For the first time in Russian literature, interpersonal (interpersonal) relationships were analyzed in 1975 in the book “Social Psychology”.

The problem of interpersonal relationships in domestic and foreign psychological science has been studied to a certain extent. The monograph by N. N. Obozov (1979) summarizes the results of empirical research by domestic and foreign specialists. This is the most in-depth and thorough study and currently remains relevant. In subsequent publications, little attention is paid to the problem of interpersonal relationships. Abroad, this problem is analyzed in reference books on social psychology. The most interesting joint study by T. Huston and G. Levinger is “Interpersonal Attraction and Interpersonal Relationships” (Huston, Levinger, 1978), which has not lost its significance to this day.

Nowadays, many works appear in the press that examine the problems of interpersonal and business contacts (business communication), and give practical recommendations for their optimization (Deryabo, Yasvin, 1996; Evening, 1996; Kuzin, 1996). Some of these publications are a popular presentation of the results of psychological research, sometimes without references or a list of references.

The concept of “interpersonal relationships”. Interpersonal relationships are closely related to various types of social relations. G. M. Andreeva emphasizes that the existence of interpersonal relationships within various forms of social relations is the implementation of impersonal (social) relations in the activities of specific people, in the acts of their communication and interaction (Andreeva, 1999).

Social relations are official, formally established, objectified, effective connections. They are leaders in regulating all types of relationships, including interpersonal ones.

Interpersonal relationships - these are objectively experienced, to varying degrees perceived, relationships between people. They are based on the various emotional states of interacting people. Unlike business (instrumental) relationships, which can be either officially established or unsecured, interpersonal connections are sometimes called expressive, emphasizing their emotional content. The relationship between business and interpersonal relationships has not been sufficiently developed scientifically.

Interpersonal relationships include three elements - cognitive (gnostic, informational), affective and behavioral (practical, regulatory).

Cognitive element involves awareness of what is liked or disliked in interpersonal relationships.

Affective aspect finds its expression in various emotional experiences of people about the relationships between them. The emotional component is usually the leading one. “These are, first of all, positive and negative emotional states, conflict states (intrapersonal, interpersonal), emotional sensitivity, satisfaction with oneself, partner, work, etc.” (Obozov, 1979, p. 5).

The emotional content of interpersonal relationships (sometimes called valence) changes in two opposite directions: from conjunctive (positive, bringing together) to indifferent (neutral) and disjunctive (negative, separating) and vice versa. The options for manifestations of interpersonal relationships are enormous. Conjunctive feelings manifest themselves in various forms of positive emotions and states, the demonstration of which indicates a readiness for rapprochement and joint activity. Indifferent feelings involve manifestations of a neutral attitude towards a partner. This may include indifference, indifference, indifference, etc. Disjunctive feelings are expressed in the manifestation of various forms of negative emotions and states, which are regarded by the partner as a lack of readiness for further rapprochement and communication. In some cases, the emotional content of interpersonal relationships may be ambivalent (contradictory).

Conventional manifestations of emotions and feelings in forms and methods characteristic of those groups whose representatives enter into interpersonal contacts can, on the one hand, contribute to mutual understanding of the communicators, and, on the other hand, complicate interaction (for example, if the communicators belong to different ethnic, professional, social and other groups and use various non-verbal means of communication).

Behavioral the component of interpersonal relationships is realized in specific actions. If one of the partners likes the other, the behavior will be friendly, aimed at providing assistance and productive cooperation. If the object is not attractive, then the interactive side of communication will be difficult. Between these behavioral poles there are a large number of forms of interaction, the implementation of which is determined by the sociocultural norms of the groups to which the communicating people belong.

Interpersonal relationships are built vertically (between a manager and a subordinate and vice versa) and horizontally (between persons occupying the same status). The emotional manifestations of interpersonal connections are determined by the sociocultural norms of the groups to which the communicating people belong, and by individual differences that vary within the limits of these norms. Interpersonal relationships can be formed from the positions of dominance-equality-subordination and dependence-independence.

Social distance presupposes a combination of official and interpersonal relations that determines the closeness of the communicating people, corresponding to the sociocultural norms of the communities to which they belong. Social distance allows you to maintain an adequate level of breadth and depth of relationships when establishing interpersonal relationships. Its violation initially leads to disjunctive interpersonal relationships (in power relations up to 52%, and in equal-status relationships up to 33%), and then to conflicts (Obozov, 1979).

Psychological distance characterizes the degree of closeness of interpersonal relationships between communication partners (friendly, comradely, friendly, trusting). In our opinion, this concept emphasizes a certain stage in the dynamics of the development of interpersonal relationships.

Interpersonal compatibility- this is the optimal combination of psychological characteristics of partners that contribute to the optimization of their communication and activities. “Harmonization”, “coherence”, “consolidation”, etc. are used as equivalent words. Interpersonal compatibility is based on the principles of similarity and complementarity. Its indicators are satisfaction with joint interaction and its result. The secondary result is the emergence of mutual sympathy. The opposite phenomenon of compatibility is incompatibility, and the feelings it evokes are antipathy. Interpersonal compatibility is considered as a state, process and result (Obozov, 1979). It develops within a spatiotemporal framework and specific conditions (normal, extreme, etc.), which influence its manifestation. To determine interpersonal compatibility, hardware and technical techniques and homeostat are used.

Interpersonal Attraction- this is a complex psychological property of a person, which, as it were, “attracts” a communication partner and involuntarily evokes a feeling of sympathy in him. The charm of her personality allows her to win people over. A person's attractiveness depends on his physical and social appearance, ability to empathize, etc.

Interpersonal attractiveness promotes the development of interpersonal connections and evokes a cognitive, emotional and behavioral response in a partner. The phenomenon of interpersonal attractiveness in friendly couples is thoroughly disclosed in the research of N. N. Obozov.

In scientific and popular literature such a concept as "emotional appeal"- the ability of an individual to understand the mental states of a communication partner and especially to empathize with him. The latter (the ability to empathize) is manifested in the responsiveness of feelings to various states of the partner. This concept is somewhat narrower than “interpersonal attractiveness.”

In our opinion, interpersonal attractiveness has not been sufficiently studied scientifically. At the same time, from an applied point of view, this concept is studied as a phenomenon of the formation of a certain image. In domestic science, this approach has been actively developing since 1991, when there was a real need for psychological recommendations on forming the image of a politician or business person. Publications on this issue provide advice on creating an attractive image of a politician (in appearance, voice, use of verbal and non-verbal means of communication, etc.). Specialists on this problem have appeared - image makers. For psychologists, this problem seems promising.

Taking into account the practical significance of the problem of interpersonal attractiveness in educational institutions where psychologists are trained, it is advisable to introduce a special course “Formation of the image of a psychologist.” This will allow graduates to more successfully prepare for future work, look more attractive in the eyes of clients and establish the necessary contacts with them.

Concept "attraction" is closely related to interpersonal attractiveness. Some researchers consider attraction as a process and at the same time a result of the attractiveness of one person to another; distinguish levels in it (sympathy, friendship, love) and connect it with the perceptual side of communication (Andreeva, 1999). Others believe that attraction is a kind of social attitude in which a positive emotional component predominates (Gozman, 1987). V. N. Kunitsyna understands attraction as the process of preferring some people over others, mutual attraction between people, mutual sympathy. In her opinion, attraction is determined by external factors (the degree of expression of a person’s need for affiliation, the emotional state of communication partners, the spatial proximity of the place of residence or work of those communicating) and internal, actually interpersonal determinants (physical attractiveness, demonstrated style of behavior, the factor of similarity between partners, expression of personal attitude towards a partner in the process of communication) (Kunitsyna, Kazarinova, Pogolsha, 2001). As can be seen from the above, the polysemy of the concept of “attraction” and its overlap with other phenomena complicates the use of this term and explains the lack of research in Russian psychology. This concept is borrowed from Anglo-American psychology and is covered by the domestic term “interpersonal attractiveness.” In this regard, it seems appropriate to use these terms as equivalent.

Under the concept "attraction" the need of one person to be together with another who has certain characteristics that receive a positive assessment from the perceiver is understood. It denotes experienced sympathy for another person. Attraction can be unidirectional or bidirectional (Obozov, 1979). The opposite concept of “repulsion” (negation) is associated with the psychological characteristics of a communication partner that are perceived and assessed negatively; therefore, the partner causes negative emotions.

Personality characteristics influencing the formation of interpersonal relationships. A favorable prerequisite for the successful formation of interpersonal relationships is the mutual awareness of partners about each other, formed on the basis of interpersonal knowledge. The development of interpersonal relationships is largely determined by the characteristics of those communicating. These include gender, age, nationality, temperament, health, profession, experience in communicating with people and some personal characteristics.

Floor. The uniqueness of interpersonal relationships between the sexes manifests itself already in childhood. Boys, compared to girls, even in childhood are more active in making contacts, participating in group games, and interacting with peers. This picture is also observed in adult men. Girls tend to communicate in a narrower circle. They establish relationships with those they like. The content of joint activities is not very important for them (for boys it’s the opposite). Women have a much smaller social circle than men. In interpersonal communication, they experience a much greater need for self-disclosure, transferring personal information about themselves to others. More often they complain of loneliness (Kohn, 1987).

For women, characteristics that manifest themselves in interpersonal relationships are more significant, and for men, business qualities are more significant.

In interpersonal relationships, the feminine style is aimed at reducing social distance and establishing psychological closeness with people. In friendships, women emphasize trust, emotional support and intimacy. “Women’s friendships are less stable. The intimacy inherent in female friendship on a very wide range of issues, the discussion of the nuances of one’s own relationships complicates them” (Kohn, 1987, p. 267). Discrepancies, misunderstandings and emotionality undermine women's interpersonal relationships.

In men, interpersonal relationships are characterized by greater emotional restraint and objectivity. They open up more easily to strangers. Their style of interpersonal relationships is aimed at maintaining their image in the eyes of their communication partner, showing their achievements and aspirations. In friendships, men experience a sense of camaraderie and mutual support.

Age. The need for emotional warmth appears in infancy and with age gradually turns into varying degrees of awareness of the psychological attachment of children to people who create psychological comfort for them (Kon, 1987, 1989). With age, people gradually lose the openness characteristic of youth in interpersonal relationships. Their behavior is influenced by numerous sociocultural norms (especially professional and ethnic ones). The circle of contacts especially narrows after young people get married and have children in the family. Numerous interpersonal relationships are reduced and manifested in production and related areas. In middle age, as children grow older, interpersonal relationships expand again. In older and older age, interpersonal relationships acquire weight. This is explained by the fact that children have grown up and have their own attachments, active work ends, and their social circle is sharply narrowed. In old age, old friendships play a special role.

Nationality. Ethnic norms determine sociability, boundaries of behavior, and rules for the formation of interpersonal relationships. In different ethnic communities, interpersonal connections are built taking into account a person’s position in society, gender and age status, membership in social strata and religious groups, etc.

Some properties temperament influence the formation of interpersonal relationships. It has been experimentally established that choleric and sanguine people easily establish contacts, while phlegmatic and melancholic people have difficulty. Consolidating interpersonal relationships in pairs of “choleric with choleric,” “sanguine with sanguine,” and “choleric with sanguine” is difficult. Stable interpersonal connections are formed in pairs of “melancholic with phlegmatic”, “melancholic with sanguine” and “phlegmatic with sanguine” (Obozov, 1979).

State of health. External physical defects, as a rule, have a negative impact on the “self-concept” and ultimately make it difficult to form interpersonal relationships.

Temporary illnesses affect sociability and the stability of interpersonal contacts. Diseases of the thyroid gland, various neuroses, etc., associated with increased excitability, irritability, anxiety, mental instability, etc. - all this seems to “rock” interpersonal relationships and negatively affects them.

Profession. Interpersonal relationships are formed in all spheres of human life, but the most stable are those that appear as a result of joint work activities. In the course of performing functional duties, not only business contacts are consolidated, but also interpersonal relationships emerge and develop, which later acquire a multifaceted and deep character. If, due to the nature of his professional activity, a person has to constantly communicate with people, then he develops the skills and abilities to establish interpersonal contacts (for example, lawyers, journalists, etc.).

Experience communicating with people promotes the acquisition of stable skills in interpersonal relationships, based on social norms of regulation, with representatives of different groups in society (Bobneva, 1978). Communication experience allows you to practically master and apply various norms of communication with different people and form social control over the manifestation of your emotions.

Self-esteem. Adequate self-esteem allows an individual to objectively assess their characteristics and correlate them with the individual psychological qualities of a communication partner, with the situation, choose the appropriate style of interpersonal relationships and adjust it if necessary.

Inflated self-esteem introduces elements of arrogance and condescension into interpersonal relationships. If the communication partner is satisfied with this style of interpersonal relationships, then they will be quite stable, otherwise they will become tense.

Low self-esteem of an individual forces her to adapt to the style of interpersonal relationships offered by her communication partner. At the same time, this can introduce a certain mental tension into interpersonal relationships due to the internal discomfort of the individual.

The need for communication and establishing interpersonal contacts with people is a fundamental characteristic of a person. At the same time, among people there are people whose need for confidential communication (affiliation) and mercy (altruism) is somewhat overestimated. Friendly interpersonal relationships are most often formed with one person or several individuals, while affiliation and altruism tend to be expressed among many people. Research results indicate that helping behavior has been identified in people who have empathy, a high level of self-control and are inclined to make independent decisions. Indicators of affiliative behavior are positive verbal statements, prolonged eye contact, a friendly facial expression, increased manifestation of verbal and non-verbal signs of agreement, confidential telephone calls, etc. The described characteristics of affiliative behavior in form resemble the stage of friendly relations, and its indicators are criteria for the development of positive interpersonal relationships. During the research, we identified personal qualities that make it difficult development of interpersonal relationships. The first group included narcissism, arrogance, arrogance, complacency and vanity. The second group includes dogmatism, a constant tendency to disagree with a partner. The third group included duplicity and insincerity (Kunitsyna, Kazarinova, Pogolsha, 2001)

The process of forming interpersonal relationships. It includes the dynamics, the regulatory mechanism (empathy) and the conditions for their development.

Dynamics of interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationships are born, consolidated, reach a certain maturity, after which they can weaken and then cease. They develop in a continuum and have a certain dynamics.

In his works, N. N. Obozov explores the main types of interpersonal relationships, but does not consider their dynamics. American researchers also identify several categories of groups, the basis of which is the closeness of interpersonal relationships (acquaintances, good friends, close friends and best friends), but analyze them somewhat in isolation, without revealing the course of their development (Huston, Levinger, 1978).

The dynamics of the development of interpersonal relationships in the time continuum goes through several stages (stages): acquaintance, friendship, companionship and friendly relations. The process of weakening interpersonal relationships in the “reverse” direction has the same dynamics (the transition from friendly to comradely, friendly, and then the termination of the relationship). The duration of each stage depends on many components of interpersonal relationships.

Dating process carried out depending on the sociocultural and professional norms of the society to which future communication partners belong.

Friendship form readiness - unpreparedness for further development of interpersonal relationships. If a positive attitude is formed among partners, then this is a favorable prerequisite for further communication.

Companionship allow you to strengthen interpersonal contact. Here there is a convergence of views and support for each other (at this stage such concepts as “act in a comradely manner”, “comrade in arms”, etc.) are used. Interpersonal relationships at this stage are characterized by stability and a certain mutual trust. Numerous popular publications on optimizing interpersonal relationships provide recommendations on the use of various techniques to induce goodwill and sympathy among communication partners (Snell, 1990; Deryabo, Yasvin, 1996; Kuzin, 1996).

When researching friendly (trusting) relationships the most interesting and profound results were obtained by I. S. Kon, N. N. Obozov, T. P. Skripkina (Obozov, 1979; Kon, 1987, 1989; Skripkina, 1997). According to I. S. Kon, friendships always have a common substantive content - a community of interests, goals of activity, in the name of which friends unite (unite), and at the same time presuppose mutual affection (Kon, 1987).

Despite the similarities views, providing emotional and activity support to each other, certain disagreements may exist between friends. We can distinguish utilitarian (instrumental-business, practically effective) and emotional-expressive (emotional-confessional) friendship. Friendships manifest themselves in various forms:

from interpersonal sympathy to mutual need for communication. Such relationships can develop both in a formal and informal setting. Friendly relationships, compared to companionship, are characterized by greater depth and trust (Kohn, 1987). Friends openly discuss with each other many aspects of their lives, including the personal characteristics of those communicating and mutual acquaintances.

An important characteristic of friendships is trust. T. P. Skripkina in her research reveals the empirical correlates of people’s trust in other people and in themselves (Skripkina, 1997).

Interesting results on the problem of trust relationships were obtained in a study conducted under the leadership of V. N. Kunitsyna on a student sample. “Trusting relationships in the surveyed group prevail over dependency relationships. A third of respondents define their relationship with their mother as a trusting, partnership; More than half of them believe that, despite all this, dependent relationships often arise with their mother, while relationships with a friend are assessed only as trusting and partnership. It turned out that dependent relationships with one significant person are often compensated by building partnerships with another significant person. If, during the accumulation of experience, a person has formed insufficient hope for establishing close relationships with people, then relationships of trust and support more often arise with a friend than with a mother” (Kunitsyna, Kazarinova, Pogolsha, 2001). Friendships can weaken and end if one of the friends fails to keep secrets entrusted to him, does not protect the friend in his absence, and is also jealous of his other relationships (Argyle, 1990).

Friendships in young years are accompanied by intense contacts, psychological richness and greater significance. At the same time, a sense of humor and sociability are highly valued.

Adults value responsiveness, honesty, and social availability more in friendships. Friendships at this age are more stable. “In active middle age, the emphasis on psychological intimacy as the most important sign of friendship weakens somewhat and friendly relationships lose their aura of totality” (Kohn, 1987, p. 251).

Friendships among the older generation are mostly related to family ties and people who have the same life experiences and values.

The problem of criteria for friendly relations has not been sufficiently studied. Some researchers include mutual assistance, fidelity and psychological intimacy among them, others point to competence in communicating with partners, caring for them, actions and predictability of behavior.

Empathy as a mechanism for the development of interpersonal relationships. Empathy is the response of one person to the experiences of another. Some researchers believe that it is an emotional process, others - an emotional and cognitive process. There are conflicting opinions about whether a given phenomenon is a process or a property.

N. N. Obozov considers empathy as a process (mechanism) and includes cognitive, emotional and effective components. According to him, empathy has three levels.

The hierarchical structural-dynamic model is based on cognitive empathy (first level), manifested in the form of understanding the mental state of another person without changing one’s own state.

Second level of empathy implies emotional empathy, not only in the form of understanding the state of another person, but also empathy and sympathy for him, an empathic response. This form of empathy includes two options. The first is associated with the simplest empathy, which is based on the need for one’s own well-being. Another, transitional form from emotional to effective empathy, is expressed in the form of sympathy, which is based on the need for the well-being of another person.

The third level of empathy is the highest form, including cognitive, emotional and behavioral components. It fully expresses interpersonal identification, which is not only mental (perceived and understood) and sensory (empathetic), but also effective. At this level of empathy, real actions and behavioral acts are manifested to provide assistance and support to a communication partner (sometimes such style of behavior is called helping). There are complex interdependencies between the three forms of empathy (Obozov, 1979). In the approach outlined, the second and third levels of empathy (emotional and effective) are quite convincingly and logically substantiated. At the same time, its first level (cognitive empathy), associated with understanding the state of other people without changing one’s state), is, in our opinion, a purely cognitive process.

As evidenced by the results of experimental studies in Russia and abroad, sympathy is one of the main forms of manifestation of empathy. It is determined by the principle of similarity of certain biosocial characteristics of communicating people. The principle of similarity is presented in numerous works by I. S. Kohn, N. N. Obozov, T. P. Gavrilova, F. Heider, T. Newcome, L. Festinger, C. Osgood and P. Tannenbaum.

If the principle of similarity does not manifest itself among those communicating, then this indicates indifference of feelings. When they experience inconsistency and especially contradiction, this leads to disharmony (imbalance) in cognitive structures and leads to the emergence of antipathy.

As research results show, most often interpersonal relationships are based on the principle of similarity (resemblance), and sometimes on the principle of complementarity. The latter is expressed in the fact that, for example, when choosing comrades, friends, future spouses, etc., people unconsciously, and sometimes consciously, choose persons who can satisfy mutual needs. Based on this, positive interpersonal relationships can develop.

Showing sympathy can intensify the transition from one stage of interpersonal relationships to another, as well as expand and deepen interpersonal relationships. Sympathy, like antipathy, can be unidirectional (without reciprocity) or multidirectional (with reciprocity).

The concept is very close to the concept of “empathy”. "syntonicity" which is understood as the ability to join the emotional life of another person, due to the need for emotional contact. In Russian literature, this concept is found quite rarely.

Various forms of empathy are based on a person’s sensitivity to his own and others’ world. During the development of empathy as a personality trait, emotional responsiveness and the ability to predict the emotional state of people are formed. Empathy can be conscious to varying degrees. It can be possessed by one or both communication partners. The level of empathy was experimentally determined in the studies of T. P. Gavrilova and N. N. Obozov. Individuals with high levels of empathy show interest in other people, are flexible, emotional and optimistic. Individuals with a low level of empathy are characterized by difficulties in establishing contacts, introversion, rigidity and self-centeredness.

Empathy can manifest itself not only in real communication between people, but also in the perception of works of fine art, in the theater, etc.

Empathy as a mechanism for the formation of interpersonal relationships contributes to their development and stabilization, allows you to provide support to your partner not only in ordinary, but also in difficult, extreme conditions, when he especially needs it. Based on the mechanism of empathy, emotional and business impact becomes possible.

Conditions for the development of interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationships are formed under certain conditions that influence their dynamics, breadth and depth (Ross and Nisbett, 1999).

In urban conditions, compared to rural areas, there is a fairly high pace of life, frequent changes of places of work and residence, and a high level of public control. The result is a large number of interpersonal contacts, their short duration and the manifestation of functional-role communication. This leads to the fact that interpersonal relationships in the city place higher psychological demands on the partner. In order to maintain close ties, those communicating often have to pay with the loss of personal time, mental overload, material resources, etc.

Studies abroad show that the more often people meet, the more attractive they seem to each other. Apparently, and vice versa, the less often acquaintances meet, the faster interpersonal relationships between them weaken and cease. Spatial proximity particularly affects interpersonal relationships in children. If parents move or children move from one school to another, their contacts usually cease.

The specific conditions in which people communicate are important in the formation of interpersonal relationships. First of all, this is due to the types of joint activities during which interpersonal contacts are established (study, work, leisure), with the situation (usual or extreme), the ethnic environment (mono- or polyethnic), material resources, etc.

It is well known that interpersonal relationships develop quickly (go through all stages up to the level of trust) in certain places (for example, in a hospital, train, etc.). This phenomenon is apparently due to strong dependence on external factors, short-term joint life activities and spatial proximity. Unfortunately, we do not carry out very many comparative studies on interpersonal relationships in these conditions.

The significance of the time factor in interpersonal relationships depends on the specific sociocultural environment in which they develop (Ross, Nisbett, 1999).

The time factor influences the ethnic environment differently. In Eastern cultures, the development of interpersonal relationships is, as it were, extended over time, while in Western cultures it is “compressed”, dynamic. There are almost no works presenting studies of the influence of the time factor on interpersonal relationships in our literature.

Numerous techniques and tests are available to measure various aspects of interpersonal relationships. Among them are the diagnosis of interpersonal relationships by T. Leary (dominance-submission, friendliness-aggression), the “Q-sorting” technique (dependence-independence, sociability-unsociability, acceptance of struggle-avoidance of struggle), K. Thomas’ behavior description test (competition, cooperation , compromise, avoidance, adaptation), J. Moreno’s method of interpersonal preferences for measuring sociometric status in a group (preference-rejection), A. Mehrabyan and N. Epstein’s empathic tendencies questionnaire, V. V. Boyko’s method of the level of empathic abilities, I. M. Yusupov to measure the level of empathy tendencies, the author’s methods of V. N. Kunitsyna, the questionnaire method of V. Azarov for studying impulsivity and volitional regulation in communication, the method of assessing the level of sociability of V. F. Ryakhovsky, etc.

The problem of interpersonal relationships in domestic and foreign psychological science has been studied to a certain extent. There is currently very little scientific research on interpersonal relationships. Prospective problems are: compatibility in business and interpersonal relationships, social distance in them, trust in different types of interpersonal relationships and its criteria, as well as the peculiarities of interpersonal connections in various types of professional activities in a market economy.

Introduction

In recent decades, all over the world, more and more new scientists have been involved in the development of a set of problems that make up the psychology of how people know each other. Each scientist is interested, as a rule, in separate and particular issues related to this large complex, but together they create the prerequisites for deep insight into the essence of the process of formation of knowledge of other people in a person, as well as for a true comprehension of the role of this knowledge in human behavior and activity . The general features of the formation of the image of another person and the concept of his personality are explored, the significance of a person’s gender, age, profession and belonging to a particular social community for the formation of knowledge about other people is clarified, typical mistakes that a person makes when assessing the people around him are identified, connections are traced between his knowledge of himself and his understanding of other persons. Many branches of psychological science are enriched with previously unknown facts, and practitioners receive additional opportunities for more effective management of the organization of relationships between people, optimization of the process of their communication in the sphere of work, study, and everyday life.

Speaking about the specificity of human cognition, it is also necessary to see that this cognition, as a rule, is associated with the establishment and maintenance of communications. Being a manifestation of such cognition, the images of other people and the generalized knowledge that a person develops about them constantly depends on the goals and nature of his communications with other people, and on these communications, in turn. The activity that brings people together, its content, progress and results always influences.

Main part

Feelings and Interpersonal Roles

It has often been noted that literary writers provide more convincing accounts of human life than social psychologists. Scientists often find themselves powerless to understand what makes people human. Even the best of their works seems to be missing something. Writers are primarily interested in love, friendship, passion, heroism, hatred, thirst for revenge, jealousy and other feelings. Writers focus on describing the affective connections established between characters, their development and transformation, as well as the joys, sorrows and acute conflicts that arise between people. Although these phenomena are undoubtedly a central part of the drama of life, until recently social psychologists have shied away from studying them.

More than 200 years ago, a group of philosophers from Scotland - among them Adam Ferguson, David Hume and Adam Smith - argued that it is the different feelings formed and nurtured in the associations of people close to each other that distinguish man from other animals. Despite the great influence of these authors on their contemporaries, as well as the development of their ideas, the romantics. For the next century, until very recently, this statement was ignored by social scientists. Rare exceptions, such as Cooley and McDougall, were like a voice crying in the wilderness. Over the past few decades, however, interest has focused on studying close contacts between people. Psychiatrists, who have always been interested in human relationships, were influenced by Sullivan, who argued that personality development is driven by networks of interpersonal relationships. Moreno first attempted to create procedures to describe and measure these networks and, together with his colleagues, developed various sociometric methods. Some psychologists, noting that the perception of human beings is much more complex than the perception of inanimate objects, began to consider this process as a special field of study.

The development of interest in small groups, as well as the growing popularity of existentialism, brought further attention to interpersonal relationships. Although the level of knowledge in this area is still insufficient, its subject is one of the most important.

Interpersonal relationship problems

In fact, in all group activities, participants act simultaneously in two capacities: as performers of conventional roles and as unique human individuals. When conventional roles are played, people act as units of social structure. There is agreement about the contribution that each role holder must make, and each participant's behavior is constrained by cultural expectations. However, by engaging in such enterprises, people remain unique living beings. The reactions of each of them turn out to be dependent on certain qualities of those with whom they happen to come into contact. Therefore, the nature of mutual attraction or repulsion is different in each case. Initial reactions can range from love at first sight to sudden hatred of the other person. A kind of assessment is made, for it is completely implausible that two or more people could interact while remaining indifferent to each other. If contact is maintained, the participants can become friends or rivals, dependent or independent of each other, they can love, hate or be offended by one another. How each person reacts to the people associated with him forms a second system of rights and responsibilities. The pattern of interpersonal relationships that develop between people involved in a joint action creates another matrix that places further restrictions on what each person can or cannot do.

Even in the most fleeting interactions, there seems to be some sort of interpersonal reaction taking place. When a man and a woman meet, there is often mutual evaluation in erotic terms. However, educated people in such cases usually do not reveal their inner experiences. A remark regarding a person of the opposite sex is often reserved for one of his closest friends. In most of the contacts that occur, such reactions are of little significance and are soon forgotten.

When people continue to communicate with each other, more stable orientations arise. Although the expression "interpersonal relationships" is used variously in psychiatry and social psychology, it will be used here to designate the mutual orientations that develop and crystallize among individuals in long-term contact. The nature of these relationships in each case will depend on the personality traits of the individuals involved in the interaction.

Since a person expects special attention from his closest friends and is not inclined to expect good treatment from those whom he does not like, each party in the system of interpersonal relations is bound by a number of special rights and responsibilities. Everyone plays a role, but such interpersonal roles should not be confused with conventional roles. Although both types of roles can be defined on the basis of group expectations, there are important differences between them. Conventional roles are standardized and impersonal; the rights and responsibilities remain the same regardless of who fills these roles. But the rights and responsibilities that are established in interpersonal roles depend entirely on the individual characteristics of the participants, their feelings and preferences. Unlike conventional roles, most interpersonal roles are not specifically taught. Each person develops his own type of relationship with a partner, adapting to the demands placed on him by the particular individuals with whom he comes into contact.

Although no two interpersonal systems are exactly alike, there are repeated situations and similar individuals react in the same way to the same type of treatment. It is therefore not unexpected that typical patterns of interpersonal relationships are observed and that interpersonal roles can be named and defined. Thus, in cooperative situations there may be colleague, partner, supplier, client, admirer, love object, etc. Interpersonal roles that arise when people compete over similar interests may include rival, enemy, conspirator, and ally. If a person tries to mediate between those who disagree, he becomes an arbiter. Another recurring situation can be described as the power of one party over the other. If such dependence is maintained through agreement, legitimate authority is established and those in a dominant position assume the role of authority figure. But the actual ability to direct the behavior of others is not always in the hands of those whose conventional role is vested with power. A child, for example, who knows how to take advantage of the momentary outburst of his restless parents can control their behavior. Among the interpersonal roles that arise when power is unequally distributed are leader, hero, follower, puppet, and patron. Although each group develops patterns for the performance of these roles, the latter are analytically different from conventional roles because in this case each person assumes a certain role due to his personal qualities.

In every organized group there is a common understanding of how members are supposed to feel towards each other. In a family, for example, the relationship between mother and sons is conventionally defined. However, within this cultural framework there are many variations of actual relationships. It is not unusual for mothers to hate or envy their children openly, disobey them, and constantly contradict them. Three sons of one mother may have different orientations toward her, and despite her best efforts to be impartial, she may find herself constantly favoring one over the others. The feelings that are supposed to arise often do arise, but in many cases, no matter how hard people try, they cannot feel as expected. Outwardly they conform to group norms, but internally everyone knows that the appearance maintained is only a façade.

So, people participating in a coordinated action simultaneously interact in the language of two sign systems. As performers of conventional roles, they use conventional symbols, which are the object of social control. At the same time, however, the particular personal orientation of each actor is manifested in the style of his performance, as well as in what he does when the situation is not sufficiently defined and he has some freedom of choice. The manifestation of personality traits, in turn, causes responses, often unconscious. If a person feels that his partners are contributing in some way that is not entirely sincere and sincere, he may become offended, or disappointed, or even begin to despise them - depending on the characteristics of his character.

Our interests concentrate on more or less long-term connections that are established between individuals. Whatever the association, people enter into highly personalized relationships that impose on them special rights and responsibilities regardless of conventional roles. When a person loves someone, he becomes close to his beloved, overlooks his shortcomings and rushes to help when necessary. But he does not feel obligated to do the same towards someone he does not love. On the contrary, he will feel even better if he turns aside to cause him trouble. To the extent that such tendencies are established, the system of interpersonal relationships can be seen as another means of social control. The challenge facing social psychologists is to construct an adequate conceptual framework for studying these phenomena.

Feelings as behavioral systems

The basic analytical unit for the study of interpersonal relationships is feeling. In everyday life, we talk about love, hate, envy, pride or resentment as “feelings” that arise from time to time in someone’s “heart.”

As Adam Smith noted long ago, feelings differ from other meanings in that they are based on empathy. There is a sympathetic identification with the other person: she is recognized as a human being, a creature capable of making choices, experiencing suffering, enjoying joy, having hopes and dreams, in general, reacting in much the same way as one himself might react in similar circumstances. As Buber pointed out, recognizing another person as “You” rather than “It” presupposes thinking of him as a being endowed with qualities much like my own. So, feelings are based on the attribution of properties that a person finds in himself. The person is outraged by the actions of his superior. If he attributes sadistic tendencies. But he sympathizes with similar actions of another person if he believes that he could not have acted differently. Therefore, feelings are based on the ability to assume the role of a particular person, identify with him and define the situation from his particular point of view. Because people vary greatly in their ability to empathize, there are individual differences in the ability to experience feelings.

When empathy is absent, even human beings are seen as physical objects. Many social interactions that take place in a big city are devoid of sentiment. A bus driver, for example, is often treated as if he were just an appendage of the steering wheel. Even in sexual relationships - one of the most personal forms of interaction between individuals - it is possible to perceive another person as “You” or as “It”. Researchers note that prostitutes usually perceive visitors as inanimate objects, only as a source of livelihood. In contrast to such relationships, many of these women have lovers. Psychologically, there are completely different types of interaction, and only the second brings satisfaction. What is essential here is that certain qualities are projected onto the object in order to establish some kind of sympathetic identification. It follows that some conventional roles - such as executioner or soldier in battle - can be performed more effectively if feelings are absent.

These feelings vary significantly in intensity. The latter depends, at least in part, on how contradictory the orientations of one person are in relation to another. For example, falling in love reaches its highest intensity in situations where there is a conflict between erotic impulses and the need to restrain oneself out of respect for the object of love. It is likely that hatred reaches its greatest intensity when there is some ambivalence. This is confirmed by the fact that a person is much more suspicious of a traitor than of an enemy. Like other meanings, feelings, once they have arisen, tend to stabilize. The stability of such orientations is revealed especially in the event of the death of a close being. With his mind, a person accepts the fact of this death, but for some time he can replace the missing communication with interaction with personification. Relatively stable personifications are constantly reinforced due to selectivity of perception. Every person willingly justifies those he loves: having noticed an unseemly act of a friend, he concludes that either it seemed to him, or there were some extenuating circumstances for it. But the same person is not at all so generous towards people whom he does not love: he approaches them, having prepared for the worst. Even a completely innocent remark on their part can be interpreted as a hostile attack. Therefore, most people manage to make the same assessment of each of their acquaintances, almost regardless of what they actually do. Of course, if a person constantly acts contrary to expectations, people will sooner or later revise their assessments. But there are significant individual differences in the ability to change attitudes towards people. Some are so inflexible that they are unable to notice signals that strongly contradict their hypotheses. Despite repeated failures, they continue to act as before - until a disaster forces them to carry out a “painful re-evaluation” of the relationship.

Since the study of feelings is only now entering the mainstream, it is not surprising that only a few techniques have been developed for observing them. Data about how people relate to each other is collected through intensive interviews, through observation in pre-arranged situations, and through a variety of tests.

Structure of typical feelings

Each feeling is a meaning that develops in a successive series of adaptations to the demands of life with a particular individual. Since both the subject and the object are unique, no two feelings can be completely identical; and yet we easily recognize typical feelings. Typical feelings are part of repeated interpersonal relationships, and they can be seen as ways of playing common interpersonal roles. At some time, each person finds himself in the power of another or, conversely, has another in his power. Often he finds himself forced to compete with someone. In such situations, typical interests are formed, typical re-identifications are constructed, and typical assessments of other people arise. This means that many feelings are similar enough that some generalizations can be formulated.

Systematic study of feelings is complicated by value judgments. In the United States, where romantic attraction is seen as a necessary basis for marriage, there is a widespread belief that there can only be one true love in any individual's life. When various metabolic transformations occur upon meeting an attractive person of the opposite sex, many young people spend agonizing hours wondering if this mystical experience has truly arrived. Love is given a very high value: there is a tendency to associate it with God, fatherland or some noble ideals. Similarly, hatred and violence are almost universally condemned. All this makes it difficult to impartially study various feelings. Often the actual situation is mixed with conventional norms. People tend to overlook or deny tendencies they disapprove of.

When embarking on a more objective study, one should begin by considering how people evaluate each other, and refuse to evaluate feelings as such. To describe the several feelings that feature prominently in popular psychiatric theories, it seems best to begin with a limited number of the most obvious types of orientation.

All kinds of unifying, conjunctive feelings usually arise when people pursue common interests, and the achievement of collective goals brings everyone some kind of satisfaction. The participants in such situations are mutually dependent, because the consummation of the impulses of one depends on the contributions made by others.

In such circumstances, the other party is seen as the desired object. Each constant source of satisfaction acquires high value. Lovers and companions are cherished, cared for, rewarded, protected, and in some cases even promoted to the maximum development of his abilities. Such feelings range in intensity from weak preference to deep devotion - as in a lover who is completely absorbed in another person, in a mother who gives her life to her only child, or in a believer who forgets himself for the sake of pious love for God.

The Western intellectual tradition has long distinguished between two types of love. The Greeks called love for another because of his usefulness Eros, and love for the sake of the person himself - Aqape. Based on this distinction, in the Middle Ages theologians contrasted human love—which was usually seen as having an erotic basis—with divine love. Emphasis was placed on the distinction between an orientation in which the love object is an instrument and an orientation in which it is an end in itself. The lover may be interested primarily in his own satisfaction or in the satisfaction of the object. This distinction has recently been revived by psychiatry to avoid calling two different feelings by the same word.

Possessive love is based on an intuitive or conscious understanding of the fact that one's own satisfaction depends on cooperation with another person. This other is personified as an object, valuable due to its usefulness. They babysit him because it is in their own interests to take care of his well-being. This type of feeling is characterized by a specific pattern of behavior. A person is usually happy if he is with the object of his love, and sad when he is absent. If the object is attacked in any way, the person shows rage towards the attacker; it protects the subject from danger, although the extent to which he will risk himself is not unlimited. If the object attracts others, the person experiences jealousy. However, since the interest is focused on its own satisfaction, it may not even notice the disappointment and pain in the object.

Selfless love, on the contrary, assumes that the personification acquires the highest value without relation to the lover, as in the case usually called maternal love. The main interest here is centered on the well-being of the love object. Accordingly, the pattern of behavior differs: joy at the sight of some kind of satisfaction on the part of the object of love and grief when he is offended or sick. And if someone harms or humiliates the object of love, rage arises against the aggressor. At the sight of danger, a person experiences fear and can take the blow on himself. To save him, he may even sacrifice himself. Therefore, as Shand distinguishes, the differences between possessive and selfless love are that the latter is self-centered; joy, grief, fear or anger arise depending on the circumstances in which it is not so much the lover himself, but the object of “love”. Both types of feelings are called “love,” because a high value is assigned to the object, but in the second case the lover is more interested in the object than in himself. The general tendency is to seek identification with the object, and some psychiatrists believe that the goal in this type of relationship is complete fusion with the object.

Hatred is a feeling that is known, apparently, to everyone. A person becomes sad when the object of hatred is healthy and prosperous, he experiences rage and disgust in his presence, he rejoices when he fails, and he experiences anxiety when he succeeds. Because these impulses are usually judged, they are often suppressed. But they are revealed in expressive movements - in a quickly flashing smile when the hated person stumbles, a grimace of disgust when he succeeds, or an indifferent shrug of the shoulders when he is in danger. It is sometimes said that a person cannot hate those whom he knows closely. In reality this is not the case. If social distance is reduced, there is much more opportunity for hatred to develop. Indeed, perhaps the most intense form of hatred is vindictiveness, which develops when a person turns his anger against someone he previously loved and trusted.

Not all people who submit to domination believe that this arrangement is fair. Some obey only because they have no other choice. For such people, the dominant side becomes a frustrating object and causes feelings such as resentment or resentment. The pattern of indignation is rarely expressed openly, but the offended person personifies the other as a person who really does not deserve respect. He willingly notes all his mistakes and mistakes, and if he feels that he can get away with it, he moves on to open disobedience. Once formed, such feelings can persist even after the unpleasant relationship ends. As adults, children who resented parental authority sometimes become hostile to authority figures of any kind.

The attitude towards various feelings established in everyday life can be easily understood. Conjunctive feelings are favorable for the optimal development of participants and facilitate the execution of various joint endeavors. The general approval of these sentiments is not unexpected. On the contrary, the development of disjunctive feelings almost always proves to be a hindrance in the life of the group, and their common condemnation is equally understandable.

Personality differences in feelings

Individuals vary greatly in the extent to which they are able to perform interpersonal roles, and each has developed a characteristic way of being included in the network of interpersonal relationships. Some people love people, find pleasure in communicating with them and quite sincerely enter into a joint venture. Others contribute their share with caution: they make efforts only when their partners also fulfill their responsibilities. Still others perform their duty only if someone is watching them or when it is clear that this contributes to their direct benefit. They believe that only dull and stupid people can work enthusiastically for someone else. Finally, there are those who are not able to cope with any responsibilities at all.

Conflicts of one kind or another are inevitable in the life of any person, and everyone develops a characteristic way of dealing with the enemy. Some are frank; they state their demands directly and, if necessary, engage in physical combat. Others avoid a breakup at all costs by focusing on behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

Since feelings are what one individual means to another, each of them is by definition individual. But the feelings of a given person towards several different persons may have much in common, giving his attitude towards people in general a certain style. In fact, some seem to be incapable of experiencing certain feelings. For example, because friendship requires trust without any guarantees and the person remains open to possible exploitation, some choose not to enter into such a relationship at all. Others are unable to participate in disjunctive relationships. If they are attacked, they “turn the other cheek” and wait patiently until their tormentors come to their senses.

Moreover, there are people who are unable to understand certain feelings on the part of others. Even when they observe corresponding actions, they cannot believe that others are really so oriented.

Feelings are orientations based on personifications that are constructed primarily through the attribution of motives. To attribute a motive is to make an inference about another person's inner experiences. We can only assume that others are similar enough to ourselves and try to understand their behavior by projecting our own experiences onto them. But a person cannot project experiences that he has never experienced. If he has never experienced a sense of personal security, can he really understand the trusting actions of another? Rather, he will look for some hidden motives. On the contrary, for those who are sure that all people are basically “good”, it is very difficult to understand the actions of a person who is at war with the whole world. This shows that the type of interpersonal relationships in which a given individual can be involved is determined by his personality.

Individual differences in the ability to perform interpersonal roles are also based on differences in empathy - the ability to sympathetically identify with other people. It is common for some people to maintain social distance; they always seem cold and rational. Others perceive others very directly, reacting spontaneously to their difficulties and joys. An attempt to construct a scale to measure empathy was made by Diamond.

There is much speculation regarding the basis of friendship; There have been some studies on clique formation, but the findings so far are not conclusive. It has been shown, for example, that the development of common interests, especially those that go beyond the necessary interaction, facilitates the establishment of friendly ties. But another different hypothesis can be proposed: the formation of any private network of interpersonal relationships, as well as its stability, depend on the extent to which the individuals included in it in some respect complement each other. Two aggressive and power-hungry people are unlikely to experience mutual affection: each needs his own group of dependent followers. Sometimes such people find themselves bound by conventional norms—when they establish a modus vivendi but continue to compete with each other. The relationship is disjunctive, and this limits opportunities from the very beginning. When the indulgent person becomes the object of hero-worship on the part of those who are obedient and dependent, a very satisfactory relationship is established. Sometimes people make the most incredible combinations and desperately cling to one another. A sensitive, but not very insightful person can devote himself entirely to an object of love who is not very responsive - as in the case of the attachment of a parent to a child, an owner to a dog, or an employee of a psychiatric hospital to a catatonic patient.

Some feelings, like the imaginary chivalrous love for movie stars, are one-sided. Their structure develops into an organization where the dreamer can control all the conditions of action. A person creates such objects of love, combining together all the desired qualities, including reciprocity. These idealized personifications sometimes become the object of the strongest unegoistic affection. The feelings organized in this way can subsequently be transferred to real human beings - often to their horror, for real people cannot live up to the expectations caused by a disordered imagination. This inevitably leads to disappointment. Some people seem to spend their whole lives searching for the ideal marriage partner who matches the personifications created in their dreams.

Observations of this kind led Winch to create a theory of mate choice from the point of view of “complementary needs.” He believed that although the area of ​​​​choosing a partner for marriage is limited by conventional barriers and usually the partners belong to the same culture, within this area each person strives for those whose personality traits facilitate the consummation of the impulses inherent in him as a unique individual. Winch was, of course, only interested in societies in which young people choose their own spouses. In a preliminary study of 25 married couples, he found significant support for his theory. Indeed, he managed to identify four frequently repeated combinations:

A) families that resemble the conventional mother-son relationship, where a strong and capable woman takes care of a husband who needs someone to lean on;

B) families where a strong, capable husband takes care of a passive and compliant wife, much like a little doll who needs to be nursed;

C) families resembling the conventional master-maid relationship, in which an indulgent husband is served by a capable wife;

D) families in which an active woman dominates an intimidated and disappointed husband.

The degree of correlation revealed by statistical analysis is sufficient, although not high; This is not surprising, since many other considerations are taken into account when choosing a spouse. It is possible that the results would have been more satisfactory if Winch had focused on marriages that survive, as opposed to those that fail.

So, feelings that create some kind of private networks of interpersonal relationships can be one-sided, two-sided or mutual. In most cases, the feelings are two-way; each side approaches the other slightly differently. For example, in a family, a mother may be altruistically oriented towards her husband and children; on the contrary, her husband has possessive feelings towards his daughters and does not love his son, treating him as a rival, competing with him for his wife’s attention. One of their daughters may love her sister, who, however, will treat her with contempt. A boy may approach his sisters as useful tools for achieving his goals, relate to his mother with deep feelings, and look to his father as a hero who can be harsh and unpleasant at times. This is not such an unusual picture. The duration of such connections seems to depend on the mechanisms that provide some kind of mutual satisfaction for those involved in a given network of relationships.

Conclusion

Essentially, all common approaches to social psychology explain human behavior almost exclusively in terms of the biological properties of people as they are molded into the cultural matrix. A child is born into an organized society and, interacting with others, learns various models of appropriate behavior. What a person does is often seen as a response to needs, some of which are inherited organically and others acquired through participation in a group. But serious questions may arise as to whether such conceptual schemes are adequate. By entering into stable associations, people often find themselves involved in networks of interpersonal relationships that impose on them special responsibilities in relation to each other. Feelings are systems of behavior that are not biologically inherited or learned. They take shape and crystallize through the adaptations made to each other by individual human beings.

Each feeling is unique, because it is a unique relationship of one human individual to another. But among people in a stable association, the same problems inevitably arise. As a person learns to interact with others, typical personifications develop, and specific meanings - love, hate, hero-worship, jealousy - become sufficiently defined to make it possible to consider typical feelings. Each participant in a joint action is liked by some of those around him and disliked by others. An attempt has been made to describe some conjunctive and disjunctive feelings. This pattern of attractions and aversions forms a network of personal responsibilities that largely determines the behavior of the individuals involved. The sustainability of any such network of interpersonal relationships depends on a continuous flow of satisfaction for the majority of participants.

Since people involved in the study of intimate relationships have different intellectual backgrounds, it is not surprising that much confusion reigns in this area. A vast literature is rapidly accumulating, but there is little agreement on anything other than that the subject in question is worthy of serious study. One of the main obstacles to the systematic study of feelings is the lack of an adequate category system. Moreover, common sense terminology, with its irrelevant and confusing associations and value judgments, makes this study even more difficult. Describing interpersonal relationships in terms such as “Love,” “Hate,” and “Jealousy” is much like a chemist saying “water,” “fire,” and “air” instead of “oxygen,” “hydrogen.” and the like. However, this area is so important for understanding human behavior that, despite all the difficulties, every effort should be made to study it. There is no shortage of observations or theories. However, so that the attempt does not turn out to be premature, one must try to organize the material obtained from different sources into a sufficiently coherent scheme. It may be that for some time the study of the senses will remain unprofessional and speculative, but even a timid beginning may shed some light on the complex problems which present such serious difficulties even to the construction of hypotheses.

In the process of interpersonal relationships, people do not just communicate, they do not just act together or next to each other, they influence each other and form a certain style of relationship. Trying to imitate the good, avoid the bad, comparing himself with others, a person “builds himself and his relationships with the world around him.”

Bibliography

1. Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication. – M., 1983.

2. Shibutani T. Social psychology. Per. from English V.B. Olshansky. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1998. - P. 273-279.

3. Jerome S. Bruner and Renato Taqiuri, The Perception of People, b Lindzey, op. cit., Vol. II.

5. C.H. Rolph, ed., Women of the Streets, London, 1955.

6. French, op cit.; Leary, op. cit; Osquood et al., op cit.

7. Huqo G. Beiqel, Romantie Love, American Socioqical Review, XVI (1958).

8. Karen Horney, On Feelind Abused, American Journal of Psychoanalysis XI (1951).

9. Henry H. Brewster, Grief: A. Disrupted Human Relationship, Human Orqanization, IX (1950).

10. Nelson Foote, Love, "Psyehiatry", XIV (1953).

12. Henry V. Dicks, Clinical Studies in Marriage and the Famili, British Journal of Medical Psychology, XXVI (1953).

13. Rosalind F. Dymand, A. Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Ability, Joumalof Consultinq Psycholoqy, XIII (1949).

14. Howard Rowland, Friendship Patterns in the State Mental Hospital, Psychiatry, II (1939).

15. Robert F. Winch, Mate-Selection: A Study of Complementary Needs, New York, 1958.

Cheat sheet on social psychology Cheldyshova Nadezhda Borisovna

36. Psychology of interpersonal relationships

Interpersonal relationships – This is a set of connections that develop between people in the form of feelings, judgments and appeals to each other.

Interpersonal relationships include:

1) people’s perception and understanding of each other;

2) interpersonal attractiveness (attraction and sympathy);

3) interaction and behavior (in particular, role-playing).

Components of interpersonal relationships:

1) cognitive component – includes all cognitive mental processes: sensations, perception, representation, memory, thinking, imagination. Thanks to this component, knowledge of the individual psychological characteristics of partners in joint activities and mutual understanding between people occurs. The characteristics of mutual understanding are:

a) adequacy - the accuracy of the mental reflection of the perceived personality;

b) identification – identification by an individual of his personality with the personality of another individual;

2) emotional component - includes positive or negative experiences that a person has during interpersonal communication with other people:

a) likes or dislikes;

b) satisfaction with oneself, partner, work, etc.;

c) empathy - an emotional response to the experiences of another person, which can manifest itself in the form of empathy (experience of the feelings that another experiences), sympathy (personal attitude towards the experiences of another) and complicity (empathy accompanied by assistance);

3) behavioral component– includes facial expressions, gestures, pantomimes, speech and actions that express the relationship of a given person to other people, to the group as a whole. He plays a leading role in regulating relationships.

The effectiveness of interpersonal relationships is assessed by the state of satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the group and its members.

Types of interpersonal relationships:

1) industrial relations – develop between employees of organizations when solving production, educational, economic, everyday and other problems and imply fixed rules of behavior of employees in relation to each other. Divided into relationships:

a) vertically – between managers and subordinates;

b) horizontally – relations between employees who have the same status;

c) diagonally - the relationship between the managers of one production unit and ordinary employees of another;

2) everyday relationships– develop outside of work, on vacation and at home;

3) formal (official) relations – normatively provided relationships enshrined in official documents;

4) informal (unofficial) relationships- relationships that actually develop in relationships between people and are manifested in preferences, likes or dislikes, mutual assessments, authority, etc.

The nature of interpersonal relationships is influenced by such personal characteristics as gender, nationality, age, temperament, health status, profession, experience of communicating with people, self-esteem, need for communication, etc.

Stages of development of interpersonal relationships:

1) stage of acquaintance - the first stage - the emergence of mutual contact, mutual perception and evaluation of each other by people, which largely determines the nature of the relationship between them;

2) the stage of friendly relations - the emergence of interpersonal relationships, the formation of the internal attitude of people towards each other on the rational (awareness by interacting people of each other’s advantages and disadvantages) and emotional levels (the emergence of corresponding experiences, emotional response, etc.);

3) companionship - bringing together views and providing support to each other, characterized by trust.