Social relationship

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Relationship network family. Father and children are related to each other

In sociology, a social relationship (also interpersonal relationship ) is a relationship between two people or groups in which their thoughts, actions or feelings are mutually related. Social relationships are an elementary prerequisite for people to live successfully in society .

Social relationships can have positive or negative qualities, or contain both positive and negative qualities at the same time. While previous research viewed social relationships as either positive and supportive or negative and non-supportive, recent research assumes that positive and negative qualities can coexist independently within a relationship. Relationships that have positive effects are also seen as resources of the individual.

The social psychology deals with two seeds social relationships such as friendship and romantic relationships , the parent-child relationship , but also the relationships between the individual and the group.

Concept development with Max Weber and Leopold von Wiese

The term “social relationship” goes back to Max Weber . This defines:

Social relationship should mean a mutually adjusted and thus oriented self-behavior of several people according to its meaning. The social relationship therefore exists entirely and entirely exclusively: in the chance that social action will take place in a (meaningfully) specifiable manner , regardless of what this chance is based on. (In: Economy and Society , Chapter 1, § 3).

From this definition it follows that a relationship is only ended when there is no longer any chance that action will be taken in its favor. From a sociological point of view, a marriage is therefore valid until there is not even the slightest chance that action will be taken in its favor. A social relationship always consists of two or more people.

A social relationship is a chain of interaction . There are different types of social relationships. This includes, for example, acquaintances, couple relationships, friendships or relatives. Acquaintance is a weak form of social relationship. It exists when (at least) two people can identify and recognize each other. The couple relationship, on the other hand, stands out for its exclusivity: it is socially closed and has obligations.

During the Weimar Republic, Leopold von Wiese developed his own " sociology of relationships ", which was quite influential at the time , but which is hardly used today [2007].

In the 1950s Paul Watzlawick developed his systemic thinking. One of his famous 'five axioms' is about ' content and relationship '.

Watzlawick outlined his systemic thinking in an interview as follows:

“The systemic approach is based on the situation in the here and now. That means in the way in which people communicate with each other and then get into trouble while communicating. So we try to understand how the human reference system works, in which the so-called patient is part of it and contributes ... Our question is: What for? What is the function of the so-called symptom? It goes so far for me that when I do marriage therapy, for example, the patient is no longer the man or the woman, but the relationship between these two people. This is my patient. I want to work on the relationship. "

Relationship types

Four types of relationship can be distinguished depending on the extent of positive and negative aspects. A supportive social relationship exists when there are strong positive facets and few to no negative aspects, e.g. B. a helpful friend. Social support and pleasant interpersonal experiences play an important role in this type of relationship. In contrast, an aversive relationship is primarily experienced as negative, e.g. B. a superior perceived as unjust. There is little to no positive relationship quality. Indifferent social relationships have little (or no) positive as well as hardly any negative qualities, e.g. B. a work colleague. This type of relationship is characterized by a low contact density and depth and is experienced as indifferent. An ambivalent relationship is when there are both positive and negative qualities to a high degree, e.g. B. a fun but competitive friend. They are experienced with “mixed feelings”. In everyday life, one encounters this type of relationship as often and with a similarly high contact density as supportive relationships.

Norms, conventions and rules of the game

For certain types of relationship, rules and norms have been established in all the peoples of the earth, which serve different purposes. This also includes, for example, the economic security of those involved. A common form is marriage . In most countries marriage is under the special protection of the state . In Germany, the principle of equality (Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law), which was implemented in the marriage law of the German Civil Code (BGB) , applies in accordance with the constitution . However, this form of firm bond is also criticized and even rejected by some people. This is partly due to the enforceable norm of the "cohabitation" in German marriage law since 1900 , as formulated in § 1353 BGB. There it says: “The spouses are obliged to have a marital partnership with each other.” This refers to the domestic, spiritual and physical community (so-called “marriage law triad”).

Ambivalent relationships

In health psychology, ambivalent (ambiguous) relationships deserve special attention. On the one hand, they are represented in all social contexts (e.g. spouse, family, friends, work colleagues) with a high contact density. At the same time, however, this type of relationship has the most damaging health consequences. Here, consequences on both a physiological and psychological stress level could be shown; z. For example, findings suggest that a greater number of ambivalent relationships within a social network are associated with a higher cardiovascular stress response and a higher level of depression. The number of ambivalent relationships as an explanatory variable predicts a higher stress level on a psychological level than purely negative relationships. It could also be shown that not only the negative quality of a relationship is harmful, but rather a synergetic effect of the positive and negative aspects is jointly responsible for the physiological experience of stress. Despite the negative effects of ambivalent relationships on our health, they are often maintained. The reasons for this are various barriers to ending a relationship.

Barriers to breaking relationships

Researchers assume that social relationships are sustained due to various barriers, even if they are perceived as predominantly negative. A distinction can be made between internal and external barriers. Both can exist at the same time, which can make ending relationships even more difficult. External barriers are factors that lie outside the person and through which people feel compelled to maintain the existing social relationship. For this purpose z. B. belonging to social groups such as family, sports clubs or church clubs, but also financial stress or dependency, z. B. shared home, shared credit, shared responsibility for children. Furthermore, physical proximity can represent an external barrier, e.g. B. with work colleagues, neighbors or members of the community. Internal barriers are factors that lie within a person and help maintain the relationship. These include religious beliefs such as B. Forgiveness and a person's self-image (e.g. when someone sees himself as a person with many friends). An inner sense of obligation, like a strong urge to finish what you started, can also be an internal barrier. However, different forms of coping enable us to maintain ambivalent (and negative) relationships in a tolerable manner.

Coping forms

If a relationship with negative elements is maintained, various forms of coping or relationship work can provide relief within the relationship. A central strategy here is distancing yourself . Distancing occurs when an individual, as a result of perceived negativity, tries to reduce intimacy and bring about greater distance within the relationship. This process can take place consciously or unconsciously.

The Distance Regulation Model by Hess (2002) differentiates between two types of distancing, which can be used separately or at the same time. On the one hand, people can distance themselves from social relationships through physical distancing, e.g. B. by avoiding the person concerned or by deliberately keeping interactions short. On the other hand, they can distance themselves emotionally from them, for example by signaling distance, avoiding engagement or even showing hostility. The likelihood of such distancing strategies being employed may be related to the source, frequency, and intensity of negativity in the relationship.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. Ruehlman, LS & Karoly, P. (1991). With a little flak from my friends: Development and preliminary validation of the Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE). Psychological Assesment, 3 (1), 97-104.
  2. a b Uchino, BN, Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, TW & Bloor, L. (2004). Heterogeneity in social networks: A comparison of different models linking relationships to psychological outcomes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23 (2), 123-139.
  3. a b c d e Bushman, B.-B. & Holt-Lunstad, J. (2009). Understanding social relationship maintenance among friends: Why we don't end those frustrating friendships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28 (6), 749-778.
  4. Quoted from the journal Kommunikation und Seminar , Junfermann, Paderborn, June 2007 issue, p. 55. The emphasis in bold is not in the original
  5. a b Uchino, BN, Holt-Lunstad, J., Uno, D. & Flinders, JB (2001). Heterogeneity in the social networks of young and older adults: Prediction of mental health and cardiovascular reactivity during stress. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24 (4), 361-382.
  6. Holt-Lunstad, J., Uchino, B., Smith, TW & Hicks, A. (2007). On the importance of relationship quality: The impact of ambivalence in friendships on cardiovascular functioning. Annals of behavioral medicine, 33 (3), 278-290.
  7. Holt-Lunstad, J., Uchino, B., Smith, TW, Olson-Cerny, C. & Nealy Moore, JB (2003). Social relationships and ambulatory blood pressure: Structural and qualitative predictors of cardiovascular function during everyday social interactions. Health Psychology, 22 (4), 388-397.
  8. a b c d e f Hess, JA (2000). Maintaining nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: An investigation into the use of distancing behaviors. Human Communication Research, 26 (3), 458-488.
  9. Fehr, B. (1999). Stability and commitment in friendships. In JM Adams & WH Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability , (pp. 259-280). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  10. ^ Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues, 32 (1), 21-47.
  11. a b c d e Hess, JA (2002). Distance regulation in personal relationships: The development of a conceptual model and a test of representational validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19 (5), 663-683.
  12. a b c d e f g h Hess, JA (2003). Measuring distance in personal relationships: The relationship distance index. Personal Relationships, 10 (2), 197-215.
  13. a b c d Hess, JA (2003). Maintaining undesired relationships. In DJ Canary & M. Dainton (eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. ^ Vangelisti, AL (2006). Hurtful interactions and the dissolution of intimacy. In MA Fine & JH Harvey (eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 133-152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.