The Relationship Between Sociotelist Behavior Tendencies in Individuals and Family Role Performance

Abstract

Behavior of phubbe is considered as an important problem that negatively affects the interaction between people. In this study, it was aimed to determine the relationship between the behavior of phubbe tendencies of married individuals and their family role performances. The research is a descriptive study. 151 people participated in the research. In the study, data were collected electronically with a sociodemographic information form, General Scales of Phubbing and family role performance scales. The data were analyzed in the SPSS package program. According to the research findings; It was determined that general behavior of phubbee characteristics and family role performance differ according to gender and age p<0.05. As a result of the research, a highly significant negative relationship was found between the total of the family role performance scale and the total of the GHQ, the sub-dimensions of GHQ nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, problem awareness p<0.01. There was a high level of negative between the task performance sub-dimension of the family role performance scale and the GHQ total, nomophobia, interpersonal conflict, self-isolation, and problem awareness. A moderate negative significant relationship was determined p<0.01. When results are evaluated, it can be stated that as the general sociothelist characteristics increase, the family role performance may decrease. Social work practices aimed at preventing sociothelist behaviors among members of the family system can contribute to family welfare.

Keywords

• behavior of phubbe
• family role performance
• communication

Sosyotelist Davranış Eğilimleri ile Aile Rol Performansı Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Sosyotelist davranış, insanlar arasındaki etkileşimi olumsuz yönde etkileyen önemli bir sorun olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Araştırmada evli olan bireylerin aile rol performansları ile sosyotelist davranış eğilimleri arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma betimsel bir çalışmadır. Araştırmaya 151 kişi katılmıştır. Araştırmada veriler sosyodemografik bilgi formu, genel sosyotelist ve aile rol performansı ölçekleriyle elektronik ortamda toplanmıştır. Veriler SPSS paket programında analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre; cinsiyet ve yaşa göre genel sosyotelist davranış özellikleriyle aile rol performansının farklılık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir p<0,05. Araştırma sonucunda aile rol performansı ölçeği toplamıyla GSÖ toplamı, GSÖ alt boyutlarından nomofobi, kişilerarası çatışma, kendini yalnızlaştırma, problem farkındalığı arasında yüksek düzeyde anlamlı negatif ilişki saptanmıştır p<0,01. Aile rol performansı ölçeğinin görev performansı alt boyutuyla GSÖ toplamı, nomofobi, kişiler arası çatışma, kendini yalnızlaştırma, problem farkındalığı arasında yüksek düzeyde negatif, aile rol performansı ölçeğinin ilişki performansı alt boyutuyla GSÖ toplamı, nomofobi, kişiler arası çatışma, kendini yalnızlaştırma, problem farkındalığı arasında orta düzeyde negatif anlamlı ilişki belirlenmiştir p<0,01. Sonuçlar değerlendirildiğinde genel sosyotelist özelliklerde artış oldukça aile rol performansının azalabileceği ifade edilebilir. Aile sistemindeki üyelerde sosyotelist davranışların önlenmesine yönelik sosyal hizmet uygulamaları aile refahına katkı sunabilir.

Keywords

• sosyotelist davranış
• aile rol performansı
• iletişim

Supporting Institution

Yok

References

1. Abeele, M.M.V., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M., & Ling, R. (2019). Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 35-47.
2. Akın, A., Uğur, E. (2014). Aile Rol Performansı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanmasi, Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalişması.Uluslararası Aile Çocuk ve Eğitim Dergisi, 4(2),125-133.
3. Al-Saggaf, Y., MacCulloch, R., & Wiener, K. (2019). Trait boredom is a predictor of phubbing frequency. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 4(3), 245-252.
4. Al‐Saggaf, Y., & O’Donnell, S. B. (2019). Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1-9.
5. Al-Saggaf, Y., & MacCulloch, R. (2019). Phubbing and Social Relationships: Results from an Australian Sample. Journal of Relationships Research,1-10.
6. Anderson, G., & Robson, K. (2006). Male adolescents’ contributions to household labor as predictors of later-life participation in housework. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 1-12.
7. Ang, C. S., Teo, K. M., Ong, Y. L., & Siak, S.L. (2019). Investigation of a preliminary mixed method of phubbing and social connectedness in adolescents. Addiction & Health, 11, 1-10.
8. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363-377.

9. Bai, Q., Lei, L., Hsueh, F.-H., Yu, X., Hu, H., Wang, X., & Wang, P. (2020). Parent-adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: A moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders, 127-135.
10. Ballı, Ş.N. (2020). Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Sosyotelizmin İncelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Ana Bilim Dalı Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışmanlık Programı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
11. Bandura, A., Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2011). Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 421-448.
12. Baumeister Roy, F., Tice, D. (1990) Anxiety and Social Exclusion. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol, 9, 165-195.
13. Beranuy, M., Oberst, U., Carbonell, X., & Chamarro, A. (2009). Problematic Internet and mobile phone use and clinical symptoms in college students: The role of emotional intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1182-1187.
14. Blachnio, A., & Przepiorka, A. (2019). Be aware! If you start using Facebook problematically you will feel lonely: Phubbing, loneliness, self-esteem, and Facebook intrusion. A cross-sectional study. Social Science Computer Review, 37(2), 270–278.
15. Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J.H., & Grzywacz, J.G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work– family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131-164.
16. Chen, Yu. P., Shaffer, M., Westman, M., Chen, S., Lazarova, M., ve Reıche, S. (2013). Family role performance: Scale development and validation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63(1), 190-218.
17. Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49-57.
18. Chotpitayasunondh, V., Douglas, K.M. (2018). Measuring Phone Snubbing Behavior: Development and Validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP). Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 5-17.
19. Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 9-18.
20. Çizmeci, E. (2017).Dısconnected, Though Satısfıed: Pphubbıng Behavıor And Relatıonshıp Satısfactıon.The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication,7(2), 364-375.
21. David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2017). Phubbed and Alone: Phone Snubbing, Social Exclusion, and Attachment to Social Media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155-163.
22. Duyan, V. (2003). Aileye Yönelik Planlı Müdahale Sürecinin Aşamaları. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 14(1), 41-61.
23. Dwyer, R. J., Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233-239.
24. Ergün, N., Göksu, İ., & Sakız, H. (2019). Effects of Phubbing: Relationships with Psychodemographic Variables. Psychological Reports,1-36.
25. Epstein, N., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 171-180.
26. Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). A look back to move ahead: New directions for research on proactive performance and other discretionary work behaviours. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 1-20.
27. Geser, H. (2004). Towards a sociological theory of the mobile phone. E-Merging media: communication and the media economy of the future, 235-260.
28. Gorman, E.H., & Kmec, J.A. (2007). We (have to) try harder: Gender and required work effort in Britain and the United States. Gender & Society, 21(6), 828-856.
29. Göksun, D.O. (2019). Sosyotelist Olma ve Sosyotelizme Maruz Kalma Ölçeklerinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(3), 657-671.
30. Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G.N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92.
31. Guazzini, A., Duradoni, M., Capelli, A., & Meringolo, P. (2019). An explorative model to assess individuals’ phubbing risk. Future Internet, 11(1), 21.
32. Harwood, J., Dooley, J. J., Scott, A. J., & Joiner, R. (2014). Constantly connected—The effects of smart-devices on mental health. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 267-272.
33. Ivanova, A., Gorbaniuk, O., Błachnio, A., Przepiórka, A., Mraka, N., Polishchuk, V., & Gorbaniuk, J. (2020). Mobile phone addiction, phubbing, and depression among men and women: A moderated mediation analysis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1-14.
34. Kadylak, T. (2019). An investigation of perceived family phubbing expectancy violations and well-being among U.S. older adults. Mobile Media & Communication.
35. Kadylak, T., Makki, T. W., Francis, J., Cotten, S. R., Rikard, R. V., & Sah, Y. J. (2018). Disrupted copresence: Older adults’ views on mobile phone use during face-to-face interactions. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(3), 331- 349.
36. Karadağ E, Tosuntaş ŞB, Erzen E, Duru P, Bostan N, Şahin BM, Çulha İ, Babadağ B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: a structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2):60-74.
37. Kildare, C. A., & Middlemiss, W. (2017). Impact of parents mobile device use on parent-child interaction: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 579–593.
38. Khare, S. ve Qasim, S.H. (2019).Study Of Phubbıng Behavıour In Relatıon To Anxıety.Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 6(4), 105-110.
39. Krasnova, H., Abramova, O., Notter, I., & Baumann, A. (2016). Why phubbing is toxic for your relationship: Understanding the role of smart phone jealousy among “Generation Y” users. Research Papers, 1-20. Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey.
40. Kushlev, K., & Heintzelman, S. J. (2017). Put the Phone Down. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1-9.
41. Latifa, R., Mumtaz, E. F., & Subchi, I. (2019, November). Psychological explanation of phubbing behavior: Smartphone addiction, emphaty and self control. In 2019 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) (Vol. 7, pp. 1-5). IEEE.
42. Lebow, JL. (2019). Çift ve Aile Terapisi Alan İle İlgili Bütüncül Bir Harita. Çev. Ed: Şahin, M. ve Uğur, H.Ankara, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
43. Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343-350.
44. Ling, R. (2005). The sociolinguistics of SMS: An analysis of SMS use by a random sample of Norwegians. In R. Ling & P. E. Pederson (Eds.), Mobile communications: Re-negotiation of the social sphere. London, England: Springer-Verlag, (ss. 335-350).
45. Liu, Q. Q., Yang, X. J., Hu, Y. T., Zhang, C. Y., & Ni, Y. G. (2020). How and when is family dysfunction associated with adolescent mobile phone addiction? Testing a moderated mediation model. Children and Youth Services Review, 111.
46. Marilena, T. (2015). The Role of Parents in Integrating their Own Children in Society. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1680–1685.
47. Marks, J. L., Lam, C. B., & McHale, S. M. (2009). Family Patterns of Gender Role Attitudes. Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 221–234.
48. McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational wellbeing. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 85-98.
49. McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2017). Technoference: Parent Distraction With Technology and Associations With Child Behavior Problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109.
50. Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2017). A politeness theory analysis of cell-phone usage in the pres_ence of friends. Communication Studies, 68, 190–207.
51. Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 253–270.
52. Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2016). The iPhone Effect: The Quality of In-Person Social Interactions in the Presence of Mobile Devices. Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 275-298.
53. Musetti, A., & Corsano, P. (2018). The Internet Is Not a Tool: Reappraising the Model for Internet-Addiction Disorder Based on the Constraints and Opportunities of the Digital Environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-5.
54. Nakamura, T. (2015). The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 68–75.
55. Newman, W., & Smith, E. L. (2006). Disruption of meetings by laptop use. CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’06,1145-1150.
56. Niu, G., Yao, L., Wu, L., Tian, Y., Xu, L., & Sun, X. (2020). Parents’ phubbing and adolescents’ mobile phone addiction: The role of parent-child relationship and self-control. Children and Youth Services Review,105247.
57. T’ng, S. T., Ho, K. H., & Low, S. K. (2018). Are you “phubbing” me? The determinants of phubbing behavior and assessment of measurement invariance across sex differences. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 159-190.
58. Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 562-569.
59. Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237–246.
60. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134-141.
61. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109702.
62. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101-130.
63. Samaha, M., & Hawi, N.S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 321-325.
64. Shellenbarger, S. (2013, May 28). Just look me in the eye already. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http:// www. wsj.com/ articles/ SB10001424127887324809804578511290822228174, (Erişim Tarihi:10/05/ 2021)
65. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
66. Tan, C¸., Pamuk, M., & Donder, A. (2013). Loneliness and mobile phone. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 606-611.
67. Throuvala, M. A., Griffiths, M. D., Rennoldson, M., & Kuss, D. J. (2020). Mind over Matter: Testing the Efficacy of an Online Randomized Controlled Trial to Reduce Distraction from Smartphone Use. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4842, 1-30.
68. Turan, N. (1999). Sosyal Kişisel Çalışma Birey ve Aile için Sosyal Hizmet. Ankara, Aydınlar Matbaası.
69. Vanden-Abeele, M. M. P., & Postma-Nilsenova, M. (2018). More than just gaze: An experimental vignette study examining how phone-gazing and newspaper-gazing and phubbing-while-speaking and phubbing-while-listening compare in their effect on affiliation. Communication Research Reports, 35, 303-313.
70. Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 562–569.
71. Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12-17.
72. Wang, X., Zhao, F., & Lei, L. (2019). Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction: Self-esteem and marital status as moderators. Current Psychology.