Friendship and love. Relationship secrets: friendship or love? Love that began with friendship social psychology

Chapter 2 Intimacy "Personal relationships are the fertile soil in which all achievements, victories and successes grow." Ben Stein, actor I believe that the main goal of family TM is to improve, maintain and maintain family relationships. If we don't have intimacy, trust and

Love and Friendship Lifestyle is all about balance. And one of the main conditions of balance is the person you love and who loves you. There is nothing more valuable than two people taking care of each other. She makes life rich to the limit. Protect your love with all

Dealing with feelings is quite difficult. The girl is sure that she truly loves, and then suddenly she meets another person and realizes that there was nothing in the past. Young people get bored when parting and after a while they simply forget each other.

How to understand when you met your fate, and when you just became attached to a person? How not to get confused?

You feel good and easy next to a person, communication is a great pleasure, and separation becomes unbearable, you yearn and wait for a meeting ... what is it? These are the "symptoms" of both love and affection. Very often, young people cannot sort out their feelings, mistaking one for the other. At the same time, longing is often taken as an indicator of love.

But everyone wants love. It is to her, the very real one, about which poets write poems, and directors make films. A young girl, having read and seen enough stories about love, is ready for it internally, and it is not surprising that she takes any object she likes for love. Not suspecting that in addition to this high-profile concept, there are more: friendship, sympathy, affection and love. And these are far from being synonyms, but various complex psychological combinations that are united by one thing - longing. In all these situations, a person yearns for his beloved, friend, buddy.

In different dictionaries, this concept is defined differently. Some define this feeling as deep affection, others as sexual desire. But the main thing in the concept of love is the aspiration to another person, another person - the object of one's love. Love is a community of two people, it is a unity of souls, a desire to live the life of another person, to give oneself to his interests, aspirations and desires. Love is a lofty and joyful feeling that has nothing to do with jealousy, anger, hatred.

Love rejoices in the success of another, wishes good and does not require anything in return. It is selflessness that distinguishes this feeling from others. And when love is mutual, then this is a real gift from God, because only by mutual striving for each other can unity be achieved.

They dated for a year in 11th grade. Fate separated them in different cities. For a whole year they talked on Skype, traveled to each other, corresponded, called back. She found life unbearable without him. She was only happy with him. All her friends understood that she had true love, and envied her. She cried, missed, yearned and wanted only one thing, so that he would always be there. She reproached him for inaction and was offended by fate that she separated them. And a year later, on a normal day, the male voice on her phone told him not to call again. She met her new love.

Could it be that a girl is so lucky in life, without having fallen out of love with one guy, she was able to fall in love again? Of course not. Just for love, the girl took another feeling.

In our story, the lack of love is indicated by one important detail: the girl demanded that the guy be there, failure to comply with this requirement led to resentment and reproaches. And love cannot demand anything for itself, because this feeling is always bestowal.

But what was it?

Attachment, what is it?

The family almost broke up because of the man's romance. For a long time he worked in another city as a “watch”, and one day his wife found out that there was another woman. The wise loving wife did not start scandals, but having presented her husband with evidence, she said: “Do you love? ... Go, let me go!” And gave me time to think. Needless to say, how much the man changed his mind during this time. He understood that he needed to choose one woman and lose another forever. But it was about love. He broke up with a new girlfriend, because he realized that losing her, he would experience longing, and losing his wife, pain. He explained to her: “I realized that I would miss our meetings more than anything and realized that I did not love you. I just got attached to you. I can survive this." A young friend threw tantrums, tore up the phone, poured reproaches. And the wife said that if he understood everything and made a decision, she would forgive him.

Of course, this story can be looked at in different ways: to put an argument family life and a sense of duty, the wisdom of one woman against the stupidity of another. But the most important thing here is choice. The fateful decision was made by a man. It was he who had to understand which woman he needed more, which of the two he really loves. It is worth believing that torment tormented him for more than one night. It was possible to sort out one's life only by choosing a loved one. And he judged correctly, taking as a basis the feeling of losing a woman. Comparing pain and longing.

Where does pain come from? It is from the break of souls. Love is unity, and after a break, you get a feeling of losing not SOMEONE, but a part of yourself. It has already been said about bestowal, and, having lost a part of yourself, given to another, it becomes unbearably painful. The pain is like a missing body part. Only the soul hurts. And mental pain is stronger than physical pain.

How to distinguish affection from love?

Many psychologists and philosophers puzzled over this question. Vladimir Levy offers the following formula:

“Love is measured by the measure of forgiveness, affection is measured by the pain of farewell…”

This is how he separates the two. If it is unbearably painful when parting, if longing squeezes from the inside and you want to be there, these are only symptoms of attachment. Of course, longing for a loved one accompanies love, but this is not the main thing. It is important to understand that you can forgive him: all or nothing ... Forgiveness is the measure of love. Forgive, as a mother forgives her children everything. Because she loves, which means she is disinterestedly directed at her child, wishing him happiness in life, not jealous, not demanding the return of love. Does the mother get bored when separated? Of course, he yearns, but he will never destroy the life of his child because of this longing.

There is another point in motherly love. The mother loves the child as he is, raising, grieving, rejoicing. But not one mother will not exchange her child for a more beautiful, smart, successful one.

In the story about another woman, not only the man showed his love, but also his wife, who was ready to let go or forgive, giving her husband the right to build her life, and readily accepted his decision. And as for the male mistake ... So the same is the phenomenon of love, to accept a person as he is: with mistakes and shortcomings.

So let's sum it up:

Friendship between a man and a woman - myth or reality?

The psychology of friendship between a man and a woman is the most mysterious question, for many years psychologists have been trying to determine whether such a friendship exists? Let us consider in more detail the features of heterosexual friendship, how to establish and maintain such friendly relations? Why do friendly feelings arise between a man and a woman, what contributes to their creation?

Features of friendship between a man and a woman

The friendship of a man and a woman causes conflicting opinions, some people believe in its possibility, others do not, and girls in more are prone to such relationships, and the guys understand that it is difficult to maintain such a friendship, the emergence of love is likely.

After carefully reviewing it, we decided to offer it to your attention. Read more..

Why do girls like to be friends with guys, what are the benefits of such communication?

Therefore, for girls and women, friendships with the opposite sex bring a lot of positive things, while you should be confident in choosing friends and careful in choosing a company.

What are the reasons for the friendship of guys with girls?

1. In adolescence, the influence of the hormonal background increases, there is an interest in the opposite sex, an unconscious attraction.
2. Girls are sensitive, they can understand, show attention, care.
3. It is pleasant to be in the company of girls, men like to feel the attention of women, support, positive evaluations.
4. Desire to impress the opposite sex.
5. The desire to know girls, the characteristics of their behavior, thoughts, the desire to get friendly advice from them.

Usually, guys prefer male companies for friendship, but in adolescence, more often female and male groups intersect, mixed are formed. There is more and more interest in each other. At this stage, friendship is more of a preparation for love.

Are there friendships without intimacy? The psychology of friendship between a man and a woman gives such friendship a special status - it is not just friendship and not love, rather an average. When people are just friends, talking, there is a feeling who it is - a girl or a man, which causes special feelings. We are opposite in our inner essence, like fire and water, earth and sky, it is the differences that cause a strong attraction between men and women.

Psychology of love, love is friendship, how to distinguish friendship from falling in love? is a question that haunts many young people. Communication can bring pleasure, but where is the line that symbolizes falling in love?

Let's try to identify the main differences:

6. love arises like a flash of lightning, an opening, a sudden feeling, and friendly attitude- the result of long communication, a series of meetings, joint activities;
7. love has no special levels, it exists as a given, it's hard not to notice, friendly affection has different levels - weak, strong, there may be acquaintances or real friends;
8. love- this is passion, and hence suffering, implies ecstasy and high joy from meetings, but also the torment of separation and experiences. friendly feelings not connected with experiences, rather aimed at the joy of communication;
9. love is one-sided without an answer, and friendly interaction usually a mutual process - communication, mutual sympathy, the desire to help in difficult situations;
10. love prone to idealization, a person is real and at the same time becomes special, the best in the world, in friendship we really evaluate a friend, we see objectively;
11. in friendship it is important to feel understanding of a friend and to feel the similarity of views, in love a person is constantly in search of answers - is there reciprocity or not, whether they love me;
12. friendship fair and demanding to a lesser extent, love- this is madness, constant anxieties, thoughts, even having found reciprocity, a person often feels ups and downs of joy in moments of separation, experiences.

The psychology of friendship between a man and a woman makes it possible to understand that friendly feelings are more humane, tuned to the mutual joy of communication, and are useful for both a man and a woman, but we remember nature. If you want to maintain friendship and not move to the stage of love, you should follow the recommendations of psychologists:

13. Remind periodically that you are just friends.
14. Do not use flirting in communication, transparent hints of the closeness of the relationship.
15. Do not play with a person in the family - joint purchases, repairs and other similar matters.
16. Try to keep a distance, too active communication can turn on other mechanisms.
17. Report that you are not looking for love or that the place in your heart is occupied.

The psychology of friendship between a man and a woman determines: such friendly feelings arise as a result of joint activities - common work, teamwork, hobbies, hobby activities. You can go to courses, learn foreign languages, play sports together. Diverse friendships have their advantages and disadvantages. The main question is: how do people perceive these relationships, what do they invest in them, do they see each other as friends or hope for more?

The modern world has become more pragmatic, not everyone needs real feelings, there are young people who are just interested in a partner for a relationship. The expression "sex for friendship" also appeared. What does this mean and is such interaction possible without a feeling of love? Initially, friendly communication excludes intimacy, and its presence indicates greater intimacy. How to perceive such a trend?

There are 3 options for the development of events:

1. casual sex with a friend- drinking, party, carried away and this is the result. How to be further? Forget and stay friends or become a couple, move to the next level of close communication;
2. friendship for sex- this is a search for a temporary partner to enjoy life, often people feel uncomfortable alone, and this is a simplified version of meetings without obligations;
3. friendship+sex- friendly feelings are at the heart of the relationship, however, there is also a conscious desire to receive physical relaxation, the rules of the game are set - no obligations, dates continue until the moment of meeting true love, can last up to 10 meetings, according to observations, then falling in love or one of the partners goes to to another person.

Of course, such relationships seem cynical or vulgar, less sublime than love, but they take place in the modern world, while "sex for friendship" is a big risk - it is difficult to meet a true friend, and close intimate communication can ruin a wonderful friendship. It all depends on people, moral principles, life values, priorities.

Friendship between a man and a woman is a reality

Psychologists have established that friendship between a man and a woman exists, which is also confirmed by social surveys among the population - 61% of respondents believe in heterosexual friendship, 31% do not. However, the line is rather shaky and friendly communication is possible under certain circumstances:

• friends have partners, lovers;
• there is no intimate interest, there was already an affair, friendly feelings remained;
• there is a mutual desire to maintain communication at the level of friendship;
• friendly communication with married couples.

How to perceive when there is friendship between a man and a married woman or a girl with a married man? Of course, not all spouses approve of friends of the opposite sex, for fear of losing loved ones. The essence of the issue is deeper - when a close friend arises, besides the spouse, there is a high probability - there is no spiritual intimacy and understanding in the family, which creates the basis for friendly relations.

A friend compensates for the lack of communication, mutual understanding, playing the role of a congenial, dear person. Such attachments often arise on the basis of common interests - music, literature, foreign languages. People are united by common views on life, values, worldview.

It is worth remembering: in the case of a person’s sociability and desire to communicate with a large circle of friends, this is normal, but a close friend is an alarming sign for a couple. Such interaction in case of difficulties with a loved one can become an order of magnitude closer. Often there is sympathy between friends, but they try to keep their distance, maintaining the boundaries of independence from feelings.

The psychology of friendship between a man and a woman pays special attention to the question of the transformation of friendship. Love after friendship is a fairly common scenario. Friendly feelings imply trust, respect, mutual assistance. The stage of friendship can be a preparation for love, it serves as an excellent foundation for establishing strong family relationships. Indeed, to create a lasting union, friendship, love, passion, respect, understanding are needed. And a close friend can know a person quite well and understand perfectly. Often close friends can be a wonderful couple, but are afraid to upset the existing balance.

As you can see, love after friendship is quite possible and develops well on the basis of friendly feelings, the main thing is that it be mutual and desirable, then the likelihood of a successful development of events is high.

Benefits of love after friendship:

• lovers never get bored, have a great time together, have common interests;
• the partner knows the secrets, perfectly feels and understands the loved one;
• the beloved is already familiar to friends and relatives, therefore, those around them perfectly perceive the newly created couple, usually support and rejoice;
• the beloved knows the positive and negative sides of the partner, calmly treats the shortcomings;
• a person perceives a partner naturally, there is no need to embellish oneself outwardly or attribute special qualities;
• such couples easily find a common language, have an excellent level of mutual understanding.

Negative points:

• in the event of a break in communication, there is a high probability of losing a friend, it will be extremely difficult to return to the previous level;
• a person knows too much, it is impossible to hide something.

So, friendships can perfectly develop to the level of love and bring happiness to lovers, connect hearts, create families.

But maintaining friendly feelings after love is rather a myth, because it is difficult for a person to lose love, he prefers to hate or not see than to be friends, to suffer. Meetings with former love bring pain and smell of bitterness, it is better to minimize them. Someone is sure to continue to love and experience torment.

But small romances can eventually descend to the level of friendly feelings, people continue to communicate calmly, it all depends on the degree of immersion in a person, was there true love or only passion?

The psychology of friendship between a man and a woman is a rather complex and controversial topic, there are many options for relationships, and friendly feelings can be the beginning and put the development of further love or the end of other hobbies. The main thing is that heterosexual friendship exists if there is a mutual desire to maintain and maintain its fragile balance. And mutual communication, respect, help allows people to develop morally, to better understand the representatives of the other sex.

Friendly feelings are even more common than love, they are more disinterested, do not put forward constant demands, give more freedom, trust to friends.

Everyone independently determines the name of the relationship in which he resides and sets the rules of the game.

Essay on psychology of friendship

Posted By: Atovan

• Friendship 2 17 kb.
• Psychology of friendship and love in adolescence 21 kb.
• Modern developments in psychology 721 kb.
• Can friendship be lost in time 31 kb.
• Conceptual psychology 28 kb.
• Arch of Friendship of Peoples Kyiv 12 kb.
• Color in advertising 2 67 kb.

Friendship is an ethical form of love. Unlike other forms of love, it

The psychology of friendship has been associated with socio-psychological

The psychology of attraction covers:

1. the needs of the subject, prompting him to choose one or another

In modern psychology, empathy is usually interpreted as either

1) understanding the feelings, needs of another;

The concept of friendship and its meaning.

First of all, the word "friendship" has not one, but several different meanings.

Meaning Four: sympathy and friendliness. We finally come to that

Friendship can be divided into three types according to age categories: children's,

Youth is the period of the most intense and emotional communication with

In youth, friendship, as we have seen, occupies a privileged, even

spiritual friendship— mutual enrichment and complement each other. Everyone

The unwritten rules of friendship:

Women are practical and pragmatic beings. From a social point of view, this may not always look beautiful, because such far-fetched principles as loyalty and devotion do not exist for women in general. But from the point of view of psychology, such sobriety is only admirable. Men should learn this from women.

Women's friendship is always in the nature of a temporary union. As two independent states, honoring, above all, their own interests. Sometimes, it's good to have an ally. But do kings and presidents swear eternal allegiance? No, the union exists exactly as long as it is beneficial.

So are women - as long as it is convenient and profitable to be friends, they are best friends. But as soon as interests intersect, friendship ends. In words, slogans about devotion may sound, but in practice a woman will do exactly what is beneficial to her, and will simply find an excuse for herself that the case is exceptional, and she could not do anything with herself.

And it's really good. Because a woman deceives herself and others only in words, but in actions she is always more or less honest with herself. But men for the sake of friendship and this oath can derail their whole life, and there is nothing to be proud of.

The main stumbling block in female friendship is men. This is where friendship ends and the law of the jungle comes first - every man for himself. And if it so happened that the interests in relation to the man intersected, the union is over.

Yes, sometimes, female friendship lasts a lifetime, but this only says that these women had nothing to compete with each other. And if one of them abandoned the man for the sake of the other, then this most likely means that it didn’t hurt and wanted.

So what are women allied with? As long as friendship between women persists, it is quite similar to men's - the same mutual assistance in business and the same mutual assistance in overcoming spiritual difficulties.

It is not considered something shameful for women to cry on each other's shoulders and feel sorry for each other in the most direct form. And this, again, is an occasion to admire women's directness in expressing their feelings. It is this emotional support that keeps women together. Help in practical matters is much less important to them.

Therefore, when a woman finds a man ready to wipe her tears, all the best friends fade into the background - they are no longer needed. A man both consoles and solves the everyday problems of a woman, so why should she be friends with someone else?

Men make friends a little differently. Friendships are based on the same emotional mutual assistance that women have, but the principles of male honor and devotion are added to it.

Here it must be said that honor and devotion are the same virtual concepts as love and friendship. They just don't make any sense. This is just a set of rules that is instilled in men from childhood and becomes sacred to them.

In fact, faith in honor and decency is a form of neuroticism, which, however, is elevated to the rank of the highest male value. Hence the specificity of male friendship - following the rules of honor often turns out to be more important for a man than all other interests.

Only a man can "suffer for an idea" - revolutionaries, Decembrists, patriots, seekers of truth and other people of honor - they all put their mental ideals above even their own survival. Darwin would not approve of them.

In practice, men often go against their own interests for the sake of friendship. This is bad, because, usually, such self-denials occur unconsciously, although consciously. That is, a man understands that he is giving up his desire for the sake of friendship, but he does not see that desire does not disappear, but is only suppressed, goes into the unconscious and continues to sharpen already deep from the inside. Any struggle "for an idea" is self-destructive, but men do not see this.

On the other hand, the readiness and ability to give up one's own interests makes real cooperation in solving practical problems possible. Women cannot cooperate - they always compete, but men can really work effectively towards a common goal hand in hand. And if a man is clearly aware of what interests and for what he refuses, then there is no longer any self-destruction here - everything is fine.

But the basis of male friendship is still not cooperation and mutual assistance, but the same need for consolation that women have. Men are friends for exactly the same thing - to have someone to cry their tears on.

Yes, men do not cry - they drink bitter and share their problems while having a snack. A man should be harsh and he is not supposed to cry, but the essence of this does not change. For beer, barbecue, fishing, in the gym - everywhere men complain to each other about their lives and comfort each other like a man.

The warmest relations between men arise when the level of mutual trust allows you to share the most intimate experiences. That is, simply put, when you can pour out the deepest and most painful experiences to each other.

The best friend, a true friend, is usually the one to whom you can lay out all your difficult thoughts, who will listen to everything, understand and sympathize, who will not use the information received and will not hit you in the back later (women, by the way, always use it and, if they it is necessary - they hit from all over).

In this, male and female friendships are similar - both of them are looking for consolation in friends and want to have such a person next to them, on whom they can dump all their problems. Women do it in their direct manner - directly, simply and openly. Men build impregnable severe machos, but this makes them look even funnier.

All friendship - both male and female - is built on the principle: "I help you deceive yourself, and you help me deceive myself." Ostriches helping each other stick their heads in the sand are the best friends. And where it is not about consolation and self-deception, it all comes down to bargaining - "I help you out, and then you help me out."

Friendship between a man and a woman

Finally, something interesting. The topic of friendship between a man and a woman becomes a field of verbal battles with enviable regularity.

All confusion arises from the use of words that do not have clear definitions. Friendship, passion, falling in love, love - where does one end and another begin? No one knows and cannot know because of the conditional nature of these concepts. Only one thing can be said for sure - relations between a man and a woman are possible.

When these relationships are built on mutual consolation, there arises the “pure and bright love” sung by poets with sex, family, which is the same neuroticism as “true friendship”.

When only one is consoled in a relationship, then a kind of asexual friendship is obtained. The role of the consoled is more often a man, and that is why in such relationships there is no intimate relationships. A weak man is simply not interesting to a woman.

On the other hand, when a psychologically adult man and woman meet who do not need mutual consolation, then strange relationships arise between them, to which it is very difficult to find any definition.

It can be pure passion, when two bodies simply enjoy each other, or spiritual and spiritual intimacy, when the connection arises on the basis of the unity of the worldview. And when one is combined with another, then a fairy tale generally begins - those very relationships in which a man and a woman become companions, fellow travelers, like-minded people in the best sense of these words.

I have a friend, I love - so I exist.

What is friendship from the point of view of psychology All its worldly definitions are metaphors, each of which highlights one aspect of the problem. "Friend - comrade" implies the existence of joint activities and common interests. “A friend is a mirror” emphasizes the function of self-knowledge, and in this case the partner is assigned the passive role of reflection; "Friend - compassionate" personifies emotional empathy. "Friend of the Interlocutor" highlights the communicative side of friendship, self-disclosure and mutual understanding. “Friend - “alter ego” implies both assimilation, likening another to oneself, and identification, likening oneself to another, self-dissolution in another.

Each of these metaphors is valid in its own way. But do they refer to different types of friendship, or different components of it, or different stages in the development of the same relationship? Real progress in the study of the psychology of friendship begins not with the clarification of definitions, but with the differentiation of questions.

Emerged at the end of the 19th century. The psychology of friendship, as well as other human sciences, originally (and up to the middle of the 20th century) raised questions of a general nature: what is the source of friendship, how do its rational and emotional components correlate, and what supports the relationship that once emerged? Researchers of this period collected a lot of empirical material on how different people - mainly children and adolescents - understand friendship and choose friends. But the interpretation of the data for the most part did not go beyond the framework of the ideas of ordinary consciousness and was not linked to any special psychological theories.

The analytical period of the psychology of friendship, which began in the late 1950s, was associated with socio-psychological studies of interpersonal attraction. The word "attraction" (attraction), like the ancient Greek "philia", literally means attraction, attraction. In social psychology, the concept of “interpersonal attraction” is defined as a cognitive (cognitive) component of an emotional attitude towards another person, or as a certain social attitude, or, finally, as an emotional component of interpersonal perception (social perception).

The main question of the psychology of attraction: "What attracts people to each other?" - content is ambiguous. It also covers the needs of the subject, prompting him to choose one or another partner; and properties of the object (partner) that stimulate interest or sympathy for him; and features of the interaction process that favor the emergence and development of dyadic (pair) relationships; and the objective conditions for such interaction (for example, belonging to a common circle of friends). This ambiguity of the problem has led to the thematic diversity of psychological studies of attraction. Of the 403 empirical studies of her published in 1972-1976. in American scientific journals, 147.5 were devoted to the formation of people's impressions of each other, 128.5 to the processes of verbal and behavioral interaction, meetings and contacts, only 127 more or less long friendships (33) or love (94) relationships.

Equally diverse were the theories of attraction themselves. Some of them described mainly its intra-individual, internal prerequisites, others - the mechanisms of communication, the third - the stages of its development, the fourth - the final results. Depending on the initial theoretical and methodological attitudes of the authors, friendship was considered either as a peculiar form of exchange, or as the satisfaction of emotional needs, or as information process mutual knowledge, sometimes as a social interaction of individuals, sometimes as a unique and inimitable dialogue of individuals.

The simplest, behavioral model of attraction, characteristic of neobehaviorism (D. Homans, D. Thiebaud and G. Kelly), considers the exchange of rewards (positive reinforcement) and costs (negative reinforcement) to be the most important condition for any pair interaction. In order for personal relationships to develop and be maintained, according to neobehaviorist theorists, partners must receive maximum rewards and minimum costs from each other and from the interaction process itself. Experiments set up in accordance with this theoretical orientation try to weigh, first of all, the objective consequences, the “outcomes” of the process of friendly interaction: whether the partners manage to receive the desired “reward” in the form of pleasure, “reduction of tension”, practical benefits, etc. More complex models, for example, J. Clora and D. Byrne, A. and B. Lott, analyze not only “outcomes”, but also types of incentives - the ratio of friendship factors such as the similarity of personal traits, the proximity of social attitudes and character. emotional interaction of partners. However, their common methodological basis remains the theory of learning.

To explain such a complex phenomenon as friendship, this approach cannot be considered satisfactory - it is too elementary. Its prototype is a business partnership, in which the partner acts as a means of satisfying selfish needs, a subject, and neither depth, nor intimacy, nor moral obligations to each other are assumed. Yes, and the "exchange" itself is considered at the level of individual, isolated needs and desires of the individual, without regard to their place in the life world of a holistic personality. This is a kind of psychological equivalent of the old philosophical theory of "reasonable selfishness".

Although "exchange" - activities, motives, values, etc. - is objectively present in any interpersonal relationship, in more flexible theories of friendship it appears as a private, subordinate element.

Psychodynamic theory, represented in particular by psychoanalysis, sees the origins of friendship, like all other attachments, in the unconscious emotional needs of the individual. The founder of psychoanalysis, Z. Freud, believed that all human inclinations and attachments, be it friendship, parental love or devotion to an idea, are ultimately of an instinctive nature, being forms of sexual desire, libido, which he, however, defined very broadly.

The authors of later psychoanalytic theories of motivation, developed within the framework of neo-Freudian concepts, recognize the presence. a person has special interpersonal, communicative needs. For example, the American psychologist W. Schutz, the author of the model of "fundamental orientation interpersonal relationships”, states that a person has a certain ratio of three interpersonal needs: belonging, (affiliation), control and love. The level of each of these needs is laid in early childhood, predetermining the future communicative properties and real communication of an adult. The decisive role of “significant, others” in the formation of personality is emphasized by the founder of the “interpersonal theory of psychiatry” X. S. Sullivan.

In general, the psychodynamic theory of attraction is better suited to describe unacknowledged and uncontrollable attachments than to freely created friendships. In psychoanalytic concepts, a friend is most often assigned the role of a mirror onto which the subject projects his own unconscious traits, or an ideal role model for identification. In addition, this concept tends to absolutize the "traumatic" consequences of negative childhood experiences, leaving the processes and mechanisms of adult interpersonal relations in the shade.

If the behavioral approach captures the "molecular" processes of interpersonal interaction, and the psychodynamic approach fixes intrapersonal needs, then cognitive psychology analyzes the informational and procedural side of communication, trying to answer the question of how exactly interpersonal communication occurs. Representatives of this trend (F. Haider, T. Newcomb, E. Walster, Z. Rubin, etc.) primarily explore the cognitive and symbolic aspects of human relationships: social attitudes, value orientations, signs, meanings, etc.

In contrast to "naive" psychology, which tried to derive attraction, the craving of certain people for each other directly from their objective similarities or differences, cognitive psychology emphasizes the importance of attribution (attribution) processes.

According to its theorists, what is important in friendship is not so much the actual coincidence or mismatch of individual traits as their perception, what qualities friends attribute to one another and what is the tendency of such attribution (we tend to see only good in friends, and only bad in enemies). The "reinforcement exchange", which neobehaviorists interpret naively-mechanistically, in the light of the cognitive "theory of justice" appears to be a more complex psychological process: the desire to get maximum satisfaction from communication is usually measured by the individual with his ideas about a fair exchange, and this prompts him to take care not only of his own benefit, but also about the interests of the partner.

Cognitive psychology laid the foundation for the systematic study of the "language of friendship" - the terms in which people comprehend and describe their relationships and ideas about each other, as well as "personal constructs" (D. Kelly, S. Duck, etc.) - specific oppositions, opposite concepts used by the subject to categorize themselves or other people. These concepts form his implicit (tacitly implied) theory of personality. For example, the categorization of others along the axis "goal people" - "people of emotions" reflects the individual's idea of ​​antagonism, purposefulness and emotionality and is apparently determined by the specifics of his personal life experience. Knowledge of the "repertory positions" of the individual, the structure of social roles that are significant for him and their subjective meaning allows the psychologist to look into his inner world and his intimate environment. Interpersonal competence is also important for the psychology of friendship - the development by an individual of the necessary communication skills, the ability to make acquaintances, open up and understand others.

Symbolic interactionism (D. Mead, D. McCall and others) highlights the socio-structural (role-playing) and cultural-symbolic (meaning) aspects of personal relationships in connection with the development of self-awareness. Since a personality is formed and realizes itself only in interaction with other people, adherents of this direction see the goal of studying friendship in deciphering the psychological content of this process - understanding why a given Self is attached to a given Other. Interpersonal attraction, as defined by McCall, differs from formal or business relationships in that it contains the Self, desiring, “on the basis of its positive attachment to the Other, to establish a personal mutually active relationship with him.

Interactionists operate with such categories as. acceptance of the role of another, role behavior, definition of the situation and I. Acceptance of a role involves the ability to put oneself in the place of another person, imagining the requirements of his social position, his feelings and the meaning that this role and behavior has for him. Playing a role implies mastering a system of rules, the observance of which determines the effectiveness and appropriateness of the corresponding actions, gestures, etc., and determining the situation means coordinating one's own intentions and goals with the intentions and goals of the other participants in the interaction. This is possible only if you have a stable system of self-esteem and at the same time the ability to look at yourself through the eyes of others. Such an approach makes sense in relation to the description of such phenomena as the development of interpersonal competence, the dependence of an individual's personal relations on his position and popularity in a group, the relationship of friendship with the level of development of self-awareness.

Although according to their initial assumptions, all of the listed approaches to understanding the psychological aspects of interpersonal interaction are different, and in some ways even opposite, at the same time they are complementary, each of them has a certain rational grain. Any single act of interpersonal interaction and this whole process as a whole can be considered both as a behavioral process of rapprochement and correlation of two subjects independent of each other, and as the knowledge of one subject by another, and as the satisfaction of some internal emotional need of the subject, and as a process of symbolic interaction, during which individuals do not just exchange information, but assimilate each other's points of view and life prospects, thereby expanding the boundaries of their own selves.

At the same time, a more complex theoretical model potentially includes elementary ones as its aspects or special cases. Thus, the model of communication as the interaction of self-conscious I and You includes the processes of their mutual cognition (since self-consciousness implies self-knowledge, and the assimilation of the life perspective of another is impossible without understanding his role and position) and the satisfaction of emotional needs (since the “I-image” also covers emotional-evaluative components ). The cognitive model, in turn, assumes the existence of elementary processes of exchange and reinforcement, described by the behaviorist scheme, etc.

However, despite the interesting partial results, the most important and unexpected conclusion of the psychology of attraction turned out to be the proof of the absence of factors rigidly determining the level of attraction. Its causes are valid only in a certain range of conditions and in combination with other variables. Being objectively determined, human communication, including such a form as friendship, is determined at the same time by the will of its participants, their desire, what style of behavior they choose, and other unpredictable features that depend only on them.

In the early 1980s, it became clear to psychologists that the study of individual attitudes and needs makes it difficult to see the integrity of the life world of the individual, and the reduction of personal relationships to a series of "interactions" obscures their deep personal meaning. Laboratory methods are more suitable for analyzing static, non-evolving one-time encounters with strangers than natural, life relationships. In laboratory studies, it is almost impossible to take into account the development of personal relationships over time, as well as the active efforts and needs of their participants. Friendly relations and their "levels" were conceived not as living, dynamic, changeable processes that have a subjective meaning, but as stable "states".

The new scientific and theoretical paradigm that replaced the theory of interpersonal attraction considers friendship as a special kind of personal relationship. What are its features?

1. The range of phenomena covered by the concept of "personal relations" is much narrower and more definite than the phenomena of "interpersonal attraction." This is not about casual short-term contacts, but only about relatively stable, developing relationships.

2. Unlike functional-role relations, personal relations are individual, personalized, in the course of their formation and development a new subjective, personal meaning is formed that enriches both participants, which does not happen with a simple information or behavioral exchange.

3. Personal relationships must be studied in the natural environment, taking into account the time factor, and not only in the ascending (acquaintance, deepening, maintenance), but also in the descending (deterioration, weakening, rupture of relations) stages of development.

4. Since we are talking about subject-subject relations, their development is not formed automatically, in accordance with universal norms, but depending on the conscious efforts and communicative strategy of partners.

5. Behind the illusion of a stable state and a smooth transition from one stage of a relationship to another, there is a dramatic process of change, uncertainty, negotiations, attributions, etc.

6. The meaning and meaning of these processes are often not realized, and their consequences are interpreted differently by the participants in the relationship. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between their objective determination, subjective motivation and retrospective legitimation (explanation and justification).

The psychology of personal relationships as a special area of ​​scientific research for the first time received a specific design and consolidation in the five-volume work of the same name, created with the participation of Soviet psychologists and published under the editorship of S. Duck and R. Gilmour. In addition, since 1984 a special interdisciplinary journal "Journal of Social and Personal Relationships" has been published under the editorship of the same Duck, and in 1985 the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships was organized.

In philosophical and methodological terms, the approaches of this direction are close, on the one hand, to the ideas of “humanistic psychology” developed in the West, and on the other hand, to the “dialogical” understanding of communication developed on the basis of the ideas of M. M. Bakhtin, L. S. Vygotsky and A. A. Ukhtomsky by Soviet philosophers V. S. Bibler and M. S. Kagan, psychologists A. N. Leontiev, A. V. and V. A. Petrovsky, culturologists L. M. Batkin, Yu. M. Lotman Is it possible, however, to translate such a complex problem into the mainstream of empirical scientific research and what do we actually know about the objective prerequisites of friendship, its implied rules, stages of development and psychological mechanisms?

As for the objective prerequisites, then, like all other personal relationships, friendship largely depends on the system of social ties, the circle of direct communication of the individual, due to territorial proximity, social group affiliation - and joint activities. However, the psychological significance of these factors is not the same.

The American social psychologist T. Newcomb, as an experiment, settled first-year students at the University of Michigan into rooms in different combinations based on the principle of similarity or dissimilarity of attitudes, and then studied the dynamics of their relationship. It turned out that in the early stages of acquaintance, attraction depends more on spatial proximity than on the similarity of attitudes, but later on the situation changes and the similarity of attitudes outweighs the influence of proximity.

The influence of spatial proximity on personal relationships in most cases is mediated and supplemented by other factors mentioned by group membership and joint activities associated with a certain division of functions, cooperation and mutual assistance. Like everyday consciousness, scientific psychology distinguishes between business, functional relationships and personal, individual attachments, as well as partnership due to belonging to the same team and friendship based on individual choice and personal sympathy.

Business relations, or, as some Soviet scientists call them after A. S. Makarenko, relations of responsible dependence, are subordinated to the achievement of some non-individual goal - production, educational, etc. They are always specialized, and the individual participates in them as a performer of a certain social function, role. Belonging to a given collective and the feeling of solidarity with its other members (partnership) that follows from it does not necessarily imply personal sympathy for each of them individually, without which friendship is unthinkable. “The question of the relationship of comrade to comrade,” wrote Makarenko, “is not a question of friendship, not a question of love, not a question of neighborhood, but this is a question of responsible dependence.”

However, the difference between friendship and fellowship is relative. Close cooperation and mutual assistance in joint activities easily and imperceptibly grow into mutual sympathy. The team is united not only by the common interest of its members in the results of their joint activities, but also by a sense of group solidarity, belonging to the whole. The degree of emotional identification of individuals with the group is one of the main indicators of team cohesion. And identification with the team is impossible without mutual support and care for individual comrades. "Feeling of the elbow" is the most important common component of camaraderie and friendship. Therefore, companionship is not just a background, but a living breeding ground for the emergence and development of individualized friendship.

It is not for nothing that people acquire most of their friends precisely in the process of joint activities, in their production or educational teams, and the significance of this type of community far outweighs the role of territorial and domestic factors. This is evidenced, in particular, by the data of the already mentioned studies of L. A. Gordon and E. V. Klopov.

The importance of joint activity and collective affiliation for the emergence of friendship is also proved by socio-psychological experiments. Known, for example, the experiment of the American social psychologist M. Sheriff.

A group of boys aged 11-12, taken from different schools and had never met each other before, was taken to a country camp. For three days, teenagers had the opportunity to communicate completely freely with each other, they developed some kind of attachment, groups, gaming companies, etc. After certain personal relationships were established between the guys, a sociometric test was conducted, during which everyone named their best friends. Then the guys were divided into two teams so that two-thirds of the best friends of each were on the opposite team. Each team received its own task, communication between members of different teams was minimized, and the teams themselves were placed in a relationship of competition and rivalry. A few days later, the boys were again asked to name their best friends, emphasizing that they could choose not only from their own team, but also from another. This time the choice was completely different. Team membership decisively outweighed initial personal sympathies: the number of "best friends" from one's own team was 95% in one case, and 88% in another.

The experiment shows that individual preference completely determines the choice of friends where there are no established teams and groups. But if an individual is already part of a group that has its own goals, a certain distribution of roles, etc., this also leaves an imprint on his personal preferences. As a rule, he chooses friends from among those people with whom he communicates more often in daily activities and with whom he is connected by a sense of group solidarity.

Of course, real life is more complicated than the experimental situation. Each person at the same time belongs not to one, but to several different groups (industrial, socio-political, family) and has a number of reference groups with which he conforms his behavior. Meanwhile, the number of close friends is limited. Hence the problem of individual choice, from which, in fact, the psychology of friendship begins, in contrast to the psychology of collective activity or the psychology of communication.

Like all lasting human relationships, friendship is governed by a certain system of rules. The code of ancient institutionalized friendship was, as we have seen, quite explicit. Today, the rules of friendship are mostly tacitly implied. Nevertheless, their observance is very important for maintaining and appreciating the depth of friendships. What are these rules?

English psychologists M. Lharple and M. Henderson, through a series of surveys, established which of the 43 alleged general rules behaviors are considered most important for friendship among the British, Italians, Japanese and Hong Kong people (men and women aged 18 to 25 and 30 to 60). Then, according to the criteria of compliance with or violation of these rules, the students compared successful, ongoing friendships with the broken ones, as well as friendships rated high or low by their participants. And finally, we checked which rules, if violated, most often lead to the breakup of friendship or are perceived as the reason for its termination.

The researchers proceeded from the following hypotheses.

Like all other relationships, friendship involves a set of informal rules. These rules allow friends. maintain a certain level of this or that positive reinforcement, as well as avoid jealousy of third parties.

There are rules to ensure secrecy and respect for the individuality of the other.

With all cultural differences different cultures have a similar informal code of friendship.

Reciprocal reward rules make it possible to distinguish close intimate friendships from less intimate ones.

The female friendship rules place more emphasis on self-disclosure and emotional support than the male friendship rules.

In the friendship of young people, help and spending time together are more important than in the friendship of older people.

When friendships break, people are more likely to attribute rule violations to others than to themselves.

When breaking friendships, breaking rules that provide positive reinforcement is mentioned less often than breaking rules that govern conflict situations, such as betrayal of trust or invasion of privacy.

Breaking some rules is taken as a natural cause for ending friendships; for example, non-observance of the norms of trust and mutual respect leads to a deterioration in relations, and violation of the rules that prevent conflicts, such as the prohibition to invade the inner world of a partner, leads to a break.

In general, the hypotheses were confirmed. Of the 27 general rules of friendship formulated on the basis of the first stage of the study, 13 turned out to be the most important, which were divided into four groups: exchange, intimacy, attitude towards third parties, mutual coordination.

Share news about your successes

Show emotional support

Volunteer to help when needed

Try to make your friend feel good in your company

Return debts and services rendered

Confidence in another and trust in him

Relationship with third parties

Protect a friend in his absence

Be tolerant of the rest of his friends*

Don't criticize a friend in public**

Keep trusted secrets **

Do not be jealous or criticize other personal relationships of the other **

Do not be annoying, do not teach *

Respect the friend's inner peace and autonomy**

The six unstarred rules seem to be the most important, as they meet all four criteria: they are unanimously recognized as important for friendship; distinguish ongoing friendships from broken ones and highly valued relationships from low valued ones; non-compliance with these rules is considered a probable and valid reason for ending the friendship.

Rules marked with one asterisk meet three criteria, but do not distinguish close friends from less intimate ones. In other words, they are important for ordinary levels of friendship, but in especially close relationships they can be violated: close friends are not considered favors, they forgive intolerance towards mutual acquaintances and even some importunity.

Rules marked with two asterisks meet two criteria: they are considered important and violation of them can contribute to the termination of friendship, but the assessment of the depth of friendships does not depend on them. These rules - to avoid public criticism, to keep a trusted secret, not to be jealous of third parties, and to respect the private world of the other - are not specific to friendship, they apply in many other personal relationships and situations.

The study of the unwritten code of friendship is of great theoretical and practical importance. It is obvious that friendship presupposes the observance of all the basic rules of human coexistence, which also operate in less close communal, collective and personal relations. However, the correlation, significance and hierarchy of these rules are not the same. As friendship deepens and individualizes, the elementary general norms of "exchange" lose some of their meaning, giving way to more complex and subtle rules of intimacy.

Despite the difference between modern friendly relations and ancient institutionalized friendship, the concept of friendship is intrinsically characterized by the idea of ​​exclusivity, extraordinaryness, which allows for the possibility of violating and exceeding some more elementary, generally accepted norms and rules.

Friends are allowed a lot of things that would inevitably complicate and even spoil relations with less close people - neighbors, workmates, etc. But due to the weakening of the requirements for external norms of behavior and for the equivalence of "exchange", the level of moral and psychological requirements rises sharply . And since the most important specific rules of friendship - to share one's experiences, provide moral support, voluntarily help in case of need, take care of a friend, trust him and be confident in him, protect a friend in his absence - are altruistic, their acceptance and observance implies a fairly high level moral consciousness of the individual, as well as the maturity of the most friendly relationship. It can be put differently: social psychology confirms that friendship is a moral relationship and it cannot be otherwise.

But how does the choice of friends actually happen?

Even Plato and Aristotle asked the question: what makes one person attractive to another and, in particular, does he look for his own likeness in a friend or, on the contrary, an addition? Experimental psychological studies of friendship (late 19th-early 20th centuries) also concentrated around this problem for a long time. From the point of view of worldly common sense, both opinions are equally plausible. Understanding a friend as "another self" tacitly implies the principle of similarity: people who differ from each other in essential characteristics can hardly be especially close. However, the alter ego is not just the second, but the other I; friends are called upon not to duplicate, but to mutually enrich one another.

And since this is so, before discussing the question of the similarity or dissimilarity of friends, a number of questions need to be clarified.

First, a class of implied similarities. Is it about the commonality of gender, age, social status, profession, education and other objective, non-psychological features? Or about the commonality of value orientations, views, interests? Or about the similarity of characters, temperament, personality traits, etc.? It's completely different things.

Second, the degree of perceived similarity. Does it mean a complete coincidence of qualities or some more limited similarity?

Thirdly, the meaning and meaning of this similarity for the personality itself. The more important this quality is for a person, the higher the requirements that she probably makes in this regard to her friends. A person who lives a busy aesthetic life is unlikely to be friends with someone who cannot stand art. And for someone who sees only entertainment in art, the aesthetic tastes of his friends are perhaps insignificant.

Fourth, the volume, the breadth of the range of similarities. The similarity of friends can be limited to one area, or it can cover several features at once - social characteristics, value orientations, and personality traits.

In addition, it is necessary to clarify whether it is about attitudes and how people imagine themselves and their friends, or about their real qualities.

Different people see themselves in friendship, as in other relationships, in different ways. Recall that for the young F. Schiller, friendship is "the contemplation of oneself in the mirror of another soul." R. Rolland, on the contrary, denied the desire for similarity: “Let others, like Narcissus, admire their reflection in the mirror! I'm looking for eyes that tell me: "I'm not you!" Then you should enter! And if such a desire is mutual, two crossed swords lead to the highest fusion of two human beings.

But self-perception is not always reliable. Numerous socio-psychological studies show that in people's attitudes, in the demands that they make on their friends, the orientation towards similarity (love of similarity, hemophilia) decisively prevails over the orientation towards addition (love of differences, heterophilia). The vast majority of people prefer to be friends with people of their age, gender, social status, education, etc. Almost as desirable is the coincidence or at least the similarity of the main value orientations, interests and character traits. But how does this attitude manifest itself in real behavior? Do friends really look more like each other than they do, or do they just think they do? In terms of objective characteristics (sex, age, social status, educational level), homogeneity really prevails. People in most cases are friends with representatives of their own "circle" - age, social, cultural. A somewhat smaller, but still significant degree of similarity is also observed in the social attitudes and value orientations of friends. Although there is no complete agreement, friends tend to have more or less common views on the issues that are most important to them.

This has not only and probably not even so much subjective-attitude, psychological, as social reasons.

Most personal relationships develop in the process of long-term interaction organized around some centers, centers of joint activity, and the circle of people involved in this activity is homogeneous in many respects. The more homogeneous the social circle, the more likely it is that the friendly couples and triads that form in it will be similar in many respects. For example, the age homogeneity of children's friendship stems not only and even not so much from the desire to be friends with peers without fail, but from the objective conditions of choice, from the predominance of children of the same age in a given center of activity (for example, in a school class).

However, the relative homogeneity of the social circle from which friends are selected does not remove the problem of their individual psychological similarity and the question: is this similarity the result of the initial choice of partners similar to themselves or their mutual adaptation, adaptation to each other?

Although personal characteristics are diverse and not always amenable to strict labeling, when comparing the psychological traits of thirty friendly pairs of American high school students and students with the traits of randomly selected thirty pairs, friends turned out to be significantly more similar than random pairs. When comparing the levels of interpersonal understanding and self-awareness of several groups of children (from eight and a half to thirteen and a half years old) with similar indicators of their peers, whom the subjects called their friends, and this choice was mutual in some cases, and one-sided in others, and children , who did not appear among their friends, "mutual friends" turned out to be more similar to each other than "one-sided friends" and "non-friends"; such differences are especially great in older children.

The largest study of its kind compared the similarities and differences between friendly couples of 1,800 American high school students. They were asked to name their best friend and then talk about their home environment, relationship with their parents, school interests, leisure activities, social attitudes and psychological states. Comparison of friends' answers showed that they are very similar to each other in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics (social origin, gender, race and age). Significant similarities are also observed in some aspects of behavior, especially if it deviates from the social norm and violates some taboos (for example, smoking), in educational interests and the degree of participation in peer group life. As for psychological traits (assessment of one's personal qualities and relationships with parents), here the similarity between friends is much less.

It should be borne in mind that our ideas about the degree of our similarity or difference with other people are far from always reliable. Those we prefer seem to us, as a rule, more like ourselves than those we reject. Sociometric studies show that when trying to predict which of the acquaintances or comrades will give them preference and who will reject them, people usually (about 70% of the subjects) unconsciously assume the reciprocity of the choice. By giving preference to another person, choosing him as a playmate, travel companion, etc., we involuntarily expect that he will choose us in turn. From an antipathetic person, on the contrary, we expect rejection, rejection.

In fact, such reciprocity is less common than we think. It is especially easy to make a mistake in the attribution of complex personal qualities. Often two lovers seem very similar to each other, but each ascribes to the other their own qualities, that is, both consider themselves similar, in essence they interpret the similarity differently. Friends, on the other hand, often exaggerate the degree of their mutual self-disclosure, etc.

"Interpenetration" or "intersection" of the personal properties of friends is closely related to the duration and depth of their relationship. The stages or steps of the dyadic interaction between the Self and the Other are clearly conveyed by the scheme of the American psychologist J. Levinger.