Relationship most often refers to:

  • Interpersonal relationship, a strong, deep, or close association or acquaintance between two or more people
  • Correlation and dependence, relationships in mathematics and statistics between two variables or sets of data
  • Semantic relationship, an ontology component
  • Romantic relationship, a connection between two people driven by love and/or sexual attraction

Relationship or Relationships may also refer to:

Arts and media[edit]

  • “Relationships” (As Time Goes By), an episode of the British TV series As Time Goes By
  • The Relationship, an American rock band
  • The Relationships, an English band who played at the 2009 Truck Festival
  • Relationships (BeBe & CeCe Winans album), a 1994 album by BeBe & CeCe Winans
  • Relationships (Georgie Fame album), a 2001 album by Georgie Fame
  • Relationship”, a song by Lakeside on the 1987 album Power
  • Relationship”, a song by Mumzy Stranger from his 2008 mixtape
  • Relationship”, a song by Young Thug from the 2017 album Beautiful Thugger Girls

Other uses[edit]

  • Relationship (archaeology), the position in space of an object with respect to another

See also[edit]

  • Affinity (disambiguation)
  • All pages with a title containing relationship
  • Entity–relationship model
  • Relation (disambiguation)

Open up partnership

An open relationship is an intimate relationship which is consensually non-monogamous. This term may sometimes refer to polyamory, but it is often used to signify a primary emotional and intimate relationship between two partners who agree to have sexual relationships but not romantic relationships with other people. The nature of the openness in the relationship, including what outside sexual contact is permissible, varies widely. Open relationships include any type of romantic relationship (dating, marriage, etc.) that is open.[1] The concept of an open relationship has been recognized since the 1970s.[2]


  • 1 Types of open relationships
  • 2 Prevalence
  • 3 Reward vs. risk
    • 3.1 Reasons for entering an open relationship
    • 3.2 Reasons for avoiding an open relationship
      • 3.2.1 Sexually transmitted infection
  • 4 Successful open relationships
    • 4.1 Boundaries
    • 4.2 Time management
  • 5 Swinging
  • 6 Polyamory
  • 7 See also
  • 8 References
  • 9 Further reading

Types of open relationships[edit]

To a large degree, open relationships are a generalization of the concept of a relationship beyond monogamous relationships.[3] A form of open relationship is the open marriage, in which the participants in a marriage have an open relationship.[3]

There are several different styles of open relationships. Some examples include:

  • Multi-partner relationships, between three or more partners where a sexual relationship does not occur between all of the parties involved.[3]
  • Hybrid relationships, when one partner is nonmonogamous and the other is monogamous.[3]
  • Swinging, in which singles or partners in a committed relationship engage in sexual activities with others as a recreational or social activity.

The term open relationship is sometimes used interchangeably with the closely related term polyamory, but the two concepts are not identical. The main unifying element to open relationship styles is non-exclusivity of romantic or sexual relationships.


Some believe that open relationships occur more frequently in certain demographics, such as the young rather than the old in America, including, more specifically, the college-educated middle-class, rather than the uneducated working-class, or people of certain ethnic and/or other racial minorities.[4] Open relationships may also be more common among females rather than males, especially those in the same categories, such as college-educated, middle-class, white, younger Americans.[4] This may be because women have more to gain by stressing this idea of equal rights, and that the women’s rights movement supports the idea of open relationships.[4]

A 1974 study showed that male students who either cohabit or live in a communal group are more likely to become involved in open relationships than females, and are still more interested in the concept than females even if not participating in open relationships.[4] A survey taken by gay men’s “health and life magazine”, FS Magazine, 41% of gay men interviewed have been in an open relationship and of the men who have been in open relationships, 27% believe that it is a good thing.[5][6]

Many couples within open relationships are dual-career, meaning that both primary partners have a stable job and/or a career. Both men and women in these, especially in closed groups, are also more likely to be in managerial jobs. Most also are either childfree, or post child-rearing.[7]

Reward vs. risk[edit]

Reasons for entering an open relationship[edit]

An open relationship may form for various reasons. These include:[citation needed]

  • liking another person but not wanting to end the old relationship
  • being non-monogamous by nature (i.e. born that way)
  • a difference emerging between two people in a relationship
  • one partner realizing that they are unable to fulfill the other’s needs[3]
  • varying sex drive between partners[3]
  • one or both partners desiring more freedom, companionship, intellectual variety, or a variety of sexual partners[8]
  • a need for challenge: some people feel that their relationship is inadequate unless they are being challenged. Open relationships may create a sense of jealousy, attachment, or possessiveness, all of which are challenges for a relationship to work through.[3] These emotions can also lead to greater self-awareness which may be seen as satisfying to those in open relationships.[3]
  • the enjoyment of new relationship energy, the state of heightened emotional and sexual receptivity and excitement experienced during the formation of a new physical relationship[3]
  • being able to meet other couples and individuals with a similar outlook with whom the participants can connect with on an intellectual and emotional level[7]
  • being in a relationship of convenience, that is, one that is not primarily based on mutual feeling of love towards each other (anymore), but rather on economic or social factors (eg: the traditional practice of polyandry in rural Tibet)
  • distance – when partners live in separate parts of the world for part or all of the time
  • sex may be more pleasing, and the participants may engage in it more frequently than those in an average couple[7]

Reasons for avoiding an open relationship[edit]

Many couples consider open relationships, but choose not to follow through with the idea.[citation needed] If a person attempts to approach their committed monogamous partner about transitioning to an open relationship, the monogamous partner may convince or coerce them to either stay monogamous or pursue a new partner.[3] There may also be concern that when beginning an open relationship, a partner may become only concerned in their personal development and pay less attention to their partner.[9]

Jealousy is often present in monogamous relationships, and adding one or more partners to the relationship may cause it to increase.[9] Results of some studies have suggested that jealousy remains a problem in open relationships because the actual involvement of a third party is seen as a trigger.[10] In Constantine & Constantine (1971), the researchers found that 80% of participants in open marriages had experienced jealousy at one point or another.[10]

Cultural pressure may also dissuade initiating or switching to an open relationship.[citation needed] There is a commonly held societal stereotype that those involved in open relationships are less committed or mature than those who are in monogamous relationships;[citation needed] and films, media, and self-help books present the message that to desire more than one partner means not having a “true” relationship.[citation needed] In the post-WWII 1950s-1970s, it was traditional to “date around” (with guidelines such not going out with one particular suitor twice in a row) until ready to start “going steady” (the onset of exclusivity and sexual exploration); since then, non-exclusive dating around has lost favour and going directly to steady (now known simply as exclusive dating) has been elevated instead.[11] Desiring an open relationship is these days[which?] often claimed to be a phase that a person is passing through before being ready to “settle down”.[3] The logistics of an open relationship may be difficult to cope with, especially if the partners reside together, split finances, own property, or parent children.[3]

Sexually transmitted infection[edit]
Main article: Sexually transmitted infection
See also: safe sex and polyfidelity

Any sexual contact outside of a strictly monogamous or polyfidelitous relationship increases the possibility that one member of the group will contract a sexually transmitted infection and pass it into the group.

Neither barrier device use (such as condoms) nor more vigilant STI testing and vaccination can eliminate such risk,[12] but can reduce the statistical increase attributable to nonmonogamy.

Successful open relationships[edit]

One of the most significant factors that aids a relationship in being successful is that it is about making the relationship fit the needs of all parties involved. No two open relationships will be the same, and the relationship will change due to the current circumstances at each specific moment. The style of the open relationship will mirror the parties’ involved values, goals, desires, needs and philosophies.[3]

The most successful relationships have been those that take longer to establish. By taking the time to develop a clear idea of what both partners want out of the openness of a relationship, it allows the parties involved to self-reflect, process their emotions, deal with possible conflicts, and (for those transitioning from monogamy to nonmonogamy) find ways to cope with the change.[3]

Negotiating the details of the open relationship is important throughout the communication process. Topics that are commonly found in negotiations between couples include honesty, the level of maintenance, trust, boundaries and time management.[13]

Other tools that couples utilize in the negotiation process include allowing partners to veto new relationships, prior permission, and interaction between partners. This helps to reassure each partner in the relationship that their opinion is important and matters. However, although ability to veto can be a useful tool in negotiation, a successful negotiation and open relationship can still occur without it. Some reject veto power because they believe it limits their partner from experiencing a new relationship and limits their freedom.[3]


Types of boundaries include physical, which is along the lines of not touching someone without permission being given; sexual boundaries; and emotional boundaries, which is avoiding the discussion of specific emotions.[3] Boundaries help to set out rules for what is and is not acceptable to the members of the relationship. They also help people to feel safe and that they are just as important in the open relationship as their partners.[3]

Examples of boundaries that are set could include:[3]

  • Who (geographically and interpersonally, such as in the community, friends, family, et cetera) could be an additional partner;
  • What types of physical limits are placed on that relationship (kissing, dating, or other sexual activities);
  • Whether sexual relations will take place in a separate bedroom, playroom or premises (eg hotel).

Some couples create a physical relationship contract. These can be useful in not only negotiating, but also clearly articulating the needs, wants, limits, expectations, and commitments that are expected of the parties involved.[3]

Time management[edit]

Adequate time management can contribute to the success of an open relationship. Even though having a serious commitment with one partner is common, negotiating the time spent among all partners is still important. Although the desire to give an unlimited amount of love, energy, and emotion to others is common, the limited amount of time in a day limits the actual time spent with each partner. Some find that if they cannot evenly distribute their time, they forego a partner.[3] Time management can also be related to equity theory, which stresses the importance of fairness in relationships.[13]


Main article: Swinging (sexual practice)

Swinging is a form of open relationship in which the partners in a committed relationship engage in sexual activities with others at the same time. Swingers may regard the practice as a recreational or social activity[14][15] that adds variety or excitement into their otherwise conventional sex lives or for curiosity. Swingers who engage in casual sex maintain that sex among swingers is often more frank and deliberative and therefore more honest than infidelity. Some couples see swinging as a healthy outlet and means to strengthen their relationship. Swinging can take place in various contexts, including spontaneous sexual activity involving partner swapping at an informal social gathering of friends, a formal swinger party or partner-swapping party, and a regular gathering in a sex club (or swinger club) or residence.[16]


Main article: Polyamory

Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It is often described as consensual, ethical, or responsible nonmonogamy. The word is sometimes used in a broader sense to refer to sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.

While “open relationship” is sometimes used as a synonym for “polyamory” or “polyamorous relationship”, the terms are not synonymous. The “open” in “open relationship” usually refers to the sexual aspect of a nonclosed relationship, whereas “polyamory” refers to the extension of a relationship by allowing bonds to form (which may be sexual or otherwise) as additional long-term relationships.[3]

The terms “polyamory” and “friends with benefits” are fairly recent, having come about within the past few decades[9] though non-monogamy has existed since prehistoric times.

A subset of polyamory is group marriage or polyfidelity. This type of relationship functions as an expanded marriage, where no member is sexually or romantically involved with anyone other than the group’s members.[3]

See also[edit]

  • Sexuality portal


  • ^ Boston Women’s Health Book Collective (19 April 2005). Our bodies, ourselves: a new edition for a new era. Simon and Schuster. pp. 165–. ISBN 978-0-7432-5611-7. Retrieved 25 November 2011. 
  • ^ Doheny, Kathleen. “The Truth About Open Marriage”. Web MD. Retrieved 8 June 2013. 
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Tristan Taormino (1 May 2008). Opening up: a guide to creating and sustaining open relationships. Cleis Press. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-1-57344-295-4. Retrieved 20 November 2011. 
  • ^ a b c d Hollander, Elaine K.; Howard M. Vollmer (1 September 1974). “Attitudes Toward “Open Marriage” Among College Students as Influenced by Place of Residence”. Youth & Society. 6 (3). 
  • ^ Duffy, Nick (3 February 2016). “Nearly half of gay men have had an open relationship”. PinkNews. Retrieved 6 February 2016. 
  • ^ Haggas, Stuart (February 2016). “Open Relationships Uncovered”. FS Magazine (152). Retrieved 6 February 2016. 
  • ^ a b c Ramey, James W. (July–August 1977). “The Sexual Bond: Alternative Life Styles”. Society. 14 (5): 43–47. doi:10.1007/BF02700827. 
  • ^ Ramey, James W. (October 1975). “Intimate Groups and Networks: Frequent Consequence of Sexually Open Marriage”. The Family Coordinator. 24 (4): 515–530. doi:10.2307/583035. 
  • ^ a b c Leonie Linssen; Stephan Wik (1 August 2010). Love Unlimited: The Joys and Challenges of Open Relationships. Findhorn Press. pp. 11–. ISBN 978-1-84409-183-6. Retrieved 20 November 2011. 
  • ^ a b Buunk, Bram (August 1981). “Jealousy in sexually open marriages”. Alternative Lifestyles. Springer. 4 (3): 357–372. doi:10.1007/BF01257944. 
  • ^ Beth Bailey (1 Aug 1989). From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-80183-935-1. 
  • ^ Hatcher, Robert Anthony; M.D, Anita L. Nelson (2007). Contraceptive Technology. Ardent Media. pp. 297–311. ISBN 9781597080019. Archived from the original on 2017-09-18. 
  • ^ a b Watson, Mary Ann (February 1981). “Sexually Open Marriage: Three Perspectives”. Alternative Lifestyles. 4 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF01082086. 
  • ^ Bergstrand, Curtis; Blevins Williams, Jennifer (2000-10-10). “Today’s Alternative Marriage Styles: The Case of Swingers”. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. 3. Retrieved 2010-01-24. 
  • ^ “Why Swing?”. Retrieved 4 October 2012. 
  • ^ “Advice on Swingers’ Clubs”. Swinging Heaven. Retrieved 5 October 2012. 
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Schott, O. (2014). In Praise of Open Relationships. On Love, Sex, Reason, and Happiness. Bertz + Fischer Publishing. ISBN 978-3-86505-725-9
    • Blue, Violet. “Open relationships demystified: Violet Blue gets advice on coupling with ‘eyes wide open'” in the San Francisco Chronicle, May 29, 2008.
    • Gates, Jennifer (2001). Survivors of an open marriage. Spokane, Washington: KiwE Publishing Ltd. ISBN 9781931195188. 
    • Rubin, Arline M. (December 1982). “Sexually open versus sexually exclusive marriage: a comparison of dyadic adjustment”. Alternative Lifestyles. Springer. 5 (2): 101–108. doi:10.1007/BF01083247. 
    • Rubin, Arline M.; Adams, James R. (1986). “Outcomes of sexually open marriages”. The Journal of Sex Research. Taylor and Francis. 22 (3): 311–319. doi:10.1080/00224498609551311. 
    • Matik, Wendy-O. Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines For Responsible Open Relationships. Defiant Times Press, 2002. ISBN 978-1-58790-015-0

    Romantic relationship events

    • Annulment
    • Bonding
    • Breakup
    • Courtship
    • Dating
    • Divorce
    • Mating
    • Meet market
    • Romance
    • Separation
    • Singles event
    • Wedding

    Feelings and emotions

    • Affinity
    • Attachment
    • Compersion
    • Intimacy
    • Jealousy
    • Limerence
    • Love
    • Passion
    • Platonic love
    • Psychology of sexual monogamy
    • Unconditional love

    Human practices

    • Bride price
      • Dower
      • Dowry
    • Hypergamy
    • Infidelity
    • Repression
    • Sexual activity
    • Transgression

    Relationship abuse

    • Child abuse
    • Dating abuse
    • Domestic violence
    • Elder abuse

    Intimate partnership

    “Intimacy” redirects here. For other uses, see Intimacy (disambiguation).
    “Sexual relationship” redirects here. For sexual relationships between non-human animals, see Mating system.


    • Bonding
    • Courtship
    • Dating
    • Engagement
    • Mating
    • Meet market
    • Romance
    • Singles event
    • Wedding


    • Breakup
    • Separation
    • Annulment
    • Divorce
    • Widowhood

    Emotions and feelings

    • Affinity
    • Attachment
    • Intimacy
    • Jealousy
    • Limerence
    • Love
      • Platonic
      • unconditional
    • Passion
    • Sexuality


    • Bride price
      • dower
      • dowry
      • service
    • Hypergamy
    • Infidelity
    • Sexual activity
    • Transgression
    • Repression


    • Child
    • Dating
    • Domestic
    • Elderly
    • Narcissistic parent
    • Power and control
    • v
    • t
    • e

    An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy. Physical intimacy is characterized by friendship, platonic love, romantic love, or sexual activity. While the term intimate relationship commonly implies the inclusion of a sexual relationship, the term is also used as a euphemism for a relationship that is strictly sexual.

    Intimate relationships play a central role in the overall human experience.[1] Humans have a general desire to belong and to love, which is usually satisfied within an intimate relationship.[2] These relationships involve feelings of liking or loving one or more people, romance, physical or sexual attraction, sexual relationships, or emotional and personal support between the members.[1] Intimate relationships allow a social network for people to form strong emotional attachments.[1]


    • 1 Intimacy
      • 1.1 Types
    • 2 Physical and emotional
    • 3 Empirical research
      • 3.1 Distance relationships
    • 4 Current studies
    • 5 History
      • 5.1 Ancient philosophers: Aristotle
      • 5.2 1880s to early 1900s
      • 5.3 1960s and 1970s
      • 5.4 1980s to 2000s
    • 6 See also
    • 7 References
    • 8 External links


    Intimacy generally refers to the feeling of being in a close personal association and belonging together. It is a familiar and very close affective connection with another as a result of a bond that is formed through knowledge and experience of the other. Genuine intimacy in human relationships requires dialogue, transparency, vulnerability, and reciprocity. The verb “intimate” means “to state or make known”. The activity of intimating (making known) underpins the meanings of “intimate” when used as a noun and adjective. The noun “intimate” means a person with whom one has a particularly close relationship. This was clarified by Dalton (1959) who discusses how anthropologists and ethnographic researchers access “inside information” from within a particular cultural setting by establishing networks of intimates capable (and willing) to provide information unobtainable through formal channels.[3] The adjective “intimate” indicates detailed knowledge of a thing or person.

    In human relationships, the meaning and level of intimacy varies within and between relationships. In anthropological research, intimacy is considered the product of a successful seduction, a process of rapport building that enables parties to confidently disclose previously hidden thoughts and feelings. Intimate conversations become the basis for “confidences” (secret knowledge) that bind people together.[4]

    To sustain intimacy for any length of time requires well-developed emotional and interpersonal awareness. Intimacy requires an ability to be both separate and together participants in an intimate relationship. Murray Bowen called this “self-differentiation”. It results in a connection in which there is an emotional range involving both robust conflict and intense loyalty.[5] Lacking the ability to differentiate oneself from the other is a form of symbiosis, a state that is different from intimacy, even if feelings of closeness are similar.

    From a center of self-knowledge and self differentiation, intimate behavior joins family members and close friends as well as those in love. It evolves through reciprocal self-disclosure and candor. Poor skills in developing intimacy can lead to getting too close too quickly; struggling to find the boundary and to sustain connection; being poorly skilled as a friend, rejecting self-disclosure or even rejecting friendships and those who have them.[unreliable source][6] Psychological consequences of intimacy problems are found in adults who have difficulty in forming and maintaining intimate relationships. Individuals often experience the human limitations of their partners, and develop a fear of adverse consequences of disrupted intimate relationships. Studies show that fear of intimacy is negatively related to comfort with emotional closeness and with relationship satisfaction, and positively related to loneliness and trait anxiety.[7]


    Bonding between a mother and child

    Scholars distinguish between four different forms of intimacy: physical, emotional, cognitive, and experiential.[8]

    • Physical intimacy is sensual proximity or touching,[9] examples include being inside someone’s personal space, holding hands, hugging, kissing, petting or other sexual activity.
    • Emotional intimacy, particularly in sexual relationships, typically develops after a certain level of trust has been reached and personal bonds have been established. The emotional connection of “falling in love”, however, has both a biochemical dimension, driven through reactions in the body stimulated by sexual attraction (PEA, phenylethylamine),[10] and a social dimension driven by “talk” that follows from regular physical closeness or sexual union.[11]
    • Cognitive or intellectual intimacy takes place when two people exchange thoughts, share ideas and enjoy similarities and differences between their opinions. If they can do this in an open and comfortable way, they can become quite intimate in an intellectual area.
    • Experiential intimacy is when two people get together to actively involve themselves with each other, probably saying very little to each other, not sharing any thoughts or many feelings, but being involved in mutual activities with one another. Imagine observing two house painters whose brushstrokes seemed to be playing out a duet on the side of the house. They may be shocked to think that they were engaged in an intimate activity with each other, however from an experiential point of view, they would be very intimately involved.[12]

    Distinguishing intimate (communal) relationships from strategic (exchange) relationships may also be a factor. Physical intimacy occurs in the latter but it is governed by a higher-order strategy, of which the other person may not be aware. One example is getting close to someone in order to get something from them or give them something. That “something” might not be offered so freely if it did not appear to be an intimate exchange and if the ultimate strategy had been visible at the outset.[13] Mills and Clark (1982) found that strategic (exchange) relationships are fragile and easily break down when there is any level of disagreement. Emotionally intimate (communal) relationships are much more robust and can survive considerable (and even ongoing) disagreements.

    Physical and emotional[edit]

    Love is an important factor in physical and emotional intimate relationships. Love is qualitatively and quantitatively different from liking, and the difference is not merely in the presence or absence of sexual attraction. There are three types of love in a relationship: passionate love, companionate love, and sacrificial love. Sacrificial love reflects the subsumption of the individual self will within a union and is said to be expressed within the Christian Godhead and towards humanity. Companionate love involves diminished potent feelings of attachment, an authentic and enduring bond, a sense of mutual commitment, the profound feeling of mutual caring, feeling proud of a mate’s accomplishment, and the satisfaction that comes from sharing goals and perspective. In contrast, passionate love is marked by infatuation, intense preoccupation with the partner, throes of ecstasy, and feelings of exhilaration that come from being reunited with the partner.[14]

    Two people who are in an intimate relationship with one another are often called a couple, especially if the members of that couple have placed some degree of permanency to their relationship. These couples often provide the emotional security that is necessary for them to accomplish other tasks, particularly forms of labor or work.

    Empirical research[edit]

    The use of empirical investigations in 1898 was a major revolution in social analysis.[15] A study conducted by Monroe,[16] examined the traits and habits of children in selecting a friend. Some of the attributes included in the study were kindness, cheerfulness and honesty.[1] Monroe asked 2336 children aged 7 to 16 to identify “what kind of chum do you like best?” The results of the study indicate that children preferred a friend that was their own age, of the same sex, of the same physical size, a friend with light features (hair and eyes), friends that did not engage in conflict, someone that was kind to animals and humans, and finally that they were honest. Two characteristics that children reported as least important included wealth and religion.[16]

    The study by Monroe was the first to mark the significant shift in the study of intimate relationships from analysis that was primarily philosophical to those with empirical validity.[1] This study is said to have finally marked the beginning of relationship science.[1] However, in the years following Monroe’s influential study, very few similar studies were done. There were limited studies done on children’s friendships, courtship and marriages, and families in the 1930s but few relationship studies were conducted before or during World War II.[15] Intimate relationships did not become a broad focus of research again until the 1960s and 1970s when there was a vast amount of relationship studies being published.[1]

    Distance relationships[edit]

    In a meta-analysis and literature review it is found that long-distance relationships are no less satisfying, contrary to popular belief.[17][better source needed] However, according to an 800 or so participant strong study, in long distance relationships there are different determinants of success with respect to the ones associated with geographically close relationships.[18][better source needed]

    When it comes to distance relationships, a 1,000 person study suggests that they work better for those who are less anxious/depressed, are more certain of their relationship and have a positive attitude to distance.[19][better source needed]

    Current studies[edit]

    Romantic relationship is often crowned with marriage.

    Today, the study of intimate relationships uses participants from diverse groups and examines a wide variety of topics that include family relations, friendships, and romantic relationships, usually over a long period.[1] Current study includes both positive and negative or unpleasant aspects of relationships.

    Research being conducted by John Gottman (2010) and his colleagues involves inviting married couples into a pleasant setting, in which they revisit the disagreement that caused their last argument. Although the participants are aware that they are being videotaped, they soon become so absorbed in their own interaction that they forget they are being recorded.[1] With the second-by-second analysis of observable reactions as well as emotional ones, Gottman is able to predict with 93% accuracy the fate of the couples’ relationship.[1]

    Another current area of research into intimate relationships is conducted by Terri Orbuch and Joseph Veroff (2002). They monitor newlywed couples using self-reports over a long period (a longitudinal study). Participants are required to provide extensive reports about the natures and the statusses of their relationships.[1] Although many of the marriages have ended since the beginning of the study, this type of relationship study allows researchers to track marriages from start to finish by conducting follow-up interviews with the participants in order to determine which factors are associated with marriages that last and which with those that do not.[1] Though the field of relationship science is still relatively young, research conducted by researchers from many different disciplines continues to broaden the field.[1]

    Evidence also points to the role of a number of contextual factors that can impact intimate relationships. In a recent study on the impact of Hurricane Katrina on marital and partner relationships, researchers found that while many reported negative changes in their relationships, a number also experienced positive changes. More specifically, the advent of Hurricane Katrina led to a number of environmental stressors (for example, unemployment, prolonged separation) that negatively impacted intimate relationships for many couples, though other couples’ relationships grew stronger as a result of new employment opportunities, a greater sense of perspective, and higher levels of communication and support.[20] As a result, environmental factors are also understood to contribute heavily to the strength of intimate relationships.

    One team of researcher from Northwestern University who summarised the literature in 2013, found that ‘negative-affect reciprocity’, which is retaliatory negativity between partners during a conflict, is arguably the most robust predictor of poor marital quality. However, this degradation can be softened, according to their 120 heterosexual couple strong Chicago sample, by undertaking a reappraisal writing task every 4 months.[21]

    One study suggests that married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each other’s unhealthy habits. The study reports three distinct findings showing how unhealthy habits are promoted in long-term, intimate relationships: through the direct bad influence of one partner, through synchronicity of health habits, and through the notion of personal responsibility.[22][23]


    Ancient philosophers: Aristotle[edit]

    Over 2,300 years ago, interpersonal relationships were being contemplated by Aristotle. He wrote: “One person is a friend to another if he is friendly to the other and the other is friendly to him in return” (Aristotle, 330 BC, trans. 1991, pp. 72–73). Aristotle believed that by nature humans are social beings.[2] Aristotle also suggested that relationships were based on three different ideas: utility, pleasure, and virtue. People are attracted to relationships that provide utility because of the assistance and sense of belonging that they provide. In relationships based on pleasure, people are attracted to the feelings of pleasantness when the parties engage. However, relationships based on utility and pleasure were said to be short-lived if the benefits provided by one of the partners was not reciprocated. Relationships based on virtue are built on an attraction to the others’ virtuous character.[1]

    Aristotle also suggested that relationships based on virtue would be the longest lasting and that virtue-based relationships were the only type of relationship in which each partner was liked for themselves. The philosophical analysis used by Aristotle dominated the analysis of intimate relationships until the late 1880s.[15]

    1880s to early 1900s[edit]

    Modern psychology and sociology began to emerge in the late 19th century. During this time theorists often included relationships into their current areas of research and began to develop new foundations which had implications in regards to the analysis of intimate relationships.[15] Freud wrote about parent–child relationships and their effect on personality development.[2] Freud’s analysis proposed that people’s childhood experiences are transferred or passed on into adult relationships by means of feelings and expectations.[15] Freud also founded the idea that individuals usually seek out marital partners who are similar to that of their opposite-sex parent.[15]

    In 1891, William James wrote that a person’s self-concept is defined by the relationships endured with others.[2] In 1897, Émile Durkheim’s interest in social organization led to the examination of social isolation and alienation.[2] This was an influential discovery of intimate relationships in that Durkheim argued that being socially isolated was a key antecedent of suicide.[2] This focus on the darker side of relationships and the negative consequences associated to social isolation were what Durkheim labeled as anomie.[15] Georg Simmel wrote about dyads, or partnerships with two people.[1] Simmel suggested that dyads require consent and engagement of both partners to maintain the relationship but noted that the relationship can be ended by the initiation of only one partner.[15] Although the theorists mentioned above sought support for their theories, their primary contributions to the study of intimate relationships were conceptual and not empirically grounded.[1]

    1960s and 1970s[edit]

    An important shift was taking place in the field of social psychology that influenced the research of intimate relationships. Until the late 1950s, the majority of studies were non-experimental.[15] By the end of the 1960s more than half of the articles published involved some sort of experimental study.[15] The 1960s was also a time when there was a shift in methodology within the psychological discipline itself. Participants consisted mostly of college students, experimental methods and research were being conducted in laboratories and the experimental method was the dominant methodology in social psychology.[15] Experimental manipulation within the research of intimate relationships demonstrated that relationships could be studied scientifically.[1] This shift brought relationship science to the attention of scholars in other disciplines and has resulted in the study of intimate relationships being an international multidiscipline.[1]

    1980s to 2000s[edit]

    In the early 1980s the first conference of the International Network of Personal Relationships (INPR) was held. Approximately 300 researchers from all over the world attended the conference.[15] In March 1984, the first journal of Social and Personal Relationships was published.[15] In the early 1990s the INPR split off into two groups; in April 2004 the two organizations rejoined and became the International Association for Relationship Research (IARR).[1]

    Donald Nathanson, a psychiatrist who built his study of human interactions off of the work of Silvan Tomkins, notes the relationship between two individuals, intimacy, is best when the couple agrees to maximize positive affect, minimize negative affect and allow for the free expression of affect (Shame and Pride, 1994). These findings were based on Tomkin’s blueprint for emotional health which also emphasizes doing as much of the maximizing, minimizing and expressing as possible.[24]

    See also[edit]

    • Affection
    • Dating
    • Free union
    • Human sexuality
    • Love
    • Loving kindness
    • Marriage
    • Monogamy
    • Outline of relationships
    • Parenting
    • Polygamy
    • Polyamory
    • Power and control in abusive intimate relationships
    • Relationship status
    • Romantic friendship

    Terms for members of intimate relationships

    • Boyfriend / Girlfriend
    • Companion
    • Concubine
    • Confidant or confidante
    • Life partner
    • Lover
    • Mistress
    • Partner
    • Primary / Secondary
    • Sexual partner
    • Significant other
    • Spouse
    • Socionics
    • Back-up partner(Hanzi:備胎對象)


  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Miller, Rowland & Perlman, Daniel (2008). Intimate Relationships (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-337018-7
  • ^ a b c d e f Perlman, D. (2007). The best of times, the worst of times: The place of close relationships in psychology and our daily lives. Canadian Psychology, 48, 7–18.
  • ^ Dalton, M. (1959) Men Who Manage, New York: Wiley.
  • ^ Moore, M. (1985) “Nonverbal Courtship Patterns in Women: Contact and Consequences”, Ethnology and Sociobiology, 6: 237–247.
  • ^ Aronson, E. (2003) The Social Animal, Ninth Edition, New York: Worth Publishers.
  • ^ Vitalio, D. (2005) Be Your Woman’s Hero, not Wuss: Part 1, internet newsletter 21 April 2005.
  • ^ Khaleque, A. (2004). Intimate Adult Relationships, Quality of Life and Psychological Adjustment. Social Indicators Research, 69, 351-360.
  • ^ Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. (2004) Intimacy: International Survey of the Sex Lives of People at Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave
  • ^ “University of Florida physical intimacy”. Retrieved 2014-06-12. 
  • ^ Lowndes, L. (1996) How to Make Anyone Fall in Love with You, London: Element.
  • ^ Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • ^ Healthy Place (2008). How to Develop Intimate Relationships? – HealthyPlace. – Trusted Mental Health Information and Support – HealthyPlace.
  • ^ Mills, J., Clark, K. (1982) “Exchange and communal relationships” in L. Wheeler (ed) Review of personality and social psychology (Vol III), Beverly Hills: Sage.
  • ^ Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1993). Historical and cross-cultural perspectives on passionate love and sexual desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 67–97
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Vangelisti, A.L., & Perlman, D. (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • ^ a b Monroe, W.S. (1898). Discussion and reports. Social consciousness in children. Psychological Review, 15, 68–70.
  • ^ “Thesis”. 
  • ^ “Browse journals by subject”. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 
  • ^ “How to Make Long-Distance Relationships Work”. Psychology Today. 
  • ^ Lowe, S. R., Rhodes, J. E., & Scoglio, A. A. (2012). “Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36”, 286-300. doi: 10.1177/0361684311434307
  • ^ Finkel, Eli J.; Slotter,, Erica B. (June 26, 2013). “A Brief Intervention to Promote Conflict Reappraisal Preserves Marital Quality Over Time” (PDF). Psychological Science OnlineFirst. doi:10.1177/0956797612474938. 
  • ^ Fuller, Dawn. “Long-Term, Intimate Partnerships Can Promote Unhealthy Habits”. UC News online Aug, 18, 2011. Retrieved Aug 26, 2011. 
  • ^ Reczek, Corinne, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cincinnati. “The Promotion of Unhealthy Habits in Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Intimate Partnerships”. Tue, Aug 23, 2011 – 12:30pm – 2:10pm. 106th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Archived from the original on 2 September 2011. Retrieved 26 August 2011. 
  • ^ Costello, Bob (2009). The Restorative Practices Handbook. Pennsylvania: International Institute for Restorative Practices. pp. 71–72. 
  • External links[edit]

    • International Association for Relationship Research
    • Process of Adaption in Intimate Relationships
    • Questions To Ask A Girl. A Complete Guide.

    Interpersonal connection

    “Companionship” redirects here. For the album by Sahib Shihab, see Companionship (album).
    “Human relations” redirects here. For the theory, see Human relations movement.


    • Bonding
    • Courtship
    • Dating
    • Engagement
    • Mating
    • Meet market
    • Romance
    • Singles event
    • Wedding


    • Breakup
    • Separation
    • Annulment
    • Divorce
    • Widowhood

    Emotions and feelings

    • Affinity
    • Attachment
    • Intimacy
    • Jealousy
    • Limerence
    • Love
      • Platonic
      • unconditional
    • Passion
    • Sexuality


    • Bride price
      • dower
      • dowry
      • service
    • Hypergamy
    • Infidelity
    • Sexual activity
    • Transgression
    • Repression


    • Child
    • Dating
    • Domestic
    • Elderly
    • Narcissistic parent
    • Power and control
    • v
    • t
    • e

    An interpersonal relationship is a strong, deep, or close association or acquaintance between two or more people that may range in duration from brief to enduring. This association may be based on inference, love, solidarity, regular business interactions, or some other type of social commitment. Interpersonal relationships are formed in the context of social, cultural and other influences. The context can vary from family or kinship relations, friendship, marriage, relations with associates, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and places of worship. They may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and are the basis of social groups and society as a whole.


    • 1 As a field of study
    • 2 Types
      • 2.1 Intimate relationships
        • 2.1.1 Romantic relationships generally
        • 2.1.2 Romance (love)
        • 2.1.3 Platonic love
        • 2.1.4 Life stages
        • 2.1.5 Significant other
        • 2.1.6 Marital relationship
        • 2.1.7 TOTEM
      • 2.2 Family relationships
        • 2.2.1 Parent-child
        • 2.2.2 Siblings
    • 3 Importance
      • 3.1 Need to belong
      • 3.2 Social exchange
      • 3.3 Relational self
    • 4 Power and dominance
    • 5 Pathological relationships
      • 5.1 Abusive
      • 5.2 Codependent
      • 5.3 Narcissists
    • 6 Stages
    • 7 Relationship satisfaction
    • 8 Flourishing, budding, blooming, blossoming relationships
      • 8.1 Background
      • 8.2 Adult attachment and attachment theory
        • 8.2.1 Romantic love
      • 8.3 Theories and empirical research
        • 8.3.1 Confucianism
        • 8.3.2 Minding relationships
        • 8.3.3 Theory of intertype relationships
        • 8.3.4 Culture of appreciation
        • 8.3.5 Capitalizing on positive events
        • 8.3.6 The Vulnerability Stress Adaptation (VSA) Model
      • 8.4 Other perspectives
      • 8.5 Neurobiology of interpersonal connections
      • 8.6 Behavioral
      • 8.7 Applications
      • 8.8 Controversies
    • 9 In popular culture
      • 9.1 Popular perceptions
      • 9.2 Social media
    • 10 See also
    • 11 References
    • 12 Further reading
    • 13 External links

    As a field of study[edit]

    The study of interpersonal relationships involves several branches of the social sciences, including such disciplines as sociology, communication studies, psychology, anthropology, and social work. The scientific study of relationships evolved during the 1990s and came to be referred to as ‘relationship science’,[1] which distinguishes itself from anecdotal evidence or pseudo-experts by basing conclusions on data and objective analysis. Interpersonal ties are also a subject in mathematical sociology.[2]


    Main article: Outline of relationships § Types of relationships

    Intimate relationships[edit]

    Romantic relationships generally[edit]

    Romantic relationships have been defined in countless ways, by writers, philosophers, religions, scientists, and in the modern day, relationship counselors. Two popular definitions of love are Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love and Fisher’s theory of love.[3][4][5] Steinberg defines love in terms of intimacy, passion, and commitment, which he claims exist in varying levels in different romantic relationships. Fisher defines love as composed of three stages, attraction, romantic love, and attachment. Romantic relationships may exist between two people of any gender, or among a group of people (see polyamory).

    Romance (love)[edit]

    The single defining quality of a romantic relationship is the presence of love. Love is therefore equally difficult to define. Hazan and Shaver[6] define love, using Ainsworth’s attachment theory, as comprising proximity, emotional support, self-exploration, and separation distress when parted from the loved one. Other components commonly agreed to be necessary for love are physical attraction, similarity,[7] reciprocity,[4] and self-disclosure.[8]

    Platonic love[edit]

    An intimate but non-romantic relationship is known as a platonic relationship.

    Life stages[edit]

    Early adolescent relationships are characterized by companionship, reciprocity, and sexual experiences. As emerging adults mature, they begin to develop attachment and caring qualities in their relationships, including love, bonding, security, and support for partners. Earlier relationships also tend to be shorter and exhibit greater involvement with social networks.[9] Later relationships are often marked by shrinking social networks, as the couple dedicates more time to each other than to associates.[10] Later relationships also tend to exhibit higher levels of commitment.[9] Most psychologists and relationship counselors predict a decline of intimacy and passion over time, replaced by a greater emphasis on companionate love (differing from adolescent companionate love in the caring, committed, and partner-focused qualities). However, couple studies have found no decline in intimacy nor in the importance of sex, intimacy, and passionate love to those in longer or later-life relationships.[11] Older people tend to be more satisfied in their relationships, but face greater barriers to entering new relationships than do younger or middle-aged people.[12] Older women in particular face social, demographic, and personal barriers; men aged 65 and older are nearly twice as likely as women to be married, and widowers are nearly three times as likely to be dating 18 months following their partner’s loss compared to widows.

    Significant other[edit]

    The term significant other gained popularity during the 1990s, reflecting the growing acceptance of non-heteronormative relationships. It can be used to avoid making an assumption about the gender or relational status (e.g. married, cohabitating, civil union) of a person’s intimate partner. Cohabiting relationships continue to rise, with many partners considering cohabitation to be nearly as serious as, or a substitute for, marriage.[12] LGBT, on the other hand, face unique challenges in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships. The strain of internalized homo-negativity and of presenting themselves in line with socially acceptable gender norms can reduce the satisfaction and emotional and health benefits they experience in their relationships.[13][14][15] LGBT youth also lack the social support and peer connections enjoyed by hetero-normative young people.[16] Nonetheless, comparative studies of homosexual and heterosexual couples have found few differences in relationship intensity, quality, satisfaction, or commitment.[17]

    Marital relationship[edit]

    Although nontraditional relationships continue to rise, marriage still makes up the majority of relationships except among emerging adults.[18] It is also still considered by many to occupy a place of greater importance among family and social structures.


    TOTEM is an acronym for “Too Old To Ever Marry”. Many older people choose not to marry because of their age, financial and family obligations. Wills and often reverse mortgages are in effect, and marriage would complicate the relationship. In a TOTEM relationship, each partner maintains his or her home and, in the case of reverse mortgages, each person maintains residency in their own home sufficient to comply with the reverse mortgage requirements. Wills, trusts, etc., are left in their original form and family members need not be concerned about their future.

    Family relationships[edit]


    Parent-child relationships have always concerned people. In ancient times they were often marked by fear, either of rebellion or abandonment, resulting in the strict filial roles in, for example, ancient Rome and China.[19][20] Freud conceived of the Oedipal complex, the supposed obsession of young boys their mother and the accompanying fear and rivalry with their father, and the less well-known Electra complex, in which the young girl feels that her mother has castrated her and therefore becomes obsessed with her father. Freud’s ideas influenced thought on parent-child relationships for decades.[21] Another early conception of parent-child relationships was that love only existed as a biological drive for survival and comfort on the child’s part. In 1958, however, Harry Harlow’s landmark study comparing rhesus’ reactions to wire “mothers” and cloth “mothers” demonstrated the depth of emotion felt by infants. The study also laid the groundwork for Mary Ainsworth’s attachment theory, showing how the infants used their cloth “mothers” as a secure base from which to explore.[22][23] Ainsworth defined three styles of parent-child relationships in a series of studies using the strange situation, a scenario in which an infant is separated from, then reunited with the parent. Securely attached infants miss the parent, greet them happily upon return, and show normal exploration and lack of fear when the parent is present. Insecure avoidant infants show little distress upon separation and ignore the caregiver when they return; they explore little when the parent is present. Insecure ambivalent infants are highly distressed by separation, but continue to be distressed upon the parent’s return; these infants also explore little and display fear even when the parent is present. Some psychologists have suggested a fourth attachment style, disorganized, so called because the infants’ behavior appeared disorganized or disoriented.[24] Secure attachments styles are linked to better social and academic outcomes, greater moral internalization, and less delinquency for children, and have been found to predict later relationship success.[25][26][4] For most of the late nineteenth through the twentieth century, the perception of adolescent-parent relationships was that of a time of upheaval. Stanley Hall popularized the “Sturm und drang”, or storm and stress, model of adolescence. Psychological research, however, has painted a much tamer picture. Although adolescents are more risk-seeking, and emerging adults have higher suicide rates, they are largely less volatile and have much better relationships with their parents than this model would suggest[27] Early adolescence often marks a decline in parent-child relationship quality, which then re-stabilizes through adolescence, and relationships are sometimes better in late adolescence than prior to its onset.[28] With the increasing average age at marriage and more youths attending college and living with parents past their teens, the concept of a new period called emerging adulthood gained popularity. This is considered a period of uncertainty and experimentation between adolescence and adulthood. During this stage, interpersonal relationships are considered to be more self-focused, and relationships with parents may still be influential.[29]


    Sibling relationships have a profound effect on social, psychological, emotional, and academic outcomes. Although proximity and contact usually decreases over time, sibling bonds continue to affect people throughout their lives. Sibling relationships are affected by parent-child relationships, such that sibling relationships in childhood often reflect the positive or negative aspects of children’s relationships with their parents.[30]

    • Egalitarian and Platonic friendship[31]
    • Enemy
    • Frenemy
      • Frenemy started as a slang term, has made its way into the Oxford dictionary. It describes a person that an individual is friendly with despite underlying conflict between the two. This conflict can include rivalries, mistrust, or competition.[32] Frenemies who come about through a conflict of rivalries tend to want to be the center of attention[33] or are individuals who would be described as “Drama Queens.”[32] Frenemies who come about through a conflict of competition often feel the need to be better than the individual in some or many aspects of life, and in some cases feel the need to point out flaws in others.[34] Conflicts of trust tend to involve individuals who gossip or say negative things about others.[32] While ambivalent interpersonal relationships (like frenemies) are common, they have been found to contribute to stress related cardiovascular issues and depressive symptoms[35]
    • Neighbor
    • Business relationships
      • Partnership
      • Employer and employee
      • Contractor
      • Customer
      • Landlord and tenant
    • Official


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

    Need to belong[edit]

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

    Social exchange[edit]

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

    Relational self[edit]

    Relationships are also important for their ability to help individuals develop a sense of self. The relational self is the part of an individual’s self-concept that consists of the feelings and beliefs that one has regarding oneself that develops based on interactions with others.[36] In other words, one’s emotions and behaviors are shaped by prior relationships. Thus, relational self theory posits that prior and existing relationships influence one’s emotions and behaviors in interactions with new individuals, particularly those individuals that remind him or her of others in his or her life. Studies have shown that exposure to someone who resembles a significant other activates specific self-beliefs, changing how one thinks about oneself in the moment more so than exposure to someone who does not resemble one’s significant other.[37]

    Power and dominance[edit]

    Power is the ability to influence the behavior of other people. When two parties have or assert unequal levels of power, one is termed “dominant” and the other “submissive”. Expressions of dominance can communicate intention to assert or maintain dominance in a relationship. Being submissive can be beneficial because it saves time, emotional stress, and may avoid hostile actions such as withholding of resources, cessation of cooperation, termination of the relationship, maintaining a grudge, or even physical violence. Submission occurs in different degrees; for example, some employees may follow orders without question, whereas others might express disagreement but concede when pressed.

    Groups of people can form a dominance hierarchy. For example, a hierarchical organization uses a command hierarchy for top-down management. This can reduce time wasted in conflict over unimportant decisions, prevents inconsistent decisions from harming the operations of the organization, maintain alignment of a large population of workers with the goals of the owners (which the workers might not personally share) and if promotion is based on merit, help ensure that the people with the best expertise make important decisions. This contrasts with group decision-making and systems which encourage decision-making and self-organization by front-line employees, who in some cases may have better information about customer needs or how to work efficiently. Dominance is only one aspect of organizational structure.

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

    In business relationships, dominance is often associated with economic power. For example, a business may adopt a submissive attitude to customer preferences (stocking what customers want to buy) and complaints (“the customer is always right”) in order to earn more money. A firm with monopoly power may be less responsive to customer complaints because it can afford to adopt a dominant position. In a business partnership a “silent partner” is one who adopts a submissive position in all aspects, but retains financial ownership and a share of the profits.

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

    The breadwinner model is associated with gender role assignments where the male in a heterosexual marriage would be dominant in all areas.

    Further information: Psychological manipulation and Brainwashing

    Pathological relationships[edit]


    Abusive relationships involve either maltreatment or violence from one individual to another and include physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment.[38] Abusive relationships within the family are very prevalent in the United States and usually involve women or children as victims.[39] Common individual factors for abusers include low self-esteem, poor impulse control, external locus of control, drug use, alcohol abuse, and negative affectivity.[40] There are also external factors such as stress, poverty, and loss which contribute to likelihood of abuse.[41]


    Codependency initially focused on a codependent partner enabling substance abuse, but has become more broadly defined to describe a dysfunctional relationship with extreme dependence on or preoccupation with another person.[42] There are some who even refer to codependency as an addiction to the relationship.[43] The focus of a codependent individual tends to be on the emotional state, behavioral choices, thoughts, and beliefs of another person.[44] Often those who are codependent neglect themselves in favor of taking care of others and have difficulty fully developing their identity on their own.[45]


    Narcissists’ focus on themselves and often distance themselves from intimate relationships; the focus of narcissistic interpersonal relationships is to promote one’s self concept.[46] Generally narcissists show less empathy in relationships and view love pragmatically or as a game involving others’ emotions.[47][46]


    Interpersonal relationships are dynamic systems that change continuously during their existence. Like living organisms, relationships have a beginning, a lifespan, and an end. They tend to grow and improve gradually, as people get to know each other and become closer emotionally, or they gradually deteriorate as people drift apart, move on with their lives and form new relationships with others. One of the most influential models of relationship development was proposed by psychologist George Levinger.[48] This model was formulated to describe heterosexual, adult romantic relationships, but it has been applied to other kinds of interpersonal relations as well. According to the model, the natural development of a relationship follows five stages:

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

    According to the latest Systematic Review of the Economic Literature on the Factors associated with Life Satisfaction (dating from 2007), stable and secure relationships are beneficial, and correspondingly, relationship dissolution is harmful.[49]

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

    • Purposefully focussing on the positive aspects of the breakup (“factors leading up to the break-up, the actual break-up, and the time right after the break-up”)
    • Minimising the negative emotions
    • Journaling the positive aspects of the breakup (e.g. “comfort, confidence, empowerment, energy, happiness, optimism, relief, satisfaction, thankfulness, and wisdom”). This exercise works best, although not exclusively, when the breakup is mutual.[50]

    Less time between a breakup and a subsequent relationship predicts higher self-esteem, attachment security, emotional stability, respect for your new partner, and greater well-being. Furthermore, rebound relationships don’t last any shorter than regular relationships.[51][52] 60% of people are friends with one or more ex.[53] 60% of people have had an off-and-on relationship. 37% of cohabiting couples, and 23% of the married, have broken up and gotten back together with their existing partner.[54]

    Terminating a marital relationship implies a divorce. One reason cited for divorce is infidelity. The determinants of unfaithfulness are debated by dating service providers, feminists, academics and science communicators.[55][56][57][58] According to Psychology Today, women’s, rather than men’s, level of commitment more strongly determines if a relationship will continue.[59]

    Relationship satisfaction[edit]

    Social exchange theory and Rusbult’s investment model shows that relationship satisfaction is based on three factors: rewards, costs, and comparison levels (Miller, 2012).[60] Rewards refer to any aspects of the partner or relationship that are positive. Conversely, costs are the negative or unpleasant aspects of the partner or their relationship. Comparison level includes what each partner expects of the relationship. The comparison level is influenced by past relationships, and general relationship expectations they are taught by family and friends.

    Individuals in long-distance relationships, LDRs, rated their relationships as more satisfying than individuals in proximal relationship, PRs.[61][62] Alternatively, Holt and Stone (1988) found that long-distance couples who were able to meet with their partner at least once a month had similar satisfaction levels to unmarried couples who cohabitated.[63] Also, the relationship satisfaction was lower for members of LDRs who saw their partner less frequently than once a month. LDR couples reported the same level of relationship satisfaction as couples in PRs, despite only seeing each other on average once every 23 days.[64]

    Social exchange theory and the investment model both theorize that relationships that are high in costs would be less satisfying than relationships that are low in costs. LDRs have a higher level of costs than PRs, therefore, one would assume that LDRs are less satisfying than PRs. Individuals in LDRs are more satisfied with their relationships compared to individuals in PRs.[62] This can be explained by unique aspects of the LDRs, how the individuals use relationship maintenance behaviors, and the attachment styles of the individuals in the relationships. Therefore, the costs and benefits of the relationship are subjective to the individual, and people in LDRs tend to report lower costs and higher rewards in their relationship compared to PRs.[62]

    Flourishing, budding, blooming, blossoming relationships[edit]

    Positive psychologists use the various terms “flourishing, budding, blooming, blossoming relationships” to describe interpersonal relationships that are not merely happy, but instead characterized by intimacy, growth, and resilience.[65] Flourishing relationships also allow a dynamic balance between focus on the intimate relationships and focus on other social relationships.


    While traditional psychologists specializing in close relationships have focused on relationship dysfunction, positive psychology argues that relationship health is not merely the absence of relationship dysfunction.[66] Healthy relationships are built on a foundation of secure attachment and are maintained with love and purposeful positive relationship behaviors. Additionally, healthy relationships can be made to “flourish.” Positive psychologists are exploring what makes existing relationships flourish and what skills can be taught to partners to enhance their existing and future personal relationships. A social skills approach posits that individuals differ in their degree of communication skill, which has implications for their relationships. Relationships in which partners possess and enact relevant communication skills are more satisfying and stable than relationships in which partners lack appropriate communication skills.[67]

    Adult attachment and attachment theory[edit]

    Healthy relationships are built on a foundation of secure attachments. Adult attachment models represent an internal set of expectations and preferences regarding relationship intimacy that guide behavior.[68] Secure adult attachment, characterized by low attachment-related avoidance and anxiety, has numerous benefits. Within the context of safe, secure attachments, people can pursue optimal human functioning and flourishing.[66] This is because social acts that reinforce feelings of attachment also stimulate the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and endorphin, which alleviate stress and create feelings of contentment.[69] Attachment theory can also be used as a means of explaining adult relationships.[70]

    Secure attachment styles are characterized by low avoidance of intimacy and low anxiety over abandonment. Secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy and interdependence and are usually optimistic and social in everyday life. Securely attached individuals usually use their partners for emotion regulation so they prefer to have their partners in close proximity.[71] Preoccupied individuals tend to be low on avoidance of intimacy and high on anxiety about abandonment. Preoccupied people are normally uneasy and vigilant towards any threat to the relationship and tend to be needy and jealous. Dismissing individuals are low on anxiety over abandonment and high in avoidance of intimacy. Dismissing people are usually self-reliant and uninterested in intimacy and are independent and indifferent towards acquiring romantic partners.[72] Fearful attachment styled individuals are high in avoidance of intimacy and high in anxiety over abandonment, which means they rarely allow themselves to be in relationships, and if they do get into one, are very anxious about losing the partner. They are very fearful of rejection, mistrustful of others, and tend to be suspicious and shy in everyday life. Attachment styles are created during childhood but can adapt and evolve to become a different attachment style based on individual experiences.[72] A bad breakup or a bad romantic situation can change someone from being in a secure attachment to insecure. On the contrary, a good romantic relationship can take a person from an avoidant attachment style to more of a secure attachment style.

    Romantic love[edit]
    Main article: Romantic love

    The capacity for love gives depth to human relationships, brings people closer to each other physically and emotionally, and makes people think expansively about themselves and the world.[66]

    Stages of romantic interpersonal relationships can also be characterized more generally by the following: attraction; initiation; development; sustaining vs. terminating.

    • Attraction – Premeditated or automatic, attraction can occur between acquaintances, coworkers, lovers, etc., be based on sexual arousal, intellectual stimulation, or respect. Studies have shown that attraction can be susceptible to influence based on context and externally induced arousal, with the caveat that participants be unaware of the source of their arousal. A study by Cantor, J. R., Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (1975), induced arousal through physical exercise and found that participants rated erotic pictures highly 4 minutes post-exercise (when no longer realized aroused by exercise) than either immediately after (when arousal and awareness were greater) or 10 minutes later (when exercise-induced arousal had dissipated). As supported by a series of studies, Zillman and colleagues showed that a preexisting state of arousal can heighten reactions to affective stimuli.[73] A classic study by Dutton & Aron (1974) showed that fear arousal from suspension bridges leads to higher attraction ratings by males of a female confederate.[74]
    • Initiation – There are several catalysts in the initiation of a new relationship. One commonly studied factor is physical proximity (also known as propinquity). The MIT Westgate studies famously showed that greater physical proximity between incoming students in a university residential hall led to greater relationship initiation. More specifically, only 10% of those living on opposite ends of Westgate West considered each other friends while more than 40% of those living in adjacent apartments considered each other friends.[75] The theory behind this effect is that proximity facilitates chance encounters, which lead to initiation of new relationships. This is closely related to the mere exposure effect, which states that the more an individual is exposed to a person or object, the more s/he likes it. Another important factor in the initiation of new relationships is similarity. Put simply, individuals tend to be attracted to and start new relationships with those who are similar to them. These similarities can include beliefs, rules, interests, culture, education, etc. Individuals seek relationships with like others because like others are most likely to validate shared beliefs and perspectives, thus facilitating interactions that are positive, rewarding and without conflict.
    • Development – Development of interpersonal relationships can be further split into committed versus non-committed romantic relationships, which have different behavioral characteristics. In a study by Miguel & Buss (2011), men and women were found to differ in a variety of mate-retention strategies depending on whether their romantic relationships were committed or not. More committed relationships by both genders were characterized by greater resource display, appearance enhancement, love and care, and verbal signs of possession. In contrast, less committed relationships by both genders were characterized by greater jealousy induction. In terms of gender differences, men used greater resource display than women, who used more appearance enhancement as a mate-retention strategy than men.[76]
    • Sustaining vs. terminating – After a relationship has had time to develop, it enters into a phase where it will be sustained if it is not otherwise terminated. Some important qualities of strong, enduring relationships include emotional understanding and effective communication between partners. Idealization of one’s partner is linked to stronger interpersonal bonds. Idealization is the pattern of overestimating a romantic partner’s positive virtues or underestimating a partner’s negative faults in comparison to the partner’s own self-evaluation. In general, individuals who idealize their romantic partners tend to report higher levels of relationship satisfaction.[77] Romantic partners that engage in a novel and exciting physical activity together are more likely to report higher levels of relationship satisfaction than partners that complete a mundane activity.[78]

    In his triangular theory of love, psychologist Robert Sternberg theorizes that love is a mix of three components: some (1) passion, or physical attraction; (2) intimacy, or feelings of closeness; and (3) commitment, involving the decision to initiate and sustain a relationship. The presence of all three components characterizes consummate love, the most durable type of love. In addition, the presence of intimacy and passion in marital relationships predicts marital satisfaction. Also, commitment is the best predictor of relationship satisfaction, especially in long-term relationships. Positive consequences of being in love include increased self-esteem and self-efficacy.[66]

    Referring to the emotion of love, Psychiatrist Daniel Casriel defined the “logic of love” as “the logic of pleasure and pain” in the concept of a “Relationship Road Map” that became the foundation of PAIRS’ relationship education classes.[79]

    “We are drawn to what we anticipate will be a source of pleasure and will look to avoid what we anticipate will be a source of pain. The emotion of love comes from the anticipation of pleasure.”[79]

    Based on Casriel’s theory, sustaining feelings of love in an interpersonal relationship requires “effective communication, emotional understanding and healthy conflict resolution skills.”[80]

    Theories and empirical research[edit]


    Confucianism is a study and theory of relationships especially within hierarchies.[81] Social harmony—the central goal of Confucianism—results in part from every individual knowing his or her place in the social order, and playing his or her part well. Particular duties arise from each person’s particular situation in relation to others. The individual stands simultaneously in several different relationships with different people: as a junior in relation to parents and elders, and as a senior in relation to younger siblings, students, and others. Juniors are considered in Confucianism to owe their seniors reverence and seniors have duties of benevolence and concern toward juniors. A focus on mutuality is prevalent in East Asian cultures to this day.

    Minding relationships[edit]

    The mindfulness theory of relationships shows how closeness in relationships may be enhanced. Minding is the “reciprocal knowing process involving the nonstop, interrelated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons in a relationship.”[82] Five components of “minding” include:[66]

  • Knowing and being known: seeking to understand the partner
  • Making relationship-enhancing attributions for behaviors: giving the benefit of the doubt
  • Accepting and respecting: empathy and social skills
  • Maintaining reciprocity: active participation in relationship enhancement
  • Continuity in minding: persisting in mindfulness
  • Theory of intertype relationships[edit]

    Socionics has proposed a theory of intertype relationships between psychological types based on a modified version of C.G. Jung’s theory of psychological types. Communication between types is described using the concept of information metabolism proposed by Antoni Kępiński. Socionics allocates 16 types of the relations — from most attractive and comfortable up to disputed. The understanding of a nature of these relations helps to solve a number of problems of the interpersonal relations, including aspects of psychological and sexual compatibility. The researches of married couples by Aleksandr Bukalov et al., have shown that the family relations submit to the laws, which are opened by socionics. The study of socionic type allocation in casually selected married couples confirmed the main rules of the theory of intertype relations in socionics.[83] So, the dual relations (full addition) make 45% and the intraquadral relations make 64% of investigated couples.

    Culture of appreciation[edit]

    After studying married couples for many years, psychologist John Gottman has proposed the theory of the “magic ratio” for successful marriages. The theory says that for a marriage to be successful, couples must average a ratio of five positive interactions to one negative interaction. As the ratio moves to 1:1, divorce becomes more likely.[66] Interpersonal interactions associated with negative relationships include criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Over time, therapy aims to turn these interpersonal strategies into more positive ones, which include complaint, appreciation, acceptance of responsibility, and self-soothing. Similarly, partners in interpersonal relationships can incorporate positive components into difficult subjects in order to avoid emotional disconnection.[84]

    In addition, Martin Seligman proposes the concept of Active-Constructive Responding, which stresses the importance of practicing conscious attentive listening and feedback skills. In essence, practicing this technique aims to improve the quality of communication between members of the relationship, and in turn the gratitude expressed between said members.[85]

    Capitalizing on positive events[edit]

    People can capitalize on positive events in an interpersonal context to work toward flourishing relationships. People often turn to others to share their good news (termed “capitalization”). Studies show that both the act of telling others about good events and the response of the person with whom the event was shared have personal and interpersonal consequences, including increased positive emotions, subjective well-being, and self-esteem, and relationship benefits including intimacy, commitment, trust, liking, closeness, and stability.[86] Studies show that the act of communicating positive events was associated with increased positive effect and well-being (beyond the impact of the positive event itself). Other studies have found that relationships in which partners responded to “good news” communication enthusiastically were associated with higher relationship well-being.[87]

    The Vulnerability Stress Adaptation (VSA) Model[edit]

    The VSA is a framework for conceptualizing the dynamic processes of intimate relationships, which emphasizes the consideration of multiple dimensions of functioning, including couple members’ enduring vulnerabilities, experiences of stressful events, and adaptive processes, to account for variations in marital quality and stability over time. According to the VSA model, in order to achieve a complete understanding of relationship functioning, research must consider all functional dimensions, including enduring vulnerabilities, stress, and adaptive processes simultaneously.[88]

    Other perspectives[edit]

    Neurobiology of interpersonal connections[edit]

    Humans are social creatures, and there is no other behavioral process that is more important than attachment. Attachment requires sensory and cognitive processing that lead to intricate motor responses. As humans, the end goal of attachment is the motivation to acquire love, which is different from other animals who just seek proximity.[89] There is an emerging body of research across multiple disciplines investigating the neurological basis of attachment and the prosocial emotions and behaviors that are the prerequisites for healthy adult relationships.[66] The social environment, mediated by attachment, influences the maturation of structures in a child’s brain. This might explain how infant attachment affects adult emotional health. This continues on throughout childbearing.[90] A link between positive caregiver–child relationships and the development of hormone systems, such as the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA axis) and oxytocinergic system has been observed.[89]

    • The mother–infant attachment – Key biological factors have emerged that can explain the motivation behind maternal caregiving behavior in humans and mammals. However, it does differ from species to species, due to that some species only exhibit maternal care postpartum, others exhibit it only slightly and some are very maternal.[89] Two main neuroendocrine systems that revolved around Oxytocin and Dopamine,[91] and another neuropeptide, prolactin are directly involved as mediators of maternal care.[89] The mother–infant bond is so complex and strong due to these biological systems, that a response to maternal separation exists. The response to separation is due to the withdrawal of several different components from behavioral and biological systems.[92] Separation anxiety, the psychological term that describes the response that occurs when an infant is separated from the mother, causes loss of those components, as seen in studies done with rats.[93]
  • Oxytocinergic system – Oxytocin is a peptide hormone produced in the hypothalamus that is passed through the posterior pituitary gland into the bloodstream. Oxytocin acts on the mammary glands and uterine muscles to stimulate the secretion of milk and uterine contractions during childbirth. However, it is a crucial factor in many aspects of social bonding, specifically the onset of the mother–infant attachment bond.[91] It acts on the medial preoptic area (MPOA) and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) in the brain which are critical for integration of sensory information in maternal care.[89] Oxytocin plays a key role in physical proximity and nurturing care and leads (as shown in studies with rats) the mother to go from avoiding behavior to caring for their young. Oxytocin knockout rats or injection of an oxytocin receptor antagonist will lead to neglect of the infant or pup.[91] In mammals, the development of the Oxytocinergic system has led to the basis of the mother–infant attachment.
  • Dopaminergic system – Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that affects behavior in not just the mother but in the offspring as well. Dopamine is essential in for reinforcing behavior that gives us pleasure because it is part of the limbic system that deals with emotion. Therefore, it is able to stimulate responsive maternal care and reinforce attachment. Understanding the dopaminergic system is important because it could make the difference between maternal neglect and nurture.[91]
  • Prolactin – As seen in lesion studies of rats prolactin, which is also involved in lactation, is important in encouraging maternal behavior. Decreasing the levels of prolactin or lack of the receptor of prolactin leads to inhibition of maternal care in rats.
    • Adult–adult pair bond formation – Oxytocin and vasopressin play a crucial part in the process of bond formation of mates. Vasopressin is a peptide hormone whose main function is to retain water in the body, and is also known as antidiuretic hormone (ADH). Pair bonding is studied using voles and it has been found that injection of both hormones stimulates the behavioral responses needed in pair bond formation, even when mating hasn’t occurred.[89] These results are also proven when injection of receptor antagonists of this hormones inhibits mating and necessary behaviors.

    The ability to study the biological processes behind attachment allows scientists to be able to understand the fundamental levels to makeup a psychological construct. It provides a link between a psychological concept and its physiological foundation.[93]


    In interpersonal relationship those who feel secure are open with their emotional expression, those who are anxious-ambivalent don’t express them and process them internally which might lead to immune system disorders, those who are avoidant direct their emotions onto others. Those who have similar coping system have a positive relationship status. Those who are open with their emotional expression with appropriateness is found to have a positive well being. Culture, personal characteristics and experiences are influencing factors in behavioral aspects of interpersonal relationship.[citation needed]


    Researchers are developing an approach to couples therapy that moves partners from patterns of repeated conflict to patterns of more positive, comfortable exchanges. Goals of therapy include development of social and interpersonal skills. Expressing gratitude and sharing appreciation for a partner is the primary means for creating a positive relationship. Positive marital counseling also emphasizes mindfulness. The further study of “flourishing relationships could shape the future of premarital and marital counseling as well.”[66]


    Some researchers criticize positive psychology for studying positive processes in isolation from negative processes.[94] Positive psychologists argue that positive and negative processes in relationships may be better understood as functionally independent, not as opposites of each other.[95]

    In popular culture[edit]

    Popular perceptions[edit]

    Popular perceptions of intimate relationships are strongly influenced by movies and television. Common messages are that love is predestined, love at first sight is possible, and that love with the right person always succeeds. Those who consume the most romance-related media tend to believe in predestined romance and that those who are destined to be together implicitly understand each other. These beliefs, however, can lead to less communication and problem-solving as well as giving up on relationships more easily when conflict is encountered.[96]

    Social media[edit]

    Social media has changed the face of interpersonal relationships. Romantic interpersonal relationships are no less impacted. For example, FB has become an integral part of the dating process for emerging adults.[97] Social media can have both positive and negative impacts on romantic relationships. For example, supportive social networks have been linked to more stable relationships.[98] However, social media usage can also facilitate conflict, jealousy, and passive aggressive behaviors such as spying on a partner.[99] Aside from direct effects on the development, maintenance, and perception of romantic relationships, excessive social network usage is linked to jealousy and dissatisfaction in relationships.[100] A growing segment of the population is engaging in purely online dating, sometimes but not always moving towards traditional face-to-face interactions. These online relationships differ from face-to-face relationships; for example, self-disclosure may be of primary importance in developing an online relationship. Conflict management differs, since avoidance is easier and conflict resolution skills may not develop in the same way. Additionally, the definition of infidelity is both broadened and narrowed, since physical infidelity becomes easier to conceal but emotional infidelity (e.g. chatting with more than one online partner) becomes a more serious offense.[98]

    See also[edit]

    • Discontinuity view
    • Interactionism
    • Interpersonal attraction
    • Interpersonal tie
    • Outline of relationships
    • Relationship status
    • Relationship forming
    • Socionics


  • ^ Berscheid E (April 1999). “The greening of relationship science”. The American Psychologist. 4. 54 (4): 260–6. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.4.260. PMID 10217995. 
  • ^ Berscheid E, Peplau LA (1983). “The emerging science of relationships”. In Kelley HH. Close relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. pp. 1–19. OCLC 9131639. 
  • ^ Acker M, Davis MH. “Intimacy, Passion and Commitment in Adult Romantic Relationships: A Test of the Triangular Theory of Love”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 9 (1): 21–50. doi:10.1177/0265407592091002. 
  • ^ a b c Gibson LS (2015). “The Science of Romantic Love: Distinct Evolutionary, Neural, and Hormonal Characteristics”. International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities. 7 (1). doi:10.7710/2168-0620.1036. 
  • ^ Sternberg RJ. “A triangular theory of love”. Psychological Review. 93 (2): 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.119. 
  • ^ Hazan C, Shaver P (March 1987). “Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (3): 511–24. PMID 3572722. 
  • ^ Vangelisti AL. “Interpersonal processes in romantic relationships” (PDF). Interpersonal processes in romantic relationships. Handbook of interpersonal communication. 3: 643–679 – via Sage. 
  • ^ Kito M (April 2005). “Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and Japanese college students”. The Journal of Social Psychology. 145 (2): 127–40. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.2.127-140. PMID 15816343. 
  • ^ a b Meier A, Allen G (2009). “Romantic Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health”. The Sociological Quarterly. 50 (2): 308–335. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x. PMC 4201847 . PMID 25332511. 
  • ^ Merkle ER, Richardson RA (2004). “Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: Conceptualizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships”. Family Relations. 49 (2): 187–192. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00187.x. JSTOR 585815. 
  • ^ Montgomery MJ, Sorell GT (1997). “Differences in Love Attitudes across Family Life Stages”. Family Relations. 46 (1): 55–61. doi:10.2307/585607. JSTOR 585607. 
  • ^ a b Sassler S (June 2010). “Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate Selection”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 72 (3): 557–575. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x. PMC 3399251 . PMID 22822268. 
  • ^ Mohr JJ, Daly CA. “Sexual minority stress and changes in relationship quality in same-sex couples”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 25 (6): 989–1007. doi:10.1177/0265407508100311. 
  • ^ Li T, Dobinson C, Scheim A, Ross L. “Unique Issues Bisexual People Face in Intimate Relationships: A Descriptive Exploration of Lived Experience”. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. 17: 21–39. doi:10.1080/19359705.2012.723607. 
  • ^ Iantaffi A, Bockting WO (March 2011). “Views from both sides of the bridge? Gender, sexual legitimacy and transgender people’s experiences of relationships”. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 13 (3): 355–70. doi:10.1080/13691058.2010.537770. PMC 3076785 . PMID 21229422. 
  • ^ DeHaan S, Kuper LE, Magee JC, Bigelow L, Mustanski BS (2013). “The interplay between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: a mixed-methods study with LGBT youth”. Journal of Sex Research. 50 (5): 421–34. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.661489. PMID 22489658. 
  • ^ Roisman GI, Clausell E, Holland A, Fortuna K, Elieff C (January 2008). “Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: a multimethod comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads”. Developmental Psychology. 44 (1): 91–101. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.91. PMID 18194008. 
  • ^ “Number of U.S. adults cohabiting with a partner continues to rise, especially among those 50 and older”. Pew Research Center. 2017-04-06. Retrieved 2018-04-04. 
  • ^ Gillies J (2010-01-12). The History of Ancient Greece: Its Colonies and Conquests, from the Earliest Accounts Till the Division of the Macedonian Empire in the East: … of Literature, Philosophy, and the Fine Arts. Nabu Press. ISBN 978-1-142-12050-4. 
  • ^ Holzman D (1998). “The Place of Filial Piety in Ancient China”. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 118 (2): 185–199. doi:10.2307/605890. JSTOR 605890. 
  • ^ Borovecki-Jakovljev S, Matacić S (June 2005). “The Oedipus complex in the contemporary psychoanalysis”. Collegium Antropologicum. 29 (1): 351–60. PMID 16117347. 
  • ^ Blum D (2011-12-28). “Love According to Harry Harlow”. APS Observer. 25 (1). 
  • ^ Suomi SJ, van der Horst FC, van der Veer R (December 2008). “Rigorous experiments on monkey love: an account of Harry F. Harlow’s role in the history of attachment theory”. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. 42 (4): 354–69. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9072-9. PMID 18688688. 
  • ^ Greenberg MT, Cicchetti D, Cummings EM, eds. (1993-05-15). Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention (Revised ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226306308. 
  • ^ Kim S, Boldt LJ, Kochanska G (2015). “From parent-child mutuality to security to socialization outcomes: developmental cascade toward positive adaptation in preadolescence”. Attachment & Human Development. 17 (5): 472–91. doi:10.1080/14616734.2015.1072832. PMC 4840872 . PMID 26258443. 
  • ^ Kochanska G, Kim S (January 2014). “A complex interplay among the parent-child relationship, effortful control, and internalized, rule-compatible conduct in young children: evidence from two studies”. Developmental Psychology. 50 (1): 8–21. doi:10.1037/a0032330. PMC 3750102 . PMID 23527491. 
  • ^ Koops W, Zuckerman M (2003-01-01). “Introduction: A historical developmental approach to adolescence”. The History of the Family. 8 (3): 345–354. doi:10.1016/S1081-602X(03)00041-1. 
  • ^ Marceau K, Ram N, Susman E (September 2015). “Development and Lability in the Parent-Child Relationship During Adolescence: Associations With Pubertal Timing and Tempo”. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 25 (3): 474–489. doi:10.1111/jora.12139. PMC 4550307 . PMID 26321856. 
  • ^ Arnett JJ. “Presidential Address: The Emergence of Emerging Adulthood”. Emerging Adulthood. 2 (3): 155–162. doi:10.1177/2167696814541096. 
  • ^ Portner LC, Riggs SA. “Sibling Relationships in Emerging Adulthood: Associations with Parent–Child Relationship”. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 25 (6): 1755–1764. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0358-5. 
  • ^ Deutsch FM. “Egalitarian Relationships”. In Reis HT, Sprecher S. Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. doi:10.4135/9781412958479.n156. 
  • ^ a b c Shannon B (2011). Frenemy: The Friend Who Bullies (Master of Applied Psychology). University of Waikato. 
  • ^ Weir K (2011). “Friend or Foe?”. Current Health Teens (37): 17–19. 
  • ^ Isaacs F (1999). Toxic Friends/True Friends. New York: William Morrow & Company. 
  • ^ Bushman, Briahna Bigelow; Holt-Lunstad, Julianne (13 July 2009). “Understanding Social Relationship Maintenance Among Friends: Why We Don’t End Those Frustrating Friendships”. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 28 (6): 749–778. doi:10.1521/jscp.2009.28.6.749. 
  • ^ Andersen SM, Chen E (2002). “The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory”. Psychological Review. 109 (4): 619. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.4.619. 
  • ^ Hinkley K, Andersen SM (1996). “The working self-concept in transference: significant-other activation and self change”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71 (6): 1279. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1279. 
  • ^ National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on Law and Justice, Committee on National Statistics, Panel to Review Risk and Prevalence of Elder Abuse and Neglect (2003). Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America. National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309084345. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  • ^ Emery RE, Laumann-Billings L (February 1998). “An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences of abusive family relationships. Toward differentiating maltreatment and violence”. The American Psychologist. 53 (2): 121–35. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.121. PMID 9491743. 
  • ^ Cicchetti D (1989). Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521379694. 
  • ^ Emery RE (February 1989). “Family violence”. The American Psychologist. 44 (2): 321–8. PMID 2653142. 
  • ^ Cowan G, Bommersbach M, Curtis SR. “Codependency, Loss Of Self, And Power”. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 19 (2): 221–236. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00289.x. 
  • ^ Mendenhall W (1989). “Co-dependency definitions and dynamics”. Alcoholic Quarterly,. 6: 3–17. 
  • ^ Chmielewska M (2012). “Marital quality in the context of interpersonal dependency”. Economics & Sociology. 5 (2): 58–74. 
  • ^ Knudson TM, Terrell HK. “Codependency, Perceived Interparental Conflict, and Substance Abuse in the Family of Origin”. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 40 (3): 245–257. doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.610725. 
  • ^ a b Campbell WK (December 1999). “Narcissism and romantic attraction”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (6): 1254–1270. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254. 
  • ^ Rhodewalt F, Morf CC (March 1995). “Self and Interpersonal Correlates of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: A Review and New Findings”. Journal of Research in Personality. 29 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1001. 
  • ^ Levinger G (1983). “Development and change”. In Kelly HH. Close relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. pp. 315–359. 
  • ^ Dolan, Paul; Peasgood, Tessa; White, Mathew (18 June 2007). “Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being” (PDF). Journal of Economic Psychology. ScienceDirect. 29: 94–122. 
  • ^ “Breakups aren’t all bad: Coping strategies to promote positive outcomes”. 
  • ^ “Can a Rebound Relationship Be the Real Deal?”. Psychology Today. 
  • ^ “The 4 Main Reasons Why People Stay Friends With Their Exes”. Psychology Today. 
  • ^ “How Healthy Are On-Again/Off-Again Relationships?”. Psychology Today. 
  • ^ “The Truth About On-Again, Off-Again Couples”. Psychology Today. 
  • ^ “Predictors of Infidelity: Why Do Partners Cheat?”. 18 December 2014. 
  • ^ “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Infidelity But Were Afraid to Ask * Hooking Up Smart”. 24 July 2013. 
  • ^ Mark, Kristen P.; Janssen, Erick; Milhausen, Robin R. (1 October 2011). “Infidelity in heterosexual couples: demographic, interpersonal, and personality-related predictors of extradyadic sex”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 40 (5): 971–982. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9771-z. PMID 21667234. 
  • ^ “Paper: Predictors Of Infidelity”. 28 September 2014. 
  • ^ “The Secret Epidemic Facing Modern Couples”. Psychology Today. 
  • ^ Miller R (2012). Attraction In Intimate Relationships (6th ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill. p. 71. 
  • ^ Stafford L, Reske J (1990). “Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships”. Family Relations. 39: 274–279. doi:10.2307/584871. 
  • ^ a b c Stafford L (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
  • ^ Holt P, Stone G (1988). “Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with long-distance relationships”. Journal of college student development. 29: 136–141. 
  • ^ Guldner GT, Swensen CH (1995). “Time spent together and relationship quality: Long distance relationships as a test case”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 12: 313–320. doi:10.1177/0265407595122010. 
  • ^ Fincham F, Beach S (2010). “Of Memes and Marriage: Toward a Positive Relationship Science”. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2: 4–24. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x. 
  • ^ a b c d e f g h Snyder CR, Lopez SJ (2007). Positive psychology: the scientific and practical explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 297–321. 
  • ^ Burleson BR, Samter W (April–June 2009). “Definition of Interpersonal Relationships”. Communication Quarterly. 57 (2). 
  • ^ Tewari A (23 March 2016). “How to get your ex-girlfriend back advice”. Win Your Ex Back. Retrieved 17 May 2016. 
  • ^ Poquérusse J. “The Neuroscience of Sharing”. Retrieved 16 August 2012. 
  • ^ Hazan C, Shaver PR (1994). “Attachment as an Organizational Framework for Research on Close Relationships”. Psychological Inquiry: an International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory. 5 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1. 
  • ^ Conde A, Figueiredo B, Bifulco A (May 2011). “Attachment style and psychological adjustment in couples”. Attachment & Human Development. 13 (3): 271–91. doi:10.1080/14616734.2011.562417. PMID 21506031. 
  • ^ a b Chopik WJ, Edelstein RS, Fraley RC (April 2013). “From the cradle to the grave: age differences in attachment from early adulthood to old age”. Journal of Personality. 81 (2): 171–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00793.x. PMID 22583036. 
  • ^ Cantor JR, Zillmann D, Bryant J (July 1975). “Enhancement of experienced sexual arousal in response to erotic stimuli through misattribution of unrelated residual excitation”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 32 (1): 69–75. doi:10.1037/h0076784. PMID 1206469. 
  • ^ Dutton DG, Aron AP (October 1974). “Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 30 (4): 510–7. doi:10.1037/h0037031. PMID 4455773. 
  • ^ Festinger L, Back KW, Schachter S (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing (No. 3). Stanford University Press. 
  • ^ de Miguel A, Buss DM (June 2011). “Mate retention tactics in Spain: personality, sex differences, and relationship status”. Journal of Personality. 79 (3): 563–85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00698.x. PMID 21534964. 
  • ^ Murray SL, Holmes JG, Griffin DW (1996). “The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (1): 79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.79. 
  • ^ Aron A, Norman CC, Aron EN, McKenna C, Heyman RE (February 2000). “Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (2): 273–84. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.273. PMID 10707334. 
  • ^ a b Casriel, Daniel (1976). A Scream Away from Happiness. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. ASIN B003A1JRCI. 
  • ^ Eisenberg S, PAIRS Foundation (2007). PAIRS Essentials. Florida: PAIRS Foundation. p. 72. ISBN 0985427817. 
  • ^ Richey, Jeff (2011). “Confucius”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved August 11, 2011. 
  • ^ Harvey JH, Pauwels BG (2009). “Relationship Connection: A Redux on the Role of Minding and the Quality of Feeling Special”. In Snyder CD, Lopez SJ. Enhancement of Closeness. Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 385–392. 
  • ^ Bukalov AV, Karpenko OB, Chykyrysova GV. “Statistics of intertype relationships in married couples” (PDF). The International institute of Socionics. 
  • ^ Gottman J (1999). The Seven Principles For Making Marriage Work. UK: Hachette. p. 288. ISBN 978-1-4091-3713-9. 
  • ^ Seligman M (2011). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. New York: Free Press. pp. 48–51. 
  • ^ Gable SL, Reis HT (2010). “Good News! Capitalizing on Positive Events in an Interpersonal Context”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 42: 195–257. 
  • ^ Gable SL, Reis HT, Impett EA, Asher ER (August 2004). “What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (2): 228–45. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228. PMID 15301629. 
  • ^ Karney BR, Bradbury TN (July 1995). “The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research”. Psychological Bulletin. 118 (1): 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3. PMID 7644604. 
  • ^ a b c d e f Insel TR, Young LJ (February 2001). “The neurobiology of attachment”. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2 (2): 129–36. doi:10.1038/35053579. PMID 11252992. 
  • ^ Carlson MJ, Pilkauskas NV, McLanahan SS, Brooks-Gunn J (April 2011). “”Couples as Partners and Parents over Children’s Early Years””. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 73 (2): 317–334. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00809.x. PMC 3072141 . PMID 21479113. 
  • ^ a b c d Strathearn L (November 2011). “Maternal neglect: oxytocin, dopamine and the neurobiology of attachment”. Journal of Neuroendocrinology. 23 (11): 1054–65. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2826.2011.02228.x. PMC 3319675 . PMID 21951160. 
  • ^ , Having children is related to enjoyable interaction and the idea of expressing satisfaction toward a partner (Willén and Montgomery, 1996).
  • ^ a b Hofer M (April 2006). “Psychobiological Roots of Early Attachment”. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 15: 84–88. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00412.x. 
  • ^ Gable SL, Haidt J (2005). “What (and Why) Is Positive Psychology?”. Review of General Psychology. 9 (2): 103–110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103. 
  • ^ Maniaci MR, Reis HT (2010). “The Marriage of Positive Psychology and Relationship Science: A Reply to Fincham and Beach”. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2: 47–53. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00037.x. 
  • ^ Holmes B (October 2007). “In search of my “one and only”; Romance-related media and beliefs in romantic relationship destiny”. Electronic Journal of Communication. 17 (3/4). 
  • ^ Fox J, Warber KM (January 2013). “Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: an exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and behaviors”. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 16 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0288. PMID 23098273. 
  • ^ a b Merkle ER, Richardson RA. “Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: Conceptualizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships”. Family Relations. 49 (2): 187–192. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00187.x. 
  • ^ Wilkerson KT. “Social Networking Sites and Romantic Relationships: Effects on Development, Maintenance, and Dissolution of Relationships”. Inquiries Journal. 9 (3). 
  • ^ Elphinston RA, Noller P (November 2011). “Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction”. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 14 (11): 631–5. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318. PMID 21548798. 
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Miller R (2 September 2014). Intimate Relationships. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-0-07-786180-3. 
    • Williams KD, Nida SA (1 December 2016). Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-315-30845-6. 
    • Baumeister RF, Leary MR (May 1995). “The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation”. Psychological Bulletin. 117 (3): 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497. PMID 7777651. 
    • Hartgerink CH, van Beest I, Wicherts JM, Williams KD (2015). “The ordinal effects of ostracism: a meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies”. PLOS One. 10 (5): e0127002. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127002. PMC 4449005 . PMID 26023925. 

    External links[edit]

    • Media related to Relationships at Wikimedia Commons
    • The dictionary definition of interpersonal at Wiktionary
    • Quotations related to Interpersonal relationship at Wikiquote
    • Learning materials related to interpersonal relationships at Wikiversity

    Romantic relationship events

    • Annulment
    • Bonding
    • Breakup
    • Courtship
    • Dating
    • Divorce
    • Mating
    • Meet market
    • Romance
    • Separation
    • Singles event
    • Wedding

    Feelings and emotions

    • Affinity
    • Attachment
    • Compersion
    • Intimacy
    • Jealousy
    • Limerence
    • Love
    • Passion
    • Platonic love
    • Psychology of sexual monogamy
    • Unconditional love

    Human practices

    • Bride price
      • Dower
      • Dowry
    • Hypergamy
    • Infidelity
    • Repression
    • Sexual activity
    • Transgression

    Relationship abuse

    • Child abuse
    • Dating abuse
    • Domestic violence
    • Elder abuse

    In a Relationship

    In a Relationship is an 2018 American comedy drama film, written and directed by Sam Boyd in his directorial debut. It stars Emma Roberts, Michael Angarano, Dree Hemingway, Patrick Gibson, Jay Ellis, and Melora Walters.

    It had its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 20, 2018.


    • 1 Cast
    • 2 Production
    • 3 Release
    • 4 References
    • 5 External links


    • Emma Roberts as Hallie
    • Michael Angarano as Owen
    • Dree Hemingway as Willa
    • Patrick Gibson as Matt
    • Jay Ellis as Dexter
    • Melora Walters as Mia Ziniti
    • Gayle Rankin as Rachel Flegelman
    • Greta Lee as Maggie
    • Janet Mongomery as Lindsay
    • Andre Hyland as Persky
    • Luka Jones as Ash
    • Sasha Spielberg


    In March 2017, it was announced Emma Roberts, Michael Angarano, Dree Hemingway, Jay Ellis, Melora Walters, Gayle Rankin, Greta Lee, Janet Montgomery, Andre Hyland, Luka Jones and Sasha Spielberg had joined the cast of the, film with Sam Boyd directing and writing from a screenplay he wrote. Boyd will also produce the film, alongside Jorge Garcia Castro, David Hunter and Ross Putman, Sergio Cortez Gomez, Andres Icaza Ballesteros, Roberts, Kariah Press who will serve as producers and executive producers respectively, under their 2 Friends Media banner. Production concluded that month.[1]


    The film had its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 20, 2018.[2][3] Shortly after, Vertical Entertainment acquired distribution rights to the film.[4]


  • ^ Kit, Borys (March 20, 2017). “Emma Roberts, Michael Angarano to Star in Indie Rom-Com ‘In a Relationship'”. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 30, 2018. 
  • ^ Raup, Jordan (March 7, 2018). “Tribeca 2018 Lineup Includes ‘Disobedience,’ ‘The Miseducation of Cameron Post,’ ‘The Seagull,’ and More”. The Film Stage. Retrieved May 30, 2018. 
  • ^ “In a Relationship”. Tribeca Film Festival. Retrieved May 30, 2018. 
  • ^ N’Duka, Amanda (May 29, 2018). “Vertical Acquires ‘In A Relationship’; Mucho Mas Media, 2 Friends Media Launch Inclusion – Film Briefs”. Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved May 30, 2018. 
  • External links[edit]

    In a Relationship on IMDb