“Constructing the We”: Relational Reflexivity of Couples with Children in Italy. A Mixed-Method Study

ABTSRACT

Relational reflexivity (RR) is an increasingly important aspect in order to understand the agency of individuals and the couple’s life, particularly in postmodern society. This mixed-methods research aimed to observe different dimensions of RR in 32 couples (25–40 years), married or cohabiting with at least one child, during the process of building the “we.” Quantitative instruments (Perspective Taking Scale, Couple Generativity Scale, Quality of Marriage Index) together with semi-structured interviews with the administration of projective instruments (the family line and IOS scale) were used to collect information about this process. With the first set of results, the couples were classified into 3 groups with different levels of relational reflexivity (high, medium, and low). Each group had specific dynamics and ways to deal with the challenges of life as a couple. The construction of the “we” was a common process for all of them influenced by structural elements (marriage, cohabitation number of children and relationship duration) but couples differed in their communication processes, social resources, intergenerational relationships and ways of managing stressors. This study provides an innovative assessment of couples, based on their reflexivity, and suggestions for the development of new kinds of intervention to foster couple reflexivity.

Keywords:

• couple identity
• couple relationship
• couples with children
• mixed-methods
• relational reflexivity

Notes

1 For the scales, the Italian version of the QMI proposed by Zani and Kirchler (1993) was used. The GENCO has been conceived by Italian authors and has been used in several studies in Italy, nevertheless there is not a specific article of validation (Bertoni et al. 2012; Parise et al., 2017). The construct is linked to Loyola generativity scale (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). The PTS is a scale validated by Davis (1983) and other authors (O'Brien et al. 2013). We carry out the translation and back translation process, and verification tests.

2 The method of analysis (Galimberti & Farina, 1987), similar to grounded theory, first find clues of meaning in every text, then group them into codes/categories related to literature and the research questions.

3 To create this classification, we attributed the scores for each scale, giving 2 to those present in the third tertile of the distribution and 1 to those in the first and second tertile of the distribution.

4 This measure was defined by considering whether couples had an high or low frequency of codes that identified the related clues about communication styles and external facilitating resources, as resulted by content analysis.

5 To create this classification, we attributed the scores for each scale, giving 2 to those present in the third tertile of the distribution and 1 to those in the first and second tertile of the distribution.

6 That are: (a) the communication and decision-making processes; (b) relational, social, and cultural resources;(c) management of stressors, crisis, and conflicts; (d) management of the relationships with the families of origin; (e) work–family balance; (f) power.

7 We indicate in brackets the frequency with which the reported dimensions were detected.