Content area
Socioemotional relationships significantly influence students’ learning, development, and school well-being. This study explored gender differences in sympathy and antipathy based on data originally gathered via a digital platform primarily designed for mathematical learning. The platform administered a sociometric test to a large sample (3090 of fourth-grade students (mean age = 10.19 years, 47.7% girls) in the Chilean Metropolitan Region. Teachers facilitated the test, allowing students to nominate peers they liked and disliked. The study confirmed a trend of homophily in sympathy, with students preferring same-gender peers. It also revealed a gender disparity in antipathy: girls nominated an average of 5.27 disliked classmates (SD = 7.20), 1.45 more nominations than boys, with a Cohen’s d of 0.22. These findings provide insights to enhance school climate and address the mental health implications of social exclusion, considering gender differences. These results underscore the potential of scalable digital tools to support educators in monitoring peer dynamics and fostering inclusive, emotionally supportive school environments.
Full text
1. Introduction
From the earliest stages of life, social interaction constitutes a critical factor in our species’ evolutionary and developmental processes (Rubin et al., 2011, 2015; Smith & Hart, 2022). Engaging with others fulfills a fundamental evolutionary need, promoting human adaptability, viability, long-term survival, and well-being (Benenson, 2019; Dunbar, 2010). Consequently, peer interactions have been analyzed through diverse perspectives and contexts, including sociological and psychological frameworks. Within the educational domain, research has proven instrumental in understanding and fostering peer coexistence in school environments, particularly given the stark contrast between contemporary classroom conditions and those experienced by our ancestors.
Empirical evidence highlights the importance of studying peer social relationships, emphasizing their contributions to enhancing mental health (Kochel et al., 2017), fostering a positive school climate (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), promoting learning (Gallardo et al., 2016; Marrone et al., 2024; Wentzel et al., 2021), strengthening social skills (Rubin et al., 2011, 2015), stimulating prosocial behaviors (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Rubin et al., 2011, 2015), and supporting inclusion (Newcomb et al., 1993).
While these studies highlight the individual benefits of peer relationships, it is equally important to recognize that social interactions shape not only personal development but also the broader school environment. In this regard, the school well-being model proposed by A. Konu and Rimpelä (2002) offers a valuable institutional perspective by framing well-being as a multidimensional construct influenced by both individual experiences and systemic conditions. The model identifies four key domains of school well-being: school conditions (“having”), social relationships (“loving”), opportunities for self-fulfillment (“being”), and health status (“health”). The model’s internal structure has also been empirically validated through large-scale factor analyses, confirming the coherence of its four-dimensional framework (A. Konu et al., 2002). From this perspective, peer dynamics—such as those characterized by sympathy and antipathy—are not merely interpersonal matters, but critical indicators of the emotional climate and relational health within schools. Recent research highlights the urgency of addressing school well-being in light of the mental health challenges posed by digital environments. Haidt (2024) argues that children today are experiencing a “great rewiring,” where smartphones and online platforms have profoundly altered the development of peer relationships, emotional regulation, and social comparison. While our study did not directly measure social media use, it addressed this digital context by employing a classroom-based digital platform to examine peer dynamics. In line with the school well-being model, we consider these emotional and social processes as institutional concerns requiring structured monitoring and support.
Research in this area has primarily focused on relationships of sympathy and friendship, with interactions rooted in antipathy garnering relatively less attention. Displays of antipathy represent an important evolutionary mechanism, enabling individuals to discern and distance themselves from those who may pose potential threats or present unfavorable stimuli (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Therefore, feelings of antipathy and disliking others are not unfamiliar or extraneous phenomena within the context of human behavior (Card, 2010).
However, antipathetic interactions may result in negative consequences, one of which is the experience of rejection that can arise from social exclusion, potentially leading to isolation. According to Leary (1990), experiences of social exclusion can provoke negative responses in those who have encountered this form of rejection. The author highlights that within the context of mental health, isolation may precipitate social anxiety and depression. Furthermore, it intensifies loneliness, which amplifies social anxiety, and in some instances triggers jealousy toward those regarded as potential threats to social status. Social exclusion can trigger anger, sadness, and even aggressive behavior on the part of the isolated person (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Williams, 2007). Reinforcing the prior observations, Newcomb et al. (1993) analyzed 41 studies in a meta-analysis to examine the negative consequences of isolation on children. Their study determined that children categorized as rejected exhibit aggressive behaviors, face difficulties in social interactions, suffer from heightened emotional issues like anxiety and depression, lack positive social attributes, and are at increased risk of psychological developmental impairments.
Gerber and Wheeler (2009) hypothesized that aggressive behaviors arise as a response to rejection, which generates both a loss of control and a perceived lack of agency. In such situations, the isolated individual attempts to restore these losses. However, the authors suggested that the desire to regain control takes precedence, even if this is achieved through aggressive behaviors. This situation creates a paradox, as aggression tends to foster further peer rejection, thus initiating a cyclical dynamic between aggression and rejection (Williams, 2007).
Berger and Dijkstra (2013) investigated the dynamics of antipathy networks and their relationship with friendship networks among Chilean adolescents, yielding several relevant findings. First, they identified a phenomenon they termed “snobbery,” in which popular adolescents were likelier to nominate their less popular peers as unlikable, suggesting a preference for peers of similar social status in antipathy relationships. Second, they observed a reinforcement effect, where adolescents receiving numerous antipathy nominations tended to attract additional nominations over time. Finally, they found limited support for the “competition” hypothesis, which posited that adolescents of similar status would direct antipathy toward each other. These findings emphasize the importance of considering the status of peer relations.
Gender Differences in Peer Relationships
Several studies have indicated that shared characteristics such as ideologies, ethnicity, hobbies, or appearance play a significant role in fostering attraction between individuals, thereby facilitating the formation of friendships or mutual liking (Camilleri et al., 2023; Dunbar, 2021; Fortuin et al., 2014; Haselager et al., 1998). Homophily also exists in people’s gender (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Araya and Gormaz (2021) observed this tendency in a three-year study involving more than 2700 students from fourth-grade classes. The research focused on students’ preferences when selecting peers to ask for help with math exercises. The findings revealed a strong preference for seeking assistance from students of the same gender. Kornienko et al. (2016) further note that gender homophily is not limited to a binary framework, as individuals of non-binary or fluid genders also tend to form connections with one another. The researchers observed that similarity in gender identity serves as a predictor for friendship interactions.
Benenson (2019) states that observable evolutionary differences emerge in relationships based on gender, with distinctions between boys and girls that share similarities with non-human primates. For example, intragender boy relationships are more likely to form larger groups with a defined hierarchical structure, and their style of play leans towards physical and competitive activities. Furthermore, group hierarchy focuses on individual goals, such as seeking dominance or moving up the social hierarchy (Benenson, 2019). Boys are more likely to experience direct physical and verbal victimization from their peers. However, even though conflicts are frequent, they are usually resolved quickly. Humor has been a frequently used strategy by boys to deal with conflicts.
Boys often receive less emotional support from their intragender peers (Benenson & Markovits, 2014; Rose et al., 2022; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). On the other hand, girls tend to form dyadic groups without a distinct hierarchy. Interactions among girls are more likely to be prosocial, with competition being less prominent compared to boys (Benenson & Markovits, 2014). Aggression used by girls tends to be relational or social rather than physical (Cross & Campbell, 2014; Underwood, 2003). In girls’ intragender relationships, their goals are more oriented toward establishing emotional connections, and they show a greater degree of empathy toward the well-being of their friends. In girls’ intragender relationships, conversation is more important than playing (De Waal, 2022). Intragender conflict situations in girls are less frequent than in boys. However, these conflicts can lead to more significant breakups or damage to friendships (Reynolds & Palmer-Hague, 2022). In stressful situations, girls often seek social support, share their emotions, or reflect with their intragender peers. It is common for girls to receive better emotional support from their friends (Benenson & Markovits, 2014; Rose et al., 2022; Rose & Rudolph, 2006).
Although interactions between girls have a beneficial effect on the development of intimate relationships and the inhibition of antisocial behavior, girls tend to have a greater vulnerability to emotional problems (Kochel et al., 2017; Leary, 1990; McDougall et al., 2001). According to Geary (1998), females are approximately twice as likely to suffer from high levels of anxiety and depression compared to males, which can adversely affect social interactions. In contrast, male interactions have hindered the development of intimate relationships, potentially leading to behavioral problems (Rose et al., 2022).
Berger and Dijkstra (2013) identified significant gender differences in the dynamics of antipathy and friendship networks among students aged 10 to 12. Unlike boys, girls showed a stronger propensity to indicate dislike toward their peers. Additionally, girls made more nominations for peer popularity than boys, indicating a greater awareness of social status. However, the researchers found no significant gender differences in friendship nominations, suggesting that the number of friendships is unrelated to gender.
While the findings highlight differences in the relational behaviors of boys and girls, Underwood (2003) underscores that methodological limitations restrict the ability to draw definitive conclusions in various studies. Underwood (2003) emphasizes the importance of considering the methodology employed when studying social relationships. The author identifies two primary approaches in such studies: ethnographic methods and sociometric questionnaires. While ethnographic methods offer detailed descriptions of group dynamics, they face challenges in capturing group structures comprehensively and are often influenced by the most prominent individuals within the group. This can result in unequal representation of all members. Conversely, sociometric questionnaires tend to provide fewer distinctions between boys and girls. One potential limitation of this approach is the typically small samples, often restricted to one or two classes, which may affect the reliability of the findings.
In our study, we applied a sociometric questionnaire to a large number of students from various courses. This large sample provided sufficient statistical power to explore gender differences in sympathy and antipathy nominations with a high degree of internal robustness. From this, we worked on the following research questions: (1). Do boys and girls differ in their nominations of sympathy? (2). Do boys and girls differ in their nominations of antipathy? (3). What is the magnitude of the potential differences in nominations between boys and girls?
2. Materials and Methods
Our methodological approach aligns with the model of digitally supported well-being assessment proposed by A. I. Konu and Lintonen (2006), whose school well-being profile utilized an internet-based platform to evaluate students’ perceptions of school climate, relationships, and emotional health. Like their approach, the public data we analyzed were based in digital sociometric tools that ensured anonymity, broad participation, and ease of administration. These features are particularly advantageous for capturing sensitive social dynamics such as peer exclusion and negative affect, which are central to evaluating the “social relationships” and “self-fulfillment” dimensions of the school well-being model.
2.1. Instrument and Procedure
Sociometric testing is among the most frequently utilized in studies of group social relations, as it provides insights into the interactions and dynamics underlying a social group (Campbell et al., 2005; Engels et al., 2016; Haynie et al., 2014; Moreno, 1934; Newcomb et al., 1993; Rubin et al., 2011). In this study, the questions explored interactions among students, focusing on nominations of sympathy and antipathy. The questions used in this sociometric test were the following: Which classmates do you like? (Sympathy) Which classmates do you dislike? (Antipathy)
We used public data gathered originally by the digital platform Conecta Ideas (Araya & Diaz, 2020) that contains sociometric information. Although the platform was primarily developed as an educational tool for teaching mathematics through gamification, it also allows educators to explore classroom relationship dynamics: both within the context of this study or as a means to enhance teachers’ understanding of the classroom interactions. As an ethical consideration, the data was provided in an anonymized form, and we verified that the identities of the students, their classes, and their schools could not be discerned in any way.
The data were originally obtained during students’ class hours, with each student individually accessing a computer to complete the sociometric test. On their screens, students encountered a question accompanied by a list of all classmates, allowing them to select any, all, or none of their peers as responses (Figure 1). The teacher supervised the process via a tablet, managed the timing of the questions, and verbally articulated the questions to support students with reading comprehension difficulties. This procedure ensured that all participants, regardless of their reading abilities, answered the questions simultaneously.
2.2. Participants
Data were originally gathered from 17 November 2022 to 19 April 2023, yielding a robust sample of 135 fourth-grade classes from public and government-subsidized private schools (i.e., privately managed schools that receive public funding) in the Santiago Metropolitan Region, Chile. A total of 3090 students participated in the study, with 47.66% being girls. The participants had an average age of 10.19 years (SD = 0.54). Table 1 provides further details on the sample demographics. The school selection process was partially non-random due to the voluntary nature of participation, which resulted in some schools declining involvement. Additionally, this study was part of a broader project that relied on internet connectivity, and inadequate access to reliable internet served as an exclusion criterion.
2.3. Data Analysis
The initial analysis compared the total nominations given by girls and boys with an independent Student’s t-test. Subsequently, we made a similar comparison after standardizing the total nominations to account for the number of students in each classroom. This standardization involved calculating the proportion of nominations relative to class size by dividing each student’s nominations by the total number of students in their respective class. For instance, in a class of 20 students, if a student nominated five classmates, the resulting proportion would be 0.25. After this, we repeated the independent Student’s t-test. We carried out this process for sympathy and antipathy nominations.
We expanded the analysis by including the nominations made by boys and girls, categorized by those directed toward their gender (intragender) and those directed toward the opposite gender (intergender). This approach enabled the creation of four distinct groups for comparison. Like the previous analysis, intragender and intergender nominations were also standardized.
To standardize the data, we first calculated the ratio of nominations made for a specific gender by each student relative to the total nominations made by that student. This ratio was then adjusted by dividing it by the proportion of that gender within the overall class population. The resulting values were subsequently transformed into Z-scores, facilitating comparisons across cases. A score greater than 0 indicated that the number of nominations for that gender exceeded the expected random nominations. Conversely, a score less than 0 indicated that the number of nominations for that gender fell below the expected number under the assumption of random nominations. We compared the means by pairs using dependent and independent Student’s t-tests depending on the comparison.
Independent-sample t-tests were employed because they are well suited to pairwise group comparisons and facilitate the interpretation of standardized effect sizes, thereby enabling meaningful contrasts of the magnitude of differences across comparisons (Cohen, 1988).
3. Results
In line with the school well-being model (A. Konu & Rimpelä, 2002; A. I. Konu & Lintonen, 2006), the results presented here reflect students’ perceptions and expressions of peer sympathy and antipathy, which are viewed as key indicators of relational health within the school environment. These findings are particularly relevant to the “loving” (social relationships) and “being” (self-fulfillment) domains of the model. This section is divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the results, their interpretation, and the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.
3.1. Total Nominations for Peers
Regarding the average number of sympathy nominations, we observed no statistically significant difference between girls (M = 9.78, SD = 9.62) and boys (M = 9.21, SD = 10.16), t(3075.30) = 1.60, p = 0.125. We found a similar result for the standardized values, where there was no significant difference between the standardized sympathy nominations made by girls (M = 0.28, SD = 0.27) and boys (M = 0.27, SD = 0.29), t(3078.66) = 1.20, p = 0.231.
The independent Student’s t-test revealed that girls made a higher average number of antipathy nominations (M = 5.27, SD = 7.20) compared to boys (M = 3.82, SD = 6.29), t(2834.95) = 5.84, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of 0.22 (small effect). Similarly, the standardized antipathy nominations also demonstrated a statistically significant difference, with girls (M = 0.15, SD = 0.19) exceeding boys (M = 0.11, SD = 0.18), t(2873.89) = 5.66, p < 0.001, and a Cohen’s d of 0.21 (small effect). Details can be found in Table 2.
3.2. Mixed- and Single-Gender Classrooms
We analyzed the number of nominations made by girls and boys, considering whether they were from schools with mixed-gender or single-gender classes.
Using an independent Student’s t-test, we observed that the mean sympathy nominations made by girls in mixed-gender classes (M = 9.77, SD = 9.58) did not significantly differ from those made by girls in single-gender classes (M = 10.08, SD = 10.34), t(80.99) = −0.26, p = 0.797. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the standardized sympathy nominations of girls from mixed-gender classes (M = 0.28, SD = 0.27) compared to those from single-gender classes (M = 0.24, SD = 0.24), t(83.73) = 1.47, p = 0.146.
For boys, the mean sympathy nominations in mixed-gender classes (M = 9.17, SD = 10.06) did not significantly differ from those in single-gender classes (M = 9.94, SD = 11.75), t(89.82) = −0.59, p = 0.558. Similarly, the standardized sympathy nominations of boys in mixed-gender classes (M = 0.27, SD = 0.29) did not significantly differ from those of boys in single-gender classes (M = 0.24, SD = 0.28), t(92.78) = 0.83, p = 0.406.
We also compared antipathy nominations. For girls, the mean antipathy nominations in mixed-gender classes (M = 5.25, SD = 7.11) did not significantly differ from those in single-gender classes (M = 5.64, SD = 8.71), t(79.58) = 0.38, p = 0.707. Similarly, the standardized antipathy nominations of girls in mixed-gender classes (M = 0.15, SD = 0.19) showed no significant difference from those of girls in single-gender classes (M = 0.14, SD = 0.20), t(81.64) = 0.58, p = 0.563.
For boys, the mean antipathy nominations in mixed-gender classes (M = 3.83, SD = 6.33) did not significantly differ from those in single-gender classes (M = 3.69, SD = 5.56), t(95.76) = 0.22, p = 0.830. Similarly, the standardized antipathy nominations of boys in mixed-gender classes (M = 0.11, SD = 0.18) showed no significant difference compared to those of boys in single-gender classes (M = 0.09, SD = 0.13), t(100.98) = 1.40, p = 0.165.
3.3. Intra- and Intergender Nominations
A mixed-design ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of target (nominations to girls vs. boys) and nominator gender (female vs. male) on the nomination scores. The analysis included a repeated-measure factor of target and a between-subject factor of nominator gender. The results revealed a significant main effect of target, F(1, 3080) = 30.98, p < 0.001, indicating that nominations for girls were significantly higher than nominations for boys. There was no significant main effect of nominator gender, F(1, 3080) = 2.55, p = 0.110, suggesting that the gender of the nominator did not significantly influence the nomination scores. However, we observed a significant interaction between target and nominator gender, F(1, 3080) = 756.44, p < 0.001, indicating that the effect of target (nominations for girls vs. boys) varied depending on the gender of the nominator. Specifically, the pattern of nominations differed significantly for male and female nominators.
Subsequently, we compared the sympathy nominations given to girls and boys based on whether they were intragender or intergender with an independent Student’s t-test. We began by analyzing the sympathy nominations both girls and boys gave to girls. An independent Student’s t-test revealed that the sympathy nominations given by girls to other girls (M = 5.90, SD = 5.52) were statistically significantly higher than those given by boys to girls (M = 3.23, SD = 4.97), t(2965) = 14.06, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of 0.51 (medium effect size). The standardized sympathy nominations given to girls by both girls (M = 0.50, SD = 0.90) and boys (M = −0.48, SD = 0.85) also demonstrated a statistically significant difference, t(2968.6) = 30.84, p < 0.001, with a considerably larger Cohen’s d of 1.13 (large effect). Then, an independent Student’s t-test showed that the sympathy nominations given by girls to boys (M = 3.88, SD = 5.26) were statistically significantly lower than those given by boys to boys (M = 5.98, SD = 6.17), t(3067) = −10.19, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of −0.37 (small-to-moderate effect). The standardized sympathy nominations given to boys by both girls (M = −0.47, SD = 0.84) and boys (M = 0.41, SD = 0.95) also revealed a statistically significant difference, t(3002.8) = −27.14, p < 0.001, also augmenting Cohen’s d to −0.98 (large effect) (Table 3).
We continued comparing antipathy nominations considering intragender and intergender nominations. We found that girls made significantly more antipathy nominations to girls (M = 2.39, SD = 3.99) than boys made to girls (M = 1.62, SD = 3.23), t(2738) = 5.76, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of 0.21 (small effect). The standardized antipathy nominations given by girls to girls (M = 0.07, SD = 0.97) were also significantly higher than those given by boys to girls (M = −0.07, SD = 1.03), t(2883) = 3.83, p < 0.001, though with a smaller Cohen’s d of 0.14 (small effect), indicating a minor difference between the two groups. Then, we observed that the antipathy nominations given by girls to boys (M = 2.88, SD = 4.22) were statistically significantly higher than those given by boys to boys (M = 2.20, SD = 3.64), t(2817.9) = 4.72, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of 0.17 (small effect). Similarly, the standardized antipathy nominations given by girls to boys (M = 0.07, SD = 1.12) were higher than those given by boys to boys (M = −0.06, SD = 0.88), t(2544.5) = 3.23, p = 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of 0.21 (small effect) (Table 4).
We then compared the groups using a dependent Student’s t-test, as the nominator was maintained. We found that the sympathy nominations given by girls to other girls (M = 5.90, SD = 5.52) were statistically significantly higher than those given by girls to boys (M = 3.88, SD = 5.26), t(1468) = 15.81, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of 0.37 (small-to-moderate effect). Similarly, the standardized sympathy nominations given by girls to other girls (M = 0.52, SD = 0.91) were significantly higher than those given by girls to boys (M = −0.47, SD = 0.84), t(1393) = 24.28, p < 0.001, with a larger effect (Cohen’s d = 1.14 (large effect) (Table 3).
We also observed that the sympathy nominations given by boys to girls (M = 3.23, SD = 4.97) were statistically significantly lower than those given by boys to other boys (M = 5.98, SD = 6.17), t(1612) = −23.36, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of −0.48 (medium effect size). The standardized sympathy nominations given by boys to girls (M = −0.48, SD = 0.85) were also statistically significantly lower than the standardized nominations given by boys to boys (M = 0.44, SD = 0.96), t(1528) = −22.67, p < 0.001, with a more prominent Cohen’s d of −1.02 (large effect) (Table 4).
When comparing the antipathy nominations given by girls to other girls (M = 2.39, SD = 3.99), we observed that these were fewer than the nominations made by girls to boys (M = 2.88, SD = 4.22), t(1422) = −4.72, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of −0.12 (small effect). However, the standardized antipathy nominations did not show a statistically significant difference between girls nominating girls (M = 0.08, SD = 0.98) and girls nominating boys (M = 0.07, SD = 1.12), t(1347) = 0.27, p = 0.789 (Table 3).
Finally, we compared the antipathy nominations given by boys to girls (M = 1.62, SD = 3.23) with those given by boys to other boys (M = 2.20, SD = 3.64). We found a statistically significant difference, t(1548) = −8.23, p < 0.001, with a Cohen’s d of −0.17 (small effect). With the standardized antipathy nominations, we found no statistically significant difference between boys nominating girls (M = −0.07, SD = 1.03) and boys nominating boys (M = −0.06, SD = 0.90), t(1464) = −0.33, p = 0.739 (Table 4).
4. Discussion
In this study, we explored the effect that gender could have on sympathy and antipathy toward peers in the classroom. The initial observation was contrary to our expectations: although we anticipated that boys would make significantly more total sympathy nominations than girls—given that boys are more likely to congregate in larger groups (Benenson, 2016)—our analysis revealed no significant difference between the number of sympathy nominations made by girls and boys.
In this regard, Rubin et al. (2011) highlighted the lack of consensus on whether boys or girls tend to have more friends. There is evidence of three possibilities: boys may have more friends, girls may have more friends, or as observed in our study, there may be no significant difference between the two groups. Rose and Rudolph (2006) provide a potential explanation for this finding, hypothesizing that while girls often interact in dyads, they may do so consecutively—spending time with one friend and then another. Conversely, boys tend to interact in larger groups, but these groups typically comprise the same friends. Additionally, it is important to consider that these studies were conducted in different countries, suggesting that cultural factors may underlie and contribute to this phenomenon.
We found that children tend to have more sympathy towards their intragender peers over intergender ones. These findings are not surprising, as there is extensive literature supporting the concept of homophily in social relationships (Dunbar, 2021; Martín et al., 2021; Rose & Rudolph, 2006).
Furthermore, our comparison of mixed-gender and single-gender classrooms revealed no significant effect on the number of nominations made by students, suggesting that attending school with peers of a different gender does not influence the number of either sympathy or antipathy nominations. It is important to interpret these results with caution because the sample of children in single-gender classrooms was small compared to the children in mixed-gender classrooms.
The most intriguing findings emerged from the analysis of antipathy nominations. Specifically, we observed that girls tend to make more antipathy nominations than boys. Although the effect was relatively small, the pattern was consistent across all measures: total nominations, nominations directed toward girls, and nominations directed toward boys. In every case, girls gave more antipathy nominations than boys. This could suggest a heightened sensitivity or awareness of social interactions among girls, making them more susceptible to evaluating people in their circles. This disparity may stem from the higher levels of empathy and social skills typically observed in girls (Dunbar, 2021; Rose et al., 2022; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). These heightened social abilities may render girls more sensitive to interpersonal dynamics, thereby increasing their likelihood of perceiving and reacting to negative behaviors among their peers.
From an evolutionary perspective, gender differences in social behavior may reflect adaptive pressures from ancestral environments. Benenson (2016), for example, suggests that females have historically relied on relational rather than physical strategies to avoid conflict and ensure safety. In classroom settings, these tendencies may manifest as increased social sensitivity and the use of indirect forms of aggression, such as exclusion, gossip, or the withdrawal of affection (Underwood, 2003; Cross & Campbell, 2014; McAndrew, 2014). These behaviors may serve to manage social risk and preserve status, particularly within emotionally complex peer groups. Reynolds and Palmer-Hague (2022) further note that girls may engage in reputational management through selective disclosure or alliance formation. While such strategies can be adaptive, they may also generate emotional strain and social tension. Haidt (2024) adds that digital environments amplify these dynamics, especially for girls, by intensifying peer surveillance, social comparison, and fears of exclusion. Although our study was not conducted through social media, the emotional pressures Haidt describes may extend to offline settings, particularly when digital culture shapes how children interpret and respond to social cues. Viewed through the lens of the school well-being model (A. Konu & Rimpelä, 2002), these findings highlight the importance of fostering emotionally secure school environments and equipping educators to recognize and respond to subtle, gendered forms of social conflict.
In the dynamics of intra- and intergender antipathy, we found that on raw counts, boys were nominated more frequently than girls in antipathy nominations by both boys and girls. However, when considering standardized values, no significant differences were observed in the antipathy nominations given by girls to girls compared to those given by girls to boys. Similarly, boys’ antipathy nominations to girls did not significantly differ from their nominations to boys. These findings suggest that the gender of the antipathy target may be less influential than the gender of the nominator.
Considering the dynamics present in school environments, it is important to examine the potential contributions of this information to fostering positive school coexistence, particularly by improving peer interactions. The findings of this study suggest that girls are more likely to reject others, highlighting the need to first investigate the underlying causes of this rejection as a basis for effective intervention or prevention strategies for social exclusion.
Furthermore, identifying gender-based differences in antipathy creates opportunities for targeted interventions to improve interpersonal classroom relationships. Educators can use this knowledge to develop strategies that promote positive gender relations and address biases or prejudices that contribute to exclusion. Finally, an important consideration is that these digital tools enable teachers to easily access information about their classrooms. This facilitates the identification of issues and allows for the implementation of strategies best suited to the specific needs of their classrooms. There are studies that research well-being, which are often very expensive (Marrone et al., 2024). Making these studies more accessible could be beneficial.
5. Conclusions
This study examined gender differences in classroom sympathy and antipathy among 10-year-old students using a digital sociometric tool within the Chilean educational context. The findings revealed clear patterns of gender homophily in sympathy nominations alongside a significant gender disparity in antipathy, with girls naming more disliked peers than boys. These results suggest that social dynamics—particularly peer rejection—are not evenly distributed across genders and may reflect distinct emotional or social expectations tied to group identity and visibility, especially for girls.
Interpreted through the lens of the school well-being model (A. Konu & Rimpelä, 2002), these patterns align most strongly with the social relationships (“loving”) and self-fulfillment (“being”) dimensions of school well-being. The high rate of antipathy nominations, particularly among girls, points to underlying tensions in the classroom’s emotional climate and highlights the potential risks of social exclusion to students’ emotional health and relational development. The strong empirical link between social dynamics and students’ opportunities for personal expression and acceptance reinforces prior findings that these well-being dimensions are deeply interconnected (A. Konu et al., 2002).
Beyond its substantive findings, this study demonstrates the value of integrating digital tools into classroom practice, not only for academic instruction but also for mapping and responding to students’ socioemotional realities. The digital sociometric technique employed here provided a scalable, inclusive, and cost-effective means for educators to monitor peer dynamics and emotional safety. As such, it contributes to ongoing efforts to build digitally informed strategies for enhancing school well-being in an institutional and systemic manner.
In line with the goals of the school well-being model and the broader vision of promoting well-being in the digital era, this study underscores the need for school environments that prioritize both academic achievement and emotional inclusion. Future interventions should aim to create conditions that allow all students—regardless of gender or social status—to feel respected, supported, and connected within their peer communities.
Limitations and Future Research
This study presents some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the sample was restricted to fourth-grade students in the Chilean Metropolitan Region. While this age group offers valuable insights into early peer dynamics, the results may not generalize to older students or other regional contexts. Second, although the sociometric tool captures real-time peer perceptions, it does not measure the emotional intensity or duration of relationships. Additionally, the proportion of students in single-gender classrooms was relatively small, which limits the strength of those subgroup comparisons. Lastly, the data reflect a single timepoint, and longitudinal studies would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how social relationships evolve over time.
Building on the present study, future research will further explore school well-being across different dimensions outlined in the school well-being model (A. Konu & Rimpelä, 2002). First, we are expanding our work to examine how nutritional education can support students’ physical and emotional well-being. This study, focused on promoting healthy eating habits in schoolchildren, aligns with the health dimension of the model and will assess how digital tools can foster behavioral change while enhancing well-being awareness in schools. Second, we are investigating the development of trust and generosity among children, with particular interest in how these prosocial behaviors contribute to the social relationships and self-fulfillment dimensions of school well-being. Finally, we are conducting a broader institutional-level analysis using data from Chile’s national standardized assessment system, SIMCE (Education Quality Measurement System). SIMCE includes survey items on school climate, student belonging, and emotional safety, several of which align with key domains of the school well-being model. This analysis will allow us to examine school-level well-being indicators on a national scale and triangulate them with classroom-level data, offering a more integrated understanding of how physical, emotional, and relational dimensions of well-being intersect in contemporary educational environments.
Conceptualization, E.M.-D. and R.A.; Methodology, E.M.-D. and R.A.; Software, E.M.-D.; Validation, R.A.; Formal analysis, E.M.-D. and R.A.; Investigation, E.M.-D. and R.A.; Resources, R.A.; Data curation, E.M.-D. and R.A.; Writing—original draft, E.M.-D.; Writing—review & editing, R.A.; Visualization, R.A.; Supervision, R.A.; Project administration, R.A.; Funding acquisition, R.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
We use open public data. We have not generated or gathered new data. Following the guidelines of the University of Chile, an ethics statement was not required for this study.
The data presented in this study are available in ConectaSTEM at
Support from ANID/PIA/Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence FB0003/Support 2024 AFB240004 is gratefully acknowledged. During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used ChatGPT (GPT-4 version) to enhance the style of certain paragraphs.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Screenshot of the question selection screen (names are fictitious) from the Conecta Ideas platform used for the sociometric test.
Number of participants and classes in the study.
| Number of participants | |||||
| Girls | Boys | ||||
| Mixed-gender class | Single-gender class | Mixed-gender class | Single-gender class | Total | |
| Which classmates do you like? (Sympathy) | 1394 | 75 | 1529 | 84 | 3082 |
| Number of classes | |||||
| Girls | Boys | ||||
| Mixed-gender class | Single-gender class | Mixed-gender class | Single-gender class | Total | |
| Which classmates do you like? (Sympathy) | 129 | 2 | 129 | 3 | 134 |
| Which classmates do you dislike? (Antipathy) | 125 | 2 | 125 | 3 | 130 |
Total nominations given.
| Absolute values | ||||||
| Girls | Boys | Student’s t | df | p value | Cohen’s d | |
| Sympathy nominations | 9.78 | 9.21 | 1.60 | 3075.3 | 0.125 | - |
| Antipathy nominations | 5.27 | 3.82 | 5.84 | 2834.95 | *** | 0.22 |
| Standardized values | ||||||
| Nominations | Girls | Boys | Student’s t | df | p value | Cohen’s d |
| Sympathy nominations | 0.28 | 0.27 | 1.20 | 3078.66 | 0.231 | - |
| Antipathy nominations | 0.15 | 0.11 | 5.66 | 2873.89 | *** | 0.21 |
Significance: *** p < 0.001.
Nominations organized by nominees.
| Absolute values | ||||||||
| Nominations | Girls | Boys | Student’s t | df | Conf level low | Conf level high | p value | Cohen’s d |
| Sympathy for girls | 5.90 | 3.23 | 14.06 | 2965 | 2.298 | 3.043 | *** | 0.51 |
| Sympathy for boys | 3.88 | 5.98 | −10.19 | 3067 | −2.504 | −1.7 | *** | −0.37 |
| Antipathy for girls | 2.39 | 1.62 | 5.76 | 2738 | 0.508 | 1.032 | *** | 0.21 |
| Antipathy for boys | 2.88 | 2.20 | 4.72 | 2817.9 | 0.4 | 0.969 | *** | 0.17 |
| Standardized values | ||||||||
| Nominations | Girls | Boys | Student’s t | df | Confidence level low | Conf level high | p value | Cohen’s d |
| Sympathy for girls | 0.50 | −0.48 | 30.84 | 2968.6 | 0.920 | 1.045 | *** | 1.13 |
| Sympathy for boys | −0.47 | 0.41 | −27.14 | 3002.8 | −0.947 | −0.82 | *** | 0.98 |
| Antipathy for girls | 0.07 | −0.07 | 3.83 | 2883 | 0.069 | 0.215 | *** | 0.14 |
| Antipathy for boys | 0.07 | −0.06 | 3.23 | 2544.5 | 0.048 | 0.196 | 0.001 ** | 0.21 |
Significance: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Nominations organized by nominator.
| Absolute values | ||||||||
| Nominations | Girls | Boys | Student’s t | df | Confidence level low | Conf level high | p value | Cohen’s d |
| Sympathy (girl nominators) | 5.90 | 3.88 | 15.81 | 1468 | 1.764 | 2.264 | *** | 0.37 |
| Sympathy (boy nominators) | 3.23 | 5.98 | −23.36 | 1612 | −2.987 | −2.524 | *** | −0.48 |
| Antipathy (girl nominators) | 2.39 | 2.88 | −4.72 | 1422 | −0.7 | −0.289 | *** | −0.12 |
| Antipathy (boy nominators) | 1.62 | 2.20 | −8.23 | 1548 | −0.719 | −0.442 | *** | −0.17 |
| Standardized values | ||||||||
| Nominations | Girls | Boys | Student’s t | df | Confidence level low | Conf level high | p value | Cohen’s d |
| Sympathy (girl nominators) | 0.52 | −0.47 | 24.28 | 1393 | 0.917 | 1.078 | *** | 1.14 |
| Sympathy (boy nominators) | −0.48 | 0.44 | −22.67 | 1528 | −0.997 | −0.838 | *** | −1.02 |
| Antipathy (girl nominators) | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.27 | 1347 | −0.078 | 0.102 | 0.789 | 0.01 |
| Antipathy (boy nominators) | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.33 | 1464 | −0.091 | 0.065 | 0.739 | −0.01 |
Significance: *** p < 0.001.
Araya, R.; Diaz, K. Implementing government elementary math exercises online: Positive effects found in RCT under social turmoil in Chile. Education Sciences; 2020; 10,
Araya, R.; Gormaz, R. Revealed preferences of fourth graders when requesting face-to-face help while doing math exercises online. Education Sciences; 2021; 11,
Benenson, J. F. Women’s use of direct versus disguised social aggression. Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science; Shackelford, T. K.; Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. Springer: 2016; pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_883-1]
Benenson, J. F. Sex differences in human peer relationships: A primate’s-eye view. Current Directions in Psychological Science; 2019; 28,
Benenson, J. F.; Markovits, H. Warriors and worriers: The survival of the sexes; Oxford University Press: 2014.
Berger, C.; Dijkstra, J. K. Competition, envy, or snobbism? How popularity and friendships shape antipathy networks of adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence; 2013; 23,
Camilleri, T.; Rockey, S.; Dunbar, R. The social brain: The psychology of successful groups; Penguin Random House: 2023.
Campbell, J. M.; Ferguson, J. E.; Herzinger, C. V.; Jackson, J. N.; Marino, C. Peers’ attitudes toward autism differ across sociometric groups: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities; 2005; 17, pp. 281-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10882-005-4386-8]
Card, N. A. Antipathetic relationships in child and adolescent development: A meta-analytic review and recommendations for an emerging area of study. Developmental Psychology; 2010; 46,
Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences; 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 1988.
Cross, C.; Campbell, A. Shackelford, T.; Hansen, R. Violence and aggression in women. The evolution of violence; Springer: 2014; pp. 157-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9314-3_11]
De Waal, F. Different: Gender through the eyes of a primatologist; WW Norton & Company: 2022.
Dunbar, R. How many friends does one person need? Dunbar’s number and other evolutionary quirks; Harvard University Press: 2010.
Dunbar, R. Friends: Understanding the power of our most important relationships; Little, Brown: 2021.
Engels, M. C.; Colpin, H.; Van Leeuwen, K.; Bijttebier, P.; Van Den Noortgate, W.; Claes, S.; Goossens, L.; Verschueren, K. Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher–student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence; 2016; 45, pp. 1192-1207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0414-5]
Fortuin, J.; van Geel, M.; Ziberna, A.; Vedder, P. Ethnic preferences in friendships and casual contacts between majority and minority children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations; 2014; 41, pp. 57-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.05.005]
Gallardo, L. O.; Barrasa, A.; Guevara-Viejo, F. Positive peer relationships and academic achievement across early and midadolescence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal; 2016; 44,
Geary, D. C. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences; American Psychological Association: 1998.
Gerber, J.; Wheeler, L. On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science; 2009; 4,
Haidt, J. The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness; Penguin Press: 2024.
Haselager, G. J.; Hartup, W. W.; van Lieshout, C. F.; Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A. Similarities between friends and nonfriends in middle childhood. Child Development; 1998; 69,
Haynie, D. L.; Doogan, N. J.; Soller, B. Gender, friendship networks, and delinquency: A dynamic network approach. Criminology; 2014; 52,
Kochel, K. P.; Bagwell, C. L.; Ladd, G. W.; Rudolph, K. D. Do positive peer relations mitigate transactions between depressive symptoms and peer victimization in adolescence?. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology; 2017; 51, pp. 44-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.04.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29104337]
Konu, A.; Alanen, E.; Lintonen, T.; Rimpelä, M. Factor structure of the school well-being model. Health Education Research; 2002; 17,
Konu, A.; Rimpelä, M. Well-being in schools: A conceptual model. Health Promotion International; 2002; 17,
Konu, A. I.; Lintonen, T. P. School well-being in grades 4–12. Health Education Research; 2006; 21,
Kornienko, O.; Santos, C. E.; Martin, C. L.; Granger, K. L. Peer influence on gender identity development in adolescence. Developmental Psychology; 2016; 52,
Kurzban, R.; Leary, M. R. Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin; 2001; 127,
Leary, M. R. Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology; 1990; 9,
Marrone, R.; Lam, B.; Barthakur, A.; Brinkman, S.; Dawson, S.; Gabriel, F. The relationship between wellbeing and academic achievement: A comprehensive cross-sectional analysis of system wide data from 2016–2019. Journal of Learning Analytics; 2024; 11,
Martín, E.; Torbay, Á.; Guerra-Hernández, C. Gender segregation in peer relationships and its association with peer reputation. Psicothema; 2021; 33,
McAndrew, F. T. The “sword of a woman”: Gossip and female aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior; 2014; 19,
McDougall, P.; Hymel, S.; Vaillancourt, T.; Mercer, L. The consequences of childhood peer rejection. Interpersonal rejection; Leary, M. R. Oxford University Press: 2001; pp. 213-247.
Moreno, J. L. Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations; Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.: 1934.
Newcomb, A. F.; Bukowski, W. M.; Pattee, L. Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin; 1993; 113,
Reynolds, T. A.; Palmer-Hague, J. Did you hear what she did to me? Female friendship victimization disclosures offer reputational advantages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; 2022; 101, 104311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104311]
Rose, A. J.; Borowski, S. K.; Spiekerman, A.; Smith, R. L. Smith, P. K.; Hart, C. H. Children’s friendships. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social development; 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell: 2022; pp. 487-502.
Rose, A. J.; Rudolph, K. D. A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin; 2006; 132,
Rubin, K. H.; Bukowski, W. M.; Bowker, J. C. Children in peer groups. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Cognitive processes; 7th ed. Lerner, R. M.; Liben, L. S.; Mueller, U. Wiley: 2015; Vol. 2, pp. 175-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405]
Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups; Rubin, K. H.; Bukowski, W. M.; Laursen, B. Guilford Press: 2011.
Smith, P. K.; Hart, C. H. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social development; John Wiley & Sons: 2022.
Underwood, M. K. Social aggression among girls; The Guilford Press: 2003.
Wentzel, K. R.; Jablansky, S.; Scalise, N. R. Peer social acceptance and academic achievement: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Educational Psychology; 2021; 113,
Williams, K. D. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology; 2007; 58, pp. 425-452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.