Should I Always Initiate First in a Friendship?

Should I always initiate first in a friendship?

Recently, there was an interesting debate on the page of “James – The Loneliness Doctor,” a clinical psychologist who studies loneliness and human connection. In one of his reels, he explained that lonely people often do have people around them — friends, neighbours, colleagues, and family — but they still feel lonely because they are usually the ones reaching out first.

His point was that reaching out first is not inherently shameful. According to him, it may simply reflect emotional generosity, care, and willingness to maintain connection.

However, the comments section quickly became divided. Many people argued that constantly initiating relationships becomes emotionally exhausting and one-sided over time. James later clarified his point through follow-up Instagram stories, sharing an example of a long-term friendship where the friend was often difficult to reach because of life circumstances, but deeply present, warm, and emotionally nourishing whenever they eventually connected.

That nuance matters.

Share this post around if you find it useful! Leave a comment if you find this post helpful!

Affiliate Link Disclosure
Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links and I may earn a commission if you click on them, at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Hope you find the information here useful! Thanks. 

Loneliness, Reciprocity, and the Human Need to Be Needed

As I reflected on the discussion, I also came across an article titled “What to Do When You’re the Friend Who’s Always Initiating” by Danielle Bayard Jackson, which similarly argued that people should focus not only on who initiates, but on how nourishing and engaged the connection feels when people actually come together.

I think both perspectives contain truth. But I also believe there are deeper psychological layers beneath why so many people reacted emotionally to the original reel of whether we should initiate first in a friendship.

Humans live in emotional layers of connection

One thing I realised is that not all relationships occupy the same emotional role in our lives.

Social psychology and attachment theory suggest that humans naturally organise relationships into different levels of emotional closeness and attachment (Bowlby, 1969; Dunbar, 1998).

Broadly speaking, many people operate within several layers of social connection:

1. Primary attachment figures

These are the people who psychologically anchor us:

• romantic partners,
• spouses,
• parents,
• children,
• or deeply bonded attachment figures.

These relationships often provide:

• emotional continuity,
• nervous system regulation,
• physical affection,
• reassurance,
• and the feeling of “home.”

I increasingly think this is the category many chronically lonely people are missing.

A person may technically have:

• colleagues,
• friends,
• acquaintances,
• gym buddies,
• or neighbours,

yet still feel profoundly emotionally unanchored because they lack a consistent primary attachment figure.

This explains why loneliness is often not merely about social quantity, but emotional positioning.

2. Friends

Friends provide:

• emotional companionship,
• shared identity,
• emotional processing,
• belonging,
• and life enrichment.

However, friendships are often distributed across multiple people and life stages. Friends:

• get married,
• become parents,
• relocate,
• become busy,
• or prioritise other emotional ecosystems.

This is why relying too heavily on one friendship can unintentionally create emotional imbalance when we initiate first in a friendship.

I reflected on this through several of my own friendships recently.

One of my closest friends of over 2 decades rarely initiated conversations with me unless there was a birthday or special occasion. When I stopped emotionally overextending, I realised the relationship itself was not necessarily toxic — but I had unconsciously made her emotionally central in ways that were not equally reciprocal when I initiate first in a friendship.

On the other hand, I also have a friend, who may not constantly text, but when I truly need her, she calls, shows up emotionally, and gives full presence. That creates emotional nourishment and security.

Another ex-colleague rarely plans meetups proactively, yet whenever I call, she immediately answers, shows up when invited, and even invited me to support her during a movie event where she performed a song. That too is a form of reciprocity — just expressed differently.

These experiences taught me that reciprocity is not always identical behaviour. Sometimes people reciprocate through:

• responsiveness,
• reliability,
• emotional presence,
• or availability.

3. Colleagues, gym friends, activity-based connections

These relationships are often built around:

• shared routines,
• common environments,
• projects,
• or repeated exposure.

They can be emotionally enriching but are often context-dependent.

For example, gym acquaintances or work colleagues may provide:

• familiarity,
• light emotional support,
• casual social regulation,
• and daily human contact,

without becoming deeply emotionally central.

4. Neighbours and community-based relationships

Recently, I deliberately texted my neighbour and invited her over. She admitted she had often wanted to come by but assumed I was busy.

That interaction reminded me that many people do care, but social hesitation, fear of intrusion, and assumptions about busyness often stop people from reaching out, so it is okay if we initiate first in a friendshi.

Neighbourhood and community relationships may not be deeply intimate, but they help regulate loneliness through proximity, familiarity, and casual care.

5. Acquaintances and peripheral relationships

These are:

• people we occasionally interact with,
• social media contacts,
• event-based friendships,
• networking contacts,
• or distant social ties.

Interestingly, these relationships still matter psychologically because they create what sociologists call “weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973), which contribute to social integration and a sense of connectedness.

However, weak ties cannot fully replace emotional anchoring.

Why some people reacted strongly to the “reach out first” advice

I think people who felt offended or emotionally triggered by the original reel were not merely being “sensitive.”

Many are probably:

• emotionally exhausted,
• chronically lonely,
• lacking primary attachment,
• or repeatedly carrying emotional imbalance in relationships.

When someone already feels emotionally unsupported, repeatedly when they initiate first in a friendship can unconsciously reinforce painful thoughts like:

• “Am I not important enough?”
• “Would anyone notice if I disappeared?”
• “Why am I always the one maintaining connection?”

This becomes even harder for people who are still building their sense of identity and self-worth.

Research consistently shows that humans derive part of their self-concept and emotional security through reciprocal relationships and social belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

So when reciprocity feels absent repeatedly, people do not merely experience disappointment.
They experience a threat to emotional significance itself.

Self-worth and emotional significance

Another layer beneath this debate is the psychology of self-worth and emotional significance. I increasingly think that when people become deeply hurt by repeated rejection, silence, or constantly being the one who initiates, it is often because part of their sense of worth has unconsciously become tied to the other person’s response. In other words, the lack of reciprocity no longer feels like a simple behavioural difference — it begins to feel personal.

The mind slowly interprets the imbalance as:
“Am I not important enough to be remembered?”
“Would they ever reach out if I stopped?”
“Do I matter emotionally to this person at all?”

This is especially true for people who are chronically lonely, emotionally depleted, or lacking a strong primary attachment figure in life. When there is no emotionally consistent “anchor” relationship, humans naturally become more sensitive to signs of reciprocity, care, and emotional pursuit from others.

Interestingly, we rarely apply the same “always initiate first” advice to romantic relationships. In dating, intimacy, and long-term partnerships, mutual desire and reciprocity are generally seen as essential. We do not usually encourage one partner to endlessly initiate affection, emotional repair, sex, or connection while the other passively receives.

Why? Because humans fundamentally want to feel desired, chosen, and emotionally significant. I think this same psychological truth quietly exists in friendships and other relationships too. While healthy relationships may naturally ebb and flow, the need to feel emotionally wanted and voluntarily moved toward is not irrational — it is deeply human.

The psychology of needing and being needed

I think one of the most overlooked truths in modern relationship discourse is this:
healthy relationships often involve mutual needing.

Modern culture frequently glorifies radical independence:

• “Don’t need anyone.”
• “Be completely self-sufficient.”
• “Never rely on people.”

But attachment research suggests otherwise.

Humans are biologically wired for interdependence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Healthy relationships often work because:

• both people matter to each other,
• both people contribute,
• both people rely on each other emotionally,
• and both people feel psychologically significant.

The feeling of:

“I need you and you need me too”
creates emotional balance.

Not unhealthy dependency.
But mutual emotional relevance.

Without this mutuality, relationships can begin feeling:

• emotionally asymmetrical,
• draining,
• or psychologically unsafe.

At the same time, I also realised something important:
people who constantly initiate are not automatically “givers.”

Some people repeatedly seek connection because they:

• dislike loneliness,
• seek emotional validation,
• enjoy emotional attention,
• or need access to others when they are emotionally depleted.

But when the emotional direction reverses and others need support, they may suddenly disappear or withdraw.

So initiation alone is not the best measure of relational health.

How nourishing does the relationship actually feel?

One point from the friendship article that resonated with me was the idea of focusing on how emotionally nourishing the relationship feels overall.

I think this is a healthier framework than obsessively counting who texted first or initiate first in a friendship.

But I would add another question:

“How does this relationship make you feel deep down?”

Because sometimes a relationship can technically function while still leaving someone:

• emotionally unseen,
• emotionally peripheral,
• or emotionally unanchored.

And I think whenever we begin relying too heavily on:

• one friend,
• one romantic connection,
• or one emotional outlet,

we eventually need to recenter ourselves back toward our own inner stability.

No single person can sustainably carry our entire emotional ecosystem.

Understanding communication styles matters too

Another important thing I realised is that people express connection differently.

Some people bond primarily through:

• texting,
• daily updates,
• frequent calls,
• and verbal reassurance.

Others connect more deeply through:

• physical presence,
• face-to-face interaction,
• practical support,
• or occasional but emotionally meaningful conversations.

For example, one of my long-term connections explicitly told me years ago that he dislikes texting and prefers in-person interaction to feel emotionally connected.

That does not automatically make someone emotionally unavailable.
Sometimes it simply reflects a different communication and attachment style.

I think part of relational maturity is learning:

• what someone is realistically capable of giving,
• how they naturally communicate,
• and whether that style is emotionally compatible with our needs.

Final thoughts on initiate first in a friendship

I no longer think the answer to loneliness is simply:

“Reach out more.”

Nor do I think the answer is:

“Never need anyone.”

The deeper questions may be:

• Where is there reciprocity?
• Where is there emotional nourishment?
• Where is there mutual significance?
• Where do both people willingly move toward each other?

Because ultimately, healthy human relationships are not sustained merely by availability or who initiate first in a friendship.

They are sustained by mutual emotional anchoring.

---

References

• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(5), 178–190.
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
• Jackson, D. B. (2020). What to Do When You’re the Friend Who’s Always Initiating. Better Female Friendships.