In the study of relationships there are significant links between the formation of friendships and long-term relationships. Just as the creation of the foundation of a building can have long-term effects on the structure itself, so do the beginning stages of a friendship provide the groundwork for the future of that relationship. But that is not to say that a friendship’s beginning is always determinate of its outcome. The formation of a friendship is not a perfect indication of the future of that relationship, but studying the formation of friendships is an excellent way to better understand the friendships themselves. According to Hinde, “There is considerable evidence that the viability of friendships … is predictable quite early on” (pp. 467). And a description of the primacy effect draws similar conclusions. According to Brehm, information we receive about another person early on carries “special weight” in our general, lasting impression of them (pp. 96). Many would agree that first impressions play a considerable role in the formation of friendships, and thus the likelihood of their continuance. There are several factors to consider when developing first impressions.
Typically, the first step in any relationship is attraction. But Hewstone and Stroebe emphasize “the fact that attraction does not necessarily lead to friendship, but that friendship implies more, i.e., an interdependent relationship that includes a willingness to coordinate actions and to take the interests of the other into account” (pp. 381). In other words, attraction does not guarantee that the friendship will develop, but it is certainly a very good indication. There are several other factors that influence the outcome of an attraction. One is the environment (Hewstone, pp. 381). The simple fact that two individuals are sharing in one another’s presence increases their chances of forming a friendship. Brehm would also include convenience and familiarity in her assessment of proximity (pp. 690). The closer one is to another, and the greater number of meetings and amount of time one spends with another, enhance the likelihood of a friendship. A study done in Israel led to the development of similar conclusions. In dormitories that had private restrooms there was very low interaction among the students, whereas in dormitories where the restroom facilities are shared, the interaction was much greater, and more friendships were formed (Hewstone, pp. 381). I have found this to be true in my own university situation. Although the newer halls have nicer dorm rooms and private baths, the sense of community is much more pronounced in the older residence halls, where students must share toilets, showers and sinks. The newer residence halls at my home college also have a fire safety feature that causes dorm room doors to automatically shut if not propped open, which leads to many a hall of closed doors. The older residence hall doors can automatically stay open. Because of the increased visibility and interaction, more friendships are formed on these types of halls, and resident assistants like them because they are renowned for having good community. Halls with good community increase the probability of friendships being made on those halls, which are likely to last even after the students have moved out of those residence halls.
In addition to propinquity, similarity of attitudes is also a cause of friendship. We are often attracted to those who have similar attitudes, beliefs, standards, interests, situations, etc. in life. “According to social comparison theory, when comparing our opinions on new issues, we might benefit more from talking to others who hold the same attitudes as we do than from talking to others who hold quite different views” (Hewstone, pp. 383). Of course, there are those challenge-seekers who prefer to form relationships with those whose attitudes differ from their own in order to be made stronger. Or there are many individuals who prefer someone who will compliment, rather than mirror, oneself. For instance, in a study down by Dryer and Horowitz, dominant individuals were found to be “most satisfied interacting with individuals who were instructed to play a submissive role” and vice versa (Hewstone, pp. 385). This type of relationship is often found in the marriage context.
One of the best examples of propinquity and similarity in the formation of friendships that I have seen recently was among our group of Americans who came to Oxford to study this semester. Even though most of the 150 of us had never met before, friendships were formed rather quickly. This had to do with the fact that a.) we saw each other every day, nearly all day and b.) we were all American students who were being forced to cope with living in a foreign land. Even though many of the students in the group would not have attempted to form a friendship with the same people had we all been back at home, these two factors led to many intense, quickly-forming relationships. Intense because many felt it was necessary support for survival and quickly-forming because the only other option was isolation. Hewstone states, “We are social beings, and the presence of others, especially when they provide us with social support, can be crucially important when we are faced with adversity such as stress and illness” (pp. 371). In this case, our adversity was dealing with a culture and social norms much different than our own. The stress of “fitting in” forced many of the students to form friendships so as to avoid relying on the support of strangers. Although there have been many positive results of these friendships, one quandary is the hindrance it puts on the probability of the American students making friends with the British students. Because, after two weeks, most have settled in and formed their stable attachments, it is less likely for them to reach out to those who are new to their world.
Friendships are very difficult to define, because they vary according to different cultures. In the Western world, friendships are much more relaxed, “in other societies … friendship is institutionalized, and may be marked by ritual (e.g. blood brotherhoods) and require even more lasting commitment” (Hinde, pp. 412). Many cultures have much more rigid contexts for the formation of friendships. Friendships not only vary across cultures, but also across time. Because of the continuously changing nature of friendship, it is extremely complicated to form one general definition. One thing that is clear about friendship across cultures and time is its mutuality. All friendships require the support of both individuals involved.
In the West, it should be noted that most relationships are not entities, but processes “in continuous creation through dialectical relations with other levels of social complexity” (Hinde, pp. 477). Relationships require hard work and motivation for success. Recognizing relationships as continual processes increases the importance of first-impressions during the formation stages of friendships and the impact they can have on long-term relationships.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment