See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328633179

The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between

Marital Satisfaction and Spousal Support

Article in Educational Sciences Theory & Practice · June 2018

DOI: 10.12738/estp.2018.3.0086

CITATIONS READS

3 1,384

2 authors, including:

Pınar Çağ
Middle East Technical University
12 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pınar Çağ on 05 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 KURAM VE UYGULAMADA EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Received: March 19, 2018 Copyright © 2018 EDAM

Revision received: August 29, 2018 www.estp.com.tr
Accepted: September 4, 2018 DOI 10.12738/estp.2018.3.0086  2018  18(3)  701–736

Research Article

The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure

in the Relationship between Marital Satisfaction
and Spousal Support*
1 2
Pınar Çağ İbrahim Yıldırım
Middle East Technical University Hacettepe University

Abstract
This study addresses the mediator role of spousal self-disclosure in the relationship between the spousal support
and satisfaction with the marriage. For this purpose, data was collected from 549 married volunteers who lived
in Ankara, had a wage-earning job, and who were at least high-school graduates. The married participants of
the study were applied the data collection instruments of “Marital Life Scale”, “Spousal Support Scale” and
“Self-Disclosure to Spouse Scale”. A relational screening model was used to study the relationship among the
variables of spousal support, satisfaction with the marriage, and spousal self-disclosure. The mediator role of
spousal self-disclosure in the relationship between spousal support and satisfaction with the marriage was tested
by a structural equality model. The software LISREL 8.8 was used to test the model of the study. The relations
among the variables were analyzed by path coefficients. Based on an examination of the path coefficients, the
hypothesis that the mediator role of spousal self-disclosure in the relationship between the latent variable of
spousal support and marital satisfaction is statistically significant was accepted. In sum, the mediation effect of
the variables of spousal self-disclosure and the spousal support explain marital satisfaction. The findings of the
study revealed that the variable of spousal self-disclosure has a full mediator role in the relationship between
marital satisfaction and spousal support. As a result of these findings, it is fair to say that married couples who
disclose themselves more deeply and sincerely to each other have a stronger and more effective perception of
intimacy and support, thus married couples are able to display more flexible and appropriate behaviors to their
spouse, improving the quality of their support with the advantages of self-disclosure. One can say that a healthy
self-disclosure between the couples makes the social support that the spouses perceive from each other clear,
fluent and fit for the needs, and increase their marital satisfaction. In this study, marital satisfaction was analyzed
under a structural model with the variables of spousal support and spousal self-disclosure. Marital satisfaction
may be examined with different variables that may be supported with theoretical grounds to plan new research.

Keywords
Marital satisfaction • Spousal support • Self-disclosure to spouse • Structural equality model • Mediator role

* This paper was prepared from the doctoral dissertation which was named “Marital Satisfaction: A model testing”.
An earlier version was presented at “Frontline: Combat and Cohesion in Iraq and Afghanistan,” a conference held at All Souls
College, Oxford University, March 2013.
1 Correspondence to: Pınar Çağ (Doctor Instructor), Center for Advancing Learning and Teaching, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara 06800 Turkey. Email: [email protected]
2 Department of Guidance and Psychological Counseling, Hacettepe University, Ankara Turkey. Email: [email protected]
Citation: Çağ, P., & Yıldırım, İ. (2018). The mediator role of spousal self-disclosure in the relationship between marital satisfac-
tion and spousal support. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 701–736. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.3.0086
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

One of the most important close relationships, marriage is a relationship which

is made in a ceremonial structure, puts couples into a socially-accepted type of
relationship and has different social sanctions (Burgess, Locke, & Thomes, 1963).
Marriage is a significant life event that occupies a remarkable place in the lives
of many women and men (Berscheid & Regan, 2005), and an essential stage of
turning into an adult and starting a family (Kublay & Oktan, 2015). It is as old
as the mankind (Juvva & Bhatti, 2006), and a complex relationship structure that
requires a consistent sexual engagement under certain rules and conventions (Blood,
1969; Lantz & Synder, 1969).Other needs in the formation of close relations like
marriage include making the relationship deeper, acting more freely, comfortably and
like oneself around the partner, making physical intimacy more integral, enhancing
psychological intimacy in this context, unifying the similarities and differences, and
stretching the relationship rules and maintaining the relationship in a deeper flow
(Duck, 1988). One may attach a greater importance to marriage for a more direct and
strong relationship with well-being compared to the social bonds such as family and
friendship among the types of close relationship (Blood, 1969; Pateraki & Roussi,
2013). The relationships established in a lifetime are a guiding force in the life of an
individual. The level and course of such close relationships may decrease or increase
the individuals’ levels of physiological and psychological health, self-esteem and life
satisfaction. Therefore, for many individuals, improving self-confidence, disclosing
oneself comfortably to their spouse, and expecting to be satisfied with the relationship
are crucial aspects of a close relationship (Hetherington, 2003; Vera & Betz, 1992).
From this point of view, relationships play a key role on the well-being of individuals
(Perlman & Vangelisti, 2006). Individuals enjoy getting into close relationships and
expect to be satisfied with such close relationships throughout their lives. In this
respect, it is known that the quality of a romantic relationship plays a key role in the
psychological health of many individual and this quality obviously affects both the
overall happiness and well-being of individuals (Demir, 2010; Lucas & Dyrenforth,
2006; Whisman & Baucom, 2012). Marriage may provide individuals with sexual
satisfaction, love and passion, physical wellness, emotional support, loyalty, a
stable and secure relationship and friendship. Marriage is supposed to fulfill a lot of
expectations in social perception, and it is an institution that fulfills a lot of sexual,
physical and psychological needs (Cox, 2006).

It is seen that how marriage is viewed is evolved over years in parallel with the
nature, needs and purposes of human beings and marriage rates experience a decline
worldwide (Regan, 2011). Global figures suggest that individuals continue to get
married despite rising rate of divorce (Billeter, 2002), marriage age and co-habitation
rates rather than marriage increase while reproduction rates tend to fall (Gottman,
Murray, Swanson, Tyson, & Swanson, 2002; Sungur, 2009). Increasing divorce rates
in Turkey in parallel with the rest of the world imply that the individuals, couples and

702
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

families who have the potential to raise psychologically healthy generations are on
the decrease (Eskin, 2012). According to the 2015 data on the divorce rates of married
couples in Turkey, while 602,982 individuals got married, 131,830 individuals
divorced. It is remarkable that divorce rates have increased by 41 percent in the last
10 years (TÜİK, 2015). The changes in such figures suggest that marriage deserves
a greater focus. Marital satisfaction both decreases divorce rates and allows couples
to be in a close relationship in which they feel peaceful and well. Marital satisfaction
and its relationship with different aspects of the partners’ lives are frequently studied
in the literature, and they continue to be a popular topic of study for marriage, family
and couples therapists as well as researchers of this field (Jose & Alfons, 2007). In
universal terms, marital satisfaction is expressed as the measurement of the balance
between the elements that are attributed positive connotations such as mutual
interests, harmony, loyalty and those which are attributed negative connotations such
as the idea of divorce, loneliness, complaints (McNamara & Bahr, 1980). Marital
satisfaction is not only based on what one of the partners want, expect or get from the
marriage but is also shaped by the needs and capacity of the other partner, in addition
to the environment in which the couples live (Levinger, 1970).

An extremely delicate and important topic as well as a popular field of study, marital
satisfaction requires partners to accept each other, approve each other’s behaviors,
mutually dignify each other’s identity and personality, express themselves to each other
in an open, honest and deep sense of sharing, show affection and compassion to each
other, showing regard to their emotional needs, offer social support to each other in
several respects, and satisfy each other both emotionally and physiologically in terms of
their sexual life (Jones, 1994; Nystul, 1999). Individuals may have a more satisfactory,
successful or quality marriage for performing well in meeting all those needs of one
another in a healthy marriage, which directly results in higher marital satisfaction rates.
However, when partners fail to find a satisfactory response to those needs or enjoy
the benefits that they expected of their marriage, their marital satisfaction declines in
parallel (Stone & Shackelford, 2007). Many studies suggest that it is very important
for the partners to spend a sufficient and quality time together. One of the ways of
deriving satisfaction from marriage is shaped by the level, rate and depth of the time
spent by the partners and their mutual participation in such time, and it is seen that
the individuals who mutually enjoy such time derive a greater satisfaction from their
marriage (Sprecher, Metts, Burleson, Hatfield, & Thompson, 1995).

Functionality of marriage is very important in life satisfaction, emotional well-

being and quality of mental health (Reis & Gable, 2003; Whisman & Baucom, 2012).
When close relations which have different effects on individuals’ psychological
health cause unfavorable results in the lives of individuals, declines or deteriorations
may occur in the psychological health of individuals (Pateraki & Roussi, 2013).

703
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Several studies and scientific data on the nature and functionality of marriage have
attempted to shed light on the unknown aspects of marital satisfaction (Ampuero,
2014; Patrick, Sells, Giordano, & Tollerud, 2007). Conceptualized as an individual’s
personal assessment of their spouse or relationship, marital satisfaction is a complex
structure that is made up of numerous components (Ampuero, 2014; Fincham &
Linfield, 1997). They include many elements such as loyalty, commitment, economic
independence, perceived equality in child care and household chores, common traits
and interests of the partners, a fair distribution in the roles of the partners, the duration
of pre-marital relationship, having a child or not, and socioeconomic status (Cox,
2006; Williams, Sawyer, & Wahlstrom, 2012).

It is a common knowledge in the literature that marriage and the satisfaction

derived from it have a great impact on the general well-being of individuals and
their ability to live a good life. Among the concepts such as hope, creativity and
stability that make the life of an individual more meaningful are concepts and
structures such as engaging in a deep relationship, love, affection and marriage,
which make an individual feel more valuable (Gillham & Seligman, 1999). Studies
on the well-being of married individuals have a long and rich history (Caughlin &
Huston, 2006). Individuals may have problems and difficulties in some time after
they get married, such problems may be predictable and coping with such challenges
allows both individuals and their relationships to grow and improve (Jourard, 1971).
Functionality of close relationships and marriage is very important is very important
on well-being, subjective well-being, overall life satisfaction, emotional well-being
and psychological wellness (Reis & Gable, 2003; Whisman & Baucom, 2012). The
need to start, develop and maintain deep and close relationships with other, which is
one of the most important purposes of an individual’s life is one of the key aspects
of well-being. Relationships have functional aspects that may cause several apparent
changes in the psychological state of individuals (Reis & Gable, 2003). Therefore,
since a satisfactory, successful and quality relationship is closely related to a strong
psychological well-being, it continues to be a hot topic of research (Pateraki & Roussi,
2013). In this respect, an examination of a good life reveals that in addition to a happy
and satisfactory marriage, a sincere and deep self-disclosure, a strong communication
and bonds of social support between the partners are essential.

Many interpersonal relationships are increasingly affected by social influence

processes. Such social influence processes include verbal communication, body
language, non-verbal communication, use of the physical environment and personal
perceptions. In this network of relationships, individuals engage in relationships at
different levels of intimacy such as having a spouse, significant other, mother, father,
teacher, friend or neighbor, and the satisfaction that they derive from each relationship
affects their level of happiness. Another element that highly affects the satisfaction

704
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

derived from the network of relationship is self-disclosure which is a significant

variable in this study. Self-disclosure involves one’s disclosure of their emotions,
attitudes and lifestyle to another individual (Altman & Taylor, 1973). An individual’s
disclosure of their life fully and spontaneously removes the mystery between the
individuals very fast (Jourard, 1971). As social beings, humans continuously express
or convey information about them to others. Accordingly, an individual’s sharing
of their hopes, fears and disappointments with a trustworthy spouse may ensure
that a deeper relationship develops compared to other relationships from which an
individual may derive emotional satisfaction. Those who share stories about them
with their partner and have a partner who will listen to their stories are on the way to
being a good “match” and are able to move away from misunderstandings that may
cause conflicts as their self-disclosing behaviors increase (Harvey & Omarzu, 1999).

At this stage, success, satisfaction or happiness in relationships is not only about

what individuals think or feel but also how they communicate with each other and
other people (Nelson-Johns, 1999). Each individual has their own world and is
expected to stretch out of this world and communicate with other people. Individuals
can only make their vital foundations functional as beings that exist, think and
communicate their thoughts (Cüceloğlu, 1994). One of the fundamental forms of this
communication is the self-disclosure behavior (Morton, Alexander, & Altman, 1976
as cited in Hendrick, 1981). Self-disclosure, which is defined as communication of
oneself to others is not a one-time effort but a dynamic process, and a social behavior
that continues throughout the life and the relationship, changes both individuals and
relationships, thus making positive contributions to individuals’ perception of social
support and their sense of intimacy to their partner or other individuals with whom
they engage in close relationships (Bak, Lin, & Oh, 2014; Dindia, 2000). A two-way
concept that both affects and gets affected by the variables of relationships (Hendrick,
1981), this social behavior is determined by the reactions of the partners in a marriage,
and it is a structure that supports the self-esteem of an individual and makes them feel
that their identity is approved (Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006). The affection
or love between two individuals throughout their marriage may be about mutual
self-disclosure. A strong and deep self-disclosure fosters love between the partners
(Critelli & Dupre, 1978). Self-disclosure adds depth to a relationship and contributes
to the growth and development of the intimacy by enhancing the commitment in a
relationship with a strong acceptance (Gilbert, 1976). Self-disclosure may reveal a
great deal of information about the functionality of the communication skills between
the partners and contributes to the satisfaction with a relationship (Millar and Millar,
1988). Self-disclosure increases with the level of intimacy in a relationship (Tolstedt
and Stokes, 1994). In addition to its function as a cooperation whereby partners
disclose their identity and accept each other’s opinions and attitudes, intimacy allows
the patterns of communication and interaction between two individuals, and it is

705
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

very important for the partners to reveal their deeper emotions such as their desires,
fantasies and concerns for each other in establishing this intimacy (Reis & Shaver,
1988). In sum, one’s disclosing themselves and responded by self-disclosure of
their partner in a close, romantic relationship is a key predictor of satisfaction with
a relationship in accordance with the principle that intimacy and interaction enhance
communication (Laurenceau, Feldman Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998).

There is a linear relation between self-disclosure in marriage and marital satisfaction

(Jorgensen & Gaudy, 1980; Levinger & Senn, 1967; Millar & Millar, 1988). Those
individuals who believe that they have a positive communication with their partner
are more satisfied with their relationship (Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Gottman,
Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). An individual who discloses themselves to their
spouse - a person that they choose - is able to perceive that their spouse responds
by disclosing themselves, thus spouses become more familiar with each other and
invest more in their relationship, support and improve it (Jourard, 1959). Self-
disclosure is one of the basic types of marital communication patterns, and plays an
important role in marital stability and satisfaction (Derlega & Chaikin, 1976; Gilbert,
1976). Married individuals disclose themselves less to their mother, father or their
close friends of the same sex, and consider their spouse as the main source of self-
disclosure (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958). Among the most common reasons for one’s
self-disclosure and communication of their lifestyle to their spouse are such potential
benefits as emotional relaxation, the ability to find alternative solutions to problems
and enhancing the interpersonal relationship between the partners (Burke, Weir, &
Harrison, 1976). Married individuals’ willingness to communicate with their spouse
for their personal problems helps marriage relationships be restored and enhanced,
and improve the quality of marriage (Burke et al., 1976). This improvement in quality
and establishing the functionality of marriage require a high rate of self-disclosure,
naturalness and openness between the partners (Waring, 1981). Thus, particularly a
positive reward and mutual self-disclosure of partners are preconditions of marital
satisfaction of the spouses (Barnes, Schumm, Jurich, & Bollman, 1984).

Another element that highly affects the satisfaction of individuals with their
relationship networks is the spousal support, which is another main variable of this
study and is categorized under the title of social support. Social support includes
the frequency and power of the resources that an individual receives personally
from their relationships with others. Social support contains different resources,
emerges from personal needs, differs among individuals in terms of expression, is
in different types and directions and difficult to measure (Sarason & Sarason, 2009).
It has different definitions (Rivero, 2012). Social support, i.e. support or assistance
to cope, is conceptualized as a structure that makes active contributions to the effort
of an individual to cope with stress (Thoits, 1986). In addition to its status as an

706
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

important protecting factor for both physiological health and overall well-being and
psychological health of an individual according to many theories (Rini & Dunkel-
Schetter, 2010; Uchino, 2004), social support protects individuals from mental and
physical powers of negative life events and particularly the high level of social
support offered by the spouse in a marriage provides strength in coping with stressful
life events including economic hardships, diseases, depression, work-related issues
and transition to parenthood (Fletcher, Simpson, Campbell, & Overall, 2013).

Throughout the life of an individual at almost any age, an individual feels happiest
and most useful when they know that they have a dependable individual in their
relationship during the times of hardships in particular (Nelson-Johns, 1999).
Family and friends are the most powerful and dynamic sources of social support
throughout the life. Particularly long-term friendships prove a remarkable source of
emotional and social support due to an intimacy and familiarity brought by a common
background, and contributes to supporting the mutual well-being of individuals and
developing a positive identity (Siebert, Mutran, & Reitzes, 1999). In addition, it is
seen that individuals in an emotionally satisfying relationship are able to remain
stronger in the face of stressful and difficult life events and even if they are not able to
derive social support from other sources, they have a more stable psychological state
because of spousal support (Brown, Orbuch, & Maharaj, 2010). One of the key roles
in functionality of marriage is the exchange of social support among the partners. For
this reason, it is important to know in clinical terms how this interpersonal element
affects a marriage (Dehle, Larsen, & Landers, 2001). A sufficient level of social
support between the partners in a marriage is an indication that they have a higher
well-being than other individuals in both physiological and psychological terms. This
shows that there is a strong and positive relationship between social support and
marriage (Acitelli & Antonucci, 1994; Stone & Shackelford, 2007).

A considerable amount of information available in literature about social support

suggests that it is the support offered by the spouse who is the first point of reference
particularly in case of need that has a critical role in actively coping with the life
challenges (Brock & Lawrence, 2010; Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Mossakowski &
Zhang, 2014; Sullivan & Davilla, 2010; Wallace & Jovanovic, 2011). The social
support with a strong emotional side received by an individual at this point is one of
the key predictors of their well-being (Biehle & Mickelson, 2012). The importance of
this exchange of support between the spouses in fulfilling their psychological needs
and their needs for affection plays an important role in increasing this well-being
(Canbulat & Cihangir Çankaya, 2014). In this respect, there is a growing number
of studies that highlight the importance of spousal support in relational well-being.
How partners help each other cope with their personal problems, stress and other life
challenges and duties, and how this affects the relational satisfaction is studied in the

707
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

literature (Sullivan & Davilla, 2010). It is important in the progress of a marriage for
the spouses to know what their spouse need and when, and to discover what to do and
take action. A number of studies confirm this, and show that partners’ support to each
other with coping with personal challenges and the social support that they offer to
each other every day play a central part in the functionality of marriage (Verhofstadt,
Ickes, & Buysse, 2010). While positive support of the partner has significant effect on
the life of an individual, insufficient support from the partner exposes an individual to
negative effects (Trackey, 2014). In addition, partners’ talking about their perceived
support from each other can improve the quality of communication and marriage
in general terms (Russell & Wells, 1994). While offering support to the partner in a
difficulty is beneficial for their well-being, the effectiveness of support becomes solid
when an individual is able to perceive the support offered by their partner (Knoll,
Kienle, Bauer, Prüller, & Luszczynska, 2007).

The support of a sensitive partner reinforces love and affection, and alleviates
conflicts. This may be caused by an increase in supporting gestures. Thus, the
relationship between the partners get stronger and conflicts can be prevented (Jensen,
Rauer, & Volling, 2013). If partners perceive a sufficient level of support during this
exchange of social support, they are able to access the resources required to cope with
life challenges and strengthen their adaptability. In parallel with this, those individuals
who have a satisfactory and supporting marriage achieve strong marriages (Williams,
2003). Marriage provides a similar amount of social support for women and men
(Wallace & Jovanovic, 2011) but while men improve their positive sentiments with
the instrumental support from their wife, women rather tend to reduce their negative
sentiments by the instrumental support that they believe that they offer to their
husband (Knoll et al., 2007). It is beyond any doubt that regardless of their gender,
partners enjoy valuable and significant contributions for having a supporting partner
particularly when life events tend to become challenging. Furthermore, it is important
for the quality of close relationships to provide appropriate support and feedback
to each other not only during the challenges of life but also when their life goes
favorably (Gable & Algoe, 2010).

While individuals who are supported by their partner tend to be less depressive
when they encounter a problem in their marriage, less spousal support increases their
tendency to get depressed (Horwitz, McLaughlin, & Raskin White, 1998). A sufficient
level of perceived partner support is significantly related to the symptoms of depression
and perceived levels of stress. Accordingly, it is seen that those individuals who
perceive a sufficient level of support from their partner tend to present fewer symptoms
of depression and perceive the stress factors in their life more manageable and
controllable (Dehle et al., 2001). While the life events of married individuals continue,
the partner that offers the social support should also have a certain degree of awareness.

708
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

The partner that will offer social support should discover the stressful condition of
their partner, distinguish the assistance that their partner needs, figure out what kind
of social support would help their partner more effectively, decide personally whether
they would be able to provide such support to their partner, and show their supporting
behavior when they feel that they are motivated enough to take action (Regan, 2011).

How marriage is perceived by the partners affects many psychological and physical
health outputs of individuals, and it is important for the literature to examine the ability
to adapt to the marriage life since it has such an effective mechanism (Koydemir,
Sun Selışık, & Tezer, 2008). Studying such an important structure is very crucial and
necessary to see the functioning of the process more clearly and increase the happiness
and satisfaction in life (Yetim, 2001). Moreover, although several studies have discussed
marital satisfaction, the factors that increase this satisfaction have not been clearly
established so far. Particularly there is no clear structure as to what spouses focus on
while making a subjective decision about their marital satisfaction. It is also important
to clearly establish how women and men differ from each other in evaluating their
relationship or what their bases of evaluation are, and what factors make a marriage
satisfactory (Nielsen, 2005). Unlike previous literature on marital satisfaction, the
present study attempts to discuss and explain marital satisfaction based on more positive
concepts. While the effects of rather negative concepts such as depressive symptoms,
anxiety and physical health on marital satisfaction have been frequently addressed in
the literature, this study tests a model based on positive structure taking into account
all conceptual structures and predictors such as perceived social support and spousal
self-disclosure and the perspective of positive psychology. Moreover, the Turkish
literature on the subject lacks studies that examine the place and effect of self-disclosure
particularly in close relationships. Since this is considered a gap in the literature, self-
disclosure to spouse was discussed as one of the main variables of the present study.
In addition, in the light of the said literature, it has become necessary to design a
comprehensive model about how multiple models affect, and are related to, marital
satisfaction and to test that model. The literature related to the present study attempts to
design a map of quality marriages based on a study of several subjects including what
the common characteristics of more happy and successful marriages in recent years
might be, how satisfactory marriages can be achieved, and what factors have a positive
affect on harmonious marriages. It is seen that a lot of studies involve a rather basic
level of research such as what elements explain, predict and affect marital satisfaction.
On the other hand, this study is intended to provide a clearer and distinct picture of the
predictors of marital satisfaction by a method of analysis that helps this study reveal the
relations among the variables free from errors so that marital satisfaction is addressed
from a larger point of view. Based on the information provided above, it is seen that
especially the foreign literature distinctly addresses the effect of the variables of self-
disclosure to spouse and spousal support on marriage. In the light of this information,

709
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

the study investigates the effects of such individuals on Turkish culture, and for this
purpose, the relations among such variables are conceptualized by structural equation
modeling based on a comprehensive analysis. In this context, the full mediator role of
the self-disclosure variable in the relationship between marital satisfaction and spousal
support is tested by a model test. This study is important for understanding the concept
of marital satisfaction that is important for bilateral relationships and materializing it in
the social and cultural structure of Turkey. It is thought that addressing and examining
the concept of marital satisfaction by a structural model may contribute to presenting
the relationship between this concept and other independent variables.

Method
In this study, a relational research pattern was used to study the relationship among
marital satisfaction, spousal support and spousal self-disclosure. A structural equation
model was used to test the power of the variables of spousal support and spousal self-
disclosure as a predictor of marital satisfaction.

Participants
The study tested statistical significance of the model that was suggested under the
study based on the data collected from 549 married couples in the model test. The
participant group of the study were made up of volunteers who lived in Ankara, had
a wage-earning job, and who were at least high-school graduates. An appropriate
sampling among non-random sampling methods was used in the study. Before the
research data were collected, necessary permits were obtained from the boards of
ethics of two state universities. The application forms of the study were completed
in person by the participant group in the form of pencil-and-paper tests. The data of
the present study were collected by implementing scales in the workplaces of married
individuals on business days and at office hours with their consent taken. The data
were collected on the basis of voluntariness and confidentiality. The participants were
given “Informed Consent Forms” that explained the purpose of the study in advance.
Then, the application forms were handed to the individuals who volunteered to take
part in the study in closed envelopes, and also received back in closed envelopes after
they were completed. The details of the participants are given in Table 1.

Data Collection Tools

Three different measurement tools were used to collect data in the study. The study
used the “Marriage Life Scale” designed by Tezer (1986) to determine the level of
marital satisfaction, the dependent variable of the study; the “Spousal Support Scale”
designed by Yıldırım (2004) to determine the level of spousal support, one of the
independent variables of the study; and the “Scale of Self-Disclosure to Spouse”

710
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

Table 1
Demographics of the Participants
Variable n %
Female 276 50.3
Sex
Male 273 49.7
High School 106 19.3
Educational Background University/Higher Education 327 59.6
Master/PhD 116 21.1
Public Employee 158 28.8
Engineer 77 14.0
Worker 49 8.9
Bank Employee/Economist 42 7.7
Scholar 39 7.1
Occupation
Teacher 35 6.4
Self-employed 26 4.7
Physician/Nurse/Healthcare Professional 11 2.0
Judge/Prosecutor/Lawyer 10 1.8
Other 102 18.6
Female 92 16.8
Contribution to Income Male 426 77.6
Equal 29 5.3
Companionate 426 78.0
Type of Wedding Arranged 114 20.9
Other 6 1.1
Less than a year 123 22.4
1-5 year(s) 308 56.1
Pre-marriage Relationship Time
6-10 years 57 10.4
Not specified 61 11.1
Less than a year 30 5.5
1-5 years 138 25.1
6-10 years 100 18.2
Married Time
11-15 years 59 10.7
16-20 years 70 12.8
21 years or more 152 27.7
Yes 438 78.6
Children
No 111 21.4
1 198 45.2
2 205 46.8
Number of children
3 32 7.3
4 3 0.7

designed by Çağ and Yıldırım (2017) to measure the level of spousal self-disclosure,
the other independent variable of the study.

The Marriage Life Scale (MLS). The highest possible score is 50 and the lowest
10 in the 10-item, 5-point (“Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Not Sure”, “Agree”,
“Strongly Agree”), Likert-type MLS that measures the overall marital satisfaction.
The scale was applied to married and divorced individuals to test the criterion-related
validity of the scale, and a significant difference was found between the average

711
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

scores of the groups (t = 6.23, p < 0.01). A comparison was made with the scores of
the Social Behavior Questionnaire, which measures social appreciation, as a proof of
the indirect validity of the scale. The results of the MLS showed that individuals were
little affected by social appreciation tendencies (r = 0.21). The reliability coefficient
determined by the test-retest method was 0.85, Cronbach Alpha internal consistency
coefficient was 0.88 for the male group and 0.91 for the female group (Tezer, 1986). In
addition, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated based
on the data collected for the model test under the present study and the Cronbach
Alpha reliability coefficient of the MLS was found .93.

The Scale of Spousal Self-disclosure (SSSD). Primarily the scales in the literature
were studied in the development stage of the SSSD that was designed by Çağ and
Yıldırım (2017). Especially the scales in the foreign literature which were designed to
measure the concept of self-disclosure were studied at this stage (Cayanus & Martin,
2004; Derlega, Winstead, & Greene, 2007; Rubin, Hill, Peplau, & Dunkel-Schetter,
1980; Waring et al., 1998). Using the scales in the literature and the theories on self-
disclosure, a pool of 92 items was prepared. The items selected from this pool were
used to create the first version of the scale. Opinions were taken from five specialists
of Psychological Counseling and Guidance who were well-informed about the
subject to assess clarity of the language and expressions of this experimental version
and test the validity of its scope. After the feedbacks received from the specialist
group were applied to the scale, the preliminary implementation of the study was
performed on 25 married individuals (17 female, 8 male) for assessment of the scale
for ease of responding and clarity. The scale was finalized per feedbacks of the said
married individuals and made ready for implementation. In the light of these efforts,
the trial form of the 64-item scale was formed. The trial form of the 64-item scale was
implemented to 468 married individuals for an exploratory factor analysis. Following
the exploratory factor analysis, further data collected from 346 married individuals
were analyzed to test the emerging structure of the scale (Çağ & Yıldırım, 2017).

It was found upon the exploratory factor analysis that the items in the scale were
distributed on three factors: Nature of the Relationship, Awareness and Opennes.
A 29-item form emerged after certain items were eliminated on the basis of items
overlapping on multiple factors, items where the total correlation values were lower
than .20, and the principle that at least 3 items should be available for each factor.
A confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the 29-item structure of the SSSD
distributed to 3 factors found by AFA. Thus, the factor structure of the SSSD designed
under the present study with three independent sub-factors and five assessment points
were tested by a primary and secondary level confirmatory factor analyses. The KMO
(Kaiser-Meiyer-Olkin) coefficient of this 5-point (“Absolutely Like Me”, “Like Me”,
“Partly Like Me”, “Not Like Me”, “Not Like Me at All”) Likert scale was 95 and the

712
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

Barlett Sphericity Test was significant. The SSSD has three factors with an eigenvalue
greater than 1. While the first factor alone explains 40.75% of the explained variance,
the three factors together explain 53.23% of the explained variance. The factor loads
of the items varied between .50 and .80. Following the varimax rotation method,
the first factor, “nature of the relationship”, consisted of 14 items; the second factor,
“awareness”, consisted of 10 items; and the third factor, “openness”, consisted of
5 items. Accordingly, an examination of the primary confirmatory factor analysis
results where this three-factor structure of the scale was tested reveals that the values
of χ2/sd = 2.89 ≤ 3; NFI = .96, NNFI = .97 and CFI = .97 ≥ .95 enable the scale
to fulfill the perfect concordance value with respect to all concordance values (Hu
& Bentler, 1999; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). Similarly, SRMR = .06 ≤
.08 is between the perfect concordance values (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As a result of
DFA, the χ2/sd ratio, and RMSEA, RMR / SRMR, CFI, NFI and NNFI indices were
assessed, and it was found that all indices were sufficient for the model concordance.
As a result, the scale structure was found to be confirmed (Çağ & Yıldırım, 2017).

Thus the final form of this 29-item scale with 7 reverse items and 3 factors, namely
the nature of the relationship, awareness and openness, was achieved to measure the
self-disclosure behavior between spouses. It was found upon the present study that
the scale had sufficient psychometric properties. A 5-point Likert scale was used to
measure the quality that each item in the scale stands for. 29 items in the final form
are scored between “1 = Not Like Me at All” and “5 = Absolutely Like Me”. The
scale contains 7 reverse items. A total score is calculated by the scale. The lowest
possible score is 29, and the highest 145. A higher score indicates a higher level of
self-disclosure for a married individual (Çağ & Yıldırım, 2017).

Furthermore, the SSSD showed a negatively significant correlation with the

Dyadic Trust Scale (DTS) (r = -.60). The validity findings show that this scale is
capable of measuring the self-disclosure levels of spouses. In addition, the reliability
of the SSSD was calculated by two methods. First, a Cronbach Alpha coefficient
was calculated (α = .95); second, split-half test method was calculated (r = .93). The
reliability coefficients indicate that the SSSD is a scale that can be used to measure
spousal self-disclosure (Çağ & Yıldırım, 2017).

Spousal Support Scale (SSS). Designed to measure spouses’ perceived support

from each other, SSS is a 23-item, 3-point (“Like Me”, “Partially Like Me”, Not
Like Me”) Likert scale. SSS was tested for validity using factor analysis and similar
scales. The SSS had a KMO (Kaiser-Meiyer-Olkin) coefficient of .95 and a significant
Barlett Sphericity Test. The common factor variance of the factors on each variable
varies between .40 and .73. The SSS has four factors with an eigenvalue greater
than 1. While the first factor alone explains 44.86% of the explained variance, the

713
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

four factors together explain 58.40% of the explained variance. The factor loads of
the items varied between .46 and .84. It was seen that the first factor, “Emotional
support” had 9 items, the second factor “Material aid and knowledge support” had 7
items, the third factor, “Appreciation support” had 8 items, and the last factor, “Social
interest” had 3 items. The scale had 3 reversed items which were scored in reverse.
The highest possible score was 81, and the lowest 27. A higher score indicates a
higher perceived spousal support (Yıldırım, 2004).

For comparison of the SSS with similar scales for validity, its correlation with the
Beck Depression Scale was calculated, and a negatively significant correlation was
found between the two scales (r = -.27). The validity findings show that this scale is
capable of measuring the support that spouses receive from each other. In addition,
the reliability of the SSS was calculated by two methods. First, the Cronbach Alpha
coefficient was calculated (α = .95). Second, the test-retest reliability coefficient was
calculated (r = .89). The reliability coefficients show that the SSS can reliably be
used to measure the support that spouses receive from each other (Yıldırım, 2004). In
addition, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated based
on the data collected for the model test under the present study and the Cronbach
Alpha reliability coefficient of the SSS was found .96.

Personal Information Form (PIF). PIF was prepared by the researcher to collect
information about the socio-demographic qualities of married individuals. The
form contains items that reveal sex, age, educational background, employment, job
satisfaction, monthly household income, contribution to monthly household income,
duration of pre-marriage relationship, the age of marriage, the year of marriage, the
number of previous marriages, and the number of children.

Data Collection Period

The required permits were obtained from the university boards of ethics (Middle
East Technical University and Hacettepe University) before the collection of the
research data. The data of the work group of the study were collected by implementing
scales in the workplaces of married individuals on business days and at office hours
with their consent taken.

The data were collected on the basis of voluntariness and confidentiality. The
participants were given “Informed Consent Forms” that explained the purpose of the
study in advance. Then, the application forms were handed to the individuals who
volunteered to take part in the study in closed envelopes, and also received back in
closed envelopes after they were completed.

It took approximately 20 minutes for the work group reached for a model test
under the study to complete the application form which contained all data collection

714
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

instruments. Data were collected from 610 married individuals. Then the data of 61
individuals were removed for incomplete or erroneous filling of the forms, and the
data obtained from the remaining 549 married individuals were analyzed.

Data Analysis
LISREL 8.8 was used to analyze the measurement and the structural model, test
the mediator model and test the direct effects at the stage of model testing of the
research, and AMOS 20 was used to find the statistical significance levels of the
indirect effects and mediator effects.

One of the data analysis methods that are frequently used in social sciences, the
Structural Equation Model (SEM) is an effective model testing and development
method that can reveal the causality among the variables within the hypotheses
established by the author and allows the models based on the literature to be tested
within the entire structure (Çelik & Yılmaz, 2016).

In this study, SEM was used to test the model designed for marital satisfaction.
The direct, indirect and mediator effects of the predictive variables on the predicted
variable were analyzed in the study. In this respect, spousal support and self-disclosure
were identified as the predictor variables of the study. The predicted variable of the
study was marital satisfaction. The relations between the said predictor and predicted
variables of the study were analyzed using SEM. The mediation role of spousal self-
disclosure in the relationship between marital satisfaction and spousal support was
tested by mediator modeling.

Certain concordance coefficients should be taken into consideration to test the

acceptability of the SEM. In this context, multiple concordance coefficients as well
as acceptable and perfect concordance values for such concordance coefficients are
given in Table 2.
Table 2
Concordance Values for the Confirmatory Measurement Model*
Perfect Concordance Acceptable Concordance
c2/sd 0≤ c2/sd ≤2 2≤ c2/sd ≤3
RMSEA 0≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.05 0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.08
RMR 0≤ RMR ≤ .05 0.05 ≤ RMR ≤ .08
SRMR 0≤ SRMR ≤ 0.05 0.05 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.08
NFI 0.95≤ NFI ≤ 1.00 0.90≤ NFI ≤ 0.95
NNFI 0.95≤ NNFI ≤ 1.00 0.90≤ NNFI ≤ 0.95
CFI 0.95≤ CFI ≤ 1.00 0.90≤ CFI ≤ 0.95
GFI 0.90≤ GFI ≥ 1.00 0.85≤ GFI≤ 0.90
AGFI 0.90≤ AGFI ≥ 1.00 0.90≤ AGFI ≥ 1.00
*(Hu & Bentler,1999; Schumacher & Lomax, 2004; Kline, 2011).

715
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Different researchers accept different ranges for acceptable, good and perfect
concordance coefficients of the SEM. The ranges given in the Table 2 were considered
in the present study.

SEM is a parametric test, and variables of SEM has to fulfill the normality and
homogeneity which are the fundamental conditions of parametric tests. In this
respect, normality analyses were reviewed for each variable, and the values of the
findings are given below.

In this section, before proceeding to the SEM, the stages of the process of testing
the assumptions of missing values, extreme values, normality, multiple dependency,
linearity and confirmatory measurement model and preparing the data ready for the
SEM analysis are presented.

a. Missing Values

The data collected from the participants were subjected to a missing values
analysis, and it was seen that this rate is below 5 percent. So, no observation was
excluded from the analysis.

b. Extreme Values

Multidirectional extreme values in the dataset were analyzed using the Mahalanobis
distances within the Regression (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu, & Büyüköztürk, 2010). For
this purpose, the Mahalanobis, Cook’s and Leverage values of the dataset were
reviewed, the data of 32 participants contained extreme values that would upset the
normality of the study, and were decided to be removed from the dataset.

c. Normality

First, the histogram graphs for the variables of marital satisfaction, spousal support
and self-disclosure were examined individually, and then the normality of the data
set was checked. In this respect, the bell curves derived from the histograms were
considered an indication of normality. In addition to histograms, the descriptive values
as well as kurtosis and skewness values of the data set were examined and it was seen
that the conditions required for normality were fulfilled for each variable. Lastly, a
normality analysis used in large samples to test normality, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
was run and it was found that the dataset showed a normal distribution for each of the
variables of marital satisfaction, spousal support and spousal self-disclosure.

716
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

Table 3
Findings of the Normality Test for All Variables
n x̅ Median Mod Skewness Kurtosis
Marital Satisfaction 549 38.30 40 39.75 -.85 -.15
Spousal Support 549 67.84 70 68.55 .05 -.89
Self-disclosure to Spouse 549 108.46 110 108.98 .13 -.53

An examination of Table 3 reveals that mod, median and arithmetic means are very
close to each other for the variables of marriage satisfaction, spousal support and
spousal self-disclosure, the dataset has acceptable kurtosis and skewness values and
no extreme values. In a standard distribution, kurtosis and skewness coefficients are
expected to be zero. A kurtosis and skewness of -1 to +1 is considered an indication
that distribution does not show a remarkable deviation from the normal (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2005). When the dataset is considered from the perspective of such criteria,
the variables in the study can be said to show a normal distribution. Accordingly,
the findings were interpreted such that the dataset for marital satisfaction, spousal
support and spousal self-disclosure shows a normal enough distribution for the SEM.
The descriptive statistics about the variables in the model are given in the Table 4.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistical Findings of Variables
n min max x̅ ss
Marital Satisfaction 549 10 50 38.30 8.42
Spousal Support 549 31 81 67.84 11.89
Self-disclosure to Spouse 549 44 145 108.46 20.33

As can be seen in the Table 4, minimum and maximum values of the variables of
marital satisfaction (x̅ = 38.30, ss = 8.42); spousal support (x̅ = 67.84, ss =11.89) and
spousal self-disclosure (x̅ = 108.46, ss = 20.33) in the model are in the expected range.

d. Multiple Dependency

Before testing the model, correlation coefficients, VIF and tolerance values
among the variables were calculated for a multiple dependency assumption. First, the
correlation values among the variables were tested. According to this, as can be seen in
the Table 5, the highest correlation coefficient was .84 which was between the variables
of spousal self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. The lowest correlation coefficient
was .79 which was between the variables of spousal support and marital satisfaction.
Table 5
Correlation Coefficients among the Variables
1 2 3
1. Marital Satisfaction 1
2. Spousal Support .79 1
3. Self-disclosure to Spouse .84 .81 1

717
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

The correlation coefficients between the variables in the model specified in Table
5 were examined on the basis of the multiple-dependency limit values. According to
Zainodin and Yap (2013), .95 can be considered lower limit for multiple dependency.
In addition, according to the general perception, the correlations between .00 and .30
may indicate a “low” correlation, .31 and .70 a “medium” correlation, and .71 and
above a “high” correlation (Büyüköztürk, 2006). However, it is possible to talk about
a multiple dependency problem at the level of r > .90 (Çokluk et al., 2010). Moreover,
according to Kline (2005), a correlation above .85 among the variables point to a
multiple dependency. When the dataset is examined based on this information, it is
fair to say that the assumption of multiple dependency is fulfilled.

In addition to the correlation values among the variables, Variance Inflation Factors
(VIF) and tolerance values are taken into account to test the multiple dependency
assumption. It is expected that the tolerance value will not be lower than .20, and
VIF will not be higher than 5 (Menard, 1995). In addition, VIF values smaller than
10 and tolerance values smaller than 30 means the absence of a multiple dependency
problem (Çokluk et al., 2010). In this study, the reference values given by Çokluk
et al. (2010) were taken into consideration. Accordingly, it was seen that VIF values
of the independent variables, 2.99 and 3.14, were fairly below 10, and the tolerance
values were below 30. In line with these findings, one can say that there is a multiple
dependency problem among the independent variables in the model.

e. Linearity

The assumption of linearity was also tested before testing the model. Scatter
diagrams were examined to test the assumption of linearity. Accordingly, it was
found that the linearity assumption of the model dataset was fulfilled.

f. Confirmatory Measurement Model

The structure of the confirmatory measurement model for the variables of marital
satisfaction, spousal support and spousal self-disclosure was also tested before
the model was tested. For this reason, DFA was performed to analyze the joint
concordance indices of all variables. It was seen that the findings of the confirmatory
measurement model and the model concordance coefficients of such findings (c2/sd
= 0.29, RMSEA = .071) were satisfactory.

Results
The following sub-hypotheses were tested under the study hypothesis that “Spousal
self-disclosure has a statistically significant role in the correlation between spousal
support and marital satisfaction”:

718
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

1. Spousal support is a significant predictor of marital satisfaction.

2. Spousal self-disclosure is a significant predictor of marital satisfaction.

3. Spousal self-disclosure has a mediator role in the relationship between spousal

self-disclosure, spousal support and marital satisfaction.

Among the findings of the model whereby the spousal self-disclosure variable
mediates the correlation between the variables of spousal support and marital
satisfaction, firstly the predictor relationships between spousal support and marital
satisfaction were examined and the findings were given in Figure 1.

c2 = 9.98, sd = 76, p = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.110

* emotional: Emotional support, material: Material aid and knowledge support, apprecia: Appreciative sup-
port, socialin: Social interest
Figure 1. Predictor relationships between spousal support and marital satisfaction.

The concordance coefficients for the structural model where the predictor
relationship between the spousal support and marital satisfaction is examined in
Figure 1 are given in Table 6.
Table 6
Multiple Concordance Coefficients for the MOdel
Model c2/sd NNFI NFI IFI RFI CFI RMSEA GFI AGFI
YEM 7.63 .92 .94 .88 .88 .89 .110 .84 .82
Criteria ≤3 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .95 ≤ .80 ≥ .85 ≥ .85

An examination of the path diagram and multiple concordance coefficients

revealed that the model designed for prediction of marital satisfaction by spousal
support did not yield good concordance. Therefore, it was decided that the variable
of spousal self-disclosure be included in the model and indirect relationships in the
model be tested. Accordingly, the variable of spousal self-disclosure was added to the

719
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

model, and coefficients of the potential indirect relationships were examined with the
hypothesis that “Spousal self-disclosure has a statistically significant mediator role
in the relationship between spousal support and marital satisfaction.” The findings of
this tested model are given in the Figure 2.

c2 = 377.10, sd = 117, p = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.075

Figure 2. Predictor relationships between spousal support and marital satisfaction.

When Figure 2 is examined, it is seen that the model established among spousal
support, spousal self-disclosure and marital satisfaction yields a good concordance. The
purpose of the third model is to find out whether spousal self-disclosure has a mediator
effect between spousal support and marital satisfaction. It is necessary to consider the
prediction coefficient between the variables of spousal support and marital satisfaction
given in Figure 1 to establish the mediator role of the variable of spousal self-disclosure.
An examination of the values given in Figure 1 reveals that the prediction coefficient
between spousal support and marital satisfaction is .84. On the other hand, it is seen
that the prediction coefficient between spousal support and marital satisfaction falls to
.16 in Figure 2. In the mediator relation, the predictor coefficient determined between
two variables is expected to drop or become insignificant after the mediator variable is
added (Şimşek, 2007). While a loss of significance of this predictor coefficient after the
variable and an apparent drop in the prediction coefficient point to full mediation, not-
so-apparent drops in the prediction coefficient and a maintained statistical significance
in the direct relationship among variables point to partial mediation (Koopman, Howe,
Hollenbeck, & Sin, 2015). In this respect, when Figure 1 and Figure 2 are examined,
it is seen that the prediction coefficient of .84 between spousal support and marital
satisfaction dropped to .16. Therefore, this finding implies that spousal self-disclosure
may have a full mediator role in the predictor relationship between the spousal support
and marital satisfaction. Based on this finding, the mediation effect was tested by
another hypothesis in the mediator relationship that “Spousal self-disclosure has a full

720
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

mediator role in the relationship between spousal support and marital satisfaction.”
At this stage, the direct predictor relationships between spousal support and marriage
satisfaction were removed and the findings of the SEM that tested the full mediator role
of spousal self-disclosure are given in Figure 3.

c2 = 299.60, sd = 117, p = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.067

Figure 3. Structural equation model of the full mediator role of spousal self-disclosure.

An examination of Figure 3 reveals that the variable of spousal self-disclosure has

a full mediator role between spousal support and marital satisfaction. In order to find
out the concordance among the variables in the model, t values were analyzed and the
findings are given in Figure 4.

c2 = 299.60, sd = 117, p = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.067

Figure 4. The path diagram showing the t values of the full mediator model.

Figure 4 reveals that there is not a discordant variable among the observed and
implicit structures of the variables that form the full mediator model with all variables

721
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

having a t value above 1.96. Those findings show a good concordance between the
implicit and observed variables that form the model. The multiple concordance
coefficients with regard to the full mediator model are given in Table 7.
Table 7
Multiple Concordance Coefficients for the Mediator Model
Model c2/sd NNFI NFI IFI RFI CFI RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI
YEM 2.56 .98 .98 .99 .98 .99 .067 .037 .90 .87
Criteria ≤3 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .90 ≥ .95 ≤ .80 ≤.80 ≥.85 ≥ .85

Table 7 that shows the concordance coefficients of the mediator model given in
Figure 4 reveals that all concordance coefficients are good. The findings show that the
variable of spousal self-disclosure has a full mediator role between spousal support
and marital satisfaction. In addition to all these findings, the “Bootstrapping” method
was used to verify the statistical significance of the full mediation of the variable of
spousal between spousal support and marital satisfaction.

Bootstrapping is a non-parametric statistical conclusion that allows “re-sampling” or

“creation of a new dataset” by iterative expansion of the dataset of the study (Mooney,
1996). B different observation sets are created by a desired number of iterations with
re-sampling method and direct, indirect and total effects obtained by mediation analysis
are derived from this dataset (Burmaoğlu, Polat, & Meydan, 2013). Bootstrapping is
an analytical instrument for showing the statistical significance of an indirect effect in
mediator modeling, which is used frequently in the field of psychology in particular
(Koopman et al., 2015). In recent years, it has become popular in studies as a useful and
powerful method in testing the significance of mediation hypotheses. It is more popular
than other mediation tests (e.g. Sobel test) for a lower rate of type 1 errors (Koopman
et al., 2015). In this model, the Bootstrap (BC, 95%) method (1000) was implemented
through AMOS 20 to test the statistical significance of indirect effects. The findings
from which this analysis result was derived is given in Table 8.
Table 8
Coefficients of the Standardized Total, Direct and Indirect Paths in the Renewed Model
Paths Standardized Coefficients (β)
Spousal Support Self-disclosure to Spouse
Total .88*
Direct .88*
Indirect -
Spousal Support Marital Satisfaction
Total .82*
Direct .11
Indirect .71*
Self-disclosure to Spouse Marital Satisfaction
Total .81*
Direct .81*
Indirect -
*p < .05.

722
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

The standardized path coefficients for the full mediator model are given in Figure 5.

*p < .05.
Figure 5. Standardized path coefficients for the full mediator model (Full mediator effect of spousal self-disclosure).

For a mediator role, first there should be a significant relationship between the
predictor variable (X) and the predicted variable (Y), X should have a significant
relationship with the mediator variable (M) and M should have a significant relationship
with Y (Jose, 2013). In other words, it is a prerequisite for all relationships to be
significant to look for a mediation effect. In social sciences, mediation is the name of
those models where the effect of a variable mediates or interferes in a third variable
through a second variable (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007). It is possible to characterize
mediation effect as full or partial. Once the mediator variable (M) is added to the
model, if the relationship between X and Y loses significance, this effect is called full
mediation, and if the relationship between X and Y maintains its statistical significance
but some decline is seen in the level of the standardized value in this relationship,
this effect is called partial mediation. In the light of this information, directly and
indirectly standardized coefficients of the suggested model (β = .88, p < .05) revealed
a directly significant relationship between spousal support and spousal self-disclosure,
and a directly significant relationship (β = .81, p < .05) between spousal self-disclosure
and marital satisfaction. Lastly, the direct relationship between spousal support and
marital satisfaction (β = .11, p > .05) was not found to be significant. As can be seen
in Figure 6, while spousal support does not predict marital satisfaction significantly in
direct relationship (β = .11, p > .05), when the variable of spousal self-disclosure was
added to the model as a mediator variable, the relationship between marital satisfaction
and spousal support (β = .71, p < .05) was found to be statistically significant. This
significant relationship proves that the variable of spousal self-disclosure plays a full
mediator role in this model. On the other hand, evaluation of the regression equation
of the model is important for the explained variance of the model. This finding gives
idea about the overall descriptiveness of the model. In this respect, it is seen that the

723
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

explained variance of this model whose full mediator role was proven by the analyses
made was 87% (R2 = 0.869).

In conclusion, based on our findings, it is fair to say that the variable of spousal
self-disclosure has a full mediator role in the relationship between the variables of
spousal support and marital satisfaction, and that the SEM formed for this purpose
was confirmed. In the light of these analyses, it is seen that the research hypothesis
was verified. Accordingly, as can be seen in the model given in Figure 2, the spousal
support variable predicts indirectly and significantly through the variable of spousal
self-disclosure (β1 = .16; β2 = .92 p < .000). In the light of this finding, the hypothesis
that “The mediator role of the variable of spousal self-disclosure in the relationship
between spousal support and marital satisfaction is statistically significant” is verified.
The results of the sub-hypothesis required for testing this mediator model are as follows:

As seen in Figure 1, the variable of spousal support directly and significantly predicts
marital satisfaction (β1 = .84, p < .000); as seen it Figure 2, spousal self-disclosure
directly and significantly predicts marital satisfaction (β1 = .92, p < .000); and as seen
in the model in which the mediation effect among the three variables is tested in Figure
3, the variable of spousal self-disclosure has a full mediator role in the relationship
between spousal support and marital satisfaction (β1 = .89; β2 = .92, p < .000). In the
light of these findings, it is seen that all 3 sub-hypotheses of the study are confirmed.

Discussion
This study verifies the hypothesis that “The mediator role of the variable of spousal
self-disclosure in the relationship between spousal support and marital satisfaction
is statistically significant”. In other words, the mediation effect of the variables of
spousal self-disclosure and the spousal support explain marital satisfaction. Based on
this finding, the direction and the theoretical background of the relationship between
the variables of spousal support and spousal self-disclosure should be examined.

Before starting to discuss the mediation effect, when the sub-hypotheses are
examined individually, the literature (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; Jose, 2013)
primarily expects the direct relationships among all variables in the mediation model
to fulfill certain assumptions for a mediation effect, i.e. indirect relationships in a
model. Accordingly, the hypothesis that “Spousal support is a direct and significant
predictor of marital satisfaction”, which was tested as the first sub-hypothesis, is
verified. According to several studies, spousal support has a remarkable role in
maintaining well-being in a continuing romantic relationship (Sullivan & Davilla,
2010). According to Goldsmith (2004), the ability of spouses to share bad moments
as much as good ones, openly talk about their problems and get each other’s support
in the face of challenges are important predictors of their satisfaction with their

724
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

relationship. The present study was consistent with this finding of Goldsmith (2004).
It is possible to encounter findings of the significance of the relationship between
marital satisfaction and spousal support. Accordingly, there is a positive and significant
relationship between marital satisfaction and spousal support, and spousal support is
considered an important variable in predicting marital satisfaction in a lot of studies.
This finding is also similar to those of Acitelli and Antonucci (1994), Brown, Orbuch,
and Maharaj (2010), Çağ and Yıldırım (2013), Dehle, Larsen, and Landers (2001),
Stone and Shackelford (2007), and Verhofstadt, Lemmens, and Buysse (2013).
Furthermore, spousal support in a marriage reduced depressive symptoms according
to Monroe, Bromet, Connell, and Steiner (1986), plays an important role in reducing
the pressures and tensions in marriage according to Roskies and Lazarus (1980), and
is an active factor in resolution of domestic conflicts according to Berkowitz and
Perkins (1984). Drawing upon these findings, one can say that in addition to a direct
predictor of marital satisfaction, spousal support may affect the quality or satisfaction
of marriage positively through indirect effects such as reducing depressive symptoms
and resolving conflicts by better coping strategies.

The second sub-hypothesis confirms the hypothesis that “Spousal self-disclosure

predicts marital satisfaction directly and significantly” whereby the other direct
relationship is tested. This finding is consistent with many findings in the literature.
Several studies establish a relationship between the satisfaction with a relationship and
self-disclosure (Burke, Weir, & Harrison, 1976; Hendrick, 1981; Jorgensen & Gaudy,
1980; Laurenceau, Feldman Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Tolsdetd & Stokes,
1984). Self-disclosure is a positive and significant predictor of marital satisfaction.
In sum, spouses that disclose themselves to each other more tend to be more satisfied
with their marriage (Hansen & Schuldt, 1984; Hendrick, 1981; Jorgensen & Gaudy,
1980). In parallel, Davidson, Baldwick, and Halverson (1983) found that individuals
who perceive a higher self-disclosure from their spouse are more satisfied with their
marriage. It was concluded by the same study that spouses with similar forms of self-
disclosure are more harmonious in their marriage. According to Sprecher (1987),
self-disclosure does not only affect satisfaction with a relationship but also affects
the stability, i.e. longevity of relationships positively. According to this argument,
it is fair to say that there is a linear correlation between spousal self-disclosure and
marital satisfaction. In addition, Meeks, Hendrick, and Hendrick (1998) reported
that the variable of self-disclosure is a predictor of a high level of satisfaction for
flirting couples. Likewise, Jones (1991) reported that self-disclosure is also a positive
predictor of satisfaction with friendships.

The finding of this study that self-disclosure is an important variable that significantly
predicts marital satisfaction is supported by other studies on this subject (Bograd &
Spilka, 1996; Davidson et al., 1983; Finkenauer & Hazam, 2000; Hansen & Schuldt,

725
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

1984; Jorgensen & Gaudy, 1980; Meeks, 1996; Schumm, Barnes, Jurich, & Bugaighis,
1986). In parallel with those studies, Rosenfeld and Bowen (1991) found that individuals
with a high level of self-disclosure also have a high marital satisfaction whereas
individuals with a low self-disclosure tend to have the lowest marital satisfaction.
Similarly, Millar and Millar (1998) reported that women who perceive a lower self-
disclosure from their husband than their own self-disclosure have a lower satisfaction
with their relationship. On the other hand, Levinger and Sehn (1967) found in contrast
to this finding that marital satisfaction is little related to self-disclosure.

While the first two sub-hypotheses test the significance of the direct relationship
among the variables, when these three variables are included together in the model,
the sub-hypothesis that “Spousal self-disclosure is a full mediator in the relationship
between spousal support and marital satisfaction”. It is possible to say that this finding
bears similarities to the finding of Lee (2016). Lee (2016) reported that self-disclosure
raised satisfaction with a relationship by enhancing the intimacy between the partners.
Gilbert (1976) reported that intimacy in a relationship is a very special example of self-
disclosure. It is also very important to improve self-disclosure to improve social support.
Accordingly, one may think that even if self-disclosure does not trigger satisfaction with
a relationship, it contributes to marital satisfaction indirectly by enhancing the intimacy
and bonds between the partners. At this stage, according to Chaikin and Derlega (1974),
intimacy between individuals increases with a higher self-disclosure and as intimate
conversations increase, the amount of information that they give about themselves
grows. Again, according to Chaikin and Derlega (1974), as an individual trusts their
partner and starts to give accounts of their personal problems in a relationship that has
advanced to this stage, their partner may be satisfied with the relationship, knowing that
they are trusted and considered important in the relationship, and the self-disclosing
partner may be satisfied with the relationship, knowing that they have a partner to tell
their personal problems and that they would be listened and supported by their partner.
Edwards, Rose, Edwards, and Singer (2008) made the conclusion that communication
and interaction patterns that provide satisfaction and a sense of value have a considerable
effect on perception of social support as positive and sufficient by the partner. Again,
in parallel with this finding and all other findings mentioned above, the present study
expressly identifies and supports the reasons for the status of spousal self-disclosure as a
strong predictor of the variable of marital satisfaction.

Many studies have addressed both self-disclosure in communication patterns of

close relationships and spousal self-disclosure. In those findings, it is seen that one’s
perceived self-disclosure of their partner has a more positive effect in clinching the
love and affection between the partners compared to one’s self-disclosure to their
partner (Sprecher, 1987). Collins and Miller (1994) made similar findings and
reported that self-disclosure plays a central part in development, progression and

726
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

strengthening of relationships, and that the interaction between a self-disclosing

individual and a listening individual has an important role and effect on the level
of self-disclosure as well as the level of loving and being loved. Jourard (1971) also
argued that self-disclosure is a necessary communication pattern for improvement of
both physiological and psychological health as well as emergence and development of
interpersonal relationships. According to Jourard (1971), an individual, by disclosing
themselves frankly to another individual, can learn about different aspects of another
individual’s character, discover and understand different needs of that individual, and
offer support to them. In the light of this information, one can say that married couples
who disclose themselves to each other more deeply and intimately have stronger and
more effective perceptions of intimacy and support. Thus, married individuals can
use the advantages of self-disclosure to act more flexibly and as needed so that they
can support their partner better. Since it is easier to know about the expectations and
the kind of social support needed by an individual who discloses themselves to their
spouse more easily, it is easier to offer such support. Therefore, a well-functioning
mechanism of self-disclosure makes the exchange of social support between partners
more fluent, clear and fit for their needs.

According to Doell (2014), emotional support offered by partners to each other is

crucial in development and progress of a romantic relationship. Moreover, Monadi
(2004) found that self-disclosure is more closely related to the level of marital
satisfaction enjoyed by women than do men (cited in Rostami, Ghazinour, and Richter,
2013). In addition, according to Bak et al. (2014) self-disclosure is positively and
significantly correlated with social support, and the strong effect of self-disclosure on
well-being of individuals is completely attributable to the mediator role of perceived
social support. Similarly, Lee, Noh, and Koo (2013) found that there is a positive
correlation between self-disclosure and social support, and that the effect of self-
disclosure on well-being is completely attributable to social support. The present
study revealed in parallel with the findings of Bak et al. (2014) and Lee et al. (2013)
that the variable of self-disclosure has a mediator role in the predictor status of social
support for marital satisfaction. According to this, spousal support explains marital
satisfaction through the mediator effect of self-disclosure.

In consistence with this finding of the present study, Laurenceau, Feldman Barrett,
and Rovine (2005) found that the sense of responsibility and value felt by the speaking or
self-disclosing individual has a mediator role in the relationship between self-disclosure
of an individual and the intimacy that they feel for the other individual. In parallel with
this finding, in the present study, the variable of spousal self-disclosure, as one of the
sources of social support, has a mediator role in perception of the support received from
the spouse. In sum, the strength of spousal support or its effect on marital satisfaction is
only made possible or facilitated by a deep, sincere and broad self-disclosure. Another

727
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

finding of the present study was that this model that is considered a full mediator with a
high explanation rate by explaining 87% (R2 = 0.869) of the explained variance. Multiple
correlation squared (R2) value is considered in evaluation of the predictive power of
a dependent variable in regression and structural equation model analyses where the
predictiveness of a group of variable is tested on a single or multiple dependent varibles
(Jain, 1994 as cited in Bentler & Raykov, 2000). Based on this information, it is fair
to say that the model has a fairly high value of explained variance and the model has a
high explaining power on the variable of marital satisfaction.

In parallel with all these findings, this model whereby the mediator role of the
variable of “Spousal Self-Disclosure” is analyzed in significant prediction of the
dependent variable of “Marital Satisfaction” of the variable of “Spousal Support”
was verified with all its sub-problems and was found to have sufficient concordance
coefficients. To sum up the results, the latent variable of “Spousal Support” directly
and significantly predicts “Marital Satisfaction”, and the latent variable of “Spousal
Self-Disclosure” directly and significantly predicts “Marital Satisfaction”. Also, the
mediator role of the variable of “Spousal Self-Disclosure” in the relationship between
“Spousal Support” and “Marital Satisfaction” is statistically significant. The ideas that
were found by a synthesis of the present study and the findings in the literature show
that the direct effect of the variable of spousal support on marital satisfaction is largely
explicable by reference to the variable of spousal self-disclosure. Accordingly, while
spousal support is not a strong variable in explaining marital satisfaction, inclusion
of the variable of spousal self-disclosure to enhance the indirect effect provided that
variable with a significant predictiveness on marital satisfaction.

In parallel with all these findings, certain suggestions were made for discussion of
the concept of marital satisfaction in future studies. Accordingly, marital satisfaction
was analyzed under a structural model with the variables of spousal support and
spousal self-disclosure. Marital satisfaction may be examined with different variables
that may be supported with theoretical grounds. In this study, the relationship among
the variables were addressed by a strong analysis using structural equation modeling.
However, marital satisfaction may be re-addressed using different variables and
statistical methods such as regression in other studies. In addition, psychological
counselors, psychologists or psychiatrists working in the field may respond in their
research or studies without ignoring the fact that spousal self-disclosure or spousal
support affect marital satisfaction as well as spousal self-disclosure and perceived
spousal support. Specialists may inform couples during the period of psychological
counseling or therapy about the meaning and importance of “Spousal Self-Disclosure”
and “Spousal Support”. Also, spousal self-disclosure and spousal support modules
may be included in relationship enhancement or marriage preparation programs for
enhancement of marital satisfaction.

728
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

The present study has certain limitations. The study is limited with participants
who live in Ankara, have a wage-earning job and are at least high-school graduates.
Majority of the study data was collected from the academic and administrative
personnel of a major university in Ankara. At least 80% of this group hold a bachelor’s
degree or above. Therefore, the findings of the study may only be generalized to the
individuals with similar backgrounds.

References
Acitelli, L. K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1994). Gender differences in the link between marital support
and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 688–698.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.688
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. Holt: Rinehart & Winston.
Ampuero, M. (2014). Efficacy of cultural-based psychoeducational group therapy for increasing
marital satisfaction among Latino couples (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProOuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3669689)
Bak, J., Lin, C. Y., & Oh, A. (2014). Self-disclosure topic model for Twitter conversations. Association
for Computational Linguistics, 42, 1986–1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/v1/w14-2706
Barnes, H. L., Schumm, W. R., Jurich, A. P., & Bollman, S. R. (1984). Marital satisfaction:
Positive regard versus effective communications as explanatory variables. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 123(1),71–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1984.9924515
Bentler, P. M., & Raykov, T. (2000). On measures of explained variance in nonrecursive
structural equation models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 125–131. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.125
Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1984). Stress among farm women: Work and family as
interacting systems. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 161–166. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/351874
Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). Provision and receipt of emotional spousal support: The
impact of visibility on well-being. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(3),
244–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028480
Billeter, C. B. (2002). An exploration of eight dimensions of self-disclosure with relationship
satisfaction (Master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia).
Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08092002-135137/
Berscheid, E., & Regan, P. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Blood, R. O. (1969). Marriage (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bograd, R., & Spilka, B. (1996). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction in mid-life and late-life
remarriages. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 42(3), 161–172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/w87m-wck7-mhtt-n34f
Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2010). A Unified and multifaceted approach to examining support
transactions in marriage (Chapter 2). In K. S. Pearlman (Ed.), Marriage roles: Stability and
conflict. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

729
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & Maharaj, A. (2010). Social networks and marital stability among black
American and white American couples (Chapter 13). In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davilla (Eds.),
Support processes in intimate relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, E. W., Locke, H. J., & Thomes, M. M. (1963). The family: From institution to companionship
(3rd ed.). New York: American Book Company.
Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & Harrison, D. (1976). Disclosure of problems and tensions experienced
by marital partners. Psychological Reports, 38(2), 531–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1976.38.2.531
Burmaoğlu, S., Polat, M., & Meydan, C. H. (2013). Örgütsel davranış alanında ilişkisel analiz
yöntemleri ve Türkçe yazında aracılık modeli kullanımı üzerine bir inceleme. Anadolu
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 13–26.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS
uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Canbulat, N., & Cihangir Çankaya, Z. (2014). Evli bireylerin öznel iyi olma düzeylerinin
yordanması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 556–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.12984/eed.67597
Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affective structure of marriage (Chapter 8). In A. L.
Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2004). An instructor self-disclosure scale. Communication
Research Reports, 21(3), 252–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090409359987
Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Self-disclosure. Morristown: General Learning Press.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457
Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships
in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 454–460. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006x.54.4.454
Cox, F. D. (2006). Human intimacy: Marriage, the family, and its meaning. Belmont, CA: Thomson/
Wadsworth.
Critelli, J. W., & Dupre, K. M. (1978). Self-disclosure and romantic attraction. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 106(1), 127–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924155
Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links
to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
7(2), 179–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072002
Cüceloğlu, D. (1994). İçimizdeki çocuk (7th ed.). İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Çağ, P., & Yıldırım, İ. (2013). Evlilik doyumunu yordayan ilişkisel ve kişisel değişkenler. Türk
Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(39), 13–23.
Çağ, P., & Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Eşe kendini açma ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk
Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 7(47), 99–111.
Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2016). LISREL 9.1 ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Temel kavramlar,
uygulamalar ve programlama. İstanbul: Anı Yayınları.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik
SPSS ve LİSREL uygulamaları. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.

730
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

Davidson, B., Balswick, J., & Halverson, C. (1983). Affective self-disclosure and marital adjustment: A test
of equity theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 93–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351298
Dehle, C., Larsen, D. & Landers, J. E. (2001). Social support in marriage. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 29(4), 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180152588725
Demir, M. (2010). Close relationships and happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 11(3), 293–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9141-x
Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1976). Norms affecting self-disclosure in men and women. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 376–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.44.3.376
Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2007). Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship
(pp.153–174). In S. Sprecher, A. Wensel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship
beginnings. New York: Psychology Press.
Dindia, K. (2000). Self-disclosure, identity and relationship development: A dialectical perspective
(Chapter 9). In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships.
England: John Wiley.
Doell, K. G. (2014). The word feel as a linguistic device in self-disclosure and enacted social
support (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProOuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No.NS28484)
Duck, S. (1988). Relating to others. Open University Press.
Edwards, A. P., Rose, L. M., Edwards, C., & Singer, L. M. (2008). An investigation among implicit personal
theories of communication, social support and loneliness. Human Communication, 11(4), 437–454.
Eskin, M. (2012). Evlilik terapisi için başvuran çiftlerin evlilik doyumu ve evlilik terapisiyle
hakkındaki görüşleriyle ilişkili etmenler. Klinik Psikiyatri, 15(1), 226–237.
Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive
and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489–502. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502
Finkenauer, C., & Hazam, H. (2000). Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both contribute to
marital satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 245–263. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407500172005
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2013). The science of intimate
relationships. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect.
Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
Gable, S. L., & Algoe, S. B. (2010). Being there when things go right: Support processes for
positive events (Chapter 8). In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davilla (Eds.), Support processes in intimate
relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, S. J. (1976). Self disclosure, intimacy and communication in families. Family Coordinator,
25(3), 221–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/582335
Gillham, J. E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). Footsteps on the road to a positive psychology. Behaviour
Reseacrh and Therapy, 37, 163–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(99)00055-8
Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Communicating social support. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and
stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 60(1), 5–22. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/353438

731
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Gottman, J. M., Murray, J. D., Swanson, C. C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. R. (2002). The mathematics
of marriage: Dynamic nonlinear approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships.
(Chapter 22). In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal
relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, J. E., & Schuldt, W. J. (1984). Marital self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46(4), 923–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352541
Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1999). Minding the close relationship: A theory of relationship
enhancement. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40(6), 1150–1159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.6.1150
Hetherington, E. M. (2003). Intimate pathways: Changing patterns in close personal relationships across time. Family Relations,
52(4), 318–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00318.x
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Horwitz, A. V., McLaughlin, J., & Raskin White, H. (1998). How the negative and positive aspects
of partner relationships affect the mental health of young married people. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 39(2), 124–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2676395
Hu, L., & Bentler, O. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jensen, J., Rauer, A., & Volling, B. (2013). A dyadic view of support in marriage: The critical role of
men’s support provision. Sex Roles, 68(7-8), 427–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0256-x
Jones, D. C. (1991). Friendship satisfaction and gender: An examination of sex differences in
contributors to friendship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2), 167–
185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407591082002
Jones, E. (1994). Family systems therapy: Developments in Milan systemic therapies. Chichester:
John Wiley.
Jorgensen, S. R., & Gaudy, J. C. (1980). Self-disclosure and satisfaction in marriage: The relation
examined. Family Relations, 29(3), 281–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/583847
Jose, P. E. (2013). Doing statistical mediation & moderation. New York: The Guilford Press.
Jose, O., & Alfons, V. (2007). Do demographics affect marital satisfaction? Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 33(1), 73–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926230600998573
Jourard, S. M. (1959). Self-disclosure and other cathexis. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 59(3), 428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0041640
Jourard, S. M. (1971). The transparent self. New York: Litton Educational Publishing.
Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 56(1), 91–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043357
Juvva, S., & Bhatti, R. S. (2006). Epigenetic model of marital expectations. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 28(1), 61–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10591-006-9695-2
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). NY: The
Guillford Press.

732
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). NY: The
Guillford Press.
Knoll, N., Kienle, R., Bauer, K., Pfüller, B., & Luszczynska, A. (2007). Affect and enacted support
in couples undergoing in vitro-fertilization: When providing is better than receiving. Social
Science & Medicine, 64(9), 1789–1801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.004
Koopman, J., Howe, M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Sin, H. P. (2015). Small sample mediation testing:
Misplaced confidence in bootstrapped confidence intervals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100(1), 194–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036635
Kublay, D., & Oktan, V. (2015). Evlilik uyumu: Değer tercihleri ve öznel mutluluk açısından
incelenmesi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(44), 25–35.
Lantz, H. R., & Snyder, E. C. (1969). Marriage: An examination of the man-woman relationship.
New York: John Wiley & Sohn.
Laurenceau, J. P., Feldman Barrett, L., & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Laurenceau, J. P., Feldman Barrett, L., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model
of intimacy in marriage: A Daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19(2), 314–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314
Lee, J. (2016). Self-disclosure and relational outcomes: The context-dependent disclosure intimacy
satisfaction (Cddis) model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProOuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No.10129668)
Lee, K. T., Noh, M. J., & Koo, D. M. (2013). Lonely people are no longer lonely on social
networking sites: The mediating role of self-disclosure and social support. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 413–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0553
Levinger, G. (1970). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. In P. H. Glasser
& L. N. Glasser (Eds.), Families in crises. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Levinger, G., & Senn, D. J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings in marriage. Merrill Palmer Quarterly
of Behavior and Development, 13(3), 237–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3523-6_7
Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2006). Does the existence of social relationships matter for
subjective well-being? In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting
intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. New York: Guilford Press.
McNamara, M. L. L., & Bahr, H. M. (1980). The dimensionality of marital role satisfaction. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 42(1), 45–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351932
Meeks, B. S. (1996). The effects of self-disclosure, perspective-taking, love attitudes, conflict
tactics, and relational competence on relationship satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProOuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.9623852)
Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love and relationship
satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 755–773. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0265407598156003
Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage University series on quantitative
applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical
application and interpretation (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Pyrczak.

733
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Millar, K. U., & Millar, M. G. (1988). Sex differences in perceived self and other disclosure: A case
where inequity increases satisfaction. Social Behaviour and Personality, 16(1), 59–64. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1988.16.1.59
Monroe, S. M., Bromet, E. J., Connell, M. M., & Steiner, S. C. (1986). Social support, life events
and depressive symptoms: A 1-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 54(4), 424–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.54.4.424
Mooney, C. Z. (1996). Bootstrap statistical inference: Examples and evaluations for political science.
American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 570–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111639
Mossakowski, K. N., & Zhang, W. (2014). Does social support buffer the stress of discrimination
and reduce psychological distress among Asian Americans? Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(3),
1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190272514534271
Nelson-Jones, R. (1999). Creating happy relationships: A guide to partner skills. Cassell: New York.
Nielsen, M. R. (2005). Couples making it happen: Marital satisfaction and what works for highly
satisfied couples (Chapter 8). In B. Schneider & L. J. Waite (Eds.), Being together working
apart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nystul, M. S. (1999). Introduction to counseling: An art and science perspective. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Pateraki, E., & Roussi, P. (2013). Marital quality and well-being: The role of gender, marital
duration, social support and cultural context. In A. Efklides & D. Moraitou (Eds.), A positive
psychology perspective on quality of life (pp. 125–145). Springer Netherlands.
Patrick, S., Sells, J. N., Giordano, F. G., & Tollerud, T. R. (2007). Intimacy, differentiation, and
personality variables as predicators of marital satisfaction. The family journal: counseling and
therapy for couples and families, 15(4), 359–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480707303754
Perlman, D., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships.
Cambridge University Press.
Regan, P. (2011). Close relationships. New York: Routledge.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of relationships (Chapter 6). In C.
L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Handbook of Personal
Relationships, 24(3), 367–389.
Rini, C., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (2010). The effectiveness of social support attempts in intimate
relationships (Chapter 2). In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davilla (Eds.), Support processes in intimate
relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rivero, S. C. (2012). The relationship between psychological partner aggression and depression:
Social support as a moderating variable (Master’s thesis). Available from ProOuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No.1529327)
Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1991). Marital disclosure and marital satisfaction: Direct–effect
versus interaction–effect models. Western Journal of Communication, 55(1), 69–84. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374371
Roskies, E., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Coping theory and the teaching of coping skills. In P. O.
Davidson & F. M. Davidson (Eds.), Behavioral medicine: Changing health and life style (pp.
38–69). New York: Brunner/Marzel.

734
Çağ, Yıldırım / The Mediator Role of Spousal Self-Disclosure in the Relationship between Marital...

Rostami, A., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J. (2013). Marital satisfaction: The differential impact of
social support dependent on situation and gender in medical staff in Iran. Global Journal of
Health Science, 5(4), 151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v5n4p151
Rubin, Z., Hill, C. T., Peplau, L. A., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1980). Self-disclosure in dating couples:
Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 305–317. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/351228
Russell, R. J., & Wells, P. A. (1994). Personality and quality of marriage. British Journal of
Psychology, 85(2), 161–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1994.tb02516.x
Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (2006). Close relationships and social support: Implications for
the measurement of social support (Chapter 23). In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schumm, W. R., Barnes, H. L., Bollman, S. R., Jurich, A. P., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Self-
disclosure and marital satisfaction revisited. Family Relations, 35(2), 241–247. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/583631
Schumacher, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates, Publıshers.
Siebert, D. C., Mutran, E. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1999). Friendship and social support: The importance of
role identity to aging adults. Social Work, 44(6), 522–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/44.6.522
Sprecher, S. (1987). The effects of self-disclosure given and received on affection for an intimate
partner and stability of the relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(2),
115–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042001
Sprecher, S., Metts, S., Burleson, B., Hatfield, E., & Thompson, A. (1995). Domains of expressive
interaction in intimate relationships: Associations with satisfaction and commitment. Family
Relations, 44(2), 203–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/584810
Stone, E. A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Marital satisfaction. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology,
541–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.n323
Sullivan, K. T., & Davilla, J. (2010). Support processes in intimate relationships. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sungur, M. Z. (2009). Sen, ben ve aramızdaki her şey. İstanbul: Goa Yayınları.
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel İlkeler ve LİSREL Uygulamaları.
Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
Tezer, E. (1986). Evli eşler arasındaki çatışma davranışları: Algılama ve doyum (Doctoral
dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
UlusalTezMerkezi/
Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 54(4), 416–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.54.4.416
Tolstedt, B. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1984). Self-disclosure and the depenetration process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 84–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.84
Trackey, R. P. (2014). Spousal support and common stressors of nontraditional college students
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProOuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No.3580946)
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2015). Evlenme ve boşanma istatistikleri. Retrieved from http://www.
tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=21515

735
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences
of relationships. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vera, E. M., & Betz, E. (1992). Relationships of self-regard and affective self-disclosure to relationship
satisfaction in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 33(5), 422–430.
Verhofstadt, L., Lemmens, G., & Buysse, A. (2013). Support-seeking, support-provision and
support perception in distressed married couples: A multi-method analysis. Journal of Family
Therapy, 35(3), 320–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12001
Wallace, J. E., & Jovanovic, A. (2011). Occupational similarity and spousal support: A study of the
importance of gender and spouse’s occupation. Relational Industrielles/Industrial Relations,
66(2), 235–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1006145ar
Waring, E. M. (1981). Facilitating marital intimacy through self-disclosure. The American Journal
of Family Therapy, 9(4), 33–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926188108250422
Whisman, M. A., & Baucom, D. H. (2012). Intimate relationships and psychopathology. Clinical
Child Family Psychology Review, 15(1), 4–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0107-2
Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender,
marriage and psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(4), 470–487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1519794
Williams, B. K., Sawyer, S. C., & Wahlstrom, C. M. (2012). Marriages, families, and intimate
relationships. Boston: Pearson.
Yetim, Ü. (2001). Toplumdan bireye mutluluk resimleri. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
Yıldırım, İ. (2004). Eş destek ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi,
3(22), 19–25.
Zainodin, H. J., & Yap, S. J. (2013). Overcoming multicollinearity in multiple regression using
correlation coefficient. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematical Sciences
and Statistics, 1557(1), 416–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4823947

736
View publication stats