Health and Relationships

What Do Researchers Mean by Relationships?

Research on social ties and health often defines relationships in different ways. A broad distinction between structural and functional aspects of relationships is common but within these categories are numerous exemplars. Structural measures often tap into the extent to which a person is situated or integrated into a social network. For instance, researchers may ask participants if they are married, how many family members they have contact with, or if they participate in any social activities. This work has its roots in the concept of symbolic interactionism, a social-psychological concept that highlights the importance of meaningful social roles in the development of one's identity. The use of structural measures has been the most longstanding (and popular) approach to examining links between relationships and health.

More recently, many studies examine relationships and health in terms of the particular supportive functions they serve. These functions are usually organized along two dimensions. One dimension is what support is perceived to be available. The other dimension is what support is actually received or provided by others. What is perceived as available may or may not correspond to what is actually provided. For instance, individuals who perceive support to be available may not actually seek support as a first coping option, and just knowing support is available may alleviate stress because it acts as a “safety net.” Therefore, both measurement approaches are important. So what exactly is made available or provided by supportive individuals? Many researchers argue that the types of support that may be provided are what can be termed emotional (e.g., expressions of caring), informational (e.g., information that might be used to deal with stress), tangible (e.g., direct material aide), and belonging (e.g., others to engage in social activities) support.

Recent research on relationships and health is moving toward a more comprehensive view of relationships that is affecting how we measure it. The most important trend is probably the explicit acknowledgement of the detrimental influences of negativity (e.g., conflict) in close relationships on health. Although this has long been acknowledged in the larger close relationships literature, its impact on the health literature has been less given the prior emphasis on support processes. However, considering negativity in relationships is important because conflict in stable, long-term relationships (e.g., marriage, family) can theoretically influence the development of chronic conditions that develop slowly over time (e.g., cardiovascular disease).

...