According to Ann Landers, a famed advice columnist, "love is friendship that has caught fire". The topic of opposite-sex friendships turning romantic has been heavily perpetuated by the media. This raises the question of whether there is some truth to them. Elite Daily seems to think so and it seems plausible initially due to its emphasis on the similar aspects of friendship and love.
The article explains that what we look for in friends is similar to what we look for in lovers – in terms of personality, morals, values, socioeconomics, and goals (Brennan, 2015). This aligns well with the concept of matching and draws on the foundations of both relationships- respect and trust. It also proposes that because of similarities, one would enjoy participating in activities together (Brennan, 2015). This may be associated with the self-expansion model, bringing passion into the relationship, thus leading to romantic feelings.
Another point is that opposite-sex relations are hard to define, leading to "questions, doubts and moments of weakness" (Brennan, 2015). This corroborates with research reporting that sexual attraction and ambiguity are costs of opposite-sex friendships (Monsour, Harris, Kurzweil, & Beard, 1994). Both genders report experiencing sexual attraction to friends (Kaplan & Keys, 1997) and face ambiguity about their relationship's sexual boundaries (Swain, 1992). This could also be the reason why males mate guard and cross-sex relationships are hard to maintain after marriage (Miller, 2015). However, this is where the similarity to research ends.
The article fails to mention that while there are overlapping aspects of friendship and love, there are others that distinguishes them. As shared in class and the textbook, friendship is to "like" while a romantic relationship is to "love". Not only are opposite-sex friendships less committed and passionate, love involves more complex feelings than liking (Miller, 2015) as it includes a fascination with the partner, sexual desire and a greater desire for exclusivity (Balzarini, Aron & Chelberg, 2014).
Next, with the use of a sensational title, "Guys and Girls Can Be Just Friends, But You Will Fall For Him", the article leans towards the view that women are mostly the ones experiencing romantic feelings. Contrastingly, a study done by Buss and Bleske (2000) show that the perception of opposite-sex friendships being platonic is gender-dependent and it is more likely for males to experience sexual attraction.
From an evolutionary perspective, both genders differ in parental investment. The direct reproductive benefits of gaining sexual access to a variety of mates are higher for men (Trivers, 1972). This evolved desire has an impact on the friendship domain. In the paper, it was found that men often report experiencing attraction toward their opposite-sex friend, with no attraction in return – contradicting Elite Daily's view that women are the one having romantic desires. The evolutionary perspective also states that women seek protection in relationships, but women receive more protection from same-sex friends, therefore, it is not a strong indicator of generation of romantic feelings in cross-sex friendships (Buss & Bleske, 2000).
Also, whilst both genders saw potential in becoming a long-term relationship, their perceived benefits of the friendship differed. When asked to rank the benefits of opposite-sex friendships, men ranked the potential for a romantic relationship as 6th. This was not perceived as a benefit by women. Instead, women ranked the lack of potential for a romantic relationship as 7th in benefits, which similarly, did not make the men's list (Buss & Bleske, 2000). The results reflect the fundamental differences affecting mating strategies. It seems more likely for females to "friend zone" the opposite-sex due to the lack of potential as a long-term mate. Contrarily, with men seeing the benefit of long-term mateship in opposite-sex friendships, males may be more prone to having romantic desires, challenging the pop culture article.
Correspondingly, it is natural for one's perception of the friendship to affect maintenance behaviours as well. Elite Daily purports that "a guy and a girl can be just friends, but at one point or another, they will fall for each other". This view is challenged by empirical evidence reporting that maintenance behaviours differ based on the type of cross-sex friendship – mutual romance, strictly platonic, desires romance, rejects romance (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). In a cross-sex relationship, heterosexual individuals tend to downplay sexuality (Dainton, Zelley, & Langan, 2003).
The paper reported that there is a significant interaction between friendship type and sex in two aspects – social networking and antisocial behaviour. Men did not have significantly different levels of social networking based on friendship types, but women were the opposite. Women who rejected romance had the lowest social networking level while strictly platonic the highest amongst all friendship types (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). In the antisocial behaviour aspect, both genders were similar in how much antisocial behaviour was reported in rejects romance, mutual romance, and strictly platonic situations. Interestingly, women who desired romance from the friendship reported the highest levels of antisocial behaviour (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). This can be an indirect support for the results found in the earlier study by Buss and Bleske (2000), that women do not see long-term mateship as a benefit of friendship and try to reject romantic feelings.
The results show that relational uncertainty is associated with lower levels of social networking, relational talk, instrumental support and less routine contact and activity (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). Therefore, it is untrue that one will always fall for a friend as we like our relationships to be clearly defined, and ambiguity will only result in distancing, reducing the likelihood of friendship becoming romantic.
After making comparisons, an implication is that since males feel more sexual attraction to the opposite-sex and females seeming more likely to "friend zone", what is its impact on friends with benefits (FWB) relationships? Research shows that 40% of women hope FWB relationship would progress into a committed one. However, only 25% of men share that view (Owen & Fincham, 2011). Given the discrepancy, this leads me to question which gender is more likely to initiate the shift from a FWB relationship to a committed one and the reasons why.
In my research, the independent variable is gender and the dependent variable is the likelihood of initiating the move from FWB to a committed relationship. Through the use of yes/no questions, FWB is defined by: "Some people say that ''FWB" is a friendship in which there are also physical encounters (e.g., kissing, petting, oral sex, intercourse), but no on-going committed relationship (e.g., not boyfriend/girlfriend)" (Owen & Fincham, 2012). Are you in FWB relationship still? Or do you now have a mutual understanding that you and your partner are dating?" The questions will sieve out which pair are/were FWB and if they have/have not transitioned into an exclusive relationship. From there, a self-report will be administered for those that have transitioned to find out which sex initiated and the reasons why. As for those who have not, a longitudinal design will be used, with self-reports administered every 3 months to test if the relationship status changes and why. The results from the two groups can be used deepen our knowledge about the transition from FWB and exclusive relationships.