Friendship and Peer Relationships

Friendships and peer relationships are voluntary associations characterized by some degree of simalarity and affiliation. Three research traditions focus on the study of friendship and peer relationships. First, there is the study of friendships, which are dyadic relationships involving closeness and reciprocity. Second, another tradition studies groups of affiliated peers. In adolescence, these include cliques and crowd. Third, a separate tradition researches agemate status and popularity, a tradition known as sociometrics. Let’s look at each of these separately.

Friendship

As toddlers, children may begin to show a preference for certain playmates (Ross & Lollis, 1989). However, peer interactions at this age often involve more parallel play rather than intentional social interactions (Pettit et al., 1996). By age four, many children use the word “friend” when referring to certain children and do so with a fair degree of stability (Hartup, 1983). However, among young children “friendship” is often based on proximity, such as they live next door, attend the same school, or it refers to whomever they happen to be playing with at the time (Rubin, 1980).

Friendships take on new importance to one’s feelings of worth, competence, and attractiveness in middle and late childhood. Friendships provide the opportunity for learning social skills, such as how to communicate with others and how to negotiate differences. Children get ideas from one another about how to perform certain tasks, how to gain popularity, what to wear or say, and how to act. This society of children marks a transition from a life focused on the family to a life concerned with peers. During middle and late childhood, peers play an increasingly important role. For example, peers play a key role in a child’s self-esteem at this age as any parent who has tried to console a rejected child will tell you. No matter how complimentary and encouraging the parent may be, being rejected by friends can only be remedied by renewed acceptance. Children’s conceptualization of what makes someone a “friend” changes from a more egocentric understanding to one based on mutual trust and commitment. Both Bigelow (1977) and Selman (1980) believe that these changes are linked to advances in cognitive development.

Bigelow and La Gaipa (1975) outline three stages in children’s conceptualizations of friendship. In stage one, reward-cost, friendship focuses on mutual activities. Children in early, middle, and late childhood all emphasize similar interests as the main characteristics of a good friend. Stage two, normative expectation focuses on conventional morality; that is, the emphasis is on a friend as someone who is kind and shares with you. Clark and Bittle (1992) found that, compared to third or eighth graders, fifth graders emphasized this more in a friend. In the final stage, empathy and understanding, friends are people who are loyal, committed to the relationship, and share intimate information. Clark and Bittle (1992) reported eighth graders emphasized this most in a friend. They also found that as early as fifth grade, girls were starting to include sharing of secrets, and not betraying confidences as crucial to someone who is a friend.

Selman (1980) outlines five stages of friendship from early childhood through to adulthood:

• Momentary physical interaction, a friend is someone who you are playing with at this point in time. Selman notes that this is typical of children between the ages of three and six. These early friendships are based more on circumstances (e.g., a neighbor) than on genuine similarities.
• One-way assistance, a friend is someone who does nice things for you, such as saving you a seat on the school bus or sharing a toy. However, children in this stage, do not always think about what they are contributing to the relationships. Nonetheless, having a friend is important and children will sometimes put up with a not so nice friend, just to have a friend. Children as young as five and as old as nine may be in this stage.
• Fair-weather cooperation, children are very concerned with fairness and reciprocity, and thus, a friend is someone returns a favor. In this stage, if a child does something nice for a friend there is an expectation that the friend will do something nice for them at the first available opportunity. When this fails to happen, a child may break off the friendship. Selman found that some children as young as seven and as old as twelve are in this stage.
• Intimate and mutual sharing, typically between the ages of eight and fifteen, a friend is someone who you can tell them things you would tell no one else. Children and teens in this stage no longer “keep score” and do things for a friend because they genuinely care for the person. If a friendship dissolves in the stage it is usually due to a violation of trust. However, children in this stage do expect their friend to share similar interests and viewpoints and may take it as a betrayal if a friend likes someone that they do not.
• Autonomous interdependence, a friend is someone who accepts you and that you accept as they are. In this stage children, teens, and adults accept and even appreciate differences between themselves and their friends. They are also not as possessive, so they are less likely to feel threatened if their friends have other relationships or interests. Children are typically twelve or older in this stage.

Peer Groups

In addition to their friendships, children also interact with other children their own age, referred to as peers. Peers include children encountered at school, in the neighborhood, or through family associations. Not all peers are friends. Some are acquaintances, and others are non-affiliated, but still part of the social context. Collections of peers that hang out or repeatedly engage in joint activities are referred to as peer groups, or cliques.

Sociometrics and Popularity

Sociometric assessment measures social status and acceptance among members of a group, such as a classroom of students. In sociometric research children are asked to mention the three children they like to play with the most, and those they do not like to play with. The number of times a child is nominated for each of the two categories (like, do not like) is tabulated. Popular children receive many votes in the “like” category, and very few in the “do not like” category. In contrast, rejected children receive more unfavorable votes, and few favorable ones. Controversial children are mentioned frequently in each category, with several children liking them and several children placing them in the “do not like” category. Neglected children are rarely mentioned in either category, and the average child has a few positive votes with very few negative ones (Asher & Hymel, 1981).

Most children want to be liked and accepted by their friends. Some popular children are nice and have good social skills. These popular-prosocial children tend to do well in school and are cooperative and friendly. Popular-antisocial children may gain popularity by acting tough or spreading rumors about others (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Rejected children are sometimes excluded because they are rejected-withdrawn. These children are shy and withdrawn and are easy targets for bullies because they are unlikely to retaliate when belittled (Boulton, 1999). Other rejected children are rejected-aggressive and are ostracized because they are aggressive, loud, and confrontational. The aggressive-rejected children may be acting out of a feeling of insecurity. Unfortunately, their fear of rejection only leads to behavior that brings further rejection from other children. Children who are not accepted are more likely to experience conflict, lack confidence, and have trouble adjusting (Klima & Repetti, 2008; Schwartz et al., 2014).

Long-Term Consequences of Popularity

Childhood popularity researcher Mitch Prinstein has found that likability in childhood leads to positive outcomes throughout one’s life (as cited in Reid, 2017). Adults who were accepted in childhood have stronger marriages and work relationships, earn more money, and have better health outcomes than those who were unpopular. Further, those who were unpopular as children, experienced greater anxiety, depression, substance use, obesity, physical health problems and suicide. Prinstein found that a significant consequence of unpopularity was that children were denied opportunities to build their social skills and negotiate complex interactions, thus contributing to their continued unpopularity. Further, biological effects can occur due to unpopularity, as social rejection can activate genes that lead to an inflammatory response.

Adolescence

Peers

As children become adolescents, they usually begin spending more time with their peers and less time with their families, and these peer interactions are increasingly unsupervised by adults. Children’s notions of friendship often focus on shared activities, whereas adolescents’ notions of friendship increasingly focus on intimate exchanges of thoughts and feelings. This increase in intimacy, mutuality, and reciprocity characterizes both teen friendships and relationships with members of adolescent peer groups. During adolescence, peer groups evolve from primarily single-sex to mixed-sex. Adolescents within a peer group tend to be similar to one another in behavior and attitudes, which has been explained as a function of homophily, that is, adolescents who are similar to one another choose to spend time together in a “birds of a feather flock together” way. Adolescents who spend time together also shape each other’s behavior and attitudes. Peers serve as important sources of social support and companionship during adolescence, and adolescents with positive peer relationships are happier and better adjusted than those who are socially isolated or have conflictual peer relationships.

Crowds are an emerging level of peer relationships in adolescence. In contrast to friendships, which are reciprocal dyadic relationships, and cliques, which refer to groups of individuals who interact frequently, crowds are characterized more by shared reputations or images than actual interactions (Brown & Larson, 2009). These crowds reflect different prototypic identities, such as jocks or brains, and are often linked with adolescents’ social status and peers’ perceptions of their values or behaviors.

Peers and Socially Undesirable Behavior

Peers can serve both positive and negative functions during adolescence. Negative peer pressure can lead adolescents to make riskier decisions or engage in more problematic behavior than they would alone or in the presence of their family. For example, adolescents are much more likely to drink alcohol, use drugs, and commit crimes when they are with their friends than when they are alone or with their family. One negative aspect of adolescent peer influence is known as deviant peer contagion (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011), which is the process by which peers reinforce problem behavior by laughing or showing other signs of approval that then increase the likelihood of future problem behavior.

Parents and other adults are often concerned about these potential negative influences of peers, which can affect behavior, attitudes, and identity development. Peers can be associated with the adoption of unhealthy or antisocial behaviors, and also with the adoption of negative attitudes toward school, or socially undesirable norms and values. Often this is a transient rebellious phase, something some teens go through. But longer term, there is concern that these events may ultimately lead to patterns of antisocial or criminal behavior and identity. The biggest challenge for researchers is to sort out the relative importance of selection and influence in these circumstances. To what extent do adolescents select similar others on the same developmental path as themselves, and to what extent are they influenced by those in whose proximity they find themselves? It’s complicated. We are faced with a chicken or egg problem. Which came first, the bad influence of undesirable behavior by others, or a desire for defiant behavior? Unhealthy and delinquent behaviors and negative attitudes toward societal norms and values are preexisting within larger societal contexts and may be freely chosen by some teens, but they are also adopted within local social contexts where intragroup processes and social influence are at play. Aggressive or rebellious youth sometimes take a leadership role and become role models within peer groups. Individual differences are also at play. Adolescent development in peer contexts involves the individual’s own previous personal history. It involves their social experiences of acceptance and rejection on different attributes. It overlaps with their negotiation of personal and social identities that make sense and work for the individual. Within this complex reality, it is hard to make generalizations about cause and effect. We can, however, share the concern for finding ways to promote optimal development and well-being, and look forward to continuing research efforts focused on the dark side of peer relationships and adolescent development.

Early Adulthood

Friendships provide one common way to achieve a sense of intimacy. In early adulthood, healthy friendships continue to be important for development, providing not only a source of support in tough times, but also improved self-esteem and general well-being (Berk, 2014; Collins & Madsen, 2006; Deci et al, 2006). As is the case in adolescence, friendships rich in intimacy, mutuality, and closeness are especially important for development (Blieszner & Roberto, 2012). Studies suggest that women’s friendships are characterized by somewhat more emotional intimacy in general, whereas men’s friendships tend to grow more emotionally close and include more personal disclosures the longer the friendships last (Berk, 2014; Sherman et al., 2000). Friendships can tend to take a backseat when adults enter marriages and long-term partnerships, with more self-disclosures between romantic partners rather than between friends outside the partnership. At the same time, maintaining healthy friendships after marriage and the birth of children remains important for well-being (Berk, 2014; Birditt & Antonucci, 2007).

Workplace friendships

Friendships often take root in the workplace, since people spend as much, or more, time at work as they do with their family and friends (Kaufman & Hotchkiss, 2003). Often, it is through these relationships that people receive mentoring and obtain social support and resources, but they can also experience conflicts and the potential for misinterpretation when sexual attraction is an issue. Indeed, Elsesser and Peplau (2006) found that many workers reported that friendships grew out of collaborative work projects, and these friendships made their days more pleasant. In addition to those benefits, Riordan and Griffeth (1995) found that people who work in an environment where friendships can develop and be maintained are more likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment, and they are more likely to remain in that job. Similarly, a Gallup poll revealed that employees who had “close friends” at work were almost 50% more satisfied with their jobs than those who did not (Armour, 2007).

Internet friendships

What influence does the Internet have on friendships? It is not surprising that people use the Internet with the goal of meeting and making new friends (Fehr, 2008; McKenna, 2008). Researchers have wondered whether virtual relationships (compared to ones conducted face-to-face) reduce the authenticity of relationships, or whether the Internet actually allows people to develop deep, meaningful connections. Interestingly, research has demonstrated that virtual relationships are often as intimate as in-person relationships; in fact, Bargh and colleagues found that online relationships are sometimes more intimate (Bargh et al., 2002). This can be especially true for those individuals who are socially anxious and lonely—such individuals are more likely to turn to the Internet to find new and meaningful relationships (McKenna et al., 2002). McKenna et al. (2002) suggest that for people who have a hard time meeting and maintaining relationships, due to shyness, anxiety, or lack of face-to-face social skills, the Internet provides a safe, nonthreatening place to develop and maintain relationships. Similarly, Benford (2008) found that for high-functioning autistic individuals, the Internet facilitates communication and relationship development with others, which would be more difficult in face-to-face contexts, leading to the conclusion that Internet communication can be empowering for those who feel dissatisfied when communicating face to face.

Middle Adulthood

Adults of all ages who reported having a confidante or close friend with whom they could share personal feelings and concerns, believed these friends contributed to a sense of belonging, security, and overall wellbeing (Dunér & Nordstrom, 2007). Having a close friend is a factor in significantly lower odds of psychiatric morbidity including depression and anxiety (Harrison, Barrow, Gask, & Creed, 1999; Newton et al., 2008). The availability of a close friend has also been shown to lessen the adverse effects of stress on health (Kouzis & Eaton, 1998; Hawkley et al., 2008; Tower & Kasl, 1995). Additionally, poor social connectedness in adulthood is associated with a larger risk of premature mortality than cigarette smoking, obesity, and excessive alcohol use (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

Female friendships and social support networks at midlife contribute significantly to a woman’s feeling of life satisfaction and well-being (Borzumato-Gainey et al., 2009). Degges-White and Myers (2006) found that women who have supportive people in their lives experience greater life satisfaction than do those who live a more solitary life. A friendship network or the presence of a confidante have both been found to be important to women’s mental health (Baruch & Brooks-Gunn, 1984). Unfortunately, with numerous caretaking responsibilities at home, it may be difficult for women to find time and energy to enhance the friendships that would provide an increased sense of life satisfaction (Borzumato-Gainey et al., 2009). Emslie, Hunt and Lyons (2013) found that for men in midlife, the shared consumption of alcohol was important to creating and maintaining male friends. Drinking with friends was justified as a way for men to talk to each other, provide social support, relax, and improve mood. Although the social support provided when men drink together can be helpful, the role of alcohol in male friendships can lead to health damaging behavior from excessive drinking.

The importance of social relationships begins in early adulthood by laying down a foundation for strong social connectedness and facilitating comfort with intimacy (Erikson, 1959). To determine the impact of the quantity and quality of social relationships in young adulthood on middle adulthood, Carmichael et al. (2015) assessed individuals at age 50 on measures of social connection (types of relationships and friendship quality) and psychological outcomes (loneliness, depression, psychological well-being). Results indicated that the quantity of social interactions at age 20 and the quality, but not quantity, of social interaction at age 30 predicted midlife social interactions. Those individuals who had high levels of social information seeking (quantity) at age 20 followed by fewer social relationships but greater emotional closeness (quality), ended up showing the most positive psychosocial adjustment at midlife.

Late Adulthood

In late adulthood, friendships are not formed in order to enhance status or careers, and may be based purely on a sense of connection or the enjoyment of being together. Most elderly people have at least one close friend. These friends may provide emotional as well as physical support. Being able to talk with friends and rely on others is very important during this stage of life. Bookwala et al. (2014) found that the availability of a friend played a significant role in protecting women’s health from the impact of widowhood. Specifically, those who became widowed and had a friend as a confidante, reported significantly lower somatic depressive symptoms, better self-rated health, and fewer sick days in bed than those who reported not having a friend as a confidante. In contrast, having a family member as a confidante did not provide health protection for those recently widowed.

Loneliness or Solitude

Loneliness is the discrepancy between the social contact a person has and the contacts a person wants (Brehm et al., 2002). It can result from social or emotional isolation. Women tend to experience loneliness due to social isolation; men from emotional isolation. Loneliness can be accompanied by a lack of self-worth, impatience, desperation, and depression. Being alone does not always result in loneliness. For some, being alone means solitude. Solitude involves gaining self-awareness, taking care of the self, being comfortable alone, and pursuing one’s interests (Brehm et al., 2002). In contrast, loneliness is perceived social isolation.

For those in late adulthood, loneliness can be especially detrimental. Novotney (2019) reviewed the research on loneliness and social isolation and found that loneliness was linked to a 40% increase in the risk for dementia and a 30% increase in the risk of stroke or coronary heart disease. This was hypothesized to be due to reasons that were both biological (e.g., a rise in stress hormones), psychological (e.g., depression and anxiety), as well as social (e.g., the individual lacks encouragement from others to engage in healthy behaviors). In contrast, older adults who take part in social clubs and church groups have a lower risk of death. Opportunities to reside in mixed age housing and continuing to feel like a productive member of society have also been found to decrease feelings of social isolation, and thus loneliness.