Psychological Lexicon. Encyclopedic dictionary in six volumes. - M.: PER SE. Ed.-comp. L.A. Karpenko. Under total ed. A.V. Petrovsky. 2006.

See what “Relationships” are in other dictionaries:

relationships- scores, connections, relationships, attitude, microclimate Dictionary of Russian synonyms. relationships relationships, connections Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova. 2011 ... Dictionary of synonyms

relationships- RELATIONSHIPS1, relationships, connections MUTUAL, mutual, reciprocal, divided MUTUALLY, mutually RELATIONSHIPS2, relationships, connections... Dictionary-thesaurus of synonyms of Russian speech

relationships- ^ consistency ^ interaction relationships consistency of relationships between someone l. Ў get along... Ideographic Dictionary of the Russian Language

Relationships- pl. Relationships between someone. Explanatory Dictionary of Ephraim. T. F. Efremova. 2000 ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

relationships- plural, R. relationships; units relationship (2 s), Ex. about the relationship ... Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

relationships- Syn: see relationships, see connections... Thesaurus of Russian business vocabulary

relationships- y; pl. Relationships between whom than l. B. religion and morality. B. warring parties. V. in the family. Economic, trade c. between countries ... Encyclopedic Dictionary

RELATIONSHIPS- – not documented, subjectively experienced relationships between people, objectively manifested in the nature and methods of mutual influences exerted by people on each other in the process of communication and interaction. Structural unit... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

Relationships- (in psychology) (relationships), genetic, elective (selective) or societies, connections between people. B. at work, in the community, in the family, or between partners, the basis of society. The collapse or lack of satisfying personal connections... ... Peoples and cultures

Relationships- social psychol. the result (product) of O. V. arise from the mutually influential influences of people on each other and the experiences of reciprocal relationships. These influences are filled with emotive psychological content. activities, which includes emotional... ... Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

What is a relationship?

What is a relationship?

Often when we talk about relationships, we mean romantic relationships, dating, etc. Relationships are associated with deep emotional attachment, or at least some degree of it. In this case, relationships are more related to feelings than to intellect.

If you're a businessman, the word "relationship" conjures up images of clients or customers, maybe the depositor who opened an account with you twenty years ago, or the homeowner who regularly visits your hardware store. When I think of my neighborhood in New York City, I think of the people at the corner diner who already know what I'm ordering before I sit down.

Yes, these are all different types of relationships. However, here I use the word in a narrower sense. As I have learned, meaningful relationships require three things: mutual understanding, mutual trust and respect. Building these relationships takes time, intimacy, and hard work, as well as mutual interest, self-sharing, and sincerity.

Based on this definition, make a list of people whose relationships are characterized by these characteristics. If you're like most of us, you'll be surprised by the makeup of this list. Why didn't some people get into it? Maybe you don’t trust them, maybe they’re talkative and you’re not inclined to be frank with them? Maybe you just don't understand them? Maybe you understand them, but don’t respect them?

On the other hand, you will be surprised to find that you can form relationships with people for whom you do not feel any affection. Perhaps you believe that emotional attachment and affection are necessary components of a relationship. In fact, this is not necessary at all. Ask yourself the question, what is more important for you in a relationship with your boss - sympathy or understanding, trust and respect? How to build relationships characterized by such characteristics as mutual understanding, trust and respect? I suggest doing three things:

Open yourself up. Tell the person something about yourself that will help him understand you better.

Show interest. Talk to the person about himself, ask questions that will help you understand him better.

Ask for advice. Be prepared to seek constructive advice on issues that are important to you (and be willing to give advice on your part); get ready to ask this person for support in matters in which you feel insecure and incompetent.

Source:
What is a relationship?
What is a relationship? Often when we talk about relationships, we mean romantic relationships, dating, etc. Relationships are associated with deep emotional attachment or
http://psy.wikireading.ru/31070

What is a relationship

Russian-English dictionary of biological terms. - Novosibirsk: Institute of Clinical Immunology. IN AND. Seledtsov. 1993-1999.

See what “relationship” is in other dictionaries:

relationship- relationship ... Spelling dictionary-reference book

RELATIONSHIP- RELATIONSHIP, relationships, cf. 1. Mutual communication; interaction. Interrelation of phenomena. 2. only plural. Mutual relationship between two or more persons. Exacerbation of Anglo-French relations. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

RELATIONSHIP- RELATIONSHIP, I, cf. Mutual relations between whom and what n. Normal relationships. Family relationships. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

relationship- interconnection, relationships, connections, (human) contacts. Ant. fragmentation, inconsistency Dictionary of Russian synonyms ... Dictionary of synonyms

relationship- interrelation - Topics oil and gas industry Synonyms interrelation EN interrelation ... Technical Translator's Directory

Relationship- cf. The relationship of objects, phenomena, mutually related to each other or mutually conditioned. Explanatory Dictionary of Ephraim. T. F. Efremova. 2000 ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

relationship- relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship (Source: “Full accented ... ... Forms of words

relationship- relationship, I ... Russian spelling dictionary

relationship- Syn: interconnection, relationships, connections (human contacts) Ant: fragmentation, inconsistency ... Thesaurus of Russian business vocabulary

relationship- n. attitude, interaction, reciprocity, interaction... Riverman is synonymous in Bulgarian

relationship- mutual/o/relation/eni/e [y/e] ... Morphemic-spelling dictionary

Source:
What is a relationship
Russian-English dictionary of biological terms. - Novosibirsk: Institute of Clinical Immunology. IN AND. Seledtsov. 1993-1999. See what “relationship” is in other dictionaries:
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/rus_eng_biology/397/%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%82 %D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5

What is a relationship? What is an open relationship?

All people are social subjects. There is no such person who has not met other people in his life and has not entered into various kinds of relationships with them (business, friendship, family, love). But, having various kinds of connections with others, we come to the conclusion that it is not so easy to start them, maintain them, and stop them. For example, to maintain a friendship, you need to put in a lot of effort before you get spiritual satisfaction. Any relationship requires some sacrifice and sincerity. So, what kind of relationships are there and how to understand what it is?

Many people understand what a relationship is, but not everyone can define this term. In the course of life, we interact with many people. Even at a young age, children prepare a program for matinees and holidays together, eat together and perform any activity. It is safe to say that they have a relationship with each other. It turns out that a relationship is an interaction with one person or a group of people, which has its own specifics, goals, circumstances, tasks and place in society. Any relationship can have an emotional connotation (sympathy or antipathy for another person), varying degrees of awareness and experience of these connections.

Knowing what relationships are, we can ask a logical question: “Why do we need them?” In any action, a person learns more about the world and fulfills a specific goal. If he adequately perceives the environment, then his activities will be filled with meaning. Any interaction is also meaningful. Every communication and relationship performs its functions for a person.

1. Through interaction with others we receive information. This sometimes happens even without words, through thought processes such as analysis, generalization and conclusions.
2. What is a relationship? Essentially, they encourage us to be active, which, in turn, provides employment, tone and meaning to our actions. That is, relationships are the internal engine, the driving forces in our lives.
3. When interacting with people, feelings, emotions, motives, and personality orientation come into play; emotional connections can arise here (we will learn what platonic relationships are a little later). A person can become attached to the object of the relationship and experience negative feelings towards him. Such dynamics of interactions between people develops their inner world, they learn to understand themselves and others, and improve their relationships.

Many scientists have wondered about the relationship between men and women. A very large number of works have been written on this topic. Question: “Gender relations - what are they?” - has been considered in different theories. Most psychologists, sociologists and other specialists agree that relations between men and women are dictated by industrial connections. That is, no matter how crazy it may sound from science, gender communication is based on mechanisms of mutual exploitation.

If you observe the beginning of any interaction between a man and a woman, it will certainly be based on the division of labor (here the production aspect becomes clear). Moreover, this division of responsibilities and actions is necessary for all humanity, as one of the most powerful driving forces of society. The division of labor in society between people occurs, first of all, according to gender, and then according to inclinations, abilities, interests and desires.

Historically, a man is considered the breadwinner, the leader of the tribe, and the leader. A woman plays an expressive role - she cares, looks after, maintains the family mood, creates emotions in the family. That is why the question: “Gender relations - what are they?” - is one of the fundamental for the development of human norms and foundations.

We have already touched a little on the importance of relationships between men and women, but have not touched on the equally important issue of personal relationships between a man and a woman, a guy and a girl. What is the relationship between a guy and a girl? What are they for and should they be valued?

Initially, God (or someone else, depending on your position on the origin of the world) conceived relationships between young people of the opposite sex for prolongation of the race, reproduction. There are many theories about how two different people can unite into one, and all of them, in their own way, correctly consider the basic mechanisms of bringing people together. It is impossible to fit people’s feelings, their motives for being together under any clear classification. Each person is individual, therefore he is free to do as his heart tells him.

In addition to industrial and business relationships, there are also friendly and love relationships between a guy and a girl. There are 7 main stages of the birth of love. They will help you understand what the relationship between a guy and a girl is.

What does the phrase “open relationship” mean?

Men strive more for freedom; nature itself endowed them with this desire. Women are constant, they seem to cast anchor where they feel good. In recent society, the issue of freedom of choice and freedom of connections is relevant. What is an open relationship? Such interaction is considered to be a non-binding relationship that does not give another person the right to claim the freedom of the subject. This is, of course, good, but is it really necessary for the two sides of the interaction?

Scientists have long confirmed the fact that at least one party definitely suffers from a civil marriage (open relationship). A family cannot exist without certain obligations on both sides. And we know the answer to the question of what an open relationship is - the absence of any obligations. With a little logic and analysis, we can confidently say that these types of connections will not last long. They will either collapse or develop into something more serious. So why waste time?!

Many people do not know what legal relations are, because of this, problems begin with the law, with the executive branch, and so on. The definition of this concept reminds us that there is a certain object that determines the range of rights and responsibilities (for example, a child). Also in such relationships there are subjects of law (for example, parents) who are participants in the relationship regarding the object. So, legal relations mean the interaction of subjects, regulated by the rules of law and their volitional efforts, while each subject has its own legal obligations and rights (for example, adoption of a child, alimony, maintenance until the age of 18, and so on). Such relationships can easily be corrected using the letter of the law.

We experience this kind of interaction every day, perhaps several times. What are market relations and why are they characteristic of every person? Such interaction means the relationship of certain owners, each seeking their own benefit. In the market there are two people - the producer and the consumer. Such relationships can be conflictual, tense, criminal, friendly and others. But they are also regulated by certain laws that protect the rights of both sides of the market.

International relations as an expansion of the boundaries of the subject

Speaking about international relations, it should be noted that they are both official at the highest social level, and unofficial, friendly. Unofficial international interaction is a whole layer of ethnopsychology, so we will limit ourselves to the generally accepted definition of international relations.

So, international relations - what is it? First of all, this is an interaction that goes beyond the boundaries of the territory, which is why it is international. This concept combines many criteria by which states and individual citizens of different countries can cooperate and communicate with each other. These relations are regulated both by the internal law of the country and generally accepted norms of human rights.

We saw that in any relationship there is dynamics. It has polar peaks: from hatred to love, from aggression to friendship, from indifference to care. And these fluctuations are equally suitable both for subjective relations and for international ones.

Interaction and relationships are truly complex, daily work. Just as a person is changeable, falling under the power of mood, so are his relationships changeable. In order to keep them positive, productive and useful, it takes a lot of effort and knowledge, not only in a specific area, but also within the framework of laws to defend your rights.

Accounts, connections, relationships, attitude, microclimate Dictionary of Russian synonyms. relationships relationships, connections Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova. 2011… Synonym dictionary

relationships- RELATIONSHIPS1, relationships, connections MUTUAL, mutual, reciprocal, divided MUTUALLY, mutual RELATIONSHIPS2, relationships, connections… Dictionary-thesaurus of synonyms of Russian speech

relationships- ▲ consistency interaction relationships consistency of relationships between someone. ▼ get along... Ideographic Dictionary of the Russian Language

relationships- plural, R. relationships; units relationship (2 s), Ex. about the relationship... Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language

relationships- Syn: see relationships, see connections... Thesaurus of Russian business vocabulary

Yi; pl. Relationships between whom than l. B. religion and morality. B. warring parties. V. in the family. Economic, trade c. between countries... encyclopedic Dictionary

RELATIONSHIPS- – not documented, subjectively experienced relationships between people, objectively manifested in the nature and methods of mutual influences exerted by people on each other in the process of communication and interaction. Structural unit... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

Relationships- (in psychology) (relationships), genetic, elective (selective) or societies, connections between people. B. at work, in the community, in the family, or between partners, the basis of society. Failure or lack of satisfying personal connections... ... Peoples and cultures

Relationships- social psychol. the result (product) of O. V. arise from the mutually influential influences of people on each other and the experiences of reciprocal relationships. These influences are filled with emotive psychological content. activities, which includes emotional... ... Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

Relationships- subjectively experienced connections and relationships between people. This is a system of interpersonal attitudes, orientations, expectations determined by the content of joint activities of people and their communication. V. develop within the framework of human interaction, and then... ... Psychological Lexicon

Books

• Relations between Research and Practical Psychology, Zhuravlev Anatoly Laktionovich, Yurevich Andrey Vladislavovich, Artemyeva Olga Arkadievna. The book is devoted to one of the most acute problems of psychological science and practice - the problem of the relationship between them. The authors analyze various aspects of these relationships - how...

General characteristics of the concept “attitude”. IN In any act of interaction between people, their relationship to each other is always present. The latter should be considered as a socialized connection between the internal and external content of the human psyche, the result of its interaction with the surrounding reality and with other people representing it. Having begun to form and develop, relations largely depend on a number of factors - on the individuals themselves, on the conditions of the surrounding reality and the social system, on the subsequent transformation of contacts and the results of joint activities - and have their own dynamics.

The concept of “attitude” can have two meanings - broad and narrow. In the first case, it refers to social relations, which have already been mentioned. Through them, the system of needs, motives, and inclinations of a person in the social environment is determined. In this case, the attitude acts as an indicator and means of expression, objectification of all social actions of a person. For example, you are a representative of a certain social class. You are treated initially in accordance with the position that this class occupies in society.

The concept of “relationship” in a narrow sense acts as a basic category of psychological science, implying that it finds concrete embodiment in any contacts and interactions of a person with a person, material and ideal things and phenomena. In this case, the attitude emotionally colors any connections of the individual with the outside world and other people. Even indifference to someone or anything is an attitude.

However, when analyzing the real life and activities of an individual who comes into contact with other people, it is often necessary to abstract from a broader concept, taking into account only a narrower meaning.

Classification of psychological relationships. The category of attitude can be considered both as a predisposition to a certain interaction, and as a really operating connection within the framework of “subject-object”, “subject-subject” (Obozov N.N., 1980). In the first case, the concept of “attitude” merges with the concept of attitude as readiness for a certain activity, the emergence of which depends on the presence of the following conditions: on the need that is actually manifested in a person, and on the objective situation of satisfying this need. Readiness in this case is understood only as the possibility of opening a connection. Human relationships represent an integral system of individual, selective, conscious connections of the individual with various aspects of objective reality. This system follows from the entire history of human development, it expresses his personal experience and internally determines his actions and experiences.

In the second case, the relationships within the framework of “subject-object” and “subject-subject” are not identical. Thus, the common characteristics for one and the other connection are, for example, the activity (or severity) of the relationship, modality (positive, negative, neutral), breadth, stability, etc. At the same time, a significant difference in the relationships within the subject-object and subject-subject relationship is reciprocity And unidirectionality relationships. Subject-object(unidirectional) relationship - these are all the relationships of the individual to reality and to other people, excluding the relationships between them and self-relation. In its turn subject-subjective(mutually directed) relationship include not only a person’s relationship to another person, but also his relationship to himself under the influence of the social environment, i.e. self-attitude.

Only if there is reciprocity of relations is it possible to form a “cumulative fund” of a common and new intersubjective formation (thoughts, feelings, actions). When it is difficult to say where is one’s own and where is someone else’s, both become

tsya ours. Subject-subject relations are characterized by both constant reciprocity and variability, which is determined by the activity of not only one of the parties, as τ0 occurs in subject-object relations, where stability depends more on the subject than on the object.

Thus, psychological relationships are found both within the framework of subject-object and subject-subject relations. Interpersonal relationships are always subject-subject connections. In this sense, psychological relationships act as a generic concept in relation to the specific one - “interpersonal relationships”. !

Relationships can be divided into situational and stable. The latter type of relationship is close to such a psychological phenomenon as attachment, which is a stable relationship characterized by dependence on something or someone. Attachment can be to things, nature, people, to everything with which a person is in one way or another connected. Attachment as a system of relationships stabilizes the position of the individual, individuality. The negative side is the inertia of connections and relationships, and, consequently, the development of the individual, her individuality.

Features of interpersonal relationships.Interpersonal relationships(synonym - relationships) of people are subjective connections that arise as a result of their actual interaction and are accompanied by various emotional and other experiences (likes and dislikes) of the individuals participating in them. They are formed not only in the process of direct interaction and joint activities of people, influencing their progress and results, but also through personal attitudes towards work, other individuals, and oneself.

Interpersonal relationships are realized through the manifestation of value judgments, emotional experiences and specific behavior. The evaluative component of interpersonal relationships involves a person determining what he likes or dislikes in his interactions with other people. Emotional experiences give rise to a certain mental state of relationship partners. And their behavior reflects or determines future prospects for continuation or termination of cooperation.

The main parameters that determine the content of interpersonal relationships, as a rule, include:

The distance between partners or the degree of their psychological closeness (close, distant);

Assessment of relationships (positive, negative, contradictory, indifferent);

Position of partners (dominance, dependence, equality);

Degree of familiarity (Kunitsyna V.N., Kazarinova N.V., Pogolsha V.M., 2001).

Much of how relationships manifest depends on the roles a person plays. Highlight socio-demographic roles: husband, wife, daughter, son, grandson, etc. Man and woman are also social roles, biologically predetermined and presupposing specific modes of behavior, enshrined in social norms and customs. Interpersonal roles associated with interpersonal relationships that are regulated at the emotional level (leader, offended, neglected, family idol, loved one, etc.). Many of them are determined by the individual characteristics of a person.

Active Roles are determined by a specific social situation and are performed at a given moment in time (for example, a teacher in a lesson). Latent roles do not appear in the current situation, although the subject is potentially the bearer of this role (teacher at home). Since each person, as a rule, belongs to various social groups in which he cannot be present at the same time, he has a large number of latent social roles.

Prescribed Roles determined by age, gender, nationality, and purchased lutes acquired during the process of socialization.

Scale role depends on the range of interpersonal relationships. The larger the range, the larger the scale. Thus, the social roles of spouses have a very large scale, since the widest range of relationships is established between husband and wife.

Method of obtaining role depends on how inevitable a given role is for a person. Thus, the roles of a young man, an old man, a man, a woman are automatically determined

d are determined by the age and gender of the person and do not require special ORIs for their acquisition.

Each role brings specific capabilities emotional manifestation its subject. Feelings, for example, about the loss of a loved one are completely natural and justified. However, there are roles that require emotional restraint and control, such as being an investigator or a surgeon.

formalization role is determined by the specifics of the interpersonal relationships of its bearer. Some roles involve the establishment of only formal relationships between people with strict regulation of rules of behavior; others, on the contrary, are only informal; still others may combine both of these relationships.

Motivation role depends on the needs and motives of the person. Different roles are driven by different motives. Parents, caring for the well-being of their child, are guided primarily by a feeling of love and care; the leader works for the sake of the cause, etc.

Through interpersonal relationships and communication, the individual is indirectly included in the system of social relations. If in a child such inclusion occurs through the immediate environment, then in an adult the boundaries expand significantly. He directly, and not only through interpersonal relationships and communication, becomes part of various social relations, their carrier. Relationships develop and proceed in conditions of interaction of a large number of people. The selection of partners for communication and performing any activity is a complex process and depends both on the general atmosphere in groups of interacting people and on the psychological characteristics of them themselves.

The problem of interpersonal relationships lies at the intersection of interests and mutual influence of general and social psychology. Relationships, while not covering all social relations of a person, are closest to the personality and the tasks of its formation. Informality, personal significance, emotional richness and connection with the intimate side of life, high involvement create the basis for the deep influence of interpersonal relationships on the individual.

There is a complex dependency system some parameters of interpersonal relationships from characterological

ky, motivational, intellectual and neurodynamic personality characteristics. Thus, stable paired friendships and interactions lead to changes in some personal properties of the partners, making them similar to a number of parameters. Interpersonal mutual hostility, on the contrary, preserves differences between partners in these parameters. The influence of similarities and differences in real personal characteristics of partners (value orientations, interests, motivation, character, intelligence, temperament, neurodynamics) on the formation and development of paired friendships has also been revealed.

Due to the reciprocal nature of interpersonal relationships, three motivational components such as “I want”, “I can” and “I must” take part in their regulation. Personal desire (“I want”) is not enough to form a relationship. It is necessary to coordinate mutual motives (desires) and opportunities (“I can” satisfy the need of another person). Finally, the third point - “must” - is the most important determinant of the formation and development or disintegration of relationships. “Shouldn’t-shouldn’t”, representing not the subjective side of relationships, but the objective one, characterizes social necessity in each specific type of relationship.

Another more general characteristic of interpersonal relationships is their attractiveness. The components of mutual attractiveness-unattractiveness include: sympathy-antipathy and attraction-repulsion. If sympathy-antipathy represents the experienced satisfaction-dissatisfaction from real or mental contact with another, then attraction-repulsion is the practical component of these experiences.

Attraction-repulsion as one of the components of interpersonal attractiveness is mainly associated with a person’s need to be together, nearby. Attraction-repulsion is often, but not always, determined by the experience of sympathy-antipathy (the emotional component of interpersonal relationships). Such a contradiction often arises when there is a unidirectional relationship between the popularity of a person: “For some reason, one is drawn to her without apparent satisfaction to be together and close.”

Lecture δ. Types of relationships

We can talk about the following types of interpersonal relationships: relationships of acquaintance, friendship, companionship, friendly, love, marital, family, destructive. This classification is based on several criteria: the depth of relationships, selectivity in choosing partners, the function of relationships (Obozov N.N., 1980).

The main criterion is measure, depth of a person’s involvement in a relationship. In the structure of a personality, several levels of manifestation of its characteristics can be distinguished: general species, sociocultural, psychological, individual. General species express the social status of a person. Nationality, profession, education, political and religious affiliation, etc. can be considered sociocultural. Psychological characteristics of a person are considered to be his intelligence, motivation, character, temperament, etc. Individual includes everything that is personally unique, determined by the uniqueness of a person’s life path.

Different types of interpersonal relationships involve the inclusion of certain levels of personality characteristics in communication. The greatest inclusion of personality, down to individual characteristics, occurs in friendly and marital relationships. Relationships of acquaintance and friendship are limited to the inclusion of predominantly specific and sociocultural characteristics of the individual in the interaction.

Second criterion - degree of selectivity when choosing partners for relationships. Selectivity can be defined as the number of characteristics that are significant for establishing and reproducing a relationship. The greatest selectivity is found in relationships of friendship, marriage, and love; the least selectivity is found in relationships of acquaintance.

Third criterion - difference in functions (goals, purposes) of relationships. Functions are understood as a range of tasks and issues that are resolved in interpersonal relationships. The functions of relationships are manifested in the difference in their content and psychological meaning for partners.

Additional criteria for distinguishing interpersonal relationships can also be considered: distance between partners, duration and frequency of contacts, participation

role clichés in acts of communication, norms of relationships, requirements for contact conditions.

Each interpersonal relationship is characterized by a certain distance between partners, presupposes one or another degree of participation of role clichés, and imposes requirements on the frequency and duration of meetings. The general pattern is this: as relationships deepen (for example, friendship, marriage versus acquaintance), the distance shortens, the frequency of contacts increases, and role clichés are eliminated.

Friendship relationships are characterized by very high selectivity if they are assessed correctly. It is possible for one of the partners to overestimate the relationship, and misunderstandings arise on this basis. Underestimating friendships can lead to their disintegration.

Friendly relationships are usually divided into instrumental and emotional-confessional. A single profession, occupation, coincidence of interests, joint or simply interrelated work, study are more likely to lead to education instrumental friendship. Instrumental friendship is based on mutual assistance in certain life circumstances. These relationships are close to companionate ones, but differ from them in that the goals of friendly instrumental relationships may not go beyond the personal benefit of each partner.

Emotionally Confessional Friendships are built on the condition of mutual sympathy, emotional attachment and trust. They are characterized by:

High trust between partners, mutual disclosure of the inner world (trust of secrets, dreams, intimate experiences, hidden personality traits, biographical facts);

Removing the social external mask of behavior (the opportunity to be yourself);

Decreased self-control and looseness in contact (“when you are not afraid that you will be misunderstood, your actions will be misjudged”);

The predominance of a positive evaluative attitude of partners (lack of condemnation, ridicule, rejection).

To understand the essence of friendship and camaraderie, it is necessary to know their antipode - enmity. For some types of inter-

In personal relationships in real life, one can find the following opposites: friendship-enmity, camaraderie-rivalry, family-strangers. However, some types of relationships do not have antipodes, and their negative forms are non-specific. Thus, it is impossible to find a real opposition to the relationships of acquaintance and marriage. The rupture of such relationships is expressed in the complete disappearance of the relationship, the transition to another type (acquaintance to friendship) or the transformation into a negative form of another type of relationship (hostility, rivalry).

A complete analysis of interpersonal relationships requires research into their negative forms. The negative form of friendly relationships is enmity. It involves negative emotional attitudes towards a partner: hatred, antipathy, rejection. Relationships of hostility are manifested in a lack of trust, stinginess in contacts and transfer of information to a partner: violation of his plans, obstacles in activities, deliberate underestimation of his self-esteem, status, deliberate disorientation of the partner’s consciousness and self-awareness. In general, hostile relationships manifest themselves in all sorts of attempts to destabilize, destroy, and level the partner’s personality and his life.

It should be noted that relations of hostility, as well as friendship, arise under the condition of the mutual attitude of equal partners to each other. In the case of superiority of one of them or in case of one-sided hostility, typically hostile behavior and the desire to cause tangible harm to the partner are not observed.

The main function of destructive relationships is the cultivation, maintenance, and satisfaction of abnormal needs and personality traits (acquisitiveness, aggression, hooliganism, etc.). This function also determines the number of persons included in the group. Usually it is small, not exceeding the size of a small group. The size of the group depends on the ability to satisfy abnormal needs. Mutual interest in satisfying abnormal needs narrows the interaction of group members within the framework of interaction and cooperation in satisfying this need. As a rule, not the entire personality structure is involved in contact, but only those aspects of it that are associated with abnormal needs.

Social Psychology

The manifestation of this type of relationship is mutual participation, assistance in satisfying abnormal needs when searching for objects of need, mutual stimulation of needs. Membership in the group, the time of its existence, the nature of the relationship are entirely determined by the capabilities and desire to satisfy a common need for these partners.

Each of the described relationships between people is distinguished by its own functions, the depth of personal involvement, the criterion for choosing partners, the content of relationships, and their manifestation. This gives grounds to consider them as independent types of interpersonal relationships.

Review questions

1. How is “attitude” understood in psychological science?

2. What is the difference between “subject-object” and “subject-subject” relationships?

3. What determines the content of interpersonal relationships?

4. What types of relationships do you know?

The section is very easy to use. Just enter the desired word in the field provided, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-formation dictionaries. Here you can also see examples of the use of the word you entered.

Meaning of the word relationship

relationship in the crossword dictionary

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov

relationship

relationships, cf.

Mutual communication; interaction. Interrelation of phenomena.

only plural Mutual relationship between two or more persons. Exacerbation of Anglo-French relations.

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. S.I.Ozhegov, N.Yu.Shvedova.

relationship

I, Wed. A reciprocal relationship between someone. Normal relationships. Family relationships.

New explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.

relationship

Wed The relationship of objects, phenomena, mutually related to each other or mutually conditioned.

Examples of the use of the word relationship in the literature.

Human health is based on the harmonious interaction of the organs of his body, and relationships between individuals, families, tribes and nations will become harmonious if the emotions and impulses of altruistic egoism automatically ensure peaceful cooperation and eliminate all motives for coups and wars.

We have already talked about the usefulness of altruistic egoism in interpersonal and social relationships.

In the old days relationships cities and counties were the most crowded: pathologists and their assistants used the same synthetic sheets, amputation saws and fixing solutions.

This is a lyrical and psychological everyday drama, its most remarkable pages are the extensive ensemble scenes, where complex human characters enter into acute conflict situations. relationships and are revealed with great tragic force.

Already by the beginning of the 1930s, in the course of a fierce social struggle, new relationships social classes - the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy, the proletariat.

Previously, I composed a special song based on the words of my friend the poet Asar Eppel about relationships youth and older generation.

Relationships between the bank and the client on the basis of civil law are of a contractual nature.

All day he was in an excited state, and his croaking could be heard far along the corridors and wards of the hospital, and in the evening he called Doctor Barkan into his resident’s room, sat him down on an oilcloth sofa and, slightly tilting his head to the side, asked: “Doctor Barkan, don’t you?” do you think it's time to put an end to our unhealthy relationships?

The Declaration establishes that the Universal Convention shall not apply to relationships between the countries of the Berne Union when we are talking about works whose country of origin is a country of the Union.

He is included in special relationships with the world, and if he wants to remain human, then instead of a simple moral category he must take for vademekum another, higher order, creative one.

We did literally everything to position them in our favor and create good conditions for good relationships between the leadership of the USSR and Poland, to pave the way for friendship and mutual respect between our peoples.

Alena: The fact of the matter is that, as boys and girls grow up, their roles in relationships change with those around you!

During interviews with 130 children with neuroses, we also used a questionnaire developed by us listing problem situations in relationships with kids.

Through his questioning of being, he hopes to shed light on intra-worldly relationships- but his own attitude towards himself remains unclear.

In accordance with new political and ideological trends, both in the offices of the naval department, and in the ship's wardrooms, and in the official relationships The tone began to be set by such officers for whom the humane attitude towards the sailor bequeathed by the sixties was hateful - both due to class and caste prejudices and also because it required tireless educational work from them.

From birth to death, relationships are the basis and essence of a person's life experience. Social psychologists try to identify, behind the endless variety of human relationships, general principles that apply to all relationships. The main feature of any relationship is that two people influence each other or, in more technical terms, they interdependent. Specific methods of mutual influence are widely varied. A person can help us or hinder us, make us happy or sad, tell us the latest gossip or criticize our views, give us advice or reprimand us. The movement from fleeting contact with a stranger to a close relationship lasting many years is accompanied by an increase in the degree of interdependence between the two individuals.

To refer to relationships that involve high interdependence, social psychologists use the term “ close relationships". This could be a relationship with a parent, a close friend, a teacher, a spouse, a co-worker, or even a key rival or competitor. All close relationships have three basic characteristics. First, they involve frequent interactions over relatively long periods of time. Secondly, close relationships include participation in joint activities or events. For example, friends discuss various topics with each other and usually have many common activities and interests. Thirdly, the influence exerted by people in close relationships acquires extraordinary power. We may quickly forget a snide remark from a salesperson, but agonize for weeks over a remark made by our best friend.
In this article we will look at some of the most important properties of social relationships from the perspective of interdependence theory.

Interdependence theory

The most promising approach to the analysis of social relationships is offered to us by various variants of the theory of social exchange (Molm, Cook). The theory of interdependence ( interdependence theory)(Berscheid, Reis; Kelley, Thibaut). This approach is based on the analysis of patterns of interaction between partners. One way to theorize these interactions is to describe them in terms of the consequences—rewards and costs—that partners face. We typically try to structure our interactions in ways that maximize our rewards and minimize our costs. However, in order to be rewarded, we must also reward others. . As children, we are introduced to a universal rule or norm of reciprocity: we strive to reward those who reward us. If people help us, we feel obligated to help them. If we invite someone to dinner, we expect that person to subsequently return the same invitation. Social interaction involves the exchange and coordination of consequences between interdependent partners (Rusbult, Van Lange).

Fees and costs

The reward is the result of the interaction, be it a feeling of love or financial support. What is dear to one person may be of little value to another. A successful analysis of rewards in social interactions was proposed by Foa and Foa (1974). They identified six main types of rewards: love, money, status, information, benefits and services. They, in turn, can be classified along two dimensions. The specificity dimension concerns the extent to which the value of a reward depends on who provides it. The value of love, or more specifically the value of things like hugs and tender words, depends greatly on who they come from. Therefore, love is a specific reward. In contrast, money retains its usefulness regardless of who it comes from; money is not a specific, but a universal reward. When we say that a relationship is special to us, we often mean that it provides unique or specific rewards that we cannot get elsewhere. The second dimension, concreteness, reflects the difference between tangible or tangible rewards—things we can see, feel, and touch—and soft or symbolic rewards, such as advice and social approval.

Expenses- negative consequences of our interactions or relationships. Relationships can be costly because they require a lot of time and energy, because they cause serious conflicts, or because other people disapprove of our relationships and criticize us for them. Relationships can also be costly if they prevent us from performing other rewarded behaviors. If you spend the weekend with friends, you won't have time to study for an exam or visit your parents.

In one study, psychologists asked college students to describe the rewards and costs associated with their romantic relationships (Sedikides, Oliver, & Campbell, 1994). The list of rewards included companionship, feeling loved, happiness, intimacy, understanding, and sexual pleasure. Perceived costs of romantic relationships included worrying about the fate of the relationship, lack of freedom to communicate or date other people, amount of time and effort devoted to the relationship, arguments, and feeling dependent on the partner. Although men and women generally described similar rewards and costs, some gender differences emerged. For example, women expressed greater concern about their dependence on and absorption into their partner; men expressed greater concern about spending money and spending time and energy.

Impact assessment

Interdependence theory suggests that people monitor the rewards and costs of specific interactions or relationships. We don't usually keep track of the good and bad aspects of relationships; however, we recognize the costs and rewards associated with them. Specifically, we focus our attention on the overall outcome of the relationship—that is, determining whether the balance of the relationship is beneficial for us (rewards outweigh costs) or whether we are suffering a greater loss (costs outweigh rewards). When people say, “This relationship has given me a lot,” or “I don't think our relationship is worth it,” they are evaluating the consequences of their relationship.

When assessing the consequences of relationships, people rely on certain standards. Let's look at this with an example. While at a social gathering, you avoid talking to John, a rather boring guy whom you really don't like. Instead, you gravitate towards Mike, a fairly friendly man who can tell funny stories. You continue to chat with Mike until you notice that your best friend Seth has appeared in the company. When you see him, you apologize and go talk to Seth. The simplest standard for evaluating a relationship is whether it is beneficial or costly to you. In our example, interacting with John had negative consequences, while interacting with Mike and Seth had rewarding consequences.

In addition to assessing whether a relationship is beneficial, we also form comparative judgments by evaluating that relationship in comparison to some others. The most important are two standards of comparison (Thibaut, Kelley, 1959). The first one is level of comparison. It concerns the quality of consequences that a particular person believes he deserves.

Our level of comparison is formed based on past relationship experiences. For example, you can evaluate whether your current love relationship is inferior to your past one. Or you can compare your new boss to your previous bosses. You can also compare your current relationships with those you have seen in movies, heard about from friends, or read about in popular psychology books. The level of comparison reflects our personal understanding of what a relationship that suits us should look like.

The second important standard is level of comparison for alternatives, involving an assessment of how the existing relationship compares with other relationships that are currently available to us. Is your love partner better or worse than other people you could date if you wanted to? Is your current boss better or worse than other people with whom you could work successfully in the current situation in your life? If your relationship seems to be the best you could hope for, you can continue to develop it, even if the actual benefits from it are not very great. On the other hand, even if the relationship turns out to be beneficial for you in absolute terms, you may end it if a more suitable alternative arises.

Coordination of consequences

The problem of any relationship is to coordinate joint activities in such a way that would maximize benefits for both partners. Let's consider coordination problems using the example of two strangers who are next to each other on an airplane on a long flight. Carl arrives first, taking up the entire top shelf with his carry-on luggage and grabbing the middle armrest. Quite sociable, Karl hopes to spend the trip in a pleasant conversation with the person who will take the next seat. His neighbor Katie, in turn, brought some work with her and expects to spend this trip immersed in reading. Finding the top shelf full of carry-on luggage, she is annoyed and has some difficulty finding another place to squeeze her things into. During a small exchange of pleasantries, Katie makes it clear that she does not want to get involved in a long conversation, and a bored Carl begins to absentmindedly leaf through the magazine. After a while, Carl lowers the window filter and tries to take a nap. This again upsets Katie, who was planning to see the Grand Canyon. Snoring begins to be heard from Karl, who has fallen asleep. Completely upset, Katie gets up from her chair in the hope of finding another free seat. In this example, the uncoordinated actions of the partners prompt one of them to refuse to continue any interactions.
When friends enjoy the same activities, it's easy for them to coordinate their interactions. Technically speaking, they have congruent consequences - what rewards one rewards another.
How easy or difficult it is for two people to coordinate the consequences of a relationship depends on the number of common interests and goals they have. When partners value the same things and enjoy doing the same things, they have relatively few problems coordinating(Surra, Longstreth, 1990). In such cases they say that they have consistent consequences, since the consequences of their interactions coincide - what is good for one is good for the other, and what is bad for one is bad for the other (Thibaut, Kelley, 1959). In general, partners with similar life experiences and attitudes experience fewer coordination problems and can therefore more easily establish mutually beneficial relationships. When partners have different preferences and values, they have inconsistent consequences, resulting in more conflicts of interest and coordination problems..

Of course, even well-chosen partners experience conflicts of interest from time to time. When this happens, partners have to seek a compromise. As an illustration, consider a young couple deciding how to spend their income tax refund. My wife wants to buy a new sofa; my husband wants to buy a new TV. However, this couple has a limited amount of money and cannot afford to buy both a sofa and a TV; therefore, spouses must coordinate the use of funds and resolve the conflict situation. One of the simplest solutions is to choose an alternative that is acceptable to both partners. For example, a young couple might agree to spend money on a trip—an option initially not chosen by anyone, but attractive to both. Another possibility is to establish a priority order for purchases, such as buying a sofa this year and a TV next year.

Resolving conflicts of interest through negotiation and compromise is, at best, time-consuming, and at worst, it becomes a source of disputes and negative emotions. Therefore, over time, partners often develop rules, or social norms, allowing them to coordinate their behavior. Neither spouse probably enjoys taking out the trash or paying the bills, but they can agree that he will do one if she does the other. The presence of common norms reduces the need for lengthy negotiations in order to achieve coordinated behavior between partners.

Social roles it is a set of rules that define how people should behave in a certain type of interaction or relationship. Roles provide solutions to some of the coordination problems that people may face. In many types of relationships, cultural rules prescribe certain coordinated behaviors. Typically, the employee understands quite clearly what he is supposed to do in the workplace, the employer has a good idea of ​​his responsibilities, and both are aware of how they should interact with each other. Lawyers and their secretaries do not negotiate over who will draft legal documents and who will type them, or who will answer the phone and who will attend court hearings.

When individuals act on the basis of existing cultural rules, they engage in a process of role selection (Turner, 1962). As we gain experience in life, we become familiar with the many social roles that govern our interactions with other people. We can contrast this process of role selection, in which people learn or conform to cultural roles, with the process of role creation, in which people develop their own collective norms for social interaction. In many social situations, people improvise and create their own solutions to problems of interdependence. For example, when two friends decide to rent an apartment, they need to agree on who will do what, when and how. Who will be responsible for paying the bills? Who will contact and negotiate with the apartment owner? What will be the policy regarding late guests? Many types of social interactions are a mixture of role selection and role creation. When social guidelines are unclear or in the process of change, individuals have more freedom to act, but they must also expend more effort to successfully coordinate interactions.

Fair exchange

People experience greatest satisfaction when they perceive their social relationships as fair. We don't like to be exploited, and we generally don't like to exploit others either. We use various rules to determine whether our relationships are fair or not (Clark and Chrisman, 1994).

Consider the situation of two teenage boys trying to decide how to share a pizza. They can agree to "share equally" using rule equality ( equality rule), whereby everyone should receive equal consequences. People tend to use equality more often when interacting with friends than when interacting with strangers (Austin, 1980). Children use the principle of equality more often than adults, probably because it is the simplest rule. Boys can also take advantage of the “to each according to his needs” principle, which is based on the idea that relative needs (relative needs) each person. According to this rule, one boy can get a larger piece of pizza if he is hungrier or if he has not had pizza for a long time. This principle is used by parents when they decide to spend much more money on a child who needs orthodontic braces than on another child who has beautiful and regular teeth. Parents base medical and dental expenses on each child's needs.

Learning to share with friends is an important step in understanding the principles of fairness in social relationships.

The third rule is justice (equity), or fair distribution. It is based on the idea that a person's earnings should be proportional to his contributions (Deutsch, 1985; Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985). Thus, the boy who contributed most of the money when buying the pizza or put more effort into preparing it is entitled to a larger portion. In this view, justice exists when two or more people have an equal balance of consequences and contributions.

In professional terms:

Theory of justice

Theory of justice An offshoot of social exchange theory, it rests on four basic assumptions:

1. People involved in relationships try to maximize: their benefits.
2. Couples and groups can maximize their collective rewards by developing rules or norms regarding how rewards can be fairly distributed among all interested participants.
3. When individuals perceive violations of fairness in relationships, they experience tension. The greater the perceived injustice, the greater the stress experienced.
4. Individuals who notice violations of fairness in relationships will take steps to restore fairness.

Research has supported a number of specific predictions derived from equity theory (Hatfield et al.). In particular, it was shown that when relationships turned out to be unfair, both partners experienced tension. The fact that a person who is deprived of the reward he deserves (an exploited person) experiences tension does not seem to contradict common sense. However, research shows that a person who receives an undeserved reward may also experience tension, perhaps due to feelings of guilt or discomfort caused by an imbalance.

There is also evidence (Hatfield et al.) that people, noticing violations of fairness in relationships, try to restore it. They can achieve this in two ways. The first approach is to restore real justice. For example, a roommate might acknowledge that she has not yet done her share of keeping things tidy and make appropriate additional efforts to compensate. The second approach involves the use of cognitive strategies that change the perception of disturbed balance, thus restoring psychological justice. The roommate might distort the reality and conclude that she actually did an equal share of the responsibilities, thus avoiding the need to change her behavior. Whether people seek to restore real or psychological justice depends on the balance of benefits and costs they associate with each particular strategy. Finally, if it is impossible to restore justice in any of these two ways, a person may try to end the relationship.

Much of the evidence regarding fairness research has come from previous laboratory studies of strangers who interacted for short periods of time; more recent research has focused on justice in close relationships (Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994). Feelings of fairness influence satisfaction in love and marital relationships; under-rewarded partners report lower satisfaction overall. A study of married and cohabiting couples found that individuals who reported less fairness felt less happy in their relationships, and the negative effects of unfairness on satisfaction persisted after one year (Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990). Issues of fairness may play the greatest role in the initial stages of a relationship. In a longitudinal study, fairness was found to be a factor in satisfaction early in premarital relationships, but not several months later. Over time, individuals may become convinced of their partner's good intentions and may not pay as much attention to the nature of the exchanges.

There also appear to be individual differences in the impact of fairness on relationship satisfaction. Individuals who score high on measures of general concerns about fairness in relationships may be more negatively affected by injustice than other people. In addition, women with feminist and nontraditional gender role attitudes may be particularly sensitive to issues of fairness and therefore experience greater dissatisfaction than other women or men in what they perceive to be unfair relationships.

Finally, research has generally found that fairness is less important for happiness in close relationships than the absolute level of rewards that a person receives in those relationships. Satisfaction is highest when people believe that they are receiving many rewards, regardless of whether they perceive the distribution of rewards to be completely fair or not (Surra, 1990). If you think you're getting a lot out of your relationship, you'll feel happy, even if you feel like you're getting a little less than you deserve. Moreover, in our closest relationships we can go beyond existing strict principles of justice and social exchange.

Beyond Exchange

The principles of social exchange help us understand many different types of relationships. Most people accept the idea that exchange influences casual relationships, but they may disagree that exchange factors also shape our most intimate relationships. It is entirely unromantic to believe, as sociologist Erwin Goffman (1952) once did, that “the proposal of marriage in our society increasingly involves deliberation in which the man weighs his social merits and concludes that the other party’s merits are not so superior.” his own, to serve as an obstacle to an alliance or a successful partnership."

Social psychologist Zeke Rubin (1973) expressed common attitudes toward exchange theory as follows.

The idea that people are “commodities” and social relationships are “transactions” will undoubtedly make many readers shudder. Exchange theory postulates that human relationships are based initially and primarily on self-interest. And if so, it seems natural to regard friendship as motivated only by what one person can get from another, and to interpret love as a sophisticated "muscle flexing" ... But, despite the fact that we would like to believe otherwise, we should not close our eyes to the fact that our attitude towards other people is largely determined by our appreciation of the rewards they bestow on us (p. 82).

It may be helpful to recall that although exchange theory borrows terminology from economics, the rewards and costs involved are often personal and unique: a charming smile and the sharing of secrets are as much a part of exchange theory as are fancy cars and expensive gifts.

You may have noticed that exchange matters are more important in some relationships than in others. For example, you could easily give in to your colleague's request to switch shifts for this week, but as a matter of course, you expect him to do the same for you next week. In contrast, you and your best friend can do each other a lot of favors and come to each other's aid when necessary without any thought of any kind of recording of all that you have given and received in return.

To address these considerations, Clark and Mills (1979) distinguish between two types of relationships: exchange relationships and communal relationships. Both have exchange processes, but the rules governing the mutual provision of services differ significantly. IN exchange relationship (exchangerelationships) people provide services with the expectation of comparable reciprocal services in the near future. Exchange relationships most often arise with strangers, casual acquaintances and in business relationships. In exchange relationships, people do not feel any special responsibility for the well-being of the other person. In contrast to this in community relations (communal relationships) people feel personally responsible for the needs of others. Communal relationships usually occur between family members, friends and romantic partners. In these relationships, people provide favors to their partner to show they care about them and respond to their needs, without expecting similar reciprocal favors in the near future.

Clark and Mills (1994) developed a research program to identify differences between these two relationship orientations. Here are some of their findings: In communal relationships, compared to exchange relationships, people pay more attention to their partner's needs (Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986). Partners in communal relationships prefer to communicate on emotional topics, such as sharing joys and sorrows; Partners in exchange relationships prefer to discuss non-emotional topics, such as their favorite restaurant or gardening (Clark and Taraban, 1991). A person is perceived to be more altruistic when he offers help to an acquaintance (weak communal relationships that do not require close involvement) rather than just to a close friend (strong communal relationships that tend to involve close involvement). Similarly, a person is perceived as more selfish if he does not offer help to a close friend rather than just an acquaintance (Mills, Clark, & Mehta, 1992).

Instructions: Please circle the picture that best describes your relationship.
Fig.3 Scale of inclusion of another in one’s own “I”.