Advertisement

Mutuality and the Marital Engagement – Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)]: Empirical Support for a Clinical Instrument in Couples Therapy

  • Jefferson A. SingerEmail author
  • Beata Labunko
  • Nicole Alea
  • Jenna L. Baddeley
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Mutuality Assessment Psychometric Relationship Couples 

References

  1. Acitelli, L. K. (1988). When spouses talk to each other about their relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of the self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Berkman, L. F., & Breslow, L. (1983). Health and ways of living: The Alameda county study. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gurman, A. S., & Fraenkel, P. (2002). The history of couple therapy: A millennial review. Family Process, 41, 199–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1997). Minding the close relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 224–240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey, J. H., & Omarzu, J. (1999). Minding the close relationship: A theory of relationship enhancement. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 2, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maddox, G. L. (1962). Some correlates of differences in self-assessment of health status among the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 17, 180–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, J. P., & Pepper, S. (1977). Need compatibility and marital adjustment in young married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 331–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  30. Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. S., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ogden, T. H. (2004). The analytic third: Implications for psychoanalytic theory and technique. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73, 167–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Sarnoff, I., & Sarnoff, S. (1989). Love-centered marriage in a self-centered world. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharpe, S. A. (2000). The ways we love: A developmental approach to treating couples. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shem, S., & Surrey, J. (1998). We have to talk: Healing dialogues between women and men. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Sheras, P. L., & Koch-Sheras, P. R. (2006). Couple power therapy: Building commitment, cooperation, communication, and community in relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer, J. A., & Labunko Messier, B. (2005). Marital engagement-type of union scale. New London, CT: Department of Psychology, Connecticut College.Google Scholar
  41. Singer, J. A., & Skerrett, K. (2014). Positive couple therapy: Using ‘we’ stories to enhance resilience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Skerrett, K. (1996). From isolation to mutuality: A feminist collaborative model for couples therapy. Women & Therapy, 19, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skerrett, K. (2003). Couple dialogues with illness: Expanding the “we”. Families, Systems & Health, 21, 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Triangulating love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. J. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jefferson A. Singer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Beata Labunko
    • 2
  • Nicole Alea
    • 3
  • Jenna L. Baddeley
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyConnecticut CollegeNew LondonUSA
  2. 2.Clifford Beers Guidance ClinicNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Social SciencesThe University of the West IndiesSt. AugustineTrinidad & Tobago
  4. 4.The Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical CenterCharlestonUSA
  5. 5.Medical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations