Zhana Vrangalova,
Rachel E. Bukberg, &
Gerulf Rieger

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2013


Humans have a fundamental need to belong
(Baumeister & Leary, 2005)







Same-sex friendships – critical for satis...
Attitudes or behaviors that are more liberal or
extensive than what is normative in a social group
 Extensive research on...








For stigmatized people, important source of
friendships could be those similar to them
Homophily – people tend...




Women judged more negatively for sexual
permissiveness than men
Ongoing debate:





Everyone believes it exists
...






Negative main effects of target
permissiveness - Replicate and extend findings
to various aspects of friendship d...






751 (mostly) heterosexual college students
(75% female) aged 18 to 23 (M = 19.7).
Recruitment through 7 in-class
...




Participant permissiveness. Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R; Penke &
Asendorpf, 2008), a 9-item mea...


Overall friendship evaluation (-3/+3):





Friendship-relevant personality preferences (-9/+9)
- friendship prefere...






Negative main effect of target permissiveness in
7 of 10 outcomes; and in at least some sets of
Ps, a negative ef...












Friendship desirability: 2 > 20*
Mate guarding: 2 > 20
Competence: 2 > 20
Warmth: 2 > 20*
Dominance:...
Outcome
 Friendship desirability*:
 Mate guarding:
 Competence:
 Warmth:
 Dominance:
 Extraversion:
 Emotional Stab...






Sexually permissive people are stigmatized as
same-sex friends, and may be at increased risk
of loneliness, isola...


College environment



3:1 ratio women: men in sample



Hypothetical scenarios paradigm



Cross-sex friendships?
Funding:




Cornell University Human Ecology Alumni
Association
American Institute of Bisexuality
Birds of a Feather Talk - SSSS 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Birds of a Feather Talk - SSSS 2013

781 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
781
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Birds of a Feather Talk - SSSS 2013

  1. 1. Zhana Vrangalova, Rachel E. Bukberg, & Gerulf Rieger Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2013
  2. 2.  Humans have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 2005)    Same-sex friendships – critical for satisfying this need (Stevens & Van Tilburg, 2011) Stigmatized groups are at risk for having fewer friends (isolation, loneliness, discrimination) And consequently, for increased psychological and physical health risks
  3. 3. Attitudes or behaviors that are more liberal or extensive than what is normative in a social group  Extensive research on partners, friends, & general person preferences finds it undesirable:      Sociometric studies Experimental studies Questionnaire studies Reasons for undesirability:   Evolutionary – Cheating & Mate poaching Socio-cultural – Stigmatized
  4. 4.     For stigmatized people, important source of friendships could be those similar to them Homophily – people tend to associate with similar ones (McPherson et al., 2001) But drawbacks in same-sex friendships – greater chance for mate poaching; even more so with permissiveness If permissive people are rejected not only by nonpermissive, but also by permissive people, that would place them at heightened risk.
  5. 5.   Women judged more negatively for sexual permissiveness than men Ongoing debate:    Everyone believes it exists Experimental evidence is mixed Particularly strong in same-sex friendships?  Women control women’s sexuality more (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002)  Women have higher expectations of friends (Hall, 2011)
  6. 6.    Negative main effects of target permissiveness - Replicate and extend findings to various aspects of friendship desirability. Double standard - Contribute to ongoing debate re its existence. Participant permissiveness moderation of the negative main effect of target permissiveness.
  7. 7.    751 (mostly) heterosexual college students (75% female) aged 18 to 23 (M = 19.7). Recruitment through 7 in-class announcements. 30-min anonymous online survey.
  8. 8.   Participant permissiveness. Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), a 9-item measure of casual sex motivation, attitudes, and experience Target permissiveness. Participants read one of two descriptions of a hypothetical same-sex person . Descriptions were identical except for target lifetime number (2 or 20) of sex partners.
  9. 9.  Overall friendship evaluation (-3/+3):    Friendship-relevant personality preferences (-9/+9) - friendship preferences * target perceptions        Friend Desirability – liking, wants to be friends (3 items) Mate guarding – allow friendship w/ own partner (1 item) Competence (e.g. intelligent, responsible, independent) Warmth (e.g. honest, caring, trustworthy, considerate) Emotional Stability (e.g. fearful, fragile, spoiled, insecure) Dominance (e.g. dominant, wealthy, popular, aggressive) Extraversion (e.g. sociable, fun, easy going, shy-reverse) Morality (e.g. moral, faithful). Target Sexuality Endorsement (Yes/No)   Liked Sexuality Disliked Sexuality
  10. 10.    Negative main effect of target permissiveness in 7 of 10 outcomes; and in at least some sets of Ps, a negative effect in 9 of 10. Ps permissiveness moderated target permissiveness in 5 of 10 outcomes: Attenuated or eliminated, never reversed preferences. Gender moderated effects in 7 of 10 outcomes.
  11. 11.           Friendship desirability: 2 > 20* Mate guarding: 2 > 20 Competence: 2 > 20 Warmth: 2 > 20* Dominance: 2 > 20 Extraversion: 20 > 2 Emotional Stability: 2 > 20 Morality: 2 > 20* Liked sexuality: 2 > 20* Disliked sexuality: 2 > 20 *Moderation by Ps permissiveness Orange – No preference or preference for permissive target
  12. 12. Outcome  Friendship desirability*:  Mate guarding:  Competence:  Warmth:  Dominance:  Extraversion:  Emotional Stability*:  Morality*:  Liked sexuality*:  Disliked sexuality: Permissive No pref 2 > 20 20 > 2 No pref No pref 20 > 2 2 > 20 No pref No pref 2 > 20 Nonpermissive 2 > 20 2 > 20 20 > 2 No pref No pref 20 > 2 No pref 2 > 20* 2 > 20 2 > 20
  13. 13.    Sexually permissive people are stigmatized as same-sex friends, and may be at increased risk of loneliness, isolation, and related negative outcomes. Permissive women might be at a particularly high risk. Permissive men are often not discriminated against by other men, particularly not by other permissive men.
  14. 14.  College environment  3:1 ratio women: men in sample  Hypothetical scenarios paradigm  Cross-sex friendships?
  15. 15. Funding:   Cornell University Human Ecology Alumni Association American Institute of Bisexuality

×