Content uploaded by M. Paz Galupo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M. Paz Galupo on May 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Friendship Values and Cross-Category Friendships:
Understanding Adult Friendship Patterns Across Gender,
Sexual Orientation and Race
M. Paz Galupo &Kirsten A. Gonzalez
Published online: 20 September 2012
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract The present research used an intersectional anal-
ysis in examining whether women and men who have,
versus do not have, cross-category friendships differ in what
they value as important in a close friendship. Parallel anal-
yses were conducted to examine cross-orientation and cross-
race friendships across gender and identity status (minority
and majority), with age as a covariate for all analyses.
Participants were 1415 adult women and men, ranging in
age from 18-80, residing in the United States, who complet-
ed a friendship profile questionnaire by reporting basic
demographic information about themselves and their close
friends. Participants’importance ratings of six different
friendship values were utilized to interrogate existing friend-
ship patterns. Three general friendship values (trust and
honesty, respect friend as person, there when needed) and
three cross-identity salient friendship values (similar lives &
experiences, similar values, nonjudgmental) were consid-
ered. Individuals with and without cross-category friend-
ships did not significantly differ in their ratings for any of
the three general friendship values. Individuals with cross-
orientation and cross-race friendships placed less impor-
tance on similar lives & experiences than those with no
such friendships. Other cross-identity salient friendship val-
ues were uniquely related to cross-orientation and cross-race
friendship patterns. Although women rated all six friend-
ship values as more important than did men, women and
men displayed similar friendship value patterns across
cross-category friendships and identity. These findings
are discussed in the context of feminist intersectional
theory.
Keywords Friendship .Cross-category .Cross-race .
Cross-orientation .Identity .Intersectional theory .Race .
Sexual orientation
Introduction
The present research is designed to investigate the connec-
tion between friendship value ratings and cross-category
friendship patterns among adult women and men in the
United States. This research is comparative by design and
considers whether individuals who have, versus do not
have, cross-category friendships differ in what they value
as important in a close friendship. In addition, it is designed
to determine whether friendship values are similarly related
to different types of cross-category friendships or whether
there are unique considerations for cross-orientation and
cross-race friendships. Therefore, parallel analyses were
conducted to examine cross-orientation and cross-race
friendships across gender and identity status (minority and
majority). Participants completed a friendship profile ques-
tionnaire by reporting basic demographic information about
themselves and their close friends. Participants’importance
ratings of six different friendship values were utilized to
interrogate existing friendship patterns. Three general
friendship values (trust and honesty, respect friend as per-
son, there when needed) and three cross-identity salient
friendship values (similar lives & experiences, similar val-
ues, nonjudgmental) were considered.
This research uses feminist intersectional theory (Collins
2000; Hooks 1984; McCall 2005) to understand patterns of
cross-category friendship across identity of participants.
Feminist intersectional theory attends to not only the inter-
sections among gender, sexual orientation, and race for the
present research, but also allows an analysis of how dimen-
sions of identity (minority and majority) are related to
M. P. Galupo (*):K. A. Gonzalez
Psychology Department, Towson University,
8000 York Road,
Towson, MD 21252-0001, USA
e-mail: pgalupo@towson.edu
Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0211-x
inequality and / or oppression. Considering inequality in the
context of friendship ultimately permits an understanding of
how identity differences shape social and personal relation-
ships. Because notions of identity are culturally constructed,
the review of past research and the rationale for the present
study is situated in the U.S. research literature where all
samples of research cited are U.S. based unless otherwise
noted. Although the specific research conceptualization of
gender, sexual orientation, and race used for the study is
U.S. based, larger notions of how identity negotiation in
friendships may be impacted across minority / majority
dimensions of identity could have implications for under-
standing friendship in other cultural contexts.
Cross-Category Friendships
Homophily –the notion that people connect with others
who are similar to themselves –is a basic principle of social
relationships (McPherson et al. 2001). Research has dem-
onstrated that friendships reflect homophily where individ-
uals choose friends who are similar to themselves on the
basis of gender, age, race, social economic status, and sexual
orientation (Duck 1991; Galupo 2009; Rose 1985; Ueno
2010). In general, friendships have been regarded as distinct
from other types of social relationships precisely because
they are constructed around mutuality (McWilliams and
Howard 1993) and equality (Suttles 1970). Research on
same-category friendships emphasizes that these friendships
are particularly important because they represent a social
relationship in which individuals experience relative equal-
ity. For example, in his research on friendships between gay
men, Nardi (1999) describes how these friendships can
provide opportunities for gay men to experience equity not
easily achieved in other friendships where social identity is
being bridged and where sexual orientation or gender re-
quire constant negotiation.
In contrast, cross-category friendships exist between indi-
viduals who are positioned differently across social identi-
ties. Because cross-category friendships defy the expected
friendship pattern of homophily, these friendships are often
conceptualized as novel and as developing despite signifi-
cant barriers or obstacles (Galupo 2009;O’Meara 1989).
Research characterizing cross-category friendships has fo-
cused on the negotiation of difference and inequality as a
primary focus for friends. In fact, exposure to different
perspectives is often cited as a primary benefit of cross-
category friendships (Canary et al. 1997; Galupo and St.
John 2001; Hall and Rose 1996; Werking 1997). For exam-
ple, women interviewed about their cross-orientation friend-
ships discussed ways in which friendships allowed for
critical evaluation of stereotypes, moving beyond dichoto-
mous thinking, and the ability to consider alternate perspec-
tives (Galupo and St. John 2001). Likewise, Hall and Rose
(1996) emphasize that cross-race friendships benefit friends
by allowing a context for developing greater appreciation
for cultural diversity and can lead toward more effective
political organizing.
Although cross-category friendships are a site for explor-
ing differences between friends, individuals with majority
(e.g. heterosexual, White) and minority (e.g. sexual minor-
ity, racial minority) identities may approach and experience
friendships differently. For example, friendship in general is
particularly salient for individuals whose identity puts them
at odds with social norms (Weeks 1995). Social minorities,
then, may rely on friendship to meet needs not otherwise
met by larger society. And although friendship patterns in
general reflect homophily, there is evidence to suggest that
sexual and racial minorities are more likely to form cross-
category friendships (Galupo 2009) than their majority
counterparts. Cross-category friendships may offer minority
individuals a unique location for finding acceptance from
the majority that is not otherwise found in other family and
friendship relationships. However, because of the height-
ened social importance of such friendships, minority indi-
viduals may enter into these cross-category friendships with
different friendship expectations than majority individuals.
For example, past research on cross-orientation friendships
has suggested that these friendships may exist, in some
cases, despite the judgmental attitudes and non-acceptance
directed toward sexual minority issues and identities on the
part of the heterosexual friend (Galupo 2007a; Galupo et al.
2004; Price 1999). Some sexual minorities view the routine
judgment and invalidation of their identity as a necessary
sacrifice for maintenance of friendships with heterosexual
friends (Galupo et al. 2004). Thus, the study of cross-
category friendships can serve as an important research
model as it presents a unique location for considering how
individuals are able to bridge difference and negotiate
inequities within their personal relationships.
Cross-Category Friendship Patterns and Feminist
Intersectional Theory
The present research utilizes feminist intersectional theory
in order to understand cross-category friendship patterns in
an adult U. S. sample. Feminist intersectional theory empha-
sizes the importance of examining relationships among so-
cial identities as intersecting categories of oppression /
inequality (Collins 2000; Hooks 1984; McCall 2005). This
theoretical framework initially focused on race, class, and
gender and originated from the critique of both gender- and
race-based research for failing to acknowledge individuals
living at the intersections of the two.
More recent conceptualizations are inclusive of sexual
orientation, specifically addressing the role of homophobia
and heterosexism in the lives of women and racial minorities
780 Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
(Anzaldúa 1990; King 1990; Trujillo 1991). This literature
can inform an intersectional approach to researching friend-
ship experience across gender, sexual orientation, and race.
Framing sexual orientation from an intersectional lens
brings into focus dimensions of inequality and power that
surround cultural meanings of gender and sexual orienta-
tion. Viewing sexual orientation within intersectional theory
shifts the focus from the “unnatural”and “abnormal”con-
ceptualizations of sexual minority experience traditionally
highlighted by psycho-medical perspectives, while making
heterosexual identity subjective and open as category of
inquiry. Understanding friendships across sexual minority /
heterosexual experience, then, allows a comparative dimen-
sion which invites exploration of inequalities across sexual
orientation potentially revealing how heteronormative atti-
tudes shape friendship dynamics and choice. Simultaneous-
ly, this framework allows a parallel exploration of friendship
experiences across racial minority / White dimensions of
identity. Ultimately feminist intersectional theory provides a
conceptual framework from which to consider the intersect-
ing influences of sexism, homophobia, and racism on
friendship dynamics (Galupo 2006).
Feminist intersectional theory with its focus on structural
inequalities provides a particularly useful framework for
understanding cross-category friendships as they are, by
definition, structured across dimensions of social inequality.
O’Meara (1989) discusses the inherent inequities present in
the structural context of cross-gender friendships as present-
ing a major challenge to their development and mainte-
nance. The same could be said for cross-race and cross-
orientation friendships. In addition, feminist intersectional
theory attends to the simultaneous and intersecting influen-
ces across categories. Beyond a few notable exceptions past
research on cross-category friendships has not allowed for a
comparative analysis of friendship patterns across multiple
dimensions as the majority of this research has focused on
one social identity in isolation. There has been a longer
history of research focused on understanding cross-gender
and cross-race friendships, with more recent attention on
cross-orientation friendships. Although understanding
friendships across any one of these identities is important
in its own right, interpreting results regarding cross-category
friendship patterns when studied in isolation should be done
cautiously. For example, if studying cross-orientation
friendships it is possible that emerging patterns due to a
general difference in social identity could be erroneously
attributed to differences specific to sexual orientation (and
vice versa). An intersectional analysis comparing cross-
orientation and cross-race friendships would allow a better
understanding of the effect of identity differences in general,
and sexual orientation differences, in particular.
McCall (2005) outlined several options for intersectional
researchers. Some of the initial research on cross-category
friendships utilized an intracategorical complexity ap-
proach, which focuses on particular social groups at
neglected points of an intersection (McCall 2005). This is
typified by research, for example, that provides an in-depth
description of friendship experiences between White and
Black lesbians, as does Hall and Rose (1996) or between
gay and straight men (Price 1999). This type of research has
been successful in revealing nuances in friendship dynamics
that exist when simultaneously negotiating sexism, homo-
phobia, and / or racism, and in bringing to the forefront the
lived experience for individuals who enjoy friendships at the
nexus of these intersections. Intracategorical complexity
approaches, however, have been criticized in general for
managing complexity by focusing on the intersection of
single dimensions of multiple categories (McCall 2005).
For friendship research this is exemplified by research that
seeks to understand the intersection between sexual orienta-
tion and sex, but focuses exclusively on men’s (e.g. Nardi
1992;1999; Tillman-Healy 2001) or women’s experiences
(e.g. Galupo et al. 2004;O’Boyle and Thomas 1996).
McCall (2005) also describes intercategorical complexity
approaches which provisionally adopt categories in order to
document relationships among multiple and potentially
conflicting dimensions of identity and experience. When
applied to friendship research, the intersecting patterns or
relationships among social groups become the center of
analysis. Categorization, then, is used provisionally as a
way to understand intersecting relationships and these rela-
tionship patterns become central to the analysis rather than
as a backdrop for explaining friendship experiences. Inter-
categorical complexity approaches, then, incorporate multi-
ple groups and are comparative by nature.
Taking an intercategorical complexity approach, Galupo
(2009) demonstrated that sexual orientation, gender, and
race do interact in complex ways to shape friendship pat-
terns. In a study that compared cross-orientation, cross-
gender, and cross-race friendships between sexual minority
and heterosexual adults Galupo (2009) described larger
friendship patterns that could be explained by social
inequalities. Although same-category friendships are still
the overall basic friendship pattern, cross-gender friendships
are more common than cross-race friendships, which are in
turn more common than cross-orientation friendships. In
addition, cross-category friendship patterns are impacted
by identity where, for example, heterosexual participants
report significantly fewer cross-orientation friendships than
sexual minority participants. Participants who were both
sexual and racial minorities experienced more of their
friendships in a cross-race context. These patterns suggest
that the more marginalized an individual is with respect to
larger culture, the less likely she / he will find friendships
among individuals of similar social identities. That is, the
overall trend toward friendship homophily is disrupted at
Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790 781
the intersections of minority identity. In interpreting these
findings Galupo (2009) asserts that these results cannot be
solely explained by opportunity or demography. Rather,
sociopolitical attitudes shape these friendship “choices.”
Galupo’s(2009) research provides a blueprint for map-
ping adult friendship patterns across gender, sexual orienta-
tion, and race. Future research is needed to elucidate how
these friendship patterns are related to larger sociopolitical
attitudes and friendship expectations. Although gender dif-
ferences have been found with regard to friendship expect-
ations of same-gender friends (Hall 2011), friendship
expectations have not been explored in relation to cross-
category friendships. Studying cross-category friendship
patterns specifically allows an understanding of when
friendship homophily is being violated and what attitudes
allow this violation.
Present Study and Hypotheses
The present research examines whether individuals who have,
versus do not have, cross-category friendships differ in what
they value in a close friendship. Using an intersectional
(intercategorical) approach this research is methodologically
unique in that it allows for four distinct levels of comparisons,
allowing for: 1) statistical comparisons between individuals
who have, versus do not have cross-category friendships; 2)
statistical comparisons across majority (male, heterosexual,
White) and minority (female, sexual minority, racial minority)
dimensions of identity; 3) a consideration of patterns of
responses across general and cross-identity salient friendship
values; and 4) a consideration of patterns of responses across
cross-orientation and cross-race friendships.
This research investigates the relation between cross-
category friendship patterns and six different friendship values.
These six friendships values were selected based on a broad
review of the friendship literature and are considered general
characteristics of friendships (e.g. Fehr 1996;Rawlins1992.)
Three general friendship values (trust & honesty, respect friend
as a person, there when needed) were selected because they are
regarded as basic friendship characteristics with no conceptual
or theoretical connection to cross-category friendships specifi-
cally. In addition, these characteristics are not particularly sa-
lient to differences across sexual or racial identity.
Three cross-identity salient friendship values (similar
lives & experiences, similar values, non-judgmental) were
selected for this research because they, too, are basic friend-
ship characteristics. However, because cross-category
friendships violate notions of homophily and similarity
and because cross-category friendships center on the nego-
tiation of differences between friends (Canary et al. 1997;
Galupo and St. John 2001; Hall and Rose 1996; Price 1999;
Rose 1996; Werking 1997) these friendship values may be
uniquely related to the development of cross-category
friendships. Specifically, these cross-identity salient friend-
ship values may be emphasized less for individuals who
have cross-category friendships. In addition, these friend-
ship values may be differently considered in cross-category
friendship by individuals who identify with the majority
versus the minority. The framing of general and cross-
identity salient friendships values is done theoretically, as
different predictions are expected across these two groups of
friendship values. However, it is important to note that each
of the six friendship values was analyzed separately. That is,
each of the six friendship values was treated as a separate
dependent variable.
The following specific hypotheses were explored and
past research findings supporting these predictions are cited,
where relevant: 1) Consistent with past research (Hall 2011)
it was predicted that women would have higher friendship
value ratings than men for both general and cross-identity
salient friendships values; 2) Because cross-orientation
friendships in general are structured around difference
(Galupo and St. John 2001; Hall and Rose 1996; Muraco
2012; Price 1999), it was predicted that those with cross-
orientation friendships would rate similar lives & experien-
ces and similar values as less important than those without
cross-orientation friendships; 3) Because cultural debates
surrounding sexual orientation are uniquely framed in a
religious and moral context (Herek 1987,1991)itis
expected that non-judgmental would be related to cross-
orientation friendships. Specifically, it was expected that
sexual minority participants with cross-orientation friend-
ships would rate non-judgmental as lower than those with-
out such friendships. This is consistent with research that
has suggested that some sexual minorities view the routine
judgment and invalidation of their identity as a necessary
sacrifice for the maintenance of friendships with heterosex-
ual friends (Galupo et al. 2004). A de-emphasis, then, on
non-judgmental values may be related to the development of
cross-orientation friendships; and 4) Because cross-race
friendships (like cross-orientation friendships) are structured
around difference (Hall and Rose 1996; Rawlins 2009), it
was predicated that those with cross-race friendships would
rate similar lives & experiences and similar values as less
important than those without cross-race friendships.
Method
Participants
Participants were 1415 women (n01033) and men (n0382).
Participants ranged in age from 18–80 (M044.78, SD014.32).
With regard to sexual orientation, participants self-identified as
heterosexual (n01010) and sexual minority (n0405). There
was considerable diversity in the sample where 1018 (71.9 %)
782 Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
participants identified as White and397(28.0%)identifiedas
racial minorities, specifically: 225 (15.9 %) African American /
Black;58(4.1%)Asian/AsianAmerican;58(4.1%)Other/
Bi-Racial; 48 (3.4 %) Hispanic / Non-White; and eight (.6 %)
Native American. With regard to educational background, 1022
(72.23 %) had either attended some college or were college
graduates; 201 (14.20 %) had either attended some graduate
school or had already earned professional or graduate degrees;
188 (13.29 %) had either attended some high school or were
high school graduates; and four participants (0.28 %) did not
report. With regard to social economic status, participants de-
scribed themselves in the following way: Middle Class (n0792;
56.0 %); Upper Middle Class (n0309; 21.8 %); Working Class
(n0289; 20.4 %); Upper Class (n019; 1.3 %); and six individ-
uals (.5 %) did not report. Participants represented all regions of
the United States, residing in all 50 states and Washington D.C.
Table 1provides demographic information disaggregated
by gender. Preliminary analysis confirmed that there were
no significant gender differences in demographic informa-
tion for sexual orientation, racial identity, education, and
social class. However, women in the sample were signifi-
cantly older than men in the sample. Although age was not
used as a grouping variable for the present research, age was
controlled for in all analyses reported here.
Recruitment Procedure
Participants were recruited into the study utilizing two dif-
ferent methods. In both cases, participation was completely
voluntary and was offered with no incentives. On-line par-
ticipants (n0802; 56.7 %) were initially recruited from two
general websites for posting psychological studies. Paper
and pencil surveys (n0613; 43.3 %) were administered from
12 volunteer recruiters in different states across the country
(five colleges, seven businesses). From each of the 12 sites,
snowball methodology was used where interested partici-
pants were given additional surveys to circulate among their
contacts. On-line participants were also encouraged to share
the survey link with other individuals. A preliminary anal-
ysis revealed no significant difference in the responses
across data collection methods (paper-and-pencil and on-
line survey) with regard to participant demographics and
on total number of friends. All subsequent analyses, then,
used the combined sample.
Measures
Participants completed a friendship questionnaire devel-
oped by the first author reporting basic demographic
information (gender, race, age, education, sexual orienta-
tion) about themselves and up to eight of their close
friends. Participants were askedtoincludewhothey
consider to be “close friends”based on their own per-
sonal definition.
In developing a friendship profile, the number of close
friendships and the number of same- and cross-category
friendships (sexual orientation and race) were determined.
For this study, friendship profiles were coded on the basis of
whether the participant had at least one cross-category
friendship per category. For example, participants with no
cross-orientation friendships were coded as 0 and those
individuals with one or more cross-orientation friendships
were coded as 1. Among those with at least one cross-
orientation friendship, a preliminary one-way MANOVA
found no differences between individuals with different
numbers of such friendships for each of the six friendship
values. Likewise, among those with at least one cross-race
friendship, a one-way MANOVA found no differences for
each of the six friendship values.
Participants were also asked to provide importance rat-
ings on a 5-point likert scale (1 0not important / 5 0extreme-
ly important) for 6 different friendship values. Three were
general friendship values (trust & honesty, there when need-
ed, respect as friend) while three were cross-identity salient
friendship values (similar lives & experiences, similar val-
ues, nonjudgmental).Participants rated each of the 6 friend-
ship values independently. Even though different
predictions are made for general and identity salient friend-
ship values, each of the six friendship values were analyzed
as separate dependent variables.
Only participants with complete friendship profiles (in-
cluding demographic information about themselves and
Table 1 Sample demographics across gender
Women Men
n01033 n0382
Age
*
45.87 (13.45) 41.81 (15.33)
Range 18–80 18–74
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual 727 (72.31 %) 263 (68.85 %)
Sexual Minority 286 (27.69 %) 119 (31.15 %)
Racial Identity
White 751 (72.70 %) 2.68 (70.16 %)
Racial Minority 282 (27.30 %) 114 (29.83 %)
Education
College 755 (73.16 %) 267 (70.44 %)
Graduate School 145 (14.05 %) 56 (14.78 %)
High School 132 (12.79 %) 56 (14.78 %)
Social Class
Middle 580 (56.48 %) 212 (55.50 %)
Upper Middle 222 (21.52 %) 87 (22.77 %)
Working 215 (20.93 %) 74 (19.37 %)
Upper 10 (.97 %) 9 (2.36 %)
*
p<.01
Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790 783
their friends) were included in this sample. Because of the
different recruitment strategies and sites we do not have a
reliable estimate of how many participants were excluded
for incomplete friendship profile data. In several cases par-
ticipants were missing one or two of the friendship value
scores. Because friendship value scores were calculated and
analyzed independently from one another, we were able to
retain those participants in the sample and use their data
where available. The level of missing data was very low.
Out of the 1415 total participants, missing data points
for each of the friendship values were as follows: trust /
honesty
0
11; respect friend as person012; there when
needed012; similar lives & experiences014; similar
values011; nonjudgmental011).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Consistent with a feminist intersectional approach which
focuses on experiences across dimensions of inequality,
participants were grouped based on majority / minority
identities for both sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexual /
sexual minority) and race (White / racial minority). Using
this categorization, then, all individuals who were not
heterosexually identified were grouped together as sexual
minorities and all individuals who were not White were
grouped together as racial minorities. A preliminary
MANOVA found no significant interaction or main
effects of sexual orientation and gender for any of the
six friendship values among sexual minorities. This sup-
ports the grouping of lesbian / gay and bisexual partic-
ipants together as sexual minorities for the purpose of
exploring differences between sexual minority and het-
erosexual participants. Likewise, a preliminary additional
MANOVA found no significant interaction or main
effects across race and gender for any of the six friend-
ship values among racial minorities. This supports the
grouping together participants who identify as African
American, Asian American, Hispanic, Native American
and Other as racial minorities.
Friendship Values & Cross-Category Friendships
Tab le 2illustrates descriptive statistics and correlations
among the six friendship values. The relation between
friendship value ratings and cross-category friendship pat-
terns was investigated separately for cross-orientation and
cross-race friendships. Two separate 3-way MANOVAs
were conducted to investigate whether friendship value rat-
ings differed for individuals with, versus without, at least
one cross-category friendship.
Cross-Orientation Friendships
Table 3provides mean scores for each of the six friendship
values across gender, sexual orientation, and cross-
orientation friendships. A 2×2 × 2 factorial investigated the
potential intersecting effects of gender, sexual orientation,
and cross-orientation friendships on friendship value rat-
ings. In cases of interaction effects, Bonferroni post hoc t-
tests were used to explore simple main effects.
General Friendship Values
Importance ratings for each of the three general friendship
values (trust / honesty, respect friend as person, there when
needed) did not differ across sexual orientation (heterosex-
ual, sexual minority), or based on whether participants had,
or did not have, cross-orientation friendships. There were no
significant 2 or 3 way interactions across gender, sexual
orientation, and cross-orientation friendships. Additionally,
there were no significant main effects for sexual orientation
or cross-orientation friendships. However, for all three of the
general friendship values, there was a significant main effect
of gender. Women (M04.92, SD 00.35) rated trust / honesty
as more important when compared to men, (M04.82, SD 0
0.58), F(1, 1373)08.54, p0.004, partial η
2
0.006. Women
(M04.88, SD00.38) rated respect friend as person as more
important when compared to men, (M04.74, SD00.67), F
(1, 1373)06.18, p0.013, partial η
2
0.004. Additionally,
women (M04.64 SD00.66) rated there when needed as
more important when compared to men, (M04.41, SD0
0.91), F(1, 1373)06.83, p0.009, partial η
2
0.005.
Cross-Identity Salient Friendship Values
For similar lives & experiences there were no significant 2
or 3 way interaction effects between sexual orientation,
gender, and having at least one cross-orientation friendship.
Additionally, there was no significant main effect of gender.
There was a significant main effect of sexual orientation
where sexual minorities (M03.06, SD01.11) rated similar
lives & experiences as more important than heterosexuals,
(M02.93, SD01.16), F(1, 1373)011.78, p0.001, partial
η
2
0.009. There was also a significant main effect of cross-
orientation friendships where individuals with cross-
orientation friendships (M02.86, SD01.14) rated
similar lives & experiences as less important than those
individuals without such friendships, (M03.02, SD 01.15),
F(1, 1373)010.88, p0.001, partial η
2
0.008.
For similar values there were no significant interaction
effects among sexual orientation, gender, and having at least
one cross-orientation friendship. However, there were signifi-
cant main effects for sexual orientation and cross-orientation
friendships. Sexual minorities (M03.86, SD01.00) rated
784 Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
similar values as more important than heterosexuals, (M03.81,
SD01.06), F(1, 1373)04.32, p0.045, partial η
2
0.003. In ad-
dition, individuals with cross-orientation friendships (M03.75,
SD01.03) rated similar values as less important without such
friendships, (M03.85, SD01.05), F(1, 1373)03.11, p0.05,
partial η
2
0.003.
For non-judgmental ratings, there was no significant 3 way
interaction among sexual orientation, gender, and having at
least one cross-orientation friendship. There was a significant
interaction between sexual orientation and having at least one
cross-orientation friendship, F(1, 1372)04.71, p0.05, partial
η
2
0.004. For heterosexual participants, there was no significant
difference in non-judgmental ratings when comparing those
with (M04.21, SD01.00) and without (M04.07, SD01.07) a
cross-orientation friendship, t(978)01.51, p0.13, d0.13. For
sexual minority participants, individuals with at least one cross-
orientation friendship (M04.40, SD0.92) rated non-
judgmental as less important than those without a cross-
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations among general and cross-identity salient friendship values
Friendship values 1 2 3 4 5 6 Women Men
M SD M SD F
General
1. Trust / Honesty –.33
***
.08
**
−.06
*
.08
**
.03 4.92 0.35 4.83 0.58 12.67
**
2. Respect Friend as Person .61
***
–.14
***
.10
***
.11
***
.16
***
4.88 0.38 4.74 0.67 22.54
**
3. There When Needed .34
***
.47
***
–.24
***
.14
***
.11
***
4.64 0.66 4.40 0.92 25.66
**
Cross-Identity Salient
4. Similar Lives / Experiences .08 .06 .15
**
–.42
***
.13
***
2.97 1.15 2.95 1.15 0.16
5. Similar Values .35
***
.23
***
.16
***
.46
***
–.10
***
3.85 1.00 3.71 1.15 6.43
*
6. Non-Judgmental .19
***
.23
**
.27
***
.07 .11
*
–4.29 0.97 3.94 1.38 32.36
**
Correlations for women are in the upper right section. Correlations for men are in the lower left section. Friendship values were coded on scale of 1–
5; where 5 is more important. Age was used as a covariate for analyses.
*
p<.01,
**
p<.001
Table 3 Friendship value ratings across gender, sexual orientation and cross-orientation friendships (COF)
Women Men
Heterosexual Sexual Minority Heterosexual Sexual Minority
With
COF
n0123
Without
COF
n0606
With
COF
n0240
Without
COF
n045
With
COF
n033
Without
COF
n0217
With
COF
n099
Without
COF
n018
GENERAL FRIENDSHIP
VALUES
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Trust / honesty
a
4.90 (0.43) 4.92 (0.36) 4.91 (0.32) 4.96 (0.21) 4.72 (0.50) 4.81 (0.67) 4.89 (0.35) 4.78 (0.55)
Respect person
a
4.84 (0.37) 4.88 (0.40) 4.90 (0.36) 4.91 (0.36) 4.76 (0.50) 4.67 (0.78) 4.87 (0.44) 4.78 (0.43)
There When Needed
a
4.55 (0.72) 4.66 (0.65) 4.63 (0.68) 4.76 (0.53) 4.36 (0.93) 4.35 (0.97) 4.42 (0.90) 4.67 (0.48)
CROSS-IDENTITY
SALIENT FRIENDSHIP
VALUES
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Similar lives
b, c
2.57 (1.17) 3.02 (1.14) 3.00 (1.10 ) 3.33 (1.21) 2.89 (1.17) 2.95 (1.17) 3.05 (1.07) 3.17 (1.20)
Similar values
b, c
3.71 (1.05) 3.89 (0.99) 3.82 (0.99 ) 4.00 (1.07) 3.18 (1.21) 3.74 (1.17) 3.74 (1.00) 3.67 (1.14)
Non-Judgmental
a, d
4.32 (0.88) 4.18 (1.03) 4.44 (0.89 ) 4.78 (0.52) 3.82 (1.29) 3.82 (1.15) 4.31 (0.98) 4.43 (1.14)
Friendship values were coded on scale of 1–5; where 5 is more important. Age was used as a covariate for analyses.
a
main effect gender where women rate friendship value as more important than men
b
main effect sexual orientation where sexual minorities rate friendship value as more important than heterosexuals
c
main effect COF where individuals with COFs rate friendship value as less important than those without
d
interaction between COF and sexual orientation where sexual minorities with COFs rate friendship value as less important than those without
Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790 785
orientation friendship (M04.65, SD0.76), t(402) 02.23,
p0.02, d0.30. Additionally, there was a main effect of gender
where women (M04.28, SD00.97) rated non-judgmental as
more important when compared to men, (M03.94, SD01.14),
F(1, 1373)016.14, p0.001, partial η
2
0.012.
Cross-Race Friendship Patterns
Table 4provides mean scores for each of the six values
across gender, race, and cross-race friendships. A 2×2× 2
factorial was conducted to investigate the effects of gen-
der, race, and cross-race friendships on friendship value
ratings. In cases of interaction effects, Bonferroni post
hoc t-tests were used to explore simple main effects.
General Friendship Values
Importance ratings for each of the three general friendship
values (trust / honesty, respect friend as person, there when
needed) did not differ across race (White, racial minority),
or based on whether participant had, or did not have, cross-
race friendships. There were no significant 2 or 3 way
interactions across gender, race, and cross-race friendships.
Additionally, there were no significant main effects for race
or cross-race friendships. Consistent with the findings
reported above, a main effect of gender was found for all
three general friendship values (means and statistics above).
Cross-Identity Salient Friendship Values
As predicted, importance ratings for the three identity salient
friendship values (similar lives & experiences, similar val-
ues, non-judgmental) did reveal some differences. For sim-
ilar lives & experiences there were no interaction effects
between gender, race, and having at least one cross-race
friendship. There were no main effects for gender or race.
However, there was a main effect of cross-race friendships
where individuals with at least one cross-race friendship
rated similar lives & experiences as less important
(M02.85, SD01.11) than those with no cross-race friend-
ships (M03.04, SD01.16), F(1, 1392)04.45, p0.035, par-
tial η
2
0.003.
For similar values, there was no significant 3-way interac-
tion. There was a significant interaction between race and
having at least one cross-race friendship, F(1, 1388)04.63,
p0.03, partial η
2
0.003. Post-hoc t-tests indicated that for
racial minorities, ratings for similar values did not differ
between individuals with and without cross-race friendships,
t(387)01.23, p0.21, d0.06. For Whites, individuals with at
least one cross-race friendship (M03.77, SD01.02) rated
similar values as less important than those without a cross-
race friendship (M03.89, SD00.97), t(1013) 04.17, p<.03,
d0.12.
For nonjudgmental there were no interaction effects be-
tween gender, race, and having at least one cross-race
Table 4 Friendship value ratings across gender, race and cross-race friendships (CRF)
Women Men
White Racial Minority White Racial Minority
With
CRF
n0257
Without
CRF
n0492
With
CRF
n0153
Without
CRF
n0125
With
CRF
n094
Without
CRF
n0173
With
CRF
n054
Without
CRF
n055
GENERAL FRIENDSHIP
VALUES
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Trust / honesty
a
4.90 (0.39) 4.93 (0.32) 4.90 (0.43) 4.94 (0.28) 4.93 (0.26) 4.78 (0.74) 4.80 (0.49) 4.81 (0.44)
Respect person
a
4.86 (0.37) 4.89 (0.37) 4.89 (0.46) 4.89 (0.34) 4.84 (0.45) 4.68 (0.77) 4.78 (0.46) 4.70 (0.79)
There When Needed
a
4.58 (0.67) 4.67 (0.60) 4.66 (0.70) 4.62 (0.81) 4.34 (0.89) 4.42 (0.93) 4.33 (1.01) 4.48 (0.88)
CROSS-IDENTITY
SALIENT FRIENDSHIP
VALUES
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Similar lives
c
2.86 (1.04) 3.03 (1.14) 2.82 (1.16) 3.16 (1.30) 2.79 (1.16) 3.00 (1.12) 2.98 (1.22) 3.02 (1.22)
Similar values
d
3.82 (0.97) 3.93 (0.91) 3.78 (1.15) 3.68 (1.22) 3.63 (1.14) 3.77 (1.14) 3.85 (1.20) 3.60 (1.15)
Non-Judgmental
a, b
4.35 (0.91) 4.32 (0.94) 4.20 (1.01) 4.15 (1.14) 4.06 (1.13) 3.92 (1.17) 3.93 (0.99) 3.82 (1.26)
Friendship values were coded on scale of 1-5; where 5 is more important. Age was used as a covariate for analyses.
a
main effect gender where women rate friendship value as more important than men
b
main effect race where racial minorities rate friendship value as less important than whites
c
main effect CRF where individuals with CRFs rate friendship value as less important than those without
d
interaction between CRF and race where white individuals with CRFs rate friendship value as more important than those without
786 Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
friendship. There was no main effect for cross-race friend-
ships. There was a main effect of race where racial minorities
rated nonjudgmental as less important (M04.09, SD01.09)
than Whites (M04.23, SD01.00), F(1, 1392) 04.06, p0.044,
partial η
2
0.003. Replicating findings above, a main effect for
gender was found.
Discussion
The present research is the first to consider the relation
between friendship value importance ratings and adult
U.S. friendship patterns across gender, sexual orientation,
and race. In interpreting the findings of this research it is
important to note that the present focus is on close, rather
than casual, friendship networks. Close friendships are char-
acterized by more frequent interaction and affection, are less
dependent upon proximity, provide more benefits, and are
enacted more exclusively than are casual friendships (Hays
1989; Rose and Serafica 1986). It is likely, then, that the
criteria for developing close friendships would be more
stringent than the criteria for casual friendships and that
close friendships patterns may exhibit stronger trends to-
ward similarity.
Cross-Category Friendships and Similarity
In the context of the larger body of friendship literature, the
study of cross-category friendships is, in part, a study of
friendships that develop despite the general tendency toward
homophily. A main finding of the present research is that
individuals who report having cross-orientation and cross-
race friendships place less importance on the friendship
value of similar lives & experiences than those with no such
friendships. Likewise, individuals with cross-orientation
friendships and Whites with cross-race friendships rated
similar values as less important than those with no cross-
race friendships. These findings are consistent with past
research that suggests that a primary focus of cross-
category friendships is on the negotiation of difference
(Canary et al. 1997; Galupo and St. John 2001; Hall and
Rose 1996; Price 1999; Rawlins 2009; Werking 1997). The
implication, then, is that close cross-category friendships do
not seem to develop by ignoring or downplaying differences
between friends but rather they are more likely when friends
do not place as much emphasis on similarity as being
important within the friendship.
Cross-Category Friendships and Feminist Intersectional
Theory
Intersectional theory, specifically intercategorical complex-
ity approaches, suggest that meaning and analysis can be
interpreted from the pattern of results across multiple dimen-
sions of analysis. The present research established clear
patterns of results where: 1) individuals with, and without,
cross-category friendships rated friendship values different-
ly; 2) the relationship between friendship value ratings and
cross-category friendship patterns differed, in some cases,
across minority and majority identity; 3) general and cross-
identity salient friendship values were differently related to
cross-category friendship patterns; and 4) friendship values
and cross-category friendship patterns differed, at times,
across cross-orientation and cross-race friendships.
Taken together, these research findings detail the relation
between friendship value ratings and overall cross-category
friendship patterns and present pockets of evidence that may
serve to help further direct future research. In particular
these findings suggest that some intersections of identity
may be interrogated for different purposes. For example,
for researchers interested in how cross-orientation and
cross-race friendships are similarly negotiated, a focus on
similar lives & experiences and similar values may provide
a research model to explore. For those interested in how
cross-orientation friendships are uniquely experienced, a
fruitful direction might be further exploring how judgment
is conceptualized in connection to sexual minority friends.
Likewise, for those interested in how cross-category friend-
ships function similarly to friendship in general, this re-
search has established three friendship values (trust &
honesty, respect friend as a person and there as needed)
that did not differ across cross-category friendship patterns.
Cross-Category Friendships and Inequality
Although recognizing intersecting points of identities is
fundamental to an intersectional perspective so, too, is the
notion of inequality and / or oppression. The present re-
search established that importance ratings for key friendship
values are related to cross-category friendship patterns. That
cross-orientation and cross-race friendship patterns were
differently related to some friendship values provides an
avenue for understanding how heterosexism, sexism, and
racism uniquely shape cross-category friendship patterns. In
addition, an important methodological approach for this
research allowed consideration of the relationship between
friendship value ratings and cross-category friendships
across majority / minority dimensions of identity. Interpre-
tation of the current findings, then, is best understood with
the lens of inequality and how that shapes lived experience.
A present finding that illustrates the importance of this
approach follows. Sexual minority individuals rated nonjudg-
mental as less important than those without such friendships.
The same finding did not hold true for heterosexual partic-
ipants. Although this finding may seem counterintuitive, it
becomes clearer if interpreted within an understanding of the
Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790 787
relative inequality between cross-orientation friends. Social
attitudes toward sexual minorities are uniquely framed within
cultural debates based on religious and moral judgment
(Herek 1987,1991). In addition, sexual minority individuals
often experience social isolation or rejection associated with
homophobia in larger culture, including loss of friendships
(Weinstock 2000). Friendships, then, become emphasized in
the social lives of sexual minorities who often experience their
friends as “family”(Nardi 1992; Weinstock 2000)oras“fam-
ilies of choice”(Weston 1991). Cross-orientation friends pro-
vide a unique opportunity for sexual minorities to gain
acceptance from heterosexuals not readily offered in their
within community friendships or from their families of origin
(Galupo and St. John 2001). However, past research has also
shown that when cross-orientation friendships do develop
they are often maintained at the expense of sexual minorities’
identities where identity is either rendered invisible, is
expected to be concealed, or is somehow otherwise managed,
(Galupo 2007a;Price1999). In fact, some sexual minority
individuals view the routine judgment and invalidation direct-
ed toward their identity as a necessary sacrifice for the main-
tenance of friendships with heterosexual friends (Galupo et al.
2004). It follows, then, that sexual minority individuals with
cross-sexual orientation friendships rate nonjudgmental as
less important than those who do not have such friendships.
The development of cross-orientation friendships, then, may
be related to sexual minorities lowering their expectations of
heterosexual friends with regard to being judgmental. Alter-
natively, sexual minorities without cross-orientation friend-
ships may emphasize nonjudgmental as a friendship value
more which may then serve as a barrier or obstacle to cross-
orientation friendship development. Although the present
finding is correlational and these interpretations are consistent
with an inequality / intersectional framework, future research
using a more direct means of assessing perception is necessary
to fully account for this connection.
Although cross-category friendships are differently expe-
rienced for majority and minority individuals, it is important
to move beyond using inequality solely to explain minority
friendship experience. Although it is seemingly easier to
decipher how heterosexism, sexism, and racism operate to
shape friendship patterns for minority individuals, these
larger sociopolitical attitudes impact majority individuals’
friendship patterns as well (Galupo 2006). An example from
the present research that highlights the distinction between
majority and minority experience emerged relative to cross-
race friendship patterns. For White participants (but not for
racial minority participants) cross-race friendships are asso-
ciated with lower importance ratings for similar values. This
may suggest that White participants view racial minorities
as having different values from themselves and cross-race
friendships became more likely when they placed less im-
portance on sharing similar values within their friendship.
Although this interpretation is speculative it is consistent
with O’Connor (1992) suggestion that cultural ideas of
“otherness”are inherent within friendship structures and
that these play out in the way similarity is conceptualized
within friendships. Future research is needed in order to
directly assess perceptions of similarity between individuals
in cross-category friendships.
The fact that friendship value ratings may be differently
related to cross-category friendship patterns for majority and
minority individuals points to the need for future research
that takes a more direct approach in understanding how
perceptions of others impact cross-category friendship pat-
terns. These findings also suggest that future research
should equally attend to both minority and majority
experience.
Limitations of the Present Study and Directions for Future
Research
One limitation of the present research is that the sampling
strategy included snowball recruitment and this may have
disproportionately represented certain friendship groups and
characteristics, ultimately biasing the results toward similar-
ity. Additionally, individuals reported both their own iden-
tity and that of their friends, a method that may actually bias
responses toward homophily where participants overesti-
mate similarities between themselves and their friends
(Ueno 2010). For the current research we allowed partici-
pants to define close friendships for themselves which may
have led to variability in the way they approached the
questions. Friendship nomination studies, typical in child-
hood friendship research or based on investigating friend-
ships within a defined setting (such as school or work) allow
confirmation, not only of identity, but of friendship –where
friendships are defined when both individuals nominate one
another. This type of method may be ideal in many ways
because of the way friendships are characterized by reci-
procity and mutuality (McWilliams and Howard 1993). This
presents a useful direction for future research on cross-
category friendships.
The following statistical issues should also be considered
in the wider interpretation of the present findings. Although
the present results include statistically significant cross-
category friendship patterns across gender, race, and sexual
orientation it is important to note that the effect sizes are
relatively small. Additionally, the mean scores for the gen-
eral friendship values were higher (4.58–4.89 on a 5-point
scale) than those for the cross-identity salient friendship
values (2.96–4.2). It is possible that the ceiling effect in
the general friendship values could have contributed to the
lack of differences between the groups.
The simple dichotomous grouping of all independent
variables represents an additional limitation. The grouping
788 Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
of participants by identity across gender (female and male),
sexual orientation (sexual minority and heterosexual), and
race (racial minority and White) is consistent with intercate-
gorical complexity approaches to feminist intersectional
methodology, which allows for provisional adoption of cat-
egories in order to understand larger patterns of inequality
(McCall 2005). In addition, these simplified categories were
necessary in order to allow for enough statistical power to
make comparisons and meaningful findings, did in fact,
emerge given these groupings. This simplified grouping of
identity, however, is not without its limitations. Past re-
search has found distinct friendship patterns among sexual
minorities (Galupo 2007b) and racial / ethnic minorities
(Way and Chen 2000; Way et al. 2001) and it is clear that
future research should allow for more graded comparisons
among these groups in order to allow for a fuller picture of
how friendship experiences are influenced at the intersec-
tions of social identities. Likewise cross-category friend-
ships for the present research were measured categorically
as either having, or not having friendships across either
sexual orientation or race. Future research should address
within group differences among individuals who have cross-
category friendships.
Despite the limitations, the present research makes a
unique contribution to the friendship literature as it is the
first to explore the relation between friendship value
ratings and cross-category friendship patterns. Using a
comparative methodology, this research extends past re-
search on cross-category friendship patterns across both
sexual orientation and race. Specifically it suggests that
cross-category friendships do not seem to develop by
ignoring or downplaying differences between friends but
rather they are more likely when friends do not place as
much importance on similarity as a criterion for friend-
ship. Although only six friendship values were utilized
for the present study, these findings suggest that contin-
ued exploration of the relation between friendship values
and cross-category friendship patterns may be an impor-
tant direction for future research.
References
Anzaldúa, G. (1990). Bridge, drawbridge, sandbar or island: Lesbians-
of-color hacienda alianzas. In L. Albrecht & R. M. Brewer (Eds.),
Bridges of power: Women’s multicultural alliances (pp. 216–231).
Philadelphia: New Society.
Canary, D. J., Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Faulkner, S. (1997). Sex and
gender differences in personal relationships. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Collins, P. H. (2000). It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race
and nation. In U. Narayan & S. Harding (Eds.), Decentering the
center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminist
world (pp. 156–176). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Duck, S. (1991). Understanding relationships. New York: Guilford.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galupo, M. P. (2006). Sexism, heterosexism, and biphobia: The fram-
ing of bisexual women’s friendships. Journal of Bisexuality, 6,
35–45. doi:10.1300/J159v06n03_03.
Galupo, M. P. (2007a). Women’s close friendships across sexual ori-
entation: A comparative analysis of lesbian-heterosexual and
bisexual-heterosexual women’s friendships. Sex Roles, 56, 473–
482. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9186-4.
Galupo, M. P. (2007b). Friendship patterns of sexual minority individ-
uals in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
24, 139–151. doi:10.1177/0265407506070480.
Galupo, M. P. (2009). Cross-category friendship patterns: comparison
of heterosexual and sexual minority adults. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 26,811–831. doi:10.1177/
0265407509345651.
Galupo, M. P., & St. John, S. (2001). Benefits of cross-sexual orienta-
tion friendships among adolescent females. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 24,83–93. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0364.
Galupo, M. P., Sailer, C. A., & St. John, S. C. (2004). Friendships
across sexual orientations: Experiences of bisexual women in
early adulthood. Journal of Bisexuality, 4,39–53. doi:10.1300/
J159v04n01_04.
Hall, J. (2011). Sex differences in friendship expectations: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 723–
747. doi:10.1177/0265407510386192.
Hall, R., & Rose, S. (1996). Friendships between African-American
and White lesbians. In J. S. Weinstock & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.),
Lesbian friendships (pp. 165–191). New York: New York Uni-
versity Press.
Hays, R. (1989). The day-to-day functioning of close versus casual
friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 61,
21–37. doi:10.1177/026540758900600102.
Herek, G. M. (1987). Religious orientation and prejudice: A compar-
ison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 13,34–44. doi:10.1177/0146167287131003.
Herek, G. M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice, and violence against lesbians
and gay men. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homo-
sexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 60–80).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Cambridge,
MA: South End Press.
King, D. (1990). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The con-
text of a Black feminist ideology. In M. Malson, E. Mudimbe-
Boyi, J. F. O’Barr, & M. Wyer (Eds.), Black women in America:
Social science perspectives (pp. 265–295). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal
of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800. doi:10.1086/
426800.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a
feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociol-
ogy, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
McWilliams, S., & Howard, J. A. (1993). Solidarity and hierarchy in
cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 191–202.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01176.x.
Muraco, A. (2012). Odd couples: Friendships at the intersection
of gender and sexual orientation. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Nardi, P. M. (1992). That’s what friends are for: Friends as family in
the gay and lesbian community. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern
homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience (pp.
108–120). New York: Routledge.
Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men’s friendships: Invincible communities.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
O’Boyle, C. G., & Thomas, M. D. (1996). Friendships between lesbian
and heterosexual women. In J. S. Weinstock & E. D. Rothblum
Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790 789
(Eds.), Lesbian friendships (pp. 240–248). New York: New York
University Press.
O’Connor, P. (1992). Friendships between women: A critical review.
New York: The Guilford Press.
O’Meara, D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an
ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543. doi:10.1007/
BF00289102.
Price, J. (1999). Navigating differences: Friendships between gay and
straight men. New York: Harrington.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters.NewYork:Aldinede
Gruyter.
Rawlins, W. K. (2009). The compass of friendship: Narratives, iden-
tities, and dialogues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rose, S. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology
of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12,63–74. doi:10.1007/
BF00288037.
Rose, S. (1996). Who to let in: Women’s cross-race friendships. In J. C.
Chrisler,C.Golden,&P.D.Rozee(Eds.),Lectures on the
psychology of women (pp. 210–226). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rose, S., & Serafica, F. C. (1986). Keeping and ending casual, close
and best friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 3, 275–288. doi:10.1177/0265407586033002.
Suttles, G. (1970). Friendship as a social institution. In G. J. McCall,
N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles, & S. B. Kurth (Eds.), Social relation-
ships (pp. 95–135). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Tillman-Healy, L. M. (2001). Between gay and straight: Understand-
ing friendship across sexual orientation. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield Press.
Trujillo, C. (1991). Chicana lesbians: The girls our mothers warned us
about. Berkeley, CA: Third Woman Press.
Ueno, K. (2010). Patterns of cross-orientation friendships in high
schools. Social Science Research, 39,444–458. doi:10.1016/
j.ssresearch.2009.10.001.
Way, N., & Chen, L. (2000). General and close friendships among
African American, Latino, and Asian American adolescents from
low-income families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 274–
301. doi:10.1177/0743558400152005.
Way, N., Cowal, K., Gingold, R., Pahl, K., & Bissesar, N. (2001).
Friendship patterns among African American, Asian American,
and Latino adolescents from low-income families. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 18,29
–53. doi:10.1177/
0265407501181002.
Weeks, J. (1995). Invented moralities: Sexual values in an age of
uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Weinstock, J. S. (2000). Lesbian friendships at midlife: Patterns and
possibilities for the 21st century. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, 11(2–3), 1–32. doi:10.1300/J041v11n02_01.
Werking, K. (1997). We're just good friends. New York: Guilford.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New
York: Columbia University Press.
790 Sex Roles (2013) 68:779–790
