Having a wide circle of friends is important to psychological wellbeing, but a network of relatives is more important for men according to new study from the UK.
The research, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, found the midlife wellbeing of both men and women seems to depend on having a wide circle of friends, with a lack of friends associated with significantly lower levels of psychological wellbeing.
The study, which included 6500 Britons born in 1958, found that a network of relatives is also important, but only for men, and for women, lack of friends had an even greater negative impact on wellbeing.
It found being partnered is associated with large kinship networks, yet only men psychologically benefit from having an extended kinship network.
“It’s interesting that this study, like others before, has found that being partnered or married is more beneficial to men than women,” said Monika Merkes, Honorary Associate at the Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing at La Trobe University.
The study states: “The association between partnership status and psychological well-being was present among men only. However, further analyses showed that values of psychological well-being were actually higher in women, especially those who were not partnered, when compared with men.”
Dr Merkes said the study did not go into possible reasons for this, but one might speculate that mid-aged women’s caring role for older relatives and their own children or grandchildren adds stress rather than conferring psychological benefits.
She pointed to a recent Australian study, which examined relationship quality and levels of depression and anxiety that found that only good-quality relationships bestowed mental health benefits over remaining single. The study, published in the Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, also found that for women, being in a poor-quality relationship was associated with greater levels of anxiety than being single.
More information on why those studied were not in a relationship would be useful said Richard Fletcher, senior lecturer in the Family Action Centre at the University of Newcastle.
“They don’t differentiate on unpartnered people whether they’re separated divorced or single.
“You can imagine your networks would be reduced a bit if you were divorced,” Dr Fletcher said.
The study found one in seven had no contacts with relatives outside their immediate household, and around one in ten said they had no friends.
“This study adds support to previous studies that show being socially connected is good for wellbeing and mental health. In this context, it is of great concern that about one in ten people report having no friends at all,” Dr Merkes said.
The researchers asked about the number of relatives and friends with whom the research participants meet once a month or more, but Dr Merkes said it was not sufficiently clear what was being measured.
“Does this refer to face-to-face meetings only, or are contacts via electronic means, such as telephone, Skype or social media also included? I assume it’s the former. But what about people whose family members live overseas and who keep in regular contact electronically?”
Diana Brown
Parent; language student
"being in a poor-quality relationship was associated with greater levels of anxiety than being single." Indisputable. Old Spanish saying, "Mejor sola que mal acompanada" - 'better to be alone than in a bad relationship' - and it's oh, so true.
As for friends, it's important to differentiate between having a slew of acquaintances and the rare gold of a few close friends of long standing. Both are good, but the latter are the essential ones for a happy life.
lavinia kay moore
child and family counsellor
This is a complex matter. Some to do with the genetic differences which impact on the way men operate and the way women do. Others are to do with social differentiation between how females are treated within the family itself.
Friendships also sometimes turn out not to be, such as when someone with a high status career/ marriage wealth etc suddenly loses "friends" when their power/status disappears.
The differences between men and women therefore has to do with genetics passed down reflecting the originally different roles that they held in their group/family combined with the way males have dominated our society's views about what is normal and what is other. (Women have always been "other").
I suggest that perhaps it is the female need for affirmation (and their greater desire- from my experience- to work cooperatively) that leads them to see that true friendships with other "others" can be very important to them. Sometimes vital for survival!
Craig Minns
Self-employed
This is not a surprising finding. Males of many species, especially social species, have their status within the social group defined by their sexual pairings, not by their casual associations. A group of males might well cooperate to an end, but eventually there will come a point at which they are forced to compete for breeding partners.
Humans have complex social structures designed to reduce the conflicts inherent in such a scheme, but the motivations remain. A male feels "successful" with…
Read moreJohn Harland
bicycle technician
If we assume that most human societies have been largely patriarchal, we see that women will normally move away from their own family to live with their husband's family.
Their links in that new circumstance will be with friends they assess to be trustworthy.
Men, by contrast, will normally stay within the social and familial networks in which they have grown up.
Probably as a direct result of the behaviours that have evolved from this contrast, men and women form friendships differently - in general - and interact rather differently with their friends in each case.
It may be partly genetic, Lavinia, but it might equally be deeply-embedded cultural patterns.
I don't hold with the idea that women work more cooperatively. There are differences in the ways of working together, which means that men are better at sharing particular kinds of tasks than women are, while women share other kinds of tasks better. It's a qualitative difference, rather than a quantitative one.
Diana Brown
Parent; language student
I agree, women don't work more cooperatively. Having worked in places peopled entirely by women and also in situations where there was a mix of genders, I much prefer the latter situation. It's good to leaven the hormonal mix somewhat.
Kenneth Mazzarol
Kenneth Mazzarol is a Friend of The Conversation.
Retired
For me this has more to do with pets that people. My wife and I would have split up years ago if it hadn't been for the dogs we shared. Dogs do not like arguing humans so rather than upset the dog we stopped arguing.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
And did the dogs breed?
Kate Reakes
Manager
I am interested in how this relates to same sex relationships??
Monika Merkes
Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing at La Trobe University
Hi Kate,
I notice the full text describing the study is behind a pay wall, so you might not be able to read the entire article.
"Study participants were identified as ‘partnered’ if they were living with their
partner or spouse at the time of the survey. Those who were not living with a partner or spouse were classified as ‘not partnered’."
As far as I can tell, the researchers asked no further questions in regard to partnership and there is no mention of same sex relationships in the article.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
I agree that the definition of "friends" of this study is questionable. Why was once a month taken as the yardstick? It sounds very arbitrary.
I have many people who I consider friends, close friends even, who I may go for weeks or months without seeing. Sometimes this is down to geography but it's also just a fact of life - between everyone's respective career and family commitments, weeks just fly by and not everyone has the time or energy to socialise every weekend (I know I don't - for me it's the exception not the rule!)
This study has probably found *something* about the role of interpersonal relationships, but because of the arbitrary definitions they've used it's hard to say exactly what. For me it just raises more questions than it answers.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
This could have considerable implications with decisions made by the Family Court. It is actually men who are more likely to be interested in establishing and maintaining a family, and women more interested in social networking, or basically gossiping amongst themselves.
If the Family Court was actually pro-family as people have been lead to believe, they would be more interested in maintaining fathers in families.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
Dale, one day you really should share exactly what has led you to regard women with such contempt. I'm sure it would be a lesson for the rest of us.
Monika Merkes
Honorary Associate, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing at La Trobe University
Dale, the study examined kinship networks, meaning those relatives/family members who do not live in the same household.
In regard to your comment, there is nothing stopping separated or divorced fathers from keeping in regular contact with their siblings, parents, cousins, nephews, nieces and other family members who do not live in the same household.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Married women have almost two times less mental illness than unmarried women. So what do married women want?
Do they want three times less mental illness than unmarried women, or four times less, or five times less? And do they want a family, or just a gossip circle?
An age old question yet unanswered, what do women actually want?
This article doesn't provide much insight, but it does highlight the importance many men place on families.
Diana Brown
Parent; language student
My guess is a toxic divorce or something like that. But really, Regan, does it matter? I. G. N. O. R. E. the lack of R. E. S. P. E. C. T.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
My intellectual curiosity got the better of me Diana - I'm interested in how our experiences shape our beliefs (and indeed, vice versa).
Dale Bloom
Analyst
I think she is just making things up to start some gossip.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
Ah, the whole gamut of human experience - mere "gossip" in the eyes of some. . .
John Harland
bicycle technician
"Mere" gossip?
According to UK sociologist, Robin Dunbar, gossip is what made us human in the first place.
And other research indicates that men gossip just as much as women.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
Indeed - gossip gets a bad rap, particularly from those who lack the EQ to understand it. . .
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Gossip circles can be quickly established and quickly disbanded, or someone can quickly leave a gossip circle if the gossip no longer suits.
Families are a little different, and this might explain the dislike more women than men have for family structures.
Murray Webster
Forestry-Ecology Consultant/Contractor
This seems counter-intuitive, at least to the indoctrinations upon which I was raised. Women were 'constructed' as the ones who preferred family and men were the ones who wanted to go out with their mates and neglect family.
John Harland
bicycle technician
Women focus on the immediate family. Men sustain the broader kinship links, as a sweeping generalisation.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
Hmm, interesting if that is indeed the general case as my own experience has been the opposite. My partner's family seems to work the same way too, which made me assume that it was the "normal" state of affairs, at least in our sociocultural context.
But who knows? Maybe both our families are unusually matrilineal in the way that the extended family networks are organised and maintained.
Murray Webster
Forestry-Ecology Consultant/Contractor
Really reducing studies like this to generalisations about sex and gender, may be a bit misleading. There is so much variation, and so much adjusting within relationships. I would like to see reporting of the variability. Statements such as "being partnered or married is more beneficial to men than women" imply no variation and could create/reinforce stereotypes. My mum is 84 and widowed and would dearly love to have my fathers warm presence in the bed at night....But maybe she felt differently at different times.
Eleni Tsita
Psychotherapist at Eleni Tsita Counselling and Psychotherapy
This study reminds me of others I have come across about quality of life and longevity, which demonstrate that women are healthier and happier if they are unmarried, while the opposite is true of men. The hopeful addition in this study, is that this can be counteracted be a 'good quality relationship', which can bestow benefits over being single. It is unfortunate that many single women think the opposite to the philosophy in the quote provided by Diana Brown, and feel it is better to be in a bad relationship than none at all, and are encouraged to think that way by society in so many ways.
Murray Webster
Forestry-Ecology Consultant/Contractor
It seems to be a commonly held view that women struggle to find a man who will commit. I have trouble reconciling this with the results reported here. Perhaps when the "average" (if there is such a thing outside statistics) woman want men to commit, the commitment they are after is only a 5 - 10 year plan that involves reproduction, rather than a life-long commitment?
As always with reported statistics, we appear to only get the average results. No indication of the strength of correlation or the range of results, or overlap between populations. Reporting in such a way does not give the whole picture and reinforces stereotypes.