Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Conceptions of friendship: how women and men perceive themselves and others in the context of their friendships Parker, Sandra 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 P37_5.pdf [ 7.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098118.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098118-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098118-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098118-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098118-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098118-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098118-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098118-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098118.ris

Full Text

CONCEPTIONS OF FRIENDSHIP: HOW WOMEN AND MEN PERCEIVE THEMSELVES AND OTHERS IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR FRIENDSHIPS. by Sandra Parker B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES F a c u l t y of A r t s ( C l i n i c a l Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1990 @ Sandra Parker, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT T h i s study examined the ways i n which women and men view themselves and t h e i r women and men f r i e n d s , i n the con t e x t of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . N i n e t y - f i v e female and 95 male undergraduates completed the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n which they r a t e d each of t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s , and r a t e d themselves with each of those f r i e n d s , on 13 dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . T e s t - r e t e s t procedures demonstrated the measure had s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l i a b i l i t y . The g e n e r a l r e s u l t s are r e f l e c t e d i n t h r e e p a t t e r n s of f r i e n d s h i p : 1) r e l a t i o n s h i p s with men f r i e n d s tend to be l e s s r e c i p r o c a l than r e l a t i o n s h i p s with women f r i e n d s i n s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , empathic understanding, deepening o t h e r ' s s e l f awareness, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; 2) men's same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s tend to be lower i n a p p r e c i a t i o n , empathic understanding, deepening other's s e l f awareness, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and empowerment; and 3) women tend to r e p o r t t h a t they g i v e more than they r e c e i v e i n f r i e n d s h i p s with women and men, on empathic understanding, s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , and connectedness. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study support the n o t i o n t h a t a l t h o u g h there i s more commonality than d i f f e r e n c e i n women's and men's f r i e n d s h i p s , many s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s do e x i s t . F u r t h e r , t h i s methodology i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of s t u d y i n g people's c o n c e p t i o n s of themselves and t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h i n the con t e x t of t h e i r s p e c i f i c r e a l - l i f e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables v L i s t of F i g u r e s v i Acknowledgements v i i I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 B r i e f review of f r i e n d s h i p l i t e r a t u r e 3 M e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i q u e 7 Target f r i e n d s h i p 7 D e f i n i t i o n s . 10 K i n as f r i e n d s 12 S e l f / O t h e r r a t i n g s 14 Dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . . . . 16 S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s 18 Age 18 D u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p 19 Frequency of c o n t a c t 20 Gender 21 Content dimensions 24 S e l f d i s l o s u r e 24 A p p r e c i a t i o n 28 Ass i s t a n c e 30 Empathic understanding 32 Deepening o t h e r ' s s e l f awareness 33 Shared a c t i v i t y 34 A u t h e n t i c i t y 37 T r u s t 38 iv C o n t r o l / R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 39 S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y 42 Values 45 Methods . 47 Overview 47 P a r t i c i p a n t s 48 Measures 49 R e s u l t s 54 D e s c r i p t i o n of sample 54 T e s t - r e t e s t 54 Content dimensions 56 S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s 90 Values . 94 M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s 95 D i s c u s s i o n 100 Three p a t t e r n s 100 The paradox of s a t i s f a c t i o n 110 S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n : Sex d i f f s i n emotional dev't 114 S e l f / O t h e r : An important f a c t o r 119 With or without romantic p a r t n e r s 121 D i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h 126 C o n c l u s i o n s 130 References 132 T a b l e s 145 F i g u r e s 165 Appendix A: The F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 170 V L i s t of Tables 1. S e l f d i s c l o s u r e : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 119 2. A p p r e c i a t i o n : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 120 3. A s s i s t a n c e : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 121 4. Empathic understanding: S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 122 5. Deepened s e l f awareness: S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s ...123 6. A u t h e n t i c i t y : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 124 7. T r u s t : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 125 8. Shared A c t i v i t y : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 126 9. C o n t r o l : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 127 10. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 128 11. Connectedness: S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women v s . men f r i e n d s 129 12. Empowerment: S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women vs. men f r i e n d s 130 13. S a t i s f a c t i o n : S e l f and other r a t i n g s f o r women and men respondents, averaged over women v s . men f r i e n d s 131 v i 14. R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on content dimensions: Whole network 132 15. R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on content dimensions: Network without p a r t n e r s 133 16. R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on content dimensions: P a r t n e r s o n l y 134 17. R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s 135 18. Follow-up a n a l y s e s on gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n values...136 19. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s : P r e d i c t i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the s e l f 137 v i i L i s t of F i g u r e s 1. Being with men f r i e n d s sometimes means g e t t i n g l e s s 138 2. Being a woman when with f r i e n d s sometimes means g i v i n g more 139 3. Men with men f r i e n d s sometimes means g i v i n g and g e t t i n g l e s s 140 4. C o n t r o l : whole network, without p a r t n e r s , and p a r t n e r s o n l y 141 5. Design f o r an a l y s e s of content dimensions 142 v i i i Acknowledgements I g r a t e f u l l y acknowlege the f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e i r unique c o n t r i b u t i o n s . My committe members: B r i a n d e V r i e s , f o r c r e a t i n g an environment t h a t transformed my s c h o l a r l y endeavours i n t o p l a y ; Dan Perlman, f o r c l e a r , c o n s t r u c t i v e feedback and c h a l l e n g i n g q u e s t i o n s ; C h a r l o t t e Johnson and D i m l t r i Papageorgis, f o r o f f e r i n g t h e i r time, i n t e r e s t , and support throughout t h i s p r o j e c t . And my f r i e n d s : Karen Lyons, f o r t a l k i n g my ear o f f and g i v i n g me hugs and hope, and f o r s h a r i n g my o f f i c e and my l i f e ; Cathy H i l l , f o r keeping a calm, c a r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e , time and time a g a i n ; Cindy Lopatka, f o r a g r a p h i c i m a g i n a t i o n and a generous h e a r t ; Mariane Schroeder, f o r help and p a t i e n c e and being a t the other end of the phone day and n i g h t ; Ines B u c h l i , f o r being my l o n g - d i s t a n c e , long-time, c l o s e s t f r i e n d ; C a r o l K i s s e l , f o r being the k i n d of dear f r i e n d t h a t o n l y a baby s i s t e r can be; J e s s i c a McFarlane, f o r Be-ing your wicked, wonderful S e l f , s p i n n i n g and s p e l l i n g with me i n love and s i s t e r h o o d ; and Cam Oxendale, f o r t e a c h i n g me i n the deepest ways what i t i s to have a f r i e n d and be a f r i e n d . And most of a l l , f o r E l i z a b e t h Grace Parker, my grandmother, who passed away May 17, 1990: f o r always s e e i n g me as s p e c i a l and f o r always l o v i n g me f o r me. 1 The aim of the present r e s e a r c h i s to examine the ways i n which women and men experience t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s h i p s . By " e x p e r i e n c e " I mean how i n d i v i d u a l s p e r c e i v e themselves and o t h e r s , what each p r o v i d e s and r e c e i v e s , i n the context of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . T h i s r e s e a r c h addresses both the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n men's and women's experience of same-sex and other-sex f r i e n d s h i p s . Popular wisdom i s supported by p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t i n g t h a t there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n how men and women understand and behave i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s (e.g. A r i e s & Johnson, 1983; Arno l d & C h a r t l e r , 1986; B e l l , 1981; Bernard, 1976; C a l d w e l l & Peplau, 1982; Hacker, 1981). The goal i n t h i s work i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of how men and women see themselves i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s , how they see t h e i r f r i e n d s , and how such conceptions v a r y f o r men and women when they c o n s i d e r men f r i e n d s versus women f r i e n d s . E v o l v i n g out of my c r i t i q u e of the e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h on f r i e n d s h i p , I have developed the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a new methodology from which w i l l emerge a more p r e c i s e p i c t u r e of the nature of people's conceptions of f r i e n d s h i p . The l i t e r a t u r e review which f o l l o w s i s comprised of a b r i e f summary of the major approaches to the study of f r i e n d s h i p , and a c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of me t h o d o l o g i c a l problems i n t h i s a r e a . T h i s i s fo l l o w e d by an examination of a number of s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s t h a t have been found to p l a y a r o l e i n f r i e n d s h i p , as w e l l as a comprehensive review of s e v e r a l important s u b j e c t i v e or content dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . F i n a l l y , a 2 b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of s e l f - l n - r e l a t I o n t h e o r y Is then presented as a framework f o r understanding sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n f r i e n d s h i p . Examination of popular conceptions of f r i e n d s h i p shows t h a t most people endorse the importance of c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n making one's l i f e meaningful ( K l i n g e r , 1977) and i n c o n t r i b u t i n g to p e r s o n a l happiness (Campbell, Converse & Rodgers, 1976; Freedman, 1978). In support of such f o l k b e l i e f s r e s e a r c h e r s are a l s o f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l i n k s between c l o s e s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and mental and p h y s i c a l w e l l - b e i n g (Berkman & Syme, 1979; B i l l i n g s & Moos, 1982). Kahn and Antonucci (1980) t i e t o g e t h e r popular and s c i e n t i f i c understanding of the meaning of f r i e n d s h i p i n the metaphor of a "convoy" to evoke "the image of a p r o t e c t i v e l a y e r . . . o f f a m i l y and f r i e n d s who surround the i n d i v i d u a l and h e l p i n the s u c c e s s f u l n e g o t i a t i o n of l i f e ' s c h a l l e n g e s (Antonucci & Akiyama, 19 87, p. 1). Despite the popular, t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l support f o r i t s importance, p s y c h o l o g i s t s have been slow to i n v e s t i g a t e the nature and meaning of f r i e n d s h i p i n the l i v e s of women and men ( C a l d w e l l & Peplau, 1982). In an e f f o r t t o e x p l a i n the slow pace of cumulative growth i n the f i e l d of c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p r e s e a r c h , K e l l e y , B e r s c h e i d , C h r i s t e n s e n , Harvey, Huston, L e v i n g e r , M c C l i n t o c k , Peplau, and P e t e r s o n (1983) note t h a t " r e s e a r c h e r s have not agreed on t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of concepts, have not e s t a b l i s h e d p r e c i s e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s , and have o f t e n f a i l e d to 3 understand the broad context of t h e i r separate l i m i t e d l a b o r s " (p. x i v ) . B r i e f Review of F r i e n d s h i p L i t e r a t u r e The e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h on f r i e n d s h i p f a l l s i n three f a i r l y d i s p a r a t e camps: 1) l a b o r a t o r y / e x p e r i m e n t a l ; 2) s o c i o l o g i c a l / q u a n t i t a t i v e ; and 3) s u b j e c t i v e / i n t e r v i e w data. In the l a b o r a t o r y / e x p e r i m e n t a l approach, f r i e n d s h i p - r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h has c o n s i s t e d p r i m a r i l y of f i n d i n g s from the f i e l d of i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . In a review of f r i e n d s h i p r e s e a r c h , Dickens and Perlman (1981) d i s c u s s the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s approach, c i t i n g a focus on the antecedents of a t t r a c t i o n between s t r a n g e r s i n an a r t i f i c i a l l a b s e t t i n g , and the heavy r e l i a n c e on s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s t h a t i n a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t the c o m p l e x i t y of the experience of f r i e n d s h i p i n v i v o . T h i s m i c r o - l e v e l approach has not addressed the l a r g e r context of the r e l a t i o n s h i p In which those i n t e r a c t i o n s occur, and hence has c o n t r i b u t e d l i t t l e to our understanding of the dynamics of r e a l - w o r l d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A second approach to the study of f r i e n d s h i p has been a q u a n t i t a t i v e one, e v o l v i n g out of s o c i o l o g y , which examines s o c i a l networks and i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s i n terms of s i z e , c omposition, and frequency of c o n t a c t . As with the r e s e a r c h on i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n , t h i s work pr o v i d e s observable 4 data which can be c o r r e l a t e d with other f i n d i n g s , but i t misses the s u b j e c t i v e meaning of the r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the i n d i v i d u a l . Evidence f o r the importance of s t u d y i n g the e x p e r i e n t i a l nature of c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be found i n both t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l work. From a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e f o r example, Thomae (1970) p o s t u l a t e s a number of p r i n c i p l e s of human behavior which support the n o t i o n t h a t p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of experience i s the primary f a c t o r i n both b e h a v i o r a l and emotional r e a c t i o n s to l i f e e v ents, among them the f o l l o w i n g : 1) " p e r c e p t i o n of change r a t h e r than o b j e c t i v e change i s r e l a t e d to b e h a v i o r a l change"; and 2) "any change i n the s i t u a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l i s p e r c e i v e d and e v a l u a t e d i n terms of the dominant concerns and e x p e c t a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l " (p. 4). From an e m p i r i c a l p o i n t of view, f i n d i n g s i n the area of s t r e s s and c o p i n g demonstrate t h a t i t i s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s u b j e c t i v e a p p r a i s a l of s o c i a l support, r a t h e r than o b j e c t i v e , q u a n t i t a t i v e measures of i t , which p r e d i c t s outcomes such as w e l l - b e i n g and h e a l t h (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In l i g h t of such work, p e r s o n a l a p p r a i s a l of f r i e n d s h i p f o r men and women emerges as an i s s u e warranting f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l p u r s u i t . A t h i r d approach to the study of f r i e n d s h i p has attempted to address the s u b j e c t i v e components of f r i e n d s h i p v i a open-ended, g l o b a l i n t e r v i e w s (e.g. B e l l , 1981). While t h i s method has the advantage of c a p t u r i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the meaning and context of h e r / h i s 5 r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i t l a c k s a b a s i s f o r comparison among i n d i v i d u a l s . For example, there i s l i t t l e attempt t o s t a n d a r d i z e d e f i n i t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p or the v a r i o u s dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . In a d d i t i o n , the t a r g e t -f r i e n d s h i p , t h a t i s , the f r i e n d s h i p being e v a l u a t e d , v a r i e s w i d e l y (from an " i d e a l " f r i e n d , to an a g g r e g a t i o n over s e v e r a l f r i e n d s , to one s p e c i f i c f r i e n d ) . F u r t h e r , c o n s t r u c t s are determined post-hoc, l e a v i n g a gre a t d e a l of room f o r i n v e s t i g a t o r b i a s . A d i f f e r e n t l i n e of r e s e a r c h may be e x e m p l i f i e d by the work of three s e t s of i n v e s t i g a t o r s , a l l of whom study both the content-domains and q u a n t i t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e a l - w o r l d f r i e n d s h i p s . LaGaipa (1977), Davis and Todd (1985) and Wright (1982) have each attempted to look a t r e a l world r e l a t i o n s h i p s with a d e f i n e d s e t of v a r i a b l e s , u s i n g somewhat d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s . LaGaipa (1977) content analyzed 1800 statements d e r i v e d from open-ended i n t e r v i e w s i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to e x p l a i n why a person i s a be s t , c l o s e , or good f r i e n d , or an acquaintance. The r e s u l t i n g 152 items were r a t e d on a one to nine s c a l e r a nging from " d e f i n i t e l y not e s s e n t i a l " to " d e f i n i t e l y e s s e n t i a l " f o r each l e v e l of f r i e n d s h i p . E i g h t y L i k e r t - t y p e items were then r e t a i n e d on the b a s i s of high i n t e r - j u d g e agreement of e s s e n t i a l i t y . The 80 items were then f a c t o r a n a l y z e d to y i e l d e i g h t major dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . U sing a "known group procedure" i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e a r e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r each c a t e g o r y (best, c l o s e , e t c . ) 6 these dimensions were then used to measure d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Davis and Todd (1985) used a paradigm case f o r m u l a t i o n , c o n s t r u i n g f r i e n d s h i p as a ki n d of " f u z z y s e t " f o r which there e x i s t s an a r c h e t y p a l case. T h i s prototype i s comprised of a s e t of f e a t u r e s t h a t are t y p i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with but which are n e i t h e r necessary nor s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s to d e f i n e f r i e n d s h i p . Again a known group procedure was used, and p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to r a t e , f o r each of s i x c a t e g o r i e s (e.g. b e s t , c l o s e other-sex, c l o s e same-sex, e t c . ) , a r e a l person (with whom they had a r e l a t i o n s h i p ) on the s e t of p r o t o t y p i c a l f e a t u r e s . The data were f a c t o r analyzed by r e l a t i o n s h i p type i n order to determine p a t t e r n s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among r e l a t i o n s h i p t y p e s . Wright (1985) obtained a comprehensive s e t of o b s e r v a t i o n s about f r i e n d s h i p from v a r i o u s sources, d e r i v e d a s e t of concepts t h a t d e f i n e d the c r u c i a l elements i n the o b s e r v a t i o n s , and then generated a l i s t of statements to r e f l e c t those c o n s t r u c t s . The statements were concre t e i n nature, to a l l o w p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a t e frequency of i n c i d e n c e and/or p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence i n a f r i e n d s h i p with a s p e c i f i e d o t h e r . The items were then aggregated i n t o s c a l e s , and t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Wright (1985) c h a r a c t e r i z e s the r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out by the t h r e e s e t s of i n v e s t i g a t o r s as f o l l o w s : LaGaipa s t a r t s 7 a t the bottom and works up; Davis and Todd s t a r t a t the top and work down; and Wright s t a r t s i n the middle and works both ways (p.43). Despite the v a r i a t i o n s i n approach, Wright (1985) notes t h a t there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p i n the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s of these r e s e a r c h e r s . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l C r i t i q u e In t h e i r review of the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , Parker and d e V r i e s ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) note a number of weaknesses t h a t need to be addressed i n the f i e l d of f r i e n d s h i p r e s e a r c h . T h i s c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e has guided the development of a new methodology which aims to address these problems, i n t e g r a t i n g the work of s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s , and out of which w i l l emerge a more a c c u r a t e and comprehensive view of people's understanding of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . The major areas of concern form the b a s i s of the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n . Target F r i e n d s h i p The t a r g e t f r i e n d s h i p ( i . e . the f r i e n d s h i p upon which i n d i v i d u a l s are asked to base t h e i r r a t i n g s or i n t e r v i e w answers) v a r i e s from study to study, making comparison among s t u d i e s d i f f i c u l t . In some s t u d i e s p a r t i c i p a n t s are asked to Imagine an i d e a l i z e d or g e n e r a l i z e d f r i e n d s h i p (e.g. 8 Gibbs, Auerbach & Fox, 1980). As those same authors l a t e r p o i n t out (Fox, Gibbs & Auerbach, 1985) such an approach has the disadvantage of t a p p i n g respondents' s t e r e o t y p e s r a t h e r than t h e i r own experience of f r i e n d s h i p . In other cases p a r t i c i p a n t s a re asked to answer q u e s t i o n s based on an a g g r e g a t i o n over a l l of t h e i r f r i e n d s a t a c e r t a i n l e v e l , such as t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s , or over one sex, such as a g l o b a l r a t i n g f o r a l l same-sex f r i e n d s (e.g. Rose, 1985). The problem with an aggregate approach i s t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r has no way of c o n t r o l l i n g or knowing the dimensions over which p a r t i c i p a n t s are summing t h e i r v a r i o u s f r i e n d s h i p s . F u r t h e r , when i n d i v i d u a l s are ag g r e g a t i n g over a s e t of f r i e n d s they are i n f a c t then c r e a t i n g a k i n d of "composite f r i e n d " t h a t may be more a s t e r e o t y p e than a r e f l e c t i o n of any r e a l f r i e n d or f r i e n d s . As Wish, Deutsch and Kaplan (1980) note, when respondents r a t e ^ t y p i c a l " r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e i r r a t i n g s tend to be a t the p o l a r extremes of the dimensions, while the " r e a l " r e l a t i o n s h i p s are r a t e d c l o s e r to the c e n t r e . Wish e t a l . (1980) found t h a t not o n l y are such s t e r e o t y p e s more extreme, but they are l e s s v a r i a b l e than are r e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( i . e . , there i s g r e a t e r b e t w e e n - r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e f o r t y p i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and g r e a t e r w i t h i n -r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e f o r r e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . In essence, such a g g r e g a t i o n l o s e s the co m p l e x i t y i n h e r e n t i n r e a l - w o r l d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 9 In other r e s e a r c h , i n f a c t i n the m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s , i n d i v i d u a l s are asked about a s p e c i f i c f r i e n d , such as t h e i r c l o s e s t same-sex f r i e n d , or t h e i r best f r i e n d (e.g. A r i e s & Johnson, 1983; A r n o l d & C h a r t i e r , 1986; Davis & Todd, 1985; Helgeson, Shaver & Dyer, 1987). While t h i s i s c l e a r l y an improvement over aggregate r a t i n g s , the r a t i n g of a s i n g l e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s o n l y a p a r t i a l measure of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s f r i e n d s h i p s , and as Woolsey (1987a, 1987b) p o i n t s out, the i d i o s y n c r a s i e s of t h a t s p e c i f i c f r i e n d s h i p l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . I t i s p o s s i b l e too, t h a t i n a s k i n g i n d i v i d u a l s to r a t e o n l y one f r i e n d s h i p , t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p then takes on a more i d e a l i z e d c h a r a c t e r , as the respondent may aggregate without r e a l i z i n g , i n order to r e f l e c t more aspects of h e r / h i s c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have asked p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a t e more than one f r i e n d (e.g. Candy, T r o l l & Levy, 1981). However the number of f r i e n d s i s predetermined by the r e s e a r c h e r , which a r t i f i c i a l l y t r u n c a t e s the respondent's f r i e n d s h i p network, r e d u c i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s a b i l i t y to a s sess the v a r i a b i l i t y i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' c l o s e - f r i e n d networks. Moreover, the number of dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p on which p a r t i c i p a n t s are asked to r a t e the s e t of f r i e n d s i s u s u a l l y f a i r l y r e s t r i c t e d (e.g. Candy et a l . , 1981). A more comprehensive approach i s taken i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Respondents i d e n t i f y and r a t e a l l members of the f r i e n d s h i p network. In order to c o n t r o l f o r important v a r i a t i o n on the b a s i s of degree of p e r c e i v e d 10 c l o s e n e s s , i n d i v i d u a l s I d e n t i f y a l l f r i e n d s at a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l (e.g. c l o s e s t ) . T h i s approach p r o v i d e s both content data ( i . e . , i n f o r m a t i o n on what dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p are important a t v a r i o u s l e v e l s of f r i e n d s h i p ) and q u a n t i t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n ( i . e . , number of f r i e n d s of each sex f o r men and women a t v a r i o u s l e v e l s of c l o s e n e s s ) . I t a l s o permits assessment of the v a r i a b i l i t y within-respondent on each dimension, a c r o s s v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g. c l o s e s t same-sex f r i e n d ; c l o s e s t other-sex f r i e n d ) , and of v a r i a b i l i t y a c r o s s respondents (e.g. between men and women). D e f i n i t i o n s An o f t - c i t e d problem i n the r e s e a r c h on f r i e n d s h i p i s the la c k of commonly shared d e f i n i t i o n s of f r i e n d and f r i e n d s h i p , both among respondents and among r e s e a r c h e r s . Among the a t t r i b u t e s of f r i e n d s h i p which make i t unique i s t h a t i t i s one of the l e a s t programmed and s o c i a l l y d e f i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( A r i e s & Johnson, 1983). Wright (1982) s t a t e s : " F r i e n d s h i p Is a r e l a t i o n s h i p with broad and ambiguous boundaries, a l l o w i n g f o r a gre a t d e a l of v a r i a b i l i t y i n s u b j e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s " (p. 3). In f a c t i t i s t h i s v e r y aspect of f r i e n d s h i p which leads to some of the problems i n d e f i n i t i o n . As C a l d w e l l and Peplau (1982) p o i n t out, r e s e a r c h p a r t i c i p a n t s are r a r e l y given d e f i n i t i o n s , hence i t i s l i k e l y t h a t some w i l l be u s i n g the term " f r i e n d " to r e f e r to people with whom they are vaguely f r i e n d l y , 11 whereas others w i l l be u s i n g a more r e s t r i c t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . There may be problems of c i r c u l a r i t y , however, i n p r o v i d i n g v e r b a l d e f i n i t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p . Davis and Todd (1985) f o r example, asked p a r t i c i p a n t s to l i s t t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s , d e f i n e d as "people you can count on to r e c i p r o c a t e your f e e l i n g s " (p. 23). There are a number of components to t h i s task t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s must e v a l u a t e , i . e . , the extent to which they can count on the other, r e c i p r o c i t y , and a s h a r i n g a t the l e v e l of f e e l i n g s . Once i n d i v i d u a l s have s e l e c t e d t a r g e t f r i e n d s on the b a s i s of such v a r i a b l e s , t here i s a p o t e n t i a l l o s s of i n d i v i d u a l s from the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s c l o s e f r i e n d network ( a l l o w i n g f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some persons would have c o n s i d e r e d as c l o s e f r i e n d s o t hers who d i d not f u l f i l l those predetermined c r i t e r i a ) . There i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y of c i r c u l a r i t y i n the f i n d i n g s , i f p a r t i c i p a n t s who have s e l e c t e d the c l o s e f r i e n d on the b a s i s of c e r t a i n dimensions are then r a t i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s on those same dimensions. One way to a v o i d these problems i s to present p a r t i c i p a n t s with a standard s t i m u l u s or task to a i d them i n t h i n k i n g more d e e p l y about t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s , f o r example, LaGaipa's (1977) f r i e n d s h i p pyramid. In t h i s diagram the lowest of the four l e v e l s , "Acquaintances", c o n t a i n s the l a r g e s t number of i n d i v i d u a l s , f o l l o w e d by a p r o g r e s s i v e l y s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of the network as one moves up the pyramid from "Good" to " C l o s e " to "Best". T h i s s t i m u l u s i s 1 2 used i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; respondents are asked to i d e n t i f y o n l y those f r i e n d s who would f a l l on the top two l e v e l s of the pyramid. Such a task does not r e s t r i c t respondents' networks by making assumptions about the dimensions they use to determine who are among t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s . In t h i s way the r e a l - w o r l d f r i e n d s h i p network f o r each i n d i v i d u a l i s generated and comparisons may then be made on dimensions. I f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n the kinds of f r i e n d s h i p s which are i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s procedure, f o r example between men's and women's f r i e n d s h i p s , then we may i n f e r t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of the network c o n s i d e r e d to be " c l o s e s t " on the b a s i s of p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a , i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t f o r the two groups. The f a c t t h a t we may have apples and oranges as a r e s u l t of a d i f f e r e n t understanding of c l o s e / b e s t f o r women and men i s not i n h e r e n t l y a problem s i n c e the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n asks: Given a known group ( c l o s e s t f r i e n d ) , as d e f i n e d by the  respondent (men or women, r e l y i n g on a standard s t i m u l u s ) , what a s p e c t s of t h e i r experience of f r i e n d s h i p are s i m i l a r and d i f f e r e n t ? F u r t h e r , t h i s approach avoids c i r c u l a r i t y i n t h a t i t does not ask respondents to generate f r i e n d s h i p s on the b a s i s of c r i t e r i a which are the same as those used t o eva l u a t e the f r i e n d s h i p s . K i n as F r i e n d s 13 Dickens and Perlman (1981) note t h a t k i n (e.g. pare n t s , s i b l i n g s , c h i l d r e n , spouse) are an important p a r t of i n d i v i d u a l s ' c l o s e s o c i a l networks. F r i e n d s h i p seems to i n c l u d e k i n f o r many i n d i v i d u a l s , and k i n are o f t e n l i s t e d as the c l o s e s t of a l l network members (Shulman, 1975). In our p i l o t work we have found t h a t when asked to l i s t t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s , respondents w i l l f r e q u e n t l y i n c l u d e k i n i n the f r i e n d s h i p network (Parker & de V r i e s , u n p u b l i s h e d ) . In an undergraduate sample, over 75% of respondents l i s t e d f a m i l y as c l o s e f r i e n d s (de V r i e s & Perlman, u n p u b l i s h e d ) . Even e x c l u d i n g spouse and c h i l d r e n , a p p r o x i m a t e l y one t h i r d of the c l o s e f r i e n d s of men and women have been found to be k i n ( S t r a i n and C h a p p e l l , 1982). Since they p l a y such an important r o l e i n the f r i e n d s h i p network, i t i s s u r p r i s i n g t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s have n e i t h e r looked a t the extent to which men and women c i t e f a m i l y members as f r i e n d s , nor examined the q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s among f r i e n d s h i p s with k i n and non-kin. D e f i n i t i o n a l v a r i a b i l i t y i s a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r here, as i n some cases i n v e s t i g a t o r s ask p a r t i c i p a n t s not to in c l u d e f a m i l y when t h i n k i n g about t h e i r f r i e n d s (e.g. Rose, 1985), and i n other cases no d i s t i n c t i o n i s made, nor i s the presence of k i n i n the network assessed (e.g. C a l d w e l l & Peplau, 1982; Hacker, 1981). I t seems t h a t , f o r some i n d i v i d u a l s a t l e a s t , k i n c o n s t i t u t e an important p a r t of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p group, and t h e r e f o r e those i n d i v i d u a l s should be f r e e to c i t e f a m i l y members i f i t occurs to them to do so. No r e s t r i c t i o n s on 14 i n c l u s i o n of f a m i l y members are made i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I t i s important to have some way of i d e n t i f y i n g f a m i l y so t h a t those r e s u l t s may be examined s e p a r a t e l y . A separate page i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s p r o v i d e d f o r respondents to i d e n t i f y the i n d i v i d u a l s who are k i n ( i f any) among t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s . T h i s permits us to determine whether that subset of the f r i e n d network d i f f e r s i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way from the r e s t of the group, and we can then attempt to answer the k i n d of q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by Woolsey (1987a) when she asks whether c l o s e same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s are more s i m i l a r to c l o s e same-sex s i b l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s or c l o s e c r o s s - s e x r e l a t i o n s h i p s . S e l f / O t h e r Ratings The content of the dimensions being r a t e d i n the f r i e n d s h i p l i t e r a t u r e v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y i n the e x t e n t to which they tap what one gets out of a f r i e n d s h i p , ( i . e . what the other person does to and f o r you) versus what i s asked of one i n a f r i e n d s h i p (e.g. g i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e ; acceptance of the o t h e r ) . T h i s has been l a b e l e d the focus of having a f r i e n d vs. being a f r i e n d (Davis & Todd, 1985). As Davis and Todd (1985) note, some t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s (e.g. exchange t h e o r y - rewards) and r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g. LaGaipa, 1977 - p o s i t i v e regard) tend to focus on having a f r i e n d , whereas other w r i t e r s generate items more o r i e n t e d to 15 a s s e s s i n g what i s i n v o l v e d i n being a f r i e n d (e.g. Wright, 1985 - v o l u n t a r y interdependence). While a thorough look a t the nature of men's and women's experience of f r i e n d s h i p would i n c l u d e both kinds of items, those which tap g i v i n g and those which tap r e c e i v i n g , a more s y s t e m a t i c approach to the problem would have a l l items r a t e d f o r the s e l f and f o r the other. Although the p r o t o t y p i c a l c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p i s conceived as being h i g h l y mutual on a l l important dimensions, i t seems l i k e l y t h a t r e a l - w o r l d r e l a t i o n s h i p s v a r y i n the extent to which each person g i v e s to and takes from what i s o f f e r e d i n the f r i e n d s h i p . In an unpublished study of married c o u p l e s , Davis and C a t h c a r t (1982 - c i t e d i n Davis & Todd, 1985) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between what one p a r t n e r gave and what s/he r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g from the other. I n g e r s o l l -Dayton and Antonucci (1988) note t h a t a " c r u c i a l a spect of w e l l - b e i n g " may be the balance between what i s p r o v i d e d and what i s r e c e i v e d i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and t h a t "the importance of r e c i p r o c i t y i n human r e l a t i o n s h i p s cannot be o v e r e s t i m a t e d " (p.65). T h i s aspect of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s o f t e n overlooked by f r i e n d s h i p r e s e a r c h e r s , who ask p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a t e , f o r themselves only, the extent to which a p a r t i c u l a r dimension i s present i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p (e.g. A r n o l d & C h a r t i e r , 1986). A more comprehensive approach would be to ask respondents to r a t e both t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the other's c o n t r i b u t i o n to the r e l a t i o n s h i p , as w e l l as t h e i r own, on each dimension. In the F r i e n d s h i p 16 Q u e s s t i o n n a i r e respondents r a t e f o r the s e l f and f o r each f r i e n d on every dimension. T h i s permits an assessment of the degree of m u t u a l i t y i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of women and men with women and men f r i e n d s , without a s k i n g respondents to sum over a l l t h e i r same- and other-sex f r i e n d s h i p s a t a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of c l o s e n e s s . Instead, t h i s allows the i n v e s t i g a t o r s to more p r e c i s e l y sum a c r o s s dimensions or a c r o s s f r i e n d s h i p - t y p e s , with a c l e a r understanding of what i s being summed over. Dimensions of F r i e n d s h i p Being and having a f r i e n d appears to be a complex, m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . While some authors focus on o n l y one element, such as s e l f d i s c l o s u r e (e.g. Hacker, 1981), or on a couple of dimensions such as i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y and e x p r e s s i v e n e s s (Fox e t a l . , 1985), others assess a range of f a c t o r s , numbering between e i g h t (e.g. LaGaipa, 1977) to as many as 12 (Wright, 1985). Wright (1985) notes the e f f o r t s he has made to account f o r the complexity of f r i e n d s h i p with as few concepts as p o s s i b l e , although h i s work has produced the l a r g e s t number of v a r i a b l e s of the t h r e e major f r i e n d s h i p r e s e a r c h e r s . A number of i n v e s t i g a t o r s have p o i n t e d out the high i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the v a r i o u s dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p , and some have r e s o r t e d to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n an attempt to s i m p l i f y the p i c t u r e (e.g. Davis & Todd, 1985; Wright, 1985). However, 17 f o r the most p a r t i t appears that these r e s e a r c h e r s have not found f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures to have been h e l p f u l i n c l a r i f y i n g the nature of i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n c e p t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p . Wright (1985) s t a t e s : "I d i d not f i n d f a c t o r a n a l y s e s p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l e i t h e r c o n c e p t u a l l y or m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y " (p. 47). Davis and Todd (1985) note t h a t u n t r a i n e d s u b j e c t s r e l i a b l y d i s t i n g u i s h between c a t e g o r i e s such as care and need, which tend i n a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to load on a s i n g l e f a c t o r . They p o i n t out the need to c o n s i d e r the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n when d e c i d i n g on the number of dimensions to examine: i f the g o a l i s s t a t i s t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n , then a few f a c t o r i a l l y pure dimensions are p r e f e r a b l e ; i f a more complete, s p e c i f i c p i c t u r e of the nature of people's conceptions of f r i e n d s h i p i s the g o a l , "then i t i s important to r e t a i n the m u l t i f a c e t e d c h a r a c t e r of the p r o t o t y p e " (p. 27). In the case of the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I have opted f o r a comprehensive approach u s i n g nine content dimensions, i n order to capture the c o m p l e x i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s ' understanding of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . Importantly, the dimensions s e l e c t e d are ones which have c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p i r i c a l support. In order to be i n c l u d e d i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e a minimum of three i n v e s t i g a t o r s must have found the dimensions to be important components i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o nceptions of f r i e n d s h i p . In f a c t , s e v e r a l dimensions are supported by the e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l work of s i x to ten i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Thus the 18 s e l e c t i o n of the dimensions i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , although broad, i s f i r m l y rooted i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . The i n c l u s i o n of so many important dimensions i n one study promises to o f f e r a u n i q u e l y e x t e n s i v e view of c o n c e p t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p . In a d d i t i o n , the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t s respondents to t e a r out the a t t a c h e d g l o s s a r y sheet, and to r e f e r to the p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n s p r o v i d e d f o r each dimension. These sharpened d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l help to ensure t h a t respondents have a comparable understanding of the terms used f o r each dimension. S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s In a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on f r i e n d s h i p throughout the l i f e s p a n , Dickens and Perlman (1981) c i t e d four s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s which have been found to p l a y a r o l e i n the development and maintenance of c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s , i n c l u d i n g gender and age of p a r t i c i p a n t s , d u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p , and frequency of c o n t a c t . These v a r i a b l e s may be c o n s i d e r e d to be p r o p e r t i e s of persons and r e l a t i o n s h i p s which are expected to i n f l u e n c e the contents or q u a l i t a t i v e a s p e c t s of f r i e n d s h i p s . 1. Age 19 L i f e stage has an important i n f l u e n c e upon the nature of people's f r i e n d s h i p networks (Dickens & Perlman, 1981). In g e n e r a l , people p r e f e r and tend to have f r i e n d s who are the same age as themselves, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who are under age 25 (Verbrugge, 1979). There i s some disagreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to the s i z e of the f r i e n d s h i p network a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n the l i f e c y c l e . Some authors have suggested t h a t f r i e n d s h i p s seem to peak i n l a t e adolescence and e a r l y adulthood, a t l e a s t as measured by number of f r i e n d s and frequency of c o n t a c t (Reisman & Shorr, 1978). S i m i l a r l y , Shulman (1975) found t h a t middle-aged people claimed to have fewer f r i e n d s than younger or o l d e r a d u l t s . On the other hand, Lowenthal, Thurnher and C h i r i b o g a (1975) r e p o r t e d t h a t h i g h - s c h o o l students i d e n t i f i e d the fewest f r i e n d s , newly-weds the most, and those i n the p r e - r e t i r e m e n t years r e p o r t a number somewhere in-between. In a l a r g e - s c a l e study of S t a t i s t i c s Canada data from the 1985 General S o c i a l Survey, de V r i e s ( i n press) looked a t responses from 11,200 i n d i v i d u a l s aged 15 to 89 years and found t h a t the number of c l o s e f r i e n d s was not g r e a t e s t pre-marriage, and i n f a c t d e c l i n e d from t h a t p o i n t d u r i n g p e r i o d s of a c t i v e c h i l d r e a r i n g , u n t i l i t i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to i t s h i g h e s t p o i n t with the l a u n c h i n g of c h i l d r e n . 2. D u r a t i o n of F r i e n d s h i p 20 The l e n g t h of time t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s have known each other appears to be r e l a t e d to the r e p o r t e d i n t i m a c y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p (Dickens & Perlman, 1981). On these grounds a t l e a s t , there i s a f a i r l i k e l i h o o d t h a t some k i n w i l l f a l l i n t o i n d i v i d u a l s ' c l o s e f r i e n d network. 3. Frequency of c o n t a c t Wright (1985) found t h a t the most s e n s i t i v e i n d i c a t o r of the s t r e n g t h of r e l a t i o n s h i p i s v o l u n t a r y interdependence (VID): "the degree to which two i n d i v i d u a l s commit f r e e or otherwise uncommitted time to one another i n the absence of pr e s s u r e s or c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t are e x t e r n a l to the r e l a t i o n s h i p i t s e l f " (p. 44). At the same time, VID i s inadequate as a s o l e c r i t e r i o n f o r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p , as there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y i n the amount of time i n d i v i d u a l s have a v a i l a b l e to spend i n n o n o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r a c t i o n , and there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s can be i n frequent c o n t a c t without being f r i e n d s (e.g. the "water c o o l e r phenomenon"). Hence Wright (1985) supplemented VID with a measure t a p p i n g p e r s o n a l i z e d i n t e r e s t and concern to comprise a dua l c r i t e r i a of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t r e n q t h . Frequency of c o n t a c t with f r i e n d s i s a t i t s h i g h e s t i n e a r l y adulthood, and d e c l i n e s as people age (de V r i e s , i n pr e s s ; Dickens & Perlman, 1981). There i s some d i s c r e p a n c y i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to the e x i s t e n c e of gender d i f f e r e n c e s 21 i n frequency of c o n t a c t . C a l d w e l l and Peplau (1982) r e p o r t t h a t young men and women do not d i f f e r i n the average number of hours per week they spend with t h e i r f r i e n d s , although i t appears t h a t women more o f t e n get together with t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d j u s t to t a l k , whereas men r e p o r t weekly c o n t a c t with a l a r g e r number of f r i e n d s . However, de V r i e s ( i n press) found t h a t men do r e p o r t spending more time i n f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n t a c t with c l o s e f r i e n d s than do women, who r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time with c l o s e f r i e n d s over the telephone or i n c o n t a c t by l e t t e r . 4• Gender As i s e v i d e n t from the d i s c u s s i o n of e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s on the dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p , men and women a p p a r e n t l y d i f f e r i n ways t h a t r e f l e c t a g r e a t e r focus f o r men on the i n s t r u m e n t a l a s p e c t s of i n t e r a c t i o n , and f o r women, on v e r b a l exchange and emotional aspects of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The f r i e n d s h i p s of women have been d e s c r i b e d as "face to f a c e " , with an a f f e c t i v e and p e r s o n a l i z e d focus on the other, i n c o n t r a s t to men's f r i e n d s h i p s which are " s i d e by s i d e " , both o r i e n t e d to some e x t e r n a l a c t i v i t y or task (Wright, 1982). T h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n must be m o d i f i e d i n t h a t , as the d u r a t i o n and s t r e n g t h of men's r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n c r e a s e , these d i f f e r e n c e s d i m i n i s h and men's f r i e n d s h i p s become more l i k e women's (Wright, 1982). 22 A very c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t both women and men tend to have a preponderance of same-sex f r i e n d s i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d networks (e.g. Dickens & Perlman, 1981; Woolsey, 1987a, 1987b). Empathy and in t i m a c y are c o n s i d e r e d important to both women and men i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s (e.g. Gibbs et a l , 1980), yet there appears to be a d i s c r e p a n c y between men's s u b j e c t i v e r e p o r t s of intimacy, and o b j e c t i v e measures of t h e i r i n t i m a t e i n t e r a c t i o n s . C a l d w e l l and Peplau (1982) found t h a t both men and women s a i d they valued i n t i m a c y and had equal numbers of i n t i m a t e f r i e n d s , yet men's a c t u a l s h a r i n g of f e e l i n g s and problems was c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s f r equent than was women's. In a study of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , Hacker (1981) found t h a t i n c r o s s sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s , men tend to d i s c l o s e s t r e n g t h s and women tend to d i s c l o s e weaknesses, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t "both sexes f e e l more c o n s t r a i n e d to f u l f i l l gender r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the other sex" (p. 396). Dickens and Perlman (1981) c i t e a number of f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g t r a d i t i o n a l male r o l e s , such as the pressure to compete, homophobia, and a v e r s i o n to v u l n e r a b i l i t y and openness, which produce b a r r i e r s to emotional i n t i m a c y i n men. In h i g h l i g h t i n g the r i s k s i n h e r e n t i n s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f o r men, Fox et a l . , (1985) s t a t e : " I t i s l i k e l y t h a t a main o b s t a c l e to men's f r i e n d s h i p i s th a t the masculine r o l e i s phrased almost u n i v e r s a l l y as a power r o l e , i n which the s o c i a l and 23 economic rewards f o r s u p e r o r d i n a t i o n are as c o n s i d e r a b l e as the p e n a l t i e s f o r weakness" (p. 500). In a study examining m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y i n r e l a t i o n to emotional intimacy, W i l l i a m s (1985) found t h a t there was a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f c o n c e p t i o n s of f e m i n i n i t y and emotional intimacy, but m a s c u l i n i t y showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p to inti m a c y . O v e r a l l , men r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower l e v e l s of intimacy, s u g g e s t i n g " t h a t even when males i n c o r p o r a t e a high degree of f e m i n i n i t y i n t h e i r s e l f concepts, they may be i n h i b i t e d from behaving i n e x p r e s s i v e ways" due to r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s ( W i l l i a m s , 1985, p. 599). When men do s e l f d i s c l o s e or experience emotional intimacy, i t does tend to be with women, and t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men are ones of s o l i d a r i t y or comradeship (Arnold & C h a r t i e r , 1986). Daly (1978) p o s t u l a t e s t h a t sex r o l e s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s such s e x - l i n k e d t y p o l o g i e s of f r i e n d s h i p , wherein male comradeship t h r i v e s on shared a c t i v i t y and the l o s s of p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y , and female f r i e n d s h i p t h r i v e s on the enhancement of p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y and on heightened s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and s e l f awareness. Another value o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t has been hypothesized to i n f l u e n c e f r i e n d s h i p s i s feminism. Seiden and Bart (1975) found t h a t women i n t h e i r sample r e p o r t e d t h a t the women's movement had supported them i n c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the value of f r i e n d s h i p between women. The h i s t o r i c d e v a l u a t i o n of women's f r i e n d s h i p s as documented by Bernard (1976) was 24 d i r e c t l y addressed by the i d e o l o g y of s i s t e r h o o d w i t h i n the f e m i n i s t movement. However, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s are not e v i d e n t among h e t e r o s e x u a l f e m i n i s t s , l e s b i a n f e m i n i s t s , and h e t e r o s e x u a l n o n f e m i n i s t s i n the a f f e c t i v e content of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s , a l l of whom r e p o r t s i m i l a r l e v e l s of l o v i n g , l i k i n g , commitment to and importance of f r i e n d s h i p (Rose & Roades, 1987). They p o s i t t h a t the t r a d i t i o n of women's f r i e n d s h i p s as h i g h l y s u p p o r t i v e and i n t i m a t e predates the modern f e m i n i s t movement, and i s i n f a c t the f o u n d a t i o n on which the i d e o l o g y of s i s t e r h o o d i s b u i l t (Rose & Roades, 1987). Content Dimensions The f o l l o w i n g nine content dimensions have been c o n s i s t e n t l y c i t e d i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e as important a s p e c t s of respondents' r e p o r t s of the experience and meaning of f r i e n d s h i p . 1. S e l f D i s c l o s u r e V a r i o u s l y d e f i n e d as " f e e l i n g f r e e to express and r e v e a l p e r s o n a l and i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n " (LaGaipa, 1977), and " e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s " (Davidson & Packard, 1981), and tapped by items such as " o f t e n shares p e r s o n a l ideas and f e e l i n g s " (Arnold & C h a r t i e r , 1986), s e l f d i s c l o s u r e i s 25 among the most commonly noted f e a t u r e s of f r i e n d s h i p i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e (e.g. Candy, T r o l l & Levy, 1981; C a l d w e l l & Peplau, 1982; Davis <S Todd, 1985). LaGaipa (1977) suggests t h a t one reason f o r t h i s i s the ease with which the c o n s t r u c t can be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . Of g r e a t e r c o n c e p t u a l importance, however, h i s data a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t i n c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s s e l f d i s c l o s u r e i s h i g h l y v a l u e d . Moreover, the e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s i s seen as a primary t h e r a p e u t i c aspect of c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s f o r women, enhancing t h e i r f e l t a b i l i t y to cope with d i f f i c u l t emotions (Davidson & Packard, 1981). Research i n t o the e f f e c t s of having a c o n f i d a n t f u r t h e r suggest t h a t s h a r i n g p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to b e t t e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment ( S t r a i n & C h a p p e l l , 1982). S e l f d i s c l o s u r e i s w i d e l y acknowledged as a core component of i n t i m a c y (Bernard, 1974; Helgeson et a l . , 1987). Waring and Chelune (1983) found t h a t s e l f d i s c l o s u r e accounted f o r over h a l f the v a r i a n c e i n i n t i m a c y r a t i n g s of married c o u p l e s . Despite the c e n t r a l i t y of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e to i n t i m a c y , however, the two are not simply synonymous. Hacker (1981) notes t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n between f e e l i n g s of c l o s e n e s s and s e l f d i s c l o s u r e i s f a r from p e r f e c t i n f r i e n d l y ( r a t h e r than s t r a n g e r ) r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In a s s e s s i n g p r o t o t y p e s of intimacy, Helgeson et a l . (1987) p o i n t out t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i s more a c c u r a t e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a combination of a f f e c t i o n / a p p r e c i a t i o n and s e l f d i s c l o s u r e . As Schaefer and Olson (1981) s t a t e : "the a u t h e n t i c i t y of a 26 ' c o l d t r u t h ' may serve o n l y to separate i n d i v i d u a l s , r e s u l t i n g i n non-intimacy" (p. 49). S e l f d i s c l o s u r e i s regarded as a primary component of in t i m a c y then, when l t occurs i n a con t e x t of warmth and concern, or when i t i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to asp e c t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i t s e l f (Helgeson, et a l . , 1987). S e v e r a l authors have noted d i f f e r e n c e s i n the extent to which women and men s e l f d i s c l o s e , p o i n t i n g to the g r e a t e r focus f o r women on v e r b a l communication which i n c l u d e s emotional e x p r e s s i o n (e.g. A r i e s & Johnson, 1983; B e l l , 1981; Booth & Hess, 1974; C a l d w e l l & Peplau, 1982; Davidson & Packard, 1981; Woolsey, 1987b). In a study examining f r i e n d s h i p p o t e n t i a l , Walker and Wright (1976) found t h a t i f one member of a same sex dyad who had j u s t met d i v u l g e d p e r s o n a l or i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n to the other, there was a g r e a t e r chance of the two becoming b e t t e r f r i e n d s . While t h i s was the case f o r both male and female same sex p a i r s , the i n v e s t i g a t o r s found t h a t h a l f a g a i n as many males as females had to be r e c r u i t e d f o r the study because so many men r e f u s e d to c a r r y out the experimental i n s t r u c t i o n to d i s c l o s e i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n about themselves. I f the men overcame t h e i r u n w i l l i n g n e s s to s e l f d i s c l o s e , they i n f a c t then became b e t t e r f r i e n d s . There were no women i n the study who r e f u s e d to share such p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n with t h e i r study p a r t n e r (Walker & Wright, 1976). Talk i s viewed as a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of women's f r i e n d s h i p s (Johnson & A r i e s , 1983), and i t i s hel d to p l a y 27 the most important r o l e i n f o r g i n g c l o s e n e s s between women (Davidson, 1983). Women converse more f r e q u e n t l y , on more p e r s o n a l t o p i c s , and a t g r e a t e r depth, i n both same-sex and c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s than do men ( A r i e s & Johnson, 1983). Gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of in t i m a t e d i s c l o s u r e are e v i d e n t i n adolescence, when s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f i r s t becomes a f u n c t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p (Tesch, 1983). Not o n l y are women more s e l f d i s c l o s i n g than men, but Arno l d and C h a r t i e r (1986) note t h a t men a c t u a l l y d i s p l a y avoidance of d i s c l o s u r e , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e i r same sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Across the l i f e s p a n men appear to be c o n s i s t e n t l y nonexpressive i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s (Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985), p r o v i d i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s with l e s s e m o t i o n a l l y s u p p o r t i v e v e r b a l communication than do women with t h e i r f r i e n d s (Davidson & Packard, 1981). The male sex r o l e appears to f o s t e r i n e x p r e s s i v i t y (Bernard, 1976). B e l l (1981) notes t h a t many men may be so " e f f e c t i v e l y " s o c i a l i z e d t h a t they s i m p l y cannot c o n f i d e . Such a d i r e c o n c l u s i o n i s an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s . The s t e r e o t y p e of the i n e x p r e s s i v e male, u n w i l l i n g to openly express f e e l i n g s which suggest v u l n e r a b i l i t y , holds e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n men's same sex f r i e n d s h i p s ( W i l l i a m s , 1985) but i s at t e n u a t e d somewhat i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women (Helgeson et a l . , 1987). I t appears t h a t men w i l l d i s c u s s more p e r s o n a l t h i n g s with t h e i r women f r i e n d s than with other men (Helgeson et a l . , 1987). F u r t h e r , t h i s r e s u l t must be tempered by the caveat t h a t such d i f f e r e n c e s 28 decrease as the s t r e n g t h and d u r a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n c r e a s e s (Wright, 1982). 2. A p p r e c i a t i o n A p p r e c i a t i o n may be thought of as v a l u i n g h i g h l y c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of one's f r i e n d i n the context of the f r i e n d s h i p . I t can be d e s c r i b e d as an experience of enjoyment, p l e a s u r e or a f f e c t i o n (Davis & Todd, 1985). Such enjoyment can i n c l u d e the p l e a s u r a b l e experience of la u g h t e r ( B e l l , 1981). A f f e c t i o n i s p e r c e i v e d by both men and women to be an important component i n the form a t i o n and maintenance of same and other sex f r i e n d s h i p s (Rose, 1985). Enjoyment of the other ' s company i s regarded as a normative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of f r i e n d s h i p , without which maintenance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p would be d i f f i c u l t (Davis & Todd, 1985). Kahn and Antonucci (1980) i d e n t i f y e n j o y a b l e a s s o c i a t i o n as one of the three important c l a s s e s of p r o v i s i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p . In a study of p r ototypes of i n t i m a c y based on men's and women's d e s c r i p t i o n s of r e a l f r i e n d s h i p e x p e r i e n c e s , Helgeson et a l . , (1987) found t h a t conceptions of i n t i m a c y were p r i m a r i l y focused upon f e e l i n g s of a f f e c t i o n , a p p r e c i a t i o n or warmth. Those authors note t h a t s e l f d i s c l o s u r e may be c o n s i d e r e d " i n t i m a t e " p r i m a r i l y as a f u n c t i o n of i t s occurrence w i t h i n the context of warm f e e l i n g s . An important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l o o k i n g a t t h i s dimension i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between f e e l i n g a p p r e c i a t i v e , and 29 e x p r e s s i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n . P o s i t i v e regard, one of LaGaipa's (1977) e i g h t major f a c t o r s of f r i e n d s h i p , may r e f l e c t a s p e c t s of a p p r e c i a t i o n i n t h a t being the r e c i p i e n t of ex p r e s s i o n s of a p p r e c i a t i o n may be an important component i n the p r o v i s i o n of ego re i n f o r c e m e n t and the enhancement of s e l f worth. While equal p r o p o r t i o n s of men and women appear to experience f e e l i n g s of a p p r e c i a t i o n i n t h e i r i n t i m a t e f r i e n d s h i p s , as might be expected from the f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , men are much l e s s l i k e l y to express f e e l i n g s of a p p r e c i a t i o n both i n same and other sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Helgeson e t a l . , 1987). A r n o l d and C h a r t i e r (1986) found t h a t men r a t e d a f f e c t i o n ( d e f i n e d as p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t and v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n s of a f f e c t i o n ) as more important i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than with men. In c r o s s sex f r i e n d s h i p s the p h y s i c a l component of a f f e c t i o n i s an important d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e between men and women's p r o t o t y p i c a l i n t i m a c y e x p e r i e n c e s . In Helgeson et a l . ' s (1987) i n t i m a c y prototype study, c l u s t e r a n a l y s e s of d e s c r i p t i o n s of opp o s i t e sex in t i m a c y r e v e a l e d t h a t s e x u a l a c t i v i t i e s and p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t make up a separate f a c t o r f o r men but not f o r women. Instead f o r women, p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t was subsumed i n the c l u s t e r l a b e l e d ' f e e l i n g and e x p r e s s i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n and enjoyment'. Sexual a c t i v i t i e s were not mentioned i n t h e i r i n t i m a t e f r i e n d s h i p e x p e r i e n c e s , and i n f a c t some women s p e c i f i c a l l y noted the absence of sex (Helgeson et a l , 1987). 30 3. A s s i s t a n c e Wright (1982, 1985) c i t e s ' u t i l i t y v a l u e ' , d e f i n e d as "the degree to which the s u b j e c t regards h i s / h e r t a r g e t f r i e n d as w i l l i n g t o use h i s / h e r own time and r e s o u r c e s to help the s u b j e c t meet needs or reach p e r s o n a l g o a l s " as an important component of f r i e n d s h i p . T h i s view, from the p e r s p e c t i v e of exchange theory, takes the 'having a f r i e n d ' approach to h e l p i n g behavior; t h a t i s , help i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d i n u n i d i r e c t i o n a l terms, as coming to and b e n e f i t t i n g the respondent. On the other hand, Davis and Todd (1985) d e s c r i b e the p r o t o t y p i c a l c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p as one t h a t i s high i n mutual a s s i s t a n c e ; t h a t i s , each member i s both i n c l i n e d to give a i d and support and to f e e l t h a t s/he can count on the other i n times of need. S e v e r a l authors have noted the c e n t r a l i t y of h e l p i n g behavior, e s p e c i a l l y a m u t u a l i t y of help between f r i e n d s , to c o n c e p t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p (Candy et a l . , 1981; Fox et a l . , 1985; Johnson & A r i e s , 1983). LaGaipa (1977) d e s c r i b e s h e l p i n g behavior as " e x p r e s s i n g concern f o r one's w e l l being; g i v i n g h e l p r e a d i l y without being asked; and p r o v i d i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l support" (p. 252). Such e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r support are g r e a t e r when f r i e n d s h i p s are c l o s e r . C r o s s - s e c t l o n a l l y , we expect more from our c l o s e f r i e n d s than we do our acquaintances, and we expect most from our best f r i e n d s (Davis & Todd, 1985). In the development of a f r i e n d s h i p , the movement from good 31 f r i e n d to c l o s e f r i e n d i s r e f l e c t e d most c l e a r l y i n in c r e a s e s on two dimensions, h e l p i n g and s e l f d i s c l o s u r e (LaGaipa, 1977). P e r c e p t i o n s on the p r o v i s i o n of help a l s o vary depending on whether same sex or c r o s s sex f r i e n d s h i p s are the t a r g e t : i n c r o s s sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s both men and women r e p o r t r e c e i v i n g l e s s . h elp than i n same sex f r i e n d s h i p s (Rose, 1985). Many d e f i n i t i o n s of help i n c l u d e both c o n c r e t e , i n s t r u m e n t a l a s s i s t a n c e and emotional or p s y c h o l o g i c a l support. Yet i t i s l i k e l y t h a t men and women have a d i f f e r e n t understanding about what help means. Help may i n v o l v e l e s s of an emotional component f o r men, whose primary o r i e n t a t i o n may be d e s c r i b e d as i n s t r u m e n t a l , i n c o n t r a s t to women's more s o c i o e m o t i o n a l focus (Fox et a l . , 1985). Few r e s e a r c h e r s have addressed t h i s d i r e c t l y , and those who have d i s c u s s e d the meaning of help i n f r i e n d s h i p have looked s o l e l y a t women's experience (e.g. Candy et a l . , 1981; Davidson & Packard, 1981; Johnson & A r i e s , 1983), so comparisons with men cannot be made. T h e i r f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t women see in t i m a c y as a form of a s s i s t a n c e i n i t s e l f (Candy et a l . , 1981). For example, f o r some women, support i s conceived of as a f u n c t i o n of n o n c r i t i c a l l i s t e n i n g (Johnson & A r i e s , 1983). Fox et a l . (1985) note t h a t i n r e p o r t e d f r i e n d s h i p behavior, women i n d i c a t e t h a t empathy subsumes or i s e q u i v a l e n t to a l t r u i s m . They f e e l t h a t "being able to r e v e a l themselves and i n t u r n a c c e p t i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s ' innermost f e e l i n g s i s one of the deepest 32 forms of h e l p i n g without expectation- of compensation, which i s a l t r u i s m " (Fox et a l . , 1985, p. 495). A f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e between men and women may l i e i n the importance accorded the g i v i n g of h e l p . Davidson and Packard (1981) note t h a t the g i v i n g o f help i s , f o r women, an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to p e r s o n a l growth and sense of i d e n t i t y . 4. Empathic Understanding LaGaipa (1977) regards empathic understanding as one of the e i g h t primary f r i e n d s h i p dimensions, and d e f i n e s i t as " i n t e r p r e t i n g a c c u r a t e l y the f e e l i n g s of another person; understanding how one r e a l l y f e e l s ; r e a l l y l i s t e n i n g to what one has to say" (p 252). The d e f i n i t i o n o f f e r e d by Davis & Todd (1985) i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n of the a r c h e t y p a l f r i e n d s h i p i s "they understand each other, not merely i n the sense of knowing f a c t s about each other, but i n the more fundamental sense of understanding the r a t i o n a l e of each o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r " (p. 19). F o l l o w i n g from the above d i s c u s s i o n of the importance of v e r b a l communication and the meaning of help i n women's f r i e n d s h i p s , i t appears c l e a r t h a t the f e e l i n g of being understood and the experience of understanding the other p l a y an e s p e c i a l l y c e n t r a l r o l e i n women's conceptions of f r i e n d s h i p . The extent to which t h i s i s t r u e i n men's f r i e n d s h i p s i s not c l e a r . In a study of men's same sex and other sex f r i e n d s h i p s , respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they 33 experienced more emotional i n t i m a c y (assessed by a range o£ items, i n c l u d i n g q u e s t i o n s about understanding the other) with women than they do with men (Arnold and C h a r t i e r , 1986). At the same time, the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t men av o i d the same behaviors with other men. U n f o r t u n a t e l y there i s some c o n f u s i o n i n the data, because the f a c t o r t a p p i n g understanding i s combined with s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , which men are l e s s l i k e l y to do with other men and more l i k e l y to do with women. The combining of the components of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and understanding each other seems a s e n s i b l e assumption, g i v e n the primacy of v e r b a l communication. However i t may be t h a t men f e e l understood and f e e l understanding with other men more than they do with women, without a c t u a l l y t a l k i n g about i t . 5. Deepened S e l f Awareness B e l l (1981) suggests t h a t the most important of a l l b e n e f i t s of f r i e n d s h i p i s the good f e e l i n g of being r e a f f i r m e d by someone who matters to us. Among Wright's (1985) f i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l rewards, two r e f l e c t a s p e c t s of t h i s c o n s t r u c t . One i s s e l f a f f i r m a t i o n v a l u e , d e f i n e d as " t a r g e t person behaves i n ways t h a t f a c i l i t a t e the r e c o g n i t i o n and e x p r e s s i o n of s u b j e c t ' s important and h i g h l y valued s e l f a t t r i b u t e s " . The other i s ego support v a l u e , which i s d e f i n e d as " t a r g e t person i s s u p p o r t i v e , r e a s s u r i n g , and behaves i n ways t h a t help s u b j e c t maintain a p o s i t i v e impression of h e r / h i m s e l f " . LaGaipa (1977) 34 i d e n t i f i e s acceptance, i . e . the acknowledgement of one's i d e n t i t y , i n t e g r i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y , as an important dimension of f r i e n d s h i p . A r i e s and Johnson (1983) p o i n t out t h a t women's more frequent and in-depth c o n v e r s a t i o n may make a s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to such deepened s e l f awareness. They a l s o note t h a t the n o n c r i t i c a l l i s t e n i n g of women f r i e n d s p r o v i d e s i n c r e a s e d f e e l i n g s of s e l f worth f o r the r e c i p i e n t (Johnson & A r i e s , 1983). Respondents i n Davidson and Packard's (1981) study on the t h e r a p e u t i c a s p e c t s of women's same sex f r i e n d s h i p s r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s , f o s t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and growth. A q u a l i t a t i v e study of the f r i e n d s h i p s of p r o f e s s i o n a l women f i n d s t h a t most of the women i n the study had experienced r e l a t i o n s h i p s with other women which had f a c i l i t a t e d t h e i r s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n (Woolsey & A d l e r , 1986, unpublished; c i t e d i n Woolsey, 1987b). Again the evidence i s l e s s c l e a r as to the importance of t h i s dimension t o men i n t h e i r c o nceptions of f r i e n d s h i p with women and men. 6. Shared A c t i v i t y Over the l i f e s p a n , i n both same sex and other sex f r i e n d s h i p s , men are c o n s i s t e n t l y more a c t i v i t y o r i e n t e d than are women i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s (Dickens & Perlman, 1981). As B e l l (1981) notes, "the c l o s e f r i e n d 35 r e l a t i o n s h i p between men i s s u b j e c t i v e l y d e f i n e d i n terms of d o i ng t h i n g s t o g e t h e r " (p. 405). However, shared a c t i v i t y or companionship i s an important f r i e n d s h i p f u n c t i o n f o r both sexes (Rose, 1985). Having common i n t e r e s t s was found to be a key f a c t o r i n the f ormation and maintenance of f r i e n d s h i p s f o r both men and women (Rose, 1985). LaGaipa (1977) l i s t s " s i m i l a r i t y " , i . e . , " p o s s e s s i n g s i m i l a r p o i n t s of view, a t t i t u d e s and i n t e r e s t s " as one of h i s c e n t r a l dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p (p. 252). Sharing a c t i v i t i e s comprised the t h i r d component ( i n a d d i t i o n to a p p r e c i a t i o n and s e l f d i s c l o s u r e ) , of p r o t o types of same sex and c r o s s sex i n t i m a c y f o r both male and female respondents (Helgeson, et a l . , 1987). F u r t h e r , the number of a c t i v i t i e s t h a t are shared by members i n a f r i e n d s h i p dyad i s a f a i r l y r e l i a b l e check on the l e v e l of f r i e n d s h i p , with more shared a c t i v i t i e s p r e d i c t i n g a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p (Davis & Todd, 1985). S t i l l , i t i s apparent t h a t s h a r i n g a c t i v i t i e s i s more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of men's f r i e n d s h i p s than of women's. Arnold and C h a r t i e r (1986) examined the c o n s t r u c t of s o l i d a r i t y i n a sample of undergraduate males. They hypothesized t h a t s o l i d a r i t y i s made up of three components: avoidance of emotion, avoidance of d i s c l o s u r e , and a c t i v i t y o r i e n t a t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to r a t e t h e i r c l o s e s t other sex r e l a t i o n s h i p , and t h e i r c l o s e s t same sex r e l a t i o n s h i p on the a c c u r a c y of statements such as "doing t h i n g s together i s the most important p a r t of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p " . The r e s u l t s of 36 the study suggest t h a t men form r e l a t i o n s h i p s with other men p r i m a r i l y on the b a s i s of shared a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s , but t h a t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with women are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a somewhat g r e a t e r emphasis on emotional f a c t o r s (Arnold & C h a r t i e r , 1986). In the in t i m a c y prototype study (Helgeson et a l . , 1987) men were seen to emphasize shared a c t i v i t i e s and c o n f i d i n g about e q u a l l y o v e r a l l , but s h a r i n g a c t i v i t i e s was c i t e d more o f t e n when i n t e r a c t i n g with a male. This i s c o n s i s t e n t with the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t the g r e a t e s t gender d i f f e r e n c e s are between same sex f r i e n d s h i p s , and t h a t i n c r o s s sex f r i e n d s h i p s men and women accommodate to each other (Helqeson et a l . , 1987). In d i s c u s s i n g men's a c t i v i t y o r i e n t a t i o n , Wright (1982) has c h a r a c t e r i z e d men's f r i e n d s h i p s as being " s i d e by s i d e " with the two i n d i v i d u a l s o r i e n t e d to some e x t e r n a l task or a c t i v i t y , as opposed to women's f r i e n d s h i p s which he d e s c r i b e s as "face to f a c e " (p. 8). His f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t men regard a r e l a t i o n s h i p as b e t t e r and f r i e n d s as more i n t e r e s t i n g i f both i n d i v i d u a l s hold shared views on s p e c i f i c d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s was not tr u e f o r women, who i n s t e a d c o n s i d e r e d a f r i e n d s h i p b e t t e r i f both agree on deeper p e r s o n a l v a l u e s (Wright, 1982). Wright (1982) q u a l i f i e s t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n by n o t i n g t h a t such sex d i f f e r e n c e s decrease with i n c r e a s i n g c l o s e n e s s and l e n g t h of time known, so th a t f o r women and men c l o s e , long term f r i e n d s h i p s are then both s i d e by s i d e and face to f a c e . 37 7. A u t h e n t i c i t y A u t h e n t i c i t y has been d e f i n e d as "openness and honesty i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; being r e a l , genuine, and spontaneous" (LaGaipa, 1977, p. 252). Among the f e a t u r e s found by Davis and Todd (1985) i n t h e i r study of archetypes of f r i e n d s h i p i s " s p o n t a n e i t y " , d e f i n e d as f e e l i n g " f r e e to be themselves i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , r a t h e r than f e e l i n g r e q u i r e d to p l a y a r o l e , wear a mask, or i n h i b i t e x p r e s s i o n s of t h e i r p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " (p. 19). One of Wright's (1985) dua l c r i t e r i a of f r i e n d s h i p c o n s i s t s of "the degree to which two i n d i v i d u a l s r e a c t to one another as unique, genuine and i r r e p l a c e a b l e i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p " , and i s tapped by, f o r example, the f o l l o w i n g reverse-coded item: " ' f a l s e s i n c e r i t y ' and 'phoniness' are the kinds of terms t h a t occur to me when I am t r y i n g to thin k h o n e s t l y about my impressions of my t a r g e t f r i e n d " . I t i s c l e a r t h a t the ki n d of f e e l i n g expressed above i s i n i m i c a l t o c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p . In a l a r g e s c a l e study of f r i e n d s h i p , LaGaipa (1977) asked 2361 c o l l e g e students to r a t e the extent to which they valued v a r i o u s dimensions, i n c l u d i n g a u t h e n t i c i t y , i n f r i e n d s h i p s of v a r y i n g degrees of c l o s e n e s s . The r e s u l t s d i s p l a y an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r a s t between s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and a u t h e n t i c i t y : s e l f d i s c l o s u r e does not become important u n t i l the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d e f i n e d as c l o s e , nor i s i t very d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a t lower l e v e l s of f r i e n d s h i p . A u t h e n t i c i t y on the other hand, i s c o n s i d e r e d 38 to be an e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n at a l l l e v e l s of f r i e n d s h i p (LaGaipa, 1977). 8. T r u s t T r u s t i s d e f i n e d as "each takes i t t h a t the other person w i l l a c t i n l i g h t of her or h i s f r i e n d ' s best i n t e r e s t s " , (Davis & Todd, 1985; p. 19). Another f o r m u l a t i o n i s Wright's (1985) " s e c u r i t y v a l u e " which i s d e f i n e d as "the degree to which the s u b j e c t regards h i s / h e r t a r g e t person as s a f e and n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g due to h i s / h e r d i s i n c l i n a t i o n to behave i n ways t h a t would b e t r a y t r u s t , cause embarrassment or draw a t t e n t i o n to the s u b j e c t ' s p o i n t s of weakness or s e l f doubt". This component of Wright's Aquaintanceship D e s c r i p t i o n Form (ADF), was based on the r e c o g n i t i o n of the c e n t r a l r o l e of v u l n e r a b i l i t y as an a f f e c t i v e f a c t o r i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and the f a c t t h a t f r i e n d s v a r y i n the extent to which they regard one another as l i k e l y to take advantage of p o i n t s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y (Wright, 1985). Such a f o r m u l a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t i s s i m i l a r to LaGaipa's (1977) dimension of acceptance: "acknowledging one's i d e n t i t y , i n t e g r i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y ; not t a k i n g advantage of another" (p. 252). In a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of s e v e r a l aspects of f r i e n d s h i p Davis and Todd (1985) found t h a t t r u s t , r e s p e c t and acceptance loaded on one f a c t o r , which they c a l l e d " v i a b i l i t y " . They note t h a t there were no gender 39 d i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of t r u s t r e p o r t e d f o r men and women i n t h e i r same sex and other sex c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s 9. C o n t r o l / R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Power undoubtedly p l a y s a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o nceptions of c l o s e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g. Wish et a l . , 1976). However, r a t h e r than a s i n g l e dimension or v a r i a b l e , power may more a c c u r a t e l y be construed as a r u b r i c , an o r g a n i z i n g concept t h a t imbues many processes and dimensions with i t s p a r t i c u l a r dynamics. Huston (1983) makes d i s t i n c t i o n s among three r e l a t e d terms t h a t have been used to d e s c r i b e aspects of power: 1) " i n f l u e n c e " , which r e f e r s to the impact on one partner of events which i n v o l v e the other ( t h i s mutual impact Is c o n s i d e r e d the hallmark of a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p ) ; 2) "dominance", or asymmetrical i n f l u e n c e which produces a h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangement r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r e n c e s between the p a r t n e r s i n terms of freedom of movement, r e s o u r c e s , r i g h t s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; and 3) "power", the a b i l i t y to achieve ends through i n f l u e n c e . Power i n t h i s d e l i n e a t i o n i s a subset of i n f l u e n c e t h a t r e f l e c t s i n d i v i d u a l s ' i n t e n t i o n a l use of i n f l u e n c e to make t h i n g s go t h e i r own way i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s n o t i o n of power then, i s t i e d to what happens when the p a r t n e r s have disagreements, incompatible g o a l s , d i f f e r i n g ideas and/or p r e f e r e n c e s , e t c . (Huston, 1983). The extent to which the i n d i v i d u a l i s c o n s c i o u s of or i n t e n t i o n a l about the use of i n f l u e n c e i s 40 what d e f i n e s power i n Huston's (1983) model. The d i s t i n c t i o n i s not as c l e a r as i t might seem however, as Huston (1983) notes that power doesn't n e c e s s a r i l y r e s i d e i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n d i v i d u a l (although i t may, e.g. M a c h i a v e l l i a n i s m ) , but a l s o or i n s t e a d may be a f u n c t i o n of c u l t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s (e.g. s o c i a l norms) and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the other (e.g. v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s ) . In a ve r y r e a l way both f o r the i n d i v i d u a l and f o r the other, power and dominance may be experienced s i m i l a r l y , t h a t i s , as one pa r t n e r " c a l l i n g the s h o t s " f o r the other, r e g a r d l e s s of the exten t to which the one c a l l i n g the shots i s aware of doing so. Power has not been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t u d i e d i n the f r i e n d s h i p l i t e r a t u r e , however there are some i n v e s t i g a t o r s who have attempted to examine i t . Candy et a l . (1981) f a c t o r a n alyzed 7 dimensions i n womens' d e s c r i p t i o n s of the f u n c t i o n s of t h e i r f i v e c l o s e s t f r i e n d s h i p s and found three o r t h o g o n a l f a c t o r s , among them s t a t u s and power. Status was d e f i n e d as the "conveyance of p r e s t i g e or esteem" upon the i n d i v i d u a l as a f u n c t i o n of being with an important or higher s t a t u s other; power was d e s c r i b e d as "having a u t h o r i t y over" the other (Candy et a l . , 1981, p. 462). Rose (1985) found t h a t although women r e p o r t e d l e s s i n t i m a c y and acceptance i n t h e i r c r o s s sex f r i e n d s h i p s , they r e p o r t e d more companionship, and s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the companionship f u n c t i o n i n c l u d e d an aspect of s t a t u s : "Perhaps the g r e a t e r v a l u a t i o n of males and the s t a t u s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r 41 companionship mean that women w i l l t o l e r a t e l e s s acceptance and i n t i m a c y from men f r i e n d s i n r e t u r n f o r the i n c r e a s e d s t a t u s they may a c q u i r e by having male f r i e n d s " (p. 72). Other r e s e a r c h e r s have a l s o looked a t asp e c t s of power i n c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s . Davis and Todd (1985) c i t e "equal e l i g i b i l i t i e s " ( i . e . , p a r t i c i p a t i n g as equals i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p ) as being a p r o t o t y p i c a l f e a t u r e of c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p (p. 19). Power i s an inhe r e n t aspect of Wright's (1985) " s e c u r i t y v a l ue", i n t h a t the extent to which one f e e l s v u l n e r a b l e with the other may i n p a r t be a f u n c t i o n of one's power i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Power may be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as being comprised of two modes: "power over", s i m i l a r to the dominance and power no t i o n s above (Huston, 1983), i n v o l v i n g c o n t r o l over others which l i m i t s t h e i r freedom to a c t or be; and "power t o " , or mutual power, t h a t i s , the freedom to take a c t i o n on one's own b e h a l f t h a t not o n l y does not l i m i t another's freedom to a c t but i n f a c t enhances i t (e.g. Surrey, 1987). The l a t t e r n o t i o n of power i s d e r i v e d from s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y (e.g. M i i l e r , 1983, 1984, 1986). I t suggests t h a t an important way to construe power i s i n c o n n e c t i o n with o t h e r s , u s i n g one's power to empower another, as f o r example i n f o s t e r i n g the growth of the other (e.g. M i l l e r 1982). In an e f f o r t to tap aspects of "power over" t h a t may p l a y an important r o l e i n the experience of f r i e n d s h i p , i t may be u s e f u l to focus on c o n t r o l and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In a study l o o k i n g at the r o l e of power and gender i n anger 42 responses, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was found to be one way i n which power i s understood by p a r t i c i p a n t s (Strachan & Dutton, 1990). An i n e q u a l i t y i n e i t h e r of these f a c t o r s may be r e f l e c t i v e of d i f f e r e n c e s i n power. S e l f - i n - R e l a t i o n Theory Surrey (1985) notes t h a t there are important sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n the experience and c o n s t r u c t i o n of the s e l f . S urrey (1985) along with s e v e r a l other t h e o r i s t s a t the Stone Center, W e l l e s l e y C o l l e g e , are d e v e l o p i n g a the o r y t h a t may he l p account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways men and women conceive of and behave i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g. Jordan, 1987; Kaplan, 1984; M i l l e r , 1982; S t i v e r , 1984). S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n theory, as i t i s c a l l e d ( M i l l e r , 1982), stands i n c o n t r a s t to predominant t h e o r i e s of the s e l f which frame development i n terms of i n c r e a s i n g s e p a r a t i o n and i n d i v i d u a t i o n from o t h e r s , f o r example, from the mother i n . e a r l y c h i l d h o o d , from the f a m i l y i n adolescence, and from t e a c h e r s and mentors i n young adulthood. The b a s i c m o t i v a t i o n p o s i t e d by such t h e o r i e s i s the development of an autonomous, bounded s e l f , separate from o t h e r s . S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y s h i f t s the emphasis from s e p a r a t i o n to r e l a t i o n s h i p as the fou n d a t i o n f o r s e l f -e x perience and development, and argues t h a t f o r women, sense of s e l f i s "organized around being able to make and then s u s t a i n a f f i l i a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s " ( M i l l e r , 1976, p. 83). 43 i n f a c t s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y does assume that c o n n e c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the f o u n d a t i o n f o r men's s e l f u nderstanding and development a l s o , but suggests t h a t as a consequence of s o c i a l i z a t i o n men tend to be l e s s aware of the extent to which they are i n - r e l a t i o n , and l e s s s k i l l e d at doing the work of being i n - r e l a t i o n , than are women- The e a r l y mother-daughter r e l a t i o n s h i p i s viewed as c e n t r a l to the development of t h i s sense of s e l f , i n which g i r l s are encouraged to augment t h e i r empathic s k i l l s , while boys are d i v e r t e d from such development. The b a s i c g o a l of the " r e l a t i o n a l s e l f " i s the development of r e l a t i o n a l competence, or the deepened c a p a c i t y f o r c r e a t i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g r e l a t e d n e s s with o t h e r s . Empathy p l a y s a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n t h i s model, and i s d e s c r i b e d as a " h i g h l y complex process r e l y i n g on a high l e v e l of p s y c h o l o g i c a l development and l e a r n i n g . Accurate empathy i n v o l v e s a b a l a n c i n g of a f f e c t i v e a r o u s a l and c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g . I t r e q u i r e s an a b i l i t y to b u i l d on the experience of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the other person to form a c o g n i t i v e a s s i m i l a t i o n of t h i s experience as a b a s i s f o r response. Such c a p a c i t i e s imply h i g h l y developed emotional and c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g p r a c t i c e , m o d e l l i n g and feedback i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (Surrey, 1985). A more complex n o t i o n put forward by t h i s t h e o r y i s "mutual empathy", which i s the f o u n d a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Mutual empathy i s a f o u r - f o l d process i n v o l v i n g " s e e i n g the o t h e r " , " s e n s i n g the other ' f e e l i n g seen'", "being seen", and 44 " f e e l i n g seen" (Surrey, 1985). In t h i s model i t i s as important to understand the other and r e f l e c t t h a t understanding back to her/him as i t i s to be and f e e l understood. Development of the s e l f i s seen as a r i s i n g out of i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which the g o a l i s i n c r e a s e d mutual empathy, and a s p e c t s of the s e l f such as c r e a t i v i t y and a s s e r t i o n develop w i t h i n t h i s primary context of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Hence the t h e o r y p o s t u l a t e s no i n h e r e n t need to separate from or s a c r i f i c e being i n r e l a t i o n i n order to achieve s e l f development. M i l l e r (1986) p o s t u l a t e s i n c r e a s e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s i n f i v e dimensions r e s u l t i n g from being i n r e l a t i o n with o t h e r s , i n c l u d i n g a f e e l i n g of z e s t ( v i t a l i t y and energy), empowerment (the m o t i v a t i o n f o r and a b i l i t y to take a c t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p ) , s e l f knowledge, sense of worth, and a g r e a t e r sense of connectedness with the o t h e r . Two c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g the g r o w t h - f o s t e r i n g nature of s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be: 1) Does each i n d i v i d u a l work toward empowering the other? That i s , does each enhance the o t h e r ' s a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n to take a c t i o n and be-a u t h e n t i c i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p ? and 2 ) Does i t l e a d to a g r e a t e r sense of c o n n e c t i o n with the other person, r a t h e r than l e s s ? I f t h a t i s t r u e , i t should f o l l o w t h a t such r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( i . e . , those which provide empowerment and connectedness f o r i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s ) are a l s o experienced as more s a t i s f y i n g than those i n which the r e v e r s e i s t r u e . 45 T h i s model emphasizes the n e c e s s i t y or t a k i n g the r e l a t i o n a l c ontext i n t o account when a s s e s s i n g a s p e c t s of the i n d i v i d u a l such as conceptions about s e l f and f r i e n d s h i p . In order to do t h a t i t i s necessary to have a measure not o n l y of what the person gets from others i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s (e.g. the extent to which one r e c e i v e s empathic understanding) but a l s o what s/he g i v e s to o t h e r s . The r a t i n g s f o r others w i l l of course v a r y on the b a s i s of the d i f f e r e n c e s among f r i e n d s i n the respondents' network; e q u a l l y , the r a t i n g s f o r s e l f w i l l a l s o v a r y as a f u n c t i o n of each p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . At the group l e v e l i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t such a the o r y c o u l d begin to e x p l a i n some of the d i f f e r e n c e s between men's and women's experiences of f r i e n d s h i p . As Surrey (1985) notes, " I t i s important to maintain the v i s i o n t h a t although the sex d i f f e r e n c e s we are d e s c r i b i n g may a t times be q u i t e s u b t l e , and i n d i v i d u a l l y and c u l t u r a l l y r e l a t i v e , they may r e p r e s e n t a d i f f e r e n c e t h a t r e s u l t s i n enormous consequences i n areas of c r i t i c a l human i n t e r a c t i o n s " (p. 7). Values As the l i t e r a t u r e review on the dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p i n d i c a t e s , there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p i n what i n d i v i d u a l s value i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t i s important 46 however, not to assume t h a t a l l people regard each of the aspe c t s as having equal importance. Our p i l o t data c o n f i r m t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s v a r y i n the importance they a s c r i b e to each of the dimensions i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s ( d e V r i e s & Parker, u n p u b l i s h e d ) . Values may be c o n s i d e r e d to p l a y a c e n t r a l r o l e i n people's understanding of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s i n t h a t they heighten c u e - s e n s i t i v i t y , making i t more l i k e l y t h a t they w i l l n o t i c e f a c t o r s they have s t r o n g values about, and they p r o v i d e a m o t i v a t i o n a l impetus to a c t on b e l i e f s (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). 47 Methods Despite the concerns in h e r e n t i n d e v e l o p i n g any new instrument, I have dec i d e d to develop my own measure of i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o nceptions of f r i e n d s h i p . T h i s r e s e a r c h i s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e on a number of grounds. I t i s i n t e g r a t i v e i n t h a t i t s methods evolve out of an attempt to r e s o l v e the cummulative weaknesses i n many d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s , and i n t h a t i t p u l l s together important f a c t o r s found i n the work of s e v e r a l t h e o r i s t s and i n v e s t i g a t o r s . The r e s e a r c h method may be c o n s i d e r e d comprehensive not o n l y i n the breadth of dimensions e v a l u a t e d , but a l s o i n the e x t e n s i v e n e s s of the i n d i v i d u a l s ' f r i e n d s h i p network ( i . e . respondents r a t e t h e i r e n t i r e c l o s e f r i e n d network). The network i s cued p i c t o r i a l l y r a t h e r than v i a v e r b a l d e f i n i t i o n s , i n order to a v o i d r e s t r i c t i n g the bases upon which i n d i v i d u a l s make the assessment of " c l o s e " , and to a v o i d the p o s s i b l e confound of a s k i n g i n d i v i d u a l s to s e l e c t t h e i r network on the same s e t of v a r i a b l e s on which they l a t e r r a t e t h e i r f r i e n d s . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' networks are not r e s t r i c t e d by i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' assumptions about important dimensions f o r membership i n the c l o s e f r i e n d group. S i m i l a r l y , p a r t i c i p a n t s are not r e s t r i c t e d i n number of f r i e n d s nominated, nor are k i n or romantic p a r t n e r s excluded (although both k i n and romantic p a r t n e r s are i d e n t i f i e d so t h a t separate analyses may be run on t h i s subset of the \ 48 f r i e n d group). Whereas the s e l e c t i o n of f r i e n d s f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the c l o s e s t f r i e n d network i s l e f t open-ended, the dimensions upon which those f r i e n d s are then r a t e d are d e f i n e d i n a standard manner with a t e a r - o u t g l o s s a r y to which p a r t i c i p a n t s r e f e r i n the course of making t h e i r r a t i n g s . F u r t h e r , p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e both themselves and each f r i e n d , a l l o w i n g f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of a measure of p e r c e i v e d r e c i p r o c i t y on each dimension. Importantly, s u b j e c t s are not asked to aggregate over groups of f r i e n d s , such as a l l c l o s e f r i e n d s , a l l same sex f r i e n d s , a l l other sex f r i e n d s . Instead, they respond at the l e v e l of the s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p , p e r m i t t i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r s to aggregate over f r i e n d s or a c r o s s dimensions as i s a p p r o p r i a t e . F i n a l l y , acknowledging t h a t people may v a r y i n the extent to which they value c e r t a i n dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p , t h i s study asks i n d i v i d u a l s to assess the importance to them of the. v a r i o u s e m p i r i c a l l y - d e r i v e d f a c t o r s . P a r t i c i p a n t s : P a r t i c i p a n t s were r e c r u i t e d from undergraduate courses i n Psychology and F a m i l y / N u t r i t i o n a l Sciences at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were handed out i n c l a s s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a t home and r e t u r n them to the i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h i n one week. P a r t i c i p a n t s r e c e i v e d bonus course p o i n t s 49 upon completion of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' anonymity was ensured by coding the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s by I.D. number ( p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n s t r u c t e d not to w r i t e t h e i r names on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . The t o t a l number of p a r t i c i p a n t s was 190; 95 women and 95 men. Of 260 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s handed out i n c l a s s e s , 204 were r e t u r n e d , y i e l d i n g a response r a t e of 78.5%. F i v e of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were incomplete. F u r t h e r , i n order to o b t a i n an equal number of women and men respondents I randomly d i s c a r d e d e i g h t females and one male from the study. In order to assess the r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s sample i n responding to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a t e s t - r e t e s t procedure was undertaken. A separate form was at t a c h e d to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n v i t i n g i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s to take p a r t i n a second phase of the study. Students who i n d i c a t e d they were i n t e r e s t e d were c o n t a c t e d a t two weeks f o l l o w i n g t h e i r submission of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and were g i v e n the Conceptions of F r i e n d s h i p q u e s t i o n n a i r e a second time. Twenty-five percent of the sample (N=45) completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a second time. Instruments and procedures: The Conceptions of F r i e n d s h i p q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s of s i x s e c t i o n s . I t was expected, based on p i l o t work, t h a t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e should take no longer than 1 1/2 hours to 50 complete. P a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t the time to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ranged from, on average, 50 to 90 minutes. 1) Background I n f o r m a t i o n : In t h i s s e c t i o n p a r t i c i p a n t s p rovide a l i m i t e d amount of i n f o r m a t i o n about themselves, i n c l u d i n g t h e i r age, sex, and number of years of e d u c a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , they are asked to i n d i c a t e t h e i r c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s t a t u s , ( i . e . whether or not they are c u r r e n t l y i n a romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p and i f so, whether they are l i v i n g t o g e t h e r ) , as a p o t e n t i a l c o v a r i a t e which may i n f l u e n c e other v a r i a b l e s , such as frequency of c o n t a c t . 2) Pyramid Diagram: F o l l o w i n g LaGaipa (19 77) we use a diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f r i e n d s h i p network t h a t r e f l e c t s the r e l a t i v e number of f r i e n d s t h a t are commonly found at each of four l e v e l s of f r i e n d s h i p . The base of the pyramid i s the l a r g e s t , l a b e l e d " s o c i a l a c q u a i n t a n c e s " . Each l e v e l up the pyramid i s s u c c e s s i v e l y s m a l l e r , from "good" to " c l o s e " to "best". U n l i k e LaGaipa (1977) however, we do not p rovide a v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n of what kinds of f r i e n d s can be expected to be found at each l e v e l of the pyramid. Our i n t e n t i o n i n s t e a d i s to have people s e l e c t t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s based on t h e i r judgement t h a t those f r i e n d s are s i t u a t e d a t the top two l e v e l s of the pyramid. Hence, the v a r i a b l e s or dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p t h a t are most important to the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l be used i n making t h a t judgement. P a r t i c i p a n t s ' c h o i c e of f r i e n d s w i l l be. l e s s 51 l i k e l y c o n s t r a i n e d by assumptions imposed by the i n v e s t i g a t o r s , as might be the case f o r i n s t a n c e i f s u b j e c t s were asked to choose t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s on the b a s i s of a g i v e n d e f i n i t i o n , (e.g."someone to whom you c o n f i d e i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n and express a f f e c t i o n " ) . 3) C i r c l e Task: The purpose of t h i s p i c t o r i a l e x e r c i s e i s to encourage p a r t i c i p a n t s to t h i n k more de e p l y about t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s h i p s . As Fox et a l . (1985) p o i n t out, " I t i s p r o b a b l y the unusual person who has thought e x t e n s i v e l y about her or h i s f r i e n d s h i p s , and when asked about them...it i s l i k e l y t h a t most respondents answer on the b a s i s of c u l t u r a l s t e r e o t y p e s and g e n e r a l i z e d i d e a l s , r a t h e r than on t h e i r own e x p e r i e n c e " (p. 490). In order to a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i n k i n g more deeply about t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to focus on the f r i e n d s they i d e n t i f i e d i n the p r e v i o u s t a s k , and to draw themselves and t h e i r f r i e n d s as c i r c l e s i n whatever way best p o r t r a y s t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . They were asked to i d e n t i f y the c i r c l e s by i n i t i a l s and sex. P a r t i c i p a n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t h a t there are no r e s t r i c t i o n s on how the c i r c l e s may be drawn ( i n terms of s i z e , placement, o r i e n t a t i o n , t o u c h i n g or o v e r l a p p i n g of c i r c l e s , e t c . ) . P i l o t work has i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s f i n d t h i s task c h a l l e n g i n g and e n j o y a b l e (d e V r i e s & Parker, u n p u b l i s h e d ) , which suggests t h a t they may be more l i k e l y to generate good q u a l i t y d ata. On the page f o l l o w i n g the c i r c l e task p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to 52 i d e n t i f y any i n d i v i d u a l s drawn i n the c i r c l e task who are e i t h e r k i n or romantic p a r t n e r s . T h i s p ermitted me to analyse s c o r e s on these f r i e n d s s e p a r a t e l y to determine whether or not d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n t h i s subset of the c l o s e f r i e n d network on the dimensions i d e n t i f i e d . 4) F r i e n d s h i p G r i d : P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to r a t e a l l i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d i n the C i r c l e Task on a range of s t r u c t u r a l and q u a l i t a t i v e dimensions. Respondents provided the i n i t i a l s , sex, age, d u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p , and frequency of c o n t a c t f o r each f r i e n d . For the remaining dimensions, p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d both f o r themselves and f o r each of t h e i r f r i e n d s , the frequency of occurrence of each dimension ( i . e . , how o f t e n s e l f d o e s / f e e l s p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g , and how o f t e n other d o e s / f e e l s the same t h i n g ) . The v a r i a b l e s being r a t e d a r e : s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , a s s i s t a n c e , empathic understanding, deepened s e l f awareness, a u t h e n t i c i t y , t r u s t / r e s p e c t , c o n t r o l , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The s c a l e f o r these items i s a 7-point L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e , with 1 = never, 4 = sometimes, and 7 = always. L a s t l y , three p o s s i b l e c r i t e r i o n dimensions are r a t e d f o r the respondent and each f r i e n d : connectedness, empowerment, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with r e l a t i o n s h i p . Ratings are made on a 7-p o i n t L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e with 1 = not a t a l l , 4 = somewhat, and 7 = ve r y much. 5 3 ) 54 R e s u l t s D e s c r i p t i o n of sample: P a r t i c i p a n t s were 95 female and 95 male undergraduate students i n Psychology and Fa m i l y Sciences a t U.B.C. They ranged i n age from 17 to 48 ye a r s , with a mean of 21.23, and standard d e v i a t i o n of 4.89. T o t a l number of years of e d u c a t i o n range from 12 to 22. The mean number of years of e d u c a t i o n i s 14.59, with a standard d e v i a t i o n of 1.56. In terms of e t h n i c background, the sample i s made up of 60.5% C a u c a s i a n , 36.8% a s i a n , and 2.7% east Indian people. Out of the 190 p a r t i c i p a n t s , 126 were born i n Canada (66.32%). F o r t y - e i g h t percent of the sample were not c u r r e n t l y i n a romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p at the time of the study; 41% were i n a romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p , but were not l i v i n g t o g e t h e r ; and 11% were i n a romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p and l i v i n g t o g e t h e r . Of the p a r t i c i p a n t s who i d e n t i f i e d themselves as being c u r r e n t l y i n a romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p , a l l but one were i n h e t e r o s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The one same-sex romantic couple was l e s b i a n . T e s t - R e t e s t : In order to assess the r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s sample on the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , one q u a r t e r of the sample (n=45) completed the measure twice, with a two-week i n t e r v a l between Time One and Time Two. The c o r r e l a t i o n between 55 scores o btained a t Time One and sc o r e s obtained a t Time Two was c a l c u l a t e d i n two ways. In the f i r s t procedure, a Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n was conducted f o r each i n d i v i d u a l on t h e i r r a t i n g s , item by item, between Time One and Time Two. T h i s y i e l d e d 45 c o r r e l a t i o n s , one f o r each respondent between Time One and Time Two. The c o r r e l a t i o n s were converted to F i s h e r Z-sco r e s (Glass & Hopkins, 1984) i n order to c a l c u l a t e an o v e r a l l mean. T h i s mean F i s h e r - Z score was then transformed back to a Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n . The o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n between time one and time two i s s a t i s f a c t o r y a t r=.715. In order to determine whether women and men d i f f e r i n t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y , separate c o r r e l a t i o n s were then c a l c u l a t e d f o r women and men respondents: r f o r women=.737; r f o r men=.663. The two r e s u l t s were compared v i a s e t t i n g a .95 conf i d e n c e i n t e r v a l around one of the c o r r e l a t i o n s (again u s i n g the F i s h e r - Z t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ) . The co n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l ranges from r=.635 to r=.810, hence, women's and men's t e s t - r e t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t the .05 l e v e l . In the second procedure f o r c a l c u l a t i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y between s c o r e s a t Time One and sc o r e s a t Time Two, aggregate s c o r e s were used, a v e r a g i n g over a l l f r i e n d s . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' r a t i n g s f o r s e l f and other on each dimension were averaged over a l l of t h e i r f r i e n d s . T h i s y i e l d e d 26 ( i . e . , 2 x 13) c o r r e l a t i o n s : f o r s e l f - and o t h e r - r a t i n g s on each of the 13 dimensions. The 26 c o r r e l a t i o n s were converted to F i s h e r Z-56 s c o r e s i n order to c a l c u l a t e : 1) a mean c o r r e l a t i o n f o r s e l f - r a t i n g s over a l l 13 dimensions, and 2) a mean c o r r e l a t i o n f o r o t h e r - r a t i n g s over a l l 13 dimensions. The mean F i s h e r - Z s c o r e s were then converted back to Pearson r ' s . The c o r r e l a t i o n f o r s e l f - r a t i n g s between Time One and Time Two over a l l dimensions i s r=.820; f o r o t h e r - r a t i n g s r=.815. Again, u s i n g the F i s h e r - Z transform, a mean f o r s e l f and other c o r r e l a t i o n s was c a l c u l a t e d : r=.817. Content Dimensions: The content dimensions r e f e r r e d to i n t h i s s e c t i o n i n c l u d e : s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , a s s i s t a n c e , empathic understanding, deepened awareness, shared a c t i v i t y , a u t h e n t i c i t y , t r u s t , c o n t r o l , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , connectedness, empowerment, and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Respondents were asked to r a t e each of up to 10 of t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s , and, s e p a r a t e l y , r a t e themselves with each of those f r i e n d s , on a l l 13 content dimensions, u s i n g a 7-point s c a l e . Means were obtained f o r each respondent f o r s e l f - r a t i n g s and o t h e r - r a t i n g s over a l l of t h e i r women f r i e n d s and over a l l of t h e i r men f r i e n d s , f o r each of the 13 dimensions. Four means were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each dimension: "women f r i e n d s " , " s e l f with women f r i e n d s " , "men f r i e n d s " , and " s e l f with men f r i e n d s " . That i s , f o r each respondent, there were four s c o r e s c a l c u l a t e d on each dimension, by aver a g i n g over t h e i r r a t i n g s f o r 1) a l l of t h e i r women f r i e n d s ; 2) a l l of t h e i r men f r i e n d s ; 3) themselves with each of t h e i r women f r i e n d s ; 57 and 4) themselves with each of t h e i r men f r i e n d s . Analyses were based on the four means per dimension f o r each respondent (see Tables 1 to 13 f o r the means used i n the a n a l y s e s ) . The number of f r i e n d s t h a t went i n t o each respondent's means v a r i e d f o r each i n d i v i d u a l . Respondents had to r e p o r t a t l e a s t one woman f r i e n d and one man f r i e n d i n order to be i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s e s , s i n c e a repeated measures procedure was used. The maximum t o t a l number of f r i e n d s p e r m i t t e d f o r each respondent was 10. The d a t a s e t was ana l y s e d i n three ways: 1) based on each respondent's e n t i r e f r i e n d s h i p network; 2) based on respondents' f r i e n d s h i p networks e x c l u d i n g t h e i r romantic p a r t n e r s ; and 3) based on respondents and t h e i r romantic p a r t n e r s o n l y . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s p a r t i t i o n i n g of the d a t a s e t i s based on the premise t h a t there are some important f e a t u r e s of romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t may obscure our p i c t u r e of c r o s s - s e x "non-romantic" f r i e n d s h i p s (e.g. Rubin, 1970, 1973). In the r e p o r t on the r e s u l t s t h a t f o l l o w s : "whole network" w i l l r e f e r to a n a l y s e s based on i n d i v i d u a l s ' e n t i r e f r i e n d s h i p networks ( i n c l u d i n g romantic p a r t n e r s ) ; "without p a r t n e r s " w i l l r e f e r to a n a l y s e s based on i n d i v i d u a l s ' f r i e n d s h i p networks, e x c l u d i n g romantic p a r t n e r s ; and " p a r t n e r s " w i l l r e f e r to analyses conducted on the respondents and t h e i r p a r t n e r s o n l y . Based on the three d i v i s i o n s of the d a t a s e t d e s c r i b e d above, three separate m u l t i p l e a n a l y ses of v a r i a n c e (MANOVARs), were performed on the 13 dimensions of. 58 f r i e n d s h i p . The d e s i g n of two of the MANOVARs ( i . e . , f o r the "whole d a t a s e t " and f o r the "dataset without p a r t n e r s " ) was a 2 (sex of respondent) x 2 (sex of f r i e n d ) x 2 ( s e l f vs. other r a t i n g ) with repeated measures on the l a s t two f a c t o r s (see F i g u r e 5 f o r an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the d e s i g n of these a n a l y s e s ) . In both MANOVARs a l l main e f f e c t s and two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t , but the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n was not (see Tables 14 & 15 f o r r e s u l t s of these a n a l y s e s ) . Follow-up u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s were conducted on a l l s i g n i f i c a n t MANOVAR r e s u l t s . In the t h i r d d i v i s i o n of the d a t a s e t ( i . e . , p a r t n e r s o n l y ) , the sex of f r i e n d f a c t o r drops out, because the respondents who were i n romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t the time of the study were h e t e r o s e x u a l (only one same-sex romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p was i d e n t i f i e d i n the sample, and th a t respondent was not i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s e s ) . Hence, the sex of the f r i e n d was a u t o m a t i c a l l y assumed to be the opp o s i t e sex of the respondent. In the case of the p a r t n e r s o n l y d a t a s e t then, the MANOVAR c o n s i s t e d of a 2 (sex of respondent) x 2 ( s e l f / o t h e r ) d e s i g n . The main e f f e c t (sex of respondent) and the two-way i n t e r a c t i o n (sex of respondent by s e l f / o t h e r ) were both s i g n i f i c a n t ; the main e f f e c t f o r s e l f / o t h e r was not (see Table 16 f o r r e s u l t s of t h i s MANOVAR). A l l s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s and i n t e r a c t i o n s were examined i n follow-up u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s . In the s e c t i o n to f o l l o w , the r e s u l t s of the follo w - u p a n a l y s e s w i l l be presented, dimension by dimension. Within 59 each dimension, the s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s and two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s are presented f o r each of the three d i v i s i o n s of the d a t a s e t . In some cases there are no s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r dimension i n one or more.of the d i v i s i o n s of the d a t a s e t ; i n such i n s t a n c e s i t w i l l be noted t h a t there were no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . F o l l o w i n g the s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s f o r each dimension, a b r i e f summary of the f i n d i n g s f o r t h a t dimension w i l l be presented. 1) S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : " F e e l i n g f r e e to express and r e v e a l i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n to the other; s h a r i n g p e r s o n a l thoughts and i n t i m a t e f e e l i n g s with the o t h e r . " l a ) Whole network: Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more s e l f d i s c l o s u r e i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s than do men respondents, F(1,169 ) =9 . 89; p_ < .002. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,169)=6.34; p_ < .02. Respondents (averaged over men and women) r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n amount of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , F(1,169)=.749; n.s. Respondents do r e p o r t however, t h a t they d i s c l o s e more to t h e i r men f r i e n d s than t h e i r men f r i e n d s do with them, F_( 1, 169 ) =7 . 29; 60 p. < .01. When r e f e r r i n g to themselves, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e with men f r i e n d s as compared to women f r i e n d s , F(1,169)=.385, n.s. When r e f e r r i n g to t h e i r f r i e n d s however, respondents r e p o r t that t h e i r women f r i e n d s s e l f d i s c l o s e more than t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F (1,169 ) =17. 524; p. < .001. For a v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s please see FIGURE 1. lb) Without p a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more s e l f d i s c l o s u r e i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than do men respondents, F( 1, 146 ) =4 . 59 ; p_ < .05. Ic) P a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n : sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,89)=8.33; p_ < .005. Women respondents r e p o r t that they s e l f d i s c l o s e more than t h e i r p a r t n e r s , F (1, 89 ) =5 . 256; p_ < .025, whereas men respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f o r themselves and t h e i r p a r t n e r s , F(1,89)=3.281; n.s. Women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f o r themselves than do men respondents, F(1, 89 ) =7 . 999; p_ < .01. Women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e t h a t they r e p o r t f o r t h e i r p a r t n e r s , 61 F( 1,89)=1.573 ); n.s. Please see FIGURE 2 f o r a v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s . Id) Summary - S e l f d i s c l o s u r e : Men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e they r e p o r t f o r themselves as compared to t h e i r women f r i e n d s . Men respondents r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f o r t h e i r men f r i e n d s however, than they do e i t h e r f o r themselves or f o r t h e i r women f r i e n d s (see FIGURE 1 ). In romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f o r themselves than do men respondents. Women respondents a l s o r e p o r t g r e a t e r s e l f d i s c l o s u r e f o r themselves than f o r t h e i r men pa r t n e r s (see FIGURE 2). 2) A p p r e c i a t i o n : " H i g h l y v a l u i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the other; f e e l i n g a f f e c t i o n , enjoyment or warmth toward the oth e r " . 2a) Whole network: Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more a p p r e c i a t i o n i n t h e i r 62 f r i e n d s h i p s than do men, F(1,169)=6.95; p_ < .01. Th i s main e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g two-way i n t e r a c t i o n . Main e f f e c t - sex of f r i e n d O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t more a p p r e c i a t i o n i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=7.33; p_ < .01. Th i s main e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g two-way i n t e r a c t i o n . Two-way I n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,169)=33.02; p < .0001. Men respondents r e p o r t more a p p r e c i a t i o n i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=18.404; p_ < .001., whereas women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of a p p r e c i a t i o n when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r women vs. men f r i e n d s , F(1,169)=2.243; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of a p p r e c i a t i o n r e p o r t e d , F(l,169)= .644; n.s.. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men however, men respondents r e p o r t l e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n than do women respondents, F( 1, 169 ) =24 . 438; p_ < .001. Please see FIGURE 3 f o r a v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s . 2b) Without p a r t n e r s : 63 Main e f f e c t - sex of f r i e n d O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t more a p p r e c i a t i o n when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,146)=6.86; p_ < .01. Two way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,146)=4.96; p < .05. The same p a t t e r n i s ev i d e n t i n the network without p a r t n e r s as was the case f o r the whole network, hence alth o u g h the s c o r e s d i f f e r somewhat, the reader may r e f e r to FIGURE 3 f o r a v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s . Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of a p p r e c i a t i o n when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,146)=.368; n.s., whereas men respondents r e p o r t l e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men vs. t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F(1,146)=6.122; p. < .025. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of a p p r e c i a t i o n they r e p o r t , F(1,146)=.177; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men however, men respondents r e p o r t l e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n than do women respondents, F( 91,146 ) =7 . 017; p_ < .01. 2c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 64 2d) Summary - A p p r e c i a t i o n : Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of a p p r e c i a t i o n i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women vs. t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men. Men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of a p p r e c i a t i o n r e p o r t e d when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women. Men respondents r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s a p r r e c i a t i o n i n those r e l a t i o n s h i p s than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women. A l s o , men respondents r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men r e p o r t l e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n than do women respondents with e i t h e r women or men f r i e n d s . 3) A s s i s t a n c e : "Being w i l l i n g to use time and/or r e s o u r c e s to h e l p the ot h e r . (Note: t h i s r e f e r s to c o n c r e t e , t a n g i b l e help g i v e n to the o t h e r ) . " 3a) Whole network: No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 3b) Without p a r t n e r s : 65 Two-way I n t e r a c t i o n - sex_ o£ f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,145)=4.30; p_ < -05. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t a s s i s t i n g t h e i r women f r i e n d s more than those f r i e n d s a s s i s t them, F(1,145)=7.761; p_ < .01, whereas when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of a s s i s t a n c e they give and r e c e i v e , F(1,145)=.03; n.s. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of a s s i s t a n c e they g i v e to t h e i r women f r i e n d s as compared to t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F(l,145)=.227; n.s. Respondents do however r e p o r t r e c e i v i n g more h e l p from t h e i r men f r i e n d s than from t h e i r women f r i e n d s , F ( l , 145)= 6.168; p. < .025. 3c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 3d) Summary - A s s i s t a n c e : When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of a s s i s t a n c e they g i v e as compared to the amount they r e c e i v e . In t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women however, respondents r e p o r t g i v i n g more a s s i s t a n c e than they r e c e i v e . In a d d i t i o n , respondents r e p o r t r e c e i v i n g more help from t h e i r men f r i e n d s than from t h e i r women f r i e n d s . 66 4) Empathic understanding: " A c c u r a t e l y i n t e r p r e t i n g the f e e l i n g s of the other; r e a l l y l i s t e n i n g to what the other has to say." 4a) Whole network: Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than do men respondents, F(1,169)=6.26; p. < .02. Th i s r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s . Main e f f e c t - sex of f r i e n d O v e r a l l , on average, respondents with women f r i e n d s r e p o r t more empathic understanding than do respondents with men f r i e n d s , F(l,169)=14.89; p_ < .0002. T h i s r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s . Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t g i v i n g more empathic understanding than they r e c e i v e , F(1,169)=23.40; p_ < .0001. T h i s r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s . Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F ( l , 169 )=3 .93; p. < .05. 67 The p a t t e r n f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s the same as th a t r e p r e s e n t e d i n FIGURE 3. Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of empathic understanding when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F(1,169)=.854; n.s., whereas men respondents r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men than t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F( 1,169 ) =8 . 788; p. < .01. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n amount of empathic understanding r e p o r t e d , F(1,169)=.753; n.s. However, when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, men respondents r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding than do women respondents, F( 1, 169 ) =8 .127; p. < .01. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,169)=20.07; p. < .0001. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n . FIGURE 2. Women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding when d e s c r i b i n g themselves than when d e s r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s , F( 1,169 ) =42 .173; p. < .0001. Men respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r f r i e n d s i n amount of empathic understanding, F(1,169)=.066; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g themselves, women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding than do men respondents, F (1,169 ) =54 . 206; p_ < .0001. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s , women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n 68 the amount of empathic understanding they r e p o r t , 11(1,169 )=1.054; n.s. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F ( l , 1 6 9 )=22.32; p_ < .0001. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 1. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n amount of empathic understanding, F(1,169)=.457; n.s., whereas when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding i n t h e i r men f r i e n d s than i n themselves, F(1,169)=53.353; p. < . 0001. Respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n themselves when d e s c r i b i n g f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F( 1,169) =3.932; p_ < .05. Respondents a l s o r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n t h e i r women f r i e n d s than i n t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F( 1,169 ) =74 .151; p_ < .0001. 4b) Without p a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than do men respondents, F(1,146 ) =3 . 36; p_ < .05. T h i s e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . 69 Main e f f e c t - sex of f r i e n d O v e r a l l , on average, respondents with women f r i e n d s r e p o r t more empathic understanding than do respondents with men f r i e n d s , F(1,146)=10.12; p. < .002. T h i s r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s . Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t q i v i n g more empathic understanding than they r e c e i v e , F(1,146)=22.31; p. < .0001. T h i s r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F.(l,146)=14.19; p, < .0002. The r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n are s i m i l a r to those presented i n FIGURE 3. Women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n the s e l f than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s , F(1,146)=34.638; p_ < .0001. Men respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r f r i e n d s i n amount of empathic understanding, F(1,146)=.477; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g themselves, women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding than do men respondents, F(1,146)=36.835; p. < .0001. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s , women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of empathic understanding they r e p o r t , F(1,146)=.550; n.s. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,146)=16.61; p_ < .0001. 70 The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 1. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n amount of empathic understanding, F(1,146)=1.08; n.s., whereas when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding i n t h e i r men f r i e n d s than i n themselves, F(1,146)=45.416; p. < .0001. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n empathic understanding i n themselves when d e s c r i b i n g f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,146)=2.615; n.s. Respondents r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding i n t h e i r men f r i e n d s than i n t h e i r women f r i e n d s , F(1,146)=53.539; p < .0001. 4c) P a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n the s e l f than i n t h e i r p a r t n e r , F(1,89)=4.12; p < .05. This r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . Two way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,89)=11.80; p < .0009. Women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n themselves than they do i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s , F(1,89)=16.173; p_ < .001, whereas men respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r partners' i n amount of empathic 71 understanding, F(1,89)=.916; n.s. Women respondents r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s empathic understanding i n t h e i r p a r t n e r s than do men respondents, F(1,89)=8.642; p. < .01. When d e s c r i b i n g themselves, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of empathic understanding r e p o r t e d , F.(l, 89)=3.676; n.s. 4d) Summary - Empathic understanding: When respondents d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women they r e p o r t more empathic understanding both i n themselves and i n t h e i r women f r i e n d s than when d e s c r i b i n g f r i e n d s h i p s with men. Men respondents d e s c r i b i n g f r i e n d s h i p s with men r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding than do men respondents with women f r i e n d s . S i m i l a r l y , men respondents with men f r i e n d s r e p o r t l e s s empathic understanding than do women respondents with e i t h e r women or men f r i e n d s . In romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , women respondents r e p o r t more empathic understanding i n themselves than i n t h e i r men p a r t n e r s , whereas men respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r p a r t n e r s i n amount of empathic understand i n g . 5) Deepening other's s e l f awareness: "Behaving i n ways t h a t f a c i l i t a t e the r e c o g n i t i o n and e x p r e s s i o n of the other's s e l f a t t r i b u t e s " . 72 5a) Whole network: Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - Sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,168)=8.41; p < .005. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 1. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents report' no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n the degree to which they behave i n ways t h a t help to deepen the other person's s e l f awareness, F(1,168)=.371; n.s. On the other hand, when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t t h a t they, more so than t h e i r men f r i e n d s , behave i n ways t h a t help to deepen the other's s e l f awareness, F(1,168 ) =12 .154; p. < .001. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r own beha v i o r , respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women and t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,168)=.208; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g the behavior of t h e i r f r i e n d s , respondents r e p o r t t h a t women f r i e n d s more o f t e n than men f r i e n d s , behave i n ways t h a t help to deepen the repondents 1 s e l f awareness, F(1,168)=20.724; p_ < .001. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,168)=11.85; p_ < .0007. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 3. Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the extent to which there i s deepened s e l f 73 awareness i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,168)=.905; n.s. Men respondents on the other hand, r e p o r t more deepened s e l f awareness i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,168)=6.301; p. < .025. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of deepened s e l f awareness t h a t they r e p o r t , F(1,168 ) =1.234; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men however, men respondents r e p o r t l e s s deepened s e l f awareness than do women respondents, F(1,168)=5.439; p. < .025. 5b) Without p a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t behaving i n ways t h a t help to deepen t h e i r f r i e n d s ' s e l f awareness more than t h e i r f r i e n d s do f o r them, F (1,145 ) =5 .16; p_ < .05. T h i s r e s u l t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,145)=5.19; p. < -05. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 1. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n the degree to which they behave i n ways t h a t h elp to deepen the other 74 person's s e l f awareness, F(1,145)=.004; n.s. On the other hand, when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t t h a t they, more so than t h e i r men f r i e n d s , behave i n ways t h a t h elp to deepen the othe r ' s s e l f awareness, F(l,145)=10.734; p. < .01. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r own behavior, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women and t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,145)=1.469; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g the behavior of t h e i r f r i e n d s , respondents r e p o r t t h a t women f r i e n d s more o f t e n than men f r i e n d s , behave i n ways t h a t h elp to deepen the repondents' s e l f awareness, F(1,145)=19.572; p_ < .001. 5c) P a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F ( l , 8 9 )=5.62; p. < -02. Both women respondents and men respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r p a r t n e r s i n the extent to which each behaves i n ways t h a t deepen the other's s e l f awareness, F(1,89)=3.349; n.s. and F(1,89)=2.364; n.s. Women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n the extent to which they r e p o r t t h a t they themselves behave i n ways t h a t deepen the other's s e l f awareness, F(1,89)=.149; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g the behavior of t h e i r p a r t n e r s however, men respondents more than women respondents r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r p a r t n e r s deepen t h e i r s e l f awareness, F( 1, 89 ) =8 . 803; p. < .01. 75 5d) Summary - Deepening ot h e r ' s s e l f awareness: When respondents d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, there i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n the extent to which each helps to deepen the other's s e l f awareness. With men f r i e n d s however, the f r i e n d s h i p i s not as r e c i p r o c a l , with the men f r i e n d s being l e s s l i k e l y to f a c i l i t a t e deepened s e l f awareness i n the respondent. In romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , women respondents r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r p a r t n e r i s l e s s l i k e l y to behave i n ways t h a t help to deepen t h e i r s e l f awareness than do men respondents. 6) Shared a c t i v i t y : " I n i t i a t i n g a shared a c t i v i t y with the other; t r y i n g to 'do t h i n g s t o g e t h e r ' with the ot h e r . (Note: other than, or i n a d d i t i o n to t a l k i n g ) . " 6a) Whole network: No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 6b) Without p a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,146)=13.71; p_ < .0003. 76 Women respondents r e p o r t more shared a c t i v i t y when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F( 1,146 ) =5 . 317; p_ < .025. Men respondents r e p o r t more shared a c t i v i t y when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r men f r i e n d s than with t h e i r women f r i e n d s , F(l,146)=8.667; p < .025. Women respondents r e p o r t more shared a c t i v i t y with women f r i e n d s than do men respondents with women f r i e n d s , F (1,146 ) =4 . 083; p. < .05. Men respondents r e p o r t more shared a c t i v i t y with men f r i e n d s than do women respondents with men f r i e n d s , F(1,146)=10.338; p_ < .01. Two way i n t e r a c t i o n sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F ( l , 146 )=6.43; p. < .02. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n i t i a t e shared a c t i v i t y l e s s o f t e n than do the respondents, F(1,146)=6 .99; p_ < .01. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r men f r i e n d s and themselves i n the extent to which they i n i t i a t e shared a c t i v i t y , F(1,146)=.961; n.s. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the extent to which they themselves i n i t i a t e shared a c t i v i t y with t h e i r women f r i e n d s as compared to with t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F(1,146)=.739; n.s. Respondents r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r men f r i e n d s i n i t i a t e shared a c t i v i t y with them more o f t e n than do t h e i r women f r i e n d s , F( 1,146 ) =7 . 638; p_ < .01. 77 6c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 6d) Summary - Shared a c t i v i t y : When the f r i e n d s h i p network i s examined with the i n c l u s i o n of romantic p a r t n e r s , and when l o o k i n g at romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s alone, there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the degree to which shared a c t i v i t y i s i n i t i a t e d by men or women. When l o o k i n g a t the f r i e n d s h i p s t h a t are not romantic however, i t appears that respondents r e p o r t more shared a c t i v i t y i n t h e i r same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s than i n t h e i r c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s . F u r t h e r , i t i s ev i d e n t t h a t men f r i e n d s i n i t i a t e shared a c t i v i t y to a g r e a t e r extent than do women f r i e n d s . 7) A u t h e n t i c i t y : "Being r e a l , genuine, honest and spontaneous with the other; f e e l i n g f r e e to be o n e s e l f with the o t h e r , r a t h e r than f e e l i n g r e q u i r e d to p l a y a r o l e , wear a mask, or i n h i b i t e x p r e s s i o n of p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " 7a) Whole network: 78 Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r a u t h e n t i c i t y i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than do men respondents, F( 1,169 ) =7 . 77; p_ < .01. 7b) Without p a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 7c) P a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent On average, women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r a u t h e n t i c i t y i n t h e i r romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s than do men respondents, F(1,89)=16.83; p < .0001. 7d) Summary - A u t h e n t i c i t y : Both when examining the whole network and when l o o k i n g a t networks t h a t o n l y i n c l u d e romantic p a r t n e r s , women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r a u t h e n t i c i t y , averaged over s e l f and other, and averaged over sex of f r i e n d , than do men respondents. When examining the network e x c l u d i n g romantic p a r t n e r s , women and men do not d i f f e r i n r e p o r t e d a u t h e n t i c i t y i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . 79 8) T r u s t : " F e e l i n g c o n f i d e n t t h a t the other w i l l not embarass or take advantage of you, or draw a t t e n t i o n to your p o i n t s of weakness." 8a) Whole network: No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 8b) Without p a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 8c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 8d) Summary - T r u s t : T h i s dimension i s the onl y one i n which there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t e i t h e r the l e v e l of main e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s . 9) C o n t r o l : "Having i n f l u e n c e or c o n t r o l over what happens or how t h i n g s t u r n out when you are with the o t h e r . " 9a) Whole network: 80 Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F ( l , 1 6 9 )=18.11; p_ < .0001. Women respondents r e p o r t l e s s c o n t r o l f o r the s e l f than f o r the oth e r , F(l,169)=7.307; p_ < .01. Men respondents r e p o r t more c o n t r o l f o r the s e l f than f o r the other, F(1,169)=11.059; p_ < .002. When d e s c r i b i n g themselves, men respondents r e p o r t more c o n t r o l than do women respondents, F(1,169)=7.512; p. < .01. Women respondents r e p o r t more c o n t r o l i n t h e i r f r i e n d s than do men respondents, F(l,169)=10.746; p_ < .01. 9b) Without p a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,146)=11.98; p_ < .001. Women respondents r e p o r t l e s s c o n t r o l f o r the s e l f than f o r the other, F(1,146)=7.723; p. < .01. Men respondents r e p o r t more c o n t r o l f o r the s e l f than f o r the other, F(1,146)=4.427; p. < .05. When d e s c r i b i n g themselves, men respondents r e p o r t more c o n t r o l than do women respondents, F( 1,146) =10.773; p_ < .01. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s , women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of c o n t r o l they r e p o r t , F(1,146)=2.603; n.s. 9c) P a r t n e r s : 81 Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex o£ respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,89)=13.14; p , .0005. Women respondents r e p o r t having l e s s c o n t r o l than t h e i r p a r t n e r s , F (1, 89 ) =4 . 069 ; p_ < .05., whereas men respondents r e p o r t having more c o n t r o l than t h e i r p a r t n e r s , F(1,89)=9.441; p. < .01. Men respondents r e p o r t l e s s c o n t r o l when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r p a r t n e r s than do women respondents when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r p a r t n e r s , F(1,89)=13.584; p. < .001. Women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of c o n t r o l they r e p o r t when d e s c r i b i n g themselves, F(l,89)=2.077; n.s. 9d) Summary - C o n t r o l : Men respondents d e s c r i b e themselves as having more c o n t r o l i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than do t h e i r f r i e n d s . When d e s c r i b i n g themselves, men respondents a l s o r e p o r t having more c o n t r o l than do women respondents. In romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , men a l s o r e p o r t having more c o n t r o l than t h e i r female p a r t n e r s . Women r e p o r t the opp o s i t e p a t t e r n , d e s c r i b i n g themselves as having l e s s c o n t r o l i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s than t h e i r f r i e n d s or p a r t n e r s . Women versus men respondents however do not d i f f e r i n the amount of c o n t r o l t h a t they r e p o r t f o r themselves. For a v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s , please r e f e r to FIGURE 4. 82 10) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : "Being accountable or r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what happens or how t h i n g s t u r n out when you are with the ot h e r . " 10a) Whole network: Main e f f e c t - sex of f r i e n d O v e r a l l , on average, respondents d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women r e p o r t more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than do respondents d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F (1,169 ) =3 .91; p_ < .05. T h i s e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s . Main e f f e c t _i_ s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents d e s c r i b e themselves as being more r e s p o n s i b l e than t h e i r f r i e n d s , F(1,169)=5.27; p < .025. Th i s e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,169)=5.84; p_ < .02. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 3. Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=.047; n.s. Men respondents r e p o r t more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(l , 1 6 9 )=4.969; p_ < .05. Men 83 respondents, as compared to women respondents, do not d i f f e r i n amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e p o r t e d i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=2.846, n.s., nor i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F(1,169)=.532; n.s. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of. fr.ie.nd x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,169)=13.34; p < .0005. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 1. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n the amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y each has, F(1,169)=.719; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t t h a t they themselves are more r e s p o n s i b l e than are t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F( 1,169 ) =18 . 599 , p_ <.001. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y they themselves have i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=.078; n.s. Respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e i r women f r i e n d s than i n t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F( 1,169 ) =23 . 832; p. < .001. 10b) Without p a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F ( l , 146 )=12 . 24; p_ < .001. Thi s p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 1. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, 84 respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , F(l,146)=1.245; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, however, respondents r e p o r t t a k i n g more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than do t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F(1,146)=14.651; p. < .001. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y they themselves have i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F(1,146)=.876; n.s. When r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r f r i e n d s , respondents r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r women f r i e n d s take more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than do t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F( 1,146 ) =16 . 06; p_ < .001. 10c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . lOd) Summary - R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r women f r i e n d s i n amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , but r e p o r t unequal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men. S p e c i f i c a l l y , men f r i e n d s have l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than the repondents, and a l s o have l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than do women f r i e n d s . 85 11) Connectedness: " F e e l i n g an a c t i v e , outgoing care and concern f o r the other; f e e l i n g connected and i n v o l v e d with the other; a m o t i v a t i o n f o r more involvement with the o t h e r . " 11a) Whole network: Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more connectedness than do men, F(l,169)=9.18; p_ < .005. Main e f f e c t s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t more connectedness when d e s c r i b i n g themselves than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s , F(l,169)=20.04; p_ < .0001. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - Sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,169)=34.95; p. < .0001. Women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r connectedness when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F(1,169)=4.387; p < .05. Men respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r connectedness when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=14.771; p_ < .001. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of connectedness r e p o r t e d , F(1,169)=.599; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r 86 f r i e n d s h i p s with men, women respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r connectedness than do men respondents, F(1,169)=26.393; p_ < .001. l i b ) Without p a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents r e p o r t more connectedness than do men respondents, F(1,146)=4.98; p_ < .05. Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r connectedness when d e s c r i b i n g themselves than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s , F(l,146)=18.72; p_ < .0001. 11c) P a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,89)=4.63; p_ < -05. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 2. Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r p a r t n e r s i n the amount of connectedness they f e e l , F(1,89)=3.35; n.s. Men respondents a l s o r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and t h e i r p a r t n e r s i n the amount of connectedness they f e e l , F(1, 89)=1.425; n.s. Men and women respondents do not d i f f e r i n the amount of connectedness they r e p o r t f o r t h e i r 87 p a r t n e r s , F(1,89)=.165; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g themselves however, women respondents r e p o r t more connectedness than do men respondents, F(1, 89 ) =13 . 908; p. < .001. l i d ) Summary - Connectedness: Respondents r e p o r t more connectedness i n t h e i r c r o s s -sex f r i e n d s h i p s than i n t h e i r same-sex f r e i n d s h i p s , when romantic p a r t n e r s are i n c l u d e d i n the f r i e n d s h i p network. T h i s e f f e c t i s not present when romantic p a r t n e r s are excluded from the a n a l y s e s . In romantic r e a l t i o n s h i p s , women respondents r e p o r t f e e l i n g more connectedness than do men. 12) Empowerment: "Behaving i n ways t h a t i n c r e a s e the other ' s c a p a b i l i t i e s , r e s o u r c e s , f e e l i n g s of e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and a b i l i t y to a c t . " 12a) Whole network: Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t empowering t h e i r f r i e n d s more than t h e i r f r i e n d s empower the respondents, F(l,169)= 4.62; p_ < .05. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,169)=11.68; p_ < .001. 88 The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f o r t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i m i l a r to t h a t presented i n FIGURE 3. Women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of empowerment when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as compared to t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=1.255; n.s. Men respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r empowerment when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than when they d e s c r i b e t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,169)=5.363; p < .025. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s -with women, men and women do not d i f f e r i n the amount of empowerment r e p o r t e d , F(1,169)=.835; n.s. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, men respondents r e p o r t l e s s empowerment than do women respondents, F(1,169)=6.274; p_ < .025. 12b) Without p a r t n e r s : Main e f f e c t - s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t empowering t h e i r f r i e n d s more than t h e i r f r i e n d s empower the respondents, F( 1,146 ) =5 . 33; p_ < .05. 12c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 12d) Summary - Empowerment: 89 Men respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r empowerment i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, whereas women respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n empowerment i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women vs. t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men. 13) S a t i s f a c t i o n : " F e e l i n g t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s rewarding and s a t i s f y i n g ; a f e e l i n g of z e s t and v i t a l i t y i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . " 13a) Whole network: Main e f f e c t : s e l f / o t h e r O v e r a l l , on average, respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r t h e i r f r i e n d s than f o r themselves, F( 1,169 ) =6 . 79; p. < .01. 13b) Without p a r t n e r s : Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r F(l,146)=10.17; p < .002. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, respondents r e p o r t more s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r t h e i r women f r i e n d s than f o r themselves, F(1,146)=12.466; p < .001. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r t h e i r men f r i e n d s as compared to themselves; F(1,146)=.224; n.s. When r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r 90 own s a t i s f a c t i o n , respondents r e p o r t g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F(1,146)=9.761; p_ < .01.. Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r women f r i e n d s and t h e i r men f r i e n d s i n the amount of s a t i s f a c t i o n they f e e l , F(1,146)=1. 899; n.s. 13c) P a r t n e r s : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . 13d) Summary - S a t i s f a c t i o n : When examining the data without romantic p a r t n e r s , respondents r e p o r t f e e l i n g more s a t i s f i e d i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women. S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s : A three-way MANOVAR was conducted to compare women and men respondents on s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . The independent v a r i a b l e s were gender of respondent, gender of f r i e n d , and s t r u c t u r e . The four outcome v a r i a b l e s were: age of f r i e n d s ; d u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p s ; frequency of c o n t a c t ; and number of f r i e n d s (see TABLE 17 f o r r e s u l t s ) . S t r u c t u r e (that i s , the dependent measures being considered) was a l s o used as an independent v a r i a b l e . T h i s p ermitted t e s t i n g , i ndependently of the gender v a r i a b l e s , whether s u b j e c t s s c o r e d higher on one dependent v a r i a b l e than the o t h e r s . I t a l s o p e r m i t t e d examining whether the e f f e c t s of gender were comparable on a l l measures, or were measure s p e c i f i c . As i n the previous a n a l y s e s , the data f o r these s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s are means which have been- aggregated over a l l of the respondents' women f r i e n d s and, s e p a r a t e l y , over a l l of the respondents' men f r i e n d s . Hence, f o r example, frequency of c o n t a c t was c a l c u l a t e d twice f o r each respondent; i n one case averaged over women f r i e n d s , and i n the other case over a l l men f r i e n d s . The MANOVAR i n d i c a t e d t h a t the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t (sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d x s t r u c t u r e ) , as w e l l as two two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s (sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d ; and sex of respondent x s t r u c t u r e ) , and one main e f f e c t (sex of respondent). Follow-up u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s were performed on a l l s i g n i f i c a n t MANOVAR r e s u l t s , the r e s u l t s of which are r e p o r t e d below. Main e f f e c t - sex of respondent: O v e r a l l , on average, women respondents s c o r e higher on the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s than do men, F(1,146 ) =11.36; p. < .001. T h i s e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by the f o l l o w i n g two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s . 92 Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of f r i e n d F(l,146)=37.29; p_ < .0001. Women respondents r e p o r t higher s c o r e s on the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , on average, when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(1,146)=19.82; p_ < .0001. On the other hand, men respondents r e p o r t higher s c o r e s on the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , on average, when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men than when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, F( 1,146 ) =17 . 47; p_ < .0001. When r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r women f r i e n d s , women respondents r a t e the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s higher than do men respondents, F(1,146)=89.455; p_ < .0001. When r e p o r t i n g on f r i e n d s h i p s with men however, women and men do not d i f f e r , F(1,146)=.677; n.s. Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x s t r u c t u r e F(3,438)=7.18; p < .0001. Women respondents r e p o r t t h a t , on average, they have known t h e i r f r i e n d s f o r a longer p e r i o d of time than do men respondents, F(3,438)=13.726; p < .001. Women respondents r e p o r t having f r i e n d s who, on average, are o l d e r than those r e p o r t e d by men respondents, F( 3,438 )=30.890; p_ < .0000. (These two f i n d i n g s c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , by a g r e a t e r number of k i n i n women's f r i e n d s h i p networks.) Women and men do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r r e p o r t s of how o f t e n they are i n c o n t a c t with t h e i r f r i e n d s , F(3,438)=.5037; 93 n.s., nor do they d i f f e r i n the average number of f r i e n d s they r e p o r t , F(3,438)=.061; n.s. Three-way i n t e r a c t i o n - sex of respondent x sex of  f r i e n d x s t r u c t u r e F ( 3 , 438 ) =13 . 57; p_< .0001. a) D u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p : F(3,438)=48.485; p_ < .0001. Women respondents r e p o r t having known t h e i r women f r i e n d s longer than they have known t h e i r men f r i e n d s , F( 3, 69)=30.409; p < .001. Women respondents a l s o r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women are of longer d u r a t i o n than are those of men respondents, F(3,146)=84.739; p < .0001. Men respondents r e p o r t having known t h e i r men f r i e n d s longer than t h e i r women f r i e n d s , F(3,77)=18.460; p. < .001. However, men and women respondents do not d i f f e r when r e p o r t i n g on the d u r a t i o n of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, F(3,146)=.4121, n.s. In other words, same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s tend to be of longer d u r a t i o n than c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s . b) Frequency of c o n t a c t : F ( 3, 4 3 8)=1.9 8 5; n.s. Women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n r e p o r t e d frequency of c o n t a c t with t h e i r women versus t h e i r men f r i e n d s . c) Age of f r i e n d s : F(3,438)=.734; n.s. Women and men respondents do not d i f f e r on the average age of t h e i r women versus t h e i r men f r i e n d s . 94 d) Number of. men and women f r i e n d s : F(3,438)=34.073; p. < .0001. Women respondents nominate more women f r i e n d s i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p network than do men respondents, F(3,146)=14.767; p_ < .0001. In a d d i t i o n , women respondents nominate more women f r i e n d s than men f r i e n d s , F ( 3, 69 ) =2 2 . 059 ; p. < .0001. The i d e n t i c a l homosocial p a t t e r n holds true f o r men respondents. Men nominate more men f r i e n d s than do women respondents, F(3,146)=19.468; p_ < .0001, and a l s o nominate more men f r i e n d s than women f r i e n d s , F( 3, 77) =12 . 460; p_ < .0004. In other words, both women and men respondents tend to have more same-sex than c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s . Number of k i n : A two-way ANOVAR was conducted on number of female k i n and number of male k i n i d e n t i f i e d as f r i e n d s by men versus women respondents. A l l three e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t : sex of respondent, F(1,188)=8.22, p < .005; sex of k i n , F(1,188)=8.64, p_ < .005; and sex of respondent x sex of k i n , F( 1,188 ) =8 . 64, p_ < .005. Follow-up a n a l y s e s were performed as i n d i c a t e d . Women respondents nominate more k i n o v e r a l l (averaging over men and women kin) i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p networks than do men respondents, F(1,188)=8.22; p_ < .005. In a d d i t i o n , more female k i n are nominated than are male k i n i n respondents* f r i e n d s h i p networks (averaging over men and women respondents), F( 1, 188 ) =8.64; p_ < .005. Both of the 95 f o r e g o i n g main e f f e c t s are q u a l i f i e d by the s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n , i n which women respondents r e p o r t more female k i n than do men respondents, F(1,188)=23.112; p_ <.0001. When r e p o r t i n g on number of male k i n , women and men respondents do riot d i f f e r , F(1,188)=.422; n.s. Importance r a t i n g s ("Values"): A two-way MANOVAR was performed to compare women vs. men respondents on t h e i r importance r a t i n g s of the s t r u c t u r a l and content dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . The main e f f e c t f o r va l u e s was significant,'F(16,2992)=209.81, p_ < .0001. The three most s t r o n g l y endorsed values (averaged over sex of respondent) were s a t i s f a c t i o n , t r u s t , and a u t h e n t i c i t y . The three l e a s t s t r o n g l y endorsed values (again, averaged over sex of respondent) were sex of f r i e n d , age of f r i e n d , and c o n t r o l . The main e f f e c t f o r sex of respondent was not s i g n i f i c a n t , F(1,187)=1.40. The two-way i n t e r a c t i o n , sex of respondent x v a l u e s , was s i g n i f i c a n t F (16, 2992 ) =5 . 69 , p_ < .0001. Follow-up u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s were conducted on the s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n . (See TABLE 2 f o r r e s u l t s . ) Women and men do not d i f f e r i n the importance they a t t a c h to e i g h t of the 17 v a r i a b l e s , i n c l u d i n g : sex of f r i e n d , d u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p , frequency of c o n t a c t , a s s i s t a n c e , t r u s t , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , empowerment, and s a t i s f a c t i o n . On three of the v a r i a b l e s , men r e p o r t g r e a t e r importance than do women: age of f r i e n d , shared a c t i v i t y , 96 and c o n t r o l . On s i x of the v a r i a b l e s , women r e p o r t g r e a t e r importance than do men: s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , empathic understanding, deepening the othe r ' s s e l f awareness, a u t h e n t i c i t y , and connectedness. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n s : Which dimensions are most important to womens' and mens' r e p o r t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s ? What are women and men respondents doing, and what are t h e i r women and men f r i e n d s doing, t h a t p r e d i c t s respondents' s e l f r a t i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n ? S a t i s f a c t i o n s e r v e s as a more g l o b a l or summary c o n s t r u c t than do the other, more c o n c r e t e l y - d e f i n e d dimensions, hence i t was s e l e c t e d as the dependent v a r i a b l e to be p r e d i c t e d i n m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s . B e s t - p o s s i b l e subset r e g r e s s i o n s were c a r r i e d out on e i g h t q u e s t i o n s : 1) What are women respondents doing ( i . e . , s e l f -r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are with women f r i e n d s , t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 2) What are women f r i e n d s doing ( i . e . , o t h e r - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are with women respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 3) What are women respondents doing ( i . e . , s e l f - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are wih men f r i e n d s t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 4) What are men f r i e n d s doing ( i . e . , o t h e r - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are with women respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 5) What are men respondents doing ( i . e . , s e l f - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are with 97 women f r i e n d s , t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 6) What are women f r i e n d s d o ing ( i . e . , o t h e r - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are with men respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 7) What are men respondents doing ( i . e . , s e l f - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are win men f r i e n d s t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? ; 4) What are men f r i e n d s doing ( i . e . , o t h e r - r a t i n g s on the dimensions) when they are with men respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n ? S a t i s f a c t i o n was assessed (as were a l l dimensions) s e p a r a t e l y i n each of up to ten f r i e n d s h i p s . Respondents r a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r themselves ( s e l f - r a t i n g s ) and f o r t h e i r f r i e n d s ( o t h e r - r a t i n g s ) i n up to 10 of t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s h i p s . Four means were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each respondent: 1) s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r s e l f i n f r i e n d s h i p s with women; 2) s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r women f r i e n d s ; 3) s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r s e l f i n f r i e n d s h i p s with men; 4) s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r men f r i e n d s . As our go a l i n these r e g r e s s i o n s was to i d e n t i f y the dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p t h a t best p r e d i c t s e l f - r a t i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n , o n l y two of those means, ( s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r s e l f with women f r i e n d s , and s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r s e l f with men f r i e n d s ) were used as dependent v a r i a b l e s . The independent v a r i a b l e s i n each r e g r e s s i o n were the other 12 content dimensions: s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , a s s i s t a n c e , empathic understanding, deepened s e l f awareness, shared a c t i v i t y , a u t h e n t i c i t y , t r u s t , c o n t r o l , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , 98 connectedness, and empowerment. Again, as a l l dimensions were broken i n t o four types ( i . e . , f o r s e l f with women f r i e n d s , s e l f with men f r i e n d s , women f r i e n d s , & men f r i e n d s ) , the independent v a r i a b l e s matched the dependent v a r i a b l e i n terms of men vs. women f r i e n d s , and s e l f - r a t i n g s vs. o t h e r - r a t i n g s . Women respondents were run s e p a r a t e l y from men respondents, l e a d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g e i g h t q u e s t i o n s (see TABLE 19 f o r a summary of these r e s u l t s ) . 1. What are women respondents doing when they are with women f r i e n d s t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? When women are with t h e i r women f r i e n d s , respondents' a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r , and sense of connectedness with t h e i r f r i e n d s are the best p r e d i c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . 2. What are women f r i e n d s doing when they are with women respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? When women are with t h e i r women f r i e n d s , t h e i r f r i e n d s ' sense of connectedness with them i s the best p r e d i c t o r of s a t i s f a c t i o n . 3. What are women respondents doing when they are with men f r i e n d s t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? There are no dimensions t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r women respondents when d e s c r i b i n g themselves with men f r i e n d s . 9 9 4. What are men f r i e n d s doing when they are with women respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? When women are with t h e i r men f r i e n d s , t h e i r f r i e n d s * s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and a p p r e c i a t i o n , and an absence of empowerment are the best p r e d i c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . 5. What are men respondents doing when they are with women f r i e n d s t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? When men are with women f r i e n d s , respondents' s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and i n i t i a t i n g of shared a c t i v i t y are the best p r e d i c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . 6. What are women f r i e n d s doing when they are with men respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? When men are with t h e i r women f r i e n d s , t h e i r f r i e n d s ' a u t h e n t i c i t y and i n i t i a t i n g of shared a c t i v i t y are the best p r e d i c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . 7. What are men respondents doing when they are with men f r i e n d s t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? When men are with t h e i r men f r i e n d s , respondents' sense of connectedness and a u t h e n t i c i t y , t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n of shared a c t i v i t y , and an absence of empathic understanding best p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n . 8. What are men f r i e n d s doing when they are with men respondents t h a t p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( f o r respondent)? 100 When men are with t h e i r men f r i e n d s , t h e i r f r i e n d s ' sense of connectedness and a u t h e n t i c i t y , and i n i t i a t i o n of shared a c t i v i t y are the best p r e d i c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . 101 Discuss ion The g o a l of the present study has been to examine how women and men see themselves and t h e i r f r i e n d s , what each g i v e s and r e c e i v e s , i n the context of t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study address how such s e l f r e p o r t s vary f o r women and men when they c o n s i d e r women f r i e n d s versus men f r i e n d s . Although i t i s e v i d e n t from the fo r e g o i n g r e s u l t s t h a t the f r i e n d s h i p s of women and men d i f f e r i n a number of ways, i t should be kept i n mind t h a t of a p o s s i b l e 130 p o s s i b l e main e f f e c t s and i n t e r a c t i o n s on the f r i e n d s h i p dimensions, s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s were found o n l y on 53, or approximately 41%. Hence, the m a j o r i t y of p o s s i b l e sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s study were not s i g n i f i c a n t . While the focus of the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be on those d i f f e r e n c e s then, i t i s important to re c o g n i z e t h a t there may be more s i m i l a r i t y than d i f f e r e n c e i n women's and men's f r i e n d s h i p s . Three p a t t e r n s : To begin the summary of t h i s study's s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s , i t may be u s e f u l to review the three graphs r e f e r r e d to i n the R e s u l t s s e c t i o n (FIGURES 1, 2, & 3). While the three graphs do not encapsulate a l l of the r e s u l t s , they do r e p r e s e n t the p a t t e r n s t h a t were found i n over 60% (or 17 out of 28) of the s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s . 102 FIGURE 1, or "being with men f r i e n d s sometimes means g e t t i n g l e s s " : In the graph presented i n FIGURE 1, respondents r e p o r t g i v i n g more than they r e c e i v e , when they are d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men, on the f o l l o w i n g dimensions: s e l f d i s c l o s u r e (whole network); empathic understanding (whole network & without p a r t n e r s ) ; deepening other's s e l f awareness (whole network & without p a r t n e r s ) ; and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (whole network & without p a r t n e r s ) . Respondents r e p o r t no d i f f e r e n c e s , when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, between what they g i v e and r e c e i v e on those dimensions. In other words, f r i e n d s h i p s with women are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g r e a t e r r e c i p r o c i t y on those dimensions than are f r i e n d s h i p s with men. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r own behavior, women and men do not d i f f e r on these dimensions. The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e i n t h i s p a t t e r n then, i s a lack of r e c i p r o c i t y i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with men f r i e n d s on the dimensions of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , empathic understanding, deepening the ot h e r ' s s e l f awareness, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . FIGURE 3, or "men with men f r i e n d s sometimes means g i v i n g and g e t t i n g l e s s " : In the graph presented i n FIGURE 3, men respondents d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s r e p o r t g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g l e s s than they do i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, on the f o l l o w i n g dimensions: a p p r e c i a t i o n (whole network & without p a r t n e r s ) ; empathic understanding (whole network); deepening other's s e l f awareness (whole network); r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (whole network); and empowerment (whole network). Women respondents r e p o r t 103 no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r same-sex and c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s on these dimensions. Men respondents when d e s c r i b i n g f r i e n d s h i p s with women do not d i f f e r from women respondents' r e p o r t s of t h e i r same- and c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s . The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e of t h i s p a t t e r n i s lowered s c o r e s when there i s no woman i n the f r i e n d s h i p . FIGURE 2, or "being a woman when with f r i e n d s sometimes means g i v i n g more": In the graph presented i n FIGURE 2, women respondents r e p o r t g i v i n g more than they r e c e i v e i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s when r a t i n g the f o l l o w i n g dimensions: empathic understanding (whole network & without p a r t n e r s ) ; s e l f d i s c l o s u r e ( p a r t n e r s ) , and connectedness ( p a r t n e r s ) . On these dimensions women r e p o r t not on l y g i v i n g more than they r e c e i v e , but a l s o g i v i n g more than men g i v e , i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . Women's r e p o r t s of what t h e i r f r i e n d s g i v e on these dimensions do not d i f f e r from what men r e p o r t f o r t h e i r f r i e n d s . Hence, the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e of t h i s p a t t e r n i s women's higher s e l f - r e p o r t than men's, and high e r s e l f - r e p o r t than o t h e r - r e p o r t . Although t h i s study tended to address more q u a l i t a t i v e a s p e c t s of men's and women's f r i e n d s h i p s by f o c u s i n g on the content dimensions, some s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s were a l s o a s s e s s e d . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study support the commonly r e p o r t e d r e s u l t t h a t men and women tend to have homosocial f r i e n d s h i p networks. That i s , i n d i v i d u a l s have a preponderance of same-sex f r i e n d s i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d networks. Women r e p o r t more women f r i e n d s than men f r i e n d s ; 104 whereas men r e p o r t more men f r i e n d s than women f r i e n d s . In a d d i t i o n , women r e p o r t more women f r i e n d s than do men; and men r e p o r t more men f r i e n d s than do women. The o v e r a l l number of f r i e n d s , when averaged over women and men f r i e n d s , does not d i f f e r f o r women and men respondents. Although some authors have found t h a t men r e p o r t having more f r i e n d s than do women (e.g. d e V r i e s , i n p r e s s ) , i n t h i s study respondents were i n s t r u c t e d to nominate o n l y those i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t they c o n s i d e r e d to be t h e i r v ery c l o s e s t f r i e n d s . I t may be t h a t without such a c o n s t r a i n t , men (more so than women) w i l l tend to i n c l u d e workmates, ac q u a i n t a n c e s , and other l e s s c l o s e f r i e n d s . There was no d i f f e r e n c e between women and men i n the frequency of c o n t a c t they have with t h e i r f r i e n d s , which i s c o n s i s t e n t with the r e s u l t s found by C a l d w e l l and Peplau (1982). d e V r i e s ( i n press) found t h a t although men spend more time i n person with f r i e n d s , women r e p o r t more telephone c o n t a c t . In t h i s study, c o n t a c t was d e f i n e d as i n c l u d i n g both i n - p e r s o n v i s i t s and telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s , hence p o s s i b l e gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s v a r i a b l e may be obscured. When av e r a g i n g over women and men f r i e n d s , women respondents r e p o r t f r i e n d s h i p s of longer d u r a t i o n than do men respondents. T h i s e f f e c t i s q u a l i f i e d by a three-way i n t e r a c t i o n . Women respondents r e p o r t having known t h e i r women f r i e n d s longer than t h e i r men f r i e n d s ; men respondents r e p o r t having known t h e i r men f r i e n d s longer than t h e i r 105 women f r i e n d s . In a d d i t i o n , women respondents' f r i e n d s h i p s with women are of longer d u r a t i o n than are men respondents' f r i e n d s h i p s with women. Men and women do not d i f f e r , however, on the d u r a t i o n of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men. O v e r a l l , then, same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s tend to be of longer d u r a t i o n than do c r o s s - s e x ones. D u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p has been found to be r e l a t e d to the r e p o r t e d i n t i m a c y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p (Jackson, F i s c h e r , & Jones, 1977). As Dickens and Perlman (1981) note, "Our most s i g n i f i c a n t f r i e n d s are people we know f o r extended p e r i o d s of time: c e r t a i n l y d u r a t i o n adds a c o m p l e x i t y to our r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p. 92). The longer d u r a t i o n of same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s found i n t h i s study may p o s s i b l y be due, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , to g r e a t e r h o m o s o c i a l i t y i n f r i e n d s h i p networks i n c h i l d h o o d and e a r l y a d o l e s c e n c e . Respondents were f r e e to i n c l u d e f a m i l y members as c l o s e f r i e n d s i f they so chose, and many i n d i v i d u a l s d i d r e p o r t k i n as f r i e n d s . More female k i n were i d e n t i f i e d than were male k i n , and women respondents r e p o r t e d more k i n than d i d men respondents. Both of those main e f f e c t s are q u a l i f i e d by a two-way i n t e r a c t i o n i n which women respondents r e p o r t more female k i n than do men respondents. Women and men respondents do not d i f f e r i n the number of male k i n r e p o r t e d . The e a r l i e r f i n d i n g t h a t women's f r i e n d s h i p s tend to be of longer d u r a t i o n than those of men, and the f i n d i n g t h a t women's f r i e n d s (averaged over sex of f r i e n d ) tend to be o l d e r than men's f r i e n d s , may be 106 e x p l a i n e d i n p a r t by t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of k i n i n the f r i e n d s h i p networks of women and men. Values may p l a y a c e n t r a l r o l e i n women's and men's understanding and behavior i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . Respondents r a t e d the importance of the four s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s and 13 content dimensions i n making t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e ones. In t h i s way, respondents i n d i c a t e d the degree to which they value each of the dimensions as they p e r t a i n to t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s . As i s true i n the f r i e n d s h i p l i t e r a t u r e , t here i s a good d e a l of o v e r l a p i n what p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study value i n t h e i r c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Peplau (1983) notes t h a t there i s "much commonality i n what Americans want i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r gender", but a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t " s e v e r a l sex d i f f e r e n c e s have been found" (p. 246). Men and women d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r importance r a t i n g s on e i g h t of the 17 v a r i a b l e s : being the same sex; d u r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p ; frequency of c o n t a c t ; a s s i s t a n c e ; t r u s t ; r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; empowerment; and s a t i s f a c t i o n . At the same time, gender d i f f e r e n c e s emerged on the remaining nine dimensions. Women a s c r i b e g r e a t e r importance than do men to s i x v a r i a b l e s : s e l f d i s c l o s u r e ; a p p r e c i a t i o n ; empathic understanding; deepening the ot h e r ' s s e l f awareness; a u t h e n t i c i t y ; and connectedness. Men r e p o r t higher importance f o r three v a r i a b l e s : being the same age; i n i t i a t i n g shared a c t i v i t y ; and c o n t r o l . Peplau (1983) p o i n t s out th a t v a l u e s "provide i n f o r m a t i o n about i n d i v i d u a l 107 c a u s a l c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t i n g r o l e s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p. 246). Such d i f f e r e n c e s i n value s may be expected to i n f l u e n c e c u e - s e n s i t i v i t y , making i t more l i k e l y t h a t when r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s , men and women respondents w i l l n o t i c e the f a c t o r s they value more than those they do not (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). F u r t h e r , value d i f f e r e n c e s may a l s o l e a d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n m o t i v a t i o n to a c t (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), f o r example, i n terms of m a i n t a i n i n g c o n n e c t i o n with the other, and i n terms of d e v e l o p i n g one's own r e l a t i o n a l s k i l l s . When examining which dimensions p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r the respondent, a n a l y s e s focused on four q u e s t i o n s : what i s the respondent doing when with women f r i e n d s ; what are women f r i e n d s doing with the respondent; what i s the respondent doing with men f r i e n d s ; and what are men f r i e n d s doing with respondents. A p p r e c i a t i o n and connectedness appear twice as s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r women respondents. For men respondents, shared a c t i v i t y p r e d i c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a l l four r e g r e s s i o n s ; a u t h e n t i c i t y i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n three r e g r e s s i o n s ; and connectedness i s twice a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r . When men r e p o r t on t h e i r women f r i e n d s , men's s a t i s f a c t i o n i s p r e d i c t e d by womens1 shared a c t i v i t y and a u t h e n t i c i t y ; when women r e f e r to themselves with men f r i e n d s , no dimensions s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n . When women r e p o r t on t h e i r men f r i e n d s , men's s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , and an absence of empowerment 108 p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n ; when men r e f e r to themselves with women f r i e n d s , s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and shared a c t i v i t y p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Hence, s e l f d i s c l o s u r e i n men i s the o n l y dimension t h a t both men and women respondents have i n common when p r e d i c t i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n i n c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s . C l e a r l y then, a number of sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n c e p t i o n s of s e v e r a l important dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p have emerged i n t h i s study. Such d i f f e r e n c e s are not l i k e l y to be a f u n c t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e l i a b i l i t y of the r e p o r t s of men and women, as t h e i r t e s t - r e t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . In a d d i t i o n , every e f f o r t was made to ensure t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n s of the dimensions were as c o n c r e t e and s p e c i f i c as p o s s i b l e , to minimize v a r i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t i c i p a n t s ' own d e f i n i t i o n s . In f a c t , d e f i n i t i o n s of the dimensions were worded i n such a way as to remove p o s s i b l e impediments to men's endorsement of them, as f o r example, by e l i m i n a t i n g any r e f e r e n c e t o the v e r b a l communication of f e e l i n g s f o r a l l dimensions except s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . For example, i n order to endorse empathic understanding f o r o n e s e l f , the respondent needed o n l y to f e e l empathy; i t was not necessary to convey i t v e r b a l l y to the o t h e r . In t h i s way the e x p e r i e n c i n g of dimensions other than s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was not confounded with v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n , which has been found to be a f e a t u r e of women's f r i e n d s h i p s more than men's (C a l d w e l l & Peplau, 1982). S i m i l a r l y , the d e f i n i t i o n f o r a s s i s t a n c e excluded such emotion-focused kinds of help as 109 empathy, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , and a p p r e c i a t i o n , (dimensions found to be more o f t e n endorsed by women than men) and i n s t e a d c o n s i s t e d of c o n c r e t e , or t a n g i b l e a i d . In the same v e i n , the d e f i n i t i o n of shared a c t i v i t y s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded the shared a c t i v i t y of " j u s t t a l k i n g " , i f t h a t comprised the whole a c t i v i t y t o g e t h e r , a g a i n because of women's g r e a t e r emphasis on t a l k i n g . Given these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t i s even more s t r i k i n g t h a t so many gender d i f f e r e n c e s emerge i n t h i s study. The r e s u l t s i n t h i s study, on men's r e l a t i o n s h i p s , support f i n d i n g s which suggest t h a t men's f r i e n d s h i p s , more than women's, may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by shared a c t i v i t y and by what has been termed "avoidance of e m o t i o n a l i t y " , c o n s i s t i n g of lower s c o r e s on items t a p p i n g mutual concern, emotional attachment, v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n of a f f e c t i o n , s h a r i n g p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n f i d i n g , and understanding the other (Arnold & C h a r t i e r , 1986). In t h i s study, i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s t o p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n , shared a c t i v i t y appeared i n each of the four a n a l y s e s f o r men. In those same r e g r e s s i o n s , when d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with other men, an absence of empathic understanding was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r of s a t i s f a c t i o n . Men c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p o r t e d having more c o n t r o l i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than d i d women, and more o f t e n r e p o r t e d i n i t i a t i n g shared a c t i v i t y than d i d women. In the importance r a t i n g s , shared a c t i v i t y and c o n t r o l were two of the three dimensions t h a t men value more than women (the t h i r d was being the same age as one's 110 f r i e n d ) . These d i f f e r e n c e s between men and women appear to be moderated when men i n t e r a c t with women. For example, as has been found i n the f r i e n d s h i p l i t e r a t u r e (Arnold & C h a r t i e r , 1986) when men do r e p o r t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e f o r themselves, i t i s when they are d e s c r i b i n g themselves i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with women. I t appears t h a t i n t h i s study, as i n p r e v i o u s r e s e r a c h (Helgeson, et a l . , 1987) men w i l l more o f t e n d i s c u s s p e r s o n a l t h i n g s with t h e i r women f r i e n d s than with other men. T h i s i s e v i d e n t i n t h i s study both i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n and i n the two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s on the dimension of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . There are a number of o b s t a c l e s to men's a b i l i t y to c o n f i d e i n o t hers and be e m o t i o n a l l y i n t i m a t e with them, a r i s i n g out of t h e i r s o c i a l i z a t i o n to the masculine s e x - r o l e , i n c l u d i n g the p r e s s u r e to compete, homophobia, and fear of v u l n e r a b i l i t y (Dickens & Perlman, 1981). These concerns seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t i n men's same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s , but may p l a y a r o l e i n c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s as w e l l . Such s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s may a l s o extend to the v a l u e s men h o l d about what makes a f r i e n d s h i p a c l o s e one, thereby i n f l u e n c i n g what men g i v e to o t hers i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and what they p e r c e i v e others g i v e to them. The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study, on women's f r i e n d s h i p s , a l s o r e f l e c t some of the major f i n d i n g s i n the l i t e r a t u r e , such as women's g r e a t e r s e l f - d i s l o s u r e (e.g. A r i e s & Johnson, 1983), a p p r e c i a t i o n (Helgeson, et a l . , 1987), and empathic understanding (Davidson & Packard, 1981). There I l l are a number of main e f f e c t s i n which women respondents r e p o r t higher s c o r e s o v e r a l l on c e r t a i n dimensions than do men respondents, i n c l u d i n g : s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , empathic understanding, a u t h e n t i c i t y , and connectedness. In a d d i t i o n , there are a number of main e f f e c t s i n which respondents d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with women r e p o r t higher s c o r e s than when d e s c r i b i n g f r i e n d s h i p s with men, i n c l u d i n g : a p p r e c i a t i o n , empathic understanding, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . When the value s are examined, a l l of the above dimensions, with the e x c e p t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , are r a t e d as being of g r e a t e r importance to women than to men. In the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s , a p p r e c i a t i o n and connectedness are both s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s of women's s a t i s f a c t i o n . In the two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s , there are higher s c o r e s f o r women and/or women f r i e n d s on s e l f d i s c l o s u r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n , empathic understanding, deepening other's s e l f awareness, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t would seem t h a t men and women d i f f e r i n what i t i s t h a t they g i v e , r e c e i v e , and value i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . In a d d i t i o n , there appear to be more dimensions t h a t p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the f r i e n d s h i p s of women than i n the f r i e n d s h i p s of men. The paradox of s a t i s f a c t i o n : One v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t i n t h i s study i s the two-way I n t e r a c t i o n on s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r sex of f r i e n d x s e l f / o t h e r , i n which respondents ( r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r networks e x c l u d i n g romantic p a r t n e r s ) r e p o r t g r e a t e r 112 s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women. R e c a l l t h a t i n the r e s u l t s so f a r , a l a r g e number of s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were captured by FIGURE 1, i n which f r i e n d s h i p s with men were r e p o r t e d as p r o v i d i n g l e s s than those with women, and i n FIGURE 3, i n which the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p were the absence of women, and lower s c o r e s on the dimensions. Bernard (1976) r e f e r s to t h i s e f f e c t as a " r e l a t i o n a l d e f i c i t " (p. 230) i n which f r i e n d s h i p s with men do not, i n g e n e r a l , p r o v i d e as much support, a f f i l i a t i o n , and attachment as do f r i e n d s h i p s with women. Such r e s u l t s might suggest t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s would be more s a t i s f i e d , or a t l e a s t e q u a l l y s a t i s f i e d i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women, as t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men. In f a c t , there are no d i f f e r e n c e s when the a n a l y s i s i s based on the network as a whole, nor when i t i s based on the romantic p a r t n e r s o n l y . However, i n networks t h a t have excluded romantic p a r t n e r s , respondents r e p o r t more s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r men f r i e n d s than t h e i r women f r i e n d s . T h i s p a r a d o x i c a l r e s u l t i s r e m i n i s c e n t of another, t h a t of d e V r i e s ( i n p r e s s ) , i n which men r e p o r t e d having more f r i e n d s than women, but a t the same time r e p o r t l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n those f r i e n d s h i p s than do women. That r e s u l t was one which p r o p e l l e d the e a r l y d i s c u s s i o n s of t h i s study. There are a number of hypotheses t h a t may help to e x p l a i n t h i s f i n d i n g . One p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t although i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e more from t h e i r women f r i e n d s , they may 113 f e e l t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p asks more of them, t h a t i t takes more g i v i n g i n f r i e n d s h i p s with women i n order to have a balanced r e c i p r o c i t y . The term " c o s t of c a r i n g " has been used by some authors to d e s c r i b e the burden of being i n v o l v e d i n a f r i e n d s h i p network t h a t i s , although rewarding i n some ways, a l s o v e r y t a x i n g i n others ( K e s s l e r & McLeod, 1984) . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t because s a t i s f a c t i o n i s the most a b s t r a c t , l e a s t c o n c r e t e l y d e f i n e d of a l l the dimensions i n the study, i n d i v i d u a l s may be more l i k e l y t o make use of s t e r e o t y p e s , e x p e c t a t i o n s , or g e n e r a l i z e d c u l t u r a l v a l u e s . One such value i s h e t e r o s o c i a l b i a s , d e s c r i b e d by a some authors as a g r e a t e r v a l u a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with men, and a d e n i g r a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with women (e.g. Bernard, 1976; Raymond, 1986). R e l a t e d to th a t b i a s i s a s e t of neg a t i v e c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s about f r i e n d s h i p s between women, such as "women are each ot h e r ' s worst enemies", or "women can't be f r i e n d s because they're always competing with each o t h e r " t h a t may serve as impediments to women i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women as s a t i s f y i n g . "Women are a s s i m i l a t e d by the h e t e r o -r e l a t i o n a l i d e o l o g y t h a t men are a women's g r e a t e s t adventure. Women l e a r n not to expect a l i v e l y f u t u r e with women", (Raymond, 1986, p. 178). F u r t h e r , i f women are i n some ways d i s s a t i s f i e d i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p networks, "the s a f e s t v i c t i m s of (women's) disappointment...are those of ( t h e i r ) own sex" (Raymond, 1986, p. 199). S i m i l a r l y , over 114 60 years ago, V i r g i n i a Woolf (1929) observed, "Women have served a l l these c e n t u r i e s as l o o k i n g g l a s s e s . . . r e f l e c t i n g the f i g u r e of men a t twice i t s n a t u r a l s i z e " (p. 35). C l i n e and Spender (1987) hypothesize t h a t women's g r e a t e r r e f l e c t i n g of men i s the b a s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sexes. A t h i r d p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r respondents' g r e a t e r r e p o r t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n with men f r i e n d s , d e s p i t e lower s c o r e s f o r them on s e v e r a l dimensions, i s t h a t respondents r e c e i v e from men f r i e n d s some a s p e c t s of f r i e n d s h i p t h a t are not tapped i n the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . For example, s t a t u s i s one f e a t u r e of f r i e n d s h i p s t h a t might be r a t e d higher when with men f r i e n d s . Candy, T r o l l and Levy (1981) found t h a t respondents endorsed s t a t u s as one of the seven important f a c t o r s i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s , a l t h o u g h the gender of the f r i e n d s was not i d e n t i f i e d . Rose (1985) found t h a t men, but not women, r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g as much acceptance, i n t i m a c y and companionship i n t h e i r c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s as i n t h e i r same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s . Women r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s from t h e i r c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s . Yet women more o f t e n r e p o r t e d g r e a t e r companionship i n t h e i r c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s than i n t h e i r same-sex ones. Rose (1985) notes, "Women may a c q u i r e s t a t u s by having males as companions, and t h i s may compensate f o r the lack of in t i m a c y and acceptance i n these r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p. 72). A l l t h r e e of these hypotheses may p l a y a r o l e i n some way. 115 S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y and sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n f r i e n d s h i p : Gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e p o r t e d b e h a v i o r s , b e l i e f s about, and va l u e s of f r i e n d s h i p may i n f l u e n c e the kinds of same-sex and c r o s s - s e x r e l a t i o n s h i p s women and men are abl e to have t o g e t h e r . In r e s e a r c h conducted by Fehr (1988) f o r example, on prototypes of love and commitment, i t was ev i d e n t t h a t "the way people t h i n k about the concepts of love and commitment a c t u a l l y t r a n s l a t e s i n t o how they view the dynamics of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (p. 577). For example, i f women have e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r s e l f d i s c l o s u r e or the v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n of a p p r e c i a t i o n from t h e i r f r i e n d s , or i f men expect t h a t t h e i r f r i e n d s w i l l i n i t i a t e shared a c t i v i t y , such c o n c e p t i o n s may be a source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n c r o s s - s e x i n t e r a c t i o n s . The gender d i f f e r e n c e i n s e l f d i s c l o s u r e may, f o r i n s t a n c e , i n f l u e n c e not o n l y the l i k e l i h o o d of i n i t i a l l y d e v e l o p i n g a f r i e n d s h i p (Walker & Wright, 1976), but may have an impact on other important dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . For example, a f f e c t i o n and empathic understanding both r e l y , to some extent a t l e a s t , on the e f f e c t i v e communication of f e e l i n g s to the ot h e r . When males f e e l a f f e c t i o n they may be l e s s l i k e l y to express i t v e r b a l l y , and may attempt to show i t n o n v e r b a l l y . However, by not v e r b a l l y communicating the f e e l i n g , t here i s a reduced chance t h a t the other person w i l l a c c u r a t e l y p e r c e i v e i t . Such reduced i n f o r m a t i o n i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s Increases the p o s s i b i l i t y of misunderstandings. 116 F u r t h e r , i t r e q u i r e s t h a t the other i n d i v i d u a l work harder to p i c k up and i d e n t i f y a f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . Brody (1985), i n a p u b l i s h e d review of t h e o r i e s and r e s e a r c h i n t o gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n emotional development, s t a t e s t h a t "Data i n d i c a t e gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e v e r a l areas of emotional f u n c t i o n i n g , i n c l u d i n g nonverbal s e n s i t i v i t y , e x p r e s s i v e n e s s , the q u a l i t y of defenses, and c o g n i t i v e c o r r e l a t e s of r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t y " (p. 102). While men and women both have the c a p a c i t y f o r r e l a t e d n e s s , d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n leads t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n awareness o f , s k i l l , and m o t i v a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r many men and women by the time they are a d o l e s c e n t s (Brody, 1985). One the o r y t h a t attempts to d e l i n e a t e the processes i n v o l v e d i n the development of r e l a t i o n a l c a p a c i t i e s and m o t i v a t i o n i s s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y (e.g. Jordan, 1987; M i l l e r , 1982). The t h e o r y i s grounded i n women's ex p e r i e n c e , with a focus on the e a r l y m o t h e r - i n f a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . The core s t r u c t u r e i s d e s c r i b e d as r e l a t i o n a l . Empathy p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e i n the development of the r e l a t i o n a l s e l f . Empathy i s viewed i n t h i s model as a complex pr o c e s s , which r e l i e s on a high l e v e l of p s y c h o l o g i c a l development and ego s t r e n g t h . The p r o t o t y p i c a l example of the developmental environment i n which empathy develops i s the e a r l y mother-daughter r e l a t i o n s h i p . S o c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s are purported to make the mother-son r e l a t i o n s h i p l e s s conducive to the development of the r e l a t i o n a l s e l f . 117 The three b a s i c elements of the r e l a t i o n a l s e l f a r e : 1) a m o t i v a t i o n t o a t t e n d to the other p e r s o n ( s ) ; 2) the e x p e c t a t i o n of mutual empathy; and 3) the e x p e c t a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p as being a process f o r growth. The f i r s t component, m o t i v a t i o n , forms the b a s i s f o r the c a p a c i t y f o r empathy. There are s e v e r a l s k i l l s which are l e a r n e d i n e a r l y m o t h e r - i n f a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t are r e l e v a n t to the development of m o t i v a t i o n and c a p a c i t y f o r s o c i a l r e c i p r o c i t y , i n c l u d i n g : how to i n t e r p r e t a f f e c t ; how to read i n t e n t i o n s , and how t o g i v e and take t u r n s ( K e l l e y , 1983). Gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n a f f e c t r e c o g n i t i o n are e v i d e n t i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t g i r l s are more adept than are boys (Chandler, Paget, & Koch, 1978; H a l l , 1978). G i r l s ' b e t t e r s k i l l s than boys' i n i d e n t i f y i n g and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g emotion becomes even more pronounced as they become o l d e r (Brody, 1985). The second f e a t u r e , the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r e c i p r o c a l s e n s i t i v i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , then leads to the t h i r d f e a t u r e , a heightened development of s e l f and other through the s h a r i n g of e x p e r i e n c e . A number of r e s e a r c h e r s have found however, t h a t such r e c i p r o c a l s e n s i t i v i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y does not occur i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with men as o f t e n as i t does with women. Men, more than women, are l i k e l y to v e r b a l l y i n t e r r u p t the other, I n i t i a t e touch, take more p e r s o n a l space, and are poorer a t decoding nonverbal communication (Deaux, 1976; Fishman, 1978; Henley, 1977; N o l l e r , 1980). 118 Hence, i t i s argued, f o r women more so than f o r men, sense of s e l f e v o l v e s v i a a two-way i n t e r a c t i o n a l p rocess i n the con t e x t of r e l a t i o n s h i p (Surrey, 1985). The f i n d i n g s e v i d e n t i n the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s i l l u s t r a t e d i n FIGURE 1, th a t i s , t h a t there i s a la c k of r e c i p r o c i t y i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with men on s e v e r a l dimensions, would support such a view. An important e x t e n s i o n of the c o n s t r u c t of empathy i n the s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n model i s t h a t of "mutual empathy" ( M i l l e r , 1986), which r e f e r s t o a two-way i n t e r a c t i o n a l process i n which i t i s as important to understand as i t i s to be understood. The need t o understand, f e e l , and see the other i s a primary m o t i v a t i n g f o r c e t h a t i s viewed as being a t l e a s t as rewarding to the i n d i v i d u a l as the experience of being understood, f e l t , and seen by the o t h e r . T h i s m o t i v a t i o n i s t h e o r i z e d to be a c r i t i c a l f e a t u r e i n women's experience of themselves as i n - r e l a t i o n . T h i s hypothesized g r e a t e r m o t i v a t i o n i n women to r e f l e c t the other person's experience back may i n p a r t e x p l a i n the p a t t e r n i l l u s t r a t e d i n FIGURE 3, i n which r e l a t i o n s h i p s between men f r i e n d s ( i . e . , f r i e n d s h i p s t h a t do not i n c l u d e women) are found to score lower on a v a r i e t y of dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . C o n s i s t e n t with such a h y p o t h e s i s , i n t h e i r r e p o r t s of how they behave i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s , women i n t h i s study score higher than do men on, f o r example, g i v i n g empathic understanding. Both men and women i n t h i s study r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with women are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by empathic 119 understanding to a g r e a t e r extent than are t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with men. F u r t h e r , women a s c r i b e g r e a t e r importance to g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g empathic understanding i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s , than do men. T h i s k i n d of p a t t e r n , i n which women r e p o r t g i v i n g more than they r e c e i v e on a number of dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p , i s e v i d e n t i n the p a t t e r n presented i n FIGURE 3. Greater r e l a t i o n a l m o t i v a t i o n i n women may he l p to e x p l a i n some of the ways i n which women and men d i f f e r i n what they r e p o r t g i v i n g , r e c e i v i n g , and v a l u i n g i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s . S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y , then, appears to pr o v i d e a r i c h and parsimonious framework f o r understanding the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s of the three graphs t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e much of these d a t a . Men on the other hand, are c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n of themselves as having more c o n t r o l i n t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s than do t h e i r f r i e n d s . In a d d i t i o n , men r e p o r t having more c o n t r o l than do women. At the same time, men do not take g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s ; i n f a c t , women f r i e n d s more than men f r i e n d s are r a t e d as being more r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what happens i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . F u r t h e r , men value c o n t r o l i n t h e i r c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s more than do women. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of Peplau (1983) who notes t h a t i f decision-making c o n t r o l i s not equal i n c r o s s - s e x r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i t i s g e n e r a l l y the man who has more c o n t r o l . Having c o n t r o l over what happens when one i s with a f r i e n d i m p l i e s g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e f o r one person than another. Such i n e q u a l i t y of i n f l u e n c e , i f i t i s 120 c o n s i s t e n t , r e f l e c t s a dominance r e l a t i o n s h i p (Huston, 1983). M a i n t a i n i n g a dominance r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i t s e l f a p o t e n t i a l b a r r i e r to other a s p e c t s of f r i e n d s h i p , such as s e l f d i s c l o s u r e (Hacker, 1981), empathy and connectedness ( M i l l e r , 1986). I t may be t h a t men's g r e a t e r v a l u a t i o n o f c o n t r o l i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s l e a d s , i n p a r t , to the di m i n i s h e d l e v e l s of the v a r i o u s dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p d e p i c t e d i n FIGURE 2, when men are with t h e i r men f r i e n d s . Huston (1983) addresses concerns about the p o s s i b l e gap between s e l f r e p o r t s and behaviors r e g a r d i n g c o n t r o l i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s : Apart from q u e s t i o n s of accuracy, however, s u b j e c t i v e judgements of power are u s e f u l because they tap the e x p e r i e n t i a l world of c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p p a r t n e r s . The power-related a c t i v i t y of p a r t n e r s may be understandable, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , by r e f e r e n c e to the p a r t n e r s ' ideas about how much power they have i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus, b e l i e f s about power may c o n s t i t u t e c a u s a l c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t power usage, (p. 193) S e l f / O t h e r - An important f a c t o r : One important i m p l i c a t i o n of the s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n p e r s p e c t i v e i s i t s emphasis on the n e c e s s i t y of t a k i n q the r e l a t i o n a l c ontext i n t o account when a s s e s s i n g c o n c e p t i o n s of f r i e n d s h i p . I t i s t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y to have a measure not o n l y of what women and men r e c e i v e from t h e i r women and men f r i e n d s , but a l s o what i t i s t h a t they g i v e i n those r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The s e l f / o t h e r r a t i n g s i n t h i s study p l a y an e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y important r o l e . S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r s e l f / o t h e r emerged on: empathic understanding, deepening 121 o t h e r ' s s e l f awareness, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , connectedness, empowerment, and s a t i s f a c t i o n . There are s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g s e l f / o t h e r on nine of the 13 dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . The numerous s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s and i n t e r a c t i o n s which i n v o l v e the s e l f / o t h e r f a c t o r were somewhat unexpected, as s e l f / o t h e r has not been s p e c i f i c a l l y examined i n the f r i e n d s h i p l i t e r a t u r e . The s e l f / o t h e r f a c t o r was hypothesized to p l a y a r o l e p r i m a r i l y a t the three-way l e v e l , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with sex of respondent and sex of f r i e n d . However, the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n s d i d not prove s i g n i f i c a n t i n the o v e r a l l MANOVAR, and i n s t e a d the s e l f / o t h e r f a c t o r was important a t the main e f f e c t and two way l e v e l s . The s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f / o t h e r e f f e c t means t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s sample were not g e n e r a l i z i n g over themselves and each f r i e n d to o b t a i n an average estimate of p a r t i c u l a r dimensions. Instead, they d i s t i n g u i s h e d between what i t i s they c o n t r i b u t e to the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and what t h e i r f r i e n d c o n t r i b u t e s , on each dimension. F u r t h e r , the s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f / o t h e r e f f e c t i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on some dimensions a t l e a s t , respondents f e e l t h a t they are g i v i n g more i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s than are t h e i r f r i e n d s . The r e s u l t tends to be a s e l f - e n h a n c i n g one, i n t h a t the respondent r e p o r t s being more empathic than h i s / h e r f r i e n d , being more l i k e l y to deepen the o t h e r ' s s e l f awareness than v i c e v e r s a , being more r e s p o n s i b l e , f e e l i n g more connected, and more o f t e n behaving i n ways t h a t empower the o t h e r . At 122 the same time, respondents tend to r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r f r i e n d s are more s a t i s f i e d i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s with them, than the r e v e r s e ; t h a t i s , respondents tend to r e p o r t l e s s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r themselves than f o r t h e i r f r i e n d s . An example of t h i s i s the f i n d i n g t h a t women respondents (who are , of course, a t the same time women f r i e n d s ) , r e p o r t g r e a t e r empathic understanding i n themselves than i n t h e i r f r i e n d s , not o n l y with men f r i e n d s , but a l s o with women. S i m i l a r l y , men respondents (who a l s o are men f r i e n d s ) , r e p o r t t h a t they g i v e as much empathic understanding as they r e c e i v e , y e t a t the same time they r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r men f r i e n d s g i v e l e s s empathic understanding than they r e c e i v e . Perhaps such a f i n d i n g i s p a r t of what Tesser and Campbell (1982) r e f e r to as the m o t i v a t i o n to mai n t a i n a p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ; or what Greenwald (1980) c a l l s "benefectance", t h a t i s , the tendency f o r the s e l f to be p e r c e i v e d as e f f e c t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g what the person d e s i r e s , and a v o i d i n g what i s u n d e s i r e d . Linked t o such a tendency then, may be the i n d i v i d u a l ' s v a l u e s , p o s s i b l y d e t e r m i n i n g which behaviors and a t t i t u d e s are viewed as u n d e s i r a b l e . With or without romantic p a r t n e r s : Separate a n a l y s e s were run i n t h i s study f o r the network as a whole, the network without romantic p a r t n e r s , and f o r p a r t n e r s a l o n e . T h i s p a r t i t i o n i n g of the d a t a s e t was based on the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t there may be some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between romantic and non-romantic 123 r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example, Swenson (1972) takes a q u a n t i t a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e , and c i t e s g r e a t e r frequency i n romantic than non-romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s on the f o l l o w i n g b e h a v i o r s : v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n of a f f e c t i o n ; s e l f d i s c l o s u r e ; showing I n t e r e s t i n the o t h e r ' s a c t i v i t i e s ; and g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s to t o l e r a t e l e s s p l e a s a n t a s p e c t s of the other. Rubin (1972) a l s o makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between c o n c e p t i o n s of love and l i k i n g . Rather than d i s t i n g u i s h i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e l y between the two n o t i o n s however, he regards them as o v e r l a p p i n g s e t s . Components of love i n Rubin's (1972) s c a l e i n c l u d e : c a r e , need, t r u s t , and t o l e r a n c e . In c o n c e p t i o n s of romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , care emerged as the most important f a c t o r ; t r u s t was r a t e d as l e s s important than e i t h e r care or need (Steck, L e v i t a n , McLane, & K e l l e y , 1982). In c o n c e p t i o n s of c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s however, t r u s t was r a t e d as e q u a l l y important as care (Steck e t a l . , 1982). St e r n b e r g (1987) reviews s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s of l i k i n g and l o v i n g and agrees with Davis and Todd (1985) t h a t c o n c e p t i o n s of romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s do not d i f f e r from non-romantic ones on f a c t o r s t h a t form the b a s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p (e.g., acceptance, t r u s t , r e s p e c t ) , but do d i f f e r on " p a s s i o n " (e.g., f a s c i n a t i o n , e x c l u s i v e n e s s ) . In g e n e r a l , fewer gender d i f f e r e n c e s emerged i n the p a r t n e r s - o n l y d a t a s e t than i n the whole network or i n the network without p a r t n e r s . T h i s r e s u l t may be due to reduced power to d e t e c t a d i f f e r e n c e i n the p a r t n e r s - o n l y d i v i s i o n of the d a t a s e t . The number of respondents i n the p a r t n e r s -124 o n l y a n a l y s e s was 91, as compared to the number i n the d a t a s e t as a whole (n=169), and to the network without p a r t n e r s (n=146). A power c a l c u l a t i o n was c a r r i e d out to determine the n needed to d e t e c t v a r i o u s e f f e c t s i z e s with a power of .80. An e f f e c t s i z e of .31 would be s i g n i f i c a n t with an n of 91; with an n of 146, an e f f e c t s i z e of .25 would be s i g n i f i c a n t ; and with an n of 169 an e f f e c t s i z e of .23 would be s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , d i f f e r e n c e s of between .23 and .30 would be s i g n i f i c a n t i n the whole d a t a s e t , and would not be s i g n i f i c a n t i n the p a r t n e r s - o n l y d i v i s i o n of the d a t a s e t . C l e a r l y , power to d e t e c t s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s v a r i e s as a f u n c t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t sample s i z e s i n each of the thr e e d a t a s e t s . However, there i s not a l a r g e power d i f f e r e n c e among the three sample s i z e s , and i t i s u n l i k e l y to account f o r a g r e a t d e a l of the d i f f e r e n c e i n the f i n d i n g s among the three d i v i s i o n s of the d a t a . A more p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r fewer s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s between romantic p a r t n e r s as compared to c l o s e f r i e n d s i n g e n e r a l may be r e l a t e d t o Wright's (1982) c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between women's and men's f r i e n d s h i p s " d i m i n i s h markedly as the s t r e n g t h and d u r a t i o n of the f r i e n d s h i p s i n c r e a s e " (p. 19). Gender d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t o c c u r r e d i n the p a r t n e r s - o n l y d a t a s e t i n c l u d e g r e a t e r s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and empathic understanding f o r women than f o r men, both when women r e p o r t on themselves, and when men r e p o r t on t h e i r women p a r t n e r s . As i n the o v e r a l l d a t a s e t s , men r e p o r t more c o n t r o l f o r 125 themselves than f o r t h e i r p a r t n e r s , and a l s o r a t e themselves higher on c o n t r o l than do women respondents. Shared a c t i v i t y i s one dimension t h a t shows d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s depending on whether p a r t n e r s are i n c l u d e d i n the network or not. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between women and men i n i n i t i a t i n g shared a c t i v i t y when the whole network i s examined, nor i s there any d i f f e r e n c e when l o o k i n g a t the p a r t n e r s o n l y . When l o o k i n g a t the network e x c l u d i n g romantic p a r t n e r s , however, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s i n v o l v e more shared a c t i v i t y than do c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s , f o r both women and men. In a d d i t i o n , f r i e n d s h i p s with women are found to be l e s s l i k e l y than are f r i e n d s h i p s with men to i n v o l v e shared a c t i v i t y . I t would appear then, t h a t the r e c i p r o c i t y of the romantic p a r t n e r s i n i n i t i a t i n g shared a c t i v i t y obscured the gender d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t occur i n non-romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Hence, t h i s d i v i s i o n of the data may be a u s e f u l way to examine the c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p networks of women and men. Another novel m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s t r a t e g y i n t h i s study i n v o l v e d a s k i n g respondents to r e p o r t on a number of s p e c i f i c f r i e n d s h i p s , which were then averaged, dimension by dimension, and by gender of f r i e n d , by the i n v e s t i g a t o r , r a t h e r than having respondents do the aver a g i n g themselves. Although i n t h i s study t h e r e i s no way to d i r e c t l y a s s ess whether or not the i n v e s t i g a t o r - a v e r a g i n g approach y i e l d e d more p r e c i s e r e s u l t s than would respondent-averaging, we may hypothesize t h a t such i s p o s s i b l e on the b a s i s of the 126 r e s u l t s f o r the s e l f / o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n . The respondent i s u s u a l l y asked t o pr o v i d e a summary of the amount of some dimension i n a f r i e n d s h i p or s e t of f r i e n d s h i p s . In t h i s way s e l f and other are averaged by the respondent. Yet i n t h i s study s e l f / o t h e r emerged as a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n such a number of cases, and pr o v i d e d a more comprehensive look a t the dynamics of the dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p , t h a t i t r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the same may be t r u e r e g a r d i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r r a t h e r than the respondent doing the a v e r a g i n g over f r i e n d s h i p s . D i r e c t i o n s f o r Future Research: Some q u e s t i o n s a r i s e out of t h i s r e s e a r c h which may be v a l u a b l e to e x p l o r e i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . To begin with, i t would be Important now to e v a l u a t e the i n t e r n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , to determine the ext e n t of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the dimensions. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a number of the dimensions may lo a d on a s i n g l e f a c t o r , t hereby s i m p l i f y i n g communication of the complex a r r a y of r e s u l t s a r i s i n g out of t h i s measure. The convergent v a l i d i t y of the measure should a l s o be ass e s s e d , perhaps by de t e r m i n i n g the ext e n t to which the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o r r e l a t e s with a v a r i e t y of measures, f o r example, of s o c i a l support, r e l a t i o n s h i p c l o s e n e s s , and p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l - b e i n g . I t would be v a l u a b l e a l s o t o determine whether experimentor-averaging over the f r i e n d s h i p network i s an 127 improvement over p a r t i c i p a n t - a v e r a g i n g . Do the two e s t i m a t e s d i f f e r , and i f so, i n what ways? Since s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y p r o v i d e d such a r i c h framework f o r understanding many of the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study, i t may be of value to more e x p l i c i t l y t e s t key concepts of the t h e o r y i n the context of i n d i v i d u a l s ' f r i e n d s h i p networks. T r a d i t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s of the s e l f , which p o s i t development as o c c u r r i n g v i a i n c r e a s i n g autonomy and s e p a r a t i o n from o t h e r s , would not n e c e s s a r i l y p r e d i c t t h a t by knowing about i n d i v i d u a l s ' f r i e n d s h i p networks we c o u l d o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about co n c e p t i o n s of the s e l f . In c o n t r a s t , s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y suggests t h a t the s e l f i s i n s e p a r a b l e from the r e l a t i o n a l c o n t e x t : i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n c e p t i o n s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s can provide i n f o r m a t i o n about s e l f -c o n c e p t i o n s , and s i m i l a r l y , s e l f - c o n c e p t i o n s c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r s . For example, a c c o r d i n g to s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y , m o t i v a t i o n to a t t e n d to the other i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p forms the b a s i s f o r the c a p a c i t y f o r empathy, and leads to an e x p e c t a t i o n of mutual empathy. M o t i v a t i o n to a t t e n d to the other c o u l d be tapped v i a a s s e s s i n g the frequency of s e l f - r e p o r t e d b e h a v i o r s such as making an e f f o r t to show an i n t e r e s t when the other i s t a l k i n g or doing something, not f e e l i n g bored, not having d i f f i c u l t y l i s t e n i n g or paying a t t e n t i o n to the o t h e r , and a c c u r a t e l y i n t e r p r e t i n g the o t h e r ' s a f f e c t and/or i n t e n t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n to a t t e n d to the other 128 c o u l d be assessed by o b t a i n i n g an importance r a t i n g to determine the extent to which the person regards such m o t i v a t i o n as i n t r i n s i c a l l y v a l u a b l e ( i . e . , whether i t i s as important to the i n d i v i d u a l t o understand the other as i t i s to be understood by the o t h e r ) . I n d i v i d u a l s whose s e l f -c o n c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e a high m o t i v a t i o n to a t t e n d to others i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s might have higher e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r mutual empathy, or r e c i p r o c i t y i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , than might i n d i v i d u a l s who have a lower m o t i v a t i o n to a t t e n d to o t h e r s . Such e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r r e c i p r o c i t y might I n f l u e n c e i n d i v i d u a l s ' r a t i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n , depending on the nature of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . When r e p o r t i n g on f r i e n d s h i p s t h a t are not r e c i p r o c a l , i n d i v i d u a l s who are h i g h l y motivated to a t t e n d to others and expect r e c i p r o c i t y might r e p o r t lower s a t i s f a c t i o n than might i n d i v i d u a l s who are l e s s motivated to a t t e n d to o t h e r s . I t might be f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who r e p o r t h i g h l e v e l s of r e c i p r o c i t y and mutual empathy i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be more l i k e l y t o r e p o r t g r e a t e r empowerment. Empowerment might be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n terms of such t h i n g s as: t a k i n g some a c t i o n f o r o n e s e l f , making some d e c i s i o n , r e s o l v i n g a dillemma, c l a r i f y i n g one's thoughts, t r u s t i n g one's own judgement, f e e l i n g a b l e t o take a r i s k , f e e l i n g more ab l e t o handle t h i n g s , or o b t a i n i n g a s s i s t a n c e . Whereas such co p i n g s k i l l s have o f t e n been construed as an i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e , s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n t h e o r y p o s t u l a t e s t h a t such 129 c a p a b i l i t i e s are the d i r e c t r e s u l t of being embedded i n a s u p p o r t i v e r e l a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . In a d d i t i o n , more work c o u l d be undertaken to examine the unexpectedly f r u i t f u l s e l f / o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n , by e x p l o r i n g the mediating processes u n d e r l y i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r esponses. T h i s work might focus on the s e l f - e n h a n c i n g i n f l u e n c e of what has been d e s c r i b e d as the "alpha f a c t o r " i n s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding (Paulhus, 1990, p.21). T h i s f a c t o r i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the con s c i o u s m a n i p u l a t i o n of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n found i n impression management, and i s i n s t e a d regarded as an e s s e n t i a l l y honest but o v e r l y p o s i t v e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . C a l l e d " s e l f - d e c e p t i v e p o s i t i v i t y " (Paulhus, 1990, p.22), t h i s f a c t o r i s hypothesized to be r e l a t e d to s e l f - e s t e e m , adjustment, optimism, and a sense of g e n e r a l c a p a b i l i t y , and has been found to be c o r r e l a t e d with measures of mental h e a l t h . Thus, i t may be through mechanisms such as s e l f - d e c e p t i v e p o s i t i v i t y , t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s come to e v a l u a t e themselves more p o s i t i v e l y than t h e i r f r i e n d s . One p o s s i b l e use of the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s as a t o o l f o r examining the f a c t o r s t h a t p r e d i c t r e l a t i o n s h i p l o n g e v i t y . For example, a l o n g i t u d i n a l study might assess p a r t i c i p a n t s a t s i x month i n t e r v a l s over two y e a r s , to determine which of the dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p best p r e d i c t whather a r e l a t i o n s h i p remains c l o s e or d i s s o l v e s . Another q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t t h a t i s yet to be answered i s to what extent are the r e s u l t s of t h i s study l i m i t e d to 130 u n i v e r s i t y undergraduates. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to take t h i s measure i n t o the community and o b t a i n data on i n d i v i d u a l s a t d i f f e r e n t ages and l i f e s t a g e s . Dickens and Perlman (1981) d i s c u s s a number of l i f e - c y c l e changes i n f r i e n d s h i p s , such as lower frequency of c o n t a c t and fewer c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s i n l a t e r y e a r s . There appears then, to be a precedent f o r l o o k i n g a t f r i e n d s h i p s a c r o s s the l i f e s p a n , but what i s m i s s i n g i s a more f i n e - g r a i n e d approach. The value of the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s i t s breadth of dimensions, s p e c i f i c i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and d i s t i n c t i o n between s e l f and o t h e r . Another q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t r e v o l v e s around the p o t e n t i a l use of t h i s measure as a c l i n i c a l t o o l , f o r l o o k i n g i d i o g r a p h i c a l l y a t the s o c i a l support i n i n d i v i d u a l s * networks, and a s s e s s i n g the extent to which r e l a t i o n a l d e f i c i t s and s u r p l u s e s a f f e c t c l i n i c a l outcomes. T i e d t o t h i s c l i n i c a l approach i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of working with the F r i e n d s h i p Q u e s t i o n n a i r e l o n g i t u d i n a l l y , t o determine changes over time i n i n d i v i d u a l s or groups of i n d i v i d u a l s , i n the composition and nature of t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p networks. C o n c l u s i o n s : In summary, t h i s r e s e a r c h supports the f i n d i n g s i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , as w e l l as f o l k b e l i e f s , t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t a l t h o u g h there are some areas of o v e r l a p , women and men d i f f e r i n some important ways i n what they g i v e , r e c e i v e and 131 value i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p s . Such sex d i f f e r e n c e s suggest t h a t i t i s important not to c o n s t r a i n respondents by p r o v i d i n g a standard d e f i n i t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p t h a t i s meant to a p p l y t o both women and men. Wright (1982) concludes t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between the sexes i n f r i e n d s h i p are "not g r e a t and, i n many cases, they are so obscure t h a t they are hard to demonstrate" (p.19); he f u r t h e r notes t h a t i f i n v e s t i g a t o r s used a s u f f i c i e n t number of dimensions and a s u f f i c i e n t number of cases, they would f i n d much more s i m i l a r i t y than d i f f e r e n c e . However, such a view has not been borne out i n t h i s study. Although there i s indeed more s i m i l a r i t y than d i f f e r e n c e i n women's and men's co n c e p t i o n s of t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s h i p s , i t i s not a g r e a t d e a l more. Moreover, g i v e n the l a r g e number of dimensions, p a r t i c i p a n t s , and f r i e n d s c i t e d , the c l o s e n e s s of those f r i e n d s , and the c a r e f u l l y worded d e f i n i t i o n s of the dimensions, those d i f f e r e n c e s may be v e r y meaningful. F i n a l l y , i t i s important to keep i n mind t h a t i n t h i s study, I have r e f e r r e d f o r the most p a r t not to "women" and "men", but to "women respondents with women or men f r i e n d s " , or "men f r i e n d s as opposed to women f r i e n d s " , e t c . That i s , t h i s study has focused on women and men i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s  with women and men; i n essence t h a t i s what co n c e p t i o n s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a r e , an embeddedness of the i n d i v i d u a l i n her or h i s con t e x t of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r s . 132 REFERENCES An t o n u c c i , T.C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). An examination of sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l support among o l d e r men and women. Sex Roles, 17, 737-749. A r i e s , E . J . , & Johnson, F.L. (1983). Close f r i e n d s h i p i n adult h o o d : C o n v e r s a t i o n a l content between same-sex f r i e n d s . Sex Ro l e s . 9, 1183-1196. A r n o l d , W.J., & C h a r t i e r , B.M. (1986, June). Intimacy and  s o l i d a r i t y i n men's r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Paper presented a t the 47th Annual Convention of the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Toronto, Canada. B e l l , R.R. (1981). F r i e n d s h i p s of women and of men. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 5, 402-417. Berkman, L.F., & Syme, S.L. (1979). S o c i a l networks, host r e s i s t a n c e , and m o r t a l i t y : A nine-year f o l l o w - u p study of Alameda County r e s i d e n t s . American J o u r n a l of  Epidemiology. 109. 186-204. Bernard, J . (1976). H o m o s o c l a l l t y and female d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues, 32 ( 4 ) , 213-238. 133 B i l l i n g s , A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1982). S o c i a l support and f u n c t i o n i n g among community and c l i n i c a l groups: A panel model. J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Medicine, 5, 295-312. Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex f r i e n d s h i p . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 36., 38-47. Brody, L.R. (1985). Gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n emotional development: A review of t h e o r i e s and r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 53, 102-149. C a l d w e l l , M.A., & Peplau, L.A. (1982). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n same-sex f r i e n d s h i p . Sex Rol e s , 8, 721-732. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., & Rodgers, W.L. (1976). The q u a l i t y of American L i f e . NY: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation. Candy, S.G., T r o l l , L.E., & Levy, S.G. (1981). A developmental e x p l o r a t i o n of f r i e n d s h i p f u n c t i o n s i n women. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 5, 456-472. Chandler, M.J., Paget, K.F., & Koch, D.A. (1978). The c h i l d ' s d e m y s t i f i c a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l defense mechanism: A s t r u c t u r a l and developmental a n a l y s i s . Developmental Psychology, 14, 197-205. 134 C l i n e , S., & Spender, D. (1987). R e f l e c t i n g men a t twice  t h e i r n a t u r a l s i z e : Why women work a t making men f e e l good. Glasgow: F o n t a n a / C o l l i n s . Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/Ecology. Boston: Beacon P r e s s . Davidson, S. (1983, March). The f e l t c o n n e c t i o n : F r i e n d s h i p  between women. Paper presented a t the A s s o c i a t i o n of Women i n Psychology. Davidson, S., & Packard, T. (1981). The t h e r a p e u t i c value of f r i e n d s h i p between women. Psychology of Women  Q u a r t e r l y , 5, 49 5-510. Davis, K.E., & Todd, M.J. (1985). A s s e s s i n g f r i e n d s h i p : P r o t o t y p e s , paradigm c a s e s , and r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i p t i o n . In S. Duck & D. Perlman ( E d s . ) , Understanding p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : An  i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y approach (pp.17-38). B e v e r l y H i l l s , CA: Sage. Deaux, K. (1976). The behavior of women and men. Monterey, C a l i f . : Brooks/Cole. de V r i e s , B. ( i n p r e s s ) . F r i e n d s h i p and k i n s h i p over the l i f e c o u r s e : A f a m i l y stage approach. In L. Stone 135 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st N a t i o n a l Symposium on  S o c i a l Support. Ottawa. de V r i e s , B., & Perlman, D. (1987) [Conceptions of f r i e n d s h i p and k i n s h i p . ] Unpublished d a t a . Dickens, W.J., & Perlman, D. (1981). F r i e n d s h i p over the l i f e c y c l e . In S. Duck & R. Gilmour, ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p s : 2. Developing p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s (pp.91-122). NY: Academic. Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype a n a l y s i s of the concepts of love and commitment. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology. 55, 557-579. Fishman, P.M. (1978). I n t e r a c t i o n : The work women do, S o c i a l Problems, 25, 397-406. Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions of f r i e n d s h i p . Psychology of Women  Q u a r t e r l y , 9, 489-502. Freedman, J . (1978). Happy people: What happiness i s , who  has i t . and why. NY: Harcourt, Brace, J o v a n o v i c h . 136 Gibbs, M., Auerbach, D., & Fox, M. (1980). A comparison of male and female same-sex f r i e n d s h i p s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l  J o u r n a l of Women's S t u d i e s . 3_, 261-272. G l a s s , G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n  ed u c a t i o n and psychology. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Greenwald, A.G. (1980). The t o t a l i t a r i a n ego: F a b r i c a t i o n and r e v i s i o n of p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y . American  P s y c h o l o g i s t , 35. 603-618. Hacker, H.M. (1981). Blabbermouths and clams: Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n same-sex and c r o s s -sex f r i e n d s h i p dyads. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y f 5, 385-401. H a l l , J.A. (1978). Gender e f f e c t s i n decoding nonverbal cues. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 84, 845-857. Helgeson, V.S., Shaver, P., & Dyer, M. (1987). P r o t o t y p e s of i n t i m a c y and d i s t a n c e i n same-sex and op p o s i t e - s e x r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and Per s o n a l  R e l a t i o n s h i p s . 4, 195-233. Hendrix, L. (1979). K i n s h i p , s o c i a l c l a s s , and m i g r a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 41, 399-407. 137 Henley, N.M. (1977). Body p o l i t i c s : Power, sex, and  nonverbal communlcation, Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Huston, T.L. (1983). Power. In H. K e l l e y , E. B e r s c h e i d , A. C h r i s t e n s e n , J . Harvey, T. Huston, G. L e v i n g e r , E. McC l i n t o c k , L. Peplau, & D. Peters o n ( E d s . ) , Close  r e l a t i o n s h i p s . NY: Freeman. I n g e r s o l l - D a y t o n , B., & An t o n u c c i , T. (1988). R e c i p r o c a l and n o n r e c i p r o c a l s o c i a l s u p p o r t : C o n t r a s t i n g s i d e s of in t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of Gerontology. 43., S65-S73. Jackson, R.M., F i s c h e r , C.S., & Jones, L.M. (1977). The dimensions of s o c i a l networks. In C.S. F i s c h e r (Ed.), Networks and p l a c e s : S o c i a l r e l a t i o n s i n the urban  s e t t i n g . NY: Free P r e s s . Johnson, F.L., & A r i e s , E . J . (1983). The t a l k of women f r i e n d s . Women's S t u d i e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l Forum, 6, 353-361. Jordan, J.V. (1987). C l a r i t y i n c o n n e c t i o n : Empathic knowing, d e s i r e and s e x u a l i t y . Work i n Pro g r e s s , No.  29, W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . Kahn, R.L., & A n t o n u c c i , T. (1980). Convoys over the l i f e c y c l e : Attachment r o l e s and s o c i a l support. In P.B. B a l t e s & C. Brim ( E d s . ) , L i f e s p a n development and  b e h a v i o r : 3. Boston: L e x i n g t o n . Kaplan, A. (1984). The s e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r d e p r e s s i o n i n women. Work i n P r o g r e s s , No. 14, W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . K e l l e y , H.H. (1983). E p i l o g u e : An e s s e n t i a l s c i e n c e . In H K e l l e y , E. B e r s c h e i d , A. C h r i s t e n s e n , J . Harvey, T. Huston, G. L e v i n g e r , E. M c C l i n t o c k , L. Peplau, & D. P e t e r s o n ( E d s . ) , Close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . NY: Freeman. K e l l e y , H.H., B e r s c h e i d , E., C h r i s t e n s e n , A.M. Harvey, J.H. Huston, T.L., L e v i n g e r , G., M c C l i n t o c k , E., Peplau, L.A., & P e t e r s o n , D.R. (1983). Close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . NY: Freeman. K l i n g e r , E. (1977). Meaning and v o i d : Inner experience and  the i n c e n t i v e s i n people's l i v e s . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota P r e s s . 139 LaGaipa, J . J . (1977). T e s t i n g a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l approach to f r i e n d s h i p . In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and p r a c t i c e  i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . London: Academic. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). S t r e s s , a p p r a i s a l , and  cop i n g . NY: S p r i n g e r . Lowenthal, M.F., Thurnher, M., & C h i r i b o g a , D. (1975). Four  stages of l i f e . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. M i l l e r , Jean Baker (1976). Toward a new psychology of  women. Boston: Beacon P r e s s . M i l l e r , Jean Baker (1986). What do we mean by r e l a t i o n s h i p s ? Work i n Pr o g r e s s , No. 22, W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . M i l l e r , Jean Baker (1984). The development of women's sense of s e l f . Work i n P r o g r e s s . No. 12, W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . M i l l e r , Jean Baker (1983). The c o n s t r u c t i o n of anger i n women and men. Work i n P r o g r e s s , No. 4. W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . N o l l e r , P. (1980). Misunderstandings i n m a r i t a l communication: A study of c o u p l e s ' nonverbal 140 communication. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology. 39, 1135-1148. Parker, S., & de V r i e s , B. ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) . The study of f r i e n d s h i p : A review of e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . Paulhus, D. (1990). Measurement and c o n t r o l of response b i a s . In J.P. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman ( E d s . ) , Measures of p e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l  p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t i t u d e s (pp.17-59). London: Academic P r e s s . Peplau, L.A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H. K e l l e y , E. B e r s c h e i d , A. C h r i s t e n s e n , J . Harvey, T. Huston, G. L e v i n g e r , E. M c C l i n t o c k , L. Peplau, & D. P e t e r s o n ( E d s . ) , C l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . NY: Freeman. Raymond, J.G. (1986). A p a s s i o n f o r f r i e n d s : Toward a p h i l o s o p h y of female a f f e c t i o n . Boston: Beacon P r e s s . Reisman, J.M., & Shorr, S.E. (1978). F r i e n d s h i p c l a i m s and e x p e c t a t i o n s among c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . C h i l d  Development, 49, 913-916. Rose, S.M. (1985). Same- and c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s and the psychology of h o m o s o c i a l i t y . Sex Roles, 12, 63-74. 141 Rose, S., & Roades, L. (1987). Feminism and women's f r i e n d s h i p s . Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 11, 243-254. Rubin, Z. (1973). L i k i n g and l o v i n g ; An I n v i t a t i o n t o  s o c i a l psychology. New York: R i n e h a r t & Winston. Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic l o v e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 16, 265-273. Schaefer, M.T., & Olson, D.H. (1981). A s s e s s i n g i n t i m a c y : The PAIR Inventory. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and F a m i l y  Therapy, 7, 47-60. Seiden, A.M., & B a r t , P.B. (1975). Women to women: Is s i s t e r h o o d powerful? In N. G l a z e r - M a l b i n (Ed.), Old f a m i l y , new f a m i l y (pp. 189-228). NY: Van Nostrand. Shulman, N. (1975). L i f e c y c l e v a r i a t i o n s i n p a t t e r n s of c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the  Family, 37_, 813-821. Steck, L., L e v i t a n , D., McLane, D., & K e l l e y , H.H. (1982). Care, need, and con c e p t i o n s of l o v e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 43., 481-491. 142 Sternberg, R.J. (1987). L i k i n g versus l o v i n g : A comparative e v a l u a t i o n of t h e o r i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 102, 331-345. S t i v e r , I.P. (1984). The meanings of "dependency" i n female-male r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Work i n Prog r e s s , No. 11, W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . Strachan, C.E., & Dutton, D.G. (1990). The r o l e of power and  gender i n anger responses to s e x u a l j e a l o u s y . Unpublished manuscript. S t r a i n , L.A., & C h a p p e l l , N.L. (1982). C o n f i d a n t s : Do they make a d i f f e r e n c e i n q u a l i t y of l i f e ? Research on  Aging. 4, 479-502. Surrey, J . (1987). R e l a t i o n s h i p and empowerment. Work i n  P r o g r e s s . No. 30. W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . Surrey, J .L. (1985). S e l f - i n - r e l a t i o n : A t h e o r y of women's development. Work i n P r o g r e s s . No. 13. W e l l e s l e y , Mass.: Stone Center Working Papers S e r i e s . Swenson, C.H., J r . (1972). The behavior of l o v e . In H.A. Otto (Ed.), Love today: A new e x p l o r a t i o n . NY: A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s s . Tesch, S. (1983). Review of f r i e n d s h i p development a c r o s s the l i f e s p a n . Human Development f 26., 266-276. Te s s e r , A., & Campbell, J . (1982). S e l f e v a l u a t i o n maintenance and the p e r c e p t i o n of f r i e n d s and s t r a n g e r s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y . 50, 261-279. Thomae, H. (1970). Theory of ag i n g and c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y of p e r s o n a l i t y . Human Development. 13, 1-16. Verbrugge, L. (1977). The s t r u c t u r e of a d u l t f r i e n d s h i p c h o i c e s . S o c i a l F o r c e s . 56, 576-597. Walker, L.S., & Wright, P.H. (1976). S e l f d i s c l o s u r e i n f r i e n d s h i p . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s . 42. 735-742. Waring, E.M., & Chelune, G.J. (1983) M a r i t a l i n t i m a c y and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology. 39., 183-190. W i l l i a m s , D.G. (1985). Gender, m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y , and emotional i n t i m a c y i n same-sex f r i e n d s h i p . Sex Roles, 12, 587-600. 144 Wish, M., Deutsch, M. & Kaplan, S. (1976). P e r c e i o v e d dimensions of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 33, 409-420. Woolf, V. (1929). Room of one's own. NY: Harcourt. Woolsey, L.K. (1987a). Bonds between women and between men, P a r t I: A review of theo r y . A t l a n t i s . 13, 116-124. Woolsey, L.K. (1987b). Bonds between women and between men, P a r t I I : A review of r e s e a r c h . A t l a n t i s . 13, 125-136. Wright, P.H. (1982). Men's f r i e n d s h i p s , women,s f r i e n d s h i p s , and the a l l e g e d i n f e r i o r i t y of the l a t t e r . Sex R o l e s . 8, 1-20. Wright, P.H. (1985). The Acquaintance D e s c r i p t i o n Form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman ( E d s . ) . Understanding p e r s o n a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p s : An i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y approach (pp. 39-62). B e v e r l y H i l l s , CA.: Sage. 145 Table 1 S e l f d i s c l o s u r e : S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.335 sd=0.781 M=5.034 sd=1.158 M=5.300 sd=0.781 M=5.171 sd=1.367 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.434 sd=0.918 M=4.865 sd=1.001 M=5.186 sd=0.993 M=4.772 sd=0.959 Without P a r t n e r s : Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.351 M=5.304 sd=0.790 sd=0.793 M=4.863 M=4.959 sd=1.165 sd=1.356 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.109 M=4.944 sd=0.934 sd=1.006 M=4.953 M=4.872 sd=0.948 sd=0.894 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.194 M=5.827 (n=49) sd=0.929 sd=1.153 Men Respondents (n=42) M=5.722 sd=1.171 M=5.827 3d=1.280 Table 2  A p p r e c i a t i o n S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) S e l f Other M=5.571 M=5.546 sd=0.713 sd=0.775 M=5.673 M=5.653 sd=0.810 sd=0.959 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.815 M=5.699 sd=0.829 sd=0.949 M=5.120 M=5.102 sd=0.851 sd=0.864 Without P a r t n e r s : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f Other M=5.584 M=5.581 sd=0.737 sd=0.793 M=5.560 M=5.489 sd=0.934 sd=0.977 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.598 M=5.513 sd=1.000 sd=1.107 M=5.187 M=5.191 sd=0.805 sd=0.815 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.357 M=6.265 (n=49) sd=0.764 sd=0.867 Men Respondents M-6.024 M=6.210 (n=42) sd=1.024 sd=1.018 Table 3  A s s i s t a n c e S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) S e l f Other M=5.421 M=5.273 sd=0.892 sd=0.890 M=5.591 sd=1.060 M=5.470 sd=1.096 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.638 sd=0.998 M=5.433 sd=0.966 M=5.637 s d = 1 . 0 4 5 M=5.439 sd=0.924 Without P a r t n e r s : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f M=5.468 sd=0.882 M=5.424 sd=1.254 Other M=5.355 sd=0.856 M=5.222 sd=1.260 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.345 sd=1.164 M=5.484 sd=0.928 M=5.373 sd=1.208 M=5.478 sd=0.895 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.347 M=6.214 (n=49) sd=0.751 sd=1.075 Men Respondents M=5.980 M=6.214 (n=42) sd=0.866 sd=1.001 148 Table 4 Empathic Understanding S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women f r i e n d s Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other S e l f Other Women Respondents M=5.752 M=5.566 M=5.843 M=5.212 (n=83) sd=0.805 sd=0.878 sd=0.653 sd=0.973 Men Respondents M=5.484 M=5.591 M=5.199 M=5.059 (n=88) sd=0.920 sd=0.916 sd=1.023 sd=0.962 Without P a r t n e r s : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f Other M=5.787 M=5.594 sd=0.772 sd=0.870 M=5.447 M=5.514 sd=0.957 sd=1.008 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.765 M=5.157 sd=0.728 sd=1.091 M=5.296 M=5.138 sd=1.016 sd=0.935 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.041 M=5.439 (n=49) sd=0.883 sd=1.107 Men Respondents M=5.742 M=5.897 (n=42) sd=1.077 sd=1.101 Table 5 Deepening o t h e r ' s s e l f awareness S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) S e l f Other M=4.957 M=4.931 sd=0.969 sd=1.071 M=5.074 M=5.158 sd=0.948 sd=1.062 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.213 M=4.973 sd=0.949 sd=1.190 M=4.786 M=4.679 sd=0.997 sd=0.985 Without P a r t n e r s : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f M=5.017 sd=0.999 M=4.941 sd=1.072 Other M=4.981 sd=1.105 M=4.968 sd=1.156 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.988 M=4.756 sd=1.099 sd=1.287 M=4.840 M=4.708 sd=0.997 sd=1.004 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=5.581 M=5.337 (n=49) sd=1.017 sd=1.404 Men Respondents (n=42) M=5.528 sd=0.984 M=5.750 sd=1.043 Table 6  Shared A c t i v i t y  S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.771 M=4.697 sd=0.984 sd=0.944 M=4.987 M=4.854 sd=1.156 sd=1.214 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.931 M=5.000 sd=1.242 sd=1.126 M=4.847 M=4.843 sd=1.029 sd=0.991 Without P a r t n e r s : Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M-4.778 M=4.751 sd=0.985 sd=0.974 M=4.613 M=4.367 sd=1.461 sd=1.383 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.385 M=4.505 sd=1.335 sd=1.364 M=4.887 M=4.876 sd=0.996 sd=0.942 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.071 M=6.102 (n=49) sd=1.021 sd=1.041 Men Respondents M=5.917 M=6.056 (n=42) sd=1.024 sd=1.051 Table 7  Authenticity Self and Other Ratings for Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men Friends Whole dataset Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women friends Self Other M=5.991 M=5.970 sd=0.907 sd=0.887 M=5.752 M=5.790 sd=1.043 sd=0.950 Men friends Self Other M=6.155 M=6.247 sd=0.880 sd=0.754 M=5.763 M=5.765 sd=1.007 sd=0.993 Without Partners Women friends Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) Self Other M=6.055 M=6.023 sd-0.895 sd=0.861 M=5.751 sd=1.017 M=5.793 sd=0.904 Men friends Self Other M=5.976 M=6.074 sd=1.004 sd=0.892 M=5.875 M=5.879 sd=0.827 sd=0.832 Partners only: Self Other Women Respondents M=6.582 M=6.653 (n=49) sd=0.717 sd=0.663 Men Respondents M=5.817 M=5.940 (n=42) sd=1.269 sd=1.138 Table 8  T r u s t S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole dat a s e t : Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) S e l f Other M=5.963 M=6.027 sd=0.836 sd=0.815 M=6.058 M=5.959 sd=0.939 sd=0.915 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.975 M=6.017 sd=0.878 sd=0.803 M=5.740 M=5.780 sd=0.923 sd=0.913 Without P a r t n e r s : Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.997 M=6.038 sd=0.825 sd=0.819 M=6.015 M=5.955 sd=0.950 sd=1.016 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.860 M=5.895 sd*0.953 sd=0.951 M=5.850 M=5.911 sd=0.836 sd=0.794 P a r t n e r s o n l y ; S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.367 M=6.388 (n=49) sd=0.834 sd=0.805 Men Respondents M=6.234 M=6.024 (n=42) sd=1.138 sd=1.093 Table 9  C o n t r o l S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.919 M=5.026 sd=1.202 sd=1.053 M=5.265 M=4.937 sd-1.113 sd=1.118 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.960 M=5.273 sd=1.234 sd=1.119 M=5.034 M=4.861 sd=1.090 sd=1.019 Without P a r t n e r s Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f Other M=4.885 M=5.016 sd=1.261 sd=1.082 M=5.046 M=4.897 sd=1.187 sd=1.249 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.681 M=5.030 sd=1.276 sd=1.200 M=5.075 M=4.876 sd=1.058 sd=1.031 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=5.418 M=5.816 (n=49) sd=1.404 sd=1.298 Men Respondents M=5.714 M=5.060 (n=42) sd=1.154 sd=1.190 Table 10 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.155 M=5.169 sd=1.234 sd=1.177 M=5.215 M=5.295 sd=1.068 sd=1.170 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.337 M=5.043 sd=1.135 sd=1.218 M=5.074 M=4.875 sd=1.104 sd=1.069 Without P a r t n e r s ; Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f Other M=5.114 M=5.159 sd=1.272 sd=1.197 M=5.062 M=5.161 sd=1.128 sd=1.223 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.144 M=4.853 sd=1.261 sd=1.236 M=5.152 M=4.940 sd=1.108 sd=1.095 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=5.735 M=5.551 (n=49) sd=1.278 sd=1.276 Men Respondents M=5.595 M=5.651 (n=42) sd=1.398 sd=1.313 Table 11 Connectedness S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.535 M=5.484 sd=0.792 sd=0.835 M=5.730 M=5.534 sd=0.967 sd=1.106 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.956 M=5.735 sd=0.860 sd=0.945 M=5.107 M-4.962 sd-1.0'45 sd=1.019 Without P a r t n e r s Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f M=5.590 sd=0.773 M=5.501 sd=1.234 Other M=5.549 sd=0.834 M=5.224 sd=1.318 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.654 M=5.419 sd=0.985 sd=1.112 M=5.204 M=5.041 sd=1.033 sd=1.016 P a r t n e r s o n l y ; S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.653 M=6.480 (n=49) sd=0.663 sd=0.829 Men Respondents M=6.321 M=6.440 (n=42) sd=0.974 sd=0.885 Table 12 Empowerment of other S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=4.987 M=4.903 sd=1.004 sd=1.057 M-5.083 M=5.055 sd=1.093 sd=»1.117 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.215 M=4.984 sd=1.066 sd=1.109 M«4.792 M=4.726 sd=0.945 sd=0.968 Without P a r t n e r s Women f r i e n d s Women Respondents (n»71) Men Respondents (n=77) S e l f Other M=4.979 M=4.907 sd-1.000 sd=1.085 M=4.989 M-4.904 sd=1.229 sd=1.3289 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.026 M=4.752 sd=1.205 sd=1.344 M=4.842 M=4.763 sd=0.920 sd=0.976 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=5.735 M=5.571 (n=49) sd=1.132 sd=1.186 Men Respondents (n=42) M=5.484 sd=1.252 M=5.611 sd=1.234 Table 13 S a t i s f a c t i o n S e l f and Other Ratings f o r Women and Men Respondents  Averaged over Women vs. Men F r i e n d s Whole d a t a s e t : Women Respondents (n=83) Men Respondents (n=88) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.580 M=5.637 sd=0.654 sd=0.669 M=5.481 M=5.619 sd=1.146 sd=1.117 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.729 M=5.722 sd=0.895 sd=0.958 M=5.387 M=5.421 sd=0.989 sd=0.952 Without P a r t n e r s : Women Respondents (n=71) Men Respondents (n=77) Women f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.581 M=5.651 sd=0.660 sd=0.680 M=5.287 sd=1.191 M=5.442 sd=1.207 Men f r i e n d s S e l f Other M=5.594 M=5.509 sd=1.017 sd=1.113 M=5.469 M=5.487 sd=0.925 sd=0.902 P a r t n e r s o n l y : S e l f Other Women Respondents M=6.112 M=6.265 (n=49) sd=0.786 sd=0.670 Men Respondents M=5.980 M=6.083 (n=42) sd=1.301 sd=1.352 158 Table 14 R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on Content Dimensions:  Whole Network 2 F a c t o r df T F p_ Sex of respondent (A) 13,155 42.384 3.03 <.0005 Sex of f r i e n d (B) 13,155 54.796 3.91 <.0001 S e l f / O t h e r (C) 13,155 60.471 4.32 <.0001 A x B 13,155 69.733 4.98 <.0001 A x C 13,155 50.540 3.61 <.0001 B x C 13,155 59.119 4.22 <.0001 A x B x C 13,155, 9.872 0.70 n.s. 159 Table 15 R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on Content Dimensions: Network Without P a r t n e r s 2 F a c t o r djE T F p_ Sex of respondent (A) 13,132 25.298 1.78 <.05 Sex of f r i e n d (B) 13,132 30.293 2.14 <.02 S e l f / O t h e r (C) 13,132 57.849 4.08 <.0001 A x B 13,132 43.273 3.05 <.0006 A x C 13,132 45.024 3.17 <.0004 B x C 13,132 59.042 4.16 <.0001 A x B x C 13,132 10.434 0.74 n.s. 160 TABLE 16 R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on Content Dimensions:  P a r t n e r s Only* 2 F a c t o r df T F p Sex of Respondent (A) 13,77 35.860 2.39 <.01 S e l f / O t h e r (B) 13,77 13.325 0.89 n.s. A x B 13,77 41.476 2.76 <.003 * Note: The "sex of f r i e n d " f a c t o r drops out i n the p a r t n e r s - o n l y network, as the sample i s h e t e r o s e x u a l . Hence, the " s e l f / o t h e r M f a c t o r p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n about sex of f r i e n d ( i . e . , the sex of the other i s si m p l y the o p p o s i t e of the respondent's s e x ) . 161 TABLE 17 R e s u l t s of MANOVAR on S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s E f f e c t SS df MS A (sex of respondent) 460.2515 1,146 460.2514 i l . 3 6 <.001 B (sex of f r i e n d ) 1.1110 1,146 1.1110 0.13 n.s. C ( s t r u c t u r e ) 80173.3455 3,438 26724.4485 1373.19 <.0001 A x B 324.7306 1,146 324.7306 37.39 <.0001 A x C 419.0402 3,438 139.6801 7.18 <.0001 B x C 43.6680 3,438 14.5560 2.00 n.s. A x B x C 296.5650 3,438 98.8550 13.57 <.0001 162 TABLE 18 R e s u l t s of POIIOW-UD Analyses on Gender D i f f e r e n c e s i n V a l u e s : E f f e c t M men M women MS F B same sex f r i e n d 2.57 2.33 2.910 1.16 n.s. same age f r i e n d 3.35 2.75 17.220 6.58 <.02 f r i e n d s h i p d u r a t i o n 4.05 3.94 0.640 0.023 n.s. frequency of c o n t a c t 4.74 4.48 3.206 1.45 n.s. s e l f d i s c l o s u r e 5.56 6.14 15.514 13.92 <.0003 a p p r e c i a t i o n 5.77 6.31 13.742 19.92 <.0001 a s s i s t a n c e 5.65 5.62 0.037 0.03 n.s. empathic understanding 5.64 6.37 25.187 32.75 <.0001 deepened s e l f awareness 4.79 5.31 12.679 8.07 <.005 shared a c t i v i t y 5.34 4.91 8.947 6.17 <.02 a u t h e n t i c i t y 6.32 6.59 3.453 6.37 <.02 t r u s t 6.57 6.69 0.683 1.85 n.s. c o n t r o l 4.03 3.60 8.814 4.51 <.05 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4.73 4.85 0.664 0.31 n.s. connectedness 5.61 5.97 6.193 6.12 <.02 empowerment 4.69 4.98 3.904 2.39 n.s. s a t i s f a c t i o n 6.21 6.29 0.318 0.51 n.s. * Note: df f o r a l l a n a l y s e s = 1,187 163 TABLE 19  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n s :  P r e d i c t i n g S a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the S e l f . I. Women respondents A) with women f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on s e l f : V a r i a b l e name Regression c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t i s t i c p_ a p p r e c i a t i o n 0.264150 2.45 <.02 connectedness 0.205063 2.00 <.05 R»0.78327 F(12,81)=10.72; p_ < .001 B) with women f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on o t h e r : V a r i a b l e name Regr e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t 1st i c p_ connectedness 0.231523 2.51 <.02 R=0.78652 F(12,81)=10.95; p_ < .001 C) with men f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on s e l f : V a r i a b l e name Re g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t i s t l c p. no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s R=0.67493 F(12,70)=4.88; p_ < .001 D) with men f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on o t h e r : V a r i a b l e name Re g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t l s t i c p_ s e l f d i s c l o s u r e 0.263924 3.17 <.002 a p p r e c i a t i o n 0.381819 3.89 <.001 empowerment -0.171948 -2.39 <.02 R=0.80680 F(12,70)=10.88; p_ < .0001 164 TABLE 3 (cont.) I I . Men respondents A) wi t h women respondents, r e p o r t i n g on s e l f : V a r i a b l e name Re g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t i s t i c p_ s e l f d i s c l o s u r e 0.214869 2.06 <.05 shared a c t i v i t y 0.340480 2.82 <.01 R=0.66250 F(12,75)=4.89; p_ < .0001 B) with women f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on o t h e r : V a r i a b l e name Re g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t l s t i c p_ shared a c t i v i t y 0.279552 2.60 <.02 a u t h e n t i c i t y 0.341767 2.21 <.05 R»0.69551 F(12,75)=5.86; p_ < .0001 C) with men f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on s e l f : V a r i a b l e name Regr e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t i s t i c p_ empathic understanding -0.205356 -2.22 <.05 shared a c t i v i t y 0.175963 2.14 <.05 a u t h e n t i c i t y 0.361912 3.99 <.001 connectedness 0.522799 6.06 <.001 R=0.87346 F(12,80)=21.46; p_ < .001 D) with men f r i e n d s , r e p o r t i n g on o t h e r : V a r i a b l e name Re g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t T - s t a t i s t l c p_ shared a c t i v i t y 0.277162 3.30 <.001 a u t h e n t i c i t y 0.286982 2.80 <.01 connectedness 0.374952 4.27 <.001 R=0.85751 F(12,80)=18.52; p < .001 FIGURE 1 BEING WITH MEN FRIENDS SOMETIMES MEANS GETTING LESS 5.5-1 ^ 5.4-SELF OTHER Legend • WOMEN FRIENDS • MEN FRIENDS 166 6 5 . 9 CC 5 . 8 O 5 . 7 H y 5 . 6 - 1 O ^ 5 . 5 O 5.4 | O 5 . 3 LJ OC 8 : 5 . 2 H < 5.1-1 5 FIGURE 3 MEN WITH MEN FRIENDS SOMETIMES MEANS GIVING AND GETTING LESS WOMEN RESPONDENTS MEN RESPONDENTS Legend WOMEN FRIENDS • MEN FRIENDS FIGURE 4 CONTROL WHOLE «TW0RK —i—— 1— SELF OTHER Legend • WOMEN »ESPONOEMTS • MCM RESPONDENTS CONTROL WITHOUT PARTNERS SELF OTHER Legend B WOMEN tCSPONOEHTS • MEW RESPONDENTS _ • l M-JJ-U-M-1J-SJ-U-5-CONTROL PARTNERS ONLY Legend • WOMEN »ESPONDEMTS • MEM RESPONDENTS SELF OTHER FIGURE 5 DESIGN 169 Referent-Women Gender of Respondent Men Gender o f f r i e n d Women Men S e l f Other S e l f Other 1 x » i i . 4 0 0 • x =• 2 . 6 9 2 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7. ~ 2 . 2 5 7 X =• 4 . 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 - • 1 1 Between-groups factor = Gender of respondent 2 Within-subjects factors = Gender of friend and Referent ** Note: Participants were asked to nominate only their closest f r i e n d s , and were permitted to i d e n t i f y a maximum of 10 such friends. Ratings on the dimensions were then averaged for each respondent over a l l women friends and over a l l men friends. Means within c e l l s refer to the average number of women and men friends that went into respondents' averaged ratings. CONCEPTIONS OF FRIENDSHIP The purpose of t h i s study i s t o examine how people understand and e x p e r i e n c e t h e i r c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t f o l l o w s has t h r e e p a r t s . In s e c t i o n one you are asked t o p r o v i d e some background i n f o r m a t i o n about y o u r s e l f . In s e c t i o n two you are asked t o complete a p i c t o r i a l t a sk, i n which you d e p i c t y o u r s e l f and your c l o s e s t f r i e n d s as c i r c l e s , i l l u s t r a t i n g your r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h them. In s e c t i o n t h r e e you are asked t o complete a f r i e n d s h i p g r i d , on which you r a t e y o u r s e l f and your c l o s e s t f r i e n d s on s e v e r a l dimensions. F i n a l l y you are asked t o r a t e the e x t e n t t o which a s e t of a d j e c t i v e s a p p l i e s t o you. The e n t i r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e should take about 1 1/2 hours t o complete. E v e r y t h i n g t h a t you w r i t e and a l l the answers t h a t you p r o v i d e w i l l be kept completely c o n f i d e n t i a l . P l e a s e do not w r i t e your name or student i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number on t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . We w i l l c r e a t e an anonymous i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number f o r each respondent. Please complete a l l of the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s i n the order i n which they are presented and answer a l l of the q u e s t i o n s as completely as you can. You may r e f u s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e or withdraw from the study a t any time without j e o p a r d i z i n g c l a s s s t a n d i n g . I f you complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t w i l l be assumed t h a t your consent t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study has been g i v e n . Thank you f o r your time and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The b e n e f i t s which you may d e r i v e from completing t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e an i n c r e a s e d awareness of your views and v a l u e s on f r i e n d s h i p . I f you have any q u e s t i o n s or would l i k e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t us a t the numbers g i v e n below. In a d d i t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g a r t i c l e s may be of i n t e r e s t t o you: 1) Dickens, W.J. & Perlman, D. (1981). F r i e n d s h i p over the l i f e c y c l e . In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), P e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s 2: Developing p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . N.Y.: Academic Press. 2) LaGaipa, J . J . (1977). T e s t i n g a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l approach to f r i e n d s h i p . In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and p r a c t i c e i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . London: Academic Press Sandra Parker Dr. B r i a n DeVries ADDITIONAL POIMT8 AVAILABLE: I f you are interested, we i n v i t e you to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the next stage of t h i s research, f o r an ad d i t i o n a l 1 1/2 points. The next stage involves completing another questionnaire. To take part i n the next stage of t h i s research, please give us your name and phone number i n the space below, so we may contact you. We w i l l telephone you within the next couple of weeks to arrange pick-up and drop-off of the questionnaire. Name: Phone # Thank You! ** PLEASE NOTE: I f you provide us with your name, i n d i c a t i n g that you want to take part i n step 2 of t h i s research, we w i l l destroy t h i s sheet a f t e r we have contacted you and c o l l e c t e d a l l of your data. The information you provide w i l l be coded by a respondent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, so you w i l l remain anonymous. £&BX_I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. AGE (in years): 2 . SEX (F or M): 3. EDUCATION (in years, e.g., 12 years of school + 2 years of college or un i v e r s i t y «» 14 years of formal education) : 4. CURRENT RELATIONSHIP STATUS: NOT CURRENTLY IN A ROMANTIC/INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP, NOT LIVING TOGETHER IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP, LIVING TOGETHER/MARRIED 5. ETHNICITY: a) What i s your ethnic background? (e.g. black, white, asian, etc.) b) What i s your country of orig i n ? The friendship pyramid. INSTRUCTIONS: PART II - CIRCLE TASK Please think about your friendship network i n terms of the pyramid on the previous page. Now, imagine the space below to be the psychological-emotional space that contains yourself and only yOVir c l o s e s t friends ( i . e . the top 2 l e v e l s of the pyramid). Draw yourself as a c i r c l e i n that space. Label that c i r c l e "me". Next, draw each of your close friends as c i r c l e s . There are no r e s t r i c t i o n s on how you draw the c i r c l e s in terms of si z e , placement or or i e n t a t i o n . For example, some may be closer, some may be further from "me"; some may be bigger or smaller; some may touch each other, and/or some may overlap. Just draw the c i r c l e s i n the way you f e e l best describes your r e l a t i o n s h i p with each of your c l o s e s t f r i e n d s . Please l a b e l each c i r c l e with the i n i t i a l s of the f r i e n d , and the sex (M or F). CIRCLE TASK INFORMATION Are any of the people you drew i n the c i r c l e task on the previous page: a) re l a t e d to you i n any way? (e.g. husband/wife, s i s t e r , brother-in-law) b) a romantic partner? I f not, please go on to the next page. I f so, please l i s t t h e i r i n i t i a l s below and state t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to you. INITIALS SJgX. RELATIONSHIP ** Please note: I f the i n i t i a l s of 2 of your friends i n the c i r c l e task are the same, and the friends are the same sex, please d i s t i n g u i s h between them by numbering them. For example, Janet Drew & Jennifer Davis (JDl) (JD2) ** Please use the same numbering when i d e n t i f y i n g those friends i n the friendship g r i d , l a t e r i n t h i s questionnaire. INSTRUCTIONS: PART I I I - FRIENDSHIP GRID Pl e a s e r a t e y o u r s e l f and your f r i e n d s ( f o r each of t h e f r i e n d s h i p s t h a t you i d e n t i f i e d i n the C i r c l e Task) on the F r i e n d s h i p G r i d (pages 10 & 11). The top l i n e i n each box i s f o r you. In t h a t space p l e a s e w r i t e how much you behave or f e e l a p a r t i c u l a r way w i t h t h a t f r i e n d . The lower l i n e i n the box i s f o r your f r i e n d . In t h a t space p l e a s e r a t e how much your f r i e n d behaves or f e e l s the same way w i t h you. IMPORTANT! On the next 2 pages you w i l l f i n d a g l o s s a r y o f d e f i n i t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r each o f the v a r i a b l e s on the g r i d . P l e a s e t e a r out t h e next 2 pages and r e f e r t o them as you f i l l out the g r i d . An example: Column 1 C o l 2 C o l 3 Col 4 C o l 5 C o l 6 ( i n i t i a l s ) (sex) (age) ( d i s c l o s e ) ( t r u s t ) ( c o n t r o l ) C O . F 20 6 5 2 Co l 1, 2 & 3: In the above case, the respondent's f r i e n d i s a 20 year o l d woman w i t h the i n i t i a l s "CO.". C o l 4: The respondent s e l f - d i s c l o s e s t o t h a t f r i e n d 'almost always' ( i . e . the top number under column 4 = " 6 " ) . The f r i e n d s e l f - d i s c l o s e s t o the respondent 'sometimes' ( i . e . the lower number = " 4 " ) . C o l 5: They both t r u s t each o t h e r the same amount ( i . e . , both numbers » "5", meaning between 'sometimes' and 'always'). C o l 6: The respondent rarely feels control over what happens i n the friendship ( i .e . the top l i n e = 2 ) . The f r i e n d more o f t e n has c o n t r o l over what happens i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p ( i . e . the lower l i n e = " 5 " ) . Now, p l e a s e t u r n t o the G l o s s a r y on the next 2 pages. Tear the 2 pages out and read them c a r e f u l l y t o make sure you have a c l e a r i d e a o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of the terms i n the F r i e n d s h i p G r i d . Thank you. GLOSSARY COLUMN 1: minima - Give the f i r s t and l a s t i n i t i a l f o r each f r i e n d you drew i n the c i r c l e t a s k . Remember t o d i s t i n g u i s h between f r i e n d s with the same i n i t i a l s , i n the same way you d i d i n the c i r c l e t a s k . COLUMN 2: Sjuj - L i s t your f r i e n d ' s sex (F or M) . COLUMN 3: Age - L i s t your f r i e n d ' s age i n y e a r s . COLUMN 4: Length of time known - Estimate how lo n g you have known your f r i e n d , and round t o the ne a r e s t year (e.g. l year, 4 months would be 1 year; 2 yea r s , 9 months would be 3 y e a r s ) . COLUMN 5: How often see/talk to - c i r c l e the most a p p r o p r i a t e answer - add up the number of times you see and t a l k t o the f r i e n d . Round up t o the c l o s e s t answer. For example, i f the number of times, you see and/or t a l k t o your f r i e n d i s 3 times per month, you would c i r c l e once/week r a t h e r than once/month. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS CAREFULLY. You w i l l be r a t i n g each o f the f o l l o w i n g dimensions both f o r y o u r s e l f and f o r your f r i e n d . When you r a t e a dimension f o r the s e l f , f o r example, " a c c u r a t e l y i n t e r p r e t s the f e e l i n g s o f the o t h e r " - p l e a s e r a t e t h i s as y o u r s e l f a c c u r a t e l y i n t e r p r e t i n g your f r i e n d ' s f e e l i n g s when you are w i t h t h a t p a r t i c u l a r f r i e n d . But, when r a t i n g t h a t same dimension f o r your f r i e n d s , you must t u r n the d e f i n i t i o n around so t h a t i t a p p l i e s t o your f r i e n d doing i t f o r you i . e . " f r i e n d a c c u r a t e l y i n t e r p r e t s your f e e l i n g s " . COLUMN 6 through COLUMN 15: Please r a t e how o f t e n you do or f e e l the f o l l o w i n g t h i n g s w i t h each p a r t i c u l a r f r i e n d (top l i n e i n the box), and how o f t e n your f r i e n d does o r f e e l s t h a t way wi t h you (lower l i n e i n the box). The r a t i n g s c a l e i s as f o l l o w s : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 never sometimes always COLUMN 6: Se l f disclosure - f e e l i n g f r e e t o express and r e v e a l i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o the o t h e r ; s h a r i n g p e r s o n a l thoughts and f e e l i n g s w i t h the o t h e r . COLUMN 7: Appreciation - h i g h l y v a l u i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the o t h e r ; f e e l i n g a f f e c t i o n , enjoyment o r warmth toward the ot h e r . COLUMN 8: Assistance - being w i l l i n g t o use time and/or r e s o u r c e s t o h e l p the o t h e r . (NOTE: t h i s r e f e r s t o c o n c r e t e , t a n g i b l e h e l p g i v e n t o the o t h e r ) . COLUMN 9: Empathic understanding - accurately i n t e r p r e t i n g the feel i n g s of the other; r e a l l y l i s t e n i n g to what the other has to say. COLUMN 10: Deepening other's s e l f awareness - behaving i n ways that f a c i l i t a t e the recognition and expression of the other's s e l f a t t r i b u t e s . COLUMN 11: Shared a c t i v i t y - i n i t i a t i n g a shared a c t i v i t y with the other; t r y i n g to "do things together" with the other (NOTE: other than. or i n addition to t a l k i n g ) . COLUMN 12: Authenticity - being r e a l , genuine, honest and spontaneous with the other; f e e l i n g free to be oneself with the other, rather than f e e l i n g required to play a ro l e , wear a mask, or i n h i b i t expression of personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s COLUMN 13: Trust - f e e l i n g confident that the other w i l l not embarrass or take advantage of you, or draw attention to your points of weakness or s e l f doubt. COLUMN 14: Control - having influence or control over what happens or how things turn out when you are with the other. COLUMN 15: Re s p o n s i b i l i t y - being accountable or responsible for what happens or how things turn out when you are with the other. COLUMN 15 through COLUMN 18: Please rate how much you f e e l the following ways whan you are with your f r i e n d (again on the top l i n e i n the box) and how much you think your f r i e n d f e e l s the same things (on the lower l i n e i n the box). The r a t i n g scale fo r these 3 items i s as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at a l l somewhat very much COLUMN 16: Connectedness . f e e l i n g an active, outgoing care and SJKI™ f o r J h e other; f e e l i n g connected and involved with the other; a motivation for more involvement with the other. COLUMN 17: Empowerment of other - behaving i n ways that increase the other's c a p a b i l i t i e s , resources, feelings of increase effectiveness, and a b i l i t y to act. COLUMN 18: S a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e l a t i o n ^ r . f e e l i n g that the re l a t i o n s h i p i s rewarding and s a t i s f y i n g a f e e l i n g o f z e s t and v i t a l i t y i n the re l a t i o n s h i p . 9 Z e s t 179 l n»v«r SCALE rOR COLUMNS 6-15' 2 ) k 5 * T • o M t l M t always FRIENDSHIP GRID 1 2 not a t a l l SCALE FOR COLUMNS 16 • l 8 i « ? »«ry anion 3 * 5 aoaavnat (1) INITIALS (2) sex (3) AOE < « 0 LBKTM Of T I M KNOW (5) MOV OPTDI SEEAALK to (6) SELF DISCLOSURE (7) APPRECIATION (8) ASSISTANCE (9) EKPATMIC UNDERSTAHDIM (10) DIETED tO SELP AWARENESS ( U ) SNAKED ACTIVITY (12) AUTHENTICITY (13) TRUST CONTROL (15) RESPONS* I1ILTTY (16) CONNECTEDNESS (17) IKPOVEMCEMT (18) SATISFACTION wit* RELATIONSHIP DAILY 2X/WCEX ONCE/WEEX 2X/R0NTH ONCE/MONTH 6X/YEAE ONCE/YEAR — -DAILY 2X/WEEX ONCE/WOT 2X/«0NTH ONCC/MOMTM 6X/YXAJI ONCE/TEA* DAILY 2 i A m ONCEAEEX 2X/M0RTH OMCE/MONTM 6X/YEAX OHCEAEAI DAILY ONCE/WEB 2X/tom< ONCE/MONTH 6X/YEAR ONCEAEA* DAILY 2X/VEEX OHCEAEEX 2X/VEZX ONCE/MONTH 6*AEAR ONCE/YEAR / 180 1 n«v«r SCALE FOR COLUMNS 6 - 1 5 - SCALE FOR COLUMKS 16 - 18 . 2 3 * 5 6 7 FRIENDSHIP GRID , , 3 4 5 6 7 (1) INITIALS (2) SEX (3) AGE LENGTH OP T i n KMOMt (5) 80V OFTEN SEE/TALK TO (6) SELF DISCLOSURE (7) APPRECIATION (8) ASSISTANCE (9) EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING (10) DEEPENED SELF AWARD! ESS (ID SNARED ACTIVITY (12) AUTHENTICITY (13) TRUST (14) CONTROL (15) RESPONS-IBILITY (16) CONNECTEDNESS (17) EMPOWERMENT (18) SATISFACTION VITN RELATIONSHIP DAILY 2X/VEEX ONCE/WEEK 2X/M0NTH ONCE/MONTH 6X/YEAR ONCE/YEAR DAILY 2X/WEEK ONCE/WEEK 2X/M0NTH OKCE/MONTH 6X/YEAR OHCEAEAR DAILY 2X/VEEX ONCE/WEEK 2X/H0KTH ONCE/HONTH 6XAEAR ONCE A EAR DAILY 2X/WEEX ONCE/VEEX 2X/M0NTH ORCE/NONTH 6XAEAR ONCEAEAR DAILY 2 X A E E K ONCE/WEEK 2X/VEEX ONCE/NONTH 6XAEAR ONCE/YEAR INSTRUCTIONS PART III - IMPORTANCE RATING Please rate the following items i n terms of how important they are to you i n making a friendship.a close one Again, please r e f e r to the glossary to ensure that a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s use the same d e f i n i t i o n s . As with a l l the questions i n t h i s questionnaire, there are no r i g h t or wrong answers to t h i s question. We are interested i n your evaluation of the importance of each of the items. The scale for t h i s question i s as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely extremely unimportant important 1) being the same sex 2) being the same age 3) knowing someone for a long time 4) seeing/talking to the person often 5) s e l f d isclosure 6) appreciation 7) assistance 8) empathic understanding 9) deepened s e l f awareness 10) shared a c t i v i t y 11) authenticity 12) trust/respect 13) control 14) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 15) connectedness 16) empowerment 17) s a t i s f a c t i o n 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098118/manifest

Comment

Related Items