Beliren Yetişkinlikte Romantik Yakınlığı Kim Başlatabilir? Kişilik Özellikleri ve Kimlik Statüler

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada amaç, beliren yetişkinlikte romantik yakınlığı başlatma ile cinsiyet, kişilik özellikleri ve kimlik statüleri arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektir.Yöntem: Bu araştırma, 19-25 yaşları arasındaki üniversite öğrencilerinden oluşan 240 beliren yetişkin yer almıştır. Çalışmada, romantik yakınlığı başlatma ile kişilik özellikleri, cinsiyet ve kimlik statüleri arasındaki ilişkiler incelenmiştir. Çalışmada Romantik Yakınlığı Başlatma Belirleyicileri Ölçeği, Sıfatlara Dayalı Kişilik Testi ve Kimlik Statüleri Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde t-testi ve basit regresyon analizi yönteminden faydalanılmıştır.Bulgular:Yapılan analizlerin sonucuna göre, romantik yakınlığı başlatma konusunda cinsiyete dayalı fark bulunmuştur. Duygusal açıdan dengesizlik, dışa dönüklük, deneyime açıklık kişilik özelliklerinin ve ipotekli kimlik statüsüne sahip olmanın romantik yakınlığı başlatma ile anlamlı düzeyde ilişkili olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.Sonuç: Beliren yetişkinlikte romantik yakınlığı başlatmada cinsiyet, kişilik özellikleri ve kimlik statüleri önemlidir. Bulgular, beliren yetişkinlik dönemi, kültürel yapı, toplumsal cinsiyet ve kişilik özellikleri bağlamında tartışılmıştır

Keywords

• Anahtar Sözcükler: Beliren Yetişkinlik, Romantik Yakınlık, Kişilik, Kimlik

Who Can Initiate a Romantic Intimacy in the Period of Emerging Adulthood? Personality Traits and Identity Status

Abstract

Objective: This study examines the relationship between starting romantic intimacy, personality traits, gender, and identity status.Method: There are two sub-studies in this study. In this study, there are 240 participants. Participants are university students. Adjective Based Personality Test, EOM-EIS Extended Version of Objective Measure of Ego Identity Scale and Markers of Starting Romantic Intimacy Scale are used. In the study, t-test was used to determine whether or not gender plays a significant role in initiating a romantic intimate relationship, and also basic regression analysis was employed to uncover the interaction between initiating a romantic intimate relationship and certain personality traits.Results: It is found that there is gender difference on starting romantic intimacy. Regression analysis shows that Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, and also Identity Foreclose are the most important factors for starting romantic intimacy.Conclusion: The findings of the study suggest that there is a statistically significant relationship between starting romantic intimacy, gender, personality traits and identity status. Results were found parallel with the literature, and also are discussed with respect to emerging adulthood, gender, personality traits and cultural factors

Keywords

• Emerging Adulthood,Romantic Relationship,Personality,Identity

References

1. Adams, GR & Archer ,SL (1994). Identity: A precursor to intimacy. In Archer (Eds.), Interventions for adolescent identity development (pp. 193-213). London: Sage Publications.
2. Arnett, JJ (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Per- sonality and Individual Differences, 16, 289-296.
3. Arnett ,JJ (1997). Young people’s conceptions of the transition to adulthood. Youth and Society, 29, 1-23.
4. Arnett, JJ (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41, 295-315.
5. Arnett, JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
6. Arnett, JJ (2003). Conceptions of the transition to adulthood among emerging adults in American ethnic groups. pp. 63-75 in Exploring Cultural Conceptions of the Transition to Adulthood (New Directions for Child and Adolescent Develop- ment, volume 100), edited by JJ. Arnett & N. Galambos. New York: Wiley Pe- riodicals, Inc. 24.
7. Arnett ,JJ (2004). Emerging Adulthood. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
8. Atak,H (2005). Beliren yetişkinlik: Yeni bir yaşam döneminin Türkiye’de incelen- mesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilinleri Enstitüsü: Ankara.

9. Atak,H (2006). Türkiye’de yetişkinlik ölçütleri: Dengeye ulaşma mı, sınırlandırılmışlık mı?, XIV. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, 6-8 Eylül.
10. Atak, H,& Çok F (2007). Emerging adulthood and perceived adulthood in Turkey, 3rd Conference on Emerging Adulthood, Tucson, AZ, USA, 15-16 February.
11. Bacanlı H, İlhan T& Aslan S (2009). Beş Faktör Kuramına Dayalı Bir Kişilik
12. Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Sıfatlara Dayalı Kişilik Testi (SDTK). Türk Eğitim Bilim- leri Dergisi, 7 (2), 261–279.
13. Bartle-Haring, S.& Strimple RE (1996). Association of identity and intimacy: An explora- tion of gender and sex-role orientation. Psychological Reports, 79, 1255-1264.
14. Battarbee, K , Baerten N, & Loeber S (2002) Pools and Satellites Intimacy in the City. Proceedings of DIS 2002, ACM, 237-245.
15. Bennion, LD & Adams GR (1986) A revision of the extended version of the objec- tive measure of ego identity status; an identity instrument for use with late ado- lescents. J Adolescent Research 1:183-198.
16. Casper ,LM,& Bianchi SM (2002). Continuity and Change in the American Family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Connolly, J, &Konarsky R (1994). Peer self-concept in adolescence: Analysis of fac- tor structure and of associations with peer experience. Journal of Research in. Adolescence, 4, 385-403.
18. Craig-Bray, L, Adams GR, & Dobson WR (1988). Identity formation and social relati- ons during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(2), 173-187.
19. Creasey G, Kershaw K, &Boston A(1999). Conflict management with friends and ro- mantic partners: The role of attachment and negative mood regulation expectan- cies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 523–543.
20. Erikson, EH (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
21. Eryılmaz, A (2004). Ergenlik ve genç yetişkinlik döneminde romantik yakınlığı baş- latmada algılanan kontrol. Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ya- yınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
22. Eryılmaz, A (2006). Perceived control to start romantic intimacy at adolescence and young adulthood periods. paper presented at the Xth Conference of European As- sociation for Research on Adolescence, Antalya, Turkey, May 2–6.
23. Eryılmaz ,A, &Atak H (2007a). Kız ergenlerin bakış açısıyla kadınlık ve erkeklik toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargıları: “Ah Bir de özgür olsam”. 1. Psikoloji Lisan- süstü Öğrencileri Kongresi, İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye, 21-24 Haziran.
24. Eryılmaz, A,& Atak H (2007b). Hazır ya da değilim: Beliren yetişkinlik (emerging adulthood) döneminde romantik yakınlığı başlatmanın belirleyicileri. 1. Psikoloji Lisansüstü Öğrencileri Kongresi Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı,, İzmir Ekonomi Üni- versitesi, İzmir, Türkiye, 21-24 Haziran.
25. Eryılmaz ,A, &Atak H (2009). Ready or not? Markers of starting romantic intimacy at emerging adulthood: Turkish experience. International Journal of Social Sci- ence, 4 (1), 31-38.
26. Eryılmaz, A,& İlhan T (2009). Aşk deneyimlerinin kapısı olarak beliren yetişkinlikte romantik yakınlığı başlatma. 10. Ulusal Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Kong- resi Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana, Türkiye, 21-24 Ekim.
27. Eryüksel ,GN, &Varan A (1999) Benlik Kimliği Statülerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Ya- yınlanmamış Makale.
28. Evinc, S. G. (2004). Maternal personality characteristics, affective state, and psychopat- hology in relation to children’s attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder as-nd comorbid symptoms. Unpublished Master Thesis, METU, Ankara.
29. Furjman, W, Schaffer, L (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent de- velopment. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual beha- vior: Theory, research, and practical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Guneri, O, Sumer, Z, Yıldırım ,A (1999). Sources of self-identity among Turkish ado- lescents, Adolescence. 34, 135, 535-546.
31. Hatfield , E (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R. J. Sternberg., & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (p.191-213). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
32. John , OP, Srivastava S (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of perso- nality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
33. Karney, BR,& Bradbury TN(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
34. Kwan, VSY, Bond MH, & Singelis TM (1997). Pan cultural explanations for life sa- tisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,1038–1051.
35. Lacombe, AC, & Gay J (1998). The role of gender in adolescent identity and intimacy decisions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(6), 795-802.
36. Marcia, J (1989). Identity and intervention. J Adolescence, 12:401-410.
37. Marcia ,J (1994). The emprical study of ego identity. Identity and Development: On
38. Interdisciplinary approach içinde, HA Bosma (Ed), Couf, Thousand Oaks, s:67-80.
39. Marcia, J (2002). Adolescence, identity, and the Bernardone family. Identity: An In- ternational. J Theory and Research. 2(3):199-209.
40. McCrae, RR,& Costa PT (1999). A Five-Factor theory of personality. In L. A. Per- vin O P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford.
41. McCrae , RR,& Costa PT (2003). Personality İn Adulthood. New York: The Guil- ford Press.
42. Moss, MF, &Schwebel AI (1993). Marriage and romantic relationships: defining inti- macy in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 42, 7-31.
43. Myers, DG (1996). Social psychology. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
44. Orlofsky, J (1976). Intimacy status: Relationship to interpersonal perception. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 73-88.
45. Robson, D, &Robson M (1998) Intimacy and Computer Communication. British Jo- urnal of Guidance and Counselling, 26(1):33-42
46. Prager, KJ (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: The Guilford Press.
47. Sternberg , RJ (1986). Triangulating love. Psychological Rewiev, 93, 119-135.
48. Sternberg, RJ (1988). A triangular theory of love. In R.J. Sternberg., & M.L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (P.68-99). New Haven and London: Yale Uni- versity Press.
49. Sternberg, RJ (1999). Cupid’s arrow: the course of love through time. UK: Camb- ridge University Press.
50. White, JK, Hendrick SS, & Hendrick C (2004). Big five personality variables and re- lationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519–1530.