Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Satisfying Friendship Maintenance
Expectations: The Role of Friendship
Standards and Biological Sex
Jeffrey A. Hall1 , Kiley A. Larson1 , & Amber Watts2
1 Communication Studies Department, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
2 Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
The ideal standards model predicts linear relationship among friendship standards, expectation fulfillment, and relationship satisfaction. Using a diary method, 197 participants
reported on expectation fulfillment in interactions with one best, one close, and one casual
friend (N = 591) over five days (2,388 interactions). Using multilevel modeling, our study
found that hypothesized relationships were moderated by participant sex. For males, ideal
standards had a curvilinear relationship with expectation fulfillment, where higher standards were associated with less fulfillment, but both expectation fulfillment and standards
directly predicted satisfaction. For females, ideal standards linearly predicted expectation
fulfillment, but an interaction between standards and fulfillment predicted satisfaction.
Implications for the relationship between ideal standards and sex on friendship maintenance
and satisfaction are discussed.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01411.x
As a consequence of forming and maintaining friendships, individuals develop expectations about how friends ought to behave (La Gaipa, 1987). Friendship expectations
are defined as cognitive conceptualizations about attributes that individuals would
like their friends to possess and behaviors that individuals would like their friends
to enact (Hall, 2011). Collectively, these expectations create standards against which
current and future friendships are judged (Fehr, 1996). Friendship expectations
influence the formation (La Gaipa, 1987), maintenance (Oswald, Clark, & Kelly,
2004), and dissolution (Clark & Ayers, 1993) of friendships.
Within the domain of ideal standards of friendship, there are many particular
friendship expectations (see Hall, 2011). However, this article will focus exclusively
on ideal standards of friendship maintenance. One of the most important expectations in friendship is that the relationship will be kept in good condition and
repaired when it is damaged (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Duck, 1994). Expectations of
relational maintenance are strongly associated with friendship satisfaction (Oswald
et al., 2004), and maintenance behaviors help to preserve friendships (Oswald &
Corresponding author: Jeffrey A. Hall; e-mail: [email protected]
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
529
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
Clark, 2003) and solve problems with friends (Oswald & Clark, 2006). Violations of
friendship expectations can diminish the quality of friendship and may endanger its
continuance (Clark & Ayers, 1993; Felmlee, 1999; Johnson, 2005).
Although there is a long history of exploring sex differences in friendship (e.g.,
Reis, 1998; Wright, 1988), sex differences in friendship expectations have only recently
been systematically assessed (Hall, 2011). In comparison to males, females hold higher
expectations for same-sex friends, particularly for intimacy and emotional support
(d = .39; Hall, 2011). Similarly, females report that same-sex friends engage in more
friendship maintenance behaviors than males report receiving from same-sex friends
(Oswald et al., 2004).
The present investigation will unite friendship expectations and relational maintenance research by employing the concept of ideal friendship standards, as articulated
by the ideal standards model (ISM) (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999).
Specifically, this investigation will explore the role of ideal friendship maintenance
standards on the daily fulfillment of friendship maintenance expectations and the
effect of ideal standards and fulfillment of expectations on friendship satisfaction.
The ISM will be used to extend prior research on friendship expectations and explain
past research findings that suggest friendship expectations function differently in
males’ and females’ friendships (Clark & Ayers, 1993; Felmlee, 1999; Johnson, 2005).
Specifically, this study will explore whether the relationships among friendship maintenance standards, daily expectation fulfillment, and satisfaction are moderated by
biological sex.
Literature review
Developing friendship standards
Friendship is a noncontractual relationship, marked by voluntary interdependence,
formed and maintained for the sole purpose of its own existence and preservation (Fehr, 1996). Friendship expectations are cognitive conceptualizations about
attributes and behaviors desired in friends (Hall, 2011) that collectively form a standard against which present and future friendships are judged (Fehr, 1996). Through
experiences with different friends, friendship expectations ‘‘can be ‘carried over’
to the expectations of another (presumably similar) friendship’’ (Wiseman, 1986,
p. 204). In order for current relationships to endure, friends must gradually modify
their behavior to meet others’ expectations (Wiseman, 1986), creating a cycle that
modifies and reinforces expectations (Elkins & Peterson, 1993). Throughout childhood and adolescence, individuals begin to conceptualize how an ideal friend should
behave and ought to be (Bigelow & La Gaipa, 1980). These ‘‘built-up expectations’’
become a standard of the ideal friend—a friend that individuals may never have but
nonetheless desire and prefer (Wiseman, 1986). To formulate hypotheses about how
ideal friendship standards are used to evaluate the daily behavior of friends, we turn to
the ISM.
530
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
Ideal standards model
The ISM is a social-cognitive model that seeks to understand how individuals
evaluate their romantic relationships (Fletcher et al., 1999). The ISM holds that
individuals differ from one another in their standards for an ideal romantic partner
and for an ideal romantic relationship (Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Fletcher, 2001;
Fletcher et al., 1999). This model was developed from the concept of comparison
level proposed in interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), but the ISM
differs from interdependence theory in that it specifies that standards are contentspecific and are oriented toward an ideal partner and ideal relationship, not a typical
or common relationship (Fletcher et al., 1999; Simpson, Fletcher, & Campbell,
2001). The ISM describes three content dimensions for romantic relationships:
warmth-trust, status-resources, and vitality-attractiveness (Fletcher et al., 1999).
Each dimension is relevant to formulating predictions in the ISM because each is a
unique and important domain for evaluating the quality of romantic relationships
(Campbell et al., 2001). Individuals compare their current romantic partner against
their standards, and the standard-partner discrepancy allows individuals to evaluate
the quality of their partner, to explain partners’ behaviors, and to make adjustments
in their relationships (Campbell et al., 2001).
Although past research has not utilized ISM in evaluating friendships, there
are several important consistencies between the model and friendship expectations research. Similar to the ISM, friendship expectations research requires
individuals to describe their ideal friend. Hall (2011) reports that 37 articles on
friendship expectations have asked participants to describe ideal friend qualities
and behaviors. In addition, friendship expectations research has been interested
in the relationship between expectations, expectation fulfillment, and friendship
outcomes. By utilizing the ISM, the present investigation intends to advance friendship expectations research in two ways: to introduce a theoretical model that has
demonstrable value in understanding romantic relationships, and to test the utility
of the model using a critical content dimension in friendship, namely, relationship
maintenance.
To apply the ISM to friendships, the content dimensions of friendship standards
must be identified. However, ideal friendship standards have not been systematically
investigated for content dimensions (Hall, 2011), and the type of friendship expectations varies between studies. Research has evaluated the attributes people would
like their friends to have (Elkins & Peterson, 1993; Vigil, 2007), and behaviors they
would like their friends to engage in (Clark & Ayers, 1993). Furthermore, it would be
unlikely that the content dimensions used to evaluate romantic relationships in the
ISM would be applicable for evaluating friendships. Specifically, status-resources and
physical attractiveness are the least valued friendship qualities (Sprecher & Regan,
2002; Vigil, 2007), and are unlikely to play a role in selecting, maintaining, or dissolving friendships. Although multiple dimensions of ideal friendship standards are likely
to exist, the current study will focus on only one dimension: friendship maintenance
standards.
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
531
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
Relational maintenance behaviors are relevant when exploring romantic relationships and friendships (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Duck, 1994). Relationship
maintenance can be defined as the routine and strategic communication behaviors
used to sustain a relationship at a desired state (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Canary,
Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Relational maintenance
has four purposes: ‘‘to keep a relationship in existence, to keep a relationship at a specific state or condition, to keep a relationship in satisfactory condition, and to keep a
relationship in repair’’ (Dindia & Canary, 1993, p. 163). Oswald et al. (2004) created a
friendship maintenance inventory based on Stafford and Canary’s (1991) five factors.
Two strategies found in romantic relationships were also found in friendship: positivity (i.e., behaviors that make the friendship rewarding and enjoyable) and openness
(i.e., self-disclosure and general conversation). Two additional factors were also identified: supportiveness, which combined assurance and support, and a new category,
interaction, activities the friends did together and the resulting inclusion felt by friends.
Expectations of friendship maintenance have demonstrated an important role in
predicting friendship commitment and satisfaction (Oswald & Clark, 2003; Oswald
et al., 2004). In fact, consistent maintenance effort on the part of both friends is
necessary to keep a relationship intact and functioning (Canary & Stafford, 1994), and
without effort, friendships may fall apart (Fehr, 1996). Individuals’ ideal standards of
friendship maintenance influence whether friends can meet those expectations and
influence whether meeting expectations results in relational satisfaction (Oswald &
Clark, 2003; Oswald et al., 2004). Friendship maintenance standards will be used as
the sole content dimension to apply the ISM to friendships.
Friendship standards and satisfaction
The ISM claims that previous and ongoing relationships inform ideal standards,
which are used to assess the quality of current and potential relationships (Fletcher
& Simpson, 2001). The model predicts that ideal standards are positively related to
the fulfillment of standards in existing relationships because individuals use their
standards to select romantic partners (Fletcher et al., 1999). The model also predicts
a positive relationship between fulfillment and relationship satisfaction (Campbell
et al., 2001; Fletcher et al., 1999). Failure to meet standards results in negative
emotions, decreased satisfaction, and disengagement (Baucom et al., 1996; Simpson
et al., 2001). The current project will use the ISM to understand how individuals
evaluate the behavior of their friends during daily interactions. To distinguish ideal
maintenance standards from the evaluations of daily interactions, we will refer to the
fulfillment of expectations to indicate the evaluations of daily interactions. Following
from past research on the ISM, we anticipate the more the expectations of friendship
maintenance are met or exceeded on a daily level, the greater the overall satisfaction
with the friendship. Based upon the ISM, we predict two linear relationships:
H1: Friendship maintenance standards will be positively associated with friends’ daily
expectation fulfillment.
532
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
H2: Daily expectation fulfillment will be positively related to friendship satisfaction.
Similar to the ISM, research from the friendship expectations tradition demonstrates that when friends live up to individuals’ friendship standards, individuals are
more satisfied with their friends (Fehr, 2004a; Felmlee, 1999; Flannagan, Marsh, &
Fuhrman, 2005). In contrast to H1, however, past research on friendship expectations
in children (Clark & Ayers, 1993) and adults (Felmlee, 1999) would suggest that
high ideal standards might have adverse consequences on expectation fulfillment and
satisfaction. When individuals’ expectations are too high, no friend can meet them.
For example, adolescents with higher friendship standards were more likely than adolescents with lower standards to report unmet expectations when evaluating friends’
behaviors (Clark & Ayers, 1993; Clark & Bittle, 1992). Furthermore, higher standards
also result in greater disappointment with friends who do not live up to expectations. In comparison to those with lower friendship standards, individuals with high
standards report more disappointment and dissatisfaction with their friends when
they fail to meet expectations (Fehr, 2004a; Felmlee, 1999; Flannagan et al., 2005).
These past studies suggest a competing hypothesis with one generated from the ISM.
Specifically, past research from the friendship expectations tradition would suggest
that there would be a curvilinear relationship between ideal standards and fulfillment
of expectations, wherein standards predict fulfillment up to a point, from which
increasingly higher standards will be associated with less expectation fulfillment. Two
hypotheses will test findings from the friendship expectations tradition:
H3: Friendship maintenance standards will have a curvilinear relationship with daily
expectation fulfillment, wherein increasingly higher standards past a certain point will
be associated with less daily expectation fulfillment.
H4: Friendship maintenance standards and daily expectation fulfillment will interact to
predict friendship satisfaction. In comparison to individuals with lower standards of
friendship maintenance, individuals with high relationship maintenance standards will
be more likely to report less satisfaction when friends do not meet expectations.
Sex and friendship
Several studies of sex differences in friendship have demonstrated that males and
females largely agree on what constitutes friendship, how intimacy and closeness are
defined in friendship, and the overall value of friendship (Fehr, 2004b; Hartup &
Stevens, 1997; Sapadin, 1988). In regard to the present investigation, two sex differences in friendship warrant further discussion: In comparison to males, (a) females
have higher expectations of their same-sex friends, and (b) females provide more
friendship maintenance behaviors to their same-sex friends.
A recent meta-analysis on sex differences in friendship expectations, including 37
studies and 8,825 individuals, found that females have higher overall expectations of
friends (d = .17) and higher expectations of communion (d = .39), which includes
intimacy and empathic understanding (Hall, 2011). As a consequence of greater
expectations for same-sex friends, females often put forth more effort in maintaining
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
533
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
friendships. Adult females’ same-sex friendships provide more emotional and informational support (Hays, 1989) and more intimacy, acceptance, attachment, and
caring (Peretti & Venton, 1986) than adult males’ same-sex friendships. Oswald et al.
(2004) found that females’ same-sex friends reported more supportiveness, openness,
and interaction maintenance behaviors than did males. Similarly, Fehr (2004a) argues
that although both sexes agree upon what types of behaviors produce intimacy, males
are less likely to enact those behaviors (see also Parker & de Vries, 1993).
Past research would suggest sex differences in expectations have consequences
on friendship maintenance and satisfaction. Clark and Ayers (1993) found that
adolescent girls expected more loyalty, commitment, and empathetic understanding
than did boys. Consequently, girls reported having friends who were kinder and
more understanding than did boys, but also reported having more friends who
failed to live up to expectations. When asked how they would respond if friends
failed to act in positive ways (e.g., did not offer support when needed), females were
more disappointed than males (Felmlee, 1999; Johnson, 2005). In comparison with
females, males not only judge their friends less harshly, but also place fewer demands
on friends and are more accepting of their friends’ failures (Felmlee, 1999). Similarly,
Fehr (2004b) found that females were more likely to link prototypical friendship
behaviors to relational satisfaction than were males. Males’ satisfaction was not as
dependent on a friend acting in intimacy-producing ways: males ‘‘were just as happy
if a friendship was characterized by prototypical and non-prototypical patterns of
relating’’ (Fehr, 2004b, p. 19). To explore the effects of participant sex, we offer the
fifth hypothesis and first research question:
H5: In comparison with men, women will report (a) higher friendship maintenance
standards, (b) daily expectation fulfillment, and (c) greater friendship satisfaction.
RQ1: Will the relationships among friendship maintenance standards, daily expectation
fulfillment, and friendship satisfaction be moderated by participant sex?
Relationship type
The degree to which people engage in relational maintenance behaviors depends on
the status of their relationship (Stafford & Canary, 1991). Previous research has found
differences between casual, close, and best friends. For example, Hays (1989) found
that close friends provided greater emotional and informational support and reported
that their interactions were more exclusive and beneficial than casual friendships.
Similarly, best friends engage in more relational maintenance behaviors than close
or casual friends (Oswald et al., 2004). These findings demonstrate that individuals
have different expectations for different types of friendships (see also La Gaipa, 1987).
Campbell et al. (2001) suggest that ISM should apply to romantic relationships at
different stages of romantic development, but unlike exclusive romantic relationships,
individuals can have many different friends at once. Therefore, friends may maintain
friendships and apply ideal friendship standards differently for intimate friends in
comparison to less intimate ones (Hays, 1989). Whether ideal maintenance standards
534
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
apply to the fulfillment of expectations of friends at different levels of intimacy
remains to be determined. Therefore:
RQ2: Will friendship maintenance standards similarly predict daily expectation
fulfillment and friendship satisfaction for best, close, and casual friends?
Method
Participants
Participants were 197 students in introductory communication courses at a large
university in the Midwestern United States. Participants were offered partial course
credit in exchange for completing both the friendship inventory and the diary
portion of the study. Participants had a choice whether to complete this study,
other research studies, or write a short paper. Four students who initiated the study
dropped out prior to completion, and were not included in the reported analyses.
Participants were 51% male (N = 100) and 49% female (N = 97), and were an
average of 20.7 years old (SD = 2.10, range = 18–29). Participants were primarily
White (88%, N = 173). Four percent were African American (N = 8), 2% Asian
(N = 5), 1.5% Latino (N = 4), and 3.5% mixed race (N = 7).
Participants were instructed to first complete the friendship inventory, then to
keep a five-day paper-and-pencil diary and to complete a daily diary instrument
online. The friendship inventory asked participants to describe their ideal friendship
standards for four friendship maintenance domains (i.e., positivity, interaction,
openness, and support; Oswald et al., 2004). Participants then identified three samesex friends by name (i.e., best, close, and casual) and were asked to evaluate how long
they had known each friend. The instrument requested names of participants’ friends
to ensure that the friends evaluated in the friendship inventory would be the same as
those in the diary component of the study. The names and identities of participants
and their friends were kept confidential. Participants were instructed to begin
documenting all interactions with the three friends identified (i.e., best, close, and
casual) within a week of completing the friendship inventory for five consecutive days.
To complete the diary portion of the study, participants kept a journal of all the
interactions exceeding 10 minutes with the same three same-sex friends they identified
in the friendship inventory for five consecutive days. For each day, participants were
asked to make a written account of the interaction immediately after it occurred.
In the instructions, participants were encouraged to describe in their own words,
‘‘What was the purpose of this interaction? What topics were discussed? What were
your goals for the interaction? Do you think the goals were met? Was the overall
interaction positive or negative?’’ These instructions were created to encourage a
detailed description of interactions to aid in recall to complete the online diary
inventory. At the end of each day of the five-day period, participants completed an
online diary inventory that required them to evaluate the degree to which expectations
were met for every interaction recorded in the journal. Participants were encouraged
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
535
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
to use the written journal for guidance and clarification to answer the items on
the diary instrument. Participants had an average of 14.47 interactions with friends
during the five-day period (SD = 5.92, range 3–29 interactions), resulting in a total of
2,388 interactions. The online interaction entries were cross-checked against written
journal entries to ensure that interactions were recorded in both places. Participants
interacted with their best friends the most often (M = 6.37, SD = 3.39), followed by
close friends (M = 4.62, SD = 2.44), and casual friends (M = 3.39, SD = 1.96). On
the final day of the five-day period, participants evaluated their overall satisfaction
with each friend.
Instrumentation: Friendship inventory
Friendship maintenance standards
Utilizing Oswald et al.’s (2004) four friendship maintenance factors (i.e., positivity,
interaction, openness, and support), participants described their ideal standards for
friendship maintenance, which were measured on 9-point scales from 1 (never or
not at all) to 9 (daily or all of the time). Consistent with instructions on friendship
expectations measures (cf. Bigelow & La Gaipa, 1980), the instructions read: ‘‘Please
imagine your idea of a PERFECT friend; a person that was the absolute best friend
you could ask for. For the following questions, imagine how often or how much a
PERFECT same-sex friend would do the following?’’
Ideal friendship maintenance standards were initially summed into four separate
friendship maintenance dimensions. However, large and significant correlations
were found between the four maintenance dimensions, range r(196) = .67–.81,
p < .001. Exploratory factor analyses indicated that a single factor explained over
48% of the variance for all four dimensions. Confirmatory factor analysis in LISREL
8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) was used to estimate one-factor, two-factor, and
four-factor models. Results and technical output indicated that the factors were so
highly intercorrelated that a model with greater than one factor could not reliably be
computed. This suggests that there was substantial overlap in the measurement of
friendship maintenance standards across four domains. Fit statistics for the one-factor
model indicated its fit was acceptable (RMSEA = .073; RMR = .059, χ2 /df = 1.95).
The latent factor loadings calculated in LISREL of the four ideal standards (positivity
β = .85, support β = .88, openness β = .89, interaction β = .81) were all significant
(p < .001). Therefore, friendship maintenance standards were measured using a
single latent measure of ideal maintenance standards (Mideal = 7.20, SD = 1.01).
Combining multiple measures of relationship standards into a single measure is
consistent with past research (Baucom et al., 1996; Sprecher & Metts, 1999).
Diary instrument
The diary instrument was an online survey that allowed participants to record their
own paper-and-pencil journal entries. The online instrument asked participants to
identify themselves and their friends to ensure that records could be matched with the
friendship inventory. Participants reported on each of the interactions they recorded
536
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
in the journal based upon with whom they interacted (i.e., best, close, and casual),
and the degree to which expectations were met in that interaction. On the final day,
participants evaluated their overall satisfaction with each of their three friends for
that five-day period.
Daily expectation fulfillment
This was measured using the same scale and similar instructions used by Dainton
(2000) to operationalize the comparison level. In replicating Dainton’s methods, the
Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI) created by Sabatelli (1984) was used to
evaluate friendship expectation fulfillment. Participants were instructed to ‘‘[a]ssume
that zero (the midpoint of the scale) equals your expectations. With zero representing
your desired enactment of each friendship behavior, please indicate the extent to
which your relationship currently compares—favorably or unfavorably—to your
desired level by writing the appropriate number. For example, a score of −3 would
indicate that your current experience falls very much BELOW your expectations,
and is thus perceived by you as much worse than you expected; a score of 0 would
indicate that your current experience MATCHES your expectations; a score of 3
would indicate that your current experience with your friend falls very much ABOVE
your expectations and thus is perceived by you as much better than you would
expect.’’ The instrument was converted for the purpose of analyses to a 7-point scale
from 1 (very much below expectations) to 7 (very much above expectations). Three
items measured friends’ expectation fulfillment for each of the four maintenance
types (12 items total; e.g., positivity: ‘‘To cheer me up’’; support: ‘‘To show support’’;
openness: ‘‘To talk’’; interaction: ‘‘To be easy to hang out with’’). Items were averaged
by maintenance type.
To compare the fulfillment of expectations on the daily level with friendship
satisfaction, reports of expectation fulfillment from the daily diary data were combined
into a single measure of expectation fulfillment for each friend over all five days.
Participants’ overall expectation fulfillment was measured by averaging the overall
expectation fulfillment for all interactions by type of friend and by type of expectation.
This yielded 12 scores (i.e., four types of expectation by three friends). Similar
to the high correlations between ideal maintenance standards, the four types of
daily expectation fulfillment were significantly correlated, range r(570) = .70–.86,
p < .001. For example, a best friend who exceeded expectations for positivity was also
likely to exceed expectations for support. To be consistent with measurement of ideal
maintenance standards, the daily expectations fulfillment was combined into a single
measure of expectation fulfillment for each friend (Mfulfilled = 4.51, SD = 1.09).
Friendship satisfaction
This was measured for the entire five-day period. Participants’ satisfaction with
all three friendships was measured on the same 5-item, 9-point, Likert-type scale
(1 = agree not at all, 9 = agree completely; Hendrick, 1988). Reliabilities for all three
types of friend were high (α best = .97, α close = .92, α casual = .93), and items
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
537
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
were averaged (Mbest = 7.84, SD = .91; Mclose = 7.10, SD = 1.43; Mcasual = 5.78,
SD = 1.62).
Testing the multilevel models
Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006) identify the one-perceiver-many-targets design as the
most common one-with-many design. This design asks the individual to evaluate the
other members in his or her social group; a naturally forming network of individuals
defined by their relationship with the focal person. This method encounters the
same problems associated with other nonindependent samples; they share a common
fate—their friendship with ego (Kenny et al., 2006). This methodological design is
best served by multilevel modeling (MLM). The shared variance of the focal person is
best modeled treating the focal person and measures specific to that focal person (e.g.,
ideal standards) as Level 2 predictors, and daily expectation fulfillment and satisfaction
as Level 1 outcomes. This method controls for data nonindependence by treating each
friend as a consequence of the participant by estimating random intercepts at Level 2.
Two multilevel models were created to test hypotheses. The model for expectation
fulfillment estimated differences in expectation fulfillment by friend type (close
friend as referent group), and ideal maintenance standards were modeled along
with participant sex (female = 1). The second model predicted relational satisfaction
with friends after the five-day period. The same independent variables above were
tested in this model with the addition of the daily expectation fulfillment sum score.
Moderations by participant sex and friend type were tested for the relationships
among standards, expectations, and satisfaction in both models to answer RQ1 and
RQ2. The data were analyzed using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996).
Results
Predictors of daily expectation fulfillment
MLM was used to estimate predictors of the degree to which participants’ expectations
were met during the five-day interaction period. At Level 1, differences between the
type of friend with whom the interaction took place were compared using dummy
coding, with close friends as the referent group. Results indicated that best friends
were more likely to fulfill expectations than close friends, and casual friends were
less likely to fulfill expectations in comparison to close friends. At Level 2 of
the model, the effects of maintenance standards and sex were estimated. These
were treated as fixed effects because the slopes of independent variables cannot
vary at the highest level using MLM (Roberts, 2004). Informed by the ISM, H1
predicted that ideal friendship standards and fulfillment of expectations would be
linearly related. In support of H1, individuals with higher ideal standards were more
likely to have their expectations fulfilled (β = .04, SE = .01). To explore RQ1 and
RQ2, moderation analyses were conducted to determine whether the effects varied
depending upon participant sex and the friend with whom the interaction took place.
In response to RQ1, the relationship between ideal standards and fulfillment was
538
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
moderated by participant sex. Ideal standards demonstrated a linear relationship
with fulfillment of expectations for females in partial support of H1, wherein
higher standards led to more expectation fulfillment (β = .07, SE = .03). In partial
support of H3, a curvilinear relationship between ideal standards and expectation
fulfillment was found for males (β = −.04, SE = .01). Although low standards lead
to unmet expectations and moderate standards to met expectations, increasingly
higher standards were associated with decreasing fulfillment of expectations by
males’ friends. Participant sex and friend type did not further moderate the effect
of ideal standards on expectation fulfillment. This suggests the relationship between
ideal standards and fulfillment of expectations is consistent whether interacting with
best, close, or casual friends, once accounting for main effect differences in friends’
abilities to meet expectations.
Predictors of friendship satisfaction
Similar to the expectation fulfillment MLM, results indicated that participants were
more satisfied with their best friends in comparison to close friends, and less satisfied
with their casual friends in comparison to close friends. In support of H2, individuals
whose expectations were fulfilled at the daily level were more satisfied with their
friends by the end of the five-day period (β = .23, SE = .02). H4 predicted an
interaction between ideal standards and expectation fulfillment on satisfaction. This
model was supported in that the effect of fulfilled expectations was moderated by
the ideal standards of the individual (β = −.00, SE = .00). However, the location
of this moderation did not support what was predicted in H4. Rather than unmet
expectations further decreasing satisfaction for high-standard individuals (H4), the
interaction demonstrated that individuals with medium maintenance standards
and individuals with very high standards were similarly satisfied with their friends
when their expectations were exceeded. To explore RQ1, moderation analyses
demonstrated that the interaction of fulfillment and standards was moderated by
participant sex. For females, the interaction between standards and fulfillment of
expectations significantly predicted satisfaction (Figure 1). Females with high ideal
standards are similarly satisfied with their friends when their friends meet and
exceed expectations. For males, higher standards and greater fulfillment of those
expectations were both positive predictors of friendship satisfaction. For males,
the interaction term explains variance in satisfaction for males with low standards
(Figure 2). Although ideal standards and greater fulfillment increase satisfaction,
men with low standards whose expectations are not met are further dissatisfied. The
relationships among maintenance standards, expectation fulfillment, and satisfaction
were not further moderated by type of friend (Table 1).
Sex differences
To explore sex differences in friendship (H5), three independent samples t tests were
conducted. In support of H5, females (M = 7.47, SD = .89) reported higher ideal
standards for friendships than males (M = 6.68, SD = .92), t(195) = 5.90, p < .001,
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
539
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
Figure 1 Women’s standards.
Figure 2 Men’s standards.
d = .27. Showing a lack of support for H5, males (M = 4.33, SD = .89) and females
(M = 4.40, SD = .99) were equally likely to have their expectations fulfilled by
friends at the daily level, t(195) = .74, ns, d = .08. Males (M = 6.96, SD = 1.57)
and females (M = 6.77, SD = 1.90) were also equally satisfied with their friends,
t(195) = .28, ns, d = .01.
540
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
5-day friend satisfaction
Intercept
Best
Casual
Standards
Expectation fulfillment
Intercept
Best
Casual
Standards
Sex (female = 1)
Interaction effects
Sex × Standards
Standards × Standards
Standards × Standards × Sex
Random
Level 1 intercept
Level 2 intercept
−2 Loglikelihood
df
IV
6.59
3.02
T
Z
.51
12.69
.60
5.00
2422.68
3
SE
Null Model
7.03
.83
−1.23
5.73
3.29
17.93
.97
−.82
B
Level 1
75.73
3.63∗∗
3.07∗∗
Z
.11
.15
.15
61.32
5.58∗∗∗
8.21∗∗∗
.45
12.69
.60
5.50
2380.47
5
.23
.24
.27
SE
AD
2.93
.61
−1.04
.01
5.73
3.05
11.64
.97
−.8
.04
.17
B
5.90
3.63∗∗
−3.08∗∗
2.48∗∗
.46
Z
.42
.13
.13
.01
6.83
4.66∗∗∗
−7.95∗∗∗
2.41∗∗
.45
12.69
.58
5.34
2372.63
7
1.97
.27
.27
.01
.37
SE
Sex and Standards
Table 1 Two-Level Model Predicting Expectation Fulfillment and Five-Day Friend Satisfaction
.74
.82
−1.02
.05
2.23∗
2.29∗
3.11∗∗
14.87
3.64∗∗
−3.09∗∗
−1.65
−1.92
Z
.86
.13
.13
.02
1.87
4.63∗∗∗
−7.88∗∗∗
2.59∗∗
.45
12.69
.55
5.32
2367.72
10
.03
.00
.01
.07
.00
−.04
5.73
2.91
1.35
.27
.27
.06
1.03
SE
Sex Moderation
19.08
.97
−.82
−.11
−1.97
B
Level 2
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
541
542
2.87
−.04
T
Z
.23
12.69
.13
−.27
1877.55
3
SE
Null Model
B
1.80
.32
Level 1
Note: Close friends are reference group for type of friend effects.
(∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < 01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.)
Sex (female = 1)
Expectation fulfillment
Interaction effects
Fulfillment × Standards
Fulfillment × Standards × Sex
Random
Level 1 intercept
Level 2 intercept
−2 Loglikelihood
df
IV
Table 1 Continued
Z
.15
12.69
.11
2.83
1726.22
5
SE
AD
−1.02
11.35∗∗∗
Z
.11
12.69
.10
3.65
1609.14
8
.14
.02
−.15
.23
1.34
.35
SE
B
Sex and Standards
3.14∗∗
−2.45∗
1.92∗
7.06∗∗∗
Z
.11
12.69
.09
3.48
1603.21
10
.00
.01
−.00
−.03
1.35
.32
.41
.06
SE
Sex Moderation
.79
.40
B
Level 2
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
Discussion
The purpose of the present investigation was to test the relationships among ideal
friendship maintenance standards, the degree to which friendship expectations
are met, and relational satisfaction. Results indicated that friendship maintenance
standards play a complex role in friendship expectation fulfillment and friendship
satisfaction—one moderated by participant sex.
Type of friend
The fulfillment of friendship expectations and friendship satisfaction was contingent
on the type of friend with whom one interacts. Best friends were most capable
of fulfilling maintenance expectations and were more satisfying, followed by close
friends, and then casual friends. It is not surprising that best friends should be
more capable of meeting expectations than other types of friends because friendship
standards are created with an ideal friend in mind, so it follows that best friends would
more closely approximate ideal standards. In addition, as friendships develop, they
become more idiosyncratic and capable of conforming to the particular standards
of the dyad (Hays, 1989; Wright, 2006). Note that friend type did not moderate the
relationship between ideal maintenance standards and expectation fulfillment, nor did
it moderate the expectation fulfillment and satisfaction relationship. Accounting for
the differing abilities to meet expectations, the relationships among ideal maintenance
standards, fulfillment of expectations, and friendship satisfaction were consistent
whether interacting with a best, close, or casual friend.
Daily expectation fulfillment and friendship satisfaction
The relationship between ideal friendship maintenance standards and friends’ ability
to meet those standards was complex, partly due to significant moderations by
participant sex. In comparison to males, females held higher ideal standards for their
friends, supporting a recent meta-analysis of friendship expectations (Hall, 2011). In
support of the ISM, females who expected more relational maintenance from an ideal
friend were more likely to have friends who met their standards. Thus, having higher
standards about how one wishes to be treated by friends increases the possibility
of being treated in that way (Wiseman, 1986). For males, a curvilinear relationship
between ideal standards and expectation fulfillment was found: Increasingly higher
standards yielded decreasing fulfillment of expectations by same-sex friends. It is
possible that males who expect more from their friends are less likely to find friends
who are able to meet those standards because males tend to maintain friendships less
(Oswald et al., 2004). By comparison, females’ high standards of maintenance are
more likely to be met by friends.
It is consistent with both models that the strongest predictor of overall satisfaction
was daily expectation fulfillment. Individuals were more likely to be satisfied with
friends who can behave in ways that met or exceeded expectations. However, the effect
of ideal friendship standards and friendship expectation fulfillment on satisfaction was
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
543
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
moderated by participant sex. For females, the interaction between maintenance standards and fulfillment of expectations was the best predictor of friendship satisfaction.
This supports H4, which predicted an interaction between standards and fulfillment
on satisfaction (Figure 1). However, the direction of this interaction effect was unexpected. Contrary to what was predicted, females whose high expectations were unmet
were not particularly unsatisfied. Instead, the interaction revealed that females with
very high standards were equally satisfied with friends who met or exceeded maintenance standards. Exceeding expectations did not significantly increase relational
satisfaction for females with high standards. Therefore, having high standards yields
no additional gains in satisfaction with friends once expectations are met.
For males, higher maintenance standards and greater fulfillment of those expectations were both positive predictors of friendship satisfaction, and the interaction
between these concepts appeared to be located in a different region. Supporting the
predictions of the ISM, there was a linear relationship between both ideal maintenance standards and expectation fulfillment on satisfaction, wherein as each increases,
so does friendship satisfaction (Figure 2). However, for males with low standards
who have friends who were unable to meet expectations, friendship satisfaction
was particularly low, falling, in fact, below the scale midpoint. Lower standards
may represent disappointment or frustration with friends’ past behavior (Wiseman,
1986). Consider these results in light of the expectation fulfillment findings: For
males, but not for females, as standards increase there is a diminishing likelihood
of friends meeting expectations. Taken together, it appears that a less demanding
approach to developing ideal friendship standards benefits males. When males expect
a modest amount of friendship maintenance, they are more likely to have friends
who meet expectations. Friendships that exceed expectations are more satisfying, and
by keeping expectations moderate, expectations are more likely met or exceeded.
Cultivated complexity of friendships
This study speaks to the debate about males’ and females’ friendship cultures (Wood
& Inman, 1993). Both sexes interact with their friends in similar ways (Wright, 2006),
share similar conceptualizations of friendship intimacy (Fehr, 2004a), and place a high
value on friendship (Parker & de Vries, 1993). Yet, this study suggests they may still
develop different patterns of achieving satisfaction via expectation fulfillment. The
results of the present investigation suggest that the relationships among friendship
standards, expectation fulfillment, and satisfaction were moderated by sex. The social
norms among same-sex peer networks and the flexibility of ideal standards may help
to clarify these findings.
Why are females with very high standards no more satisfied with their friends
when their expectations are met than when they are exceeded? Fletcher and Simpson
(2001) argue that ideal standards develop from past experiences and supply and
demand. Perhaps, females’ high ideal standards result from selecting high-quality
friends during adolescent development (La Gaipa, 1987) and experiencing greater
intimacy and relational maintenance as they mature (Reis, 1998; Wright, 2006). As
544
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
Allen and Valde (2006) point out, a preponderance of one sex at the high end of a
distribution may explain sex-specific behaviors. Because there is a larger supply of
potential female friends who can meet high expectations of maintenance, females
may discount the efforts of a particular friend, even if the friend exceeds expectations.
This may lead to disappointment even when friends put in considerable relationship
maintenance effort.
For males, standards, expectation fulfillment, and friendship satisfaction function
slightly differently, but are governed by similar principles. Although both sexes are
equally likely to have friends who fulfill their expectations, when friends exceed those
expectations males are more satisfied. In the present investigation and in past studies
(e.g., Elkins & Peterson, 1993; Felmlee, 1999; Johnson, 2005), males are more likely
to be satisfied with their friends when they expect less from them. Because males generally hold lower expectations for their friends, males who hold high expectations are
somewhat incongruous with males’ typical friendship maintenance. It is possible that
males with very high expectations are less likely to have expectations fulfilled by other
males because it is less likely that male friends have learned to behave in ways that meet
those expectations (Oswald et al., 2004). Simply, the supply of high-maintenanceproviding male friends is low. Therefore, in maintaining close same-sex friendships,
males learn to expect less, which allows them to be pleased when their expectations are
exceeded.
Campbell et al. (2001) introduced flexibility of ideals as a mediating factor
between ideal standards in romantic relationships and satisfaction. Flexibility of standards is the degree to which a relational partner can fall below the ideal and still be
acceptable. The most satisfied romantic partners were those with high standards, low
flexibility, and little discrepancy between standards and partner attributes (Campbell
et al., 2001). In the present investigation, if females who held high standards were
also much less flexible than males with high standards, it may explain why even
friends who exceeded expectations did not further increase satisfaction for females.
Furthermore, the curvilinear relationships between ideal standards and expectation
fulfillment for males may be the result of males’ greater flexibility of ideal standards.
To be satisfied with relationships marked by less maintenance, standards may need
to be more flexible. Future work should determine whether the flexibility of friendship standards could consolidate these sex-specific findings into a single model for
both sexes.
Through the reciprocal relationship between expectations and behavior, friendships are initiated, selectively reinforced and maintained, and, over time, cultivated.
The levels of relational complexity cultivated within each friendship dyad are
informed by a lifetime of managing the expectations of friends and the consequent
rewards and punishments of meeting or failing to meet expectations. Therefore, it is
not simply the internal characteristics of males and females that create sex differences
in maintenance, expectations, and intimacy, but the socially learned consequences
of holding certain standards for one’s friends and learning from the subsequent
outcomes resulting from possessing those standards. In that way, population-level
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
545
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
sex differences become important. Inasmuch as individuals wish to be included and
liked by same-sex peers, they must conform to the normative expectations of their
sex regarding ideal standards and maintenance effort.
Limitations and directions for future research
Participants may not have been able to accurately assess the degree to which their
expectations were met when asked to recall from a written journal of interactions.
However, past research (e.g., Campbell et al., 2001; Dainton, 2000) suggests that individuals can assess the degree to which relational partners meet or exceed standards,
and instructions encouraging detailed written journal entries should have assisted in
recall. Although diary studies are challenged by participant record keeping, diaries
allow participants to report their impressions and feelings while they are still fresh
(Duck, 1991). Participants may have communicated with their friends more often
than recorded, but the average number of interactions recorded for a five-day period
is consistent with other diary studies (e.g., Baym, Zhang, & Chin, 2004).
Although the confirmatory factor analysis suggested a single latent friendship
maintenance factor, collapsing four relational maintenance categories into single
variables (i.e., ideal standards, fulfillment) reduced the precision of the measure of
relational maintenance. Past studies using multiple measures of relationship beliefs
(Sprecher & Metts, 1999) and standards (Baucom et al., 1996) have collapsed multidimensional measures into single variables. Future research should also consider
using other measures of expectations fulfillment to confirm the present findings.
This project’s use of the MCLI, which suggests that exceeding expectations is always
beneficial, may not have adequately separated positive fulfillment from the amount
or percent of expectation fulfillment.
This study is limited in that it explored only same-sex interactions. Past work
on cross-sex friendships has found that females provide more maintenance to their
female friends than to their male friends (Mendelson & Kay, 2003; Parker & de Vries,
1993), and males use fewer normative words (i.e., ‘‘ought’’ and ‘‘should’’) to describe
same-sex friend expectations than cross-sex friends (Felmlee, 1999). This suggests
that same-sex friendships have different expectations than cross-sex friendships.
Cross-sex friendships may provide interesting opportunities to determine whether
individuals with expectations that are atypical of their sex (i.e., high expectation males,
low expectation females) are more likely to prefer cross-sex friendships (Baumgarte
& Nelson, 2009).
Future research may also explore the behavioral consequences of friends not
living up to expectations. Baucom et al. (1996) report that the most common
behavioral response to unmet expectations in romantic relationships is behavioral
withdrawal. By exploring individuals’ attempts to reinforce friends who conform to
expectations, future work can discover how some behaviors (e.g., directly stating
expectations) increase the chances of being treated in a desired manner, and how
negative punishment (e.g., ignoring) plays a role in discouraging behaviors.
546
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
Appendix
Literature review
Gender and expectations
In comparison to research exploring sex differences in friendship, individual
differences in friendship behaviors are less well documented. Past studies have
demonstrated the importance of a communal—or feminine—orientation in friendship development and maintenance (Gaines et al., 1999; Gore, Cross, & Morris, 2006;
Jones & Vaughan, 1990; Zarbatany, Conley, Pepper, 2004). Because women attend
to the more communal aspects of friendship, women are more likely to develop and
express higher expectations for relational maintenance (Duck & Wright, 1993; Wong
& Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). However, the effects of communality may not be dependent on biological sex. Aylor and Dainton (2004) found that participant femininity
was predictive of routine maintenance behaviors in long-term romantic relationships
for both sexes. Although women may be more likely to have a communal orientation,
communal men and women may both experience greater closeness and satisfaction in friendships. Although there is strong evidence for the relationship between
communality and friendship satisfaction and maintenance, past research suggests
that more masculine individuals may also benefit in friendships. In her extensive
review of gender and friendship, Fehr (1996) concludes that masculinity is important
in predicting friendship satisfaction for both sexes (Jones, Bloys, & Wood, 1990).
Investigating the fulfillment of friendship needs, Zarbatany et al. (2004) conclude
that masculinity is particularly important for predicting expectation fulfillment in
men’s friendship, but not women’s. We offer the following hypothesis and research
question:
H1: Femininity positively relates to the (a) fulfillment of friendship maintenance
expectations and (b) friendship satisfaction.
RQ1: Will masculinity positively relate to the (a) fulfillment of friendship maintenance
expectations and (b) friendship satisfaction?
Results
Gender, expectations, and satisfaction
When exploring the effects of gender on friendship expectation fulfillment in the
first model, the results indicate that femininity predicted expectation fulfillment (H1;
β = .78, SE = .23, p < .001), but masculinity did not (RQ1; β = .33, SE = .27, ns).
The effect of femininity was moderated by friend type. In response to RQ1 and
showing partial support for H1, individuals higher in femininity were more likely
to have their expectations fulfilled by their best friends (β = .84, SE = .31, p < .01)
and close friends (β = .77, SE = .31, p < .01), but not by casual friends. Participant
sex did not further moderate the relationships between expectation fulfillment and
ideal friendship maintenance standards.
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
547
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
H1 predicted that femininity would positively predict friendship satisfaction,
and RQ1 explored whether masculinity would predict satisfaction. When testing the
main effects of gender on satisfaction, both masculinity and femininity positively
predicted satisfaction. However, moderation analyses demonstrated that the effect of
masculinity on satisfaction was moderated by participant sex (β = −.41, SE = .19,
p < .05). Specifically, for more masculine men, but not for more masculine women,
friendship satisfaction was greater (β = .84, SE = .30, p < .01). Similar to expectation
fulfillment, moderation analyses by friend type suggest that femininity is a significant
predictor of satisfaction for best (β = .55, SE = .15, p < .001) and close friends
(β = .42, SE = .15, p < .01), but not for casual friends. Taken in whole, results
provide partial support for H1 and an answer to RQ1: the effects of gender on
satisfaction depended upon participant sex and type of friend.
Discussion
Analyses of the role of gender demonstrated that femininity predicted friendship
expectation fulfillment and satisfaction for the most intimate types of friendship—best and close friends. This finding supports past research demonstrating that
in comparison to masculinity, femininity is a trait that is particularly pertinent in
intimate relationships, wherein greater nurturance and closeness is required (Aylor
& Dainton, 2004; Williams, 1985). Moderation analyses show that participant sex
moderates the effect of masculinity on satisfaction. More masculine men were more
likely to be more satisfied with their friendships, replicating the findings of Zarbartany
et al. (2004). Men who are more masculine may be able to derive greater satisfaction
with their same-sex peers because they share similarly agentic ways of relating (e.g.,
greater independence, assertiveness) (Reeder, 2003; Zarbartany et al., 2004).
References cited in Appendix
Aylor, B., & Dainton, M. (2004). Biological sex and psychological gender as predictors of
routine and strategic relational maintenance. Sex Roles, 50, 689–697.
doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000027570.80468.a0
Duck, S., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Reexamining gender differences in same-gender
friendships: A close look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 709–727.
doi:10.1007/BF00289989
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Rugg, M. A., Zemore, S. E., Armm, J. L., Yum, N., Law, A., et al. (1999).
Gender-related personality traits and interpersonal resource exchange among
brother-sister relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 187–198.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00186.x
Gore, J. S., Cross, A. E., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Let’s be friends: Relationship self construal
and the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13, 83–102.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00106.x
Jones, D. C., Bloys, N., & Wood, M. (1990). Sex roles and friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 23,
133–145. doi:10.1007/BF00289861
548
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
Jones, D. C., & Vaughan, K. (1990). Close friendships among senior adults. Psychology &
Aging, 5, 451–457. doi:10.1037//0882-7974.5.3.451
Reeder, H. M. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same- and cross-sex friendship
formation. Sex Roles, 49, 143–152. doi:10.1023/A:1024408913880
Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in same-sex
friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587–600. doi:10.1007/BF00288179
Wong, M. M., & Czikszintmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation and daily experience:
Some issues on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
154–164. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.60.1.154
Zarbatany, L., Conley, R., & Pepper, S. (2004). Personality and gender differences in
friendship needs and experiences in preadolescence and young adulthood. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 299–310. doi:10.1080/01650250344000514
References
Allen, M., & Valde, K. S. (2006). Researching a gendered world: The intersection of
methodological and ethical concerns. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences
and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 99–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Daiuto, A. D., Carels, R. A., Rankin, L. A., & Burnett, C. K.
(1996). Cognitions in marriage: The relationship between standards and attributions.
Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 209–222. doi:10.1037//0893-3200.10.2.209
Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. W. (2009). Preference for same- versus cross-sex friendships.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 901–917. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00465.x
Baym, N., Zhang, Y. B., & Chin, M. L. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal
communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media & Society, 6,
299–318. doi:10.1177/1461444804041438
Bigelow, B. J., & La Gaipa, J. J. (1980). The development of friendship values and choice. In
H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman, & J. R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in children
(pp. 15–44). New York: Wiley.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Feltcher, G. J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the
self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 447–462. doi:10.1177/0146167201274006
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine
interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational
maintenance (pp. 3–24). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of
relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and
others. Communication Research Reports, 10, 5–14. doi:10.1080/08824099309359913
Clark, M. L., & Ayers, M. (1993). Friendship expectations and friendship evaluations:
Reciprocity and gender effects. Youth & Society, 24, 299–313. doi:10.1177/0044118X
93024003003
Clark, M. L., & Bittle, M. L. (1992). Friendship expectations and the evaluation of present
friendships in middle childhood and early adolescence. Child Study Journal, 22, 115–135.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction:
Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 17, 827–842. doi:10.1177/0265407500176007
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
549
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163–173.
doi:10.1177/026540759301000201
Duck, S. (1991). Diaries and logs. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal
interaction (pp. 141–161). New York: Guilford Press.
Duck, S. (1994). Steady as (s)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system. In
D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance
(pp. 45–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Duck, S., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Reexamining gender differences in same-gender
friendships: A close look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 709–727.
doi:10.1007/BF00289989
Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29,
497–509. doi:10.1007/BF00289323
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fehr, B. (2004a). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: A prototypical
interaction-pattern model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 265–284.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.265
Fehr, B. (2004b). A prototype model of intimacy interactions in same-sex friendships. In
D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 9–26). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Felmlee, D. H. (1999). Social norms in same- and cross-gender friendships. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 62, 53–67. doi:10.2307/2695825
Flannagan, D., Marsh, D. L., & Furham, R. (2005). Judgments about the hypothetical
behaviors of friends and romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
22, 797–815. doi:10.1177/0265407505058681
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2001). Ideal standards in close relationships. In
J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind (pp. 257–273).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
Hall, J. A. (2011). Sex differences in friendship expectations: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 6.
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendship and adaptation in the life course.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355–370. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.121.3.355
Hays, R. B. (1989). The day-to-day functioning of close versus casual friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 21–37. doi:10.1177/026540758900600102
Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relational satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 50, 93–98. doi:10.2307/352430
Johnson, H. D. (2005). Conflict goals associated with adolescent perceptions of relationship
expectation violations during conflicts with same-sex friends. In A. V. Lee (Ed.),
Psychology of coping (pp. 41–63). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford
Press.
550
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
J. A. Hall et al.
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
La Gaipa, J. J. (1987). Friendship expectations. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. Clarke (Eds.),
Accounting for relationships: Explanation, representation and knowledge (pp. 134–157).
London: Methuen.
Mendelson, M. J., & Kay, A. C. (2003). Positive feelings in friendship: Does imbalance in the
relationship matter? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 101–116.
doi:10.1177/0265407503020001190
Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2003). Best friends forever? High school best friendships and
the transition to college. Personal Relationships, 10, 187–196.
doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00045
Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2006). How do friendship maintenance behaviors and
problem-solving styles function at the individual and dyadic levels? Personal
Relationships, 13, 333–348. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00121.x
Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: An analysis of
individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 413–441.
doi:10.1521/jscp.23.3.413.35460
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.
doi:10.1177/0265407593104010
Peretti, P. O., & Venton, W. C. (1986). The influence of functional components of
reciprocity of maintaining and sustaining closest friendship. Journal of Psychological
Researches, 30, 83–87.
Reis, H. T. (1998). Sex differences in intimacy and related behaviors: Context and process. In
D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication
(pp. 203–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roberts, J. K. (2004). An introductory primer on multilevel and hierarchical linear modeling.
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30–38. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sabatelli, R. M. (1984). The marital comparison level index: A measure for assessing
outcomes relative expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 651–662.
Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/352606
Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendships and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387–403. doi:10.1177/0265407588054001
Simpson, J. A., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Campbell, L. (2001). The structure and function of ideal
standards in close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Interpersonal
processes (pp. 86–106). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and
patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 834–851.
doi:10.1177/0265407599166009
Sprecher, S. & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others:
Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004048
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,
217–242. doi:10.1177/0265407591082004
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. K. (1959). Social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Vigil, J. M. (2007). Asymmetries in the friendship preference and social styles of men and
women. Human Nature, 18, 143–161. doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9003-3
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
551
Friendship Maintenance Expectations
J. A. Hall et al.
Wiseman, J. P. (1986). Friendship: Bonds and binds in a voluntary relationship. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 191–211. doi:10.1177/0265407586032005
Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating
closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21(3), 1–12.
doi:10.1080/00909889309365372
Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender differences in friendship: A case for
moderation and a plea for caution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,
367–373. doi:10.1177/0265407588053006
Wright, P. H. (2006). Toward an expanded orientation to the comparative study of women’s
and men’s same-sex friends. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and
similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 37–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
552
Human Communication Research 37 (2011) 529–552 © 2011 International Communication Association
令人满意的友谊维系期望值：友谊标准和性别的作用
【摘要：】
理想标准模型能够预测友谊标准、实现期望值和关系满意度的线性关系。运用每日纪
录的方法，197个参与者报告了实现期望值与一个最好的朋友、一个亲密的朋友和一个一
般的朋友（N=591）超过5天的互动（2388例互动）。通过使用多级模型，本研究发现，
参与者的性别调和假设的关系。对男性而言，理想的标准与实现期望值呈曲线关系，在这
种曲线关系中，较高的标准与较少的期望实现相关，然而实现期望值与标准直接预测满意
度。对女性而言，理想的标准线性预测期望值的实现，而标准和实现期望值之间的互动预
测满意度。本文最后对理想标准和性别对友谊维系和满意度的影响进行了讨论。
Las Expectativas de Mantenimiento de Amistades Satisfactorias: El Rol de los Estándares de la
Amistad y el Sexo Biológico
El modelo de los Estándares Ideales predice una relación lineal entre los estándares de amistad,
el cumplimiento de las expectativas, y la satisfacción en la relación. Usando un método de diario,
197 participantes reportaron el cumplimiento de expectativas en sus interacciones con 1 mejor, 1
cercano, y 1 amigo casual (N = 591) durante 5 días (2.388 interacciones). Usando un modelo de
niveles múltiples, nuestro estudio encontró que las relaciones que se hipotetizaron fueron
moderadas por el sexo de los participantes. Para los hombres, los estándares ideales tuvieron una
relación curvilínea con el cumplimiento de la expectativa, donde los estándares más altos fueron
asociados con un cumplimiento menor, pero el cumplimiento de ambas expectativas y los
estándares directamente predicen la satisfacción. Para las mujeres, los estándares ideales
predicen en forma lineal el cumplimiento de la expectativa, pero una interacción entre los
estándares y el cumplimiento predijeron la satisfacción. Las implicancias para la relación entre
los estándares ideales y el sexo sobre el mantenimiento de la amistad y la satisfacción son
discutidos.
Palabras claves: Expectativas de amistad, Modelo de Estándares Ideales, Mantenimiento de
Relaciones, Diferencia de Sexo
Satisfaire aux attentes dans la gestion de l’amitié : le rôle des critères d’amitié et du sexe
biologique
Le modèle des critères idéaux prévoit une association linéaire entre les critères d’amitié, la
réponse aux attentes et la satisfaction liée à la relation. Grâce à l’utilisation de journaux,
197 participants ont fait le compte rendu de la réponse aux attentes dans des interactions avec un
meilleur ami, un ami proche et une connaissance (N = 591) sur une période de cinq jours
(2388 interactions). Par une modélisation à plusieurs niveaux, notre étude a révélé que les
associations supposées étaient modérées par le sexe du participant. Du côté des hommes, les
critères idéaux étaient liés de manière curviligne à la réponse aux attentes : de plus hauts critères
étaient associés à une réponse moindre, mais tant la réponse aux attentes que les critères
prédisaient directement la satisfaction. Du côté des femmes, les critères idéaux prédisaient de
façon linéaire la réponse aux attentes, mais une interaction entre les critères et la réponse
prédisait la satisfaction. Les implications pour l’association entre les critères idéaux et le sexe sur
la gestion de l’amitié et la satisfaction sont commentées.
Mots clés : attentes en amitié, modèle des critères idéaux, gestion relationnelle, différences entre
les sexes
Die Befriedigung von Erwartungen bei der Erhaltung von Freundschaften. Zur Rolle von
Freundschaftsstandards und biologischen Geschlecht
Das Ideal Standards Model (Modell idealer Ansprüche) sagt eine lineare Beziehung zwischen den
Ansprüchen an eine Freundschaft, der Erfüllung von Erwartungen und der Zufriedenheit mit der
Beziehung voraus. Mittels Tagebuchmethode berichteten 197 TeilnehmerInnen über die Erfüllung
von Erwartungen in den Interaktionen mit einem besten, einem nahen und einem entfernteren
Freund. (N=591) über einen Zeitraum von 5 Tagen (2.388 Interaktionen). In einer
Mehrebenenmodellierung fanden wir heraus, dass das die vorausgesagten Zusammenhänge durch
das Geschlecht der TeilnehmerInnen moderiert wurden. Für Männer hatten ideale Ansprüche eine
kurvilineare Beziehung mit der Erfüllung von Erwartungen. Höhere Ansprüche waren mit
geringerer Erfüllung verbunden, aber sowohl die Erfüllung von Ansprüchen als auch die
Ansprüche sagten Zufriedenheit direkt voraus. Für Frauen sagten die idealen Ansprüche die
Erfüllung von Erwartungen linear voraus, allerdings bestimmte eine Interaktion zwischen
Ansprüchen und Erfüllung die Zufriedenheit. Schlussfolgerungen bezüglich des Zusammenhangs
zwischen idealen Ansprüchen und Geschlecht auf die Erhaltung und Zufriedenheit in
Freundschaften werden diskutiert.
Schlüsselbegriffe: Erwartungen in Freundschaften, Ideal Standards Model, Beziehungserhaltung,
Geschlechtsunterschiede
만족할만한 우정유지의 기대들: 우정의 기준들과 생물학적인 성별의 역할
요약
이상적 기준모델들은 우정의 기준들, 기대 충족도, 그리고 관계만족도사이에 직선적인
관계를 예측한다. 일지적기방법론을 사용, 197명의 참여자들은 5일간에 걸쳐 최고, 밀접,
그리고 일반적 우정의 관계에서의 기대충족도를 보고토록 하였다. 다면적 모델링을 통해,
우리의 연구는 가정된 관계들은 참여자들의 성별에 의해 조정된다는 것을 발견했다.
남성들에게는, 이상적인 기준들은 기대충족도와 곡선의 관계를 가지고 있었다.
여성들에게는, 이상적인 기준들은 기대충족도와 직선적인 관계를 가지고 있었다.
이상적인 기준들과 우정유지와 만족도에서의 성별간 관계에 대한 함의들이 논의되었다.