making friends virtually essay

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Digital Communication — Making Real Friends on the Internet

Making Real Friends on The Internet

• Categories: Digital Communication Friendship

About this sample

Words: 658 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 658 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The pros of online friendships, the cons of online friendships, fostering healthy online friendships, the future of online friendships, conclusion: navigating the digital realm.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1406 words

4 pages / 2069 words

7 pages / 3004 words

2 pages / 689 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Digital Communication

The advancements of technology have brought upon many positive and negative effects on society. The most recent technology provides easier access to our everyday needs such as the way we purchase products and the way we [...]

Digital self in a digital world is a concept that encapsulates the intricate relationship between individuals' online personas and the technological landscape they inhabit. In today's interconnected world, the digital realm has [...]

The essay about netiquette explores the crucial aspects of online etiquette that have become increasingly relevant in today's interconnected world. Netiquette, a blend of "net" and "etiquette," encompasses the guidelines and [...]

Does texting hinder interpersonal communication skills is a pertinent question in our digital age, where text-based communication has become a ubiquitous mode of interaction. The rise of smartphones and instant messaging [...]

In today’s day and age, Digital Marketing has become an intrinsic part of everybody’s life. Right from personal use to professional use, Digital marketing is a playground for people to keep their lives updated as well as to [...]

All the Indians were shocked when WhatsApp business app was launched in Italy, Indonesia, Mexico, UK and the United States, but not in India. Whatsapp has around 200 Million active users every month from India. Finally, the wait [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make Friends On the Internet

• Sulagna Misra

Some of the greatest friendships have started with a retweet.

The internet is deeply interwoven into our everyday lives. More and more people are using social media to share their work, explore the work of others, and even make meaningful friendships. Here are some dos and don’ts for (safely) making friends online:

• Do: Choose the platforms and communities that you care about. Don’t: Be everywhere.
• Do: Be kind and compassionate. Don’t be super honest (like in a mean way).
• Do: Connect with people you like. Don’t: Connect with everyone — especially the haters.
• Do: Build on connections that bring out your best. Don’t: Engage with people who bring out your worst.
• Do: Be open to making plans to hangout online or in-person. Don’t: Think that because this is someone you met online, the friendship isn’t important.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Have you ever made a friend online?

• SM Sulagna Misra is a freelance writer who has written for  Vanity Fair, Elle, GQ, Nylon, The Toast, New York Magazine,  and  many more publications . She has worked for companies such as GoFundMe and Netflix, among others. You can follow her on Twitter @sulagnamisra .

Partner Center

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

One Part of Your Life You Shouldn’t Optimize

By Brad Stulberg

Mr. Stulberg, an executive coach who writes about performance and mental health, is the author, most recently, of “ The Practice of Groundedness .”

In a recent conversation with a colleague, the topic of Zoom came up, and I pointed out that the advantage of socializing with friends on video is the ability to simply say goodbye and X out of the conversation — no need for lingering or superfluous pleasantries. My colleague laughed and remarked: “Even better: Stay on a free Zoom trial! This way, it kicks you off after 40 minutes, regardless of what is happening.”

And she’s right: Pandemic-era socializing can be incredibly efficient. But maybe — hear me out — efficiency shouldn’t be the main goal when it comes to friendship? Intimate relationships take time to build and their benefits are not measurable, at least not in immediate and quantifiable ways.

Even before Covid, a stark and disconcerting trend was underway: a decline in meaningful relationships and a rise in social isolation . A 2019 survey found that a whopping 61 percent of Americans reported feeling lonely . Making friends as an adult is difficult , and research published in 2020 in the journal Personality and Individual Differences offers some clues as to why: Among the top reasons adults have an especially hard time making friends is that they are less likely to trust new people — and because they say they don’t have time.

Though there are many factors underlying what Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has called the “ loneliness epidemic ,” I lay the blame for some of it on our collective obsession with optimization and efficiency. This obsession has gotten worse since the pandemic began — with a recent study by Microsoft suggesting that knowledge workers are doing much more work in the evenings and on average logging an hour more work per day overall.

It’s not just that extra work leaves us less time for socializing. In the age of Covid and social distancing, we have become, by necessity, risk-averse. As the boundaries between work and life have blurred, we’ve said no to social invitations to protect our time, as well as our mental and physical health; we’ve cut people out of our lives who hurt us or bring us down; and we’ve prioritized family and our closest friends over casual acquaintances.

No doubt, there are some real benefits to this shrinkage of our social circles, and perhaps even in the culling of certain relationships. Saying yes to everyone and everything, and overextending ourselves in the process may be a good habit to shed. Many of us during the pandemic have embraced solitary joys such as reading or gardening, and that is all well and good.

But sometimes I wonder: Are we saying no to that coffee or birthday party invitation because we genuinely don’t want to do it, or because we are addicted to optimization and efficiency?

I have spoken and written about “heroic individualism,” the term I use to describe the game of one-upmanship that many of us engage in, against both ourselves and others. In that mind-set, measurable achievement is the main arbiter of success, and productivity is prioritized over people. To research my book on groundedness, I interviewed hundreds of people from different walks of life on what they value, how they spend their time, and their levels of fulfillment — and it seemed to me that heroic individualism was on the rise before Covid. Then it got a booster.

Earlier in the pandemic, people with the privilege to do so streamlined their entire lives . We got our groceries delivered. We exercised in our basements. We ate lunch at our kitchen tables, which had become our desks, and scheduled our virtual interactions in half-hour increments.

To be clear, much of this was for good reason. We had to protect ourselves and others from the virus and, for those of us with kids, we had to protect our sanity during whack-a-mole school closures.

But now that offices are calling workers back and socializing is returning to something resembling normal for many of us, we have to decide which pandemic-era habits to hold on to, and which to ditch. It might be tempting to retain some of these social efficiencies — especially if you’ve found you’re crushing your to-do lists and enjoying the Netflix catalog. But there is an inertia to an optimized way of life in which time for building and rebuilding friendships can all too easily get cannibalized.

It was hard enough to make and maintain friendships as an adult beforehand. In our new, streamlined way of life, it’s even harder. While the research is unequivocal that relationships are key to both mental and physical health, meaningful relationships are neither productive nor efficient, at least not in the short term.

Making new friends involves many inefficiencies: hanging out for hours on end; buying or preparing food or drinks for people who you may or may not click with; traveling to unfamiliar places or homes at appointed times, even when you’re not in the mood; commuting to the gym or the neighborhood park instead of working out at home. Not to mention, maintaining existing friendships also takes work and emotional investment — without any guarantee of a return.

If your goal is optimization today, tomorrow or this week, it almost always makes sense to push friendship-building and maintenance down the list of priorities. But I’d suggest that the more important cost-benefit analysis to do is the longer-term one: If your goal is to be grounded and fulfilled over the course of a lifetime, then there is nothing more important than nurturing our essential bonds.

Building a community of friends, even if it starts with a feeling of obligation, boredom or mild irritation at the time invested in it, is a part of how we protect ourselves and our families from the vagaries of human existence, as the writer Jonathan Tjarks wrote movingly in The Ringer recently. Facing his own cancer diagnosis and thinking about who would be there for his young son if he dies, he describes the investment of time he has made into making friends in a “life group” he attends regularly at his church: “Life group is a different kind of insurance,” he writes. “People talk a lot about medical insurance and life insurance when you get sick. But relational insurance is far more important.”

The good news is that even if our relationship-building muscles have atrophied, with a bit of work they’ll regain their strength. The research of John Cacioppo, a social neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, found that while loneliness and isolation build on themselves, so too do friendships and community. As you meet and connect with a greater number of people, you expand your social skills and confidence.

Like so much else about emerging from this pandemic, the key is pushing through the resistance and making a first step — in whatever way you deem it safe to do so, given your health situation and Covid surges. That might mean asking a neighbor to go for a walk, agreeing to an after-work drink even if you’re a bit tired, or making a dinner date with a friend whom you haven’t spoken with in a while. My wife, Caitlin, often tells me, “You’ll be glad when you’re there, and you’ll be glad afterward that you did it.” She’s always right.

Is there pleasure — and a certain nobility — in solitude? Of course, especially for introverts like myself. But even the Buddha himself directed his followers to seek companionship. In the Pali Canon, one of the oldest remaining Buddhist texts, the Buddha’s loyal attendant, Ananda, approaches his master and asks whether it’s true that “good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship” make up half of the spiritual life.

“Not so, Ananda! Not so!” the Buddha replies sternly. “This is the entire spiritual life, Ananda — that is, good friendship, good companionship and good comradeship.”

Brad Stulberg (@ BStulberg ), an executive coach who writes about excellence and mental health, is the author, most recently, of “ The Practice of Groundedness .”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

About Neil Petersen

It sure caught my attention when you said that online friendship is good for the health of the person because it gives the person an opportunity to make friends and receive support that they find hard having in real life. If that is true, then I guess there really is no reason for me to stop my sister from trying this online friendship thing. She finds it hard to make friends in real life, and if this will help her, then she should go for it. Thank you for sharing.

Know the benefits of Online friendships

Online friendships can provide equal love and support as real-life friendships. Building online friendships is not intimidating if we tread safely says Dalilah Anna

The internet has opened up countless possibilities to our society, including building friendships online. Social media and smartphone apps have made it easy to meet new people and stay in touch with our loved ones. 

The pandemic is a rough time for everyone globally. Many people are suffering from loneliness issues, particularly the elderly, young people and those who are suffering from chronic conditions. Those who have been isolated are missing in emotional support and human interaction. Due to restricted social interactions, meeting new people and making friends have become more challenging during the pandemic. 

During these stressful times, it is still possible to reach out and connect with others via virtual events and online communities. Making friends online can be rewarding as you can expand your social circle.

There are numerous benefits of building online friendships. Here is the list of benefits:

Meet People With Similar Interests .

Simple as it seems, having a mutual hobby is the best icebreaker towards starting a new friendship. The secret to striking an interesting conversation is to talk about the things you have in common with each other. That way, the discussion will never go boring, and you won’t run out of topics to say. 

Moreover, it is crucial to have a robust support system that shares the same passion for motivating you to achieve your goals. For instance, your hobby includes preparing healthy meals and staying fit. Surrounding yourself with people who have the same interests will motivate you greatly to achieve your goals.

Online Friendships Are Great For Introverts .

Making friends online is a good start for those who feel uncomfortable or shy in approaching a group of people. Sending chat messages allows users to communicate passively without feeling the pressure of real-life daily conversations. Hence, they don’t have to worry about being tongue-tied and stuck in awkward conversations. This makes online friendships highly beneficial to introverts as it helps to boost their confidence in communicating with new people. 

How I rediscovered reading books during the lockdown

Share feelings and thoughts without judgements ..

Striking up conversations is easier virtually compared to talking to strangers face-to-face. In virtual communities, people are more open to sharing their emotional and personal struggles. Psychologist Leanne Hall says this is because there is anonymity surrounding online presence, which enables people to feel more comfortable sharing their problems with others with similar issues. By opening up more to others, people will slowly build trust and feel less awkward with each other. Author of Unlonely Planet, Jillian Richardson discussed in her article the importance of allowing vulnerability to cultivate deeper friendships. Being vulnerable will enable people to connect on a deeper emotional level.

Make Friends Throughout the World .

Living in different parts of the world can be a huge disadvantage to some people. After all, it is impossible to meet and hang out physically. However, this issue is no longer a barrier with the evolving social media. 

It is a good learning experience as you learn different cultures directly from the locals themselves. If you get a chance to travel to their countries, you will gain a rewarding experience by visiting the historical places and trying out the local cuisines. In addition, you will get to learn a new foreign language through virtual international friends. Having virtual international friends is the best chance to acquire a new language because it allows you to practice in a more relaxed environment compared to learning in schools.

Online friendships can provide equal love and support as real-life friendships. Building online friendships does not have to be intimidating if we practice staying safe online at all times. It is vital to stay away from the stigma surrounding online friendships so that we can build meaningful friendships with people from all around the world.

Dalilah Anna is a freelance writer who is actively involved in community work helping the disabled and underprivileged communities. She is also passionate about tackling climate change issues and spreading awareness in ecological sustainability.

Any book that assists a kid with shaping a propensity for perusing, to make perusing one of his requirements, is really great for him.

Have your say. Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Power your creative ideas with pixel-perfect design and cutting-edge technology. Create your beautiful website with Zeen now.

• Citizenship
• Civil Society & Volunteering
• Environment
• Employment, Economics & Innovation
• Write for us!

Why virtual friendship is no genuine friendship

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 06 January 2012
• Volume 14 , pages 201–207, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Barbro Fröding 1 &
• Martin Peterson 2  

48k Accesses

29 Citations

20 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Based on a modern reading of Aristotle’s theory of friendship, we argue that virtual friendship does not qualify as genuine friendship. By ‘virtual friendship’ we mean the type of friendship that exists on the internet, and seldom or never is combined with real life interaction. A ‘traditional friendship’ is, in contrast, the type of friendship that involves substantial real life interaction, and we claim that only this type can merit the label ‘genuine friendship’ and thus qualify as morally valuable. The upshot of our discussion is that virtual friendship is what Aristotle might have described as a lower and less valuable form of social exchange.

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Identity Theory

Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review

Social Exchange Theory

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In the last few years, social community sites such as Facebook, MSN, and Hyves have gone from being driven by special interest groups to becoming basic social necessities of everyday life. If you do not exist online you simply do not ‘exist’. The average user of Facebook in Europe has 139 friends, and it is not uncommon to have two or even three hundred online friends. Footnote 1 Although concerns have been raised about the lack of privacy, hacking, and the potentially tempting opportunity for service providers to use information stored on their sites for business purposes, many people seem happy to continue living their social lives online.

In this article we argue that social community sites are, contrary to what many users seem to think, not a key to meaningful social relationships. To be more precise, we argue that if we understand the notion of friendship in a broadly Aristotelian manner, virtual friendship does not qualify as genuine friendship. In our view, virtual friendship is what Aristotle might have described as a lower and less valuable form of social exchange. Further to this point, we argue that virtual friendship is analogous to certain, questionable, forms of alternative medicine: social community sites are potentially harmful since what is described as a route to social success may in fact turn out to be a toxic substance leading to isolation, just as some alternative medical substances harm rather than cure the patient. Furthermore, by opting for the alternative ‘medicine’ the individual may forego proven and functioning methods for achieving meaningful social interaction. In other words, what is flagged as a fast-track to meaningful social relationships and social inclusion is in fact an illusion as these relationships, whatever else they may be, do not contain the necessary components that go into genuine friendship.

In an early and attention-grabbing article on virtual friendship, Cocking and Matthews argue that, ‘within a purely virtual context the establishment of close friendship is simply psychologically impossible’. Footnote 2 Cocking later developed this claim further and argued that, ‘certain features of text-based online contexts largely rule out the development of close friendships exclusively in those contexts’. Footnote 3 However, in a comment on the original article by Cocking and Matthews, Briggle claimed that ‘Cocking and Matthews are … wrong about the possibility of friendship—as defined according to their own criteria—flourishing wholly online’. Footnote 4 Briggle’s conclusion is, in opposition to Cocking and Matthews that, ‘[t]he increased distance and slowed pace of Internet relationships can foster friendships of equal or greater closeness than those in the offline world’. Footnote 5

Although we agree with many of the views put forward by Cocking and Matthews, as well as with some of Briggle’s criticism, there are also important differences between the claims we make in this article and theirs. First of all, in contrast to Cocking and Matthews, we do not argue that virtual friendship is impossible . Our claim is a more narrow claim about the moral value of virtual friendship; we do not question that virtual friendship counts as a form of friendship. All we seek to show is that from an Aristotelian point of view, virtual friendship is less valuable than other friendship relations. This also highlights an important difference between our view and that of Briggle: While he maintains that virtual friendships are not merely possible, but are often more valuable from a moral point of view, we of course deny this positive appraisal.

However, the main difference between our position and those mentioned above is that we explicitly relate our normative conclusion to Aristotle’s theory as it is presented in the Nicomachean Ethics, and we do so on a relatively detailed level. Footnote 6 Cocking and Matthews briefly mention Aristotle’s theory of friendship, but their main concern is their own analyses of various types of friendship relations. Our point of departure is thus different from theirs, as is the scope of our conclusion: All we believe to show is that given Aristotle’s theoretical framework, virtual friendship does not qualify as genuine friendship, as defined above.

On the Aristotelian analysis, for a friendship to count as morally valuable, and hence virtuous, it must contain the following elements: it must be mutually recognised, the friends must engage in theoria (i.e., the contemplation that takes place between virtuous agents), and the love and admiration they feel for each other must be based on virtue. Our main thesis is that because virtual friendship cannot fully meet these criteria it does not qualify as genuine friendship. By ‘virtual friendship’ we mean the type of friendship that exists on the internet, and seldom or never is combined with real life interaction. To contrast this, we reserve the term ‘traditional friendship’ for the type of friendship that involves substantial real life interaction. The latter are the only type that we claim merit the label ‘genuine friendship’ and thus qualify as morally valuable.

All this said, we by no means object to initiating or maintaining friendships through social community sites. Nor do we have any general concerns about social community sites as such. Interaction on these sites can indeed be valuable in an instrumental sense. In the case of friendship, for example, the people that you first meet online can later turn into genuine friends or even life partners in the traditional sense. Our point is that for a relationship to qualify as genuine friendship it is not enough to merely interact online. Whatever goes on in the virtual world must always be supplemented by a substantive element of real life interaction.

The Aristotelian theory of friendship

Aristotle argues that friendship ( philia ) is key to human happiness. He claims that for any human to be happy she needs friends and other people close to her. Footnote 7 Generally speaking, the shared life is always superior and, as human wellbeing and social activity cannot be separated, it is better to engage in practical activities with a friend than to do it on one’s own.

The paradigm case of friendship for Aristotle is a relationship that is mutually recognised and taking place between two adults of equal standing. While all other relationships are inferior to this one, Aristotle agrees that relationships between e.g. the non-virtuous may also be called friendship but of a lesser kind, as pointed out above. The most important aspect of friendship is spending time together, preferably engaging in theoria as this is the hallmark of the good friendship. Footnote 8

Broadly speaking friendship helps us grow and become more virtuous as our friends inspire and help us. Both parties gain self-knowledge, ‘we are able to observe our neighbours more than ourselves, and to observe actions more than our own’. Footnote 9 Further to that point Cooper writes that, ‘the presumption is that even an intimate friend remains distinct enough to be studied objectively; yet because one intuitively knows to be fundamentally the same in character as he is, one obtains through him an objective view of oneself’. Footnote 10 So by watching our friend, our ‘other self’, we discover ourselves. Notably, this is an ongoing process: we change when going through life and therefore we must maintain our friendships not to lose track of ourselves. As Sherman succinctly puts it, ‘friendship creates a context or arena for the expression of virtue and ultimately for happiness’. Footnote 11

Good and true friends do things for one another and even though it might not be about counting and taking turns it is nonetheless vital that there is an overall balance which both parties are aware of. But what you do for your friend is not done to secure advantages for yourself, it is done simply because you see your friend as another self. Your friend is an extension of you in the sense that your happiness is to an extent dependent on him and, thus, that part of your fate lies in the hands of your friend(s).

A comprehensive definition of Aristotle’s notion of philia is, ‘the mutually acknowledged and reciprocal exchange of goodwill and affection that exists among individuals who share an interest in each other on the basis of virtue, pleasure or utility’. Footnote 12 In addition to voluntary associations of this sort, Aristotle also includes among friendships the non-chosen relations of affection and care that exists among family members and fellow citizens. Footnote 13

Based on the above-mentioned definition of philia , Aristotle argues that there are three main qualities that determine whether someone qualifies as a friend: excellence, pleasantness and usefulness. He then moves on to saying that these translate into three types of friendships, which often overlap. Footnote 14

friendship based on mutual admiration

friendship based on mutual pleasure

friendship based on mutual advantage

Aristotle claims that the first type of friendship is superior to the other two because it is based on excellence. What the two friends admire is the virtue of the other. It thus deals with the inner qualities of a person. In these situations we love our friend for intrinsic reasons and not solely as a road to pleasure and utility. You must not choose your friend because he makes you laugh or buys you expensive chocolates or has the right connections to secure you the best seats at the opera opening-nights. When you only love that which is useful and pleasant your friend becomes instrumental to securing those goods for you. Footnote 15

Evidently, such behavior is not fitting for the virtuous agent. These intrinsic qualities are stable (contrary to e.g. fame, beauty and wealth) so even if your virtuous friend falls on hard times he will still have those personal qualities you admire and love. The foundations of such a friendship are good without qualification. Your friend and you like each other, share basic values and you admire each other for the right reasons. You see the virtue in one another and you are drawn to it and you wish each other good only for the sake of good. Footnote 16

Although the three types of friendships overlap, it must always be the case that you see your friend as useful and pleasant because you love him and not the other way around. Footnote 17 That said, Aristotle also recognises that friends are important as instruments of happiness. He writes that, ‘happiness also evidently needs external goods to be added, as we said, we cannot, or cannot easily, do fine actions if we lack the resources. For, first of all, in many actions we use friends, wealth, and political power just as we use instruments’. Footnote 18 In addition to this, friends are also intrinsic, necessary components of happiness: ‘For we do not altogether have the character of happiness if we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary, or childless; and we have it even less, presumably, if our children or friends are totally bad, or were good but have died’. Footnote 19 In many cases people are friends in both senses because even the finest of friendships include pleasure and utility aspects and this does not taint them in any way.

It is worth stressing that the Greek term philia tends to be used in a broader sense by Aristotle and others than the English term ‘friendship’. Aristotle’s theory of friendship covers all the relationships we have with people around us, ranging from our family to our fellow statesmen. In addition to our modern notion of friendship, it includes a substantial chunk of all the other the members of society, for example the local cobbler Footnote 20 and one’s political or business contacts. Footnote 21 Indeed, Aristotle writes that we even have a certain philia with all of mankind and that there is an ever so small element of care among all humans. Footnote 22

Pakaluk claims that, ‘since Aristotle uses the term [ philia ] for any affection that expects reciprocation, or that expects and finds reciprocation, no matter how extended or attenuated that affection, he applies it very widely: to families, clubs, clans, and even to reciprocal affections of loyalty and patriotism among citizens’. Footnote 23 A slightly more conservative approach can be seen in e.g. Price, Walker and Cooper who all (to various degrees) argue that the lesser kinds of friendship and relationship do not qualify as friendship proper. Footnote 24 We shall return to this idea about different kinds of friendships and its implication for virtual friendship towards the end of this article.

At this point it could perhaps be objected that since philia is used in such a broad sense by Aristotle, it seems that his theory of friendship does not imply any particular intimacy. If true, this could in turn be taken to speak against our claim that virtual friendship is no genuine friendship. If, for instance, business contacts count as friends, in the broad Aristotelian sense, it seems odd to maintain that a virtual friendship cannot count as genuine friendship. Our reply to this objection is that the Aristotelian theory of friendship emphasises the importance of mutual admiration and love among friends. A major problem with online friendship is that this is often not the case. Both parties have to be aware of the relationship, they must both harbour similar feelings for each other and there must be an overall balance. Footnote 25 This is one of the many reasons why virtual friendship is problematic. For the internet user it is often more difficult to ensure that the love and admiration is mutual, as we explain in the next section.

Friendship on the internet

In this section we analyse the difference between virtual and traditional friendship from an Aristotelian perspective. As explained above, there are three different types of friendships. While all qualify as worthwhile to some extent, the most valuable one is friendship based on mutual admiration. Aristotle maintains that for this kind of friendship to exist the following three conditions need to be satisfied. Footnote 26

the friendship is mutually recognised and takes place between two adult humans of equal standing;

the friends spend time together, principally engaging in theoria ;

the admiration and love the friends feel for each other is based on the virtues they recognise in the other.

We concede that (i) can be satisfied in a virtual friendship and will therefore not discuss this condition any further. As for (ii), it is of course possible for the agents to engage in theoria in virtual reality. However, it is a mistake to assume that theoria only involves advanced or lofty ideas relating to the nature of science and the like. In fact, theoria requires the contemplation of a mixed bag of topics involving both the high and the low. Footnote 27 Arguably, agents sometimes withhold what they perceive as less than perfect character traits in themselves when given the practical opportunity to do so. This is problematic as this opens the door to pre-meditatated censorship with regard to the information one discloses about oneself. This threatens to compromise the variation required for theoria. Even base matters could, and sometimes should, feature in theoria . An excellent example of this is the passage about Heraclitos in the kitchen in Animals I.5. Here we meet a Greek philosopher and hero who does not only suggest that such lowly entities as animals are suitable material for philosophical contemplation of the higher orders but, also that this discussion should take place in a kitchen:

So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is something wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven he urged them to come in without fear, for there were gods there too so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful. Footnote 28

Two persons that spend time together in real life are more likely to face a wider spectrum of different situations, and consequently, encounter a larger range of topics meriting contemplation. This indicates that traditional friendship is more conducive to theoria than its virtual counterpart. In real life we stumble on situations that are both novel and unexpected and we have to deal with them in promptu . This seldom happens on the internet. In the online sphere agents can choose when to engage each other and are thus likely to select situations where they are in control, e.g. when they are in a good mood, not stressed, able to be private and so on. The result of this is that virtual interaction, by being subject to control, is too restricted and unlikely to bring about theoria as defined in the NE.

We concede that it might be possible to solve the problems detailed above through technological advances. Our concerns with respect to (ii) and the pursuit of theoria in a virtual friendship are based on empirical assumptions relating to the limits of our current technology. These limitations might be overcome in the future, and if so, these concerns would be silenced.

However, our main concern with virtual friendships pertains to (iii). Genuine admiration and love requires honesty. Both parties must tell the truth about themselves and, equally, be able to see the other as she is without embellishing or idealising the friend. Assuming that we are dealing with virtuous agents (or at the very least, agents who aspire to virtue, so called continent agents), blatant lying is less of a concern. Although it is easy to deceive people on the internet, those who aspire to virtue would simply not be tempted to provide false information about themselves or others. That said, this does not take care of the control element discussed in relation to (ii), which risks introducing another, and more subtle, form of vicious behaviour. Because social community sites allow friends to be selective as to the ‘when’, ‘how’ and ‘for how long’ aspects of the interaction in a different way to real life, they can (even unintentionally) choose to communicate only in certain situations. The price they pay is that they miss out on important, potentially problematic and complex, aspects of the friends’ personality. Therefore the agent ends up admiring and loving parts of the friend rather than the whole of her. Of course the unknown parts can be just as virtuous as the known traits (although this seems somewhat implausible) but the mere fact that the friendship is based on limited information disqualifies virtual friendship from meeting (iii). Further to this point, this displays a lack of proper judgement and practical wisdom in the agent proving that she does not have a fully virtuous character.

To spell the problem out in even more detail, the novel possibilities for the agent to choose how they depict themselves online can give rise to two kinds of mistaken beliefs. Firstly, one or both of the agents may sometimes end up having less than full knowledge about the other, and thus poor foundations for her perception about the character and persona of her online friend. Secondly, each party would be unaware of this. Note here that the problem is not necessarily conditioned on the actual lack of virtue in either party but that the belief (about the goodness of the other) is based on incorrect or incomplete information. Withholding this type of relevant information is in itself vicious. The character traits hidden might well be exemplary and virtuous, but the fact that they are unknown to the friend is enough to give rise to problems for the Aristotelian. The complete and excellent friendship can only obtain when both agents are fine, noble and excellent in every aspect, and this is incompatible with the withholding or manipulation of relevant information.

To illustrate the problem, consider the following scenario. Alice and Betty met online and hit it off immediately. They now chat more or less every day and feel that they have become quite close. They have, for example, shared intimate secrets, laughed together and even exchanged holiday pictures. After a couple of months of intense communication, however, Alice begins to notice that Betty never seems to be available on Wednesday and Friday afternoons. Unfortunately this coincides with Alice’s only free afternoons during the week, time which she would like to spend chatting to Betty. When asked about this Betty becomes evasive and snappy and Alice ends up confused and hurt. The following Wednesday afternoon when Alice is in town she swings by the Community Pool for a swim. As she is about to go in, she spots Betty, immediately recognising her from the pictures. Just as she is about to call out her name she sees that Betty is not alone. She is with her physiotherapist fully engaged in a session of rehab water gymnastics. It turns out that she suffers from an impairment caused by a traffic accident. Her condition is very painful and greatly restricts her ability to e.g. visit clubs, bars, restaurants and other social venues. She is very sad and embarrassed about this and did not want Alice to think of her as ‘different’ from any other woman their age and thus kept it secret. This is of course understandable from a human perspective, yet it is telling as it shows how Alice’s love and admiration for Betty in fact was based on incomplete information. Regardless of what Alice would have made of the truth, the point is that she, unbeknownst to her, did not have access to all the relevant information. The judgment Alice reached about Betty was ill founded and, consequently, their friendship failed to meet condition (iii). This example shows that increased opportunities to withhold or distort information is in fact an element intrinsic to online life, and is as such morally problematic.

The internet and the possibility of lesser friendship

The highest form of friendship cannot be enjoyed solely by interacting online, as argued above. This type of friendship requires a real life component. However, as explained earlier, Aristotle recognises that friendship can come in more than one form and, further to that, be worthwhile even though it might to a limited extent only. What could be called the ‘lesser versions’ are neither useless nor without value. Consequently, they could indeed be worthwhile to pursue given that the agents involved do not confuse their relationship with the highest form, i.e. the genuine form, of friendship. This raises the following question: how ought we to think about the pros and cons offered by virtual ‘lesser forms’ of friendships.

To make the discussion concrete, consider the distinction between professional network sites (such as LinkedIn) and social community sites (such as Facebook and MSN). We believe that there is an important moral distinction to be made here. While the former offers a clear benefit to the users, e.g. in the way of mutually beneficial business relationships which the agents would not have been able to establish otherwise, the promise of the social network sites rings more hollow. Here the user is made to believe that she is likely to gain genuine friends and form meaningful and deep social relationships with other people. We showed in one of the earlier sections that this is false. However, that is not to say that social community sites are entirely without value, in all possible scenarios. If managed properly, they can of course offer very concrete benefits, in an instrumental sense. For example, a social community site might indeed be a very good place to meet people with whom you could become the friend of at a later stage as you advance from interacting online to meeting in real life. Further to this, it is a useful way to maintain already existing relationships, both when the friends are short on time or are geographically separated. None the less, there is an important moral distinction to be drawn between professional network sites and social network sites. Professional network sites, being of mutual advantage to the users, may well qualify as a good vehicle for establishing the ‘lesser forms’ of friendship, at least as long as no one using the professional network sites is led to believe that there is more to it than that (we take this to be a fairly uncontroversial claim and will thus not account for it in detail). The social network sites, on the other hand, do not even meet the criteria for ‘lesser friendship’. Although we concede that these sites can sometimes be of mutual advantage to their users, our moral objection is that some users of social network sites are led to form false expectations and judgements about the true nature of their virtual (social) friendships.

Let us illustrate our argument in an example. Alice has two friends both of whom she has met online: Claudia and Daniella. Claudia and Alice first started talking in a chat forum on the professional networks site LinkedIn. They keep in touch regularly and as both are lawyers it has happened that they have recommended each other’s services to potential clients. For all intents and purposes this is a mutually beneficial relationship and is thus a prime example of a valuable lesser friendship.

Alice’s second friend, Daniella, shares Alice’s keen interest in plants and Alice derives a lot of pleasure from discussing gardening on Facebook with her several times a week. On occasion Alice posts pictures of her garden on her Facebook wall. She is especially pleased about the compliments and positive feedback she receives from Daniella. Unbeknownst to Alice, however, Daniella’s only motive for posting those comments is to encourage Alice to share gardening secrets with her. The information Daniella gleans has had a significant positive impact on Daniella’s own garden, and allowed her to grow plants she would otherwise not have been able to.

From an Aristotelian point of view, there is a clear moral difference between the two cases. In the gardening scenario, Alice is deeply mistaken about the nature of her and Daniella’s relationship. Alice thinks that Daniella’s compliments are sincere and without agenda, something that is not the case. Our conclusion is that Alice’s friendship with Daniella has no moral value what so ever, and may even be harmful to Alice, whereas her friendship with Claudia has at least some value, in virtue of being honest and mutually useful.

A metaphor might help to clarify the difference further. Alice’s friendship with Daniella is like certain questionable forms of alternative medicine: The friendship is potentially harmful to Alice, since what she believes is a route to deep and meaningful interaction with Daniella in fact is a toxic substance leading to a feeling of betrayal, i.e. the friendship does harm to her rather than cure her social isolation. Furthermore, by opting for the alternative ‘medicine’ Alice also foregoes proven and functioning methods for achieving meaningful social interaction. In other words, what is flagged as a fast-track to meaningful social relationships and social inclusion is in fact an illusion as these relationships, whatever else they may be, do not contain the necessary components that go into genuine friendship.

To conclude, based on a modern reading of Aristotle’s theory of friendship, we have shown that virtual friendship does not qualify as genuine friendship. Virtual friendship exists on the internet and is seldom or never combined with real life interaction, whereas traditional friendship involves substantial real life interaction. We have shown that only the latter type can merit the label ‘genuine friendship’ and thus qualify as morally valuable. This supports the idea that virtual friendship is what Aristotle might have described as a lower and less valuable form of social exchange.

Metro, The Netherlands, 1 December 2010.

Cocking and Matthews ( 2000 :224).

Cocking ( 2008 :124).

Briggle ( 2008 :72).

Ibid ., p 73.

We do not claim that our view is the ‘true’ or ‘correct’ exegetical analysis of Aristotle’s position. All we claim is that it is a possible reading that is in line with the overall structure of his theory.

NE 1169b10-15.

NE 1157b19-24.

NE 1169b33-35.

Cooper ( 1977 , p. 322).

Sherman ( 1989 :128).

Cf. NE VIII.9, VIII. 12, IX. 6. See also Sherman ( 1989 : 124).

NE 1156a6-8.

NE 1156a14-19.

NE VIII.3-6.

NE 1138a3-8, NE 1156b18-24, NE 1170a5-6, NE 1236b27-32 and NE 1237a26-33.

NE 1099a31-1099b2.

NE1099b2-6.

NE 1163b35.

NE 1158a28.

See Book 8.1 of the NE.

See Pakaluk ( 1998 :264).

See e.g. Cooper ( 1977 , p. 316).

NE 1155b26-56a5.

NE 1157b25-30.

See for example the passage on Heraclitus in the kitchen in Parts of Animals I.5.

PA i 5.645a15-23.

Aristotle. (1980). The Nicomachean ethics (trans: Ross, W. D.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (2002). The Nicomachean ethics (trans: Broadie, S., & Rowe, C.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Briggle, A. (2008). Real friends. Ethics and Information Technology, 10 , 71–79.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cocking, S. (2008). Plural selves and relational identity: Intimacy and privacy online. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 123–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar  

Cocking, S., & Matthews, S. (2000). Unreal friends. Ethics and Information Technology, 2 , 223–231.

Cooper, J. M. (1977). Aristotle on friendship. In A. O. Rorty (Ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s ethics . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pakaluk, M. (Ed.). (1998). Nicomachean ethics, books VIII and IX . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Sherman, N. (1989). The fabric of character—Aristotle’s theory of virtue . Oxford: Clarendon.

Download references

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology KTH, Teknikringen 78B, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

Barbro Fröding

Section for Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Martin Peterson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Peterson .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fröding, B., Peterson, M. Why virtual friendship is no genuine friendship. Ethics Inf Technol 14 , 201–207 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9284-4

Download citation

Published : 06 January 2012

Issue Date : September 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9284-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Virtual friendship
• Virtue ethics
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The benefits and dangers of online friendships

When we were young, adults would constantly warn that people on the internet are all dangerous. However, as the use of social media and the internet increased,

more and more people have made friends through online social networks.

Sophomore Sam Blount met their internet friends through common interests online on platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram.

“We got along really quickly, and that’s how I made one of my best friends”

“I have a lot of interests I’m really passionate about, and when you go onto social media you can find a lot of other people like that,” they said. “I just got put in a group chat with people with a lot of the same interests, like music and TV shows; we all got along really quickly, and that’s how I made one of my best friends.”

The use of the internet has allowed Blount to connect to people all across the world from Slovakia to Peru to Spain.

Blount feels communication through the internet allows easier connections that can develop into friendships.

“[People are] a lot easier to talk [to] in the beginning because what happens online is that people just take down their barrier that they have when talking with people that they already know,” they said. “It’s a lot easier for them to just get into what they love … so it’s easy to connect over something.”

The internet has allowed and increased the potential for new- er generations to make friends across the world. According to Pew Research Center, 57 percent of teens between the ages of 13 to 17 have made friends through the use of the internet.

Although online friends allow meeting people that one may never have met otherwise, some users are skeptical. While social media sites such as Instagram, Reddit and Twitter have made it increasingly easier for teens to communicate with people of different backgrounds, online anonymity creates a potential risk.

“I know there are catfishes out there, but a lot of people think everyone is a catfish,” Blount said. “A lot of people online are online just to find other people that they have similar interests with. I used to think of people online as just old men, but when I went online, it’s quite the opposite. Everyone is just different and there’s so much more diversity that you find online.”

Similarly, sophomore Albena Goulisheva acknowledges the dangers of internet friends.

“Some people might think [internet friends] are some creeper, some old man behind the camera,” she said. “You should really only make friends online if you know for sure if they’re real people and that they exist.”

Goulisheva feels that the ability to control what one presents online is a key aspect of real-life communication that online communication cannot replicate.

“You never know [people on the internet’s] real personality or how they would really talk or the things they think about,” Goulisheva said. “There’s not a lot of dimension to text, so you just never really know what they are really thinking.”

Sophomore Catherine Lei met her friend on Instagram through their mutual like for J.Cole and finds that being cautious when you first meet a potential online friend is essential.

“You should definitely be cautious, especially on the internet because it’s a really, really easy to cat sh people,” she said. “When you’re cautious, and you know what’s happening and you guys are both aware of the consequences and are truthful, then [online friendships] could work.”

With new technological advances, the concept of online friends and the methods of developing friendships has begun to expand and change. The increasing number of people making friends online has begun to change the stigma around talking to strangers online and may change the future of what it means to be a friend.

1 thought on “ The benefits and dangers of online friendships ”

Helped a lot

Thoughts on the article? Please refer to our comment policy (under "More" in the header) before leaving a comment. Cancel reply

Related stories.

Dealing with food restrictions

AI’s growth across the internet

Electing to vote in the upcoming race

You may have missed.

Missing in action: modern remakes of classics

• Arts & Entertainment

Tyla’s debut is “ART”

Transported to Yunnan in ten seconds

Not Beyonce’s first rodeo

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, personal relationship theories visited and revisited, how often do personal relationships form in internet newsgroups, who has on-line personal relationships, how developed do on-line personal relationships typically become, do on-line relationships migrate to other settings, the new challenges of cyberspace.

• < Previous

Making Friends in Cyberspace

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Malcolm R. Parks, Kory Floyd, Making Friends in Cyberspace, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Volume 1, Issue 4, 1 March 1996, JCMC144, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00176.x

• Permissions Icon Permissions

From its birth as a way of linking a few university and defense laboratories in the late 1960s, the Internet has grown into a global network connecting between 30 and 40 million people ( Elmer-Dewitt, 1995 ). Social linkages in the form of E-mail and discussion groups appeared in the first days of the Internet and have grown explosively ever since. Today there are over 5,000 Internet discussion groups ( Hahn & Stout, 1994 ). Aside from its sheer size, this new social milieu commands scholarly attention because it is one of the new “collaborative mass media forms” in which messages come from a wide variety of participants with little or no centralized control ( Rafaeli & LaRose, 1993 ). It therefore blurs the traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication phenomena and raises new opportunities and risks for the way individuals relate to one another ( Lea & Spears, 1995 ; Williams & Rice, 1983 ).

The purpose of this study was to examine the relational world actually being created through Internet discussion groups (usually called newsgroups). (1) Because the development of personal relationships is a pivotal issue in the larger debate about human relations in cyberspace, this study explores four basic questions: How often do personal relationships form in Internet newsgroups, who has them, how close or developed do they become, and do relationships started on line migrate to other settings?

We begin by examining two conflicting visions that have dominated popular and scholarly debate. On one side are those who view on-line relationships as shallow, impersonal, and often hostile. They assert that only the illusion of community can be created in cyberspace (e.g., Beninger, 1987 ; Berry, 1993 ; Heim, 1992 ; Stoll, 1995 ). On the other side are those who argue that computer-mediated communication liberates interpersonal relations from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities (e.g., Pool, 1983 ; Rheingold, 1993 ). One vision is of relationships lost, while the other is of relationships liberated and found. These conflicting visions are not, of course, unique to debates about computer-mediated communication. Instead they reflect long-running, historical debates about the nature of modernity and the social effects of changes in communication and transportation technology ( Marvin, 1987 ; Wellman, 1979 ). More specific versions of these debates can be found in the literature on the effects of the reduction in communicative cues associated with computer-mediated communication. They are also reflected in the sharply differing applications of personal relationship theories to on-line settings.

Most of the early research on computer-mediated communication involved laboratory studies in which small groups worked on structured problems for limited periods of time ( Garton & Wellman, 1995 ). Groups that communicated by means of computer (CMC) were compared to groups that communicated face-to-face (FtF). Findings from this line of research have generally emphasized the social disadvantages of computer-mediated communication, therefore implying that highly developed, positive personal relationships should occur infrequently in on-line settings. Computer-mediated groups, for example, have greater difficulty recognizing and moving toward shared points of view ( Kiesler & Sproull, 1992 ). People in CMC groups also engage in more verbal aggression, blunt disclosure, and nonconforming behavior than people in FtF groups ( Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991 ; Siegal, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986 ). Such behavior is usually called “flaming,” and it has been observed both in laboratory settings and in a variety of business, governmental, educational, and public networks (e.g., Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989 ; Lea, O'Shea, Fung, & Spears, 1992 ; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986 ; Thompsen & Ahn, 1992 ). Such findings may reflect the comparative anonymity afforded by CMC or local norms that make the overt expression of hostility more acceptable in on-line settings ( Lea et al., 1992 ; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989 ; Spears & Lea, 1994 ; Zimbardo, 1969 ). These differences are most often explained by observing that social cues are filtered out in on-line settings ( Culnan & Markus, 1987 ). Relational cues emanating from the physical context are missing, as are nonverbal cues regarding vocal qualities, bodily movement, facial expressions, and physical appearance. CMC is thus judged to have a narrower bandwidth and less information richness than FtF communication (see Daft & Lengel, 1984 ; Kiesler, Siegal, & McGuire, 1984 ). According to both social presence theory ( Rice, 1987 ; Rice & Love, 1987 ; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976 ) and social context cues theory ( Sproull & Kiesler, 1991 ), this reduction in contextual, visual, and aural cues should cause communication in on-line settings to be more impersonal and nonconforming than communication in face-to-face settings. Both theories predict that participants' awareness of and sensitivity to others will be related to the number of channels or codes available for linking them. Face-to-face communication should breed greater awareness and sensitivity because of its multiplicity of channels, while on-line communication should be more impersonal, less inhibited, and less adaptive. This is not to say that positive personal relationships are impossible. Indeed Sproull and Kiesler (1991) note that electronic settings sometimes provide more opportunities for social relationships and less evaluation apprehensions than face-to-face settings. Nonetheless, theories of computer-mediated communication that are based on the reduced-cues perspective generally predict that positive personal relationships should occur infrequently rather than frequently.

Claims that computer-mediated communication is characterized by impersonality, hostility, and nonsocial orientation, however, have been challenged repeatedly. The empirical support for some claims is less robust than researchers first suggested, and critics note that the causal antecedent to some effects may have been identified incorrectly. Because people need to manage uncertainty and develop rapport, they will adapt the textual cues to meet their needs when faced with a channel that does not carry visual and aural cues ( Walther, 1992, 1993 ; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994 ; Walther & Burgoon, 1992 ). Time is the key element in this adaptation. While the multiple channels and cues available in FtF interaction speed the exchange of task and relational information, the process is slowed by the “reduced bandwidth” of CMC, that is, the inability of CMC to carry aural and visual cues. The important point, however, is not that CMC is unable to convey relational and personal information, but rather that it may take longer to do so. In a meta-analysis of CMC studies, Walther and his colleagues found that the proportion of socioemotional content was higher when interaction time was not restricted ( Walther et al., 1994 ). Thus, the negative effects attributed to the computer as a medium may have instead been the result of the stringent time restrictions placed on interaction.

As research on CMC moved from the laboratory to the field, it also became apparent that people related to one another in many more ways than had been envisioned by the reduced-cues perspective. Studies of E-mail in the workplace have consistently shown the interpersonal side of CMC. Users commonly report that they socialize, maintain relationships, play games, and receive emotional support via E-mail (e.g., Feldman, 1987 ; Finholt & Sproull, 1990 ; Haythornthwaite, Wellman, & Mantei, 1994 ; McCormick & McCormick, 1992 ; Rice & Love, 1987 ).

Further evidence that personal relationships are forming on line can be found in a variety of sources, including popular cyberspace travelogues ( Rheingold, 1993 ), the popular press (e.g., Bock, 1994 ; De Leon, 1994 ; Kanaley, 1995 ; Lewis, 1994 ; Wright, 1993 ), and a handful of scholarly reports on specific on-line communities (e.g., Brennan, Moore, & Smyth, 1992 ; Bruckman, 1992 ; Myers, 1987 ; Ogan, 1993 ; Reid, 1991 ; Wilkins, 1991 ). These accounts make it clear that on-line relationships are genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants. One person who played a MUD (2) , for instance, commented that his on-line friendships were “much deeper and have better quality” than his real-life friendships ( Bruckman, 1992 , p. 23). Another person who had been active in a computer network for church workers said, “I know some of these people better than some of my oldest and best friends” ( Wilkins, 1991 , p. 56). In some cases, on-line relationships have blossomed into romance and marriage ( Bruckman, 1992 ; Reid, 1991 ).

These reports also illustrate how people overcome the technical limitations of CMC. In addition to the well-known use of keyboard characters, or “smileys,” to imitate facial expressions and paralinguistic features of conversation (e.g., typing “:-)” to indicate a smile), users frequently express emotion and metacommunicative intent by embedding words in text ( Wilkins, 1991 ). The person who wishes a message to be taken as friendly teasing, for example, may embed a word or phrase like “grin” or “just kidding” in text.

Another way people overcome the technical limitations of CMC is simply to supplement CMC with additional channels of communication. There are several reports of mail, telephone, and face-to-face contact as supplements to CMC ( Ogan, 1993 ; Reid, 1991 ). In some cases, participants in on-line groups have organized social events so that they might meet in person ( Bruckman, 1992 ; Rheingold, 1993 ).

Popular attention has often fixated on the more manipulative and deceptive aspects of on-line relationships. Cases of gender switching (e.g., men pretending to be women) command particular attention (e.g., Bruckman, 1992 ; Van Gelder, 1985 ). CMC obviously provides rich opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation ( Lea & Spears, 1995 ; Myers, 1987 ). However, these opportunities also have a positive side. Cyberspace creates an “identity workshop” in which people learn and test social skills ( Bruckman, 1992 ). Some participants, for example, report that their on-line identities allow them to overcome the shyness they feel in face-to-face interaction ( Myers, 1987 ). People who are isolated or disabled can develop social relationships ( Bock, 1994 ; Brennan et al., 1992 ; De Leon, 1994 ; Kanaley, 1995 ). Whereas the possibility of abuse always exists, CMC also provides ways for people to transcend the limitations they experience in face-to-face settings ( Walther, 1995 ).

Conflicting predictions regarding on-line relationships can also be obtained from theories of interpersonal communication and relationship development. The relative lack of social cues and the potential for feedback delays, for example, should lead both to higher uncertainty and more difficulty in reducing uncertainty about how to behave, how the partner will behave, and how to explain the partner's behavior. According to uncertainty reduction theory ( Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ; Parks & Adelman, 1983 ), the inability to reduce uncertainty should prevent, or at least retard, the development of personal relationships.

Existing theories of relational development pose several other challenges for on-line relationships, as Lea and Spears (1995) observe. For example, most theories assume both physical proximity and frequent interaction between prospective partners (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973 ; Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ; Huston & Burgess, 1979 ; Kelley, 1979 ; Kelley et al., 1983 ). Existing theories also underscore the importance of physical appearance and physical attraction, especially in the development of romantic relationships (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1978 ). Yet information regarding physical appearance is usually unavailable in on-line settings. On-line communicators, therefore, are generally assumed to lack many of the things emphasized in traditional discussions of relationship development: physical proximity, frequent interaction, information about physical appearance, cues about group membership, and information about the broader social context ( Lea & Spears, 1995 ). However, a more optimistic assessment of the potential for personal relationships emerges when we re-examine the assumptions about on-line communication. If Walther's (1992, 1993) information-processing perspective is correct, for instance, people in on-line settings may simply take longer to reduce their uncertainty about one another. The lack of proximity and of visual information might be overcome by arranging meetings or by exchanging photographs either electronically or by mail. Information about membership in social groups can be exchanged easily. Thus, many supposed limitations of CMC may be overdrawn.

More important, however, is the question of whether these conditions are really necessary for the development of relationships. The emphasis placed on factors like physical appearance or proximity may reflect less of a theoretic necessity than a consequence of the fact that most theories of relational development predate the current explosion in computer-mediated communication technology. In social penetration theory, for example, the driving force behind relational development is the forecast of a positive reward:cost ratio ( Altman & Taylor, 1973 ). Other exchange-based theories make similar assumptions about what drives development (e.g., Huston & Burgess, 1979 ; Kelley, 1979 ; Kelley et al., 1983 ). In uncertainty-reduction theory the driving force is the progressive reduction of uncertainty about the partner and the relationship ( Berger, 1988 ; Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ; Parks & Adelman, 1983 ). None of these theories requires physical proximity and frequent interaction as necessary conditions for relational development. These conditions may be helpful, but they are not necessary to arrive at predictions of how rewarding future interactions might be, how one might feel about another person, or how one might be treated by that person.

Whereas studies of face-to-face relationships emphasize the reward and information value of physical appearance and physical attractiveness (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1978 ; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986 ), no theory of relational development explicitly requires this information as a necessary precondition. Information about physical appearance may serve as a reward or promote inferences about other qualities, but it is not the only source of rewards or of the information used to make inferences. Visions of relationships lost may, therefore, not acknowledge either the capabilities of on-line communication or the necessary conditions in theories of relationship development.

In short, both popular and scholarly accounts present sharply contrasting, often dramatized, views of the possibilities for on-line relationships. What is missing is a systematic research effort to map the prevalence of personal relationships in on-line settings, the basic demographics of relational participants, the levels of development achieved in on-line relationships, and their links to off-line or real-life settings.

Our first task was to determine just how common personal relationships were in on-line settings. To do this, as well as to address our other research questions, Internet newsgroups and their contributors were selected through a two-stage sampling procedure. In the first stage, 24 newsgroups were randomly selected from published lists of groups ( Hahn & Stout, 1994 ) in each of four major Usenet newsgroup hierarchies: “comp,”“soc,”“rec,” and “alt.” (3) In the second stage, 22 people were randomly chosen from lists of those who had posted messages to these groups over a several day period. Surveys were then sent to prospective participants by direct E-mail. Responses were received from 176 of the 528 (33.3%) people contacted in this manner. Respondents ranged in age from 15 to 57 years. The typical respondent was 32 years old, more likely to be male than female, and more likely to be single than married. Respondents had typically been involved with newsgroups for approximately two years and contributed to an average of five groups on a monthly basis. (4)

Our primary finding was that personal relationships were common. When we asked if our respondents had formed any new acquaintances, friendships, or other personal relationships as a result of participating in newsgroups, nearly two thirds (60.7%) reported that they had indeed formed a personal relationship with someone they had “met” for the first time via an Internet newsgroup. Further, the likelihood of developing a personal relationship did not differ across the newsgroup hierarchies or groupings we examined. That is, personal relationships seemed equally likely to develop in all sectors we examined. They were not restricted to just a few types of newsgroups. The fact that personal relationships developed for so many of our respondents and across so many different types of newsgroups suggests that criticisms of on-line interaction as being impersonal and hostile are overdrawn. These findings lend more credence to images of relationships liberated than to images of relationships lost.

These findings obviously raise questions about the types of relationships that our respondents were forming. Additional analyses revealed that opposite-sex relationships (55.1%) were slightly more common than same-sex relationships (44.9%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Only a few (7.9%) were romantic. Relationships ranged in duration from less than a month to six years, but most relationships (69.6%) were less than a year old (Mdn = 5.00 months, M = 9.62 months, SD = 12.21). Participants communicated regularly with their on-line partners. Nearly a third (29.7%) reported that they communicated with their partners at least three or four times a week, and over half (55.4%) communicated with their partners on a weekly basis.

Some people may be more likely than others to develop personal relationships on line. Although stereotypes of lonely, perhaps dysfunctional people being attracted to cyberspace abound in the popular press, the fact is that we lack even the most basic information about the participants in on-line relationships. We compared people who did and did not have an on-line personal relationship in terms of their demographic characteristics and patterns of Internet involvement.

Women were significantly more likely than men to have formed a personal relationship on line. While 72.2% of women had formed a personal relationship, only 54.5% of men had (c2= 4.80, df = 1, p < 05). Additional research will be needed to distinguish potential explanations for this difference. It may stem from motivational factors. It may simply be that a greater proportion of women are looking for friends. There may be gender differences in the willingness to label an on-line relationship as such. Or, women may simply be more sought after in a medium where more users are male.

Age did not appear to be related to the likelihood of developing a personal relationship on line, nor did marital status. Married, never married, and divorced respondents were equally likely to have personal relationships that started in newsgroups.

The best predictors of whether an individual had developed a personal relationship were the duration and frequency of their participation in newsgroups. People who formed personal relationships on line contributed to significantly more newsgroups (M = 5.90 groups, SD = 6.81) than did those who had not (M = 3.62, SD = 2.88), t (147) = 3.00, p < 01. The two groups did not differ, however, in terms of the number of newsgroups they read. Nor did the two groups differ significantly in terms of either the length of time they had been reading newsgroups in general or the length of time they had been posting to newsgroups in general. Significant differences, however, did emerge when we examined the duration of participation in the particular newsgroup we sampled. Those who had formed on-line relationships had been reading their particular newsgroup longer (M = 13.34 months, SD = 16.76) than those who had not (M = 8.03 months, SD = 10.36), t (164) = 2.52, p < 05. Moreover, those with a relationship had been posting to their particular newsgroup longer (M = 12.04 months, SD = 16.37) than those without one (M = 6.94 months, SD = 8.83), t (158) = 2.59, p < 01. The overall frequency of participation in newsgroups also distinguished people who had developed on-line personal relationships from those who had not. Although the two groups did not differ in terms of how frequently they read their favorite newsgroups, they did differ in terms of how often they posted messages to their favorite newsgroups, t(164) = 3.09, p < 005. Those with on-line relationships contributed more often (M = 4.01, SD = 1.81) than those without (M = 3.17, SD = 1.54). Those who had formed a personal relationship also used direct E-mail to respond to a greater number of newsgroup contributors each month (M = 10.25, SD = 15.97) than those who had not (M = 4.75, SD = 4.30), t (121) = 3.28, p <.001. Although much more extensive research is necessary, it may be that developing personal relationships on line is more a function of simple experience than it is of demographic or personality factors. As people get used to and involved with their favorite newsgroups over time, they appear to start developing personal relationships with one another.

Interpersonal relationships of all types are usually conceptualized as developing from the impersonal to the personal along a series of relatively specific dimensions: increases in interdependence, in the breadth and depth of interaction, in interpersonal predictability and understanding, in the change toward more personalized ways of communicating, in commitment, and in the convergence of the participants' social networks. Respondents who reported having an on-line personal relationship rated its level of development by responding to items designed to measure each of these dimensions. These items were based on previous theoretic discussions and measures of the relationship development process (see Altman & Taylor, 1973 ; Huston & Burgess, 1979 ; Kelley et al., 1983 ; Parks & Adelman, 1983 ; Parks, in press ). Reliability estimates, as well as item statistics and wording, can be found in Table 1 . Because there was no comparison sample against which to evaluate levels of development, we used the theoretic midpoint of each scale as a reference point. Although admittedly arbitrary, this procedure allowed us to determine if the majority of responses fell below the midpoint, thus indicating a comparatively low level of development, or above it, thus indicating a comparatively high level of development. Results for each of the seven relational dimensions are presented in Table 1 , followed by a summary.

Levels of Development in On-Line Relationships

(R) indicates that the score was reversed. All figures are based on a scale of 1-7, where higher values indicate higher levels of agreement. Means represent reversed scores where appropriate.

In its most general sense, a relationship develops as its participants come to depend on each other more deeply and in more complex ways ( Kelley, 1979 ; Kelley et al., 1983 ). The personal relationships observed in this sample varied widely in terms of their reported levels of interdependence. The seven items making up the interdependence scale yielded totals that were normally distributed and whose overall mean of 26.60 (SD = 8.93) fell close to the theoretic midpoint of the scale. Approximately half (50.5%) of the relationships were above this midpoint, while half (49.5%) were below it. Thus, moderate levels of interdependence typified the sample as a whole.

As relationships develop, the breadth and depth of interaction increases ( Altman & Taylor, 1973 ; Parks, in press ). The variety of topics, activities, and communication channels increases. People reveal more important, risky, and personal information. Our respondents generally reported moderate to high levels of breadth and depth in their on-line personal relationships. The observed mean on the breadth scale was 21.12 (SD = 4.70) and fell just above the theoretic midpoint of 20. Over half (57.0%) of the subjects recorded breadth scores in the upper half of the scale range. The depth dimension of relational development was assessed using items designed to measure intimacy and self-disclosure. Totals for the items assessing depth produced a mean of 35.45 (SD = 11.24), nearly four points higher than the theoretic midpoint of the scale. Almost two thirds (61.2%) of the respondents recorded depth scores in the upper half of the scale range.

Development is also characterized by communicative code change. The participants evolve specialized ways of communicating, such as personal idioms, that allow them to express themselves in more efficient ways and that reinforce their relational identity (e.g., Bell & Healey, 1992 ; Bernstein, 1964 ). We measured this dimension with a six-item scale whose observed mean was 18.77 (SD = 7.20), nearly six points below the theoretic midpoint. Only 21.4% of subjects scored at or above the theoretic midpoint of this scale, suggesting that most of the personal relationships had not developed highly specialized communication patterns.

The observed mean of our five-item commitment scale was 20.07 (SD = 6.57) and fell almost exactly on the theoretic midpoint of the scale. Just under half of the subjects (49.0%) reported commitment levels at or above this midpoint, suggesting moderate levels of commitment in the sample as a whole.

Finally, as relationships develop, network convergence occurs as the participants introduce one another to each other's friends and family and develop a common social circle ( Parks & Eggert, 1991 ; Parks, 1995 ; Parks, in press ). In on-line relationships, network convergence would imply not only that participants were introduced to one another's on-line contacts, but also to people in their real-life social networks. The seven items used to measure this dimension yielded a mean of 22.95 (SD = 9.61), well below the theoretic midpoint of the scale. Only 31.3% of the relationships were rated in the upper half of the scale range. These results indicate that network convergence was not extensive in most of the personal relationships we examined. Inspection of the individual scale items revealed that relational partners believed that there was considerably more convergence among their on-line contacts than between their on-line contacts and their contacts outside of the Internet (see Table 1 ).

If the relationships-lost view were correct, we should have found very few relationships that scored highly on these seven dimensions. In fact we found many. Depending on the particular dimension, half or more of the relationships registered above the midpoint of the measurement scale. Across the total sample, then, approximately 40% of the respondents had no on-line personal relationships, about 30% had a less developed personal relationship, and about 30% had what might legitimately be considered a highly developed personal relationship.

Relationships that began in Internet newsgroups often broadened to include interaction in other channels or settings. Although nearly all respondents used direct E-mail (98.0%) in addition to newsgroup postings, a surprising number also supplemented computer-mediated communication with other forms of contact. About a third had used the telephone (35.3%), the postal service (28.4%), or face-to-face communication (33.3%) to contact their on-line friends. The average number of channels used was 2.68 (SD = 1.23), and nearly two thirds (63.7%) of our respondents with personal relationships had used communication channels other than the computer. These findings imply that relationships that begin on line rarely stay there. Although this expansion in the number of contexts where interaction occurs is typical of the relational development process in general ( Parks, in press ), it is particularly noteworthy in on-line relationships. For one thing, it represents a way in which relational partners can overcome the limitations of computer-mediated channels. Vocal and visual information are added as participants move into other channels. In addition the broadening of communication indicates that people may not draw such a clear line between their on-line and off-line activities. When asked about how he met his friend, for example, one 34-year-old male respondent replied, “He saw a posting I had made on comp.human-factors and invited me to a meeting of the local chapter of the Human Factors Society.” A female respondent indicated that she had met her friend “via a Usenet support group because we both found that we were the only ones on one side of a major debate.” She added, “We got together ‘off line’ to compare notes and viewpoints.”

The growth of computer-mediated communication poses new challenges for our understanding of social relationships both in cyberspace and in general. Our goal in this study has been to provide an empirical reference point for evaluating conflicting visions of social life in cyberspace by exploring the prevalence and development of personal relationships in one large on-line environment, Usenet newsgroups on the Internet. To that end, we have conducted what appears to be the first systematic survey of on-line personal relationships in a random sample of newsgroup participants.

Our primary finding was that personal relationships were common in this environment. Just over 60% of the people in our random sample reported that they had formed a personal relationship of some kind with someone they had first contacted through a newsgroup. Personal relationships were not limited to any one type of newsgroup, but were spread rather evenly across a variety of newsgroups and Usenet hierarchies. Contrary to the relationships-lost perspective, we found that personal relationships are commonplace and evolve naturally as a function of time and experience in the on-line environment of newsgroups. Newsgroups, of course, are not the only on-line venues. A more definitive picture will be gained by extending our observations to other CMC settings (e.g., Internet Relay Chat, commercial chat rooms, BBS systems, MUDs and MOOs).

The fact that personal relationships in on-line settings are so commonplace poses challenges and opportunities for contemporary approaches to interpersonal communication and relationship development. Like Lea and Spears (1995) , we believe that existing theories have largely ignored settings that do not involve frequent face-to-face interaction. Our results clearly indicate that high levels of relational development are occurring on line. How participants manage uncertainty, forecast rewards and costs, and obtain rewards is less clear in on-line settings. Because these factors represent central explanatory forces in theories of relationship development, further research is necessary to understand how they function in on-line settings. Future research should also focus on the development of on-line relationships in special populations. The fact that a large proportion of users actually develop personal relationships suggests new opportunities for those who are isolated or disabled in ways that restrict or stigmatize them in face-to-face interaction (e.g., Bock, 1994 ; Brennan et al., 1992 ; Kanaley, 1995 ).

The results of this study also have implications for previous approaches to computer-mediated communication. Personal relationships were found far more often and at a far higher level of development in this study than can be accounted for by the reduced-cues perspective. The finding that those who posted more often and who had been posting for a longer time were more likely to have developed a personal relationship on line is consistent with Walther's (1992) social information-processing perspective. However, the additional finding that nearly two thirds of those whose personal relationsh ips began on line chose to use additional communication channels challenges the belief that participants are denied vocal and visual information. Indeed, no current theory of CMC seems to account for this expansion in channel use. Even within the Internet itself, the information available to relational participants continues to expand as more people use the World Wide Web to exchange pictures, sound, and video. The reduced-cues perspective may simply become a theoretic antique, given the continuing advances in network technology.

The fact that relationships that begin on line rarely stay there raises even more profound questions about our understanding of cyberspace. From the beginning, discussions of cyberspace have almost invariably emphasized its more exotic qualities. Gibson (1984) , who coined the term in his novel Neuromancer, described it as a “consensual hallucination.” Benedikt (1991) , who edited one of the first scholarly treatises on cyberspace, viewed it as a “another life-world, a parallel universe.” Yet for most of our respondents, cyberspace is simply another place to meet. Just like people who meet in other locales, those who meet in cyberspace frequently move their relationships into settings beyond the one in which they met originally. They do not appear to draw a sharp boundary between relationships in cyberspace and those in real life. Furthermore, if cyberspace is becoming just another place to meet, we must rethink our image of the relationships formed there as being somehow removed and exotic. The ultimate social impact of cyberspace will not flow from its exotic capabilities, but rather from the fact that people are putting it to ordinary, even mundane, social uses.

 Internet users participate in discussion groups by “posting” messages to one of the thousands of newsgroups carried by their Internet site. These newsgroups form what is commonly called the Usenet. Their messages, or “posts,” are then disseminated to all Internet sites carrying that newsgroup. Others may respond to a particular message, thereby creating a “thread” or connected series of messages, or they may read without responding (called “lurking”). Newsgroups are loosely organized into general categories, called “hierarchies,” such as “comp” (issues dealing with computing), “sci” (science), “rec” (recreation), “soc” (social and cultural activities), and “alt” (groups that cover such a wide range of topics that only the term “alternative” seems to include all of them). Thus, the group “alt.bonsai” is devoted to the art of bonsai, while the group “rec.sport.hockey” is for hockey fans.

 MUDs, MOOs, MUSHES, and VEEs are an outgrowth of programs first developed by interactive game designers. Although there are differences among them, all of these programs create text-based, virtual realities in which participants can not only talk with each other, but can also take nonverbal actions, manipulate “cyberobjects” that they create, and journey through virtual worlds that they have programmed. Rheingold (1993) provides an easily accessible description of social life in these settings.

 Newsgroups were initially selected in two ways. Three newsgroups were selected at random from Usenet newsgroup hierarchies: “comp,”“soc,”“rec,” and “alt.” Twelve additional groups which were randomly selected from a list of 30 newsgroups (primarily in the “soc,”“rec,” and “alt” hierarchies) where our preliminary observations had suggested that participants would be most likely to develop personal relationships. Because tests revealed no significant differences between these two sets of groups, they were combined.

 Age was normally distributed with a mean of 31.65 years (SD = 8.61) The sample was predominantly male (67.7%). The largest group had never been married (49.4%). Approximately 40% were married or cohabiting and 10% were separated or divorced at the time of the study. The typical respondent had been reading Usenet newsgroups for just over two years (M = 26.79, SD = 26.78 months) and had been posting for just under two years (M = 23.11, SD = 26.07 months). He or she had been reading the newsgroup we sampled for almost a year (M = 11.22, SD = 14.75 months) and had been contributing to it for about ten months (M = 9.99, SD = 14.05). Respondents reported following an average of 16 newsgroups on a monthly basis (M = 15.62, SD = 21.62) and posting to about five (M = 5.01, SD = 5.70).

Altman , I. & Taylor , D. ( 1973 ). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bell , R. A. , & Healey , J. G. ( 1992 ). Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in Friends' relational cultures . Human Communication Research , 18 , 307 – 335 .

Benedikt , M. (ed.) ( 1991 ). Cyberspace: First steps . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Beninger , J. R. ( 1987 ). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community . Communication Research , 14 , 352 – 371 .

Berger , C. R. ( 1988 ). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships . In S. Duck (ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 239 – 255 ). London: John Wiley .

Berger , C. R. , & Calabrese , R. J. ( 1975 ). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication . Human Communication Research , 1 , 99 – 112 .

Bernstein , B. ( 1964 ). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences . American Anthropologist , 66 ( 2 ), 55 – 69 .

Berry , W. ( 1993 ). Sex, economy, freedom, and community . New York: Pantheon .

Berscheid , E. , & Walster , E. H. ( 1978 ). Interpersonal attraction . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .

Bock , P. ( 1994, February 21 ). He's not disabled in cyberspace . Seattle Times , pp. A1 – A2 .

Brennan , P. F. , Moore , S. M. , & Smyth , K. A. ( 1992 ). Alzheimer's disease caregivers' uses of a computer network . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 14 , 662 – 673 .

Bruckman , A. ( 1992 ). Identity workshop: Emergent social and psychological phenomena in text-based virtual reality . Unpublished manuscript. M.I.T. Media Laboratory. Cambridge, MA . Available via anonymous ftp from http://media.mit.eduinpub/MediaMOO/Papers/identity-workshop .

Culnan , M. J. , & Markus , M. L. ( 1987 ). Information technologies . In F. Jablin , L. L. Putnam , K. Roberts , & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420 – 443 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

Daft , R.L. , & Lengel , R.H. ( 1984 ). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design . Research in Organizational Behavior , 6 , 191 – 233 .

De Leon , F. ( 1994, October 23 ). Senior circuits . Seattle Times , pp. E1 , E4.

Dubrovsky , V. J. , Kiesler , S. B. , & Sethna , B. N. ( 1991 ). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups . Human-Computer Interaction , 6 , 119 – 146 .

Elmer-DeWitt , P. ( Spring, 1995 ), Welcome to cyberspace , Time , 145 ( 12 ), 4 – 11 .

Feldman , M. S. ( 1987 ). Electronic mail and weak ties in organizations . Office Technology and People , 3 , 83 – 101 .

Finholt , T. , & Sproull , L.S. ( 1990 ). Electronic groups at work . Organization Science , 1 , 41 – 64 .

Garton , L. , & Wellman , B. ( 1995 ). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature . In B. Burleson (ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 434 – 453 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

Gibson , W. ( 1984 ). Neuromancer . New York: Ace Books .

Hahn , H. , & Stout , R. ( 1994 ). The Internet complete reference . Berkeley, CA: Osborne McGraw-Hill .

Hatfield , E. , & Sprecher , S. ( 1986 ). Mirror, mirror… The importance of looks in everyday life . Albany: SUNY Press .

Haythornthwaite , C. , Wellman , B. , & Mantei , M. ( 1994 ). Media use and work relationships in a research group . In J. Nunamaker , Jr. , & R. Sprague Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (pp. 94 – 103 ). Washington, DC: IEEE Press .

Heim , M. ( 1992 ). The erotic ontology of cyberspace . In M. Benedikt (ed.), Cyberspace: First steps (pp. 59 – 80 ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Hiltz , S. R. , Turoff , M. , & Johnson , K. ( 1989 ). Experiments in group decision making, 3: Disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences . Decision Support Systems , 5 , 217 – 232 .

Huston , T. L. , & Burgess , R. L. ( 1979 ). Social exchange in developing relationships: An overview . In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 3 – 28 ). New York: Academic .

Johnson , M. P. ( 1991 ). Commitment to personal relationships . In W. H. Jones & D. W. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 3 , pp. 117 – 143 ). London: Jessica Kingsley .

Kanaley , R. ( 1995, July 8 ). Seizing an on-line lifeline: The disabled and the net . Philadelphia Inquirer , pp. A1 , A8.

Kelley , H. H. ( 1979 ). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes . New York: Wiley .

Kelley , H. H. , et al. ( 1983 ). Close relationships . New York: W. H. Freeman .

Kiesler , S. B. , Siegal , J. , & McGuire , T. W. ( 1984 ). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication . American Psychologist , 39 , 1123 – 1134 .

Kiesler , S. , & Sproull , L. ( 1992 ). Group decision making and communication technology . Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 52 , 96 – 123 .

Lea , M. , O'Shea , T. , Fung , P. , & Spears , R. ( 1992 ). “Flaming” in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations and implications . In M. Lea (ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 89 – 112 ). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf .

Lea , M. , & Spears , R. ( 1995 ). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks . In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197 – 233 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

Levinger , G. ( 1991 ). Commitment vs. cohesiveness: Two complementary perspectives . In W. H. Jones & D. W. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 3 , pp. 145 – 150 ). London: Jessica Kingsley .

Lewis , P. H. ( 1994, March 8 ). Strangers, not their computers, build a network in time of grief . New York Times , pp. A1 , D2.

Marvin , C. ( 1987 ). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communications in the late nineteenth century . New York: Oxford University Press , 1987 .

McCormick , N. B. , & McCormick , J. W. ( 1992 ). Computer friends and foes: Content of undergraduates' electronic mail . Computers in Human Behavior , 8 , 379 – 405 .

Myers , D. ( 1987 ). “Anonymity is part of the magic”: Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication contexts . Qualitative Sociology , 10 , 251 – 266 .

Ogan , C. ( 1993 ). Listserver communication during the Gulf War: What kind of medium is the electronic bulletin board Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 37 , 177 – 196 .

Parks , M. R. (in press). Communication networks and relationship life cycles . In S. Duck (ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed.). London: John Wiley .

Parks , M. R. ( 1995 ). Webs of influence in interpersonal relationships . In C. R. Berger & M. E. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence processes (pp. 155 – 178 ). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press .

Parks , M. R. , & Adelman , M. B. ( 1983 ). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory . Human Communication Research , 10 , 55 – 79 .

Parks , M. R. , & Eggert , L. L. ( 1991 ). The role of social context in the dynamics of personal relationships . In W. H. Jones & D. W. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2 , pp. 1 – 34 ). London: Jessica Kingsley .

de Sola Pool , I. ( 1983 ). Technologies of freedom . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

Prentice-Dunn , S. , & Rogers , R. W. ( 1989 ). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior . In P. Paulus (ed.), The psychology of group influence (pp. 87 – 109 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

Rafaeli , S. , & LaRose , R. J. ( 1993 ). Electronic bulletin boards and “public goods” explanations of collaborative mass media . Communication Research , 20 , 277 – 297 .

Reid , E. ( 1991 ). Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet Relay Chat . Unpublished honors thesis , Department of History, University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Australia.

Rheingold , H. ( 1993 ). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .

Rice , R. E. ( 1987 ). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation . Journal of Communication , 37 , 65 – 94 .

Rice , R. E. , & Love , G. ( 1987 ). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer mediated communication network . Communication Research , 14 , 85 – 108 .

Short , J. , Williams , E. , & Christie , B. ( 1976 ). The social psychology of telecommunication . London: John Wiley .

Siegal , J. , Dubrovsky , V. , Kiesler , S. , & McGuire , T. ( 1986 ). Group processes in computer-mediated communication . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 37 , 157 – 187 .

Spears , R. , & Lea , M. ( 1994 ). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication . Communication Research , 21 , 427 – 459 .

Sproull , L. , & Kiesler , S. ( 1991 ). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Sproull , L. , & Kiesler , S. ( 1986 ). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication . Management Science , 32 , 1492 – 1512 .

Stoll , C. ( 1995 ). Silicon snake oil . New York: Doubleday .

Thompsen , P. A. , & Ahn , D. ( 1992 ). To be or not to be: An exploration of e-prime, copula deletion and flaming in electronic mail . Et Cetera: A Review of General Semantics , 49 , 146 – 164 .

Van Gelder , L. ( 1985, October ). The strange case of the electronic lover . Ms . (pp. 94 , 99, 101– 104 , 117, 123–124).

Walther , J. B. ( 1995, May 2529 ). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction . Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.

Walther , J. B. ( 1993 ). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction . Western Journal of Communication , 57 , 381 – 398 .

Walther , J. B. ( 1992 ). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective . Communication Research , 19 , 52 – 90 .

Walther , J. B. , Anderson , J. F. , & Park , D. W. ( 1994 ). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication . Communication Research , 21 , 460 – 487 .

Walther , J. B. , & Burgoon , J. K. ( 1992 ). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction . Human Communication Research , 19 , 50 – 88 .

Wellman , B. ( 1979 ). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers . American Journal of Sociology , 84 , 1201 – 1231 .

Wilkins , H. ( 1991 ). Computer talk: Long-distance conversations by computer . Written Communication , 8 , 56 – 78 .

Williams , F. , & Rice , R. E. ( 1983 ). Communication research and new media technologies . In R. Bostrom (ed.), Communication yearbook, 7 (pp. 200 – 224 ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .

Wright , R. ( 1993, September 13 ). Overhearing the Internet . New Republic (pp. 20 – 25 ).

Zimbardo , P. G. ( 1969 ). The human choice: Individuation reason and order versus deindividuation impulse and chaos . In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17 , pp. 237 – 307 ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1083-6101
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Suggestions

The Pros and Cons of Forming Most of Your Friendships Online

In the internet age, online friendships are generally considered the norm. People like myself who have turned to the internet to gain perspective and new knowledge now find themselves gaining new friendships as well. I’ve been on the internet since I was 12 years old, when my father handed me my first laptop.

Now, at 20, I want to share a few of the bad and good consequences I’ve noticed as a self-defined internet kid who has most of her friendships online.

The Negatives

1.  Lack of Physical Connection

One obvious drawback is how people miss out on connecting on a physical level. For me, most of my connections started on sites like Meez, IMVU, Experience Project and a few others. People generally start off by messaging each other in a public or private chat.

Although my conversations were rich, the physical context was missing, despite our using acts like Skype. I could see them, but I couldn’t really see them in real life, nor could they see me. We really saw the secondhand version of ourselves through our articulated messages. With online friendships, it’s easy to unintentionally present ourselves as “better” than we are. The way we move and walk, the way we laugh, the way we look and any little quirk we have is missing from our conversations.

2. People Ghost You

From time to time, my online friends will suddenly disappear. As easy as it is to make friends on the web, it’s also easy for you to leave them, and for them to leave you. Although physical contact isn’t established, people can separate their online messages from actual, real people. It’s easier to disregard the self-esteem of people who are semi-anonymous, by leaving them suddenly, than it would be in person.

This is a major point of frustration for me. Many people seek companionship online, and once they’ve achieved it, they feel free to leave, thus abandoning their virtual relationships. The same idea can occur in real life, but, in the case of online friendships, disappearing into the ocean of strangers is as quick and painless as never responding again, leaving old friends feeling hurt and confused.

3. Internet Addiction

One of the most prominent negative consequences I found making friends online is how easily an internet connection and turn into an internet addiction. Online, we can have constant connections to people who live miles away from us. We can talk to people from France, Texas, Australia and anywhere else in between. This enormous network of resources is often intimidating, and sometimes addictive.

Once we do meet someone, we can open up and share our personal thoughts and feelings. And when we’re done with that person, we can leave them too. We can then repeat the cycle, endlessly searching for “perfect friends.” Online friendships that are highly intense give us a feeling of euphoria, and when paired with a source of instant gratification, it soon becomes internet addiction.

In addition, internet addiction can lead to the inability to make friends in real life. Once someone becomes used to online friendships and the liberties they allow, they can become very socially awkward and unable to make friends offline.

The Positives

1. Vulnerability

On the other hand, the internet gives us a chance to put aside how we look, how we sound and the insecurities we might worry about when conversing in person. We can meet a wide range of great people.

Personally, I’ve made connections with people my age from Australia and Ireland. I’ve met established professors from the U.K. I’ve made friends in my own backyard here in the U.S. Despite trolls and other malicious user, people onliny are generally open and helpful. Many netizens are seeking companionship from one another, searching for energizing conversation about things they actually care about.

For me, the access to online friendships helped me through my teenage years when I felt like no one truly understood me. Throughout the years, I’ve been a part of meaningful discussions, all of which have matured my reading, music and personal interests over time. Being able to actively share my views with a larger and more receptive audience taught me how to articulate myself more. I was able to get out of my head, overcome vulnerability and make deep connections with other thinkers.

2. Access to Thought Diversity

Like I said, the internet gave me access to the rest of the world. I’ve had many conversations about politics, philosophical ideals like freedom and anarchy, the definition of love and the list goes on. With each of these topics, I’ve toyed with different perspectives. Each person has their own view of life, and I’ve found that each person is eager to share their worldview with me. I think we all genuinely want to be understood, and the internet gives us a platform to truly be ourselves.

We don’t have to conform to the mold around us, as the real world often forces us to do. Instead, we can hop from group to group until we find a circle of like-minded thinkers. The only problem with us “thinkers” occurs in the case of radicalism, but this often turns out to be a great philosophical situation.

3. Fighting Loneliness

At last, the most simple benefit of online friendships is curbing loneliness. Every creature feels loneliness. Loneliness might come from family, school or everything in between. I know for me, I felt most alone philosophically, as if my worldview was invalid and worthless. I always liked experimenting with new ways of thinking and found it hard to relate to others in real life. That, along with being an introvert, made forming real-life connections difficult for me.

Ever since my father gave me my laptop, used with a few dents in its cover, I’ve been on this wild adventure of discovering who I am. Over the years, I’ve been able to connect with people I never would have met if it weren’t for the internet. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

• friendships

Guest Contributor

Leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Posts

‘Teenager Therapy’ Is an Emotional Ride Full of Joys and Tears

‘They Went Left’: How Historical Fiction Can Ground Us Amid Uncertainty

‘What I Carry’ Rediscovers Home Amidst the Complexities of Foster Care

How to Make Long-Distance Friendships Last in College

Are You a College Freshman with No Friends? Join the Club

College Roommates and Why You Should Give Them A Chance

How to Make Friends on Tinder (No, Seriously)

How to Treat Every Day Like It’s Galentine’s Day

Don't miss.

More than Struggle: Palestinian Cuisine

The Latin Lover Is Back and He Has A “Mustache Goatee Combo”

The Wonders of Weeki Wachee

The Brilliance of Amy Sherman-Palladino’s Leading Ladies in Television

TV’s Future Golden Boy: Percy Jackson, The Hero You’ve Been Waiting For

Are Online And Real Life Friendships The Same? How The Internet Makes A Difference

The internet has been a part of mainstream culture for well over two decades now, and yet there is still a stigma towards online friends. With today’s technology, you can video chat with your friends with ease, talk to them from wherever you are, and have a digital bond that lasts. However, if your friend lives somewhere that you can’t travel to, you may wonder if that friend is as legitimate as a friend who lives nearby. The answer is yes. In this article, we’ll explain why.

Pros of having an online friend

Nowhere in the definition of the word “friend” does it indicate you must communicate in person. Online friendships are a wonderful part of many people’s lives. You can bond with someone from behind another screen, and sometimes the bond goes deeper than it does for your in-person friends – for several reasons.

Mutual interests

Forums make it easier to meet friends who share a common interest. Be it a political group, a blog dedicated to a certain fandom, a specific hobby, or many other commonalities, having a mutual interest is a great icebreaker. While you don't have to have everything in common with a friend, having shared interests is one way to spark a conversation.

Easier to break the ice

Perhaps the best thing about online communication is how easy it is to strike up a conversation. If you're introverted, shy, or just don't like talking to strangers, it's often hard to make that first move. On the internet, however, it's easier for most to make that first comment or send that first message. You can take time to write out exactly what you want to say. 

You can get to know them faster

Most people online are more comfortable with talking about themselves. They'll talk about their flaws, their mental illnesses, what they fear, and so on. In real life, it's hard to talk about some things without feeling like you're going to be laughed at. Due to the ease of online communication, you can often learn more about someone much faster than you can in real life.

You can make friends around the globe

Making friends with someone from a different part of the world can be a fun experience. You can find out more about their culture, and they can learn from you. Best of all, if you do get a chance to visit where they live, you may have a place to stay and someone to show you around. They might even be able to chip in for a plane ticket. For the traveler, having friends across the globe can be a good thing.

There are multiple ways to communicate

Communication doesn't have to be text-based. You can have video chats through your computer or phone. You two can walk around the town, talking to each other. It isn't a perfect replication of actually being there together, but it can be unique and fun. 

Cons of having an online friend

With that said, online friends have their disadvantages as well.

Hanging out is hard

Even if your online friend lives just a few hours from you, you're probably not going to visit them that often. You two have separate lives and arranging a meeting can be difficult – and costly. 

Miscommunication

Some forms of digital communication – like texting – can be misconstrued because body language and tone of voice are absent. You can use emojis, but they're not always helpful. Taking offense to a benign message is common. It can also be harder to get the hint that someone doesn't want to talk to you. Be patient and remember that miscommunications will happen. 

Harder to make up

If you're going to be friends with someone for a long time, you're probably going to get into disagreements at some point. With in-person friendships, you may get mad at each other for a while but then makeup – especially if the two of you have mutual friends. Sometimes, making up is the best option to keep the friend circle going.

With an online friend, however, it's easy for them to get mad, hit the block button, and then find another online friend, forgetting about you in the process. When you're blocked, it becomes difficult to try to reach them. It's also socially unacceptable to make another account and try talking to them. 

When communicating with an online friend, keep your cool if there is an argument. Don't reach for the block button. Take some time alone and talk again with a cool head. If you do hit the block button, remember you can always unblock.

They disappear

If you grew up online, you may have had an online friend who just disappeared. Maybe their account got hacked or the website you use to talk through is no more. Some people take breaks from social media, or tear down their accounts and rebuild them somewhere else. All it takes is a changed username to make reconnecting with an online friend difficult. It’s smart to get more contact info than just the social media site they're on. 

They may not be what they seem

If you're on a message board, exercise caution when making an online  friendship , especially if you're younger. You shouldn't accept an invitation to hang out with someone until you know for sure they're who they say they are.

Stay true to yourself

When making friends online, you want to stay true to yourself and what you want out of a friendship. You can find friends who reflect your interests and passions. It’s important to connect with people who will respect you and reflect your morals and values. When you’re finding friends – whether online or in real life – it’s okay to be picky. These are people who are here to support you. For them to know you well, you need to be real. 

New friendships are an exciting opportunity to show off your personality. When you make friends online, there are ways to show these individuals who you are through words, phone, or video chat. You don’t have to pretend you like something just to fit in. The whole point of making friends online is to find people whom you relate to who can enrich your life. 

The point of seeking people to chat with on the internet is to feel less alone. When you find friends online, you can tell them about what matters to you. Find friends online who care about your hobbies and can relate to you. Join some social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram to widen your options for connecting with others. There are also groups you can join where people have similar interests to you. Think about what’s important to you, and look at ways to connect with others. There’s a platform to make friends for everyone!

Be safe online

It’s exciting to have online friends, but don’t get carried away, it’s important to be  safe . Be careful not to reveal information about yourself too soon. When meeting new friends online, find ones who are slow to open up and don’t just blurt out all their personal details. Be safe, and take your time revealing who you are. You don’t want to tell anyone where you live or work until you get to know them well. You don’t want people showing up at your door because you told them your address.

If you meet new friends, focus on your personality. See what your friends start revealing to you and build off these facts. In a way, it’s like “friend dating.” You’re testing out who you want to get close to, and which relationships to foster or let go. You’re going online to find people who you can talk to, and be emotionally vulnerable with, but that feeling comes with time. Like any friendship, trust takes time. You want to find new friends online who seem trustworthy. Let them earn that trust. 

What to look for in an online friendship

Friendships take time to develop. You want to look for somebody who genuinely is interested in you, and you are curious about them. Someone who is genuinely interested in being your friend will ask you questions about your interests and your life. 

When making friends with people you can't see in person, pay attention to the words they use; they matter. You want to read what they're telling you and take those statements at face value. The stories and reflections they impart about their real-life friendships will show you what sort of person they are. If they're loyal, it will come across. 

Another thing you can do is talk about yourself and see how they respond. Do they want to know more? Pay attention to the way a friend you're interested in talks to you. By being observant when you're meeting friends, you can learn a lot about them. 

Once you get to know each other and you're regularly conversing, how do you know if your online friend cares about you? You can gauge that by how often you speak to each other, what you talk about, and if they're there for you during rough times. When you find new friends online, it's crucial to have high standards for them. You deserve to be treated with respect and cared for in friendships. 

If you open up to your buddies on the internet during hard times and they're responsive, that's a good sign. That means they care for you. If you feel positive in the friendship, go with that instinct. If something is off, follow your gut there too. When you meet new friends online, they should align with what you want in life and care about you as a human being.

Getting help

While it is often easier to connect with people online compared to in person, it can still be unnerving. While many people online are nice, depending on the forum, there are also “keyboard cowboys” and cyberbullies whose main goal online is to argue and belittle other people. Other people have social anxiety disorder, which makes it extra difficult to strike up a conversation with someone new, sometimes even online.

A professional relationship counselor through Regain can help you navigate your friendships. They can also help with issues like social anxiety disorder or cyberbullying 

If you have a hard time connecting with others, one of the most important steps that you can take is to reach out to a counselor.  Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is a popular method of psychotherapy that has been found to help individuals with social anxiety, depression, and many other mental health concerns. CBT helps you learn new ways of behaving, thinking, and responding to social situations, as well as helping to build self-confidence . 

Studies have found that Internet-based CBT (iCBT) is usually just as effective as in-person therapy, which can make it easier for individuals who have social anxiety, as well as for those wanting to practice their online communication skills. Online counseling with Regain lets you find a professional relationship therapist without having to leave the comfort of your home, and they can work around your schedule, not vice versa.  

When you're talking to friends in a new setting, such as a social media platform or chatroom, you may not know what to expect. That's natural, but try to relax and be yourself. If you need help maneuvering through online friendships or working through mental health concerns like social anxiety, an online Regain counselor can help. Reach out today. 

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about online friends

Do online friends count as real friends? If you're reading this, it's likely that you talk to people online or have talked to someone online at least once. When you meet people on the internet, you might be seeking a sense of support or connection. Maybe, you're about to move to a new area, and you're looking for friends online who are in the location you're moving to. Perhaps, you play games online and have met friends through gaming. If you're wondering, "Are online friends real?" the answer is yes. Online friends absolutely count as real friends. It doesn't matter where you met; it's the social-emotional connection that counts. You may start out with digital communication and move on to hanging out in person, or you may take a while to meet due to distance. Either way, online friendships can be special and unique connections. How to make friends is different for everybody. For some, it comes naturally whereas for others, it's a conscious effort, and both are completely valid.

Why are real friends better than online friends? Again, it's not where you meet that makes friends real. Many people meet their online friends face-to-face and establish connections with them offline. Whether you met someone in high school, at a social event, or online, you can have long-term associations with them that amplify your mental health and quality of life overall. Nothing beats having a true friend that you know will be there for you and that you can trust. Of course, before you consider online friends real friends, you have to make sure that they are who they say they are and establish trust. Online friendships are becoming more and more common, and people meet people online in person every day. Online friendships were once kept on the down-low or shunned and were regarded as separate from in-person friendships, but times are changing, and most people have at least one friend that they met digitally before engaging with one another face to face. There is something special about talking to people face to face and hanging out in person. In fact, it's irreplaceable, and it's important for your mental health to have social support that exists offline. That said, it's necessary to remember that for some, online connections become face-to-face connections. Don't discount someone's friendship if they meet a person online because that person could mean a lot to them.

Is having online friends bad? Having online friends isn't bad as long as you go about it safely. If you're wondering what makes online friends real, it is partially the social-emotional connection you have and partially verifying that they are who they say they are. Before you make online friends real friends, make sure to video chat and talk on the phone. Be sure to always bring someone with you when you meet people that you've only had digital communication with so far in person.

Are online friends healthy? Having online friends is certainly healthy as long as the internet does not become your whole life. Online friendships can be unique in the sense that you are likely to bond over things that you have in common rather than your geographical location. Of course, having friends in real life is extremely important, but sometimes the people that you meet in person initially won't always have the same interests. For example, if you are interested in mental health, you might meet people through mental health groups online. If you're interested in travel, astrology, or another niche, you might also meet people online who are into those things. It is essential to have social support from people who truly understand you, and of course, you can always meet your online friends in real life eventually. Some are more extroverted than others, but even introverts need friends and experience health advantages from social connections.

Why is making friends online bad?

Making friends online is not bad, but it is essential to be safe about it. Often, when people criticize online friendships, the main part of the problem they see is the potential safety issues affiliated with meeting someone online. This is a valid concern, but there are measures to take. Be sure to talk to people you meet online through video chat before you meet up. Meet in a public place and bring someone with you. Online friendships aren't just made by adults, so it is important to be aware of the potential that your teenager might make friends online whether you know about it or not.

Many teens report having one or more online friendships or friends that they initially met online. If you are the parent of a teen who makes friends online, it is understandable and unavoidable that you will be concerned. Your concern is valid. When a teenager wants to find a way to meet an online friend in person, it's hard to stop them. One of the things you can do is support them and accompany them when they meet an online friend for the first time. That way, you can avoid the possibility that they might sneak out or do something equally as unsafe so that they can meet a person from the internet. You can join us at the mall or in a café. Public places are always your best bet, and you don't have to make things awkward. Just be there for the first meeting, and if possible, get to know the person's parents. Likely, the parents of your teenager's friend will want to attend their first in-person meeting as well, so you can talk to them before meeting up, and they can accompany you, your teen, and your teen's friend when they meet in person.

How long do online friendships last?

When you meet a friend online, it may be the start of a friendship that lasts for the rest of your life. As with any friendship, there is the potential to stray apart, but there is also the possibility of a lifelong connection. When you make online friends real-life friends by meeting in person, this can become especially true. Remember that there are real people behind the screen, and that's part of what makes online friends real. This is part of why it is so important to be kind to the people you meet online. You never know who is going through tough times, and the words you say to people both in real life and online matter. Cyberbullying is an extremely serious issue to be wary of when you talk to people online or if you know that your kids are talking to people online. Being on high alert when it comes to this kind of thing is crucial, but it doesn't make all online friendships unhealthy, nor does it make them invalid.

Think about online dating. Some people start dating individuals that they met over the internet and end up getting married. Couples that meet online can get married and stay together for the rest of their lives in some cases. Relationships can go bad whether they begin online or in person, but they can also be exceptional. The same is true for online friendships.

Can you trust online friends? It's important not to trust people online too quickly. You can trust online friends once you meet them in person and confirm that they are who they say they are. Again, it's essential to take someone with you and stay safe when you meet an online friend in person. Video chat can be a place to start when it comes to making virtual connections real. Using video chat, you can see people's facial expressions and hear their voice, making everything feel more authentic. It can take time to develop trust in any friendship, but that's especially true for online friendships due to the possibility that you may come across someone who isn't who they say they are in any capacity from time to time. Trust will build over the course of months or years when you have phone calls, move onto video chat, and meet up in person. Once you've met someone in person in a safe manner, your bond can become even stronger. Meeting online friends in person for the first time is a joyful moment for a ton of people, and as long as you take every safety precaution possible, making virtual connections can be the start of a long, healthy friendship.

Who are real friends? Notice how easy for you to say "I love my family. I love my friends ." Real friends are like your family that you can count on. They make you feel good. Social connections are positive for your mental health, and being around someone who is a real friend will generally be uplifting. A true friend should give you a sense of support. When we talk about a support system, we often think of friends, family, and possibly, a mental health professional or multiple mental health providers. A real friend is therefore you through tough times and pleasant times alike and enhances your life.

What do online friends do online friends talk via web chat, phone calls, video chat, and more. sometimes, online friends will play games together remotely. they may chat or meet on web forums. when you meet a friend online, the eventual goal is often to establish a connection in person. you may text each other throughout the day or talk on social media, and if you live near the same area, you might meet up..

What is the difference between a real friendship and an online friendship?

• Advice On How To End A Friendship
• The Best Quotes About Friendship To Live By

• Listening Tests
• Academic Tests
• General Tests
• IELTS Writing Checker
• IELTS Writing Samples
• Speaking Club
• IELTS AI Speaking Test Simulator
• Latest Topics
• Vocabularying
• 2024 © IELTS 69

Making friends online - advantages and disadvantages

IELTS essay Making friends online - advantages and disadvantages

• Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
• ? One main idea per paragraph
• Include an introduction and conclusion
• Support main points with an explanation and then an example
• Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
• Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
• Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
• Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
• Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
• Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
• Check your writing for errors
• Answer all parts of the question
• ? Present relevant ideas
• Fully explain these ideas
• Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
• ? Currently is not available
• Meet the criteria
• Doesn't meet the criteria
• 6 band Advantages and disadvantages of migration to cities Undoubtedly the number of people who tend to migrate from remote areas to cities, in order to have a better life, has significantly increased during recent years. This essay argues that the drawbacks of migration to cities exceed its benefits in various ways. In terms of the reasons, the main facto ...
• 6 band Shopping online or in real life Online trading is starting to get as a main option to many of the customers around the world. In my view, yes, online shopping has a lot of pros which can hide its cons, however, the cons can lead to miserable results on the individual and rarely on the community. Shopping through your smart device ...
• A new language is a new life. Persian Proverb
• 6.5 band Will hosting sports event will benefit the country? On the one hand, some people believe that hosting an international sports event can benefit the country, while On the other hand some of them think the perhaps. I agree that hosting a major sports event can be beneficial for the country, however, that doesn't mean that it has no disadvantages. Host ...
• 6 band Should school add science of food subject? Most of people believe that subject called "science of food and how to prepare it" should be added to the weekly schedule of the school, however, the other category of people, prefer to invest time by studying subjects that have more importance than the science of food. I concur with the food scienc ...
• 6 band What is more important, dressing in unique way or the quality of work? Most of the companies think that their workers and staff should dress smartly, while on the other hand, some of them prefer the quality of the work more than the image of the employees. In my opinion, appearance with the excellence of work would be better than both of them separated. The uniform of ...
• 6.5 band Reasons and solutions for poverty Despite of a recent significant economic development, poverty still does exist as a global issue, even in highly developed countries. There is a variety of causes to poverty, which require different solutions. This essay provides two main reasons and key solutions for poverty reduction with illustra ...
• A man who knows two languages is worth two men. French Proverb

• Pros and Cons of Online Friendships

Pro. You can be friends with people from different countries. The Internet has no boundaries, it allows you to meet people from across the globe and learn about their culture. Of course, there's a language barrier, but nowadays many people speak English, so it will hardly be an issue.

Con. You won't meet most of them IRL. Maybe some of your online friends live close enough and you will arrange meetings with them, but you surely won't be able to meet all of your online friends. You will never be able to hang out together, laugh at stupid jokes or hug them.

Pro. It's easier to strike up a conversation. If you're a shy person, it's probably easier for you to approach people in the online world. You can learn some background information from their user profile, take your time before answering them and end a conversation when you're feeling uncomfortable.

Con. There is no body language and intonation. Communication without body language and intonation can lead to misunderstandings. Sadly, emoticons don't always help. You need to be careful about what you're saying to prevent miscommunication.

Pro. It's easier to open up. Many people find it easier to share things with their online friends because they feel more comfortable typing the words than saying them. Besides, online friends often are less judgmental, because they are used to meeting people of different ages, sexes, and races.

Con. You can be taken advantage of. Are you really sure that they are who they seem to be? Maybe you've really found yourself a great friend, and maybe you're just being catfished. It is dangerous to provide your online friends with too much personal information too soon into your relationship.

Pro. It saves time. You don't have to go anywhere in order to meet your online friends. The only thing you need is your computer/tablet/smartphone and Internet connection. You don't have to think what to wear and you can stay at home if you don't feel like going out.

Con. You can lose yourself in the online world. Online friendships can get addicting. You might end up abandoning your real-life friends in favor of your online acquaintances. It is very important to find a balance between online and IRL friendships.

The bottom line is, online friendships are great as long as you're being careful and don't lose yourself in the computer. Online friends can be a good addition to your social circle, but they shouldn't be a replacement for your real-life friends.

Breadcrumbs

• Dating & Relationships
• online friends
• online friendships
• pros and cons of online friendships
• making friends online

Related Articles

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Cease-fire will fail as long as Hamas exists, journalist says

Imagining a different Russia

Remember Eric Garner? George Floyd?

“We have come to expect more from technology and less from each other, and now we are so much further along this path of being satisfied with less,” said MIT Professor Sherry Turkle, who gave the keynote at Conference on AI & Democracy.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

Why virtual isn’t actual, especially when it comes to friends

Harvard Staff Writer

Tech, society expert Turkle warns growing number of chatbots for companionship isn’t good for individuals, or democracy

It can help clean a house, drive a car, write a school essay, help read a CT scan. It can also promise to be a good friend.

But MIT Professor Sherry Turkle advises drawing a hard line on artificial-intelligence applications on that last one.

Turkle, a pioneer in the study of the impact of technology on psychology and society, says a growing cluster of AI personal chatbots being promoted as virtual companions for the lonely poses a threat to our ability to connect and collaborate in all aspects of our lives. Turkle sounded her clarion call last Thursday at the Conference on AI & Democracy , a three-day gathering of experts from government, academia, and the private sector to call for a “movement in the effort to control AI before it controls us.”

“We have come to expect more from technology and less from each other, and now we are so much further along this path of being satisfied with less,” said Turkle, the Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT.

Technology can change people’s lives and make them more efficient and convenient, but the time has come to shift our focus from what AI can do for people and instead reflect on what AI is doing to people, said Turkle during her keynote address. Social media has already altered human interactions by producing both isolation and echo chambers, but the effects of personal chatbot companions powered by AI can lead to the erosion of people’s emotional capacities and democratic values, she warned.

“As we spent more of our lives online, many of us came to prefer relating through screens to any other kind of relating,” she said. “We found the pleasures of companionship without the demands of friendship, the feeling of intimacy without the demands of reciprocity, and crucially, we became accustomed to treating programs as people.”

In her work Turkle has researched the effects of mobile technology, social networking, digital companions such as Aibo , a robotic dog, and Paro , a robotic baby harp seal, and the latest online chatbots such as Replika , which bills itself as the “AI companion who cares.”

Turkle has grown increasingly concerned about the effects of applications that offer “artificial intimacy” and a “cure for loneliness.” Chatbots promise empathy, but they deliver “pretend empathy,” she said, because their responses have been generated from the internet and not from a lived experience. Instead, they are impairing our capacity for empathy, the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes.

“What is at stake here is our capacity for empathy because we nurture it by connecting to other humans who have experienced the attachments and losses of human life,” said Turkle. “Chatbots can’t do this because they haven’t lived a human life. They don’t have bodies and they don’t fear illness and death … AI doesn’t care in the way humans use the word care, and AI doesn’t care about the outcome of the conversation … To put it bluntly, if you turn away to make dinner or attempt suicide, it’s all the same to them.”

Artificial intimacy programs derive some of their appeal from the fact that they come without the challenges and demands of human relationships. They offer companionship without judgment, drama, or social anxiety, she said, but lack genuine human emotion and offer only “simulated empathy.” she said. Also troubling is that those programs condition people to be less willing to feel vulnerable or respect the vulnerability of others.

“Human relations are rich, demanding and messy,” said Turkle. “People tell me they like their chatbot friendship because it takes the stress out of relationships. With a chatbot friend, there’s no friction, no second-guessing, no ambivalence. There is no fear of being left behind … All that contempt for friction, second-guessing, ambivalence. What I see is features of the human condition, but those who promote artificial intimacy see as bugs.”

The effects of social media and AI can also be felt in societal polarization and the erosion of civic and democratic values, said Turkle. Experts need to raise the alarm on the perils that AI represents to democracy. Virtual reality is friction-free, and democracy depends on embracing friction, said Turkle.

“Early on, [Silicon Valley companies] discovered a good formula to keep people at their screens,” said Turkle. “It was to make users angry and then keep them with their own kind. That’s how you keep people at their screens, because when people are siloed, they can be stirred up into being even angrier at those with whom they disagree. Predictably, this formula undermines the conversational attitudes that nurture democracy, above all, tolerant listening.

“It’s easy to lose listening skills, especially listening to people who don’t share your opinions. Democracy works best if you can talk across differences by slowing down to hear someone else’s point of view. We need these skills to reclaim our communities, our democracies, and our shared common purpose.”

Share this article

You might like.

Times opinion writer Bret Stephens also weighs in on campus unrest in final Middle East Dialogues event

Former ambassador sees two tragedies: Ukraine war and the damage Putin has inflicted on his own country

Mother, uncle of two whose deaths at hands of police officers ignited movement talk about turning pain into activism, keeping hope alive

How old is too old to run?

No such thing, specialist says — but when your body is trying to tell you something, listen

Alcohol is dangerous. So is ‘alcoholic.’

Researcher explains the human toll of language that makes addiction feel worse

• Community Home

What are the pros and cons of making friends online?

Moderated by

Lisa groesz , phd, psychologist.

With evidenced based therapies, we find the root of the problem together to implement solutions. We all face crises, transitions, or disorders at some time.

Top Rated Answers

Anonymous - expert in loneliness, november 12th, 2016 1:30pm, expert approved, graham barrone, counselor, ichp, mcbt, july 16th, 2016 11:35pm, thealovegood, november 18th, 2016 12:02am, april 14th, 2018 8:40am, frufflesdarat, july 2nd, 2016 2:21am, march 22nd, 2018 2:41am, july 8th, 2016 11:11pm, july 11th, 2016 12:02pm, november 9th, 2016 6:48am, july 13th, 2016 1:42pm, august 7th, 2016 12:49pm, july 9th, 2016 2:44pm, june 24th, 2016 4:55am, july 31st, 2016 3:50pm, july 9th, 2016 7:20am, june 30th, 2016 9:29pm, august 7th, 2016 4:45pm, june 24th, 2016 2:45am, ilovehelping, july 22nd, 2016 3:48pm, fluffycottonsheep, july 24th, 2016 2:38pm, july 9th, 2016 3:44pm, justtryingtohelp1031, july 13th, 2016 6:51pm, august 1st, 2016 3:30pm, comfortingforest, august 3rd, 2016 12:14am, christiana77, june 25th, 2016 9:37am, skylerraber1234, august 2nd, 2016 12:28am, kimhereforeveryone, september 21st, 2016 2:55am, proudmist94, july 23rd, 2016 8:55pm, june 21st, 2016 3:51pm, marianne1234, july 30th, 2016 12:57pm, talk to an expert therapist about loneliness, many people just need someone to listen. i listen. we collaborate on goals and..., related questions: what are the pros and cons of making friends online, personal conversation requests, general conversation requests, new messages.

How to Make Friends and Stay in School

Studies show how structured social time can help students make friends..

Posted April 30, 2024 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

• College students today may struggle with the social skills needed to make friends.
• Providing structured social time that invites vulnerability is better than parties or icebreakers.
• Deliberately connecting students with different identities is necessary to combat homophily.

My college roommate almost dropped out. He returned from a semester abroad with nothing but the clothes on his back and his acoustic guitar. He planned to hang out for a few days before heading home to figure out his next step in life. I wasn’t sure what he was going through, but I tracked down as many friends as I could to talk to him, and collectively we convinced him to stay. He graduated a year later, ultimately earning a master’s and embarking on an amazing career in urban sustainability.

This story is a very specific example of how friends help you stay in school. We often discuss the importance to student retention of social belonging, integration, connection, and other such nebulous terms. But rarely do we acknowledge that friends are really the safety net that help each other navigate the toughest crises and stay on track to earn a degree.

Unfortunately, I keep hearing from college staff and students themselves that they don’t know how to make friends. During a recent community college visit, I was told about a college skills workshop that unexpectedly became a lesson in friendship . We’ve long relied on the mere exposure effect—the idea that students will organically make friends by being stuck together—but if that ever did work, it sure ain’t working now. Given many students’ social behavior following the pandemic—choosing online coursework, avoiding in-person events, and staying in their room to engage virtually—what can we do to help those who want to make friends?

Friendships don’t always happen organically

Making friends takes effort, even in college, which may be especially true for minoritized individuals. In one study, 226 incoming engineering students (about two-thirds of whom were men) were invited to multi-hour social events about three months before the start of school. The 99 students who participated were randomly assigned to groups designed to increase contact between men and women in order to prevent homophily, our tendency to befriend those similar to ourselves.

By the first week of classes, students were more likely to have made friends—especially of a different gender —from their randomly created group as opposed to any other students in their cohort. They were also more likely to become friends with those friends’ friends. Although these friendship clusters weakened over the first year, they were replaced by a newer, denser social network . It’s likely that the pre-college networking created a positive experience for students during a critical transition and provided translatable skills for making new friends beyond those induced by the intervention.

Practice vulnerability

The long-term strength of those induced relationships may have been strengthened had students been guided to be vulnerable. So often when we create social opportunities for college students, we let them freely mingle or, even worse, play icebreakers. Research tells us, however, that friendships emerge not from conversations, per se, nor shared characteristics or experiences. Friendships happen when we share personal information about ourselves.

In another study, 207 students at a Hispanic Serving Institution were randomly paired with another student in their section of introductory psychology, and the pair was assigned to either “small talk” or engage in a “closeness induction” task for 18 minutes. Both tasks involved students asking each other assigned questions, but the small talk stuck to general get-to-know-you’s like, “Where did you go to high school?” Closeness induction involves asking questions of increasing disclosure, in this case culminating with, “Tell me one thing about yourself that most people who already know you don’t know.”

This brief intervention had a remarkable impact. Students who small-talked were twice as likely to withdraw from college in the next year compared to those who experienced closeness induction. This effect, however, was driven by students of color who were 25% more likely to return after closeness induction (compared to White students who showed just over 1% higher retention). In fact, students of color had almost 10% better retention than White students following closeness induction!

Friendships aren’t easy

Data from the closeness induction suggested that students did not become new besties with their conversation partner. What likely happened was that students learned a new tool to create and foster deeper friendships with other students with whom they shared an affinity. Although many of us believe that disclosure is “cringe,” most of want to disclose, and to be disclosed to, more.

Together, these studies offer several strategies for helping college students make friends:

• Provide structured social time. Don’t assume students will organically make friends in class or by living together.
• Connect students before college at a time with less stress and distraction. This will make sense to do virtually with many populations but any in-person contact will be more effective and much welcomed.
• Ensure contact between majority and minority group members. This can combat homophily and improve diversity and equity in retention.
• Encourage self-disclosure. Small talk and icebreakers don’t create friends; induce closeness through carefully considered (and completely voluntary) questions.

Given students’ pleas for help making friends, another strategy might be a shared reading: Platonic by Dr. Marisa G. Franco. I structured this post around advice from her book, incorporating studies that bridge the gap between the research Dr. Franco shares on how to make friends as an adult and the college student experience. Perhaps with these tools and some cleverly designed social time, students will no longer feel the pressure of making friends and will build the social network that will help them persevere when all hope seems lost.

Boda, Z., Elmer, T., Vörös, A., & Stadtfeld, C. (2020). Short-term and long-term effects of a social network intervention on friendships among university students. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 2889-2900.

Rasco, D., Day, S. L., & Denton, K. (2023). Student retention: Fostering peer relationships through a brief experimental intervention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 25 (1), 153-169.

Ross E. O'Hara, Ph.D. , is a behavioral researcher and he applies his expertise in behavioral science to develop scalable interventions that improve college student retention.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Dealing with Shyness

Coping with losing a pet, volunteering and its surprising benefits.

• The 5 Love Languages and Their Influence on Relationships
• I Feel Lonely: 8 Easy Ways to Deal with Loneliness

Setting Healthy Boundaries in Relationships

Loneliness and social isolation.

• Codependency: Signs, Causes, and Help
• Online Therapy: Is it Right for You?
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness
• Children & Family
• Relationships

Are you or someone you know in crisis?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Eating Disorders
• Grief & Loss
• Personality Disorders
• PTSD & Trauma
• Schizophrenia
• Therapy & Medication
• Exercise & Fitness
• Healthy Eating
• Well-being & Happiness
• Weight Loss
• Work & Career
• Illness & Disability
• Heart Health
• Childhood Issues
• Learning Disabilities
• Family Caregiving
• Teen Issues
• Communication
• Emotional Intelligence
• Love & Friendship
• Domestic Abuse
• Healthy Aging
• Aging Issues
• Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
• Senior Housing
• End of Life
• Meet Our Team

Why are friends so important?

What to look for in a friend.

• Tips for being more friendly and social (even if you're shy)

How to make new friends: Where to start

Turning acquaintances into friends, overcoming obstacles to making friends, for better friendships, be a better friend yourself, making good friends.

Looking to build new friendships? These tips can help you meet people, start a conversation, and cultivate healthy connections that will improve your life and well-being.

Our society tends to place an emphasis on romantic relationships. We think that just finding that right person will make us happy and fulfilled. But research shows that friends are actually even more important to our psychological welfare. Friends bring more happiness into our lives than virtually anything else.

Friendships have a huge impact on your mental health and happiness. Good friends relieve stress, provide comfort and joy, and prevent loneliness and isolation. Developing close friendships can also have a powerful impact on your physical health. Lack of social connection may pose as much of a risk as smoking, drinking too much, or leading a sedentary lifestyle. Friends are even tied to longevity. One Swedish study found that, along with physical activity, maintaining a rich network of friends can add significant years to your life.

But close friendships don’t just happen. Many of us struggle to meet people and develop quality connections. Whatever your age or circumstances, though, it’s never too late to make new friends, reconnect with old ones, and greatly improve your social life, emotional health, and overall well-being.

The benefits of friendships

While developing and maintaining friendships takes time and effort, healthy friendships can:

Improve your mood. Spending time with happy and positive friends can elevate your mood and boost your outlook.

Help you to reach your goals. Whether you’re trying to get fit, give up smoking, or otherwise improve your life, encouragement from a friend can really boost your willpower and increase your chances of success.

Reduce your stress and depression. Having an active social life can bolster your immune system and help reduce isolation, a major contributing factor to depression.

Support you through tough times. Even if it’s just having someone to share your problems with, friends can help you cope with serious illness, the loss of a job or loved one, the breakup of a relationship, or any other challenges in life.

Support you as you age. As you age, retirement , illness, and the death of loved ones can often leave you isolated. Knowing there are people you can turn to for company and support can provide purpose as you age and serve as a buffer against depression, disability, hardship and loss.

Boost your self-worth. Friendship is a two-way street, and the “give” side of the give-and-take contributes to your own sense of self-worth. Being there for your friends makes you feel needed and adds purpose to your life.

Why online friends aren’t enough

Technology has shifted the definition of friendship in recent years. With the click of a button, we can add a friend or make a new connection. But having hundreds of online friends is not the same as having a close friend you can spend time with in person.

Online friends can’t hug you when a crisis hits, visit you when you’re sick, or celebrate a happy occasion with you. Our most important and powerful connections happen when we’re face-to-face. So make it a priority to stay in touch in the real world, not just online.

A friend is someone you trust and with whom you share a deep level of understanding and communication. A good friend will:

• Show a genuine interest in what’s going on in your life, what you have to say, and how you think and feel.
• Accept you for who you are.
• Listen to you attentively without judging you, telling you how to think or feel, or trying to change the subject.
• Feel comfortable sharing things about themselves with you.

As friendship works both ways, a friend is also someone you feel comfortable supporting and accepting, and someone with whom you share a bond of trust and loyalty.

Focus on the way a friendship feels, not what it looks like

The most important quality in a friendship is the way the relationship makes you feel—not how it looks on paper, how alike you seem on the surface, or what others think. Ask yourself:

• Do I feel better after spending time with this person?
• Am I myself around this person?
• Do I feel secure, or do I feel like I have to watch what I say and do?
• Is the person supportive and am I treated with respect?
• Is this a person I can trust?

The bottom line: if the friendship feels good, it is good. But if a person tries to control you, criticizes you, abuses your generosity, or brings unwanted drama or negative influences into your life, it’s time to re-evaluate the friendship. A good friend does not require you to compromise your values, always agree with them, or disregard your own needs.

Speak to a Licensed Therapist

BetterHelp is an online therapy service that matches you to licensed, accredited therapists who can help with depression, anxiety, relationships, and more. Take the assessment and get matched with a therapist in as little as 48 hours.

Tips for being more friendly and social (even if you’re shy)

If you are introverted or shy , it can feel uncomfortable to put yourself out there socially. But you don’t have to be naturally outgoing or the life of the party to make new friends.

Focus on others, not yourself. The key to connecting to other people is by showing interest in them. When you’re truly interested in someone else’s thoughts, feelings, experiences, and opinions, it shows—and they’ll like you for it. You’ll make far more friends by showing your interest rather than trying to get people interested in you. If you’re not genuinely curious about the other person, then stop trying to connect.

[Read: Dealing with Loneliness and Shyness]

Pay attention. Switch off your smartphone, avoid other distractions, and make an effort to truly listen to the other person. By paying close attention to what they say, do, and how they interact, you’ll quickly get to know them. Small efforts go a long way, such as remembering someone’s preferences, the stories they’ve told you, and what’s going on in their life.

Evaluating interest

Friendship takes two, so it’s important to evaluate whether the other person is looking for new friends.

• Do they ask you questions about you, as if they’d like to get to know you better?
• Do they tell you things about themselves beyond surface small talk?
• Do they give you their full attention when you see them?
• Does the other person seem interested in exchanging contact information or making specific plans to get together?

If you can’t answer “yes” to these questions, the person may not be the best candidate for friendship now, even if they genuinely like you. There are many possible reasons why not, so don’t take it personally!

We tend to make friends with people we cross paths with regularly: people we go to school with, work with, or live close to. The more we see someone, the more likely a friendship is to develop. So, look at the places you frequent as you start your search for potential friends.

Another big factor in friendship is common interests. We tend to be drawn to people who are similar, with a shared hobby, cultural background, career path, or kids the same age. Think about activities you enjoy or the causes you care about. Where can you meet people who share the same interests?

Meeting new people

When looking to meet new people, try to open yourself up to new experiences. Not everything you try will lead to success but you can always learn from the experience and hopefully have some fun.

Volunteering can be a great way to help others while also meeting new people. Volunteering also gives you the opportunity to regularly practice and develop your social skills.

[Read: Volunteering and its Surprising Benefits]

Take a class or join a club to meet people with common interests, such as a book group, dinner club, or sports team. Websites such as Meetup.com can help you find local groups (or start your own) and connect with others who share similar interests.

Connect with your alumni association . Many colleges have alumni associations that meet regularly. You already have the college experience in common; bringing up old times makes for an easy conversation starter. Some associations also sponsor community service events or workshops where you can meet more people.

Walk a dog. Dog owners often stop and chat while their dogs sniff or play with each other. If dog ownership isn’t right for you, volunteer to walk dogs from a shelter or a local rescue group.

Attend art gallery openings, book readings, lectures, music recitals, or other community events where you can meet people with similar interests. Check with your library or local paper for events near you.

Behave like someone new to the area. Even if you’ve lived in the same place all your life, take the time to re-explore your neighborhood attractions. New arrivals to any town or city tend to visit these places first—and they’re often keen to meet new people and establish friendships, too.

Cheer on your team. Going to a bar alone can seem intimidating, but if you support a sports team, find out where other fans go to watch the games. You automatically have a shared interest—your team—which makes it natural to start up a conversation.

Take a moment to unplug . It’s difficult to meet new people in any social situation if you’re more interested in your phone than the people around you. Remove your headphones and put your smartphone away while you’re in the checkout line or waiting for a bus, for example. Making eye contact and exchanging small talk with strangers is great practice for making connections—and you never know where it may lead!

We all have acquaintances in our life—people we exchange small talk with as we go about our day or trade jokes or insights with online. While these relationships can fulfill you in their own right, with some effort, you can turn a casual acquaintance into a true friend.

The first step is to open up a little about yourself. Friendships are characterized by intimacy. True friends know about each other’s values, struggles, goals, and interests. So, try sharing something a little bit more personal than you would normally. You don’t have to reveal your most closely-held secret, just something a little more revealing than talking about the weather or something you watched on TV and see how the other person responds. Do they seem interested? Do they reciprocate by disclosing something about themselves?

Other tips for strengthening an acquaintance into a friend:

Invite a casual acquaintance out for a drink or to a movie . Lots of other people feel just as uncomfortable about reaching out and making new friends as you do. Be the one to break the ice. Take the first step and reach out to a neighbor or work colleague, for example—they will thank you later.

Carpool to work . Many companies offer carpool programs. If your employer doesn’t, simply ask a colleague if they’d like to share rides. Spending regular time together is a great way to get to know others better and offers the opportunity for uninterrupted and deeper conversation.

Track down old friends via social media . It’s easy to lose track of friends when you move or change jobs, for example. Make the effort to reconnect and then turn your “online” friends into “real-world” friends by meeting up for coffee instead of chatting on Facebook or Twitter.

Is something stopping you from building the friendships you’d like to have? Here are some common obstacles—and how you can overcome them.

If you’re too busy…

Developing and maintaining friendships takes time and effort, but even with a packed schedule, you can find ways to make the time for friends.

Put it on your calendar. Schedule time for your friends just as you would for errands. Make it automatic with a weekly or monthly standing appointment. Or simply make sure that you never leave a get-together without setting the next date.

Mix business and pleasure. Figure out a way to combine your socializing with activities that you have to do anyway.  These could include going to the gym, getting a pedicure, or shopping. Errands create an opportunity to spend time together while still being productive.

Group it. If you truly don’t have time for multiple one-on-one sessions with friends, set up a group get-together. It’s a good way to introduce your friends to each other. Of course, you’ll need to consider if everyone’s compatible first.

If you’re afraid of rejection…

Making new friends means putting yourself out there, and that can be scary. It’s especially intimidating if you’re someone who’s been betrayed, traumatized, or abused in the past, or someone with an insecure attachment bond. But by working with the right therapist , you can explore ways to build trust in existing and future friendships.

For more general insecurities or a fear of rejection, it helps to evaluate your attitude. Do you feel as if any rejection will haunt you forever or prove that you’re unlikeable or destined to be friendless? These fears get in the way of making satisfying connections and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nobody likes to be rejected, but there are healthy ways to handle it:

• Just because someone isn’t interested in talking or hanging out doesn’t automatically mean they’re rejecting you as a person. They may be busy, distracted, or have other things going on.
• If someone does reject you, that doesn’t mean that you’re worthless or unlovable. Maybe they’re having a bad day. Maybe they misread you or misinterpreted what you said. Or maybe they’re just not a nice person!
• You’re not going to like everyone you meet, and vice versa. Like dating, building a solid network of friends can be a numbers game. If you’re in the habit of regularly exchanging a few words with strangers you meet, rejections are less likely to hurt. There’s always the next person. Focus on the long-term goal of making quality connections, rather than getting hung up on the ones that didn’t pan out.
• Keep rejection in perspective. It never feels good, but it’s rarely as bad as you imagine. It’s unlikely that others are sitting around talking about it. Instead of beating yourself up, give yourself credit for trying and see what you can learn from the experience.

Making a new friend is just the beginning of the journey. Friendships take time to form and even more time to deepen, so you need to nurture that new connection.

Be the friend that you would like to have. Treat your friend just as you want them to treat you. Be reliable, thoughtful, trustworthy, and willing to share yourself and your time.

Be a good listener. Be prepared to listen to and support friends just as you want them to listen to and support you.

Give your friend space. Don’t be too clingy or needy. Everyone needs space to be alone or spend time with other people as well.

Don’t set too many rules and expectations. Instead, allow your friendship to evolve naturally. You’re both unique individuals so your friendship probably won’t develop exactly as you expect.

Be forgiving. No one is perfect and every friend will make mistakes. No friendship develops smoothly so when there’s a bump in the road, try to find a way to overcome the problem and move on. It will often deepen the bond between you.

More Information

• Copeland, M. E. (n.d.). Making and Keeping Friends—A Self-Help Guide (SMA-3716; p. 11). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS). Retrieved August 4, 2021, from Link
• Is well-being associated with the quantity and quality of social interactions? – PsycNET. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2021, from Link
• Hall, J. A. (2019). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1278–1296. Link
• Chopik, W. J. (2017). Associations among relational values, support, health, and well-being across the adult lifespan. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 408–422. Link

More in Love & Friendship

Making friends even if you feel shy or socially awkward

Grieving the loss of a dog, cat, or other beloved pet

How giving to others makes you healthier and happier

The 5 Love Languages

What they are and how they influence relationships

I Feel Lonely

8 easy ways to deal with loneliness and isolation

Strengthen your connections and improve your self-esteem

How to connect with others when you feel lonely

Codependency

Signs, causes, and help if you’re in a codependent relationship

Professional therapy, done online

BetterHelp makes starting therapy easy. Take the assessment and get matched with a professional, licensed therapist.

Help us help others

Millions of readers rely on HelpGuide.org for free, evidence-based resources to understand and navigate mental health challenges. Please donate today to help us save, support, and change lives.