Friendship 263thinking? Modest. A study that asked men and
women how they would respond to a series of
hypothetical problems found that men were
more likely than women to change the subject,
and women were more likely than men to ex-
press sympathy (Basow & Rubenfeld, 2003).
However, the similarities in how women and
men responded vastly outweighed these dif-
ferences (MacGeorge et al., 2004). As shown
in Figure 8.3, there were no sex differences in
offering advice, sharing similar experiences, or
trying to cheer up one another. Even more im-
portant, the relative ranking of responses is the
same for women and men. Both women and
men are much more likely to offer sympathy
than joke around or change the subject. In an-
other study, adult women and men were asked
what they would say in response to a series of
hypothetical same-sex friend problems, and
responses were coded into different categories
(MacGeorge et al., 2004). Similar proportions
of women’s and men’s responses were coded
as sympathy, sharing a similar problem, asking
questions, or minimization, but proportion-
ally more of men’s responses could be classi-
fied as advice compared to women. Again, the
similarities in support provision greatly out-
weighed the differences.
These self-report studies suffer from
demand characteristics. Women and men
may be confirming gender-role stereotypes.
Observational studies in which women and
men respond to problems in the laboratory
may partly address this problem. These studies
have shown some sex differences and some sex
similarities—specifically, no sex differences in
the provision of advice, modest support for
the idea that women provide more emotional
support than men, and clear evidence that the
sex of the target influences negative responses
(Fritz, Nagurney, & Helgeson, 2003; Leaper
et al., 1995; Mickelson, Helgeson, & Weiner,
1995; Pasch, Bradbury, & Davila, 1997).In addition, college students from the United
States shared more intimate information with
their friends compared to Russian students,
and Russian students shared more activities
with friends than U.S. students.
The research is clear in indicating that
women’s friendships are more communal
than those of men, largely due to the emphasis
on self-disclosure. However, the sex difference
in agency or instrumentality has been more
heavily debated (Wright, 2006). The issue may
not be whether one sex engages in more shared
activities than the other sex but whether the
nature of the shared activities varies for fe-
males and males. Some shared activities may
be considered more intimate than others. For
example, going to a movie may be consid-
ered to be a less-intimate activity than going
out to dinner because there is more opportu-
nity for self-disclosure in the latter than the
former activity. It also is the case that people
can perform the same activity differently. For
example, I play racquetball once a week with
a very good friend. This may not sound like
an intimate shared activity. However, we play
racquetball for 45 of the 60 minutes and talk
about family, friends, and politics in between
games while we are catching our breath—
not to mention the time we spend walking
over to and from the court. There are a lot of
activities—golf, biking, hiking—that may or
may not include more intimate exchanges.
The expressive/instrumental distinction
in the nature of female and male friendship
also has been linked to potential differences in
the ways females and males provide support.
A popular book by Deborah Tannen (1990),
titledYou Just Don’t Understand: Women and
Men in Conversation,argues that women are
more likely to respond to others’ problems by
offering sympathy and men are more likely to
respond to others’ problems by offering ad-
vice. Is there evidence behind Tannen’s (1990)M08_HELG0185_04_SE_C08.indd 263 6/21/11 8:12 AM