2010 18 2 140 151 2010 1) 115 35 5 5 1996; 1995 1) 3 3 Bigelow1977; 1988 La Gaipa (1977) 5 (Self-Disclosure) (Authenticity) (Helping Behavior) (Acceptance) (Positive Regard) (Strength of Character) (Similarity) (Empathic Understanding) 8 La Gaipa (1977, 1979) 7 Friendship Expectancy Inventory (1999) (1993) 6
141 (1991, 2000) 6 (1998) 5 1993 Reisman & Shorr1978; 1999 2000 1993McDougall & Hymel (2007) (1993) (2008) 2006 (1986) 87.0% 87.0% (2007) 80% 60% 64.0% McDougall & Hymel (2007) (2008) (1993) 1993 (2008) (2008) 2005 20071994 3 3
142 18 2 3 1999; 2000 60 24 36 20.23 0.83 2008 5 207 75 132 167 60 107 200 67 133 574 202 372 3 1 7 (Table 1) A (1999) (2000) (2000) (1998) B 2 Table 1 A 32 66 98 20 49 69 19 45 64 231 B 27 56 83 22 41 63 21 52 73 219 C 6 1 7 3 1 4 3 15 18 29 D 1 2 3 1 2 3 9 5 14 20 E 2 3 5 0 2 2 2 10 12 19 F 0 0 0 8 0 8 5 4 9 17 G 4 2 6 1 1 2 3 1 4 12 3 2 5 5 11 16 5 1 6 27 75 132 207 60 107 167 67 133 200 574
143 78.4% A B C (1999) D (2000) C E (2000) (1999) (1998) E F F F G (1995) 2000 1998 3 115 40 75 20.37 1.35 2008 6 10 7 5 35 12 34 5 5
144 18 2 2 32 2 1.0 6 6 10.573.672.242.141.821.11 1 2 2 3 5 6 6 promax 6.50 1 5 (Table 2)5 51.9% 1 5C.9212C (.82) C 24B (.74)35B(.70) B 1 2 10F (.93) 2F (.85) F 2 3 28D(.67) 13D(.64) D 14E(.53) 34E(.51) E 3 4 16A(.85) 25A(.80) A 4 5 30G (.77) 26G(.69) G 3
145 Table 2 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 h 2 1 5C.92.17.11.07.15.70 3.53 (1.05) 3.20 (1.11) 4.70 (0.71) 12C.82.02.04.09.11.52 3.91 (0.81) 3.83 (0.84) 4.49 (0.79) 22C.82.02.08.03.24.60 4.23 (0.73) 4.05 (0.85) 4.63 (0.66) 24B.74.01.11.11.01.54 3.92 (1.07) 3.44 (1.14) 4.52 (0.76) 27C.73.08.00.02.03.55 3.79 (0.88) 3.77 (0.86) 4.53 (0.76) 35B.70.04.03.06.21.65 3.83 (0.93) 3.54 (1.08) 4.53 (0.78) 20C.64.09.31.05.15.64 4.16 (0.76) 3.97 (0.89) 4.62 (0.63) 3G.59.03.11.04.29.49 3.81 (0.98) 3.35 (1.12) 4.27 (0.83) 18B.53.07.06.13.06.46 3.98 (0.94) 3.87 (0.89) 4.43 (0.77) 11G.47.03.02.09.43.57 3.71 (0.98) 3.17 (1.06) 4.19 (0.85) 6E.47.03.00.06.34.47 3.78 (0.93) 3.68 (1.06) 4.28 (0.87) 21E.46.07.34.07.11.52 4.13 (0.78) 4.23 (0.61) 4.60 (0.59) 1A.44.02.20.33.06.34 4.30 (0.83) 3.72 (1.02) 4.49 (0.78) 8B.43.15.00.12.26.45 4.05 (0.94) 3.92 (1.13) 4.38 (1.04) 2 10F.01.93.03.01.06.88 2.56 (1.05) 2.87 (1.22) 3.72 (1.05) 2F.08.85.06.00.01.75 2.53 (1.10) 2.89 (1.21) 3.75 (1.00) 17F.07.85.08.00.00.72 2.04 (0.95) 2.54 (1.15) 3.21 (1.19) 23F.07.76.03.02.01.59 2.60 (1.05) 2.73 (1.14) 3.37 (1.08) 32F.04.50.16.08.09.32 2.37 (1.08) 2.92 (1.19) 3.79 (1.20) 3 28D.11.00.67.10.07.47 3.80 (0.95) 3.87 (0.93) 4.37 (0.81) 13D.01.05.64.08.07.41 4.21 (0.77) 4.15 (0.73) 4.43 (0.77) 19D.20.14.61.06.03.29 3.16 (1.07) 3.57 (1.08) 3.70 (1.10) 31D.03.10.59.02.06.36 4.01 (0.77) 3.94 (0.88) 4.40 (0.80) 4D.01.12.55.00.07.33 4.31 (0.74) 4.15 (0.84) 4.40 (0.71) 14E.37.14.53.09.05.55 4.21 (0.71) 4.06 (0.88) 4.58 (0.59) 34E.15.00.51.08.23.35 3.57 (1.09) 3.74 (1.04) 3.83 (1.16) 7E.13.05.38.06.10.31 3.90 (0.95) 4.02 (0.86) 4.43 (0.84) 4 16A.02.10.02.85.07.68 4.47 (0.64) 4.56 (0.62) 4.55 (0.60) 25A.07.02.03.80.07.67 4.51 (0.63) 4.53 (0.58) 4.63 (0.52) 9A.05.05.06.74.01.55 4.47 (0.88) 4.52 (0.71) 4.49 (0.69) 33A.09.11.07.60.14.45 4.50 (0.74) 4.49 (0.60) 4.37 (0.80) 5 30G.02.12.02.02.77.64 3.29 (1.09) 3.01 (1.06) 3.61 (1.16) 26G.19.05.04.01.69.36 2.83 (1.08) 2.37 (1.06) 2.47 (1.15) 15G.33.04.06.08.58.55 3.77 (0.96) 3.34 (1.13) 3.84 (0.97) 29B.09.01.30.14.48.46 3.86 (0.94) 3.88 (1.03) 4.06 (1.10) F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 1 2.22 3.59.12 4.40.01.35 5.52.05.40.34.50 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5.86.86.71.81.72.87.87.79.86.75.91.83.78.80.70 1 Table 1 2.50
146 18 2 5.50.86.71.87.75.91.70.50 1 2 5 5 5 5 15 (Table 3) 4 1.64 (p.001).66 (p.001) 2 4 3 4 4 Table 3.07.47.04.51.04.32.51.14.30.36.64.03.41.29.39.11.61.06.08.15.15.30.10.71.20.24.42.01.39.08.26.69.30.30.06.21.44.04.35.10.59.44.07.29.18.66.02.28.32.30.60.15.33.30.34.02.49.08.07.10.23.66.14.03.05.13.44.08.71.32.30.41.02.57.30.35.51.19.34.04.20.50.21.21.13.21.58.10.42.11.33.36.06.18.04.42.30.03.23.14.50.41.16.35.25 p.10 p.05 p.01 p.001 1 2 3 4
147 Table 4 (3) (2) 2 (SD) (SD) (SD) 40 3.59 (0.67) 3.54 (0.72) 4.29 (0.71) 136.06 (2,226) 11.08 (1,113) 3.63 (2,226) 75 4.07 (0.53) 3.74 (0.67) 4.65 (0.44) 40 2.60 (0.83) 3.37 (0.97) 3.92 (0.71) 124.10 (2,226) 24.64 (1,113) 8.33 (2,226) 75 2.33 (0.83) 2.48 (0.82) 3.38 (0.85) 40 3.79 (0.62) 3.87 (0.67) 4.12 (0.54) 33.41 (1.80,203.14) 75 3.95 (0.48) 3.95 (0.58) 4.32 (0.58) n.s. n.s. 40 4.44 (0.73) 4.42 (0.66) 4.43 (0.60) 75 4.52 (0.49) 4.58 (0.44) 4.55 (0.47) n.s. n.s. n.s. 40 3.22 (1.00) 2.58 (0.84) 3.04 (0.84) 17.88 (1.92,216.35) 6.43 (1,113) 2.96 (1.92,216.35) 75 3.33 (0.73) 3.08 (0.87) 3.45 (0.85) p.10 p.05 p.01 p.001 4 (3) (2) 2 (Table 4) (F (2,226) 3.63p.05) (F (2,226) 8.33p.001) Bonferroni 5% (F (1.80,203.14) 33.41p.001) (F (1.92,216.35) 17.88p.001) Tukey 5% (F (1,113) 6.43p.05)
148 18 2 5 4 3.50 4.00 (2008) (1993) (1993) 3.00 (2008) (1986) 60.2% 31.2% 57.1% 3.50 (2000) 1961; 1973 1971; 1983
149 4.00 (2000) 3.00 (1986) (2008) Table 5 Table 5 3.00 4.00 3 40
150 18 2 3 3 3 (2000) (1971) 455 421 13 (1993) 64140 146 Bigelow, B. J. (1977) Children s friendship expectations: A cognitive-developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246 253. (1999) 50181 190 (2008) 17 204 205 (1994) 34116 128 (1986) I 741 48 (1961) 91 8 La Gaipa, J. J. (1977). Testing a multi-dimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press. pp. 249 270. La Gaipa, J. J. (1979). A developmental study of the meaning of friendship in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 2, 201 213. (1993) (1996) pp. 19 54 (1983) 24 44 45 McDougall, P., & Hymel, S. (2007). Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions:similar or different?. Merrill-palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 53, 347 380. (2007) LifeDesgin REPORT 2007 11 12 24 31 (1995) 4 pp.155 184 (2008) 68149 164 Reisman, J. M., & Shorr, S. I. (1978). Friendship claim and expectation among children and adult. Child Development, 49, 913 916. (1991) 39 125 126 (2000) 401 15 (1998)
151 855 64 (1973) 5 pp. 141 193 (2006) 32 21 30 (2005) 2121 31 (2007) 78244 251 (1988) 771 80 (1993) 867 75 2009.3.5 2009.7.14 A Comparative Study of University Students Expectations for Same-Sex Friends, Opposite-Sex Friends, and Lovers Yasumasa KOSAKA Wako University THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY 2010, Vol. 18 No. 2, 140 151 University students expectations for same-sex friends, opposite-sex friends, and lovers were investigated. University students (N115) were asked to respond to 35 questions regarding expectations for same-sex friends, and for opposite-sex friends, and for lovers. Factor analysis found five factors: trust and support, outward attractiveness, consideration, active exchange, and mutual improvement. The results indicated that for same-sex friends, both men and women expected trust and support, consideration, active exchange, and mutual improvement. For opposite-sex friends, both men and women expected trust and support, consideration, and active exchange. In addition, men expected outward attractiveness, while women expected mutual improvement. For lovers, both men and women expected all of the 5 factors. Key words: expectancy, same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, lover, university students