Advertisement

Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings of Resilience in Couples: Locating the ‘We’

  • Karen FergusEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I discuss facets of the couple’s collective sense of self and experience of ‘we-ness’ that contribute to resilience in intimate relationships. The pervasive challenge throughout this discussion is to make more intelligible the abstract concept of the ‘we,’ which is as elusive as it is profound and powerful. Based on the assumption that language and communication are fundamental to the couple’s co-constructed identity and life world, two different bodies of literature are reviewed: One linguistic, emphasizing couple pronoun usage, and the other storied, emphasizing partners’ co-construction of shared meaning and narrative. Whereas the former is referential of the ‘we,’ the latter is expressive of it. Both frameworks, I argue, have substantive implications for resilient adaptation in couples. Intersubjectivity theory and dialogic dialectics form the basis for this discussion. Other relevant concepts reviewed include the roles of collective identity, self-other identity formation and maintenance, mutual attunement and responsiveness, and empathy in fostering couple resilience. Although verbal expression is noted as a very fruitful entry point for ‘locating the we,’ its limitations and specifically the omission of both the embodied and intangible aspects of couple experience (and their relationship to couple adaptation) are acknowledged.

Keywords

Couples Relationships Intersubjectivity Resilience Coping Adaptation We-ness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank dear colleagues Brain Doan, Karen Skerrett, and Kim Watson for their helpful review and feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter.

References

  1. Acitelli, L. K. (1993). You, me and us: Perspectives on relationship awareness. In S. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 144–174). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alea, N., Singer, J., & Labunko-Messier, B. (2015). “We-ness” in relationship defining memories. In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 163–177). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Alea, N., & Vick, S. C. (2010). The first sight of love: Relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction across adulthood. Memory, 18, 730–742.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonovsky, A., & Sourani, T. (1988). Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as an expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  7. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson, B. J. (2013). Mindfulness training and the cultivation of secure, satisfying couple relationships. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson, B. (2015). Relationships and the neurobiology of resilience. In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 107–120). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., Kashy, D. A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T. A. (2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29, 169–180.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnes, S., Brown, K., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 482–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Baxter, L. A. (1987a). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship cultures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baxter, L. A. (1987b). Cognition and communication in the relationship process. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 192–212). New York: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baxter, L. A. (1993). The social side of personal relationships: A dialectical analysis. In S. Duck (Ed.), Social context and relationships (pp. 139–165). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (2000). Rethinking communication in personal relationships from a dialectical perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 31–53). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Berg, C. A., Wiebe, D. J., Butner, J., Bloor, L., Bradstreet, C., Upchurch, R., et al. (2008). Collaborative coping and daily mood in couples dealing with prostate cancer. Psychology and Aging, 23, 505–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of social reality. Diogenes, 46, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Aronson.Google Scholar
  22. Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
  23. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burnett, R. (1987). Reflection in personal relationships. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 74–93). New York: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  25. Burpee, L. C., & Langer, E. J. (2005). Mindfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Adult Development, 12(1), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health and Illness, 4, 167–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Carrere, S., Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., Coan, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 42–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglasnki, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 232–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. De La Ronde, C., & Swann, W. B. (1998). Partner verification: Restoring shattered images of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 374–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 165–191). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fergus, K. D. (2011). The rupture and repair of the couple’s communal body with prostate cancer. Families, Systems & Health, 29, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fergus, K. D., & Reid, D. W. (2001). The couple’s mutual identity and reflexivity: A systemic-constructivist approach to the integration of persons and systems. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 11, 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fishbane, M. D. (2011). Facilitating relational empowerment in couple therapy. Family Process, 50, 337–352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gergen, K. (1987). Toward self as relationship. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 53–63). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Glickhauf-Hughes, C., Wells, M., & Chance, S. (1996). Techniques for strengthening clients’ observing ego. Psychotherapy, 33, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  40. Harvey, J. H., Pauwels, B. G., & Zickmund, S. (2005). Relationship connection: The role of minding in the enhancement of closeness. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 423–433). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hermans, H. J., Kempen, H. J., & Van Loon, R. J. (1992). The dialogical self: Beyond individualism and rationalism. American Psychologist, 47, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Husserl, E. (1960). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairnes, Trans.). The Hague: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  44. Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 219–250). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. James, W. (1950/1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  46. Josselson, R. (1994). Identity and relatedness in the life cycle. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. Graafsma, H. D. Groterant, & D. J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 81–102). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Karpel, M. (1976). Individuation: From fusion to dialogue. Family Process, 15, 65–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kayser, K., Watson, L., & Andrade, J. (2007). Cancer as a “We-disease”: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems & Health, 25, 404–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kozlowski, A. (2012). Mindful mating: Exploring the connection between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28(1–2), 92–104.Google Scholar
  50. Kuijer, R. G., Buunk, B. P., & Ybema, J. F. (2001). Are equity concerns important in the intimate relationship when one partner of a couple has cancer? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lepore, S., & Revenson, T. (2006). Resilience and post-traumatic growth: Recovery, resistance and reconfiguration. In L. Calhoun & R. Tedeschi (Eds.), Handbook of post-traumatic growth: Research and practice (pp. 24–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maines, D. R., & Bridger, J. C. (1992). Narratives, community and land use decisions. The Social Science Journal, 29, 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy & life story: Personological inquiries into identity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self & society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1998). Dialogism and relational dialectics. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 155–183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Neff, L. A., & Broady, E. F. (2011). Stress resilience in early marriage: Can practice make perfect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1050–1067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship events: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 435–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity: Reconciling the erotic and the domestic. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  62. Reid, D. W., & Ahmad, S. (2015). Identification with the relationship as essential to marital resilience: Theory, applications and evidence. In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 139–161). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. Reid, D. W., Dalton, E. J., Laderoute, K., Doell, F. K., & Nguyen, T. (2006). Therapeutically induced changes in couple identity: The role of we-ness and interpersonal processing in relationship satisfaction. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 241–284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Reis, H. T. (2013). Relationship well-being: The central role of perceived partner responsiveness. In C. Hazan & M. I. Campa (Eds.), Human bonding (pp. 283–307). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  65. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Rentscher, K. E., Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Asymmetric partner pronoun use and demand–withdraw interaction in couples coping with health problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 691–701.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 307–321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Robbins, M. L., Mehl, M. R., Smith, H. L., & Weihs, K. L. (2013). Linguistic indicators of patient, couple, and family adjustment following breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 1501–1508.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rohrbaugh, M. J., Mehl, M. R., Shoham, V., Reilly, E. S., & Ewy, G. A. (2008). Prognostic significance of spouse we talk in couples coping with heart failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 781–789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-compromised smokers. Family Process, 51, 107–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., Foster, C. A., & Witcher, B. S. (1999). Commitment and trust in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and stability (pp. 427–449). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sarbin, T. R. (Ed.). (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  73. Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24, 604–613.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Sillars, A., Shellen, W., McIntosh, A., & Pomegranate, M. (1997). Relational characteristics of language: Elaboration and differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Simmons, R. A., Gordon, P. G., & Chambless, D. C. (2005). Pronoun use in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health. Psychological Science, 16, 932–936.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Singer, J., Alea, N., Labunko-Messier, B., & Baddeley, J. (2015). Mutuality and the marital engagement-type of union scale (me to us): Empirical support for a clinical instrument in couple therapy. In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 123–137). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered self: Emotion and memory in personality. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.Google Scholar
  78. Skerrett, K. (1998). Couple adjustment to the experience of breast cancer. Families, Systems & Health, 16, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Skerrett, K. (2015). Resilience in couples: A view of the landscape. In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience: Emerging perspectives (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Skowron, E. A. (2000). The role of differentiation of self in marital adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Slatcher, R. B., Vazire, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Spence, D. (1986). Narrative smoothing and clinical wisdom. In T. R. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (pp. 211–232). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  83. Stolorow, R. D. (1994). The intersubjective context of intrapsychic experience. In R. D. Stolorow, G. E. Atwood, & B. Brandchaft (Eds.), The intersubjective perspective (pp. 3–14). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
  84. Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E., & Brandchaft, B. (1994). The intersubjective perspective. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
  85. van Nes, F., Runge, U., & Jonsson, H. (2009). One body, three hands and two minds: A case study of the intertwined occupations of an older couple after a stroke. Journal of Occupational Science, 16, 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejks & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mindfulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 464–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35, 261–281.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: Strengths forged through adversity. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family process (pp. 399–423). New York: The Guilford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  91. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  93. Widdershoven, G. A. M. (1994). Identity and development: A narrative perspective. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. Graafsma, H. D. Groterant, & D. J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 103–195). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  94. Wile, D. (2002). Collaborative couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 91–120). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  95. Williams-Baucom, K. J., Atkins, D. C., Sevier, M., Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2010). “You” and “I” need to talk about “us”: Linguistic patterns in marital interactions. Personal Relationships, 17, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Odette Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations