This document discusses gender differences and similarities in same-sex and cross-sex friendships. It argues that while same-sex friendships appear different for men and women based on gender stereotypes, there are also many similarities in what each gender desires from friendships. Cross-sex friendships face additional complexity due to societal expectations of romantic intent between men and women. Gender plays an influential role in shaping friendship norms but may not reflect the realities of how men and women engage in actual friendships.

1. 1
Debunking Friendships: Same-Sex and Cross-Sex
Kumiko Sasa
Colorado Mesa University
Dr. Wilhelm
Word Count: 3,662

2. 2
Friendships for both men and women have a variety of complexities. First, their same-sex
friendships are built on how society describes they should be given their gender. Women’s
friendships appear to center around communication, while men’s friendships appear to center
around activities. These friendships are based on what each gender is perceived to do more.
From this men and women’s same-sex friendships appear to be different, but in reality each
gender desires similar qualities for their friendships. Conclusively then, both men and women’s
friendships then should have an alike appearance, but the complexity is that they don’t. Second,
their cross-sex friendships aren’t built on how each gender should appear, but rather the societal
stereotype of romantic intent. In other words, men and women face the complexity of actually
maintaining a friendship without the perception of romance developing. Even with these
complications thou, both men and women find behavioral benefits to being in these friendships.
In short, gender plays an influential role in both shaping the norms and stereotypes of
friendships, but also in the reality of actual friendship behaviors.
Same-Sex Friendships
To begin, society, through the mechanism of gender scripts, has constructed how men
and women’s same sex-friendships are characterized. Gender scripts are essentially what society
expects males and females to do (Psychology Dictionary 2014). For example, gender role
orientation has influenced the acceptance of self- disclosure. It is socially perceived that men and
women have different forms of communication, almost like two different languages. Holmstrom
(2009) indicates that each gender is identified with one of the following two forms of
communication skills: affectively oriented or instrumentally oriented. Affectively oriented refers
to skills of giving comfort and attentive listening. Instrumentally oriented skills are identified as
persuasion and narration. From previous research, Holmstrom concludes that “in general, women

3. 3
value affectively oriented communication skills more than men, and men value instrumentally
oriented communication skills more than women” (2009:226). This conclusion comes from
society’s perception of women as being intimate, emotional, caring, and communal (Watson
2012). In addition to this view of women, society actively tells women to value
interconnectedness and nurturance (Felmlee, Sweet and Sinclair 2012). They are also “rated
more highly than men on communal attributes such as emotional expressiveness, nurturance,
interpersonal sensitivity, kindness, and responsiveness” (Ridgeway 2011:58). Undesirable traits
for women are domineering and arrogant.
Men on the other hand are portrayed by society as less emotional and more agentic. They
are seen as valuing instrumentally oriented communication skills, because society defines the
gender script of masculinity as negatively associated with disclosure (Bowman 2008). This act of
expressing emotions in a male to male friendship was associated with distress and undesirability
(Ridgeway 2011). Previous research has found that individuals internalize their gender self-
schema, and behave accordingly. Individuals with a masculine self- schema tend to process and
act upon on the masculine stereotypes more quickly than an individual with a feminine self-
schema (Bowman 2008). In other words, each individual is influenced by their social context,
this includes stereotypical behaviors. If a male acts more “feminine” then it is seen as a negative
because they are supposed to consistently behave masculine. In addition to not acting feminine,
they are taught by society to be more competitive, independent, and aggressive (Felmlee, Sweet,
and Sinclair 2012). They are also “rated more highly than women on agentic qualities such as
instrumental competence, assertiveness, confidence, independence, forcefulness, and
dominance” (Ridgeway 2011:58). Men are expected to behave less communal and more active.

4. 4
In all, looking at gender stereotypes, given social context, women have been encouraged
to be more open, intimate and nurturing. Boys have been led to be more competitive,
individualistic, and aggressive. Ultimately social norms and cultural context shape how each
individual, in friendships, does gender differently. Ridgeway (2009) explains that “stereotypical
beliefs about gender form a cultural frame through which people come to understand themselves
and others, which then shapes how people behave in particular relational contexts” (as cited in
Felmlee, Sweet and Sinclair 2012:520). With this cultural frame, these stereotypes ultimately
describe attributes associated with the typical man and woman. “In that sense, they are
descriptive in nature, providing a thumbnail sketch of what people take to be the way men and
women behave on average. But as the rules of the gender game, gender stereotypes have a
prescriptive quality as well” (Ridgeway 2011:58). Essentially, these assigned forms of
communication, according to gender role orientations, then create differences in the function of
same-sex friendships.
For females, the prescribed function of same-sex friendships is placed on maintaining and
building social networks (Watson 2012). Along with these friendships a high value is placed on
connectedness and relations with others (Felmlee, Sweet and Sinclair 2012). Therefore, higher
expectations for female same-sex friends are placed with regards to intimacy, mutual activities,
and loyalty. As a result, the engagement tends to be more communal, intimate, disclosed, and
emotionally supportive as friendships are seen as central to their self-image (Caldwell 1982). For
males on the other hand, their same-sex friendships function as a way to promote individuality,
status, and reputation (Watson 2012). From Felmlee, Sweet and Sinclair’s article (2012), they
explain that males describe themselves more in terms of their independence with others. As their
prescribed behavior suggests, men have been led by society to be more competitive and

5. 5
individualistic than nurturing or communicative. As a result, their preferred engagement is doing
different activities rather than talking (Caldwell 1982). In short, men’s friendships are more
instrumental and agentic, with a focus on shared activities. Each of societies gender ideologies
influence the perceptions and/or expectations of both males and females same-sex friendships. In
the end, these expectations shape the behaviors that each gender has within their same-sex
friendships, due to how they want society to perceive them and how they perceive themselves in
their same-sex friendships.
Given this research, each gender’s same-sex friendships seem to be polar opposites from
one another. They have been shaped to the gender scripts of this culture. Then through social
interactions, “men and women most often observe on another in the kind of interaction that
causes men to appear not only higher status and competent but also more assertive, independent,
and agentic, while women appear not only lower status but also more communal and
interpersonally sensitive” (Ridgeway 2011:66). Female friendships are believed to be communal;
whereas, male friendships are believed to value a more agentic approach. Ultimately, what we
see is shaped by what we expect to see, which in this case appears to reflect reality, but in
actuality, both men and women have similar values and desires for their friendships. Conversely,
their behaviors in same-sex friendship highlight or exemplify the degree of these similarities
given gender stereotypes and social context. Some of these similarities between males and
females include the core expectations of trust and integrity for their friendships (Watson 2012).
They also want “intimate relationships.” By definition this means that they want “someone with
whom one can really communicate and in whom one can confide about feelings and problems”
(Caldwell and Peplau 1982:731). Furthermore, Holmstrom’s (2009) data concludes that they also
place a higher emphasis on affectively oriented skills (giving comfort and listening attentively).

6. 6
Within these friendships both genders also value communion and agency, yet men typically
value agency more in their friendships (Watson 2012). One of the interesting things to note here
is how various articles identified how society has portrayed males to disclose little personal
information and fewer emotions (Bowman 2008; Caldwell and Peplau 1982; Watson 2012).
However, in relation with self-disclosure, Bowman’s (2008) study identifies that men do self-
disclose just less about negative information. They also “appear to be as open as women on non-
intimate topics such as hobbies and favorite sports” (Caldwell and Peplau 1982:723). Given
these similarities, men and women express that they have a variety of things in common for their
friendships. Therefore, the question is then how do they appear to be so different.
One of the major things that various article described is the difference between genders in
gossip tendencies and activities among same-sex friendships. First, Watson (2012) argues that
gender differences play a role in the relationship between friendship quality and gossip tendency.
In other words, “differences in gender role socialization produce stable differences in how gossip
is used in the context of friendship” (Watson 2012:495). In support of this argument, it is
necessary to understand gender differences in the conceptualization of friendship, and friendship
functions given the gossip aspects of social information, achievement, and physical appearance.
To begin, Watson describes two dimensions that may be factors in gender differences in
friendship and gossip: communion and agency (2012:494). These are broken down into the basic
perceptions of societies stereotypes of women and men. Females are seen to be more communal
in their friendships. They value a broad range of friends, intimate connections and self-
disclosure. Men are seen to value communion but are more agentic with their friendships. They
value a limited amount of friendships, through instrumental activities. Bank and Hansford (2011)
describe various factors that help to produce these types of friendships for males; for instance

7. 7
“emotional restraint, masculine identity and homophobia” (as cited in Watson 2012:495).
Expectations from society, about proper masculinity, have shaped men’s interactions and
behaviors. They are limited in self-disclosure, while it is socially acceptable for females to be
more intimate and expressive. All of this is particular important in understanding gossip
tendencies and its relationship to the function of friendships.
In accordance with these gender scripts, gossip aspects of social information
achievement, and physical appearance also differ by gender in relation to the contrast of
perception about friendships. The first component of gossip is social information or the
discussion of different social topics. For males and their agency oriented friendships, these
friendships mainly involve teamwork and shared activities. Gossip acts as a way of business in
this component. It controls shared information, regulates and enforces the norms, and prevents
social idleness. Achievement gossip is another way that males emphasis agency in friendship.
Watson indicates that a great concern for individuality, status and reputation is placed by society
on male friendships and reinforced through interaction (2012:495). Through sharing individual
accomplishments, males promote themselves by displaying how much money they have, their
status, and the level of power they may possess. In contrast, female friendships are more focused
on maintaining and building connections with other females through similar interests, passions,
and activities. Then the final component of gossip is physical appearance. Female friendships
tend to value this form of gossip more than males. Massar and colleagues (2012) suggest that this
along with gossip about sexual reputation “is the focal elements of the evolutionary value of
gossip, as this is a means of intrasexual competition for potential mates” (as cited in Watson
2012:496). Females use this as an aggression tactic to reduce a same-gender rival’s
attractiveness. In a sense it is similar to males’ gossip of achievement through their image of

8. 8
wealth, status and power. However, men are less likely to intimately gossip about close
individuals and more likely to do so about distant individuals. As for women they are more likely
to gossip about close individuals. They may work to separate themselves from some of their
other girlfriends through beauty comparison and degradation to make themselves look better.
In short, friendships serve as a context for gossiping. Through these actions they can
promote symbols of power, attractiveness, wealth, and quality of friendship. It’s also a way of
connecting, creating social networks, endorsing one’s individuality, and reiterating gender
scripts. Through socialization and gender characterization, society has promoted how each
gender is supposed to behave. Friendships then provide the context for acting upon these
stereotypes and doing gender. As described above, males and females have been socialized to
value either communal or agentic friendships. Females are taught to place less emphasis on their
own accomplishments and build social networks. Therefore, their friendships mainly value
gossip elements of social information and communication. Males on the other hand, are taught to
be more individualistic and active. Their friendships mainly value gossip elements of social
information and achievement, and less of actual communication. This pattern can be seen in
Bowman’s (2008) study as he argues that gender role orientation influences an individual’s self-
reported, self-disclosure behavior. Previous research suggests that men are more hesitant to self-
disclose or discuss sadness or fears with their male friends. The cultural stereotype that Bowman
tries to address is that men are negatively associated with self-disclosure due to their masculine
gender role orientation. Bowman’s research was conducted using 115 heterosexual male
undergraduate students ranging from 18 to 25. They were given a Friendship Behavior
Questionnaire, which included items from other researcher’s methods, such as the Revised Self-
Disclosure Scale, liking scale, Social Attraction Scale, and Bem’s Sex Role Inventory. These

9. 9
scales were used to measure the closeness of relationships through interdependence and other’s
knowledge of self and communicative depth, breadth and valence. The Bem’s Sex Role
questions were primarily used to determine the gender role orientation of the participants.
Overall, the study concludes that the more an individual identified with a masculine gender
orientation the less likely they were willing to share negative information. Surprisingly, in
relation to component one (the amount of disclosure), there was a positive correlation between
the men’s self-reported amount of disclosure and masculine gender role orientation. This was
also the same fore men’s self-reported amount of self-disclosure and feminine gender role
orientation. In all, both men and women share common expectations and interests for their
friendships; however, due to ideal gender scripts of communal or agentic relationships, these
stereotypes shape the actual behaviors within the context of same-sex friendships.
Cross-Sex Friendships
In a similar manner, cross-sex friendships are also shaped by gender. For same-sex
friendships gender scripts are present for each gender, but not so much for cross-sex friendships.
One of the first things that Felmlee, Sweet, and Sinclair (2012) describe is how the cultural
expectations for cross-sex friendships are vague, because they lack cultural scripts to guide social
interaction. Looking at society, media images have created cultural scripts that define cross-sex
friendships as a context for dating, romance, and sexual activities. This has created a challenge
for cross-sex friendships to just be friends instead of lovers. Further, it has established a
complexity of different friendship levels and definitions of love (Guerrero and Chavez 2005;
O’Meara 1989). The four categories, as described by Guerrero and Chavez (2005), of cross-sex
friendships are particularly important to understanding this overall argument. First, mutual
romance is where both friends have hopes or expectations for the friendship to turn romantic.

10. 10
Second, strictly platonic is where neither friend has hopes or expectations for romance. Third,
desires romance, is where one friend has romantic interest in the other, but believes it isn’t
reciprocal. Fourth, rejects romance, is where one friend doesn’t have romantic interest in the
other, but believes the other has romantic intentions. Depending on these categories, there are
different goals for each relationship that ultimately affect how both friends will engage.
Then given the particular category of the cross-sex friendships above, there are three
challenges that O’Meara describes cross-sex friends may face: the emotional bond challenge, the
public presentation challenge, and the sexual challenge (as cited in Guerrero and Chavez 2005).
For the emotional bond, the results indicated that mutual and desires romance were more likely
to talk less about outside romance. This may be explained by the hopes for a future courtship. As
for strictly platonic and reject romance friendships, they are more likely to share past
relationships or outside romance to signal a disinterest in developing a relationship. This is
similar for contact. Friends interested in romance were in contact more frequently than those
who weren’t. While in contact, flirting may be used to show romantic feelings in the situation. In
order to maintain that boundary of strictly friends, those who rejected romance or strictly
platonic, didn’t encourage romantic feelings by frequent encounters. They will typically avoid
flirting and withdraw from interaction to discourage their admirer’s romantic interest. Now, for
public presentation, cross-sex friendships also have to maintain a balance of partaking in public
and private activities (O’Meara 1989). Suspicion and labeling can occur if too much time is spent
privately. The representation of the friendship can also lead to questioning the nature of the
friendship, romantic involvement, or actual intent of the friendship by other friends and
audiences. This may also raise jealousy within marriage and relationships. Questions of cheating
or sexual intimacy may arise, ultimately threatening both relationships. This leads to one of the

11. 11
most endorsed rules within cross-sex friendships, according to Argyle and Henderson (1984), is
that any contact that is perceived as sexual is not allowed (as cited in Felmlee, Sweet and Sinclair
2012). Sexual attraction is one of the other potential problems in these types of friendships. As
O’Meara explains, “the challenge to cross-sex friends is to successfully develop a definition of
the type of love they experience” (1989:533). This is in reference to Rawlins (1982)
conceptualization of emotional bonds that men and women may have in friendships and romantic
relationships (as cited in O’Meara 1989). “These include (1) friendship- ‘a voluntary, mutual,
personal and affectionate relationship devoid of expressed sexuality,’ (2) platonic love-which
includes ‘high emotional commitment without sexual activity,’ (3) friendship love- which is a
‘potentially unstable interplay between emotional and sexual expression of affection,’ (4)
physical love- with a ‘high sexual involvement with little emotional commitment,’ (5) romantic
love –implying ‘an exclusive sexual and emotional relationship’ ” (as cited in O’Meara
1989:533). From each of these levels, cross-sex friends monitor and regulate where their
friendship is. As mentioned before, each gender may have a different perception of their
friendship and the type of love they feel leading to more complex situations in cross-sex
friendships.
Now despite these challenges, this lack of cultural gender norms for cross-sex friendships
actually allows each gender to bend gender stereotypes. Given the two forms of communication
styles, that men are supposed to be instrumentally oriented and females are supposed to be
affectively oriented, men and women tend to embrace opposite styles. Interestingly, together
these serve as almost a break from the stereotypical behaviors (Holmstrom 2009). Solono (1986)
established three valuable functions a friendship serves: material needs, cognitive needs, and
socio-emotional needs (as cited in Lenton and Webber 2006:811). Cross-sex friendships meet

12. 12
these needs differently than same-sex friendships. Men in these types of friendships receive more
social support and emotional gratification than they do in their same-sex friendships. They feel
freer to express more feminine qualities, such as sadness and weakness. However, as O’Meara
(1989) indicates the public representation challenge in cross-sex friendships, a man may be seen
or labeled as a “sissy” or “emotional.” The presentation of being able to be more feminine may
create the assumption of homosexuality. As a result, this can create a deterrent for men to form a
cross-sex friendship. With respect to women, they found it easier to be more competitive.
Monsour (2002) also mentions that women believed cross-sex friendships provided them an
“objective perspective” that a same-sex friendship couldn’t provide (as cited in Holmstrom
2009:228). In other words, women had an insider perspective of the opposite sex that their same-
sex friendship couldn’t provide. In a positive light these cross-sex relationships allow both men
and women to cross gender boundaries. However, both men and women are also faced with
various challenges which make this friendship complex. Even though men and women in cross-
sex friendships aren’t given gender scripts, society still shapes these relationships through the
stereotypes of cross-sex friendships being romanticized.
Once more, ideal gender scripts provide somewhat of a mold for cross-sex friendships.
Given the social expectations for these types of relationships, each gender is constrained to act a
certain way. This notion is similar manner to same-sex friendships, in that females are expected
to behave more communal and males more agentic. On the contrary though, this type of
friendship allows each gender to behave less like their stereotyped behaviors.
Conclusion
Given the role of gender in both cross and same sex-friendships, there are a variety of
complexities. Both males and females are given gender scripts that influence their actions within

13. 13
these relationships. Particularly in same-sex friendships, males are seen as more agentic and
instrumental, due to the constraints and fears of homosexuality and judgment. Whereas females
are seen as more communal and affectively oriented, due to the social acceptance of emotional
expression and value of comfort. As for cross-sex friendships, society has briefly categorized this
relationship as romantic involvement. This has ultimately constrained each genders actions
within and created various challenges for an actually friendship to develop. Under such
circumstances of stereotypes and norms, gender plays a primary role in the perplexity of
friendship.

14. 14
REFERENCES
Bowman, Jonathan M. 2008. “Gender Role Orientation and Relational Closeness: Self
Disclosive Behavior in Same-Sex Male Friendships.” Journal of Men’s Studies 16(3):
316-330.
Caldwell, Mayta A., and Letitia Anne Peplau.1982. “Sex Differences in Same-Sex Friendships.”
Sex Roles 8(7):721-732.
Felmlee, Diana, Elizabeth Sweet, and H. Colleen Sinclair. 2012. “Gender Rules: Same- and
Cross-Gender Friendships Norms.” Sex Roles 66(7/8):518-529.
Guerrero, Laura K. and Alana M. Chavez. 2005. “Relational Maintenance in Cross-Sex
Friendships Characterized by Different Types of Romantic Intent: An Exploratory
Study.” Western Journal of Communication 69(4): 339-358.
Holmstrom, Amanda J. 2009. “Sex and Gender Similarities and Differences in Communication
Values in Same-Sex and Cross-Sex Friendships.” Communication Quarterly 57(2):224
238.
Lenton, Alison P. and Laura Webber. 2006. “Cross-sex Friendships: Who has More?” Sex Roles
54(1): 809-820.
O’Meara, J. Donald. 1989. “Cross-Sex Friendship: Four Basic Challenges of an Ignored
Relationship.” Sex Roles 21(7/8):525-543.
Psychology Dictionary. 2014. “What is Gender Script? Definition of Gender Script.” Psychology
Dictionary. Retrieved May 6, 2014 (http://psychologydictionary.org/gender-script/)
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern
World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15. 15
Watson, David C. 2012. “Gender Differences in Gossip and Friendship.” Sex Roles 67(1): 494
502.