Anahtar Kelimeler
öznel normlar
Planlı Davranışlar Kuramı
bağlanım
yatırım modeli
seçeneklerin niteliği
ilişki doyumu
ilişkiye yatırım
Nasıl Atıf Yapılır
Öz
Bu çalışmada, flört ilişkisi olan ve evli bireylerin ilişki bağlanımlarını yordayan sosyal ağ değişkenleri hakkında bilgi edinilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla 134 flört ilişkisi olan ve 154 evli kişiye sosyal ağ analizi yapılarak araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen öznel normlar ölçeği ve sosyal ağ özelikleri anketi ile ilişki istikrarı ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar en yakın hissedilen sosyal ağ üyesinin onayının ve partnerlerin birbirlerinin sosyal ağ üyelerinden hoşlanma düzeylerinin, ilişki doyumu ve ilişkiye yapılan yatırımın en iyi yordayıcıları olduğunu göstermiştir. Seçeneklerin niteliğini değerlendirme düzeyini ise sosyal ağ onayı negatif yönde yordamaktadır ve bu da sosyal ağların alternatif ilişkilere yönelmeye bir bariyer işlevi gördüğünü göstermektedir. Flört grubunda sosyal ağ onayı ilişki bağlanımını anlamlı olarak yordarken, evli grupta ise zaten onaylanmış bir ilişki olması nedeniyle sosyal onay ihtiyacının öneminin kalmadığı görülmektedir. En yakın hissedilen sosyal ağ üyesi ise cinsiyete göre değişmemiş ancak ilişki türüne göre farklılık göstermiştir. Flört grubunda kendi ve partnerlerinin sosyal ağından arkadaş en yakın hissedilen sosyal ağ üyesiyken, evli grupta kendi sosyal ağından annenin, partnerinin sosyal ağından kardeşin en yakın hissedilen sosyal ağ üyesi olduğu görülmüştür.
Abstract
The main objective of the study was to obtain information about social network variables in order to predict the relational commitment of married individuals and people having dating relationships. For this purpose, social network analysis has been carried out on 134 people having dating relationship and 154 married individuals and then Relationship Stability Scale, Subjective Norm Scale and Social Network Feature Survey prepared by the researcher were used. The results indicated that the approval of the closest social network member and the level of enjoyment of each other’s social network members had the best predictive value for relationship satisfaction and the investment to the relationship. The results also demonstrated that, approval of the social network had a negative impact on the level of the quality of alternatives and it showed that social networks were seen as a barrier function to have alternative relationships. Furthermore, by dividing social network members into two groups, for the dating group, the approval of the social network was the most significant variable for commitment but in the married group, the need for social network approval was not an important criteria because of having their relationship already confirmed legally. When social network members were categorised and examined, the closest social network members did not differ by sex, but were varied in terms of relationship types. In the flirt group, one of their friends among his/her social network and their partners’ social network was specified as the closest social network member whereas in the married group, the closest social network member among his/her social network was their mother while it was their sibling among partner’s social network.
Keywords: social approval, subjective norms, theory of planned behavior, commitment, investment model, the level of the quality of alternatives, relationship satisfaction, the investment to the relationship
Referanslar
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1042-1057.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. McGraw-Hill International.
Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). An examination of sex differences in social support among older men and women. Sex roles, 17(11-12), 737-749.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of personality and social psychology,73(2), 345-368.
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190-1203.
Besikçi, E., ve Sakallı-Ugurlu, N. (2008). The predictors of relationship commitment: perceived parenting style, parental approval, and psychological reactance. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical Universty, Ankara.
Büyüksahin, A., Hasta, D., &Hovardaoglu, S. (2005). Iliski Istikrarı Ölçegi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalısması, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları,8(16), 25- 37.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: the Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 1-10.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. The developmental social psychology of gender, 123-174.
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton&Company, Inc.
Etcheverry, P. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2004). Subjective norms and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Personal Relationships, 11(4), 409- 428.
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79(4), 1259-1287.
Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships: A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 13-30.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. MA: Addison-Wesley
Haigler, V. F., Day, H. D., & Marshall, D. D. (1995). Parental attachment and gender-role identity. Sex Roles, 33(3-4), 203-220.
Hortacsu, N. (1999). The First Year of Family‐and Couple‐initiated Marriages of a Turkish Sample: A Longitudinal Investigation. International Journal of Psychology, 34(1), 29-41.
Johnson, M. P., & Milardo, R. M. (1984). Network interference in pair relationships: A social psychological recasting of Slater's theory of social regression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 893-899.
Julien, D., & Markman, H. J. (1991). Social support and social networks as determinants of individual and marital outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(4), 549-568.
Kearns, J. N., & Leonard, K. E. (2004). Social networks, structural interdependence, and marital quality over the transition to marriage: a prospective analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 383.
Leslie, L. A., Huston, T. L., & Johnson, M. P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating relationships: Do they make a difference?. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57-66.
Lewis, R. A. (1973). Social reaction and the formation of dyads: An interactionist approach to mate selection. Sociometry, 409-418.
Milardo, R. M. (1982). Friendship networks in developing relationships: Converging and diverging social environments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 162- 172.
Milardo, R. M. (1992). Comparative methods for delineating social networks.Journal of social and personal relationships, 9(3), 447-461.
Milardo, R. M., & Lewis, R. A. (1985). Social networks, families, and mate selection: A transactional analysis. The handbook of family psychology and therapy, 1, 258-283.
Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 964- 976.
Parks, M. R., & Eggert, L. L. (1991). The role of social context in the dynamics of personal relationships. Dynamics of personal relationships. W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, s. 1–34). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Parks, M. R., & Eggert, L. L. (1991). The role of social context in the dynamics of personal relationships. W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, s. 1–34). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., & Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social network involvement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 116-131.
Rands, M. (1988). Changes in social networks following marital separation and divorce. Families and social networks, 27–146.
Ridley, C., & Avery, A. W. (1979). Social network influence on the dyadic relationship. Social exchange in developing relationships, 223-246.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal relationships, 5(4), 357-387.
Shulman, N. (1975). Life-cycle variations in patterns of close relationships.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 813-821.
Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of relationship commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 318-328.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 888-900.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions.Personal Relationships, 7(4), 325-340.
Surra, C. A. (1988). The influence of the interactive network on developing relationships. . In R. M. Milardo (Ed.), Families and social networks (s.48– 82). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(5), 942-966.
Bu çalışma Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License ile lisanslanmıştır.
Telif Hakkı (c) 2015 Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi