The Mediating Role of Emotional Expressivity Between Differentiation of Self and Co-dependency among Couples: A Common Fate Mediation Model

The Mediating Role of Emotional Expressivity Between Differentiation of Self and Co-dependency among Couples: A Common Fate Mediation Model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Mediating Role of Emotional Expressivity Between Differentiation of Self and Co-dependency among Couples: A Common Fate Mediation Model Şerifali Dokuzlar, Şerife Özbiler, Maria Schweer-Collins, Erkan Isık This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v2 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 2 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Abstract Bowen family systems theory provides an account of how the family of origin promotes intimate connections with others. The study tests the mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between differentiation of self and co-dependency assessed in married couples. We used a common fate model to study the relationship among these variables in a sample of 176 Turkish heterosexual married couples ( N = 352). Results showed that lower differentiation of self predicted greater co-dependency among couples. Emotional expressivity mediated this relationship between the differentiation of self and co-dependency. Implications of the findings were discussed. Psychology Differentiation of self emotional expressivity couple relationships co-dependency common fate model Figures Figure 1 Introduction Differentiation of self (DoS) is a core concept in Bowen family systems theory (BFST), which considers the establishment of satisfactory intimate relationships as the main developmental task for adulthood (Bowen, 1978 ). One of the basic assumptions of BFST is that people with higher levels of DoS are more capable of establishing intimacy with others without feeling anxious (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003 ). They have been shown to be more flexible in their partner relationships (Ferreira et al., 2014 ), and demonstrated lower levels of couple and family conflict and higher satisfaction in their couple relationships (Rodríguez-Gonzalez, et al., 2019). The intrapersonal dimension of DoS can be identified via emotional reactivity (ER) and the I-position (IP) (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003 ). ER is thought to reflect an emotional reflex that operates automatically, without awareness, and can usually be observed at a moderate level of tension. A second intrapersonal dimension, the I-position is the ability to calmly express concern or difference and act according to one's beliefs, without criticizing the beliefs of others or the avoidance of emotions involved in such interactions (Bowen, 1978 ). In contrast, the interpersonal dimension of DoS comprises emotional cutoff (EC) and fusion with others (FO). EC reflects an emotional strategy driven by anxiety around intimacy and the accompanying behavioural defences against those fears, whereas fusion with others (FO) is defined as emotional overinvolvement with others. To date, studies on DoS repeatedly indicated that individuals with higher levels of DoS engaged in meaningful intimate relationships such as in the case of married Australian lesbian couples (Spencer & Brown, 2007 ), and lower EC was associated with better marital adjustment in the US, Spain, and Italy, but higher ER was related to poorer couple adjustment in the more collectivistic cultures of Spain and Italy (Rodríguez-González, 2020). Moreover, the first study on Turkish married individuals’ DoS levels was conducted by Polat and Ilhan ( 2018 ) who found that DoS predicted dyadic adjustment and psychological symptoms. Işık et al. ( 2020 ) were the first to include the Common Fate Model for Turkish married individuals to examine marital adjustment as a mediator in the relationship between DoS and life satisfaction. Besides, Günsel ( 2021 ) mentioned the mediator role of cognitive flexibility and marital satisfaction in the relationship between DoS and family functioning for Turkish married individuals. Similarly, a significant finding for mediating role of five love languages were reported between DoS and marital satisfaction (İnce & Işık, 2021 ). Lastly, Telli and Yavuz-Güler (2023) tested the mediating role of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment, and emotional dependency for DoS and forgiveness, jealousy, and conflict resolution responses among married individuals. However, very little attention has been devoted to understanding how Turkish married couples achieve the balance of differentiation and co-dependence. Our one assumption is that emotional expression of couples could mediate the relationship between DoS and co-dependency. The rationale of the study is rooted in an attempt to shed further light to the role of emotional expressivity for Turkish married couples. According to Kağıtçıbaşı ( 2003 ), both connectedness and separateness coexist in Turkish culture and traditional gender roles are also observed in the marriages of Turkish married couples. As a result, this situation might suppress women and cause lower levels of DoS in collectivistic cultures such as Turkey (Akkuş-Çutuk, 2021; Işık et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the questions are raised here with the purpose of establishing a theoretical account of BFST and DoS for studying co-dependency and emotional expressivity by using Common Fate Model. This current study expands the studies conducted by Işık et al. ( 2020 ) and İnce and Işık ( 2021 ) with Turkish heterosexual dyadic married couples and contributes to the DoS literature by focusing on emotional expressivity and co-dependency. DoS and Co-dependency The concept of co-dependency in BFST is defined as undifferentiated individuals who struggle in the integrity of separateness and the need for relatedness (Bowen, 1978 ). Additionally, BFST discussed the ethology of co-dependency as a maladaptive relationship that is transmitted in an intergenerational way (Bowen, 1978 ). More specifically, differentiation levels which are defined by BFST might affect the commitment levels in romantic relationships (Bowen, 1978 ). BFST argued that problems in differentiation are related to co-dependent people rather than dyadic adjustment (Bowen, 1978 ; Lampis et al., 2017 ). Indeed, co-dependent individuals are equally dependent between each other (Lawson, 2020 ). Co-dependent behaviours predicted by fusion of BFST (Lampis et al., 2017 ). There is still a lack of clear theoretical conceptualisation and definition of co-dependency; however, different approaches focused on it. For example, the co-dependency theory suggested detachment problems for addicted ones (Weiss, 2019 ), personality syndrome or love addiction were mentioned in the addictive love hypothesis (Peele & Brodsky, 1975 ), the attachment theory noted dysfunctional attachment styles and the interactionist model focused on both the inter and intra personal factors in co-dependency development (Wright & Wright, 1991 ). Lastly, personality theory defined co-dependency as a maladaptive pattern of interpersonal interaction, extreme emphasis on others, lack of open expression of feelings (Spann & Fischer, 1990 ). Although there has been little research on the linkage between DoS and co-dependency, Lampis et al. ( 2017 ) explored the impact of couple functioning on code pendent behaviour in various cultures with a sample of university students and concluded that the four dimensions of DoS were strongly connected with co-dependency. Moreover, another study found a direct effect of DoS on co-dependency in Turkish emerging adults (Topçu, 2023 ). However, this needs to be verified in Turkish married couples. In this study, we hypothesize that couples’ DoS levels will be negatively associated with their co-dependency. There is little research data to back this hypothesis. This current study sought to address the above gaps in the literature. The current study therefore used the Common Fate Model (CFM) to analyse the framework of DoS and co-dependency in a sample of Turkish heterosexual married couples by testing the model in a different culture and by using a rigorous dyadic data analysis. DoS and Emotional Expressivity BFST claimed that highly differentiated individuals are more capable to express their emotions and are more emotionally mature (Bowen, 1978 ). Moreover, well-differentiated individuals have the ability to reflect themselves in close or other relationships and take I position (Bowen, 1978 ). Unlikely, poorly differentiated individuals are more likely to use inconsistent verbal expressions, or they may feel trapped into expressing similar emotions to their partners through emotional fusion (Bowen, 1978 ). In general, DoS level of each partner determine their emotional experiences (Bowen 1978 ). When individuals have less ER, it means that they react with less emotional intensity. Individuals with ER have the tendency to react to stress by irrational emotional flooding (Lampis et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, higher DoS levels may be linked with emotional expressivity and/or may facilitate greater emotional expressivity as it is defined as a degree which a person expresses their feelings regardless of their valence or channel (Kring et al., 1994 ). To the best of our knowledge, limited studies have indirectly assessed the link between DoS and the emotional expressivity and those that have found that individuals with poorer differentiation are most likely to express emotion through displays of anger (Choi & Murdock, 2017 ). The Turkish cultural context may have unique characteristics that shape the endorsement and expression of DoS and emotional expression. For example, in the Turkish culture, where individuals share both collectivistic and individualistic traits (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2003 ), high connectedness and high separateness coexist (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2003 ), especially for men who commonly avoid expressing their feelings (Kuzucu, 2011 ) and for women for whom expression of warmth, support, and cheerfulness, are culturally-prescribed (Tünay Aktan & Barışkın, 2017). Similarly, Skowron et al. ( 2009 ) argued that higher emotional regulation was associated with aggression. From this perspective, we assume that highly differentiated couples will be positively associated with their emotional expressivity. Consequently, it is important for studies to test BFST assumptions in connection to emotional expressivity. Emotional Expressivity as a Mediator Based on research findings and clinical observations, it is well-known that DoS has been shown as a predictor of and can be used as a conceptual framework for co-dependency (e.g., Lampis et al., 2017 ). Also, prior research has shown links between emotional expressive suppression and relationship quality (Akkuş-Çutuk, 2021). More specifically, lower levels of emotional expressivity were linked with many forms of mental health and pathology (Kring et al., 1994 ). Higher levels of emotional expression have been linked with greater levels of DoS in couples (Ferreira et al., 2014 ). Therefore, we hypothesize that the couples with higher DoS levels will be less co-dependent and more emotionally expressive. Despite the existing literature in this area, little is known about the process by which DoS and co-dependency are linked, and whether emotional expression could serve as a mediator of that relationship in partnered couples. To address this need, the purpose of this study was to test a model of BFST and the construct of DoS in the findings that have the potential to expand the conceptual framework of BFST as well as to provide important implications for family and couple counselling in Turkish married population who experience co-dependency traits. Given the fore mentioned gaps in the literature, a scoping conceptual model of DoS was generated to explain the mediating role of emotional expressivity between DoS and co-dependency. Based on the review described above, the following hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 1 Highly differentiated couples will be negatively associated with their co-dependency. Hypothesis 2 Couples’ emotional expressivity will be negatively associated with their co-dependency. Hypothesis 3 Highly differentiated couples will be positively associated with their emotional expressivity. Hypothesis 4 Couples’ emotional expressivity level will mediate the relationship between their DoS and co-dependency levels, such that greater couples’ DoS will have a positive effect on their co-dependency through greater levels of their emotional expressivity. Method Procedure and sample recruitment During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were recruited by using convenience and snowballing sampling from the northern part of Cyprus between January and December 2021. All research procedures in this study received human subjects’ approval from the first author’s affiliation (reference number: 100–131). The first author made the first contact with the first 20 couples ( N = 40) who were phoned, informed, and invited to participate in the study. All respondents had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) participants were heterosexual married couples (which allowed the exploration of gender dynamic); (2) were currently cohabiting couples; and (3) had Turkish or Turkish Cypriot ethnic backgrounds. Then, the participants were requested to recommend lists of two or five couples based on the inclusion criteria. A total of 860 envelopes which contained the demographic survey forms, questionnaires and written consent forms which detailed and explained the anonymous nature of the study were shared with the participants; and the couples were asked to fill in the forms independent from their partners or another person. Also, the participants were asked to record the same digit codes on the envelopes with their partners to allow couple data analysis and were asked to seal and return the envelopes to the authors. However, 196 couples could not return the envelopes due to the lockdown caused by COVID-19 cases. Additionally, 33 couples were excluded because of the missing responses and an additional 25 couples were excluded from the analyses due to the random response patterns. The final sample comprised of a total of 176 couples ( N = 352) who were Turkish and Turkish Cypriot heterosexual married couples. The mean age for women was M age = 38.90 ( SD = 10.81) and for men was M age = 42.12 ( SD = 11.33). The mean of couples’ marriage duration was M = 13.43 years ( SD = 11.42). The majority of couples had children: 79.5 percent of participants reported they had at least a child whereas the 20.5 percent of participants reported having no children. For couples who reported having children, the average number of children was M = 1.39 ( SD = 0.97). In the sample, 33.5 percent of women and 34.7 percent of men reported obtaining a bachelor’s degree. Sample-wide, women reported that their monthly average incomes were lower than their husbands’ monthly average incomes. Measurements The Differentiation of Self Inventory-Revised (DSI-R) The Turkish version (Işık & Bulduk, 2015 ) of the Differentiation of Self Inventory-Revised (DSR-I) (Skowron & Schmit, 2003) was used in this study to assess DoS. This version of the instrument consists of a four-factor structure with twenty items. DSI-R assesses DoS level and consists of four subscales which are (1) Emotional Reactivity, ( 2) I-position, (3) Emotional Cutoff and (4) Fusion of Others. The DSI-R is scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1= (Not at all true of me) to 6= (Very true of me). A higher degree of DoS indicates less emotional reactivity, fusion with others, and emotional cutoff, and greater “I” position in their personal relationships. Scores are reversed and summed so that higher scores indicate lower ER, EC, and FO, and greater ability to take an “I” position in relationships. In the current study, the internal consistency for the DSI-R total score was α = .73 for women and α = .76 for men. Given that there is not enough evidence for the use of a total score of DSI-R and its factorial invariance for gender within the literature, we reported the correlations of the subscales along with the factorial invariance for women and men. The results showed that all subscales correlated significantly ( r s ranging from .29 to .57) and the scale provided configural, metric, and scalar invariance across genders given that the changes in CFI and RMSEA across models were lower than the proposed threshold of ΔRMSEA ≤ .015 and ΔCFI ≤ .01 (Chen, 2007 ). Emotional Expression Questionnaire ( EEQ) The Turkish version (Kuzucu, 2011 ) of the EEQ (King & Emmons, 1990 ) is a 15-item scale measuring an individual’s expression of a variety of positive and negative emotions and expression of intimacy. The EEQ consists of three different emotional expression subscales: (1) Positive, (2) Negative and (3) Intimacy. The EEQ is scored on a seven-point Likert-scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The higher total score indicates that greater, more adaptive emotional expression. In the current study, the internal consistency of the Turkish version of total EEQ was α = .74 for women and α = .71 for men. The Holyoake Co-dependency Index (HCI) The Turkish version (Dokuzlar, Işık & Özbiler, unpublished), of the Holyoake Co-dependency Index (HCI) (Dear & Roberts, 2005 ), was used to measure co-dependency in the current study. The HCI is a 13-item Likert-type scale that consists of three subscales: (1): External focus, (2) Self-sacrifice and (3) Reactivity. Items are scored on a 5-point from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score of the scale ranges from 3–15, and higher scores reflect greater co-dependent beliefs and attributions. In the Turkish version of HCI the model fix index result of confirmatory factor analysis showed that χ 2 (225) = 1.761 CFI = .822 RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .115), for women χ 2 (51) = 1,679, CFI = .909; RMSEA = .058, SRMR =. 102, and for men χ 2 (50) = 1.773, CFI = .906, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .118. In the current study, the internal consistency coefficient of the Turkish version of the total HCC was α = .72 for women and α = .72 for men. Data Analysis Given that we collected data from cohabiting couples which is therefore non-independent data, we used a Common Fate Model (CFM) with AMOS Version 24 to test our hypotheses. The CFM is a recommended method to account for the non-independence of dyadic data especially when the observed variables are highly correlated between dyads (i.e., married or cohabitating couples) in the same data set (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012 ). Please see Fig. 1 for a more detailed representation of the model. We used the chi-square ( χ 2 ), Comparative Fit Index (CFI > .95), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR < .08), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .06) in the interpretation of the goodness of fit statistics (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). For the preliminary analyses, we used SPSS Version 22. Results Preliminary Analyses Table 1 shows intercorrelations among the study variables, means, and standard deviations. As shown, all study variables for wives’ and husbands’ scores were significantly correlated with each other. Table 1 Intercorrelations between study variables for women and men. Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. DOS Women - 2. DOS Men .43 *** - 3. EE Women .24 ** .19 * - 4. EE Men .14 .28 *** .15 * - 5. COD Women − .49 *** − .37 *** − .20 ** − .14 - 6. COD Men − .22 ** − .41 *** − .09 − .32 *** .31 *** - Mean 4.14 4.27 4.39 4.08 7.44 7.73 SD 0.64 0.66 0.78 0.73 1.71 1.71 Note . * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; Range for differentiation of self (DOS): 1–6, range for Emotional Expressivity (EE): 1–7, range for co-dependency (COD): 3–15 INSERT Table 1 HERE. Testing Direct Effects We employed a direct effect CFM using the maximum likelihood estimation method to test Hypothesis 1 that DoS will be negatively correlated with co-dependency. As hypothesized, DoS negatively predicted co-dependency between couples (β = − .82, p < .001). This model demonstrated good fit with the data χ 2 (1) = 2.789, p = .095, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .031 and explained 42% of the variation in co-dependency. Results showed evidence that Hypothesis 2 was supported, as emotional expressivity negatively predicted co-dependency (β = − .54, p < .001, χ 2 (1) = 0.128, p = .721, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA < .001, SRMR = .008). Lastly, Hypothesis 3 was also supported: DoS was positively correlated with emotional expressivity (β = .64, p < .001, χ 2 (1) = 0.423, p = .516, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA < .001, SRMR = .015). Testing The Indirect Effect: Emotional Expressivity as a Mediator A CFM mediation model was used to test the mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between DoS and co-dependency between couples (see Fig. 1 ). This model demonstrated a good fit to the data, χ 2 (3) = 7.495, p = .112, CFI = .977, RMSEA = .071, SRMR = .034 and explained variance of DoS and emotional expressivity accounted together for 67% of the variance in co-dependency. After accounting for the mediating effect of emotional expressivity, the direct effect of DoS on co-dependency was reduced but still statistically significant (β = − .60, p < .001), supporting a partially mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between DoS and co-dependency (Hypothesis 4 ). Thus, this result suggests that, while explaining lower levels of co-dependency among couples, DoS also predicts higher emotional expressivity which in turn leads to lower level of co-dependency. The indirect effect’s significance was tested by calculating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the use of a bootstrapping method (Shrout & Bolger, 2002 ). The results showed that the indirect effect of DoS on co-dependency through emotional expressivity was significant ( B = − .09, 95% CI [-.16, − .06]) as the CIs did not include zero (Hayes, 2013 ). INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE Discussion This study examined the mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between the DoS and co-dependency for Turkish married couples. The study results showed that higher levels of DoS were associated with lower levels of co-dependent relational attributions. As far as we know, limited number of studies tested the direct relationship between the DoS and co-dependency, and no study tested this relation for dyadic Turkish married couples. Consistent with our hypothesis, Topçu ( 2023 ) examined direct effect of DoS to co-dependency in Turkish emerging adults and discovered that those with high levels of DoS are better able to regulate their own co-dependency feelings and less likely to control their interpersonal relationships. In fact, Dear and Roberts ( 2005 ) mentioned that co-dependency might be affected by gender roles. For example, environmental fears, emotional and insecure personalities as traditional gender roles are present in Turkish women’s upbringing (Kaplan, 2023 ). Moreover, the BFST argued that DoS degree of togetherness and individuality are experienced by the emotional system of the family (Bowen,1978). In this context, it can be claimed that Turkish married couples might not be able to act independently because collectivistic cultural norms are more centred in Turkish culture (e.g., Yavuz-Güler & Karaca, 2023). Additionally, the results revealed that when spouses had high levels of emotional expression while reflecting clearer communication of one’s emotional experience, it was associated with reports of lower co-dependent attributions in the couple relationship. Similarly, Dear and Roberts ( 2005 ) reported spouses who had difficulty expressing emotions to their partners experienced higher levels of co-dependency. Prior research studies also indicated that as co-dependency between couple partners increase, so does the difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings, emotions in the relationship and difficulty in communication (Lampis et al., 2017 ). Although, no study tested the role of the emotional expressivity in Turkish married couples’ co-dependency, data which supports the correlation between similar concepts is available. For instance, Kemer et al. ( 2016 ) found that dependency for Turkish married couples was the best predictor of their relationship satisfaction. Moreover, Işık and Bulduk ( 2015 ) stated that Turkish people with EC tend to be more distant from others and deny the importance of closeness. Furthermore, Kağıtçıbaşı ( 2003 ) argued that although there is a transition from the extended family to the nuclear family, most of Turkish family structures can be explained in collectivistic culture. Gender stereotypes and traditional gender myths (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2003 ) can affect the expressivity especially for the Turkish men sample. In contrast, in a collectivistic yet rapidly westernizing society, and social changes in Turkish people lead them to feel comfortable to express their feelings, be deeply connected, as well as feeling ownership of their partners in both romantic and social relationships (Kemer et al., 2016 ). Therefore, this kind of emotional expressivity in Turkish culture is a crucial contributor to the co-dependency of Turkish married couples. Our findings also showed that DoS was significantly correlated with emotional expressivity. According to BFST, DoS facilitates an individual’s capacity to engage in romantic relationships while maintaining one’s personal identity (Skowron, & Schmitt, 2003 ). Furthermore, Bowen ( 1978 ) posited that couples with higher levels of DoS would have healthier emotional connections with each other without robbing each other’s individuality. To our knowledge, no prior research has focused on the linkage between emotional expression (versus emotion regulation or emotion types/levels) and DoS; however, the current generation of Turkish couples are able to differentiate themselves from their parents, create couple identity and are more able to communicate and draw boundaries with the outside world (Zeytinoğlu-Saydam, Erdem & Söylemez, 2020 ). Furthermore, a study conducted in Turkish culture (Mert & Kahraman, 2020 ) found a substantial association between DoS and positive-negative emotion levels. The results provided evidence of the relationship between DoS and emotional expression in collectivist cultures as well. Similarly in Turkish culture, although individuals feel free to express their feelings and feel deeply connected, it is well known that males often avoid expressing pleasant feelings and are cautious about expressing negative emotions such as anger (Kuzucu, 2011 ). Therefore, assessment of differentiation of self and emotional expressivity is generally important for collectivistic cultures. Finally, although this study is unique to test this model, it revealed that healthier, more frequent emotional expression in couple relationships partially mediates the relationship between DoS and co-dependency. In this case, the level of co-dependency in a relationship increases in the case of couples who continue their marriages despite losing their individuality and sense of self. However, their ability to express their feelings decreases their co-dependency level that is regarded partial mediation. The findings of the current study might be explained by mentioning that healthy emotional expression in a couple relationship requires some level of differentiation, that is, the ability to tolerate differentiations and the ability to communicate those different experiences without shutting down, cutting off, or fusing with one’s partner. In sum, findings in this study document that when there is a high differentiation, emotions can be expressed more comfortably between spouses, and mutual co-dependency also decreases. Similarly, Ince and Işık (2021) found that words of affirmation have a mediator role in the DoS and marital satisfaction of Turkish married couples. Accordingly, it can be said that expressing emotions play an important role in the relationship between DoS and co-dependency of Turkish couples. Limitations The current study is conducted with a large sample of Turkish couples; however, participant recruitment was completed through convenience and snowball sampling. The results may be limited to generalize when they are compared to the data gathered from random sampling because the participants were predominantly heterosexual Turkish Cypriot married couples whose sociodemographic characteristics are very similar to each other. However, despite the current study is unable to generalize its results to LGBT + individuals, it might be very interesting to focus on the same-sex relationships in the construct of DoS and co-dependency. Although we focused on a non-clinical sample, the examination of DoS in clinical sample of Turkish population is still largely unexplored; so, future studies might study this area. Additionally, because all measures were collected cross-sectionally, the directionality of effects cannot be determined. This study was unable to evaluate any inverse or reciprocal relationships between the study variables. Future research should replicate our effects longitudinally. Lastly, while the cultural context (Northern Cyprus) of the current study is highly relevant to other collectivistic cultures, future research might explore how these relationships operate within other cultural contexts to better describe how an intervention in couples’ relationships might be culturally relevant for couples across the spectrum of individualistic to collectivistic cultures. Clinical Implications for Family Therapy Co-dependency is not often the sole target of clinical intervention for couples in and of itself, but instead is often a signal of other couple relational challenges and individual challenges that affect the couple relationship (e.g., addiction). When working with Turkish couples, it was needed to draw attention to the self as an independent, autonomous, and differentiating concept. For instance, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy aimed to address the autonomy and intrapersonal development of clients (Dwairy & Van Sickle, 1996 ). Furthermore, treatments and interventions might be selected according to the clients’ attachments styles or DoS levels. Attachment based interventions and cognition-based attachment strategies may encourage clients to express their feelings and regulate their emotions. Therefore, couple therapists should address the individuation need of the Turkish couple patients. The results of the current study corroborate the process model that underlies this treatment as well as others that focus on improving the DOS for both members of the couple and their capability to communicate both their needs and emotional experiences in the relationship as a pathway towards improving the couples’ relational health. Future research might incorporate couple outcomes associated with co-dependency to further understand how dysfunctional relational and emotional patterns in couple relationships result in more positive or negative outcomes for couples (e.g., separation, divorce, infidelity, addition) to better characterize how clinical interventions might target and intervene to support healthy emotional expression and dyadic relationship health through couples counselling and other clinical interventions. Declarations Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest References Akkuş Çutuk, Z. (2021). Emotional expressivity, loneliness and hopelessness relationship in adolescents. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies , 8 (2), 51—60. https://dx.doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2021.8.2.308 Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice . Aronson Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling , 14 (3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 Choi, S. W., & Murdock, N. L. (2017). Differentiation of self, interpersonal conflict, and depression: The mediating role of anger expression. Contemporary Family Therapy , 39 (1), 21—30. http://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10591-016-9397-3 Dear, G. E., & Roberts, C. M. (2005). Validation of the Holyoake codependency index. The Journal of Psychology , 139 (4), 293—314. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.293-314 Dokuzlar, Ş., Işık, E. & Özbiler, Ş. (unpublished). Turkish validation of The Holyoake Codependency Index (HCI) for married couples . Dwairy M., & Van Sickle T. D. (1996). Western psychotherapy in traditional Arab society. Clinical Psychology Review , 16 (3), 231—249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00011-6 Ferreira, L. C., Narciso, I., Ferreira Novo R., & Pereira, C. R. (2014) Predicting couple satisfaction: The role of differentiation of self, sexual desire and intimacy in heterosexual individuals, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 29 (4) , 390—404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2014.957498 Günsel, A. D. (2021). Evaluation of the mediator role of cognitive flexibility and marital satisfaction in the relationship differentiation of self and family functioning [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Cyprus International University. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling , 6 (1), 1—55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 İnce, Ş., & Işık, E. (2021). The mediating role of five love languages between differentiation of self and marital satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy , 1—17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1930607 Işık, E., & Bulduk, S. (2015). Psychometric properties of the differentiation of self-inventory revised in Turkish adults. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy , 41 (1), 102—112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12022 Işık, E., Özbiler, Ş., Schweer-Collins, M. L., & Rodriguez-Gonzalez, M. (2020). Differentiation of self predicts life satisfaction through marital adjustment. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 48 (3), 235—249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1732248 Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2003). Cross-cultural perspectives on family change. In Liljestrom R., & Özdalga E. (Eds.) Autonomy and dependence in the family: Turkey and Sweden in critical perspective. Swedish Research Institute. Kaplan, V. (2023). Mental health states of housewives: An evaluation in terms of self-perception and co-dependency. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction , 21 (1), 666—683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00910-1 Kemer, G., Çetinkaya Yıldız, E., & Bulgan, G. (2016). Emotional dependency and dysfunctional relationship beliefs as predictors of married Turkish individuals' relationship satisfaction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology , 19 , E72. 1—8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.78 King, L. A., & Emmons, R. A. (1990). Conflict over emotional expression: Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58 (5), 864—877. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.864 Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 934—949. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.934 Kuzucu, Y. (2011). Adaptation of the emotional expression questionnaire: Validity and reliability studies. Kastamonu Education Journal . 19 (3), 779—792. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/49049/625719 Lampis, J., Cataudella, S., Busonera, A., & Skowron, E. A. (2017). The role of differentiation of self and dyadic adjustment in predicting codependency. Contemporary Family Therapy , 39 (1), 62—72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9403-4 Lawson, D. (2020). Mental health workbook . Emotionship Srls. Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. Journal of Family Psychology , 26 (1), 140—148. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0026624 Mert, A., & Kahraman, M. (2020). Investigating the relationship between the self-differentiation, altruism, internal-external locus of control, and positive negative emotion levels of university students. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education , 1 (53), 336—369. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.550343 Peele, S., & Brodsky, A. (1975). Love and addiction . Taplinger Polat, K., & Ilhan, T. (2018). An investigation of dyadic adjustment, and some psychological symptoms with respect to differentiation of self among married individuals. Turkish Psychological Counselling and Guidance Journal , 8 (50), 87—115. Rodríguez-Gonz ́alez, M., Schweer-Collins, M., Bell, C. A., Sandberg, J. G., & Rodríguez- Naranjo, C. (2019). Family functioning, family structure, and differentiation of self in heterosexual spanish couples: An actor-partner analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 97 (2), 209—219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12251 Rodríguez‐González, M., Lampis, J., Murdock, N. L., Schweer‐Collins, M. L., & Lyons, E. R. (2020). Couple Adjustment and Differentiation of Self in the United States, Italy, and Spain: A Cross‐Cultural Study. Family Process, 59 (4), 1552—1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12522 Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422—445. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 Skowron, E. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2003). Assessing interpersonal fusion: Reliability and validity of a new DSI fusion with others subscale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy , 29 (2), 209—222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01201.x Skowron, E. A., Stanley, K. L., & Shapiro, M. D. (2009). A longitudinal perspective on differentiation of self, interpersonal and psychological well-being in young adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 31 (1), 3—18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10591-008-9075-1 Spann, L., & Fischer, J. L. (1990). Identifying co-dependency. The Counsellor , 8 (27), 27—31. Spencer, B., & Brown, J. (2007). Fusion or internalized homophobia? A pilot study of Bowen's differentiation of self-hypothesis with lesbian couples. Family Process , 46 (2), 257—268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00208.x Telli, A., & Yavuz Güler, Ç. (2023). Differentiation of self, forgiveness, jealousy, and conflict resolution responses among married individuals: The mediating role of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment, and emotional dependency . Contemporary Family Therapy , 45 (2), 157—171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09603-8 Topçu, E. (2023). An examination of romantic relationship beliefs in the context of co-dependency and self-differentiation among emerging adults . [ Unpublished master's thesis] Marmara University. Tünay Akan, Ş., & Barışkın, E. (2017). Reliability and validity indicators of Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire in the context of culture and gender. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry , 28 (1), 43—50. https://doi.org/10.5080/u13378 Weiss, R. (2019). Prodependence vs. codependency: Would a new model (prodependence) for treating loved ones of sex addicts be more effective than the model we’ve got (co-dependency)?. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity , 26 (3-4), 177—190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2019.1653239 Wright, P. H., & Wright, K. D. (1991). Codependency: Addictive love, adjustive relating, or both?. Contemporary family therapy , 13 (5), 435—454. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF00890497 Yavuz-Güler, Ç., & Karaca, T. (2021). The role of differentiation of self in predicting rumination and emotion regulation difficulties. Contemporary Family Therapy , 43 (2), 113—123. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10591-020-09559-1 Zeytinoğlu‐Saydam, S., Erdem, G., & Söylemez, Y. (2020). Psychometric properties of the brief accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement scale in a community sample of Turkish Adults. Family Relations. 70 (2). 557—574. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12446 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 2 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4283543","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":292609391,"identity":"af59c10b-822a-433d-ab8c-91aeffa6fa8d","order_by":0,"name":"Şerifali Dokuzlar","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8227-0554","institution":"Department of Guidance and Psychological Counseling, Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, CCyprus International University,","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Şerifali","middleName":"","lastName":"Dokuzlar","suffix":""},{"id":292609392,"identity":"f8897253-6b91-41e5-bf1d-7ab5b2ab9b2d","order_by":1,"name":"Şerife Özbiler","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3405-3077","institution":"Eastern Mediterranean University, Department of Psychology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Şerife","middleName":"","lastName":"Özbiler","suffix":""},{"id":292609393,"identity":"ac5e2d6e-137d-44e3-9c7a-946b222d1043","order_by":2,"name":"Maria Schweer-Collins","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8285-9107","institution":"Prevention Science Institute, University of Oregon","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maria","middleName":"","lastName":"Schweer-Collins","suffix":""},{"id":292609394,"identity":"cee060ff-683b-4a0a-9395-baa21c0b632c","order_by":3,"name":"Erkan Isık","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0373-120X","institution":"Konya Food Agricultural University, Department of Psychology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Erkan","middleName":"","lastName":"Isık","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-04-17 18:16:15","currentVersionCode":2,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v2","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v2","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":55188432,"identity":"4e95229d-5eef-4d46-a11b-90302eb1d705","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-23 18:48:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCommon fate mediation model testing Emotional expressivity (EE) as the mediating variable in the relation between differentiation of self (DoS) and co-dependency (C). Standardized coefficients for significant paths are presented on the figure. Fit statistics demonstrated the model fit the data well \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e(3) = 7.495, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .112, CFI = .977, RMSEA = .071, SRMR = .034\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4283543/v2/098351234f6141bae23f04a6.png"},{"id":55189110,"identity":"18d01b90-b04e-469e-83c2-a1c8cfe95db5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-23 18:56:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":364662,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4283543/v2/74e709c6-815d-4cb1-889a-e9c5118897e7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"The Mediating Role of Emotional Expressivity Between Differentiation of Self and Co-dependency among Couples: A Common Fate Mediation Model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDifferentiation of self (DoS) is a core concept in Bowen family systems theory (BFST), which considers the establishment of satisfactory intimate relationships as the main developmental task for adulthood (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). One of the basic assumptions of BFST is that people with higher levels of DoS are more capable of establishing intimacy with others without feeling anxious (Skowron \u0026amp; Schmitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). They have been shown to be more flexible in their partner relationships (Ferreira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and demonstrated lower levels of couple and family conflict and higher satisfaction in their couple relationships (Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Gonzalez, et al., 2019). The intrapersonal dimension of DoS can be identified via emotional reactivity (ER) and the I-position (IP) (Skowron \u0026amp; Schmitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). ER is thought to reflect an emotional reflex that operates automatically, without awareness, and can usually be observed at a moderate level of tension. A second intrapersonal dimension, the I-position is the ability to calmly express concern or difference and act according to one's beliefs, without criticizing the beliefs of others or the avoidance of emotions involved in such interactions (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the interpersonal dimension of DoS comprises emotional cutoff (EC) and fusion with others (FO). EC reflects an emotional strategy driven by anxiety around intimacy and the accompanying behavioural defences against those fears, whereas fusion with others (FO) is defined as emotional overinvolvement with others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo date, studies on DoS repeatedly indicated that individuals with higher levels of DoS engaged in meaningful intimate relationships such as in the case of married Australian lesbian couples (Spencer \u0026amp; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), and lower EC was associated with better marital adjustment in the US, Spain, and Italy, but higher ER was related to poorer couple adjustment in the more collectivistic cultures of Spain and Italy (Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, 2020). Moreover, the first study on Turkish married individuals\u0026rsquo; DoS levels was conducted by Polat and Ilhan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) who found that DoS predicted dyadic adjustment and psychological symptoms. Işık et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) were the first to include the Common Fate Model for Turkish married individuals to examine marital adjustment as a mediator in the relationship between DoS and life satisfaction. Besides, G\u0026uuml;nsel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) mentioned the mediator role of cognitive flexibility and marital satisfaction in the relationship between DoS and family functioning for Turkish married individuals. Similarly, a significant finding for mediating role of five love languages were reported between DoS and marital satisfaction (İnce \u0026amp; Işık, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Lastly, Telli and Yavuz-G\u0026uuml;ler (2023) tested the mediating role of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment, and emotional dependency for DoS and forgiveness, jealousy, and conflict resolution responses among married individuals. However, very little attention has been devoted to understanding how Turkish married couples achieve the balance of differentiation and co-dependence. Our one assumption is that emotional expression of couples could mediate the relationship between DoS and co-dependency. The rationale of the study is rooted in an attempt to shed further light to the role of emotional expressivity for Turkish married couples. According to Kağıt\u0026ccedil;ıbaşı (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), both connectedness and separateness coexist in Turkish culture and traditional gender roles are also observed in the marriages of Turkish married couples. As a result, this situation might suppress women and cause lower levels of DoS in collectivistic cultures such as Turkey (Akkuş-\u0026Ccedil;utuk, 2021; Işık et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the questions are raised here with the purpose of establishing a theoretical account of BFST and DoS for studying co-dependency and emotional expressivity by using Common Fate Model. This current study expands the studies conducted by Işık et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and İnce and Işık (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) with Turkish heterosexual dyadic married couples and contributes to the DoS literature by focusing on emotional expressivity and co-dependency.\u003c/p\u003e \n\u003ch3\u003eDoS and Co-dependency\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of co-dependency in BFST is defined as undifferentiated individuals who struggle in the integrity of separateness and the need for relatedness (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, BFST discussed the ethology of co-dependency as a maladaptive relationship that is transmitted in an intergenerational way (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). More specifically, differentiation levels which are defined by BFST might affect the commitment levels in romantic relationships (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). BFST argued that problems in differentiation are related to co-dependent people rather than dyadic adjustment (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e; Lampis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, co-dependent individuals are equally dependent between each other (Lawson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Co-dependent behaviours predicted by fusion of BFST (Lampis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). There is still a lack of clear theoretical conceptualisation and definition of co-dependency; however, different approaches focused on it. For example, the co-dependency theory suggested detachment problems for addicted ones (Weiss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), personality syndrome or love addiction were mentioned in the addictive love hypothesis (Peele \u0026amp; Brodsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e), the attachment theory noted dysfunctional attachment styles and the interactionist model focused on both the inter and intra personal factors in co-dependency development (Wright \u0026amp; Wright, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Lastly, personality theory defined co-dependency as a maladaptive pattern of interpersonal interaction, extreme emphasis on others, lack of open expression of feelings (Spann \u0026amp; Fischer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Although there has been little research on the linkage between DoS and co-dependency, Lampis et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) explored the impact of couple functioning on code pendent behaviour in various cultures with a sample of university students and concluded that the four dimensions of DoS were strongly connected with co-dependency. Moreover, another study found a direct effect of DoS on co-dependency in Turkish emerging adults (Top\u0026ccedil;u, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, this needs to be verified in Turkish married couples. In this study, we hypothesize that couples\u0026rsquo; DoS levels will be negatively associated with their co-dependency. There is little research data to back this hypothesis. This current study sought to address the above gaps in the literature. The current study therefore used the Common Fate Model (CFM) to analyse the framework of DoS and co-dependency in a sample of Turkish heterosexual married couples by testing the model in a different culture and by using a rigorous dyadic data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDoS and Emotional Expressivity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBFST claimed that highly differentiated individuals are more capable to express their emotions and are more emotionally mature (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, well-differentiated individuals have the ability to reflect themselves in close or other relationships and take I position (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). Unlikely, poorly differentiated individuals are more likely to use inconsistent verbal expressions, or they may feel trapped into expressing similar emotions to their partners through emotional fusion (Bowen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). In general, DoS level of each partner determine their emotional experiences (Bowen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). When individuals have less ER, it means that they react with less emotional intensity. Individuals with ER have the tendency to react to stress by irrational emotional flooding (Lampis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, higher DoS levels may be linked with emotional expressivity and/or may facilitate greater emotional expressivity as it is defined as a degree which a person expresses their feelings regardless of their valence or channel (Kring et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). To the best of our knowledge, limited studies have indirectly assessed the link between DoS and the emotional expressivity and those that have found that individuals with poorer differentiation are most likely to express emotion through displays of anger (Choi \u0026amp; Murdock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The Turkish cultural context may have unique characteristics that shape the endorsement and expression of DoS and emotional expression. For example, in the Turkish culture, where individuals share both collectivistic and individualistic traits (Kağıt\u0026ccedil;ıbaşı, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), high connectedness and high separateness coexist (Kağıt\u0026ccedil;ıbaşı, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), especially for men who commonly avoid expressing their feelings (Kuzucu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and for women for whom expression of warmth, support, and cheerfulness, are culturally-prescribed (T\u0026uuml;nay Aktan \u0026amp; Barışkın, 2017). Similarly, Skowron et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) argued that higher emotional regulation was associated with aggression. From this perspective, we assume that highly differentiated couples will be positively associated with their emotional expressivity. Consequently, it is important for studies to test BFST assumptions in connection to emotional expressivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEmotional Expressivity as a Mediator\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on research findings and clinical observations, it is well-known that DoS has been shown as a predictor of and can be used as a conceptual framework for co-dependency (e.g., Lampis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Also, prior research has shown links between emotional expressive suppression and relationship quality (Akkuş-\u0026Ccedil;utuk, 2021). More specifically, lower levels of emotional expressivity were linked with many forms of mental health and pathology (Kring et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Higher levels of emotional expression have been linked with greater levels of DoS in couples (Ferreira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, we hypothesize that the couples with higher DoS levels will be less co-dependent and more emotionally expressive. Despite the existing literature in this area, little is known about the process by which DoS and co-dependency are linked, and whether emotional expression could serve as a mediator of that relationship in partnered couples. To address this need, the purpose of this study was to test a model of BFST and the construct of DoS in the findings that have the potential to expand the conceptual framework of BFST as well as to provide important implications for family and couple counselling in Turkish married population who experience co-dependency traits. Given the fore mentioned gaps in the literature, a scoping conceptual model of DoS was generated to explain the mediating role of emotional expressivity between DoS and co-dependency. Based on the review described above, the following hypotheses were tested:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighly differentiated couples will be negatively associated with their co-dependency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eCouples\u0026rsquo; emotional expressivity will be negatively associated with their co-dependency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighly differentiated couples will be positively associated with their emotional expressivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 4\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eCouples\u0026rsquo; emotional expressivity level will mediate the relationship between their DoS and co-dependency levels, such that greater couples\u0026rsquo; DoS will have a positive effect on their co-dependency through greater levels of their emotional expressivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure and sample recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were recruited by using convenience and snowballing sampling from the northern part of Cyprus between January and December 2021. All research procedures in this study received human subjects\u0026rsquo; approval from the first author\u0026rsquo;s affiliation (reference number: 100\u0026ndash;131). The first author made the first contact with the first 20 couples (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40) who were phoned, informed, and invited to participate in the study. All respondents had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) participants were heterosexual married couples (which allowed the exploration of gender dynamic); (2) were currently cohabiting couples; and (3) had Turkish or Turkish Cypriot ethnic backgrounds. Then, the participants were requested to recommend lists of two or five couples based on the inclusion criteria. A total of 860 envelopes which contained the demographic survey forms, questionnaires and written consent forms which detailed and explained the anonymous nature of the study were shared with the participants; and the couples were asked to fill in the forms independent from their partners or another person. Also, the participants were asked to record the same digit codes on the envelopes with their partners to allow couple data analysis and were asked to seal and return the envelopes to the authors. However, 196 couples could not return the envelopes due to the lockdown caused by COVID-19 cases. Additionally, 33 couples were excluded because of the missing responses and an additional 25 couples were excluded from the analyses due to the random response patterns. The final sample comprised of a total of 176 couples (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;352) who were Turkish and Turkish Cypriot heterosexual married couples. The mean age for women was \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e 38.90 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;10.81) and for men was \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e 42.12 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.33). The mean of couples\u0026rsquo; marriage duration was \u003cem\u003eM\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;13.43 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.42). The majority of couples had children: 79.5 percent of participants reported they had at least a child whereas the 20.5 percent of participants reported having no children. For couples who reported having children, the average number of children was \u003cem\u003eM\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;1.39 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.97). In the sample, 33.5 percent of women and 34.7 percent of men reported obtaining a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree. Sample-wide, women reported that their monthly average incomes were lower than their husbands\u0026rsquo; monthly average incomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasurements\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Differentiation of Self Inventory-Revised (DSI-R)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Turkish version (Işık \u0026amp; Bulduk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) of the Differentiation of Self Inventory-Revised (DSR-I) (Skowron \u0026amp; Schmit, 2003) was used in this study to assess DoS. This version of the instrument consists of a four-factor structure with twenty items. DSI-R assesses DoS level and consists of four subscales which are (1) Emotional Reactivity, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e(\u003c/span\u003e2) I-position, (3) Emotional Cutoff and (4) Fusion of Others. The DSI-R is scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1= (Not at all true of me) to 6= (Very true of me). A higher degree of DoS indicates less emotional reactivity, fusion with others, and emotional cutoff, and greater \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; position in their personal relationships. Scores are reversed and summed so that higher scores indicate lower ER, EC, and FO, and greater ability to take an \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; position in relationships. In the current study, the internal consistency for the DSI-R total score was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.73 for women and \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.76 for men. Given that there is not enough evidence for the use of a total score of DSI-R and its factorial invariance for gender within the literature, we reported the correlations of the subscales along with the factorial invariance for women and men. The results showed that all subscales correlated significantly (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es ranging from .29 to .57) and the scale provided configural, metric, and scalar invariance across genders given that the changes in CFI and RMSEA across models were lower than the proposed threshold of ΔRMSEA\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.015 and ΔCFI\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.01 (Chen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEmotional Expression Questionnaire\u003c/b\u003e (\u003cb\u003eEEQ)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Turkish version (Kuzucu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) of the EEQ (King \u0026amp; Emmons, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) is a 15-item scale measuring an individual\u0026rsquo;s expression of a variety of positive and negative emotions and expression of intimacy. The EEQ consists of three different emotional expression subscales: (1) Positive, (2) Negative and (3) Intimacy. The EEQ is scored on a seven-point Likert-scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The higher total score indicates that greater, more adaptive emotional expression. In the current study, the internal consistency of the Turkish version of total EEQ was \u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.74 for women and \u003cem\u003eα\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.71 for men.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Holyoake Co-dependency Index (HCI)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Turkish version (Dokuzlar, Işık \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zbiler, unpublished), of the Holyoake Co-dependency Index (HCI) (Dear \u0026amp; Roberts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), was used to measure co-dependency in the current study. The HCI is a 13-item Likert-type scale that consists of three subscales: (1): External focus, (2) Self-sacrifice and (3) Reactivity. Items are scored on a 5-point from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score of the scale ranges from 3\u0026ndash;15, and higher scores reflect greater co-dependent beliefs and attributions. In the Turkish version of HCI the model fix index result of confirmatory factor analysis showed that χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (225)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.761 CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.822 RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.062, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.115), for women χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (51)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,679, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.909; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.058, SRMR =. 102, and for men χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (50)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.773, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.906, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.062, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.118. In the current study, the internal consistency coefficient of the Turkish version of the total HCC was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.72 for women and \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.72 for men.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that we collected data from cohabiting couples which is therefore non-independent data, we used a Common Fate Model (CFM) with AMOS Version 24 to test our hypotheses. The CFM is a recommended method to account for the non-independence of dyadic data especially when the observed variables are highly correlated between dyads (i.e., married or cohabitating couples) in the same data set (Ledermann \u0026amp; Kenny, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Please see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for a more detailed representation of the model. We used the chi-square (\u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e), Comparative Fit Index (CFI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.95), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.08), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.06) in the interpretation of the goodness of fit statistics (Hu \u0026amp; Bentler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). For the preliminary analyses, we used SPSS Version 22.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePreliminary Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows intercorrelations among the study variables, means, and standard deviations. As shown, all study variables for wives\u0026rsquo; and husbands\u0026rsquo; scores were significantly correlated with each other.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntercorrelations between study variables for women and men.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. DOS Women\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. DOS Men\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.43\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. EE Women\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.24\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.19\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. EE Men\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.28\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. COD Women\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.49\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.37\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. COD Men\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.22\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.31\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05; \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01; \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; Range for differentiation of self (DOS): 1\u0026ndash;6, range for Emotional Expressivity (EE): 1\u0026ndash;7, range for co-dependency (COD): 3\u0026ndash;15\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eINSERT\u003c/span\u003e Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eHERE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTesting Direct Effects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe employed a direct effect CFM using the maximum likelihood estimation method to test Hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e that DoS will be negatively correlated with co-dependency. As hypothesized, DoS negatively predicted co-dependency between couples \u003cem\u003e(β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). This model demonstrated good fit with the data \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.789, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.095, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.031 and explained 42% of the variation in co-dependency. Results showed evidence that Hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e was supported, as emotional expressivity negatively predicted co-dependency \u003cem\u003e(β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.128, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.721, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008). Lastly, Hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e was also supported: DoS was positively correlated with emotional expressivity \u003cem\u003e(β\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.423, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.516, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTesting The Indirect Effect: Emotional Expressivity as a Mediator\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA CFM mediation model was used to test the mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between DoS and co-dependency between couples (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This model demonstrated a good fit to the data, \u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.495, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.112, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.977, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.071, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.034 and explained variance of DoS and emotional expressivity accounted together for 67% of the variance in co-dependency. After accounting for the mediating effect of emotional expressivity, the direct effect of DoS on co-dependency was reduced but still statistically significant \u003cem\u003e(β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), supporting a partially mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between DoS and co-dependency (Hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, this result suggests that, while explaining lower levels of co-dependency among couples, DoS also predicts higher emotional expressivity which in turn leads to lower level of co-dependency. The indirect effect\u0026rsquo;s significance was tested by calculating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the use of a bootstrapping method (Shrout \u0026amp; Bolger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The results showed that the indirect effect of DoS on co-dependency through emotional expressivity was significant (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09, 95% CI [-.16, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06]) as the CIs did not include zero (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eINSERT\u003c/span\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eHERE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between the DoS and co-dependency for Turkish married couples. The study results showed that higher levels of DoS were associated with lower levels of co-dependent relational attributions. As far as we know, limited number of studies tested the direct relationship between the DoS and co-dependency, and no study tested this relation for dyadic Turkish married couples. Consistent with our hypothesis, Top\u0026ccedil;u (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) examined direct effect of DoS to co-dependency in Turkish emerging adults and discovered that those with high levels of DoS are better able to regulate their own co-dependency feelings and less likely to control their interpersonal relationships. In fact, Dear and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) mentioned that co-dependency might be affected by gender roles. For example, environmental fears, emotional and insecure personalities as traditional gender roles are present in Turkish women\u0026rsquo;s upbringing (Kaplan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the BFST argued that DoS degree of togetherness and individuality are experienced by the emotional system of the family (Bowen,1978). In this context, it can be claimed that Turkish married couples might not be able to act independently because collectivistic cultural norms are more centred in Turkish culture (e.g., Yavuz-G\u0026uuml;ler \u0026amp; Karaca, 2023). Additionally, the results revealed that when spouses had high levels of emotional expression while reflecting clearer communication of one\u0026rsquo;s emotional experience, it was associated with reports of lower co-dependent attributions in the couple relationship. Similarly, Dear and Roberts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) reported spouses who had difficulty expressing emotions to their partners experienced higher levels of co-dependency. Prior research studies also indicated that as co-dependency between couple partners increase, so does the difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings, emotions in the relationship and difficulty in communication (Lampis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Although, no study tested the role of the emotional expressivity in Turkish married couples\u0026rsquo; co-dependency, data which supports the correlation between similar concepts is available. For instance, Kemer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that dependency for Turkish married couples was the best predictor of their relationship satisfaction. Moreover, Işık and Bulduk (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) stated that Turkish people with EC tend to be more distant from others and deny the importance of closeness. Furthermore, Kağıt\u0026ccedil;ıbaşı (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) argued that although there is a transition from the extended family to the nuclear family, most of Turkish family structures can be explained in collectivistic culture. Gender stereotypes and traditional gender myths (Kağıt\u0026ccedil;ıbaşı, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) can affect the expressivity especially for the Turkish men sample. In contrast, in a collectivistic yet rapidly westernizing society, and social changes in Turkish people lead them to feel comfortable to express their feelings, be deeply connected, as well as feeling ownership of their partners in both romantic and social relationships (Kemer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, this kind of emotional expressivity in Turkish culture is a crucial contributor to the co-dependency of Turkish married couples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings also showed that DoS was significantly correlated with emotional expressivity. According to BFST, DoS facilitates an individual\u0026rsquo;s capacity to engage in romantic relationships while maintaining one\u0026rsquo;s personal identity (Skowron, \u0026amp; Schmitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, Bowen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e) posited that couples with higher levels of DoS would have healthier emotional connections with each other without robbing each other\u0026rsquo;s individuality. To our knowledge, no prior research has focused on the linkage between emotional expression (versus emotion regulation or emotion types/levels) and DoS; however, the current generation of Turkish couples are able to differentiate themselves from their parents, create couple identity and are more able to communicate and draw boundaries with the outside world (Zeytinoğlu-Saydam, Erdem \u0026amp; S\u0026ouml;ylemez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, a study conducted in Turkish culture (Mert \u0026amp; Kahraman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found a substantial association between DoS and positive-negative emotion levels. The results provided evidence of the relationship between DoS and emotional expression in collectivist cultures as well. Similarly in Turkish culture, although individuals feel free to express their feelings and feel deeply connected, it is well known that males often avoid expressing pleasant feelings and are cautious about expressing negative emotions such as anger (Kuzucu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, assessment of differentiation of self and emotional expressivity is generally important for collectivistic cultures. Finally, although this study is unique to test this model, it revealed that healthier, more frequent emotional expression in couple relationships partially mediates the relationship between DoS and co-dependency. In this case, the level of co-dependency in a relationship increases in the case of couples who continue their marriages despite losing their individuality and sense of self. However, their ability to express their feelings decreases their co-dependency level that is regarded partial mediation. The findings of the current study might be explained by mentioning that healthy emotional expression in a couple relationship requires some level of differentiation, that is, the ability to tolerate differentiations and the ability to communicate those different experiences without shutting down, cutting off, or fusing with one\u0026rsquo;s partner. In sum, findings in this study document that when there is a high differentiation, emotions can be expressed more comfortably between spouses, and mutual co-dependency also decreases. Similarly, Ince and Işık (2021) found that words of affirmation have a mediator role in the DoS and marital satisfaction of Turkish married couples. Accordingly, it can be said that expressing emotions play an important role in the relationship between DoS and co-dependency of Turkish couples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study is conducted with a large sample of Turkish couples; however, participant recruitment was completed through convenience and snowball sampling. The results may be limited to generalize when they are compared to the data gathered from random sampling because the participants were predominantly heterosexual Turkish Cypriot married couples whose sociodemographic characteristics are very similar to each other. However, despite the current study is unable to generalize its results to LGBT\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;individuals, it might be very interesting to focus on the same-sex relationships in the construct of DoS and co-dependency. Although we focused on a non-clinical sample, the examination of DoS in clinical sample of Turkish population is still largely unexplored; so, future studies might study this area. Additionally, because all measures were collected cross-sectionally, the directionality of effects cannot be determined. This study was unable to evaluate any inverse or reciprocal relationships between the study variables. Future research should replicate our effects longitudinally. Lastly, while the cultural context (Northern Cyprus) of the current study is highly relevant to other collectivistic cultures, future research might explore how these relationships operate within other cultural contexts to better describe how an intervention in couples\u0026rsquo; relationships might be culturally relevant for couples across the spectrum of individualistic to collectivistic cultures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical Implications for Family Therapy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-dependency is not often the sole target of clinical intervention for couples in and of itself, but instead is often a signal of other couple relational challenges and individual challenges that affect the couple relationship (e.g., addiction). When working with Turkish couples, it was needed to draw attention to the self as an independent, autonomous, and differentiating concept. For instance, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy aimed to address the autonomy and intrapersonal development of clients (Dwairy \u0026amp; Van Sickle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, treatments and interventions might be selected according to the clients\u0026rsquo; attachments styles or DoS levels. Attachment based interventions and cognition-based attachment strategies may encourage clients to express their feelings and regulate their emotions. Therefore, couple therapists should address the individuation need of the Turkish couple patients. The results of the current study corroborate the process model that underlies this treatment as well as others that focus on improving the DOS for both members of the couple and their capability to communicate both their needs and emotional experiences in the relationship as a pathway towards improving the couples\u0026rsquo; relational health. Future research might incorporate couple outcomes associated with co-dependency to further understand how dysfunctional relational and emotional patterns in couple relationships result in more positive or negative outcomes for couples (e.g., separation, divorce, infidelity, addition) to better characterize how clinical interventions might target and intervene to support healthy emotional expression and dyadic relationship health through couples counselling and other clinical interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkkuş \u0026Ccedil;utuk, Z. (2021). Emotional expressivity, loneliness and hopelessness relationship in adolescents. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 51\u0026mdash;60. https://dx.doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2021.8.2.308 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowen, M. (1978). \u003cem\u003eFamily therapy in clinical practice\u003c/em\u003e. Aronson\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 464\u0026ndash;504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChoi, S. W., \u0026amp; Murdock, N. L. (2017). Differentiation of self, interpersonal conflict, and depression: The mediating role of anger expression. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026mdash;30. http://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10591-016-9397-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDear, G. E., \u0026amp; Roberts, C. M. (2005). Validation of the Holyoake codependency index. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e139\u003c/em\u003e(4), 293\u0026mdash;314. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.293-314 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDokuzlar, Ş., Işık, E. \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zbiler, Ş. (unpublished). \u003cem\u003eTurkish validation of \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Holyoake Codependency Index\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(HCI) for married couples\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDwairy M., \u0026amp; Van Sickle T. D. (1996). Western psychotherapy in traditional Arab society. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 231\u0026mdash;249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00011-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerreira, L. C., Narciso, I., Ferreira Novo R., \u0026amp; Pereira, C. R. (2014) Predicting couple satisfaction: The role of differentiation of self, sexual desire and intimacy in heterosexual individuals, \u003cem\u003eSexual and Relationship Therapy, 29\u003c/em\u003e(4)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 390\u0026mdash;404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2014.957498 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;nsel, A. D. (2021). \u003cem\u003eEvaluation of the mediator role of cognitive flexibility and marital satisfaction in the relationship differentiation of self and family functioning\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cem\u003eUnpublished\u003c/em\u003e doctoral dissertation] Cyprus International University. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2013). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.\u003c/em\u003e New York, NY: Guilford\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, L. T., \u0026amp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026mdash;55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eİnce, Ş., \u0026amp; Işık, E. (2021). The mediating role of five love languages between differentiation of self and marital satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026mdash;17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1930607 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIşık, E., \u0026amp; Bulduk, S. (2015). Psychometric properties of the differentiation of self-inventory revised in Turkish adults. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marital and Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 102\u0026mdash;112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12022 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIşık, E., \u0026Ouml;zbiler, Ş., Schweer-Collins, M. L., \u0026amp; Rodriguez-Gonzalez, M. (2020). Differentiation of self predicts life satisfaction through marital adjustment. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eFamily Therapy, 48\u003c/em\u003e(3), 235\u0026mdash;249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1732248 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKağıt\u0026ccedil;ıbaşı, \u0026Ccedil;. (2003). Cross-cultural perspectives on family change. In Liljestrom R., \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zdalga E. (Eds.) \u003cem\u003eAutonomy and dependence in the family: Turkey and Sweden in critical perspective.\u003c/em\u003e Swedish Research Institute.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaplan, V. (2023). Mental health states of housewives: An evaluation in terms of self-perception and co-dependency. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 666\u0026mdash;683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00910-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKemer, G., \u0026Ccedil;etinkaya Yıldız, E., \u0026amp; Bulgan, G. (2016). Emotional dependency and dysfunctional relationship beliefs as predictors of married Turkish individuals\u0026apos; relationship satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eThe Spanish Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e, E72. 1\u0026mdash;8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.78 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing, L. A., \u0026amp; Emmons, R. A. (1990). Conflict over emotional expression: Psychological and physical correlates. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(5), 864\u0026mdash;877. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.864 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKring, A. M., Smith, D. A., \u0026amp; Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66\u003c/em\u003e(5), 934\u0026mdash;949. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.934 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuzucu, Y. (2011). Adaptation of the emotional expression questionnaire: Validity and reliability studies. \u003cem\u003eKastamonu Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 779\u0026mdash;792. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/49049/625719\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLampis, J., Cataudella, S., Busonera, A., \u0026amp; Skowron, E. A. (2017). The role of differentiation of self and dyadic adjustment in predicting codependency. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 62\u0026mdash;72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9403-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawson, D. (2020). \u003cem\u003eMental health workbook\u003c/em\u003e. Emotionship Srls. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLedermann, T., \u0026amp; Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 140\u0026mdash;148. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0026624 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMert, A., \u0026amp; Kahraman, M. (2020). Investigating the relationship between the self-differentiation, altruism, internal-external locus of control, and positive negative emotion levels of university students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(53), 336\u0026mdash;369. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.550343 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeele, S., \u0026amp; Brodsky, A. (1975). \u003cem\u003eLove and addiction\u003c/em\u003e. Taplinger\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePolat, K., \u0026amp; Ilhan, T. (2018). An investigation of dyadic adjustment, and some psychological symptoms with respect to differentiation of self among married individuals. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Psychological Counselling and Guidance Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(50), 87\u0026mdash;115. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Gonz ́alez, M., Schweer-Collins, M., Bell, C. A., Sandberg, J. G., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez- Naranjo, C. (2019). Family functioning, family structure, and differentiation of self in heterosexual spanish couples: An actor-partner analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counseling and Development, 97\u003c/em\u003e(2), 209\u0026mdash;219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12251 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez‐Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, M., Lampis, J., Murdock, N. L., Schweer‐Collins, M. L., \u0026amp; Lyons, E. R. (2020). Couple Adjustment and Differentiation of Self in the United States, Italy, and Spain: A Cross‐Cultural Study.\u003cem\u003e Family Process, 59\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1552\u0026mdash;1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12522 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShrout, P.E., \u0026amp; Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 422\u0026mdash;445. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkowron, E. A., \u0026amp; Schmitt, T. A. (2003). Assessing interpersonal fusion: Reliability and validity of a new DSI fusion with others subscale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marital and Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 209\u0026mdash;222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01201.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkowron, E. A., Stanley, K. L., \u0026amp; Shapiro, M. D. (2009). A longitudinal perspective on differentiation of self, interpersonal and psychological well-being in young adulthood. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3\u0026mdash;18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10591-008-9075-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpann, L., \u0026amp; Fischer, J. L. (1990). Identifying co-dependency. \u003cem\u003eThe Counsellor\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(27), 27\u0026mdash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpencer, B., \u0026amp; Brown, J. (2007). Fusion or internalized homophobia? A pilot study of Bowen\u0026apos;s differentiation of self-hypothesis with lesbian couples. \u003cem\u003eFamily Process\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 257\u0026mdash;268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00208.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTelli, A., \u0026amp; Yavuz G\u0026uuml;ler, \u0026Ccedil;. (2023). Differentiation of self, forgiveness, jealousy, and conflict resolution responses among married individuals: The mediating role of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment, and emotional dependency\u003cem\u003e. Contemporary Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 157\u0026mdash;171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09603-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTop\u0026ccedil;u, E. (2023). \u003cem\u003eAn examination of romantic relationship beliefs in the context of co-dependency and self-differentiation among emerging adults\u003c/em\u003e. [\u003cem\u003eUnpublished\u003c/em\u003e master\u0026apos;s thesis] Marmara University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT\u0026uuml;nay Akan, Ş., \u0026amp; Barışkın, E. (2017). Reliability and validity indicators of Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire in the context of culture and gender. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 43\u0026mdash;50. https://doi.org/10.5080/u13378\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeiss, R. (2019). Prodependence vs. codependency: Would a new model (prodependence) for treating loved ones of sex addicts be more effective than the model we\u0026rsquo;ve got (co-dependency)?. \u003cem\u003eSexual Addiction \u0026amp; Compulsivity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3-4), 177\u0026mdash;190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2019.1653239 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, P. H., \u0026amp; Wright, K. D. (1991). Codependency: Addictive love, adjustive relating, or both?. \u003cem\u003eContemporary family therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(5), 435\u0026mdash;454. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF00890497 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYavuz-G\u0026uuml;ler, \u0026Ccedil;., \u0026amp; Karaca, T. (2021). The role of differentiation of self in predicting rumination and emotion regulation difficulties. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Family Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 113\u0026mdash;123. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10591-020-09559-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeytinoğlu‐Saydam, S., Erdem, G., \u0026amp; S\u0026ouml;ylemez, Y. (2020). Psychometric properties of the brief accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement scale in a community sample of Turkish Adults. \u003cem\u003eFamily Relations.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e(2). 557\u0026mdash;574. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12446 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Eastern Mediterranean University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Differentiation of self, emotional expressivity, couple relationships, co-dependency, common fate model","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v2","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v2","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBowen family systems theory provides an account of how the family of origin promotes intimate connections with others. The study tests the mediating role of emotional expressivity in the relationship between differentiation of self and co-dependency assessed in married couples. We used a common fate model to study the relationship among these variables in a sample of 176 Turkish heterosexual married couples (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;352). Results showed that lower differentiation of self predicted greater co-dependency among couples. Emotional expressivity mediated this relationship between the differentiation of self and co-dependency. Implications of the findings were discussed.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Mediating Role of Emotional Expressivity Between Differentiation of Self and Co-dependency among Couples: A Common Fate Mediation Model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":2,"date":"2024-04-23 18:47:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v2","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-18 05:43:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4283543/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"746cd779-fb04-461f-8dbb-51661d700d9d","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 23rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":30828691,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-17T03:11:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-23 18:47:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v2","identity":"rs-4283543","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4283543","identity":"rs-4283543","version":["v2"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}