachers play or games with rules) (k = 0.99). We added two categories: (7)
accompanied their classes. The teachers were in sight of the social interactions with peers when children are not playing, but
children in order to help settle any problems that might arise, but are involved in sustained social exchanges (e.g., mostly conversa-
they never directed the children’s activities. tions) (k = 0.75); (8) social interactions with adults as teachers were
present on playgrounds (k = 0.95). Finally, when the target child
Observational procedure was engaged in an activity that did not fall into the categories,
The observations were made from March to May 2005 and mostly when he/she performed maintenance behaviors (e.g.,
2006. We used scan sampling for data collection [51]. The eating a snack, going to restroom…), these scans were discarded

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407

 Sex Differences in Social Development

and replaced by supplementary scans so as to have the same becoming rare in the two oldest age groups. Children spent also
number of observations for each child. Before observations and less and less time unoccupied (Uno) with a significant decrease at
coding, the two observers were previously trained on videotapes of the beginning and the end of the preschool period. Onlooker
children’s outdoor free-play until they reached satisfactory inter- behaviour (Onl) which was not frequent whatever age group
coder reliability. Inter-coder reliability was then established on 12 decreased significantly at the end of the preschool years. Solitary
videotapes selected randomly. Cohen’s kappa statistics for each (Sol) and parallel play (Par) showed a similar developmental course
social category ranged from 0.67 to 0.99 (global kappa = 0.84). with an abrupt decrease between 3–4 and 4–5 years. On the other
hand, associative play (Aso) increased significantly between 2–3
Statistical analyses and 4–5 years becoming twice as much frequent in 4–5 year-olds
A proportion score was calculated for each child for each of the than in 2–3 year-olds, but it decreased significantly thereafter.
eight social categories based on the proportion of time intervals Cooperative play (Cop) significantly increased from 4–5 years to
spent in each category (relative to total number of time intervals). 5–6 years, representing almost half of the children’s activities at the
Two-way ANOVAs were carried out on proportion scores to test end of the preschool period. Finally, interactions with peers (Int)
the effects of age, sex and their interaction. When an effect was significantly increased between 3–4 and 5–6 years.
significant, Fisher’s PLSD post hoc tests compared age groups or (DOC)
boys and girls within age groups. To assess children’s social
participation profiles, pairwise t-tests were used to compare the Table S3 Children’s social participation profiles over
proportions of social categories. All tests were two-tailed and the preschool period. Comparisons of the percentages of social
a = 0.05. play categories within age groups (pairewise t-tests: t- and P-values,
df, and sample sizes).
Supporting Information (DOC)

Table S1 Descriptive statistics of children’s playtime Table S4 Girls’ and boys’ social participation profiles
allocation among social participation categories within over the preschool period. Comparisons of the percentages of
age and sex groups. (M: Mean percentage, s.e.: standard error; social play categories within age and sex groups (pairewise t-tests:
Adu: interactions with adults, Uno: unoccupied behaviour, Sol: t- and P-values, df, and sample sizes).
solitary play, Onl: onlooker behaviour, Par: parallel play, Aso: (DOC)
associative play, Cop: cooperative play, Int: interactions with
peers).
(DOC) Acknowledgments
Table S2 Developmental trends in social participation We are especially grateful to A. Cloarec and to the Inspection of the
over the preschool period. Age effect on the percentages of National Education from Rennes and the schools.
children’s playtime allocation among social play categories (F and
P- values for variances analyses and P-values for Fisher’s PLSD Author Contributions
post-hoc comparisons among age groups). A main age effect was Conceived and designed the experiments: SB. Performed the experiments:
found for all the categories. More precisely, interactions with GC. Analyzed the data: SB GC. Wrote the paper: SB GLMI.
adults (Adu) showed a significant decrease from 2–3 to 4–5 years,

References
1. Mehl MR, Vazire S, Ramirez-Esparza N, Slatcher RB, Pennebaker JW (2007) 14. McClure EB (2000) A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression
Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317: 82. processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychol
2. Wallentin M (2009) Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language Bull 126: 424–453.
cortex: A critical review. Brain Lang 108: 175–183. 15. Happé FGE (1995) The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task
3. Lippa RA (2005) Gender, nature, and nurture. New York: Taylor & Francis performance of subjects with autism. Child Dev 66: 843–855.
Group. 335 p. 16. Charman T, Ruffman T, Clements W (2002) Is there a gender difference in false
4. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN (1974) The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, belief development? Soc Dev 11: 1–10.
CA: Stanford University Press. 634 p. 17. Walker S (2005) Gender differences in the relationship between young children’s
5. Ruble DN, Martin CL, Berenbaum SA (2006) Gender development. In: peer-related social competence and individual differences in theory of mind.
Eisenberg N, ed. Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken, NJ: J Genet Psychol 166: 297–312.
Wiley. pp 858–932. 18. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL (2006) Prosocial development. In:
6. Blakemore JEO, Berenbaum SA, Liben LS (2009) Gender development. New Eisenberg N, ed. Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken,
York: Psychology Press. 519 p. NJ: Wiley. pp 646–718.
7. Connellan J, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Batki A, Ahluwalia J (2000) Sex 19. Walker S, Irving K, Berthelsen D (2002) Gender influences on preschool
differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behav Dev 23: 113–118. children’s social problem-solving strategies. J Genet Psychol 163: 197–210.
8. Lutchmaya S, Baron-Cohen S (2002) Human sex differences in social and non- 20. Maccoby EE (1990) Gender and relationships. A developmental account. Am
social looking preferences, at 12 months of age. Infant Behav Dev 25: 319–325. Psychol 45: 513–520.
9. Hittelman JH, Dickes R (1979) Sex differences in neonatal eye contact time. 21. Leaper C, Smith TE (2004) A meta-analytic review of gender variations in
Merrill Palmer Q 25: 171–184. children’s language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech.
10. Leeb RT, Rejskind FG (2004) Here’s looking at you, kid! A longitudinal study of Dev Psychol 40: 993–1027.
perceived gender differences in mutual gaze behavior in young infants. Sex 22. Knickmeyer RC, Baron-Cohen S (2006) Fetal testosterone and sex differences in
Roles 50: 1–5. typical social development and in autism. J Child Neurol 21: 825–845.
11. Lutchmaya S, Baron-Cohen S, Ragatt P (2002) Foetal testosterone and eye 23. Golombok S, Rust J, Zervoulis K, Croudace T, Golding J, et al. (2008)
contact in 12-month-old human infants. Infant Behav Dev 25: 327–335. Developmental trajectories of sex-typed behavior in boys and girls: A
12. Nagy E, Kompagne H, Orvos H, Pal A (2007) Gender-related differences in longitudinal general population study of children aged 2.5–8 years. Child Dev
neonatal imitation. Inf Child Dev 16: 267–276. 79: 1583–1593.
13. Hall JA, Carter JD, Horgan TG (2000) Gender differences in nonverbal 24. Göncü A, Gaskins S (2007) Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural,
communication of emotion. In: Fischer AH, ed. Gender and emotion: Social and functional perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 328 p.
psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp 97– 25. Fromberg DP, Bergen D (2006) Play from birth to twelve: Contexts,
117. perspectives, and meanings. New York: Routledge. 455 p.

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407

 Sex Differences in Social Development

26. Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, Parker JG (2006) Peer interactions, relationships, 38. Hines M (2004) Brain gender. New York: Oxford University Press. 307 p.
and groups. In: Eisenberg N, ed. Social, emotional, and personality 39. Jadva V, Hines M, Golombok S (2010) Infants’ preferences for toys, colors, and
development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. pp 571–645. shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Arch Sex Behav. DOI 10.1007/s10508-
27. Coplan RJ, Rubin KH, Findley LC (2006) Social and nonsocial play. In: 010-9618-z.
Fromberg DP, Bergen D, eds. Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, 40. Brenner M, Omark DR (1979) The effects of sex, structure and social interaction
and meanings. New York: Routledge. pp 75–86. on preschoolers’ play behaviors in naturalistic setting. Instr Sci 8: 91–105.
28. Coplan RJ, Arbeau K (2008) Peer interactions and play in early childhood. In: 41. Cherney ID, Kelly-Vance L, Glover KG, Ruane A, Ryalls BO (2003) The effects
Rubin KH, Bukowski W, Laursen B, eds. Handbook of peer interactions, of stereotyped toys and gender on play assessment in children aged 18–47
relationships, and groups. New York: Guilford Press. pp 143–161. months. Educational Psychology 23: 95–106.
29. Howes C, Matheson CC (1992) Sequences in the development of competent 42. Martin CL, Fabes RA (2001) The stability and consequences of young children’s
play with peers: Social and social pretend play. Dev Psychol 28: 961–974. same-sex peer interactions. Dev Psychol 37: 431–446.
30. Colwell MJ, Lindsey EW (2005) Preschool children’s pretend and physical play 43. Murray L, Fiori-Cowley A, Hooper R, Cooper P (1996) The impact of postnatal
and sex of play partner: Connections to peer competence. Sex Roles 52:
depression and associated adversity on early mother-infant interactions and later
497–509.
infant outcome. Child Dev 67: 2512–2526.
31. Robinson CC, Anderson GT, Porter CL, Hart CH, Wouden-Miller M (2003)
44. Morisset CE, Barnard KE, Booth CL (1995) Toddlers’ language development:
Sequential transition patterns of preschoolers’ social interactions during child-
Sex differences within social risk. Dev Psychol 31: 851–865.
initiated play: Is parallel-aware play a bidirectional bridge to other play states?
Early Child Res Q 18: 3–21. 45. Lutchmaya S, Baron-Cohen S, Ragatt P (2002) Foetal testosterone and
32. Parten MB (1932) Social participation among preschool children. J Abnorm Soc vocabulary size in 18- and 24-month-old infants. Infant Behav Dev 24: 418–424.
Psychol 27: 243–269. 46. Auyeung B, Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, Knickmeyer R, Taylor K, et al. (2009)
33. Bornstein MH, Hahn CS, Haynes OM (2004) Specific and general language Fetal testosterone predicts sexually differentiated childhood behavior in girls and
performance across early childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First in boys. Psychol Sci 20: 144–148.
Lang 24: 267–304. 47. Auyeung B, Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, Knickmeyer R, Taylor K, et al. (2009)
34. Harris PL (2006) Social cognition. In: Kuhn D, Siegler R, eds. Cognition, Foetal testosterone and autistic traits. Br J Psychol 100: 1–22.
perception, and language. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. pp 811–858. 48. Huttenlocher J, Haight W, Bryk A, Seltzer M, Lyons T (1991) Early vocabulary
35. Smith PK (2007) Evolutionary foundations and functions of play: An overview. growth: Relation to language input and gender. Dev Psychol 27: 236–248.
In: Göncü A, Gaskins S, eds. Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, 49. Galsworthy MJ, Dionne G, Dale PS, Plomin R (2000) Sex differences in early
and functional perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp 21–49. verbal and non-verbal cognitive development. Dev Sci 3: 206–215.
36. Pellegrini AD, Smith PK (1998) The development of play during childhood: 50. Iervolino AC, Hines M, Golombok SE, Rust J, Plomin R (2005) Genetic and
Forms and possible functions. Child Psycho Psychiatry Review 3: 51–57. environmental influences on sex-typed behavior during the preschool years.
37. Berenbaum SA, Martin CL, Hanish LD, Briggs PT, Fabes RA (2008) Sex Child Dev 76: 826–840.
differences in children’s play. In: Becker JB, Geary KJ, Hampson E, Herman JP, 51. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods.
Young EA, eds. Sex differences in the brain: From genes to behavior. New York: Behaviour 49: 227–267.
Oxford University Press. pp 275–290.

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e16407