DESCRIPTION:

Insight into sociology, social psychology and friendship research. Why friendships are so important in adulthood.

Friendship in transition: what sociology, friendship research and social psychology reveal about adult relationships

Adult friendships often seem like relics from another time: difficult to initiate, easy to lose, awkward to maintain. Many people lead lives full of contacts – professional, digital, functional – but when closeness is really needed, there is often only emptiness. The contradiction is obvious: social networking has never been easier, yet connection has rarely felt so fragile.

What many people are looking for – a relationship that is not bound by romantic exclusivity, kinship or purpose – seems to fade from view as we grow up. In a culture that confuses autonomy with self-optimisation and values efficiency above all else, friendships are pushed to the margins of the conceivable. Those who do not fulfil a function are easily overlooked. Those who do not set deadlines disappear from the calendar.

The influence of digital media and the attention economy is particularly relevant. Platforms such as Instagram, WhatsApp and LinkedIn promise closeness, but deliver visibility. They give us the feeling of staying 'connected', when in reality we are stuck in an endless loop of mutual observation. A like is not caring. An emoji reaction is no substitute for shared silence. What looks like connection is often a simulation of relationship in the e e stream of algorithmic rewards. And yet, it is precisely those people who remain reliably visible in the digital space who often lose their connections in real life.

If you don't want to lose friends today, you have to do more than just respond regularly. It takes presence without performance, time without purpose, and conversations without productivity. This also means that friendship cannot be organised like a project. It arises where people allow themselves to be together, unprotected and without purpose – and in a world characterised by control and functionality, this is a radical act.

This analysis is aimed at those who feel that something is missing – but cannot yet put their finger on what it is. It reveals why adult friendship has become so difficult, why this does not mean individual failure – and why it is worth starting again anyway.

This article brings together key insights from sociology, friendship research and social psychology – not as a nostalgic look back, but as an attempt to rethink adult friendship in a realistic and new way.

What it's about:

Friendships change – and with them our understanding of closeness, play, intimacy and social commitment.

Anyone who wants to form friendships today needs new images and a realistic understanding of how friendship develops and why it has become so fragile in modern society.

What distinguishes a friendship from a functional acquaintance?

What remains of your circle of friends after 15 years of working life, moving house, break-ups and children?

Why is it not enough to "get in touch again sometime"?

This post explores the prerequisites, threshold moments and unwritten rules. It highlights underestimated factors: the role of play in adult relationships, the power of hormonal bonding mechanisms, the emotional economy of time, and the political potential of reliable closeness. Friendship is not just a private matter. It is a social resource – and a response to isolation in modern society.

1. What counts as friendship? The definition of friendship in scientific discourse

What is understood by friendship depends heavily on the respective scientific approach. While philosophy has distinguished between utilitarian, hedonic and virtuous friendships since Aristotle, sociology focuses primarily on structural characteristics: friendship is seen here as a voluntary form of relationship that arises outside institutionalised role expectations. It is not based on biological kinship, economic dependence or romantic attachment, but on choice, trust and emotional reciprocity. This lack of ties makes friendship particularly attractive in modern societies, but also particularly vulnerable.

In this context, social psychology refers to "chosen belonging" – a form of relationship that does not involve institutional obligations but nevertheless entails high expectations of emotional reliability and a shared worldview. Friendly relationships are thus hybrid bonds: they are simultaneously private and socially relevant, intimate and publicly visible, stable and contingent. Their special feature is that no one is "entitled" to them – they must be actively confirmed again and again.

Social psychology also adds so-called interactional criteria to this perspective: typical expectations that people have of friendships, such as reliability, loyalty, willingness to help, trust, emotional openness and shared time. It becomes apparent that the more of these criteria are met, the more strongly a relationship is experienced as a friendship that is " ." The quality of a friendship is therefore not measured by its duration, but by the density of shared meanings and the degree of emotional security.

Scientifically, it can be said that close friends typically share a history of time spent together, often have similar values, and meet regularly. Studies show that most close friendships develop in everyday contexts – for example, in childhood and adolescence, through school friendships, neighbourhoods or work. However, their durability depends not only on external conditions, but also on internal involvement: people who are present, listen, empathise and do not behave in a purely purpose-oriented manner are more likely to be perceived as true friends.

Today, research clearly distinguishes between functional contacts (such as collegiality), casual acquaintances, network contacts and friendly relationships. The latter are characterised by a high degree of emotional closeness, trust and voluntary commitment. Unlike couple relationships, however, they lack an exclusive dimension – friendships can exist in parallel, overlap, arise and disappear without a formal beginning or end. It is precisely this structural openness that means friendship is often overlooked in everyday life – even though it plays a crucial role in the mental health and social stability of many people.

It is remarkable that, despite their enormous social relevance, friendships remain largely unregulated by law. While marriage, parenthood and neighbourliness are defined and protected by law, friendship remains invisible in the legal sense. It only exists where it is lived and mutually recognised – a finding that describes both its beauty and its vulnerability.

Friendship is therefore a unique type of bond: neither romantic nor familial, but just as formative, says sociologist Janosch Schobin. Friendship research sees it as a social structure that is increasingly taking on tasks in modern societies that were previously reserved for the welfare state or the family.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that friendship research has gained in importance since the 2000s. In individualised, flexible societies where institutional ties are becoming more fragile, friendship is emerging as a reliable, self-chosen form of social closeness. It not only compensates for the retreat of the welfare state, but in many cases also replaces the emotional support that used to be provided by family or religious communities. This makes friendship a key social phenomenon – not only in a private sense, but also in a socio-political sense.

2. The development of friendships – and what really matters when it comes to common ground?

The formation of friendships is not a product of chance, but is subject to clearly recognisable social, psychological and spatial conditions. Social psychology refers to this as the exposure effect hypothesis: the more often people encounter each other – under stable, non-hostile circumstances – the more likely it is that sympathy will develop. This repeated, unobtrusive presence forms the basis on which friendship can develop in the first place. It is only through frequent interaction that differences become irrelevant, irritations are put into perspective and spaces for resonance are created. What initially seems neutral can become familiar through repetition – a central prerequisite for any friendship.

Spatial proximity, regular encounters and time spent together are therefore the basic conditions under which friendships develop. School friendships, study friendships, collegiality, sports groups or parent networks offer precisely such contexts. But these social relationships alone are not enough. The decisive factor is whether a sense of commonality emerges in these encounters – not as mere agreement, but as shared experience. Those who recognise themselves in others without having to explain themselves, who understand the same social codes, tolerate similar contradictions or share the same sense of humour, experience an emotional intensity that social psychologists describe as emotional resonance.

Numerous studies show that the saying "birds of a feather flock together" is empirically sound. People prefer to connect with those who are similar to them in terms of origin, education, stage of life, interests and ideologies. Sociologically, this phenomenon is referred to as homophily – the tendency to seek relationships within social, cultural or symbolic equality. It is not only objective similarities that play a role here, but above all subjective similarities in interpretation. Two people who like the same TV series do not necessarily share a friendship – but if both recognise the same comfort, irony or abyss in it, something third emerges: a symbolic space of experience that connects them.

A large-scale meta-analysis on the formation of friendships shows that it is not the mere frequency of contact, but the quality of shared experiences that determines how a friendship develops. Friendships in which common emotional reference points emerge are particularly stable: shared crises, shared euphoria, shared boredom. Such moments give rise to a relationship that is stabilised by specific codes, insider terms or ritualised patterns of behaviour. Friendships in which shared history is not only remembered but also repeatedly re-enacted – for example through stories, jokes or rituals – are particularly long-lasting.

It should not be underestimated that friendship does not arise from equality alone. Many deep friendships are based on differences that have been productively integrated over time. Intergenerational, intercultural or interclass friendships in particular show that friendship develops when differences are not perceived as threatening, but as a way of broadening horizons. However, such relationships depend on a high degree of self-reflection and symbolic work – they require active negotiation of meaning and a minimum of shared values.

Social psychology describes the interplay between familiarity and unavailability as a crucial moment of tension in the development of friendships. Too much similarity can lead to boredom, too much difference to alienation. The productive middle ground – a relationship in which people mirror each other without swallowing each other whole – is the real space in which close friends grow. What matters is not whether people like the same TV series, but whether they find them meaningful in a similar way. It is not the content that connects people, but the process of meaning-making.

It is therefore not surprising that many adult friendships develop during phases of shared transformation: moving house, major life changes, breakups, new careers or biographical crises create symbolic threshold spaces in which new friendships can form. Those who experience resonance in such moments, who are not only heard but understood, experience friendship as an existential relief. Close friends are then not simply companions, but witnesses to one's own transformation – and thus irreplaceable.

In an age in which social encounters are increasingly mediated digitally, spatially fragmented and temporally condensed, this form of symbolic closeness is becoming rarer – but at the same time more precious. Today, friendship no longer arises automatically through closeness, but through the conscious creation of shared meaning. Those who want friends for life need more than common ground: they need a common language for what really matters.

What role do play and purposelessness play in the development of friendship?

Adults often overlook the fact that friendship in childhood does not arise through conversation, interests or strategic proximity, but almost exclusively through playing together. Play is not merely a pastime, but an elementary social practice: it creates a shared world, dissolves purposeful logic and allows encounters outside normative roles. Those who play try things out, invent rules, break them – and observe how relationships form in the process. Friendship research describes this very purposeless, cooperative togetherness as the basis of deep emotional bonds.

The disappearance of play from adult relationships is not a casual phenomenon, but a symptom of a culture that increasingly functionalises relationships. Friendships then take place under scheduling, psychological and social constraints: efficient, plannable, communicatively controlled. The absence of aimless time-spending – hanging out together, wandering, doing silly things – means that relationships are no longer emergent, but choreographed. But friendship that is not allowed to happen because it is tightly scheduled becomes impoverished. Those who want to be friends without wasting time together leave out the very element that brings friendship to life in the first place.

From a psychobiological perspective, play has a measurable effect: the hormone oxytocin, which is associated with trust, closeness and bonding, increases when people laugh, romp, get physically close or improvise together. At the same time, the stress hormone cortisol decreases, which in turn facilitates emotional openness and social relaxation. Particularly close friends are characterised by precisely this mixture: a non-verbal, safe space where mistakes are allowed, where seriousness can be undermined, where a state of shared light-heartedness can arise. This potential disappears when every encounter follows a plan.

Numerous studies on the development of friendships in childhood and adolescence confirm that playing together is not merely an expression of existing closeness, but a vehicle for creating it. It forms a shared present, a small world with its own rules that creates a sense of belonging – precisely because it is not normative. In play, it is not the laws of the adult world that apply, but the laws of possibility. Those who want to belong do not have to perform, but simply play along.

Applied to adulthood, this means that maintaining friendships requires spaces where unproductivity is allowed. Those who spend an afternoon strolling through the city with no destination in mind or make themselves laugh with a trivial game are restoring the conditions for social depth. It is not conversations about work, politics or personal development that sustain friendships, but shared moments without purpose. Especially in an age of constant availability and self-promotion, play thus becomes a gesture of resistance: a form of relationship maintenance that defies the economised self.

In modern society, the need to play is not diminishing – but it is being suppressed, rationalised and externalised. Instead of playing together, adults consume together: films, food, travel, conversations about other people. But these consumptive encounters tend to reproduce parallelism rather than connectedness. Friendship does not arise from shared interests, but from the interplay of imagination, presence and aimless activity. Play is not a childhood memory, but a form of relationship – one that needs to be defended in adulthood.

4. What distinguishes friendships from other social relationships?

Friendships are a distinct category of social bond. They are characterised by high emotional intensity and a low institutional framework. While family, professional and romantic relationships are legally, normatively or functionally bound, friendship remains structurally open. It is not binding, not exclusive, not enforceable – its continued existence is based solely on mutual presence, resonance, and continued signific . It is precisely this form of voluntariness that gives it its special quality: those who stay even though they do not have to give the relationship a different weight.

However, this structural openness is ambivalent. What enables autonomy and freedom of choice on the one hand increases the fragility of the connection on the other. In friendship research, this contradiction is described as constitutive: friendship is both the most individualised and the least protected form of relationship in modern societies. It exists exclusively in lived experience – there is no external structure to support it, no law to guarantee it, no institution to formalise it. Its strength is its detachment – and so is its weakness.

Unlike other social relationships, friendship is not determined by role expectations. Parenthood, partnership, neighbourliness, collegiality – all these forms are embedded in social functions, entail obligations and are guided by conventions. Friendship, on the other hand, remains fundamentally free of purpose and structure: it is a relationship without roles, closeness without a contract, intimacy without a claim to exclusivity. In a world where more and more relationships are regulated by contractual, economic or performative criteria, this form of relationship seems almost anachronistic – and precisely because of this, existentially significant.

This special feature is also evident at the linguistic level. The term 'friendly' refers to a type of relationship that is not hierarchical but dialogical – on an equal footing, without any claim to dominance. Friendship is not based on possessive logic ("my partner," "my daughter") and has no institutionalised formula for commitment. It requires emotional work – but not out of duty, rather out of choice. It demands presence, but not control. It invites, but does not compel. This is precisely where its ethical quality lies: those who stay, even though they can leave at any time, make their closeness meaningful.

In practice, this means that friendships arise and endure where people are willing to live with inner commitment without external pressure. Those who have close friends often experience a form of closeness that cannot be reproduced in any other form of relationship – because it is not institutionally "secured" but has grown biographically. This closeness is often intimate but not sexualised; deep but not exclusive; reliable but not enforceable. It thrives on a social grammar of reciprocity that is not codified but atmospheric.

In this respect, friendship functions as an intermediate space: it lies beyond family structures, beyond romantic exclusivity, beyond economic constraints – and yet it contains elements of all these worlds. It can be as supportive as parenthood, as familiar as partnership, as reliable as collegiality – without completely conforming to any of these forms. Its value lies precisely in this categorical indefinability. And that makes it one of the last open, freely configurable spaces of human connection in an increasingly differentiated society.

5. Male friendships and female friendships – what is different?

Friendship research has empirically proven that male friendships and female friendships differ in style, expression and dynamics. These differences are neither purely biological nor exclusively socially constructed – they arise from the interaction of hormonal influences, biographical influences and cultural norms. Freiburg psychology professor Markus Heinrichs points out that the bonding hormone oxytocin is released in men primarily through shared activities, whereas in women it is released more through conversation and emotional exchange. This has a profound effect on bonding behaviour in same-sex friendships.

Men often develop emotional closeness through shared activities: sports, projects, games, routines. The relationship develops through action, not talk. Women, on the other hand, tend to form bonds through verbal attention, shared reflection and emotional openness. So while conversation and resonance are central means of closeness in female friendships, situational co-presence, silent loyalty and a feeling of mutual reliability play a greater role in male friendships. These patterns are not mandatory, but they are statistically noticeable – and they also structure the expectations that men and women have of their friendships.

Friendship research often describes male friendships as action-centred, stable but less emotionally elaborate. This does not mean that they are less deep – just that they are less verbally coded. Many men do not talk about emotional conflicts, but still feel intense closeness that builds up over time, routine and proven everyday presence. The relationship is intimate without intimacy being explicitly addressed. This sometimes makes it invisible from the outside – but resilient from the inside.

Female friendships, on the other hand, are on average more strongly characterised by emotional regulation. Topics such as personal development, relationship crises or everyday stress are explicitly addressed. The quality of these conversations has a direct impact on the stability of the relationship. At the same time, such connections are more susceptible to damage from misunderstandings, conflicts of loyalty or emotional disappointment. While men are more likely to stay in touch for decades without regularly exchanging deeper content, female friendships are more often based on intense but also more conflict-sensitive closeness.

These differences do not arise in a vacuum. They reflect cultural norms of masculinity and femininity that favour or sanction certain forms of expression of emotion and attachment. In Western societies in particular, men are still less accepted as emotionally dependent. As a result, many men experience closeness as a risk – and protect themselves emotionally through shared activities rather than openness. Women, on the other hand, have a culturally more accepted repertoire for cultivating affective relationships, which gives them access to more intense but also more vulnerable forms of friendship.

In an increasingly individualised society, these patterns are beginning to change. Younger men are more likely to express a desire for more emotionally open friendships, while women are distancing themselves from the expectation that they must constantly engage in emotional labour. Nevertheless, differences in average relationship styles remain – not as a given, but as an effect of social conditioning. To better understand how friendship develops, we must therefore look not only at hormonal processes, but also at the cultural grammar of closeness, vulnerability and belonging, which is learned differently by men and women – and can be violated differently.

6. What does friendship research say about adult circles of friends?

In the transition from adolescence to adulthood, not only does the number of friendships change, but also their structure, meaning and social function. While friendships in childhood and adolescence often develop through everyday proximity, school environment and leisure culture, adult circles of friends become more selective, fragmented and less frequent. Empirical research Longitudinal studies show that the number of close friends decreases significantly with age – not necessarily due to emotional alienation, but for structural reasons: geographical mobility, work schedules, parenthood, caregiving responsibilities or chronic time constraints mean that closeness can no longer be spontaneous, but must be organised.

In this context, friendship research refers to a "condensation with simultaneous shrinkage" of close social relationships. This means that while the number of contacts decreases, the emotional demands on those who remain grow. Many adults report that they maintain a network of professional or digital contacts, but only consider one or two people to be friends in the true sense of the word. These friendships then carry an increased burden – they are expected to provide emotional support, biographical knowledge, companionship and everyday relief all at once. This not only creates closeness, but also overwhelms people.

A representative study from Germany shows that over the past 60 years, the understanding of friendship has shifted significantly. The proportion of people who consider friendships to be their "most important social relationship" has risen – at the same time, the number of actual, mutual friendships has declined. This discrepancy points to a structural paradox: ideals of friendship such as "close friend" often contradict reality. "Friends for life" remain powerful, but are more difficult to achieve in a present shaped by social change. Life courses are less synchronised, social spaces are shared less frequently, routines are becoming less permanent – today, friendship must be actively worked at to prevent it from dissolving.

Research therefore increasingly describes adult circles of friends as modular, functionally distributed and phased. There are travel friends, conversation partners, project connections – but increasingly rarely the one all-encompassing friendship. At the same time, many people find that friendship develops precisely when certain life situations are shared – such as separation, illness, job loss or migration. In such moments, the quality and depth of a relationship become clearer than in years of uneventful normality.

Although friendship research – for example in the work of Auhagen or Schobin – emphasises that friendship is not defined by physical proximity alone, without the presence of friends, without time spent together, without casual encounters, no symbolic bonds can form. Phone calls and messages can maintain contact – but they cannot replace shared silence, doing nothing, deviating from the plan. Digital circles of friends often function as support networks, but they do little to satisfy basic emotional needs for co-presence, compassion and non-verbal intimacy.

Despite all the structural difficulties, the importance of adult friendship remains unbroken – or even grows when other forms of relationship such as partnership, family or neighbourhood become unstable. Friendships are increasingly replacing what the welfare state can no longer provide: emotional security, practical help, social relationships beyond exchange and function. However, this development does not automatically lead to greater connectedness – rather, it increases the social responsibility that rests on the shoulders of a few.

The challenge therefore lies not only in maintaining individual friendships, but in actively cultivating sustainable circles of friends. Today, these consist less of groups that have grown together by chance and more of intentionally cultivated, biographically intertwined micro-publics. Those who take friendship seriously in adulthood must not only maintain relationships, but also create conditions for freedom from purpose, repetition, vulnerability and diversity of meaning. Only then can friendship, in the sense of friendship research, be more than a nostalgic ideal.

7. Why friendships fall apart over the course of a lifetime – and how to save them

Friendships do not arise in a vacuum – they are embedded in phases of life, transitions and biographical synchronisations. That is why many friendships do not end in a break-up, but through drifting apart. School, university and the first years of working life not only offer shared environments, but also shared rhythms, similar life plans and symbolic parallels. When this synchrony ends – through moving house, starting a family, changing jobs or separating – a gradual process of disintegration often begins. It is not the person that is lost, but the shared rhythm.

Friendship research describes this process as "relational erosion": friendships do not end spectacularly, but inconspicuously. They peter out because contact is no longer a given, time becomes a scarce resource and the mental presence for each other diminishes. Friendships that were strongly linked to a shared phase of life – such as flatmate friendships, university friendships or professional alliances – are particularly at risk. When the structuring environment disappears, what often remains is a feeling of alienation that is difficult to put into words – and is therefore rarely discussed.

Sociology refers to this as biographical asynchronisation. The further apart life paths diverge, the harder it is to keep in touch – not only organisationally, but also emotionally. People who are just having children have different needs than those who have recently separated; those who are in the rush hour of life have little capacity for crisis support; those who are retiring often experience the disintegration of their circle of friends as an abrupt social loss. The development of friendships is therefore rarely linear – it is punctuated by breaks, reinterpretations and transitions.

Friendships that are separated by distance are particularly susceptible to this disintegration if no active countermeasures are taken. Studies show that mere digital connection – via messenger services, social networks or occasional updates – is no substitute for spending time together in the physical sense. What is missing is the implicit knowledge of everyday life, the shared atmosphere, the casual presence. Friendships that are based solely on exchange formats lose their depth. Without points of contact, meaning evaporates.

But friendships can be saved – provided there is a mutual interest in continuing them and a willingness to reinvest. This does not mean recreating the past, but rather recontextualising the relationship. Rituals help: regular annual meetings, joint projects, symbolic gestures. Asymmetrical contact is also allowed – as long as it is understood as caring rather than imbalance. Those who wait until contact is "balanced" again usually lose it for good.

Emotional authenticity is more important than frequency. Appointments alone are not enough – they remain empty encounters if there is no emotional support. Friendship thrives on the risk of revealing oneself – and on the willingness to anchor oneself in the other person again. This also means allowing vulnerability in order to free the relationship from stagnation. Friendship cannot be managed, but it can be revived – if both sides are willing to make room for it.

In a culture geared towards optimisation and efficiency, this seems like an anachronism. But it is precisely this resistance that makes friendship alive: it is reborn where time is not measured but shared. If you don't want to lose a friendship, you have to stop treating it like a calendar entry – and start telling it like a shared story that hasn't been written yet.

8. How do hormones, stress and emotional dynamics affect our friends?

Friendship is more than a social construct – it has a profound effect on a person's neurobiological and affective balance. Numerous studies from biopsychosocial research show that people who have close friends regulate stress more effectively, recover more quickly from emotional stress and show less vulnerability to psychosomatic symptoms. This is mainly due to two key neuroendocrine factors: the stress hormone cortisol and the bonding hormone oxytocin.

Cortisol is released in increased amounts during social isolation, excessive demands and chronic pressure – it increases alertness but impairs emotional balance in the long term. Friendship acts as a biological buffer here: the presence of friends, shared laughter, physical closeness or even non-verbal communication (e.g. through eye contact or touch) activate the release of oxytocin. This hormone, often referred to as the "bonding or trust hormone," has been proven to lower cortisol levels, reduce anxiety symptoms and strengthen social openness. In social psychology, this process is understood as the neurobiological basis of emotional coherence.

However, this effect does not unfold automatically. Friendship must be lived in order to remain effective. Especially in phases of high stress – during depression, exhaustion or anxiety – many people exhibit withdrawal behaviour that paradoxically interrupts the very relationships that would enable emotional stabilisation. Friendships then fail not because of conflicts, but because the connection is "switched off" due to excessive demands. The dynamics of social withdrawal are not meant to be personal – they follow a protective mechanism that provides short-term relief but can destabilise relationships in the long term.

Friendships must therefore not only be built up, but actively maintained – especially when the need for withdrawal dominates. This also means that friends are often invited to be there during phases when the other person is unable to nurture the relationship. Emotional support does not mean "rescuing," but rather remaining present without demanding " ." Listening without counselling. Being there without explaining. Friendship is then less about dialogue and more about co-regulation – a non-invasive form of togetherness.

In the long term, these effects are measurable: people with stable friendships have significantly lower cortisol levels, better sleep, a faster return to normal levels after stress and a higher degree of self-efficacy. At the same time, they are less lonely, less ill and more mentally resilient. Friendship is therefore not merely a social resource, but a form of lived resilience. It regulates emotions, stabilises identity and protects against alienation.

But this only works if the ideal of friendship is not confused with performance. Good friends don't always have to "bring something to the table"; they can simply be there – as a source of relief in each other's lives. The physiological effect of genuine friendship is just as profound as the psychological one: unconditional security, connection without explanation, belonging without purpose. In a culture of optimisation, this is a rare but all the more precious counter-model.

9. What remains of friendship in old age? Insights into closeness and loss

With age, it is not only the body that changes, but also the social fabric. Friendship networks shrink, the availability of shared spaces decreases, and biographical losses leave gaps that can no longer be filled as a matter of course. The transition to retirement, health restrictions, the breakdown of partnerships or moving to a different type of home mark significant thresholds – not only individually, but also relationally. The structure of friendships changes – and with it the experience of closeness and connectedness.

In friendship research, late adulthood is considered a vulnerable but by no means deficient phase. Although many older people report increasing loneliness, numerous studies also show that those who have close friends experience significantly higher life satisfaction, better mental health and greater autonomy.  , friendships in old age not only compensate for the loss of family contacts – they provide emotional support, offer practical help in everyday life and give social stability through biographical reflection and future orientation.

These friendships often differ in structure and dynamics from those in earlier phases of life. They are not characterised by joint future projects, but by shared memories, shared habits and ritualised presence. Closeness arises less through change than through continuity. At the same time, these friendships are more fragile: the loss of friends is more common and more painful in old age and is less often compensated for by new encounters. This is because friendships develop more slowly in later life, not least because of health restrictions, mobility barriers and the decline in everyday meeting places.

But the ideal of friendship remains constant. Even in old age, people want friendships that are characterised by reliability, equality and intimate familiarity. Studies show that the desire to belong remains, regardless of cognitive or physical abilities. Friendship remains a form of relationship, not a phase of life. The difference lies in the energy required to shape it: while friendship can develop casually in younger years, it often requires conscious decisions, structural initiatives and institutional support in old age.

This also reveals a socio-political dimension: in a society that primarily views ageing as a medical challenge, there is often a lack of public places and social formats in which friendships can be cultivated. Meeting places, rituals, low-threshold opportunities for reunions – all these are prerequisites for social density in old age. Where these are lacking, friendship also becomes a privilege: accessible only to those who are mobile, well-connected and do not live in inner or outer isolation.

Nevertheless, friendship in old age remains an underestimated key to dignity, participation and vitality. It allows us not only to tell stories, but to remember them together; not only to lose physicality, but to renegotiate it; and to translate the feeling of being needed into new forms. Those who still have someone in old age who asks after them, who accompanies them, who calls them – have more than social contact. They have a friendship that may not have been the longest, but has become the most important.

Friendship research: key findings at a glance

– Friendship does not arise by chance, but through repeated encounters, shared meaning and emotional resonance.
– Adult friendships need space: time without a purpose, places without a function, closeness without expectations.
– Male friendships and female friendships follow different dynamics, but both are structurally vulnerable and need nurturing to achieve the ideal of friendship.
– Friendships decline in adulthood but become more important, especially in the absence of family support.
– Emotional support from close friends has a physiologically stabilising effect and has been proven to protect against loneliness and stress.
– Friendship is not only a private asset, but also a social resource – and thus also a socio-political issue.

Related

“Escaping Toxic Ties. Unraveling & Defeating Destructive Relationship Habits” – A Guide to Overcome Toxic Relationships

Toxic relationships

The influence of social media: manipulation, likes and attention spans

Polyamory: A way out of the constraints of monogamy and destructive jealousy?