View source for Interpersonal relationship

{{Short description|Strong, deep, or close association or acquaintance between two or more people}}
{{Redirect|Companionship|the album|Companionship (album){{!}}''Companionship'' (album)|the anarchist use|Anarchist companionship}}
{{Redirect|Human relations|the journal|Human Relations{{!}}''Human Relations''|the theory|Human relations movement}}
{{Cleanup|reason=The article should be more coherent, and its content should be checked for relevance and quality.|date=June 2025}}
{{Close relationships}}
{{Love sidebar|types}}
{{Psychology sidebar|basic}}

In [[social psychology]], an '''interpersonal relation''' (or '''interpersonal relationship''') describes a social association, [[social connection|connection]], or affiliation between two or more people. It overlaps significantly with the concept of [[social relations]], which are the fundamental unit of analysis within the [[social sciences]]. Relations vary in degrees of intimacy, self-disclosure, duration, reciprocity, and power distribution. The main themes or trends of the interpersonal relations are: [[family]], [[kinship]], [[friendship]], [[love]], [[marriage]], [[Commerce|business]], [[employment]], [[Club (organization)|club]]s, [[neighborhood]]s, [[value (ethics and social sciences)|ethical values]], support, and [[solidarity]]. Interpersonal relations may be regulated by [[law]], [[norm (sociology)|custom]], or mutual agreement, and form the basis of [[social group]]s and [[society|societies]]. They appear when people communicate or act with each other within specific [[social context]]s,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ye |first1=Jinhui |last2=Ye |first2=Xiaoting |title=Adolescents' interpersonal relationships, self-consistency, and congruence: Life meaning as a mediator |journal=Social Behavior and Personality |date=4 November 2020 |volume=48 |issue=11 |pages=1–11 |doi=10.2224/sbp.9428 |s2cid=226526839 |doi-access=free }}</ref> and they thrive on equitable and reciprocal [[compromise]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Molm |first1=Linda D. |last2=Schaefer |first2=David R. |last3=Collett |first3=Jessica L. |title=The Value of Reciprocity |journal=Social Psychology Quarterly |date=2007 |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=199–217 |doi=10.1177/019027250707000208 |jstor=20141780 |s2cid=146252068 }}</ref>

Interdisciplinary analysis of relationships draws heavily upon the other social sciences, including, but not limited to: [[anthropology]], [[communication]], [[cultural studies]], [[Kinship terminology|economics]], [[Kinship terminology|linguistics]], [[mathematical sociology|mathematics]], [[political science]], [[social work]], and [[sociology]]. This scientific analysis had evolved during the 1990s and has become "[[relationship science]]",<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berscheid |first1=Ellen |title=The greening of relationship science. |journal=American Psychologist |date=1999 |volume=54 |issue=4 |pages=260–266 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.54.4.260 |pmid=10217995 }}</ref> through the research done by [[Ellen S. Berscheid|Ellen Berscheid]] and [[Elaine Hatfield]]. This interdisciplinary science attempts to provide evidence-based conclusions through the use of [[data analysis]].

== Types ==
===Friendship===
[[Friendship]]s are non-sexual, non-romantic interpersonal relationships.<ref>{{cite book | first = Francine M. | last = Deutsch | name-list-style = vanc | chapter = Egalitarian Relationships | editor-first1 = Harry T. | editor-last1 = Reis | editor-first2 = Susan | editor-last2 = Sprecher | title =  Encyclopedia of Human Relationships | doi = 10.4135/9781412958479.n156 | year = 2009 | isbn = 978-1-4129-5846-2 }}</ref> [[Social relation]]s can be [[Homosociality|homosocial]] such as [[female bonding]] and [[male bonding]] or [[Heterosociality|heterosocial]] such as [[cross-sex friendship]]. In some countries a reduction of friendships is observed, also called [[friendship recession]] or [[loneliness epidemic]].

=== Intimate or sexual relationships ===
{{Main|Intimate relationship}}An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves emotional or physical closeness between people and may include sexual intimacy and feelings of [[Romance (love)|romance]] or love.<ref name="Wong">{{cite book |last1=Wong |first1=D. W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dnYcBgAAQBAJ |title=Counseling Individuals Through the Lifespan |last2=Hall |first2=K. R. |last3=Justice |first3=C.A. |last4=Wong |first4=L. |publisher=[[SAGE Publications]] |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-4833-2203-2 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dnYcBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA326 326] |quote=Intimacy: As an intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy. Physical intimacy is characterized by romantic or passionate attachment or sexual activity.}}</ref> Intimate relationships are [[Interdependence theory|interdependent]], and the members of the relationship mutually influence each other.<ref>{{Citation |last=Rusbult |first=Caryl E. |title=Interdependence in Close Relationships |date=2003 |work=Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes |pages=357–387 |editor-last=Fletcher |editor-first=Garth J. O. |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470998557.ch14 |access-date=2023-10-30 |edition=1 |publisher=Wiley |language=en |doi=10.1002/9780470998557.ch14 |isbn=978-0-631-21228-7 |editor2-last=Clark |editor2-first=Margaret S. |url-access=subscription}}</ref> The [[Relationship Quality|quality]] and nature of the relationship depends on the interactions between individuals, and is derived from the unique context and history that builds between people over time.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Finkel |first1=Eli J. |last2=Simpson |first2=Jeffry A. |last3=Eastwick |first3=Paul W. |date=2017-01-03 |title=The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038 |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |language=en |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=383–411 |doi=10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038 |issn=0066-4308 |pmid=27618945 |s2cid=207567096 |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Wiecha |first1=Jan |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_1240-1 |title=Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior |date=2023 |publisher=[[Springer, Cham]] |isbn=978-3-031-08956-5 |pages=1–11 |language=en |chapter=Intimacy |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_1240-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Jankowiak |first1=William |date=2015 |chapter=Intimacy |title=The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality |pages=583–625 |doi=10.1002/9781118896877.wbiehs242|isbn=978-1-4051-9006-0 }}</ref>

==== Romantic relationships ====
Romantic relationships have been defined in countless ways, by writers, philosophers, religions, scientists, and in the modern day, relationship counselors. Two popular definitions of love are Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love and Fisher's theory of love.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Acker|first1=Michele|last2=Davis|first2=Mark H. | name-list-style = vanc |title=Intimacy, Passion and Commitment in Adult Romantic Relationships: A Test of the Triangular Theory of Love |journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|volume=9|issue=1|pages=21–50|doi=10.1177/0265407592091002 |year=1992|s2cid=143485002}}</ref><ref name="Gibson_2015">{{cite journal |last1=Gibson |first1=Lacey S. |title=The Science of Romantic Love: Distinct Evolutionary, Neural, and Hormonal Characteristics |journal=International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities |date=20 January 2015 |volume=7 |issue= |page=1 |doi=10.7710/2168-0620.1036 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sternberg|first=Robert J. | name-list-style = vanc |title=A triangular theory of love. |journal=Psychological Review|volume=93|issue=2|pages=119–135|doi=10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.119|year=1986 }}</ref>{{Additional citation needed|date=April 2025|reason=Only a single study, based upon Helen Fisher's work, is linked as supporting evidence of her popularity}} Sternberg defines love in terms of intimacy, passion, and commitment, which he claims exist in varying levels in different romantic relationships. Fisher defines love as composed of three stages: attraction, romantic love, and attachment.

Romantic relationships can have great social and cultural variability,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rokach |first=Ami |date=2024-01-02 |title=Love Culturally: How Does Culture Affect Intimacy, Commitment & Love |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223980.2023.2244129 |journal=The Journal of Psychology |volume=158 |issue=1 |pages=84–114 |doi=10.1080/00223980.2023.2244129 |issn=0022-3980 |pmid=37647358|url-access=subscription }}</ref> and may for example exist [[Asexuality|without any sexual intimacy]], between [[Romantic orientation|people of any gender]], or among a group of people, as in [[polyamory]] or [[open relationship]]s.

==== Romance ====
{{Main|Romance (love)}}
While many individuals recognize the single defining quality of a romantic relationship as the presence of love, it is impossible for romantic relationships to survive without the component of interpersonal communication. Within romantic relationships, love is therefore equally difficult to define. Hazan and Shaver<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hazan |first1=Cindy |last2=Shaver |first2=Phillip |title=Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=1987 |volume=52 |issue=3 |pages=511–524 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 |pmid=3572722 |s2cid=2280613 }}</ref> define love, using Ainsworth's attachment theory, as comprising proximity, emotional support, self-exploration, and separation distress when parted from the loved one. Other components commonly associated with love are physical attraction, similarity,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Vangelisti |first1=Anita L. |chapter=Interpersonal Processes in Romantic Relationships |pages=597–631 |chapter-url=https://in.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/48309_CH_18.pdf |s2cid=15423545 |editor1-last=Knapp |editor1-first=Mark L. |editor2-last=Daly |editor2-first=John A. |title=The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication |date=2011 |publisher=SAGE Publications |isbn=978-1-4129-7474-5 }}</ref> reciprocity,<ref name="Gibson_2015" /> and self-disclosure.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kito M | title = Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and Japanese college students | journal = The Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 145 | issue = 2 | pages = 127–40 | date = April 2005 | pmid = 15816343 | doi = 10.3200/SOCP.145.2.127-140 | s2cid = 25117099 }}</ref>

==== Life stages ====
Early adolescent relationships are characterized by companionship, reciprocity, and sexual experiences. As emerging adults mature, they begin to develop attachment and caring qualities in their relationships, including love, bonding, security, and support for partners. Earlier relationships also tend to be shorter and exhibit greater involvement with social networks.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal | vauthors = Meier A, Allen G | title = Romantic Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health | journal = The Sociological Quarterly | volume = 50 | issue = 2 | pages = 308–335 | date = 2009 | pmid = 25332511 | pmc = 4201847 | doi = 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x }}</ref> Later relationships are often marked by shrinking social networks, as the couple dedicates more time to each other than to associates.<ref name="Merkle_2004">{{Cite journal|last1=Merkle|first1=Erich R.|last2=Richardson|first2=Rhonda A. | name-list-style = vanc |date= 2004 |title=Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: Conceptualizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships| jstor = 585815 |journal=Family Relations|volume=49|issue=2|pages=187–192|doi=10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00187.x }}</ref> Later relationships also tend to exhibit higher levels of commitment.<ref name=":1" />

Most psychologists and relationship counselors predict a decline of intimacy and passion over time, replaced by a greater emphasis on companionate love (differing from adolescent companionate love in the caring, committed, and partner-focused qualities). However, couple studies have found no decline in intimacy nor in the importance of sex, intimacy, and passionate love to those in longer or later-life relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Montgomery|first1=Marilyn J.|last2=Sorell|first2=Gwendolyn T. | name-list-style = vanc |date=1997|title=Differences in Love Attitudes across Family Life Stages| jstor = 585607 | journal=Family Relations|volume=46|issue=1|pages=55–61|doi=10.2307/585607}}</ref> Older people tend to be more satisfied in their relationships, but face greater barriers to entering new relationships than do younger or middle-aged people.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sassler S | title = Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate Selection | journal = Journal of Marriage and the Family | volume = 72 | issue = 3 | pages = 557–575 | date = June 2010 | pmid = 22822268 | pmc = 3399251 | doi = 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x }}</ref> Older women in particular face social, demographic, and personal barriers; men aged 65 and older are nearly twice as likely as women to be married, and widowers are nearly three times as likely to be dating 18 months following their partner's loss compared to widows.

==== Significant other ====
The term ''significant other'' gained popularity during the 1990s, reflecting the growing acceptance of 'non-heteronormative' relationships. It can be used to avoid making an assumption about the gender or relational status (e.g. married, cohabitating, civil union) of a person's intimate partner. Cohabiting relationships continue to rise, with many partners considering cohabitation to be nearly as serious as, or a substitute for, marriage.<ref name=":3" /> In particular, LGBTQ+ people often face unique challenges in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships. The strain of internalized discrimination, socially ingrained or [[homophobia]], [[transphobia]] and other forms of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and social pressure of presenting themselves in line with socially acceptable gender norms can affect their health, [[quality of life]], satisfaction, emotions etc. inside and outside their relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mohr|first1=Jonathan J.|last2=Daly|first2=Christopher A. | name-list-style = vanc |title=Sexual minority stress and changes in relationship quality in same-sex couples |journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|volume=25|issue=6|pages=989–1007|doi=10.1177/0265407508100311|year=2008|s2cid=145225150}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Li|first1=Tina|last2=Dobinson|first2=Cheryl|last3=Scheim|first3=Ayden|last4=Ross|first4=Lori | name-list-style = vanc |title=Unique Issues Bisexual People Face in Intimate Relationships: A Descriptive Exploration of Lived Experience |journal=Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health|volume=17|pages=21–39|doi=10.1080/19359705.2012.723607|year=2013|s2cid=145715751}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Iantaffi A, Bockting WO | title = Views from both sides of the bridge? Gender, sexual legitimacy and transgender people's experiences of relationships | journal = Culture, Health & Sexuality | volume = 13 | issue = 3 | pages = 355–70 | date = March 2011 | pmid = 21229422 | pmc = 3076785 | doi = 10.1080/13691058.2010.537770 }}</ref> LGBTQ+ youth also lack the social support and peer connections enjoyed by hetero-normative young people.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = DeHaan S, Kuper LE, Magee JC, Bigelow L, Mustanski BS | title = The interplay between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: a mixed-methods study with LGBT youth | journal = Journal of Sex Research | volume = 50 | issue = 5 | pages = 421–34 | date = 2013 | pmid = 22489658 | doi = 10.1080/00224499.2012.661489 | s2cid = 19195192 }}</ref> Nonetheless, comparative studies of homosexual and heterosexual couples have found few differences in relationship intensity, quality, satisfaction, or commitment.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Roisman GI, Clausell E, Holland A, Fortuna K, Elieff C | title = Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: a multimethod comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads | journal = Developmental Psychology | volume = 44 | issue = 1 | pages = 91–101 | date = January 2008 | pmid = 18194008 | doi = 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.91 }}</ref>

==== Marital relationship ====
Although nontraditional relationships continue to rise, [[marriage]] still makes up the majority of relationships except among emerging adults.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/number-of-u-s-adults-cohabiting-with-a-partner-continues-to-rise-especially-among-those-50-and-older/|title=Number of U.S. adults cohabiting with a partner continues to rise, especially among those 50 and older|date=2017-04-06|work=Pew Research Center|access-date=2018-04-04|language=en-US}}</ref> It is also still considered by many to occupy a place of greater importance among family and social structures.

=== Family relationships ===

==== Parent{{En dash}}child ====
In ancient times, parent{{En dash}}child relationships were often marked by fear, either of rebellion or abandonment, resulting in the strict filial roles in, for example, ancient Rome and China.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The History of Ancient Greece: Its Colonies and Conquests, from the Earliest Accounts Till the Division of the Macedonian Empire in the East: ... of Literature, Philosophy, and the Fine Arts|last=Gillies|first=John | name-list-style = vanc |date=2010-01-12|publisher=Nabu Press|isbn=978-1-142-12050-4 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Holzman|first=Donald | name-list-style = vanc |date=1998|title=The Place of Filial Piety in Ancient China|jstor=605890|journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society|volume=118|issue=2|pages=185–199|doi=10.2307/605890}}</ref> Freud conceived of the [[Oedipus complex|Oedipal complex]], the supposed obsession that young boys have towards their mothers and the accompanying fear and rivalry with their fathers, and the [[Electra complex]], in which the young girl feels that her mother has castrated her and therefore becomes obsessed with her father. Freud's ideas influenced thought on parent{{En dash}}child relationships for decades.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Borovecki-Jakovljev S, Matacić S | title = The Oedipus complex in the contemporary psychoanalysis | journal = Collegium Antropologicum | volume = 29 | issue = 1 | pages = 351–60 | date = June 2005 | pmid = 16117347 }}</ref>

Another early conception of parent–child relationships was that love only existed as a biological drive for survival and comfort on the child's part.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Koepke |first1=Sabrina |last2=Denissen |first2=Jaap J.A. |title=Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood – A conceptual integration |journal=Developmental Review |date=March 2012 |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=67–88 |doi=10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001 }}</ref> In 1958, however, [[Harry Harlow]]<nowiki>'s study "The Hot Wire Mother'' comparing rhesus'</nowiki> reactions to wire surrogate "mothers" and cloth "mothers" demonstrated that affection was wanted by any caregiver and not only the surrogate mothers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Harlow |first1=Harry F. |title=The nature of love |journal=American Psychologist |date=December 1958 |volume=13 |issue=12 |pages=673–685 |doi=10.1037/h0047884 }}</ref>

The study laid the groundwork for [[Mary Ainsworth]]'s [[attachment theory]], showing how the infants used their cloth "mothers" as a secure base from which to explore.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blum|first=Deborah | name-list-style = vanc |date=2011-12-28|title=Love According to Harry Harlow | url = https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/love-according-to-harry-harlow|journal=APS Observer |volume=25|issue=1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Suomi SJ, van der Horst FC, van der Veer R | title = Rigorous experiments on monkey love: an account of Harry F. Harlow's role in the history of attachment theory | journal = Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science | volume = 42 | issue = 4 | pages = 354–69 | date = December 2008 | pmid = 18688688 | doi = 10.1007/s12124-008-9072-9 | doi-access = free }}</ref> In a series of studies using the ''strange situation'', a scenario in which an infant is separated from then reunited with the parent, Ainsworth defined three styles of parent-child relationship.
* '''Securely attached''' infants miss the parent, greet them happily upon return, and show normal exploration and lack of fear when the parent is present.
* '''Insecure avoidant''' infants show little distress upon separation and ignore the caregiver when they return. They explore little when the parent is present. Infants also tend to be emotionally unavailable.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Stevens |first=Francis |title=Affect regulation styles in avoidant and anxious attachment |journal=Individual Differences Research |volume=12 |issue=3 |date=2014 |pages=123–130 }}</ref>
* '''Insecure ambivalent''' infants are highly distressed by separation, but continue to be distressed upon the parent's return; these infants also explore little and display fear even when the parent is present.
* Some psychologists have suggested a fourth attachment style, '''disorganized''', so called because the infants' behavior appeared disorganized or disoriented.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention|date=1993-05-15|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-30630-8|editor-last=Greenberg|editor-first=Mark T.|edition=Revised|location=Chicago|editor-last2=Cicchetti|editor-first2=Dante|editor-last3=Cummings|editor-first3=E. Mark | name-list-style = vanc }}</ref>

Secure attachments are linked to better social and academic outcomes and greater moral internalization as research proposes the idea that parent-child relationships play a key role in the developing morality of young children. Secure attachments are also linked to less delinquency for children, and have been found to predict later relationship success.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kim S, Boldt LJ, Kochanska G | title = From parent-child mutuality to security to socialization outcomes: developmental cascade toward positive adaptation in preadolescence | journal = Attachment & Human Development | volume = 17 | issue = 5 | pages = 472–91 | date = 2015 | pmid = 26258443 | pmc = 4840872 | doi = 10.1080/14616734.2015.1072832 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kochanska G, Kim S | title = A complex interplay among the parent-child relationship, effortful control, and internalized, rule-compatible conduct in young children: evidence from two studies | journal = Developmental Psychology | volume = 50 | issue = 1 | pages = 8–21 | date = January 2014 | pmid = 23527491 | pmc = 3750102 | doi = 10.1037/a0032330 }}</ref><ref name="Gibson_2015" />

For most of the late nineteenth through the twentieth century, the perception of adolescent-parent relationships was that of a time of upheaval. [[G. Stanley Hall]] popularized the "Sturm und drang", or storm and stress, model of adolescence.<ref>Karthaus, Ulrich: Sturm und Drang. Epoche-Werke-Wirkung. München: C.H.Beck Verlag, 2. aktualisierte Auflage. 2007, S. 107.</ref> Psychological research has painted a much tamer picture. Although adolescents are more risk-seeking and emerging adults have higher suicide rates, they are largely less volatile and have much better relationships with their parents than the storm and stress model would suggest.<ref>{{cite journal | first1 = Willem | last1 = Koops | first2 = Michael | last2 = Zuckerman | name-list-style = vanc | date=2003-01-01|title=Introduction: A historical developmental approach to adolescence |journal=The History of the Family|volume=8|issue=3|pages=345–354|doi=10.1016/S1081-602X(03)00041-1 | s2cid = 144062880 }}</ref> Early adolescence often marks a decline in parent-child relationship quality, which then re-stabilizes through adolescence, and relationships are sometimes better in late adolescence than prior to its onset.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Marceau K, Ram N, Susman E | title = Development and Lability in the Parent-Child Relationship During Adolescence: Associations With Pubertal Timing and Tempo | journal = Journal of Research on Adolescence | volume = 25 | issue = 3 | pages = 474–489 | date = September 2015 | pmid = 26321856 | pmc = 4550307 | doi = 10.1111/jora.12139 }}</ref> With the increasing average age at marriage and more youths attending college and living with parents past their teens, the concept of a new period called emerging adulthood gained popularity. This is considered a period of uncertainty and experimentation between adolescence and adulthood. During this stage, interpersonal relationships are considered to be more self-focused, and relationships with parents may still be influential.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Arnett|first=Jeffrey Jensen | name-list-style = vanc |title=Presidential Address: The Emergence of Emerging Adulthood |journal=Emerging Adulthood|volume=2|issue=3|pages=155–162|doi=10.1177/2167696814541096|year=2014 |s2cid=143471902 }}</ref>

==== Siblings ====
Sibling relationships have a profound effect on social, psychological, emotional, and academic outcomes. Although proximity and contact usually decreases over time, sibling bonds continue to have effect throughout their lives. Sibling bonds are one of few enduring relationships humans may experience. Sibling relationships are affected by parent-child relationships, such that sibling relationships in childhood often reflect the positive or negative aspects of children's relationships with their parents.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Portner|first1=Laura Collier|last2=Riggs|first2=Shelley A. | name-list-style = vanc |title=Sibling Relationships in Emerging Adulthood: Associations with Parent–Child Relationship |journal=Journal of Child and Family Studies|volume=25|issue=6|pages=1755–1764|doi=10.1007/s10826-015-0358-5|year=2016|s2cid=147667305}}</ref>

===Professional===
{{Section rewrite|date=June 2025}}
Business is generally held{{By whom|date=June 2025}} to be distinct from personal relations, a contrasting mode which other than excursions from the norm is based on non-personal interest and rational rather than emotional concerns.{{Citation needed|date=June 2025}}

*[[Business relations]]hips
**[[Partnership]]
**[[Employer]] and [[employee]]
**[[Contract]]or
**[[Customer]]
**[[Landlord and tenant]]
**[[Co-worker]]

===Other===
* [[Alliance]]
* [[Enemy]]
* [[Frenemy]] — a person with whom an individual maintains a friendly interaction despite underlying conflict, possibly encompassing rivalry, mistrust, [[jealousy]] or competition<ref name="Shannon_2011">{{cite thesis |last= Shannon |first= Beard | name-list-style = vanc |date= 2011 |title= Frenemy: The Friend Who Bullies|type= Master of Applied Psychology |publisher= University of Waikato | hdl=10289/8490 }}</ref>
* [[Neighbourhood|Neighbor]]
* [[Familiar stranger]]
* [[Official]]

==Stages==
Interpersonal relationships are [[relational dialectics|dynamic systems]] that change continuously during their existence, and have a beginning, a lifespan, and an end. They tend to grow and improve gradually, as people become acquainted and become closer emotionally, or they gradually deteriorate as people drift apart, move on with their lives and form new relationships with others. One of the most influential{{According to whom|date=June 2025}} models of relationship development was proposed by psychologist [[George Levinger]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Close relationships|vauthors=Levinger G|publisher=W.H. Freeman and Company|year=1983|veditors=Kelly HH|location=New York|pages=315–359|chapter=Development and change}}</ref> This model was formulated to describe heterosexual, adult romantic relationships, but it has been applied to other kinds of interpersonal relations as well.{{Citation needed|date=June 2025}} According to the model, the natural development of a relationship follows five stages:

#'' Acquaintance and acquaintanceship'' – Becoming acquainted depends on previous relationships, physical [[Propinquity|proximity]], [[First impression (psychology)|first impression]]s, and a variety of other factors. If two people begin to like each other, continued interactions may lead to the next stage, but acquaintance can continue indefinitely. Another example is the association.
#'' Buildup'' – During this stage, people begin to [[Trust (social sciences)|trust]] and care about each other. The need for intimacy, compatibility and such filtering agents as common background and goals will influence whether or not interaction continues.
#'' Continuation'' – This stage follows a mutual [[personal commitment|commitment]] to quite a strong and close long-term friendship, romantic relationship, or even marriage. It is generally a long, relatively stable period. Nevertheless, continued growth and development will occur during this time. Mutual trust is important for sustaining the relationship.
#'' Deterioration'' – Not all relationships deteriorate, but those that do tend to show signs of trouble. Boredom, resentment, and dissatisfaction may occur, and individuals may communicate less and avoid [[self-disclosure]]. Loss of trust and betrayals may take place as the downward spiral continues, eventually ending the relationship. (Alternately, the participants may find some way to resolve the problems and reestablish trust and belief in others.)
#'' Ending'' – The final stage marks the end of the relationship, either by breakups, death or by spatial separation for quite some time and severing all existing ties of either friendship or [[romantic love]].

=== Ways that interpersonal relationships begin ===
'''Proximity:''' Proximity increases the chance of repeated exposure to the same person. Long-term exposure that can develop familiarity is more likely to trigger like or hate.<ref name=":0">{{cite book |last1=Kowalski |first1=Robin M. |title=The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 2 |date=2010 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-470-17026-7 |editor1-last=Weiner |editor1-first=Irving B. |pages=861–863 |chapter=Interpersonal Relationships |id={{Gale|CX1942000473}} |editor2-last=Craighead |editor2-first=W. Edward}}</ref>

'''Technological advance:''' The Internet removes the problem of lack of communication due to long distance. People can communicate with others who live far away from them through video calls or text. Internet is a medium for people to be close to others who are not physically near them.<ref name=":0" />

'''Similarity:''' People prefer to make friends with others who are similar to them because their thoughts and feelings are more likely to be understood.<ref name=":0" />

=== Terminating a relationship ===
According to the latest ''Systematic Review of the Economic Literature on the Factors associated with Life Satisfaction'' (dating from 2007), stable and secure relationships are beneficial, and correspondingly, relationship dissolution is harmful.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dolan |first1=Paul |last2=Peasgood |first2=Tessa |last3=White |first3=Mathew |title=Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being |journal=Journal of Economic Psychology |date=February 2008 |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=94–122 |doi=10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001 }}</ref>

The [[American Psychological Association]] has summarized the evidence on [[breakup]]s. Breaking up can actually be a positive experience when the relationship did not expand the self and when the breakup leads to personal growth. They also recommend some ways to cope with the experience:

* Purposefully focusing on the positive aspects of the breakup ("factors leading up to the break-up, the actual break-up, and the time right after the break-up")
* Minimizing the [[negative emotion]]s
* Journaling the positive aspects of the breakup (e.g. "comfort, confidence, empowerment, energy, happiness, optimism, relief, satisfaction, thankfulness, and wisdom"). This exercise works best, although not exclusively, when the breakup is mutual.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apa.org/research/action/romantic-relationships.aspx|title=Breakups isn't all bad: Coping strategies to promote positive outcomes|website=apa.org}}</ref>

Less time between a breakup and a subsequent relationship predicts higher self-esteem, attachment security, emotional stability, respect for your new partner, and greater well-being. Furthermore, rebound relationships do not last any shorter than regular relationships.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201405/can-rebound-relationship-be-the-real-deal|title=Can a Rebound Relationship Be the Real Deal?|website=Psychology Today}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201707/the-4-main-reasons-why-people-stay-friends-their-exes|title=The 4 Main Reasons Why People Stay Friends With Their Exes|website=Psychology Today}}</ref> 60% of people are friends with one or more ex.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201402/how-healthy-are-againoff-again-relationships|title=How Healthy Are On-Again/Off-Again Relationships?|website=Psychology Today}}</ref> 60% of people have had an off-and-on relationship. 37% of cohabiting couples, and 23% of the married, have broken up and gotten back together with their existing partner.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201407/the-truth-about-again-again-couples|title=The Truth About On-Again, Off-Again Couples|website=Psychology Today}}</ref>

Terminating a [[#Marital relationship|marital relationship]] implies [[divorce]] or [[annulment]]. One reason cited for divorce is infidelity. The determinants of unfaithfulness are debated by dating service providers, feminists, academics, and science communicators.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2014/08/a-look-at-infidelity-why-do-partners-cheat/|title=Predictors of Infidelity: Why Do Partners Cheat?|date=18 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/07/24/relationshipstrategies/the-definitive-survey-of-infidelity-in-marriage-and-relationships/|title=Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Infidelity But Were Afraid to Ask * Hooking Up Smart|date=24 July 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Mark|first1=Kristen P.|last2=Janssen|first2=Erick|last3=Milhausen|first3=Robin R.|date=1 October 2011|title=Infidelity in heterosexual couples: demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex|journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior|volume=40|issue=5|pages=971–982|doi=10.1007/s10508-011-9771-z|pmid=21667234|s2cid=12474225}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/paper-predictors-of-infidelity/|title=Paper: Predictors Of Infidelity|date=28 September 2014|access-date=13 April 2018|archive-date=13 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413190419/https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/paper-predictors-of-infidelity/}}</ref> According to Psychology Today, women's, rather than men's, level of commitment more strongly determines if a relationship will continue.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201612/the-secret-epidemic-facing-modern-couples|title=The Secret Epidemic Facing Modern Couples|website=Psychology Today}}</ref>

== Pathological relationships ==
===Abusive===
Abusive relationships involve either maltreatment or violence such as physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EAtSAgAAQBAJ&q=National+Research+Council+.+%281993%29.+Understanding+child+abuse+and+neglect.+Washington%2C+DC%3A+National+Academy+Press.&pg=PT13|title=Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America|author=National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on Law and Justice, Committee on National Statistics, Panel to Review Risk and Prevalence of Elder Abuse and Neglect|date=2003|publisher=National Academies Press|isbn=978-0-309-08434-5}}</ref> Abusive relationships within the family are very prevalent in the United States and usually involve women or children as victims.<ref name="pmid9491743">{{cite journal|vauthors=Emery RE, Laumann-Billings L|date=February 1998|title=An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences of abusive family relationships. Toward differentiating maltreatment and violence|journal=The American Psychologist|volume=53|issue=2|pages=121–35|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.121|pmid=9491743}}</ref> Common individual factors for abusers include low self-esteem, poor impulse control, external [[locus of control]], drug use, alcohol abuse, and negative [[affectivity]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/childmaltreatmen00buse|url-access=registration|page=[https://archive.org/details/childmaltreatmen00buse/page/203 203]|quote=Pianta, R. B., Egeland, B., & Erickson, M. F. (1989). The antecedents of maltreatment: Results of the Mother–Child Interaction Research Project. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences o.|title=Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect|last1=Cicchetti|first1=Dante|date=1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-37969-4|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> There are also external factors such as stress, poverty, and loss which contribute to likelihood of abuse.<ref name="pmid2653142">{{cite journal|vauthors=Emery RE|date=February 1989|title=Family violence|journal=The American Psychologist|volume=44|issue=2|pages=321–8|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.321|pmid=2653142}}</ref>

===Codependent===
[[Codependency]] initially focused on a codependent partner enabling substance abuse, but it has become more broadly defined to describe a dysfunctional relationship with one or both partners having extreme dependence on or preoccupation with the relationship. For example, a [[narcissist]] and a [[sycophant]] with abandonment issues may create codependency as the narcissist values the [[flattery]] from the sycophant and the sycophant values the narcissist's approval.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cowan|first1=Gloria|last2=Bommersbach|first2=Mimi|last3=Curtis|first3=Sheri R.|year=1995|title=Codependency, Loss Of Self, And Power|journal=Psychology of Women Quarterly|volume=19|issue=2|pages=221–236|doi=10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00289.x|s2cid=146485470|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref> There are some who even refer to codependency as an addiction to the relationship.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Mendenhall W|date=1989|title=Co-dependency definitions and dynamics|journal= Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly|volume=6|pages=3–17|doi=10.1300/J020V06N01_02}}</ref> The focus of codependents tends to be on the emotional state, behavioral choices, thoughts, and beliefs of another person.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Chmielewska M|date=2012|title=Marital quality in the context of interpersonal dependency|journal=Economics & Sociology|volume=5|issue=2|pages=58–74|doi=10.14254/2071-789X.2012/5-2/5|doi-access=free}}</ref> Often those who are codependent neglect themselves in favor of taking care of others and have difficulty fully developing an identity of their own.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Knudson|first1=Theresa M.|last2=Terrell|first2=Heather K.|year=2012|title=Codependency, Perceived Interparental Conflict, and Substance Abuse in the Family of Origin|journal=The American Journal of Family Therapy|volume=40|issue=3|pages=245–257|doi=10.1080/01926187.2011.610725|s2cid=145124356|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref>

===Narcissistic===
[[Narcissism|Narcissists]] focus on themselves and often distance themselves from intimate relationships; the focus of narcissistic interpersonal relationships is to promote one's self-concept.<ref name="Campbell_1999">{{cite journal |last1=Campbell |first1=W. Keith |title=Narcissism and romantic attraction. |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=December 1999 |volume=77 |issue=6 |pages=1254–1270 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254 }}</ref> Generally, narcissists show less empathy in relationships and view love pragmatically or as a game involving others' emotions.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Rhodewalt|first1=Frederick|last2=Morf|first2=Carolyn C.|date=March 1995|title=Self and Interpersonal Correlates of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: A Review and New Findings|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|volume=29|issue=1|pages=1–23|doi=10.1006/jrpe.1995.1001|name-list-style=vanc}}</ref><ref name="Campbell_1999" />

Narcissists are usually part of the personality disorder, [[narcissistic personality disorder]] (NPD). In relationships, they tend to affect the other person as they attempt to use them to enhance their self-esteem.<ref name="Maj, Mario 2015">Maj, Mario., Akiskal, Hagop S., Hagop S., Mezzich, Juan E., Wiley John & Sons. Personality Disorders. ''Medical'' March 11, 2015.</ref> Specific types of NPD make a person incapable of having an interpersonal relationship due to their being cunning, envious, and contemptuous.<ref name="Maj, Mario 2015"/>

==Importance==
Human beings are innately social and are shaped by their experiences with others. There are multiple perspectives to understand this inherent motivation to interact with others.

===Need to belong===
According to [[Maslow's hierarchy of needs]], humans need to feel love (sexual/nonsexual) and acceptance from social groups (family, peer groups). In fact, the need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to overcome physiological and safety needs, such as children's attachment to abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships. Such examples illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is entrenched.

===Social exchange===
Another way to appreciate the importance of relationships is in terms of a reward framework. This perspective suggests that individuals engage in relations that are rewarding in both tangible and intangible ways. The concept fits into a larger theory of [[social exchange]]. This theory is based on the idea that relationships develop as a result of [[cost–benefit analysis]]. Individuals seek out rewards in interactions with others and are willing to pay a cost for said rewards. In the best-case scenario, rewards will exceed costs, producing a net gain. This can lead to "shopping around" or constantly comparing alternatives to maximize the benefits or rewards while minimizing costs.

===Relational self===
Relationships are also important for their ability to help individuals develop a [[sense of self]]. The relational self is the part of an individual's self-concept that consists of the feelings and beliefs that one has regarding oneself that develops based on interactions with others.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Andersen SM, Chen E | year = 2002 | title = The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory | journal = Psychological Review | volume = 109 | issue = 4| pages = 619–45 | doi=10.1037/0033-295x.109.4.619| pmid = 12374322 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.409.2705 }}</ref> In other words, one's emotions and behaviors are shaped by prior relationships. Relational self theory posits that prior and existing relationships influence one's emotions and behaviors in interactions with new individuals, particularly those individuals that remind them of others in their life. Studies have shown that exposure to someone who resembles a significant other activates specific self-beliefs, changing how one thinks about oneself in the moment more so than exposure to someone who does not resemble one's [[significant other]].<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Hinkley K, Andersen SM | year = 1996 | title = The working self-concept in transference: significant-other activation and self change | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 71 | issue = 6| pages = 1279–1295 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1279| pmid = 8979392 }}</ref>

==Power and dominance==
[[Power (social and political)|Power]] is the ability to influence the behavior of other people.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Fiske |first1=S. T |last2=Berdahl |first2=J. |date=2007 |chapter=Social power. |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232589326 |title=Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles |publisher=The Guilford Press |pages=678–692}}</ref> When two parties have or assert unequal levels of power, one is termed "dominant" and the other "submissive". Expressions of dominance can communicate an intention to assert or maintain dominance in a relationship. Being submissive can be beneficial because it saves time, limits emotional stress, and may avoid hostile actions such as withholding of resources, cessation of cooperation, termination of the relationship, maintaining a grudge, or even physical violence. Submission occurs in different degrees; for example, some employees may follow orders without question, whereas others might express disagreement but concede when pressed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dunbar |first1=Norah E. |last2=Abra |first2=Gordon |title=Observations of Dyadic Power in Interpersonal Interaction |journal=Communication Monographs |date=December 2010 |volume=77 |issue=4 |pages=657–684 |doi=10.1080/03637751.2010.520018 |s2cid=144799977 }}</ref>

Groups of people can form a [[dominance hierarchy]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aiello |first1=Antonio |last2=Tesi |first2=Alessio |date=November 19, 2022 |title="Does this setting really fit with me?": How support for group-based social hierarchies predicts a higher perceived misfit in hierarchy-attenuating settings |journal=Journal of Applied Social Psychology |volume=53 |issue=5 |page=423 |doi=10.1111/jasp.12949 |via=Wiley Online Library}}</ref> For example, a [[hierarchical organization]] uses a [[command hierarchy]] for top-down management. This can reduce time wasted in conflict over unimportant decisions, prevents inconsistent decisions from harming the operations of the organization, maintain alignment of a large population of workers with the goals of the owners (which the workers might not personally share) and, if promotion is based on merit, help ensure that the people with the best expertise make important decisions. This contrasts with [[group decision-making]] and systems which encourage decision-making and self-organization by front-line employees, who in some cases may have better information about customer needs or how to work efficiently. Dominance is only one aspect of [[organizational structure]].

A [[power structure]] describes power and dominance relationships in a larger society. For example, a [[feudalism|feudal]] society under a [[monarchy]] exhibits a strong dominance hierarchy in both economics and physical power, whereas dominance relationships in a society with [[democracy]] and [[capitalism]] are more complicated.

In business relationships, dominance is often associated with [[economic power]]. For example, a business may adopt a submissive attitude to customer preferences (stocking what customers want to buy) and complaints ("the customer is always right") in order to earn more money. A firm with [[monopoly power]] may be less responsive to customer complaints because it can afford to adopt a dominant position. In a business [[partnership]] a "silent partner" is one who adopts a submissive position in all aspects, but retains financial ownership and a share of the profits.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Habib |first1=Farooq |last2=Bastl |first2=Marko |last3=Pilbeam |first3=Colin |title=Strategic responses to power dominance in buyer-supplier relationships: A weaker actor's perspective |journal=International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management |date=2 March 2015 |volume=45 |issue=1/2 |pages=182–203 |id={{ProQuest|2115748306}} |doi=10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0138 }}</ref>

Two parties can be dominant in different areas. For example, in a friendship or romantic relationship, one person may have strong opinions about where to eat dinner, whereas the other has strong opinions about how to decorate a shared space. It could be beneficial for the party with weak preferences to be submissive in that area because it will not make them unhappy and avoids conflict with the party that would be unhappy.

The [[breadwinner model]] is associated with [[gender role]] assignments where the male in a heterosexual marriage would be dominant as they are responsible for economic provision.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Nadim |first=Marjan |date=January 29, 2015 |title=Undermining the Male Breadwinner Ideal? Understandings of Women's Paid Work among Second-Generation Immigrants in Norway |journal=Sociology |volume=50 |issue=1 |pages=109–124 |doi=10.1177/0038038514560259 |hdl=11250/2561247 |via=Sage Journals|hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==Relationship quality==
{{excerpt|Relationship quality}}

==Relationship satisfaction==
{{Further|Relationship quality}}
Social exchange theory and Rusbult's investment model show that relationship satisfaction is based on three factors: rewards, costs, and comparison levels (Miller, 2012).<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Miller R | year = 2012 | title = Attraction In Intimate Relationships | edition = 6th | page =  71 | location = New York | publisher = Mc-Graw Hill }}</ref> Rewards refer to any aspects of the partner or relationship that are positive. Conversely, costs are the negative or unpleasant aspects of the partner or their relationship. The comparison level includes what each partner expects of the relationship. The comparison level is influenced by past relationships, and general relationship expectations they are taught by family and friends.

Individuals in [[long-distance relationship]]s, LDRs, rated their relationships as more satisfying than individuals in proximal relationship, PRs.<ref name = "Stafford_1990">{{cite journal | vauthors = Stafford L, Reske J | year = 1990 | title = Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships | journal = Family Relations | volume = 39 | issue = 3| pages = 274–279 | doi=10.2307/584871 | jstor = 584871 }}</ref><ref name = "Stafford_2005">{{cite book | vauthors = Stafford L | year = 2005 | title = Maintaining long-distance and cross residential relationships. | url = https://archive.org/details/maintaininglongd0000staf | url-access = registration | location = Mahwah, NJ | publisher = Lawrence Erlbaum Associates }}</ref> Alternatively, Holt and Stone (1988) found that long-distance couples who were able to meet with their partner at least once a month had similar satisfaction levels to unmarried couples who cohabitated.<ref name = "Holt_1998">{{cite journal | vauthors = Holt P, Stone G | year = 1988 | title = Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with long-distance relationships | journal = Journal of College Student Development | volume = 29 | pages = 136–141 }}</ref> Also, the relationship satisfaction was lower for members of LDRs who saw their partner less frequently than once a month. LDR couples reported the same level of relationship satisfaction as couples in PRs, despite only seeing each other on average once every 23 days.<ref name = "Guldner_1995">{{cite journal | vauthors = Guldner GT, Swensen CH | year = 1995 | title = Time spent together and relationship quality: Long distance relationships as a test case | journal = Journal of Social and Personal Relationships | volume = 12 | issue = 2| pages = 313–320 | doi=10.1177/0265407595122010| s2cid = 145471401 }}</ref>

Social exchange theory and the am investment model both theorize that relationships that are high in cost would be less satisfying than relationships that are low in cost. LDRs have a higher level of costs than PRs, therefore, one would assume that LDRs are less satisfying than PRs. Individuals in LDRs are more satisfied with their relationships compared to individuals in PRs.<ref name = "Stafford_2005" /> This can be explained by unique aspects of the LDRs, how the individuals use relationship maintenance behaviors, and the attachment styles of the individuals in the relationships. Therefore, the costs and benefits of the relationship are subjective to the individual, and people in LDRs tend to report lower costs and higher rewards in their relationship compared to PRs.<ref name = "Stafford_2005" />

===Theories and empirical research===

====Confucianism====
[[Confucianism#Relationships|Confucianism]] is a study and theory of relationships, especially within hierarchies.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.iep.utm.edu/confuciu/ |title=Confucius |publisher=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |first=Jeff |last=Richey |work=iep.utm.edu |year=2011 |access-date=August 11, 2011}}</ref> Social harmony—the central goal of Confucianism—results in part from every individual knowing their place in the social order and playing their part well. Particular duties arise from each person's particular situation in relation to others. The individual stands simultaneously in several different relationships with different people: as a junior in relation to parents and elders; and as a senior in relation to younger siblings, students, and others. Juniors are considered in Confucianism to owe their seniors reverence and seniors have duties of benevolence and concern toward juniors. A focus on mutuality is prevalent in East Asian cultures to this day.

====Minding relationships====
The mindfulness theory of relationships shows how closeness in relationships may be enhanced. Minding is the "reciprocal knowing process involving the nonstop, interrelated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons in a relationship."<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Harvey JH, Pauwels BG | date = 2009 | chapter = Relationship Connection: A Redux on the Role of Minding and the Quality of Feeling Special | title = Enhancement of Closeness | veditors = Snyder CD, Lopez SJ  | series = Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology | edition = Second | location = Oxford | publisher = Oxford University Press | pages = 385–392 }}</ref> Five components of "minding" include:<ref name=snyder>{{cite book | vauthors = Snyder CR, Lopez SJ | date = 2007 | title = Positive psychology: the scientific and practical explorations of human strengths | url = https://archive.org/details/positivepsycholo00c | url-access = limited | location = Thousand Oaks, California | publisher = [[SAGE Publications]] | pages =  [https://archive.org/details/positivepsycholo00c/page/n325 297]–321 | isbn = 978-0-7619-2633-7 }}</ref>
# Knowing and being known: seeking to understand the partner
# Making relationship-enhancing attributions for behaviors: giving the benefit of the doubt
# Accepting and respecting: [[empathy]] and social skills
# Maintaining reciprocity: active participation in relationship enhancement
# Continuity in minding: persisting in mindfulness

== In popular culture ==

=== Popular perceptions ===
Popular perceptions of intimate relationships are strongly influenced by movies and television. Common messages are that love is predestined, love at first sight is possible, and that love with the right person always succeeds. Those who consume the most romance-related media tend to believe in predestined romance and that those who are destined to be together implicitly understand each other. These beliefs, however, can lead to less communication and problem-solving as well as giving up on relationships more easily when conflict is encountered.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Holmes |first1=Bjarne |title=In search of my 'one and only'; Romance-related media and beliefs in romantic relationship destiny |journal=Electronic Journal of Communication |date=October 2007 |volume=17 |issue=3/4 }}</ref>

=== Social media ===
Social media has changed the face of interpersonal relationships.  Romantic interpersonal relationships are no less impacted. For example, in the United States, [[Facebook]] has become an integral part of the dating process for emerging adults.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fox |first1=Jesse |last2=Warber |first2=Katie M. |title=Romantic Relationship Development in the Age of Facebook: An Exploratory Study of Emerging Adults' Perceptions, Motives, and Behaviors |journal=Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking |date=January 2013 |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=3–7 |doi=10.1089/cyber.2012.0288 |pmid=23098273 }}</ref> Social media can have both positive and negative impacts on romantic relationships. For example, supportive social networks have been linked to more stable relationships.<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal|last1=Merkle|first1=Erich R.|last2=Richardson|first2=Rhonda A.| name-list-style = vanc | title = Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: Conceptualizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships|journal=Family Relations|volume=49|issue=2|pages=187–192|doi=10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00187.x |year=2000}}</ref> However, social media usage can also facilitate conflict, jealousy, and passive-aggressive behaviors such as spying on a partner.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilkerson |first1=Kenadie T. |title=Social Networking Sites and Romantic Relationships: Effects on Development, Maintenance, and Dissolution of Relationships |journal=Inquiries Journal |date=2017 |volume=9 |issue=3 |url=http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1576/social-networking-sites-and-romantic-relationships-effects-on-development-maintenance-and-dissolution-of-relationships }}</ref> Aside from direct effects on the development, maintenance, and perception of romantic relationships, excessive social network usage is linked to jealousy and dissatisfaction in relationships.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Elphinston RA, Noller P | title = Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction | journal = Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking | volume = 14 | issue = 11 | pages = 631–5 | date = November 2011 | pmid = 21548798 | doi = 10.1089/cyber.2010.0318 }}</ref>

Another common behavior in online communities, including dating, is lurking. Lurking means watching communities without posting or replying. Some say it means never posting, while others say even small posts count (Neelen & Fetter, 2010; Golder & Donath, 2004). Lurking is often seen negatively, tied to "freeloading" (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004), but others see it as valid participation. Lurking depends on personal goals, personality, and group dynamics. For example, introverts tend to lurk more, and people with higher tech confidence participate more (Ross et al., 2009; Sun, Rau, & Ma, 2014). Studies show up to 90% of users may lurk at some point (Muller, 2012). Lurking can help gather info or support without interacting, but it can make a community seem less active, Lurking can make online relationships feel one-sided because it reduces interaction. When someone just watches without joining in, it can create distance and make it harder to build trust. This can slow down the growth of a real connection. Understanding lurking can help encourage more participation (Yeow, Johnson, & Faraj, 2006).<ref>Popovac, M., & Fullwood, C. (2018). The psychology of online lurking. In A. Attrill-Smith, C. Fullwood, M. Keep, & D. J. Kuss (Eds.), *The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology* (pp. 320-336). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.013.18</ref>

A growing segment of the population is engaging in purely online dating, sometimes but not always moving towards traditional face-to-face interactions. These online relationships differ from face-to-face relationships; for example, self-disclosure may be of primary importance in developing an online relationship. Conflict management differs, since avoidance is easier and conflict resolution skills may not develop in the same way. Additionally, the definition of infidelity is both broadened and narrowed, since physical infidelity becomes easier to conceal but emotional infidelity (e.g. chatting with more than one online partner) becomes a more serious offense.<ref name=":22" />

== See also ==
<!-- Please add related links to [[Outline of relationships]] -->
* {{anl|I and Thou|''I and Thou''}}
* {{anl|Interactionism}}
* {{anl|Interpersonal attraction}}
* [[Interpersonal tie]]
* {{anl|Loneliness}}
* {{anl|Outline of relationships}}
* {{anl|Queerplatonic relationship}}
* {{anl|Relational mobility}}
* {{anl|Relational models theory}}
* [[Relationship forming]]
* {{anl|Relationship science}}
* [[Relationship status]]
* {{anl|Social connection}}
* {{anl|Socionics}}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Further reading ==
{{refbegin|32em}}
* {{cite book |last1=Miller |first1=Rowland |title=Intimate Relationships |date=2014 |publisher=McGraw-Hill Education |isbn=978-0-07-786180-3 }}
* {{cite book | first1 = Kipling D. | last1 = Williams | first2 = Steve A. | last2 = Nida | name-list-style = vanc | title = Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wYmiDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT11|date=1 December 2016|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-315-30845-6}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Baumeister |first1=Roy F. |last2=Leary |first2=Mark R. |title=The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. |journal=Psychological Bulletin |date=1995 |volume=117 |issue=3 |pages=497–529 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 |pmid=7777651 }}
* {{cite journal | vauthors = Hartgerink CH, van Beest I, Wicherts JM, Williams KD | title = The ordinal effects of ostracism: a meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 10 | issue = 5 | article-number = e0127002 | year = 2015 | pmid = 26023925 | pmc = 4449005 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0127002 | bibcode = 2015PLoSO..1027002H | doi-access = free }}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Interpersonal relationships}}
*{{wiktionary-inline|interpersonal}}
*{{wikiquote-inline}}
*{{wikiversity inline|interpersonal relationships}}

{{Interpersonal relationships footer}}
{{Nonverbal communication}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Interpersonal Relationship}}
[[Category:Interpersonal relationships| ]]