The Role of Social Media in Marital Relationships: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

Öz

As part of the digital transformation of modern societies, social media has become a space where individuals express their identities, display their social roles, and make their relationships visible. This study adopts a symbolic interactionist framework to explore how social media reflects meaning, identity, and role processes within marital relationships. The research was conducted using a qualitative methodology. In the first phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 participants, and two focus group interviews with six people each were then used to deepen the findings. The data were analyzed thematically under the guidance of symbolic interactionist theory, and three main themes emerged: "new forms of communication in marriage," "representation of marriage on social media," and "definition of relationship roles." The findings show that social media serves as a tool for creating new meanings, identities, and roles in marriage. Within the framework of symbolic interactionism, social media symbols contribute significantly to strengthening emotional bonds, building trust, mitigating conflict, and raising awareness of gender roles in marital relationships. In addition, demographic factors such as age, years of marriage, and gender, as well as individual preferences and relationship dynamics, were found to influence meanings, identities, and roles within these interactions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Media
• Marital Relationships
• Marital Communication
• Symbolic Interactionism.

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, I. S., Buchanan, T., & Dibble, J. L. (2023). Attitudes towards password sharing in cohabiting partners. The Social Science Journal, 60, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2022.2152406
2. Adegboyega, L. O. (2022). Influence of social media on marital stability of married adults in Ilorin metropolis. In O. A. Fawole & S. L. Blair (Eds.), Families in Nigeria: Understanding their diversity, adaptability, and strengths (pp. 55-68). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
3. Aktaş, G. (2019). Günümüz toplumlarında anneliğin değişen biçimlerini sosyal medya kullanıcıları üzerinden değerlendirmek. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(2), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.441402
4. Baştok Özkan, G. (2022). Küreselleşme ve kültürel akışkanlık bağlamında baby shower‚ ritüeli: İstanbul örneği. Kesit Akademi Dergisi, 8(32), 560-591. 10.29228/kesit.63792
5. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6. Bellou, A. (2015). The impact of internet diffusion on marriage rates: Evidence from the broadband market. Journal of Population Economics, 28, 265-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-014-0527-7
7. Bielinowicz, A. (2021). The young generation is focused on family and marriage on social media. Forum Teologiczne, 22, 95-109.
8. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

9. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 836–849. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096259
10. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Caughlin, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2013). A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 873-893. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096259
12. Damayanti, N., Meliala, Y. H., & Silmi, F. S. (2021). The trend of young marriage on Instagram social media influencers in shaping youth’s views. ICCD, 3(1), 227-231. https://doi.org/10.33068/iccd.Vol3.Iss1.342
13. Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(3), 766-785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004
14. Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18(2), 121-144. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1995.18.2.121
15. Goffman, E. (2014). Günlük yaşamda benliğin sunumu. B. Cezar (Çev.). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
16. Gómez-Urrutia, V., & Tello-Navarro, F. (2021). Gender, love and the internet: Romantic online interactions in Chilean young people. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(6), 731-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1764512
17. Goodboy, A. K., Myers, S. A., & Members of Investigating Communication. (2010). Relational quality indicators and love styles as predictors of negative relational maintenance behaviors in romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 23(2), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2010.511397
18. Gönden, M., & Güzel, M. (2017). Türkiye’de sosyal medyanın m/izahı: Sosyal paylaşım ağlarındaki deneyimlerin karikatürlere yansıması. Millî Folklor, 29(116), 169-188.
19. Humphreys, L., & Hardeman, H. (2021). Mobiles in public: Social interaction in a smartphone era. Mobile Media & Communication, 9(1), 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920927062
20. Kalaman, S. ve Çelik, F. (2019). Türkiye’deki evli bireylerin sosyal medya kullanımlarının evlilikleri üzerine etkisi: Nitel bir araştırma. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 13(19), 424-453. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.589684
21. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
22. Kayabol, N. B. A., Aydoğan, D., Sümer, Z. H., & Özbay, Y. (2022). Does physical distance mean emotional distance? The nature of long-distance marital relationships. Başkent University Journal of Education, 9(1), 14-29.
23. Kıymaz, E. (2023). Marital communication and social media use on the basis of family phenomenon in the information age (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from the YÖK açık erişim sistemi (10617715).
24. LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 135-166). New York: Springer.
25. Ledbetter, A. M., Stassen, H., Muhammad, A., & Kotey, E. N. (2010). Relational maintenance includes the other in the self. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 11(1), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430903413457
26. Leeds-Hurwitz, W., Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (2006). Social theories: Social constructionism and symbolic interactionism. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication-Multiple perspectives (pp. 229-242). London: Sage Publications.
27. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Morgan, P., Hubler, D. S., Payne, P. B., Pomeroy, C., Gregg, D., & Homer, M. (2017). My partner’s media use: A qualitative study exploring perceptions of problems with a partner’s media use. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 683-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1263589
29. Özant, N., & Kelleci, M. (2017). Non-verbal cues in digital communication: Interaction with emojis and affect. Moment Journal, 4(2), 396-417. https://doi.org/10.17572/moment.411853
30. Procentese, F., Gatti, F., & Di Napoli, I. (2019). Families and social media use: The role of parents’ perceptions about social media impact on family systems in the relationship between family collective efficacy and open communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245006
31. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. London: Oxford University Press.
32. Rosenbaum, T. Y. (2009). Applying theories of social exchange and symbolic interaction in the treatment of unconsummated marriage/relationship. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 24(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990902718096
33. Serbest, K. (2020), Kültür aktörlerinden internet fenomenlerine doğum ve evlilik ile ilgili uygulamalar, Uluslararası Halkbilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(5), s.48-69.
34. Sönmez, M. F. (2022). Sosyal kimlik ve sosyal medya (iki benzemezin hikayesi). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
35. Stryker, S. (1959). Symbolic interaction as an approach to family research. Marriage and Family Living, 21(2), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.2307/348099
36. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Caldwell: The Blackburn Press.
37. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695840
38. Thoits, P. A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095103
39. Wagner, T., Punyanunt-Carter, N., & McCarthy, E. (2022). Rules, reciprocity, and emojis: An exploratory study on flirtatious texting with romantic partners. Southern Communication Journal, 87(5), 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2022.2108889
40. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
41. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002