Relational Maintenance in Cross-Sex Friendships Characterized by Different Types of Romantic Intent: An Exploratory Stud

1. Relational Maintenance in Cross-Sex Friendships Characterized by Different Types of Romantic Intent: An Exploratory Study By: Christopher Speer Jeremy Clements

2. Overview • Relational Maintenance in Cross-Sex friendships Characterized by Different Types of Romantic Intent: An Exploratory Study • Authors: Laura K Guerrero, Alana M. Chavez • Article : Western Journal of Communication • Date of Publication: Oct. 2005

3. Goals/Objectives • Study investigates whether perceptions of maintenance behavior in cross-sex friendships vary as a function of romantic intent, biological sex, and uncertainty. • Individuals analyzed by this article were used to recall the maintenance behaviors expressed over the past month while in a cross-sex friendship.  • The article defines maintenance behaviors by characterizing cross-sex friendships into the following situations: mutual romance (i.e., both partners want the friendship to turn romantic), strictly platonic (i.e., neither partner want the friendship to turn romantic), desires romance (i.e., the individual wants romance but fears the friend does not), or rejects romance (i.e., the individual does not want romance but thinks the friend does).

4. Goals/Objectives (cont.) • The article uses these four scenarios to better analysis cross-sex relationships and the role romantic intent, biological sex, and uncertainty play on individuals within these friendships.

5. Literature Review-Relational Maintenance as a Dynamic Process • Relational Maintenance as a Dynamic Process • Involves adapting to the changing needs and goals that characterize a relationship • D.J. Canary and Dinida K. Dindia believed that maintenance behavior can be used to accomplish varied goals across different phases of a relationship. • The article accepted that cross-sex friends can use maintenance behaviors in three ways: • Using behavioral maintenance to maintain a status quo • Move the friendship into a new romantic phase • Discourage a friend from pursuing a romantic relationship • These friends avoid such topics in order to protect their friendship.

6. Literature Review-Maintenance In Cross-Sex Friendship • Another researcher, O’Meara, further developed these ideas by discussing four challenges cross-sex friends may face, three of which are particularly relevant to the romantic tension that exists in some cross-sex friendships • O’Meara’s three challenges include: • Emotional Bond Challenge • Public Presentation Challenge • Sexual Challenge

7. Literature Review (Cont.) • According to Afifi and Faulkner, sexual tension between cross-sex friendships was found to be rare • Also, these two researchers found that 50% of college students sampled could recall having sex with a friend at least once. • This study concluded that having sex with a friend fell under the category of aversive uncertainty. • In research done by Rose and Serafica found that proximity was the most frequently mentioned maintenance behavior for casual friendship. • The research showed that people tend to report using more maintenance in same-sex friendships than in cross-sex friendships.

8. Literature Review-Friendship • According to Fehr, friendships are a significant source of happiness in people’s lives, yet friends often take one another for granted • Wiseman (1986) described friendship as fragile because there is little societal pressure for friends to maintain or repair their relationships • In 1993 Canary, Stafford, Hause, and Wallace found that although people reported using many of the same maintenance behaviors with friends, romantic partners, and family members, less maintenance was reported in friendships. • According to the researchers in 1994, 2000, and 2003 behaviors such as: • Shared Activity • Self-disclosure • Supportiveness • Appear to be key items associated with emotional closeness and relational satisfaction in friendships.

9. Literature Review-Cross-Sex Friendship • According to Monsour and Fehr cross-sex friendships are becoming more prevalent and significant within people’s social networks. • In 1985 Rose found that people generally report engaging in less maintenance behavior in cross-sex friendships than same-sex friendships. • Cross-sex friendship can be complicated, with uncertainty about the potential romantic or sexual nature of the relationship, therefore creating uncertainty. • In 2003 Dainton, Zelley, and Langan observed heterosexual individuals, maintaining a cross-sex friendship which involved the affection, companionship, intimacy, and assistance that would be found in same-sex relationships, but it also involves downgrading sexuality. • Sometimes, however, one or both of the friends may want the friendship to turn romantic. • In the case of that event sexuality may then begin to be emphasized. • On the other hand, individuals in cross-sex friendships may downgrade sexuality more than usual when one of the friends is in the position of rejecting romance.

10. Types of Cross-Sex Friendships • There are four types of cross-sex friendships that will be examined: • Mutual Romance • The participant believes that both he/she want the friendship to turn romantic. • Strictly Platonic • The participant believes that both he/she and the friend want the relationship to stay platonic. • Desires Romance • The participant wants the relationship to turn romantic but perceives that the friend does not. • Rejects Romance • When the participant does not want the relationship to turn romantic but perceives that the friend does.

11. Cross-Sex Friendship (Cont.) • According to Rose in 1985 and Dainton in 2003 men and women often perceive cross-sex friendships differently. • According to Afifi and Burgoon in 1998, they found that cross-sex friends were more likely to report relational uncertainty and to avoid discussing the state of their relationship than were dating partners. • According to Reicher and Afifi in 1996, people who experience relational uncertainty are unsure about their partner’s intentions for the relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the future of the relationship. • In 1999 Knobloch and Solomon defined relational uncertainty as the extent to which people lack confidence about the accuracy of their perceptions of the partner’s involvement.

12. Long-Distance & Close-Distance Relationship Dating • A study performed by Dainton and Aylor found that relational uncertainty had negative associations when dealing with the maintenance strategies that included: • Openness • Assurances • Positivity • Task Sharing • Social Networking • However, Ficara and Mongeau, found that in long-distance relationships, uncertainty was negatively correlated with openness, assurances, and positivity. • In 2003, Dainton completed a third study that examined the associations between maintenance behaviors and the four types of relational uncertainly identified by Knobloch and Solomon. • These four types of behavioral norms consisted of : • Uncertainty • Mutuality Uncertainty, • Definitional Uncertainty • Future Uncertainty

13. Long Distance & Close-Distance Relationship Dating • The four forms of relational uncertainty were found to have negative associations with seven aspects of advice within maintence behavior. • The seven aspects of advice in maintence behavior include: • Assurances, • Integrative conflict management • Social networking • Openness • Positivity • Task sharing

14. Literature Review Wrap-Up • Despite all of the studies conducted with in this article, there are several questions that still need to be addressed. • Will individuals report using different levels of relational maintenance depending on whether they perceive themselves to be in the strictly platonic, mutual romance, desires romance, or rejects romance situation? • Will relational uncertainty differ depending on whether an individual perceive themselves to be in the strictly platonic, mutual romance, desires romance, or rejects research situation? • Are there associations between relational uncertainty and the reported use of maintenance behaviors within the context of cross-sex friendship?

15. Method-Participants • The participants used in this article were undergraduate students recruited from lower and upper division communication courses at a large southwestern university. • 456 total participants and 16 of them identified themselves as gay/lesbian. • These 16 were excluded from the study since it was pertaining to cross-sex relationships. • The average age of the participants was 20 and a half years old. • Participants also knew their cross-sex friends for an average of 38 months.

16. Method-Procedure • To conduct this study, investigators attended several undergraduate communication classes in order to recruit participants. • These participants were informed that the questionnaires that they were going to fill out addressed a wide range of behaviors that people use in friendships between men and women. • These questionnaires were then distributed to the participants and were completed during class time or after. • The participants were instructed not to place their names on the questionnaires.

17. Questionnaire-1st Part • The first part of the questionnaires instructed the participants to report the types of behaviors they used in their cross-sex friendship over the past month using seven point Likert-type scales. • Total of 55 relational maintenance items were included in the questionnaire

18. Questionnarie-2nd Part • The second part of the questionnaire included respondents checking a box that best described their cross-sex friendships. • The options were: • Neither of us (the participants) want to escalate our friendship to a romantic relationship • Both of us want to escalate our friendship to a romantic relationship • I would like to escalate our friendship to a romantic relationship, but my friend probably does not • My friend would like to escalate our friendship to a romantic relationship.

19. Results • The article found that men and women were similar in how much antisocial behavior they reported in the rejects romance, mutual romance, and strictly platonic situations. • The desires romance and strictly platonic situations condition played out a little differently from the rest. • Within these two situations women displayed more antisocial behavior than men.

20. Results-Effects of Friendship • Respondents in mutual romance situations generally reported the most relational maintenance behavior, with the exception of talk about outside romance which was reported by those in the strictly platonic and reject romance situations. • Individuals in the desires romance and reject romance conditions also tended to differ from one another. • Specifically, those in the desires romance condition reported using more routine contact and activity, less relationship talk, more talk about outside romance, and more flirtation than those in rejects romance condition.

21. Results-Associations Between Maintenance Behavior and Relational Uncertainty • Individuals who reported high levels of uncertainty also tended to report low levels of relational talk.

22. Conclusion • The purpose of this article was to determine how relational maintenance functions in cross-sex friendships that are perceived to vary in terms of romantic intent. • The information provided in this article explained the difficulties individuals face within cross-sex friendships. • It discusses how individuals have a large degree of uncertainty when trying to determine whether to take their cross-sex friendship to the romantic level. • Also individuals don’t always know when the other person in the relationship is willing to take the steps necessary to make the relationship romantic. • Whether or not a relationship turns romantic depends on if the two people within the friendship are willing to take it to the next level.

23. What The Researchers Did Well • The researchers did a great job identifying and explaining the purpose of the article. • The researchers did a great job establishing the research questions and explaining their findings. • Also, the research made their findings understandable.

24. What The Researchers Could Have Done Better • To make this article better we believe that they could have some of the statistics. • Although this statistical information was necessary it was also very confusing and not well defined. • They also could have asked some older people, so they would have a variety of age groups.

25. Where We Were Confused • We were confused with some of the vocabulary, because there were some terms that we didn’t know what they meant. • Even though we looked it up in the dictionary, we still did not understand those terms. • Also, the statistics in some areas were confusing. • When they put this article together, they were probably not writing to college students. • They probably were writing this to other researchers, therefore they had statistics that no college student could understand.

26. What We Learned • From this article analysis we learned that there is much uncertainty that takes place between male and female friendships. • Cross-sex friends are constantly under the pressure of taking or preventing the friendship from developing into a romantic relationship • Individuals who are in strict platonic friendships will do their best to prevent from flirting or talking about the “status of their relationship” • People in mutually romantic friendships do their best to find ways of taking the friendship to the next level.

27. What We Learned (Cont.) • Whether individuals in cross-sex friendships wish to turn romantic or not, there is the constant pressure of romance upon them. • From this situation we would like to ask the question of “can male and female friendships stay simply friends? Or does the overall pressure of romantic uncertainty prevent them from having a true friendship.