Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 52, Issue 1–2, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Friendship and Gender in Russia and the United States

  • Virgil L. SheetsEmail author
  • Robyn Lugar
Article

Abstract

This study provides descriptive data that contrast patterns of friendship for men and women in Russia and the United States, based on a parallel survey conducted at comparable universities in the two countries. Both cultural and gender differences were observed. Russians reported fewer friends with whom they shared less personal information than did Americans, and women in both societies reported that their friendships are more conversation-focused and intimate than men’s. In addition, interactive effects of culture and gender were apparent in patterns of cross-gender friendships. Numerous explanations for these patterns—including differences in the social and political histories of the two countries and in the relative importance of gender role distinctions—are discussed.

KEY WORDS:

friendship gender Russia cross-cultural 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, G., & Plaut, V. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationships: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10, 333–348.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, G. (1989). Friendship: Developing a sociological perspective. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1995). Convoys of social relations: Family and friendships within a life-span context. In R. Blieszner & V. H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the family (pp. 355–371). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  5. Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.Google Scholar
  6. Bank, B. J. (1995). Friendships in Australia and the United States: From feminization to more heroic image. Gender and Society, 9, 79–98.Google Scholar
  7. Bank, B. J., & Hansford, S. L. (2000). Gender and friendship: Why are men’s best same-sex friendships less intimate and supportive? Personal Relationships, 7, 63–78.Google Scholar
  8. Baum, A., & Valins, S. (1979). Architectural mediation of residential density and control: Crowding and the regulation of social contact. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 131–175). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, S., & Coleman, S. (Eds.). (1999). The anthropology of friendship. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  10. Bleske, A., & Buss, D. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? Personal Relationships, 7, 131–151.Google Scholar
  11. Burleson, B. R. (2003). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, 1–23.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, M. S. (1981). Noncomparability of benefits given and received: A cue to the existence of friendship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 375–381.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684–691.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, M. (1977). What is a friend? New Society, 20, 116–117.Google Scholar
  15. Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124.Google Scholar
  16. Duck, S., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Reexamining gender differences in same-gender friendships: A close look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 709–727.Google Scholar
  17. Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Fehr, B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: A prototype interaction-pattern model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 265–284.Google Scholar
  19. Fehr, B., & Perlman, D. (1985). The family as social network and support system. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Handbook of family psychology and therapy (Vol. I, pp. 323–356). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, R. (1995a). Personal relationships across cultures. The Psychologist, 8, 73–75.Google Scholar
  21. Goodwin, R. (1995b). The privatization of the personal? I: Intimate disclosure in modern-day Russia. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 121–131.Google Scholar
  22. Goodwin, R. (1998). Personal relationships and social change: The “realpolitik” of cross-cultural research in transient cultures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 227–247.Google Scholar
  23. Goodwin, R., Nizharadze, G., Luu, L. A. N., Kosa, E., & Emelyanova, T. (1999). Glasnost and the art of conversation: A multilevel analysis of intimate disclosure across three former soviet cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 72–90.Google Scholar
  24. Inman, C. (1996). Friendships among men: Closeness in the doing. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 95–110). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, F., & Aries, E. (1983). Conversational patterns among same-sex pairs of late-adolescent close friends. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142, 225–238.Google Scholar
  26. Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue collar marriage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  27. Larson, R. W., & Bradney, N. (1988). Precious moments with family members and friends. In R. M. Milardo (Ed.), Families and social networks (pp. 107–126). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Levant, R., Cuthbert, A., Richmond, K., Sellers, A., Matveev, A., et al. (2003). Masculinity ideology among Russian and U.S. young men and women and its relationships to unhealthy lifestyles habits among young Russian men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 26–36.Google Scholar
  29. Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). The contribution of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 147–165.Google Scholar
  30. Moghaddam, F. M., Taylor, D. M., & Wright, S. C. (1993). Social psychology in cross-cultural perspective. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  31. O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.Google Scholar
  32. Reis, H. T. (1988). Gender effects in social participation: Intimacy, loneliness, and the conduct of social interaction. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 91–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Reis, H. T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1204–1217.Google Scholar
  34. Richmond, Y. (1996). From nyet to da: Understanding the Russians. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rubin, L. (1986). On men and friendship. Psychoanalytic Review, 73, 165–181.Google Scholar
  36. Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387–403.Google Scholar
  37. Searle-White, J. (1996). Personal boundaries among Russians and Americans: A Vygotskian approach. Cross-Cultural Research, 30, 184–208.Google Scholar
  38. Schultze, S. (2000). Culture and customs of Russia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sheets, V. L., & Lugar, R. (2004). Sources of conflict between friends in Russia and the United States. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  40. Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 164–186.Google Scholar
  41. Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among U.S. college students: Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–288.Google Scholar
  42. Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’s friendships. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships (pp. 71–86). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  43. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self in group relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.Google Scholar
  44. Vogel, E. (1965). From friendship to comradeship: The change in personal relations in communist China. China Quarterly, 21, 46–60.Google Scholar
  45. West, L., Anderson, J., & Duck, S. (1996). Crossing the barriers to friendships between men and women. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 111–127). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  46. Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, & culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  47. Wood, J. T. (2000). Gender and personal relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 301–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279–295.Google Scholar
  49. Wright, P. H. (1985). The Acquaintance Description Form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 39–62). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, P. H. (1989). Gender differences in adults’ same- and cross-gender friendships. In R. G. Adams & R. Blieszner (Eds.), Older adult friendships (pp. 197–221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIndiana State UniversityTerre HauteIndiana
  2. 2.Department of Social WorkIndiana State UniversityTerre HauteIndiana

Personalised recommendations