Close Same-Sex Friendships and Role Transitions

Erica Bromby, Casey Campbell, Kristen Eisenzimmer, Amanda Hamilton, Ashley Hansen, Jessica Jones, Jennifer Kruger, Wesley Morey, Sandra Moser, Elwin Parker-Morris, Melissa Pop, Lisa Potter, Anna Robbert, Daniela Scarfeo, Joshua Schelhourse, Chris Schnabel, Victoria Siberman, Anais Szabo, Sara Wegis, Erik Welsh, Rachelle Wiacek and Heather Smith

Introduction

• How do close same-sex friends adjust, cope or change when one friend becomes a parent, experiences a serious illness or a dramatic economic change?

Background

• • • • Surveys of adult same-sex friendships suggest that close friends are demographically and attitudinally similar (Brehm et al, 2003).

Life events and role transitions are associated with a decline in the number of close friends (Brehm et al, 2003).

Assumption is that change and difference leads to the end of close friendships.

Perhaps psychologists are not paying attention to the ways in which close friends cope and grow from change and challenges (Aron et al, 2003).

Possible Conceptual Frameworks

• • • • Social Exchange Theory – Goal is to minimize costs and maximize benefits. We compare current situation to our expectations. Attachment Theory – Previous relationships provide cognitive models of how others behave and whether we are valuable.

Self-expansion Theory – People treat the resources, perspectives and identities of close others as their own. We want to expand our horizons because it feels good and helps us accomplish our goals.

Gender differences – Women’s friendships are based on emotional sharing (face-to-face). Men’s friendships are based on shared activities (side-to-side).

Method(s)

• • • • • • Read and re-read individual transcripts.

Employed line by line coding.

Categorized by themes.

Mapped out particular stories.

Looked at the use of pronouns, metaphors, word choices.

Created typologies.

Participants

• • • 12 women and 5 men Ages ranged from 23 to mid-50s 17 identified themselves as white

Interviewers

• • • 17 women and 2 men Ages ranged from 22 to 49 years old 17 identified themselves as white

Trustworthiness

• • • • Possible threats to validity: • Self-reports from one person – Want to look good, protect friend or friendship, help interviewer Novice interviewers Small sample size 25 different interviewers Different events, different questions, different places, different equipment • Homogeneous set of interviewers and participants • Single “snapshot” of friendship Sources of trustworthiness • • Less likely to be honest if both friends involved Completed pilot interviews, studied qual. methods for two months • • • • • As peers, have better rapport As novices, no desire to confirm existing theories Difficult to sustain dishonesty over an hour Given the diversity of interviewers and participants, any similarities are even more striking.

Very little qualitative research on adult friendships – so even “snapshots” contribute

Research Ethics

• • For participants: – Perhaps learn information they did not ask to learn.

– Perhaps asking them to relive painful experiences.

– Might “seduce and abandon” participants.

Precautions: – Clear about what our interests were.

– Tapes not kept after transcription.

– Names changed.

– Transcripts keep private.

– Knew about counseling resources on campus.

Themes for data analysis

• • • • • What does it mean to be intimate in a non-romantic relationship?

Explore stories of how they met, how they found out about the challenge, what did they last do together, their last fight, their last celebration.

Look for examples of “face-to-face” and “side-by-side”.

Look for examples that are relevant to exchange or economic models of friendship.

Look for examples that are relevant to self-expansion models of friendship.

Initial data analyses – the social exchange metaphor • And newer ones that I’ve made, just recently are much more two way (female, transcript 3) • Before I got pregnant I felt sometimes like I was just like the listener and like the planner. Like now after I had my baby I feel like I am more the planner. Like I always initiate it and call to see if she wants to get together. Now I am more the planner. Before it was both of us initiating but now it’s more me… I am kind of at the point where I don’t even want to call anymore (female, transcript 9) Notice that both women describe friendship as the product of exchanges (“two-way”, sometimes I am the planner and sometimes I am the listener).

Initial data analyses – the extended self metaphor • • • • • cares about very much and would probably do just about anything for and the other way around (female, transcript 1) I will always dedicate my time to them whenever they need it and I am always there to listen and give advice (female, transcript 9) I told him basically if you ever need anything you now, I’m totally here to support you and your new wife. (male, transcript 13) Notice the shift in tone for these descriptions. “I’m totally here to support you”, “I am always there to listen”, “probably do just about anything”. Here there is no reference to what the other friend should or should not do.

After I had [the baby] I really felt there was a little portion of me that felt like she wasn’t here for me enough” (female, transcript 19).

… I think that there were times after [her second child] was born but you know we’d hang out and she’d be so distracted by him you know that the whole day would go by and we’d never really get a conversation in…There are probably some times that I was feeling like, not that I was sorry that I was spending time with her, but like I just wanted to like get her to myself for a minute” (female, transcript 10) However, a focus on need (as opposed to social exchange) also emerges as a negative theme. For example, “she wasn’t here for me enough” or a desire to get the friend to themselves for a minute.

A closer coding of a male respondent’s description: Cluster of Relevant Meaning I. Common activities leading to intimate relations …we go back packing, go hiking (#38-9).

…tend to be more having discussion. It’s better than just kind of chitchat (#48-9).

So skiing is really, kind of our essential part of our relationship (78-9).

II. Realizations So, yeah, I guess that’s sort of a stepping stone for me, those common interests (#177 8).

…you start with outside activities, like skiing, rock climbing…(180-1).

…we have common interests…you share a common intellectual spiritual aspect…(182-4).

III. Interpersonal dimension …it’s a very different atmosphere when we are not around our partners (#39-40). …we kind of like we have the same thing to talk about. Like philosophy, religion, spirituality and that sorts of thing (40-2).

…that can be the kind of common interests you talking about that, and you talking about that, and you getting to know the person feel comfortable with them (#184-6).

“OK, this person has the same values as I do, so I can make a friend (#188-9).

A closer coding of two female respondents’ descriptions: Looking through friends eye A. She was just doing what she could to get by I wasn’t hurt by it (#17).

B. She started to get overwhelmed and it was just a lot of work for her (#3).

C. She was like clearly going through some hormonal changes (#1).

D. Being the mom and always having to breastfeed (#6).

E. she was really kind of coming back into her own identity (#8, 9).

Realizing friendship is not close A. our friendship changed a lot since I had the baby (#1).

B. it’s definitely not the same anymore (#2).

C. she was kinda weird when I told her (#2).

D. after my baby was born are closeness started to fall apart (#4, 5).

E. I don’t even want to call anymore (#1).F. we just had different beliefs (#2).

Talking about friendships

• • • Gender differences may be more apparent than real, more superficial than deep.

Treating face to face intimacy as “better” or more intimate than side by side activity ignores a possible “dark side” to different friendship requirements. People may draw upon different repertoires to describe their friendships – sometimes emphasizing social exchanges, sometimes emphasizing the importance of shared perspectives and need. The prevalence of these different descriptions may explain why some friendships appear more resilient.

Limitations

• • • Interviews include a range of different challenging events – some of which the respondent experienced, some of which the friend experienced.

These are the stories told by respondents, not observations of their behavior.

This is a very small sample of Northern Californian adults.

Future Directions

• • Understanding how and when friends draw upon social exchange or extended self descriptions can lead to a deeper understanding of adult friendships. We will use these themes in the next stage of the analysis. Close examination of these interviews may reveal the limitations of the current emphasis on gender differences between male and female close friendships. “Face to face” may not be as intimate as we think, and “side by side” may be more intimate than we think.