Relational Ethics Scale (RES)

Abstract

The Relational Ethics Scale (RES) is a 24-item psychometric instrument developed to measure the core dimensions of ethical balance within both the individual’s family of origin and their current intimate relationships. Rooted in Contextual Therapy theory, particularly the work of Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, the scale assesses six distinct factors related to trust, justice, loyalty, and entitlement across vertical (intergenerational) and horizontal (peer) relational planes. The RES provides researchers and clinicians with a quantitative measure of the ethical ledger, offering insights into how perceived fairness and reciprocity influence emotional well-being and relational dynamics.

Keywords

Relational Ethics, Contextual Therapy, Family of Origin, Trust, Loyalty, Entitlement, Marital Therapy, Psychological Scale, Reciprocity.

Authors

Hargrave, T.D., Jennings, G., Anderson, W.T.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Relational Ethics Scale (RES) is to operationalize and quantify the complex ethical dynamics that permeate close interpersonal relationships. It is designed specifically to differentiate between the historical ethical patterns inherited from the family structure (vertical relationships) and the actively negotiated ethical balances in current adult partnerships (horizontal relationships).

By assessing dimensions such as perceived fairness, accountability, and the sense of indebtedness or entitlement, the RES serves as a diagnostic and research tool in family therapy and couples counseling. It helps identify areas where relational ledgers may be imbalanced, leading to emotional distress or conflict within the system.

The original instrument is available online for review: https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=56251a765dbbbde7798b4599&assetKey=AS%3A286306438533125%401445272182391

Construct

The RES measures the psychological construct of Relational Ethics, a central tenet of Contextual Therapy. This construct posits that relationships are governed by a dynamic, often unspoken, balance of justice, loyalty, and entitlement. Ethical dimensions are divided into two fundamental axes:

• Vertical Ethics: Pertains to the intergenerational relationship, primarily the ethical dynamics within the family of origin (e.g., trust in parents, loyalty to the family system).
• Horizontal Ethics: Pertains to current peer-level intimate relationships, such as marriage or partnership (e.g., trust in spouse, reciprocal fairness).

The scale further delineates these axes into six measurable subscales:

• Vertical Trust and Justice: Reflects the perceived fairness and reliability of the family of origin.
• Vertical Loyalty: Measures the commitment and allegiance felt toward the family of origin.
• Vertical Entitlement: Assesses the belief regarding what one is owed or has earned from the family system.
• Horizontal Trust: Measures the perceived reliability and fairness in the current intimate relationship.
• Horizontal Loyalty: Reflects the commitment and devotion within the current intimate relationship.
• Horizontal Entitlement: Assesses the perceived balance of giving and taking, and the sense of what one deserves in the current partnership.

Validity

The validity of the Relational Ethics Scale has been explored through developmental studies and subsequent validation efforts. Initial development sought to ensure that the items accurately represented the theoretical dimensions proposed by Contextual Therapy. A key validation study (Hargrave & Bomba, 1993) provided evidence for the scale’s construct validity, demonstrating that the six hypothesized factors are statistically distinct and align with the theoretical structure of vertical versus horizontal ethical dynamics.

Further research has supported the RES’s utility in clinical populations, showing correlations between scores on the ethical subscales and measures of relational satisfaction and psychological distress. The differentiation between the vertical and horizontal dimensions is particularly important, validating the scale’s ability to measure the unique impact of intergenerational relationships on current adult functioning.

Reliability

While specific internal consistency coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) are detailed in the original development and validation studies, the RES has generally demonstrated acceptable to good reliability across its six subscales. The items within each factor consistently measure the intended ethical construct, suggesting internal homogeneity. Researchers typically use the RES in its entirety or focus on specific subscales relevant to their study population, with reliability being a crucial consideration in its application in clinical research settings.

Factor Analysis

The scale was explicitly developed based on a six-factor structure derived from the theoretical model of Relational Ethics. Factor analysis confirmed the presence of these six hypothesized dimensions: three relating to the vertical axis (family of origin) and three relating to the horizontal axis (current intimate relationship). This structure effectively captures the distinct components of trust/justice, loyalty, and entitlement within each relational context.

The factor structure supports the central premise that ethical dynamics experienced in one’s childhood relationships (vertical) operate somewhat independently from those negotiated in current adult partnerships (horizontal), though both contribute significantly to overall relational health.

Instrument

Test Type:

Self-report inventory measuring ethical perceptions in relationships.

Format:

24 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available:

English (original development language).

Population Group:

Adults engaged in significant family or intimate relationships.

Age Group:

Adult.

Population Details:

Respondents rate items 1-12 based on their family of origin. Items 13-24 are rated based on their closest adult relationship (spouse, partner, or closest non-parent/child relationship).

Test Methodology:

Respondents use a 5-point scale where 5 = STRONGLY AGREE and 1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement.

Keywords

Psychological Measurement, Contextual Family Therapy, Interpersonal Trust, Relational Ethics, Justice, Loyalty, Entitlement, Marital Satisfaction, Family Dynamics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses:

Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address:

Correspondence should be directed to the primary author, T. D. Hargrave, regarding his academic affiliation at the time of publication.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relational Ethics Scale (RES) was first developed and published in 1991. While the scale is frequently cited and used in academic settings, users seeking official permission for large-scale clinical use or commercial purposes should contact the authors or the journal publisher, the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. The instrument is generally considered available for non-commercial research use upon proper citation.

Reference’s

• Hargrave, T.D., Jennings, G. & Anderson, W.T. (1991). The development of a relational ethics scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17(2), 311-320.

• Hargrave, T. D. & Bomba, A. K. (1993). Further validation of the relational ethics scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19, 292-299.

• Hargrave, T. D. (2000). The essential humility of marriage: Honoring the third identity in couple therapy. Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker and Theisen.

• Hargrave, T. D. (2010). Restoration therapy: A couple therapy case study. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 29(3), 272-277. Retrieved from http://caps.net/

Items of the Relational Ethics Scale (RES)

Directions: This scale is designed to measure some of the emotions that:

• existed in the family in which you were raised.
• currently exist in one of your other relationships.

1. I could trust my family to seek my best interests.
2. Individuals in my family were blamed for problems that were not their fault.
3. Pleasing one of my parents often meant displeasing the other.
4. I received the love and affection from my family I deserved.
5. No matter what happened‚ I always stood by my family.
6. At times‚ it seemed one or both of my parents disliked me.
7. Love and warmth were given equally to all family members.
8. At times‚ I was used by my family unfairly.
9. I felt my life was dominated by my parents’ desires.
10. Individuals in my family were willing to give of themselves to benefit the family.
11. I continue to seek closer relationships with my family.
12. I often felt deserted by my family.

Please respond to statements 13-24 as they apply to one relationship in your life.

• If you are MARRIED‚ rate the statements as they apply to your relationship with your spouse.
• If you are WIDOWED‚ rate the statements as you recall they applied to your relationship with your spouse.
• If you are DIVORCED OR SINGLE‚ rate the statements as they apply to your closest relationship excluding parents or children.

13. I try to meet the emotional needs of this person.
14. I do not trust this individual to look out for my best interests.
15. When I feel hurt‚ I say or do hurtful things to this person.
16. This person stands beside me in times of trouble or joy.
17. Before I make important decisions‚ I ask for the opinions of this person.
18. There is unequal contribution to the relationship between me and this individual.
19. When I feel angry‚ I tend to take it out on this person.
20. We are equal partners in this relationship.
21. We give of ourselves to benefit one another.
22. I take advantage of this individual.
23. I am taken for granted or used unfairly in this relationship.
24. This person listens to me and values my thoughts.

The scoring utilizes a 5-point Likert scale:

• 5 = STRONGLY AGREE with the statement.
• 4 = AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.
• 3 = NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE with the statement.
• 2 = DISAGREE with the statement.
• 1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement.

Subscale Item Mapping:

• Vertical trust and justice: items 1‚ 2‚ 7‚ 8‚ 10‚ and 12
• Vertical loyalty: items 3‚ 5‚ and 11
• Vertical entitlement: items 4‚ 6‚ and 9
• Horizontal trust: items 14‚ 16‚ 18‚ 20‚ 23‚ and 24
• Horizontal loyalty: items 13‚ 17‚ and 21
• Horizontal entitlement: items 15‚ 19‚ and 22