Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI 10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Introduction
Interaction among friends constitutes one of the arenas in
which social norms regarding gender shape peoples behavior on a routine basis, and in everyday settings. A number of
norms or rules for friendship are endorsed cross-culturally
(Argyle and Henderson 1984), and these normative expectations that men and women hold for their friends often differ
by gender (see meta-analysis by Hall 2011). Yet most prior
studies did not utilize experimental methods to examine
gender differences in friendship norms, nor did they investigate the extent to which such differences depended on the
gender composition of the friendship. It seems likely that
certain friendship rules will vary, contingent on whether a
male is evaluating the behavior of a female, versus a male,
friend. Further, extant research seldom provided the social
context for determining the importance of a particular
friendship norm, nor has it examined reactions to norm
violations, as opposed to just the importance of the norm.
The main purpose of this study was to examine the degree to
which women and men differed in their expectations for
same- and cross-gender friendships. To this end, we investigated the reactions of a sample of U.S. college students to
vignettes in which a friend of the same, or the opposite,
Sex Roles
Given the evidence showing gender differences in the importance of and approach to relationships, it seems likely
that men and women hold discrepant standards for their
friendships. Research suggests that women expect more of
their friends than do men, especially when it comes to rules
governing emotional support and disclosure (Argyle and
Henderson 1984). A recent meta-analysis (Hall 2011) noted
that studies find that friendship expectations are indeed
higher for females than for males with regard to communion
(e.g., intimacy), solidarity (e.g., mutual activities), symmetrical reciprocity (e.g., loyalty), and overall friendship
expectations, but lower than those for males for expectations
of agency (e.g., friends wealth, status). According to Hall
(2011), the findings support evolutionary theory (e.g.,
Bleske and Buss 2000), suggesting that females develop
elevated communion expectations due to their relatively
extensive investment in offspring, and their need to maintain
female coalitions to assist in rearing children.
An alternative theoretical explanation for differences between men and women in friendship centers upon the social
and cultural context of gender. Friendship represents a significant social relational arena for the enactment of cultural
messages and beliefs regarding gender. People do gender
while engaging with their friends (West and Zimmerman
1987), and friendship represents a place where gender ideology and inequality are enacted on a regular basis. Contemporary gender stereotypes contain messages that frame
Sex Roles
Sex Roles
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of 263 college students (195 female, 68 male), ranging between 1825 years. Five participants over the age of 25 and one homosexual participant were
dropped from the analysis, because they represented potential
outliers. Their inclusion did not affect our main findings. The
average age was 19.7 years and the sample was 42.3% White,
27% Asian, 9.3% Latino, 3.3% Black, and 12% other ethnicities. Approximately 97% of the students were single. The
surveys were distributed during class in four large, introductory social science courses at a west coast university.
Design
The present study employed a 2 (Participant Gender: Male
vs. Female) x 2 (Friend Gender: Male vs. Female) x 7
(Norm Violated: Told Secret, Cancelled Plans, Stayed Over,
Surprise Visit. Kiss, Wont Confide, Wont Defendwithin
subjects) mixed factorial design. We used friend gender as
an independent variable, rather than a measure of cross- or
same-gender, because friend gender was explicitly manipulated. We tested for the presence of cross-gender effects by
examining the interaction between participant gender and
friend gender.
Sex Roles
Materials
Stimulus Materials: Vignettes
Research subjects read seven vignettes involving a person described as their friend and rated the appropriateness of the behavior in each situation. Vignettes varied
randomly between-subjects as to whether the friend
described was male or female. Type of norm violated
was varied within-subject, such that each participant
received seven mini-vignettes to evaluate. Respondents
were given the following instructions: Here are several
questions involving friends. For each scenario, you are
asked to give your opinion concerning the appropriateness of the behavior of your friend.
The vignette format (e.g., Alves and Rossi 1978; Hughes
1998) had the advantage that it allowed for the direct experimental manipulation of the independent variable (friend
gender) with a relatively subtle manipulation (i.e., the use
of either masculine or feminine names and pronouns). It also
allowed us to provide a social context for a particular
friendship rule, thus making judgments of violations of
those rules more salient than when simply listing a rule
(e.g., friends should keep confidences) and having participants rate its importance (Finch 1987). Unlike in a
traditional survey design, there was less worry about the
risk of bias in estimates that could occur due to the
omission of covariates (Maxwell and Delaney 2004), such
as structural factors that influence friendship (Adams and
Blieszner 1998; Blieszner and Adams 1992).
Norm violation The vignettes were chosen to elicit evaluations of central dimensions of friendship. We designed the
scenarios so that each one would exemplify behavior that
challenged one or more of several, basic, rules for samegender friendship (Argyle and Henderson 1984). We chose
from a sub-sample of rules that were the most widely endorsed, and, of those, chose ones that we believed could be
successfully operationalized in a vignette format. Highly
rated friendship rules that were not chosen were not always
readily applicable to our design (e.g., should look the
person in the eye). Each vignette and the friendship rule
it aimed to challenge are described below:
Scenario 1. Tells Secret. You told your friend, Bill
[Barb], something in confidence that was very important to you. Later, you found out that he [she] told
someone else this secret.
Friendship Rule: Should not discuss that which is
said in confidence with the other person.
Scenario 2. Cancels Plans for Date. Suppose that you
have plans to go to a movie with a friend, Jane, next
Saturday. On Friday, Jane calls you and says that she
Sex Roles
Results
Can Women and Men be Friends?
First we examined responses to the question (RQ1): Can
men and women be friends? According to the great majority
of our sample (81.6%), the answer was yes. Only 2.3% of
the sample responded no, men and women cannot be
friends, with another 16.2% reporting maybe. There were
significant gender differences in the three-category response
pattern, 2 07.38, df02, p0.03, (Women: 80.5% yes, 18.5%
maybe, 2% no; Men: 84.5% yes, 9.9% maybe, 5.6% no.) In
a dichotomous classification of responses, in which the
maybe replies were combined with the few cases of
no, (yes versus maybe/no), the significant gender difference abated 2 0.55, p>.05. Part of the gender difference in
the trichotomous classification appears to reside in the tendency of females, as compared to males, to respond more
cautiously with an answer of maybe. We also included
responses to this question (the three option version) in
subsequent analyses, but at no time did it prove a significant
covariate.
norm violation entered as the within-subjects repeated measure and gender of participant entered as the betweensubjects variable. Bonferroni comparison tests were used to
compare means post hoc. Note, we also ran this test controlling for participant race and response to the item can men and
women be friends? Inclusion of these variables as covariates
did not significantly influence the pattern of results.
The results revealed significant differences in the perceived appropriateness of various norm violations and
underscore the diverse nature of the norms studied here,
F(6,252)0308.02, p<.0005, 2 0.88. An interaction of gender and norms shows that differences in the ranking of the
appropriateness of the norms varied by gender, F(6,252)0
4.45, p<.0005, 2 0.10. Note that the general pattern as to
which norm violation was less appropriate than others did
not really differ between men and women, but rather women
appeared to have clearer delineations than men about what
is, and is, not acceptable. For men, a number of the norm
violations were not significantly different from one another
in their perceived appropriateness (23.8% of the comparisons). In contrast, for women almost all of the means for the
scenarios were significantly different from one another, with
only one comparison between mean approval (4.8%) failing
to differ significantly (i.e., means for wont confide and
surprise visit). See Table 1 for means, standard deviations,
and pairwise comparison results.
Hypothesis Testing: Gender and Reacting to Norm
Violations
Next, we examined whether perceptions of norm violations
differed by gender of the perceiver and gender of the hypothetical friend using a 2 (respondents gender) x 2 (friends
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for men and women on
appropriateness of norm violations in order of most appropriate to least
for total sample
Norm Violated
Total sample
Men
Women
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
6.16a
5.06b
4.25c
4.20c
3.41d
2.78e
1.95f
.87
1.51
1.35
1.21
1.20
1.03
.88
6.03a
4.78b
4.47 b
4.16b,c
3.74c,d
3.10d
2.08e
.99
1.83
1.26
1.32
1.30
1.20
1.07
6.20a
5.15b
4.16c
4.21 c
3.30d
2.66e
1.91f
.82
1.38
1.36
1.15
1.15
.95
.81
Sex Roles
gender) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) including each of the appropriateness ratings of the vignettes as the
DVs. This analysis allowed us to examine both main effect
differences in how men and women judged norm violations as
well as how men and women were judged as friends. Further,
the interaction between participants gender and friends gender allowed us to examine same-gender vs. cross-gender
friendship differences. Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to
compare means in cases where there were more than two
groups to contrast. At the multivariate level, appropriateness
ratings varied by friends gender, F(7,253)07.36, p<.0005,
participant gender, F(7,253)03.86, p0.001, and due to an
interaction of friend and participant gender, F(7,253)03.34,
p0.002.
Looking at univariate analyses for participant gender,
men and women differed significantly in how acceptable it
was for friends to cancel plans, give kisses, and fail to stand
up for each other. Specifically, women (M03.30, SD01.15)
expressed more disapproval than men (M03.74, SD01.30)
of a friend who cancels plans with them for a date, F(1,259)0
6.65, p0.010, 2 0.03, in support of H1. Flaking is a pet
peeve, reported one young woman. Another pointed out
that friendship supersedes boyfriends. A third remarked:
Its never cool to ditch someone for somebody else. In
contrast, an approving young man noted: Cant blame
him for wanting to get laid. At least he told me a day
in advance.
Women also viewed a friend failing to stand up for
them as more inappropriate than did men, as predicted
(H1) (Women: M02.66, SD0.95, Men: M03.10, SD0
1.20), F(1,259)010.69, p0.001, 2 0.04. Women were less
upset, on the other hand, about the possibility of receiving
a kiss (Women: M05.15, SD01.38, Men: M04.78, SD0
1.83) , F(1,259)08.22, p0.004, 2 0.03. In addition, there
was a tendency for women to be more disapproving of a
friend who broke a confidence as well as one who failed
to confide his or her feelings, although findings were of
marginal, statistical significance, when using conservative,
two-tailed tests.
Figure 1 displays significant, and marginally significant,
gender differences in the mean approval of the scenarios.
Here we see clearly the tendency for womens evaluations of
violations to be less approving than those of men for all the
vignettes, except for that of the Kiss.
Male and female friends were regarded differently for
telling secrets and giving kisses. Although telling secrets
was the worst of the violations in a friendship, women (M0
1.83, SD0.85) were judged more harshly than men (M0
2.08, SD0.91) for telling secrets, F(1,259)03.90, p0.05,
2 0.02. Women were particularly critical of other women
breaking their trust, since the lowest mean across all conditions was in women evaluating female friends who
breached a confidence, as illustrated by one young female
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate differences between men and women in the degree to which they
approved of various violations of friendship norms in samegender friendships and cross-gender friendships. Gender
affected the normative evaluations of behavior in our findings, similar to previous experimental research with different samples (Felmlee and Muraco 2009; Muraco 2005). In
all but two of the seven vignettes, there were significant (or
in two cases, marginally significant), effects of gender, and/
or friends gender. The findings tended to provide support
for our hypotheses regarding gender and friendship norms.
Women were significantly more critical of violations of
friendship rules than were men, in particular when a friend
Sex Roles
6
Appropriateness
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cancels Plans
Didn't Defend
Kiss on Cheek
Tells Secret
Won't Confide
Norm Violated
Men
Women
relationships have a greater impact on womens wellbeing than that of men (Kenler et al. 2005; adult, twin
sample). Given womens relatively lower economic standing and social power (Fiske 2009), they may rely more
on supportive relationships, and their need for informal
ties may result in greater demands and expectations for
these crucial bonds.
The gender of a friend had a significant effect on behavioral appraisals in two situations. Women who betrayed a
confidence were judged significantly more harshly than
were men. Female friends were held to higher standards
than were their male counterparts, it appears, perhaps because women are expected to place greater value on their
intimate connections in the first place. Furthermore, a man
who bestowed a big kiss in a friendly greeting received
significantly lower levels of support than did a woman (H2).
In other words, it is more acceptable for women to express
physical affection with a friend than it is for men (Hays
1985). Kissing someone in a greeting represents a behavior
Perceived Appropriateness
5
4
3
2
1
0
Male Friend
Female Friend
Men
Women
Sex Roles
Table 2 Means (and standard
deviations) and MANOVA
results for degree of perceived
appropriateness
of a friends behavior
Means
Norm Violated
Women
Men
Participant Gender
Friend
Gender
Participant x
Friend Gender
Tells Secret
Male Friend
Female Friend
2.04 (.91)
1.75 (.65)
2.20 (.91)
2.00 (1.18)
2.75+
3.88*
.15
3.32 (1.19)
3.28 (1.10)
3.70 (1.21)
3.78 (1.37)
6.66**
.01
.13
6.08 (.93)
6.35 (.65)
6.04 (.96)
6.02 (1.03)
2.26
1.15
1.35
4.13 (1.25)
4.31 (1.08)
4. 18 (1.06)
4.15 (1.49)
.10
.19
.55
4.90 (1.42)
5.45 (1.28)
3.54 (1.95)
5.65 (1.10)
8.62**
44.93***
15.68***
4.25 (1.42)
4.10 (1.31)
4.64 (1.12)
4.35 (1.13)
2.88+
1.29
.16
2.68 (.97)
2.65 (.93)
104
94
198
3.32 (1.28)
2.95 (1.13)
29
42
71
10.58***
1.83
1.47
Cancels Plans
Male Friend
Female Friend
Stays over
Male Friend
Female Friend
Surprise Visit
Male Friend
Female Friend
Kiss on Cheek
Male Friend
Female Friend
Wont Confide
Male Friend
Female Friend
Didn't Stand Up
Male Friend
Female Friend
n (male friend)
n (female friend)
Total n
Sex Roles
Sex Roles
Sex Roles
Hughes, R. (1998). Considering the vignette technique and its application to a study of drug injecting and HIV risk and safer behaviour. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20, 381400. doi:10.1111/
1467-9566.00107.
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). Whats love got
to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love
attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships.
Western Journal of Communication, 69, 4966. doi:10.1080/
10570310500034154.
Kenler, K. S., Myers, J., & Prescott, C. A. (2005). Sex differences in
the relationship between social support and risk for major depression: A Longitudinal study of opposite-sex pairs. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 250256. doi:10.1176/appi.
ajp.162.2.250.
Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and
silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Broad & M.
Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119141). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Kito, M. (2005). Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships
among American and Japanese college students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 145, 127140. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.2.127-140.
Koenig, B. L., Kirkpatrick, L. E., & Ketelaar, T. (2007). Misperception
of sexual and romantic interests in opposite-sex friendships: Four
hypotheses. Personal Relationships, 14, 411429. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6811.2007.00163.x.
Lenton, A. P., & Webber, L. (2006). Cross-sex friendships: Who has
more? Sex Roles, 54, 809820. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9048-5.
Lewis, R. A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of
Social Issues, 34, 108121. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1978.
tb02543.x.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and
analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Messner, M. A. (2000). Barbie girls versus sea monsters: Children
constructing gender. Gender and Society, 14, 765784. doi:10.1177/
089124300014006004.
Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross-and same-sex
friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9,
277295. doi:10.1177/0265407592092007.
Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships
across the life span in the 21st century. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Muraco, A. (2005). Heterosexual evaluations of hypothetical friendship behavior based on sex and sexual orientation. Journal of