Wrzus Etal2017friendship Adulthood
Wrzus Etal2017friendship Adulthood
Wrzus Etal2017friendship Adulthood
net/publication/311681497
CITATIONS READS
5 12,739
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Genetic Oriented Life span study on differential Development (GOLD) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cornelia Wrzus on 09 October 2017.
This is a pre-print version, not the copy of record. This version may not exactly replicate the final
version published in:
Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. (2017). Friendships in young and middle
adulthood: Normative patterns and personality differences. In M. Hojjat & A. Moyer (Eds.),
Psychology of friendship (pp. nn). New York: Oxford University Press.
Differences
What characterizes friendships in young and middle adulthood? The current chapter addresses this question with
respect to four topics: (1) The importance and functions of friends in young and middle adulthood generally differ
from friendships in childhood and adolescence to some degree because people experience life transitions such as
entering the workforce or establishing a family; (2) at the same time, even same-aged people differ in the number
and quality of friendships, and these individual differences partly relate to personality characteristics; (3)
longitudinal research on friendships further shows that friendships change with normative and non-normative life
transitions as people move through young and middle adulthood; and (4) additionally, personality predicts
individual differences in these friendship changes. Likewise, friendships also retroact on personality and thus
contribute to the dynamic co-development of individuals and their social environments over the lifespan.
Throughout this chapter, we draw on theories of friendship and friendship development, and refer to recent
empirical work testing these theoretical accounts. We conclude by discussing how future studies can contribute to
better understanding friendships by applying a network approach and taking other relationships with family,
partners, and other people into account.
begin to replace parents as confidants and and liking in friendships are strongest for
companions for leisure time activities (Fraley perceived similarity. Accordingly, Montoya
& Davis, 1997; Hartup & Stevens, 1997). and Horton (2013) refined the explanations
Importantly, adolescents’ friendships also for the similarity-attraction link stating that
serve as training models to prepare for liking results from ascribing one’s own
intimate romantic relationships (Fraley, positive characteristics to the other person
Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, (i.e., perceiving him/her as similar to oneself
2013; Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, and one’s positive characteristics). As a
2007). Although romantic partners become result, people with (assumed) positive
more important during young and middle characteristics are viewed more positively,
adulthood as compared to adolescence, that is, are liked better (Kaplan & Anderson,
friends largely maintain their function as 1973; Montoya & Horton, 2013).
confidant, attachment figure, and partner for Another psychological dimension of
leisure activities. In addition to providing friendships concerns the exchange of support.
validation and emotional closeness, friends In general, people aim for fairness in
provide practical support as well (Fehr, 1996), friendships. Namely, the general rule of
for example, by helping move or lending reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) applies to
belongings. These functions correspond to the friendships as well, leading to long-term
assumed underlying psychological reciprocity of provided and received support.
dimensions of friendships: emotional However, reciprocity of support also varies
closeness and reciprocity of support (Clark & somewhat between friendships, depending on
Mills, 1979; Neyer, Wrzus, Wagner, & Lang, the relationship duration. During the
2011). formation of friendships, people reciprocate
favors and support quickly to avoid the
Emotional Closeness and Reciprocal
impression of exploiting the other person
Support in Friendships
(Lydon, Jamieson, & Holmes, 1997). In
Friendships are typically emotionally
established friendships, however, such tit-for-
close and reciprocally supportive
tat behavior (immediate reciprocation;
relationships. At the same time, an
Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) is detrimental as
individual’s friendships often differ in their
people value balanced relationships, but they
qualities (e.g., emotional closeness, Neyer et
avoid keeping detailed track of costs and
al., 2011). Namely, people feel varying
benefits (Clark, 1984; Lydon et al., 1997;
degrees of closeness among their various
Silk, 2003).
friends. The emotional closeness to friends
often relates to how similar they are in their Individual Differences in Friendship
interests, values, and personality traits (Floyd, Networks
1995; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008; In addition to qualities of friendships
Morry, 2007; Suitor, 1987). The similarity- differing within people, such as emotional
attraction theory (Byrne, 1971) suggests that closeness or reciprocity of support,
people seek out similar others as friends to friendships can differ between people.
validate their own self- and world views. As a Typological approaches highlight such
result, interacting with similar others who differences in distinct types of friendship
share one’s world view is pleasant because networks (Fiori, Smith, & Antonucci, 2007;
one’s self- and world views are confirmed Matthews, 2000; Miche et al., 2013). People
(Reis & Shaver, 1988). Multiple pleasant differ in their networks and either maintain (1)
interactions then also lead to perceiving the relatively few long-term, emotionally close
relationship with the other person as pleasant, friends, (2) larger networks with close friends
resulting in feeling close to the other. Hence, and also loose acquaintances, or (3) even
similarity predicts emotional closeness social networks without friends and only
among friends (Montoya et al., 2008). family ties. The advantage of typological
However, effects of similarity on closeness approaches is that they consider multiple
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 4
agreeable and nice for women than for men emotional instability are incompatible with
(Birnbaum, Ein-Dor, Reis, & Segal, 2014). traditional male gender roles. Hence,
neuroticism predicted lower status and less
Personality Effects on the Quality of
influence only among male friends (Anderson
Friendships
et al., 2001).
Personality traits also predict the
quality of friendships. For example, people Personality Similarity in Friendships
higher in extraversion have more contact with In addition to individuals’ personality
friends (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Mehl, traits, the similarity in personality traits of
Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006) and report friends, further relates to the friendship
greater importance of, emotional closeness to, quality. In general, people state that they
and perceived support from friends prefer others as friends who have similar
(Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Neyer & attitudes, values, and interests (Sprecher &
Asendorpf, 2001). More optimistic people Regan, 2002). As described before, people
also typically perceive more social support usually like similar others because the
from others compared to more pessimistic similarity suggests that the other person has
people (e.g., Brissette, Scheier, & Carver, (similar) positive characteristics, which make
2002). Indeed, other people liked optimistic him/her likable (Montoya & Horton, 2013).
(and realistic) people better (Vollmann, Simplified, one could say if people think they
Renner, & Weber, 2007), but were equally are good and the other person is similar to
likely to potentially help optimistic, realistic, them, then the other person also has to be
or pessimistic people (Vollmann et al., 2007; good.
Vollmann & Renner, 2010). This finding Recent studies on real-life friendship
suggests that the associations between formation showed that perceiving greater
extraversion and optimism, and perceived similarity in personality traits longitudinally
support may not extend to actual support. predicted friendship formation (vanZalk &
Actual support often depends on the needs Denissen, 2015). However, actual similarity
and the resources of the supported and the in attitudes, interests, or personality traits did
supporting friend (Clark & Mills, 1979; not predict initial liking or later friendship
Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986). Again, intensity in real-life settings (Back et al.,
agreeableness showed diverse effects: More 2011; Johnson, 1998; vanZalk & Denissen,
agreeable people reported greater friendship 2015; but see Montoya et al., 2008; Selfhout
intensity (Heyl & Schmitt, 2007; Johnson, et al., 2010 for effects of actual personality
1989) and less conflict with friends similarity on friendship selection).
(Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998), whereas Neyer Nonetheless, on average friends are similar to
and Asendorpf (2001) did not observe such each other in some personality traits (Nelson
effects. et al., 2013; Selfhout et al., 2010), and even
Together, the effects of personality more similar to each other with respect to
traits such as extraversion, narcissism, and socio-demographic characteristics such as
self-esteem on the initial attraction toward age, education, or socioeconomic status,
new potential friends are fairly well described as social homogamy (McPherson,
understood, however, personality effects on Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; vanZalk &
the subsequent process of developing Denissen, 2015).
closeness, support, and conflict in friendships Similarity in traits, attitudes, or
need further examination. Other traits, such as interests among friends may be a by-product
neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness of social homogamy (e.g., meeting in the
to new experiences, might relate to neighborhood where people of similar
friendships only among specific groups of socioeconomic status and political orientation
people or in specific situations. For example, live; McPherson et al., 2001) and further
neuroticism may only be relevant among male environmental factors influencing friendship
friends, for whom frequent worries and formations (e.g., meeting during shared
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 6
leisure activities that indicate similar Adolescents and young adults have
interests) instead of a product of active the largest friendship networks and place the
assortment (Back et al., 2011). Accordingly, greatest emphasis on friendships compared to
liking and other friendship qualities may earlier and later periods in life (Hartup &
depend less on personality similarity than on Stevens, 1997; Wrzus, Hänel, Wagner, &
other factors such as goal facilitation and Neyer, 2013). Next, we detail how friendships
reciprocal support (Montoya & Horton, 2013; develop both normatively and related to life
Neyer & Lang, 2003; Neyer et al., 2011). transitions during young and middle
Such discrepancies between perceived and adulthood. We focus on changes in the
actual similarity in different personality number of friendships and then address
characteristics regarding liking and closeness qualitative changes.
in friendships calls for further examination of Changes in the Number of Friendships
the underlying processes. Socioemotional selectivity theory
In sum, especially so-called social states that young adults are more strongly
traits (extraversion, agreeableness; Denissen motivated to gather knowledge and
& Penke, 2008) and related characteristics information, as their remaining lifetime often
(self-esteem, narcissism) reliably predict the seems infinite (Carstensen, 1995).
formation and quality of friendships. This is Information acquisition is best achieved from
not surprising given that these characteristics diverse sources, such as a large number of
describe how people deal with each other: friends. A recent meta-analysis confirmed
outgoing, dominant (extraversion), that during young adulthood, people continue
cooperative, friendly (agreeableness). Further to accumulate friends hence their friendship
efforts are needed to understand the divergent networks increase (Wrzus et al., 2013). Figure
effects of perceived and actual similarity in
1 depicts the observed longitudinal changes in
various personality characteristics on friendship networks, personal networks
friendship quality. Here, dyadic or round- (mainly family members and friends), and
robin study designs (Kenny, 1994) are global networks (various kinds of social
necessary because friendship and similarity of relationships, e.g., with family, friends, co-
personality characteristics are phenomena workers, acquaintances, etc.). Studies with
that concern two (or more) people. These young adults (mean sample age younger than
study designs enable researchers to examine 30 years) observed increases in the size of
how characteristics of one friend and the friendship networks, whereas studies with
interaction between friends influence older adults (mean sample age older than 65
friendship quality (Back et al., 2011). In years) observed decreases in the size of
addition, such studies should follow friends friendship networks (no suitable longitudinal
over time (i.e., short-term longitudinal studies were available for middle adulthood).
studies) as friendships take time to develop. Since family networks did not change
Next, we review the current knowledge on significantly in size across the lifespan (cross-
longitudinal friendship development, which, sectionally and longitudinally; Wrzus et al.,
however, neglect the dyadic aspects. 2013), the observed changes in personal and
Friendship Development global networks may be attributable to the
observed changes in friendship networks
.
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 7
Global
Network
Personal
Network
Friends
Network
Such normative changes are likely (at (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Wrzus et al., 2013)
least in part) a result of normative life events partly due to becoming friends with the
(for integrative reviews see Neyer, Mund, spouse’s friends (Kearns & Leonard, 2004).
Zimmermann, & Wrzus, 2014; Wrzus et al., Importantly, such context changes also
2013). During young adulthood, people enter challenge established social relationships,
new contexts, where many people acquire which might result in losses of existing
new friends. For example, during the first friendships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998;
months of college, people form on average Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013). However,
about ten new friendships (Asendorpf & friendship gains often exceed losses and
Wilpers, 1998). When young adults enter the result in an overall increase in the number of
work force, they also establish new friends.
friendships (often with co-workers; During middle adulthood (and later
Morrison, 2002; Wrzus et al., 2013). on), information acquisition goals become
Similarly, when young adults marry, their relatively less prevalent, whereas emotion
number of friends increases on average regulation goals become increasingly
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 8
important as the remaining lifetime is fulfilled these functions. This suggests that
perceived as more and more limited friends fulfill emotional and supportive
(Carstensen, 1995). People then focus on functions that are otherwise fulfilled by
close relationships, such as with close friends, spouses. As a result, the importance of friends
which presumably satisfy emotion regulation decreases to some extent when people marry
goals through pleasant interactions. In and have children (although the number of
addition, work and family demands may friends increases somewhat). Other studies
restrict the available time and resources and found no consistent mean-level changes in
urge people to select friends out of their larger average emotional closeness, perceived
friendship networks. Accordingly, the support, or conflict frequency with friends
number of friends and the amount of contact over 1.5, 4, or 8 years, and only moderate
with them decrease (Neyer & Asendorpf, rank-order stability in these relationship
2001; Neyer & Lehnart, 2007). In particular, qualities (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Neyer
becoming parents is related to a decrease in & Asendorpf, 2001; Neyer & Lehnart, 2007).
friendship networks (Bost, Cox, Burchinal, & This suggests considerable individual
Payne, 2002; Wrzus et al., 2013). differences in the direction of friendship
change. In other words, the quality of
Changes in the Quality of Friendships
friendships did not change uniformly for
In young adulthood, as during other
everybody, but for some people friendships’
life periods, newly acquainted people become
quality improved, whereas for others the
friends through regular, intimate, and
quality remained stable or worsened.
pleasant interactions (Fehr, 2000; Hays,
Differences in people’s personality traits
1985). During intimate interactions, people
contribute to the explanation of individual
share personal information (i.e., engage in
differences in qualitative changes of friends,
self-disclosure), which engenders trust and
as addressed in the next section.
emotional closeness and transforms
In sum, the number of friends
acquaintances into friends, typically within a
increases during young adulthood and these
few weeks and months (Nezlek, 1993;
increases are partly related to normative
Planalp & Benson, 1992). Yet, few studies
transitions. At the same time, emotional
have examined qualitative changes in
closeness with and support among friends
existing friendships over time in young and
tends to increase as long as there is no
middle adulthood. In one such study,
romantic partner. When young adults engage
however, when young adults entered college,
in serious romantic relationships or become
attachment security with friends and
parents, the importance and quality of
perceived support increased over the next 18
friendships tend to decrease on average
months (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 2000). In
(although some studies also show no
addition, changes in attachment security and
meaningful average changes). These average
perceived support were related: Friendships
effects conceal one important methodological
that became more securely attached were also
drawback: Longitudinal studies often analyze
perceived as more supportive.
changes in the average friendship networks,
When people marry or become
but not specific friendships. Thus, these
parents, not only the number but also the
studies do not follow specific relationships
quality of friendships changes (Carbery &
between person A and friends B, C, and D
Buhrmester, 1998; Kearns & Leonard, 2004).
over time, but examine at later assessment
Among single people, friends and best friends
points that person A now has four friends,
were more important for emotional needs
which may be friends B, C, E, and F. Hence,
(companionship, disclosure, reassurance) and
future studies need to carefully track specific
support (advice and tangible help) than
friendships to disentangle changes in the
among married people or people with
friendship network composition from
children (Carbery & Buhrmester, 1998). For
qualitative changes in specific friendships.
the latter two groups, the partner largely
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 9
(A) (B)
Figure 2. Selected findings from Mund and Neyer (2014) of (A) personality effects on
friendship change and (B) friendship effects on personality change.
In sum, although earlier research raised (Prinstein, 2007; Urberg, Luo, Pilgrim, &
doubts about friendships influencing Degirmencioglu, 2002).
personality development (Asendorpf Future Research Areas and Conclusions
&Wilpers, 1998; Neyer & Lehnart, 2007), The previous sections addressed
recent studies evidenced such longitudinal characteristics and functions of friendships in
transactions (for review see Wrzus & Neyer, young and middle adulthood, how friendships
2015). The interplay of personality traits and differ within and between people, how
friendships provides a generic example of a friendships change in general during young
full transaction pattern (i.e., personality and middle adulthood, and how people’s
effects on relationships and vice versa), personality and friendships reciprocally
which emphasizes the importance of
affect each other over time. Notably most of
friendships in the person-environment this research exclusively focused on
interplay. However, the pattern of results is friendships or only compared friendships and
complex as effects are scattered across all other social relationships. Although this is
trait domains. Further research is needed to practical for research purposes and simplifies
gain deeper insight into the specific research designs, we argue that a
contingencies between different personality comprehensive understanding of friendships
traits and various relationship qualities. will only be achieved by considering the
Furthermore, the processes that mediate interdependencies with other relationships
mutual influences of personality and (e.g., with romantic partners, family
relationship characteristics as well as members, co-workers).
potential moderators of their interplay have The first step in examining
yet to be examined. Research on effects of
interdependencies among social relationships
peer contagion suggested that friendship is to find characteristics that are common to
effects might vary by relationship quality all or most relationships. In the beginning, we
distinguished friendships from spousal and
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 11
relationships. Journal of Personality the life span (pp. 159–182). New York:
and Social Psychology, 74, 1531-1544. Cambridge University Press.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (2000). Bost, K. K., Cox, M. J., Burchinal, M. R., &
Attachment security and available Payne, C. (2002). Structural and
support: Closely linked relationship supportive changes in couples’ family
qualities. Journal of Social and and friendship networks across the
Personal Relationships, 17, 115-138. transition to parenthood. Journal of
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The Marriage and Family, 64, 517–531.
evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
1390-1396. 3737.2002.00517.x
Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. J. A., Brissette, I., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S.
Hartung, F.-M., Penke, L., … Wrzus, (2002). The role of optimism in social
C.. (2011). PERSOC: A unified network development, coping, and
framework for understanding the psychological adjustment during a life
dynamic interplay of personality and transition. Journal of Personality and
social relationships. European Journal Social Psychology, 82, 102-111.
of Personality, 25, 90-107. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C., Dufner, M., New York: Academic.
Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998).
Denissen, J. J. (2013). Narcissistic Friendship and need fulfillment during
admiration and rivalry: Disentangling three phases of young adulthood.
the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Social and Personal
Journal of Personality and Social Relationships, 15, 393-409.
Psychology, 105, 1013-1037. doi: Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-
10.1037/a0034431 span theory of socioemotional
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. selectivity. Current Directions in
(2010). Why are narcissists so charming Psychological Science, 4, 151-156.
at first sight? Decoding the narcissism– Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two
popularity link at zero acquaintance. types of relationships. Journal of
Journal of Personality and Social Personality and Social Psychology, 47,
Psychology, 98, 132-145. 549-557.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal
(2011). A closer look at first sight: attraction exchange and communal
Social relations lens model analysis of relationships. Journal of Personality
personality and interpersonal attraction and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.
at zero acquaintance. European Journal Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C.
of Personality, 25, 225-238. (1986). Keeping track of needs in
Birnbaum, G. E., Ein-Dor, T., Reis, H. T., & communal and exchange relationships.
Segal, N. (2014). Why do men prefer Journal of Personality and Social
nice women? Gender typicality Psychology, 51, 333-338.
mediates the effect of responsiveness on Cole, T., & Teboul, J. B. (2004). Non-zero-
perceived attractiveness in initial sum collaboration, reciprocity, and the
acquaintanceships. Personality and preference for similarity: Developing
Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1341- an adaptive model of close relational
1353. doi: 10.1177/0146167214543879 functioning. Personal Relationships,
Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2004). 11, 135-160.
Friendship across the life span: Degenne, A., & Lebeaux, M. (2005). The
Reciprocity in individual and dynamics of personal networks at the
relationship development. In F. R. Lang time of entry into adult life. Social
& K. L. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing Networks, 27, 337-358. doi:
together: Personal relationships across 10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.00
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 13
Denissen, J. J., & Penke, L. (2008). Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997).
Motivational individual reaction norms Friendships and adaptation in the life
underlying the Five-Factor model of course. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
personality: First steps towards a 355-370.
theory-based conceptual framework. Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, friendship development. Journal of
1285-1302. Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. 909-924.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hooker, K., & McAdams, D. P. (2003).
Fehr, B. (2000). The life cycle of friendship. Personality reconsidered: A new
In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), agenda for aging research. Journals of
Close Relationships (pp. 71-82). Gerontology, 58B, 296-304.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johnson, M. A. (1989). Variables associated
Festinger, L., Back, K. W., & Schachter, S. with friendship in an adult population.
(1950). Social pressures in informal Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 379-
groups: A study of human factors in 390
housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford Johnson, M. P., & Leslie, L. (1982). Couple
University Press. involvement and network structure: A
Fiori, K. L., Smith, J., & Antonucci, T. C. test of the dyadic withdrawal
(2007). Social network types among hypothesis. Social Psychology
older adults: A multidimensional Quarterly, 45, 34–43. doi:
approach. Journal of Gerontology, 62B, 10.2307/3033672
322–330. doi: Jonkmann, K., Thoemmes, F., Lüdtke, O., &
10.1093/geronb/62.6.P322 Trautwein, U. (2014). Personality traits
Floyd, K. (1995). Gender and closeness and living arrangements in young
among friends and siblings. Journal of adulthood: Selection and socialization.
Psychology, 129, 193-202. Developmental Psychology, 50, 683-
Fraley, R., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment 698. doi: 10.1037/a0034239
formation and transfer in young adults’ Kaplan, M. F., & Anderson, N. H. (1973).
close friendships and romantic Information integration theory and
relationships. Personal Relationships, reinforcement theory as approaches to
4, 131–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- interpersonal attraction. Journal of
6811.1997.tb00135.x Personality and Social Psychology, 28,
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, 301-312.
C., Owen, M. T., & Holland, A. S. Kearns, J. N., & Leonard, K. E. (2004). Social
(2013). Interpersonal and genetic networks, structural interdependence,
origins of adult attachment styles: A and marital quality over the transition to
longitudinal study from infancy to early marriage: A prospective analysis.
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 383-
Social Psychology, 104, 817-838. doi: 395. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.383
10.1037/a0031435 Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of perception: A social relations analysis.
reciprocity: A preliminary statement. New York: Guilford Press.
American Sociological Review, 25, Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., & Holmes, J.
161-178. G. (1997). The meaning of social
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's interactions in the transition from
environment? A group socialization acquaintanceship to friendship. Journal
theory of development. Psychological of Personality and Social Psychology,
Review, 102, 458-489. doi: 73, 536-548.
10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458 Matthews, S. H. (2000). Friendship styles. In
J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.),
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 14
Aging and everyday life (pp. 155–194). Psychology, 107, 352-368. doi:
Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1037/a0036719
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (2008). The Nelson, P. A., & Thorne, A. (2012).
Five-Factor Theory of personality. In O. Personality and metaphor use: How
P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin extraverted and introverted young
(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory adults experience becoming friends.
and research (pp. 159-181). New York: European Journal of Personality, 26,
Guilford Press. 600-612.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001).
M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Personality–relationship transaction in
Homophily in social networks. Annual young adulthood. Journal of
Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, 1190-1204.
J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural Neyer, F. J., & Lang, F. R. (2003). Blood is
habitat: manifestations and implicit folk thicker than water: Kinship orientation
theories of personality in daily life. across adulthood. Journal of
Journal of Personality and Social Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
Psychology, 90, 862-887. doi: 310-321.
10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.862 Neyer, F. J., & Lehnart, J. (2007).
Miche, M., Huxhold, O., & Stevens, N. L. Relationships matter in personality
(2013). A latent class analysis of development: Evidence from an 8-year
friendship network types and their longitudinal study across young
predictors in the second half of life. adulthood. Journal of Personality, 75,
Journals of Gerontology, 68B, 644-652. 535-568.
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013). A Neyer, F. J., Mund, M., Zimmermann, J., &
meta-analytic investigation of the Wrzus, C. (2014). Personality-
processes underlying the similarity- relationship transactions revisited.
attraction effect. Journal of Social and Journal of Personality, 82, 539-550.
Personal Relationships, 30, 64-94. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12063
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, Neyer, F. J., Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Lang,
J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary F. R. (2011). Principles of relationship
for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual differentiation. European Psychologist,
and perceived similarity. Journal of 16, 267-277. doi: 10.1027/1016-
Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 9040/a000055
889-922. Nezlek, J. B. (1993). The stability of social
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ interaction. Journal of Personality and
relationships: The role of social Social Psychology, 65, 930-941.
network ties during socialization. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006).
Academy of Management Journal, 45, Personality and the prediction of
1149–1160. doi:10.2307/3069430 consequential outcomes. Annual
Morry, M. M. (2007). The attraction- Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
similarity hypothesis among cross-sex Parker, P. D., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., &
friends: Relationship satisfaction, Roberts, B. W. (2012). Personality and
perceived similarities, and self-serving relationship quality during the
perceptions. Journal of Social and transition from high school to early
Personal Relationships, 24, 117-138. adulthood. Journal of Personality, 80,
Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). Treating 1061-1089. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
personality-relationship transactions 6494.2012.00766.x
with respect: Narrow facets, advanced Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big Five factors of
models, and extended time frames. personality and replicated predictions
Journal of Personality and Social
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 15