A Simple B.F.F. Strategy, Confirmed by Scientists

By Mike Nizza
INSERT DESCRIPTIONScientists plotted social connections based on phone calls. Blue for boys, pink for girls and gray for unknown. (Image: Cesar Hidalgo and Carlos Rodriguez-Sickert via Physorg)

In search for the keys to enduring friendships, a physicist and sociologist from Notre Dame examined more than 8 million phone calls between 2 million people.

Their answer, as the science news site PhysOrg admits, may not surprise you: “the leading cause of persistent relationships is reciprocity — returning a friend’s call.” Further, they said friends ’til the end tend to touch base at least once every 15 days.

Scientists also argued a less obvious point, saying that social butterflies “are not trading quality for quantity.” They simply have more “best friends forever” (B.F.F.’s) than their more introverted friends.

They may also have better long distance plans, though Skype helped overcome that obstacle on Monday. The Internet-based telephone service made its name by providing a cheaper alternative to calling landlines, but it also capped the amount of minutes its customers could use no matter how much they paid. Now, $9.95 per month can buy unlimited calls between Skype and landlines in 34 countries.

If that prospective B.F.F. in Malaysia, Guam or Norway still manages to slip away over the years, blame each other, not that phone line in between.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Dan April 22, 2008 · 1:54 pm

Something about this study seems out of date: just phone calls? Close friends often use instant messaging, text messaging and, yes, even email to stay in touch, arrange get-togethers, and simply talk. Dare I say talking on the phone may be becoming… passé?

Dan: Yes, I agree. A more interesting study would’ve taken all those things into account. Especially in the off chance that friends were more likely to respond to e-mails than phone calls, among other questions. –Mike

James April 22, 2008 · 2:02 pm

How much did Skype pay for that non sequitur?

That said, I’m enticed to get the plan now…

Doug April 22, 2008 · 2:13 pm

I live on Jupiter where we don’t have cell phones, email, or friends. Up here, BFF means Boronic-Fractal Fissures. Its a big problem on Mars right now. We have bigger things to worry about than staying in touch with friends. My liver is made out of magnesium!

Michel April 22, 2008 · 2:14 pm

Reciprocity is necessary for BFFs. The medium is trivial. The pure definition of a BFF must include some degree of constant contact, because otherwise people can’t share things with each other. I seriously hope this wasn’t what the study was trying to show. If anything, a study like this should report the frequency of contact between BFFs versus those of casual friends (as it appears to possibly do) and not use a study to prove a definition.

Also: Reciprocity is necessary to create a BFF-ship. Returning a phone call is the effect of a BFF-ship.

mikey April 22, 2008 · 2:22 pm

I imagine the underlying reason for this “phenomenon” is that real friends are involved in the lives of other friends. Communicating at 2 week minimums allows one to remain involved in the happenings of another’s life. But as more time passes between correspondences, they become times to “catch up” and it quickly becomes a situation where you are keeping “up to date” rather than keeping “involved.” I hope that makes sense, but that’s just been my experience in life.

Amy April 22, 2008 · 3:04 pm

I wonder, then, what the researchers would make of those friends with whom you “pick up right where you left off.” Don’t we all have friends like that? I love all my friends, but the idea that I can not hear from someone for several months and be just as comfortable with them when I do as I was back in the first grade sitting with her every day at lunch warms my heart in a very special way. These are certainly interesting and fun questions to ponder.

Max April 22, 2008 · 3:18 pm

One phone call is worth ten emails in terms of staying close with someone. The human element, comparatively speaking, makes all the difference.

heliosmou April 22, 2008 · 3:29 pm

I hate the telephone. I call my best friend in Greece every couple of months. In the meantime, we stay in touch through email, which I prefer over the phone. There is something to be said about hearing a person’s voice over the phone, however. The nuances can’t be duplicated.

Roland April 22, 2008 · 3:54 pm

I agree, just taking phone calls into consideration does tend to leave out the other obvious forms of communication such as instant messaging, text messages and emails, but lest we forget, one of the biggest forms of communication, not only among teens and early 20’s are the social networking sites. I haven’t talked to most of my friends from my college years in well over a month or most even 6 months. Every now and again, though, I get a message or send a message via Facebook (I’m kind of partial to facebook because I feel that I lack the programming skills to create any myspace page to compete with some of these out there. Facebook are all pretty much the same.)

Susan April 22, 2008 · 3:56 pm

What does B.F.F. mean? Best Friend _______? I’m just guessing, I have no idea. It’s essential to spell out or explain acronyms, even if “everyone” knows them.

Susan, Apologies, I am adding an explanation now. –Mike

PC April 22, 2008 · 4:33 pm

Of course, some would argue that a phone call has a personal element missing from electronic media that would be a little more conducive to perpetuating a closer friendship. But then, the whole nature of relationships appears to be changing, too. Just look at the friendships of people in their 50s compared with those of teens in this IM era.

seawall90 April 22, 2008 · 4:39 pm

They would then have to do some social ranking on the relative weight each communication type was worth in terms of friendship. Maybe the BFF gets the more personal phone call, while those less close get the more conveinent and less thougthful texts and emails. Although IM may be an indicator of BFF status. I can understand why they went with just the one variable.

JS in PA April 22, 2008 · 5:00 pm

Actually, I’d go so far as to say that my closest friend (who’s been my closest friend for the last decade or so) and I get along so well partly because we both hate talking on the phone. We email several times daily and see each other as often as two people who now live several hours apart can, but I can’t remember the last time she called me or I called her. On the other hand, I’ve all but lost touch with another close friend who lives far away, an excellent and lovely person, because I much prefer written communications and she much prefers verbal ones. I wonder if in general, emailers are closer with emailers and telephoners with telephoners?

Carlos Rodriguez May 26, 2008 · 2:39 am

I believe that it is a mistake to discuss whether mobile phone networks exhaustively represent the real social network. Or, in a similar vein, to argue in favor of alternative means of communications such as e-mails. Each technology provides a particular perspective from which to observe the social system. I also prefer e-mails, but most e-mails are spam and I have multiple electronic identities so many e-mails are sent from me to myself. Moreover, penetratrion rates of mobile phones are higher than internet penetration rates so the network configures a more diverse sample to work with. Automatically recorded communication data, irrespective of the specific technology in use, provide a valuable perspective from which the social system can be studied. Make no mistake: the social network itself cannot be observed.

Carlos Rodriguez-Sickert May 26, 2008 · 2:46 am

Regarding the sentence:

“social butterflies “are not trading quality for quantity.” They simply have more “best friends forever” (B.F.F.’s) than their more introverted friends.

It is true that the top 5 friends of social butterflies are more persistent on average than the top 5 friends of selective people. But doesn’t mean that they “are not trading quality for quantity.” We do observe such trade-off (on average, social butterflies’ relationships are less persistent than the ones from more selective agents. However, when it is time to choose the top 5 friends, to have a larger sample from which to choose counterbalance the aforementioned trade-off.