,mﬁya

a. .94....

.5.

1:!

I 3 A I,
”M S“; 1 25.1.4-
»?5!n.a«h.~15§ n (yaw.
.u aimﬁasvhhn 1mm... 512.3...
ﬂaw... “9%..meua1. Jim»;
31...”?

2!

aha:
?‘ 71.3.. 7:
{I}.
1.? Ah}.
:5 s . 7
tax. I

. .
.ichuaﬁa
£s
29:25:,
3:11.. 12:.
3 31.3.2; 35.
‘ s n. IE“:
1:... «.139 ......A
iili'zr .M.‘
”near-v.
.31. at...- .i.

.n .12. . ‘y.
"iii“.‘nuucvs. .,

1.3:...) 1r .3.
ligl; .u 2.1.:
u 3.3 19...“: , .
\ pa. maﬁa.

. 2.
- t
{1.013.} .+
a}... . ‘
:

$9.“. 3..

. y. w
h: 2 .

0:1... VJ!“
.... Ha? I ....‘
. an .. in? .

 

. a.» h
a?

33%?

.r...

, :, . .. as

 

 

THESIS

209i

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

w

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Taboo topics in same-sex friendships

presented by

Misako Ohira

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

, Communicat ion
degree 1n

 

 

244%;

Major professor

 

Date __0fLLZ.LlZQD_L_

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

rat" a cmo
Clo-l ' ii: LUU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCIDateDuepss-p. 15

TABOO TOPICS IN SAME-SEX FRIENDSHIPS
By

Misako Ohira

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements

for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2001

ABSTRACT
TABOO TOPICS BETWEEN SAME-SEX F RIENDSHIPS
By
Misako Ohira
This study examined the most frequent taboo topics in same-sex friendships and

reasons for avoiding those topics. The inﬂuence of closeness and satisfaction in
friendships on taboo topics also was analyzed. One view of closeness is that
self-disclosure is considered as the most efﬁcient way to achieve intimacy with others
(Parks, 1982), and openness about self directly relates to increased intimacy. However,
friendship does not necessarily work this way and it can be explained from a dialectical
perspective. Dialectical perspectives focus on the continuous tension between
contradictions such as closedness and openness (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). These
contradictions are essential for the “development of close relationship bonds" (Rawlins,
1983b, p.2). The participants completed a survey with open-ended questions to recall
an incident where one avoided a topic with a same-sex friend. This was followed by
closed-ended questions measuring the qualities of the friendships and beliefs about
openness. The results revealed that the most common taboo topics was sex and
romance (55.4%). The most frequent reasons for avoiding topics was other protection
(24.5%). The analysis indicated that openness, closeness, satisfaction, and the length of

the friendship had no effect on taboo topics or taboo topic reasons.

Copyright by
MISAKO OHIRA

2001

To my dearest of friends,

Tomoyo and Yumi

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Timothy Levine, Dr. Kelly Morrison,
and Dr. Bradley Greenberg for your suggestions, advice and support. I especially
would like to thank Dr. Timothy Levine for his support, guidance and taking so much
time to help me in completing this thesis. It would have been impossible for me to
complete this task without your great support. I would also like to express my sincere
appreciation for Dr. Hifumi Ohnishi for supporting me emotionally. And lastly, I also
would like to thank Sachiyo Morinaga for devoting her time coding the data.

It is amazing when I came here two years ago, I did not know anyone and now I
have many friends. Without all of them, I would not have able to complete my studies
and enjoy my time here at Michigan State University. I would like to thank Lucia for
always being there for me and supporting me, Liz and Lindsay for your warm heart; Taka
for being good listener, and Rieko for a very special bond. Also, I would like to thank
Tisha and Merissa for encouragements and giving me insights to my thesis; Tomoyo and
Yumi for always being my best friends and closest to my heart, even though we do not
get to see each other and spend time together like as we used to. I may have not
mentioned your name here but I would like to thank all of my friends who gave me tons
of love and hugs. I’m sure you know who you are, right?

Lastly, I would like to thank my family. My parents, Sumiko and Masahiro.

and my sister, Chisako, thank you so much for being a loving and warm family where I

V

can always receive love and comfort. Because of you, I was able to encourage myself
to get through some hard times I experienced and complete my study. I really would
like to thank you for the opportunity you have given me to study here in the United

States.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 3
Friendship .............................................................................................................. 3
Dialectics ............................................................................................................... 6
Taboo Topics ....................................................................................................... 11
Research Questions ............................................................................................. 15
Chapter 2: Method ............................................................................................................. l9
Participants .......................................................................................................... 19
Procedures ........................................................................................................... 19
Measurement ....................................................................................................... 20
Coding ................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 3: Results ............................................................................................................. 32
Preliminary Analyses .......................................................................................... 32
Tests of the Research Questions .......................................................................... 33
Supplemental Analyses ....................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4: Discussion ........................................................................................................ 38
References ......................................................................................................................... 49
Footnote ............................................................................................................................. 53
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 54
Appendix A: Tables .......................................................................................... 55
Appendix B: Communication Questionnaire (Open-ended questions) ............ 70

Appendix C: Communication Questionnaire (Close-ended questions)..........73

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table l: Decription and Examples of Taboo Topic Types

Table 2: Decription and Examples of Reasons

Table 3: Correlation matrixes for closeness scales

Table 4: Frequencies of Taboo Topic Types

Table 5: Frequencies of Taboo Topic Reasons

Table 6: Correlations between Closeness, Openness, and Relational Duration and
Taboo Topic Types and Reasons

Table 7: Cross Tabulation of Taboo Topic Types and Reasons

viii

Introduction

“Manner exists within close relationships.” This Japanese saying refers to
dyadic relationships. It means that even if one is in a close and intimate relationship,
one‘ should know what is and is not acceptable to say to one’s friend or partner, since lack
of caution can harm the relationship. Intimacy, or feeling close to someone, does not
necessarily mean that one should disclose and talk about everything, nor does intimacy
rely entirely on how much one discloses to another (Parks, 1982). Communication in
close relationships often involves open feelings and easiness, however these comfortable
feelings are not always considered an asset of friendships (Rawlins, 1983b). It is
sometimes necessary to avoid certain topics in order to maintain a good relationship with
others (Rawlins, 1983b) and to have privacy for intimacy (LaFollete & Graham, 1986).
From a dialectical view, not only do such contradictions exist in close relationships, but
they also are essential for the “development of close relationship bonds” (Rawlins, 1983b,
p.2).

Research on cross-sex relationships, not necessarily romantic relationships,

99 ‘6

revealed six primary taboo topics: “state of the relationship, extra-relationship activity,”

99 66 99 6‘

“relationship norms, prior relationships, conﬂict-inducing topics,” and
“negatively-valenced self-disclosure” (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985). The most avoided
topic between opposite-sex partners was the state of their relationship. Cross-sex

friendships and same-sex friendships are different relationships since cross-sex friendship

I

have to deal with the issue of sexuality even if there is no sexuality involved (Wood,
2001). Thus, it is possible that taboo topics in same-sex friendships differ from those in
cross-sex friendships. Furthermore, ﬁndings in this study may bring insight to our
understanding of friendship since the dialectic of what to disclose and what to conceal is
always present in friendship (Rawlins, 1983b).

The purpose of this study is to discover the taboo topics in same-sex friendships
and the reasons for avoiding those topics for the better understandings of same-sex
friendships. The inﬂuence of closeness and satisfaction in same-sex friendships on
taboo topics also will be analyzed. In the ﬁrst chapter, I will ﬁrst discuss the deﬁnition,
meaning, and main characteristics of friendship in general. Second, the dialectical
perspective will be presented as an explanation for the conﬂicting desires to disclose and
withhold information about taboo topics. Third, taboo topics in relation to dialectical
perspectives on friendship will be discussed and followed by research questions to be
addressed in this study. In the second chapter, methods to study taboo topics in
friendship will be presented. The third chapter will present the results of the study,

followed by the discussion of the study in the fourth chapter.

Chapter 1

Friendship

Friendship is one of the most essential and valuable relationships in individuals’
lives because of the fulﬁllments friendship brings to our lives in the form of increased
happiness, social integration, and emotional support (Fehr, 1996). To carry on our lives
without friends is nearly impossible.

No one distinct deﬁnition exists for the concept of friendship. Just as many
types of friendships exist, numerous explanations and meanings of friendship are present.
According to Willmot (1987), friendship has unique characteristics in comparison to
other relationships. Friendship is a voluntary relationship, containing intimacy, and is
independent from kin or legal responsibility. The voluntary characteristic of friendship
does not mandate the endurance of friendship, unlike kin and marital relationships.
However, friendship can be maintained, similar to a kin relationship, if friends embody
intimacy, growth, attachment and obligation. Friendships occur at an individual level,
and are not institutionalized: There are no rituals or formal fashions to follow which
i make friendship unique (Allan, 1989). People choose to be friends with others and they
are free to withdraw if they decide to do so. No obligation exists to maintain a
friendship if one decides not to continue the relationship. Friendship is built upon trust
that allows both individuals to rely on each other and ask for support when they feel they

need help. Fehr (1996) further deﬁned friendship as a relationship that contains

3

intimacy and assistance with both individuals attracted to and recognizing each other as
their company. People ﬁnd intimacy, enjoyment, trust, loyalty, and honesty in another
individual’s friendship (F ehr, 1996). According to Fehr (1996), characteristics of
friendship such as faithfulness, trust, and self-disclosure, become established during one’s
adolescent period and will stay signiﬁcant throughout one’s adulthood.

In one study, Fischer (1982a) found that 58% of individuals in respondents’
social networks were regarded as friends. Of this 58%, 23% were just solely friends
with no work-related relationships, neighbors or kin (Fischer, 1982a). In another study,
college students were asked to determine “what it was that made their lives meaningful”
(p. 6). Nearly all of these respondents answered “friends.” For some students,
friendship was the only relationship that made their lives meaningful (Klinger, 1977).
Friendship in young adulthood may greatly inﬂuence one’s self-concept, future career,
mate selection, leisure activity and involvement with the community, and may also affect
one’s friendship later in life (Rawlins, 1992). Rawlins (1992) noted that this period is
time to build “deep and zestful friendships-a potential window of availability, vitality, and
hearty, shared concern for personal essences” (p. 104).

Willmot (1987) listed certain necessary conditions for an individual to develop a
friendship with others. First, one must meet someone, since interacting with people is
the only way to make friends. Second, for a friendship to develop further, one needs to

have shared interests. Third, mutual attraction and involvement with both individuals is

4

most important. Thus, common interest and individual willingness to be involved in a
relationship enhance the development of friendship.

The similarities between women and men’s friendships is that they both believe
in the importance of same-sex friendships qualities such as trust, help, intimacy,
enjoyment, acceptance, and instrumental assistance. The basic view of friendship
between women and men does not differ substantially (Wood, 2001).

The difference in women and men’s friendships is how they communicate within
their same-sex friendships. Women communicate with each other verbally and directly
by sharing personal feelings and emotions which allows expressiveness, disclosures and
attentiveness in the ﬁiendship (Wood, 2001). Sharing details of each other’s feelings
and what is happening in their lives makes women feel close to one another by making it
possible for women to understand each other’s life (Rubin, 1985; Wood, 2001). This is
one of the aspects which makes non-proximal friendships possible.

Men’s friendship is illustrated with sharing activities and interests with less
talking compared to women’s friendships. However, this does not mean that men do not
become as close to their friends as do women. Men’s affection can be expressed
indirectly and non-verbally such as in friendly competition, affectionate punches, joking
and razzing. Because of how men keep friendship, it may be difﬁcult to maintain
non-proximal friendships (Rubin, 1985; Wood, 2001).

Friendship requires balance. The voluntary nature of friendship requires

5

individuals to be conscious about maintaining balance, equity and reciprocity in the
relationship. Reward exchange is not the most central aspect of friendship. However,
if equal involvement and reciprocity do not exist, this could result in the dissolution of
the friendship (Willmot, 1987; Allan, 1989). Within friendships, equal exchange of
self-disclosure and emotion is believed to enhance feelings of intimacy (Allan, 1989;
Rawlins, 1992). People have a desire to be equal with whom they are communicating,
either through their disclosure of personal issues or some other form of behavior. This
matching of levels of disclosure ﬁts within the norm of reciprocity (Chelune, Robinson &
Kommor, 1984). Because of the reciprocity norm, feelings of unequal disclosure
exchange may result in the termination of a relationship. Balancing the need to be open
and closed regarding their self-disclosure inﬂuences how individuals preserve trust within
their friendship (Rawlins, 1983b). Thus, individuals may experience a dilemma about
whether to disclose or not disclose information that can be a sensitive issue to their
relationship. In order to understand these competing desires, I turn now to a discussion
of the dialectic perspective.
Dialectics

“Dialectic is not a theory in the traditional sense” (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000,
p. 32). Dialectical theory does not contain rigid structures, prediction or explanations,
which traditional social scientiﬁc theories contain (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000; Baxter

& Montgomery, 1998). A continuous tension of contradictions moving between

6

consistent and inconsistent, stable and unstable would be considered a dialectical
perspective which leads relationships to constant change (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998;
Montgomery, 1993).

There are three assumptions in relational dialectics. First, people experience
tension that represents the existence of contradiction in any kind of relationship. Second,
any form of contradiction is meaningful only when the opposite side of contradiction is
present. Third, presence of such tensions works as motivation force for change in the
relationships.

Four core concepts: contradiction, dialectical change, praxis and totality build
the dialectical approach (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000).

Contradiction is the principal assumption that makes the dialectical perspective
different from traditional theories (Dindia, 1998). Rawlins (1992) views contradiction
and dialectical tension as the main concepts of dialectical examination. “Contradiction
refers to the dynamic interplay between uniﬁed opposites.” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998,
p. 4). If incidents contain disagreement and both abate one another by deﬁnition, logic,
and function, then a contradiction is present (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998; Baxter, 1990).
Positive and negative aspects are assumed to be present in both poles of the contradiction
affecting relationships for better or worse (Montgomery, 1993). In any social system,
contradiction holds a fundamental aspect for change and growth (Baxter, 1990) and

works as motivation and energy for change. Moreover, contradictions are assumed to be

an inherent characteristic in social life (Rawlins, 1989). Consequently, the dialectical
perspective does not view contradiction as negative or positive. Dialectics focus on how
contradictions work as the driving force for change and development in the interaction
(Baxter & Montgomery, 2000; Baxter, 1990). Location of the contradiction, and the
source from which contradiction emerges, depends on the researcher’s perspective.

While some researchers examine speciﬁc contradictions at the individual-level, others
argue that contradictions are located at a relational-level or cultural-level, analyzing
contradictions rather generally (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998).

Change is regarded as continuous discrepancy of incidents over time (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1998) and is recognized as a primary component in social life. From a
dialectical perspective, the current circumstance of the relationship is a result of the past
and will continue to affect the future relationship (Rawlins, 1992). According to Baxter
and Montgomery (1998), the result of the contradiction is change. That is, because of
opposition, things have changed, therefore making it harder to think of change as
something separate from contradiction. As a consequence, from a dialectical point of
view, stability is not an accurate perception. It is only an illusion. This leads to the
conclusion that change is constant in relationships (Montgomery, 1993). Hence, what
seems stable could actually be temporary, with the situation or relationship state changing
at a very slow rate (Rawlins, 1989).

Some dialectical scholars argue that change occurs in predicted ways, and other

8

dialectical theorists suggest that change occurs with no predictable patterns (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1998). According to Baxter and Montgomery (1998), change happens in
a spiral involving both “directional change,” going to a new direction different from the
prior position, and “cyclical change,” following the routine that is already established.
The majority of dialectical scholars view change as nonteleological, by which change
does not reach any idealized state of relationship or sociality features (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1998). Although change seems complicated, this complexity enables
scholars to look at phenomena from different angles with multiple meanings, containing
no idealized goal.

_13_r_a_x_i§ focuses on human action as both the reactions to, and the product of, a
previously experienced contradiction (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998; Dindia, 1998;
Rawlins, 1989). Making communicative choices creates boundaries to communicative
actions in the future, but only through interaction with others (Rawlins, 1989). All the
choices one makes inﬂuence interaction; every interaction is affected by prior interactions
and also affects future interactions by making the present interaction unique (Baxter &
Montgomery, 2000). Individuals’ decisions about how to interact with a friend or treat a
friend will inﬂuence the social interactions between the individuals in the future (Rawlins,
1989). Praxis can be focused generally or particularly, depending on the researcher’s
view, and it parallels the contradictions’ generality and particularity (Baxter &

Montgomery, 1998).

Totality considers phenomena as inherently interrelated, and thus separation of
one phenomenon from another is impossible. Also, from a dialectical perspective,
totality implies that communication is context dependent (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000).
Interdependent relationships of phenomenon help us to understand the circumstances
(Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). Dialectic totality is not in one stable state but consists
of continuous movement and “alternation between contexualizing and being
contextualized” (Rawlins, 1989, p. 158). Totality takes contradiction into account as a
unit of analysis which separates dialectical holism from other holistic perspectives such
as systems theory or Gestalt Psychology (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000).

Under the broader general concept of contradiction there are two sub-types of
contradictions scholars advocate (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). The ﬁrst type of
contradiction explains that it cannot be separated from other contradictions because it is
related integrally. The second type states that contradictions are embedded in the
dialectical experience, making separation difﬁcult from “temporal, spatial, and
sociocultural setting” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998, p. 10).

According to Baxter and Montgomery (2000), the assumptions of dialectical
totality address three issues: where contradictions are located, interdependencies among
contradictions, and the contextualization of contradictory interplay. The location of
contradiction focuses on where the contradiction is located. Although it seems as if the

dialectical tensions lie between individuals, they may exist within the interpersonal

10

relationships or on the cultural-level. Assumptions of interdependencies among
contradictions put emphasis on the fact that dialectical tensions are related with each
other along with time. Under the contextualization of contradictory interplay, dialectical
scholars study contradictions both of universal (or general) and particular settings
because the contradiction process is not only universal (or general), but also differs
depending on the surrounding environment and underlying situations at the same time.
Dialectical perspective takes both poles of contradiction into account and examines a
phenomenon as a whole. In the next section, taboo topics, contains both polar at the
same time, in close relationships will be discussed from a dialectical perspective.
Taboo Topics

Taboo topics exemplify dialectical tension within a close relationships. In fact,
the tension between desiring self-disclosure and needing to protect oneself has been
labeled the openness-closedness tension (Canary, Cody & Manusov, 2000). The other
three are, interdependence-autonomy; wanting to be connected with others but at the
same time wanting to keep one’s own individuality, predictability-novelty; needing to
make predictions about partner and also wanting something new that is surprising and
unpredictable, and passion-stability; the need for excitement and passion in the
relationship and also the need for stability and comfort (Canary, Cody & Manusov, 2000).
Accordingly, this dialectical view may explain how the “ideology of intimacy” (Parks,

1982, p. 83) does not hold true with self-disclosure being one of the most effective ways

11

to achieve closeness in the relationship.

A taboo topic is regarded as a prohibited issue by either one or both individuals
of a relationship. Individuals strategically need to decide not to disclose the information
to others for topic avoidance to occur in a particular relationship or context (Aﬁﬁ &
Guerrero, 2000). A variety of topics can be avoided, including topics about others, the
relationship, and topics unrelated to self (Baxter and Wilmot, 1985). People often view
self-disclosure as rewarding. They believe that it leads to positive feelings of each other
(Omazu, 2000) and consider disclosure as a barometer for the intimacy of relationships.
The beneﬁt of self-disclosure is so highly praised that the risks of disclosing tend to be
forgotten (Parks, 1982). Many view self-disclosure as the one and only way to achieve
intimacy with others (Parks, 1982), and openness about self directly relates to increased
intimacy. Because of the presence of this “ideology of intimacy” (Parks, 1982, p. 83),
the more you disclose, the more you can be intimate with others, and people strongly
expect to achieve highly intimate and positive relationships with greater disclosure.

Parks (1982) argued that people are pressured to disclose through this “ideology of
intimacy” (p. 83), thus failure to do so can result in a negative impression. Only a few
researchers argue that disclosure does not always result in increased intimacy with others
(Parks, 1982; Rawlins, 1983b).

Few studies (Aﬁﬁ & Burgoon, 1998; Aﬁﬁ & Guerrero, 1998; Aﬁﬁ & Guerrero,

2000; Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Rawlins, 1983b, and Rosenfeld, 1979) have examined

12

taboo topics/topic avoidance. Rosenfeld (1979) examined differences and similarities
between males and females in self-disclosure avoidance and the reasons for avoiding
disclosure. This study found that sex differences in self-disclosure are related to
avoidance of self-disclosure: Male respondents avoided self-disclosure to maintain
control and to save their own face, and female respondents avoided self-disclosure to
protect themselves from being hurt. There was, however, more similarity than
differences between males and females in the study. Rosenfeld (1979) did not report the
frequency of speciﬁc reasons for avoiding self-disclosure; conceivably because he did not
look at speciﬁc avoided t0pics.

Rawlins (1983b) examined openness and protectiveness dialectics in friendships.
Rawlins (1983b) completed extensive interviews of ten pairs of close friends (four pairs
of female friends, four pairs of male friends, and two pairs of cross-sex friends) and
collected data on the dialectical decisions of revealing or withholding information about
oneself. Rawlins (1983b) indicated that mutual self-disclosure between friends is
necessary to achieve intimacy but at the same time, the need to protect one’s vulnerable
self emerges. Therefore, closedness is required simultaneously to be open with others
(Rawlins, 1983b). Rawlins (1983b) argued that developing the skill to withhold private
information is as important as disclosing to achieve more intimacy in the relationships.
Individuals learn about their relationship through each other’s behaviors, therefore the

existence of the dialectics of expressiveness and protectiveness assures “a cognitive

l3

aspect of managing a relationship” (Rawlins, 1983b, p. 13). In spite of the rich data of
this research, the sample size of this study was small with only ten pairs of friends.
Baxter and Wilmot’s (1985) study uncovered taboo topics and reasons those

topics were considered taboo in cross-sex relationships. They found six primary taboo

3, ‘6 ’9 ‘6

topics: “state of relationship, extra-relationship activity, relationship norms,” “prior

9'! 66

relationships, conﬂict-inducing topics,” and “negatively-valenced self-disclosure”
(Baxter & Wilmot, 1985, p.257). F orty-one percent of the respondents stated that
destruction of the relationship was the reason for avoiding talking about the state of their
relationship. Sixty-three percent of the respondents stated the reason for avoiding talk
about extra-relationship activity was because it would have negative implications, such as
anger and jealousy caused by talking about this topic, for their relationships. Fifty-ﬁve
percent of respondents noted that negative implications in their relationship, such as
arguments, as the reason for categorizing relationship norms as taboo topics. Threat to
the relationship made 50% of respondents regard prior relationships as taboo issues
(Baxter & Wilmot, 1985).

Aﬁﬁ and Guerrero (1998) found that men preferred to avoid disclosure more
than women with men as a target. They concluded that among all three types of
friendships; male-same-sex friendship, female-same-sex friendship, and cross-sex

friendship, relationship protection was the only motivation to explain the topic avoidance

(Aﬁﬁ & Guerrero, 1998).

14

Aﬁﬁ and Burgoon (1998) argued that people act strategically to protect their
current relationships by engaging in topic avoidance. Their study looked at how
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calagrese, 1975) inﬂuenced cross-sex
friendships and topic avoidance. Aﬁﬁ and Burgoon (1998) concluded that when people
are in a cross-sex friendship, they are more uncertain because of the ambiguous
characteristics of cross-sex friendships. Thus, they were less likely to engage in
conversation about the state of their relationships than people in dating relationships.
The decision not to discuss their relational state seemed to emerge from the fear of an
unpredictable, unshared future of where their relationship was going.

From the few previous studies reviewed here, it is evident that taboo topics
constitute a critical concept in relationships. Perception of dialectics shapes these taboo
topics and affects the relationship in different ways. Ongoing tensions and
contradictions involve risk of instability, or potentially dissolving the relationship,
however, these contradictions also encourage the restructuring for the relationship
(Baxter & Dindia, 1990). Since friendship plays an important role in our lives,
examination of taboo topics in same-sex friendships and the reasons for avoiding these
topics will contribute to a deeper understanding of friendships and better communication
between friends.

Research Questions

This study addresses four research questions. Under the notion of “ideology of

15

intimacy” (Parks, 1982, p. 83), people tend to view self-disclosure as the most efﬁcient
way to reach higher levels of intimacy in relationships. However, from previous studies
(Aﬁﬁ & Burgoon, 1998; Aﬁﬁ & Guerrero, 1998; Aﬁﬁ & Guerrero, 2000; Baxter &
Wilmot, 1985; Rawlins, 1983b, and Rosenfeld, 1979), it is clear that there are topics
individuals avoid in conversation. Because Baxter and Wilmot’s (1985) six categories
were derived in cross-sex relationships, some will probably not apply to same-sex
friendships. For example, “extra-relationship activity” and “prior relationships” (Baxter
& Wilmot, 1985, p. 257) should be unlikely to appear as taboo topic categories among

9, £6

same-sex friends. Other categories, such as: “state of their relationships, relationship

norms,” “conﬂict-inducing topics,” and “negatively-valenced self-disclosure” (Baxter &
Wilmot, 1985, p.257) may be considered as taboo topics in same-sex friendships since
these categories apply to fundamental aspects of same-sex friendships. While several
categories found by Baxter and Wilmot (1985) may apply to same-sex friendships’
avoided topics, there may be some new categories. Therefore,
RQ 1: What are the common taboo topics in same-sex friendships?

In same-sex friendships, it is likely that some reasons for avoiding discussion of
taboo topics will be similar to those of cross-sex relationships. However, differences
between relationship types (same-sex friendship versus cross-sex friendship) will

presumably affect the categories of taboo topics and reasons for avoiding taboo topics for

same-sex friendships. Furthermore, none of other studies (Aﬁﬁ & Burgoon, 1998; Aﬁﬁ

16

& Guerrero, 1998; Aﬁﬁ & Guerrero, 2000; Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Rawlins, 1983b, and
Rosenfeld, 1979) focused on same-sex friendships, thus the results of this study will
likely differ from what other researchers found. Therefore, a second research question
is offered.

RQ 2: What are the reasons for avoiding the discussion of taboo topics in same-sex
friendships?

Researchers who analyzed taboo topics in cross-sex relationships have largely
ignored how closeness in the relationship affects topic avoidance. The closer the
relationships, the less taboo topics in relationships may exist because their closeness may
allow for more disclosure about themselves and taboo topics will not be much of an issue
in their friendships if the “ideology of intimacy” (Parks, 1982, p. 83), is true. On the
other hand, it could also be the case that if both parties are close, they may have more
taboo topics because they know each other very well to know what is and is not
acceptable to talk about or that they just have different taboo topics.

RQ 3: Does the level of closeness in same-sex friendship affect taboo topics?

How satisfaction in friendship relates to taboo topics is another area ignored by
earlier studies. The lack of studies in the past makes it difficult to predict what the
results will be. It seems that the higher the satisfaction, the less taboo topics in
same-sex friendship, because if people are satisﬁed, they may know each other well

enough not to worry about whether a certain topic should be avoided in order to maintain

l7

their relationship. Or, people who are more satisﬁed may have more taboo topics
because they avoid issues that could lower satisfaction. Alternatively, less satisfaction
may create more taboo topics in order maintain their relationships because of the low
predictability among their relationship. Thus, a ﬁnal question is posed.
RQ 4: Are taboo topics related to satisfaction with friendship?

The research questions listed here are all essential for better understandings of
same-sex friendships. Whatever the results found, they should provide further

knowledge of how same-sex friendships work.

18

Chapter 2
Method

Participants

The data were obtained from 200 undergraduate students enrolled in
communication classes at a large midwestem university. Of these 200 participants
28.5% were male and 71.5% were female. The age of the participants ranged from 15
to 28 (M = 19.9, SD = 1.46). The length of the friendship ranged from 1.0 month to
22.0 years (M = 60.1, S_D = 53.6). The length of time between when the topic originally
was avoided and when the survey was completed ranged from 1.0 day to 5.0 years (M =
6.0, ﬂ = 10.41 ). All students voluntarily participated in this study and agreed to sign
informed consent forms. By participating in this study, all students received extra
course credit. One participant was excluded because they could not recall a taboo topic.
An additional four participants were excluded for not following instructions, and
reporting taboo topics in cross-sex relationships. This study was approved by the
human subjects committee by the university to conduct this research.
Procedures

The participants were asked to think of one same-sex friend and recall a recent
situation when they avoided a topic when talking to that friend. Respondents were told
to take a minute to recall as much information about what happened and why they

avoided talking about that topic. They were instructed to keep this situation in mind

19

while answering the survey instrument and ask questions if needed. They completed the
open-ended questions, and then completed a number of scales.

Measurement

 

The questionnaire contained two sections, one with open-ended questions and
the other with close-ended questions to uncover taboo topics in close same-sex
friendships. The open-ended questions asked about the situation in which respondents
avoided talking about a topic and the reasons why they avoided that topic.

The ﬁrst section asked participants to recall an experience when they avoided a
certain topic with a close same-sex friend and to describe it in their own words. The
open-ended questions addressed the research questions, “What are the common taboo
topics in same-sex friendships?” and, “What are the reasons for avoiding the topics?”
Speciﬁcally, the ﬁrst question asked,

Recall as much as you can about the situation in which you avoided a topic with

your same-sex friend. In as much detail as possible, describe the situation

where you avoided talking about that topic. What was the topic you avoided?

What was going on?

The second question asked,

Now think about why you came to decide not to talk about this subject with your

friend. Why did you avoid the topic?

Other open-ended questions asked how long ago the situation occurred and the length of

20

the respondents’ friendship (see appendix B).

The second section consisted of close-ended questions (see appendix C)
quantitatively measuring the qualities of the friendships and beliefs about openness. All
scales used Likert-type items with 5-point response formats (5 = strongly agree; 1 =
strongly disagree). These scales included modiﬁed versions of Gottman’s friendship
questionnaire (Ginsberg & Gottman, 1986), and Parks and Floyd’s (1996) levels of
development in on-line relationships scales. Gottman’s scales included items measuring
receiving positive affect from the friend and expressing positive affect for the friend.
Parks and Floyd’s scales measured interdependence, breadth of communication, depth of
disclosure, code change, understanding and predictability, and commitment to the
relationship. These scales were modiﬁed to reﬂect same-sex friendships. A
satisfaction with friendship, openness with friend, closed communication with friend, and
general beliefs about openness scales were developed by the author. These close-ended
scales were administered to determine whether there was any relationship between
closeness of friendships, relationship satisfaction, and taboo topics.

Items assessing “receives positive affect from friend,” and “expression of
positive affect toward friend” from the Gottman’s friendship questionnaire (Ginsberg &
Gottman, 1986) were included in the questionnaire, but other dimensions were omitted
because they contained criteria that were not relevant to the research questions. Six

items were averaged as a measure of “receives positive affect from friend.” The

21

resulting distribution approximated normality (M = 4.29, S_D = 0.59, a = 0.80). Nine
items were averaged as a measure of “expression of positive affect toward friend.” The
resulting distribution approximated normality ( M = 4.23, S1; = 0.57, a = 0.84).

Parks and Floyd’s levels of development in on-line relationships scale (1996)
had seven categories; interdependence, breadth, depth, code change,
predictability/understanding, commitment, and network convergence. Of these seven
categories, six categories were included. The network convergence dimension was
dropped from the questionnaire. On interdependence, one item was deleted because it
detracted scale reliability. The remaining 6 items were averaged as a measure of
interdependence. The resulting distribution approximated normality (M = 3.73, S_D =
0.71 , a = 0.78). Four items were averaged as a measure of breadth. The resulting
distribution was negatively skewed (M = 4.27, SD = 0.89, a = 0.89). On depth, one
item was deleted since it detracted from scale reliability, and the remaining 7 items were
averaged as a measure of depth. The resulting distribution approximated normality (M
= 3.97, SD = 0.72, a = 0.82). For code change, one item was deleted because it
detracted from scale reliability. The ﬁve remaining items were averaged as a measure of
code change. The resulting distribution approximated normality (M = 3.56, S_D = 0.86,
a = 0.79). Five items were averaged as a measure of predictability/understanding. The
resulting distribution approximated normality (M = 4.11, E = 0.68, or = 0.82). As a

measure of commitment, 6 items were averaged. The resulting distribution was

22

negatively skewed (M = 4.17, S1; = 0.82, a = 0.89). On satisfaction, 8 items were
averaged. The resulting distribution was negatively skewed and leptokurtic (M = 4.20,
E = 0.87, a = 0.96). For openness, 5 items were averaged and the resulting
distribution approximated normality (M = 3.67, SD = 0.85, or = 0.80). Four items were
averaged as a measure of closed communication. The resulting distribution
approximated nonnality(M = 2.68, E = 1.06, a = 0.88). On general beliefs about open
communication, one item was deleted because it detracted from scale reliability. The
remaining 6 items were averaged as a measure of general communication. The resulting
distribution approximated normality (M = 3.28, S_D = 0.50, a = 0.57).
§0_diﬂg

Two coders independently coded all completed questionnaires. Of the two
coders, one was the author. The coding scheme was developed by the author based on
previous research (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Aﬁﬁ & Burgoon, 1998) and an examination
of the data since categories from previous studies did not ﬁt taboo topic categories for
same-sex friendships. When coding the data, it was unitized according to thoughts.
Moreover, when entering the code, each taboo topic type number and reason numbers
were entered, and then 0-1 present/absent were entered as well. Hence, we had multiple
reason and type codes for each subject.

Baxter and Wilmot’s (1985) categories were, state of the relationship,

extra-relationship activity, which was “taboo topics that dealt with activities and network

23

 

relationships outside of the relationship between the two parties” (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985,
p. 257), relationship norms, prior relationships, conﬂict inducing topics,
negatively-valenced self-disclosure, which included “taboo topics that consisted of
self-disclosures perceived as damaging to one’s image or unpleasant to discuss” (Baxter
& Wilmot, 1985, p. 257).

Aﬁﬁ and Burgoon’s categories (1998) were relational state, opposite-sex
friendships, prior dating relationships, relational norms, negative personal behavior,
which discusses one’s behavior out of the relationship that others may think of negatively,
negative relational behavior such as “discussing past behavior that caused strain on the
relationship” (Aﬁﬁ & Burgoon, 1998, p. 263), same-sex friendships, and conﬂict
inducing topics. Aﬁﬁ and Burgoon’s (1998) categories were based on Baxter and
Wilmot’s (1985) categories.

In this study, there were eight coding categories for types of taboo topics. State
of the friendship was from Baxter and Wilmot (1985) and Aﬁﬁ and Burgoon (1998)
which was taboo topics that involved explicit expression of the current or future state of
the friendship.

Example 1: The period of time in which we were not good friends.

Example 2: Why we hadn’t talked in so long.

Sex and romance was from examination of the data that involved romance, crush,

jealousy toward friend regarding romance such as ex-boyfriend/ girlfriend,

24

betrayal/cheating, sex, sexual activities, homosexuality, pregnancy, and STDs.
Example 3: My “freaky” nature in the bedroom.
Example 4: I avoided discussing about intimate relations with my boyfriend to
one of my closest girlfriends.
Example 5: My friend’s “boyfriend” has been sleeping with another girl and got
her pregnant.
Example 6: I avoided discussing about intimate relations with my boyfriend to
one of my closest girlfriends.
Example 7: I avoided telling one of my female friends about my feelings for one
of our male friends.
Other people/network was from examination of the data that involved taboo topics
talking about other people or someone in the network, such as other people’s problem,
family, characteristic of others.
Example 8: The topic was divorce. My friend’s parents got divorced.
Example 9: Negatively talking about other people’s ﬂaws within social circle.
Example 10: I avoided talking to one of my friends about some other friend’s
problems.
Controversial issue was from the examination of the data which contained taboo topics
about issues such as politics (abortion, environment, laws), and religion.

Example 11: I avoided talking about afﬁrmative action with my same-sex friend.

25

Example 12: The topic I avoided was God.

Example 13: The topic I was avoiding was the talk about the war in the Middle

East.

Negative information about self was from Baxter and Wilmot (1985) and Aﬁﬁ and

Burgoon (1998) which was taboo topic about oneself or one’s problem that may give

others negative image.

Example 14: I avoided describing a period in my life that was painful for me to

talk about. More speciﬁcally, how depression from an event led to an eating

disorder.
Example 15: I avoided talking about myself.

Face threatening (to others) topics was from the examination of the data which involved

taboo topics that were face threatening to the friend (not the person who is answering the

questionnaire) in the conversation. In this case, “face refers to the positive feelings one

has about his identity” (Turner, Edgley & Olmstead, 1975, p.78).

Example 16: The topic I avoided was my friend’s bad habit of always needing to

have her way.

Example 17: How I felt my friend is a very selﬁsh person who cares about no

one but herself.

Offensive miscellaneous topics was from the examination of the data which contained

26

taboo topics that was offensive issues or may offend others.
Example 18: I avoided talking about a joke my male friend made about her that
she was mad about.
Example 19: Having an interracial relationship.
Miscellaneous uncomfortable topics was from the examination of the data. It involved
taboo topics that were very uncomfortable to talk about, such as death, money, grades,
health issues such as eating disorders, weight, and plastic surgery issues.
Example 20: I avoided discussing my grades with my friend. She is really
competitive and likes to brag about it. I do well in my classes and she tends to
bring me down.
Example 21: The topic we avoided was about the death of her father.
Example 22: I avoided talking to my best friend on the subject of personal
ﬁnances.
Example 23: My best friend was getting liposuction and I didn’t think it was a
good idea, I tried to be supportive but couldn’t really feel comfortable discussing
it with her.
Other was from the examination of the data which included taboo topics that did not ﬁt in
the categories above. It also contains drugs and alcohol.
Example 24: I avoided discussing with a friend that he might be drinking too

much alcohol and possibly developing alcoholism.

27

Example 25: I didn’t want to tell my friend that I tried a drug.

Example 26: A topic that I avoided was when she asked me to be her roommate

next year.

The categories of face threatening (to others) topics and offensive miscellaneous topics
were collapsed together because these occurred infrequently and were often confused by
the coders. Cohen’s Kappa was 0.68. Deﬁnitions and examples of taboo topic types
are also presented in Table 1.

The coding options for reasons for taboo topics were self-protection, relationship
protection, other protection, conﬂict avoidance, social (in)appropriateness, right to
privacy, impression management, too personal (not enough trust or not close enough),
practicality/efficiency, and other. Of these ten reasons, self-protection, other protection,
conﬂict avoidance, social (in)appropriateness, right to privacy, too personal,
practicality/efﬁciency and other categories were created by the author after examining the
data. Relationship protection and impression management were based on Baxter and
Wilmot’s (1985) categories on the reasons why participants avoided topics.
Self-protection was to minimize an individual’s vulnerability, or avoid embarrassment.

It is more defensive than impression management.
Example 1: I didn’t want my friends to hate me or avoid me because of what I am.
Example 2: I avoided the topic because it always leads to her being grumpy and

hurting my feelings.

28

Relationship protection included relationship destruction, negative relational implications,
relationship threat and wanting to protect one’s own relationship.
Example 3: I think we both avoided the topic because neither one of us wanted to ruin
our friendship.
Example 4: We’ve been friends for three years. I would feel bad telling her the real
reasons. . .since we’ve been so close these past years.
Other protection contained avoiding to talk about a certain topic because one knew how a
friend feels, and did not want make he/she mad, or hurt his/her feelings.
Example 5: I avoided this topic to keep from hurting my friend’s feelings.
Example 6: I avoided talking about it because I knew how much he liked her to begin
with.
Example 7: I avoided the topic because I knew that she would be upset.
Conﬂict avoidance was reasons used in order to avoid conﬂict, ﬁght, argument, and
confrontation with the friend.
Example 8: I avoided the topic because I knew that if I were to bring the subject up,
we would get into an argument.
Example 9: I decided not to talk because I knew that it would end up in an argument.
I didn’t want this to happen.
Example 10: We obviously disagreed about the topic and did not want to ﬁght about it.

Avoiding a tOpic was a way to avoid a ﬁght.

29

Social (in)appropriateness included not talking about a certain issue because it is not
appropriate to talk about it in general or avoid discussing it since the topic does not meet
the appropriateness.
Example 11: We avoided it because it wasn’t the time or place to start such an
emotional topic.
Right to privacy involved avoiding a topic because it is none of the other person’s
business. Also, it considered that talking about it would be invading one’s or other’s
privacy.
Example 12: I avoided the topic because that’s my private business and it was
uncomfortable talking about my boyfriend and my sexual preferences. It’s none of
her business.
Example 13: I feel it is not my place to say.
Impression management included avoiding to talk about a certain topic because one does
not want to be looked down upon, be judged and/or look bad. This concerns the image
of oneself from others.
Example 14: I didn’t want her to think less of me by telling her crazy stories of my
college life.
Example 15: I avoided because the fact that she would look down on me.
Example 16: I felt that she was constantly judging me in a harsh manner and that was

unfair.

30

Too personal (Not enough trust or closeness) was used to avoid to talking about a certain
topic since there is not enough trust or closeness with a friend.
Example 17: Because we are not that close.
Example 18: She has only been my roommate for 3 months and I wasn’t ready to talk
about it.
Practicality/Efﬁciency involved partner unresponsiveness, effectiveness of the tacit mode,
and futility of talk, irrelevance. It contained the feeling that it wasn’t worth talking
about and/or I do not talk about it because there is no way one can persuade him/her.
Example 19: I avoided bringing it up to her because I knew she would just lie to me.
Example 20: This problem has been going on for a year and it gets really old listening
to the problem over and over again.
Other contains everything that did not ﬁt the categories above. Cohen’s Kappa was 0.69.
Deﬁnitions and examples of taboo topic reasons are also presented in Table 2. The
author resolved all coding disagreements, and all subsequent analyses are based on the

post resolution data.

31

Chapter 3
Results
Preliminary Analyses
The scales from Gottman’s friendship questionnaire (Ginsberg & Gottman,
1986) and Parks & Floyd’s levels of development in on-line relationships (Parks & Floyd,
1996) assessed proposed dimensions of friendship closeness. The author constructed
additional scales measuring satisfaction with the friendship and openness-closeness of
communication in the friendship. Preliminary analysis explored the correlations
between these various dimensions of closeness, satisfaction, and openness. As shown in
Table 3, all these measures were substantially and positively correlated suggesting that
these scales all might measure the same construct. Given this, the scales were combined
to create a single measure of global closeness which included “receives positive affect
from friend,” “expression of positive affect toward friend,” interdependence, breadth,
depth, code change, predictability/understanding, commitment, satisfaction, openness,
closed communication (reﬂected). The resulting distribution approximated normality
with M = 3.90, g = 0.60, or = 0.93. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from r
(190) = 0.49, p < .001 for (reﬂected) closed communication to r (190) = 0.85, p_ < .001 for
depth. Satisfaction, r (190) = 0.75, p < .001, and open communication to r (190) = 0.85,
p < .001, were strongly related to the corrected total score indicating that the measures of

satisfaction and openness could be combined with the measures of closeness.

32

Interestingly, the length of the friendship was signiﬁcantly, but not substantially,
correlated with global closeness, r (189) = 0.19, p < .01. Therefore, length of
relationship was not included in the global closeness index, and friendship closeness
seems to depend more on positive affect, interdependence, breadth, depth, code change,
predictability, understanding, commitment, satisfaction, and openness than the sheer
amount of time the friendship has lasted.1 In this study, conﬁrmatory factor analysis
was conducted. It was obvious that the data were second order unidimensional just by
looking at the correlation matrix since the correlation matrix was relatively ﬂat, positive,
and uniformly large.

Tests of the Research Questions

 

The ﬁrst research question asked about the types of taboo topics most common
in same-sex friendships. This question focused on whether the taboo topics between
same-sex friends were different from cross-sex relationship taboo topics based on
previous research such as Baxter and Wilmot (1985) and Aﬁﬁ and Burgoon (1998).

The most frequent taboo topic types for same-sex friendships were sex and romance
(55.4%), followed by miscellaneous uncomfortable topics (15.5%) and other (9.7%).
Miscellaneous uncomfortable topics included topics such as weight, grades, the death of
someone, money, and health issues that participants found it very uncomfortable to talk
about. Other category included taboo topics that did not ﬁt into any of the other

categories, such as drugs and alcohol. The remaining taboo topics were other

33

people/network (5.6%), controversial issues (5.6%), face threatening topics (3.1%),
negative information about self (2.1%), state of the friendship (1.5%) and offensive topics
(1.9%).

The most common taboo topic for cross-sex relationship was, according to
Baxter and Wilmot (1981), the state of the relationship. However, in same-sex
friendship, only three participants (1.5%) reported that they avoided talking about their
state of the relationship. The complete results are presented in Table 4. Also,
descriptions and examples of taboo topics types for same-sex friendships are presented in
Table l.

The second research question asked about the reasons why participants avoided
topics in friendships. Some participants reported multiple reasons for avoiding a certain
topic. The maximum numbers of reason provided were three. Other protection
(24.5%) was the most common reason for avoiding a topic. Participants who provided
this reason avoided a topic because they knew how their friend would feel and that they
did not want to make their friend mad or hurt their friend’s feelings. Self-protection
(19.8%) was the next common reason for avoiding taboo topics. Participants reporting
this reason avoided a topic in order to minimize their own vulnerability and protect
themselves from embarrassment. Relationship protection was mentioned by 13.1% of
participants as a reason for avoiding a topic. In Baxter and Wilmot’s study (1981), this

category was stated as the number one reason for avoiding talking about the state of the

34

relationship in cross-sex relationships. Other remaining reasons for taboo topics were
conﬂict avoidance (11.4%), practicality/efﬁciency (10.1%), right to privacy (8.4%),
impression management (7.6%), too personal (3.0%), social (in)appropriateness (1.3%),
and other (0.8%). The complete results are presented in Table 5. Also, descriptions
and examples of taboo topic reasons are presented in Table 2.

The third research question asked whether the level of closeness in same-sex
friendships affect taboo topics, and the fourth research question asked if taboo topics are
related to satisfaction with friendship. Because closeness and satisfaction items were
collapsed into a measure of global closeness, research questions three and four were
tested with the same analyses. Closeness was positively associated with the protect
other reason, [ (190) = .16, p_ < .03. This indicates that the more one is close to a friend,
the more one is likely to avoid discussing a certain topic to protect one’s friend. It is
reasonable since being closer makes it easier for one to know one’s friend’s feelings and
emotions, and some buttons that may trigger anger. However, because of the number of
correlations calculated, this signiﬁcant ﬁnding likely could have occurred by chance
alone. No other signiﬁcant correlations between total closeness and taboo topic types
and reasons were observed. The complete results are presented in Table 6.
Supplemental Analyses

An analysis was conducted on the relationship between people’s general belief

about openness in friendship and taboo topic types and reasons (see Table 6). This

35

analysis shows that the taboo topic type “other people/network” is signiﬁcantly correlated
(r = -.18, p < .05) with beliefs about openness. This indicates that the more open one
felt towards their same-sex friend, the less likely “other pe0ple/network” was a taboo
topic between them. Because of the number of correlations calculated, however, this
signiﬁcant ﬁnding likely could have occurred by chance alone. Hence, beliefs about
openness in friendship seem to have little affect on taboo topic types and reasons. That
is, even if one thinks they should be very open with one’s friend, taboo topics still exist.
The relationship between the types of taboo topics and the reasons for them were
also examined. The most frequent taboo topic type was sex and romance (55.4 %).
The reasons participants provided for avoiding this topic were other protection (25.2%),
self-protection (20.7%), right to privacy (12.6%), relationship protection (11.9%),
practicality/efﬁciency (10.4%), conﬂict avoidance (6.7%), impression management
(6.7%), too personal (3.7%), social (in)appropriateness (1.5%), and other (0.07%). The
second most frequent taboo topic was miscellaneous uncomfortable topic. It was
avoided for other protection (45.5%), self-protection (21.2%), relationship protection
(12.1%), practicality/efficiency (12.1%), conﬂict avoidance (6.1%), and social
(in)appropriateness (3.0%). The reasons for topic avoidance seemed to be reasonably
general across the different taboo topics. That is, speciﬁc types did not seem to be tied
to speciﬁc reasons. The complete results of the cross tabulation of taboo topic types and

reasons are presented in Table 7.

36

A t-test was conducted to see whether there were any sex differences in taboo
topic types and reasons. No signiﬁcant differences were found between taboo topic

types or reasons related to gender.

37

Chapter 4
Discussion

The goal of this study was to investigate taboo topic types and reasons in
same-sex friendships in an effort to broaden and deepen our understandings of same-sex
friendships and taboo topics. A widely held belief in interpersonal communication is
that self-disclosure is the most effective and efficient way to achieve closeness with
others (Parks, 1982). This “ideology of intimacy” (Parks, 1982, p. 83) leads people to
think that the more you disclose, the more intimate you become with others, and that
people strongly expect to achieve highly intimate relationships through greater disclosure.
However, as we all know from our personal experience, this bias towards self-disclosure
does not always hold true. Withholding certain topics and balancing intimacy with
privacy is necessary to maintain good relationships (Rawlins, 1983b; LaFollete &
Graham, 1986).

Dialectical perspectives focus on the continuous tension between contradictions
such as closedness and openness (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). Not only does the
dialectical view focus on the existence of such contradictions, but it also regards these
contradictions as essential for the “development of close relationship bonds” (Rawlins,
1983b, p.2). Based on this perspective, this study addressed questions concerning the
common taboo topics in same-sex friendships and why these topics are avoided. The

relationship between taboo topics and satisfaction and closeness also was investigated.

38

These questions were investigated with a recall-based questionnaire study.
Participants completed open-ended questions asking about the topics avoided in same-sex
friendships. The answers given were coded for taboo topic types and reasons.
Participants also responded to scales measuring qualities of their friendship.

In developing the coding categories, an attempt was made to apply Baxter and
Wilmot’s (1981) categories of taboo topic types and reasons. However, it was
immediately apparent upon examination of the data that the taboo topic types were very
different from Baxter and Wilmot’s (1981) categories derived from cross-sex friends and
romantic partners. That is, taboo topic categories in cross-sex relationships do not seem
to generalize to same-sex friendships. For example, only three (1.5%) participants in
this study described an avoided topic involving the state of the relationship, which were
the most frequent taboo topics in Baxter and Wilmot’s (1981) study. Therefore, new
categories were created to uncover taboo topics between same-sex friends.

By far, the most common taboo topic reported in same-sex friends was sex and
romance, with more than half (55.4%) of all respondents reporting a taboo topic that fell
within this category. This category included discussion of romantic relationships and
sexual activities between same-sex friends. Other taboo topics included miscellaneous
uncomfortable topics, other, other people/network, and controversial issues.

Prior investigation of cross-sex relationships has that state of the relationship

was the most frequent taboo topic type. It was surprising that sex and romance was the

39

most frequent taboo topic in the current study since romantic and sex related materials are
frequently presented by the media in this country. One might predict sex and romance
to be the most common taboo topic type in Japanese same-sex friendships, especially
among females since Japanese culture prohibit talk about these issues freely. However,
the images of the “individualistic and free America,” lead me to think that Americans talk
about sex and romance freely and without hesitation. Looking at the data, and based on
my personal experience, it appears plausible that there may be cross-cultural similarities
in taboo topics. Further research, however, would be needed to make direct
cross-cultural comparisons.

The most frequent reason provided for avoiding topics was other protection,
followed by self-protection, relationship protection, conﬂict avoidance,
practicality/efﬁciency, right to privacy, and impression management. The taboo topic
reason categories used here were adapted from Baxter and Wilmot’s (1981) and Aﬁﬁ and
Burgoon’s(1998). When compared with the ﬁndings of previous research (Baxter &
Wilmot, 1981; Aﬁﬁ & Burgoon, 1998), these taboo topic reasons do not differ to a great
extent. Thus, relationship types seem to affect the topic types avoided more than the
reason of avoiding a topic. The cross-tabulation between taboo topic types and reasons
in Table 7 indicated that individuals have many different reasons to avoid discussing sex
and romance. Hence, people have different perceptions of “taboo” issues. That is, for

example, one may avoid talking about sex and romance because it is too personal, while

40

another may avoid talking about sex and romance in order to avoid conﬂict.

Of 200 participants, only one participant could not recall an incident where
he/she avoided a topic with a same—sex friend. Four participants did recall an avoided
topic, but the taboo topic occurred in a cross-sex friendship. Thus, in this study, 97.5%
of all participants were able to report some kind of experience where they had avoided a
topic with their same-sex friend. This suggests that taboo topics exist in same-sex
friendships. Because virtually all participants reported being close or very close to their
friend, this also suggests that complete disclosure or talking about everything is not
essential for individuals to reach intimacy and closeness in friendship (cf. Parks, 1982).

Three speciﬁc implications for understanding taboo topics can be drawn from
the fact that almost all participants were able to recall a taboo topic avoiding incident.
First, it seems all right to have taboo topics within close same-sex friendships. Because
of the “ideology of intimacy” (Parks, 1982, p. 83), taboo topics between ﬁiends might
appear as some kind of constraint on friendship. That is, taboo topics are incidents that
happen when one is not close to the friend in current view, and some people probably
take taboo topics as a sign that their friendship lacks intimacy. However, taboo topics
might actually be healthy and typical since almost all participants experienced avoiding a
topic regardless of their closeness, satisfaction and length of the friendship. Thus, it
may be a time to reconsider whether talking about oneself is really a barometer of

closeness.

41

Second, this ﬁnding supports the usefulness of looking at friendships not only
from the self-disclosure point of view, but also from the dialectical perspective. One
way to look at a taboo topic is that it represents the dynamics of contradictions that exist
in all settings. Positive and negative aspects are assumed to be present in both poles of
the contradiction affecting relationships for better or worse (Montgomery, 1993). One
characteristic of dialectical perspective views contradiction as neither good nor bad.
Consequently, this leads to the idea that taboo topics are neither a plus nor a minus to
friendship from the dialectical perspective. Dialectical perspective views things as
constantly changing, with the past affecting where you are now. Furthermore,
contradictions are assumed to be an inherent characteristic in social life (Rawlins, 1989).
Contradictions that occur in friendship can work as a motivational force for change
leading to relationship growth (Baxter, 1990). According to Rawlins (1983b),
individuals learn about their relationship through each other’s behaviors, therefore the
existence of the dialectics of expressiveness and protectiveness assures “a cognitive
aspect of managing a relationship”(p. 13).

Third, this study reveals that there seems to be a relationship between avoiding a
topic and friendship love and thoughtfulness toward one’s friend. The top three most
frequent reasons for avoiding a topic between same-sex friends were other protection
(24.5%), self-protection (19.8%) and relationship protection (13.1%). Of these three,

other protection and relationship protection focus more on protection of others indicating

42

 

the presence of concern toward other’s feelings. This concern with the impact of
utterances on the feelings of others and the quality of the friendship seems to be a
primary reason why people have taboo topics. Yet one has to keep in mind that it is not
necessarily the lack of openness, closeness, satisfaction, nor the length of the friendship
that made participants more considerate.

Two signiﬁcant correlations were observed between beliefs about openness and
a taboo topic type and between total closeness and a taboo topic reason, but these could
have occurred by chance alone. Fifty-four correlations were calculated and both
signiﬁcant correlations were small. Thus, it is plausible to conclude that closeness of
the friendship has little impact on taboo topics with friends. Baxter and Wilmot (1981)
also found that taboo topics were present in both high and low closeness friendships in
their study. They also stated that their ﬁndings, “add an important complicating
element” (p. 265) to the current view that as the closeness increases, the openness
increases correspondingly. Because taboo topics were not substantially associated with
other relationship variables, taboo topics may be more or less constant across all kinds of
friendships, although the actual topics avoided vary. In other words, the existence of a
wide variety of taboo topics indicates that the “ideology of intimacy” (Parks, 1982, p. 83)
could be a mere illusion. Communication in friendships may not be as simple as the
depth and breadth of communication revealing the self.

Additionally, taboo topics were not related to friendship length. Taboo topics

43

were found in very satisfying and long lasting friendships. There is a tendency to think
that if we have a very satisﬁed and a long friendship, we can basically talk about
anything. However, this study states that the belief that the more satisﬁed and longer
the relationship leads to increased openness does not necessarily hold true.
Consequently, this study may give some insights to some unknown truths about
friendship.

This study discovered some common characteristics between taboo topics and
deception. Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead’s (1975) conducted a study about information
control in conversations examining that the “honesty is not always the best policy”
(Turner, Edley, & Olmstead, 1975, p. 69). Their study indicated that six out of ten
conversations involved some kind of information control. Out of all information control
techniques they found, 30.7% was lie, 5% was exaggerations, 28.9% was half-truths,
3.2% was secrets, diversionary responses were 32% which was most commonly used.
Reasons given for controlling of information in Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead’s (1975)
study seem to have some overlap with reasons given for avoiding taboo topics.
According to Turner, Edgley, and Olmstead (1975), their ﬁve reasons for people not to be
completely honest were,

F_a<3, information control to protect actor’s identity, the identity of the other, or

identity of another person outside the encounter. Relationship, information

 

control to maintain, maximize, or terminate the degree of intimacy and/or social

44

distance with the other. Exploitation, information control to establish, maintain,

or maximize power or inﬂuence over the other. Avoid tension/conﬂict,

information control to preclude conﬂict or tension with the other. Situational

9911321, information control to maintain, redirect, or terminate social interaction

with the other.
The reasons for avoiding taboo topics in this study of taboo topic between same-sex
friendships were self-protection, relationship protection, other protection, conﬂict
avoidance, social (in)appropriateness, right to privacy, impression management, too
personal, practicality/efficiency, and other. It will be very interesting to analyze the
relationship between information control and taboo topics in future research.

One limitation in this study concerned the coding. Since Baxter and Wilmot’s
(1981) categories could not be used in this study, the categories had to be derived from
the current data. It was difﬁcult to determine exactly what taboo topic types and reasons
the participants experienced. It is apparent that some taboo topic categories such as
negative information about self, face threatening/offensive topics, miscellaneous
uncomfortable topics and other have some overlaps. Coding was done as accurately as
possible based on what participants wrote on the questionnaire by unitizing according to
thoughts. The coders tried to rely on exactly what participants wrote. For example,
even if the overall answer might imply one answer of types or reasons, coders could not

go beyond what is written in the questionnaire. As a consequence, it was difficult to

45

have only one answer for taboo topic reasons; therefore we coded them with multiple
reasons. Some answers were more difficult to code than others since some answers
were not explicitly stated or they were combined with other types or reasons. Also, the
reasons of avoiding a certain topic were sometime written in a section where the situation
of avoiding a topic occurred. In these situations, coders had to read between the lines to
the best of their abilities in order to ﬁnd out what participants meant to say. These
difficulties resulted in disagreements between the coders. For example, Coder A rarely
used the face threatening (to others) category when coding taboo topic types. Coder B,
however, used that more often. On the other hand, coder B seldom used social
(in)appropriateness when coding taboo topic reasons. To obtain higher reliability in the
future research, more detailed and precise coding categories may be needed.

A second limitation was that some close-ended questions might have confused
some participants. It seemed that there were no problems before distributing the
questionnaire, however, the data demonstrated that a few questions were not strong
measures of what they were supposed to assess. In all, four questions had to be
discarded because they lowered reliability. Therefore, some questions should be
changed to be more accurate and easier to understand for participants and for more
precise measures.

A third limitation was that the low correlation in this study could be due to

correlating dichotomous variables with continuous variables. More importantly, some

46

taboo topic types and reasons occurred infrequently and this both lead to restriction in
range which lowered correlations.

For future research, more speciﬁcally deﬁned types and reasons will probably
help categorize the data with less confusion and overlaps. Asking for only one primary
reason why participants avoided such topics might also reduce confusion, though this
method limits the richness of the data. It may be interesting to divide the taboo topic
type of sex and romance into subtypes to see whether there is some subtype that people
tend to avoid more 'often than the others. Participants in this study were college students,
so it may be assumed that majority of the participants were not married. The results
may change to some extent if a majority of participants were married because romance
would not be as much of an issue, but sex might be even more taboo. Now that we
know the most frequent taboo topics and their reasons in same-sex friendships, perhaps
the most intriguing issue for future research is to explain why taboo topics are unaffected
by the closeness, openness, satisfaction, and length of friendship. From a dialectical
view, it seems ordinary for taboo topics to exist in any type of friendship, because
contradictions are always present in any situation. But, since the speciﬁc taboo topics
present seem to depend on if the friendship is same-sex or opposite-sex, it is curious that
friendship closeness is less important.

In conclusion, taboo topics in same-sex friendships were investigated to identify

the most common taboo topics and the reasons for avoiding the topics. The most

47

frequent t0pic that was avoided was talking about sex and romance, comprising 55.4% of
the reported topics. This was unexpected since most of the participants seem to be very
much involved in these activities, yet talking about them was somewhat prohibited. Sex
and romance as the number one taboo topic type was also surprising since it was not even
mentioned in previous cross-sex relationship studies (Baxter & Wilmot, 1981; Aﬁﬁ &
Burgoon, 1998). It was also amazing how wide a variety of topics were considered
taboo topics.

The most common reasons for taboo topics were other protection (24.5%),
self-protection (19.8%), and relationship protection (13.1%) to list the top three.
Interestingly, all of reasons for avoiding taboo topics contained some kind of protection.
Of the three most frequent, two involve protection related to other people. Thus, it may
be plausible to say that people are alert about the impact of their own utterances on their
relationships when avoiding a topic.

Surprisingly, the study found that there is small relationship between taboo
topics and closeness, satisfaction, and openness, and no relationship between taboo topics
and length of the friendships. Thus, it seems that taboo topics are common in all kinds
of friendships. Given this and the other astonishing ﬁndings, this examination of taboo
topics in same-sex friendships provides new insights into the area of communication in
friendships. More extensive and deeper analysis of taboo topics, in the future, should

lead to an even clearer understanding of friendship between same-sex friends.

48

References

49

References

Aﬁﬁ, W. A, & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Some things are better left unsaid 11: Topic
avoidance in friendships. Communication Quarterly, 46, 231-249.

Aﬁﬁ, W. A. & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Motivations underlying topic avoidance in
close relationships. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures
(pp.165-179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Aﬁﬁ, W. A. & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). “We never talk about that”: A comparison of
cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance.
Personal Relationships, 5, 255-272.

Allan, G. (1989). Friendship. London: Westview Press.

Baxter, L. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development.
Journal of Social and Person_al Relationships, 7, 69-88.

Baxter, L. A. & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships.
Journ_al of Social and Personal Relationshin, 2, 253-269.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1998). A guide to dialectical approaches to
studying personal relationships. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds),
Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 1 -1 5). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (2000). Rethinking communication in
personal relationships from dialectical perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds),
Communication and Personal Relationships (pp.31-53). Chichester, England: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, RJ. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction
and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

 

Canary, D. J ., Cody, M. J., & Manusov, V. L. (2000). Interpersonal
communication: A goal-based approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

Chelune, G. J ., Robinson, J. T., & Kommor, M. J. (1984). A cognitive interactional

50

model of intimate relationships. In V. Derlega (Ed.), CommunicationMIntimacy, and
Close Relationships (pp. 11-40). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.

 

Dindia, K. (1998). “Going into and coming out of the closet”: The dialectics of
stigma disclosure. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds), Dialectical approaches
to studying personal relationships (pp.83-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

F ehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fischer, C. S. (1982a). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and
c_ity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ginsberg, D., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Conversations of college roommates:
similarities and differences in male and female friendship. In J. M. Gottman & J. G.
Parker (Eds), Conversations of friends: Speculations on affective development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in
people’s lives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

LaFollette, H. & Graham, G. (1986). Honesty and intimacy. Journal of Social
and PersoniRelationships, 3, 3-18.

Montgomery, B. M. (1993). Relationship maintenance versus relationship change:
A dialectical dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 10, 205-224.

Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and
into the world. In M. Burgoon (Ed.). Communication Yearbook_5_ (p. 79-107).
Transaction Books: New Brunswick.

Parks, M. R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of
Communication, 4@ 80-95.

Rawlins, W. K. (1983b). Openness as problematic in ongoing friendships: Two
conversational dilemmas. Communication Monographs, 50, 1-13.

Rawlins, W. K. (1989). A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions and
strategic challenges of communication in young adult friendships. In J. A. Anderson

51

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 12 (pp.157-189). Newbury, CA: Sage.

Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communicatiorgiialectics, and the life
course. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Rawlins, W. K. (1998). Writing about Friendship matters: A case study in
dialectical and dialogical inquiry. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds),
Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp.63-81). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rosenfeld, L. B. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you
who I am. Communication Monographs, 46, 63-74.

 

Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers.

 

Turner, R. E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in
conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11,
69-85.

VanLear, A. C. (1998). Dialectic empiricism: Science and relationship metaphors.
In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds), Dialectical approaches to studyingpersonal
relationships (pp.109-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

 

 

Willmot, P. (1987). The meaning of friendship. Friendship networks and social
support (pp. 81-95). London: Policy Studies Institute.

Wood, J. T. (2001). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture.
Belmont, CA: Wadworth/Thomson Learning.

52

Footnote
1. Examination of the scatterplot of length of relationship on global closeness suggests
that this correlation may be somewhat attenuated by nonlinearity in the shape of a
positive decelerating function. The nature of this function can be seen by doing a
median split of the length of friendship, and examining the distributions of closeness
scores within relatively long and short friendships. In friendship less than 4 years, M =
3.76, SD = 0.61, skewness = -0.41 (95% conﬁdence intervals, -0.91 to +0.09), kurtosis
+0.58 (95% conﬁdence intervals, -0.36 to +1.52). Thus, there is a trend toward global
closeness becoming less variable and more negatively skewed in longer-lasting

friendships.

53

Appendices

54

Appendix A

Tables

55

Table 1

Decription and Examples of Taboo Topic Types

 

1.

State of the friendship - Taboo topics that involve an explicit expression of the current
or future state of the friendship.

Example 1: The period of time in which we were not good friends.

Example 2: Why we haven’t talked in so long.

Sex and romance - Taboo topics that involve romance, crush, jealousy toward friend
regarding romance such as ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, betrayal/cheating, sex, sexual
activities, homosexuality, pregnancy, and STDs.

Example 3: My “freaky” nature in the bedroom.

Example 4: I avoided telling my friend that I had a crush on a guy she was
friends with.

Example 5: My friend’s “boyfriend” has been sleeping with another girl and got her
pregnant.

Example 6: I avoided discussing about intimate relations with my boyfriend to
one of my closest girlfriends.

Example 7: I avoided telling one of my female friends about my feelings for one
of our male friends.

Other people/network - Taboo topics about other people or someone in the network,
such as other people’s problem, family, characteristic of others.

Example 8: The topic was divorce. My friend’s parents got divorced.
Example 9: Negatively talking about other people’s ﬂaws within social circle.

Example 10: I avoided talking to one of my friends about some other friend’s
problems.

Controversial issues - Taboo topics about issues such as politics (abortion, environment,

56

Table l (cont’d).
laws), and religion.
Example 11: I avoided talking about afﬁrmative action with my same-sex friend.
Example 12: The topic avoided was God.
Example 13: The topic I was avoiding was the talk about the war in the Middle East.
4. Negative information about self - Taboo topics about oneself or one’s problem that
may give others negative image. This concerns self-image of the individual who is

answering the questionnaire.

Example 14: I avoided describing a period in my life that was painful for me to talk
about. More speciﬁcally, how depression from an event led to an eating disorder.

Example 15: I avoided talking about myself.

5. Face threatening (to others) topics - Taboo topics that were face threatening to the
friend (not the person who is answering the questionnaire) in the conversation. In
this case, “face refers to the positive feelings one has about his identity” (Turner,

Edgley & Olmstead, 1975, p. 78).

Example 16: The topic I avoided was my friends’ bad habit of always needing to have
her way.

Example 17: How I felt my friend is a very selﬁsh person who cares about no one but
herself.

6. Offensive miscellaneous topics - Taboo topics that were offensive issues or offend
others.

Example 18: I avoided talking about a joke my male friend made about her that she
was mad about.

Example 19 Having an interracial relationship.

57

Table 1 (cont’d).

8. Miscellaneous uncomfortable topics - Taboo topics that were very uncomfortable to
talk about, such as death, money, grades, health issues, eating disorders, etc.

Example 20: I avoided discussing my grades with my friend. She is really
competitive and likes to brag about it. I do well in my classes and she tends to bring
me down.

Example 21: The topic we avoided was about the death of her father.

Example 22: I avoided talking to my best friend on the subject of personal ﬁnances.
Example 23: My friend was getting liposuction and I didn’t think it was a good

idea. I tried to be supportive but couldn’t really feel comfortable discussing it with

her.

9. Other - Taboo topics that does not ﬁt in to categories above. It also contains drugs
and alcohol.

Example 24: I avoided discussing with a friend that he might be drinking too much
alcohol and possibly developing alcoholism.

Example 25: I didn’t want to tell my friend that I tried a drug.

Example 26: A topic that I avoided was when she asked me to be her roommate next
year.

 

58

Table 2

Description and Examples of Reasons

 

1.

Self-protection —— To minimize an individual’s vulnerability, embarrassment avoidance.
It will be more defensive than impression management.

Example 1: I didn’t want my friends to hate me or avoid me because of what I am.

Example 2: I avoided the topic because it always leads to her being grumpy and
hurting my feelings.

Relationship protection - This includes relationship destruction, negative relational
implications, relationship threat and wanting to protect one’s own relationship.

Example 3: I think we both avoided the topic because neither one of us wanted to ruin
our friendship.

Example 4: We’ve been friends for three years. I would feel bad telling her the real
reasons. . .since we’ve been so close these past years.

Other protection - Avoided to talk about a certain topic because one knows how a
friend feels, and do not make he/she mad, hurt his/her feelings.

Example 5: I avoided this topic to keep from hurting my friend’s feelings.

Example 6: I avoided talking about it because I knew how much he liked her to begin
with.

Example 7: I avoided the topic because I knew that she would be upset.

Conﬂict avoidance - Avoided to talk about a certain topic in order to avoid conﬂict,
ﬁght, argument, and confrontation with the ﬁiend.

Example 8: I avoided the topic because I knew that if I were to bring the subject up,
we would get into an argument.

Example 9: I decided not to talk because I knew that it would end up in an argument.
I didn’t want this to happen.

59

Table 2 (cont’d).

Example 10: We obviously disagreed about the topic and did not want to ﬁght about it.
Avoiding a topic was a way to avoid a ﬁght.

5. Social (in)appropriateness - Do not talk about this issue because it is not appropriate
to talk about it in general. Or avoid discussing it since the topic does not meet the

appropriateness.

Example 11: We avoided it because it wasn’t the time or place to start such an
emotional topic.

6. Right to privacy - Avoided a topic because it is none of the other person’s business.
Also, considered talking about it would be invading one’s or other’s privacy.

Example 12: I avoided the topic because that’s my private business and it was
uncomfortable talking about my boyfriend and my sexual preferences. It’s none of
her business.
Example 13: I feel it is not my place to say.
7. Impression management - Avoided to talk about a certain topic because one does not
want to be looked down, be judged and/or look bad. This concerns the image of
Table 2 (continued)

oneself from others.

Example 14: I didn’t want her to think less of me by telling her crazy stories of my
college life.

Example 15: I avoided because the fact that she would look down on me.

Example 16: I felt that she was constantly judging me in a harsh manner and that was
unfair.

8. Too personal (Not enough trust or closeness) - Avoided to talk about a certain topic
since there is not enough trust or not close enough with a friend.

Example 17: Because we are not that close.

60

Table 2 (cont’d).

Example 18: She has only been my roommate for 3 months and I wasn’t ready to talk
about it.

9. Practicality/Efﬁciency - This involves partner unresponsiveness, effectiveness of the
tacit mode, and futility of talk, irrelevance. Won’t worth talking about. Do not talk
about it because there is no way one can persuade him/her.

Example 19: I avoided bringing it up to her because I knew she would just lie to me.

Example 20: This problem has been going on for a year and it gets really old listening
to the problem over and over again.

0. Other — This contains everything that did not ﬁt the categories above.

 

61

.xEmE 65 .8 :80me 05 8 @8588
8 mam—SEEM 8.888 65 me 288.: 8&3 65 8 3868.8 0.8 Hobo 80898308 8 26 828888 8% 382.80 823280
.Gouoocob 803883888 “Como—o mm 2 03888 98 £382? mm 3 03889 £28838 8 a 2389» 8083888 8 w 038.88
.wcmvcﬂmnougwﬁm.580an mm \1 28.83 6380 368 mm o 0388., 88% mm w 038.88 .5683 mm w 05888 605832888 8

m 6388; :855 @838 80% 3:88 we 823298.. mm N 03th> 88 L865 88% Saba 338a 3388.. mm _ 03883» .802

 

 

 

mm. **om. **om. *s—w. *sow. aaom. **ww. *amm. **©m. **wm. **mm. __
~h. ow. **w©. *amo. **0m. **Nw. **~n. **_o. **©w. **w©. **wm. o_
Nw. mm. ca. **~h. *unm. **mw. *acc. **m©. **_m. **w©. **~o. @
ow. mm. 55. am. **_5. **hm. *anh. **50. **co. **_h. **cc. w
5w. mm. we. mm. Nw. **_w. **m5. **_0. **wm. **wm. *aow. 5
mm. mm. ow. we. mm. on. *aom. **mw. **mw. *acw. **om. o
ﬁm. mm. wn. oa. mm. mo. mm. **wo. **nm. **55. **on. m
cm. mm. we. on. _h. wm. am. am. **Nm. **nm. **om. w
ww. 0m. 0m. ow. mu. mo. ~n. mm. mm. **wm. **mm. m
ww. mm. _5. mm. ac. om. No. we. mm. ww. **wh. N
am. we. on. on. #0. ow. cw. co. 00. mo. ow. ~
~ _ A: o m N. c m w m N g moEmtw>

 

 

moﬁwow mmOGOmO—O HO.“ XENE GomummobOU

m 038,—.

62

 

 

ode mg 88...

0.2: 5.0 9 850
mdm 02 Zr. 888 03883888: .022
w.w.\r o; N 883 oimcobO
0mm _.m o 3an 880825 comm
Wok. ﬁm w :8 Sons .88 @3832
Nwo 9m I 838 22838800
0:3 9w ~ ~ 6103852888 850
adm w.mm me 8588 v8 xom
m4 m._ m 8:855 05 mo 38m
888m 0383830 888m 28> 85:62..“ @8822

 

 

3H 2qu oopﬂ. mo momocozcoem

w 23

63

x25 65 8 388283 go .8288 2: :83 8: meet 2 £35. .888: ooh: ~23 @268 33 838288 28
motowoﬁo 8088 95 me 288 80>» 080m .bowoamo one ﬁne 3 228: 8: was» 2 625a 803 888 0098 88 £882 :23? .802

 

 

 

3:: 0mm :38.

o.oo_ wd N .550
N3 _ .o _ wm 8820593232qu5
ﬂaw o.m n 8883 00,—.
ﬂow 95 M: 808%....an 8230.882
Own w.w 2 .3833 9 EwE
:K m. _ m 3052888836 28m
”we w; _ R 88208 2:80
wsm mwm mm 8283er 850
adm _.m_ 2. 826808 aﬂmcouﬂom
23 w .2 hw cowoouoaﬂom
885m 6388830 888m 28> 58252.2 8:822

 

 

888m 288. 8an .«o 8858on

m 2.3

64

 

S. No.. 8.

550

 

S. we. 8.- 8&2 ozé£88§ 8:2

No.. 8.. 2.- 8&8 o>mmcotoREc8moH5 3mm

8. 5.- 8. :3 50% .35 2&2

No. wor N ~ .- mosmmm Bigobcoo

8.- *w _ .- 5.- ioascbaoa 550

8.- mo. 3. 8582 new xom

S. 8.- co. 352% 230 3%

newcoq aﬁmcosﬂum 32825 Bonn £23m 8288—0 38‘ 8382

 

 

288% can mun: momnoh 8an was couch—Q acouﬁom can “mmoacumo $8585 5253 2832880

0 2an

65

 

we. No. Q ~ .- hocomoEEbzmouuﬂm

 

mor Nb.- 2.- 3:8th 00%

8.- 2.- 3.. EuﬁowwaE 588.95

8.. mo- 3. 59% 2 5me

Nov mo: 5.- mmucoﬁtaoaqﬁcc Eoom

mo. cor 5.- @2823“ 85:00

5.- 8. *2. 8:883 550

mo.- oo- :.- =28»:qu qucoEN—em

S. 8. 8. seasoaﬁom

ﬁwcﬂ aEmcosﬂom mmoccomo Soon ﬂow—om 30:32... :38. 8:322

 

 

mag-mom 93 .8an- oEo-H conﬁ- wcw 8:8an 58%—om n%mmo§oa $8585 5253 226.280

.5288 o 2.3.

66

$25-3 E2 :2 2: a “game? 2 83280 ......
.6253 .32 3o 2: a “50%? 2 8:20.50 .. .202

 

 

o _. co. no. 550

 

ﬁwcﬂ Enmcozﬂom

mmoccomo Scam £23m 82.820 38- 8:932

 

 

283m 28 89¢- omao-r oops-.- 98 203339 Enoch—om wad .mmoqcomo £85.85 5253 223850
.328an o 2an

67

$003.8 8 Em: ﬂ :ABELE: .mm0C0ﬁtqoaamAcc 308 mm :.< .m: 6058820 85:00 mm .8580: 288088
0058 mm :0050: £28088 35:28—00 ﬂ 32828—3? 828088-200 E 220?. K 0300- 05 5 02.8380 888 8 m .08 Z

 

 

 

3 m mm mm _m 3 88%
o o m m m w 0050
o _ m 2 v N. 0089 0338-8802: 3:2
o o _ o o o 8&2 02828
o o N _ N _ 888 8808005 0000
_ o m _ 2 _ 200 8020 .85 030302
o o m m m m 850$ 86008580
_ o m _ _ m 0.83850an 0050

C m o Vm 0. mm 02888 0:0 x0m
o _ _ _ o o 08220 20 .8 22m

8085 .< .m 8:080 0050 95:28—30 20m E80005 0080002

 

 

mGOmwo-m mug mDQ>H OmmOrH OODNH- m0 COCQ—DDG-H mmOuU

h 22¢

68

.850 2 2.880.. 28 S0820E£b202808 2 :282889.
408808 09 2 .8888 ooh: 80808808 82000882 2 .820.0088? K 033. 08 2 m28w080 8008 8 m .082

 

 

 

cm N N VN x. M: 88%
NN _ N 2 m 880
mm o v o o 0088 0308280080 .022

N o o o _ 882 02800.5

o o m o o 882 $280808“ 000m—

2 o o o N .200 808 .82 0>cmw0z

3 o o o N 832 28088800

N2 o _ _ 2 2838808008 8050

mm.— 2 3 m a 02888 28 8m

m o o o o 9588 Eco 29m

88% 850 3202805 B888 8% co_mm088_ A8803: 080002

 

 

88002 28 88% 2MB. 82$. «8 8288an $80

5:500 h 28.

69

Appendix B

Communication Questionnaire (Open-ended Questions)

70

Communication Questionnaire

Instructions: Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability, providing
as much detail as possible. Please print or write your answers neatly. Thanks!

This survey focuses on “taboo topics” in same-sex friendships. While self-disclosure
is generally valued in relationships, there are certain subjects that individuals do not talk
about. Taboo topics are issues regarded as prohibited by either one or both individuals
in a relationship. Taboo topics can be about anything. They are simply topics you
avoid.

Think about one of your same-sex friends. Then think of a recent situation in which
you avoided a topic when talking to that friend. Once you can think of a situation,
please take a minute to recall as much information about what happened and why you
avoided talking about that subject. Now, keeping this situation in mind, answer each of
the questions below, providing as much detail as you can. If you have questions while
you are ﬁlling this out, simply raise your hand and ask the researcher.

Recall as much as you can about the situation in which you avoided a topic with your
same-sex friend. In as much detail as possible, describe the situation where you avoided
talking about that topic.

What was the topic you avoided?

 

 

 

 

 

What was going on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

Now think about why you came to decide not to talk about this subject with your friend.
Why did you avoid the topic?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many months and years ago did this situation occur?

Month (5) Year (5)

How long have you been a friend with this person?
Month (5)

Year (s)

72

Appendix C

Communication Questionnaire (Close-ended Questions)

73

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or Neutral 2 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree 1 = Strongly Disagree

Please think about your ONE SAME-SEX FRIEND (the same one you answered the
previous questions about) and answer these questions about your friendship with them.
Gottman’s friendship questionnaire
-Receives positive affect from friend

I. My friend is someone who makes me feel needed.

2. My friend expresses liking for me.

3. My friend is empathic toward me.

4. My friend cares about me.

5. My friend expresses affection toward me.

6. My friend is someone who sees my faults but likes me anyhow.
-Expression of positive affect toward friend

7. My friend is someone to whom I can feel empathic.

8. My friend is someone who brings out I can reveal my emotions to.

9. My friend is someone who doesn’t make me feel embarrassed to show my
feelings.

__ 10. I let my friend know that I like them.

11. My friend is someone who makes me laugh.

12. My friend is someone who is always there when I need help.
__ 13. My friend is someone who is interested in what I think.

14. I express affection toward my friend.

74

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or Neutral 2 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree 1 = Strongly Disagree

15

. I care about my friend’s well being.

Parks & Floyd’s levels of development scale

-Interdependence

16. The two of us depend on each other.

17. There have been times when each of us has waited to see what the other
thought before making a decision of some kind.

18

19

. We do not set aside time to communicate with the other. (R)

. This person and I have a great deal of inﬂuence on each other’s decisions.

20. We often inﬂuence each other’s feeling toward the issues we’re dealing
with.

21

22

-Breadth

23

24

25

26
-Depth

27

28

. We would go out of our way to help each other if it were needed.

. The two of us have little inﬂuence on each other’s thoughts. (R)

. Our communication is limited to just a few speciﬁc topics. (R)
. Our communication covers issues on a variety of topics.
. Our communication ranges over a wide variety of topics.

. Once we get started we move easily from one topic to another.

. I usually tell this person exactly how I feel.

. I feel quite close to this person.

75

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or Neutral 2 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree 1 = Strongly Disagree

29. I try to keep my personal judgments to myself when this person says or does
something with which I disagree. (R)

30. I have told this person what I like about her or him.
31. I feel I could conﬁde in this person about almost anything.

32. I would never tell this person anything intimate or personal about myself.

(R)

33. I have told this person thing about myself that he or she could not get from
any other source.

34. We do not discuss topics in a lot of detail. (R)
-Code Change

35. There is not much difference between the way I communicate with person
and the way I generally communicate with other people.

36. We have developed the ability to “read between the lines” of each other’s
messages to ﬁgure out what is really on each other’s mind.

37. The two of us use private signals that communicate in ways outsiders would
not understand.

38. We have special nicknames that we just use with each other.

39. I can get an idea across to this person with a much shorter message than I
would have to use with most people.

40. We share a special language that sets our relationship apart.
-Predictability/Understanding

41. I am very committed to maintaining this relationship.

76

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or Neutral 2 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree 1 = Strongly Disagree

42. I can accurately predict how this person will respond to me in most
situations.

43. I can usually tell what this person is feeling inside.
44. I can accurately predict what this person’s attitudes are.
__ 45. I do not know this person very well. (R)
-Commitment
46. I am very committed to maintaining this relationship.
__ 47. This relationship is not very important to me.
__ 48. This relationship is a big part of who I am.
49. I would make a great effort to maintain my relationship with this person.
__ 50. I do not expect this relationship to last very long. (R)
51. This friendship means a lot to me.
Satisfaction Scale
__ 52. I am happy with state of our friendship.
__ 53. I am very satisﬁed with friendship.
__ 54. I am dissatisﬁed with the friendship. (R)
__ 55. I am very pleased with the friendship.
__ 56. Our friendship is fulﬁlling.
__ 57. Our friendship is disappointing. (R)

58. I feel very comfortable with the friendship.

77

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or Neutral 2 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree 1 = Strongly Disagree

59. I feel content with our ﬁiendship.

Please answer the following questions about your communication with your friend.
Openness
__ 60. I can talk about anything with my friend.
61. My friend and I have very open communication.
__ 62. I don’t conceal my thoughts when talking with my friend.
63. I don’t have any secrets from my friend.

64. I have to monitor what I say. (R)

Closed Communication
__ 65. There are things that I keep from my friend.
66. There are issues that I am reluctant to discuss with my friend.
67. I have secrets I keep from my friend.
68. There are things my friend and I do not discuss.
Please answer the following questions about your opinions about communication with
friends in general.
General Beliefs about Openness
69. Open communication is essential in friendship.

70. Good friends can talk about everything.

78

5 = Strongly Agree 3 = Not sure or Neutral 2 = Somewhat Disagree
4 = Somewhat Agree 1 = Strongly Disagree
__ 71. It is OK to have things that you do not talk about with your friends. (R)

72. Self-disclosure is an important way to be close to friends.

73. Complete openness can cause problems in friendships. (R)
_ 74. Friendship is all about sharing personal thoughts and feelings.

75. One should keep some things private in close friendships. (R)

Now, please complete two demographic questions below.

 

I am: (Circle one) Male Female
My age is (In years):
My sexual orientation is (Circle one): Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual

Thanks for your participation. ©

79