FormalPara Overview

  • Negative ties are the aspects of a relationship, which ego perceives as incriminating.

  • Cardiovascular disease and hypertension (physical), lower self-esteem, depression (psychological), and changed health behavior are possible health consequences connected with negative ties.

  • Discrimination, availability of resources, and socialization are approaches that help explain the association between SES and negative ties.

  • Further research is needed in order to sufficiently clarify the connection between SES, health, and negative ties as well as the causal mechanisms and directions.

1 Negative Ties: An Introduction

While concepts for positive ties are already widely discussed in network research, for example in the concept of social support or social capital (see chapter “Social Network Theories: An Overview”), the discussion on the meaning of negative ties is often lagging behind. Brooks and Dunkel Schetter (2011, p. 907) have identified a proliferation of terms describing negative ties: “Problematic social ties; social conflict; negative social exchange; social undermining; negative social interactions; stressor-specific social hindrance; social constraints on disclosure; stressor-specific unsupportive social interactions.” Social negativity, negative social ties, interpersonal conflict, negative aspects of close relationships, negative interaction, negative acts, the dark side of close relationships, and interpersonal/social strain complete this list of candidates for a common term. Furthermore, Labianca (2013, p. 8) observed a “proliferation of operationalisations of negative ties […] e.g., distant relationships, difficult relationships, prefer to avoid, dislike, distrust, conflict, relationship conflict, task conflict, disrupts, excludes socially, being a political adversary, troubled relationships.” Depending on the theoretical approach (e.g., conflict theories, balance theory, and social capital approach), a different understanding of negative ties prevails. Nevertheless, a certain consensus exists in the following three defining criteria (cf. Borgatti et al., 2014, p. 9; Chauvac et al., 2014, p. 7; Heider, 1946, p. 107; Labianca & Brass, 2006, p. 597; Laireiter & Lettner, 1993). Firstly, there has to be a “tie,”Footnote 1 that is, a connection between the actors that is based on interactions. Secondly, the connection needs to have interpersonal tensions or negative aspects (e.g., due to competition for resources and violated reciprocity expectations). Here, it is important that ego perceives them as burdensome, so they are associated with feelings of aversion—fear, hatred, resentment, and so forth. It therefore makes sense to add Homans’ social exchange theory in order to distinguish under which conditions an individual considers the exchange to be successful or disadvantageous. According to Homans’ fifth elementary law of behavior, interpersonal tension arises. “When a person’s action does not receive the reward he expected, or receives punishment he did not expect, he will be angry. He becomes more likely to perform aggressive [be]havior, and the results of such behavior become more valuable to him” (Homans, 1974, p. 37). In other words, if there is a lack of reciprocity, it can be the basis for a negative tie assessment. Thirdly, a dyadic perspective is adopted (ego-age relation), which allows analysis on a social network level without neglecting the individual perspective. Thus, it is possible to differentiate between mutual and one-sided perceptions of the relationship and to trace the benefit of a mutual relationship.

While the dyadic perspective is easy to determine, there are still differences in the definition of the “negativity” and the “tie” component. Regarding this, three concepts exist. The difference between them is primarily evident in the degree of aggregation of the connecting elements between the ego and the alter. In the first concept, the individual’s interactions and chains of interactions create the connection. Simmel is one of the early advocates of this approach with his remarks on social conflict (in German “Streit”) (cf. Simmel, 1950 [1908]). At present, the term “social conflict” has become widely used. Although the concept of conflict provides a link to many scientific discourses (e.g., aggression and violence research), it is problematic from an analytical perspective. On the one hand, sociological conflict research makes less distinction between conflicts at the micro-level (between individuals) and macro-level (between social groups). For an illustration, see the definition by Bonacker and Imbusch. They define social conflicts as social situations in which at least two parties (individuals, groups, states, etc.) are involved based on differences in the social situation and/or differences in the constellation of interests of the conflicting parties (Bonacker & Imbusch, 2010, p. 69). Psychologists follow a far more precise distinction between two kinds of conflict: first, interpersonal conflict as the clash of two irreconcilable tendencies of action between persons, and second, intrapersonal conflict as the clash of two irreconcilable tendencies of action within a person (Nolting, 1998, p. 552). On the other hand, the term “social conflict” is problematic in the context of negative ties, since negative aspects of social relationships do not necessarily lead to conflicts. Several coping strategies for dealing with interpersonal tensions include conflictual behavior, loyalty, avoidance, and breaking off relationships (e.g., see voice, loyalty, neglect, and exit in Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983). According to this understanding, interpersonal conflicts are logically accompanied by interpersonal tensions, but interpersonal tensions are not necessarily accompanied by interpersonal conflicts (the same applies to phenomena of violence). Actually, there is a more precise definition considering this distinction from behavior by focusing on perception. The definition of “social negativity” puts the focus on negative behaviors, which are perceived as aversive or unwanted (Brooks & Dunkel Schetter, 2011, p. 905).

Digression: Negative Ties and Violence

Dispute-related violence is a special form of conflict-related tension management. The connection between negative aspects of social relationships and personal violence is mediated through aggressiveness, which is not necessarily translated into aggressive, antisocial behavior. Moreover, not every act of violence is preceded by negative ties with the victim (e.g., in the case of predatory violence). The conditions under which aggression and acts of violence occur have interfaces with negative ties. For example, one conditional factor of the general aggression model is the dimension “external person” (Allen et al., 2018). An overview of aggression and violence research was presented by Heitmeyer and Hagan (2002) and Bogerts and Möller-Leimkühler (2013). In the case of domestic violence, there naturally is a connection between the persons (living together), and the victim experiences the violation as harmful or incriminating. Thus, regarding the victim, the criteria of negative ties are usually met. Research on social strain and peer pressure explains irregular behavior and can help to explain negative tie’s influence on deviant health behavior (Lee & Lee, 2020).

Attitudes form the second kind of aggregation reflecting negative connections. According to this perspective, it is not so much the single situation that is important for the description of a “connection,” but rather the overall evaluation of the relationship. According to Labianca and Brass (2006, p. 597), negative connections are defined as a persistent, recurring set of negative evaluations, feelings, and behavioral intentions toward the alter.Footnote 2 Labianca and Brass argue that ego develops an overall assessment (like or dislike)—a so-called “negative person schema.” With a closer look, the overall assessment as a “negative relationship” is problematic. Negative aspects are usually associated with ambivalence or with a simultaneity of positive and negative aspects of the relationship, since a purely negative relationship, according to Klein Ikkink and van Tilburg (1999), is usually dissolved due to a lack of benefit (on ambivalence, see also Ajzen, 2001; Coser, 1956; Lüscher, 2011; Ross et al., 2019; Simmel, 1950 [1908]). In accordance with the equal importance of both aspects of the relationship, individuals will find it difficult to give a positive or negative overall assessment. We suspect a bias in favor of positive overall assessments, since ego uses the relationship strategically and thus puts the positive aspects in the foreground.

The third concept of negative ties comes from a social capital perspective. Accordingly, negative relations are those that prevent access to resources (Chauvac et al., 2014, p. 7) or reduce social capital (Borgatti et al., 2014, p. 9). The negative connection consists in a systematic blocking or hindrance of egos trying to get access to specific people or the alter. The social capital approach brings in an additional person into the perspective and changes the view from dyads to triads (see Heider, 1946 and chapter “Social Network Theories: An Overview”).

Although the reference to stigmatization, discrimination, and exclusion is obvious and research on bullying also speaks of “negative ties” (e.g., Kaur & Singh, 2015, p. 24), the link to this macro-sociological perspective is not clear. This is because the unambiguousness of the micro-sociological definition criteria (perceived negativity, dyad perspective, connection) gets lost in the macro-sociological abstraction. First, ego can remain unconscious of discrimination or exclusion (no perceived negativity). Second, the introduction of the relational triad indicates that discrimination can take place even though ego and alter are not interacting directly with one another. The conversation about the discriminated group leads to an avoidance of this group where interaction remains unconsidered (no connection).

The fact that there is a connection between ego and alter is a central aspect of negative ties. However, we need an explanation as to why negative connections persist over time. Offer and Fischer (2018, p. 3–6) provide two possibilities. First, relationships are maintained for strategic cost–benefit considerations. For example, the relationship with an ophthalmologist may be of strategic benefit if ego often has eye complaints but the nearest ophthalmology practice is 50 km away. In this case, a short informal telephone call may save the costly trip to the ophthalmologist. Second, the individual has limited alternatives to this helpful friend and is therefore unable to end the incriminating interaction. Ultimately, a relationship can be so beneficial that the costs, that is, the negative aspects of the relationship, are accepted. According to the second argument, Hess (2000) argues that relationships continue to exist because of costs that are difficult to settle, so-called external and internal barriers. External barriers arise outside the individual and include the binding of the ego and alter through institutional membership of social groups (e.g., church, associations, and kinship), financial obligations and contracts (e.g., joint loans or responsibility for children and housing), or physical proximity (e.g., through neighborhood and workplace) (Bushman & Holt-Lunstad, 2009, p. 754; Hess, 2003). According to Hess (2003), internal barriers consist of the individual’s inner desires and beliefs that lead to the maintenance of a relationship, even if these include negative aspects. Thus, internal barriers contribute to the maintenance of a relationship: so-called self-identity goals that are anchored in the identity and self-image of the individual. Then come the associated feelings of responsibility, duty, and commitment (sense of commitment), followed by beliefs and convictions, such as those of charity and forgiveness (religious beliefs). Hess adds on subtle fears of the consequences that are connected with the dissolution of a relationship (e.g., the fear of hurting someone) (Hess, 2000, 2003, 2016). Therefore, we should understand negative ties as part of ambivalent relationships, where negative and positive aspects come together.

In summary, we characterize negative ties by a connection (1) between ego and alter (dyad perspective) (2), which contains a lack of reciprocity and is therefore perceived by ego as negative or burdensome (3). Negative ties are often connected with exit barriers that are difficult to remove. There are also differences as to whether the negative aspects are understood as tension-filled single situations (interpersonal tensions), as an aggregated overall assessment of the relationship (attitude), or structurally, as barriers to get access to certain persons and networks. In order to take up the current research discourse in all its facets, we speak of negative ties and consider both single situations and overall assessments as each of them contain negative ties. The central question of this chapter deals with the exploration of the state of research on the contribution of negative ties to the reproduction of health inequalities. After having explained what we understand as negative ties, in Sect. 1 we will discuss the relationship between negative relationships and various health parameters in Sect. 2. The question of the extent to which this influence is socially unequally distributed is addressed in Sect. 3. Section 4 concludes with a summary and an outlook where we address the main desiderata for research on negative ties and health inequalities.

2 Negative Ties and Health

Although negative aspects of relationships are less frequent than positive ones (Labianca & Brass, 2006; Offer & Fischer, 2018), empirical findings suggest that, in certain cases, stress from social relationships has a greater health-related effect than positive aspects of relationships (Rook, 1998; Brooks & Dunkel Schetter, 2011). However, there are different results on the prevalence of negative ties depending on sample and operationalization—negative ties in personal networks make up to 8% (Labianca & Brass, 2006, p. 597). More recent findings indicate that the proportion could be much higher in the general population. Offer and Fischer (2018, p. 1) report for the first wave of UCNets (University of California Social Networks Study) that 15% of all relationships are considered “sometimes demanding or difficult.” They examined two cohorts: 21- to 30-year-olds and 50- to 70-year-olds. In terms of effects, Rook (1984) shows for older widowed women that the number of stressful relationships has a greater influence on psychological well-being than the number of supportive relationships. In addition, Cacioppo et al. use the term “negativity bias” to explain that negative information in the brain is given greater significance than positive information (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Ito et al., 1998). Empirical evidence on the connection between negative ties and health comes from different domains. We focus on the following three. Following the argument that negative ties are based on a lack of reciprocity, we can refer to the empirical findings on the effort–reward imbalance model (ERI) (Siegrist, 1996). Although the dyadic aspect is missing in ERI, it is based on the assumption that an imbalance between performed work and received rewards (lack of reciprocity) causes health problems. Knesebeck and Siegrist (2003), Chandola et al. (2007), and Knesebeck et al. (2009) show evidence for ERI in private relationships outside the labor context. Another approach that centers on the social support perspective works with the term “negative social interaction” or negative ties (e.g., Newsom et al., 2008; Offer, 2020). The third approach is based on social strain theory. Agnew (1985) combined earlier concepts with the so-called general strain theory. He focuses on hundreds of types of strains in order to identify those that provoke crime. The social strain approach mainly aims on explaining deviant behaviors (e.g., suicide, drug abuse, and smoking). However, these domains work in disconnect (cf. Offer, 2021). There is consensus on referring to the mechanism of stress to explain effects on health on a biopsychosocial level. As negative aspects of social relationships are often persistent due to strong exit barriers, they are a chronic social stressor (see chapters “Social Networks and Health Inequalities: A New Perspective for Research”, “Social Networks and the Health of Single Parents”). This leads to recurring or long-lasting activation of the body through the stress reaction. This means that the body is put into the “fight-or-flight” state (Cannon, 1932).Footnote 3 This leads to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, increased lung ventilation, and the release of fatty acids and glucose (von Dawans & Heinrichs, 2018). In addition, digestion and antibody production are inhibited (von Dawans & Heinrichs, 2018). The permanent existence of stress-related processes in the body is called “allostatic load.” Interactions that people permanently perceive as negative are associated with high allostatic loads (Seeman et al., 2014). The stress-induced development of disease (allostasis) has already been widely researched (e.g., Rensing, 2013). The association between social stress and cardiovascular diseases is well known, for example, in the case of high blood pressure (Sneed & Cohen, 2014), coronary heart disease (Orth-Gomér, 2007, 2009; de Vogli et al., 2007), or strokes (Tanne et al., 2004). The endocrine system (hormone balance) is also altered by negative interactions. Persistent negative interactions are associated, for example, with high cortisol levels, which weaken the immune system and increase susceptibility to disease (von Dawans & Heinrichs, 2018; Siegrist, 2018). Social stress also reduces wound healing (cytokine production, IL-6, TNFα, IL-1β) or inhibits the associated post-production and renewal of dying cells (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005; Wright & Loving, 2011).

2.1 Negative Ties and Physical Health

In line with the effort–reward imbalance model, there is strong evidence for the association between violation of reciprocity and individual health (Siegrist, 2005; van Vegchel et al., 2005; Siegrist & Li, 2016). Beneath connections with higher blood pressure, insomnia, indigestion, cortisol, and risk of diabetes, research on cardiovascular disease (CVD) is most prevalent with strong empirical evidence (Siegrist & Li, 2016). After analyzing the harmonized data of 11 European prospective cohort studies with a total of 90,164 individuals, Dragano and colleagues draw the conclusion that “Individuals with effort-reward imbalance at work have an increased risk of coronary heart disease, […] this appears to be independent of job strain experienced” (Dragano et al., 2017). Reviews on CVD and ERI support this result (Li et al., 2015; Kivimäki & Siegrist, 2016).

From a social network perspective, there are several overviews on negative ties and health. Brooks and Dunkel Schetter (2011) provide an overview of the literature on social negativity and report associations with less physical health, lower self-rated health, higher morbidity, and mortality, without being exhaustive. A review by Rook (2015), of positive and negative exchanges on health and well-being, focuses on later life. She argues that negative ties (when they occur) have a greater effect on health than positive ones. She reports associations with hypertension, allostatic load, incident coronary events, and mortality due to stroke (Rook, 2015, p. 3). Berkman and Krishna (2014, p. 247) as well as Offer (2021, p. 185f) also provide short overviews. While there is extensive evidence for the supportive effect of positive ties (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Berkman & Krishna, 2014) and the disruptive effect of negative ties on health (Brooks & Dunkel Schetter, 2011; Rook, 2015; Offer, 2021), the interaction between negative and positive ties in the form of ambivalence currently drives the discussion (Ross et al., 2019). Ross et al. (2019) provide an overview of 15 studies that consider the interactive and independent effects of positive and negative ties. They conclude that ambivalent relationships have an effect on health that is independent of positive and negative aspects. Uchino et al. (2012, p. 793) “found the number of ambivalent ties to predict greater cellular aging even after considering a stringent set of control variables (e.g., age, health behaviors, and medication use).”

From a social strain perspective, Guevara and Murdock (2019) report results from the Midlife in the US (MIDUS 2) study (N 763): “Greater social strain was associated with poorer self-reported health (SRH) due to the serial pathway from high anxious arousal to BMI and inflammation” (Guevara & Murdock, 2019, p. 155).

Another physical consequence of negative ties can be physical injuries due to physical violence. As discussed in Sect. 1, violence can be a coping strategy (extreme form of conflict coping) for interpersonal tensions.

2.2 Negative Ties and Mental Health

From the ERI point of view, Theorell et al. (2015) see limited evidence for the association between ERI and depression. They review three studies related to this topic. Two years later, the review by Rugulies et al. (2017) reveals a statistically significant relationship between ERI and a risk of depressive disorders in seven out of eight prospective studies. All eight studies analyze self-reported depression measurements. Wege et al. (2018) close this gap. They reveal robustness of these findings referring to medically diagnosed depression. In addition, Shimazu and Jonge (2009) analyze the causality by using cross-lagged panel regressions (3 waves, 211 Japanese male blue-collar workers). As a result, they find evidence for causality from ERI on psychological distress and physical complaints, while reversed causality exists for mental distress on ERI. Knesebeck and Siegrist (2003), Chandola et al. (2007), and Knesebeck et al. (2009) provide evidence outside the labor context for ERI and higher depression, sleeping disorders, lower mental, and physical health.

An investigation from the negative social exchanges approach comes from Newsom and colleagues (2005). In a study with 916 older adults, they analyzed why a negative social exchange has a greater impact on psychological health than a positive exchange. While using structural equation modeling, they found that a negative social exchange is related to decreased well-being and greater distress. At the same time, a positive exchange is related to increased well-being but less strongly than a negative social exchange. Moreover, they show the underlying process that satisfaction with positive and negative exchanges mediates the links on psychological health (well-being and distress).

However, small fights and arguments can be associated with poor mental health. An explanatory approach is offered by the sociometer theory, according to which self-esteem is an indicator (sociometer) for one’s own social integration (Leary, 2005). According to the sociometer theory, interpersonal conflicts and rejections can reduce psychological resources (e.g., self-confidence and self-efficacy assessment) (see Leary, 2005, 2012). On the other hand, Kiviruusu et al. (2016, p. 2) show that low self-esteem increases the probability of interpersonal conflicts. For a critical, empirically focused discussion of this theory, see the meta-analysis by Blackhart et al. (2009). Both resources (self-awareness and self-efficacy assessment) are negatively associated with depression. Based on a panel study, Stafford et al. (2011) found connections between negative social interactions in close relationships (family, close friends) and depression. In contrast, positive exchanges are not necessarily associated with less depression (Lincoln et al., 2010).

2.3 Negative Ties and Health Behavior

From a sociological perspective, individuals in a social network can collectively act as a control instance, and negative relationship aspects are a form of sanctioning that is intended to influence people to behave in a certain way (cf. Peuckert, 2006). How individuals deal with sanctioning not only depends on the appraisal of negative exchange (Newsom et al., 2005) but also depends on the chosen coping strategy. Although the concept of stigma is not equal to negative ties (see Sect. 1), we can draw knowledge from research on stigma and bullying for an example. On the one hand, weight stigma may lead to various disadvantageous behaviors like avoidance of preventive check-ups, reduced motivation for sporting activities, and refusal of diets (Drury et al., 2002; Puhl & Brownell, 2006; Sykes & McPhail, 2008). On the other hand, coping strategies can reinforce health-promoting behavior. Participation in a self-help group for overweight people, for example, increases the probability of weight loss. In this case, “coping” and “health behavior” are two words for the same behavior.

As there are generally different coping strategies on stress (Hobfoll, 1998), it is interesting from a public health perspective to note the conditions under which people chose self-harming or deviant behaviors. General strain theory is a well-established research tradition that explains deviant (health) behaviors by perceived stress and anger (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). We can rediscover negative ties in the three types of strain: strain from losing something good and valuable; strain from being treated in an aversive or negative manner; and strain from being unable to achieve goals (Agnew & Brezina, 2019, p. 145f). Conceptually, there is an important difference between negative ties and social strain. While social strain comes from various social and environmental elements, negative ties focus on dyads as a small part of this environment. Suicide is a common example for the relationship between social strain and individual health. It also reveals some problems regarding negative ties. While isolation and social contagion seem to play important roles in suicide (Mueller et al., 2021), the influence of negative ties on both of them seems to be quite complex and unclear. For example, special negative ties could be a sign of exclusion (e.g., having a bully). They can also be a sign for integration, because they seem to occur mostly in close relationships (Coser, 1956). Just how and under which conditions negative ties contribute to social strain has yet to be revealed. Apart from suicide, there are other health-related behaviors associated with social strain and peer pressure, like smoking, eating disorders, and alcohol and drug abuse (Merton, 1957).

Swatt et al. (2007), for example, examine whether work-related strain is related to problematic alcohol consumption among police officers in Baltimore, Maryland. Logit and ordinal logit regressions reveal evidence. Furthermore, they show that problematic alcohol consumption is mediated by anxiety and depression.

Although the studies mentioned do not measure negative ties directly, some evidence shows that negative aspects of social relationships contribute to the reproduction of health inequalities in the following ways:

  1. 1.

    On a physical level, stress forms negative tie correlates with high blood pressure, higher risk of cardiovascular disease, insomnia, and indigestion.

  2. 2.

    At the mental level, negative ties relate to reduced mental health, for example, in the form of lower self-esteem and a higher risk of depression.

  3. 3.

    In certain cases, social pressure from negative ties can lead to changes in health behavior, whereby the effects that inhibit or promote health depend on individual contexts. Apart from suicide, alcohol and substance abuse, smoking, and eating disorders are also related to social strain.

3 Social Status and Negative Ties

After discussing the connection between negative ties and health in Sect. 2, this section will examine social inequality. During our research, we did not find studies that systematically analyze the influence of negative ties on the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and health parameters. Instead, we explore the thesis that SES and negative ties are related to one another. More precisely, we look at the theoretical and empirical evidence that links lower SES with ties that are negative. This evidence may partly explain lower health at low SES, although further investigation is needed.

Krause et al. (2008, p. 1013) use two data sets with American seniors to show that financial difficulties are associated with more negative interactions (action-oriented concept, see Sect. 1). In addition, they find no educational effects associated with negative interactions across both data sets. Furthermore, their results suggest that the effects of personal economic difficulties are inhibitory to health when there are more negative social interactions. Negative interactions in the form of “not getting help when it is expected” further reinforce the effect of financial tensions on self-rated health (Krause et al., 2008, p. 1013).

Offer and Fischer (2018), on the other hand, surveyed people who were perceived as particularly difficult. According to this, the results of the University of California’s Social Network Study (UCNets) show opposite effects with this different operationalization. In contrast to the effect of financial tensions just reported, the multivariate analysis by Offer and Fischer does not show a significant connection between income and the number of people perceived as difficult, whereas education shows a significant connection with people perceived as difficult. In the group of people aged between 50 and 70 years, those without higher education have fewer people in their networks who they perceive as being difficult, but at the same time there are more people who they perceive as being ambivalent (Offer & Fischer, 2018).Footnote 4 In summary, existential financial difficulties correlate with negative interactions independent of education, whereas the number of people perceived as difficult depends on the level of education (independent of income). According to de Vogli et al. (2007), people in lower-status groups are more likely to be exposed to negative ties than people in higher-status groups.

There are three explanations for the relation between SES and negative ties. The first argumentation that attempts to explain the connection between financial problems and negative ties comes from Krause et al. (2008) (explanation B). They argue that people with low SES, who have limited resources and the need for assistance, also have difficulties in providing adequate reciprocal services. This tends to lead to burdens and social tensions. Social networks tend to homogenize in the status of their members (Belle, 1983; Phan et al., 2009).Footnote 5 This means that social networks of low-status people likely include more people with financial difficulties, which in turn increase the probability of social tensions arising from financial difficulties. Hobfoll (1998, p. 208) calls this effect the “pressure cooker effect.” Krause et al. (2008) argue that if people themselves have too few resources to cope with problems, they will find it difficult to support others with their problems. Empirical evidence shows that the support from networks of low-status people is often lower, sporadic, unreliable, and characterized by tensions (Offer, 2012, p. 789).

In terms of socialization theory (explanation C), people with lower social status are more likely to experience conflicts because they are raised in everyday life situations, where conflictual behavior is a common solution to resolve social tension (less cooperative behavior). It remains to be examined as to what extent the threat of a loss of resources in lower social strata is seen as more threatening to their existence (than in higher strata) and thus the reaction on social tension is more radical (either anti- or prosocial). Greitemeyer and Sagioglou (2018) present results showing a tendency. They observe that four out of five studies consider that low SES is more associated with behavior that is aggressive.Footnote 6

According to research, processes of social closure and discrimination in the form of bullying in schools are distributed socially unequally. This is a third explanatory approach for the connection between SES and negative aspects of social relationships (explanation A). According to this, people with low SES are more likely to be discriminated against. Although SES is a weak predictor of bullying in school, the meta-study by Tippett and Wolke (2014) shows a significant positive correlation between low SES and the likelihood of being a victim of bullying. The same applies to the workplace. Tsuno et al. (2015) report a significant correlation between low SES and more bullying revived.

To sum up this subchapter, there is a model, which integrates all aspects previously mentioned in a more general form. McCubbin and Patterson (1983) call this model ABC-X model. Within this model, the burden of negative relationships (X) depends on the type of stressors. We mentioned discrimination as an example (see explanation A). The existing resources are another factor (see explanation B). The interpretation of stressors is a third factor. Socialization may shape the interpretations of and reactions on stressors (see explanation C).

4 Conclusion and Discussion

The aim of the paper was to explore the state of research on the contribution of negative ties to the reproduction of health inequalities. To this end, we discussed the term “negative ties” and introduced sociological and psychological concepts as well as possible connections with health and social status. We characterize negative ties by an interaction that ego perceives as tense. Therefore, a connection (tie) between ego and alter (dyad) is necessary to show interpersonal tensions due to violated reciprocity (negativity). Non-breakable exit barriers often accompany these ties and lead to ambivalent relationships. Negative ties affect the body via acts of violence and stress, with corresponding consequences for physical (e.g., a higher risk of CVD, high blood pressure, indigestion) and mental health (e.g., lower self-esteem and a higher risk of depression). They also influence health-related behaviors that can, for example, lead to insomnia, eating disorders, smoking, or alcohol consumption. While there are different coping strategies on social strain, negative ties can be inhibiting or beneficial. From a social science perspective, we need to explain under which conditions peer pressure can lead to beneficial health behaviors. The ABC-X model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) offers an integrating approach to explain the relationship between SES and negative ties. Even though research suggests that there is no significant connection between financial income and persons deemed difficult, having financial problems correlates with having negative interactions. In addition, people with lower SES (weak predictor) have an increased likelihood of falling victim to bullying and showing more aggressive behavior. The explanations in Sects. 2 and 3 support the thesis that negative ties partly explain the influence of social status on health. Based on the findings, the explanatory power of negative ties seems to be relatively low. Nevertheless, an analysis of the extent to which negative ties explain the relationship between SES and health has yet to be done.

In the remarks made so far, considerable gaps in research have already become apparent. However, there are a few more limitations and aspects that are interesting to note. In the research on negative ties, there is a multitude of different terms and measuring instruments that all denote similar aspects but have not yet been systematically brought together. If we understand negative aspects of social relationships as a collective term for many different phenomena, it is worth differentiating between them by looking at what negative aspects there are (e.g., avoidance, conflict, and violence) and how they are associated with health and social inequality. In particular, we hardly noticed negative ties that exist through the avoidance of tensions.

Furthermore, there are three points to discuss the connection between negative ties and health. First, we need to discuss the causal inferences. Social tensions not only affect health, but health also affects social tensions. This is given little attention in research. For example, a study using SOEP data from 2002 to 2008 found that a deterioration in health results in a significant reduction in satisfaction with social contacts (Kriwy & Nisic, 2012). We also know that the use of various drugs (alcohol, cocaine) promotes aggression (Ntounas et al., 2018). The same applies to the connection between negative ties and social inequality. Looking at current studies, researcher often assumes that negative ties have an effect on social inequality. Social inequalities, however, may have an effect on negative ties as well. To determine the extent to which negative aspects of social relationships contribute to social inequality and vice versa, time-sensitive data or experimental designs are required.

Second, especially with regard to health effects, very few studies work with the methodological tools of network analysis, which would allow further insights. From a network perspective, it is interesting to learn the extent to which negative relationship aspects contribute to the formation of groups and network boundaries, the extent to which stress and negative relationship aspects spread in social networks (social contagion), and how this results in “stressed networks” or negative tie networks. Of particular interest is a process perspective. Coser (1956) theorizes that conflicts can make opponents more familiar with each other. This leads to the emergence of common norms and thus promotes the development of networks between them in the long term (Coser, 1956). In addition, he sees conflicts themselves as social relationships, insofar as people repeatedly negotiate their power relations (Coser, 1956).

Third, research on social conflicts often emphasizes their benefits (Bark, 2012; Coser, 1956; Simmel, 1950 [1908]); this also applies to negative aspects of relationships and possible health-promoting effects. The extent to which negative ties have health-promoting effects—for example, through demarcation and the building of identity (Jetten et al., 2017), activation, increased motivation, or the distraction from chronic diseases—could be questions posed from a more salutogenic perspective. Ultimately, it is important to understand negative ties without value judgment as part of a process of interpersonal tension and relaxation, with static and dynamic phases (see Bark, 2012, p. 11; Rüssmann et al., 2015, p. 501).

Reading Recommendations

  • Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. The Free Press. Coser works up Simmel’s text on conflict systematically and formulates 16 theses on functions of social conflict. Thereby he takes the use of social conflicts into view.

  • Harrigan N. M., Labianca G., & Agneessens, F. (2020). Social network research on negative ties and signed graphs. Social Networks, 60. This article documents the latest extensive work dealing with negative ties and discusses current topics.

  • Offer, S. (2021). Negative social ties. Prevalence and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 177–196. Here, Offer defines what negative ties are, how common they are, where they come from, and what their consequences are. In the end, she offers directions for further research.

  • Rook, K. S. (2015). Social networks in later life: weighing positive and negative effects on health and well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 45–51. This paper provides an overview of research on the health effects of positive and negative aspects of social networks.