With or without you: Understanding friendship dissolution from childhood through young adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friendship plays a critical role in well-being across the lifespan, making it important to understand the dissolution of these relationships. Friendships end in many ways and for many reasons, which may result in different social and emotional outcomes. In this review, we examine the rapidly burgeoning literature on friendship dissolution from childhood through young adulthood, detailing current understanding of how common friendship dissolution is, as well as why and how it occurs. Research has documented that during childhood and adolescence, friendships are markedly unstable, although little work has examined friendship stability in adulthood. Characteristics of individuals (e.g., behavior, interpersonal cognition), friendships (e.g., homophily, quality), and the contexts in which friendships are embedded (e.g., friends' broader social networks) have all been linked to friendship stability. We document the diversity of ways in which friendships end, highlighting differences in timing, communication, and intent. Finally, we discuss circumstances under which dissolving a friendship may be helpful versus harmful. Future work should focus on elucidating friendship processes - that is, the positive and negative interactions that occur between friends - that contribute to dissolution, as well as developing interventions that promote the development and maintenance of high-quality friendships. Other critical research agendas are understanding friendship maintenance and dissolution among youth and young adults from marginalized groups and elucidating the ways in which technology may both strengthen and weaken friendships.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".