University Students’ Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions, Psychological Resilience, and Emotional Self-Efficacy According to Sex and Gender Roles

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between college students’ level of cognitive distortions, resilience and emotional self-efficacy. In addition, how sex and gender roles affect interpersonal cognitive distortions, emotional self-efficacy beliefs and endurance is examined. This study was conducted with 346 university students. In this study, Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale, Resilience Scale III-R, Self-Efficacy Scale, and Sex Role Inventory were administered to the participants. The results indicated that there was a negative correlation between interpersonal cognitive distortions, self-efficacy and psychological resilience. On the other hand, there was a positive correlation between psychological resilience and self-efficacy. Significant differences were found between gender roles and interpersonal cognitive distortions. In line with this, significant differences were found between gender roles and psychological resilience. However, there was no significant relation between sex and interpersonal cognitive distortions. Furthermore, the correlation between sex and psychological resilience is not significant. Additionally, self-efficacy and sex has no a significant relation, but has a significant relation with gender roles. Lastly, there was a significant relation between interpersonal cognitive distortions and gender roles.


Introduction Cognitive Distortions about Relationships
One of the most important theorists of the cognitive approach, Albert Ellis, put forward the basic assumption that emotions are caused by individuals' thought processes, their way of interpreting life events, and their reactions to events encountered (Corey, 1996).When people transform their desires and preferences concerning themselves and events into obligatory demands, unreasonable beliefs emerge (Corey, 1991).In addition, such demands tend to lead to unreasonable cognition, unhealthy emotions, and dysfunctional behaviors (Ellis, 1993), which, in turn, may cause people to experience negative emotions relating to their psychological health (Ellis, 1973).
Aaron T. Beck mentions three components involved in conceptualizing individuals' cognitive structures, namely, automatic thoughts, intermediate beliefs, and core beliefs.Core beliefs are mental building blocks situated in the furthest depths of the mind, whereas automatic thoughts can be defined as one's mental state on the surface (Beck, 2001).People may develop and maintain positive, core beliefs such as "I'm a capable person," "my life is usually under my control," and "I'm a valuable person" just as they may develop negative, change-resistant core beliefs such as "I'm worthless," "I'm weak," and "people are unreliable" (Beck, 2001).
Automatic thoughts are environment-and situation-specific components that are part of an individual's mental flow, and accompany sudden interpretations and moments of emotional distress yet to be thought about (Türkçapar, 2000).Intermediate beliefs lie between core beliefs and automatic thoughts, and generally include the codes, attitudes, and assumptions individuals form about themselves, others, and their personal lives, which may affect how they perceive any life situation (Topal, 2011).All of these beliefs and assumptions about individuals constitute their cognitive diagrams (Morris, 2002).The variable between dysfunctional diagrams and automatic thoughts is cognitive distortions (Türkçapar, 2000).Since individuals' cognitive distortions cause them to perceive the world in an unrealistic way, this affects them negatively when it comes to evaluating their interpersonal relationships (Hamamcı, 2005).Previous studies seem to support this idea, reporting cognitive distortions in relation to self-esteem and loneliness (Turan, 2010), problem-solving skills (Ağır, 2007;Güven, 2005), locus of control (Cash, 1984), attachment styles (Stackert & Bursik, 2003), automatic thought, tendency to conflict (Hamamcı & Büyüköztürk, 2004), and self-compassion (Akın, 2010).

Psychological Resilience
Psychological resilience is defined as an individual's capacity to carry out the following actions: adapt to negative situations and cope with them (Block & Kremen, 1996); eliminate negative thoughts and instead adopt positive ones (Masten & Obradovic, 2006); adapt successfully to distress (Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2012); recover psychologically from illness, depression, or bad situations; gather oneself up; keep going after being hurt or feeling nervous; and manifest elasticity (Ramirez, 2007).Reich, Zautra, and Hall (2012) emphasize two very important steps in relation to psychological resilience, namely, (a) an individual struggling with a hardship, recovering, and re-equilibrating psychologically, physiologically, and socially, and (b) that individual's capacity to keep confronting distress.Psychological resilience, however, covers not only innate potential but also the interactions between elements such as the individual's neurological development, cognitive characteristics, and social and familial characteristics (Curtis & Cicchetti, 2003).In parallel with this idea, Gizir and Aydın (2006) addressed psychological resilience as the process of adapting to an existing negative situation through interaction between protective factors and risk factors when it comes to a negative life situation (divorce, terrorism, natural disasters, poverty, broken family order, city change, etc.) Psychological resilience is considered a protective factor that mitigates the effect of a risk or hardship, or eliminates that risk or hardship, therefore increasing the chance of healthy adaptation and maximizing individuals' competences (Masten, 1994).When it comes to risk factors, it is necessary to address the effects of increasing the probability that a negative situation will occur or that a possible problem will continue (Kirby & Fraser, 1997).Although it is emphasized that risk factors in one particular context may very well be protective factors in another (Gizir, 2007;Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1999;Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2012), risk factors and protective factors are mainly approached as being biological, individual, familial, and environmental (Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vlahov, 2007).

Emotional Self-Efficacy Belief
Self-efficacy belief is defined by Albert Bandura as the "judgments of individuals about their capacities to do the necessary acts to deliver a performance successfully and realize these acts" (Bandura, 1977a;1977b;1986).Individuals' self-efficacy beliefs are affected by their basic experiences; their indirect experiences; the verbal persuasions of others; and their psychological and physiological states (Bandura, 1995;1997).
Belief in emotional self-efficacy is a specific belief that involves the perception of an individual about his or her emotional self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982).Emotional self-efficacy belief is defined as the judgments of individuals about their ability to organize their emotions in accordance with the current situation (Giese-Davis, Koopman, & Butler, 2002).

Social Gender Role
Social gender role is the body of social roles that cover all the behaviors, attitudes, and personal traits considered relevant to masculinity and femininity within a certain historical and cultural period (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).Bem (1981) divided individuals into four subgroups in terms of possessing feminine or masculine characteristics.Those, whose feminine characteristics are at the forefront and who have fewer masculine characteristics, are categorized under femininity; those, whose masculine characteristics are more intense than their feminine characteristics, are classified under masculinity; those, who have both feminine and masculine characteristics at the same level, are classified as androgynous; and those, in whom neither feminine nor masculine characteristics are to the fore, are categorized under undifferentiated gender (Bem, 1981).Individuals who act in accordance with gender diagrams perceive, organize, and evaluate their own and others' behaviors involuntarily within the framework of these cognitive structures throughout their lives (Bem, 1984).Androgynous people who possess both masculine and feminine characteristics can adapt to situations better due to being more psychologically flexible (Tzuirel, 1984).
In studies conducted on gender roles, it has been revealed that those in the feminine and androgynous category have better attitudes towards seeking psychological help than those whose gender roles are masculine and undifferentiated (Özbay, Terzi, Erkan, & Cinahgir-Çankaya, 2011).The self-concepts of adolescents, whose social gender roles are undifferentiated, are more negative than those whose social gender roles are masculine and androgynous.In addition, those in the androgynous role have higher levels of fearful and obsessional attachment than those in the masculine and undifferentiated roles.There is an interrelationship between social gender role, attachment styles, and the concept of self (Damarlı, 2006), and there is also a relationship between gender role and suicidal tendencies (Arsel & Durak-Batıgün, 2011).Typically, those whose gender roles are masculine and androgynous have higher levels of assertiveness than those whose gender roles are feminine and undifferentiated (Aydın, 1991).Lastly, those in the feminine role have higher anxiety levels than those in the masculine and androgynous roles (Kapıkıran, 2002).
When one considers the abovementioned theoretical frameworks together, the following relationships can be expected: a significantly negative relationship between cognitive distortion and psychological resilience that can be seen as an individual risk factor; a significantly positive relationship with psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy belief that can be seen as an individual protective factor; a negative relationship between cognitive distortion about relationships and emotional self-efficacy belief; and different levels of cognitive distortion, psychological resilience, and emotional self-efficacy beliefs in accordance with individuals' social gender roles.
In light of all the information presented, the general purpose of this research study was to investigate the relationship between university students' levels of cognitive distortion about relationships and their psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy beliefs.It also aimed to compare cognitive distortion about relationships with psychological resilience and emotional selfefficacy belief through the interaction of gender/social gender roles.Within the framework of the above purposes, answers were sought for the following research questions: 1-Is there a relationship between university students' cognitive distortions about relationships and their levels of psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy beliefs?
2-Do university students' average scores for cognitive distortion differ based on their genders, social gender roles, and gender/social gender roles?
3-Do university students' average scores for psychological resilience differ based on their genders, social gender roles and gender/social gender roles?
4-Do university students' average scores for emotional self-efficacy belief differ based on their genders, social gender roles, and gender/social gender roles?

Research Model
This research study was conducted using a survey model for which the quantitative research method was applied.

Study Group
The sample for the research was composed of 346 students attending the first, second, third, and fourth grades of the Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Turkish teaching, Science teaching, English teaching, and German teaching programs in the Faculty of Education at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University (196 females, 150 males,  ̅  =20.57,Ss=1.77).

Scale of Cognitive Distortions about Relationships (SCDAR)
This assessment tool was developed by Hamamacı and Büyüköztürk (2004).The internal consistency coefficients of the scale, which is a 5-point Likert type scale, were calculated as .73,.66,and .43 for the following sub-dimensions, respectively: Avoiding Affiliation, Expectation of Unrealistic Relationship, and Mind Reading.Test-retest reliability was .74 for the whole scale, whereas it varied between .70 and .74for the subscales.In the study performed for criterion validity, SCDAR was found to be related to the Automatic Thoughts Scale (r=.54) and the Conflict Tendency Scale (r=.53).A higher score on the scale meant higher levels of cognitive distortion in terms of individuals' relationships.

Psychological Resilience Scale III (PRS)
This assessment tool was developed by Maddi and Khoshaba (2001), and adapted into Turkish by Durak (2002).The internal consistency coefficient of the 3-point Likert scale was calculated as .68.A higher score on the scale meant an increase in psychological resilience (Durak, 2002).

Adolescent Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (ASEQ)
This questionnaire was developed by Muris (2001) to determine emotional self-efficacy belief and adapted into Turkish by Çelikkaleli, Gündoğdu, and Kıran-Esen (2006).The internal consistency coefficient of the questionnaire, which is a 5-point Likert type scale, was calculated to be .64,while the test-retest correlation coefficient was found to be .77.Higher scores obtained from the questionnaire were translated into higher levels of emotional self-efficacy belief.

Analysis of the Data
The SPSS 17.00 software package was used for the data analysis.To examine the relationship between continuous variables, Pearson's Product Moment Correlation (r) was used, and two-factor ANOVA [2 (gender) X 4 (social gender roles)] was utilized to determine whether university students' averages for cognitive distortions about relationships, psychological resilience, and emotional selfefficacy beliefs differed based on their genders and gender/social gender roles.Whether the data exhibited a normal distribution was investigated using the coefficients of Skewness (S) and Kurtosis (K).Accordingly, these variables were found to be S=.27 and K=-1.93 for gender; S=-.08 and K=-1.45 for gender roles; S=.19 and K=-.86 for gender/social gender roles; S=-.03 and K=-.14 for cognitive distortion about relationships; S=-.03 and K=-.14 for psychological resilience; and S=-.10 and K=-.05 for emotional self-efficacy.Thus, it can be said that the data exhibited normal distribution.

Findings
The following average scores were obtained from the students according to the descriptive findings concerning their levels of cognitive distortion about relationships, their psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy, and the coefficients of the correlations between these variables: 52.90 for levels of cognitive distortion about relationships; 33.72 for psychological resilience; and 23.47 for emotional self-efficacy.Based on the relationship between these variables, it was found that levels of cognitive distortion about relationships have a significantly negative relationship with psychological resilience (r=-.15,p<.01) and emotional self-efficacy belief (r=-.13,p<.05).On the other hand, a significantly positive relationship was found between psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy belief (r=.38, p<.01).
The descriptive findings concerning university students' levels of cognitive distortions about relationships, psychological resilience, and emotional self-efficacy belief are given in Table 1.  1, university students' average score for levels of cognitive distortion about relationships is 53.10 for females and 52.63 for males.Their average score for psychological resilience is 33.85 for females and 33.55 for males.For emotional self-efficacy belief, their average score is 23.18 for females and 23.85 for males.
On the other hand, as seen in Table 1, the highest average score for levels of cognitive distortion about relationships belonged to those who perceived themselves as "androgynous"; the lowest average score belonged to those in the "undifferentiated" gender role.According to the psychological resilience scores in terms of social gender roles, those who perceived themselves as "androgynous" had the highest average, whereas the lowest average belonged to those who perceived themselves as "undifferentiated."Lastly, according to the university students' emotional self-efficacy beliefs in terms of their social gender roles, those who perceived themselves in the "androgynous" role had the highest averages for emotional self-efficacy belief, while the lowest averages were observed among those who perceived themselves in the "undifferentiated" gender role.
It is clear that, depending on the university students' scores for cognitive distortion about relationships in terms of the mutual interaction between gender and social gender, the individuals who perceive their social gender role as "androgynous," although their biological gender is male, have the highest average (55.63);those who perceive their social gender role as "undifferentiated," although their biological gender is male, have the lowest average.In terms of the average score for psychological resilience, those who perceive their social gender role as "masculine," although their biological gender is female, have the highest average (36.79);those who perceive their social gender role as "undifferentiated," although their biological gender is female, have the lowest average (31.12).Lastly, it can be seen that the highest average of emotional self-efficacy belief belongs to the females whose perceived gender role is "androgynous" (24.93); the females whose perceived gender role is "undifferentiated" have the lowest average score (21.79).
The findings concerning whether university students' average scores for cognitive distortion about relationships differ through interaction between gender/social gender are given in Table 2.  2, university students' levels of cognitive distortion about relationships do not significantly differ according to gender [F (1-338) =.25, p>.05].On the other hand, their levels of cognitive distortion about relationships significantly differ according to gender roles [F (3-338) =3.07, p<.05].However, their average scores for cognitive distortion about relationships do not significantly differ according to interaction between their gender/social gender roles [F (7-338) =.54, p>.05].
According to an examination of the sources of the differences shown among students' average scores for cognitive distortion about relationships in terms of their social gender roles (Tukey), the average for those whose social gender role is "androgynous" (54.72) is statistically and significantly higher than the average for those whose social gender role is "undifferentiated" (50.86).
Table 3 presents the findings concerning whether university students' average scores of psychological resilience differ based on mutual interaction between gender, social gender role, and gender/social gender role.
It can be seen from Table 3 that university students' average scores for psychological resilience do not differ significantly based on gender [F (1-338) =.20, p>.05].On the other hand, students' levels of psychological resilience differ significantly based on their social gender roles [F (3-338) =8.78 p>.05].Similarly, their average scores for psychological resilience differ significantly through interaction between their gender/social gender roles [F (7-338) =4.67, p<.05].
According to an examination of the sources of the difference between students' average scores for psychological resilience in terms of their social gender roles (Tukey), the averages for those whose social gender role is "masculine" (34.66) and those whose social gender role is "androgynous" (35.25) are statistically higher than the averages for those whose social gender role is "undifferentiated" (31.78).On the other hand, the average scores for those whose social gender role is "androgynous" (35.25) are statistically and significantly higher than the average scores for those whose social gender role is "feminine" (33.06).In terms of the mutual effect of their gender/social gender roles, the females whose social gender role is "masculine" (36.79) have significantly higher average scores than the females whose social gender roles are "undifferentiated" (31.12) or "feminine" (32.65), and the males whose social gender role is "undifferentiated" (32.43).On the other hand, the average scores for those whose social gender role is "androgynous" despite being female biologically (36.09) are higher than the averages for females whose social gender is "feminine" (32.65) and for males whose social gender is "undifferentiated" (32.43).
The findings concerning whether university students' average scores for emotional self-efficacy belief differ through mutual interaction between gender and gender/social gender role are given in Table 4.  4 shows that university students' average scores for emotional self-efficacy belief do not significantly differ according to gender [F (1-338) =1.89, p>.05].On the other hand, their average scores for emotional self-efficacy belief differ significantly according to social gender roles [F (3-338) =4.09, p<.05].In addition, their average scores for emotional self-efficacy belief do not significantly differ based on interaction between their gender/social gender roles [F (7-338) =.77, p<.05].
Based on an examination of the sources of the differences between social gender roles (Tukey), the averages of those whose social gender roles are "masculine" (24.09) and "androgynous" (24.73) are significantly higher than the averages of those whose social gender is "undifferentiated" (22.05).On the other hand, the average score of those whose social gender role is "androgynous" (24.73) is significantly higher than the average score of those whose social gender role is "feminine" (22.91).

Discussion, Conclusion & Implementation
According to the initial findings obtained from the research, there is a negative relationship between cognitive distortion about relationships and psychological resilience.When the literature was reviewed, no studies were found concerning the relationship between these two variables.Psychological resilience, which is considered to be the ability to overcome challenging situations successfully, is sometimes possible through others' help.Thus, the above finding may be due to the fact that individuals with cognitive distortions about relationships cannot develop rational relationships with others and they are left alone in risky situations.
Similarly, a negative relationship was found between cognitive distortion about relationships and emotional self-efficacy belief.Some of the important psychological processes affected by self-efficacy belief are cognitive (Bandura, 1990a;1990b;1992;1993;1995;1997).How individuals set goals that require more struggle for them and show greater determination to achieve those goals (Bandura, 1991;Bandura & Wood, 1989;Locke et al., 1984, Locke & Latham, 1990) affects their interpretations, therefore impacting the scenarios they envisage about their own future (Bandura, 1997).In other words, individuals' self-efficacy beliefs have an impact on determining whether they will have mindset that either help or hinder them cognitively (Bandura, 1990a).Thus, it is expected that individuals with a powerful emotional self-efficacy belief develop a realistic cognitive structure rather than one with cognitive distortions.This explains the negative relationship between emotional self-efficacy belief and cognitive distortion.A higher self-efficacy belief strengthens individuals' cognitive structure, while an action done successfully and cognitively in the mind strengthens self-efficacy belief (Kazdin, 1979).
On the other hand, a significantly positive relationship was found between psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy belief.This finding shows parallels with the research findings of Gillespie, Chaboyer, Wallis, and Grimbeek (2007).The belief that one can successfully carry out the necessary actions on one's own during emotional processes may make individuals stronger when faced with challenging situations.Surviving such situations successfully is considered a personal protective factor that feeds psychological resilience.
According to another finding, university students' levels of cognitive distortion about relationships do not differ based on gender.This finding is supported by the findings of several studies (Çoban, 2013;Güven, 2005;Hamamcı, 2005;Sezgin, 2012).Since gender is not an important factor in cognitive distortions about relationships, female and male university students are in a more equal position in relation to entering an interpersonal relationship today, and they behave similarly beyond their genders.Thus, it could be held that there is no difference between their levels of cognitive distortion about relationships.
Furthermore, university students' levels of cognitive distortion about relationships differ significantly according to their social gender roles.Accordingly, the average scores of students whose social gender role is "androgynous" is higher than those of students whose social gender role is "undifferentiated."No study has been carried out up to now on this subject.The above finding can be explained as follows: University students whose social gender role is androgynous can have several relationships because they, either female or male, are "more flexible and adaptable to various situations" in relationships and communications (Tzuirel, 1984); this may cause cognitive distortions about relationships.However, those whose social gender role is "undifferentiated" become introverted under the influence of the gender role and may have experienced fewer cognitive distortions because they have not entered into many relationships.
Finally, university students' levels of cognitive distortion about relationships do not significantly differ through the mutual effect of their gender/social gender roles.There is no research relating to this subject in the literature.The above finding makes even more sense when considered together with the first and second findings.Accordingly, the point is not the biological genders of the university students and what their social genders are but the gender roles they have acquired under the influence of the society they live in.It is clear that the mutual interaction between individuals' biological gender and their adopted gender roles does not have an impact on their level of cognitive distortion about relationships.In other words, what individuals' gender roles involve is considered an important factor in the difference between levels of cognitive distortion about relationships, regardless of how important biological gender is.It can be concluded from this finding that individuals' perceived gender roles are more important than their biological genders on the basis of cognitive distortions about relationships.
From the perspective of psychological resilience, university students' scores do not differ based on gender.This finding is supported by a number of researchers (Chan, 2003;Crowley et al., 2003;Harrison et al., 2002;Kırımoğlu, Yıldırım & Temiz, 2010;Sezgin, 2012); yet, it contrasts with several other research findings (Oktan, 2008;Önder & Gülay, 2008;Werner, 1989).The above finding makes even more sense when considered together with the findings obtained from the related research question.Accordingly, it can be said that biological gender is not an important factor if university students' levels of psychological resilience differ based on their social gender roles.A more important factor than their biological genders is what kind of gender perception they have developed under that identity.However, this merely indicates that more studies should be performed on the topic.Furthermore, university students' levels of psychological resilience differ according to their social gender roles.Accordingly, the average scores of those whose social gender role is "masculine" are higher than those whose social gender roles are "androgynous" and "undifferentiated"; conversely, the average scores of those whose social gender role is "androgynous" are higher than those whose social gender role is "feminine."No research on this topic was found in the literature review.When one examines studies on similar cases, it can be seen that individuals whose gender role is undifferentiated and feminine are psychologically weaker than those whose gender roles are masculine and androgynous.This finding obtained from the research shows that masculinity and androgyny may be personal protective factors.However, the states of femininity and being undifferentiated can be considered individual risk factors.
Another finding is that university students' scores for psychological resilience differ based on the mutual effect of gender and social gender roles.Accordingly, the average score of the females whose social gender role is "masculine" is higher than that of females whose social gender role is "undifferentiated."Conversely, the average score of the females whose social gender role is "feminine" is higher than that of the males whose social gender is "undifferentiated."On the other hand, the average scores of the females whose social gender role is "androgynous" are higher than the averages of the females whose social gender is "androgynous" and the males whose social gender is "undifferentiated."No study was found on this subject in the related literature.It can be inferred from this finding that masculinity, femininity, and androgyny can be individual protective factors in psychological resilience.However, the reason why such a finding was obtained may be the fact that the undifferentiated gender role can be a risk factor.
University students' emotional self-efficacy beliefs do not differ based on gender.This is a finding supported by the findings of the research performed by Totan, İkiz, and Karaca (2010), whereas other studies yielded contradictory findings (Çelikkaleli & Gündüz, 2010;Telef & Karaca, 2011).Different findings on the same subject indicate that more studies need to be performed.Nevertheless, it can be concluded from the findings that the sources feeding the emotional self-efficacy beliefs of females and males do not differ, in that they have had similar experiences and been present in environments in which they can easily express their emotions.That is why there is no significant difference between the genders.
On the other hand, university students' scores for emotional self-efficacy beliefs differ based on their social gender roles.Accordingly, the emotional self-efficacy belief scores of university students who perceive their social gender roles as "masculine" and "androgynous" are significantly higher than the scores of those who perceive their social gender role as "undifferentiated."In addition, the average scores of those who perceive their social gender role as "androgynous" for emotional self-efficacy belief are significantly higher than those who perceive themselves as "feminine."No study was identified on the comparison of emotional self-efficacy beliefs based on social gender roles.However, it is understood from this finding that androgyny and masculinity make a more significant difference than the state of femininity and being undifferentiated in terms of emotional self-efficacy belief.Especially as stated by Tzuirel (1984), the cognitive flexibility provided by androgyny may enable individuals to express their positive or negative emotions and have other related experiences, therefore presenting them with a source of emotional self-efficacy beliefs.On the other hand, uncertainty about gender role or more intense femininity may cause them not to express their own negative emotions to others when necessary.This, in turn, may prevent emotional self-efficacy belief from developing in a healthy way.
Furthermore, according to Mayer and Sutton (1996), individuals are required to possess attitudes and behaviors specific to both biological genders.In essence, this requirement means that individuals' androgyny is an important characteristic.The fact that masculinity as a gender role is considered to be an important factor in emotional self-efficacy belief can be explained by social pressure.It is a reality that our society approves of those, either men or women, who exhibit more masculine attitudes and even encourage their children to exhibit masculine attitudes.Individuals raised in such a social environment in early childhood, youth, and early adulthood may tend to develop appropriate attitudes and efficacies.These attitudes and efficacies may affect individuals' emotional self-efficacy levels as well as other efficacy areas.
Lastly, university students' average scores for emotional self-efficacy belief differ significantly based on interaction between their gender/social gender roles.No study was found on this subject in the related literature.According to the current study, biological gender is not an important factor in differences based on emotional self-efficacy belief.On the other hand, social gender is an important factor in relation to emotional self-efficacy.It can be concluded from this finding that university students' biological genders or the mutual effect of gender/social gender are not effective in helping them express their emotions successfully; rather, individuals' social gender perceptions, in a general sense, can be an important factor in emotional self-efficacy belief, regardless of biological gender.
As a result of this research, a significantly negative relationship was found between cognitive distortion about relationships, psychological resilience, and emotional self-efficacy belief, while a positive relationship was found between psychological resilience and emotional self-efficacy.In addition, levels of cognitive distortion about relationships were found to differ based on social gender roles, and university students' levels of psychological resilience were found to differ based both on social gender roles and mutual interaction between gender/social genders.Lastly, the students' emotional self-efficacy beliefs were found to differ based on their social gender roles.
There are some limitations to the research.Since the findings obtained were limited to students of the faculty of education, similar research studies can be conducted using different samples.In the research, no difference was found in the total scores for cognitive distortion about relationships in terms of gender and gender roles.Thus, different studies can be conducted to see which cognitive distortions show a difference based on gender and gender roles.
In light of the findings obtained from the research, it is recommended that studies be conducted to enhance students' psychological resilience within the scope of preventive counseling services.This will enable more to be revealed regarding failing thought processes in their cognitive structures.It will also increase their sense of emotional self-efficacy and make them aware of their gender roles.Future studies should investigate which systematic faults in the cognitive structure cause decreasing psychological resilience and perceived emotional self-efficacy.Furthermore, instead of using university students' cognitive distortions, empirical studies should be carried out using psycho-training programs that will enable students to think in a realistic way.This method will facilitate observation of how effective mitigating cognitive distortions can be in eliminating negativities regarding other factors (weak psychological resilience, low emotional self-efficacy, negative social effects of gender roles, etc.).

Table 1 .
The Descriptive Results of University Students' Scores of Cognitive Distortions about Relationships, Psychological Resilience and Emotional Self-Efficacy Belief in Terms of Their Sex, Their Perceived Gender and the Mutual Interaction between Sex and Gender Roles.
CDR: Cognitive Distortions About Relationships; PR: Psychological Resilience; ASEQ: Adolescent Self-Efficacy Questionnaire According to Table

Table 2 .
Variance Analysis Results of University Students' Levels of Cognitive Distortion about Relationships in Terms of Their Sex and Genders Roles.

Table 3 .
Analysis Results of University Students' Levels of Psychological Resilience in Terms of Their Sex and Genders Roles.

Table 4 .
Variance Analysis Results of University Students' Levels of Emotional Self-efficacy Belief in Terms of TheirSex and Gender Roles.