Definition of Interpersonal Relationship: Structural View
Interpersonal relationships are not merely exchanges of words, gestures, or reactions. They are complex systems in which each individual simultaneously operates as both the bearer of an internal structure of perception and a participant in external interaction. This dual function explains why some connections foster growth and support, while others become sources of tension, misunderstanding, or even psychological harm. In today’s world—where communication increasingly takes place in digital formats—the quality of relationships has become a critical concern. Superficial ties often displace deeper bonds, and emotional responsiveness is replaced by algorithmic politeness. Nonetheless, the need for authentic connection remains a fundamental aspect of human life. This article provides not only a clear definition of interpersonal relationships, but also an in-depth analysis of their internal architecture through the lens of Model A— a theoretical construct that explains how we perceive, process, and transmit information within relationships. Understanding these hidden structures behind communication allows us to reinterpret compatibility, conflict, empathy, and trust. The discussion here is not about "good" or "bad" relationships in subjective terms, but about the principles governing how relationships are formed, sustained, and dissolved—from a scientific standpoint. Interpersonal relationships are stable systems of psychological and behavioral interconnections between individuals, formed through the exchange of information, emotions, and actions. Unlike incidental contact or functional interaction, a relationship implies the presence of an internal structure: each person not only acts but constructs a mental model of the other. At a deeper level, this is always a bidirectional interpretive process. We do not merely perceive another person—we interpret their signals, intentions, emotional states, and anticipate possible behavioral patterns. This interpretation is guided by our individual cognitive system, meaning the way we process incoming information. In this way, interpersonal relationships are not simply the surface layer of communication, but its semantic infrastructure. They persist even when silence speaks louder than words, and when absence itself becomes a form of message. To understand a relationship is to understand how one psychological system perceives and structures another—and what consequences emerge from that perception. This is where true scientific inquiry begins: beneath emotions, preferences, and friction lies a cognitive logic—not just "chemistry" or "personality." A contemporary understanding of interpersonal relationships is incomplete without considering their underlying psychological architecture—the internal framework through which individuals perceive and interpret the external world, including other people. Three thinkers played a pivotal role in the development of this perspective: Carl Gustav Jung, Antoni Kępiński, and Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. Carl Jung was the first to systematically describe fundamental differences in human perception by identifying four cognitive functions: thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. Each of these, he argued, could be expressed in either an extraverted or introverted orientation, resulting in stable psychological types. These dichotomies later formed the basis for a variety of models concerned with human personality. Antoni Kępiński, a Polish psychiatrist and philosopher, later offered a radically new interpretation of the psyche—as a system engaged in processing information. He introduced the concept of the type of information metabolism (TIM), which refers to a stable mode of receiving, filtering, and structuring external input. This notion bridged the inner world of subjective experience with the external system of meaning exchange and interaction. Building upon these foundations, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė developed a unified structural framework—known today as Model A. In this model, she integrated Jung’s cognitive functions and Kępiński’s informational logic, distributing them across eight distinct positions within the human psyche. Each position reflects a particular mode of perception and information processing: from conscious control to blind spots, from outward social roles to zones responsible for empathy and vulnerability. This internal model—unique to each individual—serves as the basis for all interpersonal relationships. When two people interact, what actually takes place is a meeting of two Model A structures. The alignment or misalignment of these systems determines not only the emotional tone of communication but also its depth, resilience, and clarity—or, conversely, its opacity and tension. This approach enables compatibility analysis not merely at the level of temperament or preference, but at the structural level of cognition. This is what gives the model its value: interpersonal relationships are not random emotional phenomena, but informational systems that operate according to defined principles. Interpersonal relationships cannot be reduced to a single layer—they are inherently multidimensional. On the surface, we observe social roles: someone is a friend, a colleague, a partner, a parent, or an opponent. These roles define the visible format of interaction, setting norms of behavior, degrees of accessibility, and expectations. Yet behind the visible form lies a deeper layer: psychological content. The same social status may carry vastly different personal meanings. Two students enrolled in the same class may formally be "groupmates," but their relationship might range from distant politeness to deep friendship—or even mutual hostility. At this level, the key factor is each individual's type of information metabolism (TIM). The way one person organizes incoming information about another—filtered through their own values, vulnerabilities, and priorities—shapes the nature of the relationship. It determines whether a connection evolves toward trust, competition, dependency, or avoidance. Relationships may also be classified according to their symmetry. Symmetrical relationships are based on role equality and mutual mirroring of expectations. Complementary relationships, in contrast, rely on functional asymmetry: mentor and student, parent and child, leader and follower. Notably, Model A incorporates this very idea, describing function pairs that either complement or suppress each other structurally. Thus, any classification of interpersonal relationships is not merely a matter of social convention—it is an expression of internal perceptual structures, reflecting deeply individualized modes of relational being. Every interpersonal relationship begins with a point of contact, but not every contact becomes a relationship. For an interaction to evolve into something stable, a particular internal response must occur: curiosity, emotional resonance, or a sense of meaning. During this process, certain functions described in Model A are unconsciously activated—they select, filter, and structure information about the other person. When someone is perceived as a meaningful source of information—whether emotional, intellectual, or behavioral—a motivation arises to continue the interaction. In early stages, a preliminary mental image of the other is formed: we intuitively assess their “closeness,” “comfort level,” or potential “threat,” based on alignment or misalignment with our internal cognitive structure. The development of a relationship depends on two main processes: The greater the alignment of core functions, the more rapidly a sense of affinity or comfort emerges. Conversely, mismatches in fundamental modes (e.g., logic vs. ethics, sensing vs. intuition) may lead to underlying tension, even if outward interaction remains courteous. Relationship breakdowns rarely result from a single conflict. More often, they emerge from a cumulative distortion in the informational exchange—when expectations no longer match actions, misunderstanding increases, and interactions begin to “hurt.” Particularly damaging is the repeated triggering of vulnerable zones—those corresponding to the “painful” or “ignored” functions in Model A. Relationships do not collapse suddenly—they delaminate. The loss of informational clarity and reciprocal reflection gradually dissolves the foundation. Thus, resilience in relationships depends not only on “trust” or “empathy,” but on a profound understanding of the differences between individual psychological structures. Interpersonal relationships are not a byproduct of social life—they are its foundation. A person does not exist in isolation; their thinking, self-image, and even perception of reality are shaped within the framework of interaction with others. On the personal level, relationships define the structure of the self. How a person views themselves is largely influenced by the reflections they receive from others: support strengthens identity, neglect erodes it, and chronic criticism can transform the self-concept in a traumatic direction. Even one’s internal dialogue is often a reconstruction of imagined conversations with significant others. In the context of information metabolism, relationships become a channel through which the external world is cognitively structured. Through interpersonal exchange, the individual selects what is meaningful, sets priorities, and either reinforces or adjusts their internal coordinates. This is especially evident in relationships with high compatibility, where interaction functions as an extension of one’s own cognitive system. On a social scale, interpersonal relationships form the very fabric of collective life. Groups, teams, and communities are not just aggregates of individuals—they are dynamic informational networks, where certain connections enhance shared objectives, while others undermine them. In organizational contexts, it is often interpersonal dynamics—not formal protocols—that determine effectiveness, motivation, and team resilience. Communication hubs, empathic bridges, hidden conflicts, and informal alliances all shape a group’s ability to function and adapt. Ultimately, in times of personal or societal crisis, it is stable interpersonal bonds that become the most vital factor in resilience and recovery. Intelligence, willpower, and material resources alone rarely offer the kind of adaptive stability that arises from the experience of being supported and understood. Stable interpersonal relationships do not form spontaneously. Even when initial contact feels effortless, maintaining and deepening that connection requires intentional effort. These efforts are not limited to being “nicer” or “more open”—they begin with an understanding of one’s own psychological structure and the capacity to recognize the structure of another. Model A provides a conceptual starting point. It outlines the channels through which individuals process information—what themes come naturally, and which are experienced as painful or ignored. In a conscious relationship, it is not enough to express oneself; one must also adapt their communication to the perceptual framework of the other—without compromising their own integrity. For instance, if you predominantly rely on logical evaluation while your counterpart operates through value-driven ethics, attempts to “convince” them using rational argument may be perceived not as reasoning, but as coercion. Understanding such structural mismatches allows for a shift in communication style while preserving the content. Conscious compatibility does not mean being identical—it means having the ability to recognize: Furthermore, mature relationships involve the acknowledgment of one’s own vulnerable area—the so-called “painful function.” People often seek unconscious compensation for this zone in others, leading to dependency. Only when one accepts this aspect of their inner architecture do they stop demanding that a partner or friend “heal” their inner void. This release of pressure enables truly equal engagement. In this way, mature relationships are not merely about trust—they involve structurally informed trust. They represent a relational format in which diverse information-processing systems do not suppress one another, but create a kind of polyphony—where multiple voices can coexist, and meaning can be heard. Interpersonal relationships are not chaotic fusions of emotion and coincidence. They are structured systems in which two models of perceiving the world intersect—sometimes in harmony, sometimes in conflict. Each model carries its own logic, rhythm, vulnerabilities, and value priorities. When we say, “we just didn’t click,” what often lies beneath is not a clash of habits or preferences, but a misalignment of perceptual channels—a divergence in how meaning, emphasis, and emotional signals are processed. Carl Jung gave us the language of functions. Antoni Kępiński provided the insight that personality is a system of information exchange. Aušra Augustinavičiūtė developed the structural model of how these functions interact—both within an individual and between people. Thanks to their work, interpersonal relationships cease to be merely intuitive phenomena and become something measurable, applicable, and reproducible in any social environment. To understand another person is not simply an act of empathy. It is a precise alignment of internal structures—an act that demands attentiveness, patience, and a deep respect for difference. If relationships are systems, then they can be analyzed, developed, and even repaired. Not from scratch, and not by trial and error—but by relying on the mechanisms that make one person legible, resonant, and ultimately acceptable to another.What Are Interpersonal Relationships?
The Deep Structure of Relationships: Model A as a Framework for Interaction
Typology of Interpersonal Relationships: Social Form and Psychological Depth
How Relationships Form, Develop, and Break Down: The Inner Dynamics of Interpersonal Exchange
– A deepening of mutual understanding, including the safe revelation of weak or vulnerable areas (such as the painful functions described in Model A);
– The formation of stable channels for information exchange, in which each person understands the most effective format and level of abstraction for communication.The Significance of Interpersonal Relationships for the Individual and Society
How to Build Mature Relationships: Awareness and the Structure of Perception
– where you complement each other;
– where your functions may conflict;
– and where to construct neutral bridges—zones where both of you can remain authentic without violating each other’s boundaries.Conclusion: Understanding as Structure, Not Emotion