Asymmetries in the Friendship Preferences and Social Styles of Men and Women

Human Nature 18 (2):143-161 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Several hypotheses on the form and function of sex differences in social behaviors were tested. The results suggest that friendship preferences in both sexes can be understood in terms of perceived reciprocity potential—capacity and willingness to engage in a mutually beneficial relationship. Divergent social styles may in turn reflect trade-offs between behaviors selected to maintain large, functional coalitions in men and intimate, secure relationships in women. The findings are interpreted from a broad socio-relational framework of the types of behaviors that facilitate selective advertisement and investment of reciprocity potential across individuals and within groups of men and women.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,075

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Amicitia in Plautus: A Study of Roman Friendship Processes.Paul J. Burton - 2004 - American Journal of Philology 125 (2):209-243.
Civic and Cosmopolitan Friendship.Kerri Woods - 2013 - Res Publica 19 (1):81-94.
Why virtual friendship is no genuine friendship.Barbro Fröding & Martin Peterson - 2012 - Ethics and Information Technology 14 (3):201-207.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-03-15

Downloads
6 (#1,463,186)

6 months
5 (#643,111)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism.Robert L. Trivers - 1971 - Quarterly Review of Biology 46 (1):35-57.
Dominance style, differences between the sexes and individuals.Charlotte K. Hemelrijk & Lorenz Gygax - 2004 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 5 (1):131-146.

View all 6 references / Add more references