The Science behind ‘Frenemies’

High school can be very painful for anyone who is the slightest bit different.  Thankfully, I’m 5 years removed from it but my little sister is a freshman so I get to sit back and observe this social phenomenon as an objective outsider.  When you’re in high school (specifically a teenage girl in high school), it seems that every social situation is a CRUCIAL moment in your life.  Not abiding by the invisible rules of pubescent social etiquette could result in getting shunned from the clique.  This, by the teenage spectrum of standard exaggeration, is death.  Girls strive to fit in and seek reassurance that they are ‘secured’ in their pack.  This essentially creates an army of mini tyrants disguised in pink twill.

This brings me to introduce the concept of a ‘frenemy.’  A ‘frenemy’ is someone who you’re friends with by all appearances, but is actually someone who you would like to squirt ketchup on.  In the high school scenario, she might be characterized as the bully of the group or perhaps the arrogant leader of it.  Either way, you find yourself supporting her terrible behavior because you’re too afraid to speak out and risk losing your social standing.

There’s a biological reason for this behavior.  According to Dr. Louann Brizendine, who wrote the fantastic book ‘The Female Brain,’ the main job of a girl brain is to keep social harmony.  The teen girl’s brain circuits are wired so that social rejection actually triggers a neural stress response (Brizendine 35).  When a relationship is threatened, the female’s feel-good brain chemicals drop (such as serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin) and the stress hormone cortisol takes over.  Now this has become a matter of life or death.  She’ll start feeling anxious and fearful of being rejected.  She’ll become cranky to family members.  She soon begins to crave that feeling of closeness again, for that great intimacy drug oxytocin.  She’ll eventually decide to stick to her clan of frenemies to keep that utterly important social harmony.

This can also explain why girls go to the bathroom together.  Those girls hanging out in the bathroom are reinforcing their most important relationships- with other girls.  Many women find biological comfort in one another’s company and language is the glue that connects them together.  Talking and sharing secrets activates even more oxytocin release.  The oxytocin reinforces the desire to gossip and connecting then brings a sense of pleasure and well-being (Brizendine 37).

Why exactly are girls built this way?  One plausible reason goes back to primitive basics.  Remember- our modern female brain still has the circuitry of our most successful foremothers.  Studies have shown that female mammals in a bonded social group are more likely to come to another’s aid in a threatening situation, such as if a male is overly aggressive to a female.  Members of a group can alert one another of conflict ahead of time, enabling them to move away from potential danger and to continue safely tending dependent children.  This pattern of behavior is called ‘tend and befriend,’ and it is particularly a female strategy (Brizendine 42).  Since teen girls are biologically reaching optimal fertility, their primitive brain begins to stress the importance of this strategy.  It’s saying, “Lose that bond with your peer, and both you and your offspring are toast.”  No wonder girls find it unbearably hard to cope with feelings of being left out.

There’s even a biological reason for why some teen girls can become so evil to one another.  Hormonal surges can turn these girls mean but so can sexual competition.  This competition is much different in girls than in boys. When females are competing with other females, they often use subtle tools, such as spreading rumors, to undermine a frenemy.  That way she can cover her tracks.  Instead of using force, which is the male’s standard protocol, the female uses her best set skill-language- to get what she wants.  Such tactics lessen the risk of destroying the bond that the teen girl brain sees as essential to survival.

The teenage girl brain is drowning in estrogen and other chemicals that make it pretty difficult to survive these years. It’s always drama, drama, drama. That’s not to say that teenage boys aren’t dealing with an insurgence of hormones- they are and they have their own set of embarrassing problems.  But research findings like these can reassure a gal that her feelings of mayhem are only temporary.  So if you are a teenage girl, remind yourself that you will mellow out.  Then remember to tell your frenemy that it is not her fault she’s acting like a jerk but that it is just her cortisol coming out to play.

Brizendine, Louanne. The Female Brain.  New York: Broadway Books, 2006.

 

Image: photostock / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 

Leave a comment

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.