Cross-sex Friendships

Big Five Personality Traits and Frequency of Cross-sex Friendships

Michael Rosen

York University

April 7, 2011

Running head: Big Five Traits and Cross-sex Friendships 1

Abstract

The phenomenon of cross-sex friendships, or non-romantic heterosexual friendships, is a

relatively recent relationship development. While growing integration amongst men and women

has seen an increasingly prominent role for these friendships, the literature is still relatively

sparse on the nature of those in these relationships, and in particular, the personality

characteristics of those who have a greater proportion of cross-sex friends. This study examined

the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and the self-reported proportion of cross-

sex friendships. Heterosexual males and females (N = 188) took part in the study. Extraversion

and neuroticism were found to have a significant effect on the proportion of cross-sex friendship,

with highly ranked extroverts for both males and females having a greater proportion than low

ranked extroverts, while those ranked high on neuroticism having fewer cross-sex friends than

low ranked neurotics.


Big Five Personality Traits and Frequency of Cross-sex Friendships

The phenomenon of cross-sex friendships, or non-exclusive, non-romantic friendships

between a heterosexual male and heterosexual female, can be seen as a relatively recent

phenomenon. In general people have more same-sex friendships than cross-sex ones (Rose,

1985). In fact, cross-sex friendships were categorized as romantic relationships as recently as

1986 (Reeder, 2000). But over the past 50 years there has been growing integration amongst men

and women of all ages in places such as the workplace, universities, and living spaces (Monsour,

1996). These experiences have likely led to an increase in prevalence of cross-sex friendships. In

particular, research indicates that cross-sex friendships are particularly common in young

adulthood and on college campuses, where students are less restrained by gender-role

expectations (Werking, 1997). Others have shown that close cross-sex friendships are common

amongst adolescents (Kuttler, La Greca, & Prinstein, 1999). Burke and Fuqua (1987) found in

their study that, on average, men and women had over three „close‟ cross-sex friends.

Furthermore, while some research indicates that platonic friendships can be met with scepticism

by others, and may involve the need to deal with issues of sexuality (O‟Meara, 1989; Rawlins,

1982), Werking (1997) found only eight of the 50 cross-sex friendships in his study identified

sexual attraction as a feature. While studies have confirmed a growing trend toward these

relationships, they still have been studied to a lesser degree when compared with romantic

friendships and same-sex friendships (Weger & Emmett, 2009). Of the studies that have been

done, most look only a single explanatory factor or the independent contribution of things like

gender, age, or marital status. Furthermore, much of the research focuses on cross-sex friendship

as dichotomous – whether someone does or does not have cross-sex friends. More research is

needed to discover factors that predict characteristics within those who do have cross-sex

friendships.


Cross-sex friendships are qualitatively different than same-sex ones. Research indicates

that they tend to involve less competition, since there is no rivalry over traditional male or

female characteristics (Rawlins, 1982; Werking, 1997). They also help define a person‟s self-

image as being attractive to the opposite sex (Bleske & Buss, 2000; Monsour, 2002; Rubin,

1985), and they demonstrate gender differences between cross-sex friends (Werking, 1997).

Studies have begun to show different characteristics of cross-sex friendships. For

example, Kaplan and Keys (1997) point out that sexual attraction in cross-sex friendships can be

at times beneficial and, at other times, detrimental to the relationship. A 2001 study by Bleske-

Rechek & Buss showed that some see cross-sex friendships merely as a way of attaining a long-

term mate. It also found that more men (when compared with women) indicated sexual attraction

and sexual access as a reason for the relationship. On the other hand, more women indicated

physical protection as a reason for cross-sex friendships. They also showed that people, both men

and women, with unrestricted sexual styles were more likely to view opposite-sex friendships as

opportunities for sex. Other research indicates that individuals maintain relationships as non-

sexual for six primary reasons: Emotional uncertainty about the relationship, disapproval by

others in their social network, protecting the relationship, lack of attraction, and not being

currently interested (Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000).

In the first study to examine the factors involved in the number of cross-sex friendships,

Lenton and Webber (2006) found that relationship commitment, perceptions of the benefits

versus costs of cross-sex friendships, gender role orientation, and sexism all were positively

related. Baumgarte and Nelson (2009) found that preferences for cross-sex friendships rated

these relationships as being higher in trust, closeness, caring, and having common interests. In

other words, the higher the respondent rated the positive characteristics of a typical relationship


with the opposite sex group, the more likely the respondent was to engage in these relationships.

However, researchers have yet to look into more general personality traits that may correlate

with the frequency of cross-sex friendships. While in general people prefer same-sex friendships

(Rose, 1985), there may be certain personality types that express no preference towards having

same or opposite sex friends, or who even prefer opposite sex friends. The literature is limited on

these issues. This study was carried out to determine whether specific personality types are more

likely to have a higher frequency of cross-sex friendships.

Personality, a notoriously challenging term to precisely describe, can be defined as the

“consistent behaviour patterns and interpersonal processes originating within the individual”

(Burger, 2007, p. 4). While there have been countless attempts to measure and quantify

personality in a nearly unlimited number of ways, the Big Five personality traits – extroversion,

neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness – have repeatedly

been found by researchers investigating personality across many studies, and substantial

evidence exists demonstrating that these five traits can appropriately be placed as the highest

order of human personality (Borgatta, 1964; Smith, 1967; Goldberg, 1981; Conley, 1985; Costa

& McCrae, 1992). They are also believed to be nearly universal across cultures worldwide

(McCrae, Costa, Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998; De Raad & Perugini, 2002). Furthermore, the

Big Five traits have been shown to be highly reliable measurements, remaining roughly stable

throughout adulthood (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). Over the past 20 years, research and use of the

five-factor model has expanded exponentially (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). It is widely

accepted by psychologists as a measure to study different personality types, and has been shown

to predict behaviours ranging from the prognosis of illnesses to success in the workplace. While

there is a range of definitions of these traits, Costa & McCrae (1992), John (1990), and Tellegen


(1985) have proposed widely accepted and reliable classifications, and all three are synthesized

here, as cited in John, Naumann, and Soto (2008).

I hypothesized that of the five, extraversion and openness would be most predictive of the

proportion of male-female friendships. Extraversion refers to an “energetic approach toward the

social and material world,” (John et al., 2008, p. 120) and encompasses terms such as sociability

and activity. People who rate highly on extraversion typically have a greater number of lifetime

friends and sexual partners (Nettle, 2005). Extroversion has been repeatedly shown to be

positively correlated with the number of social relationships one may have (Sarason, Shearing,

Pierce, & Sarason; Stokes, 1985). Because men rate potential sexual access as a reason for cross-

sex friendship, as mentioned previously, my expectation was that men who are higher in

extraversion would have more cross-sex friendships than those who are medium or lower.

Furthermore, since friendship roles may be defined by societal expectations, it is guessed that

those who are high on an extroversion scale are more likely to defy expectations and engage

more frequently in these relationships.

Openness, or originality or open-mindedness, refers to “breadth, depth, and complexity of

a person mental and experiential life” (John et al., 2008). Higher ranked open individuals

typically perform better on test of creativity, are more artistic, and have more unconventional

attitudes (John & Naumann, 2007). Research also shows that openness is probably the trait that

is most closely linked with interpersonal and social phenomena (McCrae R. , 1996). Therefore,

due to social expectations that dictate normative friendships being between same-sex individuals,

it is hypothesized that respondents, both men and women, scoring higher on openness are more

likely to have more cross-sex friends.


The next three traits were not expected to correlate as greatly with the proportion of

cross-sex friends when compared to the first two. Agreeableness is defined by John et al as

“prosocial and communal orientation.” Those who score higher on agreeableness have better

performance in work group and have less delinquency problems, for example (John & Naumann,

2007). In regards to relationships, agreeableness correlates with a low frequency and intensity of

interpersonal conflict (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). I speculated that

agreeableness in males may lead to a greater amount of female friends because females prefer

more agreeable males, while low in agreeableness males may have fewer female friends because

females may avoid a more confrontational style (Sorenson, Hawkins, & Sorenson, 1995).

Neuroticism is defined as “negative emotionality”, meaning emotional instability with feelings of

anxiety, fear, and sadness. It relates to more negative qualities in relationships (Henderson,

Byrne, & Duncan-Jones, 1981), but I did not expect this to express itself significantly in either

direction for cross-sex or same-sex friendships. Conscientiousness, or constraint, refers to

“socially prescribed impulse control”, including thinking before acting, delaying gratification.

Those high in conscientiousness is correlated with higher grade point averages and better job

performance. I did not hypothesize any significant relationship for conscientiousness, since there

does not appear to be any connection between it conceptually and cross-sex friendships.

While admittedly these traits are considerably broad by definition, as they seek to

encompass all measurable personality traits, it does indeed make sense to start an investigation of

cross-sex friendship and its characteristics through the most general means available. Once an

overall discovery has been made, further research into more specific personality traits can begin

with this research as its background. This would help provide a greater understanding of the


characteristics of individuals who are more likely to have a greater proportion of cross-sex

friends, and will hopefully lead to further research.

Methods

Participants

The study had a total of 188 participants, with 109 males and 79 females. 105 additional

responses were not included, 21 because they self-identified as either homosexual or bisexual,

and an additional 84 because they did not complete a sufficient amount of the study (at least 90%

of the questions, including the Big Five Inventory). They were selected as a convenience

sample, and no attempts were made to make the sample representative. Some were asked to

complete the study while at York University on a paper copy. The rest were recruited through

online social networks, and were asked to fill out an identical electronic form of the survey. The

ages of participants ranged from 18 – 65, with a mean age of 27 (SD = 7.21). Of the participants,

47.4% were still currently undergraduate students, 23.5% were graduate students, and the other

28% were not in post-secondary or professional school. While most of the participants were from

Canada (18%) and the United States (53.4%), other respondents came from across the world,

including Australia, Finland, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.

Materials

Participants were asked to fill in basic demographic data, including age, sex, year of birth,

and sexual orientation. Next, participants were measured along the Big Five personality traits

with the inventory scale developed by John, Donahue & Kentle (1991), known as the Big Five

Inventory (BFI). The 44-item questionnaire measures respondents along the previously

mentioned Big Five personality traits, and has been widely used since its creation. Measurement

for its external predictive ability range, but for the most part it is considered highly valid


(Hendriks, Hofstee, & Raad, 1999) and predictive of a number of measurable behaviours (see

John & Naumann, 2007; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Cronbach alpha‟s coefficient for the BFI

ranged from .78 to .88 in this survey, indicating that the test was internally consistent

(extraversion, α = .86; agreeableness, α = .82; neuroticism, α = .80; conscientiousness, α = .87;

openness, α = .78). Afterwards, the survey asked three roughly related questions that were used

to increase reliability and reduce measurement error. They were adapted from Lenton and

Webber‟s 2006 study on cross-sex friendships, which showed the three of them to be highly

correlated. The first had respondents list the initials of their five closest friends. Immediately

afterward they were asked to indicate whether those five friends were male or female, with the

number of opposite sex friends tabulated as a percentage, and referred to as close opposite sex

friends (COSF). They were then asked to estimate what percentage of their friends was of the

opposite gender from each other, for the estimated cross-sex percentage (ECP). Finally, the

survey asked to rate on a 7-point scale what proportion of their friendships were male-female, if

at all (ranging from “None of my friendships are male-female” to “All of my friendships are

male-female”), referred to here as the male-female friendship scale (MFFS). Intercorrelation of

the three measures variables was highly significant between each, p = < .001 (see Table 1). The

three questions represent a person‟s proportion of friends that are cross-sex, and were the

dependent variable for the study. Respondents were also asked to rate whether they prefer men

or women more as a close friend on a 7-point Likert scale. They were also asked to indicate the

extent to which they agreed with the statement “A person can have a completely non-sexual

friendship with a person of the opposite gender.” The variables on the study are the Big Five

personality traits, gender, year of birth (independent variables) and proportion of friends who are

opposite-sex (dependent variable). At the end of the survey, the participants are thanked for their


help and given the author‟s e-mail address once again to contact me for any further questions or

comments.

Procedure

All participants were given the survey packet with a separate and standard informed

consent form at the top, or for those who filled out the survey online, were given a starting page

where they indicated they had read and understood the informed consent page. After the study

period was over, which took place over a period of 26 days from February to March 2011, the

results were then tabulated and statistical analyses were performed on SPSS. Only participants

who self-identified as heterosexual were used in the study to ensure consistency, because cross-

sex friendship for non-heterosexuals is likely fundamentally different due to a probable lack of

sexual attraction. Participants were ranked into high, medium, and low categories on each of the

Big Five traits based on an equivalent percentile ranking. Pearson correlation was done

comparing the proportion of cross-sex friends with the level of each of the five Big Five traits.

Univariate analysis of variance was also carried out to determine the main effects of gender x age

x personality type and proportion of male-female friendships.

Results

Table 1

Intercorrelations between measures of cross-sex friendships

Measure COSF ECP MFFS

COSF -- .568 .403

ECP .568 -- .732

MFFS .403 .732 --

All p values were < .001. COSF = percentage of five closest friends that are opposite sex; ECP = estimated

percentage of cross-sex friends; MFFS = male-female friendship scale. Adapted from Lenton and Webber (2006).


There was missing or incorrect data from different parts of the study, and therefore the

number of responses varies slightly from measure to measure. Consistently, females reported

more cross-sex friendships than males did. For the first dependent variable, percentage of the

five closest friends who are cross-sex (COSF), there was a highly significant difference found,

with males reporting 29.17% (SD = 23.03, N = 133) of their friends as female, compared to

females who reported 59.35% (SD = 24.59, N = 124) as males; t(255) = -10.16, p = <.001, d = -

1.27. The two other scales were also significant. Males estimated the percentage of friends that

were female (ECP) on average at 36.31 (SD = 22.14, N = 139) while females estimated it on

average at 48.34 (SD = 25.18, N = 129); t(266) = -4.16, p = <.001, d = -0.51. And for the male-

female friendship question (MFFS), males rated having fewer cross-sex friendships (M = 3.51,

SD = 1.12, N = 140) than did females (M = 4.02, SD = 1.15, N = 130); t(268) = -3.69, p = <.001,

d = -0.45.

Extraversion

. A one-way analysis of variance showed a significant main effect for extraversion on the

ECP, F(2, 242) = 3.49, p = .03, η2 = .03. Chart 1 in the appendix illustrates the effect. Post-hoc

analyses using Tukey‟s HSD found the estimated percentage of cross-sex friends for low rated

extroverts (M = 38.33, SD = 2.53) was significantly less than those for high rated extroverts (M

= 47.82, SD = 2.61), p = .04. There was no significant difference between medium extroverts (M

= 44.22, SD = 2.54) and the two other groups. No interaction was found between males and

females and extraversion levels, with the effect holding true for both sexes, although

extraversion appeared to be more positively correlated for males than females.


The MFF scale also showed significant results when a one-way analysis of variance test

was done, with a main effect for extraversion (F(2, 244) = 3.56, p = .03, η2 = .03). Post analyses

with Tukey showed, once again, that high extroverts (M = 3.94, SD = .12) had significantly

higher male-female relationships than low extroverts (M = 3.5, SD = .12), p = .05. There was no

significant difference between medium extroverts (M = 3.78, SD = .12) and the two other

groups. No interaction was found between males and females and extraversion levels. For the

COSF scale, no significant effects were reported for extroversion (F(2, 231) = .36, p = .69) or the

interaction between sex and extroversion (F(2, 231) = .61, p = .54).

Agreeableness

A one-way analysis of variance found no significant effects of agreeableness, F(2, 244) =

.831, p = .44, or interaction with sex and agreeableness, F(2, 244) = 1.2, p = .30, on the MFF

scale. Another analysis of variance found no significant effects on the ECP scale from

agreeableness ranking, F(2, 242) = .87, p = .42, as well as no significant interaction from sex and

agreeableness, F(2, 242) = 1.47, p = .23. Finally, a third analysis of variance found the three

levels of agreeableness did not have a significant effect on COSF (F(2, 231) = .51, p = .60), and

there was no significant interaction between sex and agreeableness (F(2, 231) = .14, p = .86).

Conscientiousness

A one-way between subjects analysis of variance did not find any significant results from

conscientiousness on COSF (F(2, 231) = .52, p = .59), and found no interaction between sex and

conscientiousness (F(2, 231) = .14, p = .86). An ANOVA on agreeableness and ECP also found

no main (F(2, 242) = .50, p = .60) or interactive effects (F(2, 242) = .22, p = .79). Finally, a one-


way ANOVA on agreeableness and MFF also found no main (F(2, 244) = 1.26, p = .28) or

interactive effects (F(2, 244) = .02, p = .97).

Neuroticism

One-way analysis of variance found no main effects for neuroticism on MMF (F(2, 244)

= .68, p = .51). No interaction between sex and neuroticism was found as well (F(2, 244) = .65, p

= .52). An ANOVA on agreeableness and ECP also found no main (F(2, 242) = .50, p = .60) or

interactive effects (F(2, 242) = .22, p = .79). Interestingly, a one-way analysis of variance found

that neuroticism is significant correlated with COSF (F(2, 231) = 3.71, p = .03), with high

neurotic participants having fewer of their five closest friends as females (see Figure 1) .

However, Tukey post-hoc analysis did not find a significant effect. This may be due to the

conservative nature of the test, however.

Openness

Analysis of variance of openness and its effect on COSF found no significant results,

(F(2, 231) = 1.85, p = .16). Interaction between sex and openness also did not lead to any

significant results, (F(2, 231) = .63, p = .54). Analysis of variance on the effect of openness on

ECP did not find a significant main effect (F(2, 242) = .14, p = .86). However, it did show a

significant interaction between the openness rank and sex (F(2, 242) = 3.21, p = .04), as can be

seen in Figure 2. Post hoc analysis with Tukey HSD did not determine a direction for the effect.

An ANOVA was also carried out to measure the relationship between openness and MMF. No

main effect was found for openness (F(2, 244) = .26, p = .77), but once again an interaction

between sex and openness rank was found (F(2, 244) = 3.99, p = .02). However, as was the case


with ECP, post-hoc analysis with Tukey HSD did not find any significant interaction between

the three rankings and sex. The means and standard deviation can be seen in Table 2.

Other Findings

As has been shown before, preferring an opposite-sex friend was a highly significant

predictor of the proportion of opposite-sex friends (β = .61, p = <.001), with a linear regression

showing it accounts for 37% of the variance. Participants strongly agreed that completely non-

sexual friendships between heterosexual friends was possible, with 66.3% answering either

“Strongly agree” or “Agree” on a 7-item Likert scale (M = 5.64, SD = 1.56).

Discussion

It was interesting to note that the proportion of cross-sex friends was significantly higher

for females than males consistently regardless of which of the three scales was used and all

personality types. This finding was inconsistent with Lenton and Webber (2006), who found

roughly equivalent frequencies of cross-sex friendships between males and females. However,

the overall means of the study were very similar to Lenton and Webber. In that study, they

reported 42% of the participant‟s friendships were cross-sex, while in this study the number was

40.44%. Meanwhile, on the 7-item male-female friendship item, Lenton and Webber found a

mean score of 3.60, compared to this study which found 3.72. Because these two results are

fairly similar to both the previously mentioned study and others (e.g., Reeder, 2003), there is

much reason to believe that the sample was sound, at least in this regard. Another caveat must be

mentioned before further discussing the results of the survey. The COSF, or the measure of what

percentage of a respondent‟s five closest friends are opposite sex, showed a very large difference

between males and females. While as mentioned earlier, it still significantly correlated with the


other two scales, the large discrepancy is cause for some concern. It is unclear why females had

nearly double the amount of cross-sex friends than males did in this category. It is likely that the

sample, which contained numerous samples recruited anonymously from online social

networking sites, had an overrepresented sample of more introverted individuals, and a one

sample t-test confirms that extroversion scores from the sample were unusually low (M = 2.88,

SD = .87) when compared to the population (M = 3.28, SD = .91). Furthermore, a large number

(N = 44) of respondents who completed the rest of the survey did not fill in five initials, but still

completed the rest of the survey. By extension, this seems to indicate that it is possible that the

survey‟s participants may not have accurately filled in this section. It also may mean that this

survey‟s sample experience different close friendships than the ones from previous research,

while there more general friendship frequencies are at typical proportions.

As predicted, extraversion was significantly related to the proportion of cross-sex

friendships. High extroverted males had much higher levels of cross-sex friends than females

did. Perhaps because of the social expectations and sexual aspects involved in cross-sex

friendships, more extraverted males and females are more open to initiate and maintain cross-sex

friendships. Extraverted males, who have more lifetime sexual partners, may encourage these

relationships for potential sexual access. Extraverted females may also see cross-sex friendships

as a method for attaining a long term mate.

I did not expect agreeableness to have an effect on proportion of cross-sex friendships,

and this was confirmed by the research, as was conscientiousness. However, neuroticism, which

was predicted to not have an effect, did show that at least for the COSF, which measured only

closer friends, that there was a significant interaction. Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses did not

show a measurable effect size, but this may be due to the fact that it is a conservative test that


individually compares each condition; however, if measured along an average of medium and

high compared to low neurotic males, it is likely that there is indeed an interaction occurring.

This is likely because highly neurotic males are less attractive as both partners and platonic

friends to females (Desrochers, 1996).

Openness, as predicted, had a significant effect, but in an interesting way. Males ranked

medium on openness had the fewest male-female friendships, while those ranked low on

openness actually had the most male-female friendships, and with those ranked high in openness

in the middle. It is unclear what caused this interaction, but it could be because the sample was

mostly younger and hold more progressive opinions (some of the sites used are known for being

primarily left-wing socially and politically), openness had the opposite effect, in that

unconventional attitudes instead lead to having less cross-sex friendships. Further study is

required to confirm these theories.

There are a number of major limitations that severely limit the external validity of this

study. As was mentioned earlier, the use of convenience sample likely biases the sample towards

those who are more likely to voluntarily fill out an online survey for no obvious personal benefit.

They must also be reasonably tech savvy to know of these sites. Another one is that research has

shown the Big Five personality traits are not as effective in predicting behaviours as more

specific personality traits (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Therefore, more specialized research is

needed to improve the knowledge about cross-sex friendships and personality, perhaps using a

lower order of personality traits from within each of the Big Five. Despite these limitations, it

does indeed appear that extraversion has a significant effect on cross-sex friendships, and can

now be added as another predictive variable. Extroverted related traits appear to be particularly

promising for further inquiry. Future research may also want to use personality types together


with cross-sex friendships communication styles, which the literature contains little information

on. Also, most current research compares cross-sex friendships with same-sex and romantic

ones, but as has been noted, cross-sex friendships are an important part of daily life for many of

us, and substantial differences are likely to be found with further study.

References

Baumgarte, R., & Nelson, D. (2009). Preference for Same‐Versus Cross‐Sex Friendships.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 901-915.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups:

Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.

Bleske-Rechek, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Can men and women be just friends? An

evolutionary perspective. Personal Relationships, 7, 131–151.

Burger, J. M. (2007). Personality. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadson.

Burhke, R., & Fuqua, D. (1987). Sex Differences in Same- and Cross-Sex Supportive

Relationships. Sex Roles, 17(3), 339-352.

Desrochers, S. (1996). What types of men are most attractive and most repulsive to women? Sex

Roles, 32(5-6), 375-391.

Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L., & Hair, E. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and

reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

70, 820-835.

Henderson, S., Byrne, D., & Duncan-Jones, P. (1981). Neurosis and the social environment.

New York: Academic Press.

Hendriks, A. a., Hofstee, W. K., & Raad, a. B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory

(FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27(2), 307-325.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and

54. Berkeley, CA: University of California,Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social

Research.


John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five

Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O. P. John, R. W.

Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-

158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

John, O., & Naumann, L. (2007). Correlations of BFI Scales and self-reported act frequencies in

an undergraduate sample. Chicago: Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Kaplan, D. L., & Keys, C. B. (1997). Sex and relationship variables as predictors of sexual

attraction in cross-sex platonic friendships between young heterosexual adults. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 191–206.

Kuttler, A. F., La Greca, A. M., & Prinstein, M. J. (1999). Friendship qualities and social-

emotional functioning of adolescents with close, cross-sex friendships. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 9(3), 339-366.

Lenton, A., & Webber, L. (2006). Cross-sex Friendships: Who has More? Sex roles, 54(11), 809-

829.

McCrae, R. (1996). Social Consequences of Experiential Openness. Psychological Bulletin,

120(3), 323-337.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J.-P., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross-Cultural

Assessment of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 171-

188.

Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to Remain Platonic, Equity, and

the Use of Maintenance Strategies in Opposite-Sex Friendships. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 17(1), 67-94.


Monsour, M. (1996). Communication and cross-sex friendships across the life cycle: A review of

the literature. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 375–414).Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage

Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 26, 363-373.

Paunonen, S., & Ashton, M. (2001). Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539.

Reeder, H. (2000). The Role of Attraction in Cross-sex Friendships. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 329-348.

Reeder, H. (2003). The Effect of Gender Role Orientation on Same- and Cross-Sex Friendship

Formation. Sex Roles, 49, 143-152.

Rose, S. M. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex

Roles, 12, 63–74.

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five Personality Traits and the Life Course: A 45-

Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 208-232.

Sorenson, P. S., Hawkins, K., & Sorenson, R. L. (1995). Gender, Psychological Type and

Conflict Style Preference. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 115-125.

Weger, H. & Emmett, M.C. (2009) Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship

maintenance in young adults‟ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships. 26(6-7), 964-988.

Werking, K. (1997). We're just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic relationships.

New York: Guilford Press .


Appendix

Figure 1.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Low Medium HighEst

ima

ted

Per

cen

tag

e o

f C

ross

-sex

Fri

end

s

Extroversion Rank

Cross-sex Friendship Proportion by Extraversion Rank

Male

Female


Figure 2.

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

Low Medium High

Rep

ort

ed F

req

uen

cy o

f M

ale

-Fem

ale

Fri

end

ship

s (o

ut

of

sev

en)

Extraversion Rank

Male-Female Friendship Frequency by Extraversion Rank

Male

Female


Table 2

Neuroticism Rank and COSF

Sex Neuroticism Mean Std. Deviation N

Male Low 33.94 24.23 53

Medium 28.80 22.42 41

High 20.87 17.56 28

Total 28.64 22.35 122

Female Low 65.33 19.22 26

Medium 57.50 29.08 41

High 47.62 21.43 43

Total 56.00 24.92 110

Total Low 43.75 26.95 79

Medium 42.86 29.44 82

High 33.64 23.54 71

Total 40.28 27.04 232

Note: COSF represents what percentage of participants‟ five closest friends are opposite sex.

ANOVA found significant results, but post-hoc analysis with Tukey HSD did not. Males showed

the greatest variance from low to medium and to high, with high neurotic males having the

fewest close cross-sex friends.


Table 3

Openness Rank and COSF

Sex Neuroticism Mean Std. Deviation N

Male Low 42.26 25.719 38

Medium 31.70 17.828 37

High 37.77 19.286 53

Total 37.35 21.253 128

Female Low 45.48 22.707 44

Medium 53.26 22.517 43

High 51.08 31.446 28

Total 49.75 25.051 115

Total Low 43.99 24.051 82

Medium 43.29 23.050 80

High 42.37 24.820 81

Total 43.22 23.899 243

Note: COSF represents what percentage of participants‟ five closest friends are opposite sex.

ANOVA found significant results, but post-hoc analysis with Tukey HSD did not. Males

showed the greatest variance from low to medium and to high, with high neurotic males

having the fewest close cross-sex friends.


Table 2

Openness Rank and MMF

Sex Openness Mean Std. Deviation N

Male Low 3.68 1.25 38

Medium 3.18 0.77 37

High 3.38 0.83 54

Total 3.41 0.973 129

Female Low 3.81 1.06 44

Medium 4.20 1.09 44

High 4.24 1.37 28

Total 4.06 1.16 116

Total Low 3.75 1.14 82

Medium 3.74 1.08 81

High 3.68 1.12 82

Total 3.72 1.11 245

Note: MMF represents the degree to which a participant‟s friends are male-female, on a score

from 1 - 7. ANOVA found significant results, but post-hoc analysis with Tukey HSD did not.

Males ranked medium on openness had the fewest cross-sex friends, while females ranked

medium on openness had the highest.

Documents

Cross-sex Friendships