Introduction

The self is a topic frequently discussed in psychology. It is stated that the self is formed in a social context, not by itself (^{Maji & Dixit, 2020}). One of the most important social contexts affecting the self is the phenomenon of gender. The fact that expectations of the society from men and women are different brings with a different shape of their selves. ^{Berktay (2004}) states that gender emerges when the biological difference between men and women is transformed into an unequal, hierarchical difference in culture. The formation of the self in women takes place in the context of relationships, interactively with the phenomenon of gender, with others (^{Gilligan, 1993}).

In line with gender roles, women are taught that they should be satisfied, suppress their anger, not to say no, and make people happy and comfortable. This situation may cause women to move away from their true selves and to construct their selves in accordance with the ideal female image, thus including gender roles (^{Gilligan, 1993}). The effort to get away from the real self and to be the ideal woman can cause women to silence their own selves. Because gender inequality in the traditional female role dictates that a man's needs are more important than women's needs and that the woman should choose what the other wants to do, not what she wants (^{Jack & Dill, 1992}). That is, self-silencing is created by norms, values, and images that dictate that women should be gentle, selfless, loving, etc. (^{Jack & Ali, 2010}). Women who shape their self within the framework of norms, values, and images dictate how a woman should be suppressed their own emotions, thoughts, and actions. This situation is explained by the self-silencing theory in the literature.

The self-silencing theory emerged as a result of studies conducted with women who were depressed (^{Jack & Dill, 1992}). Motivation to silence oneself mostly stems from an attempt to undermine a gender role encoded by passivity, bodily shame, fear, vulnerability, and courtesy (^{Jack & Ali, 2010}). This theory argues that the woman who is forced to act in accordance with the ideal femininity norms of the society actively suppresses her own thoughts and feelings in order not to conflict with the people she is in contact with (^{Jack & Dill, 1992}). Self-silencing is a cognitive self-scheme. The basis for the adoption of this scheme is the attempt to create and maintain safe, intimate relationships by silencing certain thoughts, feelings, and actions of the person. This situation can accelerate a general self-negation through the gradual devaluation of one's own thoughts and beliefs (^{Ali et al., 2000}). In other words, self-silencing may lead to negative consequences such as low self-esteem, loss of self, susceptibility to depression, etc. (^{Jack & Dill, 1992}).In the literature, there are studies showing that self-silencing is associated with psychological disorders such as depression (^{Ahmed & Iqbal, 2019}; ^{Flett et al., 2007}; ^{Jack, 1991}; ^{Kosmicki, 2017}; ^{Little et al., 2011}; ^{Tariq, & Yousaf, 2020}; ^{Zoellner & Hedlund, 2010}), eating disorders (^{Buchholz et al., 2007}; ^{Frank & Thomas, 2003}; ^{Geller et al., 2000}, ^{Lieberman et al., 2001}), anxiety (^{Kosmicki, 2017}), etc. in women.

Self-silencing has various dimensions and the Silencing the Self Scale (STSS) developed within these dimensions. One of these dimensions is evaluating and judging oneself through someone else's views, that is, Externalizing Self-Perception (ESP). Care as Self Sacrifice (CSS), on the other hand, involves seeing the needs and desires of the people they care about and with whom they are in a relationship as a priority over their own wants and needs, and perceiving doing things for themselves as selfish. The third dimension of self-silencing is the tendency not to express oneself and block their actions in order to prevent possible conflicts, retaliation and loss in relationships and it has been named "Self Silencing (SS)". The fourth dimension is called the "Divided Self (DS)" and this dimension indicates the hiding of feelings and thoughts from the person in the relationship and difference between false outer self and inner self (^{Jack & Ali, 2010}).

When the studies on the adaptation of STSS to Turkish were examined, it was seen that it was adapted into Turkish by ^{Kurtiş (2010}) for the first time in order to measure self-silencing in romantic relationships for women. However, due to size and characteristics of the sample group, ^{Birtane-Doyum (2017}) re-adapted it to Turkish in the context of romantic relationships for both men and women. However, studies showing that the scale has poor construct validity in male samples (^{Remen et al., 2002}) and shows a different factor structure (^{Cramer & Thoms, 2003}) revealed the necessity of adapting the scale to measure self-silencing in women. The STSS, which was developed by Jack and Dill (1992) based on the theory of self-silencing, was normally developed to measure self-silencing in the context of romantic relationships. However, it is known that silencing the self in women can occur not only in romantic relationships but also in all relationships. For this reason, it is observed that it is also adapted to measure friendship relationships (^{Dainow, 2014}), workplace relationships (^{DeMarco, 2002}; ^{DeMarco et al., 2007}), and students' relationships with teachers (^{Patrick et al., 2019}). Considering that self-silencing behavior occurs within the framework of conforming to gender roles in women and this behavior can occur not only in romantic relationships but also in relationship practices in all areas of life. The purpose of this study is to adapt the “STSS” to Turkish for women, not only in the context of romantic relationships but also in general relationships.

Method

Results

First and Higher-order CFA Results

When the fit values obtained as a result of CFA were examined (χ² / df = 3.07); RMSA = .06; CFI = .93; NFI = .90) these values were observed to be within acceptable limits. However, when the t values of the items were examined, it was observed that the t values of the 1st and 11th items, which were stated to be structurally incompatible, although they were theoretically compatible with the scale in the original scale, were also found to be meaningless in this study. The analysis was repeated by removing the 1st and 11th items on these results.The goodness of fit indices obtained as a result of the first and higher-order CFA applied in this framework and recommended to be reported (^{Kline, 2016}) are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis. 

When the fit indices in Table 1 were examined, it is observed that χ² / Sd value is 3.01 for the first-order and 2.99 for the higher-order CFA, and this value is less than the acceptance limit of 5 (^{Cokluk et al., 2014}; ^{Sumer, 2000}). RMSEA, which is value of .08 and smaller indicates a good fit (^{Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001}) were computed as .06 for both the first and second-order CFA. CFI of .90 and above that indicates a good fit (^{Sumer, 2000}), is .94 as well as SRMR value of .08 and smaller showing a good fit was 0.06 for both the first and higher-order CFA. When the fit indices emerging within this framework were examined, it is possible to say that the fit between the model and the data is sufficient.

The results of the first-order CFA are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Diagram of First-Order CFA. 

As seen in Figure 1, the standardized solution values range from .49 to .64 for Externalizing Self-Perception, .27 - .66 for Care as Self-Sacrifice, .28 - .72 for Self-Silencing, and .30 - .61 for the Divided Self sub-dimension. Standardized solution values give an idea of how well each item (observed variable) represents its latent variable (the factor to which it belongs). When the values were examined in the figure, it has been observed that there are two items (12 and 15) that give a load below .30. However, since the t values of these items are also significant and the items are theoretically compatible with the structure, it was decided to keep them in the scale.

The standard solution values of the higher-order CFA are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Diagram of Higher-Order CFA. 

The standardized solution values of the higher-order CFA are shown in Figure 2. When the diagram and the obtained fit values were examined, it is revealed that it is also appropriate to get a total score from the scale.

The path coefficients (λx), t and R² values between the first-order latent variables in the model and the higher-order variable are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Path Coefficient, t and R² value of the higher-order CFA. 

As it can be seen in Table 2, the highest relationship (.93) with STSS belongs to the DS sub-dimension, and the lowest (.80) belongs to the CSS sub-dimension. Relationship between the higher-order variable and all first-order variables was found to be significant (p < .00). Variance in the higher-order variable in the model is explained by the DS (87%), SS (85%), ESP (84%) and CSS (65%), respectively. According to these results, it has been confirmed that these dimensions are components of the STSS.

Discussion

Within the scope of the research, evidences were reached that STSS, which was adapted to Turkish, is a valid and reliable measurement tool. For example, in the first-order CFA, it was observed that the scale displayed a 4-factor structure in accordance with its original structure, and with the higher-order CFA, these dimensions were STSS components and the fit indices were within acceptable limits. These results show that the scale has a counterpart in Turkish culture and indicates a similar structure.

In this study, item 1 (I think it is best to put myself because no one else will look out for me) and item 11 (In order to feel good about myself, I need to feel independent and self-sufficient) were excluded from the scale because they were incompatible with the structure and t values were meaningless. In the original form of scale, it was observed that these items were incompatible with the structure (Jack & Dill, 1992), and that these items were also removed from the scale in the studies conducted by ^{Kurtiş (2010}) and Birtane-Doyum (2017).

It was observed that the Cronbach alpha score of the scale and its sub-dimensions ranged from .89 to .70. These findings are similar to the values obtained from the original scale (Jack & Dill, 1992). It is stated that Cronbach's Alpha score is excellent when .90, good when .70 ≤ α < .90, acceptable when .60 ≤ α < .70, weak when .50 ≤ α < .60, unacceptable when it is .50 and below (^{George & Mallery, 2003}). When the findings obtained within this framework were examined, the Cronbach Alpha scores are in the good category for the total score and sub-dimensions of the scale.

Test-retest correlation results of the scale and its sub-dimensions were observed to have values between .84 and .63. For psychological tests, the test-retest correlation coefficient is between .40 and .59 as medium, .60.- .74 good, and .75 and above as excellent (^{Cicchetti, 1994}). When the results obtained in this framework were evaluated, the test-retest correlation coefficients are excellent for STSS, ESP and DS sub-dimensions, and good for CSS, and SS sub-dimensions.

Conclusion

Within the scope of the research, psychometric evidence was obtained that scale, which was adapted to Turkish, is a valid and reliable measurement tool. These results show that the scale has a counterpart in Turkish culture, indicates a similar structure and can be used in future studies. It is thought that adapting the scale not only to romantic relationships but also to general relationships increases its usefulness. It is thought that the adaptation of a valid and reliable tool that measures self-silencing as a concept that is at the root of many psychological difficulties in women, especially depression, makes an important contribution to the field of mental health.