Friends without benefits: When we react negatively to helpful and generous friends
Section snippets
Study 1
In Study 1, we investigated people's reaction to a friend helping someone or not. Participants read vignettes in which their friend does not help them and then has a subsequent opportunity to help someone else in similar circumstances. We varied whether the friend helped the other person or not and who else requested help (friend or parent). Cooperative accounts based on indirect reciprocity (e.g., Nowak & Sigmund, 1998) suggest that people track benefits delivered to them and third parties and
Study 2
We have suggested that people respond more negatively toward preferential help for a friend rather than parent because a parent fills a very different role than a friend. Of course, a parent and friend differ in many ways: one is biologically related to one's parents, does not choose one's parents, and cannot easily leave one's parents. Therefore, in Study 2 we explore a comparison role closer to a friend: a romantic partner. Just like friends, romantic partners (in most cultures) are not
Study 3
So far, we have demonstrated that people are more upset at a friend for not helping them when their friend subsequently helps another friend. We suggest this reveals friendship jealousy in line with the alliance account. However, the most striking evidence in favor of this account and against cooperative accounts of friendship would be to find a case where people respond negatively to a highly generous friend who gives them relatively less than someone else. Our previous results speak against
Study 4
Studies 1–3 provide support for the notion that people respond particularly negatively to a friend being preferentially prosocial to another friend and argue that this occurs because people are worried about being displaced by another friend, but not a parent or significant other. However, our results thus far could also be accounted for by cooperation theories based on person-specific generosity rooted in WTRs (Delton & Robertson, 2016), which would explain our observed effects in a different
General discussion
In four studies, we find support for the alliance hypothesis; people responded negatively to a friend who preferentially helps or is generous toward someone else, particularly when that other person was another friend. We find that people respond much less negatively to a friend helping a relative or romantic partner (Studies 1, 2, and 4) because a friend is less worried about being displaced by a relative or romantic partner. We argue and provide evidence that these results are better
References (57)
Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2013)Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and friendship
Current Opinion in Psychology
(2016)- et al.
How the mind makes welfare tradeoffs: Evolution, computation, and emotion
Current Opinion in Psychology
(2016) - et al.
Mysteries of morality
Cognition
(2009) - et al.
Closeness is enough for friends, but not mates or kin: Mate and kinship premiums in India and U.S
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2015) - et al.
Children use partial resource sharing as a cue to friendship
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2017) - et al.
Biological markets
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(1995) Friendship and the evolution of co-operation
Journal of Theoretical Biology
(1993)How the mind sees coalitional and group conflict: The evolutionary invariances of n-person conflict dynamics
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2016)- et al.
Human cooperation
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2013)
On mediating equity, equality, and self-interest: The role of self-presentation in social exchange
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
The recalibrational theory and violent anger
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Whoever is not with me is against me: The costs of neutrality among friends
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Fairness versus favoritism in children
Evolution and Human Behavior
Altruism among kin vs. nonkin: Effects of cost of help and reciprocal exchange
Evolution and Human Behavior
The whistleblowers dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
The role of tracking and tolerance in relationship among friends
Evolution and Human Behavior
Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects
Econometrica
Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Toward a broader conceptualization of jealousy in close relationships: Two exploratory studies
Communication Studies
Waste management: How reducing partiality can promote efficient resource allocation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation
Annual Review of Psychology
The psychology of deterrence explains why group membership matters for third-party punishment
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
The alliance hypothesis for human friendship
PLoS One
The company you keep: Friendship decisions from a functional perspective
Cited by (11)
Sometimes we want vicious friends: People have nuanced preferences for how they want their friends to behave toward them versus others
2023, Evolution and Human BehaviorSex (similarities and) differences in friendship jealousy
2022, Evolution and Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :In this vein, Tooby and Cosmides (1996) propose friendship as one solution to securing support and investment, especially when one is in need and may be unlikely to secure support and investment from strangers (Insurance Hypothesis). DeScioli and Kurzban (2009, 2012, DeScioli et al., 2011) suggest that friendship is the result of cognitive mechanisms designed to assemble support for prospective conflicts (Alliance Hypothesis of Friendship; see also Barakzai & Shaw, 2018; Shaw, DeScioli, Barakzai, & Kurzban, 2017; Lewis et al., 2011). In all, friendships might help us survive longer, defend ourselves against perhaps both physical and reputational attacks, and more effectively enact such attacks, among numerous other potential benefits.
Sex differences in friendship preferences
2022, Evolution and Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Notably, there might be some ambiguity about what it means for a friend to be, for example, generous, trustworthy, or nurturant (Barakzai & Shaw, 2018; Cottrell et al., 2007; Lukaszewski & Roney, 2010). Extending Lukaszewski and Roney's (2010) work from the mating to the affiliative realm, we might prefer friends who are generous to us and to our allies, generous (but less so) to strangers, and downright stingy toward our enemies—suggesting that the target of a friend's behavior plays a significant role in estimations of whether that behavior is desirable in a friend (Barakzai & Shaw, 2018; Krems, Hahnel-Peters, & Merrie, 2021). To minimize such ambiguities, we measure friend preferences via specific behavioral instantiations and characteristics (e.g., “buys me coffee from time to time”; “has other popular friends”; see Table 1).
First tests of Euclidean preference integration in friendship: Euclidean friend value and power of choice on the friend market
2020, Evolution and Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :There are undeniable benefits of close friendships, from getting help when in need to speedier recovery after surgery, to perhaps even greater longevity (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 2000; Chopik, 2018; Dunbar, 2016; Giles, Glonek, Luszcz, & Andrews, 2005; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Kanna'Iaupuni, Donato, Thompson-Colón, & Stainback, 2005; Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013; Waxler-Morrison, Hislop, Mears, & Kan, 1991). Indeed, research focusing on Western cultures, hunter-gatherer studies, and work in non-human animals suggest that even just a few sustained friendships can enhance individual and/or offspring survival, provide status and resources, augment mating success, mitigate the negative impact of both physical and social threats, and help individuals win agonistic conflicts (e.g., Ackerman, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2007; Aktipis et al., 2018; Barakzai & Shaw, 2018; Barclay, 2013, 2016; Benenson, 2014; Campbell, 2002; David-Barrett et al., 2015; DeScioli & Kurzban, 2009, 2011; DeScioli, Kurzban, Koch, & Liben-Nowell, 2011; Dunbar, 2016; Hruschka, 2010; Lewis et al., 2011; Seyfarth & Cheney, 2012; Silk et al., 2009; Silk et al., 2010; Silk, Alberts, & Altmann, 2003; Sugiyama, 2004). Friendships also feel valuable to us; for example, people report viewing their friendships as a primary means to achieve a meaningful life (Krems, Kenrick, & Neel, 2017; Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Smith & Christakis, 2008), and Americans report valuing their friends as much as they value having money and being employed (valuing these behind only their health and families; Gallup Poll News Service, 2005).
Children use similarity, propinquity, and loyalty to predict which people are friends
2019, Journal of Experimental Child PsychologyCitation Excerpt :The word has been used this way in past developmental research (e.g., Selman, 1981) and is in line with how adults view loyalty in friendship. For instance, adults expect their friends to be partial toward them and become upset when their friends are broadly generous or are partial toward other people (e.g., Barakzai & Shaw, 2018) or even if their friends fail to show preferential support by remaining neutral (Shaw et al., 2017). Here, we chose two examples of partial behavior: taking someone’s side [loyalty (side)] and sharing preferentially with someone [loyalty (sharing)].
Interpersonal relationships modulate subjective ratings and electrophysiological responses of moral evaluations
2023, Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience