This week, the female friendship myth has been busted. BUSTED, I tell you. Research published by Harvard University has revealed that women only get along with each other if they’re the same social or professional rank – disproving conventional wisdom that while men tend to be more competitive, women are more co-operative, because we’re innately more nurturing. (Ugh)
The research looked at the behaviour of chimpanzees – where males of different ranks will band together to support each other against rivalries from another group, females are more likely to interact with smaller groups, or a single individual. But moving away from primates for a moment, the research also discovered that in academia, male professors were more likely to co-author publications with lowly academics of the same sex than their female counterparts.
Basically, the research found that women place far more importance on hierarchy when forming friendships than men, and are much more invested in one-on-one relationships than working as a team. But is it true? And what does this mean for our ability to form relationships with colleagues, potential friends and partners?
Think about it – if you’re a graduate, how many of your friends never went to university? Chances are, not that many because, as well get older, we naturally gravitate towards people who are have the same interests and are having the same experiences as we are. We become closer to people who have the same status. The friends you have at school aren't necessarily the ones you have in your twenties, because you've become a different person – with a different social standing.
And how have your friendships changed as your relative earnings and earning potential has changed? There’s little more divisive than the friend you spent three years with at uni, both trying to eek out your student loans together, suddenly earning 20k more than you? She’s talking about ISAs and saving up for a mortgage, while you’re trying to save up for a travelcard.
It’s not just the money thing, either – it’s the status. When your flatmate starts leaving the house at six in the morning in a power suit to go to a business meeting, and you’re rocking up to your entry-level job at 10AM in your jeans and hangover sweatshirt, it upsets the power balance – they’re a Very Important Person who serves a purpose and has a function. You’re not exactly surplus to requirements, but you’re not busy and important, either. How can you have a friendship based on such unequal terms? And it will only get worse with age – when you're living in a grotty houseshare, she's buying a flat, while she's moaning about her PA's terrible minute taking, you can't convince your boss to take the word 'Junior' off your job title. Her clothes will be more expensive, her holidays will more exotic, her wedding will be bigger and eventually her children will be better educated. It would take a very strong friendship to survive that.
But is this really a female trait, or a human trait? Studies show that men tend to bond more around shared activities or interests than women, who make friendships through conversation and sharing information. So two men who have nothing in common apart from a shared love of, say, football, will be able to bond over this. Women need to have an intrinsic emotional connection.
It doesn’t help that education, work and wealth are the main ways we measure status and worth (apart from beauty, but that’s a whole other article). And there’s also a practical issue at play here - spending time with a friend when you’re in profoundly different social and economic situations is just harder – there are more tensions at play and more issues to consider. Sarah, 24, has two distinctive groups of friends with differing incomes – and certainly notices the difference. ‘I always either end up being the poorest in the room (by millions) or feeling flush (by hundreds). I actually prefer to be the poorest in the room because it's easy to get out of going on crazy holidays or spending massive amounts on clothes. Something like one crazy night out every once in a while is justifiable in my budget,' she says. 'I find it harder to be around my friends who don't have a lot of expendable income because I feel forced to do whatever they want or else I have to foot the bill. I get quite frustrated because I feel like I'm always the bad guy. If I don't want to go sit around their house doing nothing I'm a bad friend and if I want to go out I'm either forcing them to live beyond their means or paying for everything.’
But a difference in income doesn't have to be divisive. When Stevie, 25, was really struggling with money, she found her better-off friends to be a huge support. 'A lot of my friends are teachers, lawyers and investment bankers, so they have more money than I do. But they're my friends because they don’t care about the fact that I’m broke a lot of the time. When I was at my poorest, my mate who's a lawyer would buy me dinner and have me round when I hadn’t eaten anything warm for weeks, which made such a big difference.'
Which is the point, really. Revisiting Harvard's research, those female chimpanzees were still forming close friendships – only with smaller groups, or one other individual. We might not be as good as men at making loads of friends across the social divide, but we're pretty good at close bonds, and sticking with the mates that count – through poverty and pay rises. When your social and economic standing changes, the frendships based solely on shared experiences – a mutual love of experimental cocktails and exotic holidays – probably will fall through the cracks. But the ones based on a genuine connection, mutual respect and a massive dose of love will last, no matter which tax code you end up with.
Follow Rebecca on Twitter @rebecca_hol
This article originally appeared on The Debrief.