Running head: GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
The Impact of Gender and Friendship Research in the Field of Social Behavior
Beatrice L. Rosen
Emory University
1
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2
The Impact of Gender and Friendship Research in the Field of Social Behavior
More than 40 published studies and articles, dating back to 1974, have contributed to the
firmly established finding that men’s same-sex friendships are less intimate and supportive than
women’s (Bank & Hansford, 2000). Bank and Hansford (2000) tested six possible variables to
explain this robust finding: lack of parental models for friendship, emotional restraint,
homophobia, masculine self-identity, competitive striving, and role conflicts. Emotional restraint
and homophobia toward gay men were the two predominant variables accredited with these
gender effects on both intimacy and support in best friendships (Bank & Hansford, 2000).
Masculine self-identity was a variable that moderated the relationship between gender and
intimate – but not supportive – friendship. On the other hand, same-sex parents with close
friendships moderated the relationship between gender and supportive – but not intimate –
friendship (Bank & Hansford, 2000). I argue that Bank and Hansford’s (2000) article is one of
the most important to come from psychological research because of the impact that the study’s
findings have had on a variety of investigated and applied topics in the realm of social behavior.
Since 2002 and November 2012 the study has been cited in at least 29 journal articles, and I
believe it will continue to be incredibly influential over time, for interpersonal friendships
permeate our daily lives.
Lewis (1978) sparked initial empirical investigations into sex differences in intimate
friendships through his own study of emotional intimacy and friendship. Lewis (1978) found that
although most males report a higher number of same-sex friendships than women do, most of
these are not close, intimate, or characterized by self-disclosure. This could be because men may
experience obstacles to emotional intimacy out of the demands of traditional male roles in
society, such as pressures to compete, homophobia, aversion to vulnerability, and lack of
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
3
adequate role models (Lewis, 1978). Stokes, Fuehrer, and Childs (1980) verified Lewis’s
findings in their study regarding gender differences in self-disclosure to various target persons.
One of these target persons included intimates, and females were more willing than males to
disclose to intimates. Stokes’ et al. (1980) findings further verified a tendency for men to avoid
emotional intimacy with one another because of competition and homophobia.
To ensure the existence of sex differences found in the nature of interactions with friends,
Caldwell and Peplau (1982) examined if men and women varied in quantitative aspects of
friendship. This includes the number of friends, the amount of time spent with friends, or the
value placed on intimate friendships. Results showed that they did not differ (Caldwell & Peplau,
1982). Thus, the quantitative variable of friendship established as consistent for both sexes
(Caldwell & Peplau, 1982), research on the intimacy of social relationships continued when Reis,
Senchak, and Solomon (1985) studied diary-like reports of naturalistic interaction to gain deeper
insight into the issue. The reports also indicated that males’ same-sex interaction was
substantially less intimate than that of females (Reis et al., 1985). Williams (1985) then brought
the variables of masculinity and femininity into the investigation by testing the degree to which
they contributed to the relationship between gender and emotional intimacy. Through Spence,
Helmreich, and Stapp’s (1973) Personal Attributes Questionnaire (as cited in Williams, 1985),
Williams first confirmed that males report significantly lower levels of intimacy in same-sex
friendship than do females. He then found that masculinity, defined in terms of instrumental
qualities, has little effect on the degree of reported intimacy. Femininity, defined in terms of
expressive qualities, is positively associated with intimate friendship (Williams, 1985). Sex-role
expectations also appear to prohibit displays of emotional vulnerability among males (Williams,
1985).
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
4
Reisman (1990) investigated further into the subject of intimacy in same-sex friendships
through his specific evaluation of whether females are more disclosing in same-sex friendships
than are males. The three studies he conducted differed from previous ones in that they each
involved different ages: adolescents, undergraduates, and adults. Men did not seem to feel as
close to same-sex friends as females, as previous findings had already established (Bank &
Hansford, 2000), and both sexes believe that females are more disclosing of feelings and
problems than are males (Reisman, 1990). Males seemed to wish to be more disclosing,
however, but expected to be more open mainly in other-sex friendships (Reisman, 1990). During
adulthood this concern about disclosure in same-sex friendships decreased, yet women reported
feeling more at ease in relating to other women than to men throughout all stages of their lives
(Reisman, 1990). Adolescents reported an expectancy to become more disclosing in other-sex
friendships in adulthood and the spousal relationship to be the most intimate (Reisman, 1990).
Levant, et al. (1992) narrowed the investigation to the specific study of the male role in
light of contemporary norms. Levant and colleagues (1992) developed the Male Role Norms
Inventory (MRNI), which consists of 58 items grouped into 7 subscales that measure
theoretically derived norms of traditional masculinity ideology: avoidance of femininity,
homophobia, self-reliance, aggression, achievement/status, attitudes toward sex, and restrictive
emotionality. Avoidance of femininity seemed to be a homogenous and constantly changing
factor of male role norms, whereas self-reliance and aggression seemed to tap aspects of male
role norms that remain stable. Yet the MRNI is by no means a set inventory, but rather an
ongoing development with a consistently altered structure based on current psychological
research (Levant, Hall, & Rankin, 2013). The developments have led Levant and colleagues (as
cited in Levant et al., 2013) to change the inventory’s name to Male Role Norms Inventory –
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
5
Revised, or MRNI-R, and a 21-item MRNI-Short Form, or MRNI-SF, also exists. The most
recent study that reports the evolution of the MRNI-R and MRNI-SF was conducted just this
month: April, 2013 (Levant et al., 2013).
From the initial development of the MRNI to the multitudinous published studies and
articles, the hypothesis that men’s same-sex friendships are less intimate and supportive than
women’s was confirmed by the 21st century (Bank & Hansford, 2000). Bank and Hansford
(2000) therefore came up with six possible explanations as to why such gender differences are so
prevalent. The explanations were based on the results from the preceding studies, specifically
that they seemed likely to be related to gender, on the one hand, and intimacy and supportiveness
of best same-sex friendships, on the other (Bank & Hansford, 2000). Each also seemed to explain
how and why gender affects same-sex friendships in the manner suggested in the literature (Bank
& Hansford, 2000).
The six possible explanations were lack of parental models for friendship, emotional
restraint, homophobia, masculine self-identity, competitive strivings, and role conflicts (Bank &
Hansford, 2000). A variety of questionnaires that used 16 total measures to operationalize the six
variables were distributed to 324 female students and 241 male students, ranging from freshmen
to graduates, at a large Midwestern state university. Best friendships described by men and
women were the same kinds of relationships, and not surprisingly, fewer than one-fifth of the
men in the study scored above the mean or median of the women’s scores on intimate friendship.
Yet men do enjoy friendships that are intimate and supportive more than those that are not (Bank
& Hansford, 2000).
Lack of same-sex parental model for friendship had an independent, significant effect on
supportive, but not intimate, friendship (Bank & Hansford, 2000). Men were also more likely
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
6
than women to lack same-sex parental models and to favor men’s career commitment (Bank &
Hansford, 2000). Both of these tendencies decreased the supportiveness of respondents’ best
same-sex friendship. Emotional restraint and homophobia toward gay men provided the most
explanatory power for gender effects on both intimacy and support in best friendships, most
likely because both of these variables tap a tendency to be cautious or reserved in personal
relationships (Bank & Hansford, 2000). Masculine self-identity and the norm for men’s career
commitment did not have significant effects on supportive friendship, but did mediate the
relationship between intimate friendship (Bank & Hansford, 2000). Status orientation, one of the
supposed measures of competitive strivings, was lower for men than for women and was
positively related to intimate friendship (Bank & Hansford, 2000). The findings related to status
orientation overall signify that status-seeking in one’s friendship actually advances levels of
intimacy and support, and that women find it more important than men that their friendships
provide them with statutes involving respect, influence, and prominence (Bank & Hansford,
2000).
Bank and Hansford (2000) were still unable to explain all of the effects of gender on
intimate and supportive friendships through their study. However, Bank and Hansford (2000)
suggest more explanations could be found if future research takes a different approach by
abandoning the male deficit model of friendship in favor of studying the reasons why some men
and women seek close same-sex friendships.
Bank and Hansford’s (2000) published article disclosing their study’s results guided the
research approaches and methods of 29 subsequent studies to further the in-depth examination of
gender differences in friendship. Wright (2006) explored sex differences within a broader
conceptual and empirical context because he believed previous research, like Bank and
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
7
Hansford’s (2000), clearly favors a single model of friendship rather than separate models for
men and women. Wright (2006) therefore reexamined this previous research to provide an
overall empirical picture, and utilized its implications to propose an expanded orientation of the
study of women’s and men’s friendships.
Borsari and Carey (2006) applied the previous findings to study how the quality of peer
relationships enhance the influence of social reinforcement, modeling, and cognitive processes
on personal alcohol use in college. The quality of peer relationships influences drinking by
means of three ways: The lack or breakdown of quality peer relationships, alcohol use being an
integral part of peer interactions, and if peers disapprove of alcohol use or do not drink (Borsari
& Carey, 2006). This conceptualization of peer influence supports the finding of gender
differences in college drinking (Borsari & Carey, 2006).
Bank and Hansford’s (2000) findings were further applied to the study of understanding
the social and emotional lives of gifted students, which sets forth an inclusive treatment of social
and emotional development in high-ability learners (Hébert, 2011). Hébert (2011) examined the
social and emotional characteristics and behaviors displayed by gifted learners, the friendships
and family relationships that support them, situational effects that determine their social and
emotional lives, and identity development. Based on the study’s results, Hébert (2011) proposes
a framework design of the ideal gifted-friendly classroom environment for social and emotional
development, as well as a thorough compilation of resources to support professionals in gifted
education research and practice.
Recent studies have also focused on gender differences pertaining to friendship ideals and
gossip. Demir and Orthel (2011) investigated if men and women have different ideals for their
friendships, and the resulting feelings if their actual friendship experiences fell short of their
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
8
ideals. The real and ideal best friendships of women were higher in quality and lower in conflict
when compared to those of men (Demir & Orthel, 2011). Friendship quality and gossip
tendencies are also related to gender differences because gossip can increase the bond between
people and sense of belonging to a group (Watson, 2012). Watson (2012) found that friendship
quality affirmatively corresponds with gossip inclination in males, but not with females. This
finding may be due to the greater importance males place on status, and that possession of
knowledge and control of information is a method of gaining status (Watson, 2012). Gossip
associated with achievement was also related to male friendship quality, which reflects the
greater emphasis on individuation in male friendships (Watson, 2012). As for females, physical
appearance gossip is more prevalent, but not related to friendship quality because it is more of a
competitive threat to the relationship (Watson, 2012).
From ideals (Demir & Orthel, 2011) and alcohol use (Borsari & Carey, 2006), to gifted
students (Hébert, 2011) and gossip (Watson, 2012), Bank and Hansford (2000) impacted
numerous studies across a variety of issues within the realm of social behavior research through
their study on why men’s best same-sex friendships are less intimate and supportive than
female’s best same-sex friendships. Previous studies that consistently confirmed the finding of
such gender differences in friendship degree and intimacy led Bank and Hansford (2011) to
conduct their study regarding why this was so. I argue the published article that documents their
study’s findings holds its own historical significance because of the influence it has had in the
past decade on a variety of areas of psychological research, inquiry, and application. Thus, I
believe their study is one of the most important papers to come from psychological research in
the area of social behavior.
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
References
Bank, B.J., & Hansford, S.L. (2000). Gender and friendship: Why are men’s best samesex friendships less intimate and supportive? Personal Relationships, 7, 6378.
Borsari, B., & Carey, K.B. (2006). How the quality of peer relationships influences
college alcohol use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25, 361-370.
Caldwell, M.A., & Peplau, L.A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex
Roles, 8, 721-732.
Demir, M., & Orthel, H. (2011). Friendship, real-ideal discrepancies, and well-being:
gender differences in college students. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary
and Applied, 145, 173-193.
Hébert, T.P. (2011). Understanding the social and emotional lives of gifted students.
Texas: Prufrock Press.
Levant, R.F., Hall, R.J., & Rankin, T.J. (2013). Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form
(MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of structure,
and measurement invariance across gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60,
228-238.
Levant, R.F., Hirsch, L.S., Celentano, E., Cozza, T.M., et al. (1992). The male role: An
investigation of contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counselor
Association, 14, 325-337.
Lewis, R.A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 108121.
Reis, H.T., Senchak, M., Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of social
9
GENDER AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1204-1217.
Reisman, J.M. (1990). Intimacy in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles, 23, 65-82.
Stokes, J., Fuehrer, A., & Childs, L. (1980). Gender differences in self-disclosure to
various target persons. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 192-198.
Watson, D.C. (2012). Gender differences in gossip and friendship. Sex Roles, 67, 494502.
Williams, D.G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in
same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587-600.
Wright, P.H. (2006). Toward an expanded orientation to the comparative study of
women’s and men’s same-sex friendships. In K. Dindia and D. Canary (Eds.),
Sex differences and similarities in communication, 2nd ed. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
10