Chapter 11 – Social Support Networks: Friends, Peers, & Beyond

d00414528

13 Chapter 11 – Social Support Networks: Friends, Peers, & Beyond

When you hear the phrase “interpersonal communication” what image comes to mind? A couple in the middle of a conflict? Siblings discussing an upcoming family event? Two people sharing a conversation, right? That would be unsurprising, e’ve spent ten chapters primarily talking about dyadic communication and giving examples of conversations that primarily involve two people. In truth, we’ve been holding out. Because, yes, of course a ton of interpersonal communication happens between two, and only two people. But we can’t forget the old classic: 2+2=4. And humans are evolutionarily programmed to exist in groups. We call these groups networks, and before we go any further we need to take a minute to define what the network is and what it is not.

11.1 Social Networks vs. Social Media

The simplest way to define a social network is by explaining who comprises that network. Generally, social network members are people who we mostly like and hope/expect to see again. Social networks often provide the first experiences of socialization. Families, friends, classmates, and coworkers communicate expectations and reinforce norms. It is through these groups and shared stories that people craft culture.

Now, before we go further we need to take a second to clarify what we are not talking about through the remainder of this chapter. We are not talking about social media. Apps like tiktok, snapchat, instagram, and the like are social media applications. They are typically the means through which we communicate with our social network members, but they themselves are not actual social networks. They are sites and apps that we make use of in order to virtually network alongside people with who we are social. Clear? Good.

So who is in the network, after all? Well, it depends on who you ask. One recent stydy [1] found that there are 19 distinct roles that a social network can fill, ranging from significant other, to several different sibling types, (best) friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and a whole bunch of other family types. That’s not even including the “other” category. Trust us, this study was conducted by one of the authors of your text. You don’t want to know all the weird little “others” that people considered part of their network. Instead of breaking down all 19 network categories, we can categorize networks into three basic types: family, peer, and work. Now, we just got finished breaking down family in the previous chapter, so instead we’ll focus on the other two. Let’s begin.

Peer Groups

Peer groups are made up of people who are similar in age and social status. Peer group socialization begins in the earliest years, such as when kids on a playground teach younger children the norms about taking turns, the rules of a game, or how to shoot a basket. As children grow into teenagers, this process continues. Peer groups are important to adolescents in a new way, as they begin to develop an identity separate from their parents and exert independence. Additionally, peer groups provide their own opportunities for socialization since kids usually engage in different types of activities with their peers than they do with their families. Peer groups provide adolescents’ first major socialization experience outside the realm of their families. Interestingly, studies have shown that although friendships rank high in adolescents’ priorities, this is balanced by parental influence.

Now, peer groups come in a ton of different forms. The big note here is that to be a peer with someone, you must have relatively equal power. Power, as you now know, is tremendously important during conflict and in families. No 12-year-old should be considered peers with their parents; however, a 45 year old might be peers with their 72 year old parents. Why? Because as time has gone by and the preteen has evolved into an adult, they hold agency, wealth, and status now equal to their parents, who once reigned over them as provider. This example is a bit…out there, but it illustrates the dynamic nature of “peership,” which is not a word, but should be. Let’s break down some of the more common peer categories.

Schoolmates

Most U.S. children spend about seven hours a day, 180 days a year, in school, which makes it hard to deny the importance school has on their socialization[2]. Students are not in school only to study math, reading, science, and other subjects—the manifest function of this system. Schools also serve a latent function in society by socializing children into behaviors like practicing teamwork, following a schedule, and using textbooks.

A female teacher is shown sitting in a chair and reading a picture book to a group of children sitting in front of her on the floor. (Photo courtesy of Bonner Springs Library/flickr)

These kindergarteners aren’t just learning to read and write; they are being socialized to norms like keeping their hands to themselves, standing in line, and daying please/thank you. These norms are revealed and practiced through ritual. It is, of course, the teachers who set the norms and reinforce the rituals, but it is children, teens, and adolescents who perform those rituals.

For example, in the United States, schools have built a sense of competition into the way grades are awarded and the way teachers evaluate students [3]. When children participate in a relay race or a math contest, they learn there are winners and losers in society. When children are required to work together on a project, they practice teamwork with other people in cooperative situations. These practices prepare children for the adult world. Children learn how to deal with bureaucracy, rules, expectations, waiting their turn, and sitting still for hours during the day. Schools in different cultures socialize children differently in order to prepare them to function well in those cultures. The latent functions of teamwork and dealing with bureaucracy are features of U.S. culture.

Schools also socialize children by teaching them about citizenship and national pride. In the United States, children are taught to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Most districts require classes about U.S. history and geography. As academic understanding of history evolves, textbooks in the United States have been scrutinized and revised to update attitudes toward other cultures as well as perspectives on historical events; thus, children are socialized to a different national or world history than earlier textbooks may have done. For example, information about the mistreatment of African Americans and Native American Indians more accurately reflects those events than in textbooks of the past. Why, even in this book we attend to issues of mental health, gender, and culture in ways you would not have seen 70, 50, or even 30 years ago. Norms and rituals are dynamic. By extension, the networking that is done by peers is dynamic as well.

The Workplace

Just as children spend much of their day at school, many U.S. adults at some point invest a significant amount of time at a place of employment. Although socialized into their culture since birth, workers require new socialization into a workplace, in terms of both material culture (such as how to operate the copy machine) and nonmaterial culture (such as whether it’s okay to speak directly to the boss or how to share the refrigerator).

Different jobs require different types of socialization. In the past, many people worked a single job until retirement. Today, the trend is to switch jobs at least once a decade. Between the ages of eighteen and forty-six, the average baby boomer of the younger set held 11.3 different jobs [4]. This means that people must become socialized to, and socialized by, a variety of work environments. We’ll get into the nitty gritty of workplace relationships a bit later. For now, it’s important to know that workplace networks exist, and that they are heavilty dependent on ritualistic behavior, just like school.

Religion

While some religions are informal institutions, here we focus on practices followed by formal institutions. Religion is an important avenue of socialization for many people. The United States is full of synagogues, temples, churches, mosques, and similar religious communities where people gather to worship and learn. Like other institutions, these places teach participants how to interact with the religion’s material culture (like a mezuzah, a prayer rug, or a communion wafer). For some people, important ceremonies related to family structure—like marriage and birth—are connected to religious celebrations. Many religious institutions also uphold gender norms and contribute to their enforcement through socialization. This, of course, comes with big problems at times. The Documentary Keep Sweet and Pray details the many violent sexual crimes of Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The 2020 Netflix series Unorthodox details the story of a young woman belonging to the Hasidic Jewish Community in Brookly, NY, after a lifetime of social pressures and abuses. In short, religious networks can provide a bounty of benefits, but also form a cradle of danger.

Mass Media

Did we just finish telling you that social networks and social media are two different things? Yes. Are there always exceptions to that rule? Also yes! Mass media distributes impersonal information to a wide audience, via television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet. With the average person spending over four hours a day in front of the television (and children averaging even more screen time), media greatly influences social norms [5]. In extreme, and even mundane cases, people can develop parasocial relationships with media creators.

One classic example of this is internet megastar “Nikocado Avocado.” Nikocado soared to internet fame beginning in 2016 for his famous mukbang videos. By 2022 his excessive weight gain and cartoonish behavoir had fans simultaneously worried about and critical of him. Then, suddenly, in the Fall of 2024, Nikocado posted a shocking video in which he declared that he had been spending the past 24 months losing over 100 pounds. As a final act, Nikocado then began posting videos of himself both massively overweight as well as unreasonably skinny, confusing his viewers as to what his actual body mass was

The Nikocado Avocado story is more than just a series of dramatic twists and turns, it’s also an example of how a social media creator can exploit parasocial relationships. The story is intriguing not because of the weight loss, but because of the way that he manipulated his fans and followers along the way. Dueling communities of Nikacado worshipers and haters set the internet ablaze, forming networks without even realizing it and each network holding a parasocial relationship with him.

Is this list of networks exhaustive? Of course not, but it’s a great start. It’s important to know who we are talking about before we discuss how these networks affect societal norms, our view of self, and our additional relationships, both dyadic and beyond. That said, it’s time to move on to why these network relationships matter, and there’s no better place to start than friends.

11.2 The Importance of Friendships

What’s the difference between a best friend, a good friend, and an old friend? What about work friends, school friends, and friends of the family? And those pesky parasocial relationships we discussed earlier? Are those even friendships in the first place? It’s likely that each of you reading this book has a different way of perceiving and categorizing your friendships. In this section, we will learn about the various ways we classify friends, the life cycle of friendships, and how gender affects friendships.

Defining and Classifying Friends

Friendships are voluntary interpersonal relationships between two people who are usually equals and who mutually influence one another[6]. Friendships are often described as intimate relationships than others due to their voluntary nature, the availability of other friends, and the fact that they lack they can vary widely in social and institutional support. The level of support for and from friendships is often reliant on culture. In rural parts of Thailand, for example, special friendships are recognized by a ceremony in which both parties swear devotion and loyalty to each other[7]. That might sound a bit odd here in the states, but rest assured we do some pretty wacky things with our friends as well. Research shows that people have three main expectations for close friendships: communicative availability, shared interests/activities, and emotional support.[6]

Types of Friendships

Although friendships vary across the life span, three types of friendships are common in adulthood: reciprocal, associative, and receptive[8]. Reciprocal friendships occur between people who are equals with a shared sense of loyalty, commitment, and expectation. What one friend does, another is expected to return. Most importantly, we don’t tally costs and rewards with reciprocal friends, we usually “just know” that they’ll have our back and pay it forward. As such, friendships are likely to develop over time and can withstand external changes such as geographic separation or fluctuations in other commitments such as work and childcare.

Associative friendships are mutually pleasurable relationships between acquaintances or associates that, although positive, lack the commitment of reciprocal friendships. These friendships are likely to be maintained out of convenience or to meet instrumental goals. Our associative friends are often only kept due to geographical convenience. For example, a friendship may develop between two people who work out at the same gym. They may spend time with each other in this setting a few days a week for months or years, but their friendship might end if the gym closes or one person’s schedule changes.

Lastly, receptive friendships include a status differential that makes the relationship asymmetrical. Unlike the other friendship types that are between peers, this relationship is more like that of a supervisor- subordinate or clergy-parishioner. In some cases, like a mentoring relationship, both parties can benefit from the relationship. In other cases, the relationship could quickly sour if the person with more authority begins to abuse it. This, by the way, is why you should never form a friendship with a professor in college, certainly not at least until you graduate. Alternatively, those of you who pursue a MA or even a PhD may see the professional and personal relational elements with your professor(s) blend!

Friends with Benefits

Okay, you knew this was coming. We do need to spend a little time talking about friendships that involve sex. Friends with benefits relationships have the closeness of a friendship and the sexual activity of a romantic partnership without the expectations of romantic commitment or labels[9]. Thus, FWBRs are hybrids that combine characteristics of romantic and friend pairings, which produces some unique dynamics. The problem is that many people don’t understand the difference between FWBRs and other types of casual relationships, such as hook-ups or booty calls. Suffice it to say, FWBRs involve more platonic interaction are are usually characterized by multiple interactions, rather than just a one time thing.

Somewhere around half of the college students have participated in FWB relationships[9]. Many who engage in FWB relationships have particular views on love and sex—namely, that sex can occur independently of love. Conversely, those who report no FWBRs often cite religious, moral, or personal reasons for not doing so. Some who have reported FWB relationships note that they value the sexual activity with their friend, and many feel that it actually brings the relationship closer. Alternatively, sometimes these relationships feature unrequited emotional connection, which leads one (or both) partners to partake in a “I’ll take what I can get” situation [10].

So what communicative patterns are unique to the FWB relationship? Those who engage in FWB relationships have some unique communication challenges. For example, they may have difficulty with labels as they figure out whether they are friends, close friends, a little more than friends, and so on. Research participants currently involved in such a relationship reported that they have more commitment to the friendship than the sexual relationship. But does that mean they would give up the sexual aspect of the relationship to save the friendship? The answer is “no” according to the research study. Most participants reported that they would like the relationship to stay the same, followed closely by the hope that it would turn into a full romantic relationship[11].

Just from this study, we can see that there is often a tension between action and labels. Speaking of labels, research has uncovered *seven* different categories of FWBRs [12]. True friends are the FWBRs who put the friendship first, despite having regular sex. Alternatively, just sex partners aren’t really friend’s at all, and meet up exclusively for the purpose of having sex. Somewhere in between is what we might call network opportunists. This third category is a bit more complex. These FWBs might go out together (or in separate friend groups) and choose to go home with each other only if neither can find a different mate. This sort of FWBR might also involve the 2:30am “WYD” text. We all nkow what’s on the mind of someone who sends a message like that.

Complicated enough yet? Well, it gets deeper. The remaining four types of are transitional in nature [12]. Successful transition-in FWBRs involve intentional, and successful efforts by one or both partners to move from FWBR to a more traditional, exclusive relationship. Similarly,, accidental transition-in FWBRs entail this same process sans the intentionality. These couples just kind of…fall into it. Sadly, there are also unsuccessful transition-in FWBRs in which one (or both) partners try to advance into exclusivity but for whatever reason, the romantic element never clicks – but the sex continues. Lastly, we have our transition-out FWBRs in which a traditional relationship breaks up, but continues to have sex.

Though unique, FWBRs do indeed quality as friendships – each type with differing levels of intimacy, sexual contact, and romantic interest. As such, not all FWBRs are create equal. The same is true of all friendships; however, there is a moderately replicable pattern that many, if not most, friendships progress through.

The Life Span of Friendships

Friendships, like most relationships, have a life span ranging from formation to maintenance to deterioration/dissolution. Friendships have various turning points that affect their trajectory. While there are developmental stages in friendships, they may not be experienced linearly. Friends can cycle through formation, maintenance, and deterioration/dissolution together or separately and may experience stages multiple times. Friendships are also diverse, in that not all friendships develop the same level of closeness, and the level of closeness can fluctuate over the course of a friendship. Changes in closeness can be an expected and accepted part of the cycle of friendships, and less closeness doesn’t necessarily lead to less satisfaction.[12]

Formation. Several factors influence the formation of friendships, including environmental, situational, individual, and interactional factors[13]. Environmental factors lead us to have more day-to-day contact with some people over others. For example, residential proximity and sharing a workplace are catalysts for friendship formation. Thinking back to your childhood, you may have had early friendships with people on your block because they were close by and you could spend time together easily without needing transportation. A similar situation may have occurred later if you moved away from home for college and lived in a residence hall. You may have formed early relationships, perhaps even before classes started, with hall-mates or dorm-mates. I’ve noticed that many students will continue to associate and maybe even attempt to live close to friends they made in their first residence hall throughout their college years, even as they move residence halls or off campus. We also find friends through the existing social networks of existing friends and family. Although these people may not live close to us, they are brought into proximity through people we know, which facilitates our ability to spend time with them. Encountering someone due to environmental factors may lead to a friendship if the situational factors are favorable.

As the old adage goes: the best ability is availability. Initially, we are more likely to be interested in a friendship if we anticipate that we’ll be able to interact with the other person again in the future without expending more effort than our schedule and other obligations will allow. In order for a friendship to take off, both parties need resources such as time and energy to put into it. Hectic work schedules, family obligations, or personal stresses such as financial problems or family or relational conflict may impair someone’s ability to nurture a friendship.

Now, of course, availability isn’t the only factor we consider when making friends. It’s usually important that we get along with them as well. We are more likely to develop friendships with individuals we deem physically attractive, socially competent, and responsive to our needs[13]. Specifically, we are more attracted to people we deem similar to or slightly above us in terms of attractiveness and competence. Friendships also tend to form between people with similar demographic characteristics such as race, gender, age, and class, and similar personal characteristics like interests and values. Being socially competent and responsive in terms of empathy, emotion management, conflict management, and self-disclosure also contribute to the likelihood of friendship development. In other words, friendships form due to both aesthetic and social components.

Maintenance. It’s not enough to just forge a friendship, we also need to put work in to maintain that friendship. Some friendships just require occasional contact and overall affinity; others take months and sometimes years of effort and planning. Maintenance is important, because friendships provide important opportunities for social support that take the place of or supplement family and romantic relationships. Sometimes, we may feel more comfortable being open with a friend about something than we would with a family member or romantic partner. Most people expect that friends will be there for them when needed, which is the basis of friendship maintenance. This expectation is informed by the principle of reciprocity, which we’ve already touched on in earlier chapters.

Termination. Failure to perform or respond to friendship-maintenance tasks can lead to the deterioration and eventual termination of friendships. Such dissolution may be voluntary (repeated or bombastic conflict), involuntary (death of friendship partner), external (increased family or work commitments), or internal (decreased liking due to perceived lack of support)[7]. While there are often multiple, interconnecting reasons for friendship dissolution, there are three primary sources of conflict that appear the most commonly: sexual interference, failure to support, and betrayal of trust[13]. Sexual interference generally involves a friend engaging with another friend’s romantic partner or romantic interest and can lead to feelings of betrayal, jealousy, and anger. Failure to support may entail a friend not coming to another’s aid or defense when criticized. Betrayal of trust can stem from failure to secure private information by telling a secret or disclosing personal information without permission. As you can see, these are highly dyadic and voluntary reasons for friendship ending.

Beyond voluntary, personal characteristics, outside factors can also contribute to friendship termination. The main change in environmental factors that can lead to friendship dissolution is a loss of proximity, which may entail a large or small geographic move or school or job change. But even without a change in environment, someone’s job or family responsibilities may increase, limiting the amount of time one has to invest in friendships. Additionally, becoming invested in a romantic relationship may take away from time previously allocated to friends. For environmental and situational changes, the friendship itself is not the cause of the dissolution. These external factors are sometimes difficult if not impossible to control, and lost or faded friendships are a big part of everyone’s relational history.

Friendships across the Life Span

It should come as no surprise that childhood friendships function and form differently than adult friendships. As we transition between life stages such as adolescence, young adulthood, emerging adulthood, middle age, and later life, our friendships change in many ways[7]. Our relationships begin to deepen in adolescence as we negotiate the confusion of puberty. Then, in early adulthood, many people get to explore their identities and diversify their friendship circle. Later, our lives stabilize and we begin to rely more on friendships with a romantic partner and continue to nurture the friendships that have lasted. Let’s now learn more about the characteristics of friendships across the life span.

Adolescence. Adolescence begins with the onset of puberty and lasts through the teen years. We typically make our first voluntary close social relationships during adolescence as cognitive and emotional skills develop. At this time, our friendships are usually with others of the same age/grade in school, gender, and race, and friends typically have similar attitudes about academics and similar values.[7] These early friendships allow us to test our interpersonal skills, which affects the relationships we will have later in life. For example, emotional processing, empathy, self-disclosure, and conflict become features of adolescent friendships in new ways and must be managed.[14]

Adolescents begin to see friends rather than parents as providers of social support, as friends help negotiate the various emotional problems often experienced for the first time[14]. This new dependence on friendships can also create problems. For example, adolescents may experience some jealousy and possessiveness in their friendships as they attempt to balance the tensions between autonomy and connection with friends. Additionally, as adolescents articulate their identities they look for acceptance and validation of self in their friends[7]. Those who do not form satisfying relationships during this time may miss out on opportunities for developing communication competence, leading to lower performance at work or school and higher rates of depression[14]. The transition to college marks a move from adolescence to early adulthood and opens new opportunities for friendship and challenges in dealing with the separation from hometown friends.

Early Adulthood. Early adulthood encompasses the time from around eighteen to twenty-nine years of age, and although not every person in this age group goes to college, most of the research on early adult friendships focuses on college students. Those who have the opportunity to head to college will likely find a canvas for exploration and experimentation with various life and relational choices relatively free from the emotional, time, and financial constraints of starting their own family that may come later in life [7].

Figure

6.2. 3

As we transition from adolescence to early adulthood, we are still formulating our understanding of relational processes, but people report that their friendships are more intimate than the ones they had in adolescence[7]. During this time, friends provide important feedback on self-concept, careers, romantic and/or sexual relationships, and civic, social, political, and extracurricular activities. It is inevitable that young adults will lose some ties to their friends from adolescence during this transition, which has positive and negative consequences. Investment in friendships from adolescence provides a sense of continuity during the often rough transition to college. These friendships may also help set standards for future friendships. In other words, our adolescent friends often serve as comparison groups when making friends in early adulthood. So too do our friendships in early adulthood inform our friendships in adulthood.

Adulthood. Adult friendships span a larger period of time than the previous life stages discussed, as adulthood encompasses the period from thirty to sixty-five years old.[7] The exploration that occurs for most middle-class people in early adulthood gives way to less opportunity for friendships in adulthood, as many in this period settle into careers, nourish long- term relationships, and have children of their own. These new aspects of life bring more time constraints and interpersonal and task obligations, and with these obligations comes an increased desire for stability and continuity. Adult friendships tend to occur between people who are similar in terms of career position, race, age, partner status, class, and education level. This is partly due to the narrowed social networks people join as they become more educated and attain higher career positions. Therefore, finding friends through religious affiliation, neighborhood, work, or civic engagement is likely to result in similarity between friends.[8]

Since home and career are primary focuses, socializing outside of those areas may be limited to interactions with family (parents, siblings, and in-laws) if they are geographically close. In situations where family isn’t close by, adults’ close or best friends may adopt kinship roles. For example a child may call a parent’s close friend “Uncle Andy” even if they are not genetically related. Spouses or partners are expected to be friends; it is often expressed that the best partner is one who can also serve as best friend, and having a partner as a best friend can be convenient if time outside the home is limited by parental responsibilities. Such responsibilities often fade as children become young adults themselves, leading to a whole new bounty of friendship opportunities in our more senior years.

Later life. Friendships in later-life adulthood, which begins in one’s sixties, are often remnants of previous friends and friendship patterns. Those who have typically had a gregarious social life will continue to associate with friends if physically and mentally able, and those who relied primarily on a partner, family, or limited close friends will have more limited, but perhaps equally rewarding, interactions. Friendships that have extended from adulthood or earlier are often “old” or “best” friendships that offer a look into a dyad’s shared past.

Given that geographic relocation is common in early adulthood, these friends may be physically distant, but if investment in occasional contact or visits preserved the friendship, these friends are likely able to pick up where they left off[6]. However, biological aging and the social stereotypes and stigma associated with later life and aging begin to affect communication patterns.

Obviously, our physical and mental abilities affect our socializing and activities and vary widely from person to person and age to age. Mobility may be limited due to declining health, and retiring limits the social interactions one had at work and work-related events[7]. Regardless of when these changes begin, it is common and normal for our opportunities to interact with wide friendship circles to diminish as our abilities decline. Early later life may be marked by a transition to partial or full retirement if a person is socioeconomically privileged enough to do so. For some, retirement is a time to settle into a quiet routine in the same geographic place, perhaps becoming even more involved in hobbies and civic organizations, which may increase social interaction and the potential for friendships. Others may move to a more desirable place or climate and go through the process of starting over with new friends. For health or personal reasons, some in later life live in assisted-living facilities. Later-life adults in these facilities may make friends based primarily on proximity, just as many college students in early adulthood do in the similarly age-segregated environment of a residence hall [6].

Friendships in later life provide emotional support that is often only applicable during this life stage. For example, given the general stigma against aging and illness, friends may be able to shield each other from negative judgments from others and help each other maintain a positive self-concept[6]. Friends can also be instrumental in providing support after the death of a partner. Men, especially, may need this type of support, as men are more likely than women to consider their spouse their sole confidante, which means the death of the wife may end a later-life man’s most important friendship. Women who lose a partner also go through considerable life changes, and in general more women are left single after the death of a spouse than men due to men’s shorter life span and the tendency for men to be a few years older than their wives. Given this fact, it is not surprising that widows in particular may turn to other single women for support. This is one of several gendered factors worth exploring when it comes to friendship. We will discuss a few more in the space below.

Gender and Friendship

Unsurprisingly, scholars have spent quite a bit of time exploring how, if at all, men and women differ in their friendship tendencies. There is a conception that men’s friendships are less intimate than women’s based on the stereotype that men do not express emotions. In fact, men report a similar amount of intimacy in their friendships as women but are less likely than women to explicitly express affection verbally (e.g., saying “I love you”) and nonverbally (e.g., through touching or embracing) toward their same-gender friends[7]. This is not surprising, given the societal taboos against same-gender expressions of affection, especially between men. That said, there is an increasing number of men are more comfortable expressing affection toward other men and women.

The common line of thought is that men and women simply exchange intimacy in different ways. Men may use shared activities as a way to express closeness—for example, gaming together, working out together, or doing a physical activity to make space for conversations to occur [7]. Such friendships are referred to as agentic in nature. Alternatively, additional research has demonstrated that friendships between women tend to be more expressive in natureThis research doesn’t argue that one gender’s friendships are better than the other’s, and it concludes that the differences shown in the research regarding expressions of intimacy are not large enough to impact the actual practice of friendships [15]. Importantly, the lines blur a bit when we deal with men who are friends with women. such friendships deserve their own discussion.

Cross-gender friendships. Friendships between men and women are quite common across all life stages. That said, cross-gender friendships tend to diminish in late childhood and early adolescence as boys and girls segregate into separate groups dur to social norms and pressures. Later, adults with spouses or partners are less likely to have cross- sex friendships than single people.[6] In any case, studies have identified several positive outcomes of cross-gender friendships. Men and women report that they get a richer understanding of how the other gender thinks and feels [16]. It seems these friendships fulfill interaction needs not as commonly met in same-gender friendships. For example, men reported more than women that they rely on their cross-gender friendships for emotional support.[7] Similarly, women reported that they enjoyed the activity-oriented friendships they had with men [16].

As discussed earlier regarding friends-with-benefits relationships, sexual attraction presents a challenge in cross-gender heterosexual friendships. Even if the friendship does not include sexual feelings or actions, outsiders may view the relationship as sexual or even encourage the friends to become “more than friends.” Aside from the pressures that come with sexual involvement or tension, the exaggerated perceptions of differences between men and women can hinder cross-gender friendships. Such social pressures can be hard to ignore. That said, the rewards of cross-gender friendships should well outweigh the potential risks. This is especially true for heterosexuals, who often stand to gain knowledge about future romantic and sexual pursuits from their cross-gender platonic friends.

To sum, friendship matters. Friends come in all different shapes and sizes, and they enter and exit our lives in different stages. We cannot stress enough how many different roles and responsibilities friends have in our lives. Indeed, we could spend this entire chapter – or even the entire text book – breaking down the many details of friendships. Alas, instead we must turn our attention to the final set of agens in our social networks: peers/co-workers.

11.3 The Importance of Peers and Co-workers

Okay, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about friends in this chapter. Why? For the same reason we had a whole chapter on romantic relationships and family relationships – they’re important! The focus should be on the relationships with the most intimacy and the highest stakes. That said, we would be remiss not to mention the other network connections that exist in our lives. The primary focus here will be on co-workers but just know that our peers in general can often be explored through the same means. Task oriented, equitable power relations, and a general affinity with less interdependence than, say, a traditional friendship. Let’s break these elements down a bit more

Characteristics of Coworker Relationships

As we mentioned above, the task-oriented nature of coworker/peer relationships are a big part of what distinguishes them from other relationships. According to organizational workplace relationship expert Patricia Sias, coworker/peer relationships exist between individuals who exist at the same level within an organizational hierarchy and have no formal authority over each other.[17] According to Sias, we engage in these coworker relationships because they provide us with mentoring, information, power, and support. Let’s look at all four of these.

Mentoring. First, our coworker relationships are a great source for mentoring within any organizational environment. It’s always good to have that person who is a peer that you can run to when you have a question or need advice. Because this person has no direct authority over you, you can informally interact with this person without fear of reproach if these relationships are healthy. The lack of power imbalance often allows for more organic, natural conversation to emerge, which is why coworkers are more likely to be friends than a boss and their employee.

Information sources. Second, we use our peer coworker relationships as sources for information. Academia is a really good example of this. Professors often lean on each other when crafting new lesson plans, lectures, and activities. Why? Because we trust each other as dtrong sources of course-related information. One important caveat to all of this involves the quality of the information we are receiving. By information quality, Sias refers to the degree to which an individual perceives the information they are receiving as accurate, timely, and useful. This is why, for example, graduate school can be so stressful. Some departments encourage competition among graduate students for reasons that, quite frankly, are too messy to get into while writing a textbook. Just know that under those circumstances, information quality is likely to deteriorate.

Power Issues. Third, we engage in coworker relationships as an issue of power. Although two coworkers may exist in the same run within an organizational hierarchy, it’s important also to realize that there are informal sources of power as well. Power can be useful and helps us influence what goes on within our immediate environments. However, power can also be used to control and intimidate people, which is a huge problem in many organizations. For this reason, our coworkers/peers are more likely to be a source of aid in a resistance against power, rather than a source of power imbalance

Social Support

Social Support. The fourth reason we engage in peer coworker relationships is social support. We’ve gone over this concept before – people desire and require assistance, care, and help from those people within their life. The best boss in the world will eventually get under your skin about something. We’re humans; we’re flawed. As such, no organization is perfect, so it’s always important to have those peer coworkers we can go to who are there for us. An act as simple as complaining to our coworker can be cathartic and relieving. We all need to de-stress in the workplace, and our peers are often there to help us out with that!

Special Peers

The final group of peers we work with are called special peers. Kram and Isabella note that special peer relationships “involves revealing central ambivalences and personal dilemmas in work and family realms. Pretense and formal roles are replaced by greater self-disclosure and self-expression”[18]. Special peerrelationships are marked by confirmation, emotional support, personal feedback, and friendship.

Confirmation. First, special peers provide us with confirmation. When we are having one of our darkest days at work and are not sure we’re doing our jobs well, our special peers are there to let us know that we’re doing a good job. They approve of who we are and what we do. These are also the first people we go to when we do something well at work.

Emotional Support. Second, special peers provide us with emotional support in the workplace. Emotional support from special peers comes from their willingness to listen and offer helpful advice and encouragement. Kelly Zellars and Pamela Perrewé have noted there are four types of emotional social support we get from peers: positive, negative, non-job-related, and empathic communication[19]. Positive emotional support is when you and a special peer talk about the positive sides to work. For example, you and a special peer could talk about the joys of working on a specific project. Negative emotional support, on the other hand, is when you and a special peer talk about the downsides to work. For example, maybe both of you talk about the problems working with a specific manager or coworker.

The third form of emotional social support is non-job-related, which is exactly what it sounds like. We may converse about friends, family members, hobbies, etc. A good deal of the emotional social support we get from special peers has nothing to do with the workplace at all. The final type of emotional social support is empathic communication or conversations about one’s emotions or emotional state in the workplace. If you’re having a bad day, you can go to your special peer, and they may affirm or validate your experiences. Again, sometimes just disclosing or listening can be enough

Personal Feedback. Third, special peers will provide both reliable and candid feedback about you and your work performance. One of the nice things about building an intimate special peer relationship is that both of you will be honest with one another. There are times we need confirmation, but then there are times we need someone to be bluntly honest with us. We are more likely to feel criticized and hurt when blunt honesty comes from someone when we do not have a special peer relationship. Special peer relationships provide a safe space where we can openly listen to feedback even if we’re not thrilled to receive that feedback.

Friendship. Lastly, special peers also offer us a sense of deeper friendship in the workplace. In the end, it is this final element that distinguishes workers from special peers. The transition from peer to friend is indeed special, and we ordinarily save that for a very select few. Consider those with whom you’ve worked with in the past. Are you still friendly with most of them? Any of them? Special peers provide us with an opportunity for intimate connection that we may not have anticipated, but often appreciate due to the unique circumstances in which they are formed.

11.4 Social Support and the Self

Now that we’ve covered so much related to the types of network relationships that exist in our world, it’s time to theorize about how they function and review some of the outcomes and behaviors associated with such relationships. It’s here that we’ll find our primary theoretical contribution in this chapter – social comparison theory. Before we dive in, know this. Social comparison is indeed about looking at ourselves next to others, but the cognitive process of social comparison is just as much about the self as it is about others. We highly recommend that you re-familiarize yourself with our chapter on identity to aid in the understanding of this theory.

Are you back, or did you never leave? Either way, let’s get into it. Yes, we do perpetually compare ourselves to others, and we do so in many ways. Social comparisons are based on two dimensions: (dis)ability and (dis)similarity [20]. Let’s first discuss ability. When comparing ourselves to others, we evaluate characteristics like attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, and so on. For example, you may judge yourself to be more intelligent than your brother or less athletic than your best friend, and these judgments are incorporated into your self-concept. Ergo, we compare our abilities to those around us, as well as those in the media, and assess how we stack up – sometimes for better and others for worse.

We also engage in social comparison based on similarity and difference. Since self-concept is context specific, similarity may be desirable in some situations and difference more desirable in others. Although we compare ourselves to others throughout our lives, adolescent and teen years usually bring new pressure to be similar to or different from particular reference groups. Think of all the cliques in high school and how people voluntarily and involuntarily broke off into groups based on popularity, interest, culture, or grade level. Now consider what would happen if an athlete, let’s say a star basketball player, decided that he had more in common with the theater kids. How might that affect his self-concept? What sort’s of comparisons might he make, both as an athlete and a musician? Sound familiar? It should, we just described the plor of high school musical.

This process of comparison and evaluation isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it can have negative consequences if our reference group isn’t appropriate. Reference groups are the groups we use for social comparison, and they typically change based on what we are evaluating. In terms of athletic ability, many people choose unreasonable reference groups with which to engage in social comparison. If a man wants to get into better shape and starts an exercise routine, he may be discouraged by his difficulty keeping up with the aerobics instructor or running partner and judge himself as inferior, which could negatively affect his self-concept. Using as a reference group people who have only recently started a fitness program but have shown progress could help maintain a more accurate and hopefully positive self-concept. For this reason, we’re more likely to make social comparisons to reference groups that we value. For example, our friends, our family, and our (special) peers. In other words, we are most likely to compare ourselves to the types of people we discussed earlier in the chapter.

Social and Family Influences

While we may like to think that our self-perception starts with a blank canvas, our perceptions are limited by our experiences and various social and cultural contexts. Parents and peers shape our self-perceptions in positive and negative ways. Feedback that we get from significant others, which includes close family, can lead to positive views of self [20]. However, too much praise can inflate one’s ego, distort expectations, and result in negative relationships. So, what’s the correct balance?

Motivation is the underlying force that drives us to do things. Sometimes we are intrinsically motivated, meaning we want to do something for the love of doing it or the resulting internal satisfaction. Other times we are extrinsically motivated, meaning we do something to receive a reward or avoid punishment. Both can, of course, effectively motivate us. Praise is a form of extrinsic reward, and if there is an actual reward associated with the praise, like money or special recognition, some people speculate that intrinsic motivation will suffer. The question is: is that a problem?

Intrinsic motivation is more substantial and long-lasting than extrinsic motivation and can lead to the development of a work ethic and sense of pride in one’s abilities. Intrinsic motivation can move people to accomplish great things over long periods of time and be happy despite the effort and sacrifices made. Extrinsic motivation dies when the reward stops. Additionally, too much praise can lead people to have a misguided sense of their abilities. College professors who are reluctant to fail students who produce failing work may be setting those students up to be shocked when their supervisor critiques their abilities or output once they get into a professional context [20].

There are cultural differences in the amount of praise and positive feedback that teachers and parents give their children. For example, teachers give less positive reinforcement in Japanese and Taiwanese classrooms than do teachers in US classrooms. Chinese and Kenyan parents do not regularly praise their children because they fear it may make them too individualistic, rude, or arrogant [21]. So the phenomenon of overpraising isn’t universal, and the debate over its potential effects is not resolved.

Research has also found that communication patterns develop between parents and children that are common to many verbally and physically abusive relationships. Such patterns have negative effects on a child’s self-efficacy and self-esteem [22]. Such parents often communicate generally negative evaluations to their child by saying, for example, “You can’t do anything right!” or “You’re a bad girl.” In this instance, a child doing something wrong or bad is attributed to a personality characteristic. When children do exhibit positive behaviors, abusive parents are more likely to use external attributions that diminish the achievement of the child by saying, for example, “You only won because the other team was off their game.” In general, abusive parents have unpredictable reactions to their children’s positive and negative behavior, which creates an uncertain and often scary climate for a child that can lead to lower self-esteem and erratic or aggressive behavior.

As you might assume, this pattern of negativity can both teach children how to behave when they grow into parents, and also teach children how to behave within their reference groups as adults. That’s key, because it reinforces the child-adolescent-audulthood pipeline at the interpersonal level. We would be remiss, however, not to touch on the broader networking phenomena that contribute to these comparisons and their corresponding relationships. That is where we’ll finish off this chapter.

11.5 Social Media and Networking

When we started off this chapter we put a very intentional caveat on our definition of social networks. Specifically, we said that we are not talking about social media. The time to lift that caveat has come. The fact is, social media is often a tool, an environmental element, and a product of social network relationships. It would be irresponsible to pretend like social media hasn’t changed the way we make social comparisons and do relationships, so we must spend some time discussing it.

So, how does social media affect our interpersonal relationships, if at all? This is a question that has been addressed by scholars, commentators, and people in general. To provide some perspective, similar questions and concerns have been raised along with each major change in communication technology. Social media, however, has been the primary communication change of the past few generations, which likely accounts for the attention they receive. Some scholars in sociology have decried the negative effects of new technology on society and relationships in particular, saying that the quality of relationships is deteriorating and the strength of connections is weakening [23].

The emergence of Facebook had a profound affect on the way that we conceptualize and execute friendships. For example, Facebook greatly influenced our use of the word “friend,” although people’s conceptions of the word may not have changed as much. When someone “friends you” on Facebook, it doesn’t automatically mean that you now have the closeness and intimacy that you have with some offline friends. And research shows that people don’t regularly accept friend requests from or send them to people they haven’t met, preferring instead to have met a person at least once [24]. Some users, though, especially adolescents, engage in what is called “friend-collecting behavior,” which entails users friending people they don’t know personally or that they wouldn’t talk to in person in order to increase the size of their online network [25]. Now this is just Facebook we’re talking about. You know facebook, right? It’s that app that nobody under the age of 25 uses anymore unless they need to sell something on the marketplace. The studies on apps like Snapchat, TikTok, and other new media are emerging, but do not paint as clear of a picture as the decade-plus of research on Facebook. For that reason, we’re hesitant to make profound claims about how they alter relationships beyond the dsicussion on parasocial relationships from earlier in the chapter.

Regardless of what media platform is being used, a key part of interpersonal communication is impression management, and some forms of social media allow us more tools for presenting ourselves than others. Apps like Facebook and Twitter facilitate self-disclosure in a directed way and allows others who have access to our profile to see our other “friends.” This convergence of different groups of people (close friends, family, acquaintances, friends of friends, colleagues, and strangers) can present challenges for self-presentation. The data show now that over 70% of Americans have a social media account of some kind [26]. Amazingly, a Pew research survey from January of 2024 showed that over 80% of Americans had at least used Tiktok at some point in their life [27]. This is monumentally important, as the app’s algorithm-based platform allows for a waterfall of information and relationships to be forged in very little time. Such innovations have monstrous consequences for the norms and expectations surrounding what a social network can and should look like compared to 20 years ago.

We should be aware that people form impressions of us based not just on what we post on our profiles but also on our friends and the content that they post on our profiles. In short, as in our offline lives, we are judged online by the company we keep [28]. However, unless someone has blocked or otherwise limited our ability to view their public profile, we can see their entire online social network and friends. This doesn’t happen in face-to-face interactions. The information on our social media profiles is also archived, meaning there is a record of our activity ranging from “friendships” to likes, comments, and everything in between.

Here’s a short case study to exemplify our point. Recent research found that a person’s perception of a profile owner’s attractiveness is influenced by the attractiveness of the friends shown on the profile. In short, a profile owner is judged more physically attractive when his or her friends are judged as physically attractive, and vice versa. The profile owner is also judged as more socially attractive (likable, friendly) when his or her friends are judged as physically attractive. The study also found that complimentary and friendly statements made about profile owners on their wall or on profile comments increased perceptions of the profile owner’s social attractiveness and credibility. An interesting, but not surprising, gender double standard also emerged. When statements containing sexual remarks or references to the profile owner’s excessive drinking were posted on the profile, perceptions of attractiveness increased if the profile owner was male and decreased if female [29].

Communicating With9in) Networks

Self-disclosure is a fundamental building block of interpersonal relationships, and social media can make self-disclosures easier for many people because. One reason for this is because of something called the disinhibition effect – which in the case of social media, emboldens us to send messages online that we might not normally send in person. Consider the phenomenon of DM-sliding. There are entire Reddit pages, Instagram accounts, and Tiktok channels dedicated to exposing, unpacking, and often making fun of the outrageous things that people say to each other when sliding into their DMs. We are way less likely to be so bold in person! For the record, DM stands for “direct messages,” but I’m sure you already knew that.

On the other end, social media can provide opportunities for social support. Research has found that“friending” someone or responding to a request posted on someone’s wall lead people to feel a sense of attachment and perceive that others are reliable and helpful [29]. Much of the research on Facebook, though, has focused on the less intimate alliances that we maintain through social media. Since most people maintain offline contact with their close friends and family, Facebook has always been more of a supplement to interpersonal communication. Since most people’s Facebook “friend” networks are composed primarily of people with whom they have less face-to-face contact in their daily lives, Facebook provides an alternative space for interaction that can more easily fit into a person’s busy schedule or interest area. Alternatively, more immersive sits like Tiktok, which give us a physical glance into someone’s actual life, can distort the online-offline continuum of relationship formation.

These extended networks serve important purposes, one of which is to provide access to new information and different perspectives than those we may get from close friends and family. Indeed, research shows that many people ask for informational help through their status updates [29]. For example, since we tend to have significant others that are more similar to than different from us, the people that we are closest to are likely to share many or most of our beliefs, attitudes, and values. Extended contacts, however, may expose us to different political views or new sources of information, which can help broaden our perspectives. Alternatively, algorithmic scrolling can create a bubble or hug-box in which we are only exposed to information that makes us feel safe or welcomed.

This can do both good and harm. On one hand, if we belong to a marginalized group, safe, welcoming, online spaces can help improve our self-concept. On the other hand, selective exposure can push us down a rabbit-hole of conspiracy and delusion, damaging our in-person relationships in exchange for parasocial connections. It is tremendously important to maintain an awareness of the balance we have between our online and in-person relationships. One great way to do this is to “touch grass” from time to time. In other words, make sure that you’re not only maintaining relationships in online spaces. Social media is very real, and it’s an expected part og human interaction in the modern developed world. But if we’re not careful, we risk social media replacing those all-important in-person relationships.

11.6 Activities and Exercises

Consider what you might say and do to convey the given relational subtext.

How might you decline a friend’s invitation to coffee with respect and affection?
How could you address an employee’s need for autonomy when telling her she is needed to work this weekend? The need for dignity?
How might you disagree with a classmate’s politics by recognizing their need for inclusion? Respect? The need to matter?
How might you address the autonomy or affection needs of your significant other when you request that they come home on time tonight?
Do you find the constant connectivity that comes with personal media overstimulating or comforting?
Have you noticed a “graying” of social media like Facebook and Twitter in your own networks? What opportunities and challenges are presented by intergenerational interactions on social media?

References

Stein, J. B., & Moliterno, A. (2022). Applying hierarchical mapping technique to the study of interpersonal communication: Descriptive features of the social network. Journal of Social Psychology Research 1(2). 212-226. doi: 10.37256/jspr.1220221408
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. “Average Length of School Year and Average Length of School Day, by Selected Characteristics: United States, 2003-04.” Private School Universe Survey (PSS). Retrieved July 30, 2011 (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/table_2004_06.asp).
Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalistic America: Educational Reforms and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. “Number of Jobs Held, Labor Market Activity, and Earnings Growth Among the Youngest Baby Boomers.” September 10. Retrieved Oct. 27th, 2012 (www.bls.gov/nls/nlsfaqs.htm).
Roberts, Donald F., Ulla G. Foehr, and Victoria Rideout. 2005. “Parents, Children, and Media: A Kaiser Family Foundation Survey.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved February 14, 2012 (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7638.pdf).
William K. Rawlins, Friendship Matters: Communication, Dialectics, and the Life Course (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1992), 11–12.
Rosemary Bleiszner and Rebecca G. Adams, Adult Friendship (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992), 2.
Adapted from C. Arthur VanLear, Ascan Koerner, and Donna M. Allen, “Relationship Typologies,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, eds. Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 103.
Justin J. Lehmiller, Laura E. VanderDrift, and Janice R. Kelly, “Sex Differences in Approaching Friends with Benefits Relationships,” Journal of Sex Research 48, no. 2–3 (2011): 276.
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49-66. DOI: 10.1080/10570310500034154
Melissa A. Bisson and Timothy R. Levine, “Negotiating a Friends with Benefits Relationship,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 38 (2009): 67.
Amy Janan Johnson, Elaine Wittenberg, Melinda Morris Villagran, Michelle Mazur, and Paul Villagran, “Relational Progression as a Dialectic: Examining Turning Points in Communication among Friends,” Communication Monographs 70, no. 3 (2003): 245.
Beverly Fehr, “The Life Cycle of Friendship,” in Close Relationships: A Sourcebook, eds. Clyde Hendrick and Susan S. Hendrick (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 71–74.
W. Andrew Collins and Stephanie D. Madsen, “Personal Relationships in Adolescence and Early Adulthood,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, eds. Anita L. Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 195.
Michael Monsour, “Communication and Gender among Adult Friends,” in The Sage Handbook of Gender and Communication, eds. Bonnie J. Dow and Julia T. Wood (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 63.
Panayotis Halatsis and Nicolas Christakis, “The Challenge of Sexual Attraction within Heterosexuals’ Cross-Sex Friendship,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26, no. 6–7 (2009): 920.
Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives on workplace relationships. Sage.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.5465/256064; pg. 121
Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional social support: Coping in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.459
Owen Hargie, Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 261. ↵
Anna Wierzbicka, “The English Expressions Good Boy and Good Girl and Cultural Models of Child Rearing,” Culture and Psychology 10, no. 3 (2004): 251–78. ↵
Wendy Morgan and Steven R. Wilson, “Explaining Child Abuse as a Lack of Safe Ground,” in The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication, eds. Brian H. Spitzberg and William R. Cupach (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007), 341. ↵
Lynch, S. (2015). Friendship and happiness from a philosophical perspective. In M. Demir (Ed.), Friendship and happiness: Across the life-span and cultures (pp. 3-18). Springer.
Clark v. Campbell, 82 N.H. 281 (N.H. 1926). Retrieved from: https://casetext.com/case/clark-v-campbell-6
Brown, B. B. (1981). A life-span approach to friendship: Age-related dimensions of an ageless relationship. Research in the Interweave of Social Roles, 2, 23-50; pg. 25.
https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-united-states-of-america#:~:text=The%20USA%20was%20home%20to,percent%20of%20the%20total%20population.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-social-media-use/
Monsour, M. (2017). The hackneyed notions of adult “same-sex” and “opposite-sex” friendships. In M. Hojjat & A Moyer (Eds.), The psychology of friendship (pp. 59-74). Oxford.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Transaction.