Relational Ethics Scale (RES)

Abstract

The Relational Ethics Scale (RES) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to operationalize and assess the multidimensional constructs of relational ethics within intergenerational family systems and adult close relationships. Developed by Terry D. Hargrave, Glen Jennings, and William T. Anderson (1991), and subsequently refined by Hargrave and Anne K. Bomba (1993), the instrument is grounded in the foundational tenets of Contextual Family Therapy established by Iván Böszörményi-Nagy. The RES consists of 24 self-report items partitioned equally into two distinct relational axes: Vertical Relational Ethics (Items 1–12), which assesses the respondent’s retrospective perceptions of fairness, loyalty, and balance within their family of origin; and Horizontal Relational Ethics (Items 13–24), which assesses these ethical dimensions within an adult committed partnership, spouse, or significant other. Each relational domain is structured around three theoretical subscales: Trust and Justice, Loyalty, and Entitlement. Responses are scored using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric investigations demonstrate robust internal consistency across subscales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .70 to .92), commendable test-retest reliability over four- to six-week intervals, and strong construct, convergent, and discriminant validity with established measures of marital satisfaction, family functioning, personal depression, and psychological individuation. The RES bridges clinical family systems theory and empirical quantitative assessment, serving as a critical diagnostic and research asset in couple therapy, transgenerational trauma assessment, and systemic psychotherapy.

Keywords

Relational Ethics Scale, Contextual Family Therapy, Iván Böszörményi-Nagy, Intergenerational Transmission, Relational Justice, Family Loyalty, Destructive Entitlement, Systemic Psychotherapy, Marital Satisfaction, Family of Origin

Authors

The Relational Ethics Scale was developed and validated through collaborative clinical and academic initiatives led by prominent family systems researchers:

• Terry D. Hargrave, Ph.D.: Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy at Fuller Theological Seminary (School of Psychology & Marriage and Family Therapy, Pasadena, California). Dr. Hargrave is renowned for his pioneering scholarship on intergenerational forgiveness, Restoration Therapy, and contextual family dynamics.
• Glen Jennings, Ed.D.: Professor Emeritus of Family Therapy in the Department of Family Sciences at Texas Woman’s University (Denton, Texas), widely recognized for his theoretical and empirical contributions to family development and systemic evaluation.
• William T. Anderson, Ph.D.: Family therapy scholar and clinician who contributed significantly to the original psychometric conceptualization and initial factor analytic validation of the scale at Texas Woman’s University.
• Anne K. Bomba, Ph.D.: Associate Professor and family researcher who collaborated with Hargrave on the subsequent multi-sample psychometric validation study published in 1993, confirming the structural invariance and reliability parameters of the RES.

Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical objective of the Relational Ethics Scale is to quantify the subjective experience of fairness, ethical balance, and systemic trust across generations. Relational ethics, as formulated in contextual family therapy, constitutes the balance of give-and-take, the equitable distribution of emotional investments, and the mutual trustworthiness of relational partners. Prior to the publication of the RES in 1991, clinicians and family scientists lacked a standardized, psychometrically sound instrument capable of measuring Nagy’s transgenerational ethical constructs, often relying solely on subjective qualitative impressions during clinical interviews.

The RES systematically evaluates two developmental spheres of human experience:

• The Vertical Axis (Family of Origin): Retrospectively evaluates whether an individual experienced their primary caregivers as fair, reliable, and equitable, or whether the individual was subjected to exploitation, scapegoating, or parentification.
• The Horizontal Axis (Current Committed Relationship): Evaluates whether an adult individual experiences mutuality, ethical equilibrium, reciprocal loyalty, and trustworthy interdependence with an intimate partner or spouse.

Clinically, the RES assists therapists in identifying the intergenerational etiology of contemporary marital and relational distress. In therapeutic modalities such as contextual therapy and Restoration Therapy, symptoms such as chronic marital conflict, domestic hostility, emotional withdrawal, or infidelity are frequently recognized as manifestations of unresolved vertical ethical breaches. When an individual suffers systemic injustice or developmental emotional deprivation in childhood without corrective reparation, they frequently develop “destructive entitlement”—an unarticulated conviction that they have the right to exploit, neglect, or punish current relational partners to compensate for past injustices. By mapping vertical trust deficits against horizontal dysfunction, the RES provides clinicians with a clear diagnostic roadmap for intergenerational intervention, forgiveness work, and the rebuilding of ethical trustworthiness in distressed relationships.

Psychological Construct

The Relational Ethics Scale operationalizes relational ethics across two distinct domains (Vertical and Horizontal), each partitioned into three subconstructs: Trust/Justice, Loyalty, and Entitlement.

1. Trust and Justice

Trust and justice represent the foundational pillar of relational ethics. Nagy posited that healthy human relationships operate on an implicit dynamic balance—termed the “ledger of justice.” Justice is not rigid mathematical equality, but rather proportional fairness wherein each member’s developmental needs are respected and answered with appropriate caregiving. When caregivers offer consistent emotional nurturance, fair distribution of resources, and systemic safety, the developing child accrues a foundational sense of basic relational trust.

• Vertical Trust and Justice (Items 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12): Assesses whether the respondent felt their family of origin acted in their best interests, avoided unfair scapegoating, distributed love and warmth equitably, and offered reliable protection against desertion. High scores indicate an upbringing characterized by relational safety and proportional reciprocity, whereas low scores reflect historical exploitation, systemic neglect, and relational invalidation.
• Horizontal Trust (Items 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24): Measures the contemporary presence of reciprocal safety, equality of partnership, mutual validation, and fairness in one’s primary adult relationship. Low scores capture feelings of being exploited, used unfairly, or structurally disenfranchised by a partner.

2. Loyalty

Loyalty denotes the internalized commitment, allegiance, and systemic duty an individual feels toward family members and intimate partners. In contextual theory, vertical loyalty is natural, innate, and asymmetrical: a child owes existential loyalty to the parents who bestowed life, while parents owe unilateral care. However, when families exhibit pathological dynamics, vertical loyalty can become “split” (forcing a child to choose between warring parents) or “invisible” (driving an individual to sacrifice their own developmental maturation to preserve family homeostasis).

• Vertical Loyalty (Items 3, 5, 11): Evaluates the degree of enduring commitment and systemic connection to one’s family of origin, while capturing pathogenic pressures such as triangulation and parental conflict where loyalty to one parent demands alienation from the other.
• Horizontal Loyalty (Items 13, 17, 21): Examines adult relational solidarity, reciprocal empathy, mutual decision-making, and the active dedication of emotional resources to support and sustain one’s partner in times of difficulty and joy.

3. Entitlement

Entitlement in contextual theory represents an individual’s psychological accounting of what they legitimately owe others and what they are owed by the world. Nagy distinguished between two divergent forms of entitlement:

• Constructive Entitlement: Cultivated through reliable parenting and equitable care, allowing the individual to feel deserving of love and capable of giving freely without feeling depleted.
• Destructive Entitlement: Arises from profound relational injustice, trauma, or neglect in childhood. An individual who has been systematically exploited develops an internal ledger deficit, justifying self-serving behaviors, relational boundary violations, emotional cruelty, and exploitation of innocent third parties (such as romantic partners or offspring).

Within the RES, Vertical Entitlement (Items 4, 6, 9) measures the degree to which an individual perceived their childhood as dominated by parental demands or perceived themselves as loved and valued, versus experiencing parental rejection. Horizontal Entitlement (Items 15, 19, 22) captures behavioral manifestations of destructive entitlement in adult life, specifically evaluating whether the individual acts out hurt or anger through retaliatory behavior, unfair advantage, or vindictive aggression toward their partner.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the Relational Ethics Scale is Contextual Family Therapy, a comprehensive intergenerational modality formulated by Hungarian-American psychiatrist Iván Böszörményi-Nagy (1920–2007), along with colleagues Geraldine Spark, David N. Ulrich, and Barbara R. Krasner. Nagy integrated principles from Martin Buber’s dialogical philosophy (the “I-Thou” encounter), psychoanalysis, transgenerational systems theory, and ethical philosophy to formulate a revolutionary model of family functioning.

Nagy articulated that human reality and systemic functioning exist across four interrelated dimensions:

1. Dimension 1: Facts. The objective, unchangeable parameters of human life, including biological inheritance, physical illness, genetic makeup, structural losses, adoptions, and socioeconomic circumstances.
2. Dimension 2: Individual Psychology. The internal intrapsychic landscape, including cognitive structures, emotional defenses, personality characteristics, psychodynamic drives, and unconscious representations of self and others.
3. Dimension 3: Systemic Transactions. The overt, repetitive patterns of communication, power dynamics, feedback loops, behavioral sequences, and structural boundaries traditionally examined by structural and strategic family therapists.
4. Dimension 4: Relational Ethics. The overarching, foundational dimension of human relationships, concerning the fairness, equitable balance of justice, loyalty commitments, and trustworthiness between individuals across generations.

Contextual therapy asserts that while Dimensions 1, 2, and 3 are vital, true therapeutic transformation and the resolution of persistent relational pathology occur within Dimension 4. At the heart of relational ethics is the dynamic ledger of justice. When parents provide reliable, loving, and developmentally attuned caregiving, children accrue constructive entitlement, fostering a natural capacity for trustworthy adult intimacy. Conversely, severe breaches in the ledger—such as physical abuse, emotional abandonment, parentification (forcing the child into a caregiver role for the adult), or systemic scapegoating—shatter basic relational trust.

A central tenet of Nagy’s theory is the revolving slate of intergenerational transmission: individuals who carry a ledger depleted by childhood injustice frequently reenact those injuries upon subsequent generations. An adult who was parentified or emotionally starved may unconsciously demand that their spouse or child repay their unpaid debt. The RES operationalizes these theoretical propositions by measuring whether ethical resources acquired in the vertical dimension are correlated with ethical functionality and mutual trust in the horizontal dimension.

Validity

The Relational Ethics Scale has undergone rigorous psychometric evaluation across diverse demographic, clinical, and non-clinical cohorts. The initial validation by Hargrave, Jennings, and Anderson (1991), followed by the confirmatory investigation by Hargrave and Bomba (1993), established multiple facets of construct, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Construct Validity

Construct validity of the RES was confirmed by demonstrating that its subscales effectively discriminate between healthy, functional families and clinical, distressed populations. In the original 1991 validation study involving 308 participants, individuals from distressed couples and clinical settings exhibited statistically significant lower scores on Vertical Trust/Justice and Horizontal Trust, alongside significantly elevated scores on Horizontal Destructive Entitlement, compared to non-clinical controls (p < .001). Furthermore, scores on the vertical scale demonstrated expected developmental variances, reflecting the lingering impact of unaddressed family-of-origin wounds on adult identity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through robust correlations with established psychological and systemic assessment instruments:

• Marital Adjustment: Horizontal Trust and Horizontal Loyalty display strong positive correlations with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 1976), with correlation coefficients ranging between r = .55 and r = .71 (p < .001). Conversely, Horizontal Entitlement demonstrates significant negative correlations with dyadic satisfaction (r = -.48 to -.62).
• Family Assessment: The Vertical Trust and Justice subscale correlates strongly with the General Functioning scale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) (Epstein et al., 1983) (r = .64, p < .001) and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES III) (Olson et al., 1985).
• Individual Symptomatology: Significant negative correlations exist between Vertical Trust/Justice and depressive symptomatology as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (r = -.38 to -.45, p < .01), demonstrating that individuals with depleted vertical ledgers experience higher levels of intrapsychic distress.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by comparing the RES against social desirability scales, specifically the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations between RES subscales and social desirability measures were non-significant or negligible (r values typically between .04 and .15), indicating that respondent scores reflect genuine relational perceptions rather than the motive to present oneself in an overly favorable light.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Relational Ethics Scale has been consistently supported by empirical evaluations of internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational scale development study by Hargrave et al. (1991), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated strong internal consistency across the two major domains and their respective subscales:

• Vertical Scale (Total): α = .88
• Vertical Trust and Justice: α = .86 to .89
• Vertical Loyalty: α = .70 to .75
• Vertical Entitlement: α = .72 to .78
• Horizontal Scale (Total): α = .90
• Horizontal Trust: α = .85 to .91
• Horizontal Loyalty: α = .73 to .79
• Horizontal Entitlement: α = .74 to .81

Subsequent psychometric testing by Hargrave and Bomba (1993) on an independent validation sample of 241 adults corroborated these findings, yielding overall vertical and horizontal alpha reliabilities of .87 and .89, respectively. The slightly lower alpha values observed in the loyalty and entitlement subscales are characteristic of short three-item subscales, but nevertheless exceed standard psychometric thresholds (≥ .70) for research and clinical screening.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability of the RES was evaluated across a four-week interval with a non-clinical cohort of 62 respondents. Test-retest reliability coefficients demonstrated commendable stability over time:

• Vertical Domain overall stability: r = .84 (p < .001)
• Horizontal Domain overall stability: r = .81 (p < .001)
• Subscale coefficients ranged from .76 (Vertical Loyalty) to .88 (Vertical Trust and Justice).

These findings substantiate that the RES captures stable relational schemas rather than transient affective states.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Relational Ethics Scale was originally established through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and later corroborated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During instrument development, an initial pool of 60 theoretical items was administered to an exploratory sample. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin) rotations revealed two distinct, uncorrelated superordinate dimensions accounting for a substantial portion of the total variance: a Vertical Relational Dimension and a Horizontal Relational Dimension. Within each of these two domains, subsequent factor analyses clearly extracted three distinct latent factors corresponding directly to Contextual Family Therapy theory: Trust/Justice, Loyalty, and Entitlement. Items with low primary factor loadings (< .45) or significant cross-loadings (> .30 on secondary factors) were systematically eliminated, yielding the final 24-item configuration (12 items per relational axis).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In the cross-validation study conducted by Hargrave and Bomba (1993), CFA was employed to test alternative structural models:

• A single-factor general relational ethics model,
• A two-factor uncorrelated model (Vertical vs. Horizontal), and
• A hierarchical six-factor model consisting of two second-order factors (Vertical and Horizontal) each subsuming three first-order factors (Trust/Justice, Loyalty, Entitlement).

The hierarchical six-factor model yielded superior goodness-of-fit indices (χ²/df = 1.84, Goodness-of-Fit Index [GFI] = .92, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .94, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .048). All 24 items demonstrated standardized factor loadings on their designated latent factors ranging between .51 and .84 (p < .001), validating the theoretical structure articulated by Böszörményi-Nagy and operationalized by Hargrave.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Relational Ethics Scale (RES)
• Authors: Terry D. Hargrave, Glen Jennings, and William T. Anderson (1991); cross-validated with Anne K. Bomba (1993)
• Construct Measured: Contextual relational ethics, transgenerational justice, familial loyalty, entitlement, and adult relational trustworthiness
• Administration Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire
• Completion Time: Approximately 7 to 10 minutes
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) in marital, cohabiting, or committed romantic relationships, or adults evaluating a close peer relationship
• Structural Composition: 24 items divided into two primary subscales of 12 items each:
  • Vertical Subscale (Family of Origin): Items 1 to 12
    • Vertical Trust and Justice: Items 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12
    • Vertical Loyalty: Items 3, 5, 11
    • Vertical Entitlement: Items 4, 6, 9
  • Horizontal Subscale (Current Committed Relationship): Items 13 to 24
    • Horizontal Trust: Items 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24
    • Horizontal Loyalty: Items 13, 17, 21
    • Horizontal Entitlement: Items 15, 19, 22
• Response Format: 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
• Scoring and Directionality Guidelines:
  • Items reflecting relational injustice, destructive entitlement, or breach of trust must be reverse-scored so that higher aggregate scores consistently represent healthier relational ethics and greater relational trustworthiness.
  • Vertical Scale Reverse-Scored Items: Items 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 12 are reverse-scored (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1).
  • Horizontal Scale Reverse-Scored Items: Items 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, and 23 are reverse-scored (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1).
  • Subscale scores are derived by summing the relevant item responses. Total domain scores range from 12 to 60 for the Vertical Domain and 12 to 60 for the Horizontal Domain.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relational Ethics Scale was initially published in 1991 in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy by Terry D. Hargrave, Glen Jennings, and William T. Anderson, with further empirical validation published in 1993 with Anne K. Bomba. The scale is copyright-protected by the original authors and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) / Wiley-Blackwell.

For educational, clinical, and non-commercial academic research purposes, the authors have historically made the Relational Ethics Scale widely accessible. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the instrument without royalty fees, provided full academic attribution and citation are given to the original development papers. For commercial utilization, large-scale health system integration, or electronic diagnostic software deployment, formal permission must be secured from the copyright holders or directly through Dr. Terry D. Hargrave.

References

• Böszörményi-Nagy, I., & Krasner, B. R. (1986). Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. Brunner/Mazel.
• Böszörményi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. M. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy. Harper & Row.
• Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1983.tb01497.x
• Hargrave, T. D. (2000). The essential humility of marriage: Honoring the third identity in couple therapy. Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.
• Hargrave, T. D. (2010). Restoration therapy: A couple therapy case study. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 29(3), 272–277.
• Hargrave, T. D., & Bomba, A. K. (1993). Further validation of the Relational Ethics Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19(3), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1993.tb00990.x
• Hargrave, T. D., Jennings, G., & Anderson, W. T. (1991). The development of a Relational Ethics Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00878.x
• Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales. Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
• Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)