BESC1528 Lect 6 Friendship Formation 2023

Psychology of Social Life
Lecture 6
1. Friendship formation
2. Cultural differences
Pre lecture exercise
Who is your best friend?
Give them a code name
What predictions does social psychology make about

who is your best friend?
Q&A re best friend
Please use the following table if you want to keep score regarding
social psychological characteristics of your best friend
A. Proximity
• Same [or adjacent] suburb
• Same school or work area
• Create a map of your friends’ locations
RMIT University Slide 4

A. Proximity
Proximity creates three elements of liking
1. Mere exposure increases liking
2. People live and work with others who have similar interests and
experiences
3. Shared experiences create future content for conversation and thus

higher levels of cohesion

B. Similarity 1a
• Here are two images of class-rooms – no conscious decisions but is there
evidence of segregation???
RMIT University
Slide 6
B. Similarity 1b
There is evidence of segregation along the following dimensions
• Gender [male versus female] – non-romantic best friends tend to be the

same gender
• Age [young versus mature age]
• Cultural groups (local versus international [students])
• Degree [or work interest] [Applied Science; Criminology; Social Science;

Social Work]
RMIT University
Slide 7
B. Similarity 2a
• Preference for similarity creates segregation
• The image [below] represents people/households who are randomly located

in suburbs
• Each household with a red

cross will move house in
in the next seven years
• Simulation under three conditions

B. Similarity 2b
• No preference for colour of neighbour
RMIT University
Slide 9
B. Similarity 2c
• Preference for at least one neighbour of the same colour
RMIT University
Slide 10
B. Similarity 2d
• Strong preference to live beside someone of the same colour
RMIT University
Slide 11
B. Similarity 2e
• People do not need to be consciously racist to create neighbourhood
segregation – just a preference to live close to one other who are similar to
themselves, creates this
• This can explain all forms of segregation – for instance, if most people
preferred to have a best friend who was the same gender as them, what
friendship networks would “we”, as a society, create
• Go to the following web site to play the simulation making sure you
read the first two pages to understand the logic
• There is also more detail on segregation [and its negative effects]
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/segregation/
RMIT University
Slide 12
B. Similarity 3
• Your best friend will be the same:
o Gender
o Age [within two years]
o Life-cycle status [single, married, etc]
o Education level [year 12 +]
o Ethnic cultural group [Individualism versus collectivism]
o Religion [none, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc]

B. Similarity 4
• Your best friend will be

in the same gender
and the same ethnic
group:
• Note, not what you say,

but what you do –
[See earlier lecture on
Milgram’s experimental
Realism]

B. Similarity 5
• Your best friend will have same values as you have on the following:
being
o Trustworthy
o Loyal
o Supportive
o Honest
o Fun-loving

B. Similarity 6
• Your best friend will have same personality traits:
o If one trait differs, you will admire that trait in your best friend

B. Similarity - overall
• Locate your friends/relatives in one of two boxes
• Prediction – most in
top box
• In summary, more
similar than
different:

C. Reciprocal liking
• You like your best friend because they like you
• Simpson et al (1993) sent one of two letters to 50 UG students

o Group 1: written profile of a potential friend
o Group 2: same written profile plus an added addendum that this
person “really like you and would greatly value your friendship”
• Two weeks after a social gathering where they met this “person”:
o Group 1: 9% willing to pursue friendship
o Group 2: 76% willing to pursue friendship

D. Physical attractiveness
• You like your friend and find them attractive
• Why?
o Mere exposure – proximity
o Similar = attractive [social comparison]
• Synder et al (1977) got UG students to speak by phone to opposite sex

strangers
o Given either an attractive or unattractive photo of the stranger
o Acted more positively and warmly to “attractive” stranger

E. Social exchange
• You get as many rewards as costs out of this best friend arrangement
– it is balanced
• Relies on social comparison

o Perceive this is the relationship you deserve
o Perceive this is the best of all possible [current] relationships

F. Peer and family acceptance
• Your family and peers support/accept your best friend
• Ellis & Zurbatany (2007) found 87% of friendships were accepted by a

person’s peers/other friends and family

G. Self-disclosure
• Your best friend shares information with you that you would not
normally know [and you reciprocate]

H. Recollection of initial attraction 1
• On reflecting on what attracted you to this best friend, rank the
following factors
A. Proximity
B. Similarity [background, values, personality]
C. Reciprocal liking [mutual positive regard]
D. Physical attractiveness
E. Social exchange/balance
F. Peer and family acceptance
G. Self-disclosure [of private information]

H. Recollection of initial attraction 2
• On reflecting on what attracted you to this best friend, you rank
the factors in the following order
1. Reciprocal liking
2. Attractiveness
3. Similarity of values and experiences
4. Proximity [many common settings]

Q&A re best friend
Were most of your answers “Yes”. If so, then you and your best friend
support the Proximity-Similarity theory of friendship – it also
supports the social comparison theory
End of pre-lecture exercise
Consider
Pause
Reflect – on how your similarity with your best

friend makes it easier to communicate with your
best friend and that providing advice to that
friend is easier because “that is what you would
do in that situation”
Stop and have a short rest break
Play and continue with lecture

Lecture 6
1. Friendship formation
2. Cultural differences
Learning objectives
1. Discuss the relationship between affiliation and loneliness.
2. Does being alone equate with being lonely? What are the
two forms of loneliness?
3. Compare and contrast the two major theories of friendship

formation.
4. Define equity theory and discuss how it explains long term

permanent relationships, the incidence of extra-marital
affairs, successful marital counselling and the ending of
permanent relationships.
5. Relate culture (Individualism versus collectivism) to tourist

destination choice. Explain in terms of culture values and
the need for affiliation.

Learning objectives
1. Discuss the relationship between affiliation and
loneliness.

formation.



Affiliation ‑ need for social contact
Affiliation
• Is there an inherent desire to seek out others?
Adults can vary their degree of contact with others:

• from being alone to forming permanent relationships
• from living / working in isolation to living / working in a crowded, industrial

environment

Schachter's (1959) study on isolation
• paid student subjects as long as they remained alone in total isolation
• individual reactions quite variable: averaged two days but varied from
twenty minutes to eight days when the study finished
• seemed to depend on previous experiences
Experiencing loneliness
On the next slide there is a standard test on

measuring loneliness, if you wish, please pause and
take the test and then reflect on the results

UCLA Loneliness Scale
• average University student score = 20 (normal range from 15 – 25, over 30

seen as experiencing loneliness)
• To the last general question – over 60% indicate yes [sometimes or often]
• correlated with
• Anxiety/worry/neuroticism (0.49)
• Extraversion (- 0.40) [that is, more likely to be introverted]
• Depression [current loss/sadness] (0.52)

End of Learning objective 1
Consider
Pause
Reflect – on your perception of loneliness – that is,

do you use upward social comparison to
determine your current level of loneliness, and if
so, what are the risks of using upward social
comparison in these situations

Learning objectives
2. Does being alone equate with being lonely? What are

the two forms of loneliness?

formation.



Loneliness 1
‑ being alone does not equal being lonely

Loneliness 2
Two forms of loneliness
• emotional loneliness‑ absence of personal intimate

relationship [currently, no best friend]
• social loneliness ‑ absence of a complex social network

[currently no group of friends either in
your life or at work/university]

Loneliness 3
Trends re loneliness –
• Research using UCLA Loneliness Scale surveyed participants and asked

about chronic loneliness
1985 – 10% indicated they were

This illustrates a paradox – the more hyperconnected society becomes

[internet], the more lonely we are becoming
That is as we get to know more people, our group of intimate friends appears to
be shrinking – see Milgram’s urban overload and Dunbar’s number

Loneliness 4
Age trends in loneliness:
Percentage of people who say they feel lonely sometimes or often
(from 18 to 54+ years)
What overall trend do you predict?

Negative correlation – older = less loneliness
90
80 79
71
70 69
60
60
53
Percent
50
40 37
30
20
10
0
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 54
Age Group

Note:
• Subjective judgement, irrespective of friends
• Dispels two myths:

o As age increases loneliness increases
o That loneliness is rare
• Has not included a very old category (80+ years) where friends/spouse
have died
• May account for high youth suicide rates
• The statistics tend to indicate that as people age they develop more stable
social networks

Why loneliness in young people?
• Two reasons: Young people
o Are less likely to have personal intimate relationship [to buffer no friends]
o Have more negative aspects of life [where friendship helps]

Factors influencing loneliness
• Individual differences
• age
o older, impact via degree of intimacy (emotional)
o younger, impact via number of contacts (social network)
• gender
o females – greater emphasis on relationships, hence more
o males – failure to disclose/admit loneliness
• culture
o individualistic – pressure to make friends – loneliness blamed on self –
internal attribution – lack social skills (poor ability), low self-esteem,
depression
o collectivist – social network already present, but if disrupted, more

lonely, blame on situation – external attribution – moved to new social
RMIT Universitysetting Slide 43
Factors influencing loneliness 2
• mobility
o frequently moving place of residence
o starting new job, beginning University, failing grades and repeating year
• internet use (chicken and egg phenomena)
o studies show lonely people use internet rather than internet causes
people to become lonely, isolated

Factors influencing loneliness 3
• Negative life events [loss of family, work, or relationships] related to
loneliness and mental health problems [eg depression]

• Loneliness, in general, is more common when people are alone,
especially among those without a strong social network
• Lonely people are more likely to become depressed and more likely to
have other mental and physical health problems and have higher mortality
rates (effect greater in males) – for instance, married males live longer than
widowered or divorced males – no difference in females
• RU OK? Day – second Thursday in September
• R U OK? is an Australian non-profit suicide prevention organisation,

founded by advertiser Gavin Larkin in 2009. It revolves around the slogan
"R U OK?", and advocates people to have conversations with others
[especially on that day, but also on a regular basis]

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on why most people in modern society

experience loneliness and why do people blame
themselves [internal attribution] instead of
focussing on the challenges of living in a modern
society (an external [self-protective] attribution)?

Learning objectives
3. Compare and contrast the two major theories of

friendship formation.



Importance of Friendships 1
Only 25% indicated they

were extremely satisfied
with their friendships
Only 37% indicated they were confident

that their best friend actually valued
their relationship

Importance of Friendships 2
Quantity [number of
friends] is important
But quality of
friendship is the
most important
Note: Measures of friendships excludes family and romantic relationships

Friendship formation 1
Predicting who is your best friend?
• same gender
• same or adjoining suburb
• same age (+/- two years)
• same culture (individualistic versus collectivist)
• same education level (at least year 12)
• same life cycle status (single, married, young children etc)
BUT
o think about the aspect of your friend that you most admire or attracts
RMIT University you the most Slide 53
Friendship formation 2
There are two paradoxes associated with friendships?
Friendship paradox 1: most people believe that they have more friends than
their friends have
• explained using egocentric bias – see attribution lecture
Friendship paradox 2: is the phenomenon that most people, on average, have

fewer friends than their friends have
• explained statistically, people are less likely to be friends with

someone who has very few friends
Theories of friendship formation
1. Similarity / proximity theories – supports the notion of “birds of a

feather flock together”
Definition – friendships develop between people who regularly interact with

each [proximity] and who have many features in common [similarity]
[which enhances social comparison]
2. Complementary needs theories – supports the notion of

“opposites attract”
Definition – people select people who are different from them in traits [traits
they personally do not have] and to learn from and experience different
perspective [social stimulation]

Similarity / proximity theories 1
• proximity: dormitory studies ‑ found people more likely to develop
friendships with people who lived physically close
• Close friends
o 41% next door [flat 1 with flat 2]
o 22% two door apart [flat 1 with flat 3]
o 10% other end of corridor [flat 1 with flat 5]
o <1% if on another floor [evenSlide

RMIT University though
56 closer] [flat 1 with flat 6]
Similarity / proximity theories 2
• Other research
• similarity with proximity: dormitory studies over' time ‑ found that after six
months, similar personality traits better predicted longer lasting ‑friendships
• similarity in attitudes: attitudes surveys find friends are significantly more

similar than non‑friends
• attribution similarity: perceived similarity between friends (that is how

similar they thought they were) is higher than real similarity [see attribution
bias – previous lecture]

Complementary needs theories
• People round out their personality by selecting friends who have traits they
lack but desire to have eg dominant selects submissive; extrovert selects
introvert
• The marriage duplication, hypotheses – people seek to duplicate their
childhood ‑ sibling 'relationship ‑ eg first born women with a younger brother
marries man with an older sister

Relationships
Evolutionary theory explaining
permanent romantic relationships
see also lecture on person perception

Relationships 1
Romantic relationships
• Western culture phenomenon – individualistic decision-making [see

attribution theory]
• associated with person perception/impression management [see

previous lecture on person perception]
• associated with public behaviour – physical appearance, verbal

ability, etc
• regulated by partner with least interest

o Who terminated the last romantic relationship you were in [did it
involve cheating behaviour??? See future lecture]

Relationships 2
Permanent relationships
• Arranged marriages
– Historical (pre 1850s)
– Cultural (eg, collectivist - India, China, etc) – decisions
associated with what is good for the family, not just the
individual [see attribution theory]
• Permanent relationships
– Involves social comparison processes
– Regulated by notion of equity [not equality]
• Evaluation (satisfaction, divorce rates, etc)

Relationships 3: Love
Where adults meet their future spouses?
• Proximity
• Similarity
• Physical appearance

Relationships 4: Arranged
If you currently did not love a person, but who had all the qualities you
desired, would you marry them?
All
collectivist
Mainly
individualistic
[See slide 54]

Relationships 5: Outcome
• Percentage of couples reporting

romantic love in marriage
Love Marriage versus Arranged Marriage Statistics Data

Divorce rate: number of love marriages 49.4 %
Divorce rate: number of arranged marriages 6%
World: Arranged versus love marriages 55 %

Relationships 6: Online dating
• Online dating [or mediated match-making] – arranged or romantic???
• Evolved from marginal to mainstream???
• Newspaper personal advertising since middle 19th century
• Online dating sites

– Three challenges: stigma, deception, safety

Similarities [and differences] between face to face and online dating
a) Self-presentation [see previous lecture social comparison]
b) Person perception and impression formation [see previous lecture]
1. Stigma –
– Not natural/not “organic”
– Only for people without social skills
– Only for people who are desperate
Response
– Normative: currently estimated that 2 out 5 singles use dating sites
– In a survey of couples who married between 2005 and 2012, 35% of
19,000 people met their partner online
– Discriminates the people who are out enjoying themselves socially from
those who are wishing to develop relationships
2. Deception –
Response
o Typical of all relationships [face to face and online]
o More focus online as there is limited information provided:
• Face to face – all person perception information available to form
first impressions
• Online – limited information, and much more thought and control
over first impression information
Statistics
o Overall 81% of people were found to be deceptive
o Males for deceptive regarding their height [55%] and age [24%]
o Females more deceptive regarding their weight [59%]

Social Psychology @ work 1
• eHarmony is an online relationship website
• Founded by psychologist Dr Neil Clark Warren
• 35 years working as a clinical psychologist and marriage counsellor
• Emphasis on compatibility or similarity
• Note, also have questions re proximity
http://www.redbookmag.com/cm/redbook/images/neil-warren-de.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Onewestbankheadquarters.jpg

Social Psychology @ work 2
• eHarmony is an online relationship website
• Evaluation
– Positive
o Use standard psychological test including Big 5 Personality test
o Taps into beliefs, values, emotional health and skills
o Applicants provided with person descriptions (mainly based on Big 5
Personality assessment)
o Five year old eHarmony marriages were compared to controls, 90%
of eHarmony couples had above average marriage quality scores
and indicated very high levels of satisfaction
– Negatives
• After a one hour, 258 question profile, can be rejected without
explanation
• Claims and lawsuits re discrimination (eg ageist and sexual
orientation)
• About 20% of cases, there was no (statistical) match
• Question –Is this just a different form of “arranged marriage”?

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on the most important factor in your

relationship with your best friend – is it proximity
[easy to catch up], similarity [lots of social
comparison], trust [can self-disclose] or ?????

Learning objectives

formation.
4. Define equity theory and discuss how it explains long

term permanent relationships, the incidence of extra-
marital affairs, successful marital counselling and the
ending of permanent relationships.


Equity theory of permanent love
• Achievement of a subjective balance or fairness
o that is when the subjective gains from a relationship exactly matches

subjective contribution
Note:
• Related to social comparison theory in that constant comparisons are made
to ensure equity
• Not equality – that is partners do not have to be equal

Research supporting equity theory 1
1. Qualitative analysis of partners who have been married four

decades or more
Findings:
• couples emphasised equity
• disruption to relationships arose when one partner perceived inequity

and disruption resolved when perceived equity was regained [for
example, one partner minding the first child and putting more into the
relationship [family] than they were getting out of the previous adult
relationship]

2. Research comparing marriages who had or did not have extra

marital affairs showed
Findings:
• under-benefited partners have more affairs (to gain benefits)
• over-benefited partners have affairs because they can (of power)
• balanced (equitable) couples have no need for affairs and had least
affairs

3. Reconciling partners (of permanent relationships)
Findings:
[see also attribution theory – internal versus external]
• attribute blame for the disruption on themselves, feel over-benefited

and need to accept blame themselves and work to resolve it
• attribute blame to external events (stress), see the relationship as

equitable and will work to resolve it

4. Separating / divorcing couples
Findings:
• attribute blame for the dispute on partner [external attribution – “I am

not to blame”], thus feel under-benefited and need partner to make it
equitable. If attribution continues, may increase chance of affair but will
definitely end of relationship
Ending permanent relationships
• Statistically, women are more likely to end permanent relationship

[why? social comparison and lack of equity – realise nothing they do
will change - lack of power]

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on your [or another] permanent

relationship – if is happy – is that due to equity? If
the relationship has terminated, was it due to
inequity [one partner over- or under-benefited]?

Learning objectives

formation.

5. Relate culture (Individualism versus collectivism) to

tourist destination choice. Explain in terms of culture
values and the need for affiliation.

Cross cultural research
Western social psychology research [mainstream USA and Australian studies]

has determined:
• perceived similarity (background, attitudes, behaviour) is the best predictor

of interpersonal attraction and liking
However, does this generalize to all cultures or is it unique to Western

cultures?

From Australia, if you had unlimited time and money, where would
you visit?

Affiliation and tourist destination choice
Destinations
• For your ideal trip, which country [location] did your choose
• For your last overseas trip – where did you go?
• Name nation that was the main destination
• Is the culture?
• same as your descendants
• speak a common language
• same level of industrialization
• individualistic versus collectivist culture
• more similar than different from your own culture

Affiliation needs and culture
Hofstede (1980)
• Studied 22 countries
• reported a positive correlational relationship (r = 0.46) between a culture’s

degree of individualism and its citizens’ affiliation needs
• that is, the more individualistic cultures had higher needs for affiliation [or
the need to make “new” friends]

Individualist cultures
People from individualistic cultures do not have culturally
established interdependent groups
expected to develop own relationships in varied

social settings
Thus there is a cultural need for affiliation
Social comparison indicates it is easier to affiliate with

similar others

Collectivist cultures
People from collectivist cultures have already well
established interdependent groups
Less socialized expectation to develop own relationships in

varied social settings
Thus less cultural need for affiliation
Less reliance to affiliate with similar others

Australian tourists
• best predictor Proximity (to do with time and money)
• within a proximate zone, best predictor similarity

Test of cultural differences in affiliation 1
• Tourists from Western nations (eg, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK,
USA) primarily visited countries which have similar cultures [each other]
• These tourists have a high affiliation need to meet other tourists and hosts
(and similarity makes it easier)
• These findings confirm findings from Western‑based research that the best
predictor of affiliation and friendship formation is similarity

Test of cultural differences in affiliation 2
• Tourists from collectivist nations (eg, Japan, China, Korea, El Salvador,

Ecuador) choose to visit dissimilar cultures
• Culture shock managed within the tourist experience by visiting in highly

organised groups [eg, Chinese and Japanese tourists can handle the strong
individualism of countries such as Australia via package tours]
• People from collectivist cultures do not have a high affiliation need and
therefore do not need to meet hosts
• This finding is contrary to past (Western‑based) research on affiliation

(friendship formation) and similarity.

Friendship formation
Dominated by a social need to affiliate and the social
comparison theory (similar others)
Stress associated both with lack of friendships (loneliness)

and friendships (interpersonal conflict)
Individualistic cultures create a social need to affiliate and a

pressure for individuals to create friendships
Therefore there may be gender, age and cultural differences

in affiliation
Consider
Pause
Reflect – on what is your main motivation for being

a tourist – is it to meet people and understand
their culture or it is to relax, seek pleasure and/or
sight-see? And can you relate this to your
[individualist/collectivist] culture?

Conclusions
1. Affiliation is the drive to interact with others [see comparison theory],
whereas loneliness is experienced when people who are motivated to
meet people do not have that opportunity.
2. There are two forms of loneliness [emotional and social] and while
being alone does not equate with being lonely – social isolation
[social setting] is more likely to trigger loneliness
3. Of the two major theories of friendship formation, similarity-proximity

theory predicts the vast majority of friendships.
4. While the theory of least interest best explains romantic relationships,

equity theory best explains permanent relationships
5. A person’s culture (Individualism versus collectivism) determines their

drive to affiliate [make friends and avoid loneliness] and this is reflected
in their tourist destination choice and their tourist behaviours

BESC1528 Lect 6 Friendship Formation 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BESC1528 Lect 6 Friendship Formation 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology of Social Life

What predictions does social psychology make about

• Same school or work area

• Create a map of your friends’ locations

RMIT University Slide 4

Proximity creates three elements of liking

1. Mere exposure increases liking

3. Shared experiences create future content for conversation and thus

RMIT University Slide 5

There is evidence of segregation along the following dimensions

• Gender [male versus female] – non-romantic best friends tend to be the

• Age [young versus mature age]

• Cultural groups (local versus international [students])

• Degree [or work interest] [Applied Science; Criminology; Social Science;

• Preference for similarity creates segregation

• The image [below] represents people/households who are randomly located

• Each household with a red

• Simulation under three conditions

RMIT University Slide 8

• Your best friend will be the same:

o Age [within two years]

o Life-cycle status [single, married, etc]

o Education level [year 12 +]

o Ethnic cultural group [Individualism versus collectivism]

o Religion [none, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc]

RMIT University Slide 13

• Your best friend will be

• Note, not what you say,

RMIT University Slide 14

RMIT University Slide 15

RMIT University Slide 16

RMIT University Slide 17

• Simpson et al (1993) sent one of two letters to 50 UG students

RMIT University Slide 18

• Synder et al (1977) got UG students to speak by phone to opposite sex

RMIT University Slide 19

• Relies on social comparison

RMIT University Slide 20

• Ellis & Zurbatany (2007) found 87% of friendships were accepted by a

RMIT University Slide 21

RMIT University Slide 22

B. Similarity [background, values, personality]

C. Reciprocal liking [mutual positive regard]

F. Peer and family acceptance

G. Self-disclosure [of private information]

RMIT University Slide 23

3. Similarity of values and experiences

4. Proximity [many common settings]

RMIT University Slide 24

Reflect – on how your similarity with your best

Stop and have a short rest break

Play and continue with lecture

3. Compare and contrast the two major theories of friendship

4. Define equity theory and discuss how it explains long term

5. Relate culture (Individualism versus collectivism) to tourist

RMIT University Slide 28

3. Compare and contrast the two major theories of friendship

4. Define equity theory and discuss how it explains long term

5. Relate culture (Individualism versus collectivism) to tourist

RMIT University Slide 29

Adults can vary their degree of contact with others:

• from living / working in isolation to living / working in a crowded, industrial

RMIT University Slide 30