Strong Relationality and Ethical Responsiveness: A Framework and Conceptual Model for Family Science

Abstract

Family scholars and practitioners rely on theories of relationships to guide our understanding and promotion of healthy intimate relationships; however, assumptions about the self are often implicit and unquestioned. This article describes a strongly relational view of the self that can transform family science by accounting for partners' ethical responsiveness and dialogical way of being (I–It vs. I–Thou), concepts long understood in philosophy but largely neglected in family science. We emphasize the importance of ethical responsiveness and way of being as fundamental to both understanding and improving intimate relationships and propose a framework and conceptual model to guide both research and practice. We integrate empirical evidence with the work of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas to provide an understanding of factors that may lead to meaningful and flourishing relationships. We discuss implications for empirical research and practice to advance family science.

What Relationship Researchers and Relationship Practitioners Wished the Other Knew: Integrating Discovery and Practice in Couple Relationships

“…Importantly, when the behaviors and attitudes were not included in the model, the effects of the virtues on relationship connection were much stronger ( s ranged from .44 to .66). These results suggest that character strengths and virtues are related to couples' feelings of relationship connection through their effects on the attitudes and behaviors that couples enact within the context of the relationship, and they lend support to an outward mindset and "way of being" view of relationship functioning (Galovan & Schramm, 2018).…”

“…More development, refinement, exploration, and discussion of these theoretical propositions are needed. Although such a discussion is beyond the scope of this article, we expand on these ideas in other scholarly work (e.g., Galovan & Schramm, in press).…”

“…Furthermore, measures of satisfaction inherently target a more individual‐level construct because they assess partners' own perception's about the benefits they each receive from the relationship. In contrast, measures of relationship flourishing (Fincham & Beach, ) or connectedness (Galovan & Schramm, in press) target the dyad as the unit of measurement and better incorporate the complexity of bidirectional thriving relationships. Such measures would answer the recent call for more relationally focused measures in family science (Galovan et al, ).…”

“…In addition to relationship skills, we must be open to understanding the complex relationships between contextual and social influences, relationship principles, personalities, chronic and acute stresses, mindset, and attachment. Relationship and marriage education scholars should reexamine theoretical models of change, develop research designs with a clear view of the processes targeted, be open to the messiness of working with people, use statistical models that are an operationalization of the theoretical models, and expand beyond simple measures of relationship satisfaction to relationship flourishing (Fincham & Beach, ), relationship connectedness (Galovan & Schramm, in press), or some as‐yet‐unarticulated definition of relationship well‐being. We must better understand and incorporate best practices for changing our hearts, minds, and relationships.…”

“…When people see others differently-as people, not as obstacles-they are more likely to become alive to their needs, objectives, and challenges, and they naturally begin thinking and behaving differently. In sum, behaviors do influence relationship quality, but behaviors are shaped, informed, and naturally flow from one's mindset (Galovan & Schramm, 2018). For example, in the business world, one study on organizational-change efforts in companies found that those who strove to produce change by focusing on changing mindsets were four times more likely to succeed than those who focused solely on changing behavior (Barsh & Lavoie, 2014).…”