Wrzus Etal2017friendship Adulthood

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311681497

Friendships in Young and Middle Adulthood

Chapter · December 2016


DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190222024.003.0002

CITATIONS READS

5 12,739

4 authors:

Cornelia Wrzus Julia Zimmermann


Universität Heidelberg FernUniversität in Hagen
64 PUBLICATIONS   2,313 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   921 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marcus Mund Franz J Neyer


Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt Friedrich Schiller University Jena
32 PUBLICATIONS   631 CITATIONS    163 PUBLICATIONS   4,906 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Big Five Development of Sojourners View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cornelia Wrzus on 09 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Friendships in young and middle adulthood 1

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.

Friendships in Young and Middle Adulthood: Normative Patterns and Personality

Differences

Cornelia Wrzus1, Julia Zimmermann2, Marcus Mund2, and Franz J. Neyer2


1
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 2Friedrich Schiller University Jena

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.

Keywords: personality, longitudinal change, dynamic transactions, social networks, meta-analysis


Friendships in young and middle adulthood 2

are similar to) friendships during other


Introduction
developmental periods. Second, we
Friendships are important throughout
summarize individual differences in
people’s lives. From childhood to old age,
friendships related to personality
most people have friends. Yet, why do people
characteristics and other social relationships,
differ in how many and what kinds of
for example, family members. Third, we
friendships they have? Furthermore, how do
address the normative development of
friendships change throughout people’s lives?
friendship number and quality during young
And how do friendships change people’s
and middle adulthood. Fourth, we consider
personality? Answers to these questions
dynamic longitudinal transactions between
would provide a deeper knowledge of
friendships and personality. Finally, we
individual differences and normative changes
discuss what is gained from studying the
in friendships and thus help to understand
interdependencies among friendships and
how friendships can contribute to well-being
other relationships within people’s personal
and health (Adams & Blieszner, 1995;
networks.
Pinquart & Sörensen, 2000).
In their daily lives, people frequently Friendships in Young and Middle
use the term “friend” to describe a broad Adulthood
range of individuals with whom they maintain During childhood and adolescence,
relationships, such as close acquaintances, friends are mainly other children from the
family members, spouses, or co-workers. same (pre-) school class or neighborhood.
However, most scientific definitions of Young adults in part maintain school friends
friendships concur on five aspects that (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Degenne &
describe friendships and distinguish them Lebeaux, 2005) and also acquire additional
from other relationships such as family friends in close spatial proximity in daily life.
relationships or romantic partners: For example, the closer young adults live
Friendships are voluntary, informal peer within college dorms, the more likely they are
relationships that rest upon reciprocity, to become friends (Festinger, Schachter, &
possess a positive quality (i.e., they are Back, 1950). People working in the same
perceived as being pleasant), and (often) do work unit are also more likely to become
not contain open sexuality (Argyle & friends compared to people working in
Henderson, 1985; Blieszner & Roberto, 2004; different units of the same company
Hartup & Stevens, 1997). In contrast to family (Stackman & Pinder, 1999). In a study by
relationships, friendships are voluntary Back, Schmukle, and & Egloff (2011), merely
regarding choice and formation, not based on sitting next to each other during an
kinship or legal arrangements. In contrast to introductory day increased students’
professional relationships with co-workers, likelihood of being friends one year later
supervisors at work, or service staff, compared to other students, who were also
friendships are informal, personal, and largely attending the introduction and also met later
without a (direct) hierarchy, whereas during study courses. Therefore, in adulthood,
professional relationships are often based on people often become friends with others they
contracts and regulations. In the present meet regularly: in the neighborhood, at work,
chapter, we focus on friendships in young and in sports clubs (Miche et al., 2013), or through
middle adulthood (i.e., approximately one’s romantic partner or existing friends
between 20-40 years and 40-60 years, (Johnson & Leslie, 1982).
respectively). Other chapters of this book In young and middle adulthood,
cover friendships in childhood (Chapter 1, friendships gain new functions and
Erdley & Day) and old age (Chapter 3, complexity compared to childhood
Adams, Hahmann, & Blieszner). friendships. While childhood friendships
We first provide an overview on how focus on play (cf. Erdley & Day, this book;
friendships of young adults differ from (and Fehr, 1996), during adolescence, friendships
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 3

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

relationships and their interdependencies. At effects of personality similarity on friendship


the same time, typological approaches formation and quality. We mainly focus on
sometimes draw artificial boundaries in actual the Big Five personality traits (e.g.,
dimensional characteristics, such as extraversion, and agreeableness, McCrae &
emotional closeness with friends. Costa, 2008) because they are more
Accordingly, Wrzus, Wagner, and Neyer commonly studied regarding friendships
(2011) used a continuous approach to compared to other personality characteristics
examine relations between friendships and such as goals, values, or identity (Hooker &
family relationships. They found that people McAdams, 2003; Roberts & Wood, 2006).
who had fewer siblings and cousins in their Personality Effects on the Number of
social network reported more friends (and Friendships
vice versa). In addition, people who felt More extraverted young adults
emotionally less close to family members felt (especially less shy people) report more
closer to their friends. Thus, the quantity and friends and also make new friends faster in
quality of other relationships seem to be two novel settings (Anderson et al., 2001;
factors contributing to the diversity in how Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Paunonen,
people maintain friendships. We will return to 2003). Studies on initial encounters and
this important point in the final section on spontaneous liking of unknown others shed
Future Research Areas and Conclusions. further light on how extraversion can lead to
In sum, friendships during young and having more friends. More extraverted people
middle adulthood are largely similar to dress more stylishly, behave more
friendships during adolescence regarding confidently, and express more positivity, for
function and the underlying psychological instance through smiling—factors that make
dimensions. These dimensions, emotional
extraverted people attractive to others, and
closeness and reciprocal support, are defining make others like them better (Back et al.,
features of friendships, yet can also vary in 2011). Higher self-esteem and higher
their amount. Specifically, friendships for the narcissism (specifically feeling admired)
same individual can be differently close and show similar effects on being liked at first
reciprocal in support. In addition, individuals sight (Back et al., 2010, 2011, 2013). This is
differ in their friendships in general, and likely due to self-esteem and narcissism
maintain, for example, few close friends or showing some overlap with extraversion, and
many close and fewer close friends and also with the behavioral cues that lead to
acquaintances. Personality characteristics being liked, that is, fashionable appearance,
explain some of these individual differences confident behavior, and positive facial
in friendships. expressions (Back et al., 2010, 2013).
Friendships and Personality Agreeableness is related less
People’s individual characteristics, consistently with having friends. Some
that is, personality traits, affect many life studies found that people liked more
domains and naturally also their friendships agreeable young adults better (based on their
(Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). online social network profile, Stopfer et al.,
Extraversion, agreeableness, and self-esteem 2013) and selected them more often as friends
most strongly affect both the number and the (Selfhout et al., 2010), whereas other studies
quality of friendships (Back et al., 2011; Ozer found no significant associations (Anderson
& Benet-Martínez, 2006). In addition to et al., 2001; Back et al., 2011; Paunonen,
individual characteristics, the configuration 2003). The discrepancies between studies
of friends’ personalities, that is, similar point to potential gender differences in the
personality between friends, also influences effect of agreeableness because the two
the quality of friendships. Next, we detail studies with significant effects consisted of
effects of personality traits on the quantity and mostly females (≈85% female). Presumably,
quality of friendships, and then address being liked depends more strongly on being
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 5

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

Figure 1. Observed longitudinal changes in selected social relationship networks in young


(dark bars) and late adulthood (grey bars). Global networks consist of family members,
friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and other. Personal networks consist mainly of family
members and friends. Friend networks include only friends. Adapted from "Social Network
Changes and Life Events Across the Life Span: A Meta-Analysis" by C. Wrzus, M. Hänel, J.
Wagner and F. J. Neyer, 2013, Psychological Bulletin, 139, p. 63.Copyright 2013 by the
American Psychological Association.

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

Longitudinal Transactions between earlier personality changes on subsequent


Friendships and Personality changes in friendship qualities (so-called
Personality traits not only relate to change-change effects). These analyses
differences in friendships cross-sectionally revealed that increases in agreeableness
(e.g., more extraverted people report more predicted subsequent increases in contact
friends), but more importantly, personality frequency as well as decreases in conflict.
and friendships also influence each other The findings illustrate that personality
reciprocally over time. Friendships characteristics are important predictors to
presumably are special in their greater explain individual differences in friendship
susceptibility to personality effects as they development across adulthood.
are less regulated by environmental Friendship Effects on Personality
restrictions and normative expectations than, Development
for example, kin relationships. The effects of personality on friendship
Personality Effects on Friendship development are not unidirectional, as close
Development relationships such as friendships require a
Recent research on longitudinal effects of certain amount of mutual adaptation in order
personality characteristics on the to be maintained (Hartup & Stevens, 1997;
development of friendship qualities largely Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000).
sustained the pattern of cross-sectional Accordingly, friendship experiences also
personality-relationship associations reported retroact on personality and promote the
in the previous sections. For example, dynamic co-development of individuals and
regarding supportive peer relationships, their relationships. Earlier research focused
higher levels of openness decreased on socializing effects of peer groups in
relationship persistence, thus fostering childhood and adolescence (Harris, 1995),
relationship losses. Higher levels of whereas recent publications emphasized the
extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, relevance of friendships for personality trait
in contrast, each predicted relationship gains changes beyond adolescence and during the
(Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013). stages of adulthood (Back et al., 2011; Reitz,
With respect to relationship qualities, Zimmermann, Hutteman, Specht, & Neyer,
higher levels of openness predicted decreased 2014). Accordingly, research on the impact of
contact, whereas higher levels of extraversion different forms of living arrangements
accounted for subsequent increases in revealed that young adults who lived with
friendship importance and closeness with roommates showed steeper increases in
friends. Higher levels of self-esteem openness and agreeableness than those who
promoted decreases of friendship insecurity, stayed with their parents (Jonkmann,
while high levels of neuroticism had inverse Thoemmes, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2014).
effects (Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Parker, Effects of relationship fluctuation, that is,
Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Roberts, 2012). Mund the persistence of established relationships
and Neyer (2014) reported a similar pattern of and the initiation of new contacts, were
effects for extraversion and neuroticism on substantiated in a study on international
friendship development, and additionally student exchange (Zimmermann & Neyer,
compared personality-relationship 2013): International relationship gains of
transactions across different relationship exchange students explained effects of going
types (see Figure 2A). As expected, their abroad on the development of openness and
analyses yielded greater effects of personality neuroticism. Furthermore, recent research
on the development of relationship qualities also corroborated effects of relationship
for friendships than for other relationship qualities. Best friend support accounted for
types (i.e., kin, romantic partners, and others). increases in extraversion from age 17 to 23
Notably, this study also extended previous years, whereas higher levels of conflict with
cross-lagged designs by studying effects of best friends were shown to predict decreases
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 10

in extraversion and self-esteem (Sturaro, 2014). Again, a comparison of effects across


Denissen, van Aken, & Asendorpf, 2008). different relationship categories corroborated
Likewise, increases of friendship conflict and the predominance of effects for friendships,
higher levels of insecurity towards friends that is, relationships that reflect self-selected
predicted increases in neuroticism across life-styles and social contexts (Mund &
young adulthood (Figure 2B, Mund & Neyer, Neyer, 2014).

(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

family relationships and from professional Such studies on interdependencies among


relationships with, for example, co-workers relationships include several methodological
or service staff. Importantly, all of these challenges. First, multiple relationships per
diverse relationships nonetheless can be person need to be assessed with comparable
described by a few common dimensions, such methods. This becomes easily laborious as
as emotional closeness and reciprocity of the average number of relationships in social
support (Clark & Mills, 1979; Neyer et al., networks ranges from 3 to 40 (Wrzus et al.,
2011). In general, kin relationships are 2013). Second, interdependencies among
relatively close and unidirectional supportive relationships describe a dynamic process:
(i.e., low in reciprocity of support), Characteristics and changes in one
cooperative relationships are less close but relationship elicit or necessitate subsequent
reciprocally supportive, partner relationships changes in other relationships. Accordingly,
are both emotionally close and reciprocally multiple relationships need to be assessed
supportive, and friendships are considered as longitudinally. Furthermore, researchers
cooperative relationships that however can be should not rely on self-reported relationship
quite close (Neyer et al., 2011). Self- qualities, but consider the perspective of both
evidently, more fine-grained relationship relationship partners and/or behavioral
categories within these relationship types observations.
(i.e., different kin relationships such as with To conclude, we discussed the nature of
parents or second cousins) further vary in friendships in young and middle adulthood,
emotional closeness and reciprocity of and the reciprocal influences with people’s
support (Neyer & Lang, 2003). personality over time. Beyond a
However, emotional closeness and comprehensive summary of the current
reciprocity of support are not only suitable for knowledge in friendship research, we thus
describing a large range of social hope to have encouraged future research to
relationships but also serve to examine incorporate more complex study designs, as
interdependencies among friendships and advances in understanding friendships are
other relationships. For example, how does most likely gained from understanding
support provided and received in friendships dyadic friendship processes and the
depend on how much support is provided to interdependencies between friendships and
(or received from) spouses? First, studies other social relationships longitudinally.
show substantial interdependencies among
these social relationships: For example, References
whether friends are primary attachment Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1995). Aging
figures relates to whether other attachment well with friends and family. American
figures (spouses, parents) are available or not Behavioral Scientist, 39, 209–224. doi:
(Doherty & Feeney, 2004). Similarly, people 10.1177/0002764295039002008
feel closer to their friends, the less close they Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., &
feel to their family members (and vice versa), Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social
and “substituting” missing emotional status? Effects of personality and
closeness predicts higher well-being among physical attractiveness in social groups.
young and middle-aged adults (Wrzus et al., Journal of Personality and Social
2011). The understanding of friendships and Psychology, 81, 116-132. doi:
social relationships in general would benefit 10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.116
greatly from systematically testing Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The
interdependencies among the different anatomy of relationships: And the rules
relationships types (e.g., kin, partner, and skills needed to manage them
cooperative relationships) as well as among successfully. London: William
different specific relationships of a single Heinemann.
type (e.g., different friendships of varying Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998).
closeness). Personality effects on social
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 12

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

of behavior. Journal of Personality and traits: A social network approach.


Social Psychology, 84, 411–422. Journal of Personality, 78, 509-538.
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2000). Silk, J. B. (2003). Cooperation without
Influences of socioeconomic status, counting: The puzzle of friendship. In P.
social network, and competence on Hammerstein (Ed.), Genetic and
subjective well-being in later life: A cultural evolution of cooperation (pp.
meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 37-54). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
15, 187–224. doi:10.1037/0882- Press.
7974.15.2.187 Simpson, J. A., Collins, W., Tran, S., &
Planalp, S., & Benson, A. (1992). Friends' Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and
and acquaintances' conversations I: the experience and expression of
Perceived differences. Journal of Social emotions in romantic relationships: A
and Personal Relationships, 9, 483- developmental perspective. Journal of
506. Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
Prinstein, M. J. (2007). Moderators of peer 355–367. doi: 10.1037/0022-
contagion: A longitudinal examination 3514.92.2.355
of depression socialization between Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking
adolescents and their best friends. some things (in some people) more than
Journal of Clinical Child and others: Partner preferences in romantic
Adolescent Psychology, 36, 159-170. relationships and friendships. Journal
doi: 10.1080/15374410701274934 of Social and Personal Relationships,
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. 19, 463-481.
(2000). The relationship context of Stackman, R. W., & Pinder, C. C. (1999).
human behavior and development. Context and sex effects on personal
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844-872. work networks. Journal of Social and
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.844 Personal Relationships, 16, 39-64.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1988). Intimacy Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., & Back,
as interpersonal process. In S. Duck M. D. (2013). Being popular in online
(Ed.), Handbook of personal social networks: How agentic,
relationships: Theory, research, and communal, and creativity traits relate to
interventions (pp. 367-389). New York: judgments of status and liking. Journal
Wiley. of Research in Personality, 47, 592-598
Reitz, A. K., Zimmermann, J., Hutteman, R., Sturaro, C., Denissen, J. J., van Aken, M. A.,
Specht, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). How & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Person-
peers make a difference: The role of environment transactions during
peer groups and peer relationships in emerging adulthood: The interplay
personality development. European between personality characteristics and
Journal of Personality, 28, 279-288. social relationships. European
doi: 10.1002/per.1965 Psychologist, 13, 1-11.
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.1
Personality development in the context Suitor, J. J. (1987). Friendship networks in
of the neo-socioanalytic model of transitions: Married mothers return to
personality. In D. Mroczek, & T. D. school. Journal of Social and Personal
Little (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Relationships, 4, 445-461.
Development (pp. 11-39). Mahwah, NJ: Urberg, K. A., Luo, Q., Pilgrim, C., &
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. Degirmencioglu, S. M. (2003). A two-
Selfhout, M. H. W., Burk, W. J., Denissen, J. stage model of peer influence in
J. A., Branje, S. J. T., van Aken, M. A. adolescent substance use: Individual
G., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). and relationship-specific differences in
Emerging late adolescent friendship susceptibility to influence. Addictive
networks and Big Five personality
Friendships in young and middle adulthood 16

Behaviors, 28, 1243-1256. doi:


10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00256-3
van Zalk, M. s., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2015).
Idiosyncratic versus social consensus
approaches to personality: Self-View,
perceived, and peer-view similarity.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000035
Vollmann, M. & Renner, B. (2010). Better
liked but not more supported: Optimism
and social support from a provider's
perspective. Applied Psychology:
Health and Well-Being, 2, 362-373.
Vollmann, M., Renner, B., & Weber, H.
(2007). Optimism and social support:
The providers' perspective. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 2, 205-215.
Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer,
F. J. (2013). Social network change and
life events across the lifespan: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
53-80. doi: 10.1037/a0028601
Wrzus, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2015). The impact
of friendships on personality
development and vice versa: Selection
and socialization. Invited manuscript
submitted to a special issue of European
Psychologist.
Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2012).
The interdependence of horizontal
family relationships and friendships
relates to higher well-being. Personal
Relationships, 19, 465–482. doi:
10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01373.x
Zimmermann, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Do
we become a different person when
hitting the road? Personality
development of sojourners. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
105, 515-530. doi: 10.1037/a0033019
Zimmermann, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2014).
Places and traces of personality.
Psychologia: An International Journal
of Psychological Sciences, 57, 115-132.
doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2014.115

View publication stats

You might also like