Abstract

This psychoinformatical study aimed at finding out the growing aspirations on the relationship goals based on online and offline data. Three studies in an umbrella of social representation study were conducted involving 155 participants coming from Greater Jakarta and other Indonesia provinces (Study I, a preliminary study for extracting content frames on relationship; Mage = 21.6 years), 610 samples of images captioned with #RelationshipGoals in an online social media - Instagram - originated mostly from Western users (Study II, a content analysis), as well as 367 participants coming from Greater Jakarta (Study III, a survey for Relationship Goals Scale construction; Mage = 22 years). The results showed that there are three main dimensions of relationship goals, namely (1) Psychological Intimacy, (2) Sexual Activity, and (3) Religious Beliefs. It was found that religious belief should be the fourth pillar, not just the influencing factors of the Sternberg’s triangular theory of love of romantic relationships. This study was successful in constructing relationship goals scale for the first time in Indonesia, to our best knowledge, which could be used for education and counselling. This present study also empirically indicated that the evolving analyses of Ulrich Beck, Stephanie Coontz, and Eli Finkel, that self-actualization has become the main romantic relationship goal, are perhaps exaggerated, especially in the context of social life of Indonesian. Individualized marriage might not be applicable as the representation of contemporary relationship zeitgeist in Indonesia. This study is pivotal in preventing marital divorce based on salient social meanings on the romantic relationship among young adults.

Keyword

Relationship goals, Theory of love, Relationship satisfaction, Social representation, Social network, Psychoinformatics.

Cite this article

Refference

[1][1]B Solis, The hashtag economy. http://www.briansolis.com/2011/06/hashtag-this-the-culture-of-social-media-is. 2011. Accessed 27 September 2017.

[2][2]In indonesia, facebook remains the most popular social site. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Indonesia-Facebook-Remains-Most-Popular-Social-Site/1014126. Accessed 26 September 2017.

[3][3]Adam. Relationship Goals. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/relationshipgoals?full=1. Accessed 26 September 2017.

[4][4]Flounoy M, Relationship goals: 8 traveling couples to follow on instagram. http://www.lifehack.org/500630/relationship-goals-8-traveling-couples-to-follow-on-instagram. Accessed 26 September 2017.

[5][5]Levinson AH. The trouble with Relationship Goals. https://melmagazine.com/the-trouble-with-relationshipgoals-655ccc55a337. Accessed 27 September 2017.

[6][6]Feist J, Feist GJ. Theories of personality. McGraw-Hill Education; 2008.

[7][7]Rankin S. The truth about celebrity relationship goals. http://www.eonline.com/news/829177/the-psychology-of-celebrity-couples-are-relationshipgoals-killing-our-romances. Accessed 27 September 2017.

[8][8]Emery LR. 7 Relationship goals for 2017 that are realistic game-changers. https://www.bustle.com/articles/199125-7-relationship-goals-for-2017-that-are-realistic-game-changers. Accessed 26 September 2017.

[9][9]Wesner KA. Social comparison of romantic relationships: the influence of family, friends, and media. Iowa State University; 2008.

[10][10]Avivi YE, Laurenceau JP, Carver CS. Linking relationship quality to perceived mutuality of relationship goals and perceived goal progress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2009; 28(2):137-64.

[11][11]Lutz-Zois CJ, Bradley AC, Mihalik JL, Moorman-Eavers ER. Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: an idiographic approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2006; 23(6):865-80.

[12][12]Fine M, Harvey J. Predictors of divorce and relationship dissolution. Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution. 2004.

[13][13]More women opt for divorce despite risks. The Jakarta Post. 2016. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/08/24/more-women-opt-for-divorce-despite-risks.html. Accessed 27 September 2017.

[14][14]Myers DG, Twenge JM. Social psychology. McGraw-Hill; 2013.

[15][15]Duveen G, Lloyd B. Social representations and the development of knowledge. Cambridge University Press; 1990.

[16][16]Marchiori PZ, Appel AL, Bettoni EM, Tsunoda DF, Alcântara FC. Elements of social representation theory in collaborative tagging systems. TransInformação. 2014; 26(1):27-37.

[17][17]Wagner W, Duveen G, Farr R, Jovchelovitch S, Lorenzi‐Cioldi F, Marková I, et al. Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 1999; 2(1):95-125.

[18][18]Breakwell GM. Social representations and social identity. Papers on Social Representations. 1993; 2(3):198-217.

[19][19]Gravetter FJ, Forzano LB. Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Wadsworth Publishing; 2011.

[20][20]Jordan A, Kunkel D, Manganello J, Fishbein M. Media messages and public health: a decisions approach to content analysis. Routledge; 2009.

[21][21]Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care. 2010; 8(3):1-13.

[22][22]Santrock JW. Life-span development. McGraw-Hill Education. 2014.

[23][23]Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon; 2011.

[24][24]Alhojailan MI. Thematic analysis: a critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences. 2012; 1(1):39-47.

[25][25]Tiggemann M, Zaccardo M. Strong is the new skinny: a content analysis of # fitspiration images on instagram. Journal of Health Psychology. 2016.

[26][26]Hinkin TR, Tracey JB, Enz CA. Scale construction: developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 1997; 21(1):100-20.

[27][27]Ranta M, Dietrich J, Salmela-Aro K. Career and romantic relationship goals and concerns during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood. 2014; 2(1):17-26.

[28][28]Abdullaha ZH, Ismaila S, Muradb AH. Awareness level towards the validity and reliability of electronic information among students. International conference on information technology & society. 2015 (pp. 387-94). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

[29][29]Woychick L. Study abroad-'self'ie: US international student identity and cross-cultural adaptation on instagram. Doctoral Dissertation, Gonzaga University. 2016.

[30][30]Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbachs alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011; 2:53-5.

[31][31]Abraham J, Rahardjo W. Psychopathy, sexual values dimensions, and premarital sexual behaviour among urban unmarried adolescents. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 165:2-11.

[32][32]Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 2013; 9(2):79-94.

[33][33]Fowers BJ, Laurenceau JP, Penfield RD, Cohen LM, Lang SF, Owenz MB, et al. Enhancing relationship quality measurement: the development of the relationship flourishing scale. Journal of Family Psychology. 2016; 30(8):997-1007.

[34][34]MacKenzie MJ, Baumeister RF. Meaning in life: nature, needs, and myths. In meaning in positive and existential psychology 2014 (pp. 25-37). Springer New York.

[35][35]Graham JM, Harf MR. Self expansion and flow: the roles of challenge, skill, affect, and activation. Personal Relationships. 2015; 22(1):45-64.

[36][36]Deci EL, Ryan RM. The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11(4):227-68.

[37][37]Sternberg RJ, Weis K. The new psychology of love. Yale University Press; 2006.

[38][38]Zimmer Gembeck MJ, Arnhold V, Connolly J. Intercorrelations of intimacy and identity dating goals with relationship behaviors and satisfaction among young heterosexual couples. Social Sciences. 2014; 3(1):44-59.

[39][39]Ducat WH, Zimmer Gembeck MJ. Romantic partner behaviours as social context: measuring six dimensions of relationships. Journal of Relationships Research. 2010; 1(1):1-16.

[40][40]Kelly M, Zimmer Gembeck MJ, Boislard P MA. Identity, intimacy, status and sex dating goals as correlates of goal consistent behavior and satisfaction in Australian youth. Journal of Adolescence. 2012; 35(6):1441-54.

[41][41]Cooke A, Eipl K, Jacobs R. Religiosity and spirituality: effects on closeness in romantic relationships. 2012.

[42][42]Fard MK, Shahabi R, Zardkhaneh SA. Religiosity and marital satisfaction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 82:307-11.

[43][43]Istiqomah I, Mukhlis M. Hubungan antara religiusitas dengan kepuasan perkawinan. Jurnal Psikologi. 2015; 11(2):71-8.

[44][44]Mathur A, Barak B, Zhang Y, Lee KS, Yoo B, Ha J. Social religiosity: concept and measurement across divergent cultures. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2015; 27(5):717-34.

[45][45]Li T, Fung HH. The dynamic goal theory of marital satisfaction. Review of General Psychology. 2011; 15(3):246-54.

[46][46]Muther C. The growing culture of impatience makes us crave more and more instant gratification. The Boston Globe. 2013.

[47][47]Oloo FL. "Instagratification": uses and gratification of instagram by university students for interpersonal communication. Doctoral Dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU). 2013.

[48][48]Coontz S. The origins of modern divorce. Family Process. 2007; 46(1):7-16.

[49][49]Khazan O. We expect too much from our romantic partners. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/09/we-expect-way-too-much-from-our-romantic-partners/541353/ Accessed 3 November 2017.

[50][50]Maslow AH. Motivation and personality. Pearson Education; 1987.

[51][51]Beck U, Beck Gernsheim E. Losing the traditional: individualization and precarious freedoms. Identity in Question. 2009:13-36.

[52][52]Krems JA, Kenrick DT, Neel R. Individual perceptions of self-actualization: what functional motives are linked to fulfilling ones full potential? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2017; 43(9):1337-52.

[53][53]Paxton AL, Turner EJ. Self actualization and sexual permissiveness, satisfaction, prudishness, and drive among female undergraduates. Journal of Sex Research. 1978; 14(2):65-80.

[54][54]Hicks LL, McNulty JK, Meltzer AL, Olson MA. Capturing the interpersonal implications of evolved preferences? frequency of sex shapes automatic, but not explicit, partner evaluations. Psychological Science. 2016; 27(6):836-47.

[55][55]Smith A, Lyons A, Ferris J, Richters J, Pitts M, Shelley J, et al. Sexual and relationship satisfaction among heterosexual men and women: the importance of desired frequency of sex. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2011; 37(2):104-15.

[56][56]Asyari S, Abid MH. Expanding the Indonesian tarbiyah movement through taaruf and marriage. Al Jamiah: Journal of Islamic Studies. 2016; 54(2):337-68.

[57][57]Juneman J, Rahardjo W. Influence of sexual values on perceived risk of interfaith marriage among unmarried urban students in Jakarta. Humaniora.2013; 25(1):3-13.

[58][58]Lauer SR, Yodanis C. Individualized marriage and the integration of resources. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011; 73(3):669-83.

[59][59]Yodanis C, Lauer S. Is marriage individualized? What couples actually do. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2014; 6(2):184-97.