BİLİŞSEL ESNEKLİĞİN YETİŞKİNLERDE SOSYAL KAYGIYLA İLİŞKİSİ: CİNSİYET VE İLİŞKİ DURUMU FARKLILIKLARININ İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, romantik ilişkide bulunan veya daha önce bulunmuş yetişkinlerde bilişsel esneklik ile sosyal kaygı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Araştırmaya yaşları 18 ilâ 42 arasında değişen, %43,7'si erkek ve %56,3'ü kadın olmak üzere toplam 71 katılımcı dâhil edilmiştir. Katılımcılara; Bilişsel Esneklik Envanteri, Liebowitz Sosyal Kaygı Ölçeği ve Romantik İlişki Değerlendirme Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Örnekleme sürecinde, kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Spearman korelasyon analizleri, bilişsel esneklik ile sosyal kaygı arasında orta ile büyük etki büyüklüğüne sahip anlamlı bir negatif korelasyon ortaya koymuştur (r = −,454, p < ,01). Bilişsel esnekliğin her iki alt boyutu olan kontrol ve alternatifler de sosyal kaygıyla anlamlı düzeyde negatif ilişki sergilemiştir. Romantik ilişki şiddeti ile bilişsel esneklik ya da sosyal kaygı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki saptanmamış olup bu durum, ilişki şiddeti puanlarının sınırlı dağılımı ve örneklem büyüklüğüyle açıklanabilir. Mann-Whitney U testi sonuçları, ilişki şiddeti puanları bakımından cinsiyete göre anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu ve erkek katılımcıların kadınlara kıyasla daha yüksek puanlar bildirdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Evli katılımcıların da bekâr katılımcılara göre anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek ilişki şiddeti puanları bildirdiği görülmüştür. Bu bulgular, bilişsel esnekliğin yetişkinlerde sosyal kaygıya karşı önemli bir koruyucu faktör olabileceğine işaret etmekte ve ilişki şiddeti araştırmaları ile müdahale programlarında cinsiyete duyarlı yaklaşımların gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• bilişsel esneklik
• sosyal kaygı
• yetişkinler
• cinsiyet farklılıkları
• ilişki durumu

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmada kullanılan anket yöntemi için İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Etik Kurulu’ndan 17/04/2025 tarihli ve 2025/04 nolu toplantısında izin alınmıştır. Aksi bir durumun tespiti halinde Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisinin hiçbir sorumluluğu olmayıp, tüm sorumluluk çalışmanın yazarlarına aittir.

COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AS A CORRELATE OF SOCIAL ANXIETY IN ADULTS: EXAMINING GENDER AND RELATIONSHIP STATUS DIFFERENCES

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between cognitive flexibility and social anxiety among adults who were in or had previously been in romantic relationships. A total of 71 participants (43.7% male, 56.3% female), aged 18–42, completed the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), and the Romantic Relationship Assessment Scale (RRAS). Convenience sampling was employed for participant recruitment. Spearman correlation analyses revealed a significant negative correlation between cognitive flexibility and social anxiety (r = −.454, p < .01), indicating a medium to large effect size. Both subdimensions of cognitive flexibility, namely control and alternatives, demonstrated significant negative correlations with social anxiety. No significant associations were found between romantic relationship violence and either cognitive flexibility or social anxiety, which may be attributed to the restricted range of relationship violence scores and limited sample size. Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant gender differences in relationship violence scores, with male participants reporting higher scores than female participants. Married participants also reported significantly higher relationship violence scores compared to single participants. These findings highlight cognitive flexibility as a meaningful protective factor against social anxiety in adulthood and underscore the need for gender-sensitive approaches in relationship violence research and intervention programs.

Keywords

• cognitive flexibility
• social anxiety
• adults
• gender differences
• relationship status

Ethical Statement

Approval for the survey method used in this study was obtained from the Istanbul Aydın University Ethics Committee for Social and Human Sciences at its meeting dated April 17, 2025, and numbered 2025/04. Should any contrary circumstances be identified, the Beykent University Journal of Social Sciences shall bear no responsibility, and all responsibility rests with the authors of the study.

References

1. Adler-Baeder, F., Kerpelman, J. L., Schramm, D. G., Higginbotham, B., & Paulk, A. (2007). The impact of relationship education on adolescents of diverse backgrounds. Family Relations, 56(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00460.x
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
3. Altunkol, F. (2011). Universite ogrencilerinin bilis esnekligi ile algilanan stres duzeyleri arasindaki iliskinin incelenmesi [Examination of the relationship between cognitive flexibility and perceived stress levels in university students] [Master's thesis, Cukurova University]. YOK National Thesis Center.
4. Asıcı, E., & İkiz, F. E. (2015). A path to happiness: Cognitive flexibility. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(35), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.21764/efd.31360
5. Atakay, C. (2014). Precursors of violence in romantic close relationships. Nesne-Psychology Journal, 2(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-02-03-01
6. Aydınoğlu, N. (2007). The concept of attachment in the formation of psychoanalytic couple therapy and object relations. Journal of Turkish Psychiatry, 18(4), 347–355.
7. Aydoğdu, I. (2010). Examining romantic relationships in terms of personality traits [Master's thesis, Gazi University]. YOK National Thesis Center.
8. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

9. Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: II. Some principles of psychotherapy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 130(5), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.130.5.421
10. Büyüköztürk, S., Kılıç, E., Akgün, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2012). Scientific research methods (3rd ed.). Pegem Akademi.
11. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory for fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046743
12. Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). Guilford Press.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Çiftçi, M. C. (2019). Examining the relationship between adult separation anxiety and cognitive flexibility levels and social anxiety levels of university students [Master's thesis, Istanbul Gelisim University]. YOK National Thesis Center.
15. Çuhadaroğlu, A. (2013). Predictors of cognitive flexibility. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 24(4), 275–285.
16. Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
17. Deniz, M., & Korkman, H. (2014). Investigation of some demographic variables of university students within the framework of attribution complexity, emotional intelligence, and fluid intelligence. Journal of Educational Leadership and Instruction, 2(2), 14–28.
18. Dikmen, H. A., Özaydın, T., & Yılmaz, S. D. (2018). The relationship between dating violence and anxiety and hopelessness levels in female university students. Acibadem University Journal of Health Sciences, 9(2), 170–176.
19. Dilbaz, N. (1997). Sosyal fobi [Social phobia]. Psikiyatri Dunyasi, 1(1), 18–24.
20. Dilbaz, N. (2000). Sosyal anksiyete bozukluğu: Tanım ve epidemiyoloji [Social anxiety disorder: Definition and epidemiology]. Psikiyatri Dunyasi, 4(2), 4–9.
21. Dilbaz, N., & Guz, H. (2001). The assessment of reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. 37th National Psychiatry Congress Abstract Book, 90.
22. Ersanlı, K., Yılmaz, M., & Özcan, K. (2013). Perceived emotional abuse scale (PEMI): Validity and reliability study. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 32(1), 147–164.
23. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029
24. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
25. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
26. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (10th ed.). Pearson.
27. Gómez-López, M., Viejo, C., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019). Psychological well-being during adolescence: Stability and association with romantic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1772. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01772
28. Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.169
29. Gülüm, İ. V., & Dağ, İ. (2012). Tekrarlayıcı Düşünme Ölçeği ve Bilişsel Esneklik Envanterinin Türkçeye uyarlanması, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği. Anadolu Psikiyatri Derneği, 13(3), 216–223.
30. Gürbüz, S. (2018). Research methods in social sciences. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
31. IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
32. Karamustafalıoğlu, O., & Yumrukçal, H. (2011). Depression and anxiety disorders. Şişli Etfal Hospital Medical Bulletin, 45(2), 65–74.
33. Kaya, O. S. (2020). Factors related to problem-solving skills in romantic relationships. Family Psychological Counseling Journal, 3(1), 33–56.
34. Kılınçer, A. S. (2013). Üniversite öğrencilerinin romantik ilişkilerinde algılanan istismarın incelenmesi [Examination of perceived abuse in romantic relationships of university students] [Master's thesis, Hacettepe University]. YOK National Thesis Center.
35. Kılınçer, A. S., & Tuzgöl Dost, M. (2014). Examination of university students' perceptions of abuse in romantic relationships in terms of gender. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 5(42), 160–172.
36. Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141–173. https://doi.org/10.1159/000414022
37. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623–626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
38. Norona, J. C., Roberson, P. N., & Welsh, D. P. (2017). Lessons from romantic relationships in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416663201
39. Orhan, M. (2017). Investigation of romantic relationship beliefs in the context of cognitive distortions [Master's thesis, Istanbul Bilim University]. YOK National Thesis Center.
40. Öngün, E., & Ünsal, G. (2018). Close relationships and abuse in university life. Journal of Academic Research in Nursing (JAREN), 4(1), 52–58.
41. Parlak, S. (2018). Partner violence in youth and its prevention: A mixed method study [Doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University]. YOK National Thesis Center.
42. Polat, O. (2001). Child and violence. Der Yayınları.
43. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3
44. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.
45. Seçim, G. (2019). Abusive behaviors exposed by university students in their romantic relationships. Gazi University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(1), 527–543.
46. Şahin, H., İşleyen, F., & Özdemir, S. (2012). Investigation of interaction anxiety and social support perceptions of education faculty students. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 8(2), 25–36.
47. Şimşek, S., & Cenkseven-Önder, F. (2011). Examination of adolescents' behavior problems in terms of emotional abuse. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 1123–1137.
48. Tolan, O. C., & Kara, B. C. (2023). The mediating role of cognitive flexibility in the relationship between social anxiety and general self-efficacy. e-International Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 229–244.
49. Türk, B., Hamzaoğlu, N., & Yayak, A. (2020). A review on dating violence. Turkey Clinics Journal of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Sciences, 17(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.5336/forensic.2019-71792
50. Tükel, R., Kızıltan, E., Demir, T., & Demir, D. (1998). The reliability and validity study of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale [Conference presentation]. 34th National Psychiatry Congress, Izmir, Turkey.
51. Tüzün, O., & Sayar, K. (2006). Attachment theory and psychopathology. Düşünen Adam, 19(1), 24–39.
52. World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85239
53. Yıldırım, S., & Terzioğlu, F. (2018). A different face of violence: Dating violence, its effects and influencing factors. Anatolian Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 21(4), 285–292.