1. Zhana Vrangalova,
Rachel E. Bukberg, &
Gerulf Rieger
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2013

2. 
Humans have a fundamental need to belong
(Baumeister & Leary, 2005)



Same-sex friendships – critical for satisfying
this need (Stevens & Van Tilburg, 2011)
Stigmatized groups are at risk for having fewer
friends (isolation, loneliness, discrimination)
And consequently, for increased psychological
and physical health risks

3. Attitudes or behaviors that are more liberal or
extensive than what is normative in a social group
 Extensive research on partners, friends, &
general person preferences finds it undesirable:





Sociometric studies
Experimental studies
Questionnaire studies
Reasons for undesirability:


Evolutionary – Cheating & Mate poaching
Socio-cultural – Stigmatized

4. 



For stigmatized people, important source of
friendships could be those similar to them
Homophily – people tend to associate with
similar ones (McPherson et al., 2001)
But drawbacks in same-sex friendships –
greater chance for mate poaching; even more so
with permissiveness
If permissive people are rejected not only by
nonpermissive, but also by permissive
people, that would place them at heightened
risk.

5. 

Women judged more negatively for sexual
permissiveness than men
Ongoing debate:



Everyone believes it exists
Experimental evidence is mixed
Particularly strong in same-sex friendships?

Women control women’s sexuality more (Baumeister &
Twenge, 2002)

Women have higher expectations of friends
(Hall, 2011)

6. 


Negative main effects of target
permissiveness - Replicate and extend findings
to various aspects of friendship desirability.
Double standard - Contribute to ongoing
debate re its existence.
Participant permissiveness moderation of the
negative main effect of target permissiveness.

7. 


751 (mostly) heterosexual college students
(75% female) aged 18 to 23 (M = 19.7).
Recruitment through 7 in-class
announcements.
30-min anonymous online survey.

8. 

Participant permissiveness. Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R; Penke &
Asendorpf, 2008), a 9-item measure of casual
sex motivation, attitudes, and experience
Target permissiveness. Participants read one
of two descriptions of a hypothetical same-sex
person . Descriptions were identical except for
target lifetime number (2 or 20) of sex partners.

9. 
Overall friendship evaluation (-3/+3):



Friendship-relevant personality preferences (-9/+9)
- friendship preferences * target perceptions







Friend Desirability – liking, wants to be friends (3 items)
Mate guarding – allow friendship w/ own partner (1 item)
Competence (e.g. intelligent, responsible, independent)
Warmth (e.g. honest, caring, trustworthy, considerate)
Emotional Stability (e.g. fearful, fragile, spoiled, insecure)
Dominance (e.g. dominant, wealthy, popular, aggressive)
Extraversion (e.g. sociable, fun, easy going, shy-reverse)
Morality (e.g. moral, faithful).
Target Sexuality Endorsement (Yes/No)


Liked Sexuality
Disliked Sexuality

11. 


Negative main effect of target permissiveness in
7 of 10 outcomes; and in at least some sets of
Ps, a negative effect in 9 of 10.
Ps permissiveness moderated target
permissiveness in 5 of 10 outcomes: Attenuated
or eliminated, never reversed preferences.
Gender moderated effects in 7 of 10 outcomes.

12. 









Friendship desirability: 2 > 20*
Mate guarding: 2 > 20
Competence: 2 > 20
Warmth: 2 > 20*
Dominance: 2 > 20
Extraversion: 20 > 2
Emotional Stability: 2 > 20
Morality: 2 > 20*
Liked sexuality: 2 > 20*
Disliked sexuality: 2 > 20
*Moderation by Ps permissiveness
Orange – No preference or preference for permissive target

13. Outcome
 Friendship desirability*:
 Mate guarding:
 Competence:
 Warmth:
 Dominance:
 Extraversion:
 Emotional Stability*:
 Morality*:
 Liked sexuality*:
 Disliked sexuality:
Permissive
No pref
2 > 20
20 > 2
No pref
No pref
20 > 2
2 > 20
No pref
No pref
2 > 20
Nonpermissive
2 > 20
2 > 20
20 > 2
No pref
No pref
20 > 2
No pref
2 > 20*
2 > 20
2 > 20

14. 


Sexually permissive people are stigmatized as
same-sex friends, and may be at increased risk
of loneliness, isolation, and related negative
outcomes.
Permissive women might be at a particularly
high risk.
Permissive men are often not discriminated
against by other men, particularly not by other
permissive men.

15. 
College environment

3:1 ratio women: men in sample

Hypothetical scenarios paradigm

Cross-sex friendships?

16. Funding:


Cornell University Human Ecology Alumni
Association
American Institute of Bisexuality