SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 58

Cognitive Flexibility and Subjective Well-Being in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Forgiveness

Yakup İME
Azmi ÇAĞLAR
Yusuf AKYIL
Pages
367–379
Publication Date
2020-09-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, cognitive flexibility and forgiveness were significant predictors of subjective well-being.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz The aim of this study is to explore the mediating role of forgiveness in the correlation between cognitive flexibility and subjective well-being of adolescents. 516 high school students, 362 of them female and 154 of them male, participated in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results, cognitive flexibility and forgiveness were significant predictors of subjective well-being.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The mediating role of forgiveness provides us new perspectives to increase the subjective well-being of adolescents.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Adolescence · Cognitive Flexibility · Adolescence

Özet

Öz The aim of this study is to explore the mediating role of forgiveness in the correlation between cognitive flexibility and subjective well-being of adolescents. 516 high school students, 362 of them female and 154 of them male, participated in the study. The correlations between variables were investigated with Pearson correlation analysis; afterwards, the Structural Equation Modeling was used to test the mediating role of forgiveness in the correlation between cognitive flexibility and subjective well-being of adolescents. According to the results, cognitive flexibility and forgiveness were significant predictors of subjective well-being. Forgiveness partially mediated the correlation between cognitive flexibility and subjective well-being. The mediating role of forgiveness suggests that cognitive flexibility improves the subjective well-being of adolescents directly and indirectly. Results demonstrate that adolescents with high cognitive flexibility scores also have high subjective well-being scores. The mediating role of forgiveness provides us new perspectives to increase the subjective well-being of adolescents.

🔖

Cite This Article

İME, Y., ÇAĞLAR, A., AKYIL, Y. (2020). Cognitive Flexibility and Subjective Well-Being in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Forgiveness. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 58, 367–379. https://ajindex.com/articles/64346

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Alpay, A. (2009). Yakın ilişkilerde bağışlama: Bağışlamanın; bağlanma, benlik saygısı, empati ve kıskançlık değişkenleri yönünden incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi,
  2. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  3. Asıcı, E. & İkiz, F. E. (2015). Mutluluğa giden bir yol: Bilişsel esneklik. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(35), 191-211.
  4. Asici, E. & Karaca, R. (2018). Ergenler için affetme ölçeği (EAÖ): Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(11). Asıcı, E. (2019). Affetme esnekliğinin ergenlerin iyi oluşunu yordayıcı rolü. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,21(3),17-31.
  5. Aydınay Satan, A. (2014). Dini inanç ve bilişsel esneklik düzeylerinin öznel iyi oluş düzeyine olan etkisi. Yüzyılda Eğitim ve Toplum, 3(7),56-74.
  6. Aypay, A., & Eryılmaz, A. (2011). Ergen öznel iyi oluşu ile kimlik statüsü ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (16), 167-179.
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (18. Baskı). Ankara:
  8. Pegem Akademi Yayımcılık. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, A. D. (1986). The Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Socia lPsychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
  9. Berry, J. W., Worthington, E. L., O’Connor, L. E., Parrott, L., & Wade, N. G. (2005). Forgivingness, vengefulrumination, andaffectivetraits. Journal of Personality, 73, 183–225.
  10. Bilgin, M. (2009). Bilişsel esnekliği yordayan bazı değişkenler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(36), 142-157.
  11. Blaye, A. & Bonthoux, F. (2001). The maticandtaxonomic relations in preschoolers: the development of flexibility in categorization choices. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 395-412.
  12. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17(3), 303-316.
  13. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136.
  14. Canas, J. J., Fajardo, I., & Salmeron, L. (2006). Cognitive flexibility. International encyclopedia of ergonomic sand human factors, 1, 297-301.
  15. Colzato, L. S., Huizinga, M., & Hommel, B. (2009). Recreational cocainepoly drug use impairs cognitive flexibility but not working memory. Psychopharmacology, 207, 225–234.
  16. Cretenet, J., & Dru, V. (2009). Influence of peripheraland motivational cues on rigid–flexible functioning: Perceptu