Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 142–162 | Cite as

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

Original Paper
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Cross-sex friendship Friendship satisfaction Gender roles Social construction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

References

  1. Adams, R. G. (1985). People would talk: Normative barriers to cross-sex friendships for elderly women. The Gerontologist, 25(6), 605–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 1(2), 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as resource in the Hollywood film industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. W. (2009). Preference for same-versus cross-sex friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 901–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bippus, A. M., & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends’ perceptions. Communication Reports, 16(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buhrke, R., & Fuqua, D. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 228–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29, 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59(8), 1077–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Gender rules: Same-and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66(7–8), 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2006). Widening the family circle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 50, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relationaluncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lenton, A. P., & Webber, L. (2006). Cross-sex friendships: Who has more? Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 809–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the life span in the 21stcentury. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Monsour, M., Harris, B., & Kurzweil, N. (1994). Challenges confronting cross-sex friendships: “Much Ado About Nothing?”. Sex Roles, 31, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 70(3), 274–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1977). The structure of motives. Symbolic Interaction, 1, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reeder, H. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same-and cross-sex friendship formation. Sex Roles, 49(3–4), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9–10), 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rubin, L. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schoonover, K., & McEwan, B. (2014). Are you really just friends? Predicting the audiencechallenge in cross-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 21(3), 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structures version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner, R. H. (1956). Role taking, role standpoint, and reference group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 316–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Zurcher, L. A. (1983). Social roles: Conformity, conflict, and creativity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations