FRAMEWORKS
THE
Because “just be a better friend” has never once helped anybody.
Fifteen years of studying relationships taught me that connection isn’t magic and it isn’t personality — it’s a set of patterns.
Patterns can be named. And once you can name them, you can practice them, measure them, and fix them when they break. These are the frameworks I teach from — on stages, in books, and in the assessment I use with organizations. Every one of them came out of the research, not the other way around
FRAMEWORK 1:
The Three Requirements
of Relationships ™
(also known as the Frientimacy Triangle)
Every healthy relationship has the same ingredients.
Every relationship that struggles is missing one of them.
POSITIVITY
Someone we enjoy. The emotional payoff of being together. Not relentless cheerfulness — genuine warmth, laughter, appreciation, and the sense that this relationship gives more than it takes.
CONSISTENCY
Someone we can rely on. A track record built over time. Showing up repeatedly, predictably, across enough interactions that trust has somewhere to accumulate.
VULNERABILITY
Someone who knows us. Mutual disclosure of what’s actually true. Being known, and knowing someone else, at a depth that costs something.
.png)
CONSISTENCY
POSITIVITY
Thriving
VULNERABILITY
All three, or the relationship stalls. Two out of three is where most of our disappointment lives: the friend who’s fun but flaky, the colleague who’s dependable but never real, the person who knows everything about us and drains us anyway.
This is the framework underneath all of my keynotes, all four books, and the Relational Results workplace assessment — which measures each of the three separately so a team can see exactly which one is missing.
Where it comes from: across marriage research, team psychology, friendship formation studies, and public health, the same three conditions keep surfacing under different names. Even psychological safety — the most rigorously studied construct in organizational research — contains all three by definition: a shared belief (consistency) that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (vulnerability) without fear of embarrassment or punishment (positivity).
FRAMEWORK 2:
The Five Levels of Relationship
Every relationship sits at a level.
Knowing which one tells you what it needs next. Most of our frustration with relationships comes from a mismatch of expectations — wanting depth from someone we haven’t yet built a track record with, or feeling hurt by someone who was never actually as close as we’d hoped. Naming the level takes the drama out of it.
01
CURIOUSITY
We’ve noticed each other. There’s interest, but no shared history.
02
FAMILIARITY
We know each other. There’s ease, shared references, real affection.
03
COMMITMENT
We’re intentional about each other. This relationship is prioritized, not incidental.
04
FRIENTIMACY
We’re woven into each other’s lives. Mutual, established, load-bearing.
Two things this framework does immediately:
it gives us permission to have relationships at every level (not everyone needs to be a best friend), and it clarifies that moving up a level always requires more of the three requirements — usually more consistency first, then more vulnerability.
Where it comes from: developed across my work with thousands of people in the friendship-matching world and the friendship coaching that followed, and first published in Friendships Don’t Just Happen!
FRAMEWORK 3:
The Belonging Wheel
Six slices. Six questions your life is quietly asking. When all six are fed, the circle holds.
Do I have someone nearby? People to do things with? Somewhere I’m a regular? People who get me? Something I give? Someone who knows all of me? Most of us have been taught to think about belonging as a single relationship problem — find the right people and you’ll feel connected. But you can be excellent at friendship and still be structurally lonely, because five other things exist that close relationships can’t be relied on to provide.
QUESTION
01
Someone nearby
WHAT IT'S CALLED
Neighborhood Contact
THE HUNGER UNDERNEATH
Safety
QUESTION
02
People to do things with
WHAT IT'S CALLED
Community of Play
THE HUNGER UNDERNEATH
Shared Joy
QUESTION
03
Somewhere I’m a regular
WHAT IT'S CALLED
Third Places
THE HUNGER UNDERNEATH
A Place that's Yours
QUESTION
04
People who get me
WHAT IT'S CALLED
Community of Identity
THE HUNGER UNDERNEATH
Kinship
QUESTION
05
Something I give
WHAT IT'S CALLED
Community Service
THE HUNGER UNDERNEATH
Purpose
QUESTION
06
Someone who knows all of me
WHAT IT'S CALLED
One-on-One Relationships
THE HUNGER UNDERNEATH
Intimacy
Only 42% of Americans have a neighbor they’d ask for help in an emergency. Only 26% have a third place. Only 28% see a close friend or family member twice a week. And the 2026 national report found 52% of us fall into the “at risk” or “vulnerable” categories for social connection.
When several slices go unfed, the others start doing double and triple duty until the whole thing wobbles. What changes once you can see all six is that you stop expecting every relationship to be everything — and you stop resenting relationships for not being something they were never designed to be.
Where it comes from: the six points are the work of the U.S. Chamber of Connection, drawn from research across psychology, public health, sociology, urban design, and behavioral science, and measured nationally through the Social Connection Index. As the Chamber’s Chief Friendship Officer, Shasta has taken them furthest — identifying the human need underneath each one, turning the checklist into a wheel, and reframing each point as a question you can actually ask yourself. The Belonging Wheel is her rendering of that research, and it’s the spine of her forthcoming fourth book.
THESE AREN'T THEORIES, THEY'RE TOOLS.
Every framework here came out of research, got tested in front of live audiences, and earned its place by actually helping someone. If you want to see the studies underneath them, start with the research library. If you want them brought to your team, let’s talk.