Cliché or Reality? A Deeper Look at Gender Stereotypes in Same-Sex Friendships

It’s a common belief that female friendships are simply more prone to drama, jealousy, and toxicity than their male counterparts. We’ve all heard the stereotypes—women are “catty,” their friendships are “full of backstabbing;” meanwhile, men’s friendships are supposedly much simpler and easygoing, they avoid petty conflict and just “chill.” But is there any truth to these beliefs, or are they just outdated clichés? To get to the bottom of this, let’s take a closer look at what the research has to say. 

In one key study, researchers investigated how friendship expectations influence satisfaction. Hall et al. (2011) recruited university students to report on their ideal qualities for close friends—specifically, friendship maintenance behaviors—and then track their daily interactions with those friends over five days. 

They found that women generally have higher expectations for their friendships compared to men.

 On the surface, this might seem to support the stereotype of  “high-maintenance” and “dramatic” female friendships—but these loftier expectations didn’t necessarily lead to more conflict. In fact, women with higher standards were more likely to find friends who actually met them, which led to greater satisfaction with their friendships. However, men who set the bar really high for their friendships were more likely to feel unfulfilled and dissatisfied.¹ This may be because women place a higher value on self-disclosure and emotional support for their friends, while guys might be less likely to open up in that way.²

So we can just chalk it all up to biology? Not so fast. Research by Fehr and Harasymchuk (2017) suggests the underlying mechanisms of this gender discrepancy may have more to do with nurture than nature. They used something called the prototype interaction model to examine friendship satisfaction.

We all develop a mental schema – a friendship “prototype”– based on past experiences and cultural norms.³ This prototype acts as a blueprint for how we expect closeness to look and feel like with friends, and the closer our actual friendships match this blueprint, the happier we are with them.

In Western cultures, female friendships are typically characterized by a greater emphasis on emotional intimacy, mutual vulnerability, and responsive support.⁴ So because these types of interactions are more normative and prevalent in female friendships, the prototypes that many women develop naturally include these core elements of closeness and responsiveness. And this helps explain why  women with higher standards were also happier with their friendships:⁵ they’re consequently more likely to find other women whose behaviors align with their prototype.

In contrast, men in these same cultures are often socialized to have more emotionally reserved, activity-based friendships.⁶ So a man who’s developed a prototype of greater intimacy and relationship maintenance behaviors may indeed have a harder time finding other guys that meet those standards. 

But satisfying friendships aren’t just about fitting a mold! Our prototypes also have a huge impact on how we ourselves show up in friendships, specifically our personalities—and these individual traits have crucial implications for friendship satisfaction.⁷ This was the focus of a study done by Wilson et al. (2015) where they followed over 400 students, asking about their personality traits and then tracking their daily interactions with friends over the course of two weeks. Interestingly, they found people high in extroversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability (low neuroticism) tended to be happier with their friendships, regardless of gender. This suggests that our innate tendencies don’t just influence the types of friends we’re drawn to, but also how we experience and perceive the quality of those close bonds. 

In conclusion, the science paints a far more nuanced picture than the tired tropes. Friendship satisfaction lies not in gender, but in a complex interplay of personal expectations, societal norms, and individual character traits.  While girls might prioritize gossip, morning-after debriefs, and trauma dumping—and men might gravitate towards FIFA, golfing, and beer pong, neither inherently leads to drama or effortless bonding.  

Takeaway: The key to thriving friendships is finding friends who complement our unique needs, relational styles and personalities. So forget about the stereotypes, embrace the beautiful messiness of human connection, and build friendships that nourish your soul!

1. Hall, J. A., Larson, K. A., & Watts, A. (2011). Satisfying friendship maintenance expectations: The role of friendship standards and biological sex. Human Communication Research, 37(4), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01411.x ↩︎
2. Fehr B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: a prototype interaction-pattern model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.265 ↩︎
3. Fehr, B., & Harasymchuk, C. (2017). A prototype matching model of satisfaction in same-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 24(3), 683–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12204
   ↩︎
4. Fehr B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: a prototype interaction-pattern model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.265 ↩︎
5. Hall, J. A., Larson, K. A., & Watts, A. (2011). Satisfying friendship maintenance expectations: The role of friendship standards and biological sex. Human Communication Research, 37(4), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01411.x ↩︎
6. Fehr B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: a prototype interaction-pattern model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.265  ↩︎
7. Wilson, R. E., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2015). Personality and Friendship Satisfaction in Daily Life: Do Everyday Social Interactions Account for Individual Differences in Friendship Satisfaction? European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1996
   ↩︎