Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T17:31:09.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex and Gender as Factors in in Romantic Partnerships and Best Friendships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2013

Anna Machin  and
Robin Dunbar
Anna Machin*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Robin Dunbar
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Anna Machin, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3DU, United Kingdom. Email: amachin@claranet.co.uk
Get access

Abstract

For the majority of people, two key non-kin figures form part of the central support clique that resides at the centre of their social network. These are the best friend and the romantic partner, and both play distinct roles which are of benefit to the individual concerned. However, while the romantic partner will always have been chosen in the context of the mating market, we do not know whether the selection of a best friend occurs within a similar market of competition and assessment. This study used real self-rated attribute data for participants and their best friends and romantic partners to explore: (1) whether best friendships operate within a mating market; (2) whether, once established, they show evidence for positive illusion, projection or competition; and (3) whether assortative mating is present. Further, we considered whether the sex of the best friend relative to the participant influences these results. We found that same-sex best friends have an acknowledged role linked to social connectedness and behaviour, that for same-sex best friends both male and female participants show evidence for homophily or projection rather than mate competition, that neither male nor female participants appear to view cross-sex best friends as potential mates, and that the evidence for ‘assortative mating’ is stronger within best friendships than romantic partnerships regardless of best friend sex. Our results imply that despite a culture of commitment and monogamy, male participants display behaviours within their romantic partnerships which suggest they are still active within the mating market. In contrast, for both sexes the best friendship is unaffected by the mating market and the stability and contentment that characterises best friendships is underpinned by a degree of similarity stronger than that within the romantic partnership.

Keywords

close relationshipsgenderfriendshipattractionmating market
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 4 , 25 October 2013 , e8
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becker, C.S. (1987). Friendship between women: A phenomenological study of best friends. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 18, 59–72. doi:10.1163/156916287×00050Google Scholar
Burleson, B.R., Kunkel, A.W., & Szolwinski, J.B. (1997). Similarity in cognitive complexity and attraction to friends and lovers: Experimental and correlational studies. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10, 221–248. doi:10.1080/10720539708404624Google Scholar
Burleson, B.R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship and relationship attraction. Communication Reports, 9, 127–139.Google Scholar
Carlson Jones, D., & Vaughan, K. (1990). Close friendship among senior adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 451–457.Google Scholar
Curry, O., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (in press). Do birds of a feather flock together? The relationship between similarity and altruism in social networks. Human Nature.Google Scholar
Davis, K.E., & Todd, M.J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and relational description. In Duck, S.W. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships (pp. 17–38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Deacon, T.R. (1997). The symbolic species: The coevolution of language and the human brain. Harmondsworth, UK: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Demir, M. (2010). Close relationships and happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 293–313. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9081-2Google Scholar
Dunbar, R.I.M. (2009). Deacon's dilemma: The problem of pairbonding in human evolution. In Dunbar, R.I.M., Gamble, C. & Gowlett, J.A.J. (Eds.), Social brain, distributed mind (pp. 159–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R.I.M., Lehmann, J., Korstjens, A.H., & Gowlett, J.A.J. (in press). The road to modern humans: Time budgets, fission-fusion sociality, kinship and the division of labour in hominin evolution. Dunbar, In R.I.M., Gamble, C., & Gowlet, J.A.J. (Eds.), The Lucy Project: Benchmark papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eastwick, P.W., Finkel, E.J., & Eagly, A.H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1012–1032. doi:10.1037/a0024062Google Scholar
Elkins, L.E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29, 497–508.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A.J., Sefcek, J.A., & Jones, D.N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431–441. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.004Google Scholar
Foster, G. (2005). Making friends: A non-experimental analysis of social pair formation. Human Relations, 58, 1443–1465. doi:10.1177/0018726705061313Google Scholar
Fuhrman, R.W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–596. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01240.xGoogle Scholar
Gore, J.S., Cross, S.E., & Morris, M.L. (2006). Let's be friends; Relational self-construal and the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13, 83–102. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00106.xGoogle Scholar
Holmes, B.M., & Johnson, K.R. (2009). Adult attachment and romantic partner preference: A review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 833–852. doi:10.1177/0265407509345653Google Scholar
Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Boothroyd, L., Feinberg, D.R., Cornwell, R.E., De Bruine, L.M., . . . Perrett, D.I. (2005). Women's physical and psychological condition independently predict their preference for apparent health in faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 451–457. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.05.001Google Scholar
Little, A.C., Burt, D.M., Penton-Voak, I.S., & Perrett, D.I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 268, 39–44. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1327Google Scholar
Luo, S., & Xhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933–963. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.xGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444, doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415Google Scholar
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, 67–94.Google Scholar
Montoya, R.M. (2008). I'm hot so I would say you're not: The influence of objective physical attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1315–1331. doi:10.1177/0146167208320387Google Scholar
Morry, M.M., Kito, M., Mann, S., & Hill, L. (2013). Relational interdependent self-construal: Perceptions of friends and friendship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 44–63. doi:10.1177/0265407512451198Google Scholar
Murray, S.L., & Holmes, J.G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604. doi:10.1177/0146167297236003Google Scholar
Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1994). Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 35, 1–11.Google Scholar
Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1995). Biological markets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 336–339.Google Scholar
Parker, S., & de Vries, B. (1993). Patterns of friendship for women and men in same and cross-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 617–626.Google Scholar
Pawłowski, B., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (1999). Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 266, 281–285.Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I.S., Little, A.C., Jones, B.C., Burt, D.M., Tiddeman, B.P., & Perrett, D.I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 3, 264–271. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.264Google Scholar
Pines, A.M. (2001). The role of gender and culture in romantic attraction. European Psychologist, 6, 99–102.Google Scholar
Riela, S., Rodriguez, G., Aron, A., Xu, X., & Acevedo, B.P. (2010). Experiences of falling in love: Investigating culture, ethnicity, gender and speed. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 243–493. doi:10.1177/0265407510363508Google Scholar
Roberts, S.G.B., Wilson, R., Fedurek, P., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (2008). Individual differences and personal social network size and structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 954–964. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.033Google Scholar
Rusbult, C.E., Van Lange, P.A.M., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N.A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 521–545. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, R.A., & Vacca, J. (2007). Interpersonal completion in friendships. Sex Roles, 57, 617–627. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9298-xGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S. (1998). Insiders’ perspectives on reasons for attraction to close other. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 287–300.Google Scholar
Stirrat, M., Gumert, M., & Perrett, D. (2011). The effect of attractiveness on food sharing preferences in human mating markets. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 79–91.Google Scholar
Tscahnn, J.M. (1988). Self-disclosure in adult friendship: Gender and marital status differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 65–81.Google Scholar
Vukovic, J., Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L., Feinberg, D.R., Smith, F.G., Little, A.C., Welling, L.L.M., & Main, J. (2010). Women's own voice pitch predicts their preferences for masculinity in men's voices. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 767–772. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq051Google Scholar
Weisz, C., & Wood, L.F. (2005). Social identity support and friendship outcomes: A longitudinal study predicting who will be friends and best friends four years later. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 416–432. doi:10.1177/0265407505052444Google Scholar
Zhou, W-X., Sornette, D., Hill, R.A., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (2005). Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 272B, 439–444. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2970Google Scholar