The Impact of Social Networks on Emotional Divorce in Mashhad

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

• maryam eskafi noghani ¹
• Farah Torkman ²
• Bagher Saroukhani ³

¹ Azad Islamic University

² Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

³ Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jss.v12i1.38683

Abstract

Extended Abstract

1- Introduction
Life for human beings starts along with social interaction which is changed into group when combined with emotions. These social interactions occur in the social relationships atmosphere. One of these is the marital relationship which is very warm and intimate at the beginning but later emotions cool off and life loses intimacy. According to exploratory studies, this continues until the time when the spouses are only near each other without living or being together. This is called emotional divorce which is the cause of the other kinds of divorce. According to the statistics of the Civil Status Registry Organization of Khorasan Razavi (2011), the number of divorces has progressively increased in the recent decade especially in this province and in Mashhad where it has been more than the average rate of the country. This indicates the importance of this issue. One of the contributing factors, which has received less attention, is the structure of the social network. This study aimed to investigate the impact of social networks on the emotional divorce. It is at the self-centered network level (1.5) and has not been conducted in Mashad yet.

2- Theoretical Framework
The researcher has used a combination of network theories including Bott,s network structure and marital relations (1957), Burt,s structural holes (1995), Kneip,s social asset (2004), Granovetter,s strenghth of weak ties (1983), Isral and Randers,s characteristica of social networks (1987), and Olson,s intimacy (2011).

3- Methodology
This study was a survey using path analysis for modeling and testing. The sample included the married families in Mashhad consisting of 699 nodes: 181 nodes of friendship networks, 395 nodes of spouse family network, and 60 nodes of married spouses who have all answered the questionnaires. The level of the examined network is dual. Due to the lack of cooperation of the families, the researcher had to use purposeful sampling. She has tried to use a standard normalized questionnaire in Iran. The content and face validity of the instruments were substantiated through the referees’ agreement procedure. The construct validity was also substantiated by conducting exploratory factor analysis.

4- Results & Discussion
Based on the results of the regression analysis, multiple correlation coefficient all the independent variables (intimacy with partner, joint practices, family and friends support, cohesion in friends and family networks) have an explanatory role on the dependent variable (emotional divorce). These six variables correlated with the dependent variable (r = 0.75). The coefficient of determination (R2) result also shows that 0.51 of changes in the emotional divorce, is the function of the independent variables. Among variable which have a direct impact on emotional divorce, the degree of intimacy with spouse has the greatest influence (0.53). According to the intimacy theory, women feel more intimate with their husbands when they participate in joint activities with them while men feel more intime with their wives when they are completely satisfied in their sexual relationships. This finding is in complete agreement with the results of Shahrestani, Doostkam, Rahbardar, and Mashhadi (2012), Knipe (2004), Bott (1957), and the theory of Bott, Burt (1995) and Durkhiem (2002). Joint activities with the family (0.51) has a reverse influence on the emotional divorce (here 0.78) and a reverse influence on the intimacy with spouse. Therefore, the more participation in activities with friends and family members and others rather than with the spouse, the more intimacy (0.29) and integrity (-0.25) with them and the less intimacy with the spouse (-0.98). This finding is also in line with the Olson’s (2011) results.

5- Suggestions
According to the results, couples should strive to reduce the emotional divorce through increasing intimacy with their partners. Men can increase intimacy through joint activities with partner and women through sexual relationships with their spouse because the most important influencing factor on the emotional divorce is intimacy.

Keywords

• Emotional divorce
• Social networks
• intimacy
• Joint practices
• Emotional cohesion

References

1. آزادی، ش؛ سهامی، س؛ قهرمانی، ز. و قلی پور، گ. (1389). ارزیابی عوامل اجتماعی زمینه‌ساز طلاق عاطفی در میان کارکنان زن شرکت بهره‌برداری نفت گچساران، فصلنامۀ زن و بهداشت. (3). صص 117-101.

2. ادارۀ کل ثبت احوال استان خراسان رضوی، گزارش‌های تحلیلی طلاق 1390 و 1391.

3. اربابی، ا. (1390). نقش عوامل اجتماعی بر دلسردی فضای خانواده در بین خانواده‌های شهر تبریز. پایان‌نامۀ منتشر‌نشدۀ کارشناسی ارشد جامعه‌شناسی. دانشگاه آزاد خلخال.

4. باباصفری، ع. (1381). مشاورۀ خانواده و نحوۀ رفع مشکلات ناشی از دخالت‌های بیجا. پیوند. (271). صص 44-38.

5. بخارایی، ا. (1390). جامعه‌شناسی انحرافات اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه پیام نور.

6. پرتال اطلاع رسانی وکالت آنلاین. (1388). بررسی عوامل مؤثر در بروز طلاق در افراد متقاضی طلاق در تهران. ماهنامۀ قضاوت. (59). صص 54-51. بازیابی از:

URL : http://www.vekalatonline.ir/index.php?ToDo=ShowArticles&AID=10973

7. دورکیم، ا. (1387). خودکشی. (ن. سالارزاده، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

8. دورکیم، ا. (1381). دربارۀ تقسیم کار اجتماعی. (ب. پرهام، مترجم). ویرایش دوم. تهران: مرکز.

9. ریاحی، م؛ علی وردی نیا، ا. و بهرامی کاکاوند، س. (1386). تحلیل جامعه‌شناختی میزان گرایش به طلاق (مطالعۀ موردی شهرستان کرمانشاه). مجلۀ پژوهش زنان. 5 (3). پیاپی 19. صص 140-109.

10. زاهدی اصل، م. و حسینی، س. م. (1391). بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر میزان اختلافات خانوادگی در بوشهر. برنامه‌ریزی رفاه و توسعۀ اجتماعی. (11). صص 32-1.

11. ستار، پ؛ داوودی، م. و محمدی، ف. (1391). عوامل جامعه‌شناختی مؤثر در طلاق عاطفی در بین خانواده‌های تهرانی. مطالعات راهبردی زنان. 14 (56). صص 154-119.

12. شهرستانی، م؛ دوستکام، م؛ رهباردار، ح. و مشهدی، ع. (1391). پیش‌بینی رضایتمندی زناشویی از روی متغیرهای باورهای ارتباطی و صمیمیت زناشویی در زنان متقاضی طلاق و عادی شهر مشهد. فصلنامۀ علمی‌پژوهشی زن و فرهنگ. 4 (14). صص 41-19.

13. شهولی، ک؛ رضایی فر، س. (1390). بررسی علل ناسازگاری و طلاق در خانواده‌های شهرستان ایذه. جامعه‌پژوهی فرهنگی. 2 (2). پیاپی 3. صص 138-113.

14. صدیق اورعی، غ. (1392). جزوۀ مبانی جامعه‌شناسی. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.

15. عطاری، ی؛ پورمحمد، ح. و راهنورد، س. (1388). اثربخشی آموزش مهارت‌های ارتباطی به شیوۀ برنامۀ ارتباطی زوجین بر کاهش دلزدگی زناشویی در زوجین. اندیشه و رفتار (روانشناسی کاربردی). 4 (4). پیاپی 14. صص 44-35.

16. فاتحی دهاقانی، ا. و نظری، ع. (1390). تحلیل جامعه‌شناختی عوامل مؤثر بر گرایش زوجین به طلاق در استان اصفهان. مطالعات امنیت اجتماعی. (25). صص 54-13.

17. کاملی، م. (1386). بررسی توصیفی علل و عوامل مؤثر در بروز آسیب‌های اجتماعی طلاق در جامعۀ ایران با توجه به آمار و اسناد موجود. دانش انتظامی. (35). صص 198-180.

18. مقصودی، م. و محمدی، ش. (1389). فرسودگی شغلی و دلزدگی زناشویی. مطالعۀ موردی در زنان متخصص جراحی زنان و زایمان شاغل در بیمارستان‌های شهر تهران. زن در سیاست (پژوهش زنان). 8 (3). صص 71-57.

19. میرمحمد صادقی، م. (۱۳۹۰)، تحلیل شبکه‌های اجتماعی باnodex L . تهران: انتشارات کیان رایانه.

20. نوک، د. و کاکلینسکی، ج. (1387). تحلیل شبکه. (م. عظیمی هاشمی و م. اسکافی، مترجمان). انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی مشهد.

21. هنریان، م. و یونسی، س. ج. (1390). بررسی علل طلاق در بین خانواده‌های تهران. مطالعات روانشناسی بالینی. 1 (3). صص 153-125.

22. Bastani, S. (2001). Middle class community in Tehran: Social networks, social support and marital relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.

23. Ben-Ari, A. (2011). Rethinking closeness and distance in intimate relationships: Are they really two opposites? Journal of Family Issues, 2(1), 1-22.

24. Bott Spillius, E. (1955). Conjugal roles and social networks, A shorted version of the original. Human Relations, 8, 345-384.

25. Bott, E. (1957). Conjugal roles and social networks, A shorted version of the original. Human Relations, 8, 323- 350.

26. Chris Fraley, R., Heffernan, M. E., Brumbaug, C. C., & Vicary. A. (2011). The experiences in close relationships-relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615-625.

27. Fowers. B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). Enrich marital inventory: A discriminant validity and cross-validation assessment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15(1), 65-79.

28. Frank, C., & Kevin. D. (2005). Human intimacy: Marriage, the family, and its meaning (10th ed.). USA: Cengage Learning.

29. Granovetter, M. (1974). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

30. Hansen, D. L, Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. )2011(. Analyzing social media networks with Nodexl: Insights from a connected world. London: Elsevier.

31. Kalmijn, M. (2003). Shared friendship networks and the life course: An analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples. Social Networks, 25, 231–249.

32. Kayser, K. (2007). The marital disaffection scale: An inventory for assessing emotional estrangement in marriage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 24(1), 83-88.

33. Kneip, T. (2004, August). The impact of social capital on marital stability. Paper presented at The Euro Summer School, Integrating Sociological Theory and Research in Europe, Trento/Italy.

34. Lavee, Y., & Ben-Ari, A. (2007). Dyadic distance: From the inside story to a conceptual model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(5), 645-655.

35. Lin, Y. R., Chi, Y., Zhu, S., Sundaram, H., & Tseng, B. L. (2008, April). FacetNet: A framework for analyzing communities and their evolutions in dynamic networks. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2.0, Discovery and Evolution of Communities, New York, NY, USA.

36. Negy, C., & Snyder, D. K. (1997), Ethnicity and acculturation: Assessing Mexican couples’ relationships using the marital satisfaction inventory – Revised (MSI-R). Psychological Assessment, 9(4), 414-421.

37. Olson, D., Defrain, J., & Skogrand, L. (2011). Marriage and families, intimacy, diversity and strengths (7th ed.). New York: Mc Graw- Hill Companies.

38. Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch T. L., & Willets, M. C. (2004). Social network and change in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & A. M. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 275-284). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

39. Tsvetovat, M., & Kouznetsov, A. (2011). Social network analysis for startups. Sebastopol, Calif.: O Reilly

40. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

41. Widmer, E., Kellerhals, J., & Levy, R. (2004). Types of conjugal networks, conjugal conflict and conjugal quality. European Sociological Review, 1(20), 63-77.

42. Zhang, S., & Kline, S. L. (2009). Can I make my own decision? A cross-cultural study of perceived social network influence in mate selection. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(40), 3-23.