Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
SmartNews

Keeping You Current

Around the Mall

Scenes and sightings from Smithsonian museums and beyond


October 24, 2012 9:20 am

Platonic Friendships Between the Sexes Are Impossible

Is it possible for straight guys and gals to ever be “just friends”? As Adrian F. Ward, a doctoral candidate in psychology at Harvard University, writes for Scientific American, “Few other questions have provoked debates as intense, family dinners as awkward, literature as lurid, or movies as memorable.”

Though daily experience suggests that non-romantic friendships between the sexes are the norm, scientists have something to say about that, suggesting that we might delude ourselves into thinking it’s not a big deal to be “just friends,” when in reality, all sorts of lurid feelings and impulses lurk below the surface, just one tequila shot away.

To arrive at this conclusion, researchers invited 88 pairs of undergrad, opposite-sex friends into their lab. They promised the participants absolute privacy, meaning neither party could learn what feelings the other may or may not have confessed to. As an extra precaution, the researchers made both friends agree, face to face, never to discuss the research in front of each other. Confidentiality established, the pairs split into separate rooms where they were asked a series of questions about their romantic feelings towards one another.

The scientists say their results suggest a significant difference in the ways men and women experience opposite-sex friendships. Ward elaborates:

Men were also more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them—a clearly misguided belief. In fact, men’s estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt—basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends.

Women, too, were blind to the mindset of their opposite-sex friends; because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual. As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends.

Men—perhaps not surprisingly—were more likely to act on those misguided feelings and put the moves on their friend than women in the same position.

The results suggest that, compared to women, men have a harder time accepting the “just friends” label and that two people can experience the same friendship in radically different ways, which may lead to trouble down the road. Ward concludes:

So, can men and women be “just friends?” If we all thought like women, almost certainly.  But if we all thought like men, we’d probably be facing a serious overpopulation crisis.

More from Smithsonian.com:

Do We Really Pick Our Friends Based On Genetic Similarities? 
Mark Twain’s “My Platonic Sweetheart” 

 



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

3 Comments »

  1. I hate being right when I’m being cynical and misanthropic, but I predicted this topic would reassert itself when “women’s issues” started to dominate the election cycle. Basically what this study, and the numerous ones that have existed before reflect is a desire to perpetuate a deep seated anxiety about women in the workplace on the part of a certain group of men. It most often rears it’t head in a recession when women are competing with men for fewer jobs, and pay rates are falling. The same old assumtions are repeated here about “men’s attitudes” as opposed “women’s attitudes.” It looks no deeper than it’s own intention of furthering division between men and women in the workplace, which works extremely well from the employers perspective, when he is trying to divide and rule. it’s an incidious, deceptive piece with only a tenuous grip on valid scientific analysis, and makes some extremely sexist and offensive assumptions about men. It is unworthy of this magazine.

    Comment by Em — October 24, 2012 @ 1:23 pm


  2. Strangely a study of 176 people is the final say? Not just 176 people, but young people who have not yet developed the part of their brains that aid in judgment?

    Interesting…

    Comment by YourBoyfriendsBestGirlfriend.com — October 25, 2012 @ 6:56 am


  3. Responsible journalists should include links to the actual research in their stories. Neither you or Ward do this – how can we, the readers, verify this story?

    Comment by njs — November 12, 2012 @ 3:13 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Trending Today New Research Cool Finds

Follow Us



Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement