Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-sex Friendships: Who has More?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is the first study to examine the independent, simultaneous, and relative roles of several factors—sex, relationship commitment, perceptions of the benefits vs. costs of cross-sex (vs. same-sex) friendships, gender role orientation, and sexism—in the number of cross-sex (vs. same-sex) friendships people have. The latter four constructs were independently found to predict participants’ proportions of cross-sex friendships. Furthermore, a model comprised of all five factors provided a very good fit to the data, explaining 35% of the variability in the degree to which the participants possessed cross-sex friendships. Perceptions regarding the general benefits of both same- and cross-sex friendships and cross-gender role orientation continued to explain proportion of cross-sex friendship when the other factors were controlled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ‘proportion of five friends’ item was arcsine-transformed before it was standardized in order to normalize the distribution (Judd & McClelland, 1989).

  2. The scale alphas reported herein are those that were found in the present study.

  3. This is typically done with the use of discriminant analysis. In the present study, however, we used logistic regression to derive the probabilities, as this method generally results in the same conclusions as discriminant analysis, it requires fewer assumptions and, thus, it is more robust statistically (Press & Wilson, 1978).

  4. The criteria were as follows: if sdr > |2.5|, levers approached 1.0, and/or Cook’s d was unusual, the case was removed (see Judd & McClelland, 1989).

  5. Participant sex was significantly related to both general benefits of SSFs and general benefits if CSFs. In both cases, male participants had lower scores.

  6. The participant sex × gender diagnosticity interaction also remained statistically significant even after we controlled for the other constructs assessed in the present study, t(142)=−2.45, p=0.02, pr=−0.21.

References

  • Adams, R. G. (1985). People would talk: Normative barriers to cross-sex friendships for elderly women. Gerontologist, 35, 605–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A re-evaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. R. (1981). Friendships of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 402–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske-Rechek, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? An evolutionary perspective. Personal Relationships, 7, 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske-Rechek, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendship: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1310–1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrke, R. A., & Fuqua, D. R. (1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D. J., Emmers-Sommers, T. M., & Faulkner, S. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 872–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M., Waters, C. W., & Waters, L. K. (1979). Factor analysis of sex-typed items from the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Psychological Reports, 44, 517–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duck, S. W. (1973). Personality similarity and friendship choice: Similarity of what, when? Journal of Personality, 41, 543–558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duck, S. W., & Craig, G. (1978). Personality similarity and the development of friendship: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 237–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 23, pp. 75–109). San Diego, California: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1978). Factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Implications for the study of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. Australian Journal of Psychology, 30, 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as a simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Lameiras, S., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. C., Bloys, N., & Wood, M. (1990). Sex roles and friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 23, 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaper, C. (1998). Decision-making processes between friends during a problem-solving task: Speaker and partner gender effects. Sex Roles, 39, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1000–1011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. (2005). Sub-domains of gender-related occupational interests: Do they form a cohesive bipolar M–F dimension? Journal of Personality, 73, 693–730.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R., & Connelly, S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1051–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, S., & Howard, J. A. (1993). Solidarity and hierarchy in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsour, M. (1988). Cross-sex friendships in a changing society (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois-Champaign, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International.

  • Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 227–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsour, M. (1997). Communication and cross-sex friendships across the life-cycle: A review of the literature. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 375–414). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: Relationships across the life span in the 21st century. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, D. (1994). Cross-sex friendship opportunity challenge: Uncharted terrain for exploration. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S., & deVries, B. (1993). Patterns of friendship for women and men in same and cross-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 617–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, S. J., & Wilson, S. (1978). Choosing between logistic regression and discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 699–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, W. K. (1982). Cross sex friendships and the communicative control of management of sex role expectations. Communication Quarterly, 30, 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, H. M. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same- and cross-sex friendship formation. Sex Roles, 49, 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. M. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 654–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solano, C. H. (1986). People without friends: Loneliness and its alternatives. In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 227–246). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1986) A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. H. (1989). Gender differences in adults’ same- and cross-gender friendships. In R. G. Adams & R. Blieszner (Eds.), Older adult friendship (pp. 197–221). Newbury Park, California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying: Relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50, 525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this manuscript for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK

    Alison P. Lenton

  2. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Laura Webber

Authors
  1. Alison P. Lenton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Webber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison P. Lenton.

Additional information

The Preliminary Study that preceded the research described herein was the foundation of Laura Webber’s undergraduate thesis, for which Alison P. Lenton served as supervisor (when the latter was affiliated with the University of Cambridge).

Appendix

Appendix

Friendship Qualities

1a–b A feeling of obligation toward the other

3 Learning about own sexual appeal (CSF item only)

1a–b Availability of emotional support

2a–b Opportunity for miscommunication

1a–b Companionship

1b Physical protection (CSF item only)

2a–b Competition

1a–b Pleasure spending time together

1a–b Confidentiality and trust

3 Possibility for romantic, or long-term relationship (CSF item only)

1a–b Contribution to self-reflection

3 Possibility for sexual relationship (CSF item only)

1a–b Emotional protection

2a–b Possibility of envy or jealousy

 

2a–b Possibility of feeling patronized

1a–b Exchange of ideas or points of view

2a–b Potential to interfere with an ongoing romantic relationship

1a–b Excitement

3 Practice communicating with people of other sex (CSF item only)

1a–b Experience of platonic love

1a–b Sense of belonging

1a–b Feeling respected

3 Sexual tension (CSF item only)

1a–b Feeling that someone will stand up for you

1a–b Shared activities

1a–b Feeling understood

1a–b Shared interests

1a–b Feelings of acceptance

1a–b Spontaneity of expression and behavior

1a3 Feelings of intimacy

2a–b Takes work to maintain

1a–b Gaining of positive self-worth

2a–b The views of others affect the friendship

1a–b Interaction ‘on the same level’ (i.e., feeling of equality)

 

1a3 Learning about other gender

 

Factors Extracted

1a ‘General Benefits SSF (λ = 9.29; % variance = 37.73)

1b ‘General Benefits CSF’ (λ = 8.89; % variance = 25.40)

2a ‘General Costs SSF (λ = 3.20; % variance = 11.02)

2b ‘General Costs CSF’ (λ = 2.22; % variance = 6.35)

3 ‘Sexual Excitement CSF’ (λ = 4.11; % variance = 11.74)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lenton, A.P., Webber, L. Cross-sex Friendships: Who has More?. Sex Roles 54, 809–820 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9048-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9048-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation