Sponsored by Missouri Western State University Sponsored by a grant from the National Science Foundation DUE-97-51113
Home |
The proper APA Style reference for this manuscript is:
CARROLL, M. N. (2002). Gender Differences in Trust and Loyalty Within Single Sex Friendships. National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse, 5. Available online at http://www.webclearinghouse.net/volume/. Retrieved December 9, 2022 .

Gender Differences in Trust and Loyalty Within Single Sex Friendships

Sponsored by: MUKUL BHALLA (bhalla@loyno.edu)
The purpose of the present study was to determine trust differences between male and female same-sex friendships. The sample of undergraduate participants for this study consisted of 129 students: 72 females, 57 males. We tested our hypothesis, that there would be higher levels of trust in same gendered female friendships than there would be in same gendered male friendships, through a four-part survey. It assessed personal friendship backgrounds, including criteria and activity preference, general Interpersonal trust, and trust between two close same-gendered friends. Altogether, we found that females chose a larger amount and more emotionally based activities and criteria than men, there were significant differences in friendship trust levels showing that females displayed higher levels of trust within their same-sex friendships, and that there was no significant correlation between interpersonal trust and trust within friendships. All of our conclusions supported our hypothesis and are consistent with previous research. We learned that male friendships revolve around a more activity-based theme, whereas female friendships revolve around emotion-based activities, which in turn help to build higher levels of trust.

Gender differences in trust and loyalty within single gendered friendships To most people, friendship is one of the most important aspects of their lives. A friend can either be a person who you can participate in fun activities with, someone to talk to about your problems, someone to hold you while you cry, or someone from your past that you will always keep in contact with. Despite the level of friendship that one person has with another person, there is a mysterious outstanding truth that comes along with it. Every human being on this earth must have someone that they can trust and be trusted in return, whether it is a family member or a companion, a childhood friend or someone they have only know for a day. According to O’Connor (1992), friendships “fulfill internal needs or motives that are central to healthy personality functioning”. With the initiation of trust comes a sense of loyalty, and as the friendship grows, the person develops a title of a “close” friend, and eventually a “best” friend. Friendships represent what are most often the most enduring relationships in life, many times outlasting spousal and parent-child bonds (Floyd, 1995). A number of American studies have examined gender and closeness in adult friendships, particularly in same-sex dyads. Most of these studies have posited that women’s friendships are closer than men’s (Floyd et al.,1994). The evidence for the majority of these findings is that men display less self-expression than women do, but according to Floyd et al., newer studies have suggested that men’s friendships can be as close as women’s, but that the closeness factor is developed in a different way for both sexes. In 1994, Floyd et al. concluded that men develop closeness through shared interests and activities, such as drinking together, shaking hands, and talking about sexual issues, rather that the self-disclosure techniques of women. In contrast, he found that women, more often than men, reported that they value and prefer deep conversation, discussion of personal topics, hugging, shopping, and vocalizing their feelings for each other. He found these results through an eight-page questionnaire, in which the participants were instructed to select a close friend rather than a best friend, and were asked to indicate on a seven-point Likert-type scale how close they felt the target relationship to be, how committed they felt in the relationship, and how satisfied they were with it. According to Elkins and Peterson (1993), both the general population and the social science community assume that women’s friendships were inferior to those of men. Until the 1970’s when women’s single-gendered friendships attracted more attention, women’s friendships with other women were seen as secondary to men’s single gendered friendships (O’Connor, 1992). To prove that these assumptions could not be made, Wright (1982) took a more analytic approach by questioning specific aspects of friendship along the gender line, such as the preference for a certain number of friends and the length of time required to gain the trust of another. He concluded, through the use of several friendship scales, that the evidence did not support that assumption that women’s friendships were inferior to those of men (Elkins & Peterson et al., 1993). Elkins and Peterson (1993), examined how men and women regarded their actual same-gender and opposite-gender friendships, while showing discrepancies between ideal and actual friendships. They also examined the relationship between dysphoria and these various friendship ratings. Through questionnaires asking about demographic, family ties, level of support from friends and family, and degree of satisfaction with their lives at present, Elkins and Peterson (1993) found that friendships involving at least one woman were more satisfying than those between two men. Other conclusions reached through this research were that men and women did not seem to differ in quantitative aspects of their friendships. Instead, both sexes prefer intimate relationships, and the only significant difference between the two sexes took place during interaction. For example, women prefer conversation and discussion of personal topics, and men report a preference for the pursuit of activities (Elkins & Peterson et al.). Miller claims that intimacy within male friendships is rooted in the “unusual rivalry and struggle of man against man”, which also suggests that males bond through shared activity (1983, p.10). In general, men tend to act more introverted during emotional conversation, while specifically heterosexual men take the preexisting trend to the extreme. According to Murray, intimacy in single-gender friendships in teenage males is replaced with distrust due to fear of becoming too feminine, or even appearing homosexual (1999). In contrast, other studies revealed that a complimentarity of interpersonal styles was present in the close, same-gender friendships of women, but not present in that of men. According to Leary (1957) and Sullivan (1953), close relationships are characterized by complementary personality styles (Nowicki & Yaughn, 1999). In most circumplex models, interpersonal behaviors are arranged on two axes: status (dominance and submissiveness) and affiliation (hostility and friendliness). Sullivan suggested that individuals are driven to interact with one another to reduce anxiety and affirm one-another’s self-concept, and once these goals are attained, the interaction is complementary. Complementarity was defined as personality styles that are opposite on the status dimension and similar on the affiliation dimension. Therefore, a friendly-dominant personality style would be a compliment to a friendly-submissive style, and a hostile-dominant style would serve the same function for a hostile-submissive style. On the other hand, anti-complementarity is defined by personality styles that are similar on the status dimension and different on the affiliation dimension, and consequently, they increase anxiety and do not confirm self-concepts (Nowicki & Yaughn et al., 1999). Nowicki and Yaughn et al. assessed interpersonal style in their study with the Interpersonal Adjective Scale, which includes six interpersonal adjectives and is used to relate indicidual interpersonal styles to Leary’s circumplex model. They asked the participants to indicate how accurately each adjective applies to them. They also used the Relationship Closeness Inventory to assess closeness of a same-gendered friend. For this RCI they asked the participants to rate their relationships on the basis of the frequency of their interactions, the diversity of activities that the relationship encompasses, and the strength of the impact of the interactants on each other. They found that women described their close, same-gendered friends as being similar to themselves in affiliation and tending to be different in status, especially in comparison with what they reported for their not close friends. In contrast, for men, the degree of self and other affiliation or status did not appear to be related, regardless of whether they considered the relationship to be close or not (Nowicki & Yaughn et al.). There was an observed difference in the way that men and women expressed close friendships, and women reported higher overall ratings of closeness for their close friendships than men. This came primarily from the fact that women reported a higher frequency and diversity of activities with their close friends than the men did; however, close friends appeared to be equally important to both men and women (Nowicki & Yaughn et al.). The construct that has been most studied in the literature on sex differences in friendships has been intimacy (Benenson, Lilly & Roy, 2000). Intimacy, however, is defined in a variety of different ways, two of which are: (1) discussions of negative events, and (2) exchange of private information. When sex differences in intimacy are found, females’ friendships are consistently rated as more intimate than males’ friendships (Benenson, Lilly & Roy et al., 2000). Because there has not been any sex differences found on any global or quantitative or qualitative dimensions of friendship, it is incorrect to equate intimacy with the quality of friendship. Rather, sex differences in intimacy indicate different styles of interaction (Benenson, Lilly & Roy, 2000). Benenson, Lilly and Roy (2000) analyzed sex differences in individuals’ desires to spend time with their close friends in times of difficulty and times of success. They found results through a friendship questionnaire, which was made up of four parts. In the first part, students were asked to quantify three aspects of their friendships, in the second part, they were asked about two qualitative aspects of their friendships, in the third part, they were asked how much they would celebrate with their friend concerning good news, and in the fourth part, they were asked how much time they would spend mourning with their friend in times of crisis or bad news. The results of this study suggest that by the time of adolescence peer relations of males and females serve different functions. There were no sex differences found in either qualitative or quantitative measures of friendship, which indicated that friends were equally important to both males and females (Benenson, Lilly & Roy, 2000). In addition, females were found to be more responsive than males to their close friends when the friends experiences negative events, and more importantly, females were more responsive than males to their friends in times of celebration or success (Benenson, Lilly & Roy, 2000). It is generally agreed that men’s and women’s same-sex friendships differ in nature (Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub, 2001). Women’s friendships are more likely to be more unstructured and intimate and are generally described as “expressive” and “face-to-face”, whereas men’s friendships are described as “instrumental” or “side-by-side” (Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub et al., 2001). Past research has found that women’s friendships also involve greater solidarity, involvement, closeness and satisfaction with closeness, and diverse activities than men’s friendships. It also suggests that women’s friendships with women are stronger and more rewarding than their friendships with men and men’s friendships with women and with men (Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub et al.). In addition, men’s friendships have proven to be primarily instrumental, whereas women’s friendships are expressive and instrumental. In one study, Wright (1988) challenged the traditional viewpoint about the differences between men and women’s friendships (Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub et al.). He emphasized that a gender difference in friendships may be attributable to a variable correlated with gender, specifically Gender Role Identity (GRI). GRI is defined as how an individual perceives himself or herself as possessing masculine or feminine qualities. It is related to the number of male or female friends that one possesses, the relationship between intimacy and identity role, and conceptions and evaluations about friendship. Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub et al. examined the influence of gender, GRI, and type of relationship (romantic relationship, same-sex friendship, and cross-sex friendship) on self-reported relatioship behaviors and beliefs. They used a questionnaire that asked the participants to respond to a series of questions about demographic information, information about relationships with a same-sex friend, a cross-sex friend, and a romantic partner. They found significant differences in masculine relationship behaviors. Women used more traditionally masculine behaviors in their same-sex friendships than in their relationships with men. Also, women did not use masculine behaviors in their cross-sex and romantic relationships. These results suggest that, for women, the salient trigger for use of masculine behaviors is the gender of their partner (Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub, 2001).The current study was designed to analyze trust differences between same-sex male and female friendships. Past research reveals that men and women differ in the way that close friendships were expressed and in the activities and context of the friendships, but ironically, both men and women prefer intimate friendships (Nowicki & Yaughn et al.). Intimacy was heavily involved in the context of the reviewed literature, and trust and loyalty are two qualities of a friendship that are achieved through intimacy. Consequently, trust and loyalty are two aspects of close friendships that have not been tested in the past, and are equally as important as intimacy. Although the reviewed literature seems to point to consistent conclusions concerning gender differences in friendship patterns, few studies have assessed gender differences in the display of trust and loyalty within same-sex friendships. For both sexes, trust is a quality that signifies participation, and that must be obtained within a friendship on both ends. Loyalty is also a factor that proves true companionship and it is typically seen in a relationship where trust has already been established. Although trust and loyalty are equally important to both sexes, we hypothesized that there will be a greater display of trust and loyalty within same-sex female friendships than in same-sex male friendships. The majority of intense relationships belong to either female within single gender friendships, males within male-female friendships, or lovers (Baldo, DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity & Taub et al.).

Participants The participants for this study were 129 volunteer students (72 women, 57 men) enrolled in Loyola University for undergraduate studies. The age of the participants varied from ages 18 – 25. Convenience sampling was used during this study by recruitment of participants from the Psychology Department and the Human Subject Pool. Demographic information was not specified for participants, although the majority of students that took the survey were Caucasian. The participants were not given any rewards for taking the survey, although mostly freshman and sophomore Psychology students received extra credit in their classes for participating. Materials The materials that were used in this study were an informed consent form, an interpersonal trust scale, and two other trust scales, all of which made up the survey, and white 8.5 X 11” paper. On the first page of the survey, we placed a questionnaire, constructed by the researchers, that asked a number of personal questions, with anticipated answers that would be specific to each participant. The questions went in order from predictable larger to smaller answers, which caused the participant to follow the process of elimination. For example, the first question was: how many friends do you have? The last question was: do you have a best friend? The numerical answers became smaller causing the participant to eliminate all acquaintances, and choose a person that they would be able to use later in the survey. On the same page we asked the participants to identify common friendship criteria and activities that we provided from two separate lists. For example, the criteria consisted of things such as attractiveness and popularity, and the activities consisted of things such as shopping, talking, drinking, and golf. We chose to use Wrightmann’s Interpersonal trust scale because we felt that it would determine whether or not the person had a sense of trust outside of a friendship. We thought that if the person’s score stated that he/she was not a trusting person that it would influence whether he/she could trust his/her friends. The last two sections consisted of two trust scales. The first trust scale used was the Specific Interpersonal Trust Scale by Johnson-George and Swap, which consisted of nineteen items and used a 9-point Likert scale (1 being strongly disagree, 5 being neutral, and 9 bieng strongly agree). The second trust scale used was the Trust Scale by Rempel and Holmes, which consisted of eighteen items and used a similar 5-point scale. Both trust scales asked for the participant to use a specific person, a best or close friend, to assist them in deciding their answers to the questions. For example, a question on one of the last two surveys would be: I could rely on this person to pick me up on time. The participant would choose a number score for each question of strongly agree, neutral, strongly disagree, and also permitted the numbers in between. We made two different surveys, one male form and one female form, since we were looking for sex differences, and the questions were extremely sex determined. It was necessary to use the last two trust scales because they would answer our research question.Design and Procedure This study was a between subjects quasi-experiment due to the nonexistence of active manipulation over the variables. The independent variable was the sex of the participant, and the two levels were male and female. The dependent variable was level of trust in a same sex friendship, and the two levels were high and low. The three scales that we used on the survey, the interpersonal trust scale, and the other two trust scales, operationally defined trust for us. We did not operationally define “friendship” for the questions on the first page of the survey because we wanted each participant to invent their own definition of friendship. We felt that operationally defining “friendship” would have negatively impacted the answers of the participants, and, in turn, negatively impacted our conclusions. We used convenience sampling by recruiting subjects from the Psychology Department of Loyola University New Orleans and the Human Subject Pool. We did not personally know any of the participants and they were all recruited randomly. All surveys were kept anonymous. We controlled for sex of participant and in place of operationally defining “close friend”, we also controlled for description terminology. For example, on the first page of the survey we used “friends”, “male/female friends”, “close friends”, and “acquaintances” as the classification terminologies for the descriptions of the participant’s “friends”. This helped to clarify exactly what answer we were looking for in each question. The surveys were distributed throughout the Loyola University campus. Upon distribution, the participants were given two copies of the same informed consent form, both of which were signed and dated, and one copy was taken for records and the participant kept the other copy. After the informed consent forms were collected, the participants completed the surveys. All surveys were returned upon completion. The participants were then given a debriefing statement and a completion slip to give to their professors, if they would allow extra credit to be given. The finished surveys were kept anonymous and the participants were asked to keep their answers completely anonymous also. The surveys were then scored according to the scoring key that was attached to the three trust scales. The first page was not scored the same as the other scales because we created it. We scored it through creating a scale score on the computer upon data analysis.

Our research was guided by the hypothesis that if the same-gendered friendship was between females, then there would be reports of greater trust and loyalty (Table I). The means and standard deviations are reported in Table I. In order to compare the mean ratings for females and males on each measure, we performed two-tailed t-tests on both trust scales (Parts III and IV of the survey), both of which measured the level of trust exhibited between each participant and their chosen “close friend”. Upon analysis of these tests, we found a significant difference between the scores of males and females. Significant differences were also found between the males and females on the Friendship Trust Scales (df = 5.756, p < .0001 trust scale 1; t = 6.005, p = .0001 trust scale 2). There was no significant difference between the scores of males and females on the general Interpersonal Trust Scale (Part II). Through the descriptive information shown in Table I, our hypothesis that more trust would be exhibited between same-sex female friendships than male friendships was verified. The mean levels of trust for close friends, activities, and criteria were higher for the females than the males, while there was no significant variance in mean levels of interpersonal trust. Standard deviations for criteria, interpersonal trust, and trust for close friends were significantly lower for women than they were for men, meaning that the female score, for those aspects, displayed variability. We also used the Pearson r test to calculate the correlations between the number and choice of activities circled, and the number and choice of criteria circled (Part I), the interpersonal trust scale (Part II), and the two ending trust scales (Parts III and IV). The correlations are shown in Table 2. A significant correlation was found between quantity and choice of activities and criteria chosen by males and females (r = ,p = ). In this section, we asked for the participants to circle the activities done most frequently with their close same-sex friend, and for the criteria that they look for in a close same-sex friend. Lastly, we found significant correlation between the male and female answers on the trust scales in Parts III and IV (r = ,p = ). In this section, the participant answered each statement while thinking about a close, same-sex friend. The mean calculations for males and females throughout the t-test group statistics showed us significant differences in the specific activities chosen by males and females. The majority of females chose going to the movies, concerts, shopping, talking, emailing, vacationing, dining out, working out, tanning, studying, and joining extracurricular activities. The majority of males chose going to sports events, going to bars, drinking, fishing, golfing, and joining extracurricular activities. The results of this test may seem obvious in nature, but to most people the extreme amount of strength in this correlation would be appalling.

The purpose of our study was to measure the differences of trust levels between males and females in their same-sex friendships. Our results strongly support our purpose and hypothesis. We uncovered a significant difference in trust scores for both males and females within our sample (72 females, 57 males). The significance of these results proposes that women’s same-sex friendships are more trusting that those of men. These results are consistent with previous research, in which females were found to have more intimate relationships with their female friends than males with their male friends (Elkins & Peterson, 1993). The conclusions of O’Connor (1992) also emphasized that women most often called their friends “someone they could trust.” In this study there were no significant sex differences found in the comparison of scores on the Interpersonal Trust Scale (Part II), which told us that females are not more trusting than males in general, but only in same-sex friendships (Part III and IV).Although significant results were found during the course of this study, we cannot exclude the limitations experienced. The primary limitation was the length of the survey, which we included to ensure its reliability. Not only was it six pages long, but also the first page took some participants longer than we expected due to the context of the questions (e.g. how many friends do you have?). Because of this, some participants became impatient since the specified time (15-20 minutes) was sometimes shorter than the time they actually used to take the survey. Another limitation was that our sample consisted of only undergraduate Loyola students, between the ages of 18 and 25; therefore, it would be difficult to generalize the results of this study beyond a college population, similar to any research samples that have been retrieved through convenience sampling. As an example, the results of this study would not pertain to older people who may have lost connections or ties with their same-sex friends. In contrast, this study also showed a great deal of strength. The primary strength of this study was the overall reliability of the survey, due to the two scales that tested levels of trust between close same-sex friends, and displayed by the results that we received. The second strength was that we had a reasonable sample size of 129 participants. In addition to that, our sample was almost evenly split between male and female participants (72 females, 57 males). Lastly, our data was totally anonymous, and participants felt comfortable answering the personal questions asked throughout the survey. This study shows that there are extremely strong sex differences in many aspects of friendship, most importantly in trust, but also in the criteria and activities based around trust. The conclusions of this study can further female and male knowledge of the opposite sex, and help the sexes to realize their differences. Male recognition of the higher levels of trust displayed in female relationships can foster their improvement in displaying more trust within their existing same-sex friendships. Future studies will be needed to help determine the extent to which our results generalize to a larger population as opposed to the population of a college campus. Future studies should also be based around finding ways that trust is produced through looking at the “emotion-based” aspect of female friendships, because it would be important to learn how trust is developed. Also demographics, such as age, income, and sexual preference and/or orientation should be observed in the future to see if level of trust amongst different minority groups would be substantial. In conclusion, the comparison of chosen activities and criteria uncovered the reasons behind the truth of our hypothesis. Higher levels of trust and loyalty between females result from the female desire to bond with their friends through talking, emailing, shopping, or dining out, all of which are activities that evoke emotions. Lower levels of trust and loyalty, displayed in same gendered male friendships, is a result of their abandonment of emotion-evoking activities, and instead, concentration on sports, drinking, and/or extracurricular activities, all of which bring out their masculinity. For our study, these are the results that we set out to obtain, but there were also other variables that we thought should be tested in future studies, in the case that valid results would be found.

Baldo, T.D., DeLucia-Waack, J.L., Gerrity, D.A., & Taub ,D.J.          (2001). Gender, gender role identity and type of          relationship as predictors of relationship behavior           and beliefs in College students. Journal of College          Counseling, 41, 1 – 32.

Benenson, J.F., Lilly, F., & Roy, R., (2000). Beyond intimacy: Conceptualizing sex differences in Same-sex friendships. The Journal of Psychology, 134I1, 93.

Elkins, L.E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29n7-8, 497. Floyd, K. (1995). Gender and closeness among friends and siblings. The Journal of Psychology, 129n2, 193.

Miller, S. (1983). Men and friendship. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company

Murray, B. (1999 July/August). Boys to men: Emotional miseducation, APA Monitor Online. Retrieved October 17, 2002,from http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/youth.html Nowicki Jr., S., Yaughn, E. (1999). Close relationships and complementary interpersonal styles among men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139i4, 473.

O’Connor, P. (1992). Friendships Between Women: A critical Review. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.


 Part I

Directions: Please answer the following questions honestly and to your best ability. Place your answers in the spaces provided. Please write NUMBERS in the blanks below.

1. How many friends do you have? __________

2. How many female friends do you have? __________

3. How many of these females do you consider acquaintances? __________

4. How many of these females do you consider friends? __________

5. How many of these female friends do you trust? __________

6. How many close female friends do you have? __________

7. On average, how long do you have to know a female before you consider her a close friend? __________ (please, respond in terms of weeks, months or years)

8. Do you have one female best friend? __________ (please give yes or no answer)

9. If you have one best friend (a female), how long have you known her? __________ (please, respond in terms of weeks, months or years)

10. Circle the criteria you consider when you chose a female friend?

Honesty Trust Appearance IntelligenceGeographical Location Social Status A good listener Family BackgroundAmbition Common Interests Athletic PowerMorality Humor Popularity Similar personality

11. What sorts of things do you do most frequently when you are with your female friends? Watch movies Bars/Pubs/Clubs Vacation GolfConcerts Drink Alcohol Dining out TanningShopping Talk Workout/ Exercise StudySporting Events E-mail Fishing Extracurricular Activities

Part II

Directions: Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by using the following scale an by placing your answers in the space provided.

1 Strongly Agree 2 Mildly Agree3 Agree and Disagree Equally 4 Mildly Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree

____ 1. Hypocrisy is on the increase in society.

____ 2. In dealing with strangers, one is better off to be cautious until they have provided evidence that they are trustworthy.

____ 3. This country has a dark future unless we can attract better people into politics.

____ 4. Fear and social disgrace, or punishment, rather than conscience prevents most people from braking the law.

____ 5. Using the honor system of not having a teacher present during exams would probably result in increased cheating.

____ 6. Parents can usually be relied on to keep their promises.

____ 7. The United Nations will never be an effective force in keeping world peace.

____ 8. The judiciary is a place where we can get unbiased treatment.

____ 9. Most people would be horrified if they knew how much news that the public sees and hears is distorted.

____ 10. It is safe to believe that in spite of what people say, most people are primarily interested in their own welfare.

____ 11. Even though we have reports in newspapers, radio, and television, it is hard to get objective accounts of public events.

____ 12. The future seems very promising.

____ 13. If we really knew what was going on in international politics, the public would have reason to be more frightened than they now seem to be.

____ 14. Most elected officials are really sincere in their campaign promises.

____ 15. Many major national sports contests are fixed in one way or another.

____ 16. Most experts can be relied upon to tell the truth about the limits of their knowledge.

____ 17. Most parents can be relied upon to carry out their threats of punishments.

____ 18. Most people can be counted on to do what they say they will do.

____ 19. In these competitive times, one has to be alert or someone is likely to take advantage of you.

1 Strongly Agree 2 Mildly Agree3 Agree and Disagree Equally 4 Mildly Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree

____ 20. Most idealists are sincere and usually practice what they preach.

____ 21. Most salesmen are honest in describing their products.

____ 22. Most students in school would not cheat even if they were sure of getting away with it.

____ 23. Most repair men will not over charge even if they think you are ignorant of their specialty.

____ 24. A large share of accident claims filed against insurance companies are phony.

____ 25. Most people answer public opinion poles honestly.

Part III

Directions: For the items below think of one close female platonic friend. Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree by choosing the appropriate number from the scale below and placing it to the left of the question number.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

____ 1. If she gave me a compliment, I would question if she really meant what was said.

____ 2. If we decided to meet somewhere for lunch, I would be certain she would be there.

____ 3. I would go hiking with her in unfamiliar territory if she assured me she knew the area.

____ 4. I wouldn’t want to buy a piece of used furniture from her because I wouldn’t believe her estimate of its worth.

____ 5. I would expect her to play fair.

____ 6. I could rely on her to mail an important letter for me if I couldn’t get to the post office.

____ 7. I would be able to confide in her and know that she would want to listen.

____ 8. I could expect her to tell me the truth.

____ 9. If I had to catch an airplane, I could not be sure she would get me to the airport on time.

____ 10. If she unexpectedly laughed at something I did or said, I would wonder if she was being critical and unkind.

____ 11. I could talk freely to her and know that she would want to listen.

____ 12. She would never intentionally misrepresent my point of view to others.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

____ 13. If she knew what kinds of things hurt my feelings, I would never worry that she would use them against me, even if our relationship changed.

_____ 14. If she promised to do me a favor she would follow through.

____ 15. If she didn’t think I handled a certain situation very well, she would not criticize me in front of other people.

____ 16. If I told her what things I worry about, she would not think my concerns were silly.

____ 17. If my alarm clock was broken and I asked her to call me at a certain time, I could count on receiving the call.

____ 18. If she couldn’t get together with me as I planned, I would believe her excuse that something important had come up.

____ 19. If she were going to give me a ride somewhere and didn’t arrive on time, I would guess that there was a good reason for the delay.

Part IV

Directions: Read each of the following statements and decide whether it is true of your relationship with a close, platonic, female friend. Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree by choosing the appropriate number from the scale below and placing it in the space provided in the left-hand margin.

1 Strongly Agree 2 Mildly Agree3 Agree and Disagree Equally 4 Mildly Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree

____ 1. I know how my friend is going to act. My friend can always be counted on to act as I expect.

____ 2. I have found that my friend is a thoroughly dependable person especially when it comes to things that are important.

____ 3. My friend’s behavior tends to be quite variable. I can’t always be sure what my friend will surprise me with next.

____ 4. Though times may change and the future is uncertain, I have faith that my friend will always be ready and willing to offer me strength come what may.

____ 5. Based on past experience, I cannot, with complete confidence, rely on my friend to keep promises made to me.

____ 6. It is sometimes difficult for me to be absolutely certain that my friend will always continue to care for me; the future holds too many uncertainties and too many things can change in our relationship as time goes on. ____ 7. My friend is a very honest person and, even if my friend were to make unbelievable statements, people should feel confident that what they are feeling is the truth.

1 Strongly Agree 2 Mildly Agree3 Agree and Disagree Equally 4 Mildly Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree

____ 8. My friend is not very predictable. People can’t always be certain how my friend is going to act from one day to another.

____ 9. My friend has proven to be a faithful person. No matter who my friend was married to, she would never be unfaithful, even if there was no chance of being caught.

____ 10. I am never concerned that unpredictable conflicts and serious tensions may damage our friendship because I know we can weather any storm.

____ 11. I am very familiar with the patterns of behavior my friend has established, and she will behave in certain ways.

____ 12. If I have never faced a particular issue with my friend before, I occasionally worry that she won’t take my feelings into account.

____ 13. Even in familiar circumstances, I am not totally certain my friend will act in the same way twice.

____ 14. I feel completely secure in facing unknown, new situations because I know my friend will never let me down.

____ 15. My friend is not necessarily someone others consider reliable. I can think of some times when my friend could not be counted on.

____ 16. I occasionally find myself feeling uncomfortable with the emotional investment I have made in our friendship because I find it hard to set aside completely my doubts as to what lies ahead.

____ 17. My friend has not always proven to be trustworthy in the past and there are times when I am hesitant to let my friend engage in activities that make me feel vulnerable.

____ 18. My friend behaves in a consistent manner.

Submitted 12/21/2002 10:12:31 AM
Last Edited 12/21/2002 11:04:16 AM
Converted to New Site 03/09/2009

Rated by 2 users. Average Rating:
Users who logon can rate manuscripts and write reviews.

© 2022 National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse. All rights reserved. The National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse is not responsible for the content posted on this site. If you discover material that violates copyright law, please notify the administrator. This site receives money through the Google AdSense program when users are directed to useful commercial sites. We do not encourage or condone clicking on the displayed ads unless you have a legitimate interest in the advertisement.