Tue, May 19, 2026
[Archive]
1- Ph.D. Student, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology & Educational Science, Allame Tabatabaii University, Iran , h_kazemian@atu.ac.ir
2- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology & Educational Science, Allame Tabatabaii University, Iran
2- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology & Educational Science, Allame Tabatabaii University, Iran
Abstract: (27 Views)
Introduction: In psychological research, one of the main challenges is the formation of incorrect judgments about gender differences; judgments that are sometimes not a reflection of the psychological reality of individuals, but are the result of conceptual biases and measurement inequities. Comparing psychological constructs without ensuring measurement equivalence can lead to unfair interpretations about women and men. Therefore, the aim of the current study is ethical justice in psychological modelling.
Material & Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-method design was employed. In the qualitative phase, 20 in-depth interviews were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory to extract the components of linguistic capacities and anxiety. In the quantitative phase, a total of 712 individuals (373 women, 339 men) who had experienced emotional relationship breakdown within the past two years completed the Linguistic Capacity Scale, the Post-Separation Anxiety Inventory, and the Defensive Style Questionnaire (DSQ). Structural equation modeling (SEM), path analysis, bootstrapping, and multigroup SEM (MGSEM) were used to test the models.
Results: Model fit indices indicated that Model 1, in which linguistic capacities affect denial and sublimation through reduced anxiety, demonstrated the best fit (RMSEA = 0.028, CFI = 0.976). Linguistic capacities directly reduced anxiety (β = –0.46), anxiety increased denial (β = 0.44) and decreased sublimation (β = –0.34). The indirect effects of linguistic capacities on denial (β = –0.21) and sublimation (β = 0.16) were significant. Gender invariance analysis showed that the model was stable across women and men at the configural, metric, and scalar levels.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that linguistic capacities reduce anxiety, thereby strengthening the use of more mature defensive mechanisms such as sublimation and weakening the tendency toward denial. Gender invariance supports the conceptual fairness of the model and its generalizability across sexes.
Material & Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-method design was employed. In the qualitative phase, 20 in-depth interviews were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory to extract the components of linguistic capacities and anxiety. In the quantitative phase, a total of 712 individuals (373 women, 339 men) who had experienced emotional relationship breakdown within the past two years completed the Linguistic Capacity Scale, the Post-Separation Anxiety Inventory, and the Defensive Style Questionnaire (DSQ). Structural equation modeling (SEM), path analysis, bootstrapping, and multigroup SEM (MGSEM) were used to test the models.
Results: Model fit indices indicated that Model 1, in which linguistic capacities affect denial and sublimation through reduced anxiety, demonstrated the best fit (RMSEA = 0.028, CFI = 0.976). Linguistic capacities directly reduced anxiety (β = –0.46), anxiety increased denial (β = 0.44) and decreased sublimation (β = –0.34). The indirect effects of linguistic capacities on denial (β = –0.21) and sublimation (β = 0.16) were significant. Gender invariance analysis showed that the model was stable across women and men at the configural, metric, and scalar levels.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that linguistic capacities reduce anxiety, thereby strengthening the use of more mature defensive mechanisms such as sublimation and weakening the tendency toward denial. Gender invariance supports the conceptual fairness of the model and its generalizability across sexes.
Keywords: Ethical Fairness, Language Capacity, Anxiety, Denial, Sublimation, Emotional Relationship Breakdown
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
© 2026 CC BY 4.0 | International Journal of Ethics and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb