The relationships we cultivate in our lives are essential to our well-being—namely, happiness and health. Why is that so? We begin to answer this question by exploring the types of relationships—family, friends, colleagues, and lovers—we have in our lives and how they are measured. We also explore the different aspects of happiness and health, and show how the quantity and quality of relationships can affect our happiness and health.
Humans are social animals and we prefer living together in groups. We cluster in families, in cities, and in groups of friends. In fact, most people spend relatively few of their waking hours alone. Even introverts report feeling happier when they are with others. Being surrounded by people and feeling connected to others appears to be a natural impulse.
If you were to reflect on the best moments of your life, chances are they involved other people. We feel good sharing our experiences with others, and our desire for high quality relationships may be connected to a deep-seated psychological impulse: the need to belong (CITE). Aristotle commented that humans are fundamentally social in nature. Modern society is full of evidence that Aristotle was right. For instance, people often hold strong opinions about single child families—usually concerning what are often viewed as problematic “only child” characteristics—and most parents choose to have multiple kids. People join book clubs to make a solitary activity—reading—into a social activity. Prisons often punish offenders by putting them in solitary confinement, depriving them of the company of others. Perhaps the most obvious expression of the need to belong in contemporary life is the prevalence of social media. We live in an era when, for the first time in history, people effectively have two overlapping sets of social relationships: those in the real world and those in the virtual world.It may seem intuitive that our strong urge to connect with others has to do with the boost we receive to our own well-being from relationships. After all, we derive considerable meaning from our relational bonds—as seen in the joy a newborn brings to its parents, the happiness of a wedding, and the good feelings of having reliable, supportive friendships. In fact, this intuition is borne out by research suggesting that relationships can be sources of intimacy and closeness (CITE), comfort and relief from stress (CITE), and accountability—all of which help toward achieving better health outcomes (CITE). Indeed, scholars have long considered social relationships to be fundamental to happiness and well-being (CITE). If the people in our lives are as important to our happiness as the research suggests, it only makes sense to investigate how relationships affect us.Although it seems obvious that good relationships bring happiness, researchers must carefully define and measure both concepts—known as operationalization—before drawing conclusions about how relationships and well-being are connected. Scientists examine objective factors like how many friends a person has, as well as subjective factors like their sense of social support. Relationships can be measured objectively through factual variables like marital status, number of friends, coworkers, or size of social networks, as well as social integration based on frequency of contact and activities. These measures are clear-cut, with single correct answers (e.g., a person is either married or not). Subjective social variables capture personal perceptions of relationships, such as feelings of social support, satisfaction with support, or the quality and conflict within relationships. Their strength lies in revealing individuals’ lived experiences—for example, whether someone views their marriage positively or negatively. Traditionally, researchers relied on global assessments of relationships (e.g., “How much social support do you receive?”), but newer methods like daily diaries capture real-time interactions and trends (CITE). Combining objective, subjective, and diary measures provides a fuller, more accurate picture of how relationships impact well-being.
Measuring well-being is complex, as people define happiness in many ways—peace, health, purpose, or joy. Psychologists often use the concept of subjective well-being, defined by life satisfaction, positive emotions, and low negative emotions, typically measured through self-report scales. The Satisfaction with Life Scale below is among the most commonly used tools for measuring well-being worldwide.
Presence of relationships
The physical side of well-being refers to health, including illness, injury, mortality, physiological indicators (like blood pressure), and health behaviors such as diet, exercise, and smoking. Researchers study these factors to see how relationships may benefit health. To study the link between relationships and well-being, researchers narrow their focus to specific groups and variables, usually examining the presence and quality of relationships.
The first factor in studying relationships and well-being is simply whether people have relationships, measured through variables like network size or number of friends. Research shows that more and better relationships are strongly linked to greater happiness, as seen in studies where the happiest students reported stronger, more satisfying connections and spent less time alone (CITE).
Global research shows that even a few high-quality relationships boost well-being, meaning happiness depends on close connections rather than many friends (CITE). Conversely, lacking social ties can harm well-being, as seen in loneliness, depression, and social rejection like ostracism in cliques (CITE). Ostracism, or being socially rejected and isolated, negatively affects well-being.Some societies, like the Amish, practice shunning—temporarily withholding social contact as punishment—which significantly harms well-being. Research shows that emotional pain from ostracism activates the same brain areas as physical pain (CITE).
Having relationships alone doesn’t guarantee well-being—relationship quality matters. High-quality friendships, family bonds, and romantic partnerships are linked to greater happiness, life satisfaction, and lower negative emotions across cultures, while poor-quality ties can harm both happiness and health. Good relationships support healthier behaviors and reduce stress, explaining their strong impact on well-being.
Types of Relationships
Intimate relationships
It’s important to consider different types of relationships when examining their impact on well-being. We don’t gain the same happiness from an ex-spouse as from a child or coworker. Romantic partners are often central, which is why researchers focus on intimate bonds that involve both physical and psychological closeness. Studies show that having even one trusted confidante matters more for happiness than having a large social network (CITE).
Relationships can be formal or informal. Formal ones—like with elders, coworkers, or new acquaintances—require politeness and self-control. Informal ones—like with friends, partners, or siblings—allow us to relax, be authentic, and share openly. Because of this comfort and vulnerability, informal relationships are often more closely tied to happiness.
Researchers often study intimacy by looking at marital status, since marriage is the most common close relationship. Studies show that moving from singlehood to dating to marriage is linked to higher happiness (CITE). However, divorce or losing a spouse has a stronger negative impact on well-being than the positive boost from marriage (CITE).
While marriage is often linked to greater happiness, it doesn’t guarantee it—the quality of the marriage is key. Unhappy marriages can harm emotional well-being, with low marital satisfaction strongly tied to depression. Long-term studies confirm that as marital quality declines, depressive symptoms rise (CITE).
Why do bad relationships harm well-being? Conflict is a major factor, as it lowers support and increases stress (CITE). In extreme cases, abuse causes shame, loss of self, depression, and anxiety (CITE). Thankfully, research shows that once abusive relationships end, unhappiness often fades (CITE).
Work Relationships and Well-Being
Adults spend much of their time with coworkers and supervisors, so the quality of these relationships strongly affects well-being. Supportive, trusting relationships make work more enjoyable and less stressful, while poor ones—especially with difficult bosses—create distress and dissatisfaction. Research shows supportive supervisors boost employee thriving, while those high in traits like narcissism or manipulation harm well-being (CITE).
In addition to the direct benefits or costs of work relationships on our well-being, we should also consider how these relationships can impact our job performance. Research has shown that feeling engaged in our work and having a high job performance predicts better health and greater life satisfaction (CITE). Given that so many of our waking hours are spent on the job—about ninety thousand hours across a lifetime—it makes sense that we should seek out and invest in positive relationships at work.
Pop culture often promotes “secrets” to happiness, like exercise or gratitude, but strong social relationships are the most common claim. While their impact on well-being is small, research shows the effect is consistent and reliable (CITE). There may be no single secret to happiness, but good relationships are certainly part of the recipe.
Culture
When thinking about cultures, we often notice visible traits like clothing, food, tools, body language, or rituals. But many important differences are less visible, rooted in psychology.
Culture shows up not only in food and dress but also in morality, identity, and gender roles. Views on religion, family, punishment, and even fun vary across societies, and many behaviors we see as natural are shaped by culture. These psychological aspects—like how we learn gender roles or define our duties to family—are often invisible. In this module, you’ll explore how culture shapes the self and learn about methods for studying these processes.
Social Psychology Research Methods
Social psychologists study how culture shapes emotions, identity, relationships, and decisions, often using different methods than anthropologists. Anthropologists rely on ethnographic studies—observing and interviewing people to understand culture from their perspective. When social psychologists use this approach, it’s called cultural psychology.
For example, Markus and colleagues (CITE) interviewed Americans from different social classes about what “the good life” means. Themes like health, family, enjoyment, and financial security emerged, showing how class culture influences well-being.
Markus and her team found that college-educated participants often highlighted “enjoyment” as central to the good life, while those with only a high school education focused more on “financial security” and meeting basic needs. Both groups valued relationships, but in different ways: college-educated men emphasized “advising and respecting,” whereas high school–educated participants stressed “loving and caring.” CITE
Cultural psychology centers on people’s own definitions and perspectives, while cross-cultural psychology uses standardized measures (like surveys) to compare groups. Each approach has strengths and limits.
Researchers can learn from both cultural similarities and differences, which require cross-cultural comparisons. For example, Diener and Oishi (CITE) studied the link between money and happiness using international surveys with standardized life satisfaction questions and income data.
They found that wealthier nations like Denmark and Canada reported higher satisfaction, while poorer nations like India and Belarus reported lower. Exceptions included Japan, where satisfaction was lower than expected, and Brazil, where it was higher despite lower income (CITE).
A challenge in cross-cultural studies is ethnocentric bias, where researchers’ own cultural assumptions shape the study without them realizing it. For instance, linking happiness to personal freedom may ignore cultures that value duty to the group over individual choice. To avoid this, social psychologists must keep refining their methods.
What is Culture?
Defining Culture
Like the words “happiness” and “intelligence,” the word “culture” can be tricky to define. Culture is a word that suggests social patterns of shared meaning. In essence, it is a collective understanding of the way the world works, shared by members of a group and passed down from one generation to the next. For example, members of the Yanomamö tribe, in South America, share a cultural understanding of the world that includes the idea that there are four parallel levels to reality that include an abandoned level, and earthly level and heavenly and hell-like levels. Similarly, members of surfing culture understand their athletic pastime as being worthwhile and governed by formal rules of etiquette known only to insiders. There are several features of culture that are central to understanding the uniqueness and diversity of the human mind:
Versatility: Culture can change and adapt. Someone from the state of Orissa, in India, for example, may have multiple identities. She might see herself as Oriya when at home and speaking her native language. At other times, such as during the national cricket match against Pakistan, she might consider herself Indian. This is known as situational identity.
Sharing: Culture is the product of people sharing with one another. Humans cooperate and share knowledge and skills with other members of their networks. The ways they share, and the content of what they share, helps make up culture. Older adults, for instance, remember a time when long-distance friendships were maintained through letters that arrived in the mail every few months. Contemporary youth culture accomplishes the same goal through the use of instant text messages on smart phones.
Accumulation: Cultural knowledge is cumulative. That is, information is “stored.” This means that a culture’s collective learning grows across generations. We understand more about the world today than we did 200 years ago, but that doesn’t mean the culture from long ago has been erased by the new. For instance, members of the Haida culture—a First Nations people in British Columbia, Canada—profit from both ancient and modern experiences. They might employ traditional fishing practices and wisdom stories while also using modern technologies and services.
Patterns: There are systematic and predictable ways of behavior or thinking across members of a culture. Patterns emerge from adapting, sharing, and storing cultural information. Patterns can be both similar and different across cultures. For example, in both Canada and India it is considered polite to bring a small gift to a host’s home. In Canada, it is more common to bring a bottle of wine and for the gift to be opened right away. In India, by contrast, it is more common to bring sweets, and often the gift is set aside to be opened later.
Understanding the changing nature of culture is the first step toward appreciating how it helps people. The concept of cultural intelligence is the ability to understand why members of other cultures act in the ways they do. Rather than dismissing foreign behaviors as weird, inferior, or immoral, people high in cultural intelligence can appreciate differences even if they do not necessarily share another culture’s views or adopt its ways of doing things.
Thinking about Culture
One of the biggest problems with understanding culture is that the word itself is used in different ways by different people. When someone says, “My company has a competitive culture,” does it mean the same thing as when another person says, “I’m taking my children to the museum so they can get some culture”? The truth is, there are many ways to think about culture. Here are three ways to parse this concept:
Progressive cultivation: This refers to a relatively small subset of activities that are intentional and aimed at “being refined.” Examples include learning to play a musical instrument, appreciating visual art, and attending theater performances, as well as other instances of so-called “high art.” This was the predominant use of the word culture through the mid-19th century. This notion of culture formed the basis, in part, of a superior mindset on the behalf of people from the upper economic classes. For instance, many tribal groups were seen as lacking cultural sophistication under this definition. In the late 19th century, as global travel began to rise, this understanding of culture was largely replaced with an understanding of it as a way of life.
Ways of Life: This refers to distinct patterns of beliefs and behaviors widely shared among members of a culture. The “ways of life” understanding of culture shifts the emphasis to patterns of belief and behavior that persist over many generations. Although cultures can be small—such as “school culture”—they usually describe larger populations, such as nations. People occasionally confuse national identity with culture. There are similarities in culture between Japan, China, and Korea, for example, even though politically they are very different. Indeed, each of these nations also contains a great deal of cultural variation within themselves.
Shared Learning: In the 20th century, anthropologists and social psychologists developed the concept of enculturation to refer to the ways people learn about and shared cultural knowledge. Where “ways of life” is treated as a noun “enculturation” is a verb. That is, enculturation is a fluid and dynamic process. That is, it emphasizes that culture is a process that can be learned. As children are raised in a society, they are taught how to behave according to regional cultural norms. As immigrants settle in a new country, they learn a new set of rules for behaving and interacting. In this way, it is possible for a person to have multiple cultural scripts.
Table 2: Culture concepts and their application
The understanding of culture as a learned pattern of views and behaviors is interesting for several reasons. First, it highlights the ways groups can come into conflict with one another. Members of different cultures simply learn different ways of behaving. Modern youth culture, for instance, interacts with technologies such as smart phones using a different set of rules than people who are in their 40s, 50s, or 60s. Older adults might find texting in the middle of a face-to-face conversation rude while younger people often do not. These differences can sometimes become politicized and a source of tension between groups. One example of this is Muslim women who wear a hijab, or head scarf. Non-Muslims do not follow this practice, so occasional misunderstandings arise about the appropriateness of the tradition. Second, understanding that culture is learned is important because it means that people can adopt an appreciation of patterns of behavior that are different than their own. For example, non-Muslims might find it helpful to learn about the hijab. Where did this tradition come from? What does it mean and what are various Muslim opinions about wearing one? Finally, understanding that culture is learned can be helpful in developing self-awareness. For instance, people from the United States might not even be aware of the fact that their attitudes about public nudity are influenced by their cultural learning. While women often go topless on beaches in Europe and women living a traditional tribal existence in places like the South Pacific also go topless, it is illegal for women in some of the United States to do so. These cultural norms for modesty—reflected in government laws and policies– also enter the discourse on social issues such as the appropriateness of breast-feeding in public. Understanding that your preferences are—in many cases—the products of cultural learning might empower you to revise them if doing so will lead to a better life for you or others.
The Self and Culture
In a world that is increasingly connected by travel, technology, and business the ability to understand and appreciate the differences between cultures is more important than ever. Psychologists call this capability “cultural intelligence”. [Image: https://goo.gl/SkXR07, CC0 Public Domain, goo.gl/m25gce]
Traditionally, social psychologists have thought about how patterns of behavior have an overarching effect on populations’ attitudes. Harry Triandis, a cross-cultural psychologist, has studied culture in terms of individualism and collectivism. Triandis became interested in culture because of his unique upbringing. Born in Greece, he was raised under both the German and Italian occupations during World War II. The Italian soldiers broadcast classical music in the town square and built a swimming pool for the townspeople. Interacting with these foreigners—even though they were an occupying army—sparked Triandis’ curiosity about other cultures. He realized that he would have to learn English if he wanted to pursue academic study outside of Greece and so he practiced with the only local who knew the language: a mentally ill 70 year old who was incarcerated for life at the local hospital. He went on to spend decades studying the ways people in different cultures define themselves (Triandis, 2008).
So, what exactly were these two patterns of culture Triandis focused on: individualism and collectivism? Individualists, such as most people born and raised in Australia or the United States, define themselves as individuals. They seek personal freedom and prefer to voice their own opinions and make their own decisions. By contrast, collectivists—such as most people born and raised in Korea or in Taiwan— are more likely to emphasize their connectedness to others. They are more likely to sacrifice their personal preferences if those preferences come in conflict with the preferences of the larger group (Triandis, 1995).
Both individualism and collectivism can further be divided into vertical and horizontal dimensions (Triandis, 1995). Essentially, these dimensions describe social status among members of a society. People in vertical societies differ in status, with some people being more highly respected or having more privileges, while in horizontal societies people are relatively equal in status and privileges. These dimensions are, of course, simplifications.
Neither individualism nor collectivism is the “correct way to live.” Rather, they are two separate patterns with slightly different emphases. People from individualistic societies often have more social freedoms, while collectivistic societies often have better social safety nets.
Table 3: Individualist and collectivist cultures
There are yet other ways of thinking about culture, as well. The cultural patterns of individualism and collectivism are linked to an important psychological phenomenon: the way that people understand themselves. Known as self-construal, this is the way people define the way they “fit” in relation to others. Individualists are more likely to define themselves in terms of an independent self. This means that people see themselves as A) being a unique individual with a stable collection of personal traits, and B) that these traits drive behavior. By contrast, people from collectivist cultures are more likely to identify with the interdependent self. This means that people see themselves as A) defined differently in each new social context and B) social context, rather than internal traits, are the primary drivers of behavior (Markus & Kitiyama, 1991).
What do the independent and interdependent self look like in daily life? One simple example can be seen in the way that people describe themselves. Imagine you had to complete the sentence starting with “I am…..”. And imagine that you had to do this 10 times. People with an independent sense of self are more likely to describe themselves in terms of traits such as “I am honest,” “I am intelligent,” or “I am talkative.” On the other hand, people with a more interdependent sense of self are more likely to describe themselves in terms of their relation to others such as “I am a sister,” “I am a good friend,” or “I am a leader on my team” (Markus, 1977).
The psychological consequences of having an independent or interdependent self can also appear in more surprising ways. Take, for example, the emotion of anger. In Western cultures, where people are more likely to have an independent self, anger arises when people’s personal wants, needs, or values are attacked or frustrated (Markus & Kitiyama, 1994). Angry Westerners sometimes complain that they have been “treated unfairly.” Simply put, anger—in the Western sense—is the result of violations of the self. By contrast, people from interdependent self cultures, such as Japan, are likely to experience anger somewhat differently. They are more likely to feel that anger is unpleasant not because of some personal insult but because anger represents a lack of harmony between people. In this instance, anger is particularly unpleasant when it interferes with close relationships.
Culture is Learned
It’s important to understand that culture is learned. People aren’t born using chopsticks or being good at soccer simply because they have a genetic predisposition for it. They learn to excel at these activities because they are born in countries like Argentina, where playing soccer is an important part of daily life, or in countries like Taiwan, where chopsticks are the primary eating utensils. So, how are such cultural behaviors learned? It turns out that cultural skills and knowledge are learned in much the same way a person might learn to do algebra or knit. They are acquired through a combination of explicit teaching and implicit learning—by observing and copying.
Cultural teaching can take many forms. It begins with parents and caregivers, because they are the primary influence on young children. Caregivers teach kids, both directly and by example, about how to behave and how the world works. They encourage children to be polite, reminding them, for instance, to say “Thankyou.” They teach kids how to dress in a way that is appropriate for the culture. They introduce children to religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them. They even teach children how to think and feel! Adult men, for example, often exhibit a certain set of emotional expressions—such as being tough and not crying—that provides a model of masculinity for their children. This is why we see different ways of expressing the same emotions in different parts of the world.
Culture teaches us what behaviors and emotions are appropriate or expected in different situations. [Image: Portal de Copa, https://goo.gl/iEoW6X, CC BY 3.0, goo.gl/b58TcB]
In some societies, it is considered appropriate to conceal anger. Instead of expressing their feelings outright, people purse their lips, furrow their brows, and say little. In other cultures, however, it is appropriate to express anger. In these places, people are more likely to bare their teeth, furrow their brows, point or gesture, and yell (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Chung, 2010). Such patterns of behavior are learned. Often, adults are not even aware that they are, in essence, teaching psychology—because the lessons are happening through observational learning.
Let’s consider a single example of a way you behave that is learned, which might surprise you. All people gesture when they speak. We use our hands in fluid or choppy motions—to point things out, or to pantomime actions in stories. Consider how you might throw your hands up and exclaim, “I have no idea!” or how you might motion to a friend that it’s time to go. Even people who are born blind use hand gestures when they speak, so to some degree this is a universal behavior, meaning all people naturally do it. However, social researchers have discovered that culture influences how a person gestures. Italians, for example, live in a society full of gestures. In fact, they use about 250 of them (Poggi, 2002)! Some are easy to understand, such as a hand against the belly, indicating hunger. Others, however, are more difficult. For example, pinching the thumb and index finger together and drawing a line backwards at face level means “perfect,” while knocking a fist on the side of one’s head means “stubborn.”
Beyond observational learning, cultures also use rituals to teach people what is important. For example, young people who are interested in becoming Buddhist monks often have to endure rituals that help them shed feelings of specialness or superiority—feelings that run counter to Buddhist doctrine. To do this, they might be required to wash their teacher’s feet, scrub toilets, or perform other menial tasks. Similarly, many Jewish adolescents go through the process of bar and bat mitzvah. This is a ceremonial reading from scripture that requires the study of Hebrew and, when completed, signals that the youth is ready for full participation in public worship.
Cultural Relativism
When social psychologists research culture, they try to avoid making value judgments. This is known as value-free research and is considered an important approach to scientific objectivity. But, while such objectivity is the goal, it is a difficult one to achieve. With this in mind, anthropologists have tried to adopt a sense of empathy for the cultures they study. This has led to cultural relativism, the principle of regarding and valuing the practices of a culture from the point of view of that culture. It is a considerate and practical way to avoid hasty judgments. Take for example, the common practice of same-sex friends in India walking in public while holding hands: this is a common behavior and a sign of connectedness between two people. In England, by contrast, holding hands is largely limited to romantically involved couples, and often suggests a sexual relationship. These are simply two different ways of understanding the meaning of holding hands. Someone who does not take a relativistic view might be tempted to see their own understanding of this behavior as superior and, perhaps, the foreign practice as being immoral.
Despite the fact that cultural relativism promotes the appreciation for cultural differences, it can also be problematic. At its most extreme it leaves no room for criticism of other cultures, even if certain cultural practices are horrific or harmful. Many practices have drawn criticism over the years. In Madagascar, for example, the famahidana funeral tradition includes bringing bodies out from tombs once every seven years, wrapping them in cloth, and dancing with them. Some people view this practice as disrespectful to the body of a deceased person. Another example can be seen in the historical Indian practice of sati—the burning to death of widows on their deceased husband’s funeral pyre. This practice was outlawed by the British when they colonized India. Today, a debate rages about the ritual cutting of genitals of children in several Middle Eastern and African cultures. To a lesser extent, this same debate arises around the circumcision of baby boys in Western hospitals. When considering harmful cultural traditions, it can be patronizing to the point of racism to use cultural relativism as an excuse for avoiding debate. To assume that people from other cultures are neither mature enough nor responsible enough to consider criticism from the outside is demeaning.
In some cultures, it’s perfectly normal for same-sex friends to hold hands while in others, handholding is restricted to romantically involved individuals only. [Image: Subharnab Majumdar, http://goo.gl/0Ghfof, CC BY-2.0, goo.gl/T4qgSp]
Positive cultural relativism is the belief that the world would be a better place if everyone practiced some form of intercultural empathy and respect. This approach offers a potentially important contribution to theories of cultural progress: to better understand human behavior, people should avoid adopting extreme views that block discussions about the basic morality or usefulness of cultural practices.
Conclusion
We live in a unique moment in history. We are experiencing the rise of a global culture in which people are connected and able to exchange ideas and information better than ever before. International travel and business are on the rise. Instantaneous communication and social media are creating networks of contacts who would never otherwise have had a chance to connect. Education is expanding, music and films cross national borders, and state-of-the-art technology affects us all. In this world, an understanding of what culture is and how it happens, can set the foundation for acceptance of differences and respectful disagreements. The science of social psychology—along with the other culture-focused sciences, such as anthropology and sociology—can help produce insights into cultural processes. These insights, in turn, can be used to increase the quality of intercultural dialogue, to preserve cultural traditions, and to promote self-awareness.
Relationships can be measured objectively through factual variables like marital status, number of friends, coworkers, or size of social networks, as well as social integration based on frequency of contact and activities. These measures are clear-cut, with single correct answers (e.g., a person is either married or not). Subjective social variables capture personal perceptions of relationships, such as feelings of social support, satisfaction with support, or the quality and conflict within relationships. Their strength lies in revealing individuals’ lived experiences—for example, whether someone views their marriage positively or negatively. Traditionally, researchers relied on global assessments of relationships (e.g., “How much social support do you receive?”), but newer methods like daily diaries capture real-time interactions and trends (CITE). Combining objective, subjective, and diary measures provides a fuller, more accurate picture of how relationships impact well-being.
Some societies, like the Amish, practice shunning—temporarily withholding social contact as punishment—which significantly harms well-being. Research shows that emotional pain from ostracism activates the same brain areas as physical pain (CITE).
