Turkish Adaptation of the MATRRESS: A Multidimensional Scale of Manipulation Tactics in Romantic Relationships

Öz

This study aimed to adapt the Multidimensional Scale of Manipulation Tactics in Romantic Relationships (MATRRESS) into Turkish and to evaluate its psychometric properties within the socio-cultural context of Türkiye. Data were collected online from 290 participants (206 women, 84 men; Mage = 27.05, SD = 9.90). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the original 8-factor structure of the MATRRESS. The exploratory factor analysis accounted for 67.46% of the total variance, and the confirmatory factor analysis indicated an excellent fit to the data (CFI = .996, TLI = .996, RMSEA = .044, 90% CI [.037, .050], SRMR = .090). Reliability analyses indicated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 for the overall scale and values ranging from .70 to .89 for the subdimensions. Correlational analyses demonstrated significant associations between manipulation tactics, Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy), and emotional manipulation. Gender differences emerged, with men scoring higher in overall emotional manipulation and Dark Triad traits, while women reported greater use of Abandonment Threats. The Turkish version of the MATRRESS offers a valid and reliable tool for future research, supporting cross-cultural comparisons and the development of targeted interventions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Emotional Manipulation
• Scale Adaptation
• Dark Triad Traits
• Turkish Culture
• Romantic Relationships
• MATRRESS

Romantik İlişkilerde Manipülasyon: MATRRESS Ölçeğinin Türkçe Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Romantik İlişkilerde Manipülasyon Taktikleri Çok Boyutlu Ölçeği’nin (MATRRESS) Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve Türkiye’nin sosyo-kültürel bağlamında psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırma kapsamında veriler çevrimiçi anket yoluyla 290 katılımcıdan toplanmıştır. Katılımcıların 206’sı kadın, 84’ü erkektir ve yaş ortalaması 27,05 (SS = 9,90) olarak bulunmuştur. Yapılan açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, ölçeğin özgün 8 faktörlü yapısını desteklemiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi toplam varyansın %67,46’sını açıklarken, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi de modelin veriye mükemmel uyum gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur (CFI = .996, TLI = .996, RMSEA = .044, %90 GA [.037, .050], SRMR = .090). Güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda ölçeğin bütününe ilişkin Cronbach alfa katsayısı .88 olarak tespit edilmiş, alt boyutlarda ise bu değerlerin .70 ile .89 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Korelasyon analizleri, manipülasyon taktikleri ile Karanlık Üçlü özellikleri (Makyavelcilik, narsisizm ve psikopati) ve duygusal manipülasyon arasında anlamlı ilişkiler olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca cinsiyet farklılıkları da gözlenmiştir: Erkekler, genel duygusal manipülasyon düzeylerinde ve Karanlık Üçlü özelliklerinde daha yüksek puan alırken, kadınların terk tehdidi taktiklerini daha sık kullandıkları bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, MATRRESS’in Türkçe versiyonu hem geçerli hem de güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı sunmakta, kültürler arası karşılaştırmalara katkı sağlamakta ve ilişkilerde manipülasyon davranışlarını hedef alan müdahalelerin geliştirilmesine olanak tanımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Duygusal Manipülasyon
• Ölçek Uyarlaması
• Karanlık Üçlü Özellikleri
• Romantik İlişkiler
• MATRRESS

Kaynakça

1. Assad, K. K., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). Optimism: An enduring resource for romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.285
2. Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.019
3. Aydemir, C. (2021). Duygusal Manipülasyon Ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışması. Global Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 10(19), 87-94.
4. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Sadness and Depression. Basic Books
5. Braiker, H. B. (2004). Who's pulling your strings? How to break the cycle of manipulation and regain control of your life. McGraw-Hill Education.
6. Buss, D. M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D. S. & Lauterbach, K. (1987). Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1219
7. Carlson, W., & Rose, A. J. (2007). The role of reciprocity in romantic relationships in middle childhood and early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(2), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007.0008
8. Chapaux-Morelli, P. ve Couderc, P. (2017). İkili ilişkilerde duygusal manipülasyon: narsist bir partnerle yüzleşmek (9th ed.). (I. Ergüden, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları.

9. Christie R., & Geis F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. Academic Press.
10. Clempner, J. B. (2017). A game theory model for manipulation based on machiavellianism: Moral and ethical behavior. Journal of Artificial Societies & Social Simulation, 20(2), 4-4. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3301
11. Connolly, J. A., & Konarski, R. (1994). Peer self-concept in adolescence: Analysis of factor structure and of associations with peer experience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(3), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0403_3
12. Çakır, D. S. (2020). The role of cultural difference in romantic relationship constructs in Turkish samples [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
13. De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2018). Self-efficacy to spur job performance: Roles of job-related anxiety and perceived workplace incivility. Management Decision, 56(4), 891-907. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2017-0187
14. Dreikurs, R. R. (1953). Fundamentals of Adlerian psychology. Alfred Adler Institute.
15. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
16. Erikson, E. H. (1994). Identity and the life cycle. W W Norton & Co.
17. Ertürk, Y., & Arıkan, S. (2022). Romantik ilişkilerde ilişki istikrarı: Sınır kişilik örgütlenmesinde erken dönem uyumsuz şemalar, ilişkilerde manipülasyon ve flört şiddeti bağlamında incelenmesi. International Journal of Social Humanities Sciences Research, 9(87), 1776–1791. https://doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.3213
18. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018
19. Geis, F. L., & Moon, T. H. (1981). Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.766
20. Geng, Y., Cheng, Z., Shi, L., Zhan, T., Hu, Z., & Jin, W. (2025). Dark Triad and interpersonal forgiveness: The mediating role of interpersonal relationship satisfaction. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020237
21. Hare, R.D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
22. Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 881-899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506070471
23. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
24. Ioannidis, P. (2021). The development of the MATRRESS; a multidimensional scale of manipulation tactics in romantic relationships. International Journal of Science and Research, 10(10), 1510-1515. https://doi.org/10.21275/SR211026220830
25. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
26. Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X. & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.007
27. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Keçeci, İ., & Ümmet, D. (2025). Psychological violence in romantic relationships: A qualitative study on Turkish university students’ perceptions and experiences. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 72. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04375-0
29. Larson, J. (1988). The marriage quiz: College students’ beliefs in selected beliefs about marriage. Family Relations, 37, 3-11.
30. Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62(2), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131003
31. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
32. McGinn, C. (2014). Mindfucking: A critique of mental manipulation. Routledge.
33. Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007). Narcissistic personality disorder: Relations with distress and functional impairment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48(2), 170-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2006.10.003
34. Montgomery, M. J., & Sorell, G. T. (1997). Differences in love attitudes across family life stages. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 46(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/585607
35. Muezzin, E. E., Çetin, N., & Yüksel, M. M. (2024). Beliren yetişkinlerde erken dönem uyumsuz şemalar ile çocukluk çağı travmalarının romantik ilişki doyumu üzerindeki etkisi: Duygu düzenleme güçlüğünün aracı rolü. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.1309089
36. Myers, D. (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56
37. Neff, K. D., & Suizzo, M. A. (2006). Culture, power, authenticity and psychological wellbeing within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American and Mexican Americans. Cognitive Development, 21(4), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.008
38. Neider, T., & Seiffge–Krenke, I. (2001). Coping with stress in different phases of romantic development. Journal of Adolescence, 24(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0407
39. Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Joyce, A. S., & Piper, W. E. (2009). Development of the Readiness for Psychotherapy Index. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 197(6), 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181a61c56
40. O'Reilly, C.A., & Doerr, B. (2020). Conceit and deceit: Lying, cheating, and stealing among grandiose narcissists. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, Article 109627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109627
41. 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), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1247631
42. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
43. Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 844–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.844
44. Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–1381. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016238
45. Ritter, K., Dziobek, I., Preissler, S., Rüter, A., Vater, A., Fydrich, T., Lammers, C. H., Heekeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2011). Lack of empathy in patients with narcissistic personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 187(1-2), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.09.013
46. Roisman, G. I., Collins, V. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young adults’ representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment and Human Development, 7(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500134928
47. Sakman, E., & Sümer, N. (2024). Cultural correlates of adult attachment dimensions: Comparing the US and Turkey. Cross-Cultural Research, 58(2-3), 208-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971231220437
48. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
49. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. https://doi/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
51. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.
52. Turner, M. M. (2026). Manipulation in close relationships: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 248, 113485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113485
53. Yaşlıoğlu, D. T., & Atılgan, Ö (2018). Karanlık Üçlü ölçeği: Türkçe’ye uyarlama, güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik çalışması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (3), 725-739. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.435604