spc3 12287

Received: 10 February 2016 Revised: 7 July 2016 Accepted: 2 August 2016
DOI 10.1111/spc3.12287
ARTICLE
On friendship development and the Big Five

personality traits
Kelci Harris1 | Simine Vazire2
1
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis,
MO 63130, USA Abstract
2
University of California‐Davis, Davis, CA In this paper, we argue that friendship should receive more atten-
95616, USA tion in social/personality research. Here, we focus on our area of
Correspondence expertise, personality traits, and review the literature on how per-
Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington sonality traits influence friendship formation, maintenance, and dis-
University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1125, 1
solution. Specifically, we examine how personality traits of the actor
Brookings Dr., St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Email: kelci.harris@wustl.edu and partner influence friendship development (i.e., who is more
likely to initiate and end friendships, and who is more likely to be
the target of friendship initiation and termination). We also discuss
dyadic effects, such as personality similarity, on friendship develop-
ment. Throughout this review, we draw on the literature on person-
ality and romantic relationships to identify the most important gaps
in the literature on personality and friendships. Our review suggests
that agreeableness has the most consistent effects on both roman-
tic relationships and friendships, followed by neuroticism. Extraver-
sion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience have all been
shown to influence relationship development, but their effects are
inconsistent. We end with a call for more research on friendship
beyond the role of personality traits and suggestions for specific
future directions.
Friends are valuable. Evolutionary accounts of friendship emphasize the fact that friendships tend to be rooted in
exchange and reciprocity (Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). Across the lifespan, they are sources of trust, acceptance, and
social support (Davis & Todd, 1982; Davis & Todd, 1985; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt‐Glaser, 1996; Zimet, Dahlem,
Zimet, & Farley, 1988). Having friends is good for one's health (Mendes de Leon, 2005) and happiness (Demir &
Weitekamp, 2007; Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004; Sherman, Lansford, & Volling, 2006).
Personality and friendship may be more common topics of study in other disciplines, but given how important
friendships are for health and well‐being, it is surprising that friendship has not received more attention from social
and personality psychologists. A search for the term “friendship” as a keyword in journals containing either “social”
or “personality” in the journal title produces 1,189 hits. In contrast, the same search on the word “relationship” in
the abstract produces 9,682 hits Tables 1 and 2.
Social/personality researchers have the tools necessary to provide important insights about the causes and con-
sequences of friendship in people's lives. The goal of this article is to stimulate more research on friendship across a
broad range of topics in social/personality psychology. We do this by reviewing one topic that we are especially
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2016; 10: 647–667 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spc3 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 647
TABLE 1 Description of key studies
648
Study N Design Friendship stage Age group Friendship outcome Trait Result
Back, Schmukle, 73 • Cross‐sectional Formation College • Liking others E Better liked and perceived as liking others
& Egloff, 2011b • Zero acquaintance • Being liked A
• Perceived as liking others N Perceived themselves as not being liked
• Perceived as being liked C
O
Cuperman & 174 • Cross‐sectional Formation College • Perceived rapport (Actor) E
Ickes, 2009 • Short, unstructured • Perceived rapport (Partner) A Better perceived rapport (actor
dyadic interaction • Liking partner and partner), liked partner more,
• Being liked and better liked by partners
N
C
O
Selfhout et al., 205 • Longitudinal Formation College • Selecting friends E Select more friends
2010 • Social network • Being selected as a friend A Selected as a friend more often
N
C
O
Festa et al., 2012 176 • Cross‐sectional Maintenance College • Friendship quality E More positive friendship quality,
• Initiating interactions interactions initiated, emotional
• Emotional support received support, negative assertion,
• Negative assertion conflict management, and self
• Conflict management disclosure
• Self‐disclosure A More positive friendship quality,
interactions initiated, emotional
support, conflict management,
and self disclosure
N Fewer interactions initiated, less
emotional support, and worse
conflict management
C More interactions initiated,
emotional support, negative
assertion, conflict management
O More interactions initiated, emotional
support, and negative assertion
Wagner et al., 2014 2287 • Longitudinal Maintenance College • Number of nonkin in network E More nonkin in network and greater
• Social network • Emotional closeness emotional closeness
HARRIS
A More nonkin in network and greater

emotional closeness
AND
VAZIRE
(Continues)
N Less emotional closeness
HARRIS
C
O More nonkin in network and greater
AND
emotional closeness
Berry et al., 2000 262 • Cross‐sectional Maintenance College • Accommodation/conflict E More positive accommodation/conflict
VAZIRE
• Daily diary of style (Actor) style (actor and partner), more

conflicts and • Friendship quality (Actor) positive friendship quality (actor)
contact • Amount of conflict (Actor) and less conflict (actor)
• Accommodation/conflict A More positive accommodation/conflict
style (Partner) style (actor)
• Friendship quality (Partner) N More neglectful accommodation/
• Amount of conflict (Partner) conflict style (actor), worse
relationship quality (actor and
partner)
C Better friendship quality (actor) and
less conflict (actor)
O More positive accommodation/conflict
style (actor) and less conflict (actor)
Neyer & Lehnart, 2007 637 • Longitudinal Maintenance Young Adults • Insecurity E Concurrently associated with less
Assessments • Closeness insecurity and greater closeness
• Three assessments • Conflict A Concurrently associated with greater
across eight years • Contact closeness
N Concurrently associated with more
insecurity and less closeness
C
O Not measured
Mund & Neyer, 2014 654 • Longitudinal Maintenance Young Adults • Conflict E Concurrently associated with more
• Three assessments • Closeness closeness, importance, and less
across eight years • Contact insecurity
• Importance Predicts increase in closeness
• Insecurity A Concurrently associated with more
closeness and importance, and with
less conflict and insecurity
N Concurrently associated with more
conflict and insecurity
Predicts increase in insecurity
C Concurrently associated with less
insecurity
Predicts decrease in insecurity
O
Notes: Due to the large number of outcome variables and effects reported in Cuperman and Ickes (2009) and Berry et al. (2000),—39 and 14 outcome variables, respectively—the
description of these results have been abbreviated. Blank cells in the “Results” column imply that there were no significant results for the outcome variables to report for that trait.
649
E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism; C = Conscientiousness; O = Openness.

650 HARRIS AND VAZIRE
TABLE 2 Summary of research on friendship by trait and stage of friendship.

Friendship formation Friendship maintenance
Actor Partner Dyadic Actor Partner
Extraversion • More • Better first • Befriend • Higher • Little to no

comfortable impressions people relationship effect
with (sometimes) with quality on relationship
strangers similar • Maintain larger quality
• Select more levels social networks
friends • Better social
skills
• Productive
conflict
style
Agreeableness • Like others • Well liked • One • Higher • Higher
after zero • Selected agreeable relationship relationship
acquaintance more as person quality quality
friends can make • Better social (sometimes)
a positive skills • Better social
interaction • Productive skills
conflict and conflict
style style
Neuroticism • Little to no • Anticipation • No known • Lower • Lower
effect on of rejection dyadic relationship relationship
liking or but little to effects quality quality
befriending no effect • More conflict • More conflict
on being and
liked or problematic
befriended conflict style
Conscientiousness • Little to no • Little to no • No known • Higher • Little to no
effect on effect on dyadic relationship effect
liking or being liked effects quality on relationship
befriending or • Productive quality
befriended conflict
style and more
forgiving
Openness • Little to no • Little to no • Befriend • Maintain larger • Little to no
effect on effect on people social networks effect
liking or being liked with • Less conflict and on relationship
befriending or similar productive quality
befriended levels conflict style
Note: This table summarizes the key results for each trait at each stage of friendship development.
familiar with: the role of personality traits for friendship development (e.g., Wilson, Harris, & Vazire, 2015). Using this
topic as an illustration, we show that many of the same questions that have been examined in the context of romantic
relationships can also be examined in the context of friendships.
1 | F R I E N D S H I P S V E R S U S R O M A N T I C RE L A T I O N S H I P S : S I M I LA R I T I E S
AND DIFFERENCES
Friendships and romantic relationships are similar in many respects. Both are typically close, voluntary, non‐kin rela-
tionships (Laursen & Bukowski, 1997). However, as with romantic relationships, the line between friendship and kin
relationships is a somewhat mutable one; some friendships become more like familial relationships, and the need
for reciprocity declines (Ackerman, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2007; Wrzus, Wagner, & Neyer, 2012). Friendships are high
in both emotional closeness and perceived reciprocity, although less so than romantic relationships (Neyer, Wrzus,
Wagner, & Lang, 2011; Wrzus, Zimmermann, Mund, & Neyer, 2015). Indeed, even with some similarities in structure
HARRIS AND VAZIRE 651
and utility, friendships and romantic relationships can be differentiated along several dimensions, including
interdependence and commitment, and selectivity.
1.1 | Interdependence and commitment

Friendships are less interdependent than romantic relationships. According to Kelley and Thibaut's (1978)
interdependence theory, this suggests that the personality and actions of one person should influence the other more
in romantic relationships than in friendships. Moreover, Rusbult's (1983) investment model suggests that the amount
of interdependence within a dyad influences how committed each person in the dyad is to staying in the relationship.
According to the investment model, commitment increases when (a) relationship satisfaction is high, and one's needs
are being met by one's partner, (b) relationship alternatives are unavailable or undesirable, and (c) the investment size,
or amount of shared time and resources, is high (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult, 1983). A key distinction between friend-
ships and romantic relationships is that friendships are free of the expectation of exclusivity, legally binding contracts,
and, at least typically, sex. For example, people tend to have multiple friends because unlike many romantic relation-
ships, friendships are not exclusive. This means that relationship alternatives are always available, thus driving down
commitment to any one friend. For these reasons, investment and commitment are both likely to be higher in romantic
relationships than in friendships (Lin & Rusbult, 1995).
1.2 | Selectivity
People tend to be more selective about who they become romantically involved with than who they befriend. In addi-
tion, different attributes are important when selecting a friend versus a romantic partner. Specifically, while people
seek emotional closeness, social companionship, and relational positivity from both friendships and romantic relation-
ships (Fuhrman, Flannagan, & Matamoros, 2009), they place more emphasis on the other person's status, intelligence,
physical attractiveness, and agreeable, engaging personality for potential romantic partners than for potential friends
(Sprecher & Regan, 2002). In addition, people have higher expectations for romantic partners than for friends
(Fuhrman et al.; Sprecher & Regan). The lower standards for friendships could be another consequence of lack of
exclusivity; the burden is not on one friend to have every desired characteristic.
Based on the evidence presented above, most of what differentiates friendships from romantic relationships
appears to lie in the magnitude, rather than the valence, of various relationship dimensions, with a few key exceptions
(e.g., exclusivity, sex). Friendships and romantic relationships are similar in many ways, but the differences are large
enough to warrant a separate line of research examining the psychological processes underlying friendship in partic-
ular. The similarities discussed above suggest that the association between personality and friendships might bear
some resemblance to the associations between personality and romantic relationships. However, in cases where
the differences between the two relationships are pertinent, for example, when relationship exclusivity or
interdependence might matter to a relationship outcome, the effects of personality on the two types of relationships
should be distinct. To demonstrate the value of studying friendship in its own right, we focus on the role of personality
traits in friendship development and examine how the effects are similar to or different from the role of personality
traits in romantic relationship development.
2 | P E R S O N A L I T Y T R A I TS A N D F R I E N D S H I P
One fruitful avenue for studying the psychological processes underlying friendship development is personality traits.
Research on romantic relationship development shows that personality traits are important predictors of mate selec-
tion (e.g. Watson et al., 2004), relationship processes (e.g. Solomon & Jackson, 2014), and relationship outcomes (e.g.
Karney & Bradbury, 1995). In addition, personality traits predict outcomes in a wide range of personal and
interpersonal domains, including occupational success, health, longevity, and social outcomes (Back & Vazire, 2015;
Ozer & Benet‐Martinez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007).
In this review, we limit our consideration of personality traits to the Big Five (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Although other trait approaches, like the interpersonal circumplex (Wiggins, 2003) and attachment theory
(Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Noftle & Shaver, 2006), likely also play an important role in friendship, many dimen-
sions in these and other frameworks can be roughly translated into Big Five dimensions (e.g., Ansell & Pincus,
2004; Costa & McCrae, 1995; Noftle & Shaver, 2006). Nevertheless, it would be ideal to examine individual
differences beyond the Big Five. However, the goal of this paper is to stimulate further research rather than
to provide an exhaustive review of all research on personality traits and friendship. Thus, we limit ourselves
to the Big Five dimensions.
To organize our review of personality traits and friendship, we focus on two stages of friendship devel-
opment: formation and maintenance. Friendship formation includes first impressions formed at zero‐acquain-
tance and in short, introductory interactions and selecting friends. Friendship maintenance includes
outcomes that describe established friendships, such as relationship quality, closeness, and conflict. For each
of these two stages, we examine how personality traits predict one's own actions (actor effects) and how
others act towards a person (partner effects). Where relevant, we also discuss dyadic effects, such as person-
ality similarity effects.
3 | EXTRAVERSION
Extraversion is the most obvious place to start when examining how personality impacts friendship development.
Extraversion is characterized by being gregarious, cheerful, talkative, and high energy (Costa & McCrae, 1995).
Extraverts want to be where the people are. Based on their inclination to socialize and be around others (Watson,
Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992), they likely have more opportunities to make friends. Positive affect is associated
with better relationship outcomes (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Lyubomirsky, King, & Deiner, 2005), and extraverts' cheerful
dispositions could be another boon to gaining friends. Therefore, we would expect extraversion to have a positive
effect on friendship development.
3.1 | Friendship Formation

3.1.1 | Actor effects
Extraversion influences one's propensity to like others. Surprisingly, extraversion is not associated with liking people
more at zero acquaintance, even though people believe extraverts will like others more (Back, Schmukle & Egloff,
2011b). However, extraversion is associated with having more friends throughout life and across many social contexts
(Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Demir & Weitekamp, 2007; Hills & Argyle, 2001; Lang & Carstensen, 1994; Pollet,
Roberts, & Dunbar, 2011; Selfhout et al., 2010; Schaffhuser, Wagner, Lüdtke, & Allemand, 2014; Swickert,
Rosentreter, Hittner, & Mushrush, 2002; Zhu, Woo, Porter, & Brzezinski, 2013).
What explains this apparent paradox? If people high in extraversion do not start out any more interested in
other people, why do they later develop so many friendships? The answer might lie in the way extraversion
impacts how individuals experience social interactions (Back, Baumert, et al., 2011a). When interacting with
strangers, highly extraverted people are more comfortable and more likely to believe that their interaction partner
finds them likeable (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). One can imagine the effects of enjoyable experiences with new
people building up over time. Extraverts' positive experiences with others, coupled with the sociability that
characterizes extraversion, could drive them to approach others more and to be more willing to engage with
strangers than introverts.
3.1.2 | Partner effects

Extraversion is a strong predictor of being liked by others, but only at low levels of acquaintance. Indeed,
extraversion is the strongest trait predictor of being liked by others at zero acquaintance (Back, Schmukle, &
Egloff, 2011b). This may be due to differences between extraverts and introverts in the way they present
themselves; extraverts are more likely than introverts to dress well, carry themselves with confidence, and appear
friendly (Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b). By putting more effort into their appearance, people higher in extraver-
sion seem to be reaping the benefits of perceivers' “beauty is good” stereotype, in which physically attractive
people are viewed as more socially competent, better adjusted, socially potent, and intelligent (Eagly, Ashmore,
Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Langlois et al., 2000). Extraverts' perceived friendliness may elicit friendly and positive
reactions from others (Caspi & Roberts, 2003; Roberts et al., 2007). If people high in extraversion are presumed to
be likers (as found by Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b), others might approach them more often than they would
people lower in extraversion.
Although extraversion is associated with being liked in first impressions, when people have more time to
form impressions, the relationship between extraversion and being liked seems to lessen. During a short
interaction with a stranger, one's extraversion had no effect on how positively one was perceived by the inter-
action partner (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). Extraversion may be a mixed blessing in the getting‐to‐know‐you
process because some aspects of extraversion (e.g., cheerfulness and sociability) lead to being liked more,
whereas other aspects (e.g., dominance and assertiveness) lead to being liked less (Wortman & Wood, 2011).
In short, extraverts seem to be liked more at first, but they are not necessarily more prone to elicit liking after
the first impression.
3.1.3 | Dyadic effects

Similarity in extraversion can impact friendship formation. People, particularly introverts, tend to like others who
match their level of extraversion (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). People also befriend others with similar levels of
extraversion in real‐life social networks (Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b; Selfhout, Branje, & Meeus, 2007;
Selfhout et al., 2010) and online (Lönnqvist & Itkonen, 2016).
3.2 | Friendship Maintenance

Extraverts consistently report having more satisfying, high quality friendships than introverts (Berry, Willingham, &
Thayer, 2000; Festa, McNamara Barry, Sherman, & Grover, 2012; Mund & Neyer, 2014; Neyer & Lehnart, 2007;
Wilson et al., 2015). This is consistent with the finding that extraversion is related to satisfaction in romantic relation-
ships as well (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004; Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010; Malouff,
Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2010; Solomon & Jackson, 2014; cf., Slatcher & Vazire, 2009).
The evidence that extraverts have better friendships than introverts comes mostly from extraverts' own ratings of
their friendship quality and satisfaction—could it all be in extraverts' heads? If extraverts tend to see things in a rosy
light, and that is what is driving their greater satisfaction with their friendships, we would expect that the association
between extraversion and friendship success would be strongest for the facets of extraversion having to do with
cheerfulness and positive affect. In fact, it is the sociability facet of extraversion—not the positive affect facet—that
predicts future friendship quality (Mund & Neyer, 2014). This suggests extraverts' positive perception of their friend-
ships is more than a side effect of their general cheerfulness.
Indeed, some evidence suggests that extraverts may in fact have better skills when it comes to friendship main-
tenance. For example, when a conflict emerges, extraverts are more likely than introverts to address it with their
friends in an active, constructive accommodation style, and less likely to engage in actively destructive or neglectful
behaviors (Berry et al., 2000; Park & Antonioni, 2007; Wood & Bell, 2008). In addition, extraversion is associated with
more self‐disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Vittengl & Holt, 2000; Wilson et al., 2015).
Extraverts tend to have better social skills (Argyle & Lu, 1990). Together, these findings suggest that extraverts are
better at creating friendships that are satisfying to themselves than are introverts, in part because of their sociability
and interpersonal skills.

Recall that extraversion was associated with being liked more at first, but not after a first impression. This trend seems
to continue once friendships are established—extraversion predicts higher self‐reported friendship quality, but does
not predict higher friend‐reported friendship quality (Berry et al., 2000; Festa et al., 2012). This phenomenon is not
limited to friendships; it occurs in romantic relationships as well. Extraversion is positively associated with self‐, but
not partner‐reports of romantic relationship quality (Donnellan et al., 2004; Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Solomon &
Jackson, 2014). It is surprising that these behavioral patterns do not translate to extraverts' friends being more satis-
fied with their friendship than introverts' friends. This suggests there may be other, more harmful behavioral corre-
lates of extraversion (e.g., inappropriate assertiveness) that may cancel out the benefits of these positive
friendship‐maintenance behaviors.
3.3 | Summary and Future Directions

Extraversion does not seem to be associated with liking people more at first—that is, extraverts do not seem any less
selective in their friendships than introverts. However, extraverts nevertheless end up having more friends than intro-
verts. This may be due to extraverts having more opportunities to make new friends than do introverts. In addition,
extraversion is associated with being liked more, but only in first impressions. Once friendships are formed, extraverts
tend to find their friendships more satisfying than introverts, but their friends are not happier with the friendship than
introverts' friends.
All of these conclusions are based on only a handful of studies, however. Moreover, few studies have
examined these effects at the facet level. This is particularly important because extraversion is comprised of both
communion‐related traits (e.g., sociability and warmth) that are likely to be beneficial for friendship outcomes, and
agency‐related traits (e.g., dominance and assertiveness) that may be more of a mixed blessing. Future research
should continue to examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of extraversion for friendship formation and
maintenance.
There is some evidence that people befriend similarly extraverted others, but more research is needed to
gain further understanding of how the traits of both friends combine to shape the way those friends relate to
each other. This is relevant for most traits, but given extraversion's association with positive affect, activity,
and sociability, it is easy to imagine how friendships could look very different depending on the combination
of extraversion levels (i.e., high‐high vs. high‐low vs. low‐low). Nelson, Thorne, and Shapiro (2011) began
studying the dynamics of matched versus mismatched friendships, but there is still more work to be done
on this topic.
There has been very little research on the effects of extraversion on friendship dissolution, but we do know that
extraverts maintain larger social networks than introverts (Wagner, Lüdtke, Roberts, & Trautwein, 2014). Are extra-
verts maintaining these large networks by keeping hold of the same friends or are they constantly making new friends
to make up for the turnover? Much more research is needed to understand the role of personality in friendship
dissolution.
Extraverts' apparent ability to form and keep more friendships than introverts has important implications for
other areas of research. For example, the link between extraversion and number of friends could help explain the
robust finding that extraversion is associated with higher well‐being (Steel, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2008). In addition,
extraverts' facility making friends may have implications for person‐environment fit—extraverts may adapt better than
introverts to new environments that require making new friends and may perform better in jobs that require
socializing with a broad range of people.
4 | A G RE E A B LE N E S S
Agreeableness is arguably the trait that is most relevant to interpersonal interactions. Agreeableness is characterized
by being warm, caring, and altruistic (Costa & McCrae, 1995). People high in agreeableness are more collaborative and
cooperative than competitive (Ross, Rausch, & Canada, 2003). When highly agreeable people get angry, they are less
likely to behave in an aggressive manner (Jensen‐Campbell et al., 2002; Jensen‐Campbell, Knack, Waldrip, & Campbell,
2007). If someone is altruistic, cooperative, and self‐controlled when angered, he might also be more likely to adhere
to reciprocity norms in friendship by helping and sharing resources equally. Thus, agreeableness should play a positive
role in forming and maintaining friendships.

On the face of it, agreeableness would seem to be a strong candidate for a trait that should be important to friendship
formation. Surprisingly, however, agreeableness seems to be less important than extraversion in selecting new friends.
Agreeable people tend to like others, but do not seek them out as friends. Agreeableness predicts forming positive
perceptions of others and liking strangers after brief interactions (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009; Wood, Harms, & Vazire,
2010). However, agreeableness is unrelated to liking others at zero acquaintance, when judgments of liking are made
prior to an interaction (Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b). Agreeable people do not nominate more people as friends
than disagreeable people (Selfhout et al., 2010).
Why is it that more agreeable people like and get along with others more than disagreeable people, but do not
seem to actively pursue more friends? Thinking about the interpersonal circumplex could shed some light on this
apparent paradox. Agreeableness is associated with being high on the warmth dimension but not high on dominance
(Costa & McCrae, 1995). Dominance is what propels people to strive for things, to be proactive, and to approach their
goals (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Wiggins, 2003). Thus, high warmth without high dominance (i.e., agreeableness) might
lead people to be more passive about their interpersonal goals. Agreeable people may be more motivated to avoid
conflict than disagreeable people and so, will use their interpersonal skills to make the interactions they happen to
be in go smoothly, but they may not actively seek out new friendships.

Agreeableness does not immediately attract others, but later becomes a valuable trait in potential friends. At zero
acquaintance agreeableness does not predict being better liked (Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b). However, after
interacting with others, agreeable people are better liked than disagreeable people (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009;
Wortman & Wood, 2011). Agreeableness predicts being selected more often as a friend (Selfhout et al., 2010), and
as a result, agreeable people have large stable social networks (Wagner et al., 2014). In short, agreeable people are
popular. This is especially true in affiliative contexts (as opposed to competitive contexts), where cooperation is valued
(DesJardins, Srivastava, Küfner, & Back, 2015).
Agreeable people wind up with large networks despite not initiating friendships, likely because they are more
likely than disagreeable people to be befriended by others. Social network research has shown that after being
selected as a friend, people tend to reciprocate those friendships over time (Selfhout et al., 2010). For agreeable peo-
ple, their networks grow not because they are initiating more friendships, but because they are sought out as friends
and reciprocate friendship behaviors. It is also possible that agreeable people could elicit more pleasant behavior from
the people they meet or facilitate an environment in which people are more comfortable and genuine (Letzring, 2008).
Then, because the interaction went so well, both interaction partners might like each other, and be likely to pursue a
friendship.

Previous research suggests that each person's level of agreeableness exerts a main effect on how well an interaction
goes, but there are also dyadic effects. When at least one of the two interaction partners is high on agreeableness,
both are more likely to feel comfortable in the interaction, and independent coders observe more smiles and laughter
in those interactions (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). However, if two highly disagreeable people are put together, the
interaction does not go as well (Cuperman & Ickes).
The evidence for similarity in agreeableness during friendship formation is murky. One study suggests that people
tend to befriend others who are similarly agreeable (Selfhout et al., 2010). This preference for similarity could tie back
to reciprocity norms. A mismatch in agreeableness could, over time, lead to one person giving or taking more than the
other, which would be uncomfortable for friends to maintain. However, it is unclear whether the effects of similarity
are the same for people at all levels of agreeableness or not. As mentioned above, two individuals low in agreeable-
ness have less pleasant interactions with each other (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009), so it is unlikely that this combination
would make for a successful friendship. More research is needed to clarify whether there are dyadic effects of agree-
ableness in friendship formation, and if there are, under what conditions these effects are found.

Although agreeableness does not predict initiating more friendships, agreeableness does seem important for sustain-
ing satisfying and high quality relationships. This appears to be equally true for friendships and romantic relationships
(Berry et al., 2000; Demir & Weitekamp, 2007; Festa et al., 2012; Malouff et al., 2010; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick,
2004). Similar to extraversion, agreeableness predicts better relationship quality because it is associated with better
relationship skills. People high in agreeableness report more emotional closeness with friends than do people low in
agreeableness (Berry et al., 2000; Neyer & Lehnart, 2007). Agreeable people engage in conflict less frequently than
do disagreeable people, and when they do, they are more likely to use constructive conflict behaviors to problem
solve (Berry et al.; Graziano, Jensen‐Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Park & Antonioni, 2007; Wood & Bell, 2008). After a con-
flict, agreeable people are more likely than disagreeable people to forgive their partners (Balliet, 2010; Neto, 2007).
Numerous studies show that being disagreeable predicts lower romantic relationship quality, and ultimately,
divorce (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Roberts et al., 2007; Solomon
& Jackson, 2014). Disagreeable people are more likely to engage in negative conflict behaviors such as neglect and
abuse (Kurdek, 1997), and are more likely to demonstrate hostility and coldness towards their partners (Buss, 1991;
Donnellan et al., 2004). Sustained poor relationship satisfaction appears to be the pathway between agreeableness
and divorce (Solomon & Jackson, 2014). Thus, across both friendship and romantic relationships, agreeableness is
associated with better relationship maintenance behaviors and ultimately, with better relationship satisfaction and
stability.

Do agreeable people make for better friends? There is less evidence for the positive effects of agreeableness on
friend‐rated relationship quality than on self‐rated friendship quality. In one study, self‐reported agreeableness was
associated with self‐reports of friendship closeness but not friend‐rated closeness (Berry et al., 2000). There are some
indication that people respond more positively to agreeable friends during conflict than disagreeable friends (Berry
et al.). Not surprisingly, friends of highly agreeable people find them to be less annoying than their disagreeable coun-
terparts (Berry et al.). In romantic relationships, having a disagreeable spouse leads to lower relationship quality than
having an agreeable spouse, and, as mentioned above, one partner's disagreeableness increases the couple's chances
of divorce (Solomon & Jackson, 2014).
Above, we argued that agreeableness was attractive because it suggested that a potential friend might be more
likely to meet and adhere to the expectations of friendship. The same argument holds during the maintenance stage
of friendship as well. People high in agreeableness are more likely to exhibit the prosocial behaviors desired within
friendship (Berndt, 2002), which should make them friends worth keeping. However, there is surprisingly little evi-
dence directly examining the effects of agreeableness on partner‐rated friendship quality (cf., Berry et al., 2000).

Agreeableness has an overwhelmingly positive effect on friendships. During zero acquaintance, agreeableness has
little to do with liking and being liked, but over time agreeableness becomes a valuable trait for friendship formation
and maintenance. Just as with romantic relationships, agreeableness predicts satisfaction in friendships (although so
far this evidence is limited mostly to agreeableness predicting one's own friendship satisfaction). This is likely due
to agreeable people's interpersonal skills and tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors, such as helping their friends
and reciprocating favors. Future research should examine what being friends with an agreeable or disagreeable person
is like from the partner's perspective.
Above and beyond the main effects of agreeableness, there is some evidence of dyadic effects. People tend to
befriend others who are similarly agreeable. However, compatibility on agreeableness is not necessary for a successful
interaction—one agreeable person in an interaction is enough for things to go smoothly. Little is known about how
similarity on agreeableness affects the long‐term prospects of a friendship dyad. Is a pair of disagreeable friends just
as likely to stay friends as a pair of agreeable friends? Does one person's agreeableness continue to serve as a buffer
to a friend's disagreeableness? More research is needed to determine how the dyadic effects in friendship formation
play out over time.
There is very little research on the role personality plays in friendship dissolution, but, given its role in divorce and
conflict, low agreeableness is probably an important factor in friendships ending. Marriages dissolve due to disagree-
ableness creating sustained negative relationship satisfaction (Solomon & Jackson, 2014); could this same process
explain friendship dissolution? This process might even lead to friendship dissolution faster than the break‐up of a
romantic relationship, because of the lower levels of investment and interdependence in friendships compared to
romantic relationships (Le & Agnew, 2003; Lin & Rusbult, 1995). Future research should examine the long‐term con-
sequences of agreeableness for friendship outcomes, and the specific interpersonal processes that might account for
the effects of agreeableness on friendship success and failure.
5 | N E U R O T I CI S M /E M O T I O N A L ST A B I L I T Y
Neuroticism is not as explicitly socially oriented as extraversion or agreeableness. However, it does have a broad
impact on important life outcomes such as health, happiness, and romantic relationships (e.g. Roberts et al., 2007)—
often in a negative way. People high in neuroticism tend to experience more negative affect and be more emotionally
reactive (Costa & McCrae, 1995). These traits could manifest as behaviors, for example holding grudges (Balliet, 2010),
that make someone high on neuroticism more difficult to be friends with. As such, we would expect neuroticism to be
negatively associated with friendship formation and maintenance.

There is little evidence in previous research that neuroticism affects how much people initially like others. Emotional
stability (i.e., low neuroticism) is not associated with liking strangers more at zero acquaintance (Back, Schmukle &
Egloff, 2011b) or during an interaction (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009), nor is it associated with making new friends
(Selfhout et al., 2010). This is somewhat surprising given that neuroticism is characterized by the propensity to expe-
rience negative emotions. This apparently does not extend to negative feelings about new acquaintances, an interest-
ing finding in itself.

Neuroticism also has little to do with how much people are liked by new acquaintances (Back, Schmukle & Egloff,
2011b; Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). Despite that, it has a significant impact on how people think they will be percieved
by others. People high on neuroticism do not expect to be liked at zero acquaintance, (Back et al.). Similarly, they feel
less comfortable and more self‐conscious interacting with strangers than do people low on neuroticism. They are also
more vigilant of the stranger's behavior and try harder to get in‐sync with the stranger's behavior (Cuperman & Ickes).
It seems that from the very start of a relationship, neuroticism is associated with watching for and expecting negative
relationship outcomes. This early in relationships, however, their concerns appear to be unwarranted.
The vigilance and attentiveness towards a new person fits in well with what is known about how neuroticism
affects perception more broadly. Neuroticism is characterized by worry and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1995). People
high on neuroticism are vigilant in searching their environments for any potential threats (Haas, Omura, Constable, &
Canli, 2007). Negative events happen more often to people high on neuroticism (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot,
1993), and when faced with negative experiences, they perceive those negative events even more negatively than
less neurotic people (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). If people high on neuroticism are so wary when engaging with
most other elements of their environment, it is not surprising that potential new friends are also treated with caution.
What is interesting, however, is that others do not pick up on this wariness, and do not show a preference for emo-
tionally stable people at early stages of friendship formation. This is consistent with evidence suggesting that emo-
tional stability/neuroticism is difficult to judge accurately at low levels of acquaintance (Vazire & Solomon, 2015).

In the early stages of relationship development, emotional stability has little impact on friendship experiences, but
nevertheless, people high on neuroticism anticipated negative outcomes (Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b; Cuperman
& Ickes, 2009). Those fears come to fruition once friendships have been established. Neuroticism has a negative
impact on friendships (Lang, Staudinger, & Carstensen, 1998). This is consistent with the effects of neuroticism in
romantic relationships. A meta‐analysis found neuroticism to be the strongest predictor of low romantic relationship
quality out of the Big Five (Malouff et al., 2010). There have been robust findings implicating neuroticism in low rela-
tionship satisfaction (Donnellan et al., 2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Malouff et al., 2010; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt,
2000; Schaffhuser et al., 2014; White et al., 2004), and marital difficulties (Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Kelly & Conley,
1987; Roberts et al., 2007). For friendships, high neuroticism is associated with having a smaller friendship network
and feeling less close to network members (Lang et al.). People high in neuroticism tend to feel more insecure in their
friendships than do emotionally stable people (Neyer & Lehnart, 2007).
In a cruel twist, the sensitivity to threat and negative experiences that is characteristic of neuroticism appears to
lead to the very problems people high in neuroticism are trying to avoid. For example, neuroticism is associated with
excessive reassurance‐seeking, including repeatedly seeking reassurance after it has been already been given because
a person does not believe the reassurance was sufficient or genuine (Joiner, Metalsky, Katz, & Beach, 2009). Over
time, excessive reassurance‐seeking leads to relationship degradation as both friends become frustrated by the con-
stant cycle of reassurance and disbelief (Joiner et al.). People high in neuroticism are anxious and prone to looking for
negative outcomes (Costa & McCrae, 1995); thus, it makes sense that they would be more suspicious of reassurance
when it was offered.
Sensitivity to negativity also influences the way people high in neuroticism engage in conflict. Compared to emo-
tionally stable people, people high in neuroticism tend to have more frequent negative interactions with their spouses,
which leads to lower marital satisfaction years later (Donnellan et al., 2004). They also tend to escalate conflicts (Neto,
2007), get more upset after being slighted, and are less likely to forgive someone after they have been offended
(Balliet, 2010). High neuroticism predicts more conflict within the relationship, and during those conflicts, friends high
in neuroticism are likely to use neglect and avoidance strategies (Berry et al., 2000; Demir & Weitekamp, 2007).

During friendship maintenance, friends and romantic partners of people high on neuroticism rate their relationships
more poorly (Berry et al., 2000; Solomon & Jackson, 2014). These lower ratings are driven by the same negative rela-
tionship behaviors—like the neurotic escalating conflicts—that affect self‐reported relationship quality. This is an
important finding because, if neuroticism only predicted lower self‐rated relationship quality, it would be difficult to
know whether neuroticism just leads to more negative evaluations due to distorted, overly negative perceptions.
However, the fact that neuroticism also predicts lower satisfaction in friends and partners suggests that the low rela-
tionship quality ratings are not all in the neurotic person's head. This provides further evidence that neuroticism is
associated with engaging in behaviors that undermine friendships and relationships.

While the vast majority of evidence shows that neuroticism has a negative impact on relationship quality, there is
some evidence that couples that share similar levels of neuroticism and negative emotionality are happier together
than mismatched couples (Barelds & Barelds‐Dijkstra, 2007; Robins et al., 2000). More research is needed to under-
stand why this is the case, and if the same pattern holds for friendships.

The research conducted so far suggests that neuroticism has little effect on friendship formation, but is problematic
for friendships once they have been formed. People high on neuroticism seem to preemptively worry about their
ability to have successful relationships, and often wind up behaving in ways that make relationships more fraught.
The romantic relationships literature can shed a great deal of light on why neuroticism is a strong predictor of
problems in the friendship maintenance stage. Similar to low agreeableness, high neuroticism is detrimental to roman-
tic relationships (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Neto, 2007; Roberts et al., 2007; Solomon &
Jackson, 2014). Based on attachment theory, there should be some similarity in what high neuroticism and low agree-
ableness predict, because they are both associated with avoidant attachment (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). For example,
the neglecting and withdrawing conflict behaviors utilized by highly neurotic and highly disagreeable people matches
what one would expect from avoidant attachment (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). However, because anxiety is also a prom-
inent feature of neuroticism but not agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1995), neuroticism causes additional negative
outcomes rooted in fear and anxiety that agreeableness does not.
There is little research on friendship dissolution, but neuroticism is likely to have a strong effect here as
well. For romantic relationships, neuroticism is associated with declining relationship satisfaction and eventual
relationship dissolution (Solomon & Jackson, 2014). Friends may be even more sensitive to declines in relation-
ship satisfaction than romantic partners because of different levels of investment (Lin & Rusbult, 1995). Based
on the investment model, a marriage should be a more committed relationship than a friendship, and so married
couples might be more motivated to weather declines in relationship satisfaction than friends (Le & Agnew,
2003). Thus, if people have lower investment in their friendships when relationship quality takes a downturn,
those friendships are likely to end.
6 | C O N S CI EN T I O U S NE S S
Although conscientiousness has clear interpersonal implications (e.g., following through on commitments to others), it
is less directly related to social behavior than extraversion and agreeableness (particularly outside the workplace).
Because there is little evidence of the role of conscientiousness in friendship formation and maintenance, we provide
only a brief summary of what is currently known.

Conscientiousness is not the first thing one looks for in a friend. It neither benefits nor hinders friendship formation
(Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b; Cuperman & Ickes, 2009; Selfhout et al., 2010). Conscientiousness appears to be
relatively more useful in keeping friendships going once they start.

There is some evidence that conscientiousness is associated with better friendship quality and less conflict (Berry
et al., 2000; Demir & Weitekamp, 2007; Jensen‐Campbell & Malcolm, 2007; Wilson et al., 2015), and predicts feeling
more positively about one's friendships (Mund & Neyer, 2014). In one study, high conscientiousness at age 12
predicted higher self‐reported friendship quality in young adulthood (Lansford, Yu, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2014). In
older adults, conscientiousness is associated with more perceived social support from friends (Hill, Payne, Jackson,
Stine‐Morrow, & Roberts, 2014).
This is consistent with what is found for romantic relationships (Donnellan et al., 2004; Dyrenforth et al., 2010;
Malouff et al., 2010; Neto, 2007; Solomon & Jackson). If a highly conscientious person does something that offends
his partner, he is more likely to seek and offer forgiveness (Baker & McNulty, 2011; Balliet, 2010). High conscientious-
ness deceases the likelihood of divorce (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Roberts et al., 2007;
Solomon & Jackson, 2014).
The positive effects of conscientiousness on friendship align with the literature on self‐control and relationships.
Conscientiousness and self‐control are very similar constructs (Tangney, Buamister,,, & Boone, 2004). Similar to con-
scientiousness, self‐control is associated with doing a better job managing conflicts (Finkel & Campbell, 2001;
Tangney et al.). Additionally, individuals with high self‐control are considered more trustworthy than individuals with
low self‐control (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011). Taken together, people high in conscientiousness could have better
friendship outcomes because being self‐controlled helps them handle anger and conflicts better and makes them
trustworthy and reliable.

Based on these findings, the effects of conscientiousness should be more pronounced in the later stages of friendship
development than in friendship formation. Moreover, future research should examine dyadic effects of friends' levels
conscientiousness (e.g., similarity or complementarity effects). Finally, little is known about potential partner effects of
conscientiousness—whether friends of conscientious people find the friendship more satisfying than friends of people
low in conscientiousness.
7 | OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE
Similar to conscientiousness there, there is little evidence concerning the role openness to experience plays in friend-
ship, so we provide only a brief summary here.

As expected, openness does not appear to be very influential in friendship formation It neither helps nor hinders liking
during zero acquaintance interactions (Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2011b) or during short, initial interactions (Cuperman
& Ickes, 2009). That said, individuals tend to be friends with people who are similarly open (Lönnqvist & Itkonen,
2016; Selfhout et al., 2010). Given that openness is associated with values and interests (Dollinger, Leong, & Ulicni,
1996), similarity in openness could be indicative of other commonalities.

Openness does seem to be associated with having a larger friendship network, but not with one's level of closeness
with network members (Lang et al., 1998; Zhu et al., 2013). In addition, there is some evidence suggesting that open-
ness is beneficial for handling conflict (Berry et al., 2000; Park & Antonioni, 2007). When they fight, people high in
openness are more likely to confront the issue in a constructive way and less likely to use neglect or avoidance
towards their friend than people low in openness (Berry et al.; Park & Antonioni). Part of openness is a willingness
to engage with different types of ideas; this could be beneficial for mitigating conflict because someone high in open-
ness might be better able to see multiple sides of a situation.
The research on openness and romantic relationships is also rather inconclusive. In some studies, openness has a
negative effect on romantic relationship quality (Dyrenforth et al., 2010); in others, there is no effect at all (Malouff
et al., 2010). One study found that people high in openness are more likely to divorce after experiencing steeper
declines in relationship satisfaction (Solomon & Jackson, 2014). A major reason that openness might have a negative
effect on romantic relationships is that it is associated with infidelity (Buss, 1991). Because exclusivity is not a concern
for friends, seeking out more people for stimulation (as people high in openness are likely to do) may not have nega-
tive consequences in a friendship.

Future research should continue to examine the role of openness to experience in friendship formation and
maintenance. Compared to the other Big Five traits, openness is likely to be less related to actors' and partners'
friendship satisfaction, but it may be related to other outcomes, such as one's position in social networks, or
the variety of one's friends. Moreover, openness has important connections to values and attitudes, which
often show dyadic effects (i.e., similarity) in social relationships, suggesting that most of the effects of openness
on friendships may be at the dyadic level.
8 | C O N CL U S I O N
The Big Five traits are influential in forming and maintaining friendships. The traits one might expect to be associated
with friendship due to their content and association with other socially relevant outcomes—extraversion, agreeable-
ness, and neuroticism—indeed have the biggest impact on friendships. Conscientiousness and openness also impact
friendships, but rather than having broad, sweeping effects, their effects seem more concentrated on specific
processes. There is still much to explore about how personality influences friendships. A good place to start would
be further integrating the theories of relationship science with personality research in order to better understand
the processes underlying how and why the Big Five traits influence relationships. Future research would do well to
examine what occurs during interactions between friends that leads to changes in relationship quality and satisfaction,
and what part personality plays in those interactions.
So far, the research on the role of personality in friendship development suggests that there are important
similarities with romantic relationships development (e.g., agreeableness seems to be important for both), but also
important differences (e.g., extraversion seems more important for friendships than for romantic relationships,
whereas the opposite seems to be true for conscientiousness). However, these conclusions are still preliminary as
they are based on just a handful of studies examining personality and friendship development Cross‐relationship
comparisons (e.g., among friendships, romantic relationships, and work relationships) can help shed light on whether
similar processes are at work in different types of relationships, and what is unique about friendships. Again, working
to further integrate this research with theories from relationship science could be enlightening.
Thus far, the work that has been done on friendship maintenance, and much of the work cited in this review, has
been carried out with predominately white, middle‐class, undergraduate students. More studies should use racially,
ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse samples. Continuing to diversify the types of people who are studied can
only lead to more robust conclusions. In addition, friendship should be examined across the lifespan. Friendships
remain an important part of one's life throughout adulthood (Jones & Vaughn, 1990). In fact, older adults tend to
put more effort into long‐term friendship than middle‐aged adults (Lang, Wagner, Wrzus, & Neyer, 2013). Moreover,
expectations for friendships change over time (Carstensen, 1992). For example, the quantity of friends one has in their
20s predicts later life satisfaction, but when people reach their 30s, friendship quality (rather than quantity) becomes
more important for future well‐being (Carmichael, Reis, & Duberstein, 2015). How does personality relate to these
changing expectations?
Beyond personality, there are many unexamined questions about the contextual and social factors that contribute
to friendship formation, maintenance, and dissolution. For example, how do mixed‐race friendships develop and what
predicts their success? Some exciting new research has been exploring these types of questions (e.g., Page‐Gould,
Mendoza‐Denton, & Tropp, 2008.), but it is a still a relatively understudied topic in social/personality psychology.
Given how important friendships are for health and well‐being (Heller et al., 2004; Mendes de Leon, 2005), learning
more about what makes for thriving friendships in one's youth, twilight years, and all the time in‐between would be
a valuable endeavor for social/personality researchers.
RE FE R ENC ES
Ackerman, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2007). Is friendship akin to kinship? Evolution and Human Behavior, 28,
365–374. DOI:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.004.
Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the Five‐Factor Model of personality: An examination using
the structural summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 167–201. DOI:10.1207/
s15327906mbr3902_3.
Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). Happiness and social skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(12), 1255–1261.
DOI:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90152-H.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1531–1544. DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1531.
Back, M. D., & Vazire, S. (2015). The social consequences of personality: Six suggestions for future research. European Journal
of Personality, 29, 296–307. DOI:10.1002/per.1998.
Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. A., Hartung, F., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., … Wrzus, C. (2011a). PERSOC: A unified
framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality,
25, 90–107. DOI:10.1002/per.811.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011b). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality
and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238.
Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2011). Self‐compassion and relationship maintenance: The moderating roles of conscientious-
ness and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 853–873. DOI:10.1037/a0021884.
Balliet, D. (2010). Conscientiousness and forgivingness: A meta‐analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 259–263.
DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.021.
Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds‐Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similar-
ity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479–496.
DOI:10.1177/0265407507079235.
Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 7–10.
DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00157.
Berry, D. S., Willingham, J. K., & Thayer, C. a. (2000). Affect and personality as predictors of conflict and closeness in young
adults' friendships. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 84–107. DOI:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2271.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59, 663–688.
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00926.x.
Carmichael, C. L., Reis, H. T., & Duberstein, P. R. (2015). In your 20s it's quantity, in your 30s it's quality: The prognostic value
of social activity across 30 years of adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 30, 95–105. DOI:10.1037/pag0000014.
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology
and Aging, 7, 331–338. DOI:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331.
Caspi, B. W., & Roberts, A. (2003). The cumulative continuity model of personality development: Striking a balance between
continuity and change in personality traits across the life course. In U. M. Staudinger, & U. Lindenberger (Eds.),
Understanding Human Development: Dialogues with Lifespan Psychology (pp. 183–214). New York: Springer US.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self‐disclosure and liking: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.
DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2.
Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality
similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,
667–684. DOI:10.1037/a0015741.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. Advances in Descriptive Psychology, 2, 79–122.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and relationship description. In S. Duck, &
D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 17–38). Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
Sage Publications, Inc.
de Leon, C. M. (2005). Why do friendships matter for survival? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 538–539.
DOI:10.1136/jech.2004.031542.
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, 181–211. DOI:10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7.
DesJardins, N. M. L., Srivastava, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2015). Who attains status? Similarities and differences
across social contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 692–700. DOI:10.1177/1948550615580171.
Dollinger, S. J., Leong, F. T., & Ulicni, S. K. (1996). On traits and values: With special reference to openness to experience.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 23–41. DOI:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0002.
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality,
38, 481–504. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.001.
Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from
personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and
similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 690–702. DOI:10.1037/a0020385.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta‐analytic review of
research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109.
Festa, C. C., McNamara Barry, C., Sherman, M. F., & Grover, R. L. (2012). Quality of college students' same‐sex friendships as a
function of personality and interpersonal competence. Psychological Reports, 110, 283–296. DOI:10.2466/04.09.10.21.
PR0.110.1.283-296.
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self‐control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdepencence analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.263.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and
unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132.
Fuhrman, R. W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross‐sex friendships, same‐sex
friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–595. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01240.x.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for
agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820–835. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 1087–1100. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087.
Haas, B. W., Omura, K., Constable, R. T., & Canli, T. (2007). Emotional conflict and neuroticism: Personality‐dependent
activation in the amygdala and subgenual anterior cingulate. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 249–256. DOI:10.1037/
0735-7044.121.6.1173.
Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574–600. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.574.
Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Jackson, J. J., Stine‐Morrow, E. A., & Roberts, B. W. (2014). Perceived social support predicts increased
conscientiousness during older adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,
69, 543–547. DOI:10.1093/geronb/gbt024.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31,
1357–1364. DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00229-4.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Malcolm, K. T. (2007). The importance of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 368–383. DOI:10.1177/0146167206296104.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G., Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q., & Egan, S. K. (2002). Agreeableness, extraver-
sion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality,
36, 224–251. DOI:10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. a., Knack, J. M., Waldrip, A. M., & Campbell, S. D. (2007). Do Big Five personality traits associated with
self‐control influence the regulation of anger and aggression? Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 403–424.
DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.05.001.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.
In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed.). (pp. 102–138).
Joiner, T. E., Metalsky, G. I., Katz, J., & Beach, S. R. H. (2009). Psychological inquiry : An international journal for the
advancement of psychological theory depression and excessive reassurance‐seeking depression and excessive
reassurance‐seeking. Psychological Enquiry, 10, 269–278. DOI:10.1207/S15327965PLI1004.
Jones, D. C., & Vaughn, K. (1990). Close friendships among senior adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 451–457. DOI:10.1037/
0882-7974.5.3.451.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method,
and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.27.
Kurdek, L. A. (1997). The link between facets of neuroticism and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay,
lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 503–514. DOI:10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.503.
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships in late life: Further support for proactive aging in the
social domain. Psychology and Aging, 9, 315–324. DOI:10.1037/0882-7974.9.2.315.
Lang, F. R., Staudinger, U. M., & Carstensen, L. L. (1998). Perspectives on socioemotional selectivity in late life: How person-
ality and social context do (and do not) make a difference. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and
Social Sciences, 53B, 21–30. DOI:10.1093/geronb/53B.1.P21.
Lang, F. R., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Personal effort in social relationships across adulthood. Psychology and
Aging, 28, 529–539. DOI:10.1037/a0032221.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, a. J., Larson, a., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta‐
analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390.
Lansford, J. E., Yu, T., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2014). Pathways of peer relationships from childhood to young
adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 111–117. DOI:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.12.002.
Laursen, B., & Bukowski, W. M. (1997). A developmental guide to the organisation of close relationships. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 21, 747–770. DOI:10.1080/016502597384659.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinanats: A meta‐analysis of the investment model.
Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57.
Letzring, T. D. (2008). The good judge of personality: Characteristics, behaviors, and observed accuracy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 914–932. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.003.
Lin, Y. H. W., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Commitment to dating relation‐ ships and cross‐sex friendships in America and China:
The impact of centrality of relationship, normative support, and investment model variables. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 12, 7–26.
Lönnqvist, J. E., & Itkonen, J. V. A. (2016). Homogeneity of personal values and personality traits in Facebook social networks.
Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 24–35. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.001.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Deiner, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1053. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1046.
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five‐Factor Model of personality and
relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124–127.
DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self‐disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 321–331. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.321.
Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). Treating personality‐relationship transactions with respect: Narrow facets, advanced models,
and extended time frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 352–368. DOI:10.1037/a0036719.
Nelson, P. A., Thorne, A., & Shapiro, L. A. (2011). I'm outgoing and she's reserved: The reciprocal dynamics of personality in
close friendships in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1113–1148.
Neto, F. (2007). Forgiveness, personality and gratitude. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2313–2323. DOI:10.1016/j.
paid.2007.07.010.
Neyer, F. J., & Lehnart, J. (2007). Relationships matter in personality development: Evidence from an 8‐year longitudinal study
across young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 75, 535–568.
Neyer, F. J., Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Lang, F. R. (2011). Principles of relationship differentiation. European Psychologist, 16,
267–277. DOI:10.1027/1016-9040/a000055.
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative
ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet‐Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 401–421. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.19012.
Page‐Gould, E., Mendoza‐Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross‐group friend: Reducing anxiety in
intergroup contexts through cross‐group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094.
DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080.
Park, H., & Antonioni, D. (2007). Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 110–125. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.003.
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Extraverts have larger social network layers. Journal of Individual
Differences, 32, 161–169. DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000048.
Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are in control, I will trust you: The role of perceived self‐control in interpersonal
trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 874–886. DOI:10.1037/t09595-000.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity
of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: both partners' personality traits shape the
quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251–259. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.251.
Ross, S. R., Rausch, M. K., & Canada, K. E. (2003). Competition and cooperation in the five‐factor model: Individual differences
in achievement orientation. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 323–337. DOI:10.1080/
00223980309600617.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and
commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.
Schaffhuser, K., Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Allemand, M. (2014). Dyadic longitudinal interplay between personality and
relationship satisfaction: A focus on neuroticism and self‐esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 124–133.
DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.007.
Selfhout, M. H. W., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2007). Similarity in adolescent best friendships: The role of gender.
Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63, 50–57.
Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship
networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509–538. DOI:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2010.00625.x.
Sherman, A. M., Lansford, J. E., & Volling, B. L. (2006). Sibling relationships and best friendships in young adulthood: Warmth,
conflict, and well‐being. Personal Relationships, 13, 151–165. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00110.x.
Slatcher, R. B., & Vazire, S. (2009). Effects of global and contextualized personality of relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 624–633. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.012.
Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). Why do personality traits predict divorce? Multiple pathways through satisfaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 978–996. DOI:10.1037/a0036190.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic
relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481. DOI:10.1177/
0265407502019004048.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Schultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well‐being.
Swickert, R. J., Rosentreter, C. J., Hittner, J. B., & Mushrush, J. E. (2002). Extraversion, social support processes, and stress.
Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 877–891.
Tangney, Buamister, & Boone, 2004.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1996). Friendship and the banker's paradox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for
altruism. In W. G. Runciman, J. M. Smith, R. M. Dunbar, W. G. Runciman, J. M. Smith, & R. M. Dunbar (Eds.), Evolution
of Social Behaviour Patterns in Primates and Man (pp. 119–143). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt‐Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological
processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119,
488–531. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.488.
Vazire, S., & Solomon, B. C. (2015). Self‐and other‐knowledge of personality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, &
R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 4). (pp. 261–281). Washington, DC, US:
American Psychological Association.
Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (2000). Getting acquainted: The relationship of self‐disclosure and social attraction to positive
affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 53–66. DOI:10.1177/0265407500171003.
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., & Trautwein, U. (2014). Who belongs to me? Social relationship and personality
characteristics in the transition to young adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28, 586–603.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect, personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 1011–1025. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.1011.
Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses
of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068. DOI:10.1111/j.0022-
3506.2004.00289.x.
White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big Five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1519–1530. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.019.
Wiggins, J. S. (2003). Paradigms of Personality Assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Wilson, R. E., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2015). Personality and friendship satisfaction in daily life: Do everyday social interactions
account for individual differences in friendship satisfaction? European Journal of Personality, 29, 173–186.
Wood, V. F., & Bell, P. A. (2008). Predicting interpersonal conflict resolution styles from personality characteristics. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45, 126–131. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.010.
Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174–190. DOI:10.1037/a0019390.
Wortman, J., & Wood, D. (2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 519–528.
DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.006.
Wrzus, C., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). The interdependence of horizontal family relationships and friendships relates to
higher well‐being. Personal Relationships, 19, 465–482. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01373.x.
Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. (2015). Friendships in young and middle adulthood: Normative patterns
and personality differences. In M. Hojjat, & A. Moyer (Eds.), Psychology of Friendship). New York: Oxford University Press.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2.
Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: From personality to social networks and
perceived support. Social Networks, 35, 382–393. DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005.
How to cite this article: Harris, K., and Vazire, S. (2016), On friendship development and the Big Five person-
ality traits, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, doi: 10.1111/spc3.12287
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Kelci Harris is interested in the development of personality and close relationships, specifically, friendships. Her
research examines the longitudinal effects of personality and peer experiences on subjective well‐being and adjust-
ment. She also examines personality's role in shaping the daily interactions that influence friendship quality and
well‐being. Kelci has a BA in Psychology and Comparative Literature from the University of North Carolina and is cur-
rently a graduate student at Washington University in St. Louis.
Simine Vazire is an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis. Her research examines the
accuracy of people's self‐perceptions of their personality traits and behavior. She uses a variety of methods including
self‐reports, informant reports, behavioral observation, and experience sampling to compare how people see them-
selves to how they are seen by others and how they actually behave. Her research also examines people's self‐knowl-
edge of fluctuations in their personality states and well‐being. She also works on research methods and replicability
and has published several papers on improving research practices in psychology. She also has a blog on the topic
(http://sometimesimwrong.typepad.com).

spc3 12287

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

spc3 12287

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 10 February 2016 Revised: 7 July 2016 Accepted: 2 August 2016

On friendship development and the Big Five

A More nonkin in network and greater

• Daily diary of style (Actor) style (actor and partner), more

E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism; C = Conscientiousness; O = Openness.

TABLE 2 Summary of research on friendship by trait and stage of friendship.

Extraversion • More • Better first • Befriend • Higher • Little to no

1.1 | Interdependence and commitment

3.1 | Friendship Formation

3.1.2 | Partner effects

3.1.3 | Dyadic effects

3.2 | Friendship Maintenance

3.2.2 | Partner effects

3.3 | Summary and Future Directions

4.1 | Friendship Formation

4.1.2 | Partner effects

4.1.3 | Dyadic effects

4.2 | Friendship Maintenance

4.2.2 | Partner effects

4.3 | Summary and Future Directions

5.1 | Friendship Formation

5.1.2 | Partner effects

5.2 | Friendship Maintenance

5.2.2 | Partner effects

5.2.3 | Dyadic effects

5.3 | Summary and Future Directions

6.1 | Friendship Formation

6.2 | Friendship Maintenance

6.3 | Summary and Future Directions

7.1 | Friendship Formation

7.2 | Friendship Maintenance

7.3 | Summary and Future Directions

You might also like