Social Net Users’ Behavior as a Forming Factor of Social Representations about Spouse
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-3-778-788
Abstract
The present research traced the connection between the behavior of social net users and 1) the content they view devoted to romantic relationships and 2) their social representations about their prospective spouse. The survey involved 525 respondents and an authentic questionnaire of three blocks. The first block of questions was based on a content analysis of young people's essays and social net entries. It featured social representations about romantic relationships and marriage. The second block was connected with socio-demographic characteristics. The third block analyzed the use of social networks and other communication channels. The study revealed a link between one’s behavior in social networks and social representations about a romantic partner, married life, and family relations. Users that frequently viewed social media posts about relationships between men and women were not marriage-oriented and did not seek long-term romantic relationships. They viewed romantic relationships as an exciting adventure and they entertained a possibility of having different partners at different life stages. Such elements in social representations may lead to a more tolerant attitude to such phenomena as unregistered marriage, divorce, and serial monogamy.
References
1. Astakhova Yu. G., Agasaryan M. V. Sociology of the family. Lipetsk: Lipetskii gos. tekhnicheskii un-t, 2012, 67. (In Russ.)
2. Tseluyko V. M. Psychology of the modern family. Moscow: Vlados, 2004, 286. (In Russ.)
3. Vovk E. A. Unregistered relationships: a variety of marriage or its alternative? Chelovek. Soobshchestvo. Upravlenie, 2005, (2): 67–90. (In Russ.)
4. Gurko E. M. Representations of student youth about marriage. Current family problems in Russia, ed. Gurko T. A. Moscow: In-t sotsiologii RAN, 2006, 200–210. (In Russ.)
5. Molevich E. F. Gender shifts in modern marriage and family relations: paradigm shift. Woman in Russian Society, 2002, (2-3): 38–42. (In Russ.)
6. Dolbik-Vorobey T. A. Student youth on issues of marriage and birth rates. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2003, (11): 78–83. (In Russ.)
7. Pogodina E. K. Basics of family life. Vitebsk: Izd-vo UO "VGU im. P. M. Masherova", 2003, 94. (In Russ.)
8. Verhaeghe P. Love in a time of loneliness: Three essays on drives and desires. N. Y.: Other Press, 1999, 212.
9. Emelyanova T. P., Shmidt D. A. Social representations about the future partner and marriage in the social network "Vkontakte". Institut psikhologii Rossiiskoy akademii nauk. Sotsialnaya i ekonomicheskaya psikhologiya, 2017, 2(2): 46–65. (In Russ.)
10. Moscovici S. The phenomenon of social representations. Social representations, eds. Farr M., Moscovici S. CambridgeParis: CUP, 1984, 3–69.
11. Emelyanova T. P. Social representations: history, theory, and empirical research. Moscow: IP RAN, 2016. 475. (In Russ.)
12. Strauss W., Howe N. The fourth turning: an American prophecy – what the cycles of history tell us about America’s next rendezvous with destiny. N. Y.: Three Rivers Press, 1997, 400.
13. Howe N., Strauss W. Millennials rising: the next great generation. N. Y.: Vintage, 2000, 432.
14. Balbi A. Finding love in a hopeless place: dating patterns of American millennials. 2016, 79. Honors Theses – Providence Campus, 21. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=student_scholarship (accessed 23.07.2019).
15. Bogacheva N. V., Sivak E. V. Myths of generation Z. Moscow: VShE, 2019, 64. (In Russ.)
16. Ozhiganova E. M. Strauss Howe generational theory. Opportunities of practical application. Biznes-obrazovanie v ekonomike znanii, 2015, (1): 94–97. (In Russ.)
17. Bauman Z. Retrotopia. Moscow: VTsIOM, 2019, 156. (In Russ.)
18. Selimi T. J. #Loneliness: the virus oh the modern age. Carlsbad, CA: BalboaPress, 2016, 236.
19. Abric J.-Cl. La notion de noyau central: bilans et perspectives actuelles. Actes de la Cinquième conférence Abric internationale sur les représentations sociales. Montréal, 2000, 87–88.
20. Flament C. Structure et dynamique des représentations sociales. Les représentations sociales, ed. Jodelet D. Paris: PUF, 1989, 204–219.
21. Sartawi M. Exploring stability and change through social representations: towards an understanding of religious communities. The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations, eds. Sammut G., Andreouli E., Gaskell G., Valsiner J. Cambridge, 2015, 341–357.
22. Galli I., Nigro G. The social representation of radioactivity among Italian children. Journal for the theory of social behavior, 1987, 26(3): 535–549. DOI: 10.1177/053901887026003004
23. Gervais M.-C. Social representations of nature: the case of the 'Braer' oil spill in Shetland. Ph. D. thesis. London School of Economics and Political Science, 1997, 336.
24. Biotechnology – the making of a global controversy, eds. Bauer M. W., Gaskell G. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 411.
25. Emelyanova T. P., Shmidt D. A. Romantic relations and marriage in social representations of Millennials and Baby-Boomers. Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Psychology, 2019, (1): 29–43. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.18384/2310-7235-2019-1-29-43
26. Emelyanova T. P., Shmidt D. A. Romantic relationships and readiness for marriage, represented by online communities (experience in analyzing visual messages). Social and Economic Psychology. Pt. 2. New scientific approaches, eds. Kovaleva Yu. V., Nestik T. A. Moscow: IP RAN, 2018, 321–336. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Shmidt D.A. Social Net Users’ Behavior as a Forming Factor of Social Representations about Spouse. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2020;22(3):778-788. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-3-778-788
Views:
462
Email this article 