general relation between different objects or individuals
(Redirected from Relations)

A relationship is a connection or association; the condition of being related. An interpersonal relationship is a strong, deep, or close association or acquaintance between two or more people.

Arranged alphabetically by author or source:
A · B · C · D · E · F · G · H · I · J · K · L · M · N · O · P · Q · R · S · T · U · V · W · X · Y · Z · See also · External links

  • Every relationship is fundamentally a power struggle, and the individual in power is whoever likes the other person less.
    • Klosterman, Chuck (2004). Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto. Scribner. p. 9. ISBN 0743236017. 
  • Individuals primarily seek social relationships to fulfill their need for belonging (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Lee and Robbins 1998). Human beings are social animals and because ‘no man (woman) is an island’ (Donne 1975), people are naturally inclined to make social connections to satisfy their need for belonging (Maslow 1954; Brewer 2005). Baumeister and Leary (1995) described belonging, the need to form and maintain interpersonal bonds, as one of the fundamental motivations behind human behavior. Most research indicates a common definition of what loneliness is – it is an aversive psychological state due to a person’s perception of lacking satisfactory social relationships. Quantity of social relationship is a contributing factor to lonely feeling: people will feel ‘lonely’ when there are too few people around them (Russell, Peplau and Cutrona 1980), as opposed to the ‘crowded’ feeling when individuals are surrounded by too many people. However, quality may be more important than quantity at times. As the sufficient number of relationships varies among individuals (Jones 1982), loneliness has also been understood as the perception that one’s existing interpersonal relationships do not meet one’s expectations (Weiss 1973; Gordon 1976; Peplau and Caldwell 1978; 4266 L.W. Lam and D.C. Lau Downloaded by [University of Macau Library] at 00:54 22 September 2012 Newcomb 1990; Green, Richardson, Lago and Schatten-Jones 2001). Other scholars describe loneliness as painful feelings and emotional distress due to insufficient or unsatisfactory social connections or relationships (Rook 1984; Cacioppo et al. 2006; Cacioppo and Patrick 2008; Rotenberg et al. 2010).
    • Lam, Long W.; Lau, Dora C. (2012-11-01). "Feeling lonely at work: investigating the consequences of unsatisfactory workplace relationships". The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 23 (200): p.4266-67
  • Freedom lovers must learn to tune in to the underlying truth of the power of personal relationships. But we must do so with intentions of goodwill when reaching out to others who don’t share our views. And we must express our true beliefs without the self-censorship that political correctness demands. …So be a real friend to others, not an “influencer” who seeks to exploit people under the guise of friendship to push for a collectivist agenda. Keep your eyes peeled for signs of “changemakers” who pretend to come to “depolarize,” but are really seeking to colonize your town and your mind.
  • Why does a man who is truly in love insist that this relationship must continue and be "lifelong"? Because life is pain and the enjoyment of love is an anesthetic. Who would want to wake up halfway through an operation?
  • Evidence of the destructiveness of unrealistic expectations can be found in the literature on cognition and marriage. For example, people who feel that their relationship standards (e.g., how alike they believe they should be, the degree to which they should engage in acts of caring and concern for each other) are unmet are more inclined to report more negative cognitive and affective reactions to marital problems (Baucom et al., 1996). Further, research on relationship beliefs indicates that idealistic and unrealistic beliefs, like “mind reading is expected” (partners who truly care about and know one another should be able to sense each other’s needs and preferences without overt communication), “sexual perfectionism” (one must be a “perfect” sexual partner) and “disagreement is destructive” (disagreements in marriage are a sign of impending doom) are positively associated with marital distress (eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981) and negatively associated with the desire to maintain the relationship (Eidelson & Epstein, 1982).
  • The most widely-accepted theory regarding supervisor–subordinate relationship quality is Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory (Graen & Scandura, 1987). According to LMX theory, supervisors form different types of relationships with their various employees and these relationships vary with respect to quality (Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972; Graen & Schiemann, 1978). In general, higher quality supervisor–subordinate relationships (also known as “in-group” relationships) are characterized by higher levels of mutual trust, respect and obligation among the relationship partners. In such relationships, leaders and members learn they can count on one another for support and encouragement. As a result, higher quality relationships function more as “partnerships” where “members move beyond their own self-interests to focus on larger mutual interests” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Leader–member relationship quality is associated with a variety of important individual and organizational outcomes. For example, employees in higher quality relationships report higher levels of job satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp 1982) and commitment to the organization (Nystrom, 1990) than do employees in lower quality relationships. In addition, research indicates leader–member relationship quality is negatively related to employee turnover (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982). Focusing largely on such outcomes, LMX research has given only limited attention to the communication that occurs between leaders and members (e.g., Fairhurst, 1993). This work provides some direction for speculation regarding how leader–member relationship quality might be associated with employee information experiences. High quality LMX relationships tend to be characterized by high levels of trust and self-disclosure (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986). As a consequence, supervisors and subordinates may communicate more openly (i.e., more frequently and about more 378 P. M. Sias issues) in high quality relationships than in low quality relationships. Thus, employees in high quality relationships likely receive more information from their supervisors, than those in low quality relationships
  • Peer relationships, also referred to as “equivalent status” relationships (Sias, Krone, & Jablin, 2002), are relationships between co-workers with no formal authority over one another. These relationships represent the bulk of workplace relationships, as employees typically have only one supervisor but several peer co-workers. Peer relationships perform a variety of important functions in the workplace. Peer co-workers are the most likely, and most important, source of emotional and instrumental support for employees, primarily because co-workers possess knowledge and understanding about the workplace experience that external sources do not (Ray, 1987). Moreover, peers act as a second “set of eyes and ears” for one another, sharing important organizational information and gossip that may otherwise be unobtainable (Rawlins, 1994). Kirby and Krone (2002) note the powerful influence peer co-workers have on one another with respect to workplace attitudes and behavior. Thus, peer relationships are of great consequence to organizational functioning. Peer relationships, like supervisor–subordinate relationships, vary with respect to quality. Kirby and Krone (2002), for instance, noted the ways in which peer co-workers cluster into sub-groups based upon the employees’ family status (e.g., married/unmarried; children/childless). They found that interaction among these groups of employees differed and had significant impact on the employees’ attitudes toward, and use of, the organization’s work–family policies. Sias and Cahill (1998) examined the ways employees form different types of relationships with their co-workers ranging from acquaintance, to friend, to very close or best friend. Interaction among these various relationship types differed in fundamental ways. Specifically, friends engaged in much more frequent, intimate, and open communication than did acquaintances. In addition, communication between co-workers became increasingly broad and intimate as their friendships grew closer.
    • Ibid, p. 379.
  • The inner life is lived in a strange enough world; for in truth each man and woman dwells in a different environment—so different that I believe that there are not two people who have so much as half of it in common. Men know each other's inner world so slightly that they neglect this difference, and it is only when two people have a relation of utter love and trust that their inner lives begin to become perceptible to each other and are revealed as mutually most strange.
    • F. Sherwood Taylor, Two Ways of Life: Christian and Materialist (London: Burns Oates, 1947), p. 35
  • As the egoic mode of consciousness and all the social, political, and economic structures that it created enter the final stage of collapse, the relationships between men and women reflect the deep state of crisis in which humanity now finds itself. As humans have become increasingly identified with their mind, most relationships are not rooted in Being and so turn into a source of pain and become dominated by problems and conflict.
  • Most people don't know how to listen because the major part of their attention is taken up by thinking. They pay more attention to that than to what the other person is saying, and none at all to what really matters: the Being of the other person underneath the words and the mind. Of course, you cannot feel someone else's Being except through your own. This is the beginning of the realization of oneness, which is love. At the deepest level of Being, you are one with all that is. Most human relationships consist mainly of minds interacting with each other, not of human beings communicating, being in communion. No relationship can thrive in that way, and that is why there is so much conflict in relationships.
  • Humanity is under great pressure to evolve because it is our only chance of survival as a race. This will affect every aspect of your life and close relationships in particular. Never before have relationships been as problematic and conflict ridden as they are now. As you may have noticed, they are not here to make you happy or fulfilled. If you continue to pursue the goal of salvation through a relationship, you will be disillusioned again and again. But if you accept that the relationship is here to make you conscious instead of happy, then the relationship will offer you salvation, and you will be aligning yourself with the higher consciousness that wants to be born into this world. For those who hold on to the old patterns, there will be increasing pain, violence, confusion, and madness.Most humans are still in the grip of the egoic mode of consciousness: identified with their mind and run by their mind. If they do not free themselves from their mind in time, they will be destroyed by it. They will experience increasing confusion, conflict, violence, illness, despair, madness. Egoic mind has become like a sinking ship. If you don't get off, you will go down with it.

See also


Italic text

Wikipedia has an article about:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: