Volume 7, Issue 3 (September 2025)
IEEPJ 2025, 7(3): 1-12 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Bordan Z, Mirzamani Bafghi S M, Farghadani A. (2025). Structural Model of Marital Intimacy Based on Marital Distress and Psychological Flexibility in Married Individuals: Mediated by Self-Compassion. IEEPJ. 7(3), 1-12.
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-1020-en.html
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-1020-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Sav.C.,Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran
2- Department of Clinical Psychology, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,mirzamani@bmsu.ac.ir
3- Department of psychology, Sav.C.,Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran
2- Department of Clinical Psychology, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of psychology, Sav.C.,Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran
Abstract: (1300 Views)
Objective: This study aimed to develop and test a structural model of marital intimacy, examining the roles of marital distress and psychological flexibility, with self-compassion as a mediating factor, in married individuals.
Methods: A descriptive-correlational design was employed. The study population consisted of married individuals (men and women) aged 34–55 living in Eslamshahr, Iran, who had a child enrolled in the first cycle of secondary school in 2023. Using staged cluster sampling, 443 participants were selected. Data were collected using validated measures of marital intimacy, psychological flexibility, marital distress, and self-compassion. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the proposed model.
Results: The findings indicated that the structural model of marital intimacy, incorporating marital distress and psychological flexibility with self-compassion as a mediator, demonstrated good fit. Both marital distress and psychological flexibility had significant direct effects on marital intimacy, as well as indirect effects mediated by self-compassion.
Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of psychological flexibility and self-compassion in mitigating the negative impact of marital distress on intimacy. Interventions aimed at enhancing psychological flexibility and fostering self-compassion may improve marital intimacy, particularly among couples experiencing distress. Future research should explore longitudinal and cross-cultural validations of this model.
Methods: A descriptive-correlational design was employed. The study population consisted of married individuals (men and women) aged 34–55 living in Eslamshahr, Iran, who had a child enrolled in the first cycle of secondary school in 2023. Using staged cluster sampling, 443 participants were selected. Data were collected using validated measures of marital intimacy, psychological flexibility, marital distress, and self-compassion. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the proposed model.
Results: The findings indicated that the structural model of marital intimacy, incorporating marital distress and psychological flexibility with self-compassion as a mediator, demonstrated good fit. Both marital distress and psychological flexibility had significant direct effects on marital intimacy, as well as indirect effects mediated by self-compassion.
Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of psychological flexibility and self-compassion in mitigating the negative impact of marital distress on intimacy. Interventions aimed at enhancing psychological flexibility and fostering self-compassion may improve marital intimacy, particularly among couples experiencing distress. Future research should explore longitudinal and cross-cultural validations of this model.
Keywords: Psychological cohesion, Psychological flexibility, Marital intimacy, Emotional alexithymia
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Psychology
Received: 2024/11/23 | Accepted: 2025/02/23 | Published: 2025/09/1
Received: 2024/11/23 | Accepted: 2025/02/23 | Published: 2025/09/1
References
1. Al-Tarawneh, A. H. H., & Al-Nawaisah, F. A. R. (2024). Marital distress and its relationship to marital communication among a sample of married women who are late in childbearing in Karak Governorate. Jordanian Educational Journal, 9(2), 547-569. [DOI:10.46515/jaes.v9i2.720]
2. Bagarozzi, D. A. (2014). Enhancing intimacy in marriage: A clinician's guide. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315787053]
3. Barak, T., Levkovich, I., & Ayalon, L. (2024). Relationship intimacy in older couples when one partner has mild cognitive impairment: A qualitative study. Family Relations. [DOI:10.1111/fare.13014]
4. Dobrowolska, M., Groyecka-Bernard, A., Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Ahmadi, K., ... & Sorokowska, A. (2020). Global perspective on marital satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(21), 8817. [DOI:10.3390/su12218817]
5. Du, X., Chaiviboontham, S., & Sumdaengrit, B. (2024). The experiences of Chinese colorectal cancer survivors in marital intimacy after ostomy creation: A qualitative study. Belitung Nursing Journal, 10(2), 222. [DOI:10.33546/bnj.3212]
6. Eimani, Z., Zangeneh Motlagh, F., & Abbasi, M. (2022). The mediating role of sense of coherence in the relationship between psychological distress and spiritual adjustment with marital distress in mothers of children with autism. Islamic Lifestyle with an Emphasis on Health, 6(1), 163-172.
7. Girma Shifaw, Z. (2024). Marital communication as moderators of the relationship between marital conflict resolution and marital satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 52(3), 249-260. [DOI:10.1080/01926187.2022.2089404]
8. Gómez-Salgado, J., Domínguez-Salas, S., Romero-Martín, M., Ortega-Moreno, M., García-Iglesias, J. J., & Ruiz-Frutos, C. (2020). Sense of coherence and psychological distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Sustainability, 12(17), 6855. [DOI:10.3390/su12176855]
9. Huffman, A. H., Matthews, R. A., & Irving, L. H. (2017). Family fairness and cohesion in marital dyads: Mediating processes between work-family conflict and couple psychological distress. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(1), 95-116. [DOI:10.1111/joop.12165]
10. Jahanbakhshi, Z., Keshavarz Afshar, H., Bahonar, F., & Jaybash, Z. (2022). Prediction of perceived marital justice based on sense of coherence and marital empathy with the mediating role of marital spirituality. Family Research, 18(3), 551-568.
11. Khani, F., & Aghaie, A. (2022). Comparison of spiritual well-being and sense of coherence in satisfied and conflicted couples. Research in Religion and Health, 8(3), 97-108.
12. Körük, S., & Özabacı, N. (2023). How do early maladaptive schemas and family functions predict dyadic marital adjustment? A test on Turkish married individuals. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1-11. [DOI:10.1080/0092623X.2023.2195857]
13. Kumar, S. A., Franz, M. R., DiLillo, D., & Brock, R. L. (2023). Promoting resilience to depression among couples during pregnancy: The protective functions of intimate relationship satisfaction and self‐compassion. Family Process, 62(1), 387-405. [DOI:10.1111/famp.12788]
14. Mackinnon, S. P., & Hill, T. G. (2024). Romantic relationships, intimacy, and generativity. In The development of generativity across adulthood (p. 230). [DOI:10.1093/9780191966309.003.0014]
15. Tapp, R. L., Jr. (2014). Concurrent relations between psychological flexibility and sexual satisfaction among committed couples (Doctoral dissertation, Spalding University).
16. Totenhagen, C. J., Li, X., Wilmarth, M. J., Archuleta, K. L., & Yorgason, J. B. (2024). Do couples who play together stay together? A longitudinal dyadic examination of shared leisure, financial distress, and relationship outcomes. Family Process, 63(1), 210-227. [DOI:10.1111/famp.12869]
17. Villeneuve, L., Trudel, G., Dargis, L., Préville, M., Boyer, R., & Bégin, J. (2014). Marital functioning and psychological distress among older couples over an 18-month period. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(3), 193-208. [DOI:10.1080/0092623X.2012.736919]
18. Wilson, S. J., Syed, S. U., Yang, I. S., & Cole, S. W. (2024). A tale of two marital stressors: Comparing proinflammatory responses to partner distress and marital conflict. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 119, 898-907. [DOI:10.1016/j.bbi.2024.05.003]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
