Reexamining gender differences in same-gender friendships: A close look at two kinds of data

The present paper examines the widely accepted claim that women's and men's friendships can be characterized dichotomously as “expressive” vs. “instrumental,” or alternatively, as “communal” vs. “agentic.” After addressing questions about the empirical support for this claim, we present analyses based on two different kinds of data. Subjects providing these data were predominantly, although possibly not exclusively, Caucasian U.S. citizens. Study One analyzed the purposes of interaction endorsed by women and men in reports of actual meetings with same-sex friends. Women and men did not differ in the purposes reported, as both indicated meeting most often just to talk, less often to work on a task, and least often to deal with a relationship issue pertinent to the friendship. Study Two analyzed responses to a form assessing various aspects of the strength and quality of subjects' same-gender friendships. Although women and men differed on a number of variables, the differences did not form an expressive vs. instrumental dichotomy. We discuss an altered perspective on the differences and similarities in women's and men's friendships suggested by these results.

[1]  W. Wood,et al.  Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  P. Wright,et al.  Gender differences in adults' same- and cross-gender friendships. , 1989 .

[3]  Steven W. Duck,et al.  Human Relationships: An Introduction to Social Psychology , 1986 .

[4]  B. Thurston,et al.  The duality of human existence , 1966 .

[5]  M. Linn,et al.  Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. , 1988 .

[6]  P. Wright,et al.  Interpreting Research on Gender Differences in Friendship: A Case for Moderation and a Plea for Caution , 1988 .

[7]  H. Reis,et al.  Intimacy as an interpersonal process. , 1988 .

[8]  S. Duck.  New lamps for old: A new theory of relationships and a fresh look at some old research , 1991 .

[9]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication , 1993 .

[10]  L. Wheeler,et al.  Self‐Recording of Everyday Life Events: Origins, Types, and Uses , 1991 .

[11]  Fern L. Johnson,et al.  Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends , 1983 .

[12]  Martin Lea.  Factors Underlying Friendship: An Analysis of Responses on the Acquaintance Description form in Relation to Wright's Friendship Model , 1989 .

[13]  L. A. Peplau,et al.  Sex differences in same-sex friendship , 1982 .

[14]  Alan Booth,et al.  Sex and Social Participation , 1972 .

[15]  Steven W. Duck,et al.  Some Evident Truths About Conversations in Everyday Relationships All Communications Are Not Created Equal , 1991 .

[16]  Michael Monsour.  Meanings of Intimacy in Cross- and Same-Sex Friendships , 1992 .

[17]  David A. Chiriboga,et al.  Four stages of life , 1975 .

[18]  Helen Mayer Hacker,et al.  Blabbermouths and Clams: Sex Differences in Self-Disclosure in Same-Sex and Cross-Sex Friendship Dyads , 1981 .

[19]  Julia T. Wood,et al.  In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness , 1993 .

[20]  S. Duck.  Human Relationships , 1991 .

[21]  S. Duck.  Human relationships, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[22]  P. Wright,et al.  Gender role orientations and friendship: Some attenuation, but gender differences abound , 1991 .

[23]  Fern L. Johnson,et al.  The talk of women friends , 1983 .

[24]  Leslie A. Baxter,et al.  Forms and Functions of Intimate Play in Personal Relationships , 1992 .