View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A 6-Year Longitudinal Exploration of Diversity in Ethnically/Racially Minoritized Children's Early Peer Circles

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A 6-Year Longitudinal Exploration of Diversity in Ethnically/Racially Minoritized Children's Early Peer Circles
Language: English
Authors: Anna Bennet (ORCID 0000-0003-2131-3674), Yana Kuchirko (ORCID 0000-0001-8138-7224), May Ling D. Halim, Philip R. Costanzo, Carol L. Martin, Adam Stanaland, Diane Ruble
Source: Social Development. 2024 33(4).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 021859
0721383
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Peer Relationship, Racial Differences, Ethnicity, Gender Differences, Age Differences, Infants, Young Children, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Latin Americans, Peer Groups, Diversity
DOI: 10.1111/sode.12744
ISSN: 0961-205X
1467-9507
Abstract: Exposure to diverse peers can expand children's experiences and skillsets, and these positive effects linger beyond childhood. Yet, little is known about the ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity in children's peer groups and how it may shift over time. Even less is known about these patterns among US nonwhite children. In the present study, we thus explored how diversity (with regard to ethnicity/race, gender, and age) in ethnically minoritized children's peer groups change from infancy through early childhood and tested whether the diversity of early peer groups remained stable across time. Over a 6-year period we followed 234 children (ages 1-6; 115 girls) from three large ethnic/racial minority groups in the United States: African American, Dominican American, and Mexican American. With age, children's peer groups increased in ethnic/racial diversity but decreased in gender and age diversity. Moreover, children's early peer diversity (at/around age 2-4) positively predicted the diversity of their later peer groups (at/around age 6) across all three types of diversity. This study provides novel insights into how children's peer groups change and grow in early development, particularly focusing on children from backgrounds that have been historically underrepresented in psychological science.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://doi.org/10.17910/B7CC74
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1481437
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF2RWuYqyQFhOC7AVk5DUKuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLT0I0NYxAkUppiMUwIBEICBmw0APsmYhU7pAtLSSNkfqo8OixrrpTwe_k--KEbJ7MwIcHlX206HrThvYIDmpoacMHPke1hYkk2oSwkRHsT-m2yT4e1D6CkwVJvaqgGkJ7orj97nj0x6E6CvI2ERBx5MW2ail2PuW51yz54eiXHQRLkRsbsBBWU2JjC8mIOMSBqSQie9_TWKNRvFDh0xtso6kYdT1aQijDnijp3w
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180281928;bsp01nov.24;2024Oct17.08:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180281928-1">A 6‐year longitudinal exploration of diversity in ethnically/racially minoritized children's early peer circles </title> <p>Exposure to diverse peers can expand children's experiences and skillsets, and these positive effects linger beyond childhood. Yet, little is known about the ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity in children's peer groups and how it may shift over time. Even less is known about these patterns among US nonwhite children. In the present study, we thus explored how diversity (with regard to ethnicity/race, gender, and age) in ethnically minoritized children's peer groups change from infancy through early childhood and tested whether the diversity of early peer groups remained stable across time. Over a 6‐year period we followed 234 children (ages 1–6; 115 girls) from three large ethnic/racial minority groups in the United States: African American, Dominican American, and Mexican American. With age, children's peer groups increased in ethnic/racial diversity but decreased in gender and age diversity. Moreover, children's early peer diversity (at/around age 2–4) positively predicted the diversity of their later peer groups (at/around age 6) across all three types of diversity. This study provides novel insights into how children's peer groups change and grow in early development, particularly focusing on children from backgrounds that have been historically underrepresented in psychological science.</p> <p>Keywords: age diversity; early childhood; ethnic/racial diversity; gender diversity; peers</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Children learn extensively about themselves and others from their peers (Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref1">62</reflink>]). As societies diversify, friendships across social categories such as ethnicity/race, gender, and age are particularly vital to children's social‐emotional development (Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]). Contact and friendships with diverse peers can reduce prejudice and stereotyping (Halim et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]) and increase levels of social skills, and self‐esteem (Fletcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]; Juvonen et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the benefits of having diverse friends, children tend to spend time with peers similar to themselves (Laursen, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]), and these patterns have consequences. For instance, exposure to mostly same‐gender peers in early childhood relates to the development of gender‐typical play preferences (Martin & Fabes, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref7">51</reflink>]). This, in turn, can cultivate gender segregation and gender stereotyping among young children (Fabes et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]) that persist into adulthood (Maccoby, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref9">49</reflink>]). Thus, understanding patterns of early diversity exposure on the basis of ethnicity/race, gender, and age is important in developing approaches to mitigating biases in children's and adults' interests, aspirations, competencies, and intergroup relations.</p> <p>We sought to explore exposure to diverse peers in the understudied developmental period of early childhood for several reasons. First, this is a time of significant cognitive and social development (Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref10">62</reflink>]) that coincides with shifts in children's social environments (Bennet et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]). From birth, children encounter peers primarily in the family context, but around 2–3 years of age many of them transition into center‐based care and school (Rubin et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref12">62</reflink>]). These contextual shifts represent natural turning points ripe for psychological study. Second, little is known about how contexts of early care and schooling relate to diversity of peer interactions. As young children move into new contexts, and are exposed to more peers, do their peer groups become more or less diverse? Little is known about how children's early peer groups change over time, particularly regarding their ethnic‐racial, gender, and age diversity.</p> <p>We analyze secondary data from a longitudinal study that followed children over 6 years and collected information from their mothers about their peer groups. We use the term <emph>peer circles</emph> to capture the ever‐changing nature of these groups across multiple contexts and comprising a variety of people including siblings, extended family members, neighbors, and classmates (see online Supplementary materials, OSM). Thus, to understand the nature of peer groups, it is imperative to collect snapshots of peer circles at various timepoints. By doing so, we address two major issues around peer circles. First, we examine, <emph>descriptive</emph>ly, the nature of peer circles over time with regards to their ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity. Second, we address, <emph>predictively</emph>, how children's early exposure to ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity relates to later ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity of their peer circles. Notably, our study includes children from ethnically/racially minoritized families, thus revealing how these patterns function in a significantly understudied population in the United States.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-3">Theoretical background</hd> <p>As children's contexts shift in early childhood, and they begin to spend more time outside the home and in center‐based care and preschool settings, do their peer circles become more or less diverse? Several theories offer explanations for patterns identified in any particular moment, but few address the shifting landscape of family socialization, demographic, and individual characteristics that likely shape changes in peer circles over early childhood. Nonetheless, these theories provide some insight into tendencies or experiences that are expected to promote or constrain diversity of peer circles.</p> <p>People tend to spend time with others who are similar to themselves, and this tendency constrains diversity. The similarity‐attraction hypothesis (Aboud & Mendelson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]; Laursen, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]) suggests that friendships are established based on homophily, that is, perceived similarities (McPherson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref15">55</reflink>]). Various characteristics can serve as the basis for similarity‐attraction, and these may change with age. For example, whereas "surface characteristics" (Jugert et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref16">37</reflink>]) such as ethnicity/race, gender, and age may be the initial connector between peers for young children, other characteristics (e.g., familiarity, and shared interests) may contribute to enduring friendships later on. Children's exposure to ethnic/racial diversity, for instance, is likely constrained by attraction to similar others. Certain surface characteristics may be particularly important in determining peer circles as children are highly sensitive to salient and functional categories/groups, such as gender (Bigler, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]). Moreover, similarity also becomes important when individuals have a choice of peers within their social contexts (Pica‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref18">61</reflink>]), for instance following young children's enrollment in center‐based care or school (Bennet et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whereas the similarity‐attraction hypothesis may constrain diversity, early experiences in and near the home may promote later diversity in children's peer circles. Peer circle diversity has notable benefits, particularly as societies across the world diversify. The contact hypothesis (Allport, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]), later, intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]), posits that frequent and positive interactions between members of diverse groups lead to reduced prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping and increased mutual understanding and connection (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>]; Pettigrew et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref23">60</reflink>]). Furthermore, the "dosage" of such exposure predicts sustained benefits (peer exposure theory, Hanish et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]; Martin & Fabes, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]). Children who regularly spend time with outgroup members are not only more open to, and prosocial towards cross‐ethnic and other‐gender peers (Halim et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]; Hanish et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]; Juvonen et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref28">38</reflink>]), but also demonstrate higher levels of general socioemotional skills (Hunter & Elias, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]) and inclusion (Kawabata & Crick, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref30">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>These theories suggest that it is important to examine differences among children in terms of exposure to diversity in peer circles during early childhood. We expect that regular dosage of other‐identified peers during this time may familiarize children with the variety available in their relationships and thus break down social barriers that might otherwise exist. As such, variability between children in patterns of "diversity exposure" may emerge during this time, such that those with early exposure to diverse peers will be more likely to experience diversity in their later peer circles.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-4">Diversity in young children's peer circles</hd> <p>We explored the structure and stability (or changes) in the ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity of children's peer circles. These social categories are arguably the most salient and influential throughout development (Katz & Kofkin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>]). Moreover, we compared the development of each kind of diversity to one another, so as to test whether the patterns we observed in one social category (e.g., ethnicity/race) are generalizable to the other social categories (e.g., gender and age) or if they are unique.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-5">Gender and ethnic/racial diversity in peer circles: similar and diverging patterns</hd> <p>Early experiences with parents, siblings, and family members may provide exposure to gender and age diversity but may provide less exposure to ethnic/racial diversity. Nonetheless, beginning in early development, infants and young children demonstrate homophily in terms of gender and ethnicity/race that aligns with the similarity‐attraction hypothesis (Aboud & Mendelson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]). For example, infants show preferences for same‐gender faces (Marquis & Sugden, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref33">50</reflink>]) and same‐ethnicity/race faces (Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). During the preschool years, children gravitate towards same‐gender peers (Fabes et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref35">16</reflink>]; Maccoby, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref36">49</reflink>]), as well as same‐ethnicity/race peers (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref37">46</reflink>]). These patterns intensify through middle childhood (Aboud et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]; Halim, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]) and particularly among girls, compared to boys (gender, Halim et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>]; ethnicity/race, Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>For many children, enrollment in center‐based care and preschool (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref42">57</reflink>]) is their initial exposure to larger numbers of diverse children. However, entry into preschool also brings increased attention to gender and thus may constrain gender diversity. For example, children experience peer pressure to follow gender norms (Xiao et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref43">67</reflink>]) and are subject to teacher biases that enforce the importance of gender (e.g., separating boys and girls; Bigler & Liben, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>]), which leads to increased gender segregation. These socialization practices promote focus on similarity and decrease the likelihood of diversity in peer circles.</p> <p>Though less openly enforced than gender segregation, peer circles also become increasingly segregated by ethnicity/race throughout the school years (Aboud et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]). Although classroom exposure to ethnic/racial diversity may encourage the formation of cross‐ethnicity/race friendships (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref46">47</reflink>]), this has not been shown consistently (Kao & Joyner, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>]). Moreover, racial socialization at home may counteract the positive effects (e.g., White parents' reluctance to engage in discussions on race; Hagan et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]). Still, other factors may also influence the ethnic/racial diversity of peer groups: For instance, neighborhood diversity is positively correlated with time spent with other‐ethnicity/race peers (Kogachi & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]). Mixed evidence on the nature of ethnic/racial diversity in peer circles among school‐aged children reinforces the need to assess how ethnic/racial diversity potentially shifts over development.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-6">Age diversity: exposure to mixed‐age peers</hd> <p>Many children have siblings, providing them with regular opportunities to spend time in mixed‐age peer groups. Certain center‐based care, or preschool environments mix ages (e.g., Head Start, Foster et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]), whereas others divide children into narrow age groups ("young" vs. "old twos" groups, Katz et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref51">40</reflink>]). In elementary school, most U.S. children are divided into narrow age groups. In contexts outside of school, such as in the immediate neighborhood, children are typically exposed to both younger and older peers (e.g., sharing public play spaces). Moreover, studies find that children do not exhibit strong preference for same‐age peers and instead are more likely to form mixed‐age peer groups (Ellis et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]). As such, we held no a priori predictions about shifts in the age diversity of children's peer groups.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-7">Current study</hd> <p>The first goal was to provide a descriptive analysis of the nature of peer circles (ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity) of ethnically diverse (African American, Dominican American, and Mexican American) children from low‐income urban neighborhoods. Children's ethnic/racial status may relate to the likelihood of having diverse peer circles, and this may stem from shared experiences (Hamm et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref53">30</reflink>]). Past research often grouped people with a shared Latiné background as homogenous, yet they have vastly different experiences, cultures, traditions, identities, and beliefs (Busey & Silva, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]). For this reason, we compared children from two of these unique Latiné cultural backgrounds (Mexican, Dominican) rather than considering them as one group, alongside African American children from the same urban area. Moreover, descriptive analyses provide insights into developmental changes and offer an important opportunity to focus on communities that are not only underrepresented in developmental science (Draper et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]; Syed et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref56">66</reflink>]) but are also soon‐to‐be part of the majority demographic in the United States (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref57">15</reflink>]). The residential contexts of the African American, Dominican American, and Mexican American families in our study are highly representative of ecological structures in diverse, urban settings, where multiple ethnicities due to social and economic factors reside within the same districts and neighborhoods. Such living arrangements, in turn, applies to many contemporary U.S. cities, adding to the ecological validity of the present work (Frey, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref58">21</reflink>]). Our second goal was to provide predictive insights into the development of peer group diversity, specifically, whether the ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity of peer groups earlier in the lifespan predicts later ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity among the same group of children.</p> <p>Given the age of our sample in the earliest assessments, we relied on mothers' reports about peer circles versus self‐report or observation. Maternal reports are both highly reliable across a wide range of constructs (e.g., Feldman et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>]; Simpkins & Parke, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref60">65</reflink>]), and preferable when used to understand early peer relations (e.g., Fletcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]). Mothers are often the primary caregivers of their children, with intimate knowledge and awareness of their children's social relationships and interactions. Children as young as in the present sample (e.g., 2‐ and 3‐year‐olds) are not able to provide complete accounts of their peers. Even for older children, parents receive communication from teachers and the children themselves about the peers who children play with while at center‐based care or preschool (including daily photos). Furthermore, parents (often mothers) are the facilitators of peer interactions for their children, bringing them to the playground, visiting their friends' homes, and regularly attending class birthday parties. Maternal reports show high validity and correlate with teacher reports of children in center‐based care (Golombok et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]). Our participating families were broadly recruited, and their children had different childcare and school contexts, which prevented observations of children's peer circles. Finally, to maintain consistency, we relied on mother interviews at all six timepoints rather than changing our method of data collection, which is particularly important in longitudinal designs. Mothers' reports of total peers at Timepoint 4 correlate with other timepoints in the present study (<emph>r</emph>s = .19–.27, <emph>p</emph>s < .000–.05).</p> <p>We decided to investigate, not only linear, but also quadratic and cubic effects across timepoints. Cognitive theories of gender development (Martin & Ruble, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref63">52</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref64">54</reflink>]) support quadratic effects in early childhood. As children learn about gender categories, identify with a gender, understand the relative permanence of gender, and consolidate gender stereotypes they are proposed to increase in gender "rigidity" (i.e., stereotypicality—including preferring same‐gender peers), especially from ages 3–4. Then, as children become more sophisticated in their gender knowledge and incorporate other types of identities into their self‐concepts, they are predicted to temper in their rigidity and even begin to show flexibility. Previous studies examining changes in gender diversity among peers during early childhood from age 3–5 (Halim et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref65">28</reflink>]) found evidence for a quadratic effect. As our data examined a longer period of time (from age 2 through 6), we expected a similar quadratic effect, but also a possible cubic effect to include the two tail ends of ages 2 and 6. Although, to our knowledge, literature on ethnic/racial diversity and age diversity has not reported quadratic or cubic patterns, we wanted to be consistent in our analyses and thus explored this in ethnic/racial and age diversity as well.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-8">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-9">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 234 children and their mothers (<emph>M</emph><subs>age </subs>= 29.06, <emph>SD </emph>= 5.64 at the point of recruitment). The sample was evenly divided by sex (<emph>n</emph><subs>girls</subs> = 115, <emph>n</emph><subs>boys</subs> = 119 boys) and mother ethnicity: African American <emph>(n</emph> = 81), Dominican American <emph>(n </emph>= 83), or Mexican American (<emph>n</emph> = 70) (Table 1). Infant‐mother pairs were recruited at birth in public hospitals on the basis of being healthy and full‐term (birth weight > 2500 g) and then followed until early elementary school age (approximately 1st grade). Mothers who qualified for the study were 18 years or older, did not live in shelters, and self‐identified as US‐born African American, Dominican American, or Mexican American. Of the mothers approached, 50% agreed to participate. Focal children's center‐based care/preschool attendance was the following at each age: 2 = 17%; 3 = 18%; 4 = 62%; 5 = 91%. At age 6, all of the children were in first grade. Data were collected at 6 timepoints occurring within a month of the infant/child's birthday. Sample size ranged from 181–200 due to attrition at different ages. Families with complete data did not significantly differ from those with incomplete data on education, professional, marital, or immigrant status, dominant language, age, physical health, psychological distress, household living arrangement, income, or children's cognitive and language skills at age 2. Lower levels of attrition were found among female children and those with Mexican American mothers (OSM).</p> <p>1 TABLE Sample demographic information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Demographic variable</th><th>African American</th><th>Dominican American</th><th>Mexican American</th><th>Comparison (<italic>p</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Female</td><td>44%</td><td>47%</td><td>57%</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>Mother non‐U.S. born</td><td>–</td><td>80%</td><td>96%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline (infant's birth)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mother's years of education</td><td>11.87 (1.58)</td><td>12.13 (2.15)</td><td>8.36 (3.44)</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>Mother cohabitating with father</td><td>47%</td><td>64%</td><td>87%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>Annual income</td><td>$19,743 (17,839)</td><td>$23,765 (13,935)</td><td>$17,826 (11,342)</td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood ethnic/racial composition by zip code:</td></tr><tr><td>American Indian and Alaska Native</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>.41</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>4%</td><td>4%</td><td>12%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td>50%</td><td>27%</td><td>22%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>36%</td><td>50%</td><td>46%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>Other race</td><td>17%</td><td>24%</td><td>22%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>24%</td><td>38%</td><td>12%</td><td>.0010002</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: <sups>*</sups><emph>p </emph>< .05;</p> <p>2 ** <emph>p </emph>< .001.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-10">Procedure</hd> <p>Data were collected between 2005 and 2011. Parent consent forms were completed in‐person. Mothers were surveyed at home (when children were aged 1–3), and then in a university lab (when children were aged 4–6) in their dominant language (English or Spanish) by researchers fluent in the respective language. Researchers (project managers with a bachelor's degree, and master's and doctoral students) conducted the data collection. Using pen and paper, researchers wrote down mothers' responses in a table; each row represented a peer, and each column represented a peer characteristic (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, etc.). Mothers were paid $75 per visit. The Institutional Review Board at New York University approved this study. It was not preregistered.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-11">Measures</hd> <p>Data were collected via surveys that researchers read aloud to mothers to accommodate participants with different literacy levels. At all timepoints mothers were asked to list their children's peers (see OSM for more details and procedure). The survey contained a table in which each row represented a peer, for example, Peer 1; Peer 2; Peer 3, etc. At age 1, up to 15 peers could be listed, and at ages 2–6, up to nine peers could be listed. If mothers reported more than nine peers, researchers could add rows manually. This adjustment to the survey was based on the range of number of peers listed at timepoint 1. Columns at the top of the survey table represented informational queries about each peer. From this information, we obtained data on their relationship to the focal child, gender, age, and ethnicity. Specifically, we asked: "Please tell me who they are?" (Name of Peer 1, asked at ages 1–6); "Relationship of peer to focus child?" (ages 1–6, options were 1 = Sibling or step‐sibling, 2 = Cousin, 3 = Other family members, 4 = Neighbors, 5 = Family friends, 6 = Child Care friends, 7 = Other, in which mothers' own specification was included); "Gender of peer?" (ages 1–6, options were 1 = Male, 2 = Female), "Age (in years)?" (ages 1–6), "Ethnicity?" (ages 3–6, options were 1 = Dominican, 2 = Mexican, 3 = Other Latino, 4 = African American, 5 = White, 6 = Chinese, 7 = Other Asian, 8 = Other, in which mothers' own specification was included), and "Do you consider them your child's friend?" (ages 1–6, options were 0 = No, 1 = Yes). After finishing each column of questions for Peer 1, the interviewing researcher moved to the following row, and probed the mother to list information about Peer 2 (e.g., "Great. Does [child's name] have other peers they spend time with? What is their name?"). This procedure was repeated until the mother said they had no additional peers to list.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-12">Number of peers</hd> <p>At all six timepoints, the number of peers reported by mothers was summed to create a variable representing the total number of peers per child at each timepoint.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-13">Ethnic/racial diversity</hd> <p>Ethnic/racial diversity was calculated as the number of peers that were of a different ethnicity/race category than the focal child divided by the total number of peers listed at timepoints 3–6. In effect, children with more other‐ethnicity/race peers (relative to their own ethnicity/race category) had higher percentage of other‐ethnicity/race peers.</p> <p>Children with Latiné subethnicities such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Dominican peers were counted as separate ethnic/racial groups. For example, the ethnic/racial diversity of a Dominican American child with 1 Dominican American peer and 1 Mexican American peer was 0.5 (50%). This approach is consistent with how we measure gender diversity (see section below). The OSM contains a more detailed description of the overall diversity in the sample.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-14">Gender diversity</hd> <p>We operationalized gender diversity as the number of other‐gender peers (e.g., for a boy, the number of girls) divided by the total number of peers listed at all of the timepoints (due to too few peers listed by mothers and therefore low power at timepoint 1, analyses were conducted at ages 2–6). Children with more other‐gender peers (relative to their own gender) had higher percentage of gender diversity.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-15">Age diversity</hd> <p>We operationalized age diversity as the age range in each child's peer circle. In doing so, we subtracted the youngest peer age from the oldest peer age. To focus on a full range of children who might be considered children's peers, we included peers 18 years of age and younger, although there were only a few outside this range (wave 1 <emph>n </emph>= 2, wave 2 <emph>n</emph> = 1, wave 3 <emph>n </emph>= 11, wave 4 <emph>n </emph>= 7, wave 5 <emph>n </emph>= 3, wave 6 <emph>n </emph>= 9). As expected, most mothers reported peers whose age was within a couple of years of their children (Tables 2–3).</p> <p>2 TABLE Means (standard deviations) of ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity of peers by age, and ethnicity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Total sample</th><th>Mexican American</th><th>Dominican American</th><th>African American</th><th>Comparison <italic>E</italic>/<italic>R</italic> (<italic>p</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proportion of other‐ethnicity/race peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>.20<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.17<sub>a</sub>(.28)</td><td>.28<sub>a</sub>(.34)</td><td>.16<sub>a</sub>(.25)</td><td>.05*</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>.32<sub>b</sub>(.35)</td><td>.35<sub>ab</sub>(.37)</td><td>.40<sub>a</sub>(.38)</td><td>.20<sub>b</sub>(.25)</td><td>.004**</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>.38<sub>b</sub>(.39)</td><td>.41<sub>a</sub>(.40)</td><td>.45<sub>a</sub>(.40)</td><td>.28<sub>a</sub>(.37)</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>.34<sub>b</sub>(.35)</td><td>.37<sub>a</sub>(.36)</td><td>.42<sub>a</sub>(.38)</td><td>.19<sub>b</sub>(.23)</td><td>.003**</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Proportion of other‐gender peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>.53(.33)</td><td>.61<sub>a</sub>(.31)</td><td>.54<sub>a</sub>(.33)</td><td>.48<sub>a</sub>(.35)</td><td>.52</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>.42<sub>a</sub>(.31)</td><td>.48<sub>a</sub>(.31)</td><td>.44<sub>a</sub>(.31)</td><td>.36<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.12</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>.48<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.48<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.50<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.45<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.61</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>.31<sub>b</sub>(.27)</td><td>.31<sub>a</sub>(.31)</td><td>.30<sub>a</sub>(.24)</td><td>.33<sub>a</sub>(.26)</td><td>.78</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>.27<sub>b</sub>(.27)</td><td>.29<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.28<sub>a</sub>(.24)</td><td>.27<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.96</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>.27<sub>b</sub>(.26)</td><td>.29<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.28<sub>a</sub>(.22)</td><td>.23<sub>a</sub>(.25)</td><td>.49</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age range (age diversity) among peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>4.52(4.09)</td><td>4.45<sub>a</sub>(4.43)</td><td>4.28<sub>a</sub>(3.86)</td><td>4.75<sub>a</sub>(4.25)</td><td>.91</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>4.89<sub>a</sub>(3.65)</td><td>4.43<sub>a</sub>(3.41)</td><td>5.25<sub>a</sub>(3.43)</td><td>4.92<sub>a</sub>(4.11)</td><td>.50</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>5.90<sub>a</sub>(4.16)</td><td>6.33<sub>a</sub>(3.87)</td><td>5.54<sub>a</sub>(4.00)</td><td>5.81<sub>a</sub>(4.67)</td><td>.57</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>3.13<sub>b</sub>(3.29)</td><td>2.55<sub>a</sub>(2.85)</td><td>3.29<sub>a</sub>(3.25)</td><td>3.53<sub>a</sub>(3.68)</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>3.33<sub>b</sub>(3.35)</td><td>2.72<sub>a</sub>(2.93)</td><td>3.94<sub>a</sub>(3.72)</td><td>3.21<sub>a</sub>(3.20)</td><td>.16</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>4.14<sub>b</sub>(3.90)</td><td>3.79<sub>a</sub>(3.83)</td><td>4.02<sub>a</sub>(3.32)</td><td>4.68<sub>a</sub>(4.67)</td><td>.53</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Number of peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>3.65 (2.36)</td><td>4.75<sub>a</sub>(3.82)</td><td>3.19<sub>a</sub>(1.88)</td><td>3.60<sub>a</sub>(1.90)</td><td>.17</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>3.51<sub>a</sub>(1.73)</td><td>3.25<sub>a</sub>(1.53)</td><td>3.69<sub>a</sub>(1.74)</td><td>3.55<sub>a</sub>(1.87)</td><td>.40</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>4.37<sub>b</sub>(1.96)</td><td>4.38<sub>a</sub>(1.78)</td><td>4.31<sub>a</sub>(1.94)</td><td>4.43<sub>a</sub>(2.21)</td><td>.95</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>3.58<sub>c</sub>(1.73)</td><td>3.22<sub>a</sub>(1.79)</td><td>3.62<sub>a</sub>(1.59)</td><td>3.88<sub>a</sub>(1.79)</td><td>.13</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>3.39<sub>c</sub>(1.79)</td><td>3.29<sub>ab</sub>(1.75)</td><td>3.92<sub>a</sub>(1.87)</td><td>2.98<sub>b</sub>(1.65)</td><td>.02*</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>4.18<sub>d</sub>(1.91)</td><td>3.94<sub>a</sub>(2.14)</td><td>4.53<sub>a</sub>(1.92)</td><td>3.95<sub>a</sub>(1.57)</td><td>.18</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: E/R = Ethnicity/Race. Data were not collected on other‐ethnicity/race peers at timepoints 1 and 2. Data were not analyzed on other‐gender peers or peer age range at timepoint 1 because of low reporting of peers. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts are significantly different at <emph>p </emph>< .05 (within ethnicity/race comparisons; within gender comparisons).</item> <item>3 TABLE Means (standard deviations) of ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity of peers by age, and gender.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Total sample</th><th>Boys</th><th>Girls</th><th>Comparison gender (<italic>p</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Proportion of other‐ethnicity/race peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>.20<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.22<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.19<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.47</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>.32<sub>b</sub>(.35)</td><td>.30<sub>a</sub>(.34)</td><td>.34<sub>a</sub>(.36)</td><td>.45</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>.38<sub>b</sub>(.39)</td><td>.37<sub>a</sub>(.39)</td><td>.40<sub>a</sub>(.40)</td><td>.63</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>.34<sub>b</sub>(.35)</td><td>.34<sub>a</sub>(.34)</td><td>.34<sub>a</sub>(.36)</td><td>.99</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Proportion of other‐gender peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>.53(.33)</td><td>.54<sub>a</sub>(.35)</td><td>.52<sub>a</sub>(.32)</td><td>.83</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>.42<sub>a</sub>(.31)</td><td>.43a(.33)</td><td>.42<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.92</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>.48<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.49<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.46<sub>a</sub>(.30)</td><td>.59</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>.31<sub>b</sub>(.27)</td><td>.31<sub>a</sub>(.26)</td><td>.32<sub>a</sub>(.28)</td><td>.77</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>.27<sub>b</sub>(.27)</td><td>.27<sub>a</sub>(.29)</td><td>.27<sub>a</sub>(.25)</td><td>.94</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>.27<sub>b</sub>(.26)</td><td>.29<sub>a</sub>(.25)</td><td>.24<sub>a</sub>(.27)</td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age range (age diversity) among peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>4.52(4.09)</td><td>4.74<sub>a</sub>(4.27)</td><td>4.29<sub>a</sub>(3.94)</td><td>.65</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>4.89<sub>a</sub>(3.65)</td><td>4.43<sub>a</sub>(3.62)</td><td>5.31<sub>a</sub>(3.66)</td><td>.12</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>5.90<sub>a</sub>(4.16)</td><td>5.61<sub>a</sub>(4.10)</td><td>6.18<sub>a</sub>(4.23)</td><td>.36</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>3.13<sub>b</sub>(3.29)</td><td>3.43<sub>a</sub>(3.63)</td><td>2.80<sub>a</sub>(2.86)</td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>3.33<sub>b</sub>(3.35)</td><td>3.27<sub>a</sub>(3.47)</td><td>3.41<sub>a</sub>(3.22)</td><td>.79</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>4.14<sub>b</sub>(3.90)</td><td>4.07<sub>a</sub>(3.83)</td><td>4.20<sub>a</sub>(3.99)</td><td>.84</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Number of peers</td></tr><tr><td>Age 1</td><td>3.65 (2.36)</td><td>3.94<sub>a</sub>(2.88)</td><td>3.19<sub>a</sub>(1.65)</td><td>.29</td></tr><tr><td>Age 2</td><td>3.51<sub>a</sub>(1.73)</td><td>3.38<sub>a</sub>(1.94)</td><td>4.08<sub>a</sub>(1.99)</td><td>.32</td></tr><tr><td>Age 3</td><td>4.37<sub>b</sub>(1.96)</td><td>4.20<sub>a</sub>(2.01)</td><td>4.67<sub>a</sub>(1.89)</td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td>Age 4</td><td>3.58<sub>c</sub>(1.73)</td><td>3.49<sub>a</sub>(1.56)</td><td>3.71<sub>a</sub>(1.93)</td><td>.41</td></tr><tr><td>Age 5</td><td>3.39<sub>c</sub>(1.79)</td><td>3.32<sub>a</sub>(1.93)</td><td>3.47<sub>a</sub>(1.60)</td><td>.58</td></tr><tr><td>Age 6</td><td>4.18<sub>d</sub>(1.91)</td><td>4.49<sub>a</sub>(1.98)</td><td>3.95<sub>b</sub>(1.92)</td><td>.05*</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison (p)</td><td>.001**</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Data were not collected on other‐ethnicity/race peers at timepoints 1 and 2. Data were not analyzed on other‐gender peers or peer age range at timepoint 1 because of low reporting of peers. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts are significantly different at <emph>p </emph>< .05 (within ethnicity/race comparisons; within gender comparisons).</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-16">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-17">Changes in number of, and contexts of peers in peer circles as children aged</hd> <p>Most mothers considered the peers listed as their child's "friend" (age 1: 97%; age 2: 100%; age 3: 99%; age 4: 99%; age 5: 100%; age 6: 99%). Before examining the diversity of children's peer circles over time, we aimed to get a better sense of the general size of children's peer circles and from what contexts peers were met (Figure 5 and OSM Figure S3). We initially only tested linear changes for number of peers over time and examined estimated marginal means. Based on the observed patterns of the estimated marginal means, we reran the model with additional quadratic and cubic effects as these seemed to fit the trends in the mean. The overall linear mixed model was indeed significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>, 656.40) = 12.28, <emph>p </emph>< .001, as was the overall cubic model, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>, 644.67) = 46.23, <emph>p </emph>< .001. Children's total number of peers increased between ages 2–3, then decreased ages 3–5, and, finally, increased again in the last timepoint (ages 5–6, Figure S1 in OSM). Follow‐up analyses revealed significant changes in number of peers from timepoints 2 (<emph>M </emph>= 3.48, <emph>SD </emph>= .14), and 3 (<emph>M </emph>= 4.35, <emph>SD </emph>= .14, <emph>p </emph>< .001) and timepoints 3 and 4 (<emph>M </emph>= 3.57, <emph>SD </emph>= .14, <emph>p </emph>< .001). Child gender <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>, 594.51) = .001, <emph>p </emph>= .98 or ethnicity/race <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>, 274.72) = 1.34, <emph>p </emph>= .26 did not produce any significant main effects or interactions on number of peers.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-18">RQ D : peer circles' shifting diversity</hd> <p>Our first research question addressed whether children's peer circles become more or less diverse from infancy to early childhood regarding ethnicity/race, gender, and age. We conducted three mixed‐model analyses predicting children's average other‐ethnicity/race, other‐gender, and age range of peers as a function of timepoint (linear, quadratic, and cubic components separated), gender (female reference group), ethnicity (Dominican American reference group) and the interactions between each of these variables. Mixed‐model approaches allowed us to include participants with missing data at one or more timepoints and to test patterns of trajectories across several timepoints. We also included a random participant intercept effect. Diversity proportions are presented in Tables 2 and 3, and correlations between all diversity variables and timepoints are presented in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01nov24/sode12744-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode12744-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Correlation matrix for ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity. Note: E/R = Ethnicity/Race. Colored numbers represent children's ages. Plots represent distributions of responses for each variable. * p < .05; ** p < .001." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-20">Ethnic/Racial diversity</hd> <p>We examined proportions of other‐ethnicity/race peers in children's peer circles across ages 3–6. The ethnic/racial diversity of children's peers increased linearly from ages 3 to age 6, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>, 497.85) = 12.30, <emph>p </emph>< .001 (Figure S4 in OSM). Follow‐up analyses showed that from age 3 (about 20%) to age 4 (about 32%), there was a significant upward shift in the proportion of other‐ethnicity/race peers (<emph>p </emph>= .001)</p> <p>We also tested whether certain ethnic/racial or gender groups might have more ethnically diverse peer circles than others (Figure 2). ANOVA results revealed differences by ethnic/racial group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>, 213.59) = 8.89, <emph>p </emph>< .001, but not gender group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>, 213.64) = .10, <emph>p </emph>= .76. African American children (<emph>M </emph>= .21, <emph>SD </emph>= .03) had lower proportions of other‐ethnicity/race peers compared to Dominican American children (<emph>M </emph>= .39, <emph>SD </emph>= .03) and Mexican American children (<emph>M </emph>= .33, <emph>SD </emph>= .03), <emph>p</emph>s = .001 and  .02. There was no difference between Dominican and Mexican American children (<emph>p</emph> = .54).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01nov24/sode12744-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode12744-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Proportion of other–ethnicity/race peers by age and ethnicity. Note: E/R = Ethnicity/Race. Bolded horizontal black lines in box plots represent the sample median; red lines represent the sample mean." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-22">Gender diversity</hd> <p>We found a negative linear time trend in gender diversity over time, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>, 668.65) = 19.95, <emph>p </emph>< .001, as well as quadratic <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>, 658.88) = 12.84, <emph>p </emph>< .001 and cubic effects <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>, 654.61) = 13.80, <emph>p </emph>< .001. Children's proportion of other‐gender peers remained stable between ages 2 and 3, and then declined between ages 3 and 6 (Figure 3). However, the only statistically significant pairwise change was between ages 3 and 4, <emph>p </emph>< .001 (Tables 2–3). Age effects for proportions of same‐gender peers have been reported more extensively on these data in prior studies (ages 3–5, Halim et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref76">28</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01nov24/sode12744-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode12744-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Proportion of other–gender peers by age and ethnicity. Note: Bolded horizontal black lines in box plots represent the sample median; red lines represent the sample mean." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-24">Age diversity</hd> <p>Linear, quadratic, and cubic time trends in age diversity were significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>, 670.30) = 19.17, <emph>p </emph>< .001; <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>, 659.71) = 19.52, <emph>p </emph>< .001 and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>, 656.34) = 30.47, <emph>p </emph>< .001, respectively. Patterns suggested that the age range of children's peers increased from ages 2–3 (<emph>p </emph>< .05), then decreased ages 3–4 (<emph>p </emph>< .001), and increased again between age 4 and 6 (<emph>p </emph>< .05) (Figure 4). There were no differences by children's ethnicity/race <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>, 324.11) = .82, <emph>p </emph>= .48 or gender groups <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>, 268.81) = .54, <emph>p </emph>= .46.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01nov24/sode12744-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode12744-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Age diversity by age (in years). Note: Each circle represents one child. Purple lines mark the average peer age range at each age." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01nov24/sode12744-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode12744-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Proportion of total peers from each social context by age (in years)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-27">RQ P : Longitudinal associations between early and later peer diversity</hd> <p>Our second research question addressed whether children's early ethnic/racial, gender, and age peer circle diversity predicted their later peer circle diversity. We conducted a path analysis using Mplus 8.0 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref82">56</reflink>]). The hypothesized models with significant path results are presented in Figure 6a,b. We first tested the fully saturated models for ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity, covarying participant gender and ethnicity, in which all possible paths are estimated—that is, all paths between each age <emph>and</emph> all paths between nonadjacent ages. Based on the modification indices provided in Mplus, we trimmed models to improve power by including only the significant and marginally significant paths (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref83">56</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01nov24/sode12744-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode12744-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Longitudinal predictiveness of diversity across time (a) Longitudinal predictiveness of ethnic/racial diversity from age 3 through age 6. Note: E/R = Ethnicity/Race. Standardized coefficients from a trimmed path model. Only significant paths are depicted. Initially, all possible paths were estimated (both between adjacent and nonadjacent variables). Child ethnicity and gender was adjusted for in the equations directly predicting all of the other variables, but these paths are not depicted for visual clarity. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. (b) Longitudinal predictiveness of age diversity from age 2 through age 6. Note: Standardized coefficients from a trimmed path model. Only significant paths are depicted. Initially, all possible paths were estimated (both between adjacent and nonadjacent variables). Child ethnicity and gender were adjusted for in the equations directly predicting all of the other variables, but these paths are not depicted for visual clarity. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180281928-29">Early ethnic/racial diversity predicted later ethnic/racial diversity of peer circles</hd> <p>The trimmed model had good model fit (<emph>X</emph><sups>2 </sups>= 2.05, <emph>p </emph>= .359, RMSEA  =  .01 [.00, .14], CFI = 1.00; Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref84">34</reflink>]). Paths between all consecutive timepoints were positive and significant (3–4 years, <emph>β </emph>= .38, <emph>p </emph>< .001; 4–5 years, <emph>β</emph> = .49, <emph>p </emph>< .001; 5–6 years, <emph>β </emph>= .34, <emph>p </emph>< .001), suggesting that if children had ethnically/racially diverse peers at one age, they likely also had ethnically/racially diverse peers at the next consecutive age (Figure 6a, <emph>N </emph>= 218). In addition, ethnic/racial diversity in peer circles at age 3 positively predicted greater ethnic/racial diversity in peer circles at age 6 (<emph>β</emph> = .20, <emph>p </emph>= .010). A mediation analysis showed age 3 diversity's effect on age 6 diversity was only partially mediated by diversity at ages 4 and 5, as the sum of the indirect path from age 3 diversity to age 6 diversity (through ages 4 and 5 diversity) was still significant (<emph>β </emph>= .07, <emph>p </emph>= .001). Early ethnic/racial diversity among peers at age 3 predicted ethnic/racial diversity in peer circles 3 years later at age 6, both indirectly through its link with age 4 diversity (which predicted age 5 diversity and so on) and directly (total effect of age 3 diversity on age 6 diversity: <emph>β </emph>= .27, <emph>p </emph>= .001), which may highlight a unique predictive ability of ethnic/racial diversity at age 3 on diversity at age 6.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-30">Early gender diversity correlated with later gender diversity of peer circles</hd> <p>Indicators of model fit were mixed for the trimmed model. The RMSEA suggested adequate model fit (RMSEA = .08 [.00, .15]), however other indicators suggested poorer fit that approached adequacy, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 6.94, <emph>p </emph>= .08, CFI = .86 (Lai & Green, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref85">48</reflink>]). This inconsistency in model fit indices might be indicative of having a relatively smaller sample size (<emph>N </emph>= 228). Additionally, theory and past research suggest that early childhood is a developmental period showing much change in gender‐typing, including gender segregation (Halim, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref86">26</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref87">54</reflink>]). This might explain the lack of stability seen from one age to the next in the gender diversity of peer circles. Thus, we omit the results here, but they can be found in the OSM. Instead, we describe the zero‐order correlations in the gender diversity of peer circles between consecutive ages (Figure 1). There were significant positive correlations between age 2 with age 3, <emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref88">138</reflink>) = .37, <emph>p </emph>= .001, between age 4 and age 5, <emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref89">145</reflink>) = .21, <emph>p </emph>= .01, and between age 5 and age 6, <emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref90">133</reflink>) = .19, <emph>p </emph>= .03. In addition, gender diversity in peer circles at age 2 was positively correlated with greater gender diversity in peer circles at ages 4 and 6, <emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref91">130</reflink>) = .17, <emph>p </emph>= .05, <emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref92">114</reflink>) = .27, <emph>p </emph>= .003, respectively. This suggests, similar to the results for ethnic/racial diversity, that gender diversity as early as during the toddler years, has important implications for gender diversity in early elementary school.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-31">Earlier age diversity predicted later age diversity of peer circles</hd> <p>The trimmed model presented in Figure 6b revealed direct and significant paths between age 2 and age 3 (<emph>β</emph> = .34, <emph>p </emph>< .001), age 3 and 4 (<emph>β </emph>= .19, <emph>p </emph>< .05), age 5 and 6 (<emph>β </emph>= .20, <emph>p </emph>< .05). The model fit was good (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 11.12, <emph>p </emph>= .68, RMSEA = .00 [.00,  .05], CFI = 1.00). This suggests that children with age diverse peers at one age, also had age diverse peers at the next consecutive age, aside from ages 4–5. Additionally, the direct effect between age 4 and age 6 was significant (<emph>β </emph>= .24, <emph>p </emph>< .01), suggesting that the effect of age diversity at age 4 on age diversity at age 6 was independent of, and thus not mediated through age diversity at age 5. These patterns were not moderated by child gender (underpowered for ethnicity).</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-32">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Our study is the first to shed light on multiple forms of diversity in African American, Dominican American, and Mexican American children's peer circles over the span of the first six years of life. Our findings suggest that ethnically/racially minoritized children's peer circles change in meaningful ways across early childhood and highlight the potential importance of early exposure to diverse peers. Although total number of peers increased over time, the pattern was cubic, with a decrease between ages 3–5. Generally, children's peers mostly consisted of family members (e.g., siblings and cousins) between ages 1–3, which shifted to classmates and community peers between ages 4–6 (OSM). Diversity of circles also changed over time: The gender diversity of children's peer circles declined, consistent with past work (Halim, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref93">26</reflink>]; Maccoby, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref94">49</reflink>]), whereas the ethnic/racial diversity of children's peer circles increased. Age diversity showed a cubic pattern of initial increase, followed by decrease, and then a smaller increase again as children reached age 6. Early diversity predicted later diversity: Early ethnic/racial (age 3), gender (age 2), and age (age 4) diversity in peer circles was positively associated with later ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity in peer circles (age 6).</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-33">Developmental trends in ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity</hd> <p>Past work has found that children tend to segregate by ethnicity/race throughout their elementary school years (Aboud et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>]). We extended research to younger children and found that as children aged from 3 to 4 years, the ethnic/racial diversity of their peers increased and then remained stable from 4 to 6 years. The children in our sample lived in an urban setting with an ethnically/racially diverse city population (Yoshikawa, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref96">69</reflink>]). Many children move from home into preschool settings at age 3, expanding peer circles to include peers from school and community (see OSM for descriptive analyses of children's shifting peer contexts across time), which could explain the increase in ethnic/racial diversity at this timepoint.</p> <p>Interestingly, as the ethnic/racial diversity of peers increased, on average, from ages 3–4, the gender diversity of peers significantly <emph>decreased</emph>, on average, during the same time period. Gender diversity in peers remained low across ages 4 through 6. Social cognitive patterns may explain this trend in that children tend to become more autonomous, and agentic in selecting peers from ages 3–4 (Fabes et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref97">16</reflink>]), and are becoming increasingly aware of their gender identity, associating gender with heightened importance and biases (Halim, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref98">26</reflink>]). This further motivates them to learn and follow gender norms (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref99">54</reflink>]). Social cognitive factors likely interact with contextual factors to further decrease gender diversity. For example, school structures like designated boys' versus girls' activities and spaces (Bigler & Liben, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref100">9</reflink>]), teaching practices that increase gender salience (Hilliard & Liben, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]), and gender‐typing of subjects (Bian et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref102">7</reflink>]) focus attention on gender and increase gender segregation. In schools, peers also enforce gender norms by limiting who can play with whom (Xiao et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref103">67</reflink>]). A cognition and context framework may help future researchers in comprehensively identifying antecedents of gender segregation and find ways to foster increased diversity in peer circles.</p> <p>Peer age diversity increased ages 2–3, then decreased from ages 3–4, only to increase again between age 4 and 6. At age 6, age diversity was still significantly lower than at age 3. Entry into center‐based care and preschool (and, at age 6, Kindergarten) likely influenced the drop in age range in children's peer circles. In U.S. center‐based care and preschool, age groups tend to be relatively narrowly segregated (Katz et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]). As children enroll in formal school settings, they may primarily have exposure to same‐aged peers, and generally spend less time in mixed‐age peer groups (as they spend most of their time in age‐segregated groups at school). See OSM for exploratory follow up analyses on effects of enrollment in center‐based care and preschool on peer diversity across early childhood.</p> <p>Looking across ethnicity/race, gender, and age for diversity trends, it is notable that children experienced increases in one form of peer diversity (ethnic/racial) but general decreases in the other two (gender and age). Although young children can categorize others by ethnicity/race and generally spend more time with same‐ethnicity/race peers, past research has found that gender bias tends to be stronger and less variable than ethnicity/race bias and categorization of others by gender is more consistent than categorization by ethnicity/race (Pauker et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref105">58</reflink>]; Shutts et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref106">64</reflink>]). Furthermore, ethnicity/race may be less salient than gender during early childhood (e.g., children may hear "good girl/boy" every day, but not "good [ethnicity/race]"). Scholars typically point to the middle childhood and adolescent period as a time when ethnic/racial segregation becomes more apparent (Aboud et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref107">2</reflink>]; Kao & Joyner, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref108">39</reflink>]). Age, similar to gender, may also be more salient for children than ethnicity/race, particularly to those enrolled in formal school settings who are accustomed to being grouped and defined by their age. Differences in children's ethnicity/race versus gender and age diversity in peer groups also likely reflects differential societal acceptance of ethnic/racial versus gender and age segregation. Whereas segregation by race is forbidden by federal law in many countries (e.g., single‐race schools), segregation by gender and age is permitted and often encouraged (e.g., single‐gender schools; age‐segregated classrooms) (Bigler & Liben, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref109">9</reflink>]). As children witness these repeated categorizations by gender and age in different contexts, they might increasingly employ such schemas themselves. Thus, children's cognitions and attitudes, and the systems and structures supporting these social categories, may explain the observed divergence in peer group diversity pathways.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-34">Predicting ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity in children's peer circles</hd> <p>We addressed the question of whether children with higher exposure to diverse peers early in life showed more diversity in their peer circles at age 6. Intriguingly, children's ethnic/racial peer diversity at age 3 directly predicted their ethnic/racial peer diversity 3 years later (an effect not fully mediated by ages 4 and 5 levels of ethnic/racial diversity) when they had likely moved into a different educational context (preschool vs. first grade). Therefore, to increase ethnic/racial diversity at later points in early childhood, parents and educators might want to promote very early diversity of children's peer groups. In line with intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref110">59</reflink>]) and peer exposure theory (Hanish et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref111">32</reflink>]), early contact could encourage prosocial, integrated peer groups later on when children exercise more agency over their peer selection. Our results suggest that if children have a high "social dosage" of ethnically/racially diverse peers as young as age 3, their later peer relations will benefit in diversity, even if they have fewer diverse friends in the intermediary. However, it is important to note that such patterns may be a function of stability in children's early childhood environments, such as the demographics in their neighborhoods, and schools, as opposed to their attraction to, or comfort around peers with specific characteristics. As most families in the present study resided in relatively diverse neighborhoods (see Table 1 for the ethnic/racial composition in participants' neighborhoods by their zip code), children likely had plenty of opportunity to encounter ethnically and racially diverse peers continually through early childhood.</p> <p>Early gender diversity (at age 2) was correlated with later gender diversity (at age 6) but was not always stable between these timepoints. Age diversity was predicted consecutively ages 2–6 (aside from ages 4–5), and also between ages 4–6. However, early age diversity (i.e., at ages 2–3) did not predict later age diversity (at ages 4–6). This divergence in predictability from ethnic/racial patterns may relate to the underlying mechanisms described regarding trends in ethnic/racial versus gender and age diversity across development. Although young children may be encouraged to make friends with all ethnic/racial groups and genders (Halim et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref112">27</reflink>]), parenting practices may support spending more time with same‐gender, and same‐age peers as opposed to other‐gender, and mixed‐age peers. For example, caregivers may arrange playdates with children's same‐gender classmates, who are likely also of the same age, or enroll children in "gendered" or gender segregated, and age‐segregated after‐school activities (e.g., ballet). Nevertheless, it is worth noting and exploring how gender diversity at age 2, and age diversity at age 4 still predicted gender, and age diversity, respectively, at age 6. This may reveal that, although maintenance of gender and age diversity in children's peer circles is more difficult throughout childhood and adolescence for cognitive and contextual reasons, it might still be productive to facilitate early gender and age diversity that is again "activated" at later ages when children become more flexible in certain aspects of their identity (Halim, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref113">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-35">Variability in the diversity of peer circles by children's ethnicity/race</hd> <p>Dominican American and Mexican American children had more ethnic/racial diversity in their peer circles compared to African American children. This pattern could be explained by residential segregation, which is common in the urban location of the study, but also in the United States more broadly (Alba & Romalewski, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref114">3</reflink>]). Moreover, many of the Dominican American and Mexican American mothers in our study were from relatively recent immigrant backgrounds. In efforts to acculturate and integrate into American culture, mothers may encourage their children to spend time with peers from multiple ethnic/racial groups, not just their own. Finally, African American parents report higher levels of racial socialization such as preparation for racial bias compared to, for example, Dominican American parents (Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref115">35</reflink>]), which could lead African American children to have higher proportions of same‐ethnicity/race peers than Dominican American and Mexican American children. Furthermore, prior work indicates that Dominican U.S. immigrants are not necessarily self‐identifying according to an African American/White racial paradigm, but recognize themselves as a blend of multiple identities (Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref116">5</reflink>]). Indeed, in our sample, Dominican American children were more likely to be bilingual and reported higher ethnic/racial diversity among siblings than Mexican American and African American children. As such, Dominican American children may be more open to, or comfortable around peers of various ethnic/racial backgrounds, and to those who speak either English or Spanish.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-36">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Despite its advantages in describing actual changes across time, there are limitations to consider when interpreting longitudinal data, especially involving young children. First, many variables influence the quantity, social contexts, and diversity of participants' peer circles. These include children's time spent in and outside the home and the nature of specific activities during the day, for example, if the child regularly visits public playgrounds and parks where there is opportunity to play with nonfamilial children who live in the neighborhood. Future work might therefore investigate relations between children's daily activities and the composition of their peer circles. Relatedly, the stability in neighborhood demographics may influence who the peers are that children regularly encounter in their social settings. We encourage scholars to examine variability in ethnic/racial compositions of early childhood peer circles across neighborhoods with different demographics, and also across time for families who move from one neighborhood to another. Moreover, family characteristics likely also contribute to the diversity of peer circles, as do individual factors, such as the growth and maturation of children's cognitive and socioemotional skills, which would all be important to consider in future studies.</p> <p>Second, our measurement of peer circles relied on maternal reports. Although maternal reports are highly reliable measures of peer circles early in development (Golombok et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref117">22</reflink>]), this approach may be limited, particularly as mothers may consciously or unconsciously choose to list (or omit) peers due to their own biases or cultural norms. For example, in the United States, patriarchal culture dictates that girls playing with boys enjoy higher cultural status than boys playing with girls (Ruble et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref118">63</reflink>]). Therefore, mothers who adhere to cultural gender norms may be reluctant to report other‐gender peers, particularly for their sons. Similarly, mothers may be more inclined to report same‐ethnicity/race peers compared to other‐ethnicity/race peers, or privilege certain ethnic/racial groups over others, due to the cultural status associated with different groups. Although prior research finds that maternal reports of their children's friendships are slightly more accurate than children's own reports (Fletcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref119">18</reflink>]), all reports are subject to reporter error (forgetting, or lack of knowledge about a friend who the child interacts with in school or another context in which parent does not spend time). Finally, mothers' reports may have been shaped by where they place particular peers on the friendship continuum. That is, how mothers interpreted the terms "peers" and "friends" may have shaped which children they chose to list. Future studies might complement our work by employing direct observations of children, which might avoid potential biases posed by maternal reports. Although such observations were not possible in our study, as they have proven difficult, expensive, and time consuming due to the varied geographical locations of our participants, we encourage scientists to use a broad array of measures and reporters in future research to acquire a comprehensive understanding of peer relations in the early years.</p> <p>Third, we had limited access to information on peer demographics in focal children's center‐based care and school settings and thus could not assess individual variations in exposure to diverse peers. Due to the geographical locations of children, and the history of residence for ethnic/racial groups included in our study (Yoshikawa, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref120">69</reflink>]), we presume that there was variability in the levels of diversity encountered in center‐based care and school. Nonetheless, our analyses produced significant patterns, which suggests that there is a high chance for similar findings to emerge if the study is replicated in more controlled settings.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, we believe that our data provide valuable insights into the early social lives of ethnic/racial minority children in the United States. A first notable strength of the current study was its longitudinal design, allowing us to observe trends in peer circles among these children over their first 6 years. We further compared the developmental trajectories of three highly salient and influential social identities (ethnicity/race, gender, and age) as they occurred at an intraindividual level, which could not be done using cross‐sectional studies of children at different ages. Second, our findings are relevant to recent calls to diversify and generalize developmental science to represent people of all ethnic/racial backgrounds (Buchanan et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref121">10</reflink>]; Syed et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref122">66</reflink>]). Given that White, middle‐class samples are most often the focus of studies but are <emph>not</emph> representative of universal human experiences, we consider the inclusion of three minoritized populations a strength since their experiences are often excluded from scientific research. Finally, we identified common trends across the three ethnic/racial groups in our study and found few instances of differences among them. Thus, our results may speak to trends that generalize to (at the very least) other ethnically/racially minoritized U.S. groups. Future studies are needed to extend our research by comparing the patterns identified here with children from dominant ethnic/racial or social groups, or from minoritized samples from rural or suburban areas. Additionally, future work should explore the dynamics of peer interactions and how they develop and change over time in particular ethnic/racial groups as they relate to immigration status, salience and socialization of identity, and neighborhood characteristics.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-37">IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The children in our sample resided in one of the most diverse cities in the world, yet not all children experienced diverse peer circles. For those exposed to diverse peer circles, early peer diversity may expand children's ingroups such that they retain an openness to diverse relationships when they are older. For policymakers and practitioners, our findings suggest the importance of promoting integration in social settings. Persistent and stable exposure to peers of other‐gender, other‐ethnicity/race, and mixed‐age groups may lead children to spend time in more diverse groups later in life, which may improve attitudes towards and interactions with outgroup members (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref123">53</reflink>]), and promote broader skillsets and socioemotional wellbeing (Fabes et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref124">16</reflink>]; Maccoby, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref125">49</reflink>]). As early as in center‐based care and preschool, even in infant and toddler programs, it may be useful to not only deliberately structure diverse environments but to also involve children's parents and caregivers in the building and maintenance of positive peer relations, particularly across gender and ethnic/racial groups. Such efforts have been fruitful with children in preschool through middle school (Hanish et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref126">31</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref127">53</reflink>]; Xiao et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref128">68</reflink>]). With the social justice goal of reducing racial and gender prejudice in society, it is vital to encourage diverse peer circles early in children's lives.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-38">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>We acknowledge funding by National Science Foundation Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Grant 021859 and National Science Foundation Integrative Research Activities for Developmental Science Grant 0721383.</p> <hd id="AN0180281928-39">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Databrary at https://doi.org/10.17910/B7CC74.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supporting information</p> <ref id="AN0180281928-40"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. In Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hartup, W. W. (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 87 – 112). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref38" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aboud, F. E., Mendelson, M. J., & Purdy, K. T. (2003). Cross‐race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 (2), 165 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref69" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alba, R., & Romalewski, S. (2012). The end of segregation? Hardly. A more nuanced view from the New York metropolitan region. Center for Urban Research, CUNY.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison‐Wesley Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref116" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, B. (2001). Dominican‐American ethnic/racial identities and United States social categories. International Migration Review, 35 (3), 677 – 708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐7379.2001.tb00036.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bennet, A., Kuchirko, Y., Halim, M. L., Costanzo, P. R., & Ruble, D. (2020). The influence of center‐based care on young children's gender development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, https://<ulink href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0193397320301490?via%3Dihub">www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0193397320301490?via%3Dihub</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref102" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bian, L., Leslie, S.‐J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests. Science, 355 (6323), 389 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental effects on children's gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66 (4), 1072 – 1087. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131799</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref44" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children's social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (3), 162 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8721.2007.00496.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76 (7), 1097 – 1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Busey, C. L., & Silva, C. (2020). Troubling the essentialist discourse of Brown in education: The anti‐Black sociopolitical and sociohistorical etymology of Latinxs as a Brown monolith. Educational Researcher, 50 (3). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20963582</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Fraser Pettigrew, T., & Wright, S. (2011). Cross‐group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta‐analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15 (4), 332 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Draper, C. E., Barnett, L. M., Cook, C. J., Cuartas, J. A., Howard, S. J., McCoy, D. C., Merkley, R., Molano, A., Maldonado‐Carreño, C., Obranovic, J., Scerif, G., Valentini, N. C., Venetsanou, F., & Yousafzai, A. K. (2022). Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under‐represented in research. Infant and Child Development, 33 (6), e2375. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, S., Rogoff, B., & Cromer, C. C. (1981). Age segregation in children's social interactions. Developmental Psychology, 17 (4), 399 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.17.4.399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, D. (2023, December 21). Multicultural population growth accelerating out of the pandemic—U.S. Census Data. Collage Group. https://<ulink href="http://www.collagegroup.com/2023/12/21/multicultural‐population‐growth/">www.collagegroup.com/2023/12/21/multicultural‐population‐growth/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2004). The next 50 years: Considering gender as a context for understanding young children's peer relationships. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 50 (3), 260 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, H. M., Dale, P. S., Campbell, T. F., Colborn, D. K., Kurs‐Lasky, M., Rockette, H. E., & Paradise, J. L. (2005). Concurrent and predictive validity of parent reports of child language at ages 2 and 3 years. Child Development, 76 (4), 856 – 868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2005.00882.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, A. C., Blair, B. L., Troutman, D. R., & Madison, K. J. (2013). Identifying children's friendships across diverse contexts: Maternal and child perspectives. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30 (7), 858 – 880. <ulink href="http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512472474">http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512472474</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, A. C., Rollins, A., & Nickerson, P. (2004). The extension of school‐based inter‐ and intra‐racial children's friendships: Influences on psychosocial wellbeing. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74 (3), 272 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002‐9432.74.3.272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foster, T. J., Burchinal, M., & Yazejian, N. (2020). The relation between classroom age composition and children's language and behavioral outcomes: Examining peer effects. Child Development, 91 (6), 2103 – 2122. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frey, W. H. (2021, October 28). 2020 Census: Big cities grew and became more diverse, especially among their youth. Brookings. https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/2020‐census‐big‐cities‐grew‐and‐became‐more‐diverse‐especially‐among‐their‐youth/">www.brookings.edu/research/2020‐census‐big‐cities‐grew‐and‐became‐more‐diverse‐especially‐among‐their‐youth/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golombok, S., Rust, J., Zervoulis, K., Croudace, T., Golding, J., & Hines, M. (2008). Developmental trajectories of sex‐typed behavior in boys and girls: A longitudinal general population study of children aged 2.5‐8 years. Child Development, 79 (5), 1583 – 1593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2008.01207.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, J. A., Cohen, R., Zbikowski, S. M., & Secrist, M. E. (1998). A longitudinal investigation of race and sex as factors in children's classroom friendship choices. Child Study Journal, 28 (4), 245 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S., Manniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Psychological benefits of cross‐ethnic friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85 (2), 469 – 483. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagan, C., Halberstadt, A., Cooke, A., & Garner, P. (2023). White parents' racial socialization: Questionnaire validation and associations with children's friendships. Journal of Family Issues, 45 (2), 350 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X221150973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halim, M. D. (2016). Pink princesses and strong superheroes: Gender rigidity in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 10 (3), 155 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.1217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halim, M. D., Martin, C. L., Andrews, N., Zosuls, K. M., & Ruble, D. N. (2021). Enjoying each other's company: Gaining other‐gender friendships promotes positive other‐gender attitudes among ethnically diverse children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47 (12), 1635 – 1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220984407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halim, M. L., Ruble, D., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., & Shrout, P. E. (2013). Rigidity in gender‐typed behaviors in early childhood: A longitudinal study of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 84 (4), 1269 – 1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halim, M. L., Ruble, D., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E., & Amodio, D. M. (2017). Gender attitudes in early childhood: Behavioral consequences and cognitive antecedents. Child Development, 88 (3), 882 – 899. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12642</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamm, J. V., Bradford Brown, B., & Heck, D. J. (2005). Bridging the ethnic divide: Student and school characteristics in African American, Asian‐descent, Latino, and white adolescents' cross‐ethnic friend nominations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15 (1), 21 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532‐7795.2005.00085.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Cook, R., DeLay, D., Lecheile, B., Fabes, R. A., Goble, P., & Bryce, C. (2021). Building integrated peer relationships in preschool classrooms: The potential of buddies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Leonard, S., & Herzog, M. (2005). Exposure to externalizing peers in early childhood: Homophily and peer contagion processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33 (3), 267 – 281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802‐005‐3564‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children's gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81 (6), 1787 – 1798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01510.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.‐T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariate structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, D. (2003). Correlates of Black and Latino parents' messages to children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31 (1‐2), 15 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023066418688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, L., & Elias, M. J. (1999). Interracial friendships, multicultural sensitivity, and social competence: How are they related? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20 (4), 551 – 573. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193‐3973(99)00028‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jugert, P., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2013). Children's cross‐ethnic friendships: Why are they less stable than same‐ethnic friendships? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10 (6), 649 – 662. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.734136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juvonen, J., Kogachi, K., & Graham, S. (2018). When and how do students benefit from ethnic diversity in middle school? Child Development, 89 (4), 1268 – 1282. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends? Activities among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. The Sociological Quarterly, 45 (3), 557 – 573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533‐8525.2004.tb02303.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, L. G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A. (1990). The case for mixed‐age grouping in early education. National Association for the Education of Young Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, P. A., & Kofkin, J. A. (1997). Race, gender, and young children. In Luthar, S. S., Burack, J. A., Cicchetti, D., & Weisz, J. R. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 51 – 74). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross‐racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44 (4), 1177 – 1183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.44.4.1177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, D. J., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., Gibson, A., Smith, M., Ge, L., & Pascalis, O. (2005). Three‐month‐olds, but not newborns, prefer own‐race faces. Developmental Science, 8 (6), F31 – F36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2005.0434a.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kogachi, K., & Graham, S. (2021). Same‐race friendship preference across the middle school years: The role of school racial/ethnic context. Developmental Psychology, 57 (12), 2134 – 2149. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laursen, B. (2017). Making and keeping friends: The importance of being similar. Child Development Perspectives, 11 (4), 282 – 289. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, L. S. (2016). Peer relations and social adjustment of Latino and Chinese children in Head Start classrooms. Early Education and Development, 27 (1), 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1045230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, L., Howes, C., & Chamberlain, B. (2007). Ethnic heterogeneity of social networks and cross‐ethnic friendships of elementary school boys and girls. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 53 (3), 325 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007.0015∖6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51 (2‐3), 220 – 239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marquis, A. R., & Sugden, N. A. (2019). Meta‐analytic review of infants' preferential attention to familiar and unfamiliar face types based on gender and race. Developmental Review, 53, Article 100868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2019.100868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children's same‐ sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37 (3), 431 – 446. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012‐1649.37.3.431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children's search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 67 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Gaertner, B., Faith Miller, C., Foster, S., & Updegraff, K. A. (2017). Using an intergroup contact approach to improve gender relationships: A case study of a classroom‐based intervention. In Rutland, A., Nesdale, D., & Spears Brown, C. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents (pp. 437 – 454). Wiley‐Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118773123.ch21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (6), 903 – 933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.128.6.903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2020). MPlus (Version 8.5) [Computer software]. Muthén & Muthén. https://<ulink href="http://www.statmodel.com/index.shtml">www.statmodel.com/index.shtml</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_202.30.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pauker, K., Williams, A., & Steele, J. (2016). Children's racial categorization in context. Child Development Perspectives, 10 (1), 33 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35 (3), 271 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pica‐Smith, C. (2011). Children's perceptions of interethnic and interracial friendships in a multiethnic school context. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25 (2), 119 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2011.555495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. H., Parker, J. G., & Bowker, J. C. (2008). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In Damon, W. & Lerner, R. (Eds.), Developmental Psychology: An advanced course (pp. 141 – 180). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruble, D. N., Martin, C., & Berenbaum, S. (2006). Gender development. In Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M (Series Eds.), & Eisenberg, N. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th edn., pp. 858 – 932). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shutts, K., Roben, C. K. P., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Children's use of social categories in thinking about people and social relationships. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14 (1), 35 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.638686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpkins, S. D., & Parke, R. D. (2001). The relations between parental friendships and children's friendships: Self‐report and observational analysis. Child Development, 72 (2), 569 – 582. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132414">www.jstor.org/stable/1132414</ulink> https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8624.00297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Syed, M., Santos, C., Yoo, H. C., & Juang, L. P. (2018). Invisibility of racial/ethnic minorities in developmental science: Implications for research and institutional practices. American Psychologist, 73 (6), 812 – 826. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiao, S. X., Cook, R. E., Martin, C., & Nielson, M. G. (2019). Characteristics of preschool gender enforcers and peers who associate with them. Sex Roles, 81, 671 – 685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199‐019‐01026‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiao, S. X., Hanish, L. D., Means Malouf, L., Martin, C. L., Lecheile, B., Goble, P., Fabes, R. A., DeLay, D., & Bryce, C. I. (2022). Interactions with diverse peers promote preschoolers' prosociality and reduce aggression: An examination of buddy‐up intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 822 – 840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.04.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young children. Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anna Bennet; Yana Kuchirko; May Ling D. Halim; Philip R. Costanzo; Carol L. Martin; Adam Stanaland and Diane Ruble</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref128"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1481437
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A 6-Year Longitudinal Exploration of Diversity in Ethnically/Racially Minoritized Children's Early Peer Circles
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+Bennet%22">Anna Bennet</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2131-3674">0000-0003-2131-3674</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yana+Kuchirko%22">Yana Kuchirko</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8138-7224">0000-0001-8138-7224</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22May+Ling+D%2E+Halim%22">May Ling D. Halim</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Philip+R%2E+Costanzo%22">Philip R. Costanzo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carol+L%2E+Martin%22">Carol L. Martin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adam+Stanaland%22">Adam Stanaland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diane+Ruble%22">Diane Ruble</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Development%22"><i>Social Development</i></searchLink>. 2024 33(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS)<br />National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 021859<br />0721383
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Differences%22">Racial Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnicity%22">Ethnicity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Infants%22">Infants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22African+Americans%22">African Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mexican+Americans%22">Mexican Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Latin+Americans%22">Latin Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Groups%22">Peer Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity%22">Diversity</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/sode.12744
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0961-205X<br />1467-9507
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Exposure to diverse peers can expand children's experiences and skillsets, and these positive effects linger beyond childhood. Yet, little is known about the ethnic/racial, gender, and age diversity in children's peer groups and how it may shift over time. Even less is known about these patterns among US nonwhite children. In the present study, we thus explored how diversity (with regard to ethnicity/race, gender, and age) in ethnically minoritized children's peer groups change from infancy through early childhood and tested whether the diversity of early peer groups remained stable across time. Over a 6-year period we followed 234 children (ages 1-6; 115 girls) from three large ethnic/racial minority groups in the United States: African American, Dominican American, and Mexican American. With age, children's peer groups increased in ethnic/racial diversity but decreased in gender and age diversity. Moreover, children's early peer diversity (at/around age 2-4) positively predicted the diversity of their later peer groups (at/around age 6) across all three types of diversity. This study provides novel insights into how children's peer groups change and grow in early development, particularly focusing on children from backgrounds that have been historically underrepresented in psychological science.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://doi.org/10.17910/B7CC74
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1481437
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1481437
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/sode.12744
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnicity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Infants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: African Americans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mexican Americans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Latin Americans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diversity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A 6-Year Longitudinal Exploration of Diversity in Ethnically/Racially Minoritized Children's Early Peer Circles
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna Bennet
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yana Kuchirko
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: May Ling D. Halim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Philip R. Costanzo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carol L. Martin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adam Stanaland
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diane Ruble
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0961-205X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-9507
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1