How many close friends do you have?

In an era of exploding social networks, researchers at Cornell University were somewhat surprised to learn that Americans report fewer close friends than they did a generation ago.  How many?  On average, the researchers report, Americans now say that they have 2.03 friends in their "discussion network." In a similar study in 1985, the average was closer to 3.  

In all, 2,000 adults were asked to name the people with whom they had “discussed important matters” in the past six months -- 29% named more than two people, 18% listed two, 48% listed only one person and 4% said they had not shared important information with anyone.  Interestingly, women and those with a higher level of education named the fewest friends.

Why would our friend pool diminish, in the face of ever expanding social networks?  Researchers said that they would leave it to others to answer this important question, but study author and sociology professor Matthew Brashears speculated that the reason our discussion network has diminished may simply have to do with how we currently define what a close friend is.  Said Brashears, quoted in The Cornell Sun: “We were skeptical of the dramatic change,” but he did acknowledge that “increased connectivity has not translated into an increase in the number of close confidantes.” In addition to these findings, Brashears found that American social networks are “not necessarily increasing in diversity, even though Americans now interact with people abroad via technology,” according to the Sun.

In a related study, Prof. Keith Hampton from the University of Pennsylvania obtained similar results, in his work with the Pew Research Center. Said the Sun, summarizing Hampton's findings: “He predicted that increasing economic prosperity may cause declines in close social ties. . . . In his research, Hampton studied social networks in other countries and found that development and implementation of social institutions diminish the dependency on a social network.”

Can naps improve your emotional state?

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley say yes – finding that taking an afternoon nap improves emotional reactions.  In their report, the researchers point out that this finding adds to a broad body of research that shows that sleep improves cognitive function.  But this particular study reaches into the emotional sphere as well.  Said the researchers:  “ . . . these results suggest that the evaluation of specific human emotions is not static across a daytime waking interval, showing a progressive reactivity toward threat-related negative expressions.  However, an episode of sleep can reverse this predisposition. . . . ”  From a physiological point of view, this may be because the prefrontal cortex becomes fatigued through the day and therefore less able to dampen down emotional reactivity in the sub-cortex.  The researchers add: “These findings support the view that sleep, and specifically REM neurophysiology, may represent an important factor governing the optimal homeostasis of emotional brain regulation.”


Addressing the “intimate relationship” between sleep and emotion, the researchers conclude: “A growing collection of experimental findings has continued to substantiate a role for sleep in emotion processing.”   So the next time you’re feeling a bit down, or riled up, take a nap.  We’re sure the boss will approve.


The research was conducted by Ninad Gujar, Steven Andrew McDonald, Masaki Nishida1 and Matthew P. Walker, all of whom are affiliated with Berkeley’s Sleep and Neuroimaging Laboratory, Department of Psychology.

Lasting love – what’s the magic ingredient?

What makes marriages last?  Apparently, it’s not how MUCH you love each other, it’s how closely your commitment level matches up.  Researchers from the University of Minnesota and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign report that marital instability results when you match a “strong link” with a “weak link”.  Explained the editors at Science Daily, who analyzed the study: “Two strong links will be benevolent and tolerant when the going gets rough. Two weak links may be lax about working things out, but their expectations are equally low – so there’s less friction. But when a weak link and a strong link pair up, the one with less investment has more influence – and stability is the loser.”

Six researchers – M. Minda Oriña of St. Olaf College; W. Andrew Collins, Jeffry A. Simpson, Jessica E. Salvatore, and John S. Kim of the University of Minnesota and Katherine C. Haydon of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -- used the rich mine of data in the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (MLSRA), coupled with a lab procedure, to look for the answers.

Author Orina explained: “The study contributes to our understanding of how we learn to love well. When you’re a baby or a teenager, “you are learning to manage your own needs and those of the people you care about,” Oriña says. “You learn: Can I come forward with a problem? What can I expect of the other person? And how can I do this in a way that everyone wins?”

Do you rely more on advice or experience?

It depends, say researchers, on your genetic makeup.  A quick example: a good friend recommends that you buy some technology stocks, or start shopping at a popular local retailer.  But you’ve had negative experiences with both. Which way do you go?  Do you rely on the advice, or your personal experience?

Apparently, it depends, in part, on your biological makeup, according to a new study out of Brown University.  The researchers, according to David Orenstein, Life Science professor at Brown, “have found that specific genetic variations can predict how persistently people will believe advice they are given, even when it is contradicted by experience.”   The study, reported last month in the Journal of Neuroscience, explored how two brain regions process incoming data.  As Orenstein explains it: “The prefrontal cortex (PFC), the executive area of the brain, considers and stores income instructions such as the advice of other people (e.g., ‘Don’t sell those stocks.’) The striatum, buried deeper in the brain, is where people process experience to learn what to do (e.g., ‘Those stocks often go up after I sell them.’)

Orenstein, citing work by Michael Frank, Brown’s assistant professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences, explained: “It turns out that in a learning task, people are guided more by advice at the start. Their genes determine how long it takes before they let the lessons of experience prevail.” Added Orenstein: “Like a ‘yes man’ who is flexible to a fault, the striatum would give more weight to experiences that reinforced the PFC’s belief, and less weight to experiences that contradicted it. Researchers call this confirmation bias, which is ubiquitous across many domains, such as astrology, politics, and even science.”

Frank adds: “It’s funny because we are telling a story about how these genes lead to maladaptive performance, but that’s actually reflective of a system that evolved to be that way for an adaptive reason. . . . This phenomenon of confirmation bias might actually just be a byproduct of a system that tries to be more efficient with the learning process.”