Transcript how you think about friendship

Inequity in Empathic Support
Between Cross-Sex Friends
Perception or Reality?
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to explore the
empathic inequity reported by women in their close,
cross-sex relationships.
How do the perceptions of cross-sex
friendships and relational exclusivity
influence the under benefitted/over
benefitted dichotomy expressed between the
sexes when communicating support?
RESEARCH PURPOSE
What is gender based “empathic
inequity?”
Xu & Burleson (2001)
Among married couples, it is known as “the
support gap.”
A situation in which husbands report receiving
more support and helpful support from their
wives than wives report receiving from their
husbands.
LIT REVIEW
Perception or reality?
Messman, Canary & Hause (2000)
Research indicates that there are no gender
differences in seeking or providing support.
That’s the reality.
However, some researchers and lay persons
cling to the heuristic that men and women
do support communication differently
because men and women are different.
That’s the perception.
LIT REVIEW
Where might the perception
come from?
Afifi & Faulkner (2000)
• Expecting (and being willing to provide)
different communication in specific
relational contexts
• Pursuing different individual and
relationship goals related to those specific
relational contexts
LIT REVIEW
Let’s define some terms
Guerrero & Chavez (2005)
• Specific relationship contexts means how you
think about friendship (strictly platonic,
potential for romance, “friends with benefits”)
• Different communication refers the
communication behaviors used to maintain a
friendship (emotional support and positivity
and instrumental support)
DEFINE TERMS
Pursuing Relationship Goals
Rawlins (1993)
• For women—enjoying “nice guy”
companionship
• For men—exploring the potential for
sexual/romantic involvement
DEFINE TERMS
Balance Individual Goals
O’Meara (1989)
Emotional bond challenge—high social
investment with no/low sexual involvement
Sexual challenge—high/moderate sexual
involvement with no/low emotional
investment
Social Exchange Theory
What behavior yields benefits?
EXPLAIN THEORY
Research Design
Social exchange approach—what accounts for
continuing to provide support?
• The influence of relationship goals
(companionship vs. romantic) on providing
emotional or instrumental support
• The influence of individual goals (emotional
vs. sexual) on providing emotional or
instrumental support
EXPLAIN THEORY
Rationale
This research seeks to add to the body
of knowledge supporting the
perception that men and women
communicate support differently in
their cross-sex friendships.
Research Questions
What motivates men not to offer empathic
support in a strictly platonic cross-sex
friendship?
What motivates women to continue providing
empathic support in a strictly platonic crosssex friendship?
Bibliography
Afifi, W. A. & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being ‘just
friends’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex
friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2),
205-222.
Guerrero, L. K. & Chavez, A. M. (2005). Relational
maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different
types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal
of Communication, 69(4), 339-358.
Xu, Y. & Burleson, B. R. (2001). Effects of Sex, Culture,
and Support Type on Perceptions of Spousal Social Support: An
Assessment of the “Support Gap” Hypothesis in Early Marriage.
Human Communication Research, 27(4), 535-566.
Bibliography
Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J. & Hause, K. S. (2000).
Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance
strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 17(1), 67-94.
O’Meara, J. D. (1989). Cross-sex friendship: Four basic
challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21(7/8), 525543.
Rawlins, W. K. (1993). Communication in cross-sex
friendships. In L. P. Arliss and D. J. Borisoff Women & men
communicating: Challenges and changes, (pp. 51-70) Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.