Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“He’s Like a Brother”: The Social Construction of Satisfying Cross-Sex Friendship Roles

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Sexuality & Culture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Unlike most forms of relating, cross-sex friendships do not inherit pre-established social roles that influence norms and form expectations. Instead, members of cross-sex friendships must construct an understanding of their relationship and find the language with which to explain it to others. This study identifies the role(s) commonly created or adopted for cross-sex friendship and determines which constructs of cross-sex friendship are correlated with relational satisfaction. Study 1 used in-depth interviews (N = 40) and qualitative analysis to discover roles with which cross-sex friends identify. Study 2 utilized a close-ended questionnaire (N = 206) to assess the relative frequency of the role types, whether men and women differed in their role selection, and whether role type is related to relational satisfaction. Both samples consisted of college students in the western United States. Results indicate that women most commonly construct their male–female friendship as a sibling relationship, and men most frequently label their relationship “just friends,” and both of these ways of constructing the relationship are related to a high level of friendship satisfaction. Participants who described their friendship as a romantic relationship had a significantly lower level of friendship satisfaction. The implication of these results for understanding the social construction of cross-sex friendship is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Using dummy variables, a regression analysis was used to calculate the average satisfaction level and standard deviations for each respective role. The associated F test suggests that the null hypothesis (that all of these coefficients are equal to zero) is false. The respective t-statistic for each coefficient shows whether or not the respective role differs at a statistically significant level. The “brother/sister” role was the default for the regression model simply because it was the first option on the questionnaire. The role “one of the girls/guys” and the role “romantic partner” both differed by statistically significant amounts.

References

  • Adams, R. G. (1985). People would talk: Normative barriers to cross-sex friendships for elderly women. The Gerontologist, 25(6), 605–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being ‘Just Friends’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 1(2), 211–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as resource in the Hollywood film industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 279–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. W. (2009). Preference for same-versus cross-sex friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 901–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bippus, A. M., & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends’ perceptions. Communication Reports, 16(2), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske-Rechek, A., Somers, E., Micke, C., Erickson, L., Matteson, L., Stocco, C., et al. (2012). Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrke, R., & Fuqua, D. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 228–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S. K., & McBride-Chang, C. (2007). Correlates of cross-sex friendship satisfaction in Hong Kong adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(1), 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On thebenefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29, 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59(8), 1077–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Gender rules: Same-and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66(7–8), 518–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2006). Widening the family circle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, K. E., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2015). Relational uncertainty, self-other inclusion, and communication satisfaction as predictors of friendship relational maintenance, and how equity changes the story. Communication Studies, 66(3), 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, S. O., Jr. (2003). Review of the book Women and men as friends: Relationships across the lifespan in the 21st century. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 143–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, B. J., Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Royce, T. (2015). Close adult friendships, gender, and the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(6), 709–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L. (2006). The dyadic adjustment scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, L. K., & Chavez, A. M. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication, 69(4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halatsis, P., & Christakis, N. (2009). The challenge of sexual attraction within heterosexuals’cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6–7), 919–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 50, 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). What’s 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(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsley, J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M., & Vito, D. (2001). The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Further evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(4), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relationaluncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2010). An actor-partner interdependence model of relationalturbulence: Cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(5), 595–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive andmethodological analysis. Freedom and Control in Modern Society, 18(1), 18–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S. (1993). A functional comparison of same-sex andopposite-sex friendships during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8(1), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, A. P., & Webber, L. (2006). Cross-sex friendships: Who has more? Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 809–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and theuse of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(1), 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelson, A. C. (2006). Communication among peers: Adult sibling relationships. In K. Floyd & M. T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle (pp. 22–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the life span in the 21stcentury. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsour, M., Harris, B., & Kurzweil, N. (1994). Challenges confronting cross-sex friendships: “Much Ado About Nothing?”. Sex Roles, 31, 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morry, M. M. (2007). The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross-sex friends: Relationshipsatisfaction, perceived similarities, and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motley, M. T., Reeder, H., & Faulkner, L. (2008). Behaviors that determine the fate of friendshipsafter unrequited romantic disclosures. In M. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 71–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 70(3), 274–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1977). The structure of motives. Symbolic Interaction, 1, 104–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1985). The role of expertise in processing social interaction scripts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(4), 362–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, H. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same-and cross-sex friendship formation. Sex Roles, 49(3–4), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9–10), 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends who were once romantic partners: Are they platonic friends now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonover, K., & McEwan, B. (2014). Are you really just friends? Predicting the audiencechallenge in cross-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 21(3), 387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality ofmarriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structures version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, S. O. (1992). Men’s friendships with women: Intimacy, sexual boundaries, and the informant role. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 153–171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. H. (1956). Role taking, role standpoint, and reference group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 316–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. H. (1968). Social roles: Sociological aspects. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 552–557). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, L., Anderson, J., & Duck, S. (1996). Crossing the barriers to friendships between men and women. In J. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 111–127). Mountain View: Mayfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurcher, L. A. (1983). Social roles: Conformity, conflict, and creativity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boise State University, 1910 University Dr., Boise, ID, 83725, USA

    Heidi Reeder

Authors
  1. Heidi Reeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidi Reeder.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reeder, H. “He’s Like a Brother”: The Social Construction of Satisfying Cross-Sex Friendship Roles. Sexuality & Culture 21, 142–162 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9387-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9387-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation