Abstract
This chapter provides initial psychometric support for a clinical instrument that measures mutuality in couples. The Mutuality and the Marital Engagement – Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)] is a 10-item inventory that assesses relationship mutuality in multiple domains, including domestic chores, finances, childrearing, sexual intimacy, and relations with in-laws. Study 1 examined the reliability and predictive validity of the ME (To US) in relation to marital quality and satisfaction, as well as health complaints. Study 2 replicated these findings and looked at discrepancies in mutuality in couples as predictors of satisfaction and self-reported physical health. Implications for the clinical application of the ME (To US) are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Acitelli, L. K. (1988). When spouses talk to each other about their relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 185–199.
Acitelli, L. K. (1993). You, me and us: Perspectives on relationship awareness. In S. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes: Individuals in relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 144–174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.
Baddeley, J. L., Singer, J. A., & Berry, M. (2013) Mutuality and marital adjustment, wellbeing, and health in military couples. The Military Psychologist 28(3), 19–25.
Berkman, L. F., & Breslow, L. (1983). Health and ways of living: The Alameda county study. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285.
Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489–502.
Genero, N. P., Miller, J. B., Surrey, J., & Baldwin, L. M. (1992a). Measuring perceived mutuality in close relationships: Validation of the mutual psychological development questionnaire. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 36–48.
Genero, N. P., Miller, J. B., & Surrey, J. (1992b). The mutual psychological development questionnaire (Research Project Rep. No. 1). Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Gurman, A. S., & Fraenkel, P. (2002). The history of couple therapy: A millennial review. Family Process, 41, 199–260.
Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1997). Minding the close relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 224–240.
Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1999). Minding the close relationship: A theory of relationship enhancement. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1987). Passionate love: New directions in research. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 109–139). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392–402.
Hess, B., & Soldo, B. (1985). Husband and wife networks. In W. J. Sauer & R. T. Coward (Eds.), Social support networks and the care of the elderly: Theory, research and practice (pp. 67–92). New York: Springer.
Jordan, J. V. (1991). The meaning of mutuality. In J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center (pp. 81–96). New York: Guilford Press.
Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press.
Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503.
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 2, 301–313.
Maddox, G. L. (1962). Some correlates of differences in self-assessment of health status among the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 17, 180–185.
Meyer, J. P., & Pepper, S. (1977). Need compatibility and marital adjustment in young married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 331–342.
Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon.
Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. S., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230.
Ogden, T. H. (2004). The analytic third: Implications for psychoanalytic theory and technique. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73, 167–195.
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.
Sarnoff, I., & Sarnoff, S. (1989). Love-centered marriage in a self-centered world. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.
Schat, A. C. H., Kelloway, E. K., & Desmarais, S. (2005). The physical health questionnaire (PHQ): Construct validation of a self-report scale of somatic symptoms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 363–381.
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L., Hatch, R., Obiorah, F., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., et al. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381–387.
Sharpe, S. A. (2000). The ways we love: A developmental approach to treating couples. New York: The Guilford Press.
Shem, S., & Surrey, J. (1998). We have to talk: Healing dialogues between women and men. New York: Basic Books.
Sheras, P. L., & Koch-Sheras, P. R. (2006). Couple power therapy: Building commitment, cooperation, communication, and community in relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Singer, J. A. (2004). A love story: Self-defining memories in couples therapy. In A. Lieblich, D. P. McAdams, & R. Josselson (Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 189–208). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Singer, J. A., & Labunko Messier, B. (2005). Marital engagement-type of union scale. New London, CT: Department of Psychology, Connecticut College.
Singer, J. A., & Skerrett, K. (2014). Positive couple therapy: Using ‘we’ stories to enhance resilience. New York: Routledge.
Skerrett, K. (1996). From isolation to mutuality: A feminist collaborative model for couples therapy. Women & Therapy, 19, 93–106.
Skerrett, K. (2003). Couple dialogues with illness: Expanding the “we”. Families, Systems & Health, 21, 69–80.
Skerrett, K. (2013). Resilient relationships: Cultivating the healing potential of couple stories. In J. Jordan & J. Carlson (Eds.), Creating connection: A relational-cultural approach with couples (pp. 45–60). New York: Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Triangulating love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. J. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
ME (To US)
Marital Engagement: Type of Union Scale
This scale should be filled out by each partner separately. Try to rate each item with your most honest and realistic answer. Do not answer how you wish the relationship could be, or how it has been at previous times, but how it has been within the last 6 months. Each item asks you to make a generalization, so do your best to think in overall terms from the last 6 months rather than about one or two specific instances. Please fill out all items and use the 1–7 rating scale provided below. Please circle the numerical rating that best applies to each item.
1=not at all, | 4=somewhat, | 7=very much. |
-
(1)
We discuss domestic chores and make a fair division of duties.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(2)
We discuss and agree on major time commitments before making them (e.g., work schedules, business trips, social events, appointments, separate outings with friends, etc.).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(3)
We openly discuss and agree on all financial resources and decisions (e.g. joint checking, big ticket purchases, shared mortgage, pooled investment, mutual beneficiaries, etc.).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
**IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 4. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 4A.
-
(4)
We discuss, reach agreement, and present a unified front about child-rearing decisions (e.g., discipline, privileges, academic goals, etc.).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(4A)
We have discussed and are in agreement about our current stance toward having children.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(5)
We communicate about and share a mutually satisfying sexual relationship.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(6)
We have achieved a balance between pursuing recreational activities together and also giving each other space to pursue independent activities.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(7)
We communicate about our deepest fears and vulnerabilities to each other.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(8)
We regularly (i.e., at least once a week) set aside time of 30 min or more that is exclusively for us as a couple, to talk, share an activity, or simply hang out together.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(9)
We discuss and continue to develop plans for how our life together might be over the next 10 years and beyond.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
-
(10)
We discuss and reach agreement about how to relate to and interact with extended family (e.g., in-laws, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Singer, J.A., Labunko, B., Alea, N., Baddeley, J.L. (2015). Mutuality and the Marital Engagement – Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)]: Empirical Support for a Clinical Instrument in Couples Therapy. In: Skerrett, K., Fergus, K. (eds) Couple Resilience. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9909-6_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9908-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9909-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)