What does it mean to have a close friend? by Roger Baumgarte, Ph.D.
There are 4 dimensions of friendship relationships. Which one do you fit into?
First dimension: Independents vs Interveners
Cultures differ in the extent to which it is considered normal for close friends to actively intervene in each other's lives. On the Interveners end of this dimension, friends feel responsible or even obligated to advise, aid, protect, take care of, instruct, or influence their friends in a positive way. One expects to be taken care of by close friends, even when one feels more competent on the issues at hand. Such interventions by a friend are usually perceived as warm and caring, and are a critical aspect of feeling close to a friend. On the other end, Independents expect that even close friends feel a strong sense of independence from one another. Closeness is derived from feeling comfortable to talk about any topic, even personal problems, which may be followed by verbal expressions of support. However, active intervention into a friend's life would feel much too invasive, smothering or disrespectful of one's individuality. If a friend tried to tell another what to do or how to live, it would feel threatening to one's personal freedom, even denigrating and potentially detrimental to the friendship.
Second dimension: Includers vs Excluders
Includers are open and friendly to nearly everyone, even relative strangers. They have a small number of people they think of as "close friends," but when actual behavior is examined, only weak distinctions can be seen between the interactions of close friends versus acquaintances. They appear open and friendly to everyone. Excluders, by contrast, tend to make sharper distinctions between friends and non-friends. They feel and behave differently when in the presence of a close friend compared to acquaintances. There may even be noticeable personality shifts, from a relaxed playfulness with friends to an unsmiling, even antagonistic approach to others. In these cultures, close friends are thought of as a very exclusive in-group, not unlike family members, and often family labels are used to refer to them, such as "older brother".
Because of their approach to daily social situations, Includers tend to develop social skills for superficial interactions. They are comfortable carrying on conversations with relative strangers while waiting in a grocery store queue, for example. Their ready smiles, warm eye contact and open manner facilitate these interactions. These mannerisms may trigger in others a sense of ease at reciprocating their advances. They know how to bring out agreeable exchanges with others, and everyone feels at ease. By contrast, while they are skilled at most social situations, they are much less comfortable spending extended periods of time with a friend. They have difficulty dealing with the closeness that stems from prolonged contact. They often find, for example, that best friends don't make for good college roommates. Excluders, by contrast, tend to have the social skills required for these kinds of situations. They have social skills geared toward closeness. They can take a two-week vacation with a friend and remain friends at the end of it. They are able to negotiate the daily compromises and conflicts that arise from spending lots of time together. They have an approach to friendship that allows them to overcome such problems.
By contrast, Excluders feel much less at ease in dealing with superficial relationships, managing them in a fashion that renders the other party at ease.
Includers also tend to have a high need for social approval from others, even those with whom they are not well acquainted. They want everyone to like them. Their social skills for the superficial are at work throughout the day as they interact with people who are both well known or strangers. Their identities and self esteem are based in part on exercising these skills successfully, rendering all of their social interactions opportunities for positive feedback. A crossword, for example, from a checkout clerk at a grocery store can be upsetting. Excluders, by contrast, focus their energies and caring on a select few, who meet their social needs. It is irrelevant whether strangers like them or not. They don't expect strangers to be friendly and thus are not bothered by the lack of positive social feedback.
Third dimension: Idealists vs Realists
This dimension focuses on how we think about our close friends. Idealists tend to respond to surveys about their friends in glowing terms. They rate their closest friends as intelligent, charming, interesting, and willing "to do anything for me." In cross-cultural surveys, they rate their friendships as closer than do those from other cultures. However, they rarely exhibit behavior reflecting direct involvement in the friend's life. They distinguish sharply between close friends and others, but these distinctions are mostly sentimental and cognitive idealizations. Realists tend to see their close friends in more realistic terms, both the good and the not-so-good. Like siblings who are close in age, their friendships contain jealousies and disappointment in addition to fun, love, caring and loyalty. On surveys, they may rate the friend in both positive and negative terms. Yet they are more likely than the Idealists to become directly and actively involved in the friend's life when needed.
Fourth dimension: Justifiers vs Amenders
When a friend does something that is hurtful, such as not following through on a promise, how does he or she deal with the transgression? Giving a clear, detailed explanation, with a sincere apology would qualify one as a Justifier. The apology would be long and believable, perhaps even dramatic as the promise breaker explains all that happened. An Amender would explain things only very briefly if at all. It is assumed the friends will understand-- after all, they know each other well. A detailed apology would seem insincere and may even indicate distrust. The promise breaker may make an extra effort, if it is felt necessary, to reinforce the relationship by saying or doing things that let the other know how to ensure that the friendship is on good terms, that no harm was done by the broken promise.
Justifiers reflect lower context cultures, where putting things into words, explaining the events that led to the broken promise would be expected and appropriate. Both parties will feel better once everything is understood. Amenders use their knowledge of the friend, their long history together, to put the broken promise in context. There is no need to explain. Perhaps the friend habitually breaks promises, in which case the overwhelming sentiment would be reassurance that they are still close friends. If there is an explanation it would be quite brief and humble.
Also relevant to the last two dimensions, it has been found that Idealists and Justifiers tend to show a higher degree of what social researchers refer to as relationship maintenance. There is an extensive literature on relationship maintenance and when we examine the measures used to assess this construct, we find that the primary emphasis is on communication issues. These measures focus almost exclusively on talk, the kind of talk that tends to reinforce the relationship. The assumption is that one can't have a good relationship without good communication. In marital relationships, where the construct is studied most often, it refers to expressions of love and affection. In friendship, it tends towards ego-boosting talk. Realists or Amenders, by contrast, see less need for frequent ego building of their friends. They tend to see their friendships as givens, something over which they have little control. Indeed, they may have a somewhat fatalistic notion of friendship--"these are the friends I have to learn to live with." However, they are more likely than Idealists and Justifiers to intervene in the life of a close friend-- taking care of the friend is part of one's role of being a good friend. "After all, my friend would do the same for me!"
Conclusion:
Recall that classic notions on cultural differences in close friendships hold that people in collectivist cultures have fewer and closer friendships. Direct, empirical tests of these assertions often fail to support them. The resolution of this paradox lies in an examination of these four dimensions and their implications for what it means to have a close friend. THe last dimension, for example has strong implications for the interaction patterns of close friends, not only with respect to how they deal with conflicts and apologies, but also how closeness develops. Friends become closer by revealing increasingly personal things about themselves, resulting in social penetration or increasing closeness. Relationship maintenance is based almost entirely on verbal expressions of support. Self disclosure and verbal expressions of support may not be the most critical facilitators or indicators of closeness in cultures outside the U.S., especially collectivist, high-context cultures.
While self disclosure and expressions of social support do enhance friendships in these cultures, there may be other equally critical elements for closeness, such as a shared, common history. having experienced critical or memorable moments in their lives together. Closeness may also be indicated by the extent to which friends feel comfortable intervening in each other's lives. Gradually augmented and mutual interventions over time serve to solidify the relationship and each friend's commitment to it. Since common measures of closeness and relationship maintenance emphasize self-disclosure and verbal expression of support, friendships in individualist cultures are frequently assessed as closer than those in collectivists cultures. Caring and actively intervening in a friend's life are not represented in the Western psychological literature on friendship, if one excludes studies focused on verbal expressions of support. People in individualist cultures also score higher on measures of close friendships because of their tendency to "idealize" close friendships. This idealization reflects how they think about and feel about close friends. While these thoughts and feelings are very real to them, they represent a complex set of psychological phenomena which attempt to reinforce their own self concepts, a critical need among people in individualist cultures.
Perhaps most importantly, the four dimensions provide a way of deconstructing the individualism-collectivism dimension as it applies to close relationships. At a practical level, one can gain insights into the interactions with one's closest friends, especially when these friendships cross cultural lines. Closeness and caring in one culture are expressed verbally, by expressions of support which may seem very lame or even insincere to people in another culture. Others might express closeness and caring by actively intervening in the affairs of te friend, taking some control over aspects of the friend's life, a move that might appear condescending or invasive to someone in another culture. It is all a matter of what it means to be a close friend.
Comments (2)
I'm gonna print this out when I'm near a Target Copy.
We gotta discuss this over Chess, & Coffee.