TÜRKİYE’DEKİ GELİN VE KAYINVALİDE İLİŞKİLERİNİN ÇEŞİTLİ DEMOGRAFİK VE PSİKOLOJİK DEĞİŞKENLER AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Mevcut çalışmanın amacı gelin ve kayınvalide ilişkisini etkileyen demografik ve psikolojik değişkenleri incelemektir. Bu amaçla kayınvalidesi sağ olan 143 evli kadın katılımcıya ve onların eşlerine ulaşılmıştır. Gelinler; demografik formu, gelin-kayınvalide ilişkisi formunu ve 5 faktör kişilik anketini, kocaları ise aile bağlamında benlik ölçeğini tamamlamıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre, gelin-kayınvalide ilişkisinin yordayıcıları kocanın özerk benlik algısı, kayınvalideyle kültürel uyuşma, kocanın gelininin tarafını tutması, kayınvalideyle algılanan kişilik uyuşması, kayınvalidenin gelinini kötülemesi ve kayınvalideyi anne gibi görmenin önemidir. Kayınvalidenin gelinini başkalarının yanında kötülemesi haricinde bütün değişkenler olumlu gelin ve kayınvalide ilişkisini pozitif yönde yordamıştır. Ayrıca, gelinin eğitim seviyesine ve çalışma durumuna göre gelin ve kayınvalide ilişkisi farklılaşmamıştır. Algılanan sosyo-ekonomik düzey orta veya orta üstü ise düşük sosyo-ekonomik düzeye kıyasla gelin-kayınvalide ilişkileri daha olumludur. Görücü usulü veya severek evlenme biçimi de gelin -kayınvalide ilişkilerini farklılaştırmamıştır. Son olarak, kayınvalidesini annesi gibi gören gelinlerin kayınvalideleriyle ilişkileri daha olumlu bulunmuştur. Mevcut çalışma gelin-kayınvalide ilişkilerine etki eden değişkenleri tespit ettiğinden bulgularından özellikle müdahale çalışmalarında ve çift ve evlilik terapilerinde faydalanılabilir.

Keywords

• aile
• gelin ve kayınvalide ilişkisi
• özerk-ilişkisel benlik
• gelin kayınvalide kişilik uyuşması

Supporting Institution

Destekleyen bir kuruluş bulunmamaktadır.

Ethical Statement

Çalışma, etik kurul izni alınarak gerçekleştirilmiştir.

EXAMINING DAUGHTER-IN-LAW–-MOTHER-IN-LAW RELATIONSHIPS IN TÜRKİYE IN TERMS OF VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES

Abstract

The current study aims to examine the demographic and psychological variables affecting the daughter-in-law–mother-in-law relationship. For this purpose, 143 married women participants whose mothers-in-law were alive, and their spouses were included in the study. The daughters-in-law completed the demographic information form, the daughter-in-law–mother-in-law relationship form and the Five-Factor Personality Inventory, while their husbands completed the Family Context Self Scale. According to the results of the study, the predictors of the mother-in-law-daughter-in-law relationship are the husband's autonomous self-perception, cultural compatibility with the mother-in-law, the husband taking the side of his daughter-in-law, personality compatibility with the mother-in-law, the mother-in-law's disparagement of her daughter-in-law and the importance attributed to perceiving the mother-in-law as a mother figure. All variables positively predicted the positive mother-in-law-daughter-in-law relationship except the mother-in-law's disparagement from her daughter-in-law in front of others. In addition, the mother-in-law-daughter-in-law relationship did not differ according to the education level and employment status of the daughter-in-law. Perceived socioeconomic status also played a role, such that relationships were more positive among participants with middle or upper-middle socioeconomic status compared to those with lower socioeconomic status. Neither arranged marriages nor marriages based on mutual choice led to significant differences in daughter-in-law–mother-in-law relationships. Finally, daughters-in-law who perceived their mothers-in-law as maternal figures reported more positive relationships. By identifying key variables that influence daughter-in-law–mother-in-law relationships, the findings of this study may be particularly useful for intervention programs as well as couple and marital therapy practices.

Keywords

• family
• daughter and mother-in-law relationship
• autonomous-relational self
• daughter and mother-in-law personality congruence

Supporting Institution

There is no supporting organization.

Ethical Statement

The study was conducted with the approval of the ethics committee.

References

1. Altunsu-Sönmez, Ö. (2019). Gelin kaynana çatışması üzerine sosyolojik bir analiz. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(19), 1159-1201. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.595849
2. Aluş, Y. (2015). Kültürel ve Toplumsal gerçekliğimiz açısından aile anlayışlarının ve Türk ailesinin değerlendirmesi. PESA Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 15-24.
3. American Psychological Association [APA] (2026). Socioeconomic status. https://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status
4. An, Z. (2014). The dilemma of receiving support from in-laws: a study of the discourse of online pregnancy and childbirth support groups. China Media Research, 10(3). https://www.chinamediaresearch.net/readmore/vol10no3/CMR140305%20Zhen%20An.jpg Anderson, C., Keltner, D., and John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84, 1054-1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1054
5. Anglin, A.H., Kincaid, P.A., Short, J.C. ve Allen, D.G. (2022). Role theory perspectives: past, present, and future applications of role theories in management research. Journal of Management, 48(6),1-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221081442
6. Annisa, Q., Ahmad, A.B. ve Al Faidah, A.W. (2024). Exploring mother-in-law and daughter-in-law conflicts in contemporary family structures. Journal of Islamic Family Law, 2 (2), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.30983/usraty.v2i2.8814
7. Aydın, E. (2017). Anne-oğul bağlanmasının gelin-kayınvalide ilişkisini ve evlilik doyumunu yordamadaki rolü. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi.
8. Aydın, E. ve Canel, A.N. (2017). Anne-oğul bağlanmasının gelin-kayınvalide ilişkisi ve evlilik doyumunu yordamadaki rolü. Marmara Üniversitesi Kadın ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.26695/mukatcad.2018.7

9. Bacanlı, H., İlhan, T. ve Aslan, S. (2009). Beş faktör kuramına dayalı bir kişilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Sıfatlara dayalı kişilik testi (SDKT). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 261-279.
10. Becker, R. (2022). Gender and survey participation. An event history analysis of the gender effects of survey participation in a probability-based multi-wave panel study with a sequential mixed-mode design. Methods, Data, Analysis, 16(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2021.08
11. Becker, R., Möser, S. ve Glauser, D. (2019), Cash vs. vouchers vs. gifts in web surveys of a mature panel study – Main effects in a long-term incentives experiment across three panel waves. Social Science Research, 81, 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.02.008
12. Becker, R. ve Glauser, D. (2018). Are prepaid monetary incentives sufficient for reducing panel attrition and optimizing the response rate? An experiment in the context of a multi-wave panel with a sequential mixed-mode design. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 137, 74-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106318762456
13. Benet-Martinez, V. ve John, O.P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analysis of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729
14. Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67‐92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
15. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.
16. Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. J. Bowlby (Ed.), A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development içinde (s.158-180). Basic Books, Inc.
17. Buist, K.L., Decovic, M., Meeus, W.H. ve van Aken, A.G. (2004). Attachment in adolescence: A social relations model analysis. Journal of Adolescent Res, 19, 826-850. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403260109
18. Cooper, M.L. ve Sheldon, M.S. (2002). Seventy years of research on personality and close relationships: substantive and methodological trends over time. J Pers. 70(6), 783-812. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05024
19. Çakır, Ş. (2023). Gelin kaynana ilişkisinde akrabalık bağının yeri ve rolü. Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırma Dergisi, 11 (36), 122-144. https://doi.org/10.33692/avrasyad.1266704
20. Çelik, M. (2006). Evlilik doyum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması [Doktora Tezi]. Çukurova Üniversitesi.
21. Crumpacker, M., ve Crumpacker, J. M. (2007). Succession planning and generational Stereotypes: Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factoror a passing Fad? PublicPersonnel Management, 36(4), 349-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600703600
22. Çoğalan, Y. (2017). Evli bireylerin kök aileleriyle ilişkileri ve evlilik uyumları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. 19 Mayıs Üniversitesi.
23. Costa, P.T. ve Mccrae, R.R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64 (1), 21-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2
24. Daneshpour, M. (2017). Family therapy with Muslims. Routledge.
25. Deci, E. ve Ryan, R. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
26. Delaney, C. (1991). The seed and the soil: Gender and cosmology in Turkish village society. University of California Press.
27. Ejaz, S.S., Iqbal, F. ve Ara, A. (2012), Relationship among personality traits and conflict handling styles of call center representatives and appraisal of existing service model. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(4), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v4n4p27.
28. Falcke, D., Wagner, A. ve Mosmann, C. P. (2008). The relationship between family-of-origin and marital adjustment for couples in Brazil. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 19(2), 170-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975350801905020
29. Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B. ve Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93, 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34
30. Gubbins, C.A., Perosa, L.M. ve Bartle-Haring, S. (2010). Relationships between married couples’ self differentiation/individuation and Gottman’s model of marital interactions. Contemporary Family Therapy, 32, 383-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-010-9132-4
31. Gurman, A. S., ve Kniskern, D. P. (1981). Family therapy outcome research: Knowns and unknowns. Handbook of family therapy, 1, 742-775. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315803944
32. Gültekin, D.T. ve Parlar, H. (2019). Evlenme biçimi ve evlenme süresi bağlamında evlilik öncesi sürecin kadınlardaki evlilik doyumuna etkisi. APJEC - Academic Platform Journal of Education and Change, 2(1), 38-56.
33. Haeberle, K., Herzberg, J. ve Hobby, T. (2009). Leading the Multigenerational work Force. Healthcare Executive, 24(5), 66-67.
34. Hojat, M. ve Mehryar, A. H. (2003). Iran. J. J. Ponzetti, (Ed.), International encyclopedia of marriage and family içinde (2. Baskı, s. 949-952). Macmillan.
35. İpek, A, N. (2021). Gelin-kayınvalide ilişkileri ile evlilik doyumu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Journal of Sustainable Educational Studies, 2(1), 35-49.
36. Jean Turner, M., Young, C. R. ve Black, K. I. (2006). Daughters-in-Law and mothers-in-Law seeking their place within the family: A qualitative study of differing viewpoints. Family Relations, 55(5), 588-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00428.x
37. Kağitcibaşi, C. (2013). Autonomous-Related Self. Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications içinde (s.165-207). Erlbaum.
38. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2010). Benlik, aile ve insan gelişimi: Kültürel psikoloji. Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
39. Kağitcibaşi, Ç. (2005) Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: implications for self and family. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 36, 403-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959 14.
40. Kahraman, B. (2021). Gelin-kayınvalide ilişkileri ve çift uyumu arasında benliğin ayrımlaşmasının düzenleyici rolü [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Aile Danışmanlığı Bilim Dalı.
41. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
42. Kaya, T. (2019). Gelin-kaynana iletişiminin niteliğini belirleyen kültürel etmenler. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 6(1), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.459590
43. Keleş, H. N. (2011). Y kuşağı çalışanlarının motivasyon profillerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2),129-139.
44. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press.
45. Kenny, D. A. ve Kashy, D. A. (1994). Enhanced co-orientation in the perception of friends: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1024-1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1024
46. Luo, S. ve Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: a couple-centered approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88, 304-326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304
47. Mat, C. ve Güloğlu, B. (2023). Personality traits, interpersonal conflict resolution strategies and coping skills among x, y, z generations. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 13(68), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1211929c
48. Merrill, D. M. (2007). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: Understanding the relationship and what makes them friends or foe. Praeger.
49. Morr-Serewicz, M. C. ve Hosmer, R. A. (2011). Inlaws or outlaws? W. R. Cupach ve B. H. Spitzberg (Eds), The darkside of close relationships (2. bsk., s. 224-242) içinde. Routledge.
50. Nastasee, A. (1995). Analysis of the relationship mothers in law and daughters in law: a systems perspective [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. The Pennsylvania State Univertsity.
51. Pagente, A. (2023). Social construction of a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relationship: a case study perspective. Sci.Int.(Lahore),35(6), 815-818.
52. Paş, B. ve Kulluoğu, M.P. (2020). Aile içi çatışmalarda kayınvalide faktörü. Sağlık ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 55-57.
53. Rittenour, C. (2012). Daughter-in-law standards for mother-in-law communication: Associations with daughter-in-law perceptions of relational satisfaction and shared family identity. Journal of Family Communication, 12(2), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2010.537240
54. Rittenour, C. E. (2009). Communication and shared family identity in mother-inlaw/daughter-in-law relationships: implications for relational outcomes and future family functioning. [Doktora tezi]. The University of Nebraska.
55. San, L.M. ve Juhari, R. (2021). Positive and negative interactions between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law: what about son-in-law? Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(5), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v6i5.778
56. Santos, J. D. ve Levitt, M. J. (2007). Intergenerational relations with in-laws in the context of theSocial Convoy: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 827-843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00539.x
57. Saputra, F., Hartati, N. ve Aviani, Y. I. (2017). Perbedaan kepuasan pernikahan antara pasutri yang serumah dan terpisah Dari orangtua/mertua. Jurnal RAP (Riset Aktual Psikologi Universitas Negeri Padang), 5(2), 136-145. https://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/psikologi/article/view/6628
58. Sekścińska, K., Trzcińska, A. ve Maison, D. A. (2016). The influence of different social roles activation on women’s financial and consumer choices. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00365
59. Sharf, R. S. (2004). Theories of psychotherapy and counseling: Concepts and cases (6.Basım). Cangage Learning.
60. Shih, K. Y. ve Pyke, K. (2016). Power, resistance, and emotional economies in women’s relationships with mothersin-law in chinese ımmigrant families. Journal of Family Issues, 31(3), 333-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X09350875
61. Skowron, E. A. (2000). The role of differentiation of self in marital adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.229 Skowron, E. A., Stanley, K. L. ve Shapiro, M. D. (2009). A longitudinal perspective on differentiation of self, interpersonal and psychological well-being in young adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy, 31(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-008-9075-1
62. Slauson-Blevins, K. ve Johnson, K.M. (2016). Doing gender, doing survey? Women’s gatekeeping and men’s non-participation in multi-actor reproductive surveys. Sociological Inquiry, 86(3), 427449. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12122
63. Song, Y. ve Zhang, Y. B. (2012). Husbands' conflict styles in Chinese mother/daughter-inlaw conflicts: daughters-in-law's perspectives. Journal of Family Communication, 12(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2011.629968
64. Song, Y. (2009). Perceptions of the adult son/husband’s mediation styles in Chinese mother/daughter-in-law conflicts [Doktora tezi]. University of Kansas.
65. Sümer, N. ve Sümer, H.C. (2005). Beş faktör kişilik özellikleri ölçeği. (Yayınlanmamış çalışma).
66. Şendil, G. ve Korkut, Y. (2008). Evli çiftlerdeki çift uyumu ve evlilik çatışmasının demografik özellikler açısından incelenmesi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 28, 15-34.
67. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
68. Tehrani, H.D. ve Yamini, S. (2020). Personality traits and conflict resolution styles: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109794.
69. Thomas, P.A., Liu, H. ve Umberson, D. (2017). Family relationships and well-being. Innov Aging. 1(3), igx025. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx025.
70. Topham, G. L., Larson, J. H. ve Holman, T. B. (2005). Family of origin predictors of hostile conflict in early marriage. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-004-1973-2
71. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK] (2023). Doğum İstatistikleri, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Dogum-Istatistikleri-2023-53708#:~:text=Canl%C4%B1%20do%C4%9Fan%20bebek%20say%C4%B1s%C4%B1%202023,%2C7'si%20k%C4%B1z%20oldu.&text=Toplam%20do%C4%9Furganl%C4%B1k%20h%C4%B1z%C4%B1%2C%20bir%20kad%C4%B1n%C4%B1n,ortalama%20%C3%A7ocuk%20say%C4%B1s%C4%B1n%C4%B1%20ifade%20etmektedir.
72. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK] (2023). İstatistiklerle Kadın, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Kadin-2023-53675#:~:text=Ortalama%20ilk%20evlenme%20ya%C5%9F%C4%B1%20kad%C4%B1nlarda%2025%2C7%20oldu&text=Ortalama%20ilk%20evlenme%20ya%C5%9F%C4%B1n%C4%B1n%20en,2%20ya%C5%9F%20ile%20%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa%20oldu.
73. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK] (2021). Türkiye aile yapısı araştırması, 2021. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Turkiye-Aile-Yapisi-Arastirmasi-2021-45813
74. Wu, T. F., Yeh, K. H., Cross, S. E., Larson, L. M., Wang, Y. C., ve Tsai, Y. L. (2010). Conflict with mothers-inlaw and Taiwanese women’s marital satisfaction: The moderating role of husband support. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(4), 497-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009353071
75. Yakalı-Çamoğlu, D. (2007). Turkish family narratives: The relationships between mothersand daughters-in-law. Journal of Family History, 32(2), 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363199006297508
76. Yeşiltepe, S.S. (2011). Öğretmenlerin evlilik uyumlarının psikolojik iyi oluş ve bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
77. Zheng, R. (2016). The relationships between confucian family values and attitudes toward divorce in mainland china: An exploratory study. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Syracuse University, Child and Family Studies.