35 - Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness

8/13/2019 35 - Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness

1/17

R E S E A R C H P A P E R

Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness

Meliks ah Demir Metin O zdemir

Published online: 5 April 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Friendship quality is an important predictor of happiness, however, what might

account for the association between the two? Two studies investigated satisfaction of basic

psychological needs as a mediator of the relationship between friendship quality and hap-

piness. Study 1 (n = 424) found support for the model for best friendship. Second study

(n = 176) replicated the first study and showed that needs satisfaction in best and two closest

friendships mediated the relationship between the quality of all friendships and happiness.

The findings suggest that one reason why the quality of friendships is related to happiness isbecause friendship experiences provide a context where basic needs are satisfied.

Keywords Friendship quality Happiness Need satisfaction

Self-determination theory Mediation Structural equation modeling

1 Introduction

Friendships are important sources of happiness in the lives of many (Argyle2001; Lucas

and Dyrenforth2006). Confidence in the arguments and empirical research on the topic is

further enhanced by studies documenting that friendship quality contributes to ones

happiness even when controlling for personality (Demir and Weitekamp 2007). This

suggests that the relation between friendship quality and happiness cannot be accounted for

by specific personality characteristics (e.g., extroversion). Considering the well-established

relationship between friendship and happiness (Myers2000; Reis2001), it would be cliche

to report that friendship experiences are related to happiness. Rather, we believe that it is

time for research focused on theoretically identified variables that might account for

the link between relationship quality and happiness. In the two studies reported, basic

M. Demir (&)

Department of Psychology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Ozdemir

Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

1 3

J Happiness Stud (2010) 11:243259

DOI 10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5


2/17

psychological needs satisfaction in best friendship (study 1) and close friendships (study 2)

was investigated as a mediator of the relation between friendship quality and happiness.

Investigating mediating variables that might explain how friendship is associated with

happiness is important because it has the potential to offer a novel way to explain, at least

in part, how or why these two variables are related.

1.1 Happiness

It is essential to describe happiness before the relationships between happiness and the

study variables are reviewed. Theorizing and measurement of happiness were observed in

the broader field of psychological well-being (Diener 1984; Ryff 1989). There are two

research traditions that have concerned themselves with the dimension of psychological

well-being. The first tradition, referred to as hedonic well-being, focuses on pleasure and

happiness while the second tradition, called as eudaimonic well-being, focuses on con-

structs such as personal growth, self-acceptance and environmental mastery (see Ryan and

Deci2001for a review). Our focus in the present investigation was on hedonic well-being,

which considers friendship experiences as a source of happiness (Baumeister and Leary

1995; Ryan and Deci2001) rather than a dimension of well-being (Ryff1989).

Within the hedonic well-being tradition, psychological well-being is conceptualized as

happiness, or subjective well-being (Lent 2004). Happiness is the cognitive and affective

evaluations of ones own life (Diener 1984, 1994). Happiness consists of global life sat-

isfaction, the presence of positive affect, and absence of negative affect (Deci and Ryan

2000). In the studies reported, our focus was on the affective component of happiness.

There were two reasons for this. First, the two components of happiness (life-satisfactionand affect) are different constructs and might require different lines of research to

understand each of them separately (Diener et al. 1999). Secondly, friendship is an

affective relationship and might be strongly related to the affective aspect of happiness.

Accordingly, happiness was defined as the predominance of positive affect over negative

affect (Diener1984,1994; Diener et al. 1999).

A burgeoning body of research documented several factors that predict happiness (for

reviews see Diener et al. 1999; Lyubomirsky et al.2005). In the present study, we focused

on two of the variables that have been consistently associated with happiness: friendship

and basic psychological needs satisfaction. In the following sections, we first describe these

constructs and then review the literature that examines the relationships between closerelationships, basic needs satisfaction and happiness.

1.2 Friendship

Friendship is defined as a voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, that is

intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying

types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance (Hays 1988,

p. 395). As the definition suggests, friendship is a qualitative relationship. Theoretical work

in this area suggests that individuals seek and/or experience certain provisions in theirfriendships (Furman and Robbins1985; Weiss1974). These provisions include but are not

limited to companionship, help, intimacy, and self-validation. Available instruments in the

field of close relationships research assess these provisions (Mendelson and Aboud 1999).

There is one essential point to consider when doing research on friendship. It is the

number of close friends one claims to have. It is reported that individuals have many close

friends and make clear distinctions between best, close, and casual friendships (Antonucci

244 M. Demir, M. Ozdemir

1 3


3/17

2001; La Gaipa1977). Indeed, there is empirical evidence showing that the overall quality

of the friendships varies with the degree of closeness of the friendship (e.g., best friend-

ships always having higher quality than close friends; Demir et al. 2007; Mendelson and

Kay 2003; Wright 1985). In other words, the closer the friendship, the more clearly it

manifests the various attributes of friendship (Berg and Clark1986).Empirical research has consistently established that the quality of best and close

friendships is associated with happiness (Demir et al.2007; Diener and Seligman2002). In

the first study, the focus was on best friendship. The second study considered the close

friendships of the individual to have a broader perspective on the model tested.

1.3 Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction

Self-determination Theory (SDT, Deci and Ryan 2000) attempts to explain why and how

people engage in particular behaviors and the effects of these processes on well-being.

SDT consists of four mini theories, of which present investigations focused on basic needs

theory.Basic needs theoryfocuses on universal psychological needs and examines the link

between peoples satisfaction of these needs and their well-being. According to theory,

relatedness, autonomy and competence are three universal and fundamental human needs

(Deci and Ryan2000). Indeed, these three needs were rated among the four most important

needs by American college students (Sheldon et al. 2001). Autonomy refers to feelings of

volition and involves initiating ones own actions (Deci and Ryan 1985). Competence

refers to feelings of efficacy and being capable (Deci 1975; Ryan and Deci2000). Finally,

relatedness refers to feeling connected to and developing close relationships with others

(Baumeister and Leary1995; Ryan and Deci2000). One essential point about these needsis that all of them have to be satisfied in order to experience optimal well-being (Deci and

Ryan2000). The theory further suggests that satisfaction of these needs in general or in

close relationships is associated with well-being and higher levels of relationship quality

(Deci and Ryan2008; Deci et al.2006; La Guardia et al. 2000). Supporting the theoretical

arguments, empirical research has shown that basic psychological needs satisfaction in

close relationships is positively associated with relationship quality and happiness (e.g.,

Deci et al.2006). A detailed review of the empirical literature on the relationship between

these constructs is provided next.

1.4 Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness

Previous research has shown that friendship quality, satisfaction of basic needs and hap-

piness are interrelated. To start with, consistent with the theoretical arguments (Argyle

2001; Baumeister and Leary1995) research has shown that support received from a friend

(Baldassare et al. 1984; Gladow and Ray1986); satisfaction with the friend (Diener and

Seligman 2002; Lyubomirsky et al. 2006) and friendship quality in general (Demir and

Weitekamp2007) are associated with happiness. Thus, friendship experiences, regardless

of, however, they are assessed (satisfaction, provisions) are related to well-being in

general.As for the theoretical arguments regarding the relationship between needs satisfaction

and close relationships, previous research found that satisfaction of basic psychological

needs (e.g., autonomy) was related to relationship adjustment, emotional reliance on

the friend, friendship quality and attachment security with the friend (Deci et al. 2006;

Hodgins et al. 1996; La Guardia et al. 2000; Ryan et al. 2005). Empirical research, both

cross-sectional and longitudinal, also found support for the theoretical propositions that

Friendship and Happiness 245

1 3


4/17

satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness needs is related to well-being and

happiness (Deci et al.2006,2001; Reis et al. 2000; Ryan et al.2008; Sheldon et al.1996).

1.5 Need Satisfaction as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Friendship Quality

and Happiness

As the review above shows, there are relationships between friendship quality, basic

psychological needs satisfaction and happiness. Considering this, it seems reasonable to

argue that part of the reason friendship quality is related to happiness is the satisfaction of

basic psychological needs within friendship. It is possible that experiencing higher levels

of relationship quality would provide a context where the individuals basic psychological

needs are satisfied, which, in turn, influences happiness.

Consider the following example: Mel has been a friend of Sumner for some time. They

have been spending time together and hanging out in different places (companionship).

Mel has been disclosing some personal and private issues to his best friend (intimacy) and

received some intimate disclosure in return. Also, Mel has received some important help

when he needed (support). Experiencing these provisions in his relationship, Mel might

feel comfortable to act according to his wishes and choices (autonomy); feel effective and

capable in his interactions (competence); and feel that he is loved and cared about

(relatedness). To the extent that his actions, choices and feelings are satisfied in the

friendship, he might be feeling happy.

To the best of our knowledge, there are two studies that tested similar models. In the

first model, La Guardia et al. (2000) reported that basic psychological need satisfaction (a

composite score of autonomy and competence needs) mediated the relationship betweenglobal attachment security and well-being (study 2 and 3). Recently, Wei et al. ( 2005)

showed that need satisfaction (again a composite score of basic needs) mediated the

relationship between romantic adult attachment (i.e., anxiety and avoidance) and distress

(e.g., loneliness). Thus, there is some empirical evidence supporting the mediating role of

needs satisfaction in explaining well being. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no study

tested the mediating role of needs satisfaction on the association between friendship quality

and happiness among young adults. The current study attempted to fill this gap in the

literature.

Even though we proposed that satisfaction of basic needs in the friendship would

mediate the association between friendship quality and happiness (model 1), an alternativemodel (model 2) is plausible as well. Considering the arguments that the relationship

between relationship quality and need satisfaction could be bidirectional (Blais et al.1990;

Deci et al. 2006; La Guardia et al. 2000), it could be that friendship quality acts as a

mediator (model 2). That is, experiencing high levels of need satisfaction in the rela-

tionship might promote experiencing various provisions strongly, which in turn would

predict happiness.

The best way to test true mediation effect would be using an experimental approach, or a

longitudinal study in which predictors are measured prior to mediator and outcomes

allowing enough time to observe the impact of predictor on both the mediator and oroutcome. Relying on theory or prior research is another method used in developing med-

itational models (Preacher and Hayes2004). Nevertheless, empirical evidence suggests that

both models, the proposed model suggesting basic psychological needs satisfaction as the

mediator between friendship quality and happiness and the alternative one considering

friendship quality as the mediator of the relationship between needs satisfaction and hap-

piness, may be plausible in the current study. This requires comparing the two models to


1 3


5/17

pick the one that best fits the data. For this purpose, we relied on structural equation

modeling (SEM) framework to test and compare the models.

1.6 Study 1

The focus of the first study was on the best friendships of the individual. It was predicted

that satisfaction of basic psychological needs in best friendship would mediate the rela-

tionship between friendship quality and happiness and this model would best fit the data as

compared to the alternative model.

2 Method

The original sample consisted of 424 (128 men and 296 women) college students attending

a Midwestern university. Of these participants, 6% (11 men and 13 women) were elimi-

nated from the sample because they did not report having a best friend. Thus, the original

sample used for the analyses consisted of 400 college students (117 men and 283 women)

with a mean age of 22.39 (SD = 4.57). The ethnic distribution of the sample was as

follows: 49% Caucasian (n = 196), 31% Black (n =124), 8% Asian (n =33), 5% Middle

Eastern (n =20) and other 4% (n =16).

2.1 Procedure

A psychology student pool was used to recruit participants. Announcements were made inclassrooms and flyers were posted in the psychology department. The packet included a

consent form, a basic demographic information sheet and a battery of questionnaires. To

ensure privacy, participants were given envelopes to enclose the completed surveys.

Participants made appointments for the study by using the online research participation

system. Those coming to the lab either took the survey with them to complete on their own

time or completed the questionnaire packet in our lab. The participants completed several

questionnaires other than the ones reported below (e.g., emotion regulation), but only the

constructs relevant for the purposes of the present investigation are reported. Those taking

the surveys with them placed the envelopes in a designated location or turned them in

directly to the researcher (the same or next day). Completion of the survey lastedapproximately 35 min and participants earned extra credit for their psychology classes.

The way data collected for the present study (allowing some participants to complete

the surveys at home) might raise some issues about possible confounds. In the study, 308

participants completed the surveys at our lab and 92 participants took the survey with them

and returned it later. Comparisons between the two groups (lab vs. home) revealed no

significant differences on any of the variables investigated.

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 Assessment of Best Friends

Participants were first provided a definition of friendship. The definition was based on the

empirical literature and consistent with definitions found in the literature. Our aim in doing so

was to provide the participants with an easy to interpret definition of friendship in contrast to


1 3


6/17

the theoretical definitions (see Hays1988) and to prevent any potential ambiguities in the

meaning of friendship (Reisman1981). Participants were given the following definition of

friendship: A friend is someone who you enjoy doing things together with, count on to

support you when you need it, provide support when he/she needs it, talk about your

everyday life, problems, concerns, ideas, and intimate thoughts. Following the definition,they were asked to indicate whether they had a best friend or not. In answering this question,

they were cautioned not to consider their romantic partner as a friend or to include any close

friend with whom they had involved in any type of sexual involvement with or romantic

interest in. This way, participants had a chance to report their nonsexual opposite- and same-

sex friendships and the study would be more ecologically valid (Personal Communication,

Sharabany; October 1, 2005). Additionally, they were also asked to specify the gender of

their friend and duration of their friendship. Majority of the participants reported having

same-sex best friends (90% of men and 89% of women).

2.2.2 Best Friendship Quality

McGill Friendship Questionnaire-Friends Functions (MFQ-FF, Mendelson and Aboud

1999) was used to assess best friendship quality. MFQ-FF consists of 30 items, five for

each of the six functions assessed: stimulating companionship, help, intimacy, reliable

alliance, emotional security, and self-validation. Sample items include my best friend is

fun to sit and talk with and my best friend is someone I can tell private things. Items

were rated on a nine-point scale (08) on which five of the points are labeled (0 =never,

2 =rarely, 4 =once in a while, 6 =fairly often, and 8 =always). The reliabilities of the

subscales ranged from .88 to .95.

2.2.3 Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction

The Need Satisfaction Scale was used to assess autonomy, competence and relatedness

need satisfaction (La Guardia et al. 2000). Each construct was assessed with three items

and respondents were asked to rate the items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =not at all,

7 =extremely) of how well their needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are met

in their best friendship. Sample items include: I feel free to be who I am, I feel very

capable and effective and I feel loved and cared about. The reliabilities of the subscales

were .65 (autonomy), .74 (competence) and .84 (relatedness).

2.2.4 Happiness

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al. 1988) was used to

assess happiness. The PANAS consists of ten mood states for positive affect (PA) (e.g.,

attentive) and ten for negative affect (NA) (e.g., hostile). Respondents are asked to rate the

extent to which they feel each mood in general on a one (very slightly or not all) to five

(extremely) scale. Reliabilities for the scales were satisfactory (a = .86 for PA; a = .85

for NA).

2.3 Analytic Strategy

Consistent with the goals of the current study, we employed mediation analysis in SEM

framework to uncover the association between friendship quality, need satisfaction, and


1 3


7/17

autonomy. Mediation analysis is a way of uncovering the process that produces the effect

of a predictor on an outcome variable (Preacher and Hayes2004). We preferred structural

equation modeling (SEM) framework because it provides the researchers with tools to test

the fit of the model to the data and directly test the significance of mediation effects (Kline

2005; Preacher and Hayes2004; Shrout and Bolger2002). SEM also allows researchers tocompare the fit of alternative models.

In the tested models, friendship quality and autonomy support constructs were latent

constructs. On the other hand, happiness was a manifest variable, computed as the dis-

crepancy between positive affect and negative affect (Diener 1984, 1994). In SEM

framework, it is possible to have a latent variable with single indicator, but such models

may have convergence problems (Kline2005). It is recommended that an observed vari-

able may be included in a model along with latent constructs when this variable has high

reliability (Kline2005). Indeed, subscales of PANAS had inter-item reliability coefficients

of at or higher thana = .85. Therefore, keeping happiness as a manifest variable would not

pose any threat to the reliability of the model estimates.

Before testing the models, a measurement model was fitted to determine whether the

indicators are reliably predicted by their latent constructs. Model fit indices such as chi-

square test of model fit, chi-square/dfratio, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR were inspected. The

same model fit indices were used to decide whether the proposed and alternative models fit

the data. Because the proposed and the alternative models were not nested models, a direct

test of model fit was not available. Therefore, consistent with the previous research on the

comparison of non-nested model, AIC and BIC values were compared (Raftery 1995;

Rigdon 1999).

3 Results

The current study proposed a conceptual model positing that the association between

friendship quality and happiness would be mediated by needs satisfaction, and tested an

alternative model suggesting that friendship quality would mediate the relation between

needs satisfaction and happiness. The models were tested in the SEM framework using

MPlus 4.21 (Muthen and Muthen2007). Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed that

the proposed indicators of friendship quality and needs satisfaction were positively cor-

related among each other. Zero-order correlations for the indicators of friendship qualityranged from .38 to .67, and .29 to .40 for the indicators of needs satisfaction. All indicators

were positively correlated with the measure of happiness at a range of .13.31.

Prior to fitting conceptual models, a measurement model was tested to examine the

association between the constructs (e.g., friendship quality, need satisfaction, and happi-

ness) and the strength of latent variables (e.g., friendship quality and need satisfaction)

indicators. The initial model yielded a significant model fit statistics, v2(33) =123.74,

p\ .001, whereas the relative fit indices were acceptable, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .08,

SRMR = .05. Modification indices suggested adding a correlated residual between two of

the indicators of friendship quality (e.g., companionship and help). Modeling this corre-lated residual significantly reduced model chi-square, Dv2 (1) =23.6, p\ .001. The

resulting model yielded acceptable model fit indices, v2(32) =100.14, p\ .001,

CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04, and a chi-square/df ratio of 3.14 (Tabachnick

and Fidell2007). The loadings of the 6 indicators of friendship quality ranged from .82 to

.60, and loadings of 3 indicators of need satisfaction ranged from .63 to .71. As expected,

friendship quality was positively correlated to both needs satisfaction (r = .69, p\ .001)


1 3


8/17

and happiness (r = .25, p\ .001). Needs satisfaction was also positively correlated to

happiness (r = .37, p\ .001) (see Fig. 1).

The proposed model posited that friendship quality would predict happiness over its

effects on needs satisfaction. The model yielded acceptable model fit indices,

v2

(33) = 100.15, p\ .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04 (see Fig. 1). Con-sistent with the mediation hypothesis, need satisfaction significantly mediated the effect of

friendship quality on happiness,b = .26,z =5.91,p\ .001. Overall, the model explained

14% of the variance on happiness.

The alternative model suggested that best friendship quality would mediate the relation

between need satisfaction and happiness. This model yielded a higher model chi-square

value than the first model, v2(33) =117.27, p\ .001, and slightly worse relative fit

indices, CFI = .94, RMSEA =.08, SRMR =.05. The overall model also explained lower

variance on happiness (R2 = .08). Finally, although the test of indirect effect was signif-

icant, the size of the indirect effect was relatively lower than the first model, b = .19,

z =4.78, p\ .001.

Because these two models are not nested, statistical comparison of model fit values are

not straightforward. However, scholars have been suggesting using Akaikes Information

Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) (e.g., Raftery 1995; Rigdon

1999). Although values of AIC and BIC from two non-nested models are not statistically

comparable, the model with smaller values has been suggested to better fit into its own

data. Raftery (1995) also suggests that a difference of five points or more in BIC values

suggest model fit differences whereas a difference of ten points or more has more reli-

ability. Table1 depicts the model fit indices as well as AIC and BIC values for both

models. As seen in the table, both AIC and BIC from the first model were lower than thosefrom the alternative model, and the difference in BIC values from both models was 17.12

suggesting that the conceptual model fits the data better than the alternative model.

To test whether the model fits males and females equally well, we used multigroup path

analysis. First, the structural model was tested on males and females separately and with

parameters unconstrained to be equal across the two samples. Second, the model was tested

on males and females with parameters constrained across samples. For both cases, the

parameters were negligibly different between males and females and the fit indices were

.57

.64

.48

.52

.38

.32

.52 .60 .49

.66

.60

.72

.70

.79

.82

Autonomy

Friendship

Quality .69 .37

.53

.86

Need

Satisfaction Happiness

Companionship

Help

Intimacy

Reliable Alliance

Self-validation

Emotional

security

Competence Relatedness

.16

Fig. 1 Results for the conceptual model. All path coefficients, loadings, and correlated error value are

significant at p\ 01. Model fit statistics: v2

(33) =100.15, p\ .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA =.07,

SRMR = .04


1 3


9/17

essentially the same for both the constrained and unconstrained models. This indicates that

the model supported in the combined sample applies equally well for both males and

females.

3.1 Discussion

The findings of the first study provided support for the model which posited that basic

psychological needs satisfaction mediate the relationship between friendship quality and

happiness. Confidence in this model was bolstered by the finding that the alternative model

(friendship quality as a mediator) did not fit the data as well as the original model. The

findings, then, suggest that one reason why friendship quality is related to happiness is

because friendship experiences provide a context where basic needs are satisfied. As

proposed earlier, it seems that experiencing various provisions of friendship in the bestfriendship might create a context where individuals would feel comfortable to act

according to their wishes and decisions and feel that their basic psychological needs are

satisfied, which in turn predict happiness.

Even though the findings are consistent with theory and empirical research (La Guardia

et al.2000; Wei et al.2005), one should be cautious before making strong arguments since

the empirical findings reported were based on one study. In an attempt to replicate and

extend this finding and sustain confidence in the model supported, a second study was

conducted. In the second study, the model was tested for the multiple close friends of the

individual.

3.2 Study 2

The first study provided initial evidence for the idea that part of the reason why friendship

is related to happiness is because one satisfies his/her basic needs within the friendship.

Important to note, however, is that first study focused on best friendships. As noted earlier,

individuals have close friends other than their best friends. Research shows that the quality

of close friendships is related to happiness as well (Demir et al. 2007). This raises the

following question with regard to the model tested: would need satisfaction in close

friendships mediate the relationship between the quality of close friendships and happi-ness? This is a theoretically important question because finding support for the model

across multiple close friendships would suggest that the theoretical arguments regarding

the mediating role of need satisfaction is valid for close relationships other than the most

important ones (e.g., best friendship). Failing to find support for the model across multiple

friendships would suggest the need to revise theoretical arguments such that need

Table 1 Model fit indices and

information criteria values for the

models (study 1)

Conceptual model Alternative model

v2

(df) 100.15 (33) 117.27 (33)

CFI .96 .94

RMSEA .07 .08

SRMR .04 .05

AIC 10225.40 10242.51

BIC 10313.21 10330.33


1 3


10/17

satisfaction might be a mediator only for the most important and significant friendships, but

not for other close friendships.

The empirical inquiry of testing the model across close friendships raises the following

important empirical question: how many friendships should one focus on? Although the

number of friends young adults claim to have range from 2 to 24 (Blieszner and Adams1992; Solano 1986), the second study gathered friendship quality information about the

three closest friendships (best and closest two) of the individual. The reason for collecting

data from the three closest friends was that studies done with college students suggest that

men and women have, on average, three close and intimate friends (Caldwell and Peplau

1982; Sheets and Lugar2005). Also, recent national surveys (e.g., General Social Survey

of the National Opinion Research Center) and research at our lab (Demir et al. 2007)

showed that when asked how many friends they have, individuals are likely to provide

numbers that range from 0 to 30, and are consistent with the literature (e.g., Solano 1986).

However, when provided with clear definitions of friendship and asked to report their close

friendships by providing their names or initials (Reisman 1981), the majority of the

individuals reported having three friends. Of course individuals are likely to have other

friendships (close or casual), but our interest was on the best and two closest friendships.

Considering these points, study 2 gathered relationship quality information about the three

closest friends of the individual.

Based on the findings of the first study and the literature, we expected to replicate the

findings of the first study for best friendships. Secondly, we predicted that the proposed

model would be supported across the close friendships assessed.

4 Method

The original sample consisted of 266 (82 men and 184 women) college students attending a

Midwestern university. Considering the fact that the sample for the second study came

from the same university, one point becomes extremely important. Ideally, replication

studies are conducted with different samples (e.g., in places/universities other than the

original study). This was not the case for the second study. This might raise concerns about

using the same population for replication. In order to account for this, serious attention was

directed to identify students who participated in the first study so that we could exclude

them from the analyses reported in the second study. This was made possible through theonline research participation system. The list of participants (their university ID numbers)

who took part in the first study was available online and this was used to drop out those

participants from the second study who participated in the first study. Accordingly, 19 (10

women, 9 men) of them were automatically eliminated from the sample because they

participated in study 1 (see the point raised above; also note that there was a three and a

half months difference between the two studies). They received extra-credit for their

participation but were not included in the sample. As an additional test, we investigated

students whom we provided extra credit for their participation in the first study reported.

After cautious considerations, an additional six participants (4 women and 2 men) werealso excluded from the sample because they received credit for participating in the first

study. Also, another 65 participants were excluded from the sample because they either did

not have a best friend (6%, n =16) or only listed two friends (18%, n =49). Thus, our

final sample consisted of 176 (41 men and 134 women) college students who had at least

three friends and completed the relationship quality and need satisfaction questions for all

three friends. The mean age of the final sample was 23.94 (SD =5.81). The ethnic


1 3


11/17

composition of the sample was as follows: 36% Caucasian (n = 63), 36% Black (n =63),

10% Asian (n =18), 9% Hispanic (n =15), and 10% other (n =18).

4.1 Procedure

The procedures used in the first study were employed in study 2. The only difference was

that all participants completed the survey in a lab setting.

4.2 Measures

4.2.1 Assessment of Friendship

Participants were first provided with a definition of friendship used in study 1. Following

this, participants were first asked if they had a best friend. After this, they were asked towrite the initials of their close friends and rank them in degree of closeness (e.g., best

friend, first close friend, second close friend, etc.). They were cautioned not to consider

their romantic partner as a friend or to include any close friend they had any type of sexual

involvement with or romantic interest in. In addition, they were also asked to specify the

gender of their friend. Ten spaces were provided to gather information about the partici-

pants friendships. A close examination of the responses indicated that participants did not

have difficulty in following the instructions. Moreover, participants differentiated the

degree of closeness of their friends (e.g., best, first close, second close). This suggests that

the instructions were clearly understood.

As for the gender composition of friendships, 87% (n = 12) of the best friends, 84% of

the first close friends (n =16) and 82% (n = 19) of the second close friends were same-

sex. Consistent with the first study and earlier research (Demir et al. 2007), the majority of

participants had same-sex friendships.

4.2.2 Best Friendship Quality

The measure used in study 1 (MFQ-FF, Mendelson and Aboud 1999) was relied on to

assess the quality of the best and two close friendships. Participants were asked to complete

the scale for their best and two closest friendships on the same page so that they could

make simultaneous comparisons across friendships. The internal consistencies of the

subscales for the best, first and second close friendships ranged from .88 to .92.

4.2.3 Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction

The same measure used in the first study (La Guardia et al. 2000) was relied on to assess

needs satisfaction across the three closest friends. Participants were asked to complete the

scale for their best and two closest friendships. The reliabilities of the subscales ranged

from .67 to .82 across the friendships.

4.2.4 Happiness

PANAS was used again to assess happiness (Watson et al. 1988). Reliabilities for the

scales were satisfactory (a = .88 for PA; a =.83 for NA).


1 3


12/17

4.3 Results

Paired samplest-test was computed to compare mean levels of friendship quality and need

satisfaction across three closest friendships (e.g., best friend, first closest and second

closest friend) (see Table 2). As a safeguard against inflated Type-I error due to multiplecomparisons, p-level was set to .017 consistent with the Bonferroni correction procedure.

The comparison of the means revealed that friendship quality with the best friend was rated

higher than first closest friend, t(175) =5.97, p\ .001, and, second closest friend,

t(175) =7.52, p\ .001. On the other hand, there was no difference between mean

friendship quality for first and second closest friends, t(175) =1.98, p = .05. Likewise,

need satisfaction ratings for the best friends were higher than both first closest friend,

t(175) =2.80, p\ .01, and second closest friend, t(175) =4.28, p\ .001, whereas there

was no difference between ratings of first and second closest friends, t(175) =2.22,

p = .03.

4.4 Mediating Role of Need Satisfaction

It was suggested that need satisfaction will mediate the association between friendship

quality and happiness, and this effect will hold the same across all three closest friends.

One way of testing whether the hypothesized associations hold constant across three

closest friendships is setting constraints on the path coefficients in an SEM framework.

Path coefficients were set to be equal across all three closest friendship ratings. Because

paired sample t-test results already revealed significant differences in ratings of friendship

quality and need satisfaction, no constraints were set on variances of these variables.Correlations among the predictors (friendship quality) and mediators (need satisfaction)

were also included in the model.

The test of the conceptual model yielded a non-significant chi-square test, v2

(13) = 19.53, p = .11, and acceptable model fit indices, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05,

SRMR = .10. That is, the associations between the friendship quality and needs satis-

faction, and needs satisfaction and happiness hold the same across ratings for three closest

friendships. Regarding the mediation hypothesis, need satisfaction significantly mediated

the relation between friendship quality and happiness for best friend (b = .05, p\ .01),

first closest friend (b = .07, p\ .01), and second closest friend (b = .06, p\ .01); sug-

gesting that the mediating role of need satisfaction was consistent across all three closefriends (see Table3). The test of alternative model, however, yielded a significant chi-

square model fit statistic, v2 (13) =40.46, p\ .001, suggesting that it is not plausible to

suggest that friendship quality mediates the relation between need satisfaction and

happiness.

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for friendship quality and need satisfaction across three closest

friends

Friendship quality Need satisfaction

Best friend First closest Second closest Best friend First closest Second closest

Mean 6.95a 6.53b 6.41b 6.25a 6.12b 6.04b

SD .97 1.20 1.12 .70 .75 .75

Different letters in superscripts indicates significant mean difference


1 3


13/17

4.5 Discussion

The findings of the second study replicated and extended the findings of the first study.

Specifically, the second study showed that the mediating role of need satisfaction in

happiness was observed not only for best friendships but also for the two closest friend-

ships of the individual. Overall, findings suggest that satisfying basic psychological needs

in close friendships explains why friendship experiences are related to happiness. It seems

that the idea proposed earlier that relationship experiences with the best friends might

provide a context where basic needs are satisfied, applies to other close friendships of the

individual as well.

4.6 General Discussion

There is one major conclusion that could be drawn from the two studies reported: the

satisfaction of basic psychological needs mediate the relationship between the quality offriendships and happiness. In other words, a considerable amount of the covariance

between friendship and happiness was accounted for by need satisfaction. This finding is

consistent with theory and the available literature (La Guardia et al.2000; Wei et al.2005).

Importantly, confidence in the model tested was improved by the findings that the alter-

native model investigating friendship quality as a mediator of the relationship between

need satisfaction and happiness did not fit the data as well as the original model. The

results of the present studies are important because the model supported is based on theory

and offers a way to think about the relationship between friendship quality and happiness.

It is important to note that the model tested here is not a theory about friendship per se.

Rather; it provides an opportunity to consider how friendship experiences are related to

happiness.

Notably, findings showed that the proposed model applies not only for best friendships

but also to the three closest friendships of the individual. This suggests that the model

proposed and tested in the present investigation is robust and explains how friendship

experiences are associated with happiness. In other words, the findings suggest that one

Table 3 Unstandardized and standardized path coefficients from the path model (study 2)

Predictor Mediator Outcome B SE z* b

Best friend

Friendship quality ? Need satisfaction .28 .03 10.35 .405Need satisfaction ? Happiness .22 .04 5.33 .132

Indirect effect .06 .03 4.74 .05

First closest friend

Friendship quality ? Need satisfaction .28 .03 10.35 .468

Need satisfaction ? Happiness .22 .04 5.33 .141

Indirect effect .06 .03 4.74 .07

Second closest friend

Friendship quality ? Need satisfaction .28 .03 10.35 .438

Need satisfaction ? Happiness .22 .04 5.33 .141Indirect effect .06 .03 4.74 .06

* z-values higher than 1.98 are significant at p\ .05


1 3


14/17


15/17

samples. Even though the two samples came from the same institution, careful attention

was directed to identify participants who did not participate in the first study. As a result,

no individual participated in both studies. Finally, despite the advantages of using SEM

framework to test different models, certain limitations regarding causal inferences remain a

concern. The cross-sectional nature of the study design does not allow robust causalinferences, even though our findings provided consistent evidence across the two samples

and measurements with respect to different friendship relations.

6 Conclusion

The present studies investigated need satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between

friendship quality and happiness. Findings revealed that satisfaction of basic psychological

needs mediate the relationship between the quality of close friendships and happiness. It

was suggested that future research should move beyond reporting a simple link between

friendship and happiness, search for other potential mediators that might promote our

understanding of how close relationships are related to happiness.

References

Antonucci, T. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social support, and sense of

control. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (5th ed., pp. 427

453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. London: Routledge.

Baldassare, M., Rosenfield, S., & Rook, K. S. (1984). The types of social relations predicting elderly well-

being. Research on Aging, 6, 549559. doi:10.1177/0164027584006004006.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal a attachment as a

fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.

3.497.

Berg, J. H., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Differences in social exchange between intimate and other relationships:

gradually evolving or quickly apparent? In V. J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and

social interaction (pp. 101128). New York: SpringerVerlag.

Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple

happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 10211031. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.59.5.1021.Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bratko, D., & Sabol, J. (2006). Personality and basic psychological needs as predictors of life satisfaction:

Results of the on-line study. Journal for General Social Issues, 15, 693711.

Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721732.

doi:10.1007/BF00287568.

Cooper, H., Okamura, L., & Gurka, V. (1992). Social activity and subjective well-being. Personality and

Individual Differences, 13, 573583. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90198-X.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

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. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313327. doi:10.1177/0146167205282148.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-

determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical

perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 333).

Rochester: University of Rochester Press.


1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027584006004006http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287568http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90198-Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282148http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282148http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90198-Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287568http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0164027584006004006


16/17

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 9, 111. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne0, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need

satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country: A

cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930942.

doi:10.1177/0146167201278002.Demir, M., Ozdemir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). Looking to happy tomorrows with friends: Best and

close friendships as they predict happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 243271. doi:10.1007/

s10902-006-9025-2.

Demir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). I am so happy cause today I found my friend: Friendship and

personality as predictors of happiness.Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 181211. doi:10.1007/s10902-

006-9012-7.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542575. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.95.3.542.

Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research,

31, 103157. doi:10.1007/BF01207052.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 8184.

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00415.Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective Well-Being: Three decades of

progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 76302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.

Furman, W., & Robbins, P. (1985). Whats the point? Selection of treatment objectives. In B. Schneider,

K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Childrens peer relations: Issues in assessment and inter-

vention (pp. 4154). New York: SpringerVerlag.

Gladow, N. W., & Ray, M. P. (1986). The impact of informal support systems on the well-being of low

income single parents. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, 35, 113123.

Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research,

and interventions (pp. 391408). New York: Wiley.

Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227237. doi:10.1177/0146167296223001.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford.La Gaipa, J. (1977). Testing a multidimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and

practice in interpersonal attraction. London: Academic Press.

La Guardia, J. G., Tyan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security

of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367.

Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and psychological

adjustment.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482509. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.482.

Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. (2006). Does the existence of social relationships matter for subjective well-

being? In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and

interpersonal processes (pp. 254273). New York: Guilford Press.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sus-

tainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111.Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between happiness and

self-esteem? Social Indicators Research, 78, 363404. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-0213-y.

Mendelson, M. J., & Aboud, F. E. (1999). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults:

McGill friendship questionnaires. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 130132.

doi:10.1037/h0087080.

Mendelson, M. J., & Kay, A. C. (2003). Positive feelings in friendship: Does imbalance in the relationship

matter?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 101116.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Mplus user guide. California: Muthen & Muthen, Inc.

Myers, D. (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy people. The American Psychologist, 55, 5667.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple

mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717731.Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological

methodology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Reis, H. T. (2001). Relationship experiences and emotional well-being. In C. D. Ryff & B. H. Burton (Eds.),

Emotion, social relationships, and health. Series in affective science(pp. 5786). New York: Oxford

University Press.


1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9025-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9025-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01207052http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223001http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.482http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-0213-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087080http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087080http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-0213-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.482http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223001http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01207052http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9025-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9025-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1


17/17

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of

autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419435.

doi:10.1177/0146167200266002.

Reisman, J. M. (1981). Adult friendships. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 2:

Developing personal relationships (pp. 205230). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Rigdon, E. E. (1999). Using the Friedman method of ranks for model comparison in structural equationmodeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 219232.

Rijavec, M., Brdar, I., & Miljkovic, D. (2006). Extrinsic vs. intrinsic life goals, psychological needs, and life

satisfaction. In A. Delle Fave (Ed.), Dimensions of well-being. Research and intervention (pp. 91104).

Milano: Franco Angeli.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological

needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319338. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and

eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141166. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.

52.1.141.

Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on

eudaimonia.Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139170. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4.

Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the interpersonalregulation of emotions emotional reliance across gender, relationships and cultures. Personal Rela-

tionships, 12, 145163. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00106.x.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-

being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 10691081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.

57.6.1069.

Sheets, V. L., & Lugar, R. (2005). Friendship and gender in Russia and the United States. Sex Roles, 52,

131140. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1200-0.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?

Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325339.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in

the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 12701279. doi:10.1177/01461672962212007.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New

approaches and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.

7.4.422.

Solano, C. H. (1986). People without friends: Loneliness and its alternatives. In V. J. Derlega & B. A.

Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 227246). New York: SpringerVerlag.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Luyckx, K. (2006). Autonomy and relatedness among Chinese

sojourners and applicants: Conflictual or independent predictors of well-being and adjustment?

Motivation and Emotion, 30, 273282. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9041-x.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive

and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

Wei, M., Shaffer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. (2005). Adult attachment, shame, depression, and

loneliness: The mediation role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psy-

chology, 52, 591601. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.591.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.),Doing unto others(pp. 1726).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wright, P. H. (1985). The acquaintances description form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.),Understanding

personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3962). London: Sage.


1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00106.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1200-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9041-xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.591http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.591http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9041-xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1200-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00106.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

35 - Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness

Documents

Transcript of 35 - Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness