Psychometric properties of the multidimensional inventory of infidelity in Jordanian society

Abstract

The concept of infidelity is one of the basics of marital life, and on it depends the satisfaction, compatibility and happiness of the spouses. Therefore, there is an urgent need in Arab countries to develop tools that contribute to dealing with this problem and its painful consequences. Infidelity is a problem that affects a person psychologically and physically, and it is important to develop a measure to identify this problem. This study aimed to verify the validity and reliability of the Multidimensional Infidelity Inventory (IMIN) on a Jordanian sample. For this purpose, the Spanish version of the questionnaire was translated and applied to a Jordanian sample of 732 persons (291 men, 441 women). The results showed that three factors explained 70.28% of the total variance of the infidelity trend subscale, and seven factors explained 68.43% of the total variance of the reasons for infidelity subscale. Five factors explained 61.21% of the total variance of the infidelity beliefs subscale, and two factors explained 57.45% of the total variance for the infidelity consequences subscale. All of them had confirmatory models with adequate levels of goodness of fit, adequate Cronbach alpha indicators, item-item and item-test correlations, in addition to concordance with the original proposal of the instrument. This instrument can assess, diagnose, and overcome infidelity.

Keywords:

• validity
• reliability
• multidimensional inventory
• infidelity
• Jordan

Subjects:

• Social Psychology
• Family and Marital Counseling
• and Mental Health

1. Introduction

Marital infidelity is a negative social phenomenon that is prevalent in various societies, including the Arab society, and negatively affects the structure and entity of the family and society together (Ghawalim, 2014). Reports between 2000 and 2009 indicate that the rate of infidelity among men between the ages of 60 and 69 years is 29%, while the prevalence among women between the ages of 50 and 59 years is 17% (Riveros Munevar et al., 2021; Wang, 2018). Across the countries polled, a median of 93% considered infidelity unacceptable. This belief is especially widespread in predominantly Muslim nations—at least nine in ten hold this view in the Palestinian territories, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Malaysia, and Tunisia (Wike, 2014).

With regard to the differences between cultures, Rada (2012) indicated that infidelity has many different effects and messages, not only in the subject of sex and love but also transcends the concepts of the relevant culture. Therefore, the cultural difference is due to the differences in moral perception of the behavior of infidelity. Moreover, infidelity has health, emotional, and physical effects. In this regard, many studies have indicated that infidelity is one of the main causes of divorce between spouses (Allen & Atkins, 2012; Amato & Previti, 2003; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Scott et al., 2013).

A comparison of divorced and married couples showed high levels of psychological stress, substance abuse, depression, and a sharp decrease in the level of general health (Hughes & Waite, 2009). In addition, infidelity is a major cause of low self-esteem and identity crisis (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (Rosenberg, 2018), anger and irritability are also associated with long-term or short-term health symptoms (Hughes & Waite, 2009; Stosny, 2013). Previous studies have indicated that the most common factors associated with marital infidelity in the Arab countries are weak religious, faith and emotional insufficiency, drug addiction, loss of intimacy between spouses, lack of harmony, family disintegration, poverty, and psychological trauma (Al-Mashharawi, 2017).

Infidelity has effects and risk factors that lead to violence against women and suicide (Buss, 2018). Moreover, those who have sex with another partner rarely use condoms, which leads to the transmission of sexual diseases and affects public health (Hall et al., 2008). With regard to the factors affecting infidelity, many studies have focused on the quality of spouses’ relationship and their satisfaction as a key factor of unfaithful behavior (Negash et al., 2014). Whisman et al. (2007) reported that low self-esteem and suspicions of infidelity between spouses affect marital satisfaction. The higher the level of education and religiosity, greater is the commitment and harmony between spouses, and in return, lower is the possibility of infidelity between them (Fincham & May, 2016).

At the same time, individuals with narcissistic personality, lack of empathy, and compulsiveness highly seek novelty, distinction, strong emotions, have an avoidant attachment style, and are more likely to betray their partners (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Rosenberg, 2018). In contrast, family history of infidelity, past sexual relations, alcohol and drug addiction problems, and insecure attachment are risk factors and facilitate infidelity behavior (Fincham & May, 2016).

With regard to the gender variable, large number of men reported that they committed sexual infidelity, the ratio of men to women was 81 compared to 50 percent (Riveros Munevar et al., 2021). Additionally, for women they also cited, “unsatisfied emotional needs and a weak character and to a smaller extent to the unsatisfied sexual needs, while men’s extramarital sexual relations are due to the lack of sexual satisfaction with their spouse (Rada, 2012). Even though men find it difficult to forget sexual infidelity they are able to easily end such a relationship. The results of previous studies have shown that women suffer from psychological stress more than men when their husbands indulge in unfaithful behaviors with attractive personalities, and extant research revealed that men give greater value to physical attractiveness and find it more important, because it represents an important clue to a woman’s fertility; therefore, rival attractiveness is more central to a mate’s value for men than it is for women. (Kato et al., 2019).

In general, the behavior of insincerity is related to the clinical field and there are negative psychological and physical consequences resulting from infidelity (Rosenberg, 2018). People who need counseling and suffer from marital problems range from 25% to 35% (Quesada, 2004). Therefore, it is important to understand the phenomenon of insincerity to prevent its occurrence or recurrence and to enhance aspects that lead to satisfaction and stable relations between spouses and improve the quality of therapy in this field, as is the case for managing and controlling the previously mentioned risk factors (Riveros Munevar et al., 2021). In this way, we can provide counseling and therapeutic support to couples to reduce the impact of marital problems on children and the family in general (Reynolds & Houlston, 2014).

Based on the foregoing, this study aimed to understand the concept of infidelity as a dangerous behavior that affects the romantic and sexual relationship of spouses. With regard to building the infidelity list, many instruments have been designed over the past years to measure this behavior (e.g., Mexico City; Northeastern University; Afifi et al., 2001; Romero-Palencia et al., 2007). Some of them are Justifications for Extramarital Involvement Questionnaire (JEIQ) by Glass and Wright (1992); the instrument of Buss and Shackelford (1997) to measure susceptibility to six types of infidelity; the instrument of Banfield and McCabe (2001) about sexual and emotional infidelity; and the Infidelity Questionnaire (Yeniceri & Kokdemir, 2006).

(IMIN) was used in two Spanish samples that focused on the relationship between jealousy and infidelity, in a in a Mexican sample and a Colombian sample (Calderón-Pérez et al., 2018) to study the relationship between infidelity and emotional intelligence. Additionally, Britos et al. (2019) used IMIN to identify the characteristics of the unfaithful behavior in people who live in Paraguay, between 18 to 40 years or more, who have had a relationship, the results confirmed that the stability coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha was 96% and it was used to identify unfaithful personality patterns in people who engage in infidelity.

To test the validity and reliability and analyze the IMIN’s psychometric. properties, it was administered to a sample of university students in Columbia (Geney et al., 2018). After analyzing the exploratory factors, the study showed that there were four partial measures for this list: trend to infidelity, which consists of 25 items, and it has been shortened to 23 items, reasons for infidelity, which consists of 20 items, and has been modified to 50 items, beliefs of infidelity consists of ten items, and it has been modified to become 54 items, and finally the consequences of infidelity, and it has been increased to 11 items. Cronbach’s alpha values for these sub-scales ranged between 91%—97%, and it should be clarified that the original version of the IMIN factors was grouped into four sub-scales. In this way Geney et al. (2018) found that the scale possesses suitable properties of validity and reliability for the sample of students in, in higher education students in Cartagena, Colombia.

To the best of our knowledge, no studies have explored the psychometric properties of the IMIN scale for the public in the Arab countries. Accordingly, the main objective of the current study was to identify the psychometric properties and the validity of the IMIN scale on two Jordanian samples and verify its stability in the same way that the previous studies have followed, in order to establish the first Arabic version of the IMIN scale. We hope that it paves the way for promising future studies in this field, especially for closed societies governed by social, cultural, and religious restrictions and values.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The study included 732 Jordanian participants, among which there were 291 men (39.75%) and 441 women (60.25%); their ages ranged from 28 to 75 years (M = 14.51; SD = 23.17). Among married participants, 73% reported that they live a stable life and are religiously and morally committed (n = 494). The participants were recruited as an accessible and voluntary sample. Furthermore, data on demographic characteristics were obtained; 62.4% reported being single, 5.3% in a relationship, 23.7% married, 6.5% separated, and 2.1% widowed. The number of participants who reported their relationship status as “not being in a relationship” was 54 participants out of the total sample of 188.

Further, underage people and non-Jordanians were excluded. The heterogeneity of the study sample was verified by dividing the sample into two parts; the first (n = 230; 93 men and 137 women) was used for the exploratory factor analysis, and the second was used for factor construction (n = 502; 198 men and 304 women).

2.2. Instrument

The IMIN (Romero-Palencia et al., 2007) comprises four sub-scales: Infidelity Tendency, Reasons for Infidelity, Beliefs of Infidelity, and Consequences of Infidelity. Infidelity Tendency consists of 48 items, which are rated on a Likert scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .98). This subscale also consists of four factors, namely sexual infidelity, desire for emotional infidelity, desire for sexual infidelity, and emotional infidelity. Examples items are “I have flirted with another person(s) besides my partner” and “I have desired to kiss another person(s) besides my partner.” Reasons for Infidelity (Cronbach’s alpha = .98) consists of 70 items that combine seven factors corresponding to dissatisfaction in primary relationship, sexuality, emotional social instability, ideology and norms, impulsivity, apathy, and aggression. Examples of items include “I would be unfaithful for lack of love in my relationship” and “I would be unfaithful for revenge.” Beliefs of Infidelity (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) consists of 44 items across six factors: transgression of relationships, feelings of loss, dissatisfaction, passion, insecurity, and love for another. Examples of items are “Love” and “Disinterest.” Finally, Consequences of Infidelity (Cronbach’s alpha = .77) consists of 13 items across two factors: positive and negative results. Examples of items are “Infidelity can help save a relationship” and “Infidelity spoils a relationship”.

Demographic data and participants’ characteristics were collected as a first step before the questionnaire.

2.3. Procedures

The approval for use of the scale was initially obtained from the first author, after which the scale was translated from Spanish into Arabic. The procedures were based on the studies of Aldahadha (2018, 2020). After verifying the validity of the translation, the instrument was used for a pilot study of 40 participants. The pilot study aimed to assess the soundness of performance and confirm whether the items were understandable and appropriate so that procedures and scoring could be applied.

The participants were provided with pencils, the consent form, and questionnaires. The study was conducted at various universities, public places, and residential areas in Jordan. These procedures were applied in groups. Further, the study instrument and its demographic data were sent through Google Drive. Snowball sampling via social networking sites, e-mails, and social media was adopted. Respondents were requested to re-send the link to relevant groups and people, to obtain the largest possible number of participants. The participants were assured about data confidentiality and informed that data indicating their identities, such as emails and phone numbers, will be omitted. None of the participants requested financial compensation for filling out the questionnaires.

2.4. Data analysis

After obtaining participants’ responses, data were filtered and checked, and statistical analyses were performed using tests of regression, correlation, and exploratory factor analysis. The following values were sought: the χ²/df relationship, in which values ≤ 3 indicate an excellent or very good adjustment and values < 5 indicate good adjustment; a root mean square error of approximation (quadratic error of the average by approximation) value < .08; comparative fit, goodness of fit, and Tucker-Lewis indices values ≥ .85 (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014; Ruiz et al., 2010; Sandin et al., 2007). The exploratory and reliability factor analyses were performed using the SPSS program; the parallel analysis of Horn was performed using the R program; confirmatory analyses were performed using SPSS and the Amos, both version 24.

3. Results

In order to determine the suitability of the sample size to perform factor analysis and its content of correlations, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values were obtained. The results showed that the values were higher than .8 (.94), and according to Bartlett’s sphericity test, it was a function and statistical significant if it was less than .05 (.00), which made it suitable for factor analysis and in the same way, an exploratory analysis was conducted for all sub-scales, as all saturation values were more than 3. This indicates the retention of all items and facilitates the presentation of information on the factor analysis and stability values. To develop the results based on the study of Romero-Palencia et al. (2007) and Riveros Munevar et al. (2021) separate sub-scales analyses are presented as follows.

3.1. Sub-scale of the trend of infidelity

The exploratory factor analysis was conducted, which revealed three factors that explain 70.28% of the total variance, as they were distributed over the items as in Table 1. The results of the distribution appear in the items in Table 1 show homogeneity with the theoretical project as well as with the original version. One factor, desire for unfaithfulness, has been combined from two factors of the original scale, that is desire for sexual infidelity and desire for emotional infidelity.

Table 1. Distribution of reagents for the infidelity trend subscale

Items	1	2	3
I have wanted to have sexual contact with another person(s) besides my partner.	.825
I have wanted to have sex with someone other than my partner(s).	.819
I have wanted to kiss someone else(s) besides my partner.	.737
I have been attracted to someone else besides my partner.	.726
I have wanted to have sex with someone else(s) besides my partner.	.681
I have become interested in someone else besides my partner.	.590
I have thought of someone else(s) besides my partner.	.583
Besides my partner I have wanted to fulfill my sexual fantasies with someone else(s) besides my partner.	.378
I have flirted with other person(s) besides my partner	.369
I have had sex with someone other than my partner(s).		.835
I have had sex with other person(s) besides my partner.		.768
I have had sexual contact with someone other than my partner.		.704
I have cheated on my partner with another person(s)		.671
I have cheated on my partner with another person(s)		.579
I have betrayed my partner with another person(s).		.550
I have had another loving partner(s).		.546
I wanted to have extra-marital relations.		.465
I have fallen in love with someone else(s) besides my partner.			.698
I have loved someone else(s) besides my partner.			.631
I have become romantically involved with another person(s).			.502
I have become affectionately acquainted with person(s) other than my partner.			.396

3.2. Subscale of reasons for infidelity

An exploratory factor analysis was performed, and the results showed that seven factors explained 68.43% of the total variance; these factors are grouped in Table 2. The items of the sub-scale were distributed and organized in the same way as in the original study.

Table 2. Distribution of items for the subscale of reasons for infidelity

Items	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Distancing with my partner.	.890
Physical distance between my partner and me.	.837
Instability.	.789
Dishonesty.	.598
Unhappiness.	.462
Lack of attraction with my partner.		.739
Lack of affection in my relationship.		.719
Lack of love in my relationship.		.658
Lack of communication with my partner.		.583
Lack of interest in my relationship.		.458
Lack of attention from my partner.		.432
Search for new adventures.			.815
Searching for pleasure.			.754
Entertainment.			.603
Fulfilling my fantasies.			.592
Seek sexual variety.			.560
Lack of passion in my relationship.			.518
Revenge.				.689
Betrayal.				.573
Anger.				.558
Hate towards my partner.				.460
Because that is my character.					.879
Because that’s the way I think.					.765
Because that’s how I was raised.					.721
Economic problems.					.673
Cowardice.						.673
Lack of self-love.						.580
Selfishness.						.478
Lack of self-control.							.739
Impulsiveness.							.728
Irresponsibility.							.690
My lack of temper.							.529
Because I make mistakes.							.383

3.3. Sub-scale of infidelity beliefs

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, and it revealed five factors that explain 61.21% of the total variance. Table 3 shows the distribution of these items according to their domains, the first factor collected the items in the original scale. The factors of relationship transition and dissatisfaction were called relationship dissatisfaction.

Table 3. Distribution of items for the subscale of beliefs to infidelity

Items	1	2	3	4	5
Lack of Commitment.	.928
Lack of respect.	.891
Disinterest.	.798
Dishonesty.	.782
Lack of communication.	.673
Incongruence.	.661
Instability.	.580
Indifference.	.563
Ignorance.	.364
Disappointment.	.360
Confusion.	.344
Desire.		.838
Passion.		.801
Liking.		.712
Sex.		.562
Curiosity.		.538
Affection.			.908
Understanding.			.843
Love.			.780
Communication.			.632
Sadness.				.913
Fear.				.890
Loneliness.				.762
Emptiness.				.595
Revenge.				.531
Cowardice.					.816
Low self-esteem.					.621
Jealousy.					.609

3.4. Sub-scale of the results of infidelity

The exploratory factor analysis was also conducted for the sub-scale of the results of infidelity, and it was found that there are only two factors, explaining 57.45% of the total variance. These items were distributed over the two factors as in Table 4.

Table 4. Distribution of items for the consequences of infidelity subscale

Items	1	2
Infidelity spoils couples.	.84
Infidelity devalues the partner.	.89
Having another partner wears down the relationship.	.74
Infidelity is always bad for couples.	.73
Infidelity destroys relationships.	.66
Infidelity can help save a relationship.		.84
Having another partner helps you cope with marriage problems.		.85
Infidelity helps to revalue the couple.		.76
Infidelity helps maintain partners.		.54
Infidelity is not always harmful for couples.		.52

Table 5 shows the results of the analysis of confirmatory factors and indicators of the quality, appropriateness, and accuracy of each of the four factors. With regard to stability, Table 6 indicates Cronbach’s alpha values for the total score of the scale and each of the sub-scales, as is the case for the relationship between the Guttman halves parts. Finally, an internal consistency analysis was conducted, and the results showed that there are positive correlations greater than 0.4 for all items of the sub-scale. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha may have been affected positively by the removal or deletion of items from the sub-scale.

Table 5. Goodness-of-fit indices for each subscale

Subtest	χ2	G.L.	χ2/G.L.	GFI	AGFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Expected	-	-	≤ 3	≥ .85	≥ .85	≥ .90	≥ .90	.08
Trend	989.78	162	2.42	.91	.88	.92	.96	.07
Reasons	1021.32	381	2.69	.87	.84	.91	.94	.05
Beliefs	633.21	312	2.13	.89	.85	.92	.92	.06
Consequences	89.56	36	2.43	.90	.89	.94	.91	.08

Note. χ2 = Chi squared; G.L. = Degrees of Freedom; GF1 = AGFI goodness of fit index; = standardized goodness of fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Table 6. Cronbach’s alphas and coefficient of two halves of the general scale and of the subscales

Scale	Alpha	Correlation between parts	Two halves
Full scale	.94	.80	.83
Trend	.91	.79	.87
Reasons	.94	.81	.92
Beliefs	.92	.86	.88
Negative consequences	.90	.81	.81
Positive consequences	.75	.60	.63

To denote the indices of goodness of fit for each subscale, Table 5 is shown.

Regarding reliability, Table 6 refers to the Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale and each subscale, as well as the correlation coefficients between parts and two Guttman halves.

4. Discussion

Infidelity is seen as a problem that affects people’s psychological, family, physical and emotional lives, reduces self-esteem and causes a person to have multiple crises of identity, feelings of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, guilt, and psychological stress (Rosenberg, 2018; Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016). It also affects the immunity in terms of physical and psychological health (Hughes & Waite, 2009). Furthermore, it is one of the most important reasons for divorce that affects spouses and children, mental and physical health (Allen & Atkins, 2012). Accordingly, it is important to view infidelity behavior as an important clinical issue that needs instruments to measure and identify, so that it helps practitioners and counselors in this field to assess couples’ condition and provide suitable interventions (Barrera et al., 2017; Quesada, 2004). The study was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of the IMIN list in the Jordanian society, bearing in mind that there are no Arab studies on this subject, but globally, there are a few studies. A study was conducted for a Spanish sample (Romero-Palencia et al., 2007) and an English study on the Colombian population (Riveros Munevar et al., 2021). In order to extract the psychometric characteristics of the Arabic version on the Jordanian society, scientific research procedures were followed according to the Spanish version and its consistency with the Colombian version.

The results showed that there are three factors in the first sub-scale, the tendency of infidelity, which explained 70.28% of the total variance. The items were grouped into the following factors: desire to be unfaithful, tendency of emotional infidelity and tendency of sexual infidelity. As for the second sub-scale—reasons for infidelity—the results showed that six factors explained 68.43% of the total variance, and they were called dissatisfaction with the basic relationship, gender, social and emotional instability, ideological criteria, compulsiveness, indifference, and finally aggression. The three items that did not achieve the minimum required correlations were canceled and these items were: 17 = “I hate my partner”; 21 = “Because that’s how they educated me,” and 24 = “Lack of passion in my relationship as a couple.”

With regard to the third sub-scale related to infidelity beliefs, the results of factor analysis showed that five factors explained 61.21% of the total variance, as items of the two factors were collected in one, while the other four factors remained the same, namely transgression in the relationship and dissatisfaction, feeling of loss, passion, insecurity, and love for another. Three items were canceled “lack of commitment, insecurity, and unsafety.”

Finally, with regard to the fourth sub-scale called the results of infidelity, the results showed that there were two factors negative results and positive results, and they explained 57.45% of the total variance. Despite the few adjustments that were made on the Jordanian version, the dimensions remained the same, and the changes that occurred to the Spanish and Colombian originals were minor and were not impacted by the deletion of some items which means that the main body of the instrument remained the same with four sub-scales. It is worth noting that the results showed appropriate levels of the quality model, which allowed emphasizing the proposed concepts of the scale and evaluating the validity aspects of the sub-scales in general.

With regard to stability, its alpha values were generally high for all sub-scales at .94, except for the second factor of infidelity consequences, that is, positive results, which was low but acceptable at .75. Regarding the stability values, the correlations between those items and the total subscale were also high. However, the alpha value was positively affected when the items were canceled to increase the value of the correlations between the parts or between the two applications. All of the above allow us to conclude that there is sufficient evidence for the validity and reliability of the scale and generalizable to the Jordanian society.

As for internal consistency, the results of Cronbach’s alpha showed that all sub-scales are appropriate and reliable, as these results agree with the results of the original version and the Colombian version (Riveros Munevar et al., 2021; Romero-Palencia et al., 2007), except that one item was deleted that did not meet the standards from the third sub-scale, that is, “Unsafety.” These results also had high values for the dimension of the positive results of infidelity, although the value of stability ranged between 0.52 and 0.85 It was also found that the distribution of the items was largely consistent with the previous two studies, as well as with the studies of Geney et al. (2018) andTorres et al. (2016) which confirmed the psychometric properties of the validity and reliability of the instrument. These results would change with simple changes due to cultural differences, geographical locations, and the nature of the targeted people in the study sample. In any case, the Jordanian society is considered one of the prefectural communities, which is governed by customs, traditions, and religious values, and the lack of openness in the illegal relations except within the limits of marriage and relationships. Therefore, there were items in the scale that were difficult to answer, and perhaps some considered them to be topics that offend modesty and do not agree with the values and customs of Jordanian society. In short, cultural, social, and religious differences may be the reasons behind changes in the distribution of items or the combination of factors together.

The study sample was obtained as an available sample. We also recommend that the sample be random to ensure that it is well represented. We also recommend conducting studies in Jordanian and Arab society in general because these types of studies are very few and difficult to carry out despite their importance and benefits to society. Future studies can focus on guarding against infidelity, training on transparent and clear social skills, emphasizing values and morals, in addition to marital satisfaction and its relationship to infidelity. Among the most complex studies in Jordanian society are those related to sexual relations, which is the cornerstone of infidelity, and it was a significant determinant of this study. In addition, mobilizing the instrument was mostly remote and not in enclosed spaces, which gave the participants the freedom and security to answer. To the best of our knowledge, as this research is the first in the Arab world, some have found it very useful and expressed their happiness and gratitude, and desired to know the results because society needs such research.

4.1. Conclusion

The factor analysis confirmed the instruments validity with four sub-scales. The results of this study confirmed that the Jordanian version of the IMIN list is a valid, useful and reliable instrument in empirical, descriptive, and qualitative studies in the Jordanian society in particular and the Arab community in general, which facilitates the therapeutic counseling process and helps improve the results of marital counseling, intervention, family therapy, and reduces negative consequences on the body and health in general. It raises the level of marital compatibility and life satisfaction, improves personal relationships, and reduces the divorce rate. We also recommend conducting more studies on the use of this instrument in different societies and cultures.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Educational Sciences College, Ethics Committee of Mutah University (January 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Ethics Approval

According to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration, which includes the preservation of research ethics, authors got official approval from all parties and the scientific research committee as long as the participants have the right to refuse, and they are not authorized to disclose their names or any information indicating them.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research leading to these results has received funding from Mutah University

Notes on contributors

Basim Aldahadha

Basim Aldahadha (Year of birth 1969), Ph.D., a Senior Professor of Counseling and Mental Health, is currently working at the Mutah University, Al- Karak, Jordan. With a research and teaching career of about two decades, he has served in several higher education institutions within and outside Jordan (e.g., Sultan Qaboos University, University of Nizwa, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), in the same field of counseling and mental health. He is a licensure practitioner in counseling from the Ministry of Health, Jordan, he has deeply been involved in research, teaching, and practicing of counseling, he is working as a Visiting Professor and Visiting Scholar in the Jadara University, Irbid. Jordan. He has an impactful expertise in the fields of Mindfulness, Self-disclosure, Stress Management, Well-being, Marriage and family counseling, Depression and Anxiety. More than a dozen national individual projects and projects with international collaboration have been conducted by him. With more than 65 published research papers and articles, and about six books published, he supervised more than 120 theses and dissertations along with his academic experiences. His academic contribution is well-documented at national and international levels.

Wafa Al-Momani

Dr. Wafaa Abdullah Mohammed Al Momani, Special education specialization, Ph.D. in Special Education from the University of Jordan, a Master, in special education within the unified program in Jordan, bachelor's degree as a classroom teacher from Yarmouk University. She has interests in teaching children with disabilities. And training them in detection programs and Early Intervention. She worked as Assistant Dean for Quality Affairs and Accreditation of Academic Programs, Workshops, and training courses were provided for students and families with disabilities.