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

Messman, Canary & Hause (2000) 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 DEFINE TERMS

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 cross- sex 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), 525- 543. 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.