Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Aile Üyelerinin Aile İletişim Kalıpları Algıları Arasındaki İlişki

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 53 - 74, 24.01.2020
https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.622576

Öz

Aile iletişimi açıkça farkedilebilir kalıplar ve formlarla karakterize edilir. Aileleri
birbirinden ayıran ve iletişimsel davranışlarla ilişkilendirilen iki temel boyut, diyalog
yönelimi ve uyum yönelimidir. Diyalog yönelimi, tüm aile üyelerinin çok çeşitli konular
hakkında sınırsız etkileşimlere katılmaya teşvik edildiği bir iklim yaratma derecesi
olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Uyum yönelimi ise, aile iletişiminin tutum, değer ve inançların
homojenliği iklimini ne derece vurguladığını ifade eder. Bu kapsamda, yapılan çalışmada
Ritchie ve Fitzpatrick’in (1990) Gözden Geçirilmiş Aile İletişimi Kalıpları Ölçeği
kullanılarak üç temel konu incelenmiştir: ilk olarak, aile üyelerinin diyalog yönelimi ve
uyum yönelimi boyutlarını, algılamaları arasındaki ilişki; ikincisi, ebeveynlerin köken
aileleri ve şimdiki aile iletişim şekilleri algısı arasındaki ilişki; üçüncü olarak köken aile
türlerinin mevcut aile türlerine nasıl yansıdığı. Çalışmanın verileri anket uygulaması ile
toplanmış olup, 2018-2019 yılları arasında 176 aileden toplam 704 katılımcı çalışmaya
katılmıştır. Bu çalışmada aile üyelerinin iki boyutu (diyalog yönelimi ve uyum yönelimi)
algıları arasında güçlü bir ilişki olduğu ve aynı zamanda aile üyeleri, farklı aile türlerini
benzer şekilde tanımladıkları ve son olarak, çiftler benzer bir aile tipinden geliyorsa,
mevcut aile tiplerinin büyük ölçüde aynı şekilde muhafaza edildiği bulunmuştur. Elde
edilen sonuçlar birlikte değerlendirildiğinde çocukluk dönemi iletişim kalıplarının
ilerleyen yaş dönemlerine aktarıldığı görülmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2002). Contradictions of interaction for wives of husbands with adult dementia. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 221–247. doi: 10.1080/00909880216576
  • Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understandingfamily processes: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Burgess, E. W, & Locke, H. (1953). The family. New York: American Book.
  • Erdogan, Ö., Anık, C., (2018). Aile iletişim kalıpları ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması, Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29, 21-46. doi: 10.17829/maruid.340460
  • Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x
  • Galvin, K. M., Dickson, F. C., & Marrow, S. K. (2006). Systems theory: Patterns and (w)holes in family communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (s. 309–324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  • Galvin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., & Brommel, B. J. (2016). Family communication: cohesion and change. (9. bs.) Routledge, New York.
  • Hood, B., (2012). The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. ( 1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation of conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59-75. doi: 10.1080/10510979709368491
  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Nonverbal communication and marital adjustment and satisfaction: The role of decoding relationship relevant and relationship irrelevant affect. Communication Monographs, 69, 33-51. doi: 10.1080/03637750216537
  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), LEA’s communication series. Handbook of family communication (s. 177-195). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Mead, G. H., (1972). Mind, self and society: from the standpoint a social behaviorist. Charles W Morris. (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chigago Press.
  • McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (s. 50-59). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
  • Reiss, D. (1981). The family’s construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Ritchie, D. L. (1991). Family communication patterns. Communication Research, 18, 548- 565. Doi: 10.1177/009365091018004005
  • Ritchie, D. L. (1997). Parents’ workplace experiences and family communication patterns. Communication Research, 24, 175-187. doi: 10.1177/009365097024002004
  • Ritchie, D. L., & Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544. doi: 10.1177/009365090017004007
  • Segrin, C, & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah, new jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum associates Inc.
  • Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: The construction of life through language. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Steinmetz, S. K. (1999). Adolescence in contemporary families. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz & G. W Peterson (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and family (s. 307-326). New York: Plenum.
  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
  • Whitchurch, G. C., & Dickson, F. C. (1999). Family communication. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W Peterson (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family, 2. bs. (s.687-704). New York: Plenum.

Relationship Between Family Members’ Perceptions of Family Communication Pattern

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 53 - 74, 24.01.2020
https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.622576

Öz

Family communication is characterized by clearly recognizable patterns and forms. Two
fundamental dimensions that both distinguish how families communicate and that have
been associated with various functional consequences for families are conversation
orientation and conformity orientation (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Conversation
Orientation is defined as the degree to which families create a climate in which all
family members are encouraged to participate in unrestrained interactions about a
wide array of topics. In this context, in this study, Ritchie’s and Fitzpatrick’s (1990)
Revised Family Communication Patterns Scale was used to examine three main topics:
first, the relationship between family members’ perceptions of conversation orientation
and conformity orientation dimensions; secondly, the relationship between parents’
perception of their origin families and current family communication patterns; and third,
how the origin family species are reflected in the existing family species. The data of the
study were collected through a survey and a total of 704 participants from 176 families
participated in the study in 2018-2019. In this study, it is evident that there is a strong
relationship between the family members’ perceptions of the two dimensions, and also
family members define different family types in a similar way and then, the existing
family types were maintained in the same way in the current family if the couples are
coming from a similar family type. When the results obtained are evaluated together, it is
seen that childhood communication patterns are transferred to later age periods.

Kaynakça

  • Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2002). Contradictions of interaction for wives of husbands with adult dementia. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 221–247. doi: 10.1080/00909880216576
  • Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understandingfamily processes: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Burgess, E. W, & Locke, H. (1953). The family. New York: American Book.
  • Erdogan, Ö., Anık, C., (2018). Aile iletişim kalıpları ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması, Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29, 21-46. doi: 10.17829/maruid.340460
  • Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x
  • Galvin, K. M., Dickson, F. C., & Marrow, S. K. (2006). Systems theory: Patterns and (w)holes in family communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (s. 309–324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  • Galvin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., & Brommel, B. J. (2016). Family communication: cohesion and change. (9. bs.) Routledge, New York.
  • Hood, B., (2012). The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. ( 1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation of conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59-75. doi: 10.1080/10510979709368491
  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Nonverbal communication and marital adjustment and satisfaction: The role of decoding relationship relevant and relationship irrelevant affect. Communication Monographs, 69, 33-51. doi: 10.1080/03637750216537
  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), LEA’s communication series. Handbook of family communication (s. 177-195). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Mead, G. H., (1972). Mind, self and society: from the standpoint a social behaviorist. Charles W Morris. (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chigago Press.
  • McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (s. 50-59). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
  • Reiss, D. (1981). The family’s construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Ritchie, D. L. (1991). Family communication patterns. Communication Research, 18, 548- 565. Doi: 10.1177/009365091018004005
  • Ritchie, D. L. (1997). Parents’ workplace experiences and family communication patterns. Communication Research, 24, 175-187. doi: 10.1177/009365097024002004
  • Ritchie, D. L., & Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544. doi: 10.1177/009365090017004007
  • Segrin, C, & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah, new jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum associates Inc.
  • Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: The construction of life through language. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Steinmetz, S. K. (1999). Adolescence in contemporary families. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz & G. W Peterson (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and family (s. 307-326). New York: Plenum.
  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
  • Whitchurch, G. C., & Dickson, F. C. (1999). Family communication. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W Peterson (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family, 2. bs. (s.687-704). New York: Plenum.
Toplam 22 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular İletişim ve Medya Çalışmaları
Bölüm Türkçe Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Ömer Erdoğan 0000-0003-2138-3066

Yayımlanma Tarihi 24 Ocak 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 20 Eylül 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Erdoğan, Ö. (2020). Aile Üyelerinin Aile İletişim Kalıpları Algıları Arasındaki İlişki. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 7(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.622576