“Isn’t that something you just know?” Young Men’s Descriptions of Intimacy within Same-Gender Friendships

(1)

“Isn’t that something you just know?”

Young Men’s Descriptions of Intimacy within Same-Gender Friendships

John Kivilompolo Lindgren and Pauline M. Perslow Department of Psychology, Örebro University

PS3111: Examensuppsats Professor Lauree Tilton-Weaver

(2)

Abstract

Prior research suggests a gender difference in friendship intimacy where men repeatedly report less intimacy. While several studies have identified a gender difference, others have raised alternative possibilities to explain the gender difference, such as measurement error, or that men’s friendships function differently from women’s friendships. Our qualitative study explored the possibility that men’s friendships are different than what is described in the literature using an inductive and anonymous online survey. The collected data from 64 self-identified men in emerging adulthood (19-25 years) was thematically analyzed to present a thematic map of their perception of intimacy in close friendship. Findings indicated that the participants valued their close friendships highly and that the generated themes showed an overall high degree of similarity with earlier studies. However, the themes confrontational honesty, flow, and timeless connection diverged from prior research and are discussed. We provide suggestions for future research that can advance the understanding of the divergent themes, and further the understanding of intimacy in men’s close same-gender friendships.

Keywords: thematic analysis, same-gender friendships, emerging adulthood, men, intimacy

(3)

Friendship is an important social bond for development throughout the lifespan (Santrock, 2019). Friendships that are defined as close or intimate have often been associated with individual happiness (Demir, 2015), and the association may be bi-diretional since happy and mature individuals are also more likely to make and maintain close friendships.

Friendships appear to be especially important for emerging adults, individuals in the age span of 18-25 (Santrock, 2019). This importance is supported by the positive association between friendship quality, friendship satisfaction, and happiness from studies of young adults across cultures (Demir, 2015). Compared to adolescents, emerging adults have more intimate friendships benefitting identity development and well-being (Barry et al., 2009), and friendship networks usually expand in emerging adulthood (Wrzus et al., 2013). Multiple studies have shown that friends play key roles in successfully addressing and resolving developmental challenges (Barry et al., 2009; Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010). Friends also serve other functions in emerging adulthood, such as communicating about sex, learning about the world, and providing validation and support for new and different social roles (Demir, 2015; Lefkowitz et al., 2004).

Gender Differences in Friendship Research

Although friendships are more similar than different across genders (Jones, 1991), studies have consistently reported a gender difference in close friendship. Men’s friendships are generally characterized by low intimacy compared to women’s friendships (Johnson, 2012), and the difference is especially pronounced when comparing men’s same-gender friendships with women’s same-gender friendships (Gaia, 2002). While men usually have more close friendships with other men, they self-disclose more often with women (Elkins &

(6)

Peterson, 1993; Radmacher & Azimitia, 2006). This affects men in emerging adulthood as well, who report less friendship intimacy than same-age women (Williams, 1985).

Way (2013) drew from her studies of male adolescents' friendships to suggest these gender differences become more pronounced as boys age into adolescence and then emerging adulthood. Way further posited that this change comes from an adherence to masculinity ideology and desire for emotional independence from their friends from whom they previously relied on for intimacy. As Fehr (2004) succinctly states: “The most widely accepted interpretation of the gender difference in friendship experiences is that women’s friendships are more intimate than men’s” (p. 267).

As close friendships are important for development and health, a lack of close friendships may negatively impact men’s health especially. In Sweden, not having a close friend increases with age more for men than for women. Approximately 10% of men and 5% of women between 16 and 29 years of age reported not having a close friend (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2020). In response to the “ever-growing” mental health issues for boys and men, experts call for healthcare training programs to improve their care of men's mental and behavioral health, and for research to cover the diversity of contemporary men’s life

experiences (Porsche & Giorgianni, 2020, p. 1). The research on intimacy and friendship suggests that young men especially could benefit from resources that promote making and maintaining close friendships throughout emerging adulthood since many suffer from mental health issues and are more likely than women to not have a close friend.

Man or Global Crisis?

Way (2013) has challenged the view that there are empirical gender differences in friendship. Way describes how boys value friendship less as they age and instead consider friendships as an impediment to following cultural conventions, such as developing

(7)

a factor helping boys resist limiting cultural conventions that would negatively affect their health and development. Way further describes that what has been termed a “boy crisis” (boys having trouble in school, higher rates of suicide and school drop-out) may instead be part of a non-gender specific crisis of connection. Way and her colleagues (Way et al., 2018) cite data that shows how patterns of increased loneliness, social isolation, and having fewer close friends exist globally and across genders, supporting the view that a lack of close friendships in the male population may be due to non-gender specific global changes in societies. Although empirical gender differences in friendship intimacy exists, data also show that both men and women desire and benefit from close friendships and that both may

struggle to maintain these important relationships during contemporary global changes (increased geographical distance, digital communication, pandemic, and individualistic ideology).

Man or Measurement Problem?

Studies measuring men’s friendship intimacy provide contradicting results. Men may feel more social pressure to appear strong and not lonely, which may influence how much they express and report intimacy (Gaia, 2002). Experts often use the terms intimacy and closeness interchangeably, but the terms may carry different implications for lay people. Parks and Floyd (1996) studied the differences in how men and women describe closeness and intimacy, and found a larger gender difference in descriptions of intimacy than in descriptions of closeness. In other words, men described closeness much in the same way as women, but differed in their descriptions of intimacy. Depending on the choice of

terminology, results from friendship intimacy measures might incorrectly suggest larger gender differences when using intimacy rather than closeness (Parks, & Floyd, 1996).

Methodological differences have also been discussed as potential factors in creating or increasing the gender difference in friendship. Quantitative studies have found more

(8)

gender differences than qualitative studies in measuring intimacy (Hall, 2011). Migliaccio (2010) adds to this by suggesting that by attempting to isolate male and female intimacy into variables, researchers may inadvertently create the appearance of male-female differences in friendship. Therefore, gender differences found in intimacy research may be especially pronounced in studies using quantitative measures and relying on self-selected participants.

With methodological challenges come the possibility that men's relationships contain intimacy that deviates from what has been the focus of research. Current measuring methods (e.g., scales) may not be capturing what men consider most salient about intimacy (Patrick & Beckenbach, 2009). Hook et al. (2003), in studying gender differences in measures of

intimacy, called for more research to find “the male voice of intimacy.” Similarly, Patrick and Beckenbach (2009) advocate for a continued qualitative exploration of how men describe and experience intimacy as an important area of future study. In summary, the research has not determined how much measurement error explains the gender difference of intimacy within same-gender friendships.

Are Men’s Same-Gender Friendships Changing?

There is also the possibility that changing gender norms have changed men’s same-gender friendship experiences (Wagner-Raphael et al., 2001). This is particularly noticeable in studies on men’s close friendships with the contemporary term “bromance” (Becker & Weiner, 2016; Scoats et al., 2019). In contrast to the 20th century’s focus on men’s friendships as missing emotional or physical intimacy, the bromance concept emerges in studies of men’s close and intimate same-gender friendship (Robinson et al., 2018). The bromance is considered a new form of intimate same-gender friendships for men which they can engage in as homophobia declines and homosexuality among men is increasingly accepted (Magrath & Scoats, 2019). Robinson et al. (2018) argues that in the wake of declining homophobia, men are able to reinvent their same-gender friendships to be more

(9)

physically and emotionally intimate. Social behavioral norms, including gender-specific norms for same-gender intimacy, change slowly and consistently throughout history, and the recent bromance literature suggests that men are well aware of these norms and of the benefits of resisting or reinventing them to promote intimacy and well-being.

Components of Intimacy within Men’s Same-Gender Friendships

To address if men’s experience and perception of close friendship is different from what the research literature presents, this study aims to qualitatively compare young men’s descriptions of their close friendships to the components of intimacy in the research

literature. As a central component of close interpersonal relationships, intimacy has been difficult to assess and also varies across cultures (Hook et al., 2003). The literature uses intimacy interchangeably to describe closeness within family, friends, romantic and other types of close social relationships. Additionally, scholars have not been able to clearly delineate between components of intimacy in friendship (Gaia, 2002) and a wide variety of components of intimacy in friendship have been suggested. We therefore researched the current literature to identify the proposed components of intimacy within men’s same-gender friendships and identified self-disclosure, interpersonal trust, shared activities, and play as central.

Self-Disclosure

Self-disclosure is the deliberate sharing of private information about the self. The information would be hard to gain by other means, and the discloser perceives a risk for negative consequences if the information were widely shared (Bowman, 2009). Self-disclosure can vary in range of topics and in the depth or the intimacy of the shared information (Vijaykumar et al., 2020). Self-disclosure involves sharing more information than is necessarily needed for the situation (Tilton‐Weaver et al., 2014). Self-disclosure can include affective, descriptive, and evaluative information about the self (Kim et al., 2020)

(10)

and have been found to be intrinsically rewarding for the discloser (Tamir & Mitchell, 2012). Self-disclosure has been found to positively impact friendship closeness (Bowman, 2009). Bowman found strong support for a positive correlation between measures of self-disclosure and measures of closeness in a sample of men in same-gender friendships. Radmacher and Azmitia (2006) found that self-disclosure predicted intimacy among emerging adults. However, whether self-disclosure makes a relationship closer, or if existing closeness facilitates self-disclosure to occur more frequently, is undetermined (Bowman 2009). Self-disclosure has been suggested as a pathway through which intimacy in a friendship is increased (Fehr & Harasymchuk, 2017). Although the research suggests self-disclosure creates or strengthens a sense of closeness within a friendship, the sensitivity of the information and perceived risk of rejection requires daring to be vulnerable. Since this chosen vulnerability is most likely facilitated by the feelings of closeness or security, the pathway between self-disclosure and intimacy appears to be bi-directional.

Repeated findings have shown that in same-gender friendships, men may self-disclose less than in cross-gender friendships or women in same-gender friendships. In a meta-analysis, Dindia and Allen (1992) found that women self-disclose slightly more than men in relationships (family, friend, romantic), and that men also self-disclosed less in same-gender interactions than with women. By comparison, in Way’s (2013) studies of adolescent boys, up to three-fourths of the boys described sharing or needing to share “everything” with their closest friends (p.190). However, their self-disclosing and the perceived importance of sharing decreased as the boys progressed into late adolescence (Way, 2013). Fehr (2004) suggests self-disclosure is the main component promoting intimacy in friendship and as something women engage in more than men. Although, men tend to agree on the importance of self-disclosure for producing intimacy, men possibly engage in it less (Fehr, 2004). The research suggests that boys start perceiving self-disclosure as less important for their close

(11)

friendships in adolescence and that although they perceive self-disclosure as central for closeness, they tend to self-disclose less with other men during emerging adulthood. Interpersonal Trust

Interpersonal trust is a complex social phenomenon and a central component of close friendship that is rarely studied explicitly. In their in-depth characterization of trust, Barbalet (2009) defines trust as “a confident expectation regarding another's behavior” (p. 368). Trust allows individuals to self-disclose without the information spreading to others (Hook et al., 2003), and is associated with mental health and general well-being (Miething et al., 2017). Trust is a central expectation of an ideal close friendship for both men and women, which when fulfilled, increases friendship satisfaction and can promote feelings of closeness. In a meta-analysis of friendship expectations, Hall (2011) found that trust, together with the concepts loyalty, genuineness, and commitment, were more common friendship expectations among women than men. Furthermore, Apostolou and Keramari (2020) found that low trust in others was the most significant factor preventing people from making friends. Men and women perceive interpersonal trust as important and expected for initiating and maintaining close friendship.

A loss of trust is believed to occur as adolescent boys enter emerging adulthood. In Way’s (2013) interviews, adolescent boys frequently described trust as central in an ideal friendship. Way also describes how boys find it increasingly difficult to trust their peers as they age from childhood to adolescence and into emerging adulthood. Since trust between men in same-gender friendships tends to increase their friendship satisfaction (Jones, 1991), individual difficulties with trust might negatively affect friendship satisfaction and closeness. Although men and women perceive trust as important for friendship closeness, boys who find trusting others increasingly difficult throughout adolescence and emerging adulthood might therefore experience lower friendship satisfaction within their close same-gender friendships.

(12)

Feelings of acceptance and feeling comfortable enough to self-disclose characterizes a trusting atmosphere. In interviews comparing men’s close cross- and same-gender

friendships, men who felt closer within their same-gender friendships reported that they could relax and be themselves more, and men who felt closer within cross-gender friendships reported that women were easier to talk to (Wagner-Raphael et al., 2001). This suggests that men tend to describe closeness and trust within their same-gender friendships as an

atmosphere of acceptance and comfort, but with women, men attributed the same concepts to a perceived low-threshold for self-disclosure. Patrick and Beckenbach (2009) found that men differentiated between trust with romantic partners and trust with friendship, where they expected their partner to exclusively share a trusting atmosphere for intimacy with them. Men and women highly value trust within close friendships, with men having relatively lower same-gender friendship expectations than women and might also describe trust within their close relationships differently depending on the gender of the friend and whether the relationship is romantic or platonic.

Shared Activities

Sharing activities and practical support are considered central to producing intimacy, even if peripheral compared to self-disclosure (Fehr, 2004). Men are more activity focused and share activities more frequently than women, although both men and women value solidarity (mutual enjoyment, companionship, and shared activities) as important for their

friendships (Radmacher, 2006; Wright, 2006). Monsour (1992) found that men perceived

shared activity as a more intimate experience within same-gender friendships compared to within cross-gender friendship. Shared activities and similarities are some of the first friendship expectations for children (Hall, 2011), and shared activities remain important for boys through adolescence for intimacy (Radmacher, 2006). Although sharing activities or contexts (e.g., sports) provide a social space for developing and accelerating social bonding,

(13)

Robinson et al. (2018) found that men reported these insufficient, and required shared interests, similar personalities, and shared experiences for developing and maintaining their “bromances.” Men and women consider self-disclosure as more likely to produce intimacy, yet men use shared activities more often to increase intimacy in their friendships

(Radmacher, 2006). Several studies suggest men choose shared activities over self-disclosure within their close friendships due to fear of rejection and the reinforcement of

gender-specific friendship expectations through peer-socialization (Fehr, 2004; Hall, 2011;

Radmacher, 2006). The research suggests that men use shared activities more often than disclosure to increase closeness within their friendships which in turn likely promotes self-disclosure and further intimacy.

Play

Playfulness, such as friendly insults, is a central aspect within emerging adults’ friendships and promotes relational (intimacy, satisfaction) and individual well-being (Demir, 2019). Demir (2019) summarizes the definitions of play as a voluntary, fun, and spontaneous activity which is also intrinsically motivating. Positivity behaviors such as making their friend laugh and being cheerful, together with behaviors of supportiveness, openness and interaction (e.g. going to social events together) are used to measure friendship maintenance behaviors (Oswald et al., 2004; Tyra et al., 2019). Friendship maintenance behaviors strongly correlate with friendship commitment, satisfaction, and quality, (Tyra et al., 2019) and might be especially important during the transition into emerging adulthood, when one might move to a different city, make new friends, and share less activities with their friend. Although fun is well-represented in expectations of close friends (Hall, 2011), friendship research under-theorizes and regards the concept of fun (having a sense of humor, socializing, and having fun) as peripheral to intimacy expectations (Fehr, 2004). Emerging

(14)

adults can maintain and strengthen their close friendships during challenging life transitions by making an effort to experience fun and play together, through perhaps shared activities. The Current Study

Research on intimacy within same-gender friendship suggests that men experience less intimacy than women and that men may perceive and experience components of intimacy such as self-disclosure, interpersonal trust, and shared activities differently.

Additionally, research tends to favor the perspective that these various components produce intimacy, when the literature overview supports a more reciprocal relationship since intimacy and discussed components interact and are more conceptually similar than different.

This study aims to add to the developing understanding of intimacy in men’s same-gender friendships, on which only few studies have explicitly focused (e.g., Ralph, 2020; Robinson et al., 2018). This study does not aim to generalize the results to all young men nor represent one static representation of intimacy since intimacy is complex, reflexive, and influenced by personality, history, and context. Due to the established importance of close friendships for individuals’ healthy development and well-being, this study responds to the indicated deficient, different, or changed intimacy within men’s same-gender friendships, and aims to add to the relatively few qualitative studies focusing on the topic. To this purpose, we investigate how young Swedish men describe their own close same-gender friendships, how these descriptions compare to the intimacy research, and if there are any salient parts of men’s same-gender friendship not represented in the research literature.

Method Research Design

Men’s perception of intimacy was investigated using a cross-sectional qualitative design. We developed and administered an online survey with open-ended questions aiming to collect both broad and more specific aspects of men’s close friendships. The collected data

(15)

consisted of their free-text responses which we thematically analyzed. The resulting themes were then categorized and presented in a thematic map.

Thematic Analysis

We analyzed the data using Thematic Analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), which is optimal for novice researchers and particularly useful for exploring under-researched fields due to its flexibility and transparency. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), shorter studies on under-researched topics should provide a rich overview of the data rather than deep detailed accounts of themes. We actively identified, analyzed, and selected patterns of interest within the data and then present each theme with telling data extracts to maintain transparency and coherency.

We chose an inductive approach, where we attempted to code the data independent of any preconceived list of themes from the literature. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), researchers conducting inductive thematic analysis should also endeavor to have as little knowledge of the relevant research literature as possible to make it truly inductive, though they also acknowledge that this is rarely possible.The analysis may therefore be colored by our pre-existing understanding of the research field. In order to maintain methodological integrity, we tracked procedural steps and potential changes in a logbook. We also aimed to represent participants’ responses as correct as possible by using checking our translations of the participants’ Swedish responses to our generated codes and themes in English. This was facilitated by the fact that we both are fluent in English and Swedish, and that one of us has both languages as native languages.

Theoretical Approach: Realist-Constructivism

We are both psychology students using previous qualitative and quantitative research to influence our theoretical orientation toward developing the study and analyzing the data. Realist-constructivism best describes our methodological approach which assumes that it is

(16)

possible to know reality from the way people describe and make meaning of their

experiences (Cupchik, 2001). Both realism and constructivism methods explore the extent to which the data meaningfully reflect social phenomena, in this case, intimacy (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Cupchik, 2001). Our analysis of the data will transition from description to interpretation, according to the semantic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Online Self-Report

Online self-report surveys are less intrusive, more accessible, and more anonymous than face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews. The online survey was also

appropriate considering the public restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. When asking sensitive questions, increased anonymity can increase participants’ willingness to self-disclose. This was confirmed in a meta-analysis by Clark-Gordon et al. (2019) which reported a correlation between level of participant anonymity and participant disclosure. In our study, we provided full anonymity to increase participants’ willingness to share private or personal information.

Additionally, typing instead of handwriting responses may reduce responder burden and therefore generate richer and longer responses. The evidence is mixed on the advantages of web-based open-ended questions compared to mail questionnaires (de Leeuw et al., 2008). According to some experimental studies, larger digital text boxes for open-ended questions resulted in longer responses, but not necessarily richer responses (de Leeuw et al., 2008). For the purpose of qualitatively studying young men's intimate experiences, we decided that an anonymous online survey with mostly open-ended questions would increase the probability of collecting sufficiently valid and relevant data.

Developing the Survey

All survey questions were generated collaboratively with guidance from our advisor and then tested in a pilot study. The survey was translated to English from Swedish to

(17)

include potential participants who may prefer English or did not speak Swedish as a first language. The final survey consisted of 23 questions including brief demographic and open-ended questions using multiple choice and free-text boxes (see Appendix A). The qualitative questions were open-ended and inductive, asking participants to generate answers about the abstract qualities of their friendships. This would allow participants to discuss and mention things which are not covered by the literature on male friendship.

Before all open-ended questions, participants were prompted to think of a current close same-gender friend who was not family. We changed the wording of the prompts for participants to think of a specific current friendship to control for the risk that participants might answer the questions thinking of a childhood or early teenage friendship instead of current friendships.

Answering open-ended questions as compared to closed questions is more

burdensome and may lead to higher drop-out rates (de Leeuw et al., 2008). We included a progress indicator within the survey and limited the questions to take at most 20 minutes since studies suggest that this decreases drop-out rates (Couper, 2000).

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted to test the readability and face validity of the developed questions. The participants were acquaintances and recruited out of convenience. The participants self-identified as men, were between 24 and 28 years old, studied at the university level, and were fluent in Swedish.

The pilot interviews were carried out individually online using the video conference application Zoom. The “think-aloud” method, also known as cognitive interviewing, was used where a participant read the question aloud, described how they interpreted it, and how they would answer (de Leeuw et al., 2008). Between interviews, questions were adjusted or omitted according to participants’ feedback and our observations. Throughout the pilot study

(18)

process the participants increasingly interpreted the remaining questions as we intended. Feedback was also used in formatting the visual design of the survey. Before publishing, we tested the survey from different devices and software to ensure that questions presented as intended and to eliminate technical difficulties during participation.

Ethical Considerations

The threats to confidentiality and anonymity were the main ethical concerns for this study because online surveys always contain the risk of data leaking to unauthorized

individuals. After recognizing these concerns with the university's technical department and our supervisor, we decided that ORU-survey was sufficiently secure to maintain

confidentiality and also provide extra anonymity compared to meeting the participants. Another concern shared with most studies, was guaranteeing that the participants had read and fully understood the voluntary condition. We decided that these risks were tolerable compared to the survey’s high level of anonymity and low level of intrusiveness.

We also asked participants to report their current age, gender, cultural identity and number of current same-gender close friends to ensure they met inclusion criteria.

Participants could disclose their self-identified cultural belonging and transgender experience using multiple choice with options “prefer not to answer” and “other,” in accordance to the recommendations of The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Rights (RFSL, 2016). Asking about transgender experiences may be sensitive for participants, but it is important that transmen can anonymously identify themselves in order to not assume all participants are cisgender men which would further make gender minorities invisible in research (Lundberg et al., 2017). The question is relevant for our study as it enables us to further explore how all young men (cis and trans) experience intimacy within their friendships.

(19)

Data Collection Goal

Our goal was to collect sufficient data for a comprehensive qualitative analysis. Qualitative studies using interviews usually collect information from 5 to 25 participants (Creswell, 1998). As it is probable that less data would be gained from a single participant with an online self-report, compared to an interview, this study aimed to include at least 40 participants. We decided that participants met inclusion criteria if they identified as men, aged between 19 and 25 years old, reported some connection to the Swedish context, and had least one current close same-gender friendship. This age group was chosen to target emerging adulthood, the proposed life period between the ages of 18 and 25, with new challenges and characteristically initiated by completing secondary education or moving from parents (Santrock, 2019). However, we decided to exclude 18-year-olds from our target age group as an adaptation to the Swedish school system, wherein most complete secondary education at the age of 19 or 20.

Recruitment Process

The survey was designed and administered using the official survey tool of Örebro University, ORU Survey, which hosts surveys digitally and anonymously collects data. Through convenience sampling, we recruited participants by distributing flyers at the Örebro University campus and sharing the digital flyer through Facebook (see Appendix B).

Specifically, we published the study flyer from our personal Facebook pages to various Facebook pages and groups for students at several Swedish universities. We also used snowball sampling through Facebook Messenger to individuals we thought might meet inclusion criteria or might know others who could participate in the study.

The short, memorable, and non-descriptive study title, The Buddy Study, aimed to decrease volunteer bias which may be especially salient with same-gender best friend studies (Demir et al., 2016). The flyer contained the study’s purpose, inclusion criteria, contact

(20)

information, and a link and barcode to the Swedish and English version of the survey. Potential participants interested in the study could follow the link to more information about the study and had to agree to an informed consent form prior to accessing the survey. Data Selection

ORU Survey software reported that the survey was opened 183 times and that 93 surveys had been submitted. We excluded a total of 29 data items because 11 did not meet inclusion criteria, 13 did not report age, and five did not report qualitative data. After exclusion, 64 data items remained for analysis (see Figure 1). Any identifying information was omitted before exporting the selected data from ORU-Survey onto an Excel Document (Data Corpus) within our password protected computers.

Figure 1

Participant Flow Chart

Note. 90 of 183 surveys were lost to inclusion due to discontinued participation, leaving 93 surveys submitted for screening. We excluded 29 of 93 surveys during screening, leaving 64 surveys for analysis.

(21)

Included Participants

All 64 included participants self-identified as men, had at least one same-gender friend, responded in Swedish and were between 19 and 25 years old (M =22.5, SD = 2.1). One participant reported being or having experience of being a transperson. All participants identified as Swedish, with two men reporting being Swedish in combination with another European culture. Over 95% of the included participants completed all survey items. Data Analysis

The data were thematically analyzed as described in Braun and Clarke (2006); a recursive process that requires movement back and forth between phases until a point is reached when the analysis is considered complete. The end point of the analysis is hard to specify but should be considered when the researchers deem that continuing analysis is not adding substantially to the results (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Initial Coding

We familiarized ourselves with the data set by first reading across survey questions (data sets), and then re-reading the data across individual surveys (data item) to generate and then compare initial codes. Coding labels and their corresponding quotes (data extracts) were organized next to each other in a coding document. A comma separated repeated data

extracts to track frequency.

To ensure that coding agreement, we selected 10% of the data items at random, of which two data sets were coded independently. Afterwards we compared and discussed our coding. This was then repeated with another 5% of the data items. We noted a coding overlap of 90% and 95% respectively. We deemed the few differences (e.g., coding the extract

“fundamental for me” as important versus fundamental) to be minor and hence decided that our coding was sufficiently congruent for one of us to finish the coding process

(22)

independently (consulting the other when necessary), to later group codes and generate themes jointly.

Coding

The responses were coded quite literally in the beginning, as we did not aim to interpret beyond what the participants describe. For example, the extract “Brotherly love” creates the two codes brother and love and the full extract “Brotherly love” is placed within both categories in order to maintain context. We consistently chose to apply more rather than less codes to one extract to include all possible interpretations. For example, we transferred the whole extract “Always as strong no matter how much time that passes” to the three codes; strong, enduring, and long lasting past. The next description “close strong brotherly” from another participant falls under the existing code brother and creates two new codes; close and strong. We interpret these descriptions as independent of each other, and place the words within their three separate codes. When most or some of the data described a synonym rather than the code name itself, we renamed or split the code to describe the extracts more accurately.

When certain codes exclusively came from a single data set, we suspected that we needed to review the coding process. For example, the majority of extracts within

understanding change, more closeness, less closeness, and unchanged closeness originated from the open-ended question:

● Since your friendship started, has the closeness changed in any way? If so, in what way?

This suggested that we were deducting codes directly from the question rather than conducting inductive analysis as intended. Upon reviewing this data set, we noted a difference in response level where participants either provided explicit, implicit, or

(23)

explicitly stating a change in closeness: “Since I started university, we don't see each other as frequently unfortunately.”

The less interpretive approach would code this as less contact and school, and fail to capture the implication that closeness has changed. We therefore decided to start identifying the response level, then code, and thereafter use the rest of the data item to clarify any

contradicting or vague responses. For example, we identified the above as implying a change in closeness by describing a change in interaction. We coded this as less contact and then checked the participants other responses to confirm if closeness decreased due to less contact. For example, in another response he wrote: “The closer I come to graduating, the less he can relate to my life.”

Here he implies a decrease in closeness not only due to less contact, but also due growing apart as life goes on. We coded this extract as growing apart which can more accurately represent and give context to his prior response. By considering participants’ response level (abstract or implicit) throughout the data item, we could more accurately represent the participants’ experiences by descriptive and inductive analysis as intended. Generating Themes

Within the semantic approach, themes are identified by grouping together data that, on the surface level, appear similar, which later become more interpretive (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We both transferred all codes within preliminary themes onto a whiteboard to gain an overview of the data and then together evaluated which codes might need to be renamed, regrouped or omitted.

Braun and Clarke (2006) describe a theme as capturing an important pattern in the data in relation to the research question. Accordingly, we grouped codes based on how much they appeared to describe the same concept or experience of close friendship. Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasize the need to remain flexible and not set rigid rules as to what

(24)

constitutes a theme. We therefore attempted to be consistent in applying some general guidelines in determining themes. Preferably, codes within a theme should appear, in

combination or individually, across several survey questions (data set) and participants (data item). We also took into account how much importance the participant appeared to place in his response, as well as how unique or distinct the code and data extract were in comparison to others. The guidelines were not meant as criteria that every theme needed to fill, but as a tool that would help us maintain consistency in the process of creating themes.

Reviewing and Defining Themes

Once we grouped all the data in themes, we reviewed how well data extracts

described their respective themes. We also reviewed the data extracts in relation to their full context in the data corpus. The process was again recursive where we created, separated, omitted, and merged themes several times throughout the process.

We omitted four themes from the analysis. Personality traits and similar context described general or hypothetical aspects of friendship rather than closeness within their current friendship and were therefore deemed insufficiently relevant for the study’s focus. Growing apart and romantic relationships described common transitions during emerging adulthood but not any distinct or meaningful aspects of close friendship.

We decided that the data analysis was exhausted when the recursive process stopped yielding new results. We then collated the themes into a coherent thematic map and

connected the themes according to our qualitative analysis of how they related in the data, and theoretical knowledge.

Results

The thematic map (Figure 2) illustrates the results from the thematic analysis. The results are exemplified by illuminating excerpts from several participants using pseudonyms and age for added context.

(25)

Figure 2

Thematic Map: Men’s Descriptions of Intimacy within their Same-gender Friendships

Note. Thematic map illustrating the resulting 11 themes and four sub-themes of young men’s descriptions of intimacy within their close same-gender friendships. Arrows indicate that the themes relate to each other in the data and conceptually. Transitions is a category of themes specifically relating to transitions within emerging adulthood.

(26)

Salient Friendship Features

In our analysis, we grouped fun, flow, and shared experiences together as salient friendship features of our participants’ idea of what makes their friendships close. Shared Experiences

The majority of participants mentioned a shared history, including experiences such as school, traveling, or major life events when describing their friendship, but also part of what had changed and increased their closeness. Adam, 23 years old, described a friendship that had been life-long: “We have been friends for as long as I can remember.” Bert, 25 years old, described these shared experiences as especially important in building closeness where they had “become closer at pace with having more and more shared experiences.” For a number of participants, past adversities had been an important test of friendship which also brought them closer. Karl, 19, years old, wrote, “We have been through pretty much everything together.” Importantly, participants emphasized that a friendship with shared memories contributed to their desire to continue being close friends. David, 25 years old, explained that “it’s the memories you share and a mutual desire to create more shared memories” that make their friendship close.

Fun

Having fun was described in simple terms as something the majority of participants enjoyed about their friendship. For example, Edward, 20 years old wrote, “We often have a lot of fun together.” When asked to describe their friendships, several participants

specifically named humor and sharing inside jokes as important. Fredrik, 25 years old, described his friendship as having “shared humor (with a lot of inside jokes).”

Flow

Some participants valued the simplicity and ease in their friendships. For example, Gustaf, 25 years old wrote, “Always happy when we see each other, a very uncomplicated

(27)

relationship.” They described a close friendship as functioning without work or worries. Adam, 23 years old explained that friendships are close when “you don’t need to pretend to be anything else or think about what you say, everything flows and nothing is wrong.” If disagreements or friction occurred, it was also important that they could move on easily. For example, Ingvar, 21 years old, wrote, “Even if we argue or bicker it’s extremely easy to just let it go when we need to.”

Affection

Most participants use direct, emotional, or affectionate descriptions for their close friendships. Some simply described it as close. For example, Ingvar wrote, “We are very close with each other.” Other participants, such as Karl, used affectionate words to describe closeness in their friendships: “Love that guy.” The friendship was in some cases described as familial. Henrik, 21 years old, wrote, “He’s the brother I never got.” Most participants described the friendship as central and crucial to their lives. For example, Johan, 23 years old, wrote, “He’s an extremely important person in my life” and Adam wrote: “Fundamental for me.”

Sub-Theme: Implicit Affection

Some participants were unsure of how to describe closeness within their friendship.

For example, Kalle, 22 years old, asked, “Isn’t that something you just know?” The same sentiment was also expressed with more certainty, including Lennart, 25 years old: “We just are [close friends].” In other cases, descriptions were more vague, such as when Markus, 23 years old, wrote, “I’d say there’s a general feeling of affinity I would say.” Some participants described how their closeness had transformed from the implicit to the explicit. Henrik, for example explained, “We have said [that we’re close] to each other several times but before that it was already implicitly understood.”

(28)

Many participants described the importance of feeling secure in the friendship which was often described tersely. Niklas, 24 years old, simply wrote, “[Our friendship is] secure.” Feeling secure in the friendship appeared to be a specific factor to how closeness had

developed into emerging adulthood. Markus, for example, wrote, “Of course [our closeness has changed], we don’t need to have contact often to feel secure in our friendship.” For some, including Oskar, 19 years old, this security was exclusive to their close friendships: “I’ve for a long time had trouble trusting other people, even people who are close to me, despite this I feel safe in relying on him no matter what.”

Sub-Theme: Exclusive Dyad

Some participants described their close friendship as exclusive and special compared

to other friendships, which set them apart from others in their friend group. Pelle, 22 years old, wrote, “We hang out a lot despite being part of a larger group of friends.” Even in cases where they had more close friends, they described friendships which were uniquely close. Quinn, 24 years old, wrote, “[Our degree of closeness] have of course varied since we’ve been friends for 15 years, but he has always been one of my three closest friends, which can’t be said for any of my other friends.”They described this exclusive friendship as a unique space where they could talk about things they would not talk about with anyone else. Vulnerability was exclusively experienced with their close friend, where Markus explained, “He dares to be vulnerable around me sometimes, something he’s not ever with anyone otherwise.”

Reliable

A large number of men described a strong expectation that their friend would always be there for them. For example, Rikard, 25 years old, wrote, “I always know that I can contact him whenever I need to no matter what time or what it’s about and he’ll be there for me.” This dependability was repeatedly described in general terms, for example, Simon, 25

(29)

years old: “We have each other's back.” But when participants elaborated, it became clear that being able to rely on their close friends was not only expected, but something they viewed as essential to the friendship. Tiger, 23 years old wrote, “If everything else goes to hell, I can turn to him.”

Sharing

Several participants emphasized sharing as important for their friendship. Ulf, 22 years old explained, “[You’re close] when you can share everything.” Sharing hardships in particular was a way to help each other. For example, Simon: “You tell each other about hard stuff, like concerns and troubles you have.” Sharing fun and positive information was also emphasized, where Rikard wrote, “I’ll call him when something is tough or when something funny has happened because it feels fun to share it.” Daring to be vulnerable was also an important part of sharing. For example, Viktor, 24 years old: “We can be vulnerable and dare to talk about very personal things.”

Sub-Theme: Support

Some participants described close friendship as an avenue for supporting each other. Paul, 23 years old states, “We can seek advice and support from each other when we need to.” Highlighting the connection of sharing and depending on each other, participants expected their friend to provide support when other relationships faced difficulties. Carl explained, “I expect him to always be there for me. If I have family problems or problems with my girl he’ll always have something to say that can either help me or just support me.” The participants expected their friend to support them by intuitively knowing when

something was weighing on them, and to take it seriously. Ingvar wrote, “[A close friend] should know me better and notice when I need to talk about something important and not just laugh and joke around about it like a regular friend might.”

(30)

Some participants differentiated their close friendship from other friendships due to the ability to talk about anything. A close friendship should be accepting and free of judgement. William, 19 years old, wrote, “We are very honest with each other, and can tell each other anything without the other being judgmental.” Some, including Viktor, described specific topics that they could talk about openly: “We have with time opened up and been able to talk about relationships and insecurities. We can talk about sex in a way that is not judgmental and that’s honest - not what society expects.”Several participants described being genuine with their close friend. For example, Adam wrote:

It’s a relief to see each other [even if we don’t talk or meet often] because all the walls and protection we have against the outside world melt away and you can talk about everything and be yourself without pretense. It’s simply an opportunity to just be ourselves.

For some the feeling of being able to talk about anything was enough, even if it was not done. Sander, 25 years old wrote, “It feels like we could talk about relationships and feelings (even if we don’t do it often).”Another important aspect of having an open climate was to be able to disagree with each other. For example, Hjalmar, 24 years old: “An honesty between us that makes us tell each other anything. You can also whenever say that you don’t agree and that’s ok.”

Sub-Theme: Confrontational Honesty

Several participants emphasized the need for close friends to not only be honest and open, but also to challenge each other. Rikard wrote, “We can be honest with each other and question each other if there’s something we have a hard time with.” The participants

described it as a desire for their close friend to be honest when something is wrong, and not talk about it to others. Zane, 19 years old, wrote: “We can do wrong and know that the friend will bring it up instead of going behind your back and talk shit.” This was a specific feature

(31)

of close friendship, which other friendships did not have, where Kalle wrote, “[A close friend would] remark on things that other friends wouldn’t dare to say.”

Transitions in Emerging Adulthood

Several participants described how transitions common in emerging adulthood affected their friendships, and how they handled these transitions.

Geographical Distance

The majority of participants described geographical distance as a specific challenge that affected their friendship, who had seen their friendship change as they moved to new towns. Åke, 24 years old: “We live in different parts of the country nowadays. Before we lived together and hung out every day. Now our communication is for the most part done remotely.” A commonly described experience was that participants had moved to study in a different city. Sometimes far away from their close friend. Ingvar: “Now after we’ve both grown up we don’t have the same contact (as we’re studying in different cities and used to be in the same class).”

Adapted Contact

Several participants described how they had adapted their contact due to the distance. For example, Fredrik: “We’ve been able to keep in touch despite living in different cities and almost never seeing each other anymore.” Some, including Oskar, described daily contact as an essential part of their lives: “Today I can’t imagine a week or even two days where I haven’t sat myself in front of the computer, on the other side of the country, and just talked to him about absolutely anything since that is what helps us both get through our daily lives.” Other participants described the importance of contacting each other at least every few

months. Viktor described, “You need to actively work on hanging out. Both need to reach out to each other. You should say `hey´ at least once every 6 months if there is some form of distance.”

(32)

Timeless Connection

Several participants described that the closeness of the friendship was unaffected by the distance. Gunnar, 23 years old, wrote, “Moving to different cities has made the frequency of visits less, but the same friendship is there when we do meet.” The same was described by participants who had very little contact. For example, Ulf wrote, “We talk less often since we don’t live in the same city but when we talk it’s as if we’ve talked every day since we last talked to each other.” These participants described a friendship where, even if they rarely heard from each other, they could resume the friendship at any time. Rikard explained, “We know that we’re close to each other and can always contact each other and pick up where we last left off when we saw each other even if weeks pass in between.”

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate how young men perceive close same-gender

friendship from a thematic analysis of their own descriptions. The findings suggest that men perceive their close same-gender friendships as an important and strong source of intimacy in emerging adulthood. Contrary to the shallow or activity-oriented relationships described in parts of the research literature (Elkins & Peterson, 1993; Hook et al., 2003; Gaia, 2002), the men in our sample described their close friendships as meaningful and as both intuitively and explicitly intimate. The majority of generated themes in our analysis correspond to the current literature on men’s close friendships. However, the themes flow, confrontational honesty and timeless connection diverged from the research literature and is not adequately described by any one component from prior research. Our findings as a whole both diverge from and support prior research on young men’s close same-gender friendships.

Similarities with the Literature

(33)

At the center of the thematic map is the self-reinforcing cycle of relational security, sharing, support, reliable and open climate. The current cross-sectional study cannot infer causality between the different themes within what we have described as a cycle.

Nevertheless, from our qualitative data analysis, these themes appeared associated with each other as they often appeared together in participants’ friendship descriptions. Conceptually, the interrelation of these themes also makes sense. Friendships wherein participants felt that they could bring up any topic (open climate), encouraged them to share positive and negative experiences or feelings (sharing). This demonstrated that their friends were loyal and

dependable (reliable), and may have, in turn, reinforced their perceived relational bond to feel more secure (relational security). Relational security can be seen as both increasing as the friendship grows stronger and also as encouraging the participants, who already felt relational security, to engage in more friendship behaviors. Therefore the themes in the cycle appear to reciprocally reinforce each other, and were central to our participants’ descriptions of friendship closeness.

The themes in the self-reinforcing cycle appear to describe self-disclosure and interpersonal trust from the research literature. Sharing, support, and open climate together described friendships wherein participants could share intimate information of any topic, and expected support from their friends, which describes major facets of self-disclosure

(Bowman, 2009; Fehr, 2004; Kim et al., 2020; Tamir & Mitchell, 2012; Vijaykumar et al., 2020). Reliable and relational security described a need for an underlying trust in each other for the friendship to function and feel safe, which lines up well with interpersonal trust (Barbalet, 2009; Hall, 2011; Hook et al., 2003; Jones, 1991; Patrick & Beckenbach, 2009). Thus the central themes of our analysis correspond well with the existing research literature. Fun

(34)

Fun contained short descriptions on the importance of humor and having fun together and appear to describe aspects of play as described in the research literature (Demir, 2019; Tyra et al., 2019). However, the concept of play, including play activities and silliness (Demir, 2019) was overall not present in our sample and is broader than what the current participants described within fun. This may be because play is important to friendship, but not specific to close friendships. Additionally, the current survey design may have influenced the participants to think of what they perceived as more adult or introspective aspects of close friendship rather than play, which they may have perceived as a more immature aspect of friendship.

Shared Experiences

Shared experiences contained both descriptions of friendship duration, and past tense descriptions of shared activities. Whether they described shared experience in the present or past, sharing activities appeared to be an important part of what had made the participants close with their chosen friend. That shared activities are important, particularly in men’s friendships, is a common thread in the research literature (Fehr, 2004; Hall, 2011; Radmacher, 2006).

The fact that the participants infrequently described shared activities in the present tense and often described them as a part of long friendship history, may be because participants often described having moved away from their close friends to find work or attend university. The activities described as happening presently were often activities that could be conducted at a distance, such as playing online games. Despite possibly meeting and interacting less than before due to geographical distance, many participants appeared to greatly value their shared history, memories, and activities as significant for their friendship closeness.

(35)

Flow

Flow described a low maintenance in friendships as an important positive attribute, which the research literature does not clearly capture in any one component. However, flow can be understood in relation to friendship expectations. Research suggests that men, compared to women, have lower friendship expectations (Hall, 2011), and that men’s same-gender dyads might seem less demanding due to low emotional involvement (Felmlee, 2011). Low friendship expectations could facilitate friendship maintenance and therefore friendship satisfaction. Flow also has similarities with young men’s descriptions of judgement-free zones within their bromance where they could open up about their troubles (Robinson et al., 2018). Participants of the current study implied that their friendships were close because they were uncomplicated and easy-going. This might be a way to achieve close friendship rather than an indication of a shallow or superficial relationship. Flow as described by the

participants partly corresponds to previous research on men’s expectations and maintenance of their close same-gender friendships, but is not fully covered in the existing literature. Confrontational Honesty

In confrontational honesty, participants emphasized radical honesty and openness where they expected their friends to confront and question them when necessary. This made confrontational honesty salient within open climate and also when compared to the research literature on interpersonal trust, self-disclosure, and friendship maintenance. Confrontational honesty contains elements of interpersonal trust as the participants expected and trusted that their friends would tell them everything. Confrontational honesty also contains elements of self-disclosure as the participants expected complete disclosure from their friends if they did something wrong. Confrontational honesty is also comparable to the active and constructive problem-solving style (discussing problems and seeking conflict solutions), which Oswald and Clark (2006) found to positively correlate with friendship maintenance behaviors. As

(36)

confrontational honesty describes a clear expectation of self-disclosure, interpersonal trust, and direct confrontation, and is simultaneously not explicitly covered in the research literature, it may be a unique expression of intimacy in men’s close friendships.

Another possible explanation is that the descriptions of confrontational honesty came from a place of insecurity. As men generally have and expect less self-disclosure and

interpersonal trust in their friendships (Hall, 2011; Hook et al., 2003; Jones, 1991), they may feel unfamiliar and insecure with self-disclosure, and therefore handle this insecurity with all-or-nothing friendship expectations for openness and honesty. However, confrontational honesty appeared specific to close friendships wherein most participants described feeling secure, and may therefore be unique for close friendships. Although confrontational honesty shares some similarities with the literature on self-disclosure, interpersonal trust, and

friendship maintenance, the current research does not explicitly cover confrontational honesty, and may therefore add to current literature.

Transitions and Timeless Connection

Several participants described how an age-related life transition, geographical distance, affected their friendships. Moving away from their close friends was common in our sample, and often described as a normal part of growing up. Some participants responded to this transition by increasing or adapting their contact which Oswald and Clark (2003) found helpful for maintaining close friendship across an increased geographical distance.

On the other hand, some participants did not adapt their contact to the increased distance and instead described a timeless connection within their friends, where their friendship was unaffected and as intimate as before. This does not support Oswald’s and Clark’s (2003) findings that frequent contact is important for friendship maintenance and satisfaction. However, timeless connection is supported by a 35-year-old content analysis by Rose and Serafica (1986) where emerging adults described best friendships as more

(37)

self-maintaining and independent of geographical distance and contact compared to other friendships. For example, a 26-year-old woman described best friendship as having “some sort of intangible bond (...) at an abstract, universal level (...) [and that] best friendships can tolerate distance, time and pressure” (Rose & Serafica, 1986, p. 278). Timeless connection applies to this description which suggests that timeless connection may not be unique for men in our contemporary sample. Our study unintentionally found the impact of geographical distance to friendship closeness, and that friends could be close despite the distance, either through adapted contact or a timeless connection. The saliency of timeless connection within our study, combined with the scarcity of comparable recent research warrants further

research of timeless connection. Range of Expressing Intimacy

The wide range of how participants expressed intimacy within their close friendships was both supported and challenged by prior research. Although we chose an anonymous design to elicit more expressive descriptions, the wide range we collected suggests that intimacy is difficult to measure despite anonymity. Many participants described their closeness and affection explicitly with emotional words, which supports the research literature that men desire and are capable of emotional expression (Hook et al., 2003; Robinson et al., 2018; Way, 2013). On the other hand, several participants did not use

emotional words and instead used implicit descriptions of closeness with general descriptions or by simply not elaborating. This supports the research that men, compared to women, express less love, warm feelings, and emotions in relationships (Hook et al., 2003). This variation in response was further illustrated within the theme affection and sub-theme implicit affection, where, for example, Johan’s statement “He’s an extremely important person in my life” is more explicit than Kalle’s question “Isn’t [knowing that you’re close friends]

(38)

The theme open climate illustrates the variation of response depth where, Ulf simply wrote, “straight with me,” while Oskar elaborated further: “Outspokenness. ... I can say exactly how I feel without an underlying feeling that he’ll keep it against me in the future.” While a range of responses within a theme could support that we reached a natural range of expression and experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2006), it could also indicate that some

respondents did not feel comfortable elaborating their answers. However, we cannot assume that longer responses indicated a more intimate friendship than participants who used less descriptive responses, as participants who used shorter or more implicit responses might have perceived their closeness as self-evident and therefore felt less motivated to elaborate further. In summary, the difference in response levels could be influenced by the participants’

motivation, perceived anonymity and safety, current emotional and cognitive state, or

vocabulary level. It remains difficult to determine whether the range of responses constitute a natural range of intimacy expression, or if some participants are limited in their expression of intimacy.

Methodological Strengths

We conducted our study using a qualitative online questionnaire where the

participants used their own words to describe their close friendship. We chose this design as we wanted to reach individuals who could feel unmotivated in participating in qualitative interviews. Compared to interviews, the online survey was accessible and required relatively short time to complete, which increased the possibility to recruit participants with less time, motivation, or interest in a study on men’s friendships. The increased anonymity was also considered to be a factor which could increase participants’ disclosure in the survey, as they would feel less pressure to give socially desirable answers.

An additional strength of our design is that the design decreased the risk of excluding minority groups. The increased anonymity and inclusive language aimed to increase

(39)

participation of self-identified men within sexual minority groups who otherwise might not volunteer to avoid stressful situations where researchers may question their gender identity, exclude, and marginalize the individual by gender expression or judicial gender (Lundberg et al., 2017). Another minority group we wanted to include was individuals living in Sweden but that did not speak Swedish as their first language and individuals that identified with multiple cultures. Our study design allowed English and Swedish speaking participants to volunteer and self-identify their cultural belonging and gender rather than choose from limited options and possibly feel excluded.

Our choice and use of thematic analysis constitutes another strength of the study as thematic analysis is optimal for novice investigators and for exploring relatively under-researched topics (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis clearly meets the explorative aim our study better than other available qualitative analytical methods.

Methodological Limitations

Anonymous Online Qualitative Design

We selected the anonymous online qualitative design because its strengths were beneficial to the aim of our study, but there were also several limitations to our choice of study design.

A limitation to the demographic questions was that participants were not asked to report their educational level or occupation. This was because volunteers could perceive socioeconomic status (SES) questions as sensitive and could increase participant attrition, particularly among participants with low SES, which could skew our sample. We decided to not ask for participants’ SES to increase inclusion of participants of low SES in the study. However, this also meant that we did not know the sample characteristics regarding SES and how representative our sample was in that regard. Additionally, the questionnaire was primarily distributed through university Facebook pages, which could have further limited

“Isn’t that something you just know?” Young Men’s Descriptions of Intimacy within Same-Gender Friendships

Table of Contents