Content uploaded by Metin Özdemir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Metin Özdemir on Jun 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Friendship*and*Happiness
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
Melikşah Demir
Editor
Friendship-and-Happiness
Across-the-Life4Span-and-Cultures
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
!"#$%&'()&*)+,')&-+.)-%%%!"#$%&'()&*)+,')&-+/)/%01#2234
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014960236
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London.
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer Netherlands is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com).
Editor
Melikşah Demir
Department of Psychology
Northern Arizona University
56789:7;;
<=>?2@7
A"<
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
117
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
Melikşah Demir, Haley Orthel-Clark, Metin Özdemir *
and*Sevgi*Bayram*Özdemir
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
M. Demir (ed.), !"#$%&'(#)*+%&*,+))#%$''-*#
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3_7
M. Özdemir ()#
Center for Developmental Research, School of Law, #
Psychology and Social Work, Örebro University 701 82 Örebro, Sweden
e-mail: metin.ozdemir@oru.se
M. Demir
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
e-mail: Meliksah.Demir@nau.edu
H. Orthel-Clark
Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, NV, USA
e-mail: horthelclark@tmcc.edu
S. Bayram Özdemir
e-mail: sevgiozdemir1@gmail.com
Friendship is a cherished, personal relationship among young adults. The popularity
of television shows such as Friends, which has been broadcasted across the globe,
and movies such as Thelma & Louis, Circle of Friends, Good Will Hunting, and I
Love You, Man, highlight the importance of friendships in one’s life. More impor%
tantly, the implicit assumption among laypeople that this invaluable bond plays a
key role in the lives and well-being of young adults, has been recognized and stud%
ied by social scientists. Since the seminal works of Watson (1930), Wilson (1967),
Diener (1984) and theoretical arguments of Sanchez-Hidalgo (1953), significant
progress has been observed in the literature, especially in the last three decades.
During this time period, researchers have documented the importance of friendship
as a robust correlate of happiness. Specifically, this line of research has shown that
various indices of friendship are reliably related to happiness among young adults
across ethnic and cultural groups and has also addressed how friendship is related
to happiness (Demir et al. 2013b). Collectively, the literature leaves no doubt that
friendship has implications for happiness. Yet, as it will be argued in our review,
more research on the topic is needed in order to address some limitations of the
current literature.
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the literature that has been compiled
over the years, assessing the association between friendship and happiness for young
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
118 M.#Demir#et#al.
adults. As a note, our review will not include studies that address online friendships,
or friendships strictly maintained via social media venues. Our chapter is organized
around three primary focal points that address assessment, theoretical review and
new directions within the field. More specifically, we have provided an overview
of how friendship and happiness are often measured, in an effort to clarify how
these two concepts are construed in the literature. Additionally, we have provided
a brief review of the theoretical arguments, and a detailed account of the empirical
evidence regarding the association between friendship and happiness. Finally, we
have included directions for future research that may promote the development of a
better understanding of the link between friendship and happiness.
Conceptualization*and*Measurement*of*Friendship**
and*Happiness
Happiness is conceptualized as the combination of cognitive and affective evalua%
tions of one’s own life (Miao et al. 2013; Pavot and Diener 2013). The assessment
of happiness is often based on the measures of global life satisfaction and the rela%
tive weight of positive affect in relation to negative affect. Many well-established
scales exist to measure these components (see Miao et al. 2013 for a review). Ad%
ditional scales assess the individual’s global and subjective feelings of happiness
(Lyubomirksy and Lepper 1999). In some instances, studies rely on a single-item
measure of happiness when investigating the friendship-happiness association (e.g.,
Gladow and Ray 1986).
Friendship is a voluntary interdependence between two individuals that includes
the experience and satisfaction of various provisions (intimacy, support, self-vali%
dation) to varying degrees (Hays 1988; Demir et al. 2014). Friendship is a mixed
blessing such that it also involves conflict (Berndt and McCandless 2009; Solano
1986). Thus, it is appropriate to consider friendship as having two major dimen%
sions: overall quality that includes various provisions and conflict. Commonly used
scales addressing these dimensions include the Network of Relationships Inventory
(NRI) (Furman and Buhrmester 1985) and the McGill Friendship Questionnaire-
Friend’s Functions (MFQ-FF) (Mendelson and Aboud 1999). Another dimension
of friendship that is frequently studied in the literature includes the assessment of
friendship quantity (Demir and Weitekamp 2007; Requena 1995). Friendship quan%
tity is typically measured with a single item, which asks participants to report their
number of close friends. Yet, this dimension alone does not tell much about how
individuals experience their friendships (Demir et al. 2013b). Thus, differentiating
the degree of closeness among one’s friends and assessing the quality and conflict
experienced in every friendship would be ideal. Finally, relationship scholars in the
field have also focused on satisfaction with friends (Jones 1991; Lyubomirsky et al.
2006). This index of friendship has also typically been assessed with a single item
(Michalos#1980; Lyubomirsky et al. 2006); yet there are a few scales adapted (e.g.,
Morry#2003) or developed (e.g., Tsuzuki and Matsui 2000) to measure friendship
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
119
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
satisfaction. Overall, these four indices of friendship (i.e. quantity, quality, conflict,
and satisfaction) have been studied in the literature when investigating the relation%
ships between friendship and happiness.
Theoretical*Background*and*Review*of*Empirical*
Evidence
Theoretical+Contributions
Individuals across all walks of life and scholars studying friendship have the com%
mon assumption that friendship is important for happiness. Not surprisingly, friends
and friendships (having a friend, interactions with friends) have emerged as themes
or factors in a plethora of studies that have investigated sources of happiness among
young adults across cultures (Caunt et al. 2013; Coleta and Coleta 2006; Lu and
Shih#1997; Tafarodi et al. 2012). Yet, the question still remains, why would friend%
ship be related to happiness? Although ancient philosophers have elaborated on the
topic and provided some insight (Lynch, this volume; Pangle 2003), theoreticians
and researchers in the field of psychology have only been working on this issue for
the past three decades. For instance, it has been argued that friendship is related to
happiness because it fulfills a fundamental human need for social interaction (Bau%
meister and Leary 1995; Demir and Davidson 2013; Lyubomirsky 2007). Other
explanations primarily focus on specific provisions experienced in the friendship to
explain why this unique bond is related to or predictive of happiness. Specifically,
support received from the friend, intimacy in the relationship, spending time with
friends, and engaging in enjoyable activities with the friend have been proposed to
account#for#the#friendship%happiness#association#(Argyle#2001; Cooper et al. 1992;
Demir and Weitekamp 2007; Diener and Biswas-Diener 2008, Lyubomirsky 2007;
Reis 2001; Taylor 2010). Collectively, these arguments provide insight on the as%
sociation between friendship experiences and happiness.
Empirical+Findings
!"#$%&'(#)*./+%0#01*+%&*,+))#%$''2 As addressed above, there are multiple dimen%
sions of friendships and each of them has been studied in relation to happiness among
young adults. To start with, a significant number of studies have shown a positive
association between the number of friends one claims to have and happiness across
different#ethnic#and#cultural#groups#(Berry#and#Hansen#1996; Burt 1987; Demir and
Weit ek am p 2007; Ellison 1990; Requena 1995; Taylor et al. 2001; Ying 1995). Yet,
the strength of association is typically low. Specifically, the correlation between
number of friends and happiness varies between " = 0.10 and 0.20 (see Lucas and
Dyrenforth 2006; Pinquart and Sörensen 2000 for meta-analytic reviews).
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
120 M.#Demir#et#al.
!"#$%&'(#)*./+3#01*+%&*,+))#%$''2 As for friendship quality, empirical studies have
consistently documented a positive association between friendship quality (overall
quality or single relationship provisions) and happiness among young adults across
cultures (Brannan et al. 2013; Cheng and Furnham 2003; Demir and Weitekamp
2007; Demir et al. 2007, 2011b, 2012, 2013a, 2013c; Lu 1995, 1999). The magni%
tude of the correlations across studies is often small to moderate ranging between
" = 0.20 and 0.40. An interesting finding in the literature is that the importance of
friendship quality for happiness varies by the degree of friendship closeness. A few
studies gathered relationship quality data for the participants’ best and two next
closest friends (Demir 2007; Demir and Özdemir 2010; Demir et al. 2007, 2011a).
Although the quality of every friendship was positively related to happiness, the
association was stronger for best friendship. Also, Demir et al. (2007) have found
that only best friendship quality emerged as a significant predictor when all friend%
ships competed for variance in happiness. Moreover, both studies found interactions
highlighting the importance of best friends. For example, the quality of other close
relationships did not matter for young adults’ happiness when the best friendship
was of low quality. Clearly, the benefits that might be accrued from less close friend%
ships are contingent on high quality relationship experiences with one’s best friend.
As Demir et al. (2013b, p. 863) aptly stated “… it is reasonable to suggest that it
might not be the number of friends one has, but the varying degrees of friendship
quality within one’s network of closest friends that matters most for happiness.”
!"#$%&'(#)*4+0#'5+60#7%*+%&*,+))#%$''2 A considerable number of studies focusing
on friendship satisfaction yielded a positive association between happiness across
cultures as well (Cooper et al. 1992; Diener and Diener 1995; Headey 1981; Lee
et al. 2002; Lyubomirsky et al. 2006; Michalos and Orlando 2006; Rojas 2006). The
strength of the correlation between satisfaction with friends and happiness varies
between " = 0.20 and 0.60. Overall, the available literature suggests that friendship
quality and relationship satisfaction are more important than quantity for happiness
among young adults.
!"#$%&'(#)*87%53#60*+%&*,+))#%$''2 Of the four indices of friendship, the associa%
tion of conflict with happiness among young adults has received the least amount of
attention from scholars. The findings from a limited number of studies addressing
the impact of conflict with friends are mixed. Some of the existing studies reported
a low to small negative correlation ranging from " = − 0.10 to 0.30 (Berry et al. 2000;
Demir 2010; Demir and Orthel 2011; Demir and Weitekamp 2007). Evidence also
exists suggesting that friendship conflict is similarly related to happiness among
women and men ( "' = − 0.28 and − 0.30, respectively) (Demir and Orthel 2011).
However, some other studies reported no significant association between friendship
conflict and happiness (Demir and Özdemir 2010; Demir et al. 2007). These incon%
sistent findings suggest that the relationship between friendship conflict (frequency,
resolution, management) and happiness should be examined in future research,
especially with a focus on potential moderating factors such as gender and culture.
!"#$%&'(#)94)$6#5#6*:;)$"#$%6$'* +%&* ,+))#%$''2 One promising line of research
that is growing in the literature focuses on specific friendship experiences such as
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
121
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
perceived autonomy support from friends (Deci et al. 2006) and perceived mat%
tering to friends (Demir et al. 2011b). This line of research is important because it
offers a broader, and perhaps a more theoretically coherent, perspective on friend%
ship as it relates to happiness. That is, although decades of research leave no doubt
that number of friends, satisfaction with friends, and friendship quality are related
to happiness (to varying degrees) for young adults across different cultures, these
studies do not tell much about how friendship specific experiences are related to
happiness. The greening and ripening of relationship science (Berscheid 1999;
Reis 2007) has undoubtedly helped friendship researchers as they move beyond the
investigation of friendship quality, quantity and their associations with happiness.
For instance, romantic relationship researchers have begun to propose and construct
measures that are "$3+0$& to relationship quality and satisfaction; however, they are
distinct in that they tap into more specific romantic relationship experiences (e.g.,
Gable et al. 2004). Recent work has begun to apply this same method to the study of
friendships (Demir et al. 2013). Additionally, self-determination theory (Deci and
Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000)#in#general#and#its#constructs#across#sub%theories#
has been studied in friendship context (e.g., Deci et al. 2006; Demir et al. 2011a).
Three recent studies deserve attention at this point. First, Ratelle et al. (2013)#
distinguished perceived autonomy support from multiple figures (parent, friends,
romantic partner) and found that support for autonomy from friends was positively
related to happiness (the composite score for happiness atypically included academic
life satisfaction). The authors also found that participants experienced the highest
level of happiness only when each relationship figure was perceived to be highly
autonomy supportive. It is important to note that this interesting finding could not
have been obtained had the authors not distinguished types of relationships. Second,
Demir et al. (2011a) have argued that perceived autonomy support from the friend
has the potential to promote relationship maintenance behaviors, which in turn is re%
lated to happiness. This mediation model was supported for the best and first closest
friendships among young adults using three different measures of happiness. Over%
all, these studies suggest that autonomy support from friends is related to happiness
through a mechanism that can be explained by friendship maintenance. Third, Demir
and Davidson (2013) showed that perceived mattering to the friend, perceived re%
sponses to one’s capitalization attempts, and satisfaction of basic needs in the friend%
ship were related to happiness. These findings generalized to both sexes and it was
shown that the above friendship experiences explained 19 and 27 % of the variance
in happiness among women and men, respectively. When the variables competed
for variance, needs satisfaction emerged as the most important predictor of happi%
ness in both groups. These studies clearly suggest that there is more to learn about
the friendship-happiness association, in addition to what we already know, based on
the satisfaction of various provisions (e.g., intimacy), relationship satisfaction, and
friendship quantity. Future research has the potential to develop a broader under%
standing of the topic by focusing on relationship specific experiences and feelings.
The current literature leaves no doubt that friendship is a robust and consis%
tent correlate of happiness. Our review suggests that the relationships of friendship
quality and satisfaction with happiness are stronger than friendship quantity. As
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
122 M.#Demir#et#al.
noted above, there is still more research that needs to be conducted before we can
firmly grasp the conflict-happiness association. However, it is gratifying that recent
research is moving beyond traditional correlates of friendship and happiness. As il%
lustrated in the aforementioned studies, the scope of friendship research has begun
to widen and encompass unique contributions of friendship-specific experiences as
they relate to happiness. It is essential to keep pace with these growing trends and
begin to discover how important friendship is to happiness when major correlates of
happiness and other close relationships of the young adults are taken into account.
We address this issue in the next section.
How*Important*is*Friendship*to*Happiness?
Our review of the literature suggests that friendship is a consistent correlate of
happiness among young adults. Yet, a few critical issues need to be presented and
highlighted before making strong statements about the importance of friendship
for happiness. These issues pertain to the methodological limitations that can be
identified within friendship and happiness studies, in addition to the role of friend%
ship in happiness when studied alongside robust correlates of happiness and other
significant bonds young adults maintain.
To start with, although various indices of friendship are consistently related to
happiness across studies and cultural groups, the correlations are generally small to
moderate. Thus, we dont believe that it would be appropriate to claim that friend%
ship is a major source of happiness (see Demir et al. 2013b) because doing so would
be an overstatement (Lucas and Dyrenforth 2006; Lucas et al. 2008). Additionally,
shared method variance is a common problem in the literature since most studies
rely on self-report measures of single informants. It has been argued that variables
that are measured using the same method, and through the same informants may
lead to inflation in the observed correlation estimates (DeVellis 2011). Thus, the
observed small to moderate association between friendship and happiness could
be partially affected by the shared method variance (Lucas et al. 2008). However,
studies that used other methods such as observational, experience sampling, and
longitudinal design have also reported a positive association between friendship
and#happiness#(Berry#and#Hansen#1996; Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter 2003; Grabill
and Kerns 2000; Larson 1990; Lu 1999). In sum, the small to moderate association
between friendship and happiness seems to be robust across various study methods.
Future multi-method and multi-informant research is needed though to provide fur%
ther support to this observation.
Second, convincing empirical evidence suggesting that friendship is a predic%
tor of happiness, above and beyond the major correlates of happiness, is needed
to highlight the importance of friendship for happiness. A well-established find%
ing# in# the# literature# is# that# personality# is# one# of# the# strongest# predictors# of# hap%
piness such that it explains as high as 50 % of the variance in happiness (Diener
et al. 1999; Lyubomirksy et al. 2005). Moreover, it is well-documented that various
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
123
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
personality characteristics such as extraversion and agreeableness are related to
friendship (Demir and Weitekamp 2007; Nelson et al. 2011; Selfhout et al. 2010). It
could be that personality might be the common cause of both friendship experiences
and happiness. Thus, the relationship between friendship experiences and happi%
ness might disappear once personality is taken into account. However, empirical
research among young adults in different cultures has shown that this is not the case.
Specifically, it has been shown that friendship experiences (e.g., quality) explained
additional variance in happiness above and beyond the influence of personality
among young adults in Taiwan, Turkey, and the U.S. (Demir and Doğan in#press;
Demir and Weitekamp 2007; Lu 1999). Overall, these findings across cultures sug%
gest that friendship is an important correlate of happiness among young adults; even
when major correlates of happiness are taken into account.
Third, the importance of friendship for happiness among young adults could
be tested more strictly when other significant relationships young adults main%
tain are assessed simultaneously. Although this issue has been more frequently
addressed in other age groups (e.g., Bertera 2005; Li and Cheng, this volume;
Okun and Keith 1998; Walen and Lachman 2000), a few studies among young
adults shed light on the topic. Demir (2010) examined the relative importance of
close relationships with mother, father, best friend, and romantic partner among
young adults with and without a romantic partner. Friendship quality was posi%
tively associated with happiness in both groups. Although friendship quality
was the most important predictor of happiness among single adults, it did not
emerge as a predictor of happiness for young adults involved in a romantic re%
lationship. Further, Brannan et al. (2013) studied the associations of perceived
social support from family and friends with happiness among college students
from Iran, Jordan, and the United States of America. Although perceived family
and friendship support were positively related to happiness across all cultures,
friendship support emerged as a predictor of happiness only for Jordanians and
Americans. These findings suggest that while friendship is cross-culturally
relevant, it is more important within some cultural contexts relative to others
when simultaneously assessed with support received from family. These stud%
ies among young adults suggest that the role and importance of friendship for
happiness might change depending on one’s relationship status and when the
quality of multiple close relationships is taken into account in different cultures.
To reiterate, how important is friendship to happiness? Although theoreti%
cians have argued that friendship is a major source of happiness (Argyle 2001;
Edwards and Klemmack 1973), our review suggests that this argument could
be debated. Certainly, friendship is a reliable and consistent correlate of happi%
ness among young adults even when taking major correlates of happiness into
account. Yet, the robust association of friendship with happiness might change
depending upon one’s relationship status and culture. Future research has the
potential to develop a stronger account of the friendship-happiness link. We
provide some theoretical and methodological directions to achieve this goal in
the next section.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
124 M.#Demir#et#al.
Future*Directions
Decades of empirical research leave no doubt that friendship is a source of happi%
ness and various friendship experiences are related to happiness to varying degrees.
Although this literature will continue to grow in the following years, there are a
number of theoretical and methodological issues that need to be addressed to fur%
ther the field. We believe that the issues raised below are not strictly relevant to
young adult friendship-happiness research, but would benefit friendship-happiness
research across various age groups.
It has become apparent over the years, that there is a need to develop reliable and
valid measurement strategies. There are a number of close social relationships that
might be mixed with friendship relations. Evidence suggests that people may con%
sider their relatives, siblings, or romantic partners as friends (Demir and Weitekamp
2007; Sheets and Lugar 2005). Also, it is possible to differentiate between friend%
ships as best friends, close friends, and ordinary friends. Young adults who were
provided with a definition of close friendship reported having fewer close friends
compared to their reports without a definition (Demir and Özdemir 2010; Reisman
1981). Thus, assessment procedures should include a clear definition of the targeted
friendship relationship. The observed associations that are obtained without a clear
definition may not provide clear evidence for reliable conclusions.
Related to the point above, it is essential that future empirical research distinguish
friendship from other relationships when investigating the association of social sup%
port or relationship satisfaction with happiness. Decades of theoretical work support%
ed with empirical research leave no doubt that relationships, satisfaction with them
(Baumeister and Leary 1995), and social support is related to happiness (e.g., Lakey
2013). Yet, recent empirical studies either do not specify the source of support, satis%
faction with support, or the researchers combine support received from multiple fig%
ures (e.g., family, friends) as they investigate the relationship between support and
happiness (Darbonne et al. 2013; Galinha et al. 2012; Herrero et al. 2011; Kong and
Yo u in#press; Siedlecki et al. in#press, Zhu et al., 2013). Although the findings from
this line of research are valuable, the findings convey the same well-accepted mes%
sage that relationships and perceived support do matter for happiness. Yet, it doesn’t
specify the role of friendships in happiness. More importantly, theoretical arguments
(e.g., Cantor 1979; Collins and Madsen 2006; Simons 1983–1984; see Li and Cheng
(this volume) for a review) and empirical research have clearly highlighted that dif%
ferent relationships serve different functions and play different roles in well-being
not only in young adulthood but also in different age groups (Antonucci et al. 2004;
Furman and Buhrmester 1992; Carbery and Buhrmester 1998; Demir 2010; Pinquart
and Sörensen 2000). Thus, we believe that a clear differentiation of friendship from
other relationships in future research would enhance our understanding of the posi%
tion of friendship in one’s social network as it is related to happiness.
A review of current literature shows that there has been little focus on cross-sex
friendships as most research has focused on same-sex friendship. This is a notable
limitation of the literature since individuals establish and maintain platonic cross-
sex friendships across the lifespan and this is especially common among young
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
125
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
adults#(Monsour#2002). Although developing and maintaining cross-sex friendships
might be difficult in different age groups, due to various adaptive and developmen%
tal tasks (Lewis et al., this volume), Procsal and her colleagues (Procsal et al., this
volume) have shown that cross-sex friendship is a reliable correlate of happiness in
different cultures. We believe that more research on the topic, especially cross-cul%
tural investigations, is needed to establish confidence in the findings that cross-sex
friendships are related to happiness, and to identify possible mediators and modera%
tors of this association.
Since the association of friendship with happiness is well-established in the lit%
erature, we believe that it is time researchers focus on the mediators and moderators
of this association (Demir et al. 2013; Demir et al. in press; Demir and Özdemir
2010). This call is consistent with Wilson (1967) who argued that there should be
less of an emphasis in the literature in which happiness is merely correlated with
variables. Understanding how, why, and when friendship is related to happiness is
necessary to develop a comprehensive understanding of the friendship-happiness
link. A few recent studies gave heed to these calls and have shown that satisfaction
of basic psychological needs in friendships (Demir and Özdemir 2010), perceived
mattering to friends (Demir et al. 2011b), and personal sense of uniqueness (Demir
et al. 2013c) accounted for the relationship between friendship quality and hap%
piness. More importantly, the mediating roles of needs satisfaction and perceived
mattering was observed across multiple friendships (best and the next two closest).
As this review showed, friendship is associated with happiness regardless of the
assessment of the constructs. Thus, the task before us is to keep investigating why
this is the case.
As for the moderators of the association, gender has been a commonly investi%
gated variable. Although gender might moderate the relationship between relation%
ship quality in intimate relationships and happiness (Saphire-Bernstein and Taylor
2013), studies focusing on friendship have shown that the associations of friendship
experiences (quality, perceived mattering) with happiness are similar across gender
(Demir and Davidson 2013; Demir et al. 2013b). On the other hand, past research
has shown that being in a romantic relationship and progress towards the resolu%
tion of developmental tasks such as identity formation moderated the friendship-
happiness link (Demir 2010; Demir et al. 2013b; Walen and Lachman 2000). For
instance, Demir (2010) has reported that friendship quality was not related to hap%
piness among emerging adults who had higher levels of conflict in their romantic
relationships. Further research is needed to examine other potential moderators,
such as culture, to understand if or when the relationship between friendship and
happiness may change.
Another#key#issue#to#consider#pertains#to#the#use#of#college#students#in#psycho%
logical research. The studies reviewed in this chapter overwhelmingly relied on
college students. Reliance on college students in research has been criticized mainly
because of the limited generalizability of findings to other age groups (Gordon et al.
1986; Henrich et al. 2009; McNemar 1946; Peterson 2001; Reynolds 2010; Sears
1986). Yet, recent studies suggest that college students are more similar than differ%
ent to other age groups and reliance on college students does not threaten the validity
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
126 M.#Demir#et#al.
of findings (Cooper et al. 2011; Wiecko 2010). Although this ongoing debate in the
literature is likely to continue in the following years, reliance on traditional college
students when studying the friendship-happiness association among young adults
might not represent a major concern because studies conducted with the college
population include the implicit assumption that they represent young adults. As
long as generalizations to other age groups are not a concern, reliance on college
students could be justified to some extent. Indeed, since the college students repre%
sent a worthy population of empirical study there are specific journals dedicated to
the understanding of college students’ experiences and large-scale studies investi%
gating the mental health of this population (e.g., Castillo and Schwartz 2013). Yet,
not every young adult in the United States of America (Stratton 2014)#and#in#other#
cultures (e.g., Nelson et al. 2013) goes to college. This fact challenges the implicit
assumption of studies conducted with college students such that findings might be
generalized#to# non%college%attending#young#adults#(Tanner#2006). Although a few
studies have shown that college students are similar to their non-college-attending
peers (e.g., Blanco et al. 2008), no study, to the best of our knowledge, investigated
the friendship-happiness association in these two groups. Thus, it remains to be seen
whether the findings obtained with college students generalize to the young adults
who are not in college.
Although the issues raised above are important, another critical, yet understudied
phenomenon within friendship literature, is the issue of volunteer bias. Considering
that college students are often relied upon as participants in this research domain,
it is essential to examine what (if anything) sets those who are interested in study
participation apart from those who are uninterested. A growing body of research has
documented the potential pitfalls of utilizing research volunteers in non-friendship
related areas of study. Findings from various disciplines have shown that volun%
teers often times significantly differ from non volunteers, suggesting that there is
a self-selection process inherent to research which relies on volunteer convenience
samples (Berman et al. 1998; Strassberg and Lowe 1995; Weiderman 1999). This
phenomenon has been labeled as volunteer bias (Heiman 2002).
While there has been little attention paid to this potential confound within friend%
ship and happiness literature, some preliminary studies have sought to identify
whether this is a valid concern within the field. For example, Orthel and Demir
(2011) asked participants with a same-sex best friend (SSBF) their willingness to
participate in a research study on same-sex friendship. Following this initial ques%
tion, regardless of their willingness and without their knowledge about the content,
participants were then provided with well-established measures tapping into friend%
ship and happiness constructs. Findings revealed that men were less willing than
women to participate in friendship research, a finding consistent with past research
(Lewis et al. 1989). Results also revealed interesting patterns for volunteers and
non-volunteers. Volunteers, compared to non-volunteers, reported higher levels of
relationship quality and friendship specific experiences (e.g., autonomy support)
with moderate effect sizes. Although the groups did not differ from each other on
happiness, the strength of the correlations between friendship variables and happi%
ness were significantly stronger for non-volunteers when compared to volunteers
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
127
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
across men and women. These findings pose a potential threat to the validity of
the findings within young adult friendship research. Specifically, it could be that
we are studying college students who have better friendships. Yet, the friendship-
happiness association is stronger in the non-volunteer group. This pattern suggests
the possibility that reliance on volunteers and their restricted range of data might
be minimizing the magnitude of the relationship that does exist between friend%
ship quality and happiness. As we continue to develop our understanding of the
relationship between happiness and friendship, it is encouraged that researchers be
cognizant of the potential implications of convenience sampling and cautious about
making generalizations.
For#researchers# seeking# to#address#the#significance# of# friendship#for#happiness#
across the lifespan, it is important to note that views of adulthood have begun to
shift towards incorporating a new stage, emerging adulthood (Arnett 2006). It has
been proposed that the period of the human lifespan encompassing the late teens to
the late 20’s is inclusive of unique social experiences (Arnett 2000). Although this
age group has been recognized and a variety of close relationships during this age
group has been studied, few studies focused on friendship among emerging adults
and investigated the friendship-happiness association in this age group (Barry and
Madsen#2010; Collins and van Dulmen 2006; Demir 2010; Lefkowitz et al. 2004).
That is the reason why the focus of of this chapter was on young adults.
Researchers have characterized emerging adulthood as a period of identity ex%
ploration. Thus, while individuals experience what the world has to offer in ways of
work, love, friendship and education, they are likely to experience instability within
these domains just the same (Arnett and Tanner 2006). One could question wheth%
er this trend in instability generalizes to one’s relationships as well. Are emerging
adult friendship needs and experiences distinct relative to other developmental pe%
riods? Do friendship experiences have a unique way of influencing happiness dur%
ing emerging adulthood? At this time, there are more questions than answers with
respect to how friendship experiences may or may not be unique during this stage of
development. Oswald and Clark (2003) showed that during the transition from high
school to college, many emerging adults begin to experience decreased satisfac%
tion, commitment and investment with best friendships from high school. However,
maintenance of best friendships has been shown to have a sort of protective effect
from loneliness (Oswald and Clark 2003). These findings speak to the challenges
that are specific to friendship in emerging adulthood, as well as one of the functions
friendship can serve during this period. Future research should seek to grow our
understanding of friendship and its contributions to happiness for emerging adults.
Additionally, researchers should be careful to distinguish emerging adulthood as
a stage that is distinct from adolescence and young adulthood (Arnett and Tanner
2006). This will undoubtedly be a challenge for researchers because of the possibil%
ity that not every college student is or feels like an emerging adult (Kins and Beyers
2010). We believe that assessment of the achievement of adulthood criteria (Nelson
and#Barry#2005) would be useful when investigating the friendship-happiness asso%
ciation. This approach has the potential to differentiate emerging adults from young
adults. Although this practice requires more work before assessing the friendship
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
128 M.#Demir#et#al.
experiences of the participants, it is needed and essential if we are to develop a clear
understanding of the friendship-happiness association among emerging and young
adults.
The final, but perhaps the most important issue surrounding the friendship-
happiness association, is the question of causality. Some scholars have argued that
friendship is an important source of happiness suggesting a causal link (Argyle
2001; Edwards and Klemmack 1973). Argyle (2001) even proclaimed that social
relationships are the “greatest single cause” of happiness. Nevertheless, this argu%
ment is not supported by evidence yet. Most studies on friendship-happiness as%
sociation are correlational. Correlational studies cannot provide evidence regarding
the direction of effect. Moreover, there is also evidence suggesting that changes
in well-being influences the number of friends, rather than the other way around,
among non-married elderly women (Adams 1988). In sum, there is need for more
research to test the direction of effect between friendship and happiness and the as%
sumption of causality.
The#question# of# directionality# and#causal#link#could# be# addressed# using#differ%
ent research methods. Longitudinal studies may help testing hypotheses regarding
whether changes in friendship experiences are related to changes in happiness or
the other way around. Longitudinal data is also best suited to test mediating mecha%
nisms that may explain why and how friendship is linked to happiness (MacKinnon
et al. 2010). Such studies need to measure multiple aspects of friendship and hap%
piness repeatedly over time, allowing sufficient time to pass between measurement
intervals to observe changes in both friendships and happiness. Researchers may
test direction of effects using cross-lagged models (Finkel 1995)#or#parallel#process#
growth models (Duncan et al. 2006). In addition, researchers may focus on examin%
ing changes in social networks over time using another state-of-the-art method that
can analyze social networks such as SIENA (Simulation Investigation for Empirical
Network Analysis; Ripley et al. 2012). Longitudinal peer nomination data may be
analyzed using network analysis techniques to answer whether friendship forma%
tions over time increase happiness, or whether happiness is predictive of friendship
formations over time. Peer nomination technique is often used to collect data from
school age children and adolescents. However, this technique could also be applied
to college and workplace samples. In sum, state-of-the-art data analysis methods for
longitudinal design could further our understanding of the link between friendship
and happiness, the processes that may explain this association, and eloquently ad%
dress some of the problems inherent in the current literature (e.g., Lucas et al. 2008).
Despite its strengths, longitudinal research design does have limitations when
trying to infer causality. Causal inference requires meeting three different condi%
tions (Shadish et al. 2002). Applying these conditions to the friendship-happiness
link, researchers should demonstrate that (1) changes in friendship should precede
the changes in happiness; (2) changes in friendship is statistically significantly re%
lated to the changes in happiness; and (3) there is no other plausible explanation to
changes in happiness other than the changes in friendship. Longitudinal design may
provide test of the first two conditions. However, all these conditions could only be
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
129
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
met by well-conducted experimental research designs (Shadish et al. 2002). Thus,
prevention trials may provide a new avenue to test the causal link between friend%
ship and happiness. Including carefully designed measurements into the evaluation
of the effectiveness of prevention programs targeting social skills and friendship
relations may further our understanding of the association between friendship and
happiness.
Conclusion
Friendship is a precious and cherished relationship for young adults, especially
among those who are single and in college. Decades of empirical research leave
no doubt that friendship is a reliable correlate of happiness in this age group. The
associations of indices of friendship with happiness are small to moderate in size,
but consistent across gender, ethnic, and cultural groups. Although significant sci%
entific progress has been observed in the last decade, future research investigating
the friendship-happiness association among young adults could be enhanced by ad%
dressing a number of theoretical and methodological considerations. For instance,
by providing clear definitions of what constitutes a friend prior to measuring friend%
ship experiences. In addition, through incorporating multi-method approaches (e.g.
longitudinal, experimental, quasi-experimental) we can undoubtedly enhance con%
fidence#in#the#findings#reported#in#the#literature#and#begin#to#elucidate#the#issue#of#
directionality and causality within the study of friendship and happiness. Address%
ing these challenges has the potential to substantially advance theory and research.
It is well-established that friendship is related to happiness. The task before us is
to keep researching why and when this is the case, by taking the limitations of the
current literature into account.
References
Adams, R. (1988). Which comes first: Poor psychological well-being or decreased friendship ac%
tivity? <60#=#0#$'-*<&+)0+0#7%-*+%&*<>#%>-*?@- 27–42. doi:10.1300/J016v12n01_03.
Antonucci, T., Akiyama, H., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Attachment and close relationships across
the life span. <00+6(A$%0*B*,/A+%* C$=$37)A$%0-*D- 353–370. doi:10.1080/14616730420003
03136.
Argyle, M. (2001). E($*)'16(737>1*75*(+))#%$'' (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Arnett, J. J. (2000) Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. <A$"#6+%*F'16(737>#'0-*GH- 317–326. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.
Arnett, J., & Tanner, J. (2006). :A$">#%>*+&/30'*#%* <A$"#6+I*87A#%>* 75*+>$* #%*0($* @?'0*6$%0/"1.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11381-000.
Barry, C. M., & Madsen, S. D. (2010). Friends and friendships. In T. Clydesdale (Ed.), J(7*+"$*
$A$">#%>*+&/30'K Washington: Changing Spirituality of Emerging Adults Project. http://chang%
ingsea.org/barry.htm.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
130 M.#Demir#et#al.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. F'16(737>#6+3*L/33$0#%-*??M- 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.117.3.497.
Berman, M. E., Fallon, A. E., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). The relationship between personality psy%
chopathology and aggressive behavior in research volunteers. N7/"%+3*75*<O%7"A+3*F'16(739
7>1-*?PM- 651–658. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.107.4.651.
Berndt, T. J., & McCandless, M. A. (2009). Methods of investigating children’s relationships with
friends. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), ,+%&O77Q*75*)$$"*#%0$"+60#7%'-*
"$3+0#7%'(#)'-*+%&*>"7/)' (pp. 63–81). New York: Guilford.
Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and social interaction. N7/"%+3*
75*F$"'7%+3#01*+%&*476#+3*F'16(737>1-*M?- 796–809. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.796.
Berry, D. S., Willingham, J. K., & Thayer, C. A. (2000). Affect and personality as predictors of
conflict and closeness in young adults’ friendships. N7/"%+3*75* R$'$+"6(*#%*F$"'7%+3#01-*SH-#
84–107. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2271.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. <A$"#6+%*F'16(737>#'0-*GH- 260–266.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.4.260.
Bertera, E. M. (2005). Mental health in U.S. adults: The role of positive social support and social
negativity in personal relationships. N7/"%+3*75* 476#+3*+%&*F$"'7%+3*R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*@@- 3–48.
doi:10.1177/0265407505049320.
Blanco, C., Okuda, M., Wright, C., Hasin, D. S., grant, B. F., Liu, S., et al. (2008). Mental health
of college students and their non-college-attending peers: Results from the National Epidemio%
logic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions. <"6(#=$'*75*T$%$"+3*F'16(#+0"1-*DG- 1429–
1437. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429.
Brannan, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Mohr, C. D., Mortazavi, S., & Stein, N. (2013). Friends and fam%
ily: A cross-cultural investigation of social support and subjective well-being among college
students, E($*N7/"%+3*75*F7'#0#=$*F'16(737>1-*U- 65–75. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.743573.
Burt, R. S. (1987). A note on strangers, friends, and happiness. 476#+3*V$0W7"Q'-* X- 311–331.
doi:10.1016/0378-8733(87)90002-5.
Cantor, M. H. (1979). Neighbors and friends: An overlooked resource in the informal support
system. R$'$+"6(*7%*<>#%>-*?- 434–463. doi:10.1177/016402757914002.
Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need fulfillment during three phas%
es of young adulthood. N7/"%+3* 75* 476#+3* +%&* F$"'7%+3* R$3+0#7%'(#)'-* ?G- 393–409.
doi:10.1177/0265407598153005.
Castillo, L. G., & Schwartz, S. J. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on college student mental
health. N7/"%+3*75*83#%#6+3*F'16(737>1-*DX- 291–297. doi:10.1002/jclp.21972.
Caunt, B. S., Franklin, J., Brodaty, N. E., & Brodaty, H. (2013). Exploring the causes of subjective
well-being: A content analysis of people’s recipes for long term happiness. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#9
%$''*40/&#$'-*?H- 475–499. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9339-1.
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality, self-esteem and demographic predictors of happi%
ness and depression. F$"'7%+3#01*+%&*Y%&#=#&/+3*C#55$"$%6$'-*SH- 921–942. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(02)00078-8.
Coleta, J. A. D., & Coleta, M. F. D. (2006). Felicidade, bem-estar subjetivo e comportamento
acadêmico de estudantes universitários (Happiness, subjective well-being and the academic
behavior of university students). F'#6737>#+*$A*:'0/&7*Z[+"#%>\]-*??- 533–539. doi:10.1590/
S1413-73722006000300009.
Collins, W. A., & Madsen, S. D. (2006). Personal relationships in adolescence and early adulthood.
In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), E($* 8+AO"#&>$*(+%&O77Q* 75*)$"'7%+3*"$3+0#7%'(#)'#
(pp. 191–209). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, W. A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood: As%
sessing distinctiveness in close relationships. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), :A$">#%>*
+&/30'*#%*<A$"#6+I*87A#%>*75*+>$*#%*0($*@?'0*6$%0/"1 (pp. 219–234). Washington, DC: Ameri%
can Psychological Association.
Cooper, H., Okamura, L., & Gurka, V. (1992). Social activity and subjective well-being. F$"'7%+39
#01*+%&*Y%&#=#&/+3*C#55$"$%6$'-*?S- 573–583. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90198-X
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
131
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
Cooper, C. A., McCord, D. M., & Socha, A. (2011). Evaluating the college sophomore problem:
The case of personality and politics. E($*N7/"%+3*75*F'16(737>1-*?HG- 23–37. doi:10.1080/002
23980.2010.528074.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience
sampling. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*40/&#$'-*H- 185–199. doi:10.1023/A:1024409732742.
Darbonne, A., Uchino, B. N., & Ong. A. D. (2013). What mediates links between age and well-
being? A test of social support and interpersonal conflict as potential interpersonal pathways.
N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*40/&#$'-*?H- 951–963. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9363-1.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. F'16(737>#6+3*Y%^/#"1-*??- 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965P%
LI1104_01.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits
of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. F$"'7%+3#01*
+%&*476#+3*F'16(737>1*L/33$0#%-*S@- 313–27. doi:10.1177/0146167205282148.
Demir, M. (2007). 837'$* 5"#$%&'(#)'*+%&*(+))#%$''*+A7%>*17/%>* +&/30'. Unpublished PhD Dis%
sertation, Wayne State University, Detroit.
Demir, M. (2010). Close relationships and happiness among emerging adults. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#9
%$''*40/&#$'-*??- 293–313. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9141-x
Demir, M., & Davidson, I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between
friendship and happiness: Perceived responses to capitalization attempts, feelings of mattering,
and satisfaction of basic psychological needs in same-sex best friendships as predictors of hap%
piness. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*40/&#$'-*?H- 525–550. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9341-7.
Demir, M., & Doğan, A. (2013). Same-sex friendship, cross-sex friendship, personality and hap%
piness: A Cross-cultural comparison. In F. Sarracino (ed.), E($*,+))#%$''*87A)+''I*E($7"#$'-*
<60#7%'-*+%&*F$"')$60#=$'*57"*J$339L$#%> (pp. 67-90). NOVA Science Publishers. New York
Demir, M., Doğan, A., & Procsal, A. D. (2013a). I am so happy ‘cause my friend is happy for me:
Capitalization, friendship, and happiness among U.S. and Turkish college students. N7/"%+3*75*
476#+3*F'16(737>1-*?GS- 250–255. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.71.14814.
Demir, M., Jaafar, J., Bilyk, N., & Ariff, M. (2012). Social skills, friendship and happiness: A
cross-cultural investigation. E($*N7/"%+3*75*476#+3*F'16(737>1-*?G@- 379–385. doi:10.1080/00
224545.2011.591451.
Demir, M., & Orthel, H. (2011). Friendships, real-ideal discrepancy, and well-being: Gender dif%
ferences in college students. E($*N7/"%+3*75*F'16(737>1-*?HS- 173–193. doi:10.1080/0022398
0.2010.548413.
Demir, M., Orthel, H., & Andelin, A. K. (2013b). Friendship and happiness. In S. A. David, I.
Boiniwell, & S. C. Ayers (Eds.), E($* _;57"&*(+%&O77Q* 75*(+))#%$'' (pp. 860–870). Oxford:
Oxford Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0063.
Demir, M., & Özdemir, M. (2010). Friendship, need satisfaction and happiness. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#9
%$''*40/&#$'-*??- 243–259. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5.
Demir, M., Özdemir, M., & Marum, K. P. (2011a). Perceived autonomy support, friendship main%
tenance, and happiness. E($*N7/"%+3*75*F'16(737>1-*?HG- 537–571. doi:10.1080/00223980.20
11.607866.
Demir, M., Özdemir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). Looking to happy tomorrow with friends:
Best and close friendships as they predict happiness. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*40/&#$'-*U- 243–271.
doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9025-2.
Demir, M., Özen, A., Dogan-Ates, A., Bilyk, N. A., Tyrell, F., & Nica, A. A. (2011b). I matter to
my friend, therefore I am happy: Friendship, mattering, and happiness. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*
40/&#$'-*?@- 983–1005. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9240-8.
Demir, M., Özen, A, & Procsal, A. (2014). Friendship and happiness. In A. Michalos (ed.), Ency%
clopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2359-2364). Springer.
Demir, M., Şimşek, Ö., & Procsal, A. (2013c). I am so happy ‘cause my best friend makes me feel
unique: Friendship, personal sense of uniqueness and happiness. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*40/&#$'-*
?H(4), 1201–1224. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9376-9.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
132 M.#Demir#et#al.
Demir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). I am so happy ‘cause today I found my friend: Friend%
ship and personality as predictors of happiness. N7/"%+3* 75* ,+))#%$''* 40/&#$'-* U- 181–211.
doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). 46+3$*&$=$37)A$%0I* E($7"1*+%&* +))3#6+0#7%'. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub%
lications.
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). ,+))#%$''I* `%376Q#%>* 0($* A1'0$"#$'* 75* )'16(737>#6+3*
W$+30(. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem.
N7/"%+3*75*F$"'7%+3#01*+%&*476#+3*F'16(737>1-*DU- 653–663. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades
of progress. F'16(737>#6+3*L/33$0#%-*?@G- 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). <%*#%0"7&/60#7%*07*3+0$%0*=+"#+O3$*>"7W0(*
6/"=$*A7&$3#%>I*67%6$)0'-*#''/$'-*+%&*+))3#6+0#7%. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edwards, J. N., & Klemmack, D. L. (1973). Correlates of life satisfaction: Areexamination. N7/"9
%+3*75*T$"7%0737>1-*@U- 497–502.
Ellison, C. G., (1990). Family ties, friendships, and subjective well-being among Black Ameri%
cans. N7/"%+3*75*[+""#+>$*+%&*0($*!+A#31-*G@- 298–310. doi:10.2307/353027.
Finkel, S. E. (1995). 8+/'+3*+%+31'#'*W#0(*)+%$3*&+0+ (Sage University Papers, No: 105). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships
in their social networks. C$=$37)A$%0+3* F'16(737>1-* @?- 1016–1024. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.21.6.1016.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of per%
sonal relationships. 8(#3&*C$=$37)A$%0-*DS- 103–115. doi:10.2307/1130905.
Gable, S., Reis, H., Impett, E., & Asher, E. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The
intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. N7/"%+3*75*F$"'7%+3#01*+%&*
476#+3*F'16(737>1-*UM- 228–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228.
Galinha, I. C., Oishi, S., Pereira, C., Wirtz, D., & Esteves, F. (2012). The role of personality traits,
attachment style, and satisfaction with relationships in the subjective well-being of Ameri%
cans, Portuguese, and Mozambicans. N7/"%+3* 75* 8"7''98/30/"+3* F'16(737>1-# 44- 416–436.
doi:10.1177/0022022112453317.
Gladow, N. W., & Ray, M. P. (1986). The impact of informal support systems on the well-being of
low income single parents. !+A#31*R$3+0#7%'I*N7/"%+3*75*<))3#$&*!+A#31*+%&*8(#3&*40/&#$'-*SG-#
113–123. doi:10.2307/584290.
Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986).The “science” of the sophomore revis%
ited: From conjecture to empiricism. <6+&$A1* 75* [+%+>$A$%0* R$=#$W-* ??(1), 191–207.
doi:10.2307/258340.
Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. F$"'7%+3*
R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*M- 363–78. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00022.x.
Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), ,+%&O77Q*75*)$"'7%+3*"$3+0#7%'(#)'I*E($7"1-*
"$'$+"6(-*+%&*#%0$"=$%0#7%' (pp. 391–408). New York: Wiley.
Headey, B. (1981). The quality of life in Australia. 476#+3* Y%+07"'* R$'$+"6(-* X- 155–181.
doi:10.1007/BF00286195.
Heiman, G. W. (2002). R$'$+"6(*A$0(7&'*#%*)'16(737>1 (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com%
pany.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). The weirdest people in the world. L$(+=#7"+3*
+%&*L"+#%*46#$%6$'-*SS- 61–135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
Herrero, J., Fuente, A., & Gracia, E. (2011). Covariates of subjective well-being among Latin
American immigrants in Spain: The role of social integration in the community. N7/"%+3* 75*
87AA/%#01*F'16(737>1-*SX- 761–775. doi:10.1002/jcop.20468.
Jones, D. C. (1991). Friendship satisfaction and gender: An examination of sex differences in con%
tributors to friendship satisfaction. N7/"%+3*75*476#+3*+%&*F$"'7%+3*R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*U- 167–185.
doi:10.1177/0265407591082002.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
133
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
Kins, E., & Beyers, W. (2010). Failure to launch, failure to achieve criteria for adulthood. N7/"%+3*
75*<&73$'6$%0*R$'$+"6(-*@G- 743–777. doi:10.1177/0743558410371126.
Kong, F., & You, X. (in press). Loneliness and self-esteem as mediators between social support and
life satisfaction in late adolescence. 476#+3*Y%+07"'* R$'$+"6(-*??P- 271–279. doi 10.1007/
s11205-011-9930-6.
Lakey, B. (2013). Perceived social support and happiness: The role of personality and relational
processes. In S. A. David, I. Boiniwell, & S. C. Ayers (Eds.), E($*_;57"&*(+%&O77Q*75*(+))#9
%$'' (pp. 847–859). Oxford: Oxford Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0063.
Larson, R. (1990). The solitary side of life: An examination of the time people spend alone from
childhood to old age. C$=$37)A$%0+3*R$=#$W-*?P- 155–183. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(90)90008-
R.
Lee, D. J., Larsen, V., Sirgy, M. J., & Wright, N. D. (2002). Developing a subjective measure of con%
sumers well-being. N7/"%+3*75*[+6"7A+"Q$0#%>-*@@- 158–169. doi:10.1177/0276146702238219.
Lefkowitz, E. S., Boone, T. L., & Shearer, C. L. (2004). Communication with best friends about
sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. N7/"%+3*75*a7/0(*+%&*<&73$'6$%6$-*SS- 339–351.
doi:10.1023/B:JOYO.0000032642.27242.c1.
Lewis, R. J., Winstead, B. A., & Derlega, V. J. (1989). Gender differences in volunteering for
friendship research. N7/"%+3*75*476#+3*L$(+=#7"*B*F$"'7%+3#01-*HZG], 623–632.
Lu, L. (1995). The relationship between subjective well-being and psychosocial variables in Tai%
wan. N7/"%+3*75*476#+3*F'16(737>1-*?SG(3), 351–357.
Lu, L. (1999). Personal and environmental causes of happiness. N7/"%+3*75*476#+3*F'16(737>1-*?SX-#
79–90. doi:10.1080/00224549909598363.
Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. N7/"%+3*75*476#+3*F'19
6(737>1-*?SM- 181–187. doi:10.1080/00224549709595429.
Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2006) Does the existence of social relationships matter for
subjective well-being? In E. J. Finkel & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), 4$35*+%&*"$3+0#7%'(#)'I*87%%$60#%>*
#%0"+)$"'7%+3*+%&*#%0$")$"'7%+3*)"76$''$' (pp. 254–273). New York: Guildford Press.
Lucas, R. E., Dyrenforth, P. S., & Diener, E. (2008). Four myths about subjective well-being. 476#+3*
+%&*F$"'7%+3#01*F'16(737>1*87A)+''-*@- 2001–2015. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00140.x.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). E($*(7W*75*(+))#%$''I*<*%$W*+))"7+6(*07*>$00#%>*0($*3#5$*17/*W+%0. New
York: Penguin.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. 476#+3* Y%+07"'* R$'$+"6(-* HD- 137–155.
doi:10.1023/A:1006824100041.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architec%
ture of sustainable change. R$=#$W* 75* T$%$"+3* F'16(737>1-* X- 111–131. doi:10.1037/1089-
2680.9.2.111.
Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between hap%
piness and self-esteem? 476#+3*Y%+07"'* R$'$+"6(-* MU- 363–404. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-
0213-y.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2010). Mediation analysis. <%%/+3*R$=#$W*75*
F'16(737>1-*GU- 593–605. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.
McNemar, Q. (1946). Opinion attitude methodology. F'16(737>#6+3* L/33$0#%-* HS- 289–374.
doi:10.1037/h0060985.
Mendelson, M. J., & Aboud, F. E. (1999). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and
young adults: McGill Friendship Questionnaires. 8+%+&#+%* N7/"%+3* 75*L$(+=#7/"+3*46#$%6$-*
S?- 130–132. doi:10.1037/h0087080.
Miao, F. F., Koo, M., & Oishi, S. (2013). Subjective well-being. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, &
Ayers A. C. (Eds.), E($*_;57"&*(+%&O77Q*75* (+))#%$'' (pp. 174–184). Oxford: Oxford Uni%
versity Press.
Michalos, A. C. (1980). Satisfaction and happiness. 476#+3* Y%+07"'* R$'$+"6(-* U- 385–422.
doi:10.1007/BF00461152.
Michalos, A. C., & Orlando, J. A. (2006). A note on student quality of life. 476#+3*Y%+07"'*R$9
'$+"6(-*MX- 51–59. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-2404-y.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
134 M.#Demir#et#al.
Monsour, M. (2002). J7A$%*+%&*A$%*+'* 5"#$%&'2* R$3+0#7%'(#)'* +6"7''*0($*3#5$* ')+%* #%* 0($*@?'0*
8$%0/"12 Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Morry, M. M. (2003). Perceived locus of control and satisfaction in same-sex friendships. F$"9
'7%+3*R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*?P- 495–509. doi:10.1046/j.1475-6811.2003.00062.x.
Nelson, L. J., & Barry, C. M. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The
role of self-classification as an adult. N7/"%+3* 75* <&73$'6$%0* R$'$+"6(-* @P- 242–263.
doi:10.1177/0743558404273074.
Nelson, P. A., Thorne, A., & Shapiro, L. A. (2011). I’m outgoing and she’s reserved: The recipro%
cal dynamics of personality in close friendships in young adults. N7/"%+3*75* F$"'7%+3#01-*MX-#
1113–1147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00719.x.
Nelson, L. J., Duan, X., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Luster, S. S. (2013). Facing adulthood: Compar%
ing the criteria that Chinese emerging adults and their parents have for adulthood. N7/"%+3*75*
<&73$'6$%0*R$'$+"6(-*@U- 189–208. doi:10.1177/0743558412467685.
Okun, M. A., & Keith, V. M. (1998). Effects of positive and negative social exchanges with vari%
ous sources on depressive symptoms in younger and older adults. N7/"%+3*75*T$"7%0737>1-*GS-#
4–20. doi:10.1093/geronb/53B.1.P4.
Orthel, H., & Demir, M. (2011). Self-selection in volunteer convenience samples: Implications for
friendship research among emerging adults. Poster presented at the 5th Conference on Emerg%
ing Adulthood, Providence, RI, USA.
Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2003). Best friends forever?: High school best friendships and
the transition to college. F$"'7%+3*R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*?P- 187–196. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00045.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2013). Happiness experienced: The science of subjective well-being. In S.
A. David, I. Boniwell, & Ayers A. C. (Eds.), E($*_;57"&*(+%&O77Q*75*(+))#%$'' (pp. 134–151).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pangle, L. S. (2003). <"#'0703$*+%&*0($*)(#37'7)(1*75*5"#$%&'(#). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a
second order meta analysis. N7/"%+3*75*87%'/A$"*R$'$+"6(-*@U- 450–461. doi:10.1086/323732.
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and
competence on subjective well-being in later life. F'16(737>1* +%&* <>#%>-* ?G- 187–224.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.187.
Ratelle, C. F., Simard, K., & Guay, F. (2013). University students’ subjective well-being: The role
of autonomy support from parents, friends, and the romantic partner. N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*
40/&#$'-*?H, 893–910. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9360-4.
Reis, H. T. (2001). Relationship experiences and emotional well-being. In C. D. Ryff & B. H.
Singer (Eds.), :A70#7%-*'76#+3*"$3+0#7%'(#)'-*+%&*($+30( (pp. 57–86). New York: Oxford Uni%
versity Press.
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. F$"'7%+3*R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*?H-#
1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00139.x.
Reisman, J. M. (1981). Adult friendships. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), F$"'7%+3*"$3+0#7%'(#)'*
@I*C$=$37)#%>*)$"'7%+3*"$3+0#7%'(#)' (pp. 205–230). London: Academic.
Requena, F. (1995). Friendship and subjective well-being in Spain. A cross-national comparison
with the United States. 476#+3*Y%+07"'*R$'$+"6(-*SG- 271–288. doi:10.1007/BF01079161.
Reynolds, C. R. (2010). Measurement and assessment: An editorial view. F'16(737>#6+3*<''$''9
A$%0-*@@- 1–4. doi:10.1037/a0018811.
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., & Preciado, P. (2012). [+%/+3*57"* 4Y:V<*=$"'#7%*H2P. Oxford:
University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; Nuffield College.
Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: Is it a simple relationship?
N7/"%+3*75*,+))#%$''*40/&#$'-*M- 467–497. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9009-2.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic
psychological needs as a unifying concept. F'16(737>#6+3*Y%^/#"1-*??- 319–338. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_03.
Sanchez-Hidalgo, E. (1953). La psicologia de la amistad (The psychology of friendship). F$&+9
>7>+0+-*?- 96–117.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
135
Friendship*and*Happiness*Among*Young*Adults
Saphire-Bernstein, S., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Close relationships and happiness. In S. A. David,
I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), E($*_;57"&*(+%&O77Q*75*(+))#%$'' (pp. 821–833). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on
social psychology’s view of human nature. N7/"%+3*_5*F$"'7%+3#01*<%&*476#+3*F'16(737>1-*G?-#
515–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515.
Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late
adolescent friendship networks and big five personality traits: A network approach. N7/"%+3*75*
F$"'7%+3#01-*MU- 509–538. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00625.x.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). :;)$"#A$%0+3*+%&*^/+'#9*$;)$"#A$%0+3*
&$'#>%'*57"*>$%$"+3#b$&*6+/'+3*#%5$"$%6$. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Sheets, V. L., & Lugar, R. (2005). Friendship and gender in Russia and the United States. 4$;*
R73$'-*G@- 131–140. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1200-0.
Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S., & Jeswani, S. (in press). The relationship between
social support and subjective well-being across age. 476#+3*Y%+07"'*R$'$+"6(. doi:10.1007/
s11205-013-0361-4.
Simons, R. L. (1983–1984). Specificity and substitution in the social networks of the elderly. E($*
Y%0$"%+0#7%+3*N7/"%+3* 75* <>#%>*+%&*,/A+%*C$=$37)A$%0-* ?U- 121–139. doi:10.2190/AUY4-
CMPK-JFCB-E04V.
Solano, C. H. (1986). People without friends: Loneliness and its alternatives. In V. J. Derlega, &
B. A. Winstead (Eds.), !"#$%&'(#)*+%&*'76#+3*#%0$"+60#7% (pp. 227–246). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Strassberg, D. S., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality research. <"6(#=$'*75*4$;/+3*
L$(+=#7"-*@H- 369–382. doi:10.1007/BF01541853.
Stratton, L. S. (2014). College enrollment: An economic analysis. In Paulsen, M.B. (ed.), Higher
Education: Handbook of theory and research (vol. 29). Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_8
Tafarodi, R. W., Bonn, G., Liang, H., Takai, J., Moriizumi, S., Belhekar, V., et al. (2012). What
makes for a good life? A four-nation study. N7/"%+3* 75* ,+))#%$''* 40/&#$'-* ?S- 783–800.
doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9290-6.
Tanner, J. L. (2006). Recentering during emerging adulthood: A critical turning point in life span
human development. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), :A$">#%>*+&/30'*#%*<A$"#6+ (pp. 21–
55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Taylor, S. E. (2010). Social support: A review. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), _;57"&*(+%&O77Q*75*($+30(*
)'16(737>1 (pp. 189–214). New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Hardison, C. B., & Riley, A. (2001). Informal social support net%
works and subjective well-being among African Americans. N7/"%+3*75*L3+6Q*F'16(737>1-*@M-#
439–463. doi:10.1177/0095798401027004004.
Tsuzuki, Y., & Matsui, T. (2000). Personality type similarity, self-esteem, and friendship satisfac%
tion among Japanese college women. N7/"%+3*75*F'16(737>#6+3*E1)$-*GG- 14–21.
Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and
friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. N7/"%+3* 75*476#+3*+%&*F$"'7%+3*
R$3+0#7%'(#)'-*?M- 5–30. doi:10.1177/0265407500171001.
Watson, G. B. (1930). Happiness among adult students of education. N7/"%+3*75*:&/6+0#7%+3*F'19
6(737>1-*@?-*MXc?PX. doi:10.1037/h0070539.
Weiderman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student participants.
E($*N7/"%+3*75*4$;*R$'$+"6(-*SD- 59–66. doi:10.1080/00224499909551968.
Wiecko, F. M. (2010). Research note: Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really
that#different?#N7/"%+3*75*8"#A#%+3*N/'0#6$-*SU- 1186–1190. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.007.
Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. F'16(737>#6+3* L/33$0#%-* DM- 294–306.
doi:10.1037/h0024431.
Ying, Y. (1995). Cultural orientation and psychological well-being in Chinese Americans. <A$"#9
6+%*N7/"%+3*75*87AA/%#01*F'16(737>1-*@S- 893–911. doi:10.1007/BF02507020.
Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C. M., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: From person%
ality to social networks and perceived support. Social Networks, 35, 382-393.
metin.ozdemir@oru.se
