Adaptation and Validation of the We-ness Questionnaire in a Turkish Sample

Abstract

We-ness refers to a feeling of unity between partners, and a mental representation of the relationship as a shared identity. Despite its relevance, research on understanding partners’ sense of we-ness is limited in collectivist cultures such as Turkey. A psychometrically sound measure of we-ness is needed to increase research on we-ness. Hence, this study aimed to examine the basic psychometrics of the We-ness Questionnaire. Two hundred and nineteen married individuals participated in this study and completed the Turkish version of the We-ness Questionnaire along with the Turkish version of the Couple Satisfaction Index, Self-developmental Orientation Subscale, and Inter-relational Orientation Subscale of the Balanced Integration and Differentiation Scale. The one-factor structure of the We-ness Questionnaire was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis. Adequate convergent and discriminant validity besides satisfactory internal consistency results were achieved as a result of these analyses. Based on the preliminary investigation, the Turkish We-ness Questionnaire proved to be a promising measure of we-ness in Turkish married individuals. As such, the findings of this study were discussed regarding the previous literature, limitations were pointed out, and suggestions for future research were given.

Keywords

• we-ness
• couple satisfaction
• self-developmental orientation
• inter-relational orientation
• scale adaptation

References

1. Acitelli, L. K., Rogers, S., & Knee, C. R. (1999). The role of identity in the link between relationship thinking and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(5), 591–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599165003
2. Agnew, C. R., & Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence considering self-in- relationship. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 274–293). Guilford Press
3. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939
4. Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). IBM SPSS Amos 21 Users Guide [Computer software and manual]. IBM.
5. Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203.
6. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance in marital functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33– 49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002
7. Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Test manual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Huber & Hogrefe.
8. Bodenmann, G., Randall, A. K., & Falconier, M. K. (2016). Coping in couples: The Systemic Transactional Model (STM). In M. K. Falconier, A. K. Randall, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 5–22). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group

9. 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(3-4), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295
10. Cukur, C. S., de Guzman, M. R. T., & Carlo, G. (2004). Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism: A Study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(6), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.6.613-634
11. Cutrona, C. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Sage.
12. Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002
13. 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(3), 385–410 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016658301629
14. Field, A. P. (2005). Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population correlations vary? Psychological Methods, 10(4), 444
15. Gildersleeve, S. (2015). Capturing the “we-ness” of happy couples through narrative analysis. Connecticut College.
16. Gildersleeve, S., Singer, J. A., Skerrett, K., & Shelter, W. (2017). Coding “We-ness” in couple’s relationship stories: A method for assessing mutuality in couple therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 27(3), 313-325 https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1262566
17. Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples. W. W. Norton & Company.
18. Güler, A. (2004). Relationship between self-construals and future time orientations. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
19. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1–16.
20. Hocker, L., Topcu-Uzer, C, Gandhi, Y., Isolani, S., Chiarolanza, C. & Randall, A. K. (2022). English validation of the Chronic and Acute Stress Inventory for use with individuals in a romantic relationship. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2022.2058141
21. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
22. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
23. İmamoğlu, E. O. (1998). Individualism and collectivism in a model and scale of balanced differentiation and integration. Journal of Psychology, 132(1), 95-105, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599268
24. İmamoğlu, E. O. (2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing, but distinct and complementary. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129(4), 367-402.
25. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959
26. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. Erlbaum.
27. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.
28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford.
29. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
30. Meier, T., Milek, A., Mehl, M. R., Nussbeck, F. W, Neysari, M., Bodenmann, G., Martin, M., Zemp, M., & Horn, A. (2021). I blame you, I hear you: Couples’ pronoun use in conflict and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 38(11), 3265–3287. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211029721
31. Ozdemir, Y., & Sagkal, A. S. (2021). The Couples Satisfaction Index: Turkish Adaptation, Validation, and Reliability Study. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 19, 273-286. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.854797
32. Panayiotou, G. (2005). Love, commitment, and response to conflict among Cypriot dating couples: Two models, one relationship. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 108-117.
33. Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 96–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010
34. 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(3), 241–284. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.3.241-288
35. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
36. 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(3), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016950
37. Singer, J. A., Labunko, B., Alea, N., & Baddeley, J. L. (2015). Mutuality and Marital Engagement – Type of Union Scale [ME (To US)]: Empirical support for a clinical instrument in couples therapy. In K. Skerrett & K. Fergus (Eds.), Couple resilience (pp. 108–119). Springer.
38. Skerrett, K. (2003). Couple dialogues with illness: Expanding the 'we'. Families, Systems, & Health, 21(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089503
39. Terzino, K. A., & Cross, S. E. (2009). Predicting Commitment in New Relationships: Interactive Effects of Relational Self-construal and Power. Self & Identity, 8(4), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802102273
40. Topcu-Uzer, C., Randall, A. K., Vedes, A. M., Reid, D. & Bodenmann, G. (2020). We-ness Questionnaire: Development and validation. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 20(3), 256-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2020.1805082
41. Whitton, S. W., & Kuryluk, A. D. (2012). Relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms in emerging adults: cross-sectional associations and moderating effects of relationship characteristics. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(2), 226.