Having defi ned the essential elements of the “We” and laid out the fun- damentals of the role of stories in individuals’ and couples’ lives, we now turn to the fi rst step in a “We”-oriented therapy. Once the couple has agreed to work on their relationship and made an initial commitment of 12 focused sessions, we then conduct an assessment of each indi- vidual and the couple as a whole. For each partner’s individual history, we use a standard genogram (McGoldrick, Gerson, & Petry, 2008), but we have developed our own unique instrument to track the degree of We-ness that the couple displays in their daily interactions and shared communications.
Over the years we have found the best way that we could help partners explore their current attention to the “We” was by asking them about the major life domains that they typically share as a couple. We would ask them what arrangements they had created for a particular domain (e.g., fi nances, domestic chores, work lives, childcare) and then explore how effectively they worked together or came to decisions regarding each responsibility.
Eventually, these questions evolved into a brief scale that we called the Marital Engagement–Type of Union Scale or the ME (To US) (Singer &
Labunko, 2005; see Figure 3.1 ).
The ME (To US) is a 10-item scale to be fi lled out separately by each partner in a marriage or long-term partnership. They are told to bring the scale home with them, fi ll it out, and return it in the next session without sharing their answers with their partner. The therapist collects the two completed scales from the partners and then takes some time to analyze the results before discussing them with the couple.
Looking back over the last six months of the relationship, each partner is asked to consider the degree of mutuality and communication they have achieved in the following life domains: (1) domestic duties, (2) time commitments, (3) fi nancial matters, (4) child-rearing or the decision to have or not have children, (5) sexual intimacy, (6) independent activi- ties, (7) communication of fears and vulnerabilities, (8) shared activities and conversation, (9) interactions with in-laws, and (10) future planning.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
Marital Engagement—Type of Union Scale
This scale should be fi lled 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 specifi c instances. Please fi ll 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 share and discuss all fi nancial resources and decisions (e.g. joint check- ing, big ticket purchases, shared mortgage, pooled investment, mutual benefi ciaries, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4) We discuss, reach agreement, and present a unifi ed front about child-rearing deci- sions (e.g., discipline, privileges, academic goals, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( NOTE: If you have no children, then answer this question, using the same rating scale below item 4: We have discussed and are in agreement about our current stance toward having children.)
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 minutes 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.).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
A S S E S S I N G T H E “ W E ” I N T H E R A P Y
As the items on the scale make clear, the emphasis in the ME (To US) is on the degree of discussion that couples engage in as they navigate the diffi cult arenas of a committed life. Almost every item on the scale begins with the phrase, “We discuss . . .” The underlying assumption is that We-ness is cultivated through ongoing dialogue, “checking in,” and careful efforts at building consensus. Consensus does not always mean compromise or fi nding a middle ground, but it does mean that both parties feel listened to and that they have each agreed to the ensuing course of action (even when it may not be one or the other partner’s per- sonal preference). We-ness need not always be equated to relationship satisfaction or happiness; it is more importantly a measure of how much the couple feels a sense of mutual respect, trust, and validation in the relationship. A couple might be struggling with the disruptive behavior of a meddling in-law; such badgering may cause distress in the couple but in their united front in the face of these intrusions, they are strong in We-ness.
In an initial study of the ME (To US), we looked at the ME (To US) scores of 289 married individuals (Singer, Labunko, Alea, & Baddeley, in press). This was a community sample with a mean age of 47.19 years and who had been married, on average, 20.44 years; 86% of the sample had children. In addition to fi lling out the ME (To US), participants rated their marital satisfaction, emotional quality of their marriage, physical health, and the health of their spouse. Although the participants’ ME (To US) score was strongly linked to both marital satisfaction and the positive quality of the marriage, it ended up being the best predictor of female partners’ self-reported health, outperforming the measures of marital satisfaction.
In a second study with 36 married couples from the New London, Con- necticut, community, we found an even more powerful result (Singer et al., in press). The strongest predictor of the wife ’s self-reported health com- plaints was the gap between her item ratings on the ME (To US) and her husband’s ratings. We examined this gap by subtracting the difference in scores on each item between the husband and wife. If the husband’s rat- ing of We-ness was higher than his wife’s rating, we gave this difference a positive sign, and if the wife was higher in her rating than her partner, we assigned a negative value; we then summed the score for the total items. In other words, the more the husband claimed a sense of We-ness and the less the wife did, the larger the overall discrepancy score. It was this gap that correlated strongly and signifi cantly with the wife’s overall health complaints. Put in more positive terms, the more that the wife’s perception of the couple’s mutuality matched her husband’s view, the better health she reported. The connection between the wife’s health status and distress in the marriage is one that has been found before in research on marriage (McCabe, Cummins, & Romeo, 1996), but our
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
A S S E S S I N G T H E “ W E ” I N T H E R A P Y
work is the fi rst study to fi nd this link between health complaints and a more objective measure of the degree of We-ness that exists between the two partners. In addition to these health fi ndings, we were able to repeat our earlier results showing a strong link between the couple’s sense of We-ness (or lack thereof) and their overall satisfaction and feelings of good will in the marriage. The results of the two studies together con- fi rmed what we have seen for years in our clinical work. Couples who dis- cuss the important decisions of their lives and who structure their time and activities with their relationship in mind have happier marriages, less stress, and healthier lives.
Based on these two studies and other data collected through our courses on couple therapy, we have found that couples who are feeling positively about their relationship tend to score in the 50s or 60s on the ME (To US), meaning that their average response to an item is a 5 or 6, indicating a strong sense of We-ness. Once we have looked over the totals and indi- vidual item scores for each partner, we then devote a session to the discus- sion of the fi ndings. Feedback can come in several forms. The therapist can tell them how their overall totals relate to couples that are not in dis- tress and have developed a reasonably strong “We.” This provides a rough measure of what they might aspire to achieve in building a stronger “We.”
Perhaps, more importantly, the therapist refl ects on the items that are low for both partners, high for both partners, and where there are discrepan- cies (one partner high, the other low; one partner low, the other high).
We have found that discrepancies larger than 2 points on the rating scale (e.g., 1 vs. 4; 2 vs. 5; 3 vs. 6, etc.) are often valuable to discuss.
To get a better sense of how the ME (To US) works, let’s look at one specifi c couple and the respective responses of each partner.
Will and Katie Owens
Will and Katie Owens had been married 17 years and were both in their early 40s. They had teen-aged twins, a boy and a girl, and lived in a reno- vated farmhouse in a picturesque Connecticut town. Will owned a highly successful landscaping and nursery business, and Katie was a former executive secretary, who left her career to raise the twins. Will was tall, lean, and tanned. Katie also glowed with a healthy tan, and her reddish shoulder-length hair framed a bright white smile. She was petite and fi t, giving no sign of early middle age. With their good looks, short-sleeved shirts, and khaki shorts, you could imagine that they had been clipped from a J. Crew catalogue.
Despite their country club appearance, there was warmth and a lack of pretense in their manner. The more we talked, the more I (JAS) liked them. They had a sense of humor, and they appeared very respectful to
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
A S S E S S I N G T H E “ W E ” I N T H E R A P Y
They even found a way to ask me a few questions about my work and what it was like to see couples. They seemed genuinely interested in my replies. I imagined that they would be ideal companions at a barbeque or chatting on the sidelines while our daughters played a soccer game.
Why were they so miserable? Katie spoke fi rst and blamed it all on their boat. Will had loved working on boats ever since he was a boy. Now he had bought a large one, 52 feet, and it was both a money and time pit.
He was either at work or at the boatyard. Will said that he knew that the time away was bothering her, but it had been a big investment, and they couldn’t let it fall into disrepair. He said that she had agreed to let him get the boat. She said that he only told her after he had decided to get it.
Although they were talking about a physical object, their anger reached a rapid boil and was barely suppressed. In fact, it bordered on a genuine hatred, and it seemed to go way beyond the dispute over the boat. Just as suddenly as they fl ared up, they both fell silent and sank back in their chairs, looking everywhere but at each other. They seemed exhausted and slightly embarrassed by this outburst.
I asked them their goals for the therapy; they both stated that they did not want the marriage to end, but they knew that they could not go on like this. Will pointed out that there was little love left in the relationship, and it was clear that he wanted me to understand that they were not hav- ing much physical intimacy. Even with her faith and her responsibility to their children, Katie admitted that she was at the end of her rope.
She felt locked out of the decisions Will made about his business, their fi nances, and the way he spent his time. When I asked about fun or time together, they said that this kind of together time had dwindled over the last few years. They still kept the house and family functioning effectively, but they felt like they were drifting more and more apart. If necessary, they could persevere in parallel worlds until the twins were out of the house, but the fi ghts and arguments had been escalating.
Measuring Will’s and Katie’s We-ness
Will and Katie fi lled out the ME (To US) separately and then brought in their scores on their next visit. Figure 3.2 shows Katie’s responses and Figure 3.3 shows Will’s answers. The fi rst thing to notice is that if you look at each of their total scores (Katie’s was a 32 and Will’s was a 48), both of these scores are below those of more positive couples who feel connected to each other. Just as important, there is a large gap between their two totals, which means that Katie saw a lot less mutuality in their relationship than Will did. It is not surprising then that one of her per- sisting diffi culties was that she had trouble sleeping at night. In the previously mentioned study of 36 couples (Singer et al., in press), we also found that wives who showed larger gaps between their scores and their husbands’ scores on the ME (To US) showed higher levels of sleep
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
Marital Engagement—Type of Union Scale
This scale should be fi lled 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 specifi c instances.
Please fi ll 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 share and discuss all fi nancial resources and decisions (e.g. joint checking, big ticket purchases, shared mortgage, pooled investment, mutual benefi ciaries, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4) We discuss, reach agreement, and present a unifi ed front about child-rearing deci- sions (e.g., discipline, privileges, academic goals, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( NOTE: If you have no children, then answer this question, using the same rating scale below item 4: We have discussed and are in agreement about our current stance toward having children.)
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 minutes 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
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
Figure 3.3. Will’s ME (To US)
Marital Engagement—Type of Union Scale
This scale should be fi lled 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 specifi c instances.
Please fi ll 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 share and discuss all fi nancial resources and decisions (e.g. joint checking, big ticket purchases, shared mortgage, pooled investment, mutual benefi ciaries, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4) We discuss, reach agreement, and present a unifi ed front about child-rearing deci- sions (e.g., discipline, privileges, academic goals, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( NOTE: If you have no children, then answer this question, using the same rating scale below item 4: We have discussed and are in agreement about our current stance toward having children.)
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 minutes 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
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:21 15 August 2016
A S S E S S I N G T H E “ W E ” I N T H E R A P Y
disturbance. The strong difference in Will’s and Katie’s sense of We-ness tells us that they were indeed feeling separate, alienated, and frustrated in their communication. Given how low Katie’s score is, the experience of disconnection was most profound for her.
Unpacking Will’s and Katie’s Problems With We-ness Let us now look more closely at each of the individual items from the ME (To US). Examining individual items can tell us both about areas of the relationship where Will and Katie were succeeding in We-ness as well as the points where they radically diverged. Looking at the fi rst item,
“Domestic Chores,” we can see that they were both pretty comfortable with how they handled the division of labor around the house. When talking about this part of their marriage, Katie felt that the household tasks were shared fairly, given that she was a stay-at-home mom and that Will worked full-time. They had a rather traditional arrangement in which she took care of everything inside the house and Will handled the outside along with general repairs. They both liked to garden and each was handy with a paintbrush. Katie complimented Will for his willingness to ferry the twins around town and get them to various athletic and social commitments. Will was also the “King of Home Depot” and very helpful in running errands or getting the extra item on the way home from work.
Their discussion of this fi rst item set a trend that we found very impor- tant in our subsequent work with Katie and Will. In many respects, this couple was an effective partnership. They kept their beautiful home in tip-top shape and made sure their children’s lives were structured, stable, and enriched. They agreed on décor, adored their dogs, and shared the same vacation preference (low-key Caribbean trips). Skipping down to item 4, “Child-Rearing,” we see the same strong pattern of agreement—
both put 6s. Will’s constant refrain in discussing this item was that their kids could not have a better mother. He talked with pride about Katie’s attentiveness to their needs, but also how she set good expectations for them. She was involved in their lives without spoiling or coddling them.
Katie also felt that Will was very good with the twins and that each child relished the time spent with their dad. Her only regret was that Will’s long work hours and time spent on fi xing the boat was not allowing him enough opportunities to hang out with them.
There was also a good sense of unity in their replies to item 8, “Time Together.” Unlike some couples who have not gone out on a date since their children were born or who seem to have no activity or hobby in com- mon, Will and Katie still found time to do things together. They could watch a TV show, go out to dinner, take a walk with the dogs, or even play a little golf together. Their ability to spend time with each other and the