Talk:Interpersonal relationship

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interpersonal relationship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 years

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthropology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Autism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page- which "Friendship" redirects to- contains some relevant info, but seems to discuss romantic relationships more than it does normal friendship; there's nothing here on the formation of friendship, what defines a friendship, the typical emotional dependance of humans on friendship, how friendships drift apart, and so forth. I'm sure Wikipedia can do better than this in an issue so fundamental to society. (And I'd try to do something myself, but 1. I'm not sure on whether to edit "Friendship" into its own article or edit this one, and 2. I'm... tired... X_X so this may have to wait a bit.) --AceMyth 01:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About normal friendship: there is some relevant material in Affection, however there is a note that it is really out-of-date.

'interpersonal relationship' is probably slightly more correct. (Most psychology textbooks and references tend to use 'interpersonal'. plus interpersonal is more exact than 'personal', which merely implies people are involved) Anyone oppose moving this article to 'Interpersonal relationship'?

--Johnkarp 11:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I think friendship deserves its own page. Letting it be a sub-category under "Interpersonal relationship" dont seems right. But that would require that someone actually wrote something about friendship, of course. Kasper Hviid 11:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Lover is a village in Wiltshire between Fordingbridge and Whiteparish."

Is this really necessary? It's not even like "Lover" redirects to here. Maybe a disambiguation page at Lover is necessary. sars 10:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Interpersonal relationships are not defined in this article. Please make this a proper article.

• Abusive

Dutton, D. G. (2006). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. Guilford Press.

Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological bulletin, 104(2), 236.

Emery, R. E., & Laumann-Billings, L. (1998). An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences of abusive family relationships: Toward differentiating maltreatment and violence. American Psychologist, 53(2), 121.

Herbert, T. B., Silver, R. C., & Ellard, J. H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: I. How and why do women stay?. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 311-325.

• Codependent

Granello, D. H., & Beamish, P. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing codependency in women: A sense of connectedness, not pathology. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20(4), 344.

Cowan, G., & Warren, L. W. (1994). Codependency and gender-stereotyped traits. Sex roles, 30(9-10), 631-645.

Cowan, G., Bommersbach, M., & Curtis, S. R. (1995). Codependency, loss of self, and power. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(2), 221-236.

• Narcissistic

Brodey, W. M. (1961). The family as the unit of study and treatment: Workshop, 1959: 3. Image, object and narcissistic relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31(1), 69.

Brunell, A. B., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Narcissism and romantic relationships: Understanding the paradox.

Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1254.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliyyah, KNHUNT (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Proudbahamian242johnson, Chri.Konstantinou.

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

is a business one. In fact in many cases there are prohibitions on mixing the two and it is generally considered ill advised to mix the two. The occurrence of business sublist under other kinds is in conflict with this. On a numbers basis the vast majority of business relationships aren't even between individuals and when they are they still are only personal to the extent they deviate from their business purpose. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's a new article on Relationship quality, written as an essay unlinked from elsewhere, which overlaps with the contents here, and might be better merged to a more widely read page. So, merge for context and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank u 4 ur help 🙏❤️ 105.113.94.74 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, I'm the original author of the Relationship quality page (written for a class wiki project). I agree that there is a large amount of overlap with the Relationship Satisfaction section of this page and would not be overly opposed to a merge. However, I do worry that the length and scope of the Relationship quality article (which delves into measurement approaches of relationship quality and its numerous covariates across romantic, friend, and familial relationships) is too detailed/lengthy to easily slot into this article.

Perhaps instead, the Relationship Satisfaction section can be retitled to Relationship Quality and a brief synopsis of the Relationship Quality page can be given (i.e., the Theoretical Perspectives on Relationship Quality section from Relationship Quality page) with a link to the fuller Relationship quality page ("those interested in learning more about the measurement of relationship quality can find more here").

Whatever form it takes, I only ask that it is properly stressed to the reader that A) many aspects of relationship quality/satisfaction are still hotly debated by scholars (e.g., determinants, covariates, even definitions), B) that there are several theories of relationship quality which have garnered support (empirically and popularly within psych research -- though, again, there are still many debates), and C) that the quality of our close personal relationships have been consistently linked to several important physiological and psychological outcomes.

-hiwony Hiwony (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

ah -- and D) that measurements of relationship quality differ across the type of relationship (i.e., measurements and conceptual definitions of RQ/Relationship satisfaction differ between friendship and romantic partner.

-hiwony Hiwony (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposal withdrawn by proposer; I'll add an excerpt too. Klbrain (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me or does the article focus too much on romance and less on family relationships, almost completely ignoring such important topics as friendship, career, any form of conflict, etc.? In theory, the article describes any relationship between people in general, but out of context it may seem that it is exclusively about romance or family. Up to adding the article to the love forms template. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was asked by @BlockArranger to explain why I wanted physical attraction removed from "Other components commonly agreed to be necessary for love are physical attraction, similarity, reciprocity, and self-disclosure" in the romance section. The source talks about physical attraction in terms of factors that influence mate selection and relationship instigation, it doesn't claim that physical attraction is necessary for love. In fact, none of the components listed are "commonly agreed to be necessary" for love; perhaps the sentence could simply be changed to "Other components commonly associated with love are physical attraction, similarity, reciprocity, and self-disclosure". Wrenched (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you go ahead and WP:BEBOLD. I might check back at the result, but don't wait for me; others also have the option of making statements if they so wish. Thanks for discussing this matter with me in more detail! BlockArranger (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be editing Wikipedia based on your personal beliefs about love. The source can definitely be taken to mean that some people find physical attraction to be necessary for initiating a relationship, and the word "love" (without specifying which type) can be used to refer to this. If you don't think physical attraction is a condition for love sometimes, you should read Colours of Love, by John Alan Lee. [1] The statement in the article could be reworded, but if you think it's contentious, you should study more. I wouldn't use the word 'necessary', because different types of love have different preconditions, so without specifying what type it can't be stated what the preconditions are, but for example, physical attraction is necessary for what Lee calls eros love. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean, I'm editing based on the fact that I have a PhD in Sociology and my doctoral thesis was on intimate relationships, but surely someone who claims the sociological definition of love is "an unrealistic, irrational and idealized kind of love" knows more than I do about all this. Wrenched (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the authors being cited are far more credentialed than you are. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Look, I know it's hard to be 14 and deep, but also I do not care. Your information is incorrect, it's not even what your sources say, and you write like you're sitting your GCSEs. You can face that and deal with it, or you can continue to double down and have a public tantrum. It won't change the fact that I have expertise that you lack, and that it's really ruffling your feathers that I called out your nonsense.

Anyway good luck with life! Wrenched (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:EXPERT. Nobody here cares if you have a degree or not. I don't know what you've been reading, but you also just obviously don't really know anything about love. The fact that you don't know "romantic love" has multiple definitions, or that there are types of love that require physical attraction, etc. If you really have a PhD, you have a very narrow education on love, and you have to stop assuming that you know everything about this. You seem very arrogant, and you aren't going to do well here. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

👍 Wrenched (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It does not matter what any one of you think, really. The point is that this encyclopedia must be WP:VERIFIABLE. Please argue about the quality of sources; I suggest review articles because they are frequently published and are WP:SECONDARY, as well as being more accessible to readers than books. Furthermore, I would like to remind that there are rules stating that on talk pages, one must behave in a WP:CIVIL manner and respect WP:ETIQUETTE. While being an expert doesn't verify anything by itself as a fact, it can be helpful in navigating the sea of source literature. BlockArranger (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This person is mad about me deleting made up information they wrote in another page, not about this edit. They're here because they've decided to harass me over it on every possible corner of this site. I'm not gonna be civil to somebody who is cyberstalking me on wikipedia of all places. Wrenched (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply