The The Mediating Role of Authenticity in Relationships and Mental Health Between Cognitive Flexibility and Marital Satisfaction
International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 13 No. 1 (2026),
1 June 2026
,
Page 50-64
https://doi.org/10.22037/ijabs.v13i1.50069
Abstract
Background and Aim: Marital satisfaction is a key factor in individual well-being and family stability. Married women often face heightened vulnerability to mental health challenges, highlighting the need to identify protective factors. Cognitive flexibility—the ability to adapt thoughts and behaviors to situational demands—has been linked to psychological adjustment and relationship quality. Authenticity in relationships, reflecting genuine self-expression and mutual understanding, may further enhance marital satisfaction. This study examined the mediating roles of authenticity in relationships and mental health in the association between cognitive flexibility and marital satisfaction among married women.
Materials and Methods: A descriptive-correlational, cross-sectional design was utilized. The study population consisted of married women aged 22–52 years residing in Tehran, Iran, between December 2023 and May 2024, with a minimum marriage duration of one year. Using multistage cluster sampling, 318 participants were recruited, and data from 310 valid questionnaires were analyzed. The instruments included the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI), the Authenticity Scale (AS), the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28), and the Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS). Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling via partial least squares (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4, alongside descriptive statistics in SPSS 27.
Results: Cognitive flexibility was positively associated with authenticity in relationships and better mental health. Both authenticity in relationships and mental health fully mediated the association between cognitive flexibility and marital satisfaction, whereas the direct effect of cognitive flexibility on marital satisfaction was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Cognitive flexibility enhances marital satisfaction among married women through the complete mediation of mental health and authenticity in relationships. These findings highlight the importance of these pathways for designing couple-based interventions and warrant further longitudinal research.
- authenticity in relationships
- cognitive flexibility
- mental health
- marital satisfaction
- married women
How to Cite
References
1- Thomas PA, Liu H, Umberson D. Family Relationships and Well-Being. Innov Aging. 2017;1(3):igx025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954612.
2- Dobrowolska M, Groyecka-Bernard A, Sorokowski P, Randall AK, Hilpert P, Ahmadi K, et al. Global perspective on marital satisfaction. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):8817. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218817.
3- Sheikhan Z, Ozgoli G, Zahiroddin A, Khodakarami N, Nasiri M. The relationship of marital quality and sexual satisfaction with marital status in Iranian women: a Path model. Int J Appl Behav Sci. 2018;5(1):31-40. Available from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/ijabs/article/view/21870.
4- Wondimu S, Andualem T. Determinants of Marital Satisfaction from Married Individuals’ Perspectives in Addis Ababa: A Qualitative Study. Int J Qual Res. 2024;3(3):278-87. Available from: https://ojs.literacyinstitute.org/index.php/ijqr/article/view/1297.
5- Guo J. The Impact of Parental Marital Relationships on Children’s Multi-domain Development Outcomes. J Educ Humanit Soc Sci. 2023;22:390. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376962321.
6- Kazemi M, Zanganeh Motlagh F. Prediction of Marital Dissatisfaction Based on the Resilience, Marital Commitment and Rumination. Int J Appl Behav Sci. 2020;7(4):1-10. Available from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/ijabs/article/view/27289.
7- Basharpoor S, Sheykholeslami A. The relation of marital adjustment and family functions with quality of life in women. Eur J Psychol. 2015;11(3):e859. Available from: https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/859.
8- Rakhshani T, Amirsafavi M, Motazedian N, Harsini PA, Kamyab A, Jeihooni AK. Association of quality of life with marital satisfaction, stress, and anxiety in middle-aged women. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1357320. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1357320.
9- Zhou D, Xu Y, He Q. New media use and mental health of married women: Mediating effects of marital quality. Healthcare. 2023;11(21):2909. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11212909.
10- Tavakol Z, Behboodi Moghadam Z, Nikbakht Nasrabadi A, Iesazadeh N, Esmaeili M. Marital satisfaction through the lens of Iranian women: a qualitative study. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;25:208. Available from: http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/content/article/25/208/full/.
11- Koesten J, Schrodt P, Ford DJ. Cognitive flexibility as a mediator of family communication environments and young adults’ well-being. Health Commun. 2009;24(1):82-94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802607024.
12- Sarıçalı M, Türküm AS. The relation between positive humor use and authenticity: Mediation of cognitive flexibility and psychological vulnerability. Turk Psychol Couns Guid J. 2021;11(62):313-31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1001698.
13- Demirtaş AS. Cognitive flexibility and mental well-being in Turkish adolescents: The mediating role of academic, social and emotional self-efficacy. An Psicol. 2020;36(1):111-21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.336681.
14- Yurt E, Hayli ÇM. Mediating role of self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility in the relationship between critical thinking and positive mental health in Turkish nursing students: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2025;15(8):e097631. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-097631.
15- Mehri L, Bakhtiarpoor S. Investigating the coping relationship of problem-oriented and excitement-oriented and cognitive flexibility with mental health. Eur Online J Nat Soc Sci. 2016;5. Available from: https://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/4651/2305.
16- Lucas JJ, Moore KA. Psychological flexibility: positive implications for mental health and life satisfaction. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(2):312-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz036.
17- Wu X, Wang Z, Zhang H, Yuan P, Yu Q, Zhou Z, et al. Effects of Internet language related to COVID-19 on mental health in college students: the mediating effect of cognitive flexibility. Front Psychol. 2021;12:600268. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.600268.
18- Agahheris M, Dargahzadeh Kaliber L, Shokri E, Kordmirza Nikoozadeh E, Rahmanian M, Abdolhoseini A. The relationship between cognitive flexibility and social anxiety with perceived anxiety control in people with eating disorder symptoms: The mediating role of cognitive emotion regulation. Int J Appl Behav Sci. 2024;11(3):37-44. Available from: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/ijabs/article/view/46336.
19- Jamshidi M, Zarkhani Y, Azizian M, Ghazanfari M. Investigating the relationship between cognitive flexibility and spiritual intelligence with marital satisfaction in married students. World Res J. 2020;6:168-79.
20- Lopez FG, Rice KG. Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. J Couns Psychol. 2006;53(3):362-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.362.
21- Chen S. Perceived Facilitativeness, Conditions of Worth, and Relational Outcomes in Romantic Relationships: Empirical Tests of Carl Rogers’ Theory of Personality and Interpersonal Relationships [doctoral thesis]. University of Nottingham; 2022.
22- Boyraz G, Waits JB, Felix VA. Authenticity, life satisfaction, and distress: a longitudinal analysis. J Couns Psychol. 2014;61(3):498-505. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25019552.
23- Chew LC, Ang CS. The relationship among quiet ego, authenticity, self-compassion and life satisfaction in adults. Curr Psychol. 2021;42:1-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01867-5.
24- Shareh H, Eshaghi Sani M. Predictive role of morningness-eveningness personality, cognitive flexibility and cognitive emotion regulation in marital satisfaction in middle-aged women. Iran J Psychiatry Clin Psychol. 2019;24(4):384-99. Available from: http://ijpcp.iums.ac.ir/article-1-2776-en.html.
25- Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Cheah JH, Becker JM, Ringle CM. How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australas Mark J. 2019;27(3):197-211. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003.
26- Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149-60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
27- Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 60-206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071890612.
28- Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med. 1979;9(1):139-45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700021644.
29- Goldberg D, Williams P. A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1988.
30- Chan DW. The Chinese version of the General Health Questionnaire: does language make a difference? Psychol Med. 1985;15(1):147-55. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/BFE3BE84F9386DB2D2CFC879664988C6.
31- Taghavi SMR. Validity and Reliability of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in College Students of Shiraz University. J Psychol. 2002;5(4):381-98. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/54489/en.
32- Hosseinian M, Noury R, Moghadasin M, Esalatmanesh S. Study of the mediating role of mental health and motives for substance use in the relationship between adjustment to university and cigarette and water-pipe use among the students. Feyz Med Sci J. 2018;22(2):192-205. Available from: http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/article-1-3527-en.html.
33- Hendrick SS, Dicke A, Hendrick C. The Relationship Assessment Scale. J Soc Pers Relat. 1988;15(1):137-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598151009.
34- Vaughn MJ, Matyastik Baier ME. Reliability and validity of the Relationship Assessment Scale. Am J Fam Ther. 1999;27(2):137-47. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/019261899262023.
35- Dehshiri GR, Mousavi SF. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Relationship Assessment Scale among couples. J Fam Res. 2016;12(1):141-54. Available from: https://jfr.sbu.ac.ir/article_97223.html.
36- Wickham RE. Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49(5):878-87. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103113000711.
37- Karimian N, Karimi Y, Molkari B. Psychometric properties of the Authenticity in Relationship Scale (AIRS) and its relationship with relationship satisfaction. Q Educ Meas. 2018;9(31):167-90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22054/jem.2018.24145.1592.
38- Dennis JP, Vander Wal JS. The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cogn Ther Res. 2010;34:241-53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4.
39- Shareh H, Farmani A, Soltani E. Investigating the Reliability and Validity of the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI-I) among Iranian University Students. J Pract Clin Psychol. 2014;2(1):43-50. Available from: http://jpcp.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-163-en.html.
40- West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1995. p. 56-75.
41- Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 8th ed. Andover (UK): Cengage Learning EMEA; 2019. p. 765-71.
42- Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39-50. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151312.
43- Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115-35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
44- Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48:1273-96. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
45- Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99-103. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.
46- Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1988. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.
47- Merchant WR, Li J, Karpinski AC, Rumrill PD Jr. A conceptual overview of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in rehabilitation research. Work. 2013;45(3):407-15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-131633.
48- Tarka P. An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Qual Quant. 2018;52(1):313-54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8.
49- Roemer L, Williston SK, Eustis EH, Orsillo SM. Mindfulness and acceptance-based behavioral therapies for anxiety disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(11):410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0410-3.
50- Wu C-W, Chen W-W, Jen C-H. Emotional intelligence and cognitive flexibility in the relationship between parenting and subjective well-being. J Adult Dev. 2020;28:106-15. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:254609145.
51- Goldin D, Alvarez LM, von Harscher H. Cognitive flexibility: what mental health professionals need to know. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2025;63(4):20-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20241205-03.
52- Ghaemi M, Zomorodi S, Bazzazian S. Predicting marital satisfaction based on mental health and psychological capital of working women. Knowl Manag Appl Theor J. 2022;3(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.aftj.3.2.28.
53- Sun Y, Wang W. Research into the relative influences of spouses doing housework, family decision-making, and physical and mental health on Chinese family marital satisfaction. SHS Web Conf. 2023;154:03008. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202315403008.
54- Fernandes-Pires JA, Pedroso-Chaparro Mdel S, Jiménez-Gonzalo L, Márquez-González M, Cabrera I, Losada-Baltar A. Marital satisfaction and mental health in adults over 40 years old: associations with self-perceptions of aging and stress related to the COVID–19 pandemic. Span J Psychol. 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2023.13.
55- Yang L, Yang Z, Yang J. The effect of marital satisfaction on the self-assessed depression of husbands and wives: investigating the moderating effects of the number of children and neurotic personality. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):163. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01200-8.
56- Rashidi Fakari F, Doulabi MA, Mahmoodi Z. Predict marital satisfaction based on the variables of socioeconomic status (SES) and social support, mediated by mental health, in women of reproductive age: Path analysis model. Brain Behav. 2022;12(3):e2482. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2482.
57- Rasco D, Warner RM. Relationship authenticity partially mediates the effects of attachment on relationship satisfaction. J Soc Psychol. 2017;157(4):445-57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1229253.
58- Bimantara M, Karel Karsten H. Exploring the impact of secrecy on marital happiness: relationship authenticity as a mediator. Bull Couns Psychother. 2024;6(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.51214/00202406806000.
59- Brunell AB, Kernis MH, Goldman BM, Heppner WL, Davis P, Cascio EV, et al. Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;48:900-5. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143510089.
60- Pambudi P, Ratnasari Y. Authenticity in relationships: a moderating factor in stress communication and marital satisfaction during the first five years of marriage. Bull Couns Psychother. 2024;6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.51214/002024061150000.
61- Kocyigit M, Uzun M. Emotion regulation and couple burnout in marriage: a moderated moderation model of authenticity, sex of parents and having children. Curr Psychol. 2025;44:3564-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07253-1.
62- Tüfekçibaşı S, Şahin M. Examining gender role attitude: the roles of cognitive flexibility, authenticity, gender, age, number of siblings, and working status of the mother. E-Kafkas J Educ Res. 2021;8(2):397-412.
63- Chen S, Murphy D, Joseph S. Dispositional authenticity, facilitativeness, femininity ideology, and dyadic relationship functioning in opposite-gender couples: Actor-partner interdependence analysis. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2024;27(1):101-26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12584.
64- Gross JJ. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review relational authenticity. 1998;2(3):271-99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271.
65- Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):348-62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.
- Abstract Viewed: 31 times
- PdF Downloaded: 39 times