Türkiye'de Yaşayan Beliren Yetişkinlerin Bağlılık, Biz-olma ve İlişki Doyumu

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, bağımlılığın temellerinin, özellikle alternatiflerin kalitesi ve dört tür yatırımın (geçmiş maddi ve manevi, planlanan maddi ve manevi) bir romantik ilişki içinde olan beliren yetişkinler arasında bağlılığı yordayıp yordamadığını ve biz-olma duygusunun bağlılık ile ilişki doyumu arasındaki ilişkide bir aracı rolünün olup olmadığını incelemektir. Çalışma, Türkiye'de yaşayan, 18 ile 29 yaşları arasındaki 291 beliren yetişkin (103 erkek ve 188 kadın) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılar, uygun örneklem yöntemi kullanılarak seçilmiştir. Veriler, İlişki İstikrarı Ölçeği'nin Alternatiflerin Kalitesi, Bağlılık ve İlişki Doyumu alt ölçekleri, Geçmiş ve Planlanan Yatırımlar Ölçeği, Biz-olma Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bulgular, geçmiş maddi yatırımlar hariç tüm değişkenlerin beklenen yönde bağlılığı önemli ölçüde yordadığını göstermiştir. Alternatiflerin kalitesinin düşük olması ve yatırım düzeylerinin yüksek olması (özellikle maddi olmayan ve planlı yatırımlar) daha yüksek bağlılık düzeyleriyle ilişkili bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, “biz-olma” duygusunun bağlılık ve ilişki doyumu arasındaki ilişkide aracı bir role sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Bu da, daha güçlü bir “biz-olma” duygusunun, ilişkilerine bağlılığı yüksek olan bireylerin romantik ilişkilerinde neden daha fazla doyum yaşadıklarını açıklamaya yardımcı olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar mevcut alanyazın ışığında tartışılmış, gelecek araştırma önerileri paylaşılmış ve özellikle çiftlerle psikolojik danışma için uygulama önerilerinde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Beliren yetişkinlik
• ilişki yatırımları
• bağlılık
• biz-olma
• ilişki doyumu

Destekleyen Kurum

TED Üniversitesi

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırmanın etik izinleri TED Üniversitesi İnsan Araştırmaları Etik Komitesinin 14.04.2022 tarihli ve E-27535802-100-15322 numaralı kararınca alınmıştır.

Commitment, We-ness, and Relationship Satisfaction of Emerging Adults Living in Türkiye

Öz

The present study aimed to investigate how bases of dependence—namely, quality of alternatives, and four categories of investments (past tangible, past intangible, planned tangible, and planned intangible)—influence commitment among emerging adults in romantic relationships. It is also examined whether the sense of we-ness serves as a mediator between commitment and relationship satisfaction. The study was conducted with a sample of 291 emerging adults (103 men and 188 women) residing in Türkiye, aged between 18 and 29. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling method. Data were collected using the subscales (Quality of Alternatives, Commitment, and Satisfaction) of Investment Model Scale, along with Past and Planned Investments Measure, and We-ness Questionnaire. Findings demonstrated that all variables except past tangible investments significantly predicted commitment. More specifically, lower quality of alternatives and higher investment levels (especially intangible and planned) were associated with higher levels of commitment. Furthermore, we-ness was found to significantly mediate the association between commitment and relationship satisfaction, suggesting that a stronger sense of we-ness helps explain why committed individuals experience greater satisfaction in their romantic relationships. The implications of these results were discussed with reference to prior research, and suggestions for both future studies and clinical practice were provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Emerging adulthood
• investments
• commitment
• we-ness
• relationship satisfaction

Destekleyen Kurum

TED University

Etik Beyan

This research was approved by TED University Human Research Ethics Committee dated and numbered 14.04.2022 E-27535802-100-15322.

Kaynakça

1. Acitelli, L. K., Rogers, S., & Knee, C. R. (1999). The role of identity in the link between relationship thinking and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(5), 591–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599165003
2. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939
3. Agnew, C. R. (2009). Commitment: Theories and typologies. In H. T. Reis & S. K. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 245-248). Sage.
4. Agnew, C. R., Harvey, S. M., VanderDrift, L. E., & Warren, J. (2017). Relational underpinnings of condom use: Findings from the project on partner dynamics. Health Psychology, 36(7), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000488
5. Alea, N., Singer, J. A., & Labunko, B. (2015). We-ness in relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction. In K. Skerrett, & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 163-177). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_9
6. Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011
7. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties.
8. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469– 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.

9. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 193–281). McGraw-Hill.
10. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance in marital functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G.
11. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33– 49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002
12. Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadic coping and the significance of this concept for prevention and therapy. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 16(3), 108-111. https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149.16.3.108
13. Bodenmann, G., Randall, A. K., & Falconier, M. K. (2016). Coping in couples: the systemic transactional model (STM). In Couples coping with stress (pp. 5-22). Routledge.
14. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.
15. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3-4), 295-318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295
16. Büyükşahin, A., Hasta, D., & Hovardaoğlu, S. (2005). Investment Model Scale: Validity and reliability study, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 8(16), 25-37.
17. Büyükşahin, A., & Hovardaoğlu, S. (2007). The investigation of investment model in terms of some relational variables. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 22(59), 69–86.
18. Büyükşahin, A., & Taluy, N. (2008). Revision of Investment Model Scale. Unpublished research report.
19. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268
20. Cruwys, T., South, E. I., Halford, W. K., Murray, J. A., & Fladerer, M. P. (2022). Measuring “we‐ness” in couple relationships: A social identity approach. Family Process, 62(2), 795-817. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12811
21. Dion, M. R. (2005). Healthy marriage programs: Learning what works. The Future of Children, 15, 139–156.
22. Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.
23. Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., Wu, T. F., & Wei, M. (2013). Attachment and the investment model: Predictors of relationship commitment, maintenance, and persistence. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 546-567.
24. Falconier, M.K., Jackson, J.B., Hilpert, P. & Bodenmann,G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002.
25. Floyd, F. J., & Wasner, G. H. (1994). Social exchange, equity, and commitment: Structural equation modeling of dating relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(1), 55–73.
26. Furjman, W., & Schaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications. Erlbaum.
27. Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(10), 1–14.
28. Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723–734.
29. Hofstede, G. et al. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
30. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
31. Kelley, H. H. & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley-Interscience.
32. Kızılkaya, O. (2020). The role of attachment and conflict resolution styles on romantic relationship commitment of emerging adults: Investment model perspective (Unpublished master's thesis). Middle East Technical University.
33. Landis, M., Bodenmann, G., Bradbury, T. N., Brandstätter, V., Peter-Wight, M., Backes, S., Sutter-Stickel, D., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2014). Commitment and dyadic coping in long-term relationships. GeroPsych, 27(4), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000112
34. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035
35. Lehmiller, J. J. (2010). Differences in relationship investments between gay and heterosexual men. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01254.x
36. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
37. Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816–841.
38. McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1987). The relation between current impressions and memories of self and dating partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(2), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167287132008
39. Medvene, L. J., Teal, C. R., & Slavich, S. (2000). Including the other in self: Implications for judgments of equity and satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(3), 396–419. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.3.396
40. Meier, T., Milek, A., Mehl, M. R., Nussbeck, F. W., Neysari, M., Bodenmann, G., Sutter-Stickel, D., & Horn, A. B. (2021). I blame you, I hear you: Couples’ pronoun use in conflict and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(11), 3265–3287. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211029721
41. Mitchell, M. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2013). A comparison of the cross-sectional and sequential designs when assessing longitudinal mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(3), 301-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.784696
42. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.707
43. Özgülük Üçok, S. B., & Hatipoğlu-Sümer, Z. (2021). Turkish adaptation of the satisfaction with dual-career lifestyle scale. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 22(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.815974
44. Özgülük Üçok, S. B., & Hatipoğlu-Sümer, Z. (2023). Preliminary analysis of the past and planned investments measure in Turkish dual-career married individuals. Journal of Family Issues, 44(4), 977–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211055113.
45. Özgülük Üçok, S. B., Aydogan, D., Topcu-Uzer, C., & Randall, A.K. (2024). Adaptation and validation of the we-ness questionnaire in a Turkish sample. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 13(1), 222-231, https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1247631
46. Özgülük Üçok, S. B., Onaylı, S., & Aydogan, D. (2025). We are together, but how much are we truly ‘we’?: A dyadic approach with Turkish emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 13(6), 1445-1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968251369900
47. Reid, D. W., Dalton, E. J., Laderoute, K., Doell, F. K., & Nguyen, T. (2006). Therapeutically induced changes in couple identity: The role of we-ness and interpersonal processing in relationship satisfaction. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(3), 241-84. https://doi.org/10.3200/mono.132.3.241-288
48. Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Kumashiro, M. (2017). The "I" in us, or the eye on us? Regulatory focus, commitment and derogation of an attractive alternative person. PLoS ONE, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174350
49. Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(1), 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
50. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.1998.tb00177.x
51. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.45.1.101
52. Schneewind, K. A., & Wunderer, E. (2003). Prozessmodelle der Partnerschaftsentwicklung [Process models of partnership development]. In H.-W. Bierhoff & I. Grau (Hrsg.), Sozialpsychologie der Partnerschaft (S. 221–255). Springer-Verlag.
53. Singer, J. A., Labunko, B., Alea, N., & Baddeley, J. L. (2015). Mutuality and the Marital Engagement—Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)]: Empirical support for a clinical instrument in couples therapy. In K. Skerrett, & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 123–137). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_7
54. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.
55. Topcu-Uzer, C., Randall, A. K., Vedes, A. M., Reid, D., & Bodenmann, G. (2021). We-ness Questionnaire: Development and validation. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 20(3), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2020.1805082
56. Tran, P., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2019). Commitment in relationships: An updated meta‐analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 26(1), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12268
57. Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.