292 Benefits and Maintenance of Friendships
social networks to friendship per se, and give more consideration to individual dif-
ference factors, moderators, and specific outcomes. Nonetheless, Berkman et al.’s
analysis illuminates significant components of what might go into a model to iden-
tify when friendships might be beneficial versus detrimental in the health domain.
Future Directions in the Study of Friendship
Box 17.1 provides short summaries of the recommendations for future research on
friendship that I identified in this volume. The three most frequently mentioned
recommendations were to study more diverse populations, to examine the interplay
between friendships and technology, and to enhance the way research is done. Each
of these recommendations seems sensible. I reflect on each of the three most fre-
quently mentioned suggestions, a couple of the moderately frequently mentioned
suggestions, and on theory as a suggested direction.
The Three Most Frequently Mentioned Themes
A recent survey of articles in top psychology journals found that 96% of studies
involved WEIRD participants: individuals from Western, educated, industrialized,
rich, and democratic societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Only 12%
of the world’s population live in such societies. Closer to friendship research, a
study of articles in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships found that over
half involved research with college students, clearly introducing age and educa-
tional biases in the findings (de Jong Gierveld, 1995). In a second study, women
were more apt than men to reply to recruitment letters for couple research projects
(Hill, Rubin, Peplau, & Willard, 1979). In a third study, ethnic minorities in the Los
Angeles area were less likely than Whites to respond to a letter soliciting their partic-
ipation in marital research, and even if they responded to the solicitation they were
less likely to actually agree to be in the study (Karney, Kreitz, & Sweeney, 2004).
Fortunately chapters in this volume do testify that at least some research on
diversity vis- à- vis age (Adams et al.), sexual orientation (Monsour), ethnicity (Rose
& Hospital), and mental health (King et al.) is being done. In defense of relation-
ship scholarship, perhaps the top psychology journals are not the best places to find
research on non- WEIRD samples. Nonetheless, it is clear that biases exist in whom
friendship scholars study. Having a more representative database would enhance
the external validity and generalizability of what we know.
Like the chapters on diverse populations, the chapter by Ledbetter confirms that
research is being done on social media and technological- type innovations (see also
Erdley & Day; Holt- Lunstad). Research ideas and trends come from many sources.
Work in this area illustrates how technological and societal change can give rise to
new avenues of investigation.