203
Iz virni	znans tv eni	članek/ Article	(1.01)
Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly	82	(2022)	1,	203—216
Besedilo	pr eje t o/R eceiv ed:10/2021;	spr eje t o/ Accep t ed:11/2021
UDK/UDC:	17.018
DOI:	10.34291/B V2022/01/Cv e t ek
©	2022	Cv e t ek	e t	al.,	CC	B Y	4.0
Mateja Cvetek, Peter Pučnik, Robert Cvetek  
and Roman Globokar
Relational Ethics Scale: Psychometric evaluation of 
the Slovene-language version
1
Lestvica relacijske etike: psihometrično ovrednotenje 
slovenske različice
Abstract : Thi s	 s tudy	 aimed	 t o	 tr ansla t e,	 adap t,	 and	 p s y chome tric al l y	 e v al ua t e	 the 	
R ela tional	 E thic s	 Sc ale	 in	 the	 Slo v ene	 languag e.	 This	 in v en t or y	 w as	 de v eloped	
t o	 measur e	 people’ s	 per cep tion	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics	 in	 their	 f amilies	 of	 origin 	
and	 in	 curr en t	 signific an t	 adult	 r ela tionship s.	 R ela tional	 e thics	 is	 under s t ood	 in 	
t erms	 of	 c on t e xtual	 f amily	 ther ap y	 and	 is	 c omposed	 of	 per cep tions	 of	 trus t	 and 	
jus tice,	 lo y alty	 and	 en titlemen t. 	 The	 Slo v ene	 v er sion	 of	 the	 R ela tional 	 E thics 	
Sc ale	 w as	 adminis t er ed	 t o	 a	 sample	 of	 271	 Slov ene-speaking	 adults.	 Explor -
a t or y	 f act or	 (principal	 c omponen t),	 c ombined	 with	 par allel	 analy sis,	 f ound	 a 	
tw o- f act or	 s tructur e.	 This	 tw o- f act or	 solution	 supports	 theor e tic ally	 meaning-
ful	 horiz on t al	 and	 v ertic al 	 r ela tionships	 dimensions	 or	 subsc ales.	 R eliability 	
analy sis	 sho w s	 e x cellen t	 in t er -it em	 c onsis t ency	 (Cr onbach 	 alpha)	 c oe fficien ts 	
f or	 both	 sub sc ales,	 as	 w ell	 as	 f or	 the	 t ot al	 sc ale.	 Con firma t or y	 f act or	 analy sis	
supports	 a	 tw o- f act or	 solution. 	 The	 r esults	 support	 the	 further	 use	 of	 the	 sc ale 	
as	 a	 v alid	 and	 r eliable	 ins trumen t	 f or	 measuring	 r ela tional	 e thics	 in	 a	 Slo v ene	
language environment.
Keywords :	 The	 R ela tional	 E thics	 Sc ale,	 r ela tional	 e thics,	 p s y chome tric	 e v alua tion,	
Slo v ene-languag e	v er sion
Povzetek:	 Cilj	 t e	 r azisk a v e	 je	 bil	 pr ev es ti, 	 prir editi	in	 psihome trično	 ovr ednotiti 	
Les tvic o	 odnosne	 e tik e 	 (Si-RE S)	 v	 slov enščini.	 T a	 les tvic a	 je	 bila	 r az vit a	 z	 na-
menom	 meriti	 posame znik ovo	 z azna v anje	 odnosne	 etik e	 v	 njegovi	 izvorni 	
družini	 in	 v	 tr enutnih	 pr ominin	 odr aslih	 odnosih.	 Odnosno	 e tik o	 se	 r az ume	 v 	
t erminih	 k on t ek s tualne	 družinsk e	 t er apije	 in	 jo	 ses t a vlja	 z azna v anje	 z aupanja 	
in 	 pr a vičnos ti,	 lojalnos ti	 in 	 upr a vičenos ti. 	 Slo v ensk a	 v erzija	 Les tvice	 r elacijsk e 	
e tik e 	 je	 bila	 pr e v erjana	 na	 v z or cu	 271	 slo v ensk o	 g o v or ečih	 odr aslih.	 Ek splor -
1	
The	 article 	 w as	 partially 	 financially 	 support ed	 b y	 the	 Slov enian	 R esear ch	 Ag ency	 (ARR S,	 pr oject	 No. 	
J5-2570).

204 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
a t orna	 f ak t or sk a	 analiz a	 (analiz a	 gla vnih	 k omponen t),	 k ombinir ana	 s	 par alelno	
analiz o ,	 je	 odkrila	 dv o- f ak t or sk o	 s truk tur o.	 	 T a	 dv o- f ak t or sk a	 s truk tur a	 podpir a	
t eor e tično	 smiselni	 horiz on t alno	 in	 v ertik alno	 dimenzijo	 o z.	 podles tvic o ,	 podob-
no	 k ot	 tudi	 špansk a	 v erzija	 Les tvice	 r elacijsk e	 e tik e.	 Analiz a	 z anesljiv os ti	 je	 po -
k az ala,	 da	 ima	 vpr ašalnik	 odlično	 notr anjo	 skladnost,	 k ar	 smo	 pr everili	 s 	
pomočjo	 Cr onbach	 alf a	 k oe ficien t a	 z anesljiv os ti	 t ak o	 z a	 obe	 podles tvici,	 k ot	 tudi 	
z a	 celotno	 les tvic o.	 K onfirma t orna 	 f akt or sk a	 analiz a	 podpir a	 dv o- f akt or sk o 	
r ešit e v .	 R e z ult a ti	 podpir ajo	 nad aljnjo	 upor abo	 les tvice	 k ot	 v elja vneg a	 in	 z anes-
ljiv eg a	 ins trumen t a	 z a	 merjenje	 r elacijsk e	 e tik e	 v	 slov ensk em	 je zik ovnem	 ok olju. 	
Ključne besede :	 les tvi c a	 r elaci jsk e	 e tik e,	 r elaci jsk a	 e tik a, 	 p sihome tri čna	 e v alv aci ja,	
slo v ensk a	r azličic a	vpr ašalnik a
1. Introduction
T alk	 of	 e thics	 alw a y s	 in v olv es	 r ela tionality . 	 E v en	 Aris t otle,	 the	 f a ther	 of	 e thics, 	
emphasised	 tha t	 the	 g oal	 of	 e thics	 is	 a	 virtuous	 lif e	 in	 jus t	 r ela tions	 with	 other s.	
Man	 is	 a	 r ela tional	 being	 and	 c an	 only	 r ealise	 himself	 as	 a	 hu man	 being	 thr ough	
r ela tionship s.	 The	 individual	 bec omes	 a	 g ood	 per son	 within	 a	 supportiv e	 en vir o-
nme n t	 in	 which	 e thic al	 v alue s	 pr e v ail.	 The	 e n vir onme n t, 	 the r e f or e , 	 has	 an	 impor -
t an t	in fluence	on	the	e thic al	de v elopmen t	of	the	individual	per son.	
In	 c on tr as t,	 the	 char act er	 of	 individuals	 is	 crucial	 in	 shaping	 the	 clima t e	 within	
a	 particular	 c ommunity .	 W e	 see	 tha t	 ther e	 is	 r ecipr ocity	 be tw een	 an	 e thic al	 per -
sonality 	 and	 a	 jus t	 socie ty .	 W e	 c an	 sa y	 tha t	 the	 g oal	 of	 e thics	 is	 »t o	 lead	 a	 g ood 	
lif e	 with	 and	 f or	 other s	 in	 a	 jus t	 or der«	 (T r on t elj	 2014,	 28).	 E thics	 c an	 be	 de fined	
as	 a	 s y s t ema tic	 r e flection	 on	 wha t	 is	 g ood	 f or	 the	 individual,	 socie ty ,	 and	 the	 na-
tural environment.
R ela tional	 e thics	 is	 c oncerned	 with	 e thic al	 actions	 e xplicitly	 in	 r ela tionship s	 and 	
r esponds	 t o	 the	 ques tion	 of	 ho w	 w e	 should	 liv e	 t og e ther	 (Aus tin	 2008,	 748).	 The	
righ t	 e thic al 	 r esponse	 in 	 r ela tionship s	 is	 c omple x,	 some times	 difficult,	 disc o v er ed 	
r a the r 	 in	 dialogue	 with	 othe r / s,	 suit able , 	 balance d, 	 and	 har monious, 	 also	 c onsi-
dering	 the	 immediacy	 and	 c omple xity	 of	 the	 particular 	 situa tion	 and	 our	 mor al 	
r esponsibility	within	it	(748).	
R ela tional	 e thics	 is	 also	 one	 of	 the	 k e y	 c ons tructs	 in	 c on t e x tual	 f amily	 ther ap y	
(Bos z ormen yi-Nagy ,	 Grunebaum,	 and	 Ulrich	 1991).	 In	 c on t e x tual	 f amily	 ther ap y ,	
r ela tional	 e thi cs	 r e f er	 t o	 ques tions	 of	 f ai rness	 and	 mutual 	 r ecipr oci ty ,	 trus t,	 and	
lo y alty	 in	 r ela tionship s	 (Bos z ormen yi-Nagy	 and	 K r asner	 1986, 	 xii).	 R ela tional	 e thi-
cs	 has	 been	 see n	 as	 the	 mos t	 import an t	 dimension	 of	 in tima t e	 r ela tionship s,	 the	
primary	 r eason	 f or	 dy s function	in	 f amily	 and	 partner	 r ela tionships, 	 one	 of	 the 	
mos t	 signific an t 	 de t erminan ts	 of	 our 	 actions	 in	 in tima t e 	 r ela tionship s, 	 and	 also	 of 	
the	 mos t	 essen tial 	 f act or s	 in 	 healing	 dy s functional 	 r ela tionship s	 in 	 ther ap y	 (Du -
c ommun-Nagy	 2009,	 33;	 Bos z ormen yi-Nagy	 and	 K r asner	 1986,	 271;	 Har gr a v e, 	

205 205 Mateja Cvetek et al. - Relational Ethics Scale
J e nning s, 	 and	 A nde r son	 1 9 9 1 ,	 1 4 6 ).	 W he n	 the r e 	 is	 an	 im balanc e , 	 injus tic e , 	 or 	 un-
f airness	 of	 the	 giv e-and-t ak e	 dynamic	 in	 a	 r ela tionship 	 o v er	 time,	 dy s functions 	
oft en	 occur	 (Har gr a v e,	 Jennings,	 and	 Ander son	 1991,	 146).	 Bos z ormen yi-Nagy , 	
the	 f ounder	 of	 c on t e xtual	 f amily	 ther apy ,	 w as	 able	 t o	 demons tr a t e	 tha t	 w e	 all 	
ha v e	 an	 inna t e	 sense	 about	 f airness	 in	 giving	 and	 r eceiving	 in	 r ela tionship s;	 e v en	
people	 in	 p s y chosis	 do	 not	 lose	 this	 basic	 under s t anding	 of	 f airness.	 Our	 inna t e 	
c apacity	 f or	 f airne ss	 and	 r ecipr ocity	 c ould	 also	 le ad	 us	 t o	 build	 our	 mor al	 s y s t ems	
(Duc ommun-Nagy	 2009,	 33–35).	 The	 basic	 sense	 of	 f airness	 c ould	 also	 be	 f ound	
in	 some	 animals;	 Br osnan	 and	 de	 W aal	 (2003,	 297–99)	 f amously	 demons tr a t ed 	
tha t	 monk e y s	 r esponded	 with	 high	 dis tr ess	 when	 c on fr on t ed	 with	 un f air	 tr ea t -
ment. 
R ela tional	 e thics	 in	 c on t e xtual	 ther ap y	 is	 c ons truct ed	 as	 being	 of	 tw o	 types. 	
V e r tic al	 r e la tional	 e thics	 r e f e r s	 t o	 que s tions	 of	 jus tice , 	 tr us t, 	 lo y alty , 	 and	 e n title -
men t	 in	 hier ar chic ally	 unequal	 r ela tionship s,	 such	 as	 the	 r ela tionship s	 be tw een 	
par en t	 and	 child	 (Har gr a v e,	 Jennings,	 and	 Ander son	 1991,	 146),	 which	 ar e	 c onsi -
der ed	 as ymme tric al	 and	 ar e	 g o v erned	 mor e	 b y	 c ar e.	 Horiz on t al	 r ela tional	 e thics	
r e f er s	 t o	 these	 ques tions	 in	 hier ar chic ally	 equal	 r ela tionship s, 	 such	 as	 in tima t e 	
partner s	or	friends,	and	ar e	c onsider ed	s ymme tric al	(147).
Some	 empiric al	 s tudies	 support	 the	 c orr ela tions	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics	 with	 im -
port an t	 l if e	 v ariables, 	 such	 as	 mari t al	 sa tis f action,	 health	 pr obl ems,	 and	 depr es-
sion	 (Gr ames	 e t	 al.	 2008;	 Har gr a v e	 and	 Bomba	 1993;	 Gang amma,	 Bartle-Haring ,	
and	Glebo v a	2012;	Gang amma	e t	al.	2015).
Ques tions	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics	 and	 f airness	 ar e	 v er y	 import an t	 f or	 diff er en t	 in -
t erper sonal	 dynamics;	 f or	 e x ample,	 the y	 ar e	 essen tially	 c onn ect ed	 with	 the	 pr o-
cess	 of	 f or giv eness	 and	 r espect 	 (K arr emans	 and	 V an	 Lang e	 2005,	 290–97;	 Cv e t ek	
and	 Cv et ek	 2018,	 863;	 Duc ommun-Nagy	 2009,	 44–46).	 How ev er ,	 In tima t e	 partner s 	
in	 r ela tionship	 crises	 oft en	 sink 	 in t o	 the	 dynamic	 of	 emphasising	 their	 o wn	 suff e-
ring	 and	 the	 other ’ s	 poor	 and	 un f air	 tr ea tmen t	 (Sha w	 2011, 	 2),	 with	 a	 spir alling	
of	 unf air	 tr ea tmen t	 t o	 each	 other ,	 driv en	 by	 the	 sense	 of	 pr evious	 unf air	 tr ea tmen t 	
fr om	the	other	partner	t o w ar d	them.	
Gi v en	 tha t	 the	 per cep tion 	 or	 f eel i ng	 of	 jus tice/i njus tice	 i s	 a	 si gni fic an t	 f act or	 i n 	
the 	 quality 	 of	 par tne r 	 and	 m ar it al	 r e la tionship s	 and	 also	 possible 	 e x c use s	 f or 	 hur -
tful 	 (or	 e v en	 e vil)	 acts	 t o w ar d	 the	 other	 partner ,	 one	 of	 the	 major	 ques tions	 r e-
g ar d i ng	 r el a tio nal 	 e th i cs	 i n	 i n tima t e	 r el a tio nsh i p s	 i s	 the	 su b jectiv e	 n a tur e	 of	 the 	
sense	 of	 f airness.	 Ther e	 ar e,	 of	 c our se,	 c ases	 in	 which	 partner s	 do	 not	 per ceiv e 	
un f air	 or	 e v en	 violen t	 tr ea tmen t	 t o w ar d	 them.	 Such	 partner s	 r eally	 need	 support, 	
but	 individuals	 ar e	 g ener ally	 inclined	 t o	 see	 themselv es	 as	 mor e	 positiv e,	 and	 their 	
in v es tmen t	 and	 giving	 as	 mor e	 import an t.	 The	 phenomena	 of	 blindness	 (ev en 	
ina tt en tion	 blindness)	 and	 selectiv e	 a tt en tion	 ar e	 w ell	 docum en t ed	 in	 the	 nume-
r ous	 s tudies	 and	 lit er a tur e	 in	 ps y chology	 (Simons	 and	 Chabris	 1999,	 1059–74; 	
Hannon	 and	 Richar ds	 2010,	 309–19;	 Hughes-Halle tt 	 e t	 al.	 2015,	 3184–89;	 R eming-
t on,	 Cartwrigh t -Finch,	 and	 La vie	 2014,	 1–11;	 Ok t a y	 and	 Cang ö z	 2018, 	 59–66;	 Cha-
bris	 e t	 al.	 2011, 	 150–53; 	 Cosman	 and	 V e cer a	 2012, 	 576).	 Also , 	 the	 c ons tructs	 of 	

206 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
s el f - a ffirma ti o n 	 ( S t eel e	 1988) ,	 s el f - j u s tifi c a tio n 	 ( Ho l l an d ,	 Meert en s ,	 an d 	 V an 	 V u g t 	
2002;	 Blan t on	 e t	 al.	 2009)	 and	 self -decep tion	 (Fir es t one	 and	 Ca tle tt	 2009,	 155) 	
c an	 help	 us	 under s t and	 the	 subjectiv e 	 per cep tion	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics.	 Aft er 	 all, 	
the	 self -positivity 	 bias,	 which	 means	 tha t	 people	 t end	 t o	 vie w	 themselv es	 in	 an 	
unr ealis tic ally	 positiv e	 ligh t	 and 	 as	 ha ving	 less	 neg a tiv e	 and	 mor e	 positiv e	 per so-
nality	 tr aits	 and	 beha viour al	 char act eris tics	 than	 other s	 (Field s	 e t	 al.	 2019,	 614),	
is	 seen	 as	 one	 of	 the	 mos t	 c ommon	 and	 r obus t	 findings	 in	 social	 p s y chology	 (Lin,	
Lin,	 and 	 Raghub ir	 2003,	 3).	 With	 r eg ar ds	 t o	 r ela tional	 e thics,	 it	 sur ely	 has	 signifi -
c an t	 f amily	 ther apeutic	 implic a tions.	 Emotions, 	 emotional	 r egula tion, 	 and	 pas t 	
a v er siv e	 e xperiences	 (abuse,	 depriv a tion,	 violence	 e t c.)	 c an 	 also 	 pla y	 import an t 	
r oles	 (Gos t ečnik	 e t	 al.	 2019,	 176–78;	 Cv e t ek	 2012,	 281–84;	 V alen t a,	 Gos t ečnik, 	
P a t e,	 and	 R epič	 Sla vič	 2019,	 19–23;	 P oljak	 Luk ek	 and	 V alen t a	 2020,	 162–64).	 It	 is	
import an t	 t o	 s tr ess	 tha t	 Bos z ormen yi-Nagy	 under s t ood	 the	 g oal	 of	 ther apeutic 	
w ork	 with	 r ela tional	 e thics	 not 	 as	 a	 c ognitiv e	 c onsensus	 be tw een	 partner s	 but	 as	
o n e	 th a t	 c o n cern s	 th e	 d i al ectic	 o f 	 r esp o n si b l e	 c ari n g	 wi th i n 	 th e	 r el a ti o n al 	 d i al o -
gue , 	 an	 in t e r pe r sonal	 balance 	 of	 f airne ss	 in v olving 	 the 	 subje ctivity 	 of	 tw o	 side s, 	
each 	 b ei n g	 an ch o r ed	 i n	 th e	 p o l ari ty	 o f	 th e	 r esp ectiv e	 sel f -i n t er es t	 o f	 th e	 tw o	 p ar -
tner s	 (Bos z ormen yi-Nagy	 1997,	 171).	 Ther apeutic	 a tt en tion	 t o	 the	 sense	 of	 r ela-
tional	 e thics	 itself	 c an	 be	 v er y	 help ful.	 F or	 e x ample,	 an	 in t er es ting	 ne w	 model	 (i.e., 	
the	 80%–80%	 model)	 f or	 mor e	 fulfilling	 in tima t e	 r ela tionship s	 w as	 r ecen tly	 de v e-
loped	 by	 Klemp	 and	 Klemp	 (2021).	 The y	 sug g es t	 tha t	 ins t ead	 of	 a	 50–50	 (50% 	
in v es tmen t	 of	 one	 partner	 and	 50%	 in v es tmen t	 of	 the	 other	 partner)	 model	 of 	
marriag e	 and	 r ela tionship s	 based	 on	 f airness,	 one	 in	 which	 each	 partner	 is	 e xpec-
t ed	 t o	 c on tribut e	 equally	 t o	 marriag e,	 c ouples	 (but	 not	 all)	 should	 f ollow	 an	 80–80 	
model	 –	 a	 shift	 fr om	 a	 mindse t	 of	 f airness	 t o	 one	 of	 r adic al	 g ener osity ,	 which	 c an	
help	man y	r ela tionship s	t o	w ork	f or	the	long	t erm	(Klemp	and	Klemp	2021,	18).	
Ques tion	 of	 f airness	 and	 r ela tional	 e thics	 seems	 t o	 be	 import an t	 ques tions	 f or	
futur e	 r esear ch	 in	 in tima t e	 r ela tionship s,	 so	 the	 measur e	 f or	 assessing	 r ela tional	
e thics	 f or	 Slo v ene	 cultur al	 c on t e x ts	 is	 of	 gr ea t	 in t er es t.	 The	 R ela tional	 E thics	 Sc a-
le	 (Har gr a v e,	 Jennings,	 and	 Ander son	 1991)	 is	 curr en tly	 the	 only	 v alida t ed	 and 	
mos t	 widely	 used	 sc ale	 t o	 assess	 r ela tional 	 e thics,	 c oncep tualised 	 as	 c onsis t en t 	
with	the	theor y	of	c on t e x tual	f amily	ther ap y	(Riv ed-Oc aña	e t	al.	2020,	348).	
2. Method
2.1 Participants
The	 sample	 f or	 the	 s tudy	 c onsi s t ed	 of	 271	 v olun t eering	 participan ts,	 196	 w omen	
and	 75	 men,	 with	 a	 mean	 ag e	 of	 37.4	 y ear s	 and	 a	 s t andar d	 de via tion	 of	 12.68, 	
r anging	 fr om	 18	 t o	 80	 y ear s. 	 All	 participan ts	 w er e	 r esiden ts	 of	 Slo v enia	 who	 w er e	
pr oficien t	in	the	Slo v ene	languag e.
R eg ar ding	 marit al	 s t a tus,	 r oughly	 tw o-thir ds	 of	 the	 sample	 r eport ed	 being	 mar -
ried	 (N=158,	 58.1%),	 51	 (18.8%)	 participan ts	 w er e	 single,	 45	 (16.5%)	 participan ts	

207 207 Mateja Cvetek et al. - Relational Ethics Scale
w er e	 in	 partner ship	 but	 not	 married,	 7	 (2.5%)	 w er e	 eng ag ed,	 3	 (1.1%)	 w er e	 di -
v or ced,	and	5	(1.8%)	w er e	wido w ed.
Mos t	 participan ts	 (130,	 48%)	 r eport ed	 ha ving	 a	 univ er sity	 degr ee,	 sec ond	 Bo-
logna	 degr ee,	 or	 equiv alen t,	 72	 (26.6%)	 had	 a	 fir s t	 Bologna	 degr ee	 or	 equiv alen t,	
46	 (17%)	 had	 c omple t ed	 sec on dar y	 school,	 16	 (5.9%)	 had	 a	 specialisa tion	 or	 ma-
s t er	of	science	degr ee,	and	7	(2.6%)	had	doct or a t es.	
2.2 Measures
The	 R ela tional 	 E thics	 Sc ale	 (RE S)	 (Har gr a v e,	 Jennings,	 and	 Ander son	 1991)	 w as 	
used	 in	 the	 s tudy .	 The	 RE S	 is	 a	 self -r eport	 ques tionnair e,	 originally	 c onsis ting	 of	 24 	
it ems	 and	 meas ur es	 per cep tions	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics	 in	 one’ s	 f amily	 of	 origin	 and	
curr en t	 adult	 signific an t	 r ela tionship s.	 The	 c oncep t	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics	 measur ed	
b y	 RE S	 is	 under s t ood	 in	 t erms	 of	 c on t e x tual 	 f amily	 ther ap y .	 P articipan ts	 ans w er 	
each	 it em	 on	 a	 fiv e-poin t	 Lik ert -type	 r esponse	 sc ale	 fr om	 ,s tr ongly	 disagr ee ‘	 t o 	
,s tr ongly	 agr ee ‘ .	 It	 measur es	 tw o	 main	 dimensions	 (v ertic al 	 and	 horiz on t al,	 12 	
it e m s	 e ac h); 	 in	 the	 or ig inal	 v e r sion	 (c om pone n t 	 analy sis, 	 N =2 0 9 ), 	 e ac h	 dim e nsi-
on	 assesses	 thr ee	 sub sc ales	 (trus t	 and	 jus tice, 	 en titlemen t	 and	 lo y alty)	 (Har gr a v e, 	
Jennings,	 and	 Ander son	 1991,	 149–53).	 The	 v ertic al	 dimension	 assesses	 r ela tional 	
e thics	 in 	 the	 par en t -child	 r ela tionship	 of	 the	 f amily	 of	 origin,	 while	 the	 horiz on t al	
dimension	 assesses	 r ela tional	 e thics	 in	 a	 r ela tionship	 with	 a	 partner .	 The	 v alidity	
of	 RE S	 w as	 also	 t es t e d	 on	 single,	 ne v e r -married	 individuals	 (N =160, 	 Har gr a v e 	 and 	
Bomba	 1993);	 principal	 c omponen t	 analy sis	 f ound	 a	 similar	 thr ee- f act or	 s tructur e 	
f or	the	horiz on t al	and	v ertic al	dimensions.	
W e	 ha v e	 f ound	 one	 adapt ation	of	 the	 scale	 into	 a	 diff er ent	 language.	 Riv ed-Ocaña 	
e t	 al.	 (2020)	 adap t ed	 RE S	 in t o	 Spanish.	 Explor a t or y	 f act or	 analy sis	 of	 the	 Spanish 	
v er sion	 r esult ed	 in	 a	 thr ee- f act or	 solution	 (59.10%	 v ariance	 e xplained),	 one	 f act or 	
c omposed	 of	 Horiz on t al	 R ela tionship	 it ems,	 and	 tw o	 f act or s	 c omposed	 of	 V ertic al 	
R ela tionship	 it ems	 (2020,	 350–51).	 Bec ause	 both	 f act or s	 of	 the	 V ertic al	 r ela tionship 	
it ems	 w er e	 highly	 c orr ela t ed,	 they	 c ombined	 both	 f act or s	 in t o	 one	 t o	 obt ain	 a	 mor e 	
theor etic ally	 meaningful	 model.	 The	 solution	 w as	 c onfirmed	 with	 c onfirma t ory 	 f ac -
t or	 analy sis	 (351–352).	 Their	 r esults	 sug g es t	 tha t	 S-RE S	 is	 bes t	 r epr esen t ed	 with	 tw o 	
subsc ales	r epr esen ting	v ertic al	and	horiz on t al	r ela tionships	(352). 	
2.3 Translation Process 
The	 tr ansla tion 	 pr ocess	 in t o	 the	 Slo v ene	 languag e	 mainly	 f ollo w ed	 the	 s t andar d	
tr ansla tion 	 pr ocess.	 The	 appr ov al	 fr om	 the	 original	 author	 of	 the	 RE S	 w as	 ob -
t ained	 t o	 tr ansla t e	 and	 adap t	 the	 sc ale	 t o	 the	 Slo v ene	 langua g e.	 The	 English	 v er -
sion	 of	 the	 RE S	 w as	 independe n tly	 tr ansla t ed	 in t o	 the	 Slo v ene	 languag e	 b y	 thr ee	
tr ansla t or s	 pr oficien t 	 in	 both	 English	 and	 Slo v ene.	 Thr ee 	 v er sions	 w er e	 c ompar ed 	
b y	 the	 tr ansla t or s, 	 and	 inc onsis t encies	 in	 their	 tr ansla tions	 w er e	 discussed.	 The 	
c onsensus	 w as	 r eached	 f or	 all	 it ems.	 This	 v er sion	 w as	 pr e t es t ed;	 it	 w as	 used	 and	
analy sed	 b y	 s tuden ts	 in	 a	 pos tgr adua t e	 c our se	 in	 r esear ch	 me thods	 in	 marit al	 and 	
f amily	s tudies	a t	 the	 Univ er sity	 of	Ljubljana.	 Studen ts	 v olun t arily	 adminis t er ed	 it	

208 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
f or	 t es ting	 thr ough	 their	 social	 ne tw ork s	 t o	 36	 participan ts 	 (ag es	 r anging	 fr om 	
23	 t o	 54).	 The	 da t a	 w er e	 used	 t o	 sho w	 some	 basic	 p s y chome tric	 analy ses	 based	
on	 the	 c ollect ed	 da t a	 and	 t o	 e v alua t e	 the	 under s t anding ,	 c ompr ehensibility ,	 and	
suit ability	 of	the	it ems.	The	sc ale	w as	also	 check ed	b y	 a	Slo v ene	 languag e	 pr oof -
r e ade r .	 Base d	 upon	 f e e dbac k , 	 som e 	 m inor 	 aspe c ts	 of	 the 	 tr ansla t e d	 v e r sion	 w e r e	
discussed	 b y	 tr ansla t or s	 and	 r esear cher s	 and	 w er e	 modified	 t o	 bes t	 ensur e	 tha t	
the	 ques tionnair e 	 w as	 w ell	 adapt ed	 f or	 use	 within	 a	 Slov ene	 cultur al	 c on t e xt. 	
Then	 a	 na tiv e	 English-speaking	 tr ansla t or ,	 who	 had	 not	 seen	 the	 original	 English	
v er sion,	 tr ansla t ed	 the	 Slo v ene	 v er sion	 of	 the	 RE S	 back	 in t o	 the	 English	 languag e	
(back -tr ansla tion).	 T r ansla t or s	 and	 r esear cher s	 c ompar ed	 the	 original	 v er sion	 and 	
the	 back -tr ansla t ed	 v er sion	 about	 the	 similarity	 in	 languag e	 and	 meaning ,	 ad	 no	
import an t	 diff er ences	 w er e	 f ound.	 The	 main	 author	 of	 the	 original	 v er sion	 of	 RE S, 	
T err y	 Har gr a v e,	 check ed	 the	 original	 and	 back -tr ansla t ed	 v er sions	 and	 c on firmed	
th e	 ap p r o p ri a t en ess	 o f	 th e	 fi n al 	 v er si o n 	 o f	 th e	 tr an sl a tio n . 	 T h e	 tr an sl a t ed 	 v er si o n 	
c an	be	f ound	in	the	Appendix.	
2.4 Procedure
Once	 tr ansla t ed,	 the	 RE S	 and	 a	 short	 demogr aphic	 ques tionnair e 	 w er e	 admini-
s t er ed	 t o	 v olun t eer	 participan ts	 r ecruit ed	 online	 thr ough	 social	 ne tw ork s	 b y	 the	
author s	 via	 the	 »1k a«	 online	 sur v e y	 t ool.	 The	 online	 da t a	 c ol lecting	 me thod	 has	
been	 criticised	 b y	 some	 r esear cher s,	 but	 ther e	 is	 s tr ong	 empiric al	 e vidence	 su-
g g es ting	 tha t	 r esults	 fr om	 these	 da t a	 ar e	 c onsis t en t	 with	 findings	 fr om	 tr aditional 	
me thods	 (Gosli ng	 e t	 al.	 2004,	 93).	 The	 r esults	 w er e	 analy sed	 using	 SPSS	 (v er sion	
20)	and	AMOS	(v er sion	27).	
3. Results
3.1 Descriptive Statistics on Item Level
Means,	 s t andar d	 de via tions,	 k urt osis	 and	 sk e wness	 on	 the	 it em	 le v el	 of	 the	 tr an-
sla t ed	 original	 RE S	 ar e	 pr esen t ed	 in	 T able	 1.	 Means	 of	 the	 it ems	 r ang ed	 fr om	 1.47 	
t o	4.33,	k urt osis	fr om	-1.06	t o	1.79	and	sk e wness	fr om	-1.34	t o	1.28.	
RE S	It em M Md SD Sk e wness Kurtosis
1 3.92 4 1.044 -0.942 0.413
2 2.62 2 1.202 0.302 -0.921
3 2.30 2 1.117 0.546 -0.622
4 3.79 4 1.062 -0.682 -0.327
5 4.19 4 .812 -0.954 1.055
6 2.38 2 1.297 0.482 -1.060
7 3.57 4 1.095 -0.377 -0.906
8 2.20 2 1.227 0.719 -0.626
9 2.88 3 1.170 0.071 -0.962
10 3.78 4 .961 -0.735 0.275

209 209 Mateja Cvetek et al. - Relational Ethics Scale
11 3.93 4 .900 -0.776 0.436
12 2.45 2 1.260 0.541 -0.812
13 4.09 4 .808 -0.981 1.188
14 1.78 2 .849 1.148 1.136
15 2.60 2 1.053 0.228 -0.795
16 4.33 5 .838 -1.344 1.785
17 4.22 4 .850 -1.232 1.609
18 2.37 2 1.062 0.608 -0.320
19 2.32 2 1.094 0.531 -0.605
20 4.16 4 .826 -0.825 0.224
21 3.84 4 .907 -0.530 -0.279
22 1.47 1 .644 1.283 1.587
23 1.80 2 .856 1.161 1.352
24 4.25 4 .797 -1.142 1.499
Note: N=271. M – arithmetic mean. Md – median. 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics on item level for the RES.
3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis
A n	 e xplor a t or y 	 f ac t or 	 analy sis	 w ith	 pr inc ipal	 c om pone n t 	 analy se s	 w as	 c alc ula t e d. 	
Fir s t,	 w e	 check ed	 the	 K aiser	 Me y er -Olkin	 Measur e	 of	 Sampling	 Adequacy ,	 and	 the 	
r esults	 sho w ed	 tha t	 the	 sample	 w as	 adequa t e	 (KMO=0.887).	 W e	 also	 perf ormed	
Bartl e tt ’ s 	 t es t	 o f	 sp h eri ci ty ,	 an d 	 th e	 t es t	 w as	 si gn i fi c an t	 ( χ 2	 ( 276) 	 =	 2594. 65,	 si g.	
=	 0.000),	 indic a ting	 tha t	 nonz e r o	 c orr ela tions	 e xis t	 within	 the	 da t a	 se t.	 Based	 on	
these	 g ood	 r esults,	 w e	 pr oceed	 with	 c alcula ting	 f act or	 analy sis.	 Oblique	 r ot a tion	
(dir ect	 oblimin, 	 also	 used	 b y	 Riv ed-Oc aña	 e t	 al.	 2020)	 w as	 used	 due	 t o	 the	 theo-
r e tic al	assump tion	tha t	RE S	f act or s	ar e	c orr ela t ed.
W e	 fir s t	 perf ormed	 analy sis	 using	 a	 s t a tis tic al	 e x tr action	 rule	 f or	 the	 eig en v alue 	
t o	 be	 a t	 leas t	 1	 (K aiser	 Guttman	 crit erion).	 The	 r esults	 sho w ed	 tha t	 f our	 f act or s 	
should	 be	 r e t ain ed,	 with	 56.15%	 of	 v ariance	 e xplained.	 Since 	 K aiser	 Guttman	 cri-
t erion	 is	 described	 in	 the	 lit er a tur e	 as	 someho w	 pr oblema tic	 (Ha y t on,	 Allen,	 and	
Sc arpello	 2004,	 193),	 pr oposed	 par allel	 analy sis	 (P A)	 (Ha y t on,	 Allen,	 and	 Sc arpel-
lo	 2004)	 with	 O ’ Connor	 (2000)	 tut orial	 f or	 SPSS	 w as	 used	 t o	 de t ermine	 the	 num -
ber	of	f act or s	t o	r e t ain.	P A	r esults	sho w ed	tha t	thr ee	f act or s	should	be	r e t ained.
In	 the	 ne x t	 s t ep,	 it em	 c ommunalities	 and	 loadings	 in	 the	 pa tt ern	 ma trix	 w er e	
assessed.	 Simila r	 as	 in	 the	 pr ocedur e	 of	 the	 Spanish	 adap t a tion	 of	 RE S	 b y	 Riv ed-
Oc aña	 (2020),	 some	 it ems	 (in	 our	 v er sion	 it ems	 5,	 10	 and	 13)	 w er e	 r emo v ed	 due	
t o	 lo w	 (under	 0,30)	 c ommunalities	 (c ommunalities	 of	 r emo v ed	 it ems	 r ang ed	 fr om 	
0,239	 t o	 0,281).	 It em	 5	 (»No	 matter	 what	 happened,	 I	 always	 stood	 by	 my	 family«) 	
w as	 fr om	 the	 original	 RE S	 V ertic al 	 Lo y alty	 sub sc ale,	 it em	 10	 (»Individuals	 in	 my 	
family	 were	 willing	 to	 give	 of	 themselves	 to	 benefit	 the	 family«)	 w as	 fr om	 the 	
original	 RE S	 V ertic al 	 trus t	 and	 jus tice	 sub sc ale,	 and	 it em	 13	 (»I	 try	 to	 meet	 the 	
emotional	 needs	 of	 this	 person«)	 w as	 fr om	 the	 original	 RE S	 subsc ale	 en titled 	
»Horiz on t al	 lo y alty«.	 Ne xt	 (the	 same	 as	 in	 Spanish	 adapt a tion	 of	 RE S),	 it em	 15 	
(»When	 I	 feel	 hurt,	 I	 say	 or	 do	 hurtful	 things	 to	 this	 person«)	 and	 it em	 19	 (»When 	

210 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
I	 fee l	 angry,	 I	 te nd	 to	 take	 it	 ou t	 on	 this	 person«)	 fr om	 the	 original	 Horiz on t al	 en-
titlemen t	 sub sc ale	 of	 RE S	 w er e	 the	 only	 tw o	 indic a t or s	 f or	 a	 single	 f act or	 and	 w er e 	
r emo v ed,	 since	 the	 f act or	 does	 not	 mee t	 the	 crit erion	 of	 a t	 leas t	 thr ee	 indic a t or s	
(Hair	e t	al.	2010).	
Then	 upda t ed	 e xplor a t or y	 f act or	 analy sis	 (with	 a	 sec ond	 par allel	 analy sis	 f or 	
de t ermining	 the	 number	 of	 f act or s)	 w as	 c alcula t ed.	 P ar allel	 analy sis	 sho w ed	 tha t	
the	 tw o- f act or	 solution	 should	 be	 applied. 	 Upda t ed	 and	 final 	 e xplor a t or y	 f act or 	
analy sis	 sho w ed	 a	 tw o- f act or	 solution	 acc oun ting	 f or	 50.68%	 of	 the	 v ariance,	 f ac-
t or	 1	 (indic a ting	 horiz on t al	 r ela tionship	 it ems)	 e xplains	 33.93%	 of	 the	 v ariance 	
and	 f act or	 2	 (indic a ting	 v ertic al	 r ela tionship	 it ems)	 e xplains	 16.75%	 of	 the	 v ari-
ance.	In	T able	3,	f act or	loadings	and	c ommunalities	ar e	pr esen t ed.	
RE S/Si-RE S	it ems	 F act or	1 F act or	2 Communalities
It em	1	RE S	/	(It em	1	Si-RE S) 0.728 0.031 .517
It em	2	RE S	/	(It em	2	Si-RE S) -0.616 -0.024 .371
It em	3	RE S	/	(It em	3	Si-RE S) -0.547 0.066 .327
It em	4	RE S	/	(It em	4	Si-RE S) 0.764 -0.092 .637
It em	6	RE S	/	(It em	5	Si-RE S) -0.733 -0.023 .526
It em	7	RE S	/	(It em	6	Si-RE S) 0.797 0.012 .629
It em	8	RE S	/	(It em	7	Si-RE S) -0.791 -0.04 .607
It em	9	RE S	/	(It em	8	Si-RE S) -0.679 -0.059 .438
It em	11	RE S	/	(It em	9	Si-RE S) 0.566 -0.059 .345
It em	12	RE S	/	(It em	10	Si-RE S) -0.82 0.016 .681
It em	14	RE S	/	(It em	11	Si-RE S) 0.037 -0.708 .520
It em	16	RE S	/	(It em	12	Si-RE S) 0.073 0.804 .613
It em	17	RE S	/	(It em	13	Si-RE S) -0.026 0.571 .337
It em	18	RE S	/	(It em	14	Si-RE S) 0.001 -0.644 .415
It em	20	RE S	/	(It em	15	Si-RE S) -0.063 0.762 .616
It em	21	RE S	/	(It em	16	Si-RE S) -0.037 0.712 .526
It em	22	RE S	/	(It em	17	Si-RE S) -0.046 -0.53 .268
It em	23	RE S	/	(It em	18	Si-RE S) -0.022 -0.785 .605
It em	24	RE S	/	(It em	19	Si-RE S) -0.03 0.797 .651
Note: RES – original Relational Ethics Scale, Si-RES – Slovene version of Relational Ethics Scale. Factor load-
ings 0.50 or higher are indicated in bold.
Table 2: Principal axis factor analysis results for SI-RES: Oblique (direct oblimin) factor load-
ings for two factors solution.
The	 loadings	 of	 the	 Si-RE S	 it ems	 r ang ed	 be tw een	 -0.82	 and	 0.804	 (ab solut e 	
v alue	 r ang e	 be tw een	 0.53	 and	 0.82.	 Ther e	 w er e	 no	 signific an t	 sec ondar y	 loadings 	
tha t	 w ould	 e x ceed	 0,10.	 The	 ab solut e	 loadings	 f or	 Horiz on t al	 sub sc ale	 f act or	 it ems 	
r ang ed	 fr om	 0.566	 t o	 0.82,	 and	 f or	 V ertic al 	 subsc ale	 f act or	 it ems	 fr om	 0,53	 t o	 0,804. 	
Similar	 t o	 the	 analy tic	 me thod	 of	 Riv ed-Oc aña	 e t	 al.	 (2020),	 a ft er 	 the	 e xplor -
a t or y	 f act or	 analy sis,	 c on firma t or y	 f act or	 analy sis	 using	 the	 ma ximum	 lik elihood	
f act or	 t o	 t es t	 the	 g oodness	 of	 fit	 w as	 c alcula t ed.	 Due	 t o	 the	 r easons	 described	 in	

211 211 Mateja Cvetek et al. - Relational Ethics Scale
the	 pr e vious	 section,	 w e	 t es t ed	 the	 tw o- f act or	 model.	 In	 c alcula tions,	 these	 tw o	
f act or s	 w er e	 permitt ed 	 t o	 c orr ela t e.	 T able	 3	 pr esen ts	 the	 s t andar dised 	 r egr ession 	
w eigh ts	and	model	fit	s t a tis tics	f or	the	model	t es t ed.
	RE S/Si-RE S	it ems
Correlated Two-Factor Model
F act or	1 F act or	2
It em	1	RE S	/	(It em	1	Si-RE S) 0.652 ---
It em	2	RE S	/	(It em	2	Si-RE S) -0.563 ---
It em	3	RE S	/	(It em	3	Si-RE S) -0.509 ---
It em	4	RE S	/	(It em	4	Si-RE S) 0.773 ---
It em	6	RE S	/	(It em	5	Si-RE S) -0.655 ---
It em	7	RE S	/	(It em	6	Si-RE S) 0.753 ---
It em	8	RE S	/	(It em	7	Si-RE S) -0.751 ---
It em	9	RE S	/	(It em	8	Si-RE S) -0.606 ---
It em	11	RE S	/	(It em	9	Si-RE S) 0.542 ---
It em	12	RE S	/	(It em	10	Si-RE S) -0.81 ---
It em	14	RE S	/	(It em	11	Si-RE S) --- -0.694
It em	16	RE S	/	(It em	12	Si-RE S) --- 0.729
It em	17	RE S	/	(It em	13	Si-RE S) --- 0.53
It em	18	RE S	/	(It em	14	Si-RE S) --- -0.625
It em	20	RE S	/	(It em	15	Si-RE S) --- 0.763
It em	21	RE S	/	(It em	16	Si-RE S) --- 0.689
It em	22	RE S	/	(It em	17	Si-RE S) --- -0.479
It em	23	RE S	/	(It em	18	Si-RE S) --- -0.769
It em	24	RE S	/	(It em	19	Si-RE S) --- 0.775
Model fit indices
χ2 = 307.39,  
df= 151,  
χ2/df=2.036, p<0.001,  
CFI = 0.93, 
TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06
Note: RES – original Relational Ethics Scale, Si-RES – Slovene version of Relational Ethics Scale. All factor 
loadings and error variances are significant at p<.001.
Table 3: Standardised regression weights and model fit statistics - results of Confirmatory 
Factor Analytic Test for correlated two-factor models.
The	 r esults	 indic a t e	 tha t	 the	 pr oposed	 tw o- f act or	 model	 is	 adequa t e.	 Although 	
chi-squar e	 is	 s t a tis tic ally	 signifi c an t	 (χ2	 =	 307.39,	 df=	 151,	 χ2/df=2.036,	 p<0.001),	
othe r	 indice s	 of	 mode l	 fit	 (the 	 R oot	 Me an	 Squar e	 Er r or s	 of	 A ppr o xima tion	 [ RM-
SE A ]	 =	 0.06; 	 Compar a tiv e 	 Fit	 Inde x e s	 [CFI]	 =	 0.93; 	 T uck e r -Le wis	 Inde x	 [TLI]	 =	 0.91)	
ar e	 r easonably	 sa tis f act ory 	 (the y	 appr oach	 w ell	 fit), 	 and	 the y	 indic a t e	 tha t	 the 	
model	 appear s	 t o	 find 	 support.	 The y	 c omply	 with	 the	 crit eria	 f or	 adequa t e	 fit 	
(Lópe z,	 Jódar ,	 and	 MacDonald 	 2017,	 1115);	 CFI	 is	 abo v e	 the	 crit erion	 (0.90	 and 	
abo v e	 (Holmes-Smith	 2011)),	 the	 RMSE A	 is	 belo w	 0.08	 (lo w er	 v alues	 indic a t e	 be t -
t er	 fit,	 0.08	 is	 g ener ally	 vie w ed	 as	 pr o viding	 e vidence	 of	 adequa t e	 fit,	 f or	 a	 de t ailed 	
discussion	 see	 B yrne	 (2010,	 80-81)).	 The	 T uck er -Lewis	 Inde x	 pr oduces	 a	 v alue 	
abo v e	0.90	and	also	indic a t es	adequa t e	fit.	

212 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
The	 es tima t ed	c orr ela tion	be tw een	 the	 tw o	 f act or s	 (Horiz on t al	 and	 V ertic al 	
sub sc ale)	 is	 moder a t e,	 namely	 0.396,	 and	 is	 similar	 t o	 r esults	 (0.39)	 in	 the	 s tudy	
of	Riv ed-Oc aña	e t	al.	(2020,	353).
3.3 Descriptive and Reliability Statistics of Si-RES
Means,	 s t andar d	 de via tions,	 minimums,	 ma ximums,	 and	 Cr onbach	 alpha	 r eliabi -
lity	 c oe fficien ts	 f or	 both	 de t ermined	 Horiz on t al	 and	 V ertic al	 sub sc ales	 (along	 with 	
t ot al	 sc ale)	 of	 Si-RE S	 w er e	 c alcula t ed	 and	 pr esen t ed	 in	 T able	 4.	 All	 Cr onbach	 alpha 	
c oe fficien ts	r e flect	e x cellen t	r eliability .	
M Md SD Sk e wness Kurtosis Min. Ma x.
Cr onbach	
Alpha
Si-RE S	Horiz on t al	 36.33 38.00 8.00 -.452 -.663 14.00 50.00 0.884
Si-RE S	V ertic al 37.55 38.00 5.28 -.833 .744 20.00 45.00 0.872
Si-RE S	T ot al 73.88 76.00 11.02 -.460 -.308 44.00 95.00 0.887
Note: N=271. M – arithmetic mean. Md – median. Min. – minimum. Max. – maximum. Si-RES Horizontal 
– Horizontal subscale of Slovene version of Relational Ethics Scale. Si-RES Vertical – Vertical subscale of Slo-
vene version of Relational Ethics Scale. Si-RES Total – Total score of Slovene version of Relational Ethics scale.
Table 4: Descriptive and Reliability Statistics for the Si-RES subscales and Si-RES total score.
4. Discussion
In	 Slov enia,	 ther e	 is	 a	 lack	 of	 measur es	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics.	 In	 f act,	 w e	 do	 not	 know 	
of	 an y	 tha t	 ha v e 	 been	 tr ansla t ed,	 adap t ed,	 and	 p s y chome tric ally	 e v alua t ed	 t o	 be	
used 	 f or	 r esear ch	 an d	 other	 purposes.	 Th er e f or e,	 our	 s tudy	 e v al ua t ed	 one	 su ch 	
sc ale : 	 the	 Slo v e ne 	 lang uag e 	 v e r sion	 of	 the	 R e la tional	 E thic s	 Sc ale 	 (Si-RE S)	 w hic h 	
measur es	 r ela tional	 e thics	 as	 c oncep tualised	 b y	 Bos z ormen yi-Nagy 	 and	 K r asner 	
(1986)	 and	 c omposed	 of	 per cep tion	 of	 trus t	 and	 jus tice,	 lo y alty	 and	 en titlemen t.	
The	 r esults	 of	 our	 s tudy	 pr o vide	 s tr ong	 support	 f or	 the	 p s y chome tric	 pr operti-
es	 of	 our	 adap t a tion	 of	 the	 Si-RE S.	 W e	 f ound	 e x cellen t	 r eliability	 (Cr onbach	 alpha) 	
of	 the	 Si-RE S	 dimensions.	 Measur es	 of	 r eliability	 and	 also	 other	 ps y chometric 	
char act eris tics	 (e. g.,	 arithme tic	 means	 of	 dimensions)	 ar e	 mainly	 c onsis t en t	 with	
published	 r esea r ch	 of	 the	 R ela tional	 E thics	 Sc ale	 (Har gr a v e,	 Je nnings,	 and	 Ander -
son	1991;	Har gr a v e	and	Bomba	1993;	Riv ed-Oc aña	e t	al.	2020).
Fur the r m or e , 	 e xplor a t or y 	 and	 c on fir ma t or y 	 f act or 	 analy sis	 g a v e	 suppor tiv e 	 r e -
sults	 and	 ar e , 	 in	 g e ne r al, 	 e spe c ially 	 c onsis t e n t	 with	 the 	 Spanish	 adap t a tion	 of	 the	
R ela tional	 E thic s	 Sc ale	 (Riv ed-Oc aña	 e t	 al.	 2020).	 Ther e	 ar e	 tw o	 main	 diff er ences	
fr om	 the	 original	 RE S	 (Har gr a v e,	 Jennings,	 and	 Ander son	 1991);	 namely ,	 it	 has 	
f e w er	 it ems	 and 	 a	 sligh tly	 diff e r en t	 f act orial	 s tructur e.	 The	 f act or	 solution,	 r epr e -
sen t ed	 in	 Har gr a v e	 e t	 al.	 (1991),	 has	 thr ee	 separ a t e	 f act or s	 (trus t	 and	 jus tice,	 lo -
y alty	 and	 en titlemen t)	 r epr esen ting	 each	 horiz on t al	 and	 v ertic al	 dimension.	 How e -
v e r ,	 similar 	 t o	 the 	 Spanish	 adap t a tion, 	 our	 r e sults	 sug g e s t e d	 a	 tw o- f act or 	 s tr uctu-

213 213 Mateja Cvetek et al. - Relational Ethics Scale
r e,	 one	 f act or	 r epr esen ting	 the	 horiz on t al	 and	 the	 sec ond	 f act or	 the	 v ertic al 	 di -
mension.	 Lik e	 the	 Spanish-speaking	 participan ts, 	 the	 curr en t	 Slo v ene-speaking 	
sample	 in	 the	 s tudy	 seems	 t o	 per ceiv e	 r ela tional 	 e thics	 mor e	 globally:	 in	 t erms	 of 	
horiz on t al	 and	 v ertic al	 r ela tion al	 e thics	 and	 not	 as	 thr ee	 dis tinct	 sub sc ales	 (trus t	
and	 jus tice,	 lo y alty ,	 en titlemen t). 	 This	 s tructur e	 of	 Si-RE S	 is	 both	 mos t	 theor e ti-
c ally	meaningful	and	s t a tis tic ally	c on firmed.	
Ther e	 ar e	 diff er en t	 possible	 r e asons	 f or	 the	 discr epancy	 fr om	 the	 original	 v er -
sion.	 Of	 c our se,	 cultur al	 and	 seman tic	 diff er ences	 ar e	 possible.	 Slo v ene	 people’ s	
per cep tion	 of	 r ela tionship s	 e thics	 c ould	 be	 mor e	 similar	 t o	 Spain’ s	 than	 tha t	 of 	
the	 Unit ed	 St a t es.	 Another	 possible	 r eason,	 as	 sug g es t ed	 in	 Riv ed-Oc aña	 e t	 al. 	
(2020, 	 355), 	 is	 time 	 diff er e nce s.	 Thr e e	 dec ade s	 ha v e 	 passe d	 since	 the	 original	 v a-
lida tion	 of	 the	 RE S	 in	 1991.	 Vie w s	 on	 r ela tionship s,	 including	 r ela tional	 e thics,	 in	
th e	 o ri gi n al 	 f ami l y ,	 as	 w el l 	 as	 i n	 ad u l t	 v ertic al 	 r el a tio n sh i p s,	 c o u l d 	 h a v e	 ch an g ed	
sub s t an tially , 	 and	 these	 diff er ences	 c ould	 be	 r e flect ed	 in	 our	 r esults,	 especially 	
since	 the	 ne w er 	 Spanish	 v er sio n	 in	 2020	 sho w ed	 similar	 r esults.	 Ho w e v er ,	 f or	 fir -
mer	 c onclusions,	 mor e	 up-t o-da t e	 v alida tions	 in	 diff er en t	 cultur al	 c on t e xts	 ar e 	
pr oposed.	
Import an t	 is	 the	 notion 	 of	 Riv ed-Oc aña	 e t	 al.	 (2020):	 tha t	 Bos z ormen yi-Nagy 	
himself	 f ocused	 on	 the	 horiz on t al	 and	 v ertic al 	 dimensions	 of	 r ela tional 	 ethics 	
r a ther	 than	 the	 sub sc ales	 within	 each	 dimension	 (Adkins	 2010).	 Ho w e v er ,	 w e	 also 	
think	 tha t	 it	 is	 possible	 tha t	 per cep tions	 and	 under s t anding	 of	 r ela tionship s	 e thi -
cs	 ar e	 no w	 mor e	 similar	 t o	 tha t	 position	 of	 the	 Bos z ormen yi-Nagy	 than	 it	 w as	 in	
the	time	of	the	original	v er sion.
R eg ar ding	 the	 f e w er	 it ems	 of	 Si-RE S	 in	 c omparison	 with	 the	 original	 v er sion,	 w e 	
s tr ess	 tha t	 w e	 r emo v ed	 the	 same 	 thr ee	 it ems	 tha t	 w er e	 r emo v ed	 in	 the	 Spanish 	
v er sion:	 it em	 15	 (»When	 I	 f eel	 hurt,	 I	 sa y	 or	 do	 hurtful	 things	 t o	 this	 per son«),	 it em 	
19	 (»When	 I	 f eel	 angr y ,	 I	 t end	 t o	 t ak e	 it	 out	 on	 this	 per son«)	 and	 it em	 13	 (»I	 tr y	 t o 	
mee t	 the	 emotional	 needs	 of	 this	 per son«).	 In	 particular , 	 the	 fir s t 	 tw o	 r emo v ed 	
it ems	 (15	 and	 19)	 seem	 t o	 measur e	 one	 f act or:	 specific	 aspects	 of	 adult	 r ela tion-
ships,	 diff er en t	 fr om	 other	 it ems	 of	 r ela tional	 e thics,	 possibly	 mor e	 c onnect ed	 with 	
e xpr essions	 of	 ang er	 and	 hurt,	 impulse	 c on tr ol	 or	 emotional	 r egula tion.	 As	 pr e vi-
o u sl y	 d i s cu ssed ,	 cu l tu r al 	 o r	 ti me	 d i ff er en ces	 c o u l d	 b e	 r esp o n si b l e	 f o r	 th e	 d i s cr e-
pancy	 with	 the	 original	 v er sion.	 In	 the	 Spanish	 v er sion,	 it ems	 2,	 11,	 17	 and	 22	 w er e 	
also	 r emo v ed,	 but	 this	 w as	 not	 the	 c ase	 in	 the	 Slo v ene	 v er sion.	 In	 the	 Slo v ene	 v er -
sion,	 jus t	 it em	 5	 (»No	 ma tt er 	 wha t	 happened,	 I	 alw a y s	 s t ood	 b y	 m y	 f amily«)	 and 	
it em	 10	 (»Individuals	 in	 m y	 f amily	 w er e	 willing	 t o	 giv e	 of	 themselv es	 t o	 bene fit	 the 	
f amily«)	 w er e	 s t a tis tic ally	 less	 appr opria t e	 f or	 this	 Slov ene	 sample	 and	 w er e	 r emo-
v ed	fr om	the	final	measur e	due	t o	smaller	c ommunalities.
Although	 w e	 find 	 our	 sample	 of	 similar	 quality	 as,	 f or	 e x ample,	 the	 original 	
e v al u a tio n 	 s tu d i es	 o f	 RE S 	 ( Har gr a v e,	 Jen n i n gs,	 an d 	 An d er so n 	 1991;	 Har gr a v e	 an d 	
Bomba	 1993),	 w e	 need	 t o	 s tr ess	 tha t	 a	 big g er	 sample	 c ould	 be	 mor e	 fully	 r epr e-
sen t a tiv e 	 of	 the	 whole	 Slo v ene	 popula tion	 and	 tha t	 this	 f act	 ma y	 ha v e	 c on tribu-
t ed	 t o	 the	 limit a tion	 of	 this	 s tudy .	 Ther e f or e,	 futur e	 s tudies	 should	 be	 done	 with 	

214 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
lar g er	 and	 mor e	 div er se	 Slov ene	 samples	 (other	 than	 married	 subjects	 ar e	 so-
mewha t	 underr epr esen t ed	 in	 our	 sample)	 t o	 possibly	 c onfirm	and	 e xt end	 our 	
results.
How e v er ,	 giv en	 the	 c on firma tiv e 	 s t a tis tic al	 r esults,	 theor e tic ally 	 meaningful 	
f act or	 solution,	 and	 similarity	 of	 the	 Slov ene	 v er sion	 with	 the	 Spanish	 one,	 w e 	
support	 using	 our	 tr ansla t ed	 v er sion	 of	 the	 Si-RE S	 as	 a	 pr omising	 ins trumen t	 f or	
research and other use in Slovenia.
Abbreviation
 RES 	–	 R ela tional	E thics	Sc ale.
References
Adkins, Katie S.	2010 .	A	c o n t e x t u a l	f a m i l y	t h e r a p y 	
t h e o r y	e x p l a n a ti o n	f o r	i n ti m a t e 	p a r t n e r	v i o -
l e n c e.	U n p u b l i s h e d	d o c t o r a l	d i s s e r t a ti o n .	T h e 	
O h i o	St a t e	U n i v e r s i t y .	C i t e d	i n	M e r c è	R i v e d -
O c añ a , 	 Mar ia 	 L . 	 S c h w e e r - C o lli ns , 	 Mar ti ñ o 	
R o d r í g u e z- G o nz á l e z,	S a r a h	A .	C r a b t r e e ,	L u í s 	
B o t e l l a - G a r c i a	d e l	C i d	a n d	T e r r y	D .	H a r g r av e. 	
S p a n i s h	a d a p t a ti o n	o f	t h e	r e l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s 	
scale. Contemporary Family Therapy 42: 3 4 6 –
35 9 ,	35 4 .	2020 .
Austin, Wendy J.	20 0 8 .	Re l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s .	I n :	L i s a	
M .	G i v e n ,	e d .	The SAGE Encyclopedia of Quali-
tative Research Methods ,	7 4 8 – 7 49 .	T h o u s a n d 	
O a k s ,	C A :	S a ge	P u b l i c a ti o n s .
Blanton, Hart, Joel Cooper, Ian Skurnik and Josh-
ua Aronson.	20 0 9 .	W h e n	b a d	t h i n g s	h a p p e n	t o 	
go o d	f e e d b a c k :	E x a c e r b a ti n g	t h e	n e e d	f o r 	
se lf -j u s ti fic a tion 	 w it h 	 se lf -a ffi rm a tion s. 	Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin	2 3, 	n o. 	
7: 6 8 4 – 6 9 2 .
Boszormenyi-Nagy, Ivan. 1 9 97 .	Re s p o n s e	t o	“ A r e 	
t r u s t wo r t h i n e s s	a n d	f a i r n e s s	e n o u g h ?	C o n t e x -
t u a l	f a m i l y	t h e r a p y	a n d	t h e	go o d	f a m i l y ” . 	
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy	2 3, 	n o. 	
2:17 1–17 3 .
Boszormenyi-Nagy, Ivan, and Barbara R. Krasner. 
1 9 8 6 .	Between give and take: A clinical guide 
to contextual therapy .	N e w	Y o r k :	B r u n n e r ; 	
Mazel.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, Ivan, J. Grunebaum and 
David N. Ulrich .	1 9 9 1 .	C o n t e x t u a l	f a m i l y	t h e r a -
p y .	I n :	A l a n	S .	G u r m a n	a n d	D av i d	P .	K n i s ke r n , 	
eds. Handbook of family therapy ,	20 0 – 2 3 8 . 	
N e w	Y o r k :	B r u n n e r ;	M aze l .
Brosnan, Sarah F., and Frans B. M. de Waal .	20 0 3 . 	
M o n ke y s	r ej e c t	u n e q u a l	p ay .	Nature 	4 2 5,	n o. 	
69 55 :2 9 7 – 2 9 9 .
Byrne, Barbara M.	 2010 . Structural equation 
modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions, and programming .	2n d	e d i ti o n .	N e w 	
Y o r k :	R o u t l e d ge ;	T ay l o r	&	Fr a n c i s	G r o u p.
Chabris, Christopher F., Adam Weinberger, Mat-
thew Fontaine and Daniel J. Simons. 2011 . 	
Y o u	d o	n o t	t a l k	a b o u t	F i g h t	C l u b	i f	y o u	d o	n o t 	
n o ti c e	F i g h t	C l u b :	I n a tt e n ti o n a l	b l i n d n e s s	f o r	a 	
s i m ul at e d 	 r e al - w o r l d 	 a s s a ul t . 	i-Perception 2, 
n o.	2 : 1 5 0 – 1 53 .
Cosman, Joshua D., and Shaun P. Vecera .	201 2. 	
O b j e c t - b a s e d	a tt e n ti o n	o v e r r i d e s	p e r c e p t u a l 	
l o a d	t o	m o d u l a t e	v i s u a l	d i s t r a c ti o n .	Journal of 
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception 
and Performance 	3 8 ,	n o.	3 :5 7 6 – 5 7 9 .
Cvetek, Mateja. 201 2.	Č u s t v e n o	o d p u š č a nj e	v 	
medo s e bn i h 	 o d no s i h . 	Bogoslovni vestnik 	7 2, 	
n o . 	 2: 2 81–2 9 5 .
Cvetek, Robert, and Mateja Cvetek. 201 8 .	T h e 	
c o n c e p t	o f	r e s p e c t	i n	t h e	B i b l e	a n d	i n	m o d e r n 	
s c i e n c e s:	A	d e s c r i p ti v e	m o d e l	o f	r e s p e c t	i n 	
i n t e r p e r s o n al 	 r e l a ti o ns . 	Bogoslovni vestnik 	7 8 , 	
n o.	2 :8 55 – 8 6 9 .
Ducommun-Nagy, Catherine.	20 0 9 .	F o r g i v e n e s s 	
a n d	r e l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s:	T h e	p e r s p e c ti v e	o f	t h e 	
c o n t e x t u a l	t h e r a p i s t .	I n :	A n i	K a l ay j i a n	a n d 	
R ay m o n d	F .	P a l o u t zi a n ,	e d s .		Forgiveness and 
reconciliation: Psychological pathways to 
conflict transformation and peace building, 
3 3 – 5 4 .	N e w	Y o r k :	S p r i n ge r .
Fields, Eric C., Kirsten Weber, Benjamin Still-
erman, Nathaniel Delaney-Busch and Gina R. 
Kuperberg. 201 9 .	Fu n c ti o n a l	M R I	r e v ea l s 	
e v i d e n c e	o f	a	s e l f- p o s i ti v i t y	b i a s	i n	t h e	m e d i a l 	
p r e f r o n t a l	c o r t e x	d u r i n g	t h e	c o m p r e h e n s i o n	o f 	
so ci a l 	 vig n ett e s. 	Social Cognitive and Affective 
Neuroscience 	1 4,	n o.	6 : 6 1 3 – 621 .

215 215 Mateja Cvetek et al. - Relational Ethics Scale
Firestone, Robert W., and Joyce Catlett .	20 0 9 . 	
The ethics of interpersonal relationships .	L o n -
d o n :	K a r n a c	B o o k s .
Gangamma, Rashmi, Suzanne Bartle-Haring and 
Tatiana Glebova. 2012.	A	s tudy	of	contex tual 	
therapy	theor y ’ s	relational	ethic s	in	couples	in 	
therapy .	Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Jour -
nal of Applied Family Studies	61,	no.	5:825 – 835.
Gangamma, Rashmi, Suzanne Bartle-Haring, 
Eugene Holowacz, Erica E. Hartwell and Tatia-
na Glebova. 201 5.	Re l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s ,	d e p r e s -
s i v e	s y m p t o m s ,	a n d	r e l a ti o n s h i p	s a ti s f a c ti o n	i n 	
c o u p l e s	i n	t h e r a p y .	Journal of Marital and 
Family Therapy 	4 1,	n o.	3 :35 4 – 3 6 6 .
Gosling, Samuel D., Simine Vazire, Sanjay Srivas-
tava and Oliver P. John. 20 0 4 .	S h o u l d	we	t r u s t 	
we b - b a s e d	s t u d i e s ?	A	c o m p a r a ti ve 	a na l y s i s	o f 	
s i x	p r e c o n c e p ti o n s	a b o u t	i nte r n e t	q u e s ti o n -
naires. American Psychologist	59 ,	n o.	2: 93 – 10 4 .
Gostečnik, Christian, Robert Cvetek, Tanja Pate, 
Saša Poljak Lukek, Barbara Simonič, Tanja 
Valenta and Tanja Repič Slavič .	201 9 .	T h e 	
i m p a c t	o f	ea r l y	a g g r e s s i o n	o n	l a t e	d e v e l o p -
ment. The Person and the Challenges 	9 ,	n o. 	
2 : 1 6 9 –1 9 2 .
Grames, Heath A., Richard B. Miller, W. David 
Robinson, Derrel J. Higgins and W. Jeff Hinton. 
20 0 8 .	A	te s t	o f	c o nte x t u a l	t h e o r y:	T h e	r e l a ti o n -
s h i p	a m o n g	r e l a ti o na l	e t h i c s , 	ma r i t a l	s a ti s f a c -
ti o n,	h ea l t h	p r o b l e m s ,	a n d	d e p r e s s i o n .	Contem-
porary Family Therapy	3 0,	n o.	4 : 1 8 3 – 1 9 8 .
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin 
and Rolph E. Anderson .	2010 .	Multivariate 
data analysis .	7 t h	e d i ti o n .	En g l e wo o d	C l i ff s ,	N J :	
Pr e n ti c e - H a l l .	C i t e d	i n	M e r c è	R i v e d - O c a ñ a , 	
Mar ia 	 L . 	 S c h w e e r - C o lli ns , 	 Mar ti ñ o 	 R o dr í g u e z -
G o nz á l e z,	S a r a h	A .	C r a b t r e e ,	L u í s	B o t e l l a - G a r -
c i a	d e l	C i d	i n	T e r r y	D .	H a r g r av e.	S p a n i s h	a d a p -
t a ti o n	o f	t h e	r e l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s	s c a l e.	Contempo-
rary Family Therapy	4 2 :3 4 6 – 35 9 ,	35 1 .	2020 .
Hannon, Emily M., and Anne Richards. 2010 .	I s 	
i n a tte n ti o n al 	 b li n dn e s s 	 r e l at e d 	 t o 	 i n di v i du al 	
d i ff e r e n c e s	i n	v i s u a l	wo r k i n g	m e m o r y	c a p a c i t y 	
o r	e xe c u ti v e	c o n t r o l	f u n c ti o n i n g ?	Perception 
39 ,	n o.	3 :3 0 9 – 3 1 9 .
Hargrave, Terry D., and Anne K. Bomba. 19 9 3 .	
Fu r t h e r	v a l i d a ti o n	o f	t h e	Re l a ti o n a l	E t h i c s 	
Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 
1 9 ,	n o.	3 :2 92– 2 9 9 .
Hargrave, Terry D., Glen Jennings and William 
Anderson. 1 9 9 1 .	T h e	d e v e l o p m e n t	o f	a	r e l a -
ti o n a l	e t h i c s	s c a l e.	Journal of Marital and 
Family Therapy 	1 7 ,	n o.	2 : 1 45 – 5 8 .
Hayton, James C, Daid G. Allen and Vida Scarpel-
lo .	20 0 4 .	F a c t o r	r e t e n ti o n	d e c i s i o n s	i n	e x p l o r -
a t o r y	f a c t o r	a n a l y s i s:	A	t u t o r i a l	o n	p a r a l l e l 	
analysis. Organizational Research Methods	 7, 	
n o . 	 2:1 91–2 0 5 .
Holland, Rob W., Ree M. Meertens and Mark Van 
Vugt. 20 02.	D i s s o n a n c e	o n	t h e	r o a d :	S e l f 	
e s t e e m	a s	a	m o d e r a t o r	o f	i n t e r n a l	a n d	e x t e r -
n a l	s e l f- j u s ti fi c a ti o n	s t r a t e g i e s .	Personality and 
Social Psychology Bulletin 	2 8 ,	n o.	1 2 : 1 7 1 3 –
17 24 .
Holmes-Smith, Philip .	2011 .	A d v a n c e d	s t r u c t u r a l 	
e q u a ti o n	m o d e l l i n g	u s i n g	A M O S .	W o r k s h o p 	
M a t e r i a l	Pr o v i d e d	a t	t h e	AC S PR I	2011	S p r i n g 	
Pr o g r a m .	S c h o o l	Re s ea r c h	Ev a l u a ti o n	a n d 	
M e a s u r em en t 	 S er v i c e s, 	 M el b o u r n e .
Hughes-Hallett, Archie, Erik K. Mayer, Hani J. 
Marcus, Philip Pratt, Sam Mason, Ara W. 
Darzi and Justin A. Vale. 201 5.	I n a tt e n ti o n 	
b l i n d n e s s	i n	s u r ge r y .	Surgical Endoscopy	 2 9, 	
n o . 	 1 1: 31 8 4 – 31 8 9.
Karremans, Johan C., and Paul A. M. Van Lange. 
20 0 5.	D o e s	a c ti v a ti n g	j u s ti c e	h e l p	o r	h u r t	i n 	
p r o m o ti n g	f o r g i v e n e s s ?	Journal of Experimen-
tal Social Psychology 	4 1,	n o.	3 :2 9 0 – 97 .
Klemp, Nate, and Kaley Klemp .	2021 .	The 80/80 
marriage: A new model for a happier, stronger 
relationship .	N e w	Y o r k :	Pe n g u i n	L i f e.
Lin, Ying-Ching, Chien-Huang Lin and Priya Ra-
ghubir. 20 0 3 .	Av o i d i n g	a n x i e t y ,	b e i n g	i n	d e n i a l , 	
o r	s i m p l y	s t r o k i n g	s e l f- e s t e e m :	W hy	s e l f- p o s i -
ti vit y ? 	Journal of Consumer Psychology 	1 3,	n o. 	
4 : 4 6 4 – 4 7 7.
López, Elena, Rafael Jódar and Douglas A. Mac-
Donald. 201 7 .	P s y c h o m e t r i c	p r o p e r ti e s	o f	a 	
S p a n i s h	a d a p t a ti o n	o f	t h e	E x p r e s s i o n s	o f	S p i r i -
t u a l i t y	I nv e n t o r y – Re v i s e d	( E S I - R ).	International 
Journal of Transpersonal Studies 	3 6 ,	n o.	1 : 110 –
1 21 .
O’Connor, Brian P. 20 0 0 .	S P S S	a n d	S A S	p r o g r a m s 	
f o r	d e t e r m i n i n g	t h e	n u m b e r	o f	c o m p o n e n t s 	
u s i n g	p a r a l l e l	a n a l y s i s	a n d	V e l i c e r ’ s	M A P	t e s t . 	
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & 
Computers 	32,	n o.	3 :39 6 – 4 02.
Oktay, Bahadir, and Banu Cangöz. 201 8 .	I	t h o u g h t 	
I	s aw	Z o r r o :	A n	i n a tt e n ti o n a l	b l i n d n e s s	s t u d y . 	
Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi 	55,	n o.	1 :5 9 – 6 6 .
Poljak Lukek, Saša, and Tanja Valenta. 2020 . 	
N e u r o b i o l o g i c a l	a n d	r e l a ti o n a l	b a s e s	f o r	u n d e r -
standing aggressiveness. The Person and the 
Challanges 	10,	n o.	1 : 1 55 – 1 7 6 .
Remington, Anna, Ula Cartwright-Finch and Nilli 
Lavie. 201 4 .	I	c a n	s e e	c l ea r l y	n o w:	T h e	e ff e c t s 	
o f	a ge	a n d	p e r c e p t u a l	l o a d	o n	i n a tt e n ti o n a l 	
b li n dn e s s . 	Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 
8 : 1–1 1 .
Rived-Ocaña, Mercè, Maria L. Schweer-Collins, 
Martiño Rodríguez-González, Sarah A. Crab-
tree, Luís Botella-Garcia del Cid and Terry D. 
Hargrave. 2020 .	S p a n i s h	a d a p t a ti o n	o f	t h e 	
r e l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s	s c a l e.	Contemporary Family 
Therapy	42: 3 4 6 – 3 59.

216 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 1
APPENDIX
The slovene-language version of the relational ethics scale (Si-RES):
1.	 Lahk o	 sem	 z aupal	 s voji	 družini,	 da	 si	 je	 priz adev a	 z a	 t o ,	 k ar	 je	 bilo	 najboljše	 z ame.
2. P osame zniki	v	naši	družini	so	bili	obt o ž eni	z a	pr obleme, 	ki	jih	niso	z akrivili. 	
3.	 Ug oditi	enemu	od	mojih	s t ar še v	je 	v elik okr a t	pomenilo	ne	ug oditi	drug emu.
4.	 Od	s v oje	družine	sem	pr ejel	ljube z en	in	naklonjenos t, 	ki	s t a	mi	pripadali.
5.	 V č asih	se	je	z delo ,	da	me	vsaj	eden	od	s t ar še v	ne	mar a. 	
6.	 V si	družinski	člani	smo	bili	v	enaki	meri	dele žni	ljube zni	in	t opline. 	
7.	 V č asih	me	je	družina	nepoš t eno	izk oris tila.
8.	 Čutil	sem,	da	so	ž elje	s t ar še v	obvladov ale	moje	življenje. 	
9.	 Še	napr ej	si	priz ade v am	z a	t esnejše	odnose	z	družino. 	
10.	 P og os t o	sem	se	čutil	z apuščeneg a	od	s v oje	družine.
11.	 Ne	z aupam,	da	si	t a	oseba	priz ade v a	z a	t o ,	k ar	je	najboljše	z ame.
12.	 T a	oseba	mi	s t oji	ob	s tr ani	v	t e žkih	in	v eselih	č asih. 	
13.	 Pr eden	spr ejmem	pomembne	odločitv e,	t o	osebo	vpr ašam	z a	mnenje.
14.	 Najina	vlo žk a	v	odnos	med	mano	in	t o	osebo	nis t a	enak ovr edna.
15.	 V	t em	odnosu	s v a	enak ovr edna	partnerja.
16.	 Razdajava se drug za drugega.
17.	 T o	osebo	izk orišč am.
18.	 V	 t em	 odnosu	 se	 me	 jemlje	 k ot	 nek aj	 samoume vneg a	 ali	 pa	 se	 me	 nepoš t eno 	
izk orišč a.
19.	 T a	oseba	me	posluša	in	ceni	moje	misli.
Shaw, Elisabeth. 2011 .	Re l a ti o n a l	e t h i c s	a n d	m o r a l 	
i m a g i n a ti o n	i n	c o n t e m p o r a r y	s y s t e m i c	p r a c -
ti c e.	ANZJFT Australian and New Zealand 
Journal of Family Therapy 	32,	n o.	1 : 1 – 1 4 .
Simons, Daniel J., and Christopher F. Chabris. 
1 9 9 9 .	G o r i l l a s	i n	o u r	m i d s t:	S u s t a i n e d	i n a tt e n -
ti o n al 	 b li n dn e s s 	 fo r 	 d y n am i c 	 ev e n t s . 	Perception 
2 8 ,	n o.	9: 10 5 9 – 107 4 .
Steele, Claude M.	1 9 8 8 .	T h e 	p s y c h o l o g y	o f	s e l f-
a ffi r m a ti o n :	S u s t a i n i n g	t h e	i n t e g r i t y	o f	t h e 	s e l f . 	
I n :	L e o n a r d	B e r ko w i t z,	e d .	Advances in experi-
mental social psychology. V o l .	21 . Social psy-
chological studies of the self: Perspectives and 
programs ,	2 6 1 – 3 02.	S a n	D i e go,	C A :	A c a d e m i c 	
Pr e s s .
Trontelj, Jože.	201 4 .	Živeti z etiko .	L j u b l j a n a : 	
I n š ti t u t	z a	e ti ko	i n	v r e d n o t e	J o že	T r o n t e l j .
Valenta, Tanja, Christian Gostečnik, Tanja Pate and 
T. Repič Slavič. 2019.	V i o l en c e	r e gula ti o n	an d 	
d y sr e gula ti o n	s y s tem .	Family forum	9:1 5 – 31 .