Sex differences in social support in sororities and fraternities |
| |
| Authors: | Michael S Woodward Lawrence B Rosenfeld Steven K May |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Graduate student in the Department of Speech Communication , University of Texas , Austin;2. Professor of Communication Studies , University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill;3. Assistant Professor of Communication Studies , University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill |
| |
| Abstract: | Abstract The purpose of this investigation was to assess differences between sorority and fraternity members with regard to the social support provided by the “sisters”; and “brothers”; with whom they live. Based on sex differences in communication in general, and the few findings of sex differences in social support, two research questions were posed: Do members of sororities and fraternities differ in the social support they provide? How do the various types of social support compare with each other within fraternities and within sororities? Differences found in this study corroborate results of research on sex differences in communication that characterize women as using communication to connect with, support, and achieve closeness with others, and men using communication to accomplish some task and to assert their individuality. In general, differences were mostly confined to two of the eight types of social support studied: members of sororities, in comparison to members of fraternities, reported being more satisfied with the emotional support they receive and perceiving greater availability of listening support. If the goal of fraternities and sororities is to provide their members with the full range of social support, then findings indicate members of fraternities could benefit from becoming more skillful at providing types of support that tend to promote closeness and connection (e.g., emotional support and listening support); and members of sororities could benefit from becoming more skillful at providing types of support that tend to create distance and separation (e.g., technical challenge support and emotional challenge support). |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
