Friendship Lecture Flashcards
Macro-level definitions of friendship focus on…
the social network
Social Network
Interconnections of the people you interact with
E.g., family, friends, neighbours, co-workers, acquaintances, romantic partner, best friend, teammates
Friends are part of a larger network of social ties
Most social networks are comprised of friends
Social connection
experience of belonging to a network (e.g., community, school, friendship circle)
Some people feel more connection to their networks
E.g., Friendship network satisfaction scale
Three attributes generally studied using the social network approach
1) Size of social network
2) Network density
- Degree to which the network are connected (i.e., do other people in the network know each other)
3) qualities of network members
- E.g., frequency of interaction, importance, quality of friendship
Types of Friends
Social ties
- Weak ties (acquaintance) vs strong ties (close friend, best friend)
Domain
- E.g., Work friends, school friends, family friends
Activity level
- Dormant vs active friends
Choice of making friends
- Pre-determined vs voluntary
Micro-level of friendship focus on…
features of specific friendships
The dyad (vs the network)
Micro-level definition of friendship
-Top down (experts)
- Bottom up (laypeople)
Top-down approach (Experts)
e.g., Fehr (1996)
voluntary relationship (unlike family, co-workers or neighbors)
intimacy
assistance
liking
seeking each others company
Top-down approach (Experts)
Argyle & Henderson (1984)
Friendship Rules
Respect the others privacy
Trust and confide in one another
Volunteer help in time of need
Not be jealous or critical of friends other relationships
Top-down approach (Experts)
Mendelson & Aboud (1999)
Friendship functions
- stimulating companionship
- help (practical assistance)
- intimacy (self-disclosure)
- reliable alliance (loyalty)
- emotional security (comfort)
- self-validation (helps maintain positive image of self)
Top-down approach (Experts)
Felmlee & Muraco (2009)
Expectations
- trust
- commitment
- support
- helping
- respect and consideration
- respect for privacy
- affection
- loyalty
Top-down approach (Experts)
Hall (2012)
Friendship standards,
- symmetrical reciprocity
- agency > what a friend can do
- enjoyment
- instrumental aid > helping you out
- similarity
- communion
Top-down approach (Experts)
Miller (2015): textbook
Affection (like, trust, respect, loyalty)
Communion (give and receive social and emotional support)
Companionship (share interests and hobbies)
Bottom-up approach
e.g., Fehr (2004)
Examined the meaning of intimate friendships by examining patterns of relating for laypeople (i.e., self-in-relation-to-other schemas)
Assumptions
- people have self-other knowledge of the types if-then contingencies that promote intimacy
- Some of the patterns are more central than others
Bottom-up approach
e.g., Fehr (2004)
Prototypical patterns
E.g.,
- Responsive disclosure (If i need to talk my friend will listen)
- Emotional Support
(If I’m sad or depressed, my friend will listen)
Nonprototypical patterns
E.g.,
practical support (e.g., If I need money, my friend will lend it to me)
doing activities and spending time together were less central
Slide 18
Slide 19
How do friendships develop?
Social Penetration Theory
(Altman & Taylor, 1973)
Friendships develop through gradual self-disclosure involving increasing breadth (i.e., variety of topics) and depth (how many personal and intimate details you share)
How do friends develop?
Fast Friends Paradigm (Aron et al. 1997)
- 36 questions
Increased breadth and depth of questions that two people ask each other across an ~hour-long period - Spend 15-30 minutes on each of the three increasingly intimate question sets.
- Intended to induce interpersonal closeness and intimacy
Ways to communicate with friends
online and face-to face
Other ways to communicate
Snail mail
Telephone
New ways to communicate (last 20 years)
SMS
Multi-media messaging services
Facebook
You tube
WhatsApp
Insta
Snapchat
TikTok
AI companions
CMC
Computer mediated communication
FtF
Face-to-face
Is online communication bad for friendships?
Two competing views of how friendships have been affected by online communcation
Displacement hypothesis
- Friendships are being diluted with superficial interactions
Stimulation hypothesis
- Online communication enhances quantity and quality of interactions
Evidence is mixed. There seems to be more evidence for the stimulation hypothesis to date
Manago et al. 2018
Assessed frequency of CMC and FtF friendship interaction and the link with emotional closeness to friends with sample of ~170 US adolescents
Procedure
- predictors
-online daily diary (across 5 days) asked about CMC (e.g., texts, communicating online) and FtF interactions with friends
- Outcome
- Emotional closeness to friends
Results
- CMC interactions with friends predicted friend closeness after accounting for FtF time with friends
Scott et al. 2021
Assessed the role of type of communication with friends in shaping the association between social vulnerabilities (e.g., social anxiety) and friendship quality
Participants
- Australian young adults (~700 participants between the ages of 17-25)
- Completed online survey about social anxiety, type of communication with friend ((online, offline, online-initiated mixed mode, and offline-initiated mixed mode of communication), and friendship quality
- Asked about 4 specific friends in general for the communication type and friendship quality4
Scott et al. 2021
Results
- the frequency of interacting with close friends was positively associated with friendship quality, whether friendships were online or offline.
- social anxiety was associated with decreased friendship quality for people who mostly interacted with friends offline or both online and offline (mixed modes).
- social anxiety was not significantly associated with decreased friendship quality for people mostly interacted online
MItsuku
Croes et al. 2021
examined whether humans can build a relationship with a chatbot
Procedure
- longitudinal study
- 118 participants had several interactions with chatbot Mitsuku over a 3-week period.
- Reported on social processes (e.g., social attraction, self-disclosure, interaction quality, intimacy) and feelings of friendship
Results
- social processes decreased after each interaction with chatbot, and feelings of friendship were low.
- after the first interaction, chatbot became less rewarding to interact with
Drouin et al. 2022
- This experiment assessed the acquaintance process with an AI chatbot.
Procedure
- randomly assigned ~400 participants into three conditions:
- face-to-face (FTF) chat with a human
- online chat with a human
- online chat with chatbot, Replika.
- After a 20-min getting-acquainted chat, participants reported their feelings and ratings of the chat.
Drouin et al. 2022
Results
- In all conditions, participants reported moderate levels of positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions.
- participants had fewest conversational concerns with the chatbot.
- Those who chatted FtF with a human reported significantly more negative emotions than those who chatter with a bot
- However, those who chatted with a human also reported more liking of their chat partner and indicated that their partner was more responsive
How are friendships different than romantic relationships?
Same properties as romantic relationships minus passion and monogamy
Blurry lines
- Friends with Benefits
- Open relationships
- Cross-sex friendships
Friends are more fluid, less solid boundaries
What makes a satisfying friendship?
Wilson et al., 2015
What behaviors might explain why some people achieve high friendship satisfaction?
Procedure
- Student sample
- Personality (Big 5 self-reports
and peer reports)
- Friendship satisfaction
- Quantity and quality of social
interactions using ecological
momentary assessment 4
times a day over 14 days
Results
- Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Low
neuroticism linked with
increased friendship
satisfaction
- Quantity of time spent with
friends and quality of
friendship interaction (depth of
conversation, self-disclosure,
and lack of emotional
expression) was associated
with increased friendship
satisfaction
- BUT, quantity and quality of
time did not account for the
relation between personality
and friendship satisfaction
Fehr & Harasymchuk (2017)
- When evaluating the quality of
the friendship, people assess
the extent to which their
friendship matches the
prototype of intimacy.- E.g., Prototypical
- If I want to talk, my friend
will listen
- If I want to talk, my friend
- E.g., Non-prototypical
- If I want to have fun, my
friend will go out with me
- If I want to have fun, my
- E.g., Prototypical
- The closer people were to their
prototype of intimacy, the
greater the relationship quality
Veitch et al. 2022
assessed infant attachment security and maternal sensitivity as antecedents of friendship satisfaction at age 32
Procedure
used data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaption
Assessed attachment security and maternal sensitivity for people when they were infants
Assessed friendship satisfaction at age 32
Results
Evidence supported the idea that early parent–child relationships provide a foundation for later adult relationships with close friends.
FORMAT AFTER
The role of friendship in predicting health, happiness, and life satisfaction
Van de Horst et al. (2012)
examined how friendship network characteristics influence life satisfaction
Procedure
- Used data from the 2003
General Social Survey of
Canada involving ~24000
participants, they assessed:
- three components of friendship networks
- number of friends
- frequency of contact
- heterogeneity of friends
- potential benefits from
friendships
- social trust
- less stress
- better health
- social support
- Life satisfaction
The role of friendship in predicting health, happiness, and life satisfaction
Van de Horst et al. (2012)
Results
higher frequency of contacts and higher number of friends, as well as lower heterogeneity of the friendship network were related to more social trust, less stress, and a better health.
Frequency of contact and number of friends, as well as more heterogeneity of the friendship network was associated with increased chance of receiving social support from friends
These benefits were in turn related to higher levels of life satisfaction
Kaufman et al., 2022
- assessed the relative
importance of different
relationship types (including
friendships) for life satisfaction
Procedure
- online survey data collected
from a large (~2000
participants), diverse sample of
respondents in the US (aged
18-75, represented a broad
sample of the U.S. population
on demographic characteristics
such as ethnicity, income, and
education)
- assessed
- life satisfaction
- relationship satisfaction with
different types: intimate
relationships, friendships,
and family
Results
- Satisfaction with each type of
relationship was significantly
and independently associated
with life satisfaction
- Friendships (not family)
interacted with intimate
relationships
- When people were highly
satisfied with their intimate
relationships, they were
happy with their lives
regardless of their friendship
quality
- When people were unhappy
with their intimate
relationships, they were only
happy with their lives if they
had good friends
Kang et al., (2022)
- Examined the relation between
the number of close friends
and life satisfaction and how
this association varies with age.
Procedure
- analyzed data from ~30,000
participants with an age range
of 16–101 years old
Results
- the positive association
between the number of close
friends and life satisfaction was
strongest in young people, and
less strongest in middle-aged,
and weakest in adults
Lu et al. 2021
examined the link between valuing friendship and well-being and the factors that shape that association (e.g., gender, education level, country qualities)
Procedure
- The sample comprised of
~323,000 from 99 countries
from the World Values Survey.
Results
- Prioritizing friendships in life
was associated with better
health and well-being
- Women, people with higher
levels of education, and people
living in countries that are
more economically equal
placed more value on
friendships.
