KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 54 Sayı: 2

Romantik İlişkilerde Mağdur Duyarlılığı ile Öznel İyi Oluş Arasındaki İlişkide Bağışlamanın Aracı, Algılanan Partner Duyarlılığının Düzenleyici Rolü

The Mediating Role of Forgiveness and The Moderating Role of Perceived Partner Responsiveness in The Relationship Between Victim Sensitivity and Subjective Well-Being in Romantic Relationships

Sena Doğruyol, Aslı Aslan

Sayfa
573–605
Yayın Tarihi
2025-08-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Romantik ilişkilerde mağdur duyarlılık kavramının evli yetişkinler tarafından nasıl algılandığının anlaşılması ve bu kavramın öznel iyi oluş çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi oldukça önemlidir. Mevcut araştırmanın temel amacı; bireyin öznel iyi oluşunu mağdur duyarlılığı, algılanan partner duyarlılığı ve bağışlama değişkenleri çerçevesinde değerlendirmektir. Bu doğrultuda öncellikle, mağdur duyarlılığı ile öznel iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkide partneri bağışlamanın (uzaklaşma, misilleme ve yardımseverlik) aracı rolleri test edilmiştir. Daha sonra, mağdur duyarlılığının bağışlama üzerindeki etkisinde algılanan partner duyarlılığının düzenleyici rolü sınanmaktadır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu; 230 kadın, 168 erkek olmak üzere toplam 398 katılımcıdan oluşmaktadır. Veriler, Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeği (YDÖ), Pozitif Negatif Duygu Ölçeği (PANAS), Evlilikte Affetme Ölçeği – Olay, Algılanan Partner Duyarlılığı Ölçeği (APDÖ) ve Romantik İlişkilerde Mağdur Duyarlılığı Ölçeği (RİMDÖ) kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca, araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan Demografik Bilgi Formu ile katılımcıların; cinsiyet, yaş, aylık gelir, evlilik süresi ve eğitim düzeyi gibi kişisel bilgileri toplanmıştır. Veriler analiz edilmeden önce örneklem büyüklüğü, uç değerler, eksik veri, doğrusallık, normallik ve çoklu bağlantı problemi gibi varsayımlar da test edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, mağdur duyarlılığı ile öznel iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkide uzaklaşma ve yardımseverliğin aracı rolleri olduğunu, misillemenin ise anlamlı bir rolü olmadığını göstermektedir. Öte yandan, düzenleyici değişken analizi sonuçları incelendiğinde, algılanan partner duyarlılığının mağdur duyarlılığı ile partneri bağışlama arasındaki ilişkide düzenleyici rolünün olmadığına işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, romantik partnerlerin mağdur duyarlılığının yüksek olması ilişkilerinde olumsuz deneyimler yaşamasına yol açabilir. Bu nedenle, bu alanda geliştirilecek müdahale programları gelecekte yapılacak çalışmalar için yol gösterici olacaktır.

Abstract

Understanding how the concept of victim sensitivity in romantic relationships is perceived by married adults and evaluating this concept within the framework of subjective well-being is of great importance. The primary aim of the current research is to assess an individual's subjective well-being in the context of victim sensitivity, perceived partner responsiveness, and forgiveness variables. In this direction, the mediating roles of forgiveness (avoidance, retaliation, and benevolence) in the relationship between victim sensitivity and subjective well-being have been tested first. Subsequently, the moderating role of perceived partner sensitivity in the relationship between victim sensitivity and forgiveness was examined. The study group consists of a total of 398 participants, including 230 women and 168 men. Data were obtained using Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), Positive-Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), Marital Forgiveness Scale- Event (MFS-E), Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (PPRS) and Victim Sensitivity in Romantic Relationships Scale (VSRRS). Furthermore, a demographic information form prepared by the researcher was used to collect personal information such as gender, age, monthly income, duration of marriage, and education level. Before analyzing the data, assumptions such as sample size, outliers, missing values, linearity, normality, and multicollinearity were also tested. The results indicated that avoidance and benevolence serve as mediating roles in the relationship between victim sensitivity and subjective well-being, while retaliation does not have a significant role. Furthermore, when analyzing the results of the moderating variable, it suggests that perceived partner responsiveness does not have a moderating role in the relationship between victim sensitivity and forgiveness. In conclusion, high levels of victim sensitivity in romantic partners may lead to negative experiences within the relationship. Therefore, the development of intervention programs targeting this domain may offer valuable guidance for future research and therapeutic practices.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Doğruyol, S., Aslan, A. (2025). Romantik İlişkilerde Mağdur Duyarlılığı ile Öznel İyi Oluş Arasındaki İlişkide Bağışlamanın Aracı, Algılanan Partner Duyarlılığının Düzenleyici Rolü. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 2, 573–605. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1464402

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (87)

  1. Allemand, M., Hill, P. L., Ghaemmaghami, P., & Martin, M. (2012). Forgivingness and subjective well-being in adulthood: The moderating role of future time perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.11.004
  2. Arıcan-Dinç, B., & Gable, S. L. (2023). Responsiveness in romantic partners’ interactions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 53, 101652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101652
  3. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431
  5. Balcı-Çelik, S., & Öztürk-Serter, G. (2017). Üniversite öğrencilerinin romantik ilişkilerinde affetmenin öznel iyi oluşları üzerindeki rolü. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 3990–4001. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.4874
  6. Balliet, D., Li, N. P., & Joireman, J. (2011). Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1090–1105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024967
  7. Baumert, A., Otto, K., Thomas, N., Bobocel, D. R., & Schmitt, M. (2012). Processing of unjust and just information: Interpretation and memory performance related to dispositional victim sensitivity. European Journal of Personality, 26(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1844
  8. Beck, A. T., Freeman, D., & Garety, P. A. (2004). Paranoia: The psychology of persecutory delusions. Psychology Press.
  9. Bırni, G., & Eryılmaz, A. (2022). Enhancing well-being of the married: Investigating marital satisfaction, self-compassion and happiness increasing strategies. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 12(67), 650–669. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.12061408
  10. Bilgin, A., Bondü, R., & Elsner, B. (2022). Longitudinal associations between justice sensitivity, nonsuicidal self-injury, substance use, and victimization by peers. Development and Psychopathology, 34(4), 1560–1572. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421000250
  11. Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2007). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310025
  12. Bondü, R., Holl, A. K., Trommler, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (2022). Responses toward injustice shaped by justice sensitivity–evidence from Germany. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 858291.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858291
  13. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(5), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90065-Y
  14. Bowlby, J. (1979). The Bowlby-Ainsworth attachment theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(4), 637–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00064955
  15. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
  16. Bugay, A., & Demir, A. (2010). Hataya ilişkin özelliklerin başkalarını affetmeyi yordaması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(35), 8–17.
  17. Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2011). Perceived partner responsiveness minimizes defensive reactions to failure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610391914
  18. Canbulat, N., & Cihangir-Çankaya, Z. (2014). Evli bireylerin öznel iyi olma düzeylerinin yordanması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.12984/eed.67597
  19. Çoklar, I., & Dönmez, A. (2014). Kişiler arası ilişkilerde bağışlama üzerine bir gözden geçirme. Nesne, 2(4), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-02-04-03
  20. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
  21. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 197-229. https://doi.org/0033-2909/98/S3.00
  22. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
  23. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social indicators research, 31, 103–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207052
  24. Diener, E., & Lucas, R.E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). Russell Sage Foundation.
  25. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/0033-2909/99/$3.00
  26. Doğruyol, S. (2023). Romantik ilişkilerde öznel iyi oluş ile partnere kendini açma düzeyi arasındaki ilişkide algılanan partner duyarlılığının rolü. Nesne, 11(27), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-11-27-04
  27. Durmuş, E., & Manap, A. (2018). Evlilikte bağışlama ölçeği-olay: Türkçe’ye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(4), 2033–2049. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2018.18.41844-504877
  28. Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.85.2.317
  29. Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright, & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). University of Wisconsin Press.
  30. Eryılmaz, A., & Ercan, L. (2011). Investigating of the subjective well-being based on gender, age and personality traits. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(36), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.17066/pdrd.59357
  31. Eryilmaz, A., & Doğan, T. (2013). The mediator role of need satisfaction between subjective well-being and romantic relationships quality. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 79–96. http://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2013.53.5
  32. Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06
  33. Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving. Personal Relationships, 7(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00001.x
  34. Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72
  35. Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Intimacy and the self: An iterative model of the self and close relationships. In P. Noller, & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 211–225). Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis (UK).
  36. Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(46), 19–26.
  37. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th Ed.). Pearson.
  38. Gerlach, T. M., Allemand, M., Agroskin, D., & Denissen, J.J. (2012). Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1373–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00762.x
  39. Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-7368-1
  40. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2011). What exactly are victim-sensitive persons sensitive to? Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5), 448–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.05.003
  41. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Alt, B., & Jekel, M. (2012). Victim sensitivity and the accuracy of social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212440887
  42. Hatfield, E., & Traupmann, J. (1981). Intimate relationships: A perspective from equity theory. In S. Duck, & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships: Studying personal relationships (pp. 165–178). Academic Press.
  43. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
  44. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
  45. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
  46. Hudson, N.W., Lucas, R.E., & Donnellan, M.B. (2020). The highs and lows of love: Romantic relationship quality moderates whether spending time with one's partner predicts gains or losses in well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219867960
  47. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Wilson, S. J. (2017). Lovesick: Couples’ relationships and health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13(8), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045111
  48. Köker, S. (1991). Normal ve sorunlu ergenlerin yaşam doyumu düzeyinin karşılaştırılması. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi.
  49. Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
  50. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  51. Londero-Santos, A., Natividade, J. C., & Féres-Carneiro, T. (2021). Do romantic relationships promote happiness? Relationships’ characteristics as predictors of subjective well-being. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 15(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.4195
  52. Mahoney, A., Rye, M., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). When the sacred is violated: Desecration as a unique challenge to forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), The handbook for forgiveness (pp. 57–72). Routledge.
  53. McCauley, T. G., Billingsley, J., & McCullough, M. E. (2022). An evolutionary psychology view of forgiveness: Individuals, groups, and culture. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.021
  54. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812
  55. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequacy taxonomy": Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 710–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710
  56. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586
  57. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–14). Guilford Press.
  58. McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: the temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.540
  59. Mróz, J., & Kaleta, K. (2017). Cognitive and emotional predictors of episodic and dispositional forgiveness. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 48(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2017-0018
  60. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
  61. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x
  62. Pourmohseni Koluri, F., & Ranjbar, H. (2022). The role of victim sensitivity, hostile attribution bias and anger rumination in predicting marital status. Iranian Journal of Family Psychology, 8(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.52547/ijfp.2022.536891.0
  63. Pleeging, E., Burger, M., & van Exel, J. (2021). The relations between hope and subjective well-being: A literature overview and empirical analysis. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(3), 1019–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09802-4
  64. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.
  65. Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  66. Reis, H. T., & Clark, M. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400–423). Oxford University Press.
  67. Reis, H. T., Crasta, D., Rogge, R. D., Maniaci, M. R., & Carmichael, C. L. (2017). Perceived partner responsiveness scale. In D. L. Worthington & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The Sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (pp. 516–521). Wiley.
  68. Reise, S. P., & Revicki, D. A. (2015). Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment. Routledge.
  69. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  70. Selçuk, E., Karagöbek, A. B., & Günaydın, G. (2018). Responsiveness as a key predictor of happiness: mechanisms and unanswered questions. In M. Demir, & N. Sümer (Eds.), Cross-Cultural advancements in positive psychology: Close relationships and happiness across cultures (pp. 1–18). Springer International Publishing.
  71. Schmitt M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Justice sensitivity. Social Justice Research, 8, 385–407.
  72. Schmitt, M., & Mohiyeddini, C. (1996). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real life disadvantage. Social Justice Research, 9, 223–238.
  73. Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 443–453.
  74. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.202
  75. Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2
  76. Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 97–123). The Guilford Press.
  77. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., ... & Sun, Z. (2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103262245
  78. Stanton, S. C. E., Selçuk, E., Farrell, A. K., Slatcher, R. B., & Ong, A. D. (2019). Perceived partner responsiveness, daily negative affect reactivity, and all-cause mortality: A 20-year longitudinal study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 81(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/psy.0000000000000618
  79. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(1), 25–42.
  80. Taşfiliz, D., Çetiner, E. S., & Selçuk, E. (2020). Yakın ilişkilerde algılanan duyarlılığın yaş farklılıkları ve psikolojik esenlik ile ilişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 35(86), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd1300443320190630m000020
  81. Taşfiliz, D., Selçuk, E., Günaydin, G., Slatcher, R. B., Corriero, E. F., & Ong, A. D. (2018). Patterns of perceived partner responsiveness and well-being in Japan and the United States. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(3), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000378
  82. Taşkireç, G., & Solmazer, G. (2023). Evli bireylerde algılanan partner duyarlılığı ve affetme ilişkisi: Kişilerarası duygu düzenlemenin aracı rolü. Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 7(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.57127/kpd.26024438m0000102
  83. Van-Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2008). The distribution of adult attachment representations in clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for patterns of attachment in 105 AAI studies. In H. Steele, & M. Steele (Eds.), Clinical applications of the adult attachment interview (pp. 69–96). The Guilford Press.
  84. VanYperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of the equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200403
  85. Yao, S., Chen, J., Yu, X., & Sang, J. (2017). Mediator roles of interpersonal forgiveness and self-forgiveness between self-esteem and subjective well-being. Current Psychology, 36(3), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9447-x
  86. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
  87. Witvliet, C., Worthington, E. L., Root-Luna, L., Sato, A. F., Ludwig, T. E., & Exline, J. J. (2008). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 10–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.009