Familiar Friend Values
Running Head: FRIENDSHIP VALUES
Familiar Friend Values:
A comparison between cross-race and same-race women's friendships
Laura P. Naumann
University of California, Berkeley
1
Familiar Friend Values
2
Abstract
Much research has examined the formation, maintenance, and dissolution of
friendships between women. However, far less research has compared women in
same-race and cross-race friendships. First, I examine how racial classification
influences friendships across race by asking participants two questions: “What
influence does race have on your friendship?” and “What do you value or find most
meaningful about your friendship?” Based on previous research, I hypothesized that
women in cross-race friendships would value qualities such as openness, acceptance,
reciprocity, and uniqueness to a higher degree than same-race friends do. Additionally,
I speculated that cross-race dyads would express an appreciation of differences as well
as a range of emotions to a greater degree that same-race dyads would. A sample
totaling 84 Mexican American, African American, and Caucasian women in same-race
or cross-race dyads participated in a discussion about race and friendship. I performed
a content analysis of the women’s responses to the two questions using a modified
version of Weiss and Lowenthal’s (1975) dimensions of friendship schema and then
analyzed the emotions each participant reported after completing each discussion.
Cross-race friends valued the same qualities to the same degree that same-race
friendships did with one exception: Black dyads valued reciprocity more than White
dyads and Black/White dyads. Cross-race friends emphasized a greater appreciation
of differences than same-race friends did and exhibited curiosity, enthusiasm,
appreciation, compassion, and gratitude after each discussion.
Familiar Friend Values
3
Familiar Friend Values:
A comparison between cross-race and same-race women's friendships
People become friends for many reasons. Friendships offer more than mere
acquaintanceship or polite interaction. They provide an outlet to satisfy our desire for
social integration. Solano (1986) purports that friendship functions to fulfill three needs:
material [e.g. friend loans you money], cognitive [e.g. sharing stimulating conversation],
and emotional [e.g. giving and receiving love]. Our close friends offer us a sense of
belonging, emotional stability, opportunities for conversation, assistance, reassurance
of our worth and value, and personality support (Duck, 1991; Rawlins, 1992; Davis &
Todd, 1985). Friendship offers us many rewards; it is no wonder that we place great
importance on our friendships and value our friends highly.
If friendship offers many rewards, why is it often so difficult to build and maintain
friendships? Much research has explored the complexities of friendship formation
(Berscheid & Walster, 1983; Rodin, 1982; Clark & Ayers, 1992). In addition to factors
such as reciprocity (Clark & Ayers, 1992; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975) and proximity
(Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950), similarity seems to be the basic starting point for
a friendship (Ajzen, 1997; Byrne, 1971; Lott & Lott, 1974; Wheeler, 1974; Woolsey &
McBain, 1987). Duck (1991) maintains that most adults show a clear preference for
friends of the same race, gender, age, and class. Duck (1977) further states that many
kinds of similarities are associated with liking: correspondence of interests, attitudes,
personality characteristics, socioeconomic status, and even physical attractiveness. It
is easy for people to connect with others who are similar to them, but how do they form
bonds with the rest of a dissimilar world?
Familiar Friend Values
4
Friendship formation is complex. Many factors can work for or against a
potential friend. Rodin (1982) argues that our friendship choices are based on “liking”
criteria, “disliking” criteria, and exclusion judgments called disregard cues. When we
meet others, we identify the qualities we like and do not like about them. If the others
meet our liking criteria, they have friend potential and enter our pool of possible friends.
However, even if others possess redeeming qualities, if they have any qualities that we
dislike, we reject them and immediately discard them from our pool of potential friends.
The problem arises when we meet people and, even before learning that they might
possess all the right qualities and not the wrong ones, we disregard them on the basis
of their race, educational background, physical attractiveness, age, mode of dress, and
so on (Clark & Ayers, 1992; Hays, 1989; Gouldner and Symons Strong, 1987; Patzer,
1985). Rodin (1982) describes the disregard process as a way to save time and energy
by not cultivating a relationship with someone we are unlikely to like. We overlook
these potential friends because they do not seem to be suitable candidates for
friendship.
With so much vested in forming friendships and so many obstacles working
against forming friendships with dissimilar people, there must be something unique
about interracial friendships. As of 1993, the rate of interracial marriages and unions
was 2.2% of all married couples (Gaines & Ickes, 1997). It is far more difficult to even
estimate the incidence of cross-race friendships. Statistics for interracial friendships
are more difficult to obtain compared to obtaining statistics for interracial marriages.
The statistical infrequency of interracial friendships (Gaines & Ickes, 1997; Blieszner &
Adams, 1992) is indication that these relationships are different and factors such as
Familiar Friend Values
5
Rodin’s (1982) disregard cues may be inhibiting friendship formation. Or perhaps
cross-race friends know something we don’t? In an overview of interracial relationships,
Gaines & Ickes (1997) chose to disregard the traditional researcher’s “outsider”
perspective and instead sought the “insider’s” perspective from the people involved in
interracial relationships. Partners frequently responded that they valued certain
differences in their relationships because the differences helped to satisfy each others’
motives for self-expansion, novelty, and sensation seeking in various areas. Though
this research involves romantic relationships, we can extend these findings to interracial
friendships. Cross-race friends are likely to gain direct access to another unique culture
that introduces novel foods, speech, dress, attitudes, habits, values, and other
surprises.
Though women do not enter cross-race friendships more often than men do
(Clark and Ayers, 1992), women appear to be better equipped to transcend the race
barrier in friendships (Duck, 1991). In general, women are more affectionate, loyal,
committed, and have a higher capacity for intimacy than men do (Duck, 1991; Bigelow
& La Gaipa, 1980; Sherrod, 1989). As well, women experience gender-based
oppression that can enhance the shared feelings of sisterhood (Clark and Ayers, 1992;
O’Connor, 1992). Women may have a greater capacity to empathize with those of
other races because, traditionally, their friendships are based on intimate verbal
interactions, whereas men’s friendships are based on shared interests and activities
(Johnson & Aires, 1983; Sherrod, 1989). While examining men’s friendships is beyond
the scope of this study, previous research on the topic allows us to speculate that
Familiar Friend Values
6
cross-race friendships between women have great potential to be built on a strong
foundation of empathy and understanding.
Hall and Rose’s (1996) study of friendships between African American and White
lesbians is a prime example of women’s affinity for friendships with those who have the
capacity to empathize. Rose (1996) emphasized the importance of racial awareness
and an individual’s level of racial identity in identifying potential cross-race friends.
Lesbians of color described White racially-aware women as those who acknowledged
and challenged the ways White people actively or passively participated in and
benefited from racism, and who recognized and appreciated differences in culture;
values; and aesthetic standards across races, but who additionally did not regard those
differences as signs of superiority. Women who displayed a special sensitivity and
loyalty concerning race matters had more rewarding friendships. The friends both
experienced personal growth through developing a greater appreciation for cultural
diversity and political growth through more effective political organization (Hall & Rose,
1996). One must acknowledge, though, that because lesbians often face
marginalization because of their sexual orientation, they share similar experiences with
other minorities and may be more able to overcome other obstacles such as racial
barriers to forming friendships. Regardless of a woman’s racial awareness or sexual
orientation, it seems that women appreciate understanding, acceptance, and empathy.
Could these qualities be the hidden key to understanding cross-race friendships?
Duck's (1982/1988) theories of relationships can offer insight into understanding
the difficulty involved in maintaining cross-race friendships. Duck argues that friends
must abide by the rules of friendship maintenance or face dissolution of their friendship.
Familiar Friend Values
7
He regards friendship maintenance as upholding the level of commitment and intimacy
within the relationship, as well as dealing with conflict in a way that avoids ending the
friendship (Duck, 1988). Duck argues that dissatisfaction with the relationship or with
the partner will ultimately result in the dissolution of the relationship (1982). Hatfield's
equity theory (Hatfield, Utne, & Traumpann, 1979) corroborates with Duck's theory of
friendship dissolution. Equity theorists contend that we maximize the outcomes in our
relationships by comparing our own costs and benefits with that of our partner or friend.
When we recognize that there is inequality within our friendship, we attempt to adjust
the actual ratio of costs and benefits. If that fails, Hatfield et al. (1979) describe a
process of restoring psychological equity, in which we try to convince ourselves that the
situation is really fair and equal. Ultimately, failed attempts to restore actual or
psychological equity will result in the termination of the relationship.
Consider the situation of a high-school classroom composed of a majority of
White students and a handful of African American students. According to Hallinan &
Teixeria (1987), African American adolescents, when in predominately White
classrooms, make significantly more cross-race friendship choices than their White
peers do. In step with friendship formation theories, the African American students
might seek to develop cross-race friendships with White students whom they perceive
to posess characteristics similar to their own (Clark, 1989). Also consider that
reciprocal friendships [i.e. relationships with a higher degree of involvement,
commitment, and understanding] form between peers who have similar characteristics
(Clark & Ayers, 1992; Kurdek & Krile, 1982). Consequently, it may be difficult for the
African American students to develop reciprocal cross-race friendships because White
Familiar Friend Values
8
students do not perceive them as equal in status (Clark, 1989). Clark and Ayers (1988)
found such evidence—in a predominately White school, 40% of African American
students and only 14% White students had no reciprocated friendships among their
peers at school. In such a situation, equality theorists would identify the disparity in
reciprocity between the students and predict the eventual termination of the friendship.
Given this, we hypothesize that successful cross-race friendships will cite reciprocity as
an important value of friendship.
Along these lines, Weiss and Lowenthal (1975) explored the qualities that
participants’ ascribed to their real friends and desired in ideal friends. Participants
identified reciprocity as the most important quality in an ideal friend, but conversely,
emphasized the importance of similar qualities in their real friends. Ideally, we fancy
friends who are committed to and involved in our friendships; but as friendship theories
assert, similarity is the essential icebreaker in forming friendships! Perhaps cross-race
friendships that do not conform to the similarity standard are able to value reciprocity at
a higher degree.
The other significant outcome of Weiss and Lowenthal’s (1975) study was their
utilization of the participants’ responses to develop a classification schema. This
yielded 19 dimensions that Weiss and Lowenthal then grouped into six domains of
friendship. Tesch and Martin (1983) utilized a modified version of Weiss and
Lowenthal’s (1975) classification schema in their study of friendship concepts in young
adults [i.e. college students and alumni]. Tesch and Martin (1983) asked participants to
respond to the questions, “What does friendship mean to you?” and “What do you value
in your friendships?” to examine if adults’ views of friendship changed with age. The
Familiar Friend Values
9
present study models after the Tesch and Martin (1983) study, except that we examine
the effects of racial classification rather than the effects of age on the influences of the
friendship. For the purposes of this study, we will apply Tesch and Martin’s (1983)
modified version that comprises eight domains of friendship: similarity, reciprocity,
acceptance, openness, compatibility, role model, uniqueness, and time. I will describe
these domains in more detail in the method section.
The purpose of this study is not to elucidate the formation or dissolution of crossrace friendships, but rather to gain a better understanding of the processes that
facilitate and maintain these friendships. We know that the formation of cross-race
friendships is occurring and acknowledge that these friends are overcoming some
impediments that same-race friends do not encounter. With these assumptions in
mind, we hope to identify if these friendships are truly different and if so, what makes
them work.
This study will examine the qualities that women in cross-race and same-race
friendships value and the similarities or differences that they identify. Based on
previous research, I hypothesized that women in cross-race friendships would value
qualities such as openness, acceptance, reciprocity, and uniqueness to a greater
degree than do same-race friends. To that degree, same-race dyads would place
greater value on similarity, while cross-race dyads would express a greater appreciation
of differences. Finally, in exploratory analyses, I expected to find a range of differences
in emotion cross-race friends experienced in comparison with the range same-race
friends experienced.
Familiar Friend Values
10
Method
Participants
Eighty-four women from the Berkeley area, whose ages ranged from 18 to 44
(M=21), participated in a larger study about race and friendship. Data collected in that
study will be used to examine my research questions. In a forced choice, 40 (48%)
women identified as White, 27 (32%) women identified as Chicana/Mexican American,
and 17 (20%) women identified as Black/African American. Three percent completed a
high school education or equivalent, 75% of the women were college students, and
17% had completed some college or higher (4 subjects did not provide this data).
Forty-two adult female friendship dyads comprised this sample. There were 14 crossrace groups: 7 Black/White dyads and 7 Mexican American/White dyads. Same-race
groups were used as comparison groups: 13 White dyads, 10 Mexican American
(Chicana) dyads, and 5 Black dyads. Individuals were recruited via advertisements
posted on the UC Berkeley campus and through invitation to individuals involved in the
Research Participation Program (RPP). Interested individuals were screened to meet
the following criteria: 1) friendship of six months or longer, 2) born in the United States,
3) no previous romantic involvement with each other and 4) self-identification with one
of the three targeted racial groups. Each participant received $20 for her participation.
Measures
The primary measure in this study was a content analysis of participants’
responses to the open-ended questions “How does race influence your friendship?” and
“What do you value or find most meaningful in your friendship?” The author segmented
the participants’ responses into discrete items, each containing a single idea pertaining
Familiar Friend Values
11
to friendship. In the first question, the author counted the frequency of the participants’
mentions of similarity [e.g. “We are both in a sorority and come from similar
backgrounds.”] or difference [e.g. “[Our differences] come up when we discuss our
family lifestyles] within their friendships.
In the second question, the author coded each friendship item using Tesch and
Martin’s (1983) modified version of Weiss and Lowenthal’s (1975) domains of
friendship. Tesch and Martin’s schema contained 23 dimensions representing the eight
domains of similarity, reciprocity, acceptance, openness, compatibility, role model,
uniqueness, and time.
 Similarity, defined by commonalities in behavior and interests, encompasses
the dimensions: shared experiences, shared activities, shared concerns, and
general similarities. Sample responses included: "We have similar views"
and "We come from similar backgrounds and have similar socioeconomic
statuses."
 Reciprocity, defined by a higher degree of involvement, commitment,
understanding, giving and receiving, comprises the dimensions:
dependability, caring/affection, commitment, trust, and general reciprocity.
Sample responses included: "You are always there for me" and "You can call
me whenever you need to, and I can call you."
 Acceptance comprises the dimensions: understanding and ego support.
Sample responses included: "You are both understanding and empathetic"
and "You do not judge me."
Familiar Friend Values
12
 Openness, defined by the willingness to hear and consider or to accept and
deal with; includes the dimensions: confidant, honesty, and being one’s self.
Sample responses included: "I feel like I can tell you anything" and "I do not
have to hide anything or not be myself."
 Compatibility, defined as the simple pleasure in being with the friend;
contains the dimensions: communication ease, likeability, and enjoyment.
Sample responses included: "We can have fun, or be serious" and "I enjoy
your company and our conversations."
 The role model domain characterizes attributes in which the respondent
aspires or which she looks up to and respects in her friends and consists of
the dimensions: respect and learning/advice. Sample responses include:
"You know more and give me good advice" and "She is a good influence, I
respect her."
 The uniqueness domain distinguishes responses that identify the dimensions:
differences and limitations. Sample responses include: "We lead different
lives and have different backgrounds" and "I did not know if I could really
become good friends with you because of your initial assumptions [about
me]."
 The time domain, used to describe duration, geographic closeness, and
convenience; comprises the dimensions: endurance and coexistence.
Sample responses included: "We can still be friends and live together" and
"You are not a fair-weather friend."
Familiar Friend Values
13
Procedure
In the larger study, researchers mailed participants who met the criteria a packet
of questionnaires with a consent form and cover letter detailing the procedures of the
study. The participants were informed that the study concerned women, race, and
friendship and would involve a videotaped discussion between the friends. The friends
were instructed to complete the questionnaires without assistance from each other.
The participants brought the completed questionnaire packet to the videotaped
discussion session. The equipment and procedures of the videotaped session were
then explained and the discussion session was completed. The participants were given
the option of providing contact information for participation in follow-up studies.
Race and Friendship Discussion
Each dyad participated in the videotaped discussion together, lasting
approximately one hour. Dyads were escorted into the testing room where the video
equipment was explained. Participants were seated across from each other and given
a clipboard full of questionnaires that assessed emotion. The emotion assessments,
which were administered after each interaction, asked the participant to first rate her
own emotions, then the emotions of her friend. The questionnaires consisted of 23
positive and negative emotions using a 9-point Likert scale. The experimenter left the
room and gave instructions via intercom from the control area next to the testing room.
Participants were asked to engage in six interactions: 1) First meeting description, 2)
Teasing interaction, 3) Racial identity discussion, 4) Racial discrimination discussion, 5)
Influence of race discussion, and 6) Value of friendship discussion. For the purpose of
Familiar Friend Values
14
this study, the author only analyzed the “Influence of race” and “Value of friendship”
discussions.
a. Influence of race discussion: Participants were asked, “How does race influence
your friendship?” and then instructed to discuss their responses with each other
in a conversational manner for approximately three minutes. No further
instructions were given. At the end of the interaction, participants completed an
emotions assessment questionnaire.
b. Value of friendship discussion: Participants were asked, “What do you value or
find most meaningful about your friendship?” and instructed to discuss their
responses with each other in a conversational manner for approximately two
minutes. At the end of the interaction, participants completed an emotions
assessment questionnaire.
Results
Values of Friendship
As mentioned in the methods section, I used a modified version of Weiss and
Lowenthal’s (1975) domains of friendship schema to perform a content analysis of the
participants' responses. Generally, women’s responses to the question “What do you
value about your friendship” revealed few significant quantitative differences between
same-race and cross-race friendships. Table 1 provides the means for the eight
domains of friendship across all race dyads. I tested the differences among the means
using an independent samples t test. Black friends reported valuing reciprocity to a
greater degree than did both White friends and Black/White cross-race friends,
Familiar Friend Values
15
t(42)=3.154, p=.006 and t(42)=2.487, p=.032, respectively. The remaining data fails to
support a significant difference in values associated with friendship between same-race
and cross-race friendships.
Although the statistical tests did not present overwhelming significant findings,
the qualitative content of women's responses varied by racial grouping for several of the
domains. The domains reciprocity, openness, compatibility, and time yielded similar
responses across all racial dyadic groupings. Refer to the method section for sample
responses. However, some responses classified in the domains of similarity,
acceptance, role model, and uniqueness differed in content across racial dyadic
groupings. For example, the qualities of similarity White friends and cross-race friends
cited differed from the responses of Black and Chicana friends. Friends of color valued
similarities centralized around issues associated with race and socioeconomic
background. A sample response from two Chicana friends was, "We're both Mexican
and minorities. We relate on the same issues." A Black dyad responded, "We have a
racial and ethnic consciousness." White friends and cross-race friends frequently cited
general similarities in tastes and activities, and disregarded race as a key factor of
similarity.
In the acceptance domain, most responses were similar across all dyads with the
exception of a few responses from Black friends: "We couldn't have conversations or
appreciate certain [Black] functions if you weren't Black" or "I don't feel comfortable
telling my business to a White person."
In the role model domain, responses varied between same-race and cross-race
friends. Cross-race friends made specific references related to race and culture.
Familiar Friend Values
16
Several White friends described their cross-race friendship as a "question and answer
session" where the White friend would learn about aspects of her friend's race and
culture. A White woman told her Black friend that she valued "explanations of certain
[cultural] things, like why [her Black friend] wrapped her hair." Another White friend
joked with her Chicana friend, "I've learned a lot about Mexican culture. You taught me
how to make beans." However, learning and advice did not only flow from the person
of color to her White friend. A Black friend told her White friend, "I feel like your culture
has become my culture, and we've learned a lot [from each other]. I probably wouldn't
have been able to go to a fancy restaurant with my [Black] friends." A Chicana friend
remarked, "I've learned from you. I've learned how people deal with race." Conversely,
same-race friends made reference to general learning and advice—"She gives me
good advice" or "She's a good influence."
Similar to the role model domain, the friends' responses to the uniqueness
domain varied between same-race and cross-race friends. Same-race friends
responded with general statements such as "You're unique" or "You're not like other
girls." Cross-race friends' responses were commonly centered on differences in race,
culture, and background. The women of color often highlighted the willingness of their
White friends to overstep race barriers. A Black friend told her White friend, "You went
against all odds [to be my friend] and gave a part of yourself that goes against the
norm." A Chicana friend told her White friend, "You're not a cookie-cutter White girl. I
had preconceived notions about your background, that you came from a typical "White"
family." White friends often acknowledged and showed appreciation for the differences
within their cross-race friendship. A White friend told her Black friend, "I do notice the
Familiar Friend Values
17
differences, but I like it." A White friend told her Chicana friend, "We have lots of
differences, but we're supportive."
Appreciation of Differences
A univariate analysis of variance revealed significant differences suggesting that
cross-race friends (M=1.21, SD=1.53) had a greater appreciation of their differences
than same-race (M=0.39, SD=0.70) friends did, F(1,42)=4.439, p=.041. Conversely,
same-race friends (M=3.78, SD=2.39) cited a greater appreciation of similarities than
cross-race friends (M=2.00, SD=1.67) did, F(1,42)=8.071, p=.007. Table 2 provides the
means for appreciation of similarities and differences for each of the racial dyads. The
Black same-race dyads reported the least appreciation of differences and both crossrace groups reported more appreciation of differences. The Chicana same-race dyads
reported the most appreciation of similarities and the Black/White cross-race dyads
reported the least appreciation of similarities.
Similar to the responses to the values of friendship discussion, friends'
responses differed in content to the question, "How does race influence your
friendship?" Same-race friends, though emphasizing an appreciation of similarities,
regarded different qualities as important to their friendship. The White dyads minimized
the influence of race in their friendship and cited an appreciation of similar views and
backgrounds as important factors in their friendship. The Black and Chicana dyads
emphasized the importance sharing a strong racial identity and an appreciation of racial
similarities. In contrast, cross-race friends generally minimized the influence of race on
their friendship, but paradoxically showed a great appreciation for their racial
differences.
Familiar Friend Values
18
Emotions After Discussions
After each discussion, participants filled out rating forms containing 23 different
emotions. We grouped these emotions into six composites. Table 3 provides the
means for each emotion composite between same-race and cross-race dyads. An
independent samples t test revealed that cross-race friends experienced more curiosity
and enthusiasm than same-race friends did during the race discussion, t(80)= -4.703,
p=.001. During the values discussion, cross-race friends, in addition to more curiosity
and enthusiasm t(80)= -5.177, p=.001, experienced more appreciation, compassion,
and gratitude than same-race friends did, t(80)= -2.966, p=.004.
Discussion
The results suggest that, though there are few significant quantitative differences
in the qualities of friendship that same-race and cross-race friends value, some
differences occur in the content of the women's responses across the racial groupings.
Additionally, cross-race friends acknowledge and appreciate their differences to a
greater degree than same-race friends do. The emotions that the cross-race friends
reported—curiosity, enthusiasm, appreciation, compassion, and gratitude—also
coincide with the cross-race friends’ appreciation for differences that same-race friends
did not experience.
Returning to the ultimate purpose of this study—to understand the processes
that facilitate and maintain cross-race friendships—it is helpful to examine the content
of the women's responses. Reoccurring thematic differences revolved around racial
similarities and differences. By examining the difference in responses found in the
Familiar Friend Values
19
similarity domain, Duck's (1991) theory of preference for similarity is necessary, but I
propose to take his theory a step further. In general, same-race friends do
acknowledge a preference for similarities on the basis of race, but I suggest further
dividing this group into those who specifically acknowledge a racial preference and
those who discount or minimize the importance of race. Friends of color, the Black and
Chicana groups, openly cite a preference for racial similarities. It is likely that these
friends connect and relate well with one another because both friends share an
awareness of various issues associated with race. These issues include, but are not
limited to, dealing with racial discrimination, cultural differences, and being an ethnic
minority. White friends, on the other hand, rarely specifically mentioned race as an
important similarity, but alluded to racial preference when mentioning appreciation for
"similar backgrounds, upbringings, values, and ideals." In contrast to friends of color,
Whites may disregard or minimize the importance of race in their friendship because
they may not value or acknowledge their own racial identity in the same capacity that
people of color do.
The concept of a cross-racial friendship flies in the face of conventional
friendship formation on the basis of racial similarity. Duck (1997) would argue that
these cross-race friends might have based their likings on other similarities such as
correspondence of interests, attitudes, and personality characteristics. It does appear,
though there is perceptible physical and cultural dissimilarity, that cross-race friends do
value similarity in other areas such as religion, food, music, habits, and socioeconomic
status. It is probably that these cross-race friends relied heavily upon other similarities
outside of race to form their friendships. It seems counterintuitive then, if racial identity
Familiar Friend Values
20
and racial awareness are important to people of color (Rose, 1996), that befriending
Whites solely on the basis of other similarities besides race would be sufficient to
maintain a worthwhile friendship. The plethora of literature that cites similarity as the
basic element in friendship may need revision. In respects to forming cross-race
friendships, similarity in other areas besides race may be the initial factor in crossing
the race barrier. However, it seems as though other factors are essential in the
maintenance of cross-race friendships.
Examining the differences in content in the other domains of friendship, as well
as examining cross-race friends' appreciation of differences, provides insight into
potential areas that might help maintain quality cross-racial friendships. Black friends
emphasized the importance of acceptance and understanding, especially with regards
to race, in their friendships. These women might hesitate to share their feelings with
White peers because they do not think the White friends will understand or adequately
comprehend their feelings of frustration surrounding racial issues. These Black
women’s’ fears and concerns help us to understand some of the complex barriers to
cross-racial friendship. The African American lesbians in Hall and Rose's (1996) study
probably share similar feelings to these Black friends. When forming their cross-racial
friendships, they sought White women who had strong racial identities and displayed
sensitivity towards racial matters. Though the cross-race friends in this study did not
explicitly acknowledge an understanding and acceptance of race, they did show an
appreciation of differences. Perhaps acknowledging and appreciating differences is an
extension of racial acceptance and understanding.
Familiar Friend Values
21
Cross-race friends often appreciated learning about aspects of the other friend's
race or culture. The friends' appreciation of differences ranged from wanting to learn
more about hair extensions to understanding the differences in familial values to having
misconceptions about traditional White families dispelled. Each friend's interest and
desire to learn more about her friend's differences exhibits a vested interest and
commitment to the friendship. Gaines and Ickes (1997) would agree that these friends
are seeking to expand their knowledge of other cultures and partake in novel
experiences much like the interracial couples in their study. Though these friends did
not explicitly mention qualities such as reciprocity and acceptance as frequently as
other domains they mentioned, it appears that these cross-race friends are engaging in
these acts just by the nature of the appreciation of their differences.
The emotions the cross-race friends experienced after each discussion validated
their appreciation of differences—the appreciation of differences that same-race friends
did not exhibit. Cross-race friends experienced more curiosity and enthusiasm during
their discussions about race and values than the same-race friends did. Cross-race
friends’ feelings of curiosity and enthusiasm to learn more about their friend’s race or
culture have encouraged them to work harder to bridge the race gap. The emotions
cross-race friends reported after their discussion of values—appreciation, compassion,
and gratitude—give us much hope for the future of interracial friendships. We would
expect all friends to experience these positive emotions with their closest friends;
however, that cross-race friends experience these emotions to a greater degree than
same-race friends speaks volumes. These friends, whether consciously or
subconsciously, know that their friendships tap into something special that same-race
Familiar Friend Values
22
friendships do not have. It certainly seems as though cross-race friends highly value
their differences and enjoy learning and sharing their cultures with someone who
appreciates them. Perhaps where these friends cannot relate on racial similarities, they
can find comfort in their appreciation of differences and maintain a worthwhile,
reciprocal friendship.
This study’s limitations are simple. It had a small sample size and did not
represent all ethnic groups. Additionally, Weiss and Lowenthal (1975) framed their
domains of friendship in such a way that does not segment responses highlighting
racial differences. Suggestions for future research include creating coding mechanisms
that are sensitive to racial content and as well research that recognizes differences
across all races.
The future of interracial friendships is promising. Though researchers continue
to overlook this area of research, cross-race friends seem inherently adept at making
their friendships work. If we keep in mind the issues that people of color face and do
our best to validate and understand those feelings—as well as appreciate our
differences, cross-race friendships should become increasingly easier to form and
maintain. In today’s diverse world, the ultimate goal is to increase the frequency of
interracial friendships and perhaps increase the acceptance of racial differences.
Familiar Friend Values
23
References
Ajzen, I. (1977). Information processing approaches of interpersonal attraction. New
York: Academic Press.
Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1983). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MC: AddisonWesley.
Bigelow, B. & La Gaipa, J. (1980). The development of friendship values and choice.
In H. Foot, A, Chapman, & J. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in
children (pp. 15-44). New York: Wiley.
Blieszner, R. & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Clark, M. L. (1989). Friendships and peer relations in Black adolescents. In R. Jones
(Ed.), Black adolescents (pp. 175-204). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
Clark, M. L. & Ayers, M. (1988). The role of reciprocity and proximity in junior high
school friendships, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(5), 403-411.
Clark, M. L. & Ayers, M. (1992). Friendship similarity during early adolescence:
Gender and racial patterns. The Journal of Psychology, 126(4), 393-405.
Davis, K. E. & Todd, M. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases,
and relationship description. In S. W. Duck and D. Perlman (Eds.),
Understanding personal relationships. London: Sage.
Duck, S. (1977). The Study of Acquaintance. Teakfields, Saxon House: Farnborough.
Duck, S. (1982). Human Relationships. London: Sage.
Duck, S. (1988). Relating to Others. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Duck, S. (1991). Understanding Relationships. New York: Guilford.
Familiar Friend Values
24
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A
study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.
Gaines, S. O. Jr. & Ickes, W. (1997). Perspectives on interracial relationships. In S.
Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and
interventions (2nd ed.)(pp. 197-220). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gouldner, M. & Symons Strong, M. (1987). Speaking of Friendship: Middle-class
women and their friends. New York and London: Greenwood Press.
Hall, R. & Rose, S. (1996). Friendships between African-American and White
lesbians. In Jacqueline S. Weinstock & Esther D. Rothblum (Eds). Lesbian
Friendships: For ourselves and each other (pp. 165-191). New York: New York
University Press.
Hallinan, M. & Teixeira, R. (1987). Opportunities and constraints: Black-White
differences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child Development, 58,
1358-1371.
Hatfield, E., Utne, M. K., & Traupmann, J. (1979). Equity theory and intimate
relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in
developing relationships (pp. 99-133). New York: Academic Press.
Hays, R. B. (1989). The day-to-day functioning of close versus casual friendships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 21-37.
Johnson, F. L. & Aires, E. J. (1983). The talk of women friends. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 6, 353-361.
Familiar Friend Values
25
Kurdek, L. & Krile, D. (1982). A developmental analysis of the relationship between
peer acceptance and both interpersonal understanding and perceived social selfcompetence. Child Development, 53, 1485-1491.
Lott, A. J. & Lott, B. E. (1974). The role of reward in the formation of positive
interpersonal attitudes. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal
Attraction (pp. 171-192). New York and London: Academic Press.
O’Connor, P. (1992). Friendships between women: A critical review. New York:
Guilford.
Patzer, G. L. (1985). The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Plenum.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rodin, M. J. (1982). Non-engagement, failure to engage, and disengagement. In S.
Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships: Vol. 4. Dissolving personal relationships (pp.
31-49). London: Academic Press.
Rose, S. (1996). Who to let in: Women’s cross-race friendships. In J. C. Chrisler, C.
Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (pp.211226). New York: McGraw Hill.
Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendships. In Close
realtionships (pp. 164-186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tesch, S. A. & Martin, R. R. (1983). Friendship concepts of young adults in two age
groups. Journal of Psychology, 115, 7-12.
Familiar Friend Values
26
Weiss, L. & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life course perspectives on friendship. In M. F.
Lowenthal, M. Turner, D. Chiriboga, & Associates (Eds.), Four stages of life (pp.
48-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wheeler, L. (1974). Social comparison and selective affiliation. In T. L. Huston (Ed.),
Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction. New York and London: Academic
Press.
Woolsey, L. K. & McBain, L. L. (1987). Women’s networks: Strengthening the bonds of
friendships between women. In K. Storrie (Ed.), Women: Isolation and bonding
(pp. 59-76). Toronto, Ontario: Methuen.
Familiar Friend Values
27
Table 1
Means for Values of Friendship Across All Dyads
Friendship Dyads by Race
Domains
Black
Black/White
Chicana
Chicana/White
White
Total
Similarity
Reciprocity
Acceptance
Openness
Compatibility
Role Model
Uniqueness
Time
.800
3.800
1.200
1.800
2.000
.200
.400
.000
.571
1.429
.571
1.286
2.714
.857
.286
.429
1.500
2.100
1.200
.900
1.600
.600
.500
.400
1.286
2.286
.857
2.143
.857
.143
.714
.571
1.077
1.385
.923
1.154
1.615
.615
.462
.231
1.095
2.000
.9524
1.357
1.714
.524
.476
.333
Note: n Black = 5; n Black/White = 7; n Chicana = 10; n Chicana/White = 7; n White= 13.
Familiar Friend Values
28
Table 2
Means for Appreciation of Similarities and Differences Across All Dyads
Same Race
Similarities
Differences
Cross Race
White
Black
Chicana
Total
Black/White
Chicana/White
Total
2.54
0.62
3.60
0.00
5.00
0.40
3.78
0.39
0.57
1.71
1.57
1.71
1.07
1.71
Note: n same race = 18; n cross race = 24.
Familiar Friend Values
29
Table 3
Means for Emotions After Race and Values Discussions Between Same Race and Cross Race Dyads
Same Race
Cross Race
Composite
Emotions
Race Discussion
Values Discussion
Race Discussion Values Discussion
Curiosity
Enthusiasm
.973
.634
2.635
2.327
Appreciation
Compassion
Gratitude
2.810
4.863
3.410
6.205
Hope
Happiness
Love
Joy
2.746
5.326
3.808
6.010
Anger
Irritation
.625
.063
1.00
.154
Anxiety
Discomfort
Fear
.911
.583
1.359
.615
Embarrassment
Guilt
Shame
.637
.500
.654
.590
Note: Ratings are on a 9-pt. scale.