Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale (IRIS): An Adaptation Study in the Context of Psychological Symptom Level and Social Support

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 16 Sayı: Supplement 1, 110 - 124

Özge Nur Muslu , Sait Uluç

https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1437486

Öz

Objective: Interpersonal processes are a significant dimension of emotion regulation, yet studies in this area are quite limited, and the measurement tools used in the Turkish literature are also scarce. Therefore, it is aimed to introduce the Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale to the Turkish literature.
Method: The sample of the study consists of n=320 married individuals. The data were collected through surveys. In this study, measurement tools that inquire about emotion regulation, social support, and psychological symptoms were used. The scale's construct validity was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion-related validity was tested with Pearson correlation coefficients with other scales, and reliability was calculated using Cronbach α coefficients. Finally, test-retest reliability was tested in a group of 50 individuals.
Results: Confirmatory factor analysis supports the scale's four-factor structure (responsiveness, cognitive support, hostility, physical presence). The Cronbach α values for the Turkish Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale are .92 for the responsiveness subscale, .87 for the cognitive support subscale, .75 for the hostility subscale, and .80 for the physical presence subscale. The results of criterion-related validity and test-retest reliability confirm that the Turkish form is a valid and reliable tool, and it is reported that the subscales are associated with psychopathology, difficulties in emotion regulation, psychological symptoms and social support.
Conclusion: This research found that the Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool for the Turkish sample. In conclusion, a significant measurement tool has been introduced for use in research in Türkiye.

Anahtar Kelimeler

emotion regulation, interpersonal emotion regulation, psychopathology, social support

Kişilerarası Duygu Düzenleme Etkileşim Ölçeği (KDDEÖ): Psikolojik Belirti Düzeyi ve Sosyal Destek Bağlamında Bir Adaptasyon Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Kişilerarası süreçler duygu düzenlemenin önemli bir boyutu olmasına rağmen bu alanda yapılan çalışmalar oldukça sınırlı olup Türkçe literatürde kullanılan ölçüm araçları da oldukça azdır. Bu nedenle Kişilerarası Duygu Düzenleme Etkileşim Ölçeği'nin Türkçe literatüre kazandırılması önem taşımaktadır.
Yöntem: Araştırmanın örneklemini n=320 evli birey oluşturmaktadır. Veriler anketler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Bu çalışmada duygu düzenleme, sosyal destek ve psikolojik belirtileri sorgulayan ölçüm araçları kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlilik için diğer ölçeklerle olan Pearson korelasyon katsayıları test edilmiş ve güvenilirlik için Cronbach Alpha katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Son olarak 50 kişilik bir grupta test tekrar test güvenirliği test edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, ölçeğin dört faktörlü yapısını (duyarlılık, bilişsel destek, düşmancıllık, fiziksel mevcudiyet) desteklemektedir. Türkçe Kişilerarası Duygu Düzenleme Etkileşim Ölçeği’nin Cronbach α değerleri; duyarlılık alt boyutu için .92, Bilişsel Destek alt boyutu için .87, düşmancıllık alt boyutu için .75, fiziksel mevcudiyet alt boyutu için ise .80 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçüt bağıntılı geçerliği ve test-tekrar test güvenirliği sonuçları Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu doğrulamış olup alt boyutların psikolojik belirti, duygu düzenleme güçlükleri ve sosyal destek ile de ilişkili olduğu raporlanmıştır.
Sonuç: Bu araştırma sonucunda Kişilerarası Duygu Düzenleme Etkileşim Ölçeği’nin Türkiye örneklemi için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye'deki araştırmalarda kullanılmak üzere, dilimize önemli bir ölçüm aracı kazandırılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

duygu düzenleme, kişilerarası duygu düzenleme, psikopatoloji, sosyal destek

Kaynakça

• Akın A, Çetin B (2007) Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the depression anxiety stress scale (DASS-42) in clinical and non-clinical samples. Curr Psychol, 25:283-299.
• Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Schweizer S (2010) Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev, 30:217-237.
• Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S (2012) When are adaptive strategies most predictive of psychopathology? J Abnorm Psychol, 121:276-281.
• Aggarwal, CC (2017) Outlier Analysis. New York, Springer.
• Ata G, Alkar ÖY (2020) Kişilerarası duygu düzenleme anketi: Birlikte kara kara düşünme ve birlikte yeniden değerlendirmenin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 4:136-150.
• Barthel AL, Hay AC, Doan S, Hofmann SG (2018) Interpersonal emotion regulation: A review of social and developmental components. Behav Change, 35:203-216.
• Bandura A, Walters RH (1977) Social Learning Theory, Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
• Beckes L, Coan JA (2011) Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 5:976–988.
• Butler EA (2011) Temporal interpersonal emotion systems: The “TIES” that form relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 15:367-393.
• Butler EA, Randall AK (2013) Emotional coregulation in close relationships. Emot Rev, 5:202–210.
• Büyüköztürk Ş (2016) Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Ankara, Pegem Akademi.
• Chapman A, Gratz K, Tull M (2011) The Dialectical Behavior Therapy Skills Workbook for Anxiety: Breaking Free from Worry, Panic, PTSD, and Other Anxiety Symptoms. Oakland, New Harbinger.
• Chan S, Rawana JS (2021) Examining the associations between interpersonal emotion regulation and psychosocial adjustment in emerging adulthood. Cognit Ther Res, 45:652-662.
• Coan JA, Maresh EL (2014) Social baseline theory and the social regulation of emotion, In The Handbook of Emotion Regulation (Eds JJ Gross):221-236. New York, Guilford Press.
• Cohen S, Wills TA (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull, 98:310-357.
• Cohen S (2004) Social relationships and health. Am Psychol, 59:676-684.
• Debrot A, Schoebi D, Perrez M, Horn AB (2013) Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 39:1373-1385.
• Eker D, Arkar H (1995) Perceived social support: Psychometric properties of the MSPSS in normal and pathological groups in a developing country. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 30:121-126.
• Eker D (2001) Çok boyutlu algılanan sosyal destek ölçeğinin gözden geçirilmiş formunun faktör yapısı, geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Turk Psikiyatri Derg, 12:17-25.
• Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu SY (2013) Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33:210-223.
• Feeney BC, Collins NL (2015) A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 19:113-147.
• Florean RO, Pasarlu AP (2019) Interpersonal emotion regulation in romantic relationships: The mediational role of cognitive empathy. J Soc Pers Relat, 36:2049–2069.
• Gottman JM, Levenson RW (1986) Assessing the role of emotion in marriage. Behav Assess. Behav Assess, 8:31–48.
• Gökdağ C, Naldöken B (2021) Kişilerarası duygu düzenlemenin kişilik özellikleri ve psikopatoloji belirtileriyle ilişkisi. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 24:41-52.
• Gökdağ C (2021) How does interpersonal emotion regulation explain psychological distress? The roles of attachment style and social support. Pers Individ Dif, 176:110763.
• Gökdağ C, Sorias O, Kıran S, Ger S (2019) Kişilerarası Duygu Düzenleme Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Turk Psikiyatri Derg, 30:57-66.
• Gratz KL, Roemer L (2004) Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess, 26:41-54.
• Gross JJ (1998) The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Rev Gen Psychol, 2:271-299.
• Gross JJ, Thompson RA (2007) Emotion regulation: conceptual foundations. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation (Eds JJ Gross): 3–24. New York, Guilford Press.
• Hofmann SG, Carpenter JK, Curtiss J (2016) Interpersonal emotion regulation questionnaire (IERQ): Scale development and psychometric characteristics. Cognit Ther Res, 40:341-356.
• Hofmann, SG, Doan, SN (2018) Social self and emotions. In The Social Foundations of Emotion: Developmental, Cultural, and Clinical Dimensions (Eds SG Hofmann, SN Doan):23–46.Washington, American Psychological Association.
• Horn AB, Maercker A (2016) Intra-and interpersonal emotion regulation and adjustment symptoms in couples: The role of co-brooding and co-reappraisal. BMC Psychol, 4:51.
• House JS (1983) Work Stress and Social Support. Boston, Addison-Wesley.
• Kağıtçıbaşı Ç (1996) Family and Human Development across Cultures: A View from the Other Side. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç (2014) Kültürleşme ve aile ilişkileri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 17:120-127.
• Keltner D, Gross JJ (1999) Functional accounts of emotions. Cogn Emot, 13:467-480.
• Kline, TJ (2005) Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation. London, Sage.
• Kline, P. (2013) Handbook of Psychological Testing. Milton Park, Routledge.
• Koç MS, Aka BT, Doğruyol B, Curtiss J, Carpenter JK, Hofmann SG (2019) Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the interpersonal emotion regulation questionnaire (IERQ). J Psychopathol Behav Assess, 41:294-303.
• Lakey B, Orehek E (2011) Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychol Rev, 118:482-495.
• Levy-Gigi E, Shamay-Tsoory SG (2017) Help me if you can: Evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal compared to intrapersonal emotion regulation in reducing distress. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, 55:33-40.
• Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH (1995) The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther, 33:335-343.
• Malkoç A, Gördesli MA, Arslan R, Çekici F, Sünbül ZA (2018) Interpersonal emotion regulation scale (IERS): Adaptation and psychometric properties in a Turkish sample. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5:754-762.
• Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE (2001) New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. London, Psychology Press.
• Marraquin B (2011) Interpersonal emotion regulation as a mechanism of social support in depression. Clin Psychol Rev, 31:1276–1290.
• Mennin DS, Heimberg RG, Turk CL, Fresco DM (2007) Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther, 45:1285-1301.
• Myers RH, Myers RH (1990) Classical and modern regression with applications, Vol. 2. Belmont, Duxbury Press.
• Munro BH (2005) Statistical Methods for Health Care Research, Vol. 1.Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Nolen-Hoeksema S, Wisco BE, Lyubomirsky S (2008) Rethinking rumination. Perspect Psychol Sci, 3:400-424.
• Ray-Yol E, Ülbe S, Temel M, Altan-Atalay A (2022) Interpersonal emotion regulation strategies: can they function differently under certain conditions? Curr Psychol, 41:2364-2371.
• Rugancı RN, Gençöz T (2010) The Turkish version of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale: A reliability and validity study. J Cogn Psychother, 24:290-308.
• Rusu PP, Bodenmann G, Kayser K (2019) Cognitive emotion regulation and positive dyadic outcomes in married couples. J Soc Pers Relat, 36:359-376.
• Sarason, BR, Sarason, IG, Pierce GR (1990) Social Support: An Interactional View. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons.
• Sarısoy-Aksüt G, Gençöz T (2020) Psychometric properties of the interpersonal emotion regulation questionnaire (IERQ) in Turkish samples. Curr Psychol, 41:563-572.
• Saruhan V, Başman M, Ekşi H (2019) Kişilerarası duygu düzenleme ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19:1090-1101.
• Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8:23-74.
• Shevlin M, Miles JNV, Davies MNO, Walker S (2000) Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Pers Individ Dif, 28:229-237.
• Swerdlow BA, Johnson SL (2022) The interpersonal regulation interaction scale (IRIS): A multistudy investigation of receivers’ retrospective evaluations of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions. Emotion, 22:1119-1136.
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. London, Pearson Education.
• Tsai JL (2007) Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2:242-259.
• Yılmaz V, Çelik H (2009) LISREL İle Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi-I: Temel Kavramlar, Uygulamalar, Programlama. Ankara, Pegem Akademi.
• Zaki J, Williams WC (2013) Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13:803–810.
• Zaki J (2020) Integrating empathy and interpersonal emotion regulation. Annu Rev Psychol, 71:517-540.
• Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK (1988) Multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess, 52:30-41.