GENÇ YETİŞKİNLİKTE SOSYAL AĞ HİYERARŞİSİ: SOSYAL ATOM TEORİSİ BAĞLAMINDA MALATYA, TÜRKİYE, ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÖRNEKLEMİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Abstract

Kültürel ve psikolojik faktörlerin genç yetişkinlikte bağlanma hiyerarşisi üzerine etkilerini ortaya koymayı amaçlayan bu çalışma, Malatya evreninde 20-24 yaşlar arasındaki 296 öğrenci örnekleminde gerçekleştirilmiştir. “Ben” çekirdeğine en yakın dairede yer alanlar sırasıyla %76,4 oranla anne, %43,6 oranla baba, %36,5 oranla kardeş, %20,9 oranla arkadaştır. Sevgilisi olanlar içinde %31,9’ü sevgiliyi ilk halkaya yerleştirmiştir. Genç kızların kaçınma düzeyleri erkeklere oranla istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha yüksektir (χ 2 =21,083 p=0,000). Çocuklukta ailenin parçalanmış aile olması kaygı düzeyini istatistiksel
açıdan anlamlı düzeyde arttırmaktadır (χ 2 =10,078 p=0,002). Kaçınma düzeyi yüksek olanlarda, sevgilinin bulunduğu çember değeri ve sosyal atomdaki arkadaş sayısı anlamlı ölçüde daha düşüktür. Kaçınma düzeyinin yüksekliği, birinci çemberdeki kişi sayısının azalması ile sonuçlanmakta, ilk çembere arkadaşın alınmasını ve sevgili edinmeyi önemli derecede azaltmaktadır. Sosyal Atom Hacmi ve bağlanmada kaçınma sevgilisi olmayı etkileyen değişkenlerdir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Bağlanma boyutları, Sosyal atom, Genç yetişkin, Yakın ilişkiler, Bağlanma hiyerarşisi

 

THE SOCIAL NETWORK HIERARCHY IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD: A RESEARCH TROUGH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS SAMPLES IN MALATYA, TURKEY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL ATOM THEORY

Abstract

This study, carried out in Malatya province among 296 student samples aged between 20-24, aims to reveal the effects of psychological and cultural factors on attachment hierarchy in young adulthood. The persons placed closest to the “Me” nucleus are the mother (76.4%), father (43.6%), sibling (36.5%) and friend (20.9%) respectively. Among those with a romantic partner, 31.9% place the romantic partner in the first circle. The avoidance levels of young females are statistically significantly higher than young males (χ 2 =21.083 p=0.000). A separated family during childhood statistically significantly increase the attachment anxiety level (χ 2 =10.078 p=0.002). The circle value the romantic partner is placed in and the numbers of friends in the social atom are significantly smaller in subjects with a high avoidance level. Increased attachment avoidance levels result in decreased number of persons in the first circle, thus, reducing significantly both placing friends in the first circle and having a romantic partner. The Social Atom Volume and avoidance of attachment, as our study demonstrate, are factors that influence having a romantic partner.

Key Words: Attachment dimensions, Social atom, Young adult, Close relationships, Attachment hierarchy

Keywords

• Bağlanma boyutları
• Sosyal atom
• Genç yetişkin
• Yakın ilişkiler
• Bağlanma hiyerarşisi

THE SOCIAL NETWORK HIERARCHY IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD: A RESEARCH TROUGH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS SAMPLES IN MALATYA, TURKEY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL ATOM THEORY

Abstract

This study, carried out in Malatya province among 296 student samples aged between 20-24, aims to reveal the effects of psychological and cultural factors on attachment hierarchy in young adulthood. The persons placed closest to the “Me” nucleus are the mother (76.4%), father (43.6%), sibling (36.5%) and friend (20.9%) respectively. Among those with a romantic partner, 31.9% place the romantic partner in the first circle. The avoidance levels of young females are statistically significantly higher than young males (χ 2 =21.083 p=0.000). A separated family during childhood statistically significantly increase the attachment anxiety level (χ 2 =10.078 p=0.002). The circle value the romantic partner is placed in and the numbers of friends in the social atom are significantly smaller in subjects with a high avoidance level. Increased attachment avoidance levels result in decreased number of persons in the first circle, thus, reducing significantly both placing friends in the first circle and having a romantic partner. The Social Atom Volume and avoidance of attachment, as our study demonstrate, are factors that influence having a romantic partner.

Key Words: Attachment dimensions, Social atom, Young adult, Close relationships, Attachment hierarchy

Keywords

• Attachment dimensions
• Social atom
• Young adult
• Close relationships
• Attachment hierarchy

References

1. Aron, A., Aron E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992), Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
2. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991), Attachment styles in young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 226-244.
3. Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995), The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
4. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991), Childhood experience, interpersonal de- velopment, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647–670.
5. Bem, S. L. (1981), Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychologi- cal Review, 88, 354-364.
6. Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1994), The structure and function of adult attachment. İn M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 3-28). New York: Guilford.
7. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989), The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807.
8. Bowlby, J. (1979), The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London, Tavistock.

9. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998), Self report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & S. W. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.
10. Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2004), The construction of experience: A longitudinal study of representation and behavior. Child Development, 75, 66–83.
11. Çelik, Ş. (2004), The effects of an attachment-oriented- psychoeducational-group-training on improving the preoccupied attachment styles of university students. Dissertation, Mid- dle East Technical University, Ankara.
12. Chisholm, J. S. (1996), The evolutionary ecology of attachment organization. Human Nature, 7, 1-38.
13. Chodorow, N. (1978), Mothering, object-relations, and the female oedipal configuration. Feminist Studies, 4, 137-158.
14. Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990), Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
15. Dalton, W., Frick-Horbury, D., & Kitzmann, K. (2006), Young adults’ retrospective reports of parenting by mothers and fathers: Associations with current relationship quality. Journal of General Psychology, 133, 5-18.
16. Dökmen, Ü. (1993), Sosyal Atom Ölçeği: Geliştirilmesi, güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi. 8 (30): 26.
17. Dökmen, Ü. (2005), Sosyometri ve Psikodrama, Sistem Yayıncılık: 29, İstanbul. 97-105. Downing, V. L. (2008), Attachment style, relationship satisfaction, intimacy, loneliness, gender role beliefs, and the expression of authentic self in romantic relationships. Dis- sertation, University of Maryland.
18. Edelstein, R. S. & Gillath, O. (2008), Avoiding interference: Adult attachment and emotional processing biases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 171-181.
19. Erikson, E. H. (1950), Childhood and Society. Rev. ed. London: Vintage, 1995.
20. Erikson, E. H. (1968), Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
21. Feeney, J. A. (2004), Transfer of attachment from parents to romantic partners: Effects of individual and relationship variables. Journal of Family Studies, 10, 220-238.
22. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990), Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relation- ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.
23. Feeney, J.A. (1999), Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory and research. 355-78. New York:Guilford Press.
24. Fraley, R.C., & Davis K.E. (1997), Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131-144.
25. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000), An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.
26. Hill, R.A. & Dunbar, R.I.M. (2003), Social network size in humans. Human Nature 14(1): 53-72.
27. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987), Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
28. Heffernan M.E, Fraley R.C., Vicary A.M.,& Brumbaugh C.C. (2013), Attachment features and functions in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 29(5) 671–693.
29. Hinde, R. A. (1989), Ethological and relationship approaches. In R. Vatsa (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, (6;251-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
30. Hollander, S. (1974), Social atom An alternative to imprisonment. Journal of Group Psy- choterapy, Psychodrama. & Sociometry, 47, 1 - 18.
31. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1982), Sex roles, value of children and fertility in Turkey. Indian University Turkish studies: Vol. 3. Sex Roles, family and community in Turkey (Ed: Ç. Kağıtçıbaşı) Indiana University Press: Indiana.
32. Kahn, D., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980), The hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, 13, 10–12.
33. Kalter, N. (1987), Long-term effects of divorce on children: A developmental vulnerability model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 585-600.
34. Keren, E., & Mayseless, O. (2013), The freedom to choose secure attachment relationships in adulthood. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 174, 271–290.
35. Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (2002), Separation individualization, adult attachment style, and college adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 484-495.
36. LeCroy, C. (1988), Parent-adolescent intimacy: Impact on adolescent functioning. Ado- lescence, 23, 137-147.
37. Locke, K. D. (2008), Attachment styles and interpersonal approach and avoidance goals in everyday couple interactions. Personal Relationships, 15, 359–374.
38. Lundberg, G. A. (1948), Human Social Problems as a Type of Disequilibrium in a Biologi- cal Integration. American Sociological Review 13, 689-699.
39. Main, M. (1990), Parental aversion to infant-initiated contact is correlated with the par- ent’s own rejection during childhood: The effects of experience on signals of security with respect to attachment. In T. B. Brazelton and K. Barnard (Eds.), Touch, (pp. 461-495). New York: International Universities Press.
40. Mayseless, O and Keren, E. (2014), Finding a Meaningful Life as a Developmental Task in Emerging Adulthood The Domains of Love and Work Across Cultures. Emerging Adult- hood Vol. 2(1) 63-73. http://eax.sagepub.com/content/2/1/63
41. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007), Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
42. Moreno, J. L. (1947), Organization of social atom. Sociometry, Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 287-293. Moreno, J. L. (1953/1993), Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psy- chotherapy and sociodrama (Student Edition). McLean, VA: American Society of Group Psychotherapy & Psychodrama.
43. Moreno, J. L. (1936), Organization of the social atom. Sociometric Review, 1, 11-16.
44. Moreno, J. L. (1946), Role theory and role practice. Psychodrama, Vol. 1. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
45. Moreno, J. L., Moreno, F. B. (1944), Spontaneity Theory of Child Development. Sociom- etry Vol. 7, No. 2 pp. 89-128.
46. Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979), A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
47. Pitman, R., Scharfe, E. (2010), Testing the function of attachment hierarchies during emerging adulthood. Personal Relationships, 17, 201–216.
48. Plickert, G., Cote, R.R., Wellman, B., (2007), It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: Who exchanges what with whom? Social Networks, 29, 405-429.