PSİKOLOJİK ESNEKLİK İLE İLİŞKİ İSTİKRARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE ÇATIŞMA ÇÖZÜM STİLLERİNİN ARACI ROLÜ

Öz

Romantik ilişkiler, yalnızca yakınlık ve aidiyet ihtiyacının karşılanması açısından değil, aynı zamanda psikolojik ve fiziksel iyi oluş üzerinde de belirleyici bir rol oynamaktadır. Çalışmalar, romantik ilişkilerin istikrarını açıklamada bireysel özelliklerin ve çatışma çözme biçimlerinin önemli olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. Bu noktada, bireylerin değişen koşullara uyum sağlayabilme becerisi olarak tanımlanan psikolojik esneklik, sağlıklı ilişki işleyişini destekleyen temel bir kaynak olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Ancak psikolojik esnekliğin ilişki istikrarı ile ilişkisi daha fazla açıklamaya ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Bu araştırma, psikolojik esneklik ile ilişki istikrarı arasındaki ilişkide çatışma çözme tarzlarının aracı rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, 19 ile 50 yaş arası, toplam 391 katılımcı oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın veri toplama araçları İlişki İstikrarı Ölçeği, Psikolojik Esneklik Ölçeği ve Çatışma Çözüm Stilleri Ölçeğidir. Bulgular, psikolojik esnekliğin ilişki istikrarını pozitif yönde yordadığını, çatışma çözme tarzlarının bu ilişkide aracı rol oynadığını göstermiştir. Bu sonuçlar, romantik ilişki dinamiklerini açıklamada İncinebilirlik Stres Uyum modeli ve Yatırım Modeli çerçevesinde ele alınabilir. Çalışma, psikolojik esnekliğin romantik ilişkilerin sürdürülmesindeki önemini ortaya koyarken, çatışma çözme tarzlarının da bu süreçte kritik işlev gördüğünü göstermektedir. Bulgular, hem kuramsal alanyazına katkı sunmakta hem de klinik psikoloji uygulamaları açısından çift terapilerinde üzerinde durulması gereken önemli değişkenleri işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Romantik İlişkiler
• İlişki İstikrarı
• Psikolojik Esneklik
• Çatışma Çözme
• Aracı Model

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL FLEXIBILITY AND RELATIONSHIP STABILITY

Öz

Romantic relationships play a decisive role not only in terms of fulfilling the need for belonging and closeness, but also in terms of shaping individuals’ psychological and physical well-being. Research emphasises the importance of individual characteristics and conflict resolution styles in explaining the stability of romantic relationships. At this point, psychological flexibility, defined as the ability of individuals to adapt to changing circumstances, emerges as a fundamental resource that supports healthy relationship functioning. However, the relationship between psychological flexibility and relationship stability needs further explanation. This study aims to examine the mediating role of conflict resolution styles in the relationship between psychological flexibility and relationship stability. The sample for the study consisted of a total of 391 participants aged between 19 and 50. The Relationship Stability Scale, Psychological Flexibility Scale, and Conflict Resolution Style Scale were used as data collection tools. The findings revealed that psychological flexibility positively predicts relationship stability and that conflict resolution styles play a mediating role in this relationship. These results can be discussed within the framework of the Vulnerability Stress Adaptation Model and the Investment Model in explaining romantic relationship dynamics. The research reveals the importance of psychological flexibility in maintaining romantic relationships and shows that conflict resolution styles also play a critical role in this process. The findings contribute to the theoretical literature and point to important variables that should be emphasised in couples therapy in terms of clinical psychology applications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Romantic Relationships
• Relationship Stability
• Psychological Flexibility
• Conflict Resolution
• Mediation Model

Kaynakça

1. Abolghasemi, J., Jafari, F., Samani, L. N., & Rimaz, S. (2024). Predictors of marital satisfaction among reproductive-age women based on personality traits: A study in Iran. Cureus, 16(5).
2. Ali, F., & Saleem, N. (2022). Relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction among married academicians. Gomal University Journal of Research, 38(3), 300-318.
3. Andrade, C. (2020). The limitations of online surveys. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 42(6), 575-576.
4. Arıcıoğlu, A., & Kaya, S. (2023). Abusive behaviours in relationships, need satisfaction, conflict styles and relationship satisfaction: mediation and moderation roles. BMC psychology, 11(1), 160.
5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
6. Barraca, J., Polanski, T., Duarte-Diaz, A., & Perestelo-Perez, L. (2025). Acceptance and commitment therapy for couples: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 35, 100867.
7. Basak Nejad, S., & Amanollahi, A. (2021). The effectiveness of an acceptance and commitment-based couple therapy in intimacy and forgiveness among couples. Iranian Journal of Family Psychology, 4(1), 41-52.
8. Bokek‐Cohen, Y. A., & Halamish‐Leshem, R. (2024). Tactics of investment in couple relationship and their impact on relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 31(4), 946-965.

9. Bornstein, M. H., Jager, J., & Putnick, D. L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review, 33(4), 357–370.
10. Bülbül, H., Odacı, H., & Türkkan, B. (2024). Examination of the relationship between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction: the mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties. Journal of Family Social Work 27(1):1-15. DOI:10.1080/10522158.2024.2420928
11. Büyükşahin, A., Hasta, D. & Hovardaoğlu, İ.S. (2005) İlişki İstikrarı Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 8 (16), 25-37.
12. Caughlin, J. P., Scott, A. M., Smith, S., & Wilson, S. R. (2010). Toward a communication theory of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction in interpersonal relationships. New directions in interpersonal communication research, 180-200.
13. Cramer, D. (2000). Relationship satisfaction and conflict style in romantic relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 134(3), 337–341.
14. Daks, J.S. & Rogge, R.D. (2020). Examining the correlates of psychological flexibility in romantic relationship and family dynamics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.010
15. El-Sayed, M. M., Hawash, M. M., Khedr, M. A., Hafez, S. A., Salem, E. S. A. E. H., Essa, S. A., & El-Ashry, A. M. (2024). Cognitive flexibility's role in shaping self-perception of aging, body appreciation, and self-efficacy among community-dwelling older women. BMC nursing, 23(1), 220.
16. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.
17. Francis, A. W., Dawson, D. L. & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(3), 134-145.
18. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.
19. Gottman, J. M. & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233.
20. Gottman, J. M. (2017). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. In Interpersonal development.
21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
22. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
23. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, A Regression-Based Approach (3rd Ed.). The Guilford Press.
24. Işık, R. A., & Kaya, Y. (2022). The relationships among perceived stress, conflict resolution styles, spousal support and marital satisfaction during the COVID-19 quarantine. Current Psychology, 41(6), 3328-3338.
25. Karakuş, S. & Akbay, S. E. (2020). Psikolojik esneklik ölçeği: Uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 32-43.
26. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
27. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2020). Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12635
28. Kashdan, T. B. & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30: 865-878. Doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001 Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
29. Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current directions in research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 251–254.
30. Lim, A. Y. (2024). Narcissism and couple relationship satisfaction: The mediating roles of accepting differences and conflict resolution strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 225, 112656.
31. Mandal, E., & Lip, M. (2022). Mindfulness, relationship quality, and conflict resolution strategies used by partners in close relationships. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 10(2), 135-146. DOI:10.5114/cipp.2021.111981
32. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44.
33. Mosannenzadeh, F., Luijten, M., MacIejewski, D. F., Wiewel, G. V., & Karremans, J. C. (2024). Adult attachment and emotion regulation flexibility in romantic relationships. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 758.
34. Nar, Ö. H., Topkaya, N. & Şahin, E. (2022). Romantik ilişki yaşayan bireylerde ilişki doyumunun yordayıcıları: İlişkiye özgü akılcı olmayan inançlar ve bilişsel esneklik. Aile Psikolojik Danışmanlığı Dergisi, 5(1), 1-28.
35. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
36. Ong, C. W., Barthel, A. L., & Hofmann, S. G. (2024). The relationship between psychological inflexibility and well-being in adults: A meta-analysis of the acceptance and action questionnaire. Behavior therapy, 55(1), 26-41.
37. Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5.
38. Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate relationships: the role of ideal standards. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(4), 662.
39. Özcan, K. & Karagöz, B. (2023). Evli bireylerde psikolojik esneklik ve sorun çözme becerisi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Kahramanmaraş İstiklal Üniversitesi Psikoloji Dergisi (KİÜ), 1(1), 14-32.
40. Özen, A., Engin, S. S. & Uğurlu, N. S. (2016). Romantik ilişkilerde çatışma çözüm stilleri ölçeği: Geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi.
41. Pietromonaco, P. R., & Overall, N. C. (2022). Implications of social isolation, separation, and loss during the COVID-19 pandemic for couples' relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 43, 189-194.
42. Razazan, S. (2025). The Role of Psychological Flexibility, Resilience, Self-efficacy, and Hope in Predicting Marital Satisfaction of Married Women. International Journal of Body, Mind & Culture, 12(1).
43. Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753–17758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908630116
44. 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.
45. Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
46. Safa, S., Ameri Noorani, R., Jalali, B., Jafarzadeh Fekri, Z., & Gili, S. (2024). The Role of Psychological Flexibility, Acceptance, and Commitment in Marital Adjustment Among Couples. Applied Family Therapy Journal (AFTJ) , 5(1), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.aftj.5.1.16
47. Schiltz, H. K., & Van Hecke, A. V. (2021). Applying the vulnerability stress adaptation model of marriage to couples raising an autistic child: A call for research on adaptive processes. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 24(1), 120-140.
48. TÜİK. (2023). Eğitim istatistikleri. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://data.tuik.gov.tr
49. Twiselton, K., Stanton, S. C., Gillanders, D., & Bottomley, E. (2020). Exploring the links between psychological flexibility, individual well‐being, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 27(4), 880-906.
50. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.