Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Seeley, E. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gabriel, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 6, No. 3, 251-263 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/13684302030063003

Circle of Friends or Members of a Group? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups

Elizabeth A. Seeley

Amherst College, e-seeley{at}northwestern.edu

Wendi L. Gardner

Northwestern University

Ginger Pennington

University of Chicago

Shira Gabriel

SUNY Buffalo

In the current investigation, we studied sex differences in belonging needs by exploring men's and women's attachment to groups. Previous work has shown that women's social needs tend to be expressed in terms of relational bonds, whereas men's also have a strong collective component (e.g. Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). In this research, we asked men and women to consider one of their important group memberships and to complete Prentice, Miller, and Lightdale's (1994) group attachment scales. In two studies, findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group's importance to her. In contrast, men's ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e.attached to the group identity). Implications for real-world groups are discussed.

Key Words: belongingness • group attachment • human sex differences • interdependence • social interaction


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
W. W. Maddux and M. B. Brewer
Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, April 1, 2005; 8(2): 159 - 171.
[Abstract] [PDF]