RELIABILITY AND NORM STUDY OF THE IRRATIONAL

BELIEFS SCALE IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

RPD-303 Psychological Testing

Dr. Serkan DENİZLİ

Zeynep Avcı-45220000104

Nisan Beyza Demirel-45220000144

EGE UNIVERSITY
2025
 CONTENTS
Description Of The Psychological Structure..................................................................3
1.1. Subdimensions of Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships.............................4
1.2 Related Publications and Research...........................................................................5
1.2.1. An Examination of Relationship Satisfaction and Object Relations....................5
1.2.2. The Relationship Between Cognitive Schemas and Stress Coping Strategies.....6
1.2.3. Cognitive Determinants of Attitudes Toward Dating Violence...........................6
1.2.4. Gender Roles and Cultural Belief Patterns...........................................................7
ANALYSES...................................................................................................................7
2.1. Reliability and Norm Study of the Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships
Scale...........................................................................................................................................7
2.1.1. Description Of The Sample..................................................................................7
2.1.2. Scale of Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships.........................................8
2.1.3. Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale Reliability Study.................9
2.1.4 Subscale Reliability Study...................................................................................11
2.1.5. Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale Norm Study.......................13
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................24

2
 Description Of The Psychological Structure

One of the most fundamental elements of human life is romantic relationships. These

relationships play a decisive role in an individual's psychology. But people may not always

have realistic expectations in these relationships. The scale and research we will examine are

related to these unrealistic beliefs. Irrational beliefs in romantic relationships are defined as

strict, inflexible, and unrealistic expectations that individuals develop about their partner,

themselves, or the functioning of the relationship (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

Irrational beliefs present themselves as primary cognitive factors that disrupt the

functioning of romantic relationships. The theoretical basis for this concept is Rational

Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT), developed in the 1950s by Albert Ellis and considered

the founder of cognitive-behavioural therapies (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

Looking at the basic philosophy of REBT, we see that it is based on the following

idea of the philosophe Epictetus: “What disturbs people are not situations, but their

perspectives on situations.” Ellis explains this philosophy as the ABC Model. In this model,

‘A’ (Activating Incident) represents the triggering event, ‘B’ (Belief) represents beliefs about

the event, and ‘C’ (Consequence) represents the emotional and behavioral responses resulting

from these beliefs. When considered in romantic relationships in particular, if a partner does

not answer a message (A), it is interpreted with an irrational belief (B) such as “If he/she

loved me, he would answer my message; he/she doesn’t care about me,” and the result (C)

can be anger, arguments, or lack of trust (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

According to Ellis, the most obvious characteristic of irrational beliefs is that they

contain inflexible, strict, and absolutely “must” thinking (musturbatory thinking). These

beliefs often appear with “should” and “must” clauses: “My spouse should always make me

happy,” “There should never be arguments or fights in our relationship,” “My partner should
3
understand what I want without me having to say it,” for example(Sarı and Korkut-Owen,

2015).

Sarı and Korkut-Owen (2015) adapted this theoretical basis to a Turkish sample and

examined this irrational structure in romantic relationships in six different subdimensions

(over expectations, use of social time, mind reading, different thinking, physical intimacy,

gender differences). These irrational beliefs cause individuals to have unrealistic

expectations, which negatively impact both their psychological health and their level of

satisfaction in the relationship (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

1.1. Subdimensions of Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships

The Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale was developed as a six-factor

construct to measure cognitive distortions that directly affect individuals' relational

adjustment and satisfaction (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015). We have already mentioned these

subdimensions when explaining irrational beliefs. We will now take a closer look at these six

subdimensions.

The first subdimension of the scale, Over Expectations, is a strong belief that the

partner must meet all of the individual's social and emotional needs completely, at all times

and under all circumstances. High levels of beliefs in this dimension are negatively correlated

with “relationship self-efficacy” (Sarı, 2016).

Social Time Usage refers to irrational fears that partners should spend all their free

time only with each other and that social connections with the outside world will weaken the

relationship (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

The third, Mind Reading: involves the expectation that partners should intuitively

know each other's needs and thoughts without the need for clear verbal communication. If

4
this expectation is not met, it can trigger “rejection sensitivity” in individuals, negatively

affecting their mental well-being (Gürsançtı and Ümmet, 2025).

The fourth sub-factor of the scale, Thinking Differently, believes that partners in a

healthy relationship must be in complete agreement on every issue, otherwise the relationship

will be undermined at its core; this indicates that the individual has low cognitive flexibility

(Nar, Topkaya, Şahin, 2022).

The Physical Intimacy dimension consists of unrealistic patterns developed around the

idea that the fundamental criterion for a healthy relationship is the frequency of physical

contact and sexual activity. For example, after a date without physical intimacy, one may

develop the belief that they are no longer desired or that their partner desires others.

Finally, the Gender Differences factor refers to rigid and unchanging generalizations

that men and women cannot understand each other (Korkut-Owen and Sarı, 2012). These

recent findings in the literature clearly show that as belief levels in these six dimensions

increase, individuals' romantic relationship satisfaction decreases (Muezzin, Yılmaz, &

Yüksel, 2021) and their overall happiness levels decline (Pala Akbaba & Erol, 2019).

1.2 Related Publications and Research

This section presents some studies conducted in the literature using the Irrational

Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale (IBRRS).

1.2.1. An Examination of Relationship Satisfaction and Object Relations

In a study conducted by Atılgan (2020) with university students, the network between

individuals' object relations patterns carried over from childhood and their romantic beliefs

and relationship satisfaction in adulthood was examined. The research findings revealed that

an increase in irrational belief levels negatively affected the satisfaction individuals derived

5
from their relationships. Specifically, the sub-dimensions of “excessive expectations” and

“mind reading” were found to be primary cognitive factors that damage relationships by

increasing the perfectionism demanded from partners. This study is important in the literature

as it shows that irrational beliefs are not just momentary errors in thinking, but a structure

that is consistent with deep object relations.

1.2.2. The Relationship Between Cognitive Schemas and Stress Coping Strategies

Kılıçarslan and Can (2021) conducted a study focusing on stress management and

early maladaptive schemas in young adults. According to the research results, they found that

as irrational beliefs in romantic relationships increased, individuals' attitudes toward stressful

situations lost their functionality. The study found that individuals with high levels of

irrational beliefs, rather than developing active and problem-focused solutions, resorted to

passive-aggressive, emotional release-focused, and avoidance coping strategies. It was also

determined that these beliefs were based on early maladaptive schemas that individuals

developed about themselves and the world.

1.2.3. Cognitive Determinants of Attitudes Toward Dating Violence

This study, which we will examine, was conducted on a group with a high social role,

such as teacher candidates. Şenol, Albayrak, and Mert (2021) examined the effect of

irrational beliefs on the perception of dating violence. The most interesting finding of the

study is that as the level of irrational romantic beliefs increases, individuals tend to view

dating violence (psychological, physical, or social) perpetrated by their partners or

themselves as more “normal” or “acceptable.” This demonstrates that irrational expectations

increase the desire to control one's partner and pave the way for developing positive attitudes

toward violence.

6
 1.2.4. Gender Roles and Cultural Belief Patterns

Duygu Çavdar's (2013) master's thesis study compared university students' attitudes

toward gender roles with their irrational patterns in romantic relationships. The research

found that individuals who accepted traditional and stereotypical gender roles (men being

stronger, men not being emotional, women being self-sacrificing, women being sensitive,

etc.) had much higher levels of irrational beliefs in romantic relationships, particularly in the

subdimensions of “gender differences” and “physical intimacy.” This result showed that

gender perceptions solidify an individual's expectations in a relationship and that this

situation fuels relational conflicts through irrational beliefs.

ANALYSES

2.1. Reliability and Norm Study of the Irrational Beliefs in Romantic

Relationships Scale

This chapter presents the psychometric properties of the Irrational Beliefs in Romantic

Relationships Scale (IBRRS) obtained within the scope of our study and the statistical data

pertaining to the sample group.

2.1.1. Description Of The Sample

The sample for the study consists of a total of 184 university students. The

distribution of participants by gender and grade level is shown in the table below.

Table 1
Distribution of Participants by Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

7
 Valid Kadın 147 79.9 79.9 79.9
Erkek 37 20.1 20.1 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

The scale of irrational beliefs in romantic relationships reached a total of 184

university students. 79.9% of the participants were women and 20.1% were men.

Table 2
Distribution of Participants According to Their Grade Levels

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 67 36.4 36.4 36.4
2 32 17.4 17.4 53.8
3 36 19.6 19.6 73.4
4 49 26.6 26.6 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

Of the total 184 participants, 36.4% were first-year students, 17.4% were second-year

students, 19.6% were third-year students, and 26.6% were fourth-year students.

2.1.2. Scale of Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships

In the study, the “Romantic Relationships Irrational Beliefs Scale” (RİAÖ) developed

by Sarı and Korkut-Owen (2015) was used as a scale to examine individuals' unrealistic

expectations and non-functional cognitive distortions in romantic relationships (Sarı and

Korkut-Owen, 2015).

The scale is a 5-point Likert-type measurement scale consisting of a total of 30 items

rated between 1 (Completely Disagree) and 5 (Completely Agree). The factor analysis

revealed that the inventory exhibited a six-factor structure explaining 51.70% of the total

8
variance. These subdimensions are: “Over Expectations” (items 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

29), “Use Of Social Time” (items 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22), “Mind Reading” (items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10), “Different Thinking” (items 1, 2, 3, 4), “Physical Intimacy” (items 14, 15, 30) “Gender

Differences” (items 11, 12, 13). In the scale scoring, items 1 and 22 are reverse scored

because they represent rational and realistic beliefs; when calculating the scores for these

items, a conversion is made from 5 to 1. The total score that can be obtained from the scale

ranges from 30 to 150. A higher total score indicates that the individual has a higher level of

irrational beliefs in their romantic relationships and, consequently, experiences more

cognitive distortions in relational interactions. (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

In terms of validity and reliability studies, the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency

coefficient for the entire scale was reported as .90. This value indicates that the scale

measures the structure to be measured in the research with a high level of internal

consistency. Also, the scale's test-retest reliability coefficient of .82 academically

demonstrates that the scale yields consistent results in applications at different times and can

provide a stable measurement over time (Sarı and Korkut-Owen, 2015).

2.1.3. Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale Reliability Study

Table 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.906 30

Cronbach's alpha value is seen as .90. For a scale to be considered reliable, its

reliability coefficient must be .70 or higher (Büyüköztürk, 2004). Accordingly, the

Cronbach's alpha value of the Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale,

9
administered to 184 individuals, is .90. Looking at this value, it has been observed that the

internal consistency is high.

Table 4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted
s1 85.48 334.240 .218 .907
s2 85.09 324.583 .414 .904
s3 84.96 322.883 .420 .904
s4 85.17 321.620 .469 .903
s5 83.99 326.229 .360 .905
s6 84.27 314.677 .635 .901
s7 84.53 317.507 .501 .903
s8 83.86 319.696 .550 .902
s9 84.33 313.926 .643 .900
s10 84.82 313.769 .631 .901
s11 84.04 328.430 .274 .907
s12 84.96 323.742 .387 .905
s13 84.01 324.743 .389 .905
s14 84.53 315.901 .531 .902
s15 85.55 324.106 .365 .905
s16 85.57 314.641 .599 .901
s17 85.64 319.654 .529 .903
s18 85.66 316.303 .613 .901
s19 84.97 308.923 .666 .900
s20 85.33 315.532 .547 .902
s21 84.30 311.205 .642 .900
s22 85.73 328.439 .355 .905
s23 83.47 326.753 .372 .905
s24 84.24 316.128 .576 .902
s25 83.84 319.930 .504 .903

10
s26 83.28 330.772 .334 .905
s27 83.41 324.244 .467 .904
s28 83.63 327.393 .333 .906
s29 83.71 323.990 .408 .905
s30 85.32 324.676 .322 .906

In the reliability analysis, the CSSD item-total test correlation is shown in Table 3.

Item-total test correlation values ranged from .218 to .666. It is stated that most researchers

take .20 as the limit value in terms of the inadequacy of item-total score correlation

coefficient reliability (Gözüm & Aksayan, 2002). Based on this information the item-test

correlation value of each item is above .[Link] is stated that .218 is above the desired limit, but

if it is removed from the scale, the Cronbach's alpha value will increase to .907. Similarly,

if .204 is removed from the scale, the Cronbach's alpha value will increase to .907. In this

context, it is possible to say that the items are consistent and there is no need to remove items

from the scale.

2.1.4 Subscale Reliability Study

Table 5

Gender Differences Subscale Reliability Statistic

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.659 3

According to Table 5, the Cronbach's Alpha value, one of the application methods,

was calculated in the reliability calculation of the gender differences subscale, and this value

was found to be .65. Considering this value, it was observed that the internal consistency is

low. Because internal consistency is considered high when it is .70 or higher.

11
Table 6
Gender Differences Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted
s11 6.04 4.168 .442 .601
s12 6.96 4.179 .459 .578
s13 6.01 4.208 .511 .510

The item-total test correlation of the gender differences subscale is shown in Table 6.

The item-total test correlation values range between .442 and .511. If the .442 value is

removed from the subscale, the Cronbach alpha value becomes .601. However, since it is not

below .20, it does not disrupt internal consistency. Based on these, it can be said that the

items are consistent and there is no need to remove them from the subscale.

Table 7

Physical Proximity Subscale Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.672 3

According to Table 7, the Cronbach alpha value, one of the application methods, was

measured in the reliability calculation of the physical proximity subscale and found to be .67.

This value indicates high internal consistency.

Table 8
Physical Proximity Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted

12
s14 4.14 6.067 .272 .831
s15 5.16 4.520 .627 .387
s30 4.92 4.278 .595 .418

The item-total test correlation of the physical proximity subscale is shown in Table 8.

The item-total test correlation values range from .272 to .627. The intermediate value is .595.

If the .272 value were removed from the subscale, the Cronbach alpha value would increase

to .831. However, since the .272 value is not lower than .20, it does not affect internal

consistency. In this context, it can be said that the items are consistent with each other and

there is no need to remove items from the subscale.

2.1.5. Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships Scale Norm Study

Table 9
Descriptive Statistics
Total farklılık yakınlık
N Valid 184 184 184
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 87.5054 9.5054 7.1141
Std. Deviation 18.50890 2.83614 3.09468
Skewness .372 -.147 .777
Std. Error of Skewness .179 .179 .179
Kurtosis .225 -.619 -.008
Std. Error of Kurtosis .356 .356 .356
Minimum 45.00 3.00 3.00
Maximum 144.00 15.00 15.00

The average score for 184 people is 87.50. For the total, the minimum value is 45 and

the maximum value is 144. The standard deviation is 18.50. In the normal distribution curve,

the middle group score ranges from 69 to 106, one standard deviation to the right and one

13
standard deviation to the left of the mean line. The low group score range is 45-69, and the

high group score range is 106-144. The skewness value is .372, which can be said to show

positive skewness. The kurtosis value is seen as .225, which is positive kurtosis, because

these values are between -1 and 1and this distribution shows a normal distribution.

The mean for the gender differences subscale is 9.50, with a standard deviation of

2.83. In a normal distribution curve, the middle group, located one standard deviation to the

right and one standard deviation to the left of the mean line, has a score range of 6.67 to

12.33. The low group score range is 3-6.67, and the high group score range is 12.33-15. The

minimum value is 3, while the maximum value is 15. The skewness is -.147, indicating

negative skewness. The kurtosis value is -.619, suggesting negative kurtosis. Since both

skewness and kurtosis values are between -1 and 1, it can be said to follow a normal

distribution.

The mean score for the physical proximity subscale is 7.11, with a standard deviation

of 3.09. In a normal distribution curve, the middle group, located one standard deviation to

the right and one standard deviation to the left of the mean line, has a score range of 3.92 to

10.20. The low group score range is 3-3.92, and the high group score range is [Link]

minimum value is 3, while the maximum value is 15. The skewness value is .777, indicating

positive skewness. The kurtosis value is -.0008, suggesting negative kurtosis. Since both

skewness and kurtosis values are between -1 and 1, it can be said to follow a normal

distribution.

Figure 1

Histogram Curve of Scores from the Scale

14
 According to the histogram, the distribution does not differ significantly from a

normal distribution. Since the Skewness value is .777, we can say that it shows a positively

skewed, distribution. Because the score ranges are wider, it is closer to a normal distribution.

It shows a normal distribution in the range of -1 to 1, but can be described as platykurtic,

because the kurtosis value is negative. (Figure 1).

Table 10

Total

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 45.00 1 .5 .5 .5
46.00 1 .5 .5 1.1
51.00 1 .5 .5 1.6

15
52.00 1 .5 .5 2.2
53.00 1 .5 .5 2.7
54.00 1 .5 .5 3.3
56.00 1 .5 .5 3.8
57.00 1 .5 .5 4.3
58.00 1 .5 .5 4.9
60.00 1 .5 .5 5.4
61.00 3 1.6 1.6 7.1
62.00 2 1.1 1.1 8.2
63.00 1 .5 .5 8.7
64.00 2 1.1 1.1 9.8
65.00 1 .5 .5 10.3
66.00 5 2.7 2.7 13.0
68.00 4 2.2 2.2 15.2
69.00 1 .5 .5 15.8
70.00 4 2.2 2.2 17.9
71.00 2 1.1 1.1 19.0
72.00 2 1.1 1.1 20.1
73.00 2 1.1 1.1 21.2
74.00 4 2.2 2.2 23.4
75.00 2 1.1 1.1 24.5
76.00 1 .5 .5 25.0
77.00 10 5.4 5.4 30.4
78.00 4 2.2 2.2 32.6
79.00 6 3.3 3.3 35.9
80.00 4 2.2 2.2 38.0
81.00 4 2.2 2.2 40.2
82.00 3 1.6 1.6 41.8
83.00 3 1.6 1.6 43.5
84.00 5 2.7 2.7 46.2
85.00 5 2.7 2.7 48.9
86.00 5 2.7 2.7 51.6

16
87.00 1 .5 .5 52.2
88.00 4 2.2 2.2 54.3
89.00 5 2.7 2.7 57.1
90.00 1 .5 .5 57.6
91.00 7 3.8 3.8 61.4
92.00 3 1.6 1.6 63.0
93.00 6 3.3 3.3 66.3
94.00 2 1.1 1.1 67.4
95.00 4 2.2 2.2 69.6
96.00 1 .5 .5 70.1
97.00 5 2.7 2.7 72.8
98.00 2 1.1 1.1 73.9
99.00 2 1.1 1.1 75.0
100.00 6 3.3 3.3 78.3
102.00 3 1.6 1.6 79.9
103.00 4 2.2 2.2 82.1
104.00 3 1.6 1.6 83.7
105.00 3 1.6 1.6 85.3
106.00 2 1.1 1.1 86.4
107.00 1 .5 .5 87.0
110.00 2 1.1 1.1 88.0
111.00 2 1.1 1.1 89.1
112.00 1 .5 .5 89.7
113.00 3 1.6 1.6 91.3
114.00 2 1.1 1.1 92.4
115.00 2 1.1 1.1 93.5
117.00 1 .5 .5 94.0
118.00 2 1.1 1.1 95.1
120.00 1 .5 .5 95.7
123.00 1 .5 .5 96.2
125.00 1 .5 .5 96.7
128.00 1 .5 .5 97.3

17
 129.00 1 .5 .5 97.8
130.00 1 .5 .5 98.4
134.00 1 .5 .5 98.9
142.00 1 .5 .5 99.5
144.00 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

The participants were divided into three groups: 15.8% in the low group, 68.5% in

the middle group, and 13.6% in the high group. (Table 10)

Figure 2
Histogram curve of scores obtained from the gender differences subscale.

18
 According to the histogram, the distribution does not differ significantly from a

normal distribution. It appears to be a partially right-skewed distribution. Furthermore, since

it takes a negative value for kurtosis, we can say it is a partially flattened distribution. We can

say that the scores are somewhat clustered around the average. (Figure 2)

Table 11
The Gender Differences Subscale Frequencies
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 3.00 4 2.2 2.2 2.2
4.00 3 1.6 1.6 3.8
5.00 8 4.3 4.3 8.2
6.00 14 7.6 7.6 15.8
7.00 21 11.4 11.4 27.2
8.00 17 9.2 9.2 36.4
9.00 20 10.9 10.9 47.3
10.00 27 14.7 14.7 62.0
11.00 21 11.4 11.4 73.4
12.00 20 10.9 10.9 84.2
13.00 14 7.6 7.6 91.8
14.00 10 5.4 5.4 97.3
15.00 5 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

The sample consists of 27.2% low group, 47.8% middle group, and 15.8% high group.
(Table 11)

Figure 3

Histogram Curve of Scores from the Physical Proximity Subscale

19
 Considering the histogram, the distribution does not differ significantly from a normal

distribution. This histogram graphic shows that scores of the participants had a tendency to

accumulate towards lower scores. Since the kurtosis value is also positive, it is possible to

speak of a distribution with a slight peak. We can say that the scores are clustered in slightly

lower intervals. (Figure 3)

Table 12
The Physical Proximity Subscale Frequencies
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 3.00 19 10.3 10.3 10.3
4.00 22 12.0 12.0 22.3
5.00 19 10.3 10.3 32.6
6.00 33 17.9 17.9 50.5
7.00 24 13.0 13.0 63.6
8.00 16 8.7 8.7 72.3

20
 9.00 11 6.0 6.0 78.3
10.00 10 5.4 5.4 83.7
11.00 13 7.1 7.1 90.8
12.00 3 1.6 1.6 92.4
13.00 5 2.7 2.7 95.1
14.00 3 1.6 1.6 96.7
15.00 6 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 184 100.0 100.0

The sample consists of 22.3% in the low group, 51.1% in the middle group, and

16.3% in the high group. (Table 12)

Table 13

Descriptive Statitstics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum

1 80 87.5250 18.20069 2.03490 56.00 142.00

2 83 85.9277 17.76251 1.94969 45.00 129.00

3 21 93.6667 21.96209 4.79252 52.00 144.00

Total 184 87.5054 18.50890 1.36449 45.00 144.00

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether there

was a significant difference between university students' average scores on irrational beliefs

in romantic relationships and their relationship status (in a relationship, not in a relationship,

and partially/uncertain). Within this analysis, the number of participants (n), arithmetic mean

(Mean), standard deviation (Std. Deviation), minimum, and maximum values were calculated

for each group. In Table 13, the mean irrational belief score of participants who reported

21
being in a romantic relationship (n=80) was 87.52, the mean of participants who stated they

did not have a relationship (n=83) was 85.92, and the mean of participants who defined their

relationship status as partial or unknown (n=21) was 93.66. The mean score for the entire

sample was calculated as 87.50. When descriptive statistics are evaluated overall, it is seen

that the group with an uncertain relationship status (93.66) has the highest average irrational

belief score, while the lowest average is found in the group with no relationship (85.92).

Table 14

Tests of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Total Based on Mean .491 2 181 .613
Based on Median .448 2 181 .640
Based on Median and with .448 2 176.128 .640
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .492 2 181 .612

According to Table 14, the Levene statistic, based on the means, was found to be .491,

and the significance (Sig.) value was .613. The fact that the calculated p-value is higher

than .05 (p > .05) shows that the variance distributions of the groups are equal

(homogeneous). This finding proves that the data show a distribution suitable for one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) and that the analysis assumption is true.

Table 15
ANOVA
Total
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1003.812 2 501.906 1.473 .232
Within Groups 61688.183 181 340.819

22
Total 62691.995 183

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare irrational belief scores in romantic

relationships based on university students' relationship statuses, which they indicated as ‘yes’,

‘no’, and ‘partially/uncertain’. The analysis revealed that F(2, 181) = 1.473, p = .232,

p > .05, showing that there was no statistically significant difference between participants'

relationship statuses and levels of irrational beliefs.

23
 REFERENCES

Atılgan, I. (2020). Üniversite öğrencilerinin romantik ilişkiler ile ilgili akılcı olmayan

inançlarının nesne ilişkileri-gerçeği değerlendirme boyutları ve ilişki doyumu

arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between irrational

beliefs about romantic relationships of university students, object relations-reality

testing dimensions and relationship satisfaction] [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul

Gelişim Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Tez Merkezi. (Tez No. 642311).

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.

Çavdar, D. (2013). Üniversite öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerine ilişkin tutumları ve

romantik ilişkilerde akılcı olmayan inançları [University students' gender role

attitudes and irrational beliefs in romantic relationships] [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara

Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Tez Merkezi. (Tez No. 342485).

Gözüm S, Aksayan S (2002). Kültürlerarasi ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: Psikometrik

özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi 4

(2): 9-20.

Gürsançtı, F. G., & Ümmet, D. (2025). Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Reddedilme Duyarlılığı,

Romantik İlişkilerde Akılcı Olmayan İnançlar ve Mental İyi Oluş Arasındaki

İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Cihannüma Sosyal Bilimler Akademi Dergisi, 3(2), 63-92.

[Link]

Kılıçarslan, İ., & Can, F. (2021). Genç Yetişkinlerde Romantik İlişkide Akılcı Olmayan

İnançlar, Stresle Başa Çıkma Tarzları ve Erken Dönem Uyumsuz Şemalar Arasındaki

İlişkinin İncelenmesi. International Journal of Economics Administrative and Social

Sciences, 4(2), 118-141.

24
Nar, Ö. H., Topkaya, N., & Şahin, E. (2022). Romantik İlişki Yaşayan Bireylerde İlişki

Doyumunun Yordayıcıları: İlişkiye Özgü Akılcı Olmayan İnançlar ve Bilişsel

Esneklik. Aile Psikolojik Danışmanlığı Dergisi, 5(1), 1-28.

Pala Akbaba, T., & Erol, D. (2019). Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Romantik İlişkilerde Akılcı

Olmayan İnançlar ile Mutluluk Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. International

Journal of Current Approaches in Language, Education and Social Sciences, 1(1), 32-

44.

Sarı, T., & Korkut Owen, F. (2015). Romantik ilişkilerde akılcı olmayan inançlar ölçeği’nin

geliştirilmesi [The development of irrational romantic relationship beliefs inventory].

International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 255–273.

[Link]

Şenol, A., Albayrak, İ., & Uluman, M. (2022). Flört Şiddeti Tutumlarının Belirli Değişkenler

ve Romantik İlişkilerde Akılcı Olmayan İnançlara Göre İncelenmesi. Eğitim ve

Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 113-131. [Link]

25
IRRATIONAL BELIEFS IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS SCALE

26
 Katılmıyorum
katılmıyorum

Katılıyorum

Katılıyorum
Kararsızım

Tamamen
Hiç
1. Birlikte olduğum kişi benimkilerden farklı düşünceler taşır ve bunu rahatlıkla ifade 1 2 3 4 5
ederse bu hoşuma gider.

2. Birlikte olduğum kişi benimle herhangi bir konuda zıt fikirlerini tartışırsa buna 1 2 3 4 5
dayanamam.

3. Ben ve birlikte olduğum kişi farklı düşünüyorsak, ilişkimizin iyi gitmediğini ve 1 2 3 4 5

bitebileceğini düşünürüm.

4. Olaylar hakkında aynı şekilde düşünmüyorsak bu ilişkinin yürütülmesi anlamsızdır. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Birlikte olduğum kişinin benim bütün duygularımı anlamasını beklerim 1 2 3 4 5

6. Eğer birlikte olduğum kişi benim duygularımı kendiliğinden anlamazsa, bu benim için 1 2 3 4 5
hayal kırıcı olur.

7. İlişki içinde olan insanlar sanki birbirlerinin zihinlerini okuyormuşçasına birbirlerinin 1 2 3 4 5

ihtiyaçlarını anlarlar ve duyarlıdırlar.

8. Birlikte olduğum kişinin duygularıma karşı son derece duyarlı olması ve değişen 1 2 3 4 5
ihtiyaçlarımı kendiliğinden fark etmesi benim için çok önemlidir.

9. Birlikte olduğum kişi ben ona anlatmadan ne düşündüğümü ve hissettiğimi 1 2 3 4 5

anlayabilmelidir.

10. Birlikte olduğum kişi her zaman benim düşündüğümü ben söylemesem de bilmelidir. 1 2 3 4 5

11. Kadın ve erkek muhtemelen karşı cinsi hiçbir zaman yeteri kadar anlayamayacaktır. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Kadın ve erkek arasındaki biyolojik farklılıklar çiftler arasındaki sorunların temel 1 2 3 4 5
sebebidir.

13. Çiftler arasındaki en önemli sorunlardan biri kadın ve erkeğin farklı duygusal ihtiyaçlara 1 2 3 4 5
sahip olmasıdır.

14. Birlikte olduğum kişiyi görür görmez heyecanlanmazsam bu ona karşı derin duygular 1 2 3 4 5
beslemediğim anlamına gelir.

15. Yakın fiziksel temas asla evlilikten önce yaşanmamalı, yaşanıyorsa o ilişki evliliğe 1 2 3 4 5
gitmez.

16. Eğer birlikte olduğum kişi beni gerçekten seviyorsa benden başkalarıyla arkadaşlık 1 2 3 4 5
etmekten zevk almamalı.
27
17. Birlikte olduğum kişi dışında çok sayıda arkadaşım ve serbest zaman etkinliklerim 1 2 3 4 5
olursa bu ilişkimin iyi gitmediğini gösterir.
 ÖLÇEK PUANLAMA

Aşırı Beklentiler: 21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29

Sosyal Zaman Kullanımı:16,17,18,19,20,22

Fiziksel Yakınlık:14,15,30

Zihin Okuma:5,6,7,8,9,10

Cinsiyet farklılıklar:11,12,13

Farklı Düşünmek: 1,2,3,4

REVERSE MADDELER: 1 VE 22

Sarı, T. & Korkut-Owen, F. (2015). Romantik İlişkilerde Akılcı Olmayan İnançlar

Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi. International Journal of Human Sciences. 12 (1), 255-273.

28