Abstract

The present research was conducted to analyze and predict the satisfaction of romantic relationships based on
mindfulness, coping with stress in married couples of Graduate School of Literature, Islamic Azad University,
Kerman Branch, in 2019. This paper was conducted utilizing the descriptive and correlation method. The statistical
population of the study contained 624 married couples of Literature Faculty of Islamic Azad University of Kerman.
The sample consisted of 280 (174 females, 106 males) married couples, based on Cochran formula and available
sampling methods. Herein, we employed Romantic Relationship Questionnaire (Attridge et al., 1998), The Coping
Inventory of Stressful Situations (CISS) (Endler and Parker, 1990), and Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ) (Baer et al., 2006). Subsequently, in order to analyze the data, multiple regression analysis was employed.
The results showed a significant decrease in the relationship between emotion-focused coping with stress styles,
and avoidance coping with stress with satisfaction with romantic relationships, whereas there was an increase
(direct) in the relationships between mindfulness and satisfaction with romantic relationships.

1-Introduction

Marriage is known to be one of the oldest human relationships, which is believed to be satisfying and nurturing
and is experienced at least once by most people. In this regard, psychologists and counselors have paid further
attention to “family”. They believe that marital conflicts, the main root cause of all psychological problems, are
triggered in family (Weiss, 2014). Here, it is noteworthy to mention that “Conflict” is an essential part of any
marital relationship, which is often the reason to treat it. Couples may refer to a therapist due to being unhappy or
depressed, often assuming negative motivations for each other's behaviors. One considerable feature in these
couples is that when their opposite behaves, they start mind-reading, in which the conflict engages a lot of their
energies in their relationships. Today, it may be essential for couples to learn things from one another to evaluate
them, such as the manifestations of human social life, the existence of healthy and productive interactions between
humans, the love of fellow human beings, and the intimacy and compassion of one another. This is due to the fact
that the satisfaction of people with marriage and romantic relationships constitutes denotes one's satisfaction with
the family and that of the family is the meaning of life satisfaction; therefore, facilitating this problem leads to
growth, excellence, and material and spiritual progress of a society (Daletti & Redzwan, 2014).

It should be mentioned that healthy couples can generate healthy families and as a result, healthy families make
up a healthy community. These days, family and couple therapy is one of the most prevalent and practical
therapeutic approaches in the field of counseling and psychotherapy (Nazari, 2013). Note that a romantic
relationship is a comment among the relationships that govern couples. Moreover, satisfaction with romantic
relationships can also be investigated in terms of time, based on couples' “Time Perspective”. Our “Time
Perspective” is a study of how each person shares their current experiences across the time (past, present, and
future). Thus, this would be done unconsciously and automatically. Additionally, the time perspective refers to
investigating one's steps to enhance one's life by focusing one's perspective on changes in the present, past, and
future (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2009). One of the valuable variables to cope with the stress is believed to be mindfulness
in couples. Kabat-Ziin, J,(2003) introduced mindfulness as paying attention to particular, purposeful, non-
judgmental, present-day, and prejudicial ways (Segall, Williams, & Tizdel, 2002; cited by Seyed Rezavi et al.,
2013). Furthermore, mindfulness is usually defined as a state of consciousness as well as paying attention to what
is happening in the present (Brown & Ryan, 2003). It should be pointed out that mindfulness can help people to
relieve from the automatic thoughts, habits, and unhealthy behavior patterns. Accordingly, it plays a critical role
in the behavioral regulation.

Because the challenges in marital conflicts are due to certain reasons, for instance annoyance, frustration,
hopelessness and high emotional-psychological distance between couples, which in turn are the main motives of
emotional divorce. If these issues are not treated properly, they will lead to formal emotional divorce. Thus, it is
of great importance to consider this phenomenon as a serious issue and treat its deleterious impacts on the marital
and family system. Despite the results achieved by several researchers in internal and external research,
unfortunately, no research has been conducted yet on the pivotal role of mindfulness, coping with tress in
predicting satisfaction of romantic relationships in married couples.

1
2. Methodology

The current research can be considered as a descriptive correlation study. The statistical population of this study,
about 624 people, was all the married couples of Islamic Azad University of Kerman Branch of Literature (Kerman
Branch) in 2019. The sample consisted of 280 (including 174 females, 106 males) married couples based on
Cochran formula and available sampling methods.

2.1 Research tools

2.1.1 Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire

Herein, we employed a questionnaire with a 39-item self-rating scale, developed by Baer et al. (2006), by
integrating various questionnaire statements on mindfulness. Afterwards, the obtained answers were coded based
on a five-point Likert scale from never or very rarely correct to often or always correct. Here, an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was carried out on a sample of college couples.
The considered observation involves paying attention to both external and internal stimuli, such as emotions,
cognition, knowledge, sounds, and smells. The description refers to the naming of external experiences with words.
Meanwhile, consciousness involves acting in the presence of full mind at any given moment. In contrast to the act
of locating when one's mind is somewhere else. Being indifferent to the inner experience involves being indifferent
to the intrinsic thoughts as well as feelings without having to be caught up in them. According to the experimental
results of the internal consistency of factors, the alpha coefficient ranged from 75% to 91%. In addition, the
correlations between the factors were moderate and significant in all cases, ranging from 15% to 34% (Nussir,
2010 quoted by Wake et al., 2013), which were along with some conducted studies on both the validity and
reliability of this questionnaire in Iran. It should be mentioned that the correlation coefficients of test-retest in
Iranian samples were observed between r: 57% of non-judgmental factor and alpha coefficients of r: 84% of
observed factor (Ahmadvand, Heidari Nasab and Sha'iri, 2012).

2.1.2 Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS)

Endler and Parker (1990) first developed the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS). Subsequently, it
was translated and standardized by Akbarzadeh in Iran, and then applied to norms of stress coping styles in Tehran
in 2012 (Sarmad et al., 1998). The test contains 48 items with 45 questions in the Iranian norm. The stress test
covers several main areas of coping behaviors, including problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance. In
1994, Endler and Parker (???) classified the avoidance factor into two distinct scales of distractibility and social
engagement. According to the questionnaire by Shakri et al. (2008), four factors were assessed, including problem-
focused factors, emotional-focused factors, distractibility, and social engagement.

The scores the participants obtain in this test, in which the higher an individual’s score is, the more dominant his
or her defensive style would be, specify the individual’s dominant coping style. Endler and Parker (1994) reported
Cronbach's alpha coefficient for problem-focused style of 0.92, emotion-focused style of 0.82, and avoidance style
of 0.85 for male adolescents, indicating scale validity. In addition, the construct validity of this scale has been
confirmed in a research by Endler and Parker. In Iran, the construct validity of this scale has been confirmed in
Qureshi research (quoted by Shokri et al., 2008). Moreover, in the study, Shokri et al. (2008) reported Cronbach's
alpha coefficient under the problem-focused scale of 0.75, emotion-focused coping scale of 0.82 and avoidance
coping scale of 0.73.

2.1.3 Romantic Relationship Questionnaire

The Romantic Relationship Scale (Attridge, Berscheid & Sprecher, 1998) is a test of 31 items measuring the
individuals' attitudes and feelings in the context of romantic relationships in 6-point Likert scales (from strongly

2
 disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 6), based on two subscales measuring the scale of romantic dependence and
romantic insecurity. Afterwards, the psychometric features of this scale were analyzed in a sample consisting of
683 women and men married to the general population (365 women, 318 men). Cronbach's alpha coefficients of
the subscales of both romantic dependence and romantic insecurity were calculated as 0.93 and 0.89, respectively,
indicating good internal consistency of the scale.

On the other hand, the correlation coefficients among the scores of 133 participants in two time intervals of two to
four weeks for the romantic dependence and romantic insecurity subscales were calculated r = 0.83, r = 0.74,
respectively, and p <001. It should be mentioned that these coefficients were significant for the reliability of the
test-retest reliability scale (Bischart, 2010). Moreover, both convergent and diagnostic (discriminatory) construct
the validity of the romantic relationship scale through the simultaneous implementation of the Revised Adult
Attachment Scale (Bisharat, 2005, 2011). The participants' questionnaire of The Golombok-Rust Inventory of
Sexual State Questionnaire (GRISS) (Right et al., 1988) and Mental Health Scale (Besharat, 2010) were calculated.
The obtained results also revealed that there was a difference between the sample scores below the romantic scale
from 0.48 to 0.65

3. Results

Variable Number average standard deviation

Satisfaction with romantic relationships 280 82 14.594

Mindfulness 280 102.91 16.941

Problem-focused coping with stress 280 73.02 10.47

emotion-focused coping with stress style 280 73.65 11.183

avoidance coping with stress 280 44.35 13.723

fear of negative evaluation 280 65.65 12.783

social intimacy 280 84.35 843.15

Table 1a. Descriptive statistics of research variables for ages 18-35

Variable Number average standard deviation

Satisfaction with romantic relationships 280 57.4 10.2158

Mindfulness 280 72.037 11.8587

Problem-focused coping with stress 280 51.114 7.329

emotion-focused coping with stress style 280 51.555 7.8281

avoidance coping with stress 280 31.045 9.6061

fear of negative evaluation 280 45.955 8.9481

3
 social intimacy 280 59.045 590.205

Table 1b. Descriptive statistics of research variables for ages 35-65

Critical
Variable Tilt Elongation Critical Ratio Mean Median
Ratio
Satisfaction with romantic
-0.019 -0.154 -0.547 -2.233 82 83.5
relationships
Mindfulness -0.308 -2.504 0.447 1.824 102.91 104
Problem-focused coping with
-0.276 -2.244 -0.0120 -0.490 73.02 74
stress
emotion-focused coping with
-0.275 -2.236 -0.035 -0.143 73.65 74.5
stress style
avoidance coping with stress -0.303 -2.563 -0.210 -0.857 44.35 46

fear of negative evaluation 0.275 2.236 -0.524 -2.139 65.65 62

social intimacy -0.293 -2.382 0.227 0.927 84.35 86.5

Table 2a. Investigating the normality of the research variables for ages 18-35

Critical
Variable Tilt Elongation Critical Ratio Mean Median
Ratio
Satisfaction with romantic
-0.011 -0.151 -0.448 -2.134 81 82.9
relationships
Mindfulness -0.209 -2.403 0.348 1.725 101.88 103.7
Problem-focused coping with
-0.177 -2.143 -0.01 -0.391 72.54 72
stress
emotion-focused coping with
-0.176 -2.135 -0.025 -0.130 73.56 73.5
stress style
avoidance coping with stress -0.204 -2.464 -0.111 -0.756 44.26 45

fear of negative evaluation 0.176 2.135 -0.423 -2.040 65.57 61.4

social intimacy -0.194 -2.283 0.128 0.828 83.25 85.8

Table 2b. Investigating the normality of the research variables for ages 35-65

4
 Unstandardiz Variance
Standardized Beta
Variable ed T statistics p-value Inflation
Coefficients
Coefficients Factor
Satisfaction with romantic
82.25 - 4.278** 0.001 -
relationships
Mindfulness 1.513 0.277 3.277** 0.001 2.937
Problem-focused coping
0.23 0.142 1.744* 0.069 3.285
with stress
emotion-focused coping
-0.920 0.277 -2.269** 0.013 4.086
with stress style
avoidance coping with
-0.752 -0.113 -1.692* 0.083 4.093
stress
fear of negative evaluation -0.212 -0.168 -0.608 0.109 4.472

social intimacy 1.575 0.245 2.770** 0.006 3.205

F(-p value
DW=115.2 F=22.932 Adj R2=0.319 R2=0.334
)>= 0.001

Table 3a. The results of the Regression for ages 18-35

Unstandardiz Variance
Standardized Beta
Variable ed T statistics p-value Inflation
Coefficients
Coefficients Factor
Satisfaction with romantic
57.575 - 4.179** 0.0007 -
relationships
Mindfulness 1.0591 0.1939 3.178** 0.0007 2.0559
Problem-focused coping
0.161 0.0994 1.643* 0.0483 2.2995
with stress
emotion-focused coping
-0.821 0.1939 -2.169** 0.0091 2.8602
with stress style
avoidance coping with
-0.653 -0.113 -1.593* 0.0581 2.8651
stress
fear of negative evaluation -0.113 -0.168 -0.509 0.0763 3.1304

social intimacy 1.476 0.1715 2.671** 0.0042 2.2435

F(-p value
DW=119 F=21.833 Adj R2=0.298 R2=0.311
)>= 0.001
* Significant at 0.1 level, **Significant at 0.05 level

Table 3b. The results of the Regression for ages 35-65

5
 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Satisfaction with romantic relationships 1

Mindfulness 0.516** 1

Problem-focused coping with stress 0.461** 0.75 1

emotion-focused coping with stress style -0.485** -0.749 -0.734 1

avoidance coping with stress -0.485** -0.705 -0.746 0.707 1

fear of negative evaluation -0.522** -0.721 -0.753 0.783 0.817 1

social intimacy 0.514** 0.666 0.724 -0.755 -0.693 -0.787 1

Table 4a. Investigating the normality of the research variables for ages 18-35

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Satisfaction with romantic relationships 1

Mindfulness 0.41** 1

Problem-focused coping with stress 0.39** 0.75 1

emotion-focused coping with stress style -0.38** -0.642 -0.631 1

avoidance coping with stress -0.38** -0.601 -0.643 0.60 1

fear of negative evaluation -0.42** -0.621 -0.651 0.684 0.715 1

social intimacy 0.41** 0.562 0.621 -0.652 -0.591 -0.682 1

Table 4b. Investigating the normality of the research variables for ages 35-65

6
 Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient
variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 63.872 14.848

Mindfulness 0.516 0.001 2.815 10.042

F(-p value )>= 0.001 F=100.850 Adj R2=0.264 R2=0.266

Table 5a. Investigating the relationship between mindfulness versus satisfaction and the romantic
relationships for ages 18-35

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 51.0976 51.0976

Mindfulness 0.3612 0.0007 1.9705 7.0294

F(-p value )>= 0.001 F=100.850 Adj R2=0.211 R2=0.212

Table 5b. Investigating the relationship between mindfulness versus satisfaction and the romantic
relationships for ages 35-65

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 69.87 16.35

Problem-focused coping
0.461 0.001 2.5 8.658
with stress

F(-p value )>=

F=75.955 Adj R2=0.210 R2=0.212
0.001
Table 6a. Investigating the Relationship of Problem-focused coping and stress to Satisfaction with
Romantic for ages 18-35

7
 Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient
variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 69.87 16.35

Problem-focused coping
0.3227 0.0007 1.75 6.0606
with stress

F(-p value )>=

F=74.211 Adj R2=0.199 R2=0.198
0.001
Table 6b. Investigating the Relationship of Problem-focused coping and stress to Satisfaction with
Romantic for ages 35-65

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable Unstandardized
Pearson Correlation p-value T statistics
beta
Width of origin - - 148.982 28.209

emotion-focused coping
-0.458 0.001 -3.324 8.582
with stress style

F(-p value )>=

F=73.651 Adj R2=0.207 R2=0.209
0.001
Table 7a. Investigation of the relationship between emotion-focused coping with stress style and
satisfaction with romantic relationships for ages 18-35

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable Unstandardized
Pearson Correlation p-value T statistics
beta
Width of origin - - 135.651 27.125

emotion-focused coping
-0.398 0.0007 -3.108 8.244
with stress style

F(-p value )>=

F=72.397 Adj R2=0.199 R2=0.201
0.001
Table 7b. Investigation of the relationship between emotion-focused coping with stress style and
satisfaction with romantic relationships for ages 35-65

8
 Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient
variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 147.838 30.756

avoidance coping with
-0.485 0.001 -3.219 -9.235
stress
F(-p value )>=
F=85.283 Adj R2=0.232 R2=0.235
0.001
Table 8a. Statistical relationship of avoidance coping with stress with satisfaction and the romantic
relationships for ages 18-35

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 118.2704 24.6048

avoidance coping with
-0.339 0.0009 -2.275 -8.311
stress
F(-p value )>=
F=80.325 Adj R2=0.232 R2=0.212
0.001
Table 8b. Statistical relationship of avoidance coping with stress with satisfaction and the romantic
relationships for ages 18-35

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 195.153 31.393

Fear of negative
-0.522 0.001 -3.769 -10.205
Evaluation

F(-p value )>= 0.001 F=104.151 Adj R2=0.270 R2=0.273

Table 9a. Statistical relationship of fear of negative evaluation with satisfaction and the romantic
relationships for ages 18-35

9
 Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient
variable
Pearson Correlation p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics

Width of origin - - 188.258 30.486

Fear of negative
-0.424 0.0009 -3.641 -9.872
Evaluation

F(-p value )>= 0.001 F=101.253 Adj R2=0.238 R2=0.229

Table 9b. Statistical relationship of fear of negative evaluation with satisfaction and the romantic
relationships for ages 35-65

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable Pearson
p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics
Correlation
Width of
- - 68.955 18
origin
social
-0.514 0.001 3.306 9.993
intimacy
F(-p value )>=
F=99.186 Adj R2=0.262 R2=0.264
0.001
Table 10a. Statistical relationship of social intimacy with satisfaction and the romantic relationships for ages
18-35

Correlation coefficient The regression coefficient

variable Pearson
p-value Unstandardized beta T statistics
Correlation
Width of
- - 69.908 18
origin
social
-0.525 0.002 3.452 10.921
intimacy
F(-p value )>=
F=104.059 Adj R2=0.275 R2=0.281
0.001
Table 10b. Statistical relationship of social intimacy with satisfaction and the romantic relationships for ages
35-65

10
 4. Discussion and Conclusion

Research Hypothesis 1: "There is a significant association between predicting satisfaction of the romantic
relationships based on mindfulness, Social Intimacy, Fear of Negative Evaluation, Avoidance Coping with
Stress, Emotion-Focused Coping with Stress Style, Problem-Focused Coping with Stress.

Research Hypothesis 2: Age cannot have big impact in analyzing satisfaction of married couples relationship
from aspects: Mindfulness, Social Intimacy, Fear of Negative Evaluation, Avoidance Coping with Stress,
Emotion-Focused Coping with Stress Style, Problem-Focused Coping with Stress.

Conclusive Discussion for Hypothesis 1:

The results of this study confirmed that there was a significant and decreasing (inverse) association between emotion-
focused factors coping with stress style and avoidance coping with stress satisfaction with romantic relationships.
Meanwhile, there was an increasing (direct relationship) relationship between mindfulness and Problem-focused
coping with stress with the romantic relationship satisfaction. Our findings are in accordance with those of Zaydabadi
and Rajabi (1397), Abu et al. (2015), Lankvand and Jacobs (2018), Afshari Sarajaz, Rahmati and Bani Asadi (1397),
Talebi and Weissi (2011). This study confirmed the same large impact of Social Intimacy, Fear of Negative Evaluation
on satisfaction of married couples.

In order to demonstrate the above-mentioned hypothesis, it could be stated that mindfulness means having a non-
judgmental and receptive attitude towards oneself, so that one observes their thoughts and feelings in a way that they
would not need to be changed or abandoned. Moreover, to fully experience self-compassion, it is critical for
individuals to adopt a mindful approach. The satisfaction with the romantic relationships is a state in which both
couples enjoy their marriage. Satisfaction with romantic relationships is the consequence of a proper relationship
between both spouses. Indeed, satisfaction with romantic relationships provides an overview of the current state of
communication. Moreover, the satisfaction with romantic relationships is one of the most widely used concepts for
determining happiness and relationship stability. Note that when both the husband and wife are satisfied with their
relationships, family will be in good health and they can be protected from harm. Thus, those couples who are more
satisfied with their romantic relationship coping style, have mainly more emotional self-awareness, who are also more
capable of coping with stress and impulse control.

They also have more flexibility. As a result, whenever they encounter a challenge, they can cope with its stress
conditions better, which is owing to certain aspects, for instance the adequacy, motivation to effectively deal with the
problem through active, and positive adaptation to stress (thinking, being effective, and finding appropriate ways to
solve the problem).

In addition, they can find the best solution for dealing with problems through situation analysis. Therefore, they
overcome crises and problems better, and become less desperate. Certain researchers have categorized these practices
into two types of behavioral and cognitive. Behavioral measure means taking physical measures, such as exercising,
drinking alcohol, taking medicines, wetting their anger on others, and also requesting the emotional support of friends

11
to keep their minds off the current challenge. They seek to moderate the threat by changing the meaning of the
situation. Furthermore, some psychological measures often include re-evaluating situations.

Conclusive Discussion for Hypothesis 2:

This study results in the impact concluded in Hypothesis 1 will not be decreases significantly by getting aged for older
married couples. In other word, parameters such as stress, emotions, dealing with problems, social intimacy can have
still large impact on older married couple romantic relationship satisfaction.

12
References

Edalti , HY& Redzuan, B. A. (2015). A four-stage model of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy:
Training manual for crisis intervention and relapse prevention. Manuscript sent for publication.

Dalty, R., Rodzan, M (2014). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science
Quareter, 15, 150-153.

Zimbardoo S, Booid M.(2009) .Marital conflict and health: Processes and protective factors. Aggression and Violent
Behavior. 8: 283-312.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 844–854

Zimbardo, P., & Boyd, J. (2008). The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will change your life

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156.

Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). Dependency and insecurity in romantic relationships:
Development and validation of two companion scales. Personal Relationships, 5(1), 31–58

Wake H, Moorhouse AJ, Miyamoto A, Nabekura J. 2013. Microglia: Actively surveying and shaping neuronal
circuit structure and function. Trends Neurosci 36: 209–217

Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-
being. Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.

Segal, Z.V., Williams, J.M., &Teasdale, J.D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression.
New York: Guildford.

Weiss, Assadollah (2014). The Effectiveness of Fordyce Happiness Training on Depression in High School Male
Students. Second National Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Seyyed Razavi
Nematollahi, Vida.

13
Hosseini, Afzal Sadat; (2013). Investigating the relationship between deterministic thinking and creativity and
emotional creativity. Scientific Research Journal.3 (1). 175-200

Baer, R. A. (2011). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice. 10(4): 125–142.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self- report assessment methods
to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27-45.

Berscheid, E., Attridge, M., & Sprecher, S. (1998). Dependency and insecurity in romantic relationships:
development and validation of Two Companion Scale. Personal Relationships, 5, 31-58.

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to
preventing relapse. New York: Guilford Press.

Besharat, Mohammad Ali (2010). The moderating role of attachment styles in the relationship between emotional
resentment and marital satisfaction. Journal of Principles of Mental Health (14) 4. 35-324

Besharat, Mohammad Ali (2010) . Investigating the psychometric properties of the Fear of Intimacy Scale. Research
Report, University of Tehran.

Rust, J., Bennun, I., Crow, M., & Golombok, S. (1988). The Golombok-Rust Inventory of Marital State
Questionnaire. London: NEFER-NELSON.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of socialevaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 33, 448-457

Ahmadvand, Zahra; Heidari Nasab, Leila; Shairi, Mohammad Reza, (2012), Explaining Psychological Welfare
Based on the Components of Mindfulness, Health Psychology, Scientific Research Quarterly, No. 2,
Summer 2012

Zohreh Sarmad, Elahe Hejazi, Abbas Bazargan Harandi (1998). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran.
Post an ad

Endler NS, Parker JDA. Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual. 2nd ed. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems; 1990.

Akbarzadeh Nasrin, Afrasiabi Mahnaz, (2012). Study and comparison of stress coping methods in normal and
delinquent adolescents in Tehran 1 (3)

Shukri, Omid; Daneshpour, Zohreh; Asgari, Azam (2008) Gender differences in academic performance: The role of
personality traits. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Volume 2, Number 2.

Ali Mohammad Nazari (2013). The effectiveness of short-term solution-based treatment on marital burnout and
desire for divorce in married women. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing.3 (3). 41‫ص‬-

Afshari Sarjaz, Kourosh Rahmati, Abbas and Bani Asadi, Hassan (2018). The mediating role of fear of negative
evaluation in the relationship between marital satisfaction and social intimacy with life satisfaction of
married men and women in Jiroft. Master Thesis in Counseling and Guidance. Shahid Bahonar University

14
Talebi, Aboutrab and Veisi, Simin (2011). The relationship between romantic love and the realization of marital
values. Quarterly Journal of Women and Family Socio-Cultural Council. Strategic Studies of Women. 15
(56)

15