Sex Roles

pp 1–15 | Cite as

Young Adults’ Conversational Strategies During Negotiation and Self-Disclosure in Same-Gender and Mixed-Gender Friendships

  • Campbell LeaperEmail author
Original Article


Actor gender and partner gender effects on conversational strategies were investigated among young adult friends during assigned negotiation and self-disclosure tasks. The sample comprised 146 same- or mixed-gender friendship pairs (age range = 17–23) of U.S. undergraduates from diverse ethnic-racial backgrounds (52% White, 19% Latinx, 17% Asian, 18% other). Pairs of same-gender friends or mixed-gender friends were assigned a negotiation task and a self-disclosure task while their conversations were video-recorded. Dyadic analyses were conducted using hierarchical linear modeling to assess actor gender and partner gender effects on conversational strategies. During the negotiation task, women were more likely than men were to use affiliative strategies (requests, indirect suggestions, justifications); in contrast, men were more likely to use self-emphasizing strategies (direct suggestions). In the self-disclosure task, women were more likely than men to express self-disclosing statements and to provide reflective listening responses to friends’ disclosures (e.g., elaborations, backchannel interjections) especially in same-gender pairs. In contrast, men were more likely to use distancing responses (e.g., negative comments). Most effect sizes were small. Finally, participants’ ratings of conflict in the friendship were related to the likelihood of some speech strategies in both tasks. Findings highlight the contexts of gender-related variations in language use among young adult friends.


Gender Friendship Conversation Negotiation Self-disclosure Listening Male female relations 



The present research was supported by grants in 1996 and 1997 to the author from the Social Sciences Division and the Academic Senate of the University of California, Santa Cruz. The following are appreciated for their assistance in the study: Kristin Anderson, Jessica Alys, Desiree Atkins, Danna Barker, Michelle Bialon, Katie Boehm, Clover Bolton, Angela Boyd, Briana Carr, Grace Cho, Stephanie Corp, Amanda Crawford, Deverie DeMornay, Robyn Hannon, Keri Herscovitch, Aimee Jurewicz, John Leonard, Mary Luisi, Jenny McCloskey, Amanda Crawford, Dorothy Dichter, Bree Marchman, Danielle Marchman, Kimberly Martin, Jessica McGuire, Lara Meyer, Jennifer Michels, Dawn Mikolyski, Niosha Nafei, Kristen O’Shea, Mary Perugini, Winnie Poon, Freja Rasmussen, Rachael Robnett, Amy Rydell, Stacey Selevan, Christine Sparks, Martine Starita, Matilda St. John, Lise Torrey, Suzanne Toth, Julie Vierra, Kim Walter, and Jessica Young.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

The Institutional Review Board at the authors’ university reviewed and approved the research protocol.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was secured from all participants.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1014_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)


  1. Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). “Troubles talk”: Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles, 48(3–4), 183–187. Scholar
  2. Baumgarte, R. (2002). Cross-gender friendship: The troublesome relationship. In R. Goodwin & D. Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships: The unconventional, the disapproved, and the forbidden (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. W. (2009). Preference for same- versus cross-sex friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 901–917. Scholar
  4. Bear, J. B., & Babcock, L. (2012). Negotiation topic as a moderator of gender differences in negotiation. Psychological Science, 23(7), 743–744. Scholar
  5. Bippus, A. M., & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends' perceptions. Communication Reports, 16(2), 113–123. Scholar
  6. Brendgen, M., Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Bukowski, W. M. (2001). The relations between friendship quality, ranked-friendship preference, and adolescents' behavior with their friends. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(3), 395–415. Scholar
  7. Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 471–484. Scholar
  8. Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 53(6), 1578–1588. Scholar
  9. Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Burleson, B. R., Levine, B. J., & Samter, W. (1984). Decision-making procedure and decision quality. Human Communication Research, 10(4), 557–574. Scholar
  12. Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 327–342. Scholar
  13. Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 81–99. Scholar
  14. Carli, L. L., & Bukatko, D. (2000). Gender, communication, and social influence: A developmental perspective. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 295–331). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Cillessen, A. H. N., Jiang, X. L., West, T. V., & Laszkowski, D. K. (2005). Predictors of dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 165–172. Scholar
  16. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475. Scholar
  17. Danziger, S., Disatnik, D., & Shani, Y. (2017). Remembering friends as not so friendly in competitive and bargaining social interactions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 987–998. Scholar
  18. Dindia, K. (2000). Sex differences in self-disclosure, reciprocity of self-disclosure, and self-disclosure and liking: Three meta-analyses reviewed. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 21–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., Hanish, L. D., & DeLay, D. (2018). Gender integration in coeducational classrooms: Advancing educational research and practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 182–190. Scholar
  20. Feng, B., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2006). Predicting receptiveness to advice: Characteristics of the problem, the advice-giver, and the recipient. Southern Communication Journal, 71(1), 67–85. Scholar
  21. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Galupo, M. P., Bauerband, L. A., Gonzalez, K. A., Hagen, D. B., Hether, S. D., & Krum, T. E. (2014). Transgender friendship experiences: Benefits and barriers of friendships across gender identity and sexual orientation. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 193–215. Scholar
  23. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. Scholar
  24. Gottman, J., Gottman, J. S., Greendorfer, A., & Wahbe, M. (2014). An empirically based approach to couples' conflict. In P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed., pp. 898–920). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, J. A. (2011). Sex differences in friendship expectations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 723–747. Scholar
  26. Hall, J. A. (2012). Friendship standards: The dimensions of ideal expectations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(7), 884–907. Scholar
  27. Hall, J., & Watson, W. H. (1970). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance. Human Relations, 23(4), 299–317. Scholar
  28. Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (2007). Gender preferential responses to speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 274–290. Scholar
  29. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. Scholar
  30. Holmstrom, A. J., Burleson, B. R., & Jones, S. M. (2005). Some consequences for helpers who deliver “cold comfort”: Why it's worse for women than men to be inept when providing emotional support. Sex Roles, 53(3–4), 153–172. Scholar
  31. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592.Google Scholar
  32. Iannone, N. E., McCarty, M. K., & Kelly, J. R. (2017). With a little help from your friend: Transactive memory in best friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(6), 812–832. Scholar
  33. Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 775–790. Scholar
  34. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (2003). Effects of helper and recipient sex on the experience and outcomes of comforting messages: An experimental investigation. Sex Roles, 48(1–2), 1–19. Scholar
  35. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 229–248. Scholar
  36. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kluwer, E. S., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Conflict in intimate vs non-intimate relationships: When gender role stereotyping overrides biased self–other judgment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 637–650. Scholar
  38. Kray, L. J., & Babcock, L. (2006). Gender in negotiations: A motivated social cognitive analysis. In L. L. Thompson (Ed.), Frontiers of negotiation: Theory and research (pp. 203–224). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kurtzberg, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1999). Can we negotiate and still be friends? Negotiation Journal, 15(4), 355–361. Scholar
  40. Laursen, B., Finkelstein, B. D., & Townsend Betts, N. (2001). A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution. Developmental Review, 21, 423–449. Scholar
  41. Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Lemay Jr., E. P., Muise, A., & Tskhay, K. O. (2018). Communal motivation and well-being in interpersonal relationships: An integrative review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 1–25. Scholar
  42. Leaper, C. (1998). Decision-making processes between friends: Speaker and partner gender effects. Sex Roles, 39(1–2), 125–133. Scholar
  43. Leaper, C. (2014). Gender similarities and differences in language. In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 62–81). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  44. Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults' language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 328–363. Scholar
  45. Leaper, C., Carson, M., Baker, C., Holliday, H., & Myers, S. (1995). Self-discloser and listener verbal support in same-gender and cross-gender friends’ conversations. Sex Roles, 33(5–6), 387–404. Scholar
  46. Li, G., & Wong, W. I. (2018). Single-sex schooling: Friendships, dating, and sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1025–1039. Scholar
  47. Louis, W. R., Stork-Brett, K. & Barlow, F. K. (2013). Friendships across gender and sexual identities. In R. Harré & F. M. Moghaddam (Eds.), The psychology of friendship and enmity: Relationships in love, work, politics, and war (pp. 89–108). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  48. MacGeorge, E. L., Graves, A. R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J., & Burleson, B. R. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles, 50(3–4), 143–175. Scholar
  49. McLachlan, A. (1991). The effects of agreement, disagreement, gender and familiarity on patterns of dyadic interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3), 205–212. Scholar
  50. Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29(3), 201–220. Scholar
  51. Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 17(1), 67–94. Scholar
  52. Mickelson, K. D., Helgeson, V. S., & Weiner, E. (1995). Gender effects on social support provision and receipt. Personal Relationships, 2(3), 211–224. Scholar
  53. Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the life span in the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Monsour, M., Betty, S., & Kurzweil, N. (1993). Levels of perspectives and the perception of intimacy in cross-sex friendships: A balance theory explanation of shared perceptual reality. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 10(4), 529–550. Scholar
  55. Morry, M. M. (2005). Allocentrism and friendship satisfaction: The mediating roles of disclosure and closeness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 37(3), 211–222. Scholar
  56. Ohtsubo, Y., & Masuchi, A. (2004). Effects of status difference and group size in group decision making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(2), 161–172. Scholar
  57. O'Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21(7–8), 525–543. Scholar
  58. Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2014). Counting little words in big data: The psychology of individuals, communities, culture, and history. In J. P. Forgas, O. Vincze, & J. László (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 25–42). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pickard, J., & Strough, J. (2003). Variability in goals as a function of same-sex and other-sex contexts. Sex Roles, 49(11–12), 643–652. Scholar
  60. Pollastri, A. R., Raftery-Helmer, J., Cardemil, E. V., & Addis, M. E. (2018). Social context, emotional expressivity, and social adjustment in adolescent males. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 69–77. Scholar
  61. Procsal, A. D., Demir, M., Doğan, A., Özen, A., & Sümer, N. (2015). Cross-sex friendship and happiness. In M. Demir (Ed.), Friendship and happiness: Across the life-span and cultures (pp. 171–185). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  63. Radmacher, K., & Azmitia, M. (2006). Are there gendered pathways to intimacy in early adolescents' and emerging adults' friendships? Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(4), 415–448. Scholar
  64. Rose, S. M., & Hospital, M. M. (2017). Friendships across race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In M. Hojjat & A. Moyer (Eds.), The psychology of friendship (pp. 75–91). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential tradeoffs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131. Scholar
  66. Rose, A. J., Smith, R. L., Glick, G. C., & Schwartz-Mette, R. (2016). Girls’ and boys’ problem talk: Implications for emotional closeness in friendships. Developmental Psychology, 52(4), 629–639. Scholar
  67. Ruscher, J. B., Santuzzi, A. M., & Hammer, E. Y. (2003). Shared impression formation in the cognitively interdependent dyad. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 411–425. Scholar
  68. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028. Scholar
  69. Selman, R. L. (1989). Fostering intimacy and autonomy. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp. 409–435). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  70. Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–165. Scholar
  71. Singleton, R. A., & Vacca, J. (2007). Interpersonal competition in friendships. Sex Roles, 56(9–10), 617–627. Scholar
  72. Strough, J., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Goals as a mediator of gender differences in high-affiliation dyadic conversations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 117–125. Scholar
  73. Tardy, C. H., & Dindia, K. (2006). Self-disclosure: Strategic revelation of information in personal and professional relationships. In O. Hargie (Ed.), The handbook of communication skills (3rd ed., pp. 229–266). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  75. Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meyer, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(1), 1–29. Scholar
  76. West, T. V., Popp, D., & Kenny, D. A. (2008). A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 321–336. Scholar
  77. Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 341–347. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations