I have coding sheet for communication class

Brief Rep o rt “ I Lov e Y ou , Man ” : Ov er t Ex p r es s ion s of A ffection in Male ¯ Mal e In ter action 1 Mar k T . Mor m a n Bay lor Un iversity K or y Fl oyd 2 Clevelan d State Un iversity D e s p i te th e i m p o rta n c e o f a f fe c ti o n a te c o m m u n i c a ti o n fo r re la ti o n a l d evelo pm en t an d m ain ten an ce, in d ivid u als ex pressin g affec tio n in c u r a n u m ber o f risks, in c lu d in g p o s sib le m is in te rp retatio n o f th e ex p ressio n s a s sex u al o vertu res. Th ese risks appea r to be m agn ified in th e m ale-m ale relatio n sh ip, wh ere o vert ex pressio n s o f affection m ay be a ll bu t pro h ibited by n o rm ativ e e x p e c ta n c i e s . T h e p re s e n t s tu d y e xa m in e s e x p e c ta n c ie s fo r a p p ro p ria te m ale-m ale a ffection . Alth o u gh em pirical researc h su pports th e id ea th at o vert a ffec tio n is c o n sid ered less appro priate in m a le -m ale relatio n sh ips th an in relation sh ips with wo m en , it also su g gests th at th ree v ariables m ay m o derate th is e x p ec ta n c y: re la tio n sh ip ty p e , e m o tio n a l in ten sity o f th e co n tex t, an d p ri v a c y l e v e l o f th e c o n te x t. A n e x p e rim e n ta l p ro c e d u re w ith 1 4 0 m e n ( a p pro x im ately 95 % ca u ca sian ) c o n firm ed th e m o d era tin g effec ts o f th ese variables.

The sharing of affe ction has long be e n re cognize d as a fundam e ntal hum an ne e d. Schutz ( 1958, 1966) was one of the first the orists to re cognize the le gitim ac y of affe ction ne e ds within inte rpe rsonal re lationships. A cc ording to Sc hutz, affe ction is inhe re nt to re lational situations involving love , e m o- tional close ne ss, pe rsonal confide nce s, and intim ac y. Following suit, R otte r, Chance , and Phare s ( 1972) c lassifie d affe ction as one of six fundam e ntal hum an ne e ds. Sim ilarly, Frank ( 1973) and Koch ( 1959) both e m phasize d Sex Roles, V ol. 38, No s. 9/10, 1998 871 0360-0025/98/0500-0871$ 15.00/0 Ó 1998 Ple num Publishing Corporation 1 The authors thank Chris S e grin and Jake Harwood for th e ir he lpfu l comme nts on an e arlie r draft. 2 To who m co rre spo nde nce shou ld be addre sse d at De partm e nt of C omm uni cat ion, Cle ve land State Unive rsity, 2001 E u clid A ve nu e , C le ve land , O H 44115. the significance of affe ction within the rape utic inte rve ntions, while B owlby ( 1953) and H arlow ( 1974) com m e nte d on the ke y role affe ction plays in de ve lopm e ntal psychological proc e sse s. D e spite its im portanc e , affe c tionate com m unication invite s num e rous risks, including the risk that the inte nde d m e aning be hind affe ctionate e x- pre ssions will be m isinte rpre te d. Such risks m ay be m agnifie d in the m ale - m ale re la tio ns hip, whe re ove rt e xp re ss io ns of affe c tio n m ay be all but prohibite d by norm ative e xpe ctancie s. O f course , this was not always the case . In 19th ce ntury Am e rica, young m e n de ve lope d rom antic frie ndships with e ach othe r that today would be m istake n for hom ose xual re lationships. The y wrote love le tte rs to e ach othe r, sle pt in the sam e be d, he ld e ach othe r physically, and c onfide d intim ate in e ach othe r. More ove r, the se ro- m antic frie ndships we re wide ly acce pte d by both m e n and wom e n ( Ro- tundo, 1993) . In conte m porary tim e s, howe ve r, c ulturally ingraine d aspe cts of the m ale ge nde r role m ay inhibit m e n from e xpre ssing affe ction to e ach othe r e ve n whe n the y fe e l it ( Floyd, 1997b) . Rabinowitz ( 1991) docum e nte d this inh ibition in his obse rvations of m ale -m ale e m bracing, noting that e ve n within a support-group e nvironm e nt, m e n ofte n e xpe rie nce m arke d psycho- logic al distre ss while hugging othe r m e n. Re ports of this distre ss re sound in int e rvie ws with m e n c ondu ct e d by S wain ( 1989) an d Floyd ( 1 99 6b) , whose re sponde nts re porte d that the y we re usually highly cautious about e xpre ssing affe ction e ithe r ve rbally or nonve rbally to the ir m ale frie nds, to avoid giving the ir frie nds “ the wrong ide a. ” T he re is am ple e m pirical e vide nce that both m e n and wom e n conside r the ove rt com m unicatio n of affe ction to be m ore appropriate in re lation- ships involving at le ast one wom an than in m ale -m ale pairs. L e ss studie d, howe ve r, have be e n the variable s that m ode rate this proscription against m ale -m ale affe ction. The pre se nt e xpe rim e nt te sts the e ffe cts of thre e vari- able s on m e n ’ s e xpe ctanc ie s for appropriate ove rt affe ction in sam e -se x re - lationships: 1) the type of re lationship; 2) the e m otional inte nsity of the conte xt; and, 3) the privacy le ve l of the conte xt. B e low, we brie fly re vie w findings on the proscription against m ale -m ale affe ction and the n sum m a- rize re se arch sugge sting the m ode rating e ffe c ts of the se variable s. F ac to rs In flu en c in g E x pectatio n s for Affection ate Co m m u n ic atio n Num e rous e m piric al re ports have docum e nte d that m e n in sam e -se x re lationships are le ss affe ctionate than m e n in opposite -se x re lationships or wom e n in e ithe r configuration. For e xam ple , Spre che r and Se dikide s ( 1993) re porte d that wom e n in the ir study com m unic ate d m ore total e m o- tion than m e n and spe cifically e xpre sse d gre ate r le ve ls of se ve ral positive 872 Mor m an an d Fl oyd e m otions associate d with affe c tion, including love , liking, joy, and conte nt- m e nt ( se e also Shuntich & Shapiro, 1991) . O the rs have found that wom e n in sam e - and opposite -se x frie ndships value ove rt e xpre ssions of affe ction, such as saying “ I love you, ” m ore than do m e n ( e .g., Floyd, in pre ss) . In- de e d, the re lative lack of ove rt m ale -m ale affe ction in our culture appe ars to have fue le d prototypical im age s of m ale sam e -se x re lationships as non- intim ate and e m otionally lac king ( W ood & Inm an, 1992; cf Swain ’ s 1989 m ale de ficit m ode l) . T he soc iocultural nature of this prosc ription against m ale -m ale affe c- tion pose s the que stion as to what circum stance s te m pe r it. Whe n is ove rt affe ction be twe e n m e n c onside re d appropriate ? E m pirical re se arc h sugge sts that thre e variable s in particular m ay influe nce the pe rce ive d appropriate - ne ss of affe ctionate com m unication be twe e n m e n. First, m e n who are re - late d, su ch as broth e rs, m ay be le ss subje c t to th e prosc ription against m ale -m ale affe ction than are non-re late d m e n. Swain ’ s ( 1989) c overt in ti- m acy perspec tive provide s a the ore tic rationale : m e n m ay e xplicitly re frain from e xpre ssing affe ction to the ir m ale frie nds ove rtly, out of fe ar of be ing se e n as hom ose xual. It is logical, howe ve r, that brothe rs are le ss bound by this rule than are non-re late d m e n, give n that cultural proscriptions against intrafam ilial se xual inte raction should de flate suspic ions of a se xual re la- tionship be twe e n brothe rs. Som e e m pirical e vide nce supports this ide a. In a study of adult frate rnal re lationships, Floyd ( 1996c, 1997a) found that m e n conside re d it m ore ap- propriate to e x pre ss affe ction ve rbally and nonve rbally to the ir brothe rs than to m e n to whom the y we re not re late d. Similarly, in a com parison of sam e -se x frie nds and sam e -se x siblings, Floyd ( 1995) re porte d that siblings conside re d it m ore appropriate to hug, to say the y like e ach othe r, and to say the y love e ach othe r, than did frie nds ( se e also Floyd, 1997c) . Se cond, m e n m ay find it m ore app ropriate to be affe ctionate with sam e -se x othe rs in situations that are e m otionally charge d in som e way. R abinowitz ( 1991) sugge ste d that in e m otionally c harge d c onte xts, such as a we dding, a graduation, or a fune ral, it m ay be m ore appropriate for m e n to hug or say the y love e ach othe r, e ve n though the y m ay c onside r the se be haviors to be inappropriate in othe r, m ore e m otionally ne utral conte xts ( se e also D oyle , 1989) . This e ffe ct m ay re sult from the ability to attribute such affe ctionate be haviors to the de m ands of the situation, furthe r insu- lating re lational partne rs from the risky attributions the ir affe ctionate be - haviors m ight othe rwise invite . Finally, it m ay also m ake a diffe re nce whe the r the c onte xt is private or public. A ccording to E km an and Frie se n ’ s ( 1969) principle of cultural display rule s, for e xam ple , culturally pre scribe d m andate s dic tate that ce r- tain e m otional displays are m ore acce ptable in one conte xt or anothe r. A l- Affecti on i n Mal e ¯ Mal e Dya d s 873 though the e ffe ct of this variable on affe ctionate com m unicatio n has not ye t be e n studie d e m pirically, it m ay be that for nonrom antic re lationships, affe ctionate c om m unicatio n will be conside re d m ore appropriate in public conte xts than in private one s. T his m ay se e m c ounte rintuitive be cause , as B urgoon ( 1993) note d, displays of affe ction am ong rom antic couple s are som e tim e s conside re d to be le ss appropriate in public than in private . H ow- e ve r, it m ay be that be c ause affe ction is so he avily associate d with rom ance , nonrom antic re lational partne rs m ust work harde r to arrive at attributions for e ac h othe rs ’ affe ctionate be haviors. F avorable , non-thre ate ning attribu- tions m ay be m ore e asily drawn from public than private be havior. In the case of a m an re ce iving a hug from his m ale frie nd, for e xam ple , the re - cipie nt m ay be le ss like ly to que stion the m e aning be hind the ge sture if he knows the frie nd is aware that the be havior is also be ing se e n by othe rs. The sam e be havior in a private c onte xt m ay cause a gre ate r attributional crisis for the re cipie nt be c ause the visibility of the be havior c annot be use d to m itigate against unfavorable attributions. In su m m ary, it ap pe ars that, although affe ction is le ss com m on in m ale -m ale d yad s t han in re lationship s invo lving at le ast one fe m ale , a num be r of variable s m ode rate this e ffe ct. Spe cifically, the type of re lation- ship and e le m e nts of the conte xt m ay individually or colle ctive ly influe nce how appropriate m e n pe rce ive affe c tionate be haviors to be in the ir sam e - se x re lationships. T he pre se nt study e m ploys an e xpe rim e ntal m e thodology to isolate the se e ffe cts. O ur spe cific hypothe se s are as follows: H 1: Re lationship type affe cts e xpe c tancie s for affe ctionate com m uni- cation, such that affe ction is conside re d m ore appropriate am ong brothe rs than am ong m ale frie nds. H 2: T he e m otional inte nsity of an inte rac tion affe cts e xpe ctancie s, such that affe ctionate com m unic ation is conside re d le ss appro- priate in e m otionally ne utral conte xts than in e m otionally charge d c onte xts. H 3: T he privacy le ve l of an inte raction affe cts e xpe ctancie s, such that affe ctionate c om m unicatio n is conside re d m ore appropriate in public than in private conte xts. In addition, we pre dic t that e m otional inte nsity and privacy le ve l inte rac t to affe ct e xpe c tancie s for affe ctionate c om m unicatio n. Spe cific ally, since we pre dict a wide r bandwidth of appropriate affe c tionate be haviors in public conte xts, we e xpe ct that e m otional inte nsity has a gre ate r e ffe c t on pe r- ce ive d appropriate ne ss in the private c onte xts. T he re fore : H 4: E m otional inte nsity and privacy le ve l inte ract such that the dif- fe re nce be twe e n e m otionally c harge d and ne utral c onte xts is gre ate r in private than in public situations. 874 Mor m an an d Fl oyd METHOD Su bjects Subje cts we re 140 m ale unde rgraduate s, approxim ate ly 95% c aucasian, re cruite d from a large Southwe st unive rsity and a large Midwe st com m unity colle ge . T he ir age s range d from 17 to 42, with an ave rage of 21.01 ( SD = 3.90) . A pproxim ate ly half re porte d on a sam e -se x frie nd and the othe r half on a brothe r. Those assigne d to the frie nd condition se le cte d som e one the y conside re d a close frie nd, e xcluding re lative s. Those re porting on a brothe r we re aske d to c onside r only full biologic al, non-twin brothe rs. Proc ed u re Subje cts we re random ly assigne d to conditions in a 2 ( frie nd v. sibling) ´ 3 ( e m otional vale nc e : ne gative , ne utral, or positive ) ´ 2 ( public v. private ) com ple te ly crosse d factorial de sign. Subje cts com ple te d a que stionnaire in re fe re nc e to the ir targe t re lationship and re turne d it anonym ously to the inve stigators. Man ipu lation s Co n tex tu al priv acy an d in ten sity we re m anipulate d by pre se nting e ach subje ct with one of six situational de scriptions, re pre se nting thre e e m otional vale nce s and two le ve ls of privac y, and asking subje cts to re port the ir pe r- ce ptions of appropriate affe ctionate be havior as if the y we re inte rac ting with the ir targe t in the situation de scribe d. Instructions re ad: “ Im agine that this pe rson and you are in the situation de scribe d be low. W e are inte re ste d in what form s of e xpre ssing affe ction you would find appropriate or inap- propriate in th at situation. [ Situ ation is pre se nte d.] With this se tting in m ind, how appropriate do you think e ach of the following be haviors would be as a way for you to e xpre ss affe ction to this pe rson? ” T hose in the e m otionally ne gative conditions we re aske d to im agine inte racting with the ir targe t at a fune ral for som e one c lose to the targe t ( public) , or alone with the targe t at the subje ct ’ s hom e whe n the subje c t has just be e n inform e d of the de ath ( private ) . T hose in the e m otionally ne utral c onditions we re aske d to im agine inte racting with the ir targe t while atte nding a c lass toge the r ( public) , or while studying alone toge the r at the subje ct ’ s hom e ( private ) . Finally, those in the e m otionally positive condi- tions im agine d inte rac ting with the ir targe t at the targe t ’ s we dding ( public) , or alone with the targe t in the subje ct ’ s hom e whe n the subje c t has just be e n inform e d of the targe t ’ s im pe nding m arriage ( private ) . E xact wording Affecti on i n Mal e ¯ Mal e Dya d s 875 for e ach of the six conditions is found in the appe ndix. This m e thod of m anipulating situational characte ristic s by introduc ing c onte xtual de scrip- tions has be e n use d succe ssfully by re se arc he rs in othe r conte nt are as, as we ll ( e .g., B ullis & H orn, 1995) . M easu re E x pec tan cies for affection ate c om m u n ication we re asse sse d using a 13- ite m instrum e nt de ve lope d by Floyd ( 1997b, 1997c) . Following pre se ntation of the appropriate situational de scription, subje cts we re pre se nte d with 13 ve rbal and nonve rbal affe ctionate be haviors and aske d to indicate , on a se ve n-point scale , how appropriate the y pe rce ive it would be to pe rform e ach of the be haviors in the give n situation as a m e ans of com m unicatin g affe ction to the ir targe t. H ighe r score s indicate highe r pe rce ive d appropri- ate ne ss. A lthough both ve rbal and nonve rbal be haviors are pre se nte d, the re is no hypothe size d diffe re nc e be twe e n e xpe ctancie s for e ach. The re fore , a total e xpe ctancy score is calculate d by sum m ing re sponse s to all 13 ite m s ( coe fficie nt alph a = .82) . The re sulting sc ore has a the ore tic range of 13 to 91. Conte nt validity was asse sse d and confirm e d by Floyd ( 1997b) . RESUL TS M an ipu latio n Ch ecks Subje cts we re aske d to rate the e m otional vale nce of the situation de - scribe d to the m , on a se ve n-point scale anchore d at -3 with “ highly ne ga- tive ” and at + 3 with “ highly positive . ” T he y we re also aske d to rate the privacy le ve l of the situation, on a se ve n-point scale anchore d at ¯ 3 with “ ve ry private ” and at + 3 with “ ve ry public. ” Score s on both scale s we re conve rte d to a range of 1 to 7 to te st the m anipulations. B oth m anipulations we re c he cke d using planne d 1 d f c ontrasts. T hose in the e m otionally ne gative condition saw the ir situation as sig- nificantly le ss positive ( M = 1.72, SD = .77) than did those in the e m o- tionally ne utral condition ( M = 4.38, SD = .96) , t ( 365) = ¯ 18.40, p < .001. Like wise , those in the ne utral c ondition saw the ir situation as significantly le ss positive than those in the positive condition ( M = 6.16, SD = 1.00) , t ( 365) = ¯ 16.24, p < .001. Finally, those in the public condition saw the ir situation as significantly m ore public ( M = 5.41, SD = 1.25) than t hos e in t he p rivate co nd itio n ( M = 2.1 5, SD = 1 .25 ) , t ( 35 9) = 24 .53 , p < .001. T he re fore , both m anipulations ope rate d as inte nde d. 876 Mor m an an d Fl oyd O m n ibu s An aly sis Score s for pe rce ive d appropriate ne ss of affe ctionate com m unication we re analyze d using a 2 ( re lational type ) ´ 3 ( e m otional vale nce ) ´ 2 ( pri- vacy le ve l) analysis of variance ( ANO VA ) , with the thre e -way inte raction suppre sse d due to the sm all sam ple siz e pe r c e ll and the abse nc e of an h ypo the s iz e d h ighe r- orde r in te rac tion. H ypothe siz e d re la tions hips we re te ste d with planne d 1 d f contrasts. A s de taile d be low, all hypothe size d e f- fe cts e m e rge d as signific ant. Hy po th eses T he first hypothe sis was that affe ctionate com m unic ation would be c on- side re d to be m ore appropriate am ong brothe rs than am ong m ale frie nds. Re lational type significantly affe cte d score s for pe rce ive d appropriate ne ss of affe ctionate com m unication, F ( 1, 141) = 15.32, p < .01, h 2 = .04. A s hy- pothe size d, m e an score s we re highe r for siblings ( M = 49.00, SD = 19.81) than for frie nds ( M = 38.48, SD = 13.46) . H ypothe sis one is supporte d. T he se cond hypothe sis was that affe ction would be conside re d m ore appropriate in e m otionally c harge d conte xts than e m otionally ne utral one s. The e m otional inte nsity of the conte xt affe cte d the pe rce ive d appropriate - ne ss of affe ctionate com m unicatio n, F ( 2, 141) = 4.16, p < .05, h 2 = .06. It was pre dicte d that the significant diffe re nce would be be twe e n the ne u- tral group and the two e m otionally c harge d groups colle ctive ly; this diffe r- e nce was probe d using a 1 d f contrast. ( C ontrast c oe fficie nts we re 1, ¯ 2, 1 for the ne gative , ne utral, and positive conditions, re spe ctive ly.) The c ontrast was significant, t ( 124) = 2.62, p = .01. As hypothe size d, m e an score s we re lowe r for the ne utral condition ( M = 34.54, SD = 15.92) than for the c om - bine d positive and ne gative conditions ( M = 41.77, SD = 12.91) . H ypothe - sis two is supporte d. O ur third hypothe sis was that affe ction would be c onside re d m ore appro- priate in public situations than in private one s. The privacy le ve l of inte ractive conte xts affe cte d the pe rce ive d appropriate ne ss of affe ctionate be havior, F ( 1, 141) = 6.50, p < .05, h 2 = .05. A s pre dicte d, me an score s we re highe r for those in the public conditions ( M = 42.42, SD = 14.38) than for those in the private conditions ( M = 36.11, SD = 13.65) . H ypothe sis thre e is supporte d. A n ordinal inte raction was propose d in our fourth hypothe sis be twe e n privacy and e m otional inte nsity, such that the diffe re nce be twe e n e m otionally charge d and e m otionally ne utral conte xts would be gre ate r in private situ- ations than in public situations. The omnibus inte rac tion e ffe ct was signifi- cant, F ( 2, 141) = 3.40, p < .05, h 2 = .03. Planne d contrasts re ve ale d that, in th e p ublic c onditio n, the re was no signific ant diffe re nc e be twe e n th e Affecti on i n Mal e ¯ Mal e Dya d s 877 charge d and ne utral vale nce conditions ( contrast coe fficie nts we re 1, ¯ 2, 1 for the ne gative , ne utral, and positive conditions, re spe ctive ly) , t ( 70) = .12, p > .05. In private situations, howe ve r, affe ctionate com m unication w as c o n - s i d e r e d s ig n i f i c a n t l y l e s s a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e n e u t r a l c o n d i t i o n ( M = 27.70, SD = 8.03) than in the positive and ne gative conditions com bine d ( M = 42.55, SD = 16.06) , t ( 66) = ¯ 3.63, p = .001. H ypothe sis four is supporte d. DISCUSSION Pre dictions about the influe nce of re lational and conte xtual variable s on m e n ’ s e xpe ctancie s for affe ctionate com m unication we re substantially supporte d. A s hypothe size d, affe ction be twe e n m e n was conside re d to be m ore appropriate : 1) am ong brothe rs than am ong m ale frie nds; 2) in e m o- tionally charge d situations than e m otionally ne utral situations; and, 3) in public c onte xts than in private c onte xts. More ove r, e m otional inte nsity and privacy inte racte d, such that the diffe re nc e be twe e n e m otionally charge d and ne utral situations was gre ate r in private than in public c onte xts. Re - se arch im plications of the se findings are offe re d subse que ntly. D e spite e vide nce that ove rt affe ctionate be havior is ge ne rally conside re d to be le ss appropriate in m ale -m ale re lationships than in re lationships involv- ing at le as t one wom an, e xtant re se arch sugge ste d that the prosc ription against m ale -male affe ction m ay be som e what atte nuate d in fam ilial re lation- ships. B rothe rs in the pre se nt study did re port signific antly gre ate r pe rce ive d appropriate ne ss of affe ctionate be havior than did m ale frie nds, supporting the m ode rating e ffe ct of re lationship type . A s sugge ste d above , this m ay re - fle ct the fact that pote ntial se xual m e ssage s associate d with affe ctionate e x - pre ssions are sim ply not as plausible among kin as the y are am ong platonic frie nds, give n cultural proscriptions against intrafam ilial se xual involve m e nt. It would be worthwhile to atte m pt to re plicate this finding with othe r m ale - m ale familial re lationships, such as be twe e n fathe rs and sons. T he pre se nt stu dy also de m onstra te d th at the prosc rip t ion against m ale -m ale affe ction is re laxe d in particular situations. First, re sponde nts in our study pe rce ive d affe ction to be m ore appropriate in conte xts that we re e m otionally c harge d in som e way ( suc h as a we dding, a graduation, or a fune ral) . A s we sugge ste d e arlie r, we suspe ct that this e ffe ct re sults from the ability to attribute affe ctionate be haviors to the de m and characte ristics of the se situations. H e re again, it would be worthwhile to re plicate this te st using othe r e m otionally charge d conte xts. Se cond, m ale -male affe ction was pe rce ive d to be m ore appropriate in public than in private , oste nsibly be cause the risky attributions it m ay e nge n- de r are m ore e asily dismisse d if the be havior is not be ing hidde n from othe rs. 878 Mor m an an d Fl oyd A n ordinal inte rac tion also e m e rge d be twe e n e m otional inte nsity and privacy. Pre sum ably be cause the re is alre ady a gre ate r the ore tic bandwidth of appro- priate affe ctionate be haviors in public situations, the le ve l of e m otional in- te nsity had a gre ate r e ffe ct on e xpe ctanc ie s for private c onte xts. C onside re d in c once rt, the se findings add to the body of knowle dge on affe ctionate com m unicatio n in ge ne ral and on m ale -m ale re lationships in particular through the ide ntification of variable s that m ode rate the pro- scription against ove rt m ale -m ale affe ctionate be havior. Although the re is alm ost unanim ous e m pirical agre e m e nt that affe ction is le ss appropriate be twe e n m e n than in re lationships involving a fe m ale , e xce ptions to the rule we re offe re d and e m pirically confirm e d. W he the r the se variable s e xe rt the sam e e ffe ct on actual be havior is a que stion that m ust be de fe rre d to future studie s; howe ve r, the ir influe nce on e xpe ctations raise s the que stion of how appare nt contradictions in e xpe ctancie s are ne gotiate d. For e xam - ple , whe n the re is an e xpe ctancy that affe c tion is appropriate be twe e n sib- li ng s bu t in ap pr op riat e be twe e n m e n, how do bro the rs ne gotia te that te nsion? Ac cording to the pre se nt findings, the fam ilial conne ction te m pe rs the ge nde r role e xpe ctancy; othe r variable s, howe ve r, m ay not. Future re - se arc h e fforts sho uld be d ire c te d at und e rstanding those variable s that shape e xpe ctancie s for inte rpe rsonal be havior, and the influe nce s the y have . T he study is lim ite d in te rm s of its use of colle ge -age d subje cts. H ow- e ve r, m any sugge st that re sponde nts in this age group are ide al for the study of platonic frie ndships, give n the he ighte ne d im portance ofte n place d on frie ndship at that stage of life ( B e rsche id, Snyde r, & O m oto, 1989) . Furthe r, while colle ge stude nts m ay be som e what ove rre pre se nte d in re - se arch on frie ndship, the y are se riously unde rre pre se nte d in re se arch on sibling re lationships. R athe r, m ost studie s of siblings focus e ithe r on chil- dre n ( e .g., Stocke r & Dunn, 1990) or on olde r adults ( e .g., Connidis, 1989) . Ne ve rthe le ss, com parable m e asure s with diffe re nt age groups m ay be fruit- ful. A lthough e xtant re se arch on affe ction doe s not sugge st diffe re ntial e f- fe cts due to age , it m ay still be inform ative to te st pre dic tions re garding e xpe ctancie s for affe ction using re sponde nts from varying age groups. APPENDIX Situ atio n al Description s 1. Private Co n tex t/P ositive In ten sity Im agine that this pe rson com e s ove r to your hom e and te lls you that he or she has just gotte n e ngage d to be m arrie d. B oth of you are alone in your living room whe n you re ce ive this ne ws. Y ou are also aske d to be in the we dding party. Affecti on i n Mal e ¯ Mal e Dya d s 879 2. P ublic C onte xt/Positive Inte nsity Im agine that you are in the we dding party at this pe rson ’ s we dding. T he ce re m ony is taking place at a large local church and the re are ove r 300 pe ople in atte ndance . A fte r the we dding, the two of you are talking. 3. Private Co n tex t/Neg a tive In ten sity Im agine that this pe rson com e s ove r to your hom e and te lls you that a close frie nd has just die d of a sudde n, m assive he art attack. B oth of you are alone in your living room whe n you re ce ive this ne ws. 4. Pu blic Co n tex t/Negativ e In ten sity Im agine that you are at the fune ral of a frie nd close to this pe rson, who has sudde nly die d of a m assive he art attack. The fune ral is taking place at a large local church and the re are ove r 300 pe ople in atte ndance . A fte r the fune ral, the two of you are talking. 5. Private Co n tex t/E m o tio n ally Neu tral Im agine that the two of you are alone in your hom e talking as you both study toge the r for an upcom ing e xam . 6. Pu blic Co n tex t/E m o tio n ally Neu tra l Im agine that the two of you are talking in a classroom at school. Se ve ral othe r stude nts are in the room . REFE RENCES B e rsche id, E ., Snyde r, M., & O moto, A. M. ( 1989) . The re latio nsh ip close ne ss i nve ntory: A s- se ssing the closen e ss o f inte rp e rso n al re lation sh ips. J ou rn al o f P erson ality an d Social Psy - ch ology , 57 , 792-807. B owlby, J. ( 1953) . Matern al care an d th e gro wth o f love . Londo n: Pe ngui n. B ullis, C ., & Ho rn , C . ( 1995) . Ge t a little clo se r: Furthe r e xam ination of non ve rbal com forting strategies. Com m u n icatio n Reports, 8 , 10-17. B urgoon , J. K. ( 1993) . In te rp erso nal e xpe ctation s, e xpe ctancy vi olation s, and e motion al com- munication. J ou rn al of L an gu age an d So cial Psy chology , 12 , 30-48. C onnidis, I. A . ( 1989) . Sibl ings as frie nds in late r life . Am erican Beh avio ral Scien tist, 33 , 81-93. Doyle , J. A . ( 1989) . Th e m ale ex perien ce . Dubu que , IA : Willi am C. B ro wn. E kman, P ., & Frie se n, W . V . ( 1969) . The re pe rtoire o f non ve rbal be havior: C ate gories , origins, usage, an d coding. Sem iotica, 1 , 49-98. Floyd, K. ( 1995) . Ge nde r and close ne ss among fri e nds and sibli ngs. J o u rn al o f Psy cho lo g y , 129 , 193-202. Floyd, K. ( 1996a) . B roth erly lo ve I: Th e e xpe rie n ce o f close ne ss i n the frate rnal dyad. P erson al Relation sh ips, 3 , 396-385. Floyd, K. ( 1996b) . Broth erly love III: E x plorin g dialectic ten sion s in th e fratern al d y ad . Unp ub- lishe d m anuscript, Un ive rsity of A rizona. Floyd, K. ( 1996c) . C om muni cat ing closen e ss am ong sibli ngs: A n application of the ge nde re d close ne ss pe rspe ctive . Com m u n ication Research Reports, 13 , 27-34. Floyd, K. ( 1997a) . B rothe rly l ove II: A de ve lopme ntal p e rsp ecti ve on likin g, love , and close ne ss in th e frate rnal dyad. J o u rn al of Fam ily Psy cho logy , 11 , 196-209. 880 Mor m an an d Fl oyd Floyd, K. ( 1997b) . C ommu nicati n g affe ction in d yadi c re latio nsh ips: A n assessme nt of be havior an d e xpe ctan cie s. C om m u n ication Qu arterly , 45 , 68-80. Floyd, K. ( 1997c) . Kno wing whe n to say “ I l ove you ” : A n e xpe ctancy app roach to affectionate commu nicatio n . C om m u n icatio n Research Reports, 14 , 321-330. Floyd, K. ( in pre ss) . C lose frie nds ’ p e rce ptio ns of the im portan ce of sel f disclosure an d positive affe ct. Psy chological Reports . Frank, J. D. ( 1973) . P ersu asion an d h ealin g: A com parative stu d y of psy choth erapy . B alti more , MD: John s Ho pki ns Unive rsity Pre ss. Harl ow, H . F . ( 1974) . Learn in g to lo ve . Ne w Y ork: Jason Aron son . Koch , S. ( 1959) . Psych ology : A stu d y of a scien ce ( Vol . 3) . Ne w Y ork: McGraw-H ill. Rabi nowitz, F . E . ( 1991) . The male -to -mal e e m brace : B re aking the touch taboo in a m e n ’ s the rapy grou p. J ou rn al of C ou n selin g an d Developm en t, 69 , 574-576. Rotun do, E . A . ( 1993) . Am erican m an h ood : T ran sform ation s in m ascu lin ity fro m th e revolu tion to th e m o dern era . Ne w Y ork: B asic Bo oks. Rotte r, J. B ., C han ce , J. E ., & Phare s, E . J. ( 1972) . Application s o f a social learn in g th eory of personality . Ne w Y o rk: Holt, R ine h art, & Wi nsto n. Schutz, W . ( 1958) . FIRO : A th ree-dim en sion al th eory o f in terperso n al beh avior . Ne w Y ork: R ine - hart. Schutz, W . ( 1966) . Th e in terperson al u n d erworld . Palo A lto, C A : Scie nce and B e havior B ooks. Shu ntich, R . J., & Shapiro, R . M. ( 1991) . E xplorations of ve rbal affe ctio n an d aggre ssion . J ou rn al of Social Beh avior an d P erso n ality , 6 , 283-300. Spre ch e r, S., & Se d iki de s, C . ( 1993) . Ge nde r diffe re n ce s in pe rce p tio ns of e m otionali ty: The case o f close he te ro se xual re lationsh ips. Sex Ro les, 28 , 511-530. Stocke r, C., & Dunn , J. ( 1990) . S ibling re lationships in ch ildh ood: Links with frie n dsh ips and pe e r re lationships. British J ou rn al o f Developm en tal Psych ology , 8 , 237-244. Swain, S. ( 1989) . C ove rt intimacy: Clo se ne ss in me n ’ s frie ndshi p s. In B . R isman & P . S ch wartz ( E d s .) , G en d e r in in ti m a te rel atio n sh ip s: A m i cro stru ctu ral ap pro ac h . B e l m o n t , C A : W adsworth . Wood , J. T ., & Inm an , C . C. ( 1993) . In a di ffe re nt m ode : Masculine style s of com muni cati ng close ne ss. J ou rn al o f Applied C om m u n icatio n Research , 21 , 279-295. Affecti on i n Mal e ¯ Mal e Dya d s 881