Interpersonal relationship

About: Interpersonal relationship is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 22392 publications have been published within this topic receiving 937957 citations. The topic is also known as: interpersonal status & relationship.

The best of ties, the worst of ties: Close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships

Abstract: This study builds on research addressing intergenerational ambivalence by considering emotional ambivalence toward the wider social network. Men and women ages 13 to 99 (N - 187) completed diagrams of their close and problematic social relationships. Social ties were classified as solely close, solely problematic, or ambivalent, based on network placement (n = 3,392 social contacts). Multilevel models revealed that individuals viewed certain close familial ties (e.g., spouse, son or daughter, parent, sibling) with greater ambivalence than they viewed more distal family ties, friendships, or acquaintances. Participants classified more acquaintances than other relationships as solely problematic. Feeling closer to a social partner was associated with increased ambivalence. Older adults were more likely to classify their relationships as solely close than as ambivalent, in comparison with younger adults. Discussion focuses on tension and closeness in familial and nonfamilial relationships. Key Words: ambivalence, emotion, intergenerational relationships, kin, social network, spouse. Positive consequences of close family ties and negative consequences of problematic family ties have been well documented (e.g., Antonucci, 2001; Fingerman, 2001a; Rook, 1984). Mixed sentiments (i.e., positive and negative feelings) toward social partners may present unique challenges to individuals, however (e.g., Fingerman & Hay, 2004; Rook; Uchino, Holt-Lunstad, Uno, & Flinders, 2001). For example, loving family members who become overly involved with an individual's stressful life events may exacerbate those stressors (Fingerman & Hermann, 2000; Morgan, 1989; Rook, 2003). A burgeoning literature has brought intergenerational ambivalence to the fore of family science (e.g., Connidis & McMullin, 2002b; Luscher, 2002; Luscher & Pillemer, 1998; Pillemer & Suitor, 2002; Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003). Yet, studies have not addressed ambivalence in the broader social network. In this study, we consider the types of social partners whom individuals experience as primarily close, primarily problematic, or with mixed sentiments. Definition and Measurement of Ambivalence In examining ambivalence, it is important to consider variability in definitions and measurement across studies. Luscher and Pillemer (1998) distinguished between sociological ambivalence and psychological ambivalence with regard to intergenerational ties. Sociological ambivalence involves incompatible normative expectations (e.g., with regard to status, roles, or norms) that present structural challenges in social relationships. Much discussion in the family literature has focused on this form of ambivalence (e.g., Connidis & McMullin, 2002b; Luscher, 2002; Pillemer & Suitor, 2002). Psychological ambivalence occurs at the subjective individual level and has to do with contradictions in cognitions, emotions, and motivations such as holding contradictory opinions or feelings toward the same object (Hodson, Maio, & Esses, 2001; Petty & Wegener, 1998; Priester & Petty, 2001; Weigert, 1991). In this study, we examined psychological ambivalence by assessing the types of relationships that people define as primarily close, primarily problematic, or mixed. Prior studies have shown that perceptions of closeness in a relationship are associated with positive sentiments such as feeling loved and cared for (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Newsom, Morgan, Nishishiba, Rook, 2003; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Relationship tensions vary in definition but appear to be associated with negative feelings such as irritation and annoyance (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Hingerman, 2001a). Theorists argue that all close tics include at least some degree of conflict (Deutsch, 1973; Sillars & Scott, 1983). Yet, these conflicts may be fleeting and may not taint the relationship on the whole. In this study, we examined overarching sentiments about relationships as close and problematic-or some combination of both sentiments-rather than brief emotional experiences. …

The Social Psychology of Gender: How Power and Intimacy Shape Gender Relations

Abstract: 1. Understanding Gender. 2. Dominance and Interdependence. 3. Development of Gender Relations. 4. Content and Origins of Gender Stereotypes. 5. Descriptive and Prescriptive Stereotyping. 6. Self-Sustaining Prophecies. 7. Obstacles to Gender Nonconformity. 8. Sexism in the Workplace. 9. Love and Romance. 10. Sex. 11. Gender and Violence. 12. Progress, Pitfalls, and Remedies.

Psychological need‐satisfaction and subjective well‐being within social groups

Abstract: Five candidate measures of psychological need-satisfaction were evaluated as predictors of high positive and low negative mood within the group, intrinsic motivation for group activities, and high commitment to the group. Consistent with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991), personal autonomy and interpersonal relatedness both predicted positive outcomes. Consistent with optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), feeling included within the group, feeling personally distinctive within the group, and feeling that the group is distinctive compared to other groups, also predicted positive outcomes. Simultaneous regression analyses indicated that the five needs were differentially related to the different well-being indicators, and also suggested that group inclusion may be the most important need to satisfy within group contexts. Supplementary analyses showed that members of formal groups felt less personal autonomy, but more group distinctiveness, compared to informal group members.

Risk and Promotive Factors in Families, Schools, and Communities: A Contextual Model of Positive Youth Development in Adolescence

Abstract: OBJECTIVE. Emerging evidence about optimal youth development highlights the importance of both reducing negative behavior and promoting positive behavior. In our study we tested a contextual model derived from positive youth-development theory by examining the association of family, school, and community risk and promotive factors, with several outcome indices of both positive and negative adolescent development. METHODS. A sample of 42305 adolescents aged 11 to 17 (51% girls) was drawn from the 2003 National Survey of Children9s Health. Survey item composites were formed representing promotive and risk factors in the family (eg, closeness, aggression) and school and community (eg, community connectedness, school violence). Outcome composites reflected positive (social competence, health-promoting behavior, self-esteem) and negative (externalizing, internalizing, academic problems) developmental outcomes. Ordinary least squares regression was used to test the overall model. RESULTS. Between 0.10 and 0.50 of the variance in each outcome was explained by the contextual model. Multiple positive family characteristics were related to adolescent social competence and self-esteem, as well as lowered levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior and academic problems. Family communication, rules about television, and parents9 own healthy behavior were related to adolescent health-promoting behavior. School and community safety were associated with increased social competence and decreased externalizing behavior. School violence was related to adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior, as well as academic problems and lower self-esteem. CONCLUSIONS. Our results support the proposition that healthy adolescent development has roots in multiple contexts. Youth who were involved in contexts that provided positive resources from important others (ie, parents, schools, and communities) not only were less likely to exhibit negative outcomes, but also were more likely to show evidence of positive development. These findings provide important implications for intervention and prevention efforts and, more generally, for the promotion of positive, competent, and healthy youth development.

Continuity and change: assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood.

Abstract: How is personality stability possible amid the myriad of social changes and transformations that characterize a human life? We argue that by choosing situations that are compatible with their dispositions and by affiliating with similar others, individuals may set in motion processes of social interchange that sustain their dispositions across time and circumstance. To test this proposition we examined mate selection, using data on married couples from two ongoing longitudinal studies at the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. Consistent with other research, the results point to homogamy as a basic norm in marriage. More important, the results show that marriage to a similar other promotes consistency in the intraindividual organization of personality attributes across middle adulthood. We offer some speculations for a more relational approach to the problem of individual continuity and change. Throughout our lives we interact with new people, enter new relationships, and move to new environmental settings that can be expected to change our personality. But change is not imminent. Longitudinal explorations have repeatedly confirmed that individual differences in personality characteristics are stable across time and circumstance (e.g., Caspi, Bern, & Elder, 1989; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1980). How is stability possible amid the myriad of social changes and transformations that characterize a human life? Stability is possible in part because individuals create the environments in which they live. More often than not, they choose jobs and activities that are compatible with their own dispositions and select friends and mates who are similar to themselves. These social selections may, in turn, reinforce and sustain individuals' dispositions. In this article we shall demonstrate this important outcome. Specifically, individuals who are married to similar others are more likely to display consistency in the organization of their personality attributes throughout middle adulthood.