ROMANTİK İLİŞKİ KALİTESİNDE NESNE İLİŞKİLERİ, ZİHİNSELLEŞTİRME VE AFFETME: BÜTÜNLEŞTİRİCİ BİR KURAMSAL DERLEME

Öz

Alanyazındaki çalışmalar, doyum verici bir evlilik ya da romantik ilişkinin bireylerin hem fiziksel hem de psikolojik sağlıklarıyla yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Yakın ilişkilerin niteliği yalnızca kişilerarası doyum açısından değil, aynı zamanda bireylerin yaşam kalitesi, psikolojik iyi oluşu ve stresle başa çıkma süreçleri açısından da önemli sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Bu nedenle romantik ilişki kalitesini etkileyen bireysel ve ilişkisel değişkenlerin belirlenmesi psikoloji alanında önemli bir araştırma konusu olarak ele alınmaktadır. Mevcut çalışmalar, nesne ilişkilerinin niteliğinin, zihinselleştirme kapasitesinin ve affetme eğiliminin romantik ilişki kalitesi ile anlamlı biçimde ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Nesne ilişkileri, bireylerin erken dönem bakım veren deneyimleri sonucunda geliştirdikleri kendilik ve öteki temsillerini ifade ederken; zihinselleştirme kapasitesi bireyin hem kendi hem de başkalarının davranışlarını altta yatan zihinsel durumlar açısından anlayabilme becerisi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Affetme ise romantik ilişkilerde ortaya çıkan incinme ve çatışmaların ardından ilişkisel onarımın gerçekleşmesine katkı sağlayan önemli bir psikolojik süreç olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bununla birlikte söz konusu değişkenlerin romantik ilişki kalitesi bağlamında birlikte ele alındığı kuramsal çalışmaların sınırlı olduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, nesne ilişkileri, zihinselleştirme ve affetme kavramlarını romantik ilişki kalitesi bağlamında birlikte değerlendirerek bütünleştirici bir kuramsal çerçeve sunmaktır. Elde edilen kuramsal çıkarımların, romantik ilişki ve evlilik kalitesini artırmaya yönelik klinik müdahalelerde odaklanılması gereken alanların belirlenmesine katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Affetme
• nesne ilişkileri
• romantik ilişki kalitesi
• zihinselleştirme.

OBJECT RELATIONS, MENTALIZATION, AND FORGIVENESS IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP QUALITY: AN INTEGRATIVE THEORETICAL REVIEW

Öz

Previous research indicates that a satisfying marriage or romantic relationship is closely associated with individuals’ physical and psychological health. The quality of close relationships plays an important role not only in interpersonal satisfaction but also in quality of life, psychological well-being, and ability to cope with stress. Therefore, identifying individual and relational factors influencing romantic relationship quality has become an important topic in psychological research. Existing studies show that the quality of object relations, mentalization capacity, and the tendency to forgive are related to romantic relationship quality. Object relations refer to internalized representations of the self and others developed through early caregiving experiences, whereas mentalization refers to the ability to understand one’s own and others’ behaviors in terms of underlying mental states. Forgiveness is considered an important psychological process facilitating relational repair after experiences of hurt and conflict in romantic relationships. However, theoretical studies examining these variables together in the context of romantic relationship quality remain limited. This review aims to provide an integrative theoretical framework by examining object relations, mentalization, and forgiveness in relation to romantic relationship quality. The implications of this review may help identify key areas for clinical interventions aimed at improving romantic relationship and marital quality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Forgiveness
• object relations
• romantic relationship quality
• mentalization.

Kaynakça

1. Aalgaard, R. A., Bolen, R. M., & Nugent, W. R. (2016). A literature review of forgiveness as a beneficial intervention to increase relationship satisfaction in couples therapy. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 46-55.
2. Akkuş, K. (2024). Yalnızlığın psikolojisi. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
3. Allemand, M., Amberg, I., Zimprich, D., & Fincham, F. D. (2007). Trait forgiveness, relationship satisfaction, and episodic forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.199
4. Allen, J. G., Fonagy, P., & Bateman, A. W. (2013). Klinik uygulamada zihinselleştirme. (S. Yelkener, Çeviri). İstanbul: İklim Ofset.
5. Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2003). People's reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24(5), 602-626.
6. Aşçıoğlu-Önal, A., & Yalçın, I. (2017). Forgiveness of others and self-forgiveness: The predictive role of cognitive distortions, empathy, and rumination. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(68), 99–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.68.6
7. Atılgan, I. (2020). Üniversite öğrencilerinin romantik ilişkiler ile ilgili akılcı olmayan inançlarının nesne ilişkileri-gerçeği değerlendirme boyutları ve ilişki doyumu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
8. Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8

9. Başçelik, E., Faraji, H., & Güler, K. (2022). Psikanalitik kuram ve şema teorisi çerçevesinde annelerimiz, babalarımız ve romantik ilişkilerimiz. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
10. Bell, M. D. (2007). Bell object relations and reality testing inventory: BORRTI. Western Psychological Services.
11. Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25.
12. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
13. Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: mediating mechanisms. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 551–559.
14. Camoirano, A. (2017). Mentalizing makes parenting work: A review about parental reflective functioning and clinical interventions to improve it. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00014
15. Collins, W. A. (2003). More and myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence,13(1),1- 24.
16. Çelik, E. & Ertürk, K. (2022). The effect of forgiveness psychoeducation on forgiveness and life satisfaction in high school students. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 22(1), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12418
17. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and social psychology review, 19(2), 113-147.
18. Fenell, D. L. (1993). Characteristics of long-term first marriages. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15(4), 446–460.
19. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Forgiveness and marital quality: Precursor or consequence in well-established relationships? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(4), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701552360
20. Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00002
21. Fitzgibbons, R. P. (1986). The cognitive and emotive uses of forgiveness in the treatment of anger. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 23(4), 629–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085667
22. Fonagy, P., & Allison, E. (2014). The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy, 51(3), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036505
23. Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-organization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 679-700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579497001399
24. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Moulton-Perkins, A., Lee, Y., Warren, F., Howard, S., & Lowyck, B. (2016). Development and validation of a self-report measure of mentalizing: The reflective functioning questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 11(7), E0158678.
25. Galliher, R. C., Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (1998). Power in adolescent romantic relationships and its association with well-being. In Paul Florsheim (Chair), Adolescent Romantic Relations: Interpersonal Processes in Developmental Perspective. Symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA.
26. Güvenir, G. (2024). Yetişkinlerde narsisizm ve ilişki doyumu arasındaki ilişkide zihinselleştirmenin aracı rolü. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
27. Hegsted, C. P. (2020). The role of mentalized affectivity in romantic love and relationship satisfaction. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, City University of New York, New York. İldeniz Tan, B. (2023). Yetişkinlikte “ötekine tutunmak”: Romantik partnere bağımlılığın beden imgesi ve nesne ilişkileri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Maltepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
28. Jurist, E. L. (2005). Mentalized affectivity. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(3), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.22.3.426
29. Kaya, F. (2015). Üniversite öğrencilerinin affetme ve mükemmeliyetçilik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki: Duygusal zekânın aracı rolü. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
30. Kernberg, O. F. (2005). Object relations theory and technique. In E. S. Person, A. M. Cooper & G. O. Gabbard (Eds.), Textbook of psychoanalysis. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
31. Kyung-Sook, W., SangSoo, S., Sangjin, S., & Young-Jeon, S. (2018). Marital status integration and suicide: A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Social Science & Medicine, 197, 116–126.
32. Lassri, D., & Gewirtz-Meydan, A. (2024). Breaking the cycle: Mentalizing moderates and mediates the link between childhood sexual abuse and satisfaction with adult romantic relationships. Psychological trauma: theory, research, practice, and policy.
33. Li, M., Han, M., Chen, Z., Tang, Y., Ma, J., Zhang, Z., ... & Zhai, S. (2020). Does marital status correlate with the female breast cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PloS one, 15(3), e0229899.
34. Luyten, P., Campbell, C., Allison, E., & Fonagy, P. (2020). The mentalizing approach to psychopathology: State of the art and future directions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16(1), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071919-015355
35. Luyten, P., Nijssens, L., Fonagy, P., & Mayes, L. C. (2017). Parental reflec- tive functioning: Theory, research, and clinical applications. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 70(1), 174–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.2016.1277901
36. Matin, H., Etemadi, O., & Abedi, M. R. (2025a). Barriers to balanced mentalizing in couples’ relationships: Understanding relational misattunement through qualitative inquiry. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 34(10), 2625–2638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-025-03136-6
37. Matin, H., Etemadi, O., & Abedi, M. R. (2025b). Facilitating factors of mentalizing in marital relationships: A thematic analysis of content and process dynamics. The Family Journal, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807251335642
38. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
39. Milivojević, L., & Strkalj Ivezić, S. (2004). Importance of object relations theories for development of capacity for mature love. Croatian Medical Journal, 45(1), 18–24.
40. Nyberg, V., & Hertzmann, L. (2018). A partnership of two therapeutic models: The development of mentalization based treatment—couple therapy (MBT-CT) within a psychoanalytic framework. Couple and Family Psychoanalysis, 8(1), 23-37.
41. Özkan, C. (2023). Yakın İlişkilerin Çatışmalı Yönü ve Çatışma Çözme Becerileri. Psikoloji Araştırmaları, 1(2), 18-30.
42. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271597
43. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367-389). Chichester: Wiley.
44. Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187.
45. Schwarzer, N.-H., Nolte, T., Fonagy, P., & Gingelmaier, S. (2021). Mentalizing mediates the association between emotional abuse in childhood and potential for aggression in non-clinical adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 115, Article 105018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105018
46. Sharp, C. (2014). The social–cognitive basis of BPD: A theory of hypermentalizing. In C. Sharp & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of borderline personality disorder in children and adolescents (pp. 211–225). New York: Springer.
47. Sharp, C., & Vanwoerden, S. (2015). Hypermentalizing in Borderline Personality Disorder: Model and Data. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 14(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15289168.2015.1004890
48. Sharp, C., Pane, H., Ha, C., Venta, A., Patel, A., Sturek, J., & Fonagy, P. (2011). Theory of Mind and Emotion Regulation Difficulties in Adolescents With Borderline Traits. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(6), 563–573.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.01.017
49. Silva, M., Loureiro, A., & Cardoso, G. (2016). Social determinants of mental health: a review of the evidence. The European Journal of Psychiatry, 30(4), 259-292.
50. Sommerlad, A., Ruegger, J., Singh-Manoux, A., Lewis, G., & Livingston, G. (2018). Marriage and risk of dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 89(3), 231-238.
51. Spithoven, A. W. M., Bijttebier, P., & Goossens, L. (2017). It is all in their mind: A review on information processing bias in lonely individuals. Clinical Psychology Review, 58, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.003
52. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Love is a story: A new theory of relationships. Oxford University Press, USA.
53. Şahin, D. (2023). Yazılar: Birey ve toplumun psikodinamikleri üzerine. İstanbul: Pinhan Yayıncılık.
54. Taysi, E. (2007). İkili ilişkilerde bağışlama: İlişki kalitesi ve yüklemelerin rolü. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
55. Wang, F., Gao, Y., Han, Z., Yu, Y., Long, Z., Jiang, X., ... & Zhao, Y. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of 90 cohort studies of social isolation, loneliness and mortality. Nature human behaviour, 7(8), 1307-1319.
56. Wong, C. W., Kwok, C. S., Narain, A., Gulati, M., Mihalidou, A. S., Wu, P., ... & Mamas, M. A. (2018). Marital status and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Heart, 104(23), 1937-1948.
57. Xiao, M., Li, A., Wang, Y., Yu, C., Pang, Y., Pei, P., ... & Yin, L. (2024). A wide landscape of morbidity and mortality risk associated with marital status in 0.5 million Chinese men and women: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Regional Health–Western Pacific, 42.