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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Four studies examined gender differences in self-construals and the role of social comparison in generating these differences. Consistent with previous research, Study 1 (N=461) showed that women define themselves as higher in relational interdependence than men, and men define themselves as higher in independence/agency than women. Study 2 (N=301) showed that within-gender social comparison decreases gender differences in self-construals relative to a control condition, whereas between-genders comparison increases gender differences on both relational interdependence and independence/agency. Studies 3 (N=169) and 4 (N=278) confirmed these findings and showed that changing self-construal changes gender differences in social dominance orientation. Across the 4 studies, strong evidence for the role of in-group stereotyping as mediator of the effect of gender on self-construal was observed on the relational dimension but not on the agentic dimension.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 03/2006; 90(2):221-42. · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous traditions of distributive-justice research assume the existence of a normative structure for making judgments about fairness of allocations of social goods, such as earnings. Does a consensual normative framework for judging the fairness of distributions of earnings exist in the U.S. population? What principles underlie popular judgments concerning earnings distributions? Data indicate both that judgments of earnings fairness are not idiosyncratic and that they involve individual and group differences related to considerations of merit and need. Some tolerance for variation in earnings among house-holds is noted, and the same factors accounting for earnings-fairness judgments justify earnings considered fair. Considerable agreement exists concerning what principles are relevant to earnings-fairness judgments, while disagreement concerning how to apply these standards in practice is admitted. Apparently the standards for earnings judgments derive both from conceptions of the empirical distribution of earnings and from underlying values concerning what is fair and just.
    The American Journal of Sociology. 11/1978; 84(3):541-564.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine the constraining and facilitating effects of social structural position (age, sex, race, class, financial sufficiency, and number of friends) on opportunities for friendship. We hypothesized that the greater the number of people who share a given social structural location and the more access they have to situations where it is possible to meet new people, the less likely they are to have problematic friendships. The sample comprised 53 male and female community residents aged 55 to 84 years who enjoyed fairly good health. Logistic and multiple regression procedures revealed outcomes opposite to our predictions: those who were supposedly more social structurally advantaged actually reported greater numbers of problematic friendships. Potential interpretations include the possibility that these people are more critical than others of their friend relationships or more willing to acknowledge problems, that the norms regarding commitment to friends are weaker among these individuals, or that they learn to acquire friends but not to avoid and solve problems in their relationships. Apparently, people with more friends are not more likely than others to terminate problematic friendships or to redefine them as mere associations.
    Personal Relationships 11/1998; 5(4):439 - 447. · 0.95 Impact Factor


Available from
May 29, 2014