Friendship Lecture

Question 1

Macro-level definitions of friendship focus on…

Answer 1

the social network

Question 2

Social Network

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Social connection

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Three attributes generally studied using the social network approach

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Types of Friends

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Micro-level of friendship focus on…

Answer 6

features of specific friendships

The dyad (vs the network)

Micro-level definition of friendship
-Top down (experts)
- Bottom up (laypeople)

Question 7

Top-down approach (Experts)
e.g., Fehr (1996)

Answer 7

voluntary relationship (unlike family, co-workers or neighbors)

intimacy

assistance

liking

seeking each others company

Question 8

Top-down approach (Experts)
Argyle & Henderson (1984)
Friendship Rules

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Top-down approach (Experts)
Mendelson & Aboud (1999)

Answer 9

Friendship functions
- stimulating companionship
- help (practical assistance)
- intimacy (self-disclosure)
- reliable alliance (loyalty)
- emotional security (comfort)
- self-validation (helps maintain positive image of self)

Question 10

Top-down approach (Experts)
Felmlee & Muraco (2009)

Answer 10

Expectations
- trust
- commitment
- support
- helping
- respect and consideration
- respect for privacy
- affection
- loyalty

Question 11

Top-down approach (Experts)
Hall (2012)

Answer 11

Friendship standards,
- symmetrical reciprocity
- agency > what a friend can do
- enjoyment
- instrumental aid > helping you out
- similarity
- communion

Question 12

Top-down approach (Experts)
Miller (2015): textbook

Answer 12

Affection (like, trust, respect, loyalty)

Communion (give and receive social and emotional support)

Companionship (share interests and hobbies)

Question 13

Bottom-up approach
e.g., Fehr (2004)

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Bottom-up approach
e.g., Fehr (2004)

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Slide 18

Question 16

Slide 19

Question 17

How do friendships develop?
Social Penetration Theory
(Altman & Taylor, 1973)

Answer 17

Friendships develop through gradual self-disclosure involving increasing breadth (i.e., variety of topics) and depth (how many personal and intimate details you share)

Question 18

How do friends develop?
Fast Friends Paradigm (Aron et al. 1997)

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Ways to communicate with friends

Answer 19

online and face-to face

Question 20

Other ways to communicate

Answer 20

Snail mail

Telephone

Email

Question 21

New ways to communicate (last 20 years)

Answer 21

SMS
Multi-media messaging services
Facebook
You tube
WhatsApp
Insta
Snapchat
TikTok
AI companions

Question 22

CMC

Answer 22

Computer mediated communication

Question 23

FtF

Answer 23

Face-to-face

Question 24

Is online communication bad for friendships?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Manago et al. 2018

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Scott et al. 2021

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Scott et al. 2021 Results

Answer 27

- 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

Question 28

MItsuku Croes et al. 2021

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Drouin et al. 2022

Answer 29

- 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.

Question 30

Drouin et al. 2022 Results

Answer 30

- 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

Question 31

How are friendships different than romantic relationships?

Answer 31

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

Question 31

What makes a satisfying friendship? Wilson et al., 2015

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Fehr & Harasymchuk (2017)

Answer 32

- 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 - E.g., Non-prototypical - If I want to have fun, my friend will go out with me - The closer people were to their prototype of intimacy, the greater the relationship quality

Question 33

Veitch et al. 2022

Answer 33

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

Question 34

The role of friendship in predicting health, happiness, and life satisfaction Van de Horst et al. (2012)

Answer 34

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

Question 35

The role of friendship in predicting health, happiness, and life satisfaction Van de Horst et al. (2012) Results

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Kaufman et al., 2022

Answer 36

- 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

Question 37

Kang et al., (2022)

Answer 37

- 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

Question 38

Lu et al. 2021

Answer 38

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.