Gender Rules: Same-and Cross-Gender Friendships Norms

Sex Roles (Impact Factor: 1.47). 04/2012; 66(7-8):518-529. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z

ABSTRACT We examined the relationships between gender and attitudes towards same-and cross-gender friendship norms for a sample of 269 West Coast, U.S., college stu-dents. Participants evaluated violations of friendship norms described in vignettes in which the friend's gender was experimentally manipulated. Women differentiated more between types of violations in their evaluations than did men. There also were several significant gender differences in approval of norm violations. As expected, women tended to have relatively high expectations of their friendships in situations involving trust and intimacy, likely resulting from the high value they placed on affiliation and emotional closeness. Women were more disapproving than men of a friend who canceled plans or failed to come to their defense publicly. Men and women judged a woman who betrayed a secret more harshly than a man. Generally, expectations for cross-gender, versus same-gender, friends were more similar than different; there were no significant cross-gender inter-actions, with one exception. Men were particularly less approving of a male, as compared to a female, friend who kissed them in a greeting. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of respondents (81.6%) reported that men and women can be friends. A minority of women were cautious in their responses, with women (18.5%) more apt to reply "maybe," than men (9.9%). Overall, these findings provided evidence that gender, rather than cross-gender, norms pri-marily influenced friendship evaluations, and demonstrated that even a subtle manipulation of gender can trigger gender stereotypes. They suggested, too, that women may hold their friends to stricter "rules" than men.

Download full-text


Available from: H. Colleen Sinclair, Sep 28, 2015
857 Reads
  • Source
    • "A critical review of sex differences in several peer relationship processes (Rose and Rudolph 2006) indicated that that girls' relational orientation styles are characterized by stronger interpersonal engagement than those of boys. Felmlee et al. (2012), in a sample of west coast U.S. college students, found that women tended to have high expectations of their friendships in situations involving trust and intimacy. Baumgarte and Nelson (2009), in a sample of U.S. college students, found that female participants, as compared to male participants, reported that their friendships were closer, more caring and supportive, and of greater benefit to them. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The research investigates differences between heterosexual (n = 714) and lesbian and gay men (n = 386) young adults regarding best friendship patterns, well-being, and social anxiety. Based on data from a paper-pencil survey of 1,100 Italian young adults aged 18 to 26, this study underlines the importance of the best friend in young adults’ psychological adjustment, highlighting patterns of friendship in heterosexual and lesbian and gay men young adults. Overall, the majority of participants declared that they had best friends; in the total sample, significant differences were found between women and men, and between lesbian/gay men participants and heterosexual young adults. Lesbian and gay men participants reported more cross-gender best friendships than heterosexual participants did, as well as more cross-orientation best friendships. Gender differences were found only with regards to cross-gender friendships: gay men reported more cross-gender friendships than lesbians did, while heterosexual females reported a higher percentage of cross-gender best friendship than heterosexual males did. MANOVA analysis, only in the gay and lesbian sample, showed the effect of gender, cross-gender, and cross-orientation on well-being and social anxiety. For the well-being dimension, gay men participants with female best friends reported higher scores. In terms of social anxiety, lesbian and gay young adults with cross-gender and cross-orientation best friends reported lower levels of social anxiety.
    Sex Roles 02/2014; 70(3-4):110-121. DOI:10.1007/s11199-014-0343-2 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Results from this survey indicated that within heterosexual cross-sex friendships, perceptions of friendship intimacy for females were more strongly tied to their positive attitudes toward: enacting and receiving more touch, enacting and receiving more safe haven (e.g., caretaking) touch, and perceiving touch as more sexually arousing, when compared to males. Females were more motivated not to touch their cross-sex friends in public regardless of intimacy perceptions and did not positively perceive safe haven touch if they did not have a romantic partner. It is argued that males' and females' attitudes toward touch in cross-sex friendships diverge due to evolved differences related to parental investment and the manner in which they are socialized to perceive their roles in cross-sex friendships.
    Personal Relationships 04/2014; 21(2). DOI:10.1111/pere.12033 · 1.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study reviews theories on striving for closure in adolescent networks related to trust issues of adolescents and further examines whether adolescents in mixed-gender and single-gender classes are different in striving for closure. Stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics are applied to test our hypotheses based on longitudinal friendship nominations of 406 Taiwanese adolescents in mixed-gender, all-boy, and all-girl classes. The results show that adolescents strive for closure through connections of friends' friends. Further, the results reveal that while the tendency toward closure is stronger for girls in mixed-gender classes, such tendency toward closure is stronger in all-boy classes than in all-girl classes. Testing effects between types of classes supports the indications of variances in striving closure.
    Journal of Research on Adolescence 04/2014; 25(2). DOI:10.1111/jora.12136 · 1.99 Impact Factor
Show more