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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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.
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336.
Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 1(2), 211–237.
Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as resource in the Hollywood film industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 279–309.
Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. W. (2009). Preference for same-versus cross-sex friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 901–917.
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.
Bippus, A. M., & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends’ perceptions. Communication Reports, 16(2), 113–123.
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.
Buhrke, R., & Fuqua, D. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339–352.
Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 228–243.
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.
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.
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.
Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29, 497–508.
Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59(8), 1077–1100.
Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Gender rules: Same-and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66(7–8), 518–529.
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2006). Widening the family circle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 50, 93–98.
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.
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.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relationaluncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278.
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.
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4), 488–500.
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.
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.
Lenton, A. P., & Webber, L. (2006). Cross-sex friendships: Who has more? Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 809–820.
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.
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.
Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–913.
Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the life span in the 21stcentury. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Monsour, M., Harris, B., & Kurzweil, N. (1994). Challenges confronting cross-sex friendships: “Much Ado About Nothing?”. Sex Roles, 31, 55–77.
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.
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.
O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.
Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 70(3), 274–287.
Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1977). The structure of motives. Symbolic Interaction, 1, 104–120.
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.
Reeder, H. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same-and cross-sex friendship formation. Sex Roles, 49(3–4), 143–152.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9–10), 499–509.
Rubin, L. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: HarperCollins.
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.
Schoonover, K., & McEwan, B. (2014). Are you really just friends? Predicting the audiencechallenge in cross-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 21(3), 387–403.
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.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structures version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
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.
Turner, R. H. (1956). Role taking, role standpoint, and reference group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 316–328.
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.
Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 279–297.
Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
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.
Zurcher, L. A. (1983). Social roles: Conformity, conflict, and creativity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9387-5