The problem of interpersonal relations has been studied in social psychology relatively recently (G.M. Andreeva, B.F. Lomov, A.A. Krylov, A.V. Petrovsky, etc.), at least in comparison with the study of problems of intragroup relations, which were widely studied in the works of N.S. Pryazhnikova, A.V. Karpova, N.I. Shevandrina. It is closely related to purely psychological and sociological research.
Interpersonal relationships are subjectively experienced relationships between people, objectively manifested in the nature and methods of mutual influences exerted by people on each other in the process joint activities and communication. Interpersonal relationships are a system of attitudes, orientations, expectations, stereotypes and other dispositions through which people perceive and evaluate each other. These dispositions are mediated by the content, goals, values and organization of joint activities and act as the basis for the formation of a socio-psychological climate in the team.
Numerous works devoted to the study of groups and teams, group dynamics, group formation, team building, etc., show the influence of the organization of joint activities and the level of development of the group on the formation of interpersonal relationships on the formation of cohesion, value-orientation unity of team members.
In Russian psychology, there are many opinions about the place of interpersonal relationships in the real system of human life. And naturally, first of all, it is necessary to mention V.N. Myasishchev, who believed that the most important thing that determines a person is “... her relationships with people, which are also relationships...”
Based on criteria such as the depth of the relationship, selectivity in choosing partners, the functions of relationships, N.N. Obozov proposes the following classification of interpersonal relationships: acquaintance relationships, friendly, comradely, friendly, love, marital, family and destructive relationships.
Highlighting several levels of characteristics in the personality structure (general species, sociocultural, psychological, individual), he notes: “...Different types of interpersonal relationships presuppose the inclusion of certain levels of personality characteristics in communication...”. Therefore, he considers the main criterion to be the measure, the depth of the individual’s involvement in the relationship.
Of particular interest is the predictive compatibility model of American psychologists R. Ackoff and F. Emery, given by S.V. Kovalev, who identify 4 main types of people depending on their character. In this case, interpersonal relationships (10 varieties) are considered depending on the belonging of the “subjects” to a certain type.
In domestic social psychology, the content of the term “communication” is usually considered in the conceptual dictionary of activity theory. At the same time, both social and interpersonal relationships are realized in communication. In addition, it is traditionally accepted "... to characterize the structure of communication by identifying three interrelated sides in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. The interactive side consists of the organization interactions between communicating individuals, i.e. in the exchange of not only knowledge, but also actions. The perceptual side of communication means the process of perception and cognition of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis...".
In socionics, which considers a person as a psycho-informational system, interpersonal relationships are considered in the context of communication as information interaction, including all three of the above components.
Interpersonal relationships, according to A.V. Petrovsky, are subjectively experienced connections between people, objectively manifested in the character, methods of interpersonal interaction, that is, mutual influences exerted by people on each other in the process of joint activity and communication.
The essence of interpersonal relationships can be understood differently. According to the concept of A.V. Petrovsky, interpersonal relationships in a small group have a dual nature. The surface layer of interpersonal relations inherent in any small group is a system of emotional attractions and repulsions, but in a collective group another layer of interpersonal relations arises, mediated by the goals and motives of joint personally significant and socially valuable joint activities. If the superficial layer of interpersonal relationships is studied by sociometry, then the second deep layer of interpersonal relationships requires a different diagnostic procedure, called A.V. Petrovsky referentometry.
There are four main directions in the study of interpersonal relationships in social psychology and related disciplines.
The first direction is related to the study of relationships between large social groups within the entire society at the level of social stratification (G.M. Andreeva, E.V. Andrienko, Ts.P. Korolenko, etc.).
The second is determined by the study of intergroup relations in conditions when one group acts as a leader, and the other (or others) follow it (I.S. Kon, A.N. Leontiev, A.V. Mudrik, K. Levin).
The third direction is related to the study of relationships between small groups (B.G. Ananyev, A.V. Petrovsky, D. Myers, A. Maslow).
Fourth, it studies the influence of intergroup relations on intragroup processes (E. Burns, T. Shibutani, McDougal, D. Schultz, etc.).
It is difficult to separate these areas, since they are all interconnected and interdependent.
Most modern researchers (G.M. Andreeva, B.G. Ananyev, A.V. Petrovsky, etc.) highlight the following interpersonal relationships: cooperation, competition (competition, rivalry), intergroup conflict and relationships of independence. Competition and conflict are associated with the tendency of differentiation, and cooperation (cooperation, compromise) is associated with the tendency of integration. In fact, competition and conflict are very close interaction strategies here, just like cooperation and compromise. As for independence relationships, they are often not considered as a type of relationship at all. However, independent relations are also relations that may well characterize the position of the group. In relations of independence there are groups that do not have social connections among themselves, while the presence of such makes groups interdependent in one aspect or another of activities and relationships.
Any group is usually divided into microgroups, the relations between which are not stable. One of the most important factors influence on intergroup relations, according to B.F. Lomov, the nature of joint activity stands out. If such activity is extreme in nature and carried out under stressful conditions, then there may be dynamics of intergroup relations described in the works of V. Hanowes, a participant in the famous international expedition led by T. Heyerdahl.
The philosophical and methodological justification for the psychological analysis of interpersonal relationships was given by S.L. Rubinstein. Developing the foundations of the general psychological theory of activity in the early 1920s, he pointed out that activity as a philosophical category is not initially the activity of one subject, but always the activity of subjects, i.e. joint activity that determines interpersonal relationships.
Joint activity is distinguished from individual activity, first of all, by the presence of interaction between the participants in the activity, which transforms, changes their individual activity and is aimed at achieving a common result. Such interaction is observed in cases where the actions of one person or group of persons determine certain actions of other people, and the actions of the latter can influence the actions of the former, etc.
In psychology, such a group is defined as a collective subject of activity. In the foreign theory of social psychology (McDougal, K. Levy), work collectives, their parts, and divisions are called groups. Any enterprise or organization consists of several groups. A group is two or more individuals who interact with each other in such a way that each individual influences and is simultaneously influenced by the other individuals. There are two types of groups - formal and informal. Formal groups or organizations (teams) are created by management when they divide labor horizontally (divisions) and vertically (levels of management) to organize the production or trading process. Their primary function is to perform specific tasks and achieve certain goals.
The effectiveness of formal groups, according to G.M. Andreeva, depends on the size and composition of formal groups, group norms, cohesion of people, the degree of conflict, status and functional roles of group members.
The problem of interpersonal relationships is widely studied by both domestic and foreign authors. Most modern researchers (G.M. Andreeva, B.G. Ananyev, A.V. Petrovsky, etc.) highlight the following interpersonal relationships: cooperation, competition (competition, rivalry), intergroup conflict and relationships of independence. The structure of communication is characterized by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual.
Thus, interpersonal relationships are communicative, interactive and perceptual interactions among team members. The team (labor) is small (1-2 people) or large group people, united by joint activities and aimed at a common result.
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 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. The way each person reacts to the people associated with him forms a second system of rights and responsibilities. The pattern of interpersonal relationships that develop between people involved in a joint action creates another matrix that places further restrictions on what each person can or cannot do.
Even in the most fleeting interactions, there seems to be some sort of interpersonal reaction taking place. When a man and a woman meet, there is often mutual evaluation in erotic terms. However, educated people in such cases usually do not reveal their inner experiences. Remarks regarding a person of the opposite sex are often reserved for one of their closest friends. In most of the contacts that occur, such reactions are of little significance and are soon forgotten.
As people continue to communicate with each other, more stable orientations emerge. Although the expression "interpersonal relationships" is used in various ways in psychiatry and social psychology, it will be used here to designate the mutual orientations that develop and crystallize among individuals in long-term contact. The nature of these relationships in each case will depend on the personality traits of the individuals involved in the interaction.
Since a person expects special attention from his closest friends and is not inclined to expect good treatment from those whom he does not like, each party in the system of interpersonal relations is bound by a number of special rights and responsibilities. Everyone plays a role, but such interpersonal roles should not be confused with conventional roles. Although both types of roles can be defined on the basis of group expectations, there are important differences between them. Conventional roles are standardized and impersonal; the rights and responsibilities remain the same regardless of who fills these roles. But the rights and responsibilities that are established in interpersonal roles depend entirely on 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 surprising that typical patterns of interpersonal relationships are observed and that typical 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. Some sons adore their mothers, but others openly disobey them and constantly contradict them. Three sons of one mother may have different orientations toward her, and despite her best efforts to be impartial, she may find herself constantly favoring one over the others. The feelings that are supposed to arise often do arise, but in many cases, no matter how hard people try, they cannot feel as expected. Outwardly they conform to group norms, but internally everyone knows that the appearance maintained is only a façade.
The independence of interpersonal roles from conventional ones is further manifested in the fact that similar interpersonal relationships can be found in very different conventional states. The conventional roles appropriate for the classroom and the workplace are very different, but there are many similarities in the connections that a teacher develops with her students and a company leader with her employees. The manager can suppress any individuality, considering the activities of employees as an extension of his own efforts. Similar " with an iron hand“The teacher can control the students. In some offices there is a spirit of cheerful familiarity, and even the office boy calls his master by name. Likewise, some classrooms are characterized by an atmosphere of conviviality, and the teacher, who is like an understanding friend, is treated without conventional deference. The head of the firm may be in love with his stenographer, and the accountant, who is also in love with her, may resent him as a rival. Likewise, a teacher may have a favorite student whom she favors, and then his close friends will vie with her for his affection. Despite differences in cultures, in all societies some individuals dominate others due to the characteristics of their personalities, although the traits that inspire awe can vary widely. Men and women fall in love everywhere, heroes are revered everywhere, and the struggle of relatives for the love of their elders is suppressed and erupted everywhere. The moral codes that require appropriate feelings vary from group to group, but violation of such codes occurs everywhere. These observations indicate that various kinds interpersonal relationships can develop in any conventionally ordered situations.
The differences become very clear when the rights and responsibilities that make up the conventional role come into conflict with those rights and responsibilities that make up the interpersonal role. Difficulties arise, for example, when people between whom there is supposed to be a significant social distance begin to become friends. The problem becomes even more difficult when it comes to choosing a love object. Falling in love does not always occur within sanctioned boundaries. One of the most painful conflicts is when a person experiences an irresistible attraction to someone from whom contact is prohibited - to an enemy in time of war, to a person of a different social class or a despised national minority, or to a member of his own family.
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. He may have a desire to strike or influence a colleague with affection, ask what is wrong, or shout at him in rage. Although such impulses are usually suppressed, they often break out in various expressive movements that are noticed by other participants. There is, therefore, a constant exchange of gestures among those engaged in the common enterprise, whereby mutual adjustment is effected. One side of this exchange is conscious and largely symbolic, the other is more spontaneous and spontaneous.
These two forms of interaction almost imperceptibly transform into one another. But the differences here are important, and failure to notice them can lead to great confusion - for example, when studying leadership. There are people who occupy positions of responsibility due to inheritance or due to other conventional arrangements. They are treated with respect, at least in public, but not all of them are respected as individuals. These characters can be contrasted with the "natural leaders" who appear in critical situations - in spontaneous uprisings or in infantry battles. Such charismatic leaders gain followers due to their extraordinary personal qualities and are difficult to replace; those who achieve high positions through institutional procedures are usually replaced without great difficulty2. Similarly, misunderstandings can arise when anthropologists, while describing countless patriarchal customs, demonstrate the dependent position of women without taking into account individual differences. The reader gets the impression that all men in a country like Japan are dominant over women. However, in Japan there seem to be as many husbands under their wives' shoes as anywhere else. In a particular family, relationships depend on the personalities of family members, but this is not noticed by those who have observed only the traditionally humble behavior of Japanese women in the presence of strangers3. Personal documents are especially valuable because they reveal the differences between external conformity with group norms and what happens in private life.
So, 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 their conventional roles. When a person loves someone, he becomes attentive to his loved one, overlooks his shortcomings and rushes to help when necessary. But he does not feel obligated to do the same towards someone he does not love. On the contrary, he will feel even better if he turns aside to cause him trouble. To the extent that such tendencies are established, the system of interpersonal relationships can be seen as another means of social control. The challenge facing social psychologists is to construct an adequate conceptual framework for studying these phenomena.
Introduction
In recent decades, all over the world, more and more new scientists have been involved in the development of a set of problems that make up the psychology of how people know each other. Each scientist is interested, as a rule, in separate and particular issues related to this large complex, but together they create the prerequisites for deep insight into the essence of the process of formation of knowledge of other people in a person, as well as for a true comprehension of the role of this knowledge in human behavior and activity . The general features of the formation of the image of another person and the concept of his personality are explored, the importance of gender, age, profession and a person’s belonging to a particular social community is clarified for the formation of his knowledge about other people, typical mistakes, which a person admits when assessing the people around him, connections can be traced between his knowledge of himself and his understanding of other people. 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 writers give a more convincing description 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. Within a few last decades However, interests are focused on studying close contacts between people. Psychiatrists, who have always been interested in human relationships, were influenced by Sullivan, who argued that personality development is driven by networks of interpersonal relationships. Moreno first attempted to create procedures to describe and measure these networks and, together with his colleagues, developed various sociometric methods. Some psychologists, noting that the perception of human beings is much more complex than the perception of inanimate objects, began to consider this process as a special field of study.
The development of interest in small groups, as well as the growing popularity of existentialism, brought further attention to interpersonal relationships. Although the level of knowledge in this area is still insufficient, its subject is one of the most important.
Interpersonal relationship problems
In fact, in all group activities, participants act simultaneously in two capacities: as performers of conventional roles and as unique human individuals. When conventional roles are played, people act as units of social structure. There is agreement about the contribution that each role holder must make, and each participant's behavior is constrained by cultural expectations. However, by engaging in such enterprises, people remain unique living beings. The reactions of each of them turn out to be dependent on certain qualities of those with whom they happen to come into contact. Therefore, the nature of mutual attraction or repulsion is different in each case. Initial reactions can range from love at first sight to sudden hatred of the other person. A kind of assessment is made, for it is completely implausible that two or more people could interact while remaining indifferent to each other. If contact is maintained, the participants can become friends or rivals, dependent or independent of each other, they can love, hate or be offended by one another. How each person reacts to the people associated with him forms a second system of rights and responsibilities. The pattern of interpersonal relationships that develop between people involved in a joint action creates another matrix that places further restrictions on what each person can or cannot do.
Even in the most fleeting interactions, there seems to be some sort of interpersonal reaction taking place. When a man and a woman meet, there is often mutual evaluation in erotic terms. However, educated people in such cases usually do not reveal their inner experiences. A remark regarding a person of the opposite sex is often reserved for one of his closest friends. In most of the contacts that occur, such reactions are of little significance and are soon forgotten.
When people continue to communicate with each other, more stable orientations arise. Although the expression "interpersonal relationships" is used 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.
Since a person expects special attention from his closest friends and is not inclined to expect good treatment from those whom he does not like, each party in the system of interpersonal relations is bound by a number of special rights and responsibilities. Everyone plays a role, but such interpersonal roles should not be confused with conventional roles. Although both types of roles can be defined on the basis of group expectations, there are important differences between them. Conventional roles are standardized and impersonal; the rights and responsibilities remain the same regardless of who fills these roles. But the rights and responsibilities that are established in interpersonal roles depend entirely on the individual characteristics of the participants, their feelings and preferences. Unlike conventional roles, most interpersonal roles are not specifically taught. Each person develops his own type of relationship with 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. Outwardly they conform to group norms, but internally everyone knows that the appearance maintained is only a façade.
So, people participating in a coordinated action simultaneously interact in the language of two sign systems. As performers of conventional roles, they use conventional symbols, which are the object of social control. At the same time, however, the particular personal orientation of each actor is manifested in the style of his performance, as well as in what he does when the situation is not sufficiently defined and he has some freedom of choice. The manifestation of personality traits, in turn, causes responses, often unconscious. If a person feels that his partners are contributing in some way that is not entirely sincere and sincere, he may become offended, or disappointed, or even begin to despise them - depending on the characteristics of his character.
Our interests concentrate on more or less long-term connections that are established between individuals. Whatever the association, people enter into highly personalized relationships that impose on them special rights and responsibilities regardless of conventional roles. When a person loves someone, he becomes close to his beloved, 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 interactions that take place in a big city are devoid of sentiment. A bus driver, for example, is often treated as if he were just an appendage of the steering wheel. Even in sexual relationships - one of the most personal forms of interaction between individuals - it is possible to perceive another person as “You” or as “It”. Researchers note that prostitutes usually perceive visitors as inanimate objects, only as a source of livelihood. In contrast to such relationships, many of these women have lovers. Psychologically, there are completely different types of interaction, and only the second brings satisfaction. What is essential here is that certain qualities are projected onto the object in order to establish some kind of sympathetic identification. It follows that some conventional roles - such as executioner or soldier in battle - can be performed more effectively if feelings are absent.
These feelings vary significantly in intensity. The latter depends, at least in part, on how contradictory the orientations of one person are in relation to another. For example, falling in love reaches its highest intensity in situations where there is a conflict between erotic impulses and the need to restrain oneself out of respect for the object of love. It is likely that hatred reaches its greatest intensity when there is some ambivalence. This is confirmed by the fact that a person is much more suspicious of a traitor than of an enemy. Like other meanings, feelings, once they have arisen, tend to stabilize. The stability of such orientations is revealed especially in the event of the death of a close being. With his mind, a person accepts the fact of this death, but for some time he can replace the missing communication with interaction with personification. Relatively stable personifications are constantly reinforced due to 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 integral part repetitive interpersonal relationships and can be seen as ways of playing shared 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 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.
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3
The main problems in interpersonal relationships between people....4
Communication is a multifaceted process of developing contacts between people, generated by the needs of joint activities.
The main problems in people's interpersonal relationships.
Problems of interpersonal relationships between people occur quite often in practice. psychological counseling, and if the client does not directly talk about them, expressing complaints only about other personal problems, this does not mean that in fact he does not have problems with interpersonal relationships.
In most cases of life, the opposite is also true: if a client is concerned about the state of affairs in the field of interpersonal relationships, then almost always one can also find personal problems related to his character. In addition, the methods of practical solution of these and other problems are largely similar to each other.
In addition, there is a significant difference in the ways of solving personal and interpersonal problems. If personal problems are usually associated with the need for a radical change in a person’s inner world, then interpersonal problems are with the need to change mainly only the external forms of human behavior that affect the people around him.
Psychological problems related to a person’s relationships with other people can be different in nature. They may be related to a person’s personal and business relationships with the people around him, and relate to relationships with people close to him and quite distant from him, for example, with relatives and strangers.
These problems may also have a pronounced age-related connotation, for example, they arise in the client’s relationships with peers or with people of another generation, younger or older than himself.
The problems of interpersonal relationships can also concern people of different sexes: women and men, both in monosexual and heterosexual social groups.
The multifaceted nature of these problems reflects the complexity of the actually existing system of human relationships.
Problems of the client’s personal relationships with people.
This group of problems primarily includes those that relate to the client’s relationships with those people who are approximately the same age as him and differ in age from each other by no more than two or three years.
A person’s psychological development gradually slows down with age, and the commonality of life experience, psychology and behavior of people becomes the main criterion for assessing them as peers.
Observations show that most often those who are over fifteen and under sixty years old turn to psychological consultation regarding problems in relationships with other people. As for the relationships of preschoolers, primary schoolchildren and older people with each other, they are less likely to cause concern among their participants and, moreover, have their own specific characteristics.
In preschool and junior school age Usually there are no serious problems in children’s relationships with peers that would require increased attention and psychological counseling. In old age, relationships between people are usually limited to a narrow circle of relatives, acquaintances and friends with whom these relationships have been established for a long time and are more or less regulated. In addition, the relationships of older people with others are relatively easily settled due to the extensive life experience accumulated by such people, and, therefore, the problems that arise with them are also relatively easily resolved without resorting to psychological counseling.
Lack of mutual sympathy in personal human relationships.
Show sympathy for your communication partner, trying to understand him even if he is clearly wrong. The client’s attitude in communicating with a partner should be as follows: at all costs, try to understand why at a given moment in time the partner behaves this way and not otherwise;
Try to meet your partner as much as possible, yielding to him, demonstrating a sincere desire to take his needs and interests into account as much as possible.
The client usually complains that conflicts arise too often between close, significant people for him, and he is very worried about them, or he himself often becomes involved in these conflicts against his will. At the same time, it often seems to the client that if it were not for him, then there would be much fewer conflicts between people significant to him.
There may be two different situations here that require different corrective actions on the part of the consulting psychologist.
In the first of the situations, he himself actually acts as a “bone of discord” between the conflicting parties (they, for example, can fight among themselves for his attention to themselves).
In the second situation, the client is not personally involved in the conflict, but his sincere desire to reconcile the conflicting parties and personal intervention in existing conflictual relationships in order to eliminate them does not lead to the desired effect or, on the contrary, gives rise to the opposite result: the conflict only intensifies from the client’s intervention.
In the first of the situations described above, the client can be recommended the following:
- firstly, in no case should you come to the defense of only one of the conflicting parties, or show greater favor to one side to the detriment of the other side. This will not make the conflict disappear, but can only intensify;
– secondly, try in every possible way to avoid showing any special feelings, positive or negative, towards only one of the conflicting parties;
- thirdly, try to make it clear to both parties to the conflict that prerequisite maintaining a friendly relationship between them and the client is to end the conflict.
In the second situation, in order to eliminate the conflict that has arisen or to relieve its severity, it is necessary, first of all, to carefully analyze why the client’s personal intervention in the conflict between people significant to him does not lead to the desired result, that is, to the elimination of the conflict. Until an accurate and clear answer to this question is received, it is advisable to completely stop unsuccessful attempts to interfere with it.
Once a satisfactory answer to the question formulated above has been found, it is necessary to carefully think through and plan actions that, taking into account past failures, this time should lead to a positive result, and experimentally test the corresponding actions in practice.
In this case, it is possible for the client to turn, in particular, to those forms of behavior that have already been discussed in relation to the first of the situations described above.
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 psychological developed people, thanks to ample opportunities for learning, a person acquires all his higher cognitive abilities and quality. Through active communication with developed personalities, he himself turns into a personality.
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 kind social activity, which 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 individual people.
List of used literature.
1. Andreeva psychology. - M: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1988.
2. Bodalev and the understanding of man by man. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1982.
3. Bodalev and communication: Selected works. - M.: Pedagogy, 1983.
4. Leontiev as an object of psychological research // Methodological problems of psychology / Responsible. ed. . - M.: Nauka, 1975. - 295 p.
5. Convoy relationship. - L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1979. Pankratov in disputes and their neutralization. - M.: Ros. ped. agency, 1996.
6. Problems of communication in psychology: Collection of articles / AN, Institute of Sociology.; Rep. ed. . - M.: Nauka, 1981.
7. Petrovskaya in communication: socio-psychological training. M., 1983.
8. Reznikov relationships // Modern psychology: A reference guide / Ed. . - M.: Infra-M, 1999.
9. Lunev become the master of the situation. Anatomy effective communication. Guide for a practical psychologist / IP RAS. - M., 1996.
10. Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology/Ed. And. M., 1977.
11. Shibutani T. Social psychology. M., 1968.
Feelings and emotions in interpersonal relationships
The problem of interpersonal relationships in a group can be approached from different angles. You can explore the form of these relationships, their influence on the individual, on the situation in the group. And all these aspects of interpersonal relationships are important for modern practice.
Intragroup relations They also have a structure. They can be determined both by a person, his position in the system of formal relations, and by the feelings that people experience for each other in the process of joint activity.
Feelings as an indicator of interpersonal relationships have been considered by many psychologists (T. Shibutani, J. Moreno, A. Maslow, K. Rogers, etc.).
People behave according to norms. But feelings determine characteristics and regulate behavior.
- these are stable experiences that are associated with. They direct the mutual orientations of people. Feelings are different from emotions - subjective reactions to the influence of internal and external factors. Feelings are more stable than emotions.
Feelings have certain social functions. The social functions of feelings determine a person’s readiness for a certain way of behavior in a particular situation.
Cognitive function of the senses is associated with understanding the significance of a given event for the person himself.
Mobilization function of feelings manifests itself in a person’s willingness to act in a certain way. Feelings determine the overall energy level of a person’s activity.
Integrative-protective And warning functions provide a choice of direction of activity, orientation in situations and relationships.
Not all interpersonal relationships are accompanied by feelings. A person may not experience any feelings towards another.
If feelings conflict with social norms, then a person is often not aware of them. The problem for some people is that they do not quite understand exactly what feelings they experience in a given situation, if the feelings at the conscious and unconscious levels do not coincide.
A person seeks to avoid negative experiences in a group.
Psychological defense mechanisms
Psychological defense mechanisms Act on subconscious level and represent a system of personality regulation aimed at eliminating negative experiences.
Every person has a normative level of psychological protection. There are individuals for whom the effect of psychological defense is excessive.
In addition to psychological defense, the following specific disturbances are identified when a person experiences relationships in a group: emotional stuckness and explosiveness. Emotionally Stuck is a state in which the emerging affective reaction is fixed on long time and influences thoughts and behavior. For example, an experienced insult “gets stuck” for a long time in a vindictive person. Explosiveness- increased excitability, tendency to violent manifestations of affect, inadequate reaction strength.
In any situation that exists for a relatively long period of time, emotional preferences can be observed. American psychologist J. Moreno, considering the totality of preferences of group members, developed the world-famous theory of sociometry. Moreno believed that a person’s psychological comfort depends on his position in the informal structure of relationships in a small group. The sociometric structure of a group is a set of subordinate positions of group members in the system of interpersonal relations.
System of interpersonal relations
The system of interpersonal relations includes a set of likes and dislikes, preferences and rejections of all group members.
Sociometric status
Each individual in the group has his own sociometric status, which can be defined as the sum of preferences and rejections received from other members. Sociometric status can be higher or lower depending on what feelings other group members experience towards a given subject - positive or negative. The totality of all statuses specifies status hierarchy in the group.
The highest status are considered to be the so-called sociometric stars- members of the group who have the maximum number of positive choices with a small number of negative choices. These are the people to whom the sympathies of the majority, or at least many, members of the group are directed.
Next come high status, average status and low status members of the group, determined by the number of positive choices and not having large number negative elections. There are groups in which there are no sociometric stars, but only high-, medium-, and low-status ones.
At a lower level of intergroup relations are isolated- subjects who lack any choices, both positive and negative. The position of an isolated person in a group is one of the most unfavorable.
Les Miserables- these are group members who have a large number of negative choices and a small number of preferences. At the last step of the hierarchical ladder of social preferences are neglected or outcasts- members of a group who do not have a single positive choice in the presence of negative ones.
Often the position of a sociometric star is considered as the position of a leader. This is not entirely true, since leadership is associated with intervention in the process of action, and sociometric status is determined by feelings. It is possible to find subjects who are both sociometric stars and leaders, but this combination is rare. A person often loses the sympathy of others when becoming a leader. The sociometric star calls good relations, primarily because other people feel psychologically comfortable in the presence of this person. As for the leader, his socio-psychological function is related to management.
The problem of combining a leader and a sociometric star in one person is extremely acute both for the person himself and for the group as a whole. Sometimes, in critical social situations, this can provoke some tendencies of fanatical behavior among group members. In an ordinary family, roles can be distributed as follows: the father is the leader, the mother is the sociometric star. High-status, middle-status, and low-status members of a group usually make up the majority.
Isolated, rejected, and neglected group members are at risk for interpersonal relationships. Particular attention should be paid to the position of the isolated person. In many cases it turns out to be more unfavorable than the position of the rejected or even neglected. A negative attitude toward a person in a group is a more favorable social factor than no attitude at all, since a negative stimulus is better than its absence. Sometimes moving a person from a position of neglect to a position of isolation is considered a great punishment. The phenomenon of the influence of a boycott is known - the termination of a relationship with a person, the lack of response to his words and actions and the manifestations of various feelings towards him. During a boycott, a person finds himself not in the position of the neglected, to whom the negative feelings of others are directed, but in the position of the isolated, to whom those around him are completely indifferent. Changing the sociometric status of a group member is an important problem. A person's status is often a relatively stable value. However, from the point of view of personality development, the invariance of sociometric status is considered a risk factor, even if it is a high status.
The need to change sociometric status dictated by human needs to develop flexible behavioral strategies for social adaptation V various groups. Therefore, it is advisable to go through various statuses. The complexity of the problem also lies in the fact that people perceive and relate to their status differently. Most have an idea of what status they occupy in the primary group. Average-status group members, as a rule, perceive their position adequately. But extreme status categories, due to the action of psychological defenses, often perceive other people’s attitudes toward themselves inadequately. More often than not, it is the sociometric stars and neglected group members who are unaware of their position in the system of interpersonal relationships in the group.
The stability of sociometric status is determined by many factors, among which are the following:
- appearance (physical attractiveness, leading modality of facial expressions, appearance, non-verbal language);
- success in leading activities;
- some character traits (tolerance, sociability, goodwill, low anxiety, stability of the nervous system, etc.);
- the correspondence of an individual’s values to the values of the group of which he is a member;
- position in other social groups.
To change a person's status in a group, sometimes it is enough just to work with one or another status factor.
Reciprocity of emotional preferences
Knowledge of sociometric status does not provide complete information about a person’s position in the system of interpersonal relationships. It is necessary to know about such a phenomenon as reciprocity of emotional preferences group members. Even a sociometric star will feel disadvantaged if her choices are not reciprocated. Conversely, a neglected group member may feel quite well if his choice turned out to be mutual. The more mutual choices a group member has, the more stable and favorable his position in the system of interpersonal relations will be. Groups vary considerably in the reciprocity of choice among their members. If there are few mutual choices in a group, then there will be poor coordination of actions and emotional dissatisfaction of its members with interpersonal relationships.
Interpersonal relationships in a group include relationships of interpersonal preference.
Small group is divided into microgroups, and the larger the small group, the greater the number of microgroups that exist in it. Each microgroup has its own sociometric structure. Often a microgroup is a group of friends with common interests. Sometimes the unification of people into microgroups can be caused by other reasons, for example, belonging to a certain social class, etc.
Identifying the system of rejection in a group is necessary to predict its actions in a situation. Rejections in a group can be grouped into three types.
The first type is normative, indicating the well-being of the relationship as a whole, when rejections are not clearly expressed, there are no persons who received a large number of negative choices, and all rejections are distributed relatively evenly. There are no people whose rejections would prevail over preferences.
The second type is the polarization of rejections, in which two main microgroups are identified that reject each other.
The third type is the most unfavorable for the group, when only one person will be rejected, acting as the defendant for all misunderstandings, the so-called “switchman”. Sometimes in a group, a negative attitude towards one person on the part of the majority can be completely justified. However, such cases are considered exceptional. If the group always chooses the “switcher”, then we can draw a conclusion about the unfavorable nature of interpersonal relationships in it. Even if the person rejected leaves the group, a new “guilty person” will be found for the corresponding role.
Group habits in the system of interpersonal relations are formed in the same way as any other group actions.
Habit refers to a form of social control and guides the behavior of specific individuals and groups as a whole.
The most important characteristics of the system of intragroup preferences are: sociometric status, reciprocity of choice, the presence of stable groups of interpersonal preferences and a system of rejections. Despite the equal importance of all characteristics, special attention is paid to the status of the subject. This is due to the fact that, firstly, status has relative social stability, and the subject often transfers it from one group to another. Secondly, it is the dynamics of the status hierarchy that entails corresponding changes in the system of rejections and relations between microgroups. In addition, a person’s understanding of his status in the system of interpersonal relationships has a significant impact on the individual’s self-esteem.