Relationship dissolution in the friendships of emerging adults: How, when, and why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining high-quality friendships is a key predictor of well-being during emerging adulthood, yet factors leading to friendship dissolution—defined here as actions that may decrease friendship quality or end the relationship completely—are poorly understood. Using an open-ended interview paradigm, we elicited 179 emerging adults’ (55.9% female; M age = 20.42, SD = 1.54; 95.0% full-time university students) description of their behavioral responses to 53 hypothetical vignettes involving challenging situations with same-gender friends. We systematically coded participants’ 9,487 verbatim responses, identifying three types of friendship dissolution behaviors: completely ending the friendship, distancing from the friend, or compartmentalizing aspects of the friendship. Examining the occurrence of each response across different types of challenging situations, we found that transgressions by friends were more likely to elicit reported use of distancing and ending strategies. We also began to investigate associations between interpersonal goals and dissolution strategies, finding that stronger endorsement of the goal of asserting oneself was linked to greater odds of reporting ending the friendship, whereas the more participants reported that they would be trying to stay friends, the lower the odds of reporting either ending the relationship or distancing from the friend. Implications for future research on interpersonal processes in friendships are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".