The benefits of friendship go far beyond having someone to confide in or spend time with – it can also protect you from physical and mental health problems. For example, people with good friends recover more quickly from illnesses and surgeries. They report higher well-being and feel like they live up to their full potential. Additionally, people with good friends report being less lonely across many life stages, including adolescence, becoming a parent and old age.

In fact, friendships are so powerful that the social pain of rejection activates the same neural pathways that physical pain does.

Behavioral scientists like me have tended to focus our research about friendships on their benefits. How to cultivate these powerful relationships hasn’t been as deeply researched yet. Understanding more about what people look for in a friend and how to make and sustain good friendships could help fight the loneliness epidemic.

Traditional conceptions of friendship

Previous generations of behavioral scientists traditionally focused on the notion that people form friendships with those who are similar, familiar and in close proximity to them.

When you look at all the friendships you’ve had over your life, these three factors probably make intuitive sense. You’re more likely to have things in common with your friends than not. You feel an increased sense of familiarity with friends the longer you know them – what psychologists call the mere exposure effect. And your friends are more likely to live or work near you.

Researchers in this field have also typically divided friendship preferences based on gender. The dichotomy suggests that women prefer one-on-one, emotionally close and face-to-face friendships, while men prefer multi-person, task-oriented and side-by-side friendships, with the focus on a shared activity.

Again, when looking at your own friendships, these findings may seem intuitive. Women on average prefer to engage in activities that allow for self-disclosure and sharing secrets, such as spending time one-on-one talking about their lives. Men, on the other hand, tend to prefer to engage in activities that are group-based and have a clearly defined outcome, such as playing sports together. Findings such as these show that gender and preferences on how to connect are important in friendships.

But these explanations of friendship do not address the most important aspect of making friends – choosing the individual people you want to turn into your pals. Friendship decisions are not random. There are many people who are similar, familiar, in close proximity and have similar preferences as you. Yet few of these individuals end up being your friends.

So, in a world full of possibilities, how do people pick those who will become their friends?

New ways to think about friendship

Within the last decade, researchers have begun investigating the roots of friendship preferences beyond the classic descriptions.

For example, social scientists see there are strong preferences for friends to be loyal, trustworthy and warm. Additionally, researchers find there are preferences for friends who help you solve specific kinds of problems and are generous and caring with you instead of others. These preferences help people navigate making friends, given limited reserves of time and effort. In short, they help you find the best possible friends you can in a world full of friendship possibilities.

Social scientists have also learned that, while there are some important gender differences in what people want in friends, it is not accurate to say that men and women want one kind of friendship over another. In fact, when we take a more holistic approach and consider broader categorizations of emotional closeness and tasks, the gender differences in these preferences are reduced. And of course, people don’t exclusively pick between face-to-face and side-by-side friendships. Instead, it is more likely that they focus on what they want from their friends and let these needs guide how friendships form.

Ultimately it’s your individual preferences that guide you toward the people who will best meet your particular social needs. With a little luck, you’ll find buddies who can lend a hand when you need one and support you in reaching your goals. In all, your preferences are the key to finding friends who can buffer against feeling lonely and provide you with the social, emotional and health benefits of friendship.

When you’re looking for friends

It’s hard to provide clear guidelines for improving friendships because the research about friendship preferences is still developing. But there are some clear points for consideration:

1. Determine what you value in friends. Do you want one-on-one, emotionally close friendships or multi-person, task-oriented friendships? Depending on your preference, different kinds of activities will be helpful for finding others who fit the bill and cultivating these friendships.

2. Know that it will take time to make close friendships. Research suggests that it takes 30 hours of interaction to make a casual friend, 140 hours to make a good friend and 300 hours to make a best friend.

3. Consider what you bring to the table. Everyone has unique strengths they bring to their friendships. Research shows that, when you’re able to demonstrate that you have characteristics people want in friends, you’re able to make more satisfying friendships.

Understand friendships to understand loneliness

Considering the nuances of friendship preferences will be extremely important in reducing not only loneliness, but other related public health crises. For example, loneliness is associated with likelihood of attempting suicide. Recent surveys have found that men are suffering big declines in the number of close friends they have, as well as experiencing higher rates of suicide compared to women.

The U.S. Surgeon General’s recent recommendations for fighting the loneliness epidemic focus on public policies and infrastructure. But fostering community spaces for connection – such as parks, libraries and playgrounds – prioritizes the preferences of those who favor the one-on-one, emotionally close and face-to-face connections more often preferred by women. These places are less beneficial for people with more typically masculine preferences, as there is no guarantee that these spaces will foster side-by-side, task-oriented connections unless areas for sports and other team-based activities are also included.

To counter this inequity, researchers and public health officials first need to understand what makes friendships satisfying. Then they can ensure that recommendations to curb loneliness address all of the pathways that people use to cultivate high-quality friendships.

Jessica D. Ayers, Assistant Professor of Psychological Science, Boise State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you live on the East Coast, you may have driven through roundabouts in your neighborhood countless times. Or maybe, if you’re in some parts farther west, you’ve never encountered one of these intersections. But roundabouts, while a relatively new traffic control measure, are catching on across the United States.

Roundabouts, also known as traffic circles or rotaries, are circular intersections designed to improve traffic flow and safety. They offer several advantages over conventional intersections controlled by traffic signals or stop signs, but by far the most important one is safety.

I research transportation engineering, particularly traffic safety and traffic operations. Some of my past studies have examined the safety and operational effects of installing roundabouts at an intersection. I’ve also compared the performance of roundabouts versus stop-controlled intersections.

A brief history of roundabouts

As early as the 1700s, some city planners proposed and even constructed circular places, sites where roads converged, like the Circus in Bath, England, and the Place Charles de Gaulle in France. In the U.S., architect Pierre L'Enfant built several into his design for Washington, D.C.. These circles were the predecessors to roundabouts.

In 1903, French architect and influential urban planner Eugène Hénard was one of the first people who introduced the idea of moving traffic in a circle to control busy intersections in Paris.

Around the same time, William Phelps Eno, an American businessman known as the father of traffic safety and control, also proposed roundabouts to alleviate traffic congestion in New York City.

In the years that followed, a few other cities tried out a roundabout-like design, with varying levels of success. These roundabouts didn’t have any sort of standardized design guidelines, and most of them were too large to be effective and efficient, as vehicles would enter at higher speeds without always yielding.

The birth of the modern roundabout came with yield-at-entry regulations, adopted in some towns in Great Britain in the 1950s. With yield-at-entry regulations, the vehicles entering the roundabout had to give way to vehicles already circulating in the roundabout. This was made a rule nationwide in the United Kingdom in 1966, then in France in 1983.

Yield-at-entry meant vehicles drove through these modern roundabouts more slowly, and over the years, engineers began adding more features that made them look closer to how roundabouts do now. Many added pedestrian crossings and splitter islands – or raised curbs where vehicles entered and exited – which controlled the vehicles’ speeds.

Engineers, planners and decision-makers worldwide noticed that these roundabouts improved traffic flow, reduced congestion and improved safety at intersections. Roundabouts then spread throughout Europe and Australia.

Three decades later, modern roundabouts came to North America. The first modern roundabout in the U.S. was built in Summerlin, on the west side of Las Vegas, in 1990.

Ever since, the construction of modern roundabouts in the U.S. has picked up steam. There are now about 10,000 roundabouts in the country.

Why use roundabouts?

Roundabouts likely caught on so quickly because they reduce the number of potential conflict points. A conflict point at an intersection is a location where the paths of two or more vehicles or road users cross or have the potential to cross. The more conflict points, the more likely vehicles are to crash.

A roundabout has only eight potential conflict points, compared to 32 at a conventional four-way intersection. At roundabouts, vehicles don’t cross each other at a right angle, and there are fewer points where vehicles merge or diverge into or away from each other.

The roundabout’s tight circle forces approaching traffic to slow down and yield to circulating traffic, and then move smoothly around the central island. As a result, roundabouts have fewer stop-and-go issues, which reduces fuel consumption and vehicle emissions and allows drivers to perform U-turns more easily. Since traffic flows continuously at lower speeds in a roundabout, this continuous flow minimizes the need for vehicles to stop, which reduces congestion.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that when a roundabout replaces a stop sign-controlled intersection, it reduces serious and fatal injury crashes by 90%, and when it replaces an intersection with a traffic light, it reduces serious and fatal injury crashes by nearly 80%.

Why do some places have more than others?

Engineers and planners traditionally have installed roundabouts in intersections with severe congestion or a history of accidents. But, with public support and funding, they can get installed anywhere.

But roundabouts aren’t needed in every intersection. In places where congestion isn’t an issue, city planners tend not to push for them. For example, while there are around 750 roundabouts in Florida, there are fewer than 50 in North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming combined.

Roundabouts have been gaining popularity in the U.S. in recent years, in part because the Federal Highway Administration recommends them as the safest option. Some states, like New York and Virginia, have adopted a “roundabout first” policy, where engineers default to using roundabouts where feasible when building or upgrading intersections.

In 2000, the U.S. only had 356 roundabouts. Over the past two decades, that number has grown to over 10,000. Love them or hate them, the roundabout’s widespread adoption suggests that these circular intersections are here to stay.

Deogratias Eustace, Professor of Civil, Environmental and Engineering Mechanics, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.