In a culture where followership is being counted on Instagram and Twitter, where the term friend has been short-circuited to “follower” and “following”, a simple question needs an honest answer: Does it matter if a person has friends? Decades of psychological research indicate that relationships are not about quantity, but quality. It’s not about how many people someone has in their social network, but more about the nature of those social networks.
The individual with 500 contacts on social media is more socially isolated than the individual with three close friends whom they really know. Social networks are not all equal in terms of their size. In this article, we discuss the psychological significance of close, meaningful friendship, the impact of social support on the mind and body, and why, in the realm of human connection, quality trumps quantity.
Read More: Why Adult Friendships End: Emotional Compatibility and Life Changes
The Impact that Close Friendships can have on the Mind and Body
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is from a long-term study carried out at Harvard University: the Harvard Study of Adult Development is a study of men that has been running for more than eighty years. The most consistent and replicated finding of this study is that the quality of a person’s relationships in midlife is a greater predictor of healthy ageing, happiness, and longevity than is their cholesterol level, wealth or professional success.
In the end, the study’s director, Robert Waldinger, found that close relationships shield individuals from the stresses of life and decrease mental and physical ageing (Vaillant, 2012). The biological benefits of close social connections involve an engagement in the body’s nurturing system, which releases a hormone called oxytocin that has been linked to trust, bonding and emotional warmth.
Oxytocin decreases the physiological stress response of the body through decreasing cortisol levels (the main stress hormone) and suppressing amygdala (the alarm centre of the brain) activity (Taylor, 2006). Literally, spending time with a close friend who makes one feel safe and understood pacifies the nervous system. Loneliness, the sense that one is isolated from people, even when they are physically surrounded by them, has a negative influence.
Over the years, neuroscientist John Cacioppo has been studying loneliness and has discovered that being lonely triggers a low-level threat response in the body: raises blood pressure, skews sleep, raises inflammatory markers, lowers immune function. Lonely people tend to be depressed, suffer from dementia as they get older, and have cardiovascular disease.
Importantly, it was the sense of social isolation, or feeling alone, and not actually being alone, that was responsible for these effects (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). People may have people around them but be completely feeling the effects of loneliness in their physiology. The heart of the issue is the lack of a general correlation between friendship quantity and social wellness. A lot of contacts cannot prevent loneliness if they lack understanding, care and emotional security. The brain has no measure of friends; it measures how it feels known and safe.
Read More: Why Therapy Isn’t the Same as Friendship: The Science Behind Empathy and Expertise
Social Support: What it is, what it does, and why depth matters
In psychology, social support refers to the emotional, practical, and informational resources that an individual gets from their relationships. It is normally seen in four categories on the basis of research. Emotional Support is the feeling of being heard, understood and cared for when things go wrong, by a friend who listens without judgment.
Instrumental support is practical assistance people who drive to the hospital, help with childcare when a crisis arises, or who take food to the hospital when someone is ill. Informational support is the sharing of useful information, advice, guidance or knowledge and appraisal support is feedback that assists a person to assess his/her situation and is offered by a trusted friend who tells him/her what is true, rather than what they want to hear (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
Over the years, the key lesson in social support research has been that it is not every form of social support that can be delivered through superficial relationships. Emotional support, the most psychologically powerful of the four support types, needs a certain level of trust, history, and vulnerability to be developed, which takes time and investment. You may ask a friend or family member to suggest a physician.
No one can sit with another in fear but a close friend. Emotional support has been shown repeatedly to more consistently predict mental health outcomes, as well as life satisfaction and resilience to stress; the number of people available does not predict such outcomes (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Thoits, 2011). One of the most influential models concerning the protective effect of social support on mental health is the stress-buffering model first put forth by Cohen and Wills (1985). The hypothesis is that social support helps to maintain wellbeing, and specifically buffers the effect of stressful life events.
Close social support occurs at several points during the experience of a serious difficulty (loss of job, bereavement, illness, relationship breakdown): when it helps the person to interpret the situation as manageable, to have the resources they need to deal with it, either practically or emotionally, and to strengthen their sense of self and community at a time when all three are at risk.
Although many superficial relationships exist, they cannot do this. The model of the stress buffer also requires that a person have a certain level of depth of relationship with another individual- a trust, history, and a true knowledge of the individual to receive the specific, responsive support needed during a state of stress. That’s why studies repeatedly show that how well one feels socially related (felt known and supported) is a much greater determinant of psychological well-being than the actual number of social contacts (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2000).
Read More: The Science Behind Why Shared Celebration Strengthens Female Friendships
Dunbar’s Number: The Brain’s Natural Limit for Close Connection
Studies of primate groups and human communities, including cross-cultural studies, have led evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar to suggest that the human brain is limited in the number of stable social relationships it can hold at any given time: 150 people. Now known as Dunbar’s number, this is the number of people with whom a person can maintain meaningful social bonds: knowing who they are, how they relate to others and having some shared history (Dunbar, 1992).
However, there are a number of inner circles of increasing intimacy within that outer one of 150. The inner ring- the 3-5 people that a person would turn to in crisis, people who really know them and whose loss will be devastating. The next circle is close friends who the individual interacts with on a regular and meaningful basis, and consists of about 10-15 people. They are actually very similar across vastly different cultures and eras, and reflect true cognitive and emotional limitations, not cultural conditioning (Dunbar, 2018).
Dunbar’s findings make a clear statement in the ‘quality vs. quantity’ dilemma. People cannot expand close friendships infinitely because they need to invest time, attention, shared experiences, and emotional energy into them, and these resources remain limited. Individuals use their finite social and cognitive resources across all of their close relationships. It is why close friendships are scarce, and why they are good- because they are an investment of one person in another that is companionship that is valuable and lasting.
Social media has extended the outer layers of social connectivity by a huge amount, enabling people to keep track of a hundred, even a thousand, acquaintances. Studies on social media and well-being repeatedly show that when people don’t interact with the social lives of others, and just passively watch others’ social lives, they tend to feel lonelier, envious, and less satisfied with their lives. Active, reciprocal, personal interaction, on the other hand, is present in the opposite pattern: that of friendship (Verduyn et al., 2015).
Read More: When Old Friendships Trigger Jealousy in Marriage: A Psychological Perspective
Friendship and Life Satisfaction: What Long-term Research Reveals
One of the most researched aspects in positive psychology is life satisfaction, which is an individual’s self-assessment of the quality of their life. The strength of social relationships is a consistent predictor of life satisfaction across cultures, ages, and income levels. It is often more predictive than factors commonly thought to make people happier. These factors include an increase in income beyond a comfortable baseline, career status, and material possessions (Diener & Seligman, 2002).
A pivotal study conducted by Diener and Seligman (2002) compared the top 10% of the happiest college students with average and unhappy students. The study found that among the very happy group, income, attractiveness, and achievement were not the best distinguishing factors. Instead, it was the quality of their social relationships that mattered most. All the members of the happiest group had meaningful and rich social connections. None of them said that they spent much time alone. In conclusion, the research found that happiness is a social phenomenon. Depth, reciprocity, and caring are crucial factors in the social connections that lead to it.
Deci and Ryan (2000) have proposed a large-scale motivational framework called self-determination theory. It focuses on relatedness as one of three fundamental psychological needs necessary for a person to thrive. Relatedness involves more than social interaction. It means that people feel connected, care for others, receive care from others, and recognise their own importance in relationships.
Even when people show no apparent distress, unmet relational needs can affect their motivation, well-being, and self-worth. This is especially true when they have social contact without experiencing genuine connection. People experience a very real psychological hardship. This happens when they surround themselves with individuals who do not know or care about their condition.
Research on ageing complicates this understanding. Several studies of older people consistently show this pattern. Those who have a few close, emotionally rich relationships have higher levels of subjective well-being. This is compared to those with a large number of emotionally shallow relationships. Socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1992) suggests that with increasing age, people become more aware of time as a finite resource.
It is natural for older people to focus on relationships that are emotionally significant rather than on the number of relationships they have. Older adults do not experience this selectivity as a consolation prize for a smaller social world. Instead, they associate it with higher emotional well-being and greater life satisfaction. It is a sign of meaningful social choice rather than social shrinkage.
Read More: The Mirror of Friendship: How Close Friends Shape and Reflect Us
Conclusion
The findings from the neuroscience, social psychology, evolutionary science, and positive psychology literature converge. It is not about who an individual knows. It is about how well they know them and who knows them as well. There’s a physiological calmness to oxytocin. There’s a stress-busting element to true support. Also, there’s a sense of life satisfaction in feeling truly connected. There is also an evolutionary architecture of Dunbar’s inner circle that all converge towards the same conclusion. Friendship is not a frivolous or obligatory act. Humans require this basic emotional need. People cannot satisfy it through an ephemeral relationship, no matter how common such relationships become.
But it is not as though social networks on a wider scale provide no benefits. Having lots of acquaintances is not necessarily a bad thing. It is the time, attention, and vulnerability needed to establish and maintain a close friendship. This makes it one of the most psychologically fulfilling experiences one can engage in. The discomfort of being honest, present, and emotionally open in a close relationship is exactly what makes it protective.
References +
- Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Ageing, 7(3), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331
- Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.98.2.310
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
- Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047- 2484(92)90081-J
- Dunbar, R. I. M. (2018). The anatomy of friendship. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.10.004
- Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
- Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Ageing, 15(2), 187–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882- 7974.15.2.187
- Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00451.x
- Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 52(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395592
- Vaillant, G. E. (2012). Triumphs of experience: The men of the Harvard Grant Study. Harvard University Press.
- Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., … Kross, E. (2015). Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057
