Intimacy is positively associated with relational ambivalence, particularly in immediate familial relationships, which are classified as ambivalent more frequently and to a greater extent than other types of relationships. In fact, relational ambivalence is not negatively associated—but often co-occurs—with strong, enduring, and beneficial kinship ties. Conversely, research on familial estrangement suggests that ambivalence may also coincide with difficulty, dissonance, and other problematic tie qualities that contribute to decay and dissolution in strong, role-based ties. This suggests that prevailing conceptualizations of ambivalence in network research lack the descriptive precision needed to systematically account for how ambivalence interacts with tie qualities to shape tie dynamics and statuses in role-based relationships.

This paper presents a qualitative analysis of how individuals understand the state of their close kinship ties in relation to the ambivalent sentiments they evoke and the broader social contexts in which they unfold. Drawing on 27 in-depth interviews with adults in Canada and the United States who have intentionally estranged themselves from one or more parents, this study identifies patterns in how estranged adult children conceptualize tie ambivalence, difficulty, dissonance, maintenance, decay, and dissolution.

Findings show that individuals perceive role-based ties as ambivalent based on the coexistence of positive and negative sentiments, regardless of how these sentiments are balanced. Moreover, the ‘tipping point’ argument—where an ambivalent tie is assumed to become positively or negatively valenced once one sentiment dominates—oversimplifies how ambivalence shapes tie dynamics and relational change. Instead, this paper argues that ambivalence is best understood as a structural tie characteristic that interacts with distinct valenced tie qualities, such as difficulty or dissonance, producing qualitatively different forms of ambivalent ties that effect different kinds of relational change. By reframing ambivalence as a fundamental feature of role-based relationships rather than a transitional state, this study advances a more nuanced understanding of how ambivalence informs tie persistence, decay, and dissolution over time.

Social relationships significantly influence health and longevity, yet existing research typically focuses on either supportive or purely stressful interactions, neglecting relationships characterized by both support and strain. Such ambivalent social ties—relationships simultaneously supportive and stressful—may critically shape health outcomes. This study investigates how ambivalent social ties influence biological aging, using comprehensive egocentric network data derived from five network name generators, combined with DNA methylation-based aging measures (GrimAge and DunedinPACE), from the Person-to-Person Health Interview Study (N=2,223), a state-representative probability sample of Indiana residents. Our analysis reveals four central findings. First, difficult social relationships are widespread, with approximately one in four network members perceived as difficult and 60% of respondents reporting at least one difficult tie. Second, ambivalent ties—relationships characterized by both positive and negative interactions—represent 72% of all difficult relationships. Third, compared to purely negative ties, ambivalent relationships disproportionately involve close family members, exhibit stronger emotional bonds, and are more deeply integrated within individuals' personal networks. Fourth, and most critically, ambivalent ties—simultaneously providing support and stress—are significantly associated with accelerated biological aging. In contrast, purely negative ties alone show no detectable biological effect. These findings challenge the conventional assumption that purely negative relationships pose the greatest risk to health. By illuminating the nuanced role of complex social interactions, this study significantly advances our understanding of how ambivalent relationships contribute to biological aging.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, ambivalent ties are a part of daily life: friends can be aggressive at times and bullies may show care. Social network analysis researchers have increasingly acknowledged these complex relationships, yet many empirical questions remain. This presentation explores the prevalence and dynamics of ambivalent ties through a longitudinal study of bullying relationships in French middle schools. Over two school years, a cohort of approximately 500 middle school pupils identified their friends, those they disliked and those who had assaulted them or that they assaulted, through multiple surveys. Since pupils could nominate each other in multiple categories, some reported ties were ambivalent. This dataset offers a unique lens to examine the dual roles individuals may play within their social networks, blurring the lines between friendship, hostility and bullying. The presentation will explore the dynamic behavior of ambivalent ties, examining the types of ties that precede them, the ties they evolve into, and their stability over time. Particular attention will be given to the transition from ambivalent to non-ambivalent ties (and conversely), examining whether and how such ambivalence is (or not) transformed. The goal is also to investigate the relationship between ambivalence and bullying among teenagers.

Family relationships hold a unique status. They are typically long-lasting, rooted in a shared history and identity, and reinforced by strong norms of obligation and deep commitment. These attributes make them an important source of support and belonging for many. However, these same attributes can also make family relationships more prone to evoking negative emotions or being experienced as burdensome and difficult. Yet, family relationships tend to endure, unlike more voluntary and less institutionalized relationships, such as friendships, which are more easily severed when they become unsatisfying or conflict-ridden.

That said, some research suggests a growing convergence between the roles of family and friends within personal networks in Western societies. Kinship ties are increasingly influenced by individualistic norms that grant people greater autonomy in choosing how to live and with whom to associate. As a result, emotional closeness is becoming more central to family relationships, while traditional obligations may be less rigidly upheld.

Against this backdrop and using an egocentric network approach with longitudinal data from the University of California Social Networks Study (UCNets), this article examines the status of different types of relationships from an analytic perspective that has received less attention in empirical research – namely, the fate of ties to difficult kin and nonkin friends. It asks (1) how likely are difficult ties to remain in the network over time; (2) for those that remain, how likely are they to remain difficult; and (3) to what extent these patterns differ between kin and non-kin friends?

Findings show that immediate kin are the most likely to be perceived as difficult and the most likely to become difficult over time. Yet, 80% remain in networks, highlighting their resilience. These relationships are characterized by emotional closeness but often reflect ambivalence, combining both positive and negative sentiments, partly due to their central role as support providers Extended kin, on the other hand, are less frequently identified as difficult and less likely to persist in networks. However, those who endure tend to remain difficult while being less emotionally close, reflecting weaker involvement and a sense of duty rather than intimacy. Friendships ties, while rarely perceived as difficult, exhibit a high level of persistence, which may reflect commitment and loyalty often rooted in past exchanges and shared experiences.

Overall, findings highlight the complex ways in which relationships with immediate kin, extended kin, and nonkin friends differ when accounting for their difficulty status and implications for network dynamics. They reveal some similarities but also underscore the unique status of each type of relationship, from the emotional intensity to immediate kin, to a sense of obligation to extended kin, and the voluntary yet sometimes committed nature of friendships.