This article isn’t necessarily a how-to guide on having friends, and no, it is also not a method for obtaining a copy of the TV series Friends. This article does present a few ideas that can be useful in understanding the platonic relationships in your life, though. For those that may be thinking, “I don’t need friends anyways” ... you may be wrong. Recent research has begun to point towards the idea that maintaining social connections helps you stay healthy and live longer. While research on human connection has spawned numerous theories, this week we’ll just focus on a few ideas related to friends. Maybe even send this article to one of your friends and see what they think (yes, this is a not-so-subtle marketing ploy for Grow Weekly, but it’s also on-theme).

Friendship Paradox

Sorry to start off on such a glum subject, but the friendship paradox states that, on average, your friends have more friends than you do. What?! 

The idea is based on the understanding of how social networks work. Basically, social networks often form in dense clusters with a few “nodes”, or people that are very interconnected. You can refer to the image below for a very simplistic explanation of how the friendship paradox works.

As seen in the image above, the average number of friends per person is 2.60, but only 2 out of the 10 people have more than this average (Bert and Gertrude, the “nodes” of this friendship network). Similarly, if you look at any one person in the image above, there is a high chance that their friends have at least as many friends as they do (e.g. Alex’s two friends, Bert and Gertrude, both have more friends than Alex). It’s a bit easier to see when the social network only consists of ten people, but the real world has a MUCH more complex network of friends and connections that exhibits a similar property of clustered or hierarchical friendship connections. 

An interesting aspect of this is that the idea of the friendship paradox is useful for other areas of research. When you think of “fake news”, you could examine how a few extremely connected people disseminate misinformation much more quickly than others. The same idea works with advertising, which social media “influencers” use to their advantage. One extremely connected social media “influencer” would understandably reach more followers and make more money advertising products than if your everyday Joe Shmoe tried to advertise a product. Makes sense. The idea extends further, though, to subjects such as the spread of disease or how often researchers cite each others’ work. Referring again to the handy dandy image above, vaccinating Bert and Gertrude for a particular disease would be much more effective at slowing the spread of the disease than if we vaccinated Brendan and Anna, for example. 

Let’s get back to the topic of friends, though. While we may have less friends than our friends on average, we can rest easy knowing that our closeness to the friends and family that we do have has a greater impact on health benefits than simply the sheer number of friends or family that we associate with. This idea of friendship quality being more important than quantity of friendships is seen across multiple studies. One study published in the Society for Research in Child Development journal in 2017 stated that “close friendship strength in midadolescence predicted relative increases in self‐worth and decreases in anxiety and depressive symptoms by early adulthood” (Narr, et al). The same study also stated that adolescents prioritizing a larger number of affiliations (e.g., more friendships) as opposed to closer friendships predicted higher levels of social anxiety later in life. Similar findings were shown in separate study from Psychology and Aging which found that perception of relationship quality was more important in reporting better overall well-being compared to perception of relationship quantity.

Dunbar’s Number

With all this talk of how many friends we have, it would be silly not to talk about “Dunbar’s Number”. In the 1990s, an anthropologist named Robin Dunbar predicted the number of meaningful relationships a human can feasibly have based on his studies of primate brain size and social group size. Dunbar calculated this oh-so magical number by extrapolation and came up with... 150! Real-life evidence for this seemingly far-out prediction has been found since “Dunbar’s Number” came into being. One study of the exchange of Christmas cards even found support for Dunbar’s Number, where the mean number of people receiving Christmas cards from one sender (could be multiple people receiving a single card) was close to 150. 

A large aspect of follow-up research surrounding Dunbar’s Number comes from the idea of Dunbar layers, where our closeness to each of these 150 people, or quality of the relationships, varies. More specifically, the premise of Dunbar layers follows the idea that emotional closeness to people decreases as we move away from our center circle of relationships. This idea is better shown through the image below. The hypothesis even gets specific enough to state that we each have about 5 very close relationships, 10 somewhat close relationships, 35 relationships that are less close, and 100 relationships that are even less so. 

While these are just hypothesized averages, it can perhaps provide some understanding of how we organize our own social networks. Research surrounding Dunbar’s Number also states that our relationship “turnover” rate is higher in the outer layers, where the addition of a new friend most likely results in dropping a previous friend. The idea of 150 meaningful relationships can also differ for each person, and what each person defines as a “meaningful” relationship may even differ.  

The Long-Distance Friendship

In today’s age, maintaining friendships from a distance is easier due to connective technologies such as cell phones, instant messaging, and social network sites. How does distance affect relationships, though? I think this question might affect more of us now due to social distancing guidelines and self-quarantine measures triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Well, several studies show some positive news that geographic distance does not necessarily have a significantly negative impact on overall closeness of the friendship. A caveat, though, is how much effort you put into that long-distance friendship. Yeah... we saw that one coming. Friendships are kept active through maintenance behaviors, so you do have to put in effort to keep up those friendships. A few maintenance strategies that apply to both romantic and platonic relationships include...

• Openness: direct discussions and listening to each other

• Assurances: showing commitment to one another and supporting each other

• Social networks: involvement with other friends and family (e.g., hanging out with a common set of friends)

• Joint activities: spending time together

• Cards, letters, and calls: well, I think you understand this one

And other maintenance strategies exist as well! As you can see, some of these maintenance strategies are simply more difficult to adhere to from a distance. Fortunately, an article published in Communication Quarterly found that, while long-distance friendships typically exhibit fewer maintenance behaviors than geographically close friendships, long-distance friendships can still be equally as close and satisfying. Perhaps certain maintenance behaviors or the quality of maintenance behavior is more important than how often we interact with long-distance friends.

In a 2009 study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, there was some evidence to show that long-distance friends are more likely to report bouncing back and forth between being “casual”, “close”, or “best” friends as compared to geographically close friends. Geographically close friends were more likely to report a linear increase in friendship over time. In essence, long-distance friendships seem to be more turbulent, and the authors of the study emphasized long-distance friendships as being flexible as opposed to fragile. A different study from the Journal of Women and Aging echoed similar ideas, with long-distance friendships being relatively fluid and transitioning among different categories of “closeness”. 

While these studies do certainly have limitations in terms of who was studied or how the data was interpreted, they provide some interesting ideas for how to think about your long-distance friendships. Dr. Amy Johnson, a communications professor at the University of Oklahoma, summed up her advice for maintaining close friendships from a distance into three tips:

1. Stay current in discussing what’s happening in each other’s lives; don’t just reminisce or talk about the “good times” when you were together

2. Talking on the phone and making trips to see each other is much more beneficial than simply instant messaging or scrolling through their Instagram.

3. Be honest and lean into confrontations or discuss issues even from a distance; avoiding conflict can lead to a friendship simply fading away

These tips might seem apparent to some, but they can be a helpful reminder in how to help maintain our friendships from a distance. 

So, as we approach the end of 2020 in the Gregorian calendar, why not take a moment to think about the friendships in your life. Show those people some appreciation since, after all, friendships are shown to improve your overall well-being. Maybe even take a minute to tell your close friends that YOU improve THEIR health and help them live longer simply through your friendship. You’re welcome. 

To Think About…

1. Given the premise of the friendship paradox, what factors do you think play a role in making some people “nodes” (people that have more friends than everybody else)? Some factors to think about might include socioeconomic status, personal health, geographic location, etc. 

2. Dunbar’s number states that humans can only maintain about 150 meaningful relationships at a time. Do you think that number is reasonable for you, and what constitutes a “meaningful” relationship in your opinion?

3. Are you maintaining long-distance friendships, and if so, what actions are you taking to maintain them?

Sources:

Scott. The friendship paradox: Why all of your friends have more friends than you, 21 May 2016. Metro. (https://metro.co.uk/2016/05/21/the-friendship-paradox-why-all-of-your-friends-have-more-friends-than-you-5896771/)

Cornell University Course Blog. The Friendship Paradox – Why your friends have more friends than you do, 3 October 2012. Cornell University. (https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2012/10/03/the-friendship-paradox-why-your-friends-have-more-friends-than-you-do/)

Kak. Friendship Paradox and Attention Economics, 22 December 2014. arXiv. (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1412/1412.7049.pdf)

Momeni & Rabbat. Qualities and Inequalities in Online Social Networks through the Lens of the Generalized Friendship Paradox, 10 February 2016. PLoS ONE. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143633)

Ugander, et al. The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph, 18 November 2011. arXiv. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4503.pdf)

Narr, et al. Close Friendship Strength and Broader Peer Group Desirability as Differential Predictors of Adult Mental Health, 21 August 2017. Society for Research in Child Development. (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12905)

de Bruin, Parker, & Strough. Age differences in reported social networks and well-being, March 2020. Psychology and Aging. (doi: 10.1037/pag0000415)

MacCarron, KAski, & Dunbar. Calling Dunbar’s Numbers, 4 August 2016. arXiv. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02400)

MIT Technology Review. Your Brain Limits You to Just Five BFFs, 29 April 2016. (https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/04/29/160438/your-brain-limits-you-to-just-five-bffs/)

Sreenivasan & Weinberger. Why We Need Each Other, 14 December 2016. Psychology Today. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-nourishment/201612/why-we-need-each-other)

Hill & Dunbar. Social Network Size in Humans, March 2003. Human Nature. (doi: 10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y)

Goldman. Why It’s So Important to Have Long-Distance Friends, 14 March 2016. Time USA LLC. (https://time.com/4214797/long-distance-friendship-advice/)

Becker, et al. Friendships are flexible, not fragile: Turning points in geographically-close and long-distance friendships, 2 December 2009. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509344310)

Finchum. Keeping the Ball in the Air: Contact in Long-Distance Friendships, 13 October 2008. Journal of Women & Aging. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J074v17n03_07)

Johnson. Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long‐distance friends?, 21 May 2009. Communication Quarterly. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385639)

Canary & Yum. Relationship Maintenance Strategies, 18 June 2015. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic248)

Carroll. Americans Satisfied With Number of Friends, Closeness of Friendships, 5 March 2004. Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/10891/americans-satisfied-number-friends-closeness-friendships.aspx)