The Rules of Friendship

Argyle, Michael; Henderson, Monika

doi:10.1177/0265407584012005

Cited by 283 publications

(242 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

224

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The capacity to trust and confide in the other as one of the major rules of friendship was first underlined by Argyle and Henderson [29], and after corroborated by others, such as Monsour [3], Parks and Floyd [2] or Fehr [24]. The replication of this result in the present study is even more interesting given the methodological differences that separate it from the cited ones.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship

Policarpo

2015

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this article I explore the contemporary normative meanings of friendship, unpacking the subject through two different questions: "what is a good friend?" and "what is an intimate friend?" Drawing on survey data from a national representative sample (n = 1142), the topic is explored in the context of a southern European country (Portugal) that represents an interesting case study, for its characteristics of late, though abrupt, entrance into late modernity. Statistical analysis of the results enabled the construction of an exploratory typology of representations of friendship, according to the meanings ascribed to friends: family-oriented; trust-oriented; self-oriented; and presence-oriented. Results inspire a two-folded interpretation. On the one hand, they point to a pervasiveness of hegemonic representations such as friendship as trust and self-disclosure, namely among the younger and more educated. On the other hand, they highlight the pervasiveness of kinship ties in the definition of friendship, namely among the elderly and less educated. This suggests that patterns of suffusion may not only refer to more individualized and plural arrangements of personal life, but also to the persistence of more traditional representations and practices, characterized by an ideological commitment to the family in its more institutional forms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship

Policarpo

2015

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average number of such friends identified has varied -partly depending on the British or American composition of the sample, the age, marital status, social-class position and life stage of those involved, and also depending on whether or not the question has focused on close or very close friendships. However, the picture across these various samples is broadly consistent with Argyle and Henderson's (1984) and Gouldner and Syrnons Strong's (1987) conclusions that most people have one or two particularly close friends although they may have up to five other close friends.…”

Section: Interest In Women's Friendship: Its Focussupporting

confidence: 80%

Friendships between Women: A Critical Review

Matthews¹,

O’Connor²

1993

Journal of Marriage and the Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the other hand, perhaps because they have a positive impression of each other (also as shown in Sedikides et al, 1998, Experiment 2). close partners have cooperation expectancies (Argyle & Henderson, 1984;Clark, 1984;Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996).…”

Section: Attributional Expectanciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Self in Relationships: Whether, How, and When Close Others Put the Self “in Its Place”

Sedikides¹,

Campbell²,

Reeder³

et al. 2001

European Review of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

favorable impression of the partner; and (b) expecting attributional generosity from the partner. In fact, when the partner violates this exp ectancy (i.e., when he/she displays the SSB), members of close dyads respond by manifesting the SSB in turn. We discuss these and several other contingencies that are likely to keep an individual's self-enhancement tendencies in check.Individuals enhance the self in diverse and remarkable ways. They consider themselves more moral, trustworthy, kind, and physically attractive than others. They rate themselves as above-average teachers, managers, and leaders. They also believe that they are happier than others, that they are likely to be healthier and live longer than others, and that they are more likely than others to experience positive life events but less likely than others to experience negative life events. They even believe they are better drivers! Such overblown self-evaluations are well documented (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). These beliefs are maintained through several mechanisms. One mechanism is biased memorial processes, such as better memory for positive than negative self-attributes (Skowronski, Betz, Thompson, & Shannon, 1991) and for feedback pertaining to one's strengths rather than one's weak@sses (Sedikides & Green, 2000). Another mechanism is the selective reconstruction, generation, and evaluation of confirming causal theories (Kunda, 1990;Ross, 1989). A third mechanism is the idiosyncratic (i.e., favorable to the self) definition of traits and abilities (Dunning, 1993). Other mechanisms include denial (Janoff-Bulman & Timko, 1987), psychological distancing from others (Schimel, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, O 'Mahen, & Arndt, 2000), affirmation of a self-domain that is unrelated to the selfdomain under threat (Steele, 1988), downward social comparison (Wills, 1981, favorable self-presentation (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000), and selffavoring causal attributions for success and failure -an attributional pattern known as the self-serving bias (SSB).The SSB is the individual's propensity to make internal attributions for success, but external attributions for failure. Stated otherwise, the SSB refers to the individual's taking responsibility for successful task outcomes, but denying responsibility, or blaming other persons or circumstances, for failed task outcomes. For example, students will take credit for passing a difficult examination, but will attribute failing the same examination to its difficulty or the instructor's tough grading policy; business partners working on an account will claim disproportionate credit if the account is gained, but will avoid personal responsibility if the account is lost; and group members will overemphasize their individual contribution on a group project, but will blame other members for the group's inferior output. The SSB is pervasive, and is one of the most robust and easily replicable phenomena in social and personality psychology (for both narrative and quantitative reviews, see Arkin, Cooper,

show abstract

The Rules of Friendship

Cited by 283 publications

References 2 publications

What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship

What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship

Friendships between Women: A Critical Review

The Self in Relationships: Whether, How, and When Close Others Put the Self “in Its Place”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About