Sex Roles

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 1–20 | Cite as

Men's friendships, women's friendships and the alleged inferiority of the latter

  • Paul H. Wright


Over a decade of research utilizing a model and technique for the study of same-sex friendships has revealed some unsought and initially unexpected differences between men and women. Relevant aspects of this research are reviewed. Taken as a whole, the findings indicate overall differences between men and women that were readily interpretable in terms of traditional sex roles and socialization practices. However, when differences were found, they were seldom extremely large or glaringly obvious and thus provide no sound basis for predicting the character of the friendship of any particular pair of men or women. Moreover, when the friendships examined were limited to those that were very strong and of long duration, no appreciable sex differences were found. Special attention is given to the contention that women's friendships are inferior to those of men.


Social Psychology Socialization Practice Relevant Aspect Sound Basis Unexpected Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Booth, A. Sex and social participation. American Sociological Review,, 1972, 37,, 183–192.Google Scholar
  2. Booth, A., & Hess, E. Cross-sex friendships. Journal of Marriage and the Family,, 1974, 36,, 38–47.Google Scholar
  3. Brenton, M. Friendship,. Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.: Stein and Day, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. The adolescent experience,. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  5. Kandel, D. B. Similarity in real life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 1978, 36,, 306–312.Google Scholar
  6. Kon, I. S., & Losenkov, V. A. Friendship in adolescence: Values and behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family,, 1978, 40,, 143–155.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, C. S. The four loves,. New York: Harcourt, 1960.Google Scholar
  8. Tiger, L. Men in groups,. New York: Random House, 1969.Google Scholar
  9. Walker, L. S., & Wright, P. H. Self-disclosure in friendship. Perceptual and Motor Skills,, 1976, 42,, 735–742.Google Scholar
  10. Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. Life-course perspective on friendship. In M. F. Lowenthal, M. Thurnher, & D. Chiriboga (Eds.), Four stages of life,. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. pp. 48–61.Google Scholar
  11. Wheeler, L., & Nezlak, J. Sex differences in social participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 1977, 35,, 742–754.Google Scholar
  12. Wright, P. H. A model and a technique for studies of friendship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,, 1969, 5,, 295–308.Google Scholar
  13. Wright, P. H. The delineation and measurement of some key variables in the study of friendship. Representative Research in Social Psychology,, 1974, 5,, 93–96.Google Scholar
  14. Wright, P. H. Perspective on the psychology of self. Psychological Reports,, 1977, 40,, 423–436.Google Scholar
  15. Wright, P. H. Toward a theory of friendship based on a conception of self. Human Communication Research,, 1978, 4,, 196–207.Google Scholar
  16. Wright, P. H., & Crawford, A. C. Agreement and friendship: A close look and some second thoughts. Representative Research in Social Psychology,, 1971, 2,, 52–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul H. Wright
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North DakotaUSA

Personalised recommendations