Interpersonal relationships in a team. Practical recommendations on problems of interpersonal psychological counseling

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to the site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

Theoretical study of interpersonal relationships in foreign and domestic literature. Psychological characteristics older children adolescence. Organization and results of a psychological study of interpersonal relationships among older adolescents.

course work, added 06/12/2012


The problem of interpersonal relationships, in the works of foreign and domestic scientists. Content characteristics of interpersonal relationships. Determining the level of development and functioning of interpersonal relationships among staff. Results and its discussion.

course work, added 10/30/2010


Principles and methods for diagnosing the motivation of interpersonal relationships in study group. The problem of motivation and classification of interpersonal relationships in psychology. Practical study of the motivation of interpersonal relationships in a group, analysis of its results.

course work, added 02/01/2011


The concept of interpersonal relationships. Features of the formation of academic performance and the development of interpersonal relationships and younger children school age. An empirical study of the relationship between academic performance and interpersonal relationships of junior schoolchildren.

thesis, added 02/12/2011


The problem of studying interpersonal relationships in a team. Methodology for diagnosing interpersonal relationships according to Timothy Leary. Moderate type of expression of relationships (adaptive behavior) in interpersonal relationships in a team. Types of attitude towards others.

test, added 11/14/2010


Understanding of interpersonal relationships in psychology, their main types and forms. Age-related patterns of the formation of interpersonal relationships in childhood. Features of the formation of interpersonal relationships in children with intellectual disabilities.

thesis, added 03/18/2011


Value-motivational aspects of interpersonal marital relations as a subject of socio-psychological research. The role of social psychology in the study of family and marriage. Methods for diagnosing interpersonal marital relationships.

thesis, added 03/16/2007

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………..3

1. THE PROBLEM OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND INTERACTION OF PEOPLE………………………………………………………………………………………5

1.1. The purpose and objectives of interpersonal interaction……………………5

1.2. Features of interpersonal relationships and human interaction…………………………………………………………………………………..7

2.1. Functions of communication in interpersonal relationships………………...10

2.2. Structure of communication in interpersonal relationships……………….14

2.3. Types of communication in the system of interpersonal relations……………15

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..19

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST…………………………………………..21

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………….22

INTRODUCTION

Human interaction with the outside world is carried out in a system of objective relations that develop between people in their social life.

Objective relationships and connections inevitably and naturally arise in any real group. A reflection of these objective relationships between group members are subjective interpersonal relationships, which are studied by social psychology.

The main way to study interpersonal interaction and interaction within a group is an in-depth study of various social factors, as well as the interaction of people within a given group. No human community can carry out full-fledged joint activities unless contact is established between the people included in it and proper mutual understanding is not achieved between them. So, for example, in order for a teacher to teach something to students, he must enter into communication with them.

Communication is a multifaceted process of developing contacts between people, generated by the needs of joint activities.

Over the past 20-25 years, the study of the problem of communication has become one of the leading areas of research in psychological science, and especially in social psychology. Its movement to the center of psychological research is explained by a change in the methodological situation that has clearly emerged in social psychology in the last two decades. From a subject of research, communication has simultaneously turned into a method, a principle for studying, first, cognitive processes, and then the personality of a person as a whole.

This course work will examine communication in the system of interpersonal relationships and human interaction.

The subject of this course work is to determine the place of communication in the structure of interpersonal interaction and interaction between people. The goal is to study the features of communication in the system of interpersonal interaction and communication between people. The objectives of this course work are:

1. Consider the features of interpersonal relationships, interpersonal interaction.

2.Study the specifics of communication in the system of interpersonal relationships.

To structure the numerous results of research on interpersonal interaction, a systematic approach is used, the elements of which are the subject, the object and the process of interpersonal interaction.

1. THE PROBLEM OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND INTERACTION

1.1. The purpose and objectives of interpersonal interaction

The concept of “person's perception by person” is not enough to fully understand people. Subsequently, the concept of “understanding a person” was added to it, which involves connecting other cognitive processes to the process of human perception. The effectiveness of perception is associated with socio-psychological observation - a personality trait that allows it to capture subtle, but essential for his understanding, features in a person’s behavior.

The characteristics of the perceiver depend on gender, age, nationality, temperament, health, attitudes, communication experience, professional and personal characteristics, etc.

With age, emotional states differentiate. A person perceives the world around him through the prism of his national way of life. Those people who have a higher level of social intelligence are more successful in identifying various mental states and interpersonal relationships; the object of cognition is both the physical and social appearance of a person; perception initially captures the physical appearance, which includes physiological, functional and paralinguistic characteristics. Anatomical (somatic) features include height, head, etc. Physiological characteristics include breathing, blood circulation, sweating, etc. Functional features include posture, posture and gait, linguistic (non-verbal) communication features include facial expressions, gestures, body movements. Unambiguous emotions are easy to differentiate, but mixed and unexpressed mental states are much more difficult to recognize. Social appearance presupposes the social design of appearance, speech, paralinguistic, proxemic and activity characteristics. Social appearance (appearance) includes a person’s clothing, shoes, singing and other accessories. Proxemic features of communication refer to the state between the communicators and their relative position. An example from fiction that demonstrates the ability to determine place of birth and profession by characteristics is phonetics professor Higgins from the play Pygmalion. Extralinguistic features of speech presuppose the originality of the voice, timbre, pitch, etc. When perceiving a person, social features, in comparison with the physical appearance, are the most informative. 1

The process of human cognition includes mechanisms that distort ideas about what is perceived, mechanisms of interpersonal cognition, feedback from the object and the conditions in which perception occurs. Mechanisms that distort the emerging image of what is perceived limit the possibility of objective knowledge of people. The most significant of them are: the mechanism of primacy, or novelty (reduces to the fact that the first impression of what is perceived influences the subsequent formation of the image of the cognizable object); projection mechanism (transfer to people of the mental characteristics of the perceivers); the mechanism of stereotyping (attributing the perceived person to one of the types of people known to the subject); the mechanism of ethnocentrism (passing all information through a filter associated with the ethnic lifestyle of the perceiver).

To perceive a person and understand him, the subject unconsciously chooses various mechanisms of interpersonal cognition. The main mechanism is the interpretation (correlation) of personal experience of knowing people in general with perception this person. The identification mechanism in interpersonal cognition represents the identification of oneself with another person. The subject also uses the mechanism of causal attribution (attributing to the perceived certain motives and reasons that explain his actions and other characteristics). The mechanism of reflection of another person in interpersonal cognition includes the subject’s awareness of how he is perceived by the object. In interpersonal perception and understanding of an object, there is a fairly strict order of functioning of the mechanisms of interpersonal cognition (from simple to complex).

In the course of interpersonal cognition, the subject takes into account information coming to him through various sensory channels, indicating a change in the state of the communication partner. Feedback from the object of perception performs an informative and corrective function for the subject in the process of perceiving the object.

The conditions for the perception of a person by a person include situations, time and place of communication. Reducing the time when perceiving an object reduces the ability of the perceiver to obtain sufficient information about it. With prolonged and close contact, evaluators begin to show condescension and favoritism.

1.2. Features of interpersonal relationships and human interaction

Interpersonal relationships are integral part interaction and are considered in its context. Interpersonal relationships are objectively experienced, to varying degrees perceived, relationships between people. They are based on the various emotional states of interacting people and their psychological characteristics. Unlike business relationships, interpersonal connections are sometimes called expressive and emotional.

The development of interpersonal relationships is determined by gender, age, nationality and many other factors. Women have a much smaller social circle than men. In interpersonal communication, they feel the need for self-disclosure, transferring personal information about themselves to others. They more often complain of loneliness (I.S. Kon). For women, features manifested in interpersonal relationships are more significant, and for men - business qualities. In different national communities, interpersonal connections are built taking into account a person’s position in society, gender and age status, belonging to various social strata, etc. 2

The process of development of interpersonal relationships includes dynamics, a mechanism for regulating interpersonal relationships and the conditions for their development.

Interpersonal relationships develop dynamically: they are born, consolidated, reach a certain maturity, after which they can gradually weaken. The dynamics of the development of interpersonal relationships go through several stages: acquaintance, friendly, comradely and friendly relations. Dating takes place depending on the sociocultural norms of society. Friendly relationships form readiness for further development of interpersonal relationships. At the stage of comradely relations, there is a convergence of views and support for each other (it’s not for nothing that they say “act like a comrade”, “comrade in arms”). Friendly relationships have a common subject content - common interests, goals of activity, etc. We can distinguish utilitarian (instrumental-business) and emotionally expressive (emotional-confessional) friendship (I. S. Kon).

The mechanism for the development of interpersonal relationships is empathy - the response of one person to the experiences of another. Empathy has several levels (N. N. Obozov). The first level includes cognitive empathy, which manifests itself in the form of understanding the mental state of another person (without changing one’s state). The second level involves empathy in the form of not only understanding the state of the object, but also empathy with it, i.e. emotional empathy. The third level includes cognitive, emotional and, most importantly, behavioral components. This level involves interpersonal identification, which is mental (perceived and understood), sensory (empathetic) and effective. There are complex, hierarchically organized relationships between these three levels of empathy. Various forms of empathy and its intensity can be inherent in both the subject and the object of communication. A high level of empathy determines emotionality, responsiveness, etc.

The conditions for the development of interpersonal relationships significantly influence their dynamics and forms of manifestation. In urban conditions, compared to rural areas, interpersonal contacts are more numerous, quickly established and just as quickly interrupted. The influence of the time factor varies depending on the ethnic environment: in Eastern cultures, the development of interpersonal relationships is, as it were, extended over time, while in Western cultures it is compressed and dynamic.

2.1. Functions of communication in interpersonal relationships

The functions of communication are understood as those roles and tasks that communication performs in the process of human social existence. The functions of communication are diverse, and there are various bases for their classification.

One of the generally accepted bases for classification is the identification of three interconnected aspects or characteristics in communication - informational, interactive and perceptual (Andreeva G. M., 1980). In accordance with this, information-communicative, regulatory-communicative and affective-communicative functions are distinguished (Lomov B.F., 1984).

The information and communication function of communication consists of any type of exchange of information between interacting individuals. The exchange of information in human communication has its own specifics. First, we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is an active subject (as opposed to a technical device). Secondly, the exchange of information necessarily involves the interaction of thoughts, feelings and behavior of partners. Thirdly, they must have a single or similar system of codification/decodification of messages.

The transmission of any information is possible through various sign systems. Usually, a distinction is made between verbal (speech is used as a sign system) and nonverbal (various non-speech sign systems) communication.

In turn, nonverbal communication also has several forms:

Kinetics (optical-kinetic system, including gestures, facial expressions, pantomime);

Proxemics (norms for organizing space and time in communication);

Visual communication (eye contact system).

Sometimes the set of odors possessed by communication partners is separately considered as a specific sign system. 3

The regulatory-communicative (interactive) function of communication is to regulate behavior and directly organize the joint activities of people in the process of their interaction. Here it is worth saying a few words about the tradition of using the concepts of interaction and communication in social psychology. The concept of interaction is used in two ways: firstly, to characterize the actual real contacts of people (actions, counteractions, assistance) in the process joint activities; secondly, to describe mutual influences (impacts) on each other in the course of joint activities, or more broadly - in the process social activity.

In the process of communication as interaction (verbal, physical, non-verbal), an individual can influence motives, goals, programs, decision-making, execution and control of actions, i.e., all components of his partner’s activities, including mutual stimulation and behavior correction.

Identification is the mental process of assimilating oneself to a communication partner in order to cognize and understand his thoughts and ideas.

The affective-communicative function of communication is associated with the regulation of a person’s emotional sphere. Communication is the most important determinant of a person’s emotional states. The entire spectrum of specifically human emotions arises and develops in the conditions of human communication - either a rapprochement of emotional states occurs, or their polarization, mutual strengthening or weakening.

It is possible to give another classification scheme of communication functions, in which, along with those listed, other functions are separately identified: organization of joint activities; people getting to know each other; formation and development of interpersonal relationships. In part, this classification is given in the monograph by V.V. Znakov (1994); the cognitive function as a whole is included in the perceptual function identified by G. M. Andreeva (1988). A comparison of two classification schemes allows us to conditionally include the functions of cognition, the formation of interpersonal relationships and the affective-communicative function in the perceptual function of communication as more capacious and multidimensional (Andreeva G. M., 1988). When studying the perceptual side of communication, a special conceptual and terminological apparatus is used, which includes a number of concepts and definitions and allows one to analyze various aspects of social perception in the process of communication.

Firstly, communication is impossible without a certain level of mutual understanding between the communicating subjects. Understanding is a certain form of reproduction of an object in knowledge that arises in the subject in the process of interaction with cognizable reality (Znakov V.V., 1994). In the case of communication, the object of cognizable reality is another person, a communication partner. At the same time, understanding can be considered from two sides: as a reflection in the consciousness of interacting subjects of each other’s goals, motives, emotions, attitudes; and how the acceptance of these goals allows relationships to be established. Therefore, in communication it is advisable to talk not about social perception in general, but about interpersonal perception or perception. Some researchers prefer to talk not about perception, but about the knowledge of another (Bodalev A. A., 1965, 1983).

The main mechanisms of mutual understanding in the communication process are identification, empathy and reflection. The term “identification” has several meanings in social psychology. In communication issues, identification is the mental process of assimilating oneself to a communication partner in order to cognize and understand his thoughts and ideas. Empathy also refers to the mental process of likening oneself to another person, but with the goal of “understanding” the experiences and feelings of the person being cognized. The word "understanding" is used here in a metaphorical sense - empathy is "affective understanding."

As can be seen from the definitions, identification and empathy are very close in content and often in the psychological literature the term “empathy” has a broad interpretation - it includes the processes of understanding both the thoughts and feelings of a communication partner. At the same time, when speaking about the process of empathy, one must also keep in mind an unconditionally positive attitude towards the individual. This means two things:

a) acceptance of a person’s personality as a whole;

b) own emotional neutrality, absence of value judgments about what is perceived (Sosnin V. A., 1996).

Reflection in the problem of understanding each other is an individual’s understanding of how he is perceived and understood by his communication partner. In the course of mutual reflection of communication participants, reflection is a kind of feedback that contributes to the formation of both the behavioral strategy of the subjects of communication and the correction of their understanding of the characteristics of each other’s inner world.

Another mechanism of understanding in communication is interpersonal attraction. Attraction (from English - to attract, attract) is the process of forming the attractiveness of a person for the perceiver, the result of which is the formation of interpersonal relationships. Currently, an expanded interpretation of the attraction process is being formed as the formation of emotional and evaluative ideas about each other and about one’s interpersonal relationships (both positive and negative) as a kind of social attitude with a predominance of the emotional and evaluative component.

The considered classifications of communication functions, of course, do not exclude each other. Moreover, there are other classification options. This, in turn, suggests that the phenomenon of communication as a multidimensional phenomenon must be studied using systems analysis methods.

2.2. Structure of communication in interpersonal relationships

In Russian social psychology, the problem of the structure of communication occupies an important place. The methodological study of this issue at the moment allows us to identify a set of fairly generally accepted ideas about the structure of communication (Andreeva G. M., 1988; Lomov B. F., 1981; Znakov V. V., 1994), which serve as a general methodological guideline for organizing research.

The structure of an object in science is understood as the order of stable connections between the elements of the object of study, ensuring its integrity as a phenomenon during external and internal changes. The problem of the structure of communication can be approached in different ways, both by highlighting the levels of analysis of this phenomenon, and by listing its main functions. Usually there are at least three levels of analysis (Lomov B.F., 1984):

1. Macro level: an individual’s communication with other people is considered as the most important aspect of his lifestyle. At this level, the communication process is studied in time intervals comparable to the duration human life, with an emphasis on the analysis of the mental development of the individual. Communication here acts as a complex developing network of relationships between an individual and other people and social groups.

2. Mesa level (middle level): communication is considered as a changing set of purposeful, logically completed contacts or interaction situations in which people find themselves in the process of current life activity at specific time periods of their lives. The main emphasis in the study of communication at this level is on the content components of communication situations - “about what” and “for what purpose.” Around this core topic, the subject of communication, the dynamics of communication are revealed, the means used (verbal and non-verbal) and the phases or stages of communication are analyzed, during which the exchange of ideas, ideas, and experiences takes place.

3. Micro level: here the main emphasis is on the analysis of elementary units of communication as related acts, or transactions. It is important to emphasize that the elementary unit of communication is not a change in the intermittent behavioral acts of its participants, but their interaction. It includes not only the action of one and the partners, but also the associated assistance or opposition of the other (for example, “question-answer”, “incitement to action - action”, “communication of information and attitude towards it”, etc.). 4

Each of the listed levels of analysis requires special theoretical, methodological and methodological support, as well as its own special conceptual apparatus. And since many problems in psychology are complex, the task arises of developing ways to identify relationships between different levels and discover the principles of these relationships.

2.3. Types of communication in the system of interpersonal relations

Interpersonal communication is associated with direct contacts of people in groups or pairs with a constant composition of participants. In social psychology, there are three types of interpersonal communication: imperative, manipulative and dialogical.

Imperative communication is authoritarian, directive interaction with a communication partner in order to achieve control over his behavior, attitudes and thoughts, forcing him to certain actions or decisions. In this case, the communication partner is considered as an object of influence; he acts as a passive, “suffering” party. The ultimate goal of such communication - coercion of a partner - is not veiled. Orders, regulations and demands are used as means of exerting influence. It is possible to indicate a number of areas of activity where the use of imperative communication is quite effective. These areas include: relations of subordination and subordination in conditions of military activity, “superior-subordinate” relations in extreme conditions, under emergency circumstances, etc. But we can also identify those areas of interpersonal relationships where the use of the imperative is inappropriate. These are intimate-personal and marital relationships, child-parent contacts, as well as the entire system of pedagogical relations.

Manipulative communication is a type of interpersonal communication in which influence on a communication partner in order to achieve one’s intentions is carried out covertly. Like the imperative, manipulation presupposes an objective perception of the communication partner, the desire to achieve control over the behavior and thoughts of another person. The sphere of “permitted manipulation” is business and business relationship at all. This type of communication was symbolized by the concept of communication developed by Dale Carnegie and his followers. The manipulative style of communication is also widespread in the field of propaganda.

Dialogical communication is an equal subject-subject interaction aimed at mutual knowledge and self-knowledge of communication partners. Such communication is possible only if a number of rules of relationship are observed:

1. the presence of a psychological attitude towards the current state of the interlocutor and one’s own current psychological state (following the “here and now” principle).

2.Use of non-judgmental perception of the partner’s personality, an a priori attitude of trust in his intentions.

3. Perception of a partner as an equal, having the right to his own opinion and decisions.

5. You should personalize communication, that is, conduct a conversation on your own behalf (without reference to the opinions of authorities), present your true feelings and desires.

Dialogical communication allows you to achieve deeper mutual understanding, self-disclosure of partners’ personalities, and creates conditions for mutual personal growth.

The following types of communication can also be distinguished:

Formal-role communication, when both the content and means of communication are regulated and instead of knowing the personality of the interlocutor, they make do with knowledge of his social role.

Business conversation– situations when the goal of interaction is to achieve some clear agreement or agreement. In business communication, the personality characteristics and mood of the interlocutor are taken into account, first of all, to achieve the main goal in the interests of the business. Business communication is usually included as private moment into any joint productive activity of people and serves as a means of improving the quality of this activity. Its content is what people are doing, and not the problems that affect their inner world.

Intimate and personal communication is possible when you can touch on any topic and do not necessarily resort to words; the interlocutor will understand you by facial expression, movements, and intonation. In such communication, each participant has an image of the interlocutor, knows his personality, and can anticipate his reactions, interests, beliefs and attitudes. Most often, such communication occurs between close people and is largely the result of previous relationships. Unlike business communication, this communication, on the contrary, is centered around psychological problems, interests and needs, which deeply and intimately affect a person’s personality: searching for the meaning of life, determining one’s attitude towards a significant person, to what is happening around, resolving any internal conflict, etc.

Social communication. The essence of secular communication is its pointlessness, that is, people do not say what they think, but what is supposed to be said in such cases; this communication is closed, because people’s points of view on a particular issue do not matter and will not determine the nature of communications.

There is also instrumental communication, which is not an end in itself, is not independently stimulated by need, but pursues some goal other than obtaining satisfaction from the act of communication itself. In contrast, targeted communication itself serves as a means of satisfying a specific need, in in this case communication needs.

Diagnostic communication aims to form a certain idea about the interlocutor or obtain some information from him. Partners are in different positions: one asks, the other answers.

Educational communication involves situations in which one of the participants purposefully influences the other, quite clearly imagining the desired result, that is, knowing what he wants to convince the interlocutor of, what he wants to teach him, etc.

CONCLUSION

Communication is of great importance in the formation of the human psyche, its development and the formation of reasonable, cultural behavior. Through communication with psychologically developed people, thanks to wide possibilities to learning, a person acquires all his higher cognitive abilities and qualities. Through active communication with developed personalities, he himself turns into a personality.

If from birth a person was deprived of the opportunity to communicate with people, he would never become a civilized, cultural and morally developed citizen, and would be doomed to remain a half-animal until the end of his life, only externally, anatomically and physiologically reminiscent of a person.

Communication with adults in the early stages of ontogenesis is especially important for the mental development of a child. At this time, he acquires all his human, mental and behavioral qualities almost exclusively through communication, since until the start of school, and even more definitely - until adolescence, he is deprived of the ability for self-education and self-education. The mental development of a child begins with communication. This is the first type of social activity that arises in ontogenesis and thanks to which the baby receives the information necessary for its individual development. In communication, first through direct imitation (vicarious learning) , and then through verbal instructions (verbal learning) the child's basic life experience is acquired.

Communication constitutes the internal mechanism of joint activities of people, the basis of interpersonal relationships. The increasing role of communication and the importance of its study is due to the fact that in modern society, decisions are made much more often in direct, immediate communication between people, which were previously made, as a rule, by individuals.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. – M., Aspect Press, 1996. – 504s.

Brudny A.A. Understanding and communication. M., 1989. - 341 p.

Zimnyaya I.A. Psychology of teaching a foreign language at school. – M., 1991. – 285 p.

Krizhanskaya Yu.S., Tretyakov V.V. Grammar of communication. L., 1990. - 476s.

Labunskaya V.A. Non-verbal communication. – Rostov-on-Don, 1979. – 259s.

Leontyev A.N. Problems of mental development. – M., 1972. – 404 p.

Lomov B.F. Communication and social regulation of individual behavior // Psychological problems of social regulation of behavior, - M., 1976. – 215 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. St. Petersburg, 1998. – 367 p.

Interpersonal perception and understanding / Ed. V. N. Druzhinina. – M.: Infra-M, 1999. – 589 p.

Nemov R.S. Psychology. Book 1: Fundamentals of general psychology. – M., Education, 1994. - 502 p.

Obozov N. N. Interpersonal relations. - L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1979. - 247 p.

Communication and optimization of joint activities. Edited by Andreeva G.M. and Yanoushek Y. - M., Moscow State University, 1987. – 486 p.

Shibutani T. Social psychology. Per. from English Rostov-on-Don, 1998. – 405s

APPLICATION

FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNICATION IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

Information and communication

Regulatory-communicative

Affective-communicative

Scheme. Functions of communication in interpersonal relationships

		This is a multifaceted process of developing contacts between people, generated by the needs of joint activities.
	Causal attribution	interpretation by the subject of interpersonal perception of the reasons and motives of other people's behavior
		(Greek empatheia-empathy) comprehension of the emotional states of another person in the form of experience
	Identification	the mental process of assimilating oneself to a communication partner in order to cognize and understand his thoughts and ideas.
	Understanding	this is a certain form of reproduction of an object in knowledge that arises in the subject in the process of interaction with cognizable reality
	Reflection	the process of self-knowledge by the subject of internal mental acts and states.
	Attraction	(from English - attract, attract) a concept denoting the emergence, when a person perceives a person, of the attractiveness of one of them for another.
	Dialogical communication	equal subject-subject interaction, with the goal of mutual knowledge, self-knowledge of communication partners. Such communication is possible only if a number of rules of relationships are observed.
	Manipulative communication	a type of interpersonal communication in which influence on a communication partner in order to achieve one’s intentions is carried out secretly problem interpersonal relations child with other children. Attitude to others people constitutes the main fabric..., but are also realized, manifested in interaction of people. At the same time attitude to another, as opposed to communication... intimate interpersonal relationship Abstract >> Psychology ... interpersonal relations And interaction of people. The subject of my course work is to determine the place of communication in the structure interpersonal interaction And interaction of people ... interpersonal relationships In domestic social psychology problem ... Interpersonal relationship (2) Abstract >> Psychology One of the most important. Problems interpersonal relations In fact, with all group... so that two or more of people could to interact, remaining indifferent to each other... participating in a concerted action People simultaneously interact in two languages... Interpersonal relationship concept and main features Abstract >> Management ... problem studying interpersonal relations becomes very relevant in a team. Today in the psychological press there is much talk about interpersonal interaction ... Interpersonal relationship in the medical team Thesis >> Psychology Concept interpersonal relations. Interpersonal relationship of people– these are subjective connections that arise as a result of their actual interaction and... components under the influence of others of people. Problem interpersonal relations occupied a position in the team for a long time...

Interpersonal relationships are quite multifaceted in psychologically a process that involves and goes through its own dramatic periods and stages.

Word development means “the process of transition from one state to another, more perfect one; transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state; from simple to complex, from lower to higher." In another meaning the word development presupposes a degree of consciousness, enlightenment, and culture.

In psychological anthropology, V.I. Slobodchikov and E.I. Isaev (2000) write that the category development at the same time must hold combine three enough independent process:

● formation– as maturation and growth (corresponds primarily to natural structures);

● formation– design and improvement (suitable for socio-cultural structures);

● transformation– as self-development and a change in the main vector of life (corresponds to spiritual and practical structures).

Thus, by the development of interpersonal relationships we will understand their procedural side (formation and change). In addition, the development of relationships presupposes the development of their subjects, the implementation of the basic life processes of the individual: adaptation, self-regulation, self-government, development.

Let's consider the dynamics of relationship development within the framework of three different concepts - the concept of filters in the development of emotional relationships by L.Ya. Gozman, the stage of development of relationships by V.N. Kunitsyna et al., the concept of the interactive contact cycle used in Gestalt therapy.

From the point of view of L.Ya. Gozman (1987), the development of interpersonal relationships is a process of successively overcoming filters or barriers. Crossing the barrier allows partners to move from superficial acquaintance to deeper interpersonal relationships. Each barrier corresponds to a certain stage of the relationship. Deep, stable relationships can be achieved by those people who consistently overcome all barriers.

L.Ya. Gozman (1987) identifies three main barriers or obstacles that must be overcome for the development and continuation of emotional relationships.

First barrier. It is determined by the patterns of attraction (attractiveness) of partners for each other initial stage relationship development. At this stage, a partner with certain characteristics (appearance, a tendency to cooperate, etc.) acts as a stimulus and is evaluated depending on social value these properties, parameters of the interaction situation, the state and properties of the person himself. With an unfavorable combination of these variables, attraction does not arise, communication does not continue, and the relationship does not develop further.

Second barrier. It represents a requirement for a certain level of similarity between oneself and a partner. The similarity of attitudes also acts in the initial period of acquaintance as a basis for choosing a partner. But later this similarity becomes deeper.

The main task for passing the first two obstacles is to ensure psychological safety, create a comfortable and non-anxious situation that guarantees a certain level of acceptance of communication partners.

Third barrier. This is a role correspondence that has its own, purely individual character for each couple. Overcoming this barrier is possible by including communication partners in joint activities. This opportunity is provided by a combination of personal and behavioral characteristics that represent role conformity. It is quite difficult to make predictions about the passage of the third barrier. This is explained by the fact that as relationships develop, they acquire an increasingly unique character, so it is quite difficult to formulate patterns common to all couples.

Of course, overcoming barriers is a necessary condition favorability (satisfaction, harmony), or vice versa, unfavorability, disharmony of interpersonal relationships. We will supplement L.Ya. Gozman’s position with the functions of barriers, the nature of which also affects the quality of relations.

Therefore, we consider it legitimate to supplement the described position with the following. Barrier in interpersonal relationships - “these are external and internal obstacles that resist the manifestations of the subject’s life and activity.” On a personal level barriers act as barriers that prevent the satisfaction of human needs and aspirations. Barriers are fixed in the psyche in an emotional-sensual, then cognitive form (knowledge, images, concepts). R.H. Shakurov (2001) identifies the following barrier functions:

· creative– which includes the mobilization of the subject’s resources to overcome environmental resistance that interferes with the satisfaction of needs; regulation of movements (behavior) taking into account the nature of the obstacles to be overcome; development - changing internal conditions in the direction of increasing their functionality;

· braking– consists of stopping or suppressing a person’s life to satisfy his needs;

· overwhelming– the satisfaction of important needs is blocked and a destructive, pathogenic effect is exerted on the individual.

Thus, the development of relations will be determined both by the nature of the barrier itself and the functions that it possesses. Another question that remains unanswered is whether the barrier acts as a barrier for each of the partners or only for one of them?

Considering overcoming barriers, as a driving force for the development of relations, it is necessary to address the problem of their “awareness” exactly how barriers subjects of relations. In our opinion, constructive development of relations is possible only when both subjects are aware of the presence of a barrier and have the desire to overcome them. Otherwise, there will be an increase in tension and conflict in the relationship, until it ends.

The next approach to developing relationships is presented in the work of V.N. Kunitsyna and co-authors. The authors believe that interpersonal relationships begin ( and stop – highlighted by me - S.D.) from an interpersonal event. It is understood as “a significant change in life for a given person, in which a key role is played by another person with whom they are (or were) in direct contact.” They distinguish the following stages of relationship development:

The stage of rapprochement its basis is the search and choice of a partner. The factors of interpersonal attraction are: external data (gender, age, profession, demeanor, etc.); the requirement of a certain similarity between oneself and the partner; possibility of inclusion in joint activities. At this stage, relationships do not acquire an interpersonal character. With an unfavorable combination of the described factors, attraction does not arise and communication does not continue. Accordingly, the relationship does not acquire an interpersonal character.

Stage of intimacy. Its basis is the formation of a couple. This process includes the following phases: people begin to meet more often in more and more diverse situations; seek each other's company; are becoming more open friend to a friend; begin to understand each other’s point of view and worldview; people begin to feel that the well-being of each of them is connected with the stability and reliability of their relationships; relationships begin to be viewed not only from the point of view of the present, but also the future. This is the level of close, trusting relationships.

Stage of differentiation. Its basis is the desire to oppose too much attachment with one’s independence, to have one’s own special interests that do not coincide with the interests of one’s partner, to think more about realizing one’s capabilities than about partnership. Here, in interpersonal relationships, the need for autonomy, uniqueness, and uniqueness of the subjects of the relationship is realized.

Distance stage. Its basis is drawing a boundary between I and You, the desire to free oneself from a partner, and, ultimately, to part with him. At this stage, judgments about each other's behavior change; Mutual assessments of partners become lower. The extreme degree of distance is avoidance of contacts with each other, a feeling of exhaustion of the relationship.

Stage of relationship breakdown. At the heart of this stage is the end of the relationship. There are four stages in this process (S.Duck, 1990):

a) intrapsychic - occurs when a person decides that he or she cannot tolerate an existing relationship. Attention is focused on the behavior of the other and assessing the extent to which this behavior can be tolerated, and when tolerance comes to an end, a break in the relationship is necessary;

b) dyadic - characterized by periodic clarification of relations between partners, experimentation with their relationships, an active search for new forms, a tendency to fantasize about the future;

c) social – information is provided significant people about the intention to break off relations in order to gain their support. Between partners there is a constant transition from quarrels to reconciliations, doubt and anxiety about their future, fear of loneliness are updated;

d) “finishing” phase. The task of this phase is to spread one’s own version of the collapse, self-justification, reinterpretation of what is happening, in order to create the most favorable and non-traumatic history of emotional relationships with a former partner.

However, this position is not without its drawbacks. The most important of them is why the last stage in the development of a relationship is its disintegration? If this is so, then people initially meet to break up! But another development option is also possible - relationships can become more harmonious, closer, more intimate.

The following view on the problem of relationship development can be found in Gestalt approach, where the order of development of relations is called interpersonal cycle of experience. In contrast to the positions described above, this describes the stages of interpersonal contact (act of interaction), the passage of which determines the nature of the interaction between people. As E.I. Sereda (2006) writes, “such a division is artificial, but it gives an understanding of what happens to the relationship at the beginning, middle and end of the interaction between two partners.”

Stages of the Interpersonal Cycle logically and meaningfully successively replace each other. Moreover, each stage contains elements of all other stages. The interpersonal cycle includes: awareness, action, contact, resolution - completion and exit from contact.

Awareness Stage- the transition of one person to a system of people - a couple (group). This is the beginning of a relationship between partners, suggesting interaction between them, which is possible when talking man expresses out loud what is obvious to him, but may not be obvious to others. At the same time, the listener needs to make an effort and concentrate his attention in order not only to hear the other person, but also to understand his experiences. The result of awareness is a joint interest, need or desire that the subjects of the relationship seek to satisfy.

If awareness occurs rarely and is episodic, then contact will be superficial or episodic. This means that the subjects of the relationship will constantly discuss the same problems and face the same difficulties.

Stage of action (energy). The desires and intentions of the subjects of the relationship are most clearly manifested. At this stage, a holistic image of joint action is formed. The attention and energy of the partners are concentrated on this image, while other, less significant interests or desires for them at the moment are dissolved. At this stage, receptivity, interest in proposals, the ability to give and take support, and the ability to flexibly move from seriousness to ease in interaction with each other are necessary.

Contact stage. Contact is “an awareness of difference (“new” or “different”) at the boundary between the inner and outer world, characterized by energy (excitement), increased participation, attention to what crosses the boundary, and deviation from what is unacceptable.” Contact gives the subjects of the relationship a feeling of reciprocity, satisfaction, and promotes mutual understanding. Partners carry out their plans, realize their desires and fulfill the agreements reached.

At the contact stage, relationships either strengthen and deepen if joint interests and desires are realized, or weaken and collapse if joint interests are not satisfied.

Resolution-completion stage. The subjects of the relationship discuss what happened to them, express their experiences, generalize and consolidate the experience gained. How stronger feelings, interest and desires, the more time is required for this stage. This stage allows you to save the minimum energy necessary for the relationship to further develop. If the completion of the contact occurs successfully, the subjects of the relationship can calmly move away from each other before new sensations and new awareness arise. With such distance, they retain interest and sympathy for each other.

If the completion of the contact is unsuccessful, the partners either deny or devalue the experience gained, then they cannot use it. The result is either the impossibility of moving away from each other, or, moving away, they continue to think about what happened. Failure to complete the contact cycle makes it difficult to further develop the relationship and can even lead to its breakup.

Exit stage. This is the end of the interactive cycle. “Any person should have the opportunity not only to contact people, but also to get out of this contact - first to feel closeness, and then to “get out” of it.” The exit makes it possible to draw clear personal boundaries, maintaining a distance between the subjects of the relationship so that everyone has the opportunity to feel like a separate, autonomous person.

Successful completion of the described stages leads to mature relationships, for which the following is characteristic.

1. The psychological boundaries of the subjects of the relationship become clear and permeable. As a result, their good and free contact is possible.

2. The subjects of the relationship come to terms with the fact that they are different from each other, begin to respect this, supporting the open expression of their feelings and thoughts.

3. Relationship subjects can recognize obstacles in the development of their relationships.

4. The subjects of the relationship gain the skill of supporting each other, showing mutual interest in each other’s feelings and views, and learn to resolve difficult situations.

To summarize what has been said, we note that the procedural plan for considering interpersonal relationships must be viewed through the prism crisis theory of personality development(V.A. Ananyev, 1999), according to which the development of interpersonal relationships can go in two ways.

First– relies on analog changes, with gradual, smooth, slow or fast transition from one level to another (according to rheostat principle– changes along the continuum).

Second option for the development of interpersonal relationships is discrete path; development is associated with emerging relationships between people crises.

Accordingly, the development of interpersonal relationships presupposes the presence of normative and non-normative crises, the features of overcoming which will determine their nature.

As V.A. Ananiev (1999) points out, examples of normative crises can be family crises, such as: premarital period, marriage, pregnancy, birth of a child, departure of an adult child from the family, departure of one of the spouses from the family (divorce or death one of the spouses). Such normativity is that these events usually occur (but as life experience shows, not always), at a certain age and have a certain content. TO non-normative crises These include special events, atypical, individual, unpredictable, which also influence the development (nature) of interpersonal relationships between people.

To summarize what has been said, we note that the development of interpersonal relationships depends on the nature of interpersonal interactions between subjects, the analysis of which will be presented in the next part of the book.

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 . Are being researched general features formation of the image of another person and the concept of his personality, the significance of a person’s gender, age, profession and belonging to a particular social community for the formation of his knowledge about other people is clarified, typical mistakes that a person makes when assessing the people around him are revealed, connections between his knowledge of himself and his understanding of others. Previously unknown facts many branches of psychological science are enriched, and practitioners receive additional features 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 they 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 contacts that occur, such reactions do not occur. of great importance and are soon forgotten.

When people continue to communicate with each other, more stable orientations arise. Although the expression "interpersonal relationships" is used differently 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.

Because man is waiting special attention from his closest friends and is not inclined to wait good attitude from those whom he does not love, each party in the system of interpersonal relations is bound by a number of special rights and obligations. 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 individual characteristics participants, their feelings and preferences. Unlike conventional roles, most interpersonal roles are not specifically taught. Each person develops his own type of relationship with his 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 towards 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. Externally they adapt 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 special personal orientation of each actor manifests itself in his performance style, as well as in what he does when the situation is not well 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, turns a blind eye to 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: he 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 accept a role a certain 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 contacts that take place in big city 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 it's completely different types interactions, 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 the 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 reassessment” of the relationship.

Since the study of feelings is only now entering the mainstream, it is not surprising that 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 take shape, 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. In order 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 the object of love or humiliates him, 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 the structure 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 hypothesis can be proposed: the formation of any private network 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. Feelings organized in this way can subsequently be transferred to real human beings - often to their horror, because real people cannot live up to the expectations caused by a disordered imagination. This inevitably leads to disappointment. Some people seem to spend their entire 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 traditional 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, regard his mother with deep affection, 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.” etc. 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.

Interpersonal interaction- this is the process of direct or indirect influence of objects (subjects) on each other, giving rise to their mutual conditionality and connection.

In interpersonal interaction, a person’s attitude towards another person is realized as a subject who has his own world. These relationships are built on the basis of communication between people and in the process of joint activities: interpersonal relationships- this is internal, hidden process relationships between people.

1. Relations of production– 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.
2. Household relations– fold out labor activity on vacation and at home; 3. Economic relations– are implemented in the sphere of production, ownership and consumption, which is a market for material and spiritual products. Here a person plays two interrelated roles - seller and buyer.

4. Legal relations- are fixed by law. They establish the measure of individual freedom as a subject of production, economic, political and other public relations. These relationships, based on legislative rules, carry a great moral burden.

5. Moral relations– are enshrined in relevant rituals, traditions, customs and other forms of organizing people’s lives. These forms contain moral standard behavior at the level 6. Religious relations reflect the interaction of people that are formed under the influence of the faith and religion that is characteristic of a given society or social group.
7. Political relations center around the problem of power. The latter automatically leads to the dominance of those who possess it and the subordination of those who lack it. Power intended to organize social relations is realized in the form of leadership functions in communities of people 8. Aesthetic relations arise on the basis of the emotional and psychological attractiveness of people to each other and the aesthetic reflection of material objects of the external world. These relationships are characterized by great subjective variability.
Social and psychological climate of the group – This is the prevailing and relatively stable spiritual atmosphere, or mental attitude, manifested both in the relations of people to each other and in relations to a common cause.

Definition and structure of communication

Modern psychological and pedagogical science uses various definitions of the concept of “communication”. Here are just a few of them:

1. Communication– the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, which is based on the motivation of the participants, aimed at changing the behavior and personal and semantic formations of the partner.

2. Communication– interaction between two or more people, consisting in the exchange of information between them of a cognitive or affective-evaluative nature.
Purpose of communication– answers the question “Why does a creature enter into an act of communication?” In animals, the goals of communication usually do not go beyond the biological needs that are relevant to them (warning of danger). Communication structure. three interconnected sides of communication - the communicative side of communication (exchange of information between subjects), the interactive side of communication (influencing the behavior, attitudes, opinions of interlocutors during communication, building a general interaction strategy), the perceptual side of communication (perception, study, establishing mutual understanding, evaluation communication partners with each other) (G. M. Andreeva).

B. D. Parygin offers a more detailed structure of communication: subjects of communication; means of communication; needs, motivation and goals of communication; methods of interaction, mutual influence and reflection of influences in the communication process; results of communication.

Communication functions. According to the ideas of B.F. Lomov, the following three functions are distinguished in communication: information-communicative (covering the processes of receiving and transmitting information), regulatory-communicative (related to mutual adjustment of actions when carrying out joint activities), affective-communicative (relating to emotional sphere person and meets the needs to change their emotional state).

Classification of types of communication.

Communication can be viewed from various grounds and, accordingly, we should talk about the existence of many types of communication.

Thus, N. I. Shevandrin identifies the following forms and types of communication:

1. Direct and indirect communication. carried out with the help of natural organs given to a living being by nature: hands, head, torso, voice. Indirect communication is communication through written or technical devices. 2. Interpersonal and mass communication. Interpersonal communication is associated with direct contacts of people in groups or pairs with a constant composition of participants. Mass communication is a lot of contacts strangers, as well as communication mediated by various types of media mass media. 3.Interpersonal and role communication. In the first case, the participants in communication are specific individuals. In the case of role communication, its participants act as role bearers (teacher-student, superior-subordinate).

Psychologist L. D. Stolyarenko distinguishes types of communication according to the nature of the course: * “contact of masks” (formal communication when familiar masks are used (politeness, severity, indifference));

*primitive communication (when they evaluate another person as a necessary or interfering object (if necessary, they come into contact, if it interferes, they push away)); *formal-role communication (when both the content and means of communication are regulated, and instead of knowing the personality of the interlocutor, they make do with knowledge of his social role); *business communication (when the personality characteristics of the interlocutor are taken into account, but the interests of the business are placed in the foreground), *spiritual-interpersonal communication (the type of communication that is observed in friendships);

*manipulative communication (communication aimed at obtaining benefits using various techniques(flattery, intimidation, deception)); *social communication

Among the types of communication we can highlight nonverbal and verbal. Nonverbal communication does not involve the use of audible speech or natural language as means of communication. Nonverbal communication is communication through facial expressions, gestures and pantomimes, through direct sensory or bodily contact. These are tactile, visual, auditory, olfactory and other sensations and images received from another person. Verbal communication is inherent only to man and as a mandatory condition involves language acquisition. The development of verbal communication relies on nonverbal means of communication.

Return