J Happiness Stud (2010) 11:243259 DOI 10.

1007/s10902-009-9138-5 RESEARCH PAPER

Friendship, Need Satisfaction and Happiness

zdemir Meliks ah Demir Metin O

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 happiness. Study 1 (n = 424) found support for the model for best friendship. Second study (n = 176) replicated the rst study and showed that needs satisfaction in best and two closest friendships mediated the relationship between the quality of all friendships and happiness. The ndings suggest that one reason why the quality of friendships is related to happiness is because friendship experiences provide a context where basic needs are satised. 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 (Argyle 2001; Lucas and Dyrenforth 2006). Condence 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 specic personality characteristics (e.g., extroversion). Considering the well-established relationship between friendship and happiness (Myers 2000; Reis 2001), 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 identied 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: meliksahdemir@gmail.com zdemir M. O Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

123

244

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

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 eld 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 rst tradition, referred to as hedonic well-being, focuses on pleasure and happiness while the second tradition, called as eudaimonic well-being, focuses on constructs such as personal growth, self-acceptance and environmental mastery (see Ryan and Deci 2001 for 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 Deci 2001) rather than a dimension of well-being (Ryff 1989). 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 satisfaction, 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-satisfaction and 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 dened as the predominance of positive affect over negative affect (Diener 1984, 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 rst describe these constructs and then review the literature that examines the relationships between close relationships, basic needs satisfaction and happiness. 1.2 Friendship Friendship is dened 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 denition suggests, friendship is a qualitative relationship. Theoretical work in this area suggests that individuals seek and/or experience certain provisions in their friendships (Furman and Robbins 1985; Weiss 1974). These provisions include but are not limited to companionship, help, intimacy, and self-validation. Available instruments in the eld 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

123

Friendship and Happiness

245

2001; La Gaipa 1977). 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 friendships 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 Clark 1986). Empirical research has consistently established that the quality of best and close friendships is associated with happiness (Demir et al. 2007; Diener and Seligman 2002). In the rst 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 theory focuses 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 Ryan 2000). 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 efcacy and being capable (Deci 1975; Ryan and Deci 2000). Finally, relatedness refers to feeling connected to and developing close relationships with others (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Ryan and Deci 2000). One essential point about these needs is that all of them have to be satised in order to experience optimal well-being (Deci and Ryan 2000). 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 Ryan 2008; 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 happiness are interrelated. To start with, consistent with the theoretical arguments (Argyle 2001; Baumeister and Leary 1995) research has shown that support received from a friend (Baldassare et al. 1984; Gladow and Ray 1986); satisfaction with the friend (Diener and Seligman 2002; Lyubomirsky et al. 2006) and friendship quality in general (Demir and Weitekamp 2007) 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

123

246

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

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 satised, which, in turn, inuences 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 satised in the friendship, he might be feeling happy. To the best of our knowledge, there are two studies that tested similar models. In the rst model, La Guardia et al. (2000) reported that basic psychological need satisfaction (a composite score of autonomy and competence needs) mediated the relationship between global 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 ll 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 alternative model (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 relationship 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 or outcome. Relying on theory or prior research is another method used in developing meditational models (Preacher and Hayes 2004). 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 happiness, may be plausible in the current study. This requires comparing the two models to

123

Friendship and Happiness

247

pick the one that best ts 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 rst study was on the best friendships of the individual. It was predicted that satisfaction of basic psychological needs in best friendship would mediate the relationship between friendship quality and happiness and this model would best t 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 eliminated 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 in classrooms and yers 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 lasted approximately 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 signicant differences on any of the variables investigated. 2.2 Measures 2.2.1 Assessment of Best Friends Participants were rst provided a denition of friendship. The denition was based on the empirical literature and consistent with denitions found in the literature. Our aim in doing so was to provide the participants with an easy to interpret denition of friendship in contrast to

123

248

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

the theoretical denitions (see Hays 1988) and to prevent any potential ambiguities in the meaning of friendship (Reisman 1981). Participants were given the following denition 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 denition, 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 samesex 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, ve 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 ve 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 ve (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

123

Friendship and Happiness

249

autonomy. Mediation analysis is a way of uncovering the process that produces the effect of a predictor on an outcome variable (Preacher and Hayes 2004). We preferred structural equation modeling (SEM) framework because it provides the researchers with tools to test the t of the model to the data and directly test the signicance of mediation effects (Kline 2005; Preacher and Hayes 2004; Shrout and Bolger 2002). SEM also allows researchers to compare the t 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 discrepancy 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 (Kline 2005). It is recommended that an observed variable may be included in a model along with latent constructs when this variable has high reliability (Kline 2005). Indeed, subscales of PANAS had inter-item reliability coefcients of at or higher than a = .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 tted to determine whether the indicators are reliably predicted by their latent constructs. Model t indices such as chisquare test of model t, chi-square/df ratio, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR were inspected. The same model t indices were used to decide whether the proposed and alternative models t the data. Because the proposed and the alternative models were not nested models, a direct test of model t 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 n and Muthe n 2007). Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed that MPlus 4.21 (Muthe the proposed indicators of friendship quality and needs satisfaction were positively correlated among each other. Zero-order correlations for the indicators of friendship quality ranged 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 tting conceptual models, a measurement model was tested to examine the association between the constructs (e.g., friendship quality, need satisfaction, and happiness) and the strength of latent variables (e.g., friendship quality and need satisfaction) indicators. The initial model yielded a signicant model t statistics, v2(33) = 123.74, p \ .001, whereas the relative t indices were acceptable, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .05. Modication indices suggested adding a correlated residual between two of the indicators of friendship quality (e.g., companionship and help). Modeling this correlated residual signicantly reduced model chi-square, Dv2 (1) = 23.6, p \ .001. The resulting model yielded acceptable model t indices, v2(32) = 100.14, p \ .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04, and a chi-square/df ratio of 3.14 (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). 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)

123

250

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

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 t indices, v2(33) = 100.15, p \ .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04 (see Fig. 1). Consistent with the mediation hypothesis, need satisfaction signicantly 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 rst model, v2(33) = 117.27, p \ .001, and slightly worse relative t 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 significant, the size of the indirect effect was relatively lower than the rst model, b = .19, z = 4.78, p \ .001. Because these two models are not nested, statistical comparison of model t 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 t into its own data. Raftery (1995) also suggests that a difference of ve points or more in BIC values suggest model t differences whereas a difference of ten points or more has more reliability. Table 1 depicts the model t indices as well as AIC and BIC values for both models. As seen in the table, both AIC and BIC from the rst model were lower than those from the alternative model, and the difference in BIC values from both models was 17.12 suggesting that the conceptual model ts the data better than the alternative model. To test whether the model ts 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 t indices were
.52 .57 .16 .64 Help .66 .60 .48 Intimacy .72 Reliable Alliance .70 .79 .38 Self-validation Emotional security .82 Friendship Quality .69 Need Satisfaction .86 .53 .37 Happiness Companionship Autonomy .60 Competence .49 Relatedness

.52

.32

Fig. 1 Results for the conceptual model. All path coefcients, loadings, and correlated error value are signicant at p \ 01. Model t statistics: v2 (33) = 100.15, p \ .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04

123

Friendship and Happiness Table 1 Model t indices and information criteria values for the models (study 1)

251

Conceptual model v2 (df) CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC BIC 100.15 (33) .96 .07 .04 10225.40 10313.21

Alternative model 117.27 (33) .94 .08 .05 10242.51 10330.33

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 ndings of the rst study provided support for the model which posited that basic psychological needs satisfaction mediate the relationship between friendship quality and happiness. Condence in this model was bolstered by the nding that the alternative model (friendship quality as a mediator) did not t the data as well as the original model. The ndings, then, suggest that one reason why friendship quality is related to happiness is because friendship experiences provide a context where basic needs are satised. As proposed earlier, it seems that experiencing various provisions of friendship in the best friendship 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 satised, which in turn predict happiness. Even though the ndings 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 ndings reported were based on one study. In an attempt to replicate and extend this nding and sustain condence 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 rst study provided initial evidence for the idea that part of the reason why friendship is related to happiness is because one satises his/her basic needs within the friendship. Important to note, however, is that rst 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 happiness? This is a theoretically important question because nding 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 nd support for the model across multiple friendships would suggest the need to revise theoretical arguments such that need

123

252

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

satisfaction might be a mediator only for the most important and signicant 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 Adams 1992; 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 Lugar 2005). 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 denitions 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 ndings of the rst study and the literature, we expected to replicate the ndings of the rst 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 rst study so that we could exclude them from the analyses reported in the second study. This was made possible through the online research participation system. The list of participants (their university ID numbers) who took part in the rst study was available online and this was used to drop out those participants from the second study who participated in the rst 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 rst study reported. After cautious considerations, an additional six participants (4 women and 2 men) were also excluded from the sample because they received credit for participating in the rst 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 nal 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 nal sample was 23.94 (SD = 5.81). The ethnic

123

Friendship and Happiness

253

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 rst 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 rst provided with a denition of friendship used in study 1. Following this, participants were rst asked if they had a best friend. After this, they were asked to write the initials of their close friends and rank them in degree of closeness (e.g., best friend, rst 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 participants friendships. A close examination of the responses indicated that participants did not have difculty in following the instructions. Moreover, participants differentiated the degree of closeness of their friends (e.g., best, rst 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 rst close friends (n = 16) and 82% (n = 19) of the second close friends were samesex. Consistent with the rst 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, rst and second close friendships ranged from .88 to .92. 4.2.3 Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction The same measure used in the rst 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).

123

254

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

4.3 Results Paired samples t-test was computed to compare mean levels of friendship quality and need satisfaction across three closest friendships (e.g., best friend, rst closest and second closest friend) (see Table 2). As a safeguard against inated Type-I error due to multiple comparisons, 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 rst 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 rst and second closest friends, t(175) = 1.98, p = .05. Likewise, need satisfaction ratings for the best friends were higher than both rst 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 rst 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 coefcients in an SEM framework. Path coefcients were set to be equal across all three closest friendship ratings. Because paired sample t-test results already revealed signicant 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-signicant chi-square test, v2 (13) = 19.53, p = .11, and acceptable model t indices, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .10. That is, the associations between the friendship quality and needs satisfaction, and needs satisfaction and happiness hold the same across ratings for three closest friendships. Regarding the mediation hypothesis, need satisfaction signicantly mediated the relation between friendship quality and happiness for best friend (b = .05, p \ .01), rst closest friend (b = .07, p \ .01), and second closest friend (b = .06, p \ .01); suggesting that the mediating role of need satisfaction was consistent across all three close friends (see Table 3). The test of alternative model, however, yielded a signicant chisquare model t 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 Best friend Mean SD 6.95a .97 First closest 6.53b 1.20 Second closest 6.41b 1.12 Need satisfaction Best friend 6.25a .70 First closest 6.12b .75 Second closest 6.04b .75

Different letters in superscripts indicates signicant mean difference

123

Friendship and Happiness Table 3 Unstandardized and standardized path coefcients from the path model (study 2) Predictor Best friend Friendship quality ? Need satisfaction Need satisfaction ? First closest friend Friendship quality ? Need satisfaction Need satisfaction ? Second closest friend Friendship quality ? Need satisfaction Need satisfaction ? Happiness Indirect effect * z-values higher than 1.98 are signicant at p \ .05 .28 .22 .06 .03 .04 .03 10.35 5.33 4.74 Happiness Indirect effect .28 .22 .06 .03 .04 .03 10.35 5.33 4.74 Happiness Indirect effect .28 .22 .06 .03 .04 .03 10.35 5.33 4.74 Mediator Outcome B SE z*

255

.405 .132 .05 .468 .141 .07 .438 .141 .06

4.5 Discussion The ndings of the second study replicated and extended the ndings of the rst study. Specically, 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 friendships of the individual. Overall, ndings 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 satised, 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 of friendships and happiness. In other words, a considerable amount of the covariance between friendship and happiness was accounted for by need satisfaction. This nding is consistent with theory and the available literature (La Guardia et al. 2000; Wei et al. 2005). Importantly, condence in the model tested was improved by the ndings that the alternative model investigating friendship quality as a mediator of the relationship between need satisfaction and happiness did not t 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, ndings 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 ndings suggest that one

123

256

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

reason why the quality of friendships is related to happiness is because friendship experiences provide a context where basic needs are satised. Friendships involve spending time together in a variety of activities such as talking about daily events, providing support and disclosing personal information. That is, individuals are likely to experience several provisions in their friendships to varying degrees. It seems reasonable to suggest that experiencing these provisions in close relationships might help the individual feel comfortable to freely express themselves, feel and act in a competent manner and experience a strong bond in their friendships, which in turn predict happiness. Decades of empirical research and theoretical writing highlights the role of friendship in happiness (Argyle 2001; Demir and Weitekamp 2007). Considering this well-established nding, future research should move beyond simply documenting a link between friendship and happiness and the search for other potential mediators (or moderators) that might enhance our understanding of the association between close relationships and well-being. It is our belief that this line of research has the potential to result in a body of knowledge that might promote the empirical study of friendship. Accordingly, it is our hope that the ndings presented in this study should be considered as a rst step toward that endeavor. The present study examined the affective dimension of happiness but did not focus on the cognitive aspect of happiness, namely satisfaction with life. The question that remains to be addressed in future research would be how life satisfaction may be related to friendship quality and need satisfaction? In order to address this question, research on life satisfaction was examined. First of all, research has shown that friendship experiences (quality, support, satisfaction) are positively associated with life satisfaction (Cooper et al. 1992; Demir et al. 2007; Demir and Weitekamp 2007; Diener and Seligman 2002). This suggests that even though friendship is an affective bond and might be strongly related to the affective component of happiness, it is still associated with the cognitive dimension of happiness. Second, empirical research has also documented that life-satisfaction is positively related to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Bratko and Sabol 2006; Deci and Ryan 2002; La Guardia et al. 2000; Vansteenkiste et al. 2006; Rijavec et al. 2006). Considering the available research showing that life satisfaction is associated with the study variables, we would predict that the model supported in this study with the affective component of happiness would be obtained with the cognitive component of happiness as well. That is, satisfaction of basic psychological needs would mediate the association between friendship quality and life satisfaction. Future research has the potential to address this prediction.

5 Limitations Even though the ndings of the present studies offer a unique way to account for the relationship between friendship and happiness, there were some limitations. To start with, in both studies there were more women than men. Studies using convenient samples (e.g., college students) might inevitably face this issue. However, it is important to highlight the fact that the gender ratio in both samples was consistent with the demographics of the university. The second limitation pertains to the rst one in the sense the ndings cannot be generalized to young adults who are not in college and to other age groups. It is the task of future research to investigate whether the model presented here applies to the close friendships of other age groups. The third limitation concerns the fact that both samples came from the same university. Replication studies ideally should focus on independent

123

Friendship and Happiness

257

samples. Even though the two samples came from the same institution, careful attention was directed to identify participants who did not participate in the rst 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 causal inferences, even though our ndings 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., Roseneld, S., & Rook, K. S. (1984). The types of social relations predicting elderly wellbeing. 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:10.1037/00223514.59.5.1021. 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 benets 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. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination 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.

123

258

zdemir M. Demir, M. O

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. zdemir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). Looking to happy tomorrows with friends: Best and Demir, M., O 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/s10902006-9012-7. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542575. doi:10.1037/00332909.95.3.542. 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 intervention (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 fulllment, 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 wellbeing? 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 sustainable 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. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (2007). Mplus user guide. California: Muthe n & Muthe n, Inc. Muthe 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.

123

Friendship and Happiness

259

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 equation modeling. 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 interpersonal regulation of emotions emotional reliance across gender, relationships and cultures. Personal Relationships, 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 wellbeing. 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: Conictual 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 Psychology, 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.

123