Cultural Similarities and Differences in Relationship Goals in Intercultural Romantic Couples

Abstract

Intercultural romantic relationships and multicultural families have increased in the United States and worldwide. Researchers have found that intercultural couples report high rates of conflict and relationship instability, which may be partly explained by differences between partners in relationship goals (e.g., how much intimacy is desired and how to approach conflict). Using data from 40 intercultural couples (N = 80), we test whether greater similarity in relationship goals between romantic partners is related to greater perceived partner responsiveness and, thereby, greater relationship quality. By means of Bayesian analyses, our results suggest that similarity of relationship goals is associated with both perceived responsiveness and relationship quality, but without evidence of mediation. Our results show that cultural similarities and differences exist in relationship goals in intercultural couples, and they are connected to relationship functioning. This information can be used to assist clinicians in understanding the interpersonal processes that make-up healthy relationship functioning in intercultural couples.

Keywords

Bayesian couples culture emotion goals regulation relationship quality

Overview

Intercultural romantic couples (i.e., partners who come from different racial, ethnic, language, and/or religious backgrounds) often report high levels of stress, dissatisfaction, and instability, leading to a high probability of separation and divorce (Bratter & King, 2008; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009). This may be partly explained by a lack of similarity in relationship goals between partners, given that the literature suggests cultural differences across Western and East Asian samples in these constructs (i.e., definition and expression of love, conflict style, etc.). In addition, other studies have suggested that high levels of perceived partner responsiveness is found in healthy functioning relationships. Based on this literature, we predict that similarity between intercultural partners in relationship goals may promote higher levels of perceived partner responsiveness and, thereby, greater relationship quality. We start by demonstrating that cultural similarities and differences exist in relationship goals for a sample of 40 self-identified intercultural couples, and we then test our model with both active and passive perceived partner responsiveness through a Bayesian mediation analysis.

Background

The Importance of Studying Intercultural Couples

Currently, the United States is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations. A little over 50 years after cross-cultural marriages became legal in the United States, the percentage of marriages to a spouse of a different cultural background has increased more than five times—from 3% in 1970 to 17.5% as of 2017 (Livingston & Brown, 2017). Although all romantic relationships are complex and involve conflict, intercultural couples (i.e., partners who come from different racial, ethnic, language, and/or religious backgrounds) are at greater risk of separation and divorce (Bratter & King, 2008; Brooks et al., 2018; Ho, 1990; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009).

However, most research cannot speak to the interpersonal mechanisms at work in intercultural couples because “culture” has been assessed with categorical responses of race or ethnicity (Blount & Young, 2015). Race refers to phenotypic differences between people (i.e., skin color, hair texture, etc.) (Taras et al., 2009). Ethnicity refers to an individual’s affiliation with a common ancestry, usually in terms of feelings of membership and geographic region (Bratter & King, 2008; Williams & Husk, 2013). Such categories cannot “cause” anything; therefore a valuable approach is to focus on the similarities or differences between intercultural partners in their adopted set of cultural beliefs and values. Here, we focus on how each partner has learned to define and express intimate love to another, as well as their preferred approach to resolving conflict in their relationship (e.g., similarity and difference in relationship goals).

Cultural Differences in Relationship Goals

Love is manifested in different ways around the world. Culture impacts the conception of love, as well as how individuals think, feel, and behave in close relationships (Kline et al., 2008). In the following sections we consider cultural differences in what is meant by romantic love, how it is expressed, and how conflict is handled, and we suggest that cultural similarities/differences between intercultural partners on any of these constructs could have immediate ramifications for their relational functioning. We refer to these constructs as relationship goals because they suggest the end states that are desired and how they should be reached or acted out by each partner in the relationship.

Definition of romantic love

Defining romantic love has been a challenge for theorists, partially due to large cultural differences. For example, Bosnians reported higher importance of intimacy and passion than Turkish participants (Drahanović & Hasangic, 2014). In other studies, Asians report lower scores on Eros (love that starts suddenly with a strong physical attraction of an intense and emotionally disturbing nature) and higher scores on Pragma (love based on companionship, trust, and security between two people with similar values) compared to African Americans and European Americans (Dion & Dion, 1996; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987). Even what it means “to be in love” could be different for partners coming from different cultural backgrounds.

Expression of love

People communicate love and affection in close relationships differently across cultures (Tang et al., 2012; Ting-Toomey, 1991). Cultural differences have been found in the extent to which love is explicitly expressed versus implicitly symbolized through actions. For example, Wilkins and Gareis (2005) found that nonverbal declarations of love (e.g., making sacrifices and listening obediently) were more common for international students than for domestic students. Beichen and Murshed (2015) found that Westerners were more likely to use verbal expression when conveying romantic love, whereas East-Asian participants reported greater importance for gift-giving as an expression of love to the partner. Thus, even if partners can agree that they are in love, how they express it could vary dramatically based on their cultural background.

Conflict style

Studies have found cultural differences in conflict styles between Western and East-Asian participants. For instance, participants with more collectivist values prefer avoidant approach styles during conflict, while those with more independent values prefer more direct approaches (Dillion et al., 2015; MacNeil & Adamsons, 2014; Ting-Toomey, 1991). African Americans report higher levels of demand behaviors than Asian Americans, and European Americans have been found to prefer more accommodating styles (e.g., cooperative but assertive) compared with Puerto Ricans (Cionea et al., 2015). Moreover, Japanese participants have been found to value more indirect forms of communication (e.g., silence) to avoid conflict compared to American participants (Ting-Toomey, 1991).

In sum, intimate romantic love is an adaptive psychological process across cultures, but the details of what it means to be in love, to express it, and to resolve conflict are influenced by an individual’s adopted set of cultural beliefs and values. In the context of a specific relationship, cultural beliefs and values guide an individual’s goals, such as whether to express more or less affection, or to engage or avoid conflict (Mesquita & Frijida, 1992). Thus, stronger relationships would be expected when partners share relationship goals.

Gender and Relationship Goals

In addition to culture, gender provides another lens through which individuals view romantic relationships. In studying definitions of love, men are more likely to describe love through passionate terms such as feelings of excitement, physical attraction, and sexual encounters (Barbara, 2008; Hendrick et al., 1998; Pines & Friedman, 1998;). Other studies have found that women tend to gravitate towards more traditional, gendered views of love, which emphasize self-sacrifice, commitment, and intimacy in the relationship (Watts & Stenner; Wilcox & Nock, 2006). In addition, gender differences in expressions of love have been found where men prefer to express love in more instrumental and work-related ways, whereas women tend to express love through physical touch and verbal expression (Barbara, 2008; Burns, 2002; Missildine et al., 2005). Lastly, studies on gender differences in approaches to conflict vary in their conclusions. Some work finds no distinctions in relational conflict and resolution between men and women, yet other studies have found that women are more likely to endorse direct strategies for managing conflict, while men tend to withdraw more and prefer more avoidant approaches to conflict (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Dunbar & Machin, 2014).

In sum, it is evident that some gender differences between men and women in relationship goals exist, but overall the results remain mixed. Further exploration of these variables, particularly considering how gender interacts with ethnicity, warrants further attention. Very few researchers have considered this interaction, but qualitative findings suggest that gender role expectations is a central stressor in intercultural couples (Bustamante et al., 2011). Thus, we focus on quantitatively exploring the role of gender and ethnicity, and their connections to relationship goals, which seems essential to advancing knowledge and practice in working with intercultural couples.

Similarity, Perceived Partner Responsiveness, and Relationship Quality

A number of studies have investigated the connection between similarity in relationships (e.g., personality traits, attitudes, and attractiveness) and relational outcomes, in which greater levels of similarity between partners are associated with high quality relationships (e.g., life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and stability; often referred to as the similarity hypothesis) (Leikas et al., 2018). One reason that similarity may matter is because healthy relationships transpire when people are able to effectively perceive and respond to each other’s emotions (perceived partner responsiveness), such that a person feels understood, validated, and cared for by another (Gottman, 1993; Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Vater & Schroder-Abe, 2015). Accurate responsiveness may be easier to accomplish if one is similar to their partner on variables relevant to perceiving and expressing emotions, such as relationship goals.

For example, greater relationship satisfaction and stability are found when partners constructively respond to each other during both positive and negative emotional events (Donato et al., 2014; Fletcher et al., 2000). Similarly, empathic responsiveness to emotional disclosure from a partner was associated with relational intimacy and it suggests that it becomes progressively important as closeness of interaction between partners increases (Laurenceau et al., 1998). Moreover, the quality of responsiveness to emotional disclosure is associated with a range of relational outcomes, including reduced stress, and increased affect, closeness, and satisfaction (Gable et al., 2004; Gottman & Levenson, 1992, &2002).

Importantly, however, the way people seek and provide support differs by culture, and these differences are consistent with the cross-cultural studies reviewed earlier about relationship goals (Dillion et al., 2015; MacNeil & Adamsons, 2014; Ting-Toomey, 1991; Wilkins & Gareis, 2006). Similarly, what is considered to be constructive responsiveness depends on what each partner perceives to be culturally appropriate or inappropriate during an intimate interaction (MacNeil & Adamsons, 2014; Ting-Toomey, 1991). For example, active responsiveness (i.e., the responder expresses involvement, such as excitement in the sharing of a positive event or empathy in the sharing of a negative event) fits better with the open expression of emotion valued by many Western cultures (Tsai, 2007; Tsai, Knudson, et al., 2006; Tsai, Levenson, et al., 2006), while passive responsiveness (i.e., the responder says very little or is silent about the event, such as a pleasant short or quiet exchange in the sharing of a positive event, or active listening or quiet nodding in the sharing of a negative event) fits better with the more restrained emotional expression valued by Eastern cultures (Tsai, 2007; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). Thus, one way that similarity between partners in relationship goals may impact relationship quality is via more effective responsiveness to each other’s emotional disclosures (Gottman, 1993; Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Rosand et al., 2014).

Focus of the Present Study

To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the association between similar relationship goals between romantic partners and relationship quality in intercultural couples. Further, if such an association exists, it has not been tested whether active or passive perceived partner responsiveness mediates it. Therefore, the present study tests this novel idea in intercultural romantic couples by using a Bayesian mediation approach, which has the ability to construct credible intervals for indirect effects for simple as well as complex mediation models in a straightforward manner (Baldwin & Larson, 2016).

Our hypotheses are informed by empirical findings on interracial couples, research comparing Western and East Asian samples, and the similarity hypothesis theory, which postulates that high quality relationships are found when partners are more similar than different to each other (e.g., personality traits, attitudes, and attractiveness).

Hypothesis 1: Gender and ethnicity will be related to relationship goals for intercultural couples, given that the literature suggests cultural differences across Western and East Asian samples in these constructs. Hypothesis 2: Higher active and passive perceived partner responsiveness should mediate the relationship between more similar relationship goals and higher relationship quality. Overall, it is important to investigate such culturally based models of relationship functioning because intercultural couples and their families are a continuously growing population in the United States. Yet, very little empirical research exists to promote and enhance healthy relational outcomes within-and-across cultures. Counselors and people working with culturally diverse families would benefit from learning how similarities/differences in relationship goals between partners increase perceived partner responsiveness and reduce relational conflicts to lessen the probability of separation and divorce in this ever-growing population.

Methods

Participants

The sample includes 40 heterosexual romantic couples (N = 80) recruited from a Southwestern university in the United States. Data were collected from committed couples over the age of 18 years, who were either married or unmarried, and with or without children in their relationship. Couples had to meet the following criteria: (a) both partners self-reported being in an intercultural romantic relationship (i.e., partners from different racial, ethnic, language, and/or religious backgrounds; see Ho, 1990), (b) the partners were committed for at least a year, and (c) both partners agreed to participate in the study. Given that previous studies have found that the longer couples are together the more similar they become to one another, couples were excluded if they had been committed for more than 10 years (Humbad, et al., 2013; Zajonc et al., 1987).

Procedure

Couples were recruited from university list serves, campus flyers, and local businesses, as well as through snowball sampling and word of mouth. Individuals who were interested in participating were asked to complete a pre-screening online questionnaire through Qualtrics, which assessed involvement in an intercultural relationship. Those who were eligible were asked to discuss the study with their partner to ensure that they were also willing to participate. Once both partners agree to participate, a follow-up email or phone call was made by Ana Laura Fonseca. Here, participants were asked to complete an online baseline questionnaire included items regarding their definition of love, conflict styles, expressions of love, and relationship quality. Following this, participants were asked to arrange a time/date for a couple lab session.

When couples arrived at the lab, they were asked to discuss four conversation topics, designed to elicit mixed emotions, which proceeded in the same order for every couple. In conversation 1, romantic partners took turns discussing a recent positive event that they experienced on their own and had not shared with each other. In conversation 2, romantic partners took turns discussing a recent undesirable event that they experienced on their own and had not shared with each other. In conversation 3, each partner took turns discussing a current relationship concern that was causing him or her distress. In conversation 4, the final conversation, the partners took turns discussing their first date and each partner shared three things that attracted them to each other at the start of their relationship (Shiota et al., 2010).

Measures

Prescreening questionnaire

At first contact with the study, couples were asked to complete a prescreening online questionnaire that included the following demographic and eligibility information: (a) age, (b) education, (c) ethnic identification (e.g., feelings of sense of belonging or affiliation with a common ancestry, usually in terms of feelings of membership and geographic region), (d) romantic relationship status, (e) relationship length, (f) sexual orientation of the relationship, and (g) a single item that assessed involvement in an intercultural relationship, worded as follows: “An intercultural romantic relationship is defined as both partners coming from different racial, ethnic, language and/or religious backgrounds. Based on this definition do you consider yourself to be involved in an intercultural romantic relationship?” 0 = no and 1= yes. Only couples in which both partners answered “yes” were eligible for the study.

Baseline questionnaire

Independent variables

Similarity of Relationship Goals. Partners’ similarity was operationalized in terms of a profile correlation between partner’s relationship goals (including definitions and expression of love, and conflict style; see further). A profile correlation is a descriptive index that ranges from −1.00 (different) to 1.00 (similar) for partner’s ratings for relationship goals; here after referred to as Sim_Relationship (Humbad et al., 2013). This correlation was then used as our main predictor in subsequent analyses. The items included in the calculation of the profile correlation came from the following scales (e.g., all items from all scales were used to calculate the correlation):

Defining Love. The Love Attitudes Scale assesses six different types of romantic love including the following: Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (companionate love), Pragma (practical love), Mania (possessive, dependent love), and Agape (all giving, selfless love) (Hendrick et al., 1998). Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was .60, 60, .80, .82, .63, and .68 (Note: Here and for the other measures, individual items were used for calculating the profile correlation, not the scale scores). These six subscales include a total of 24 items, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Participants were asked to rate their agreement to items such as the following examples, “My partner and I have the right physical ‘chemistry’ between us” and “Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a friendship.” Higher scores for each subscale indicated greater agreement with definition of love.

Expression of Love. The Love Languages Inventory assesses five approaches to expression of love including: acts of service, physical touch, words of affirmation, quality time, and gifts (Egbert & Polk, 2006). Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was .78, .84, .91, .67, and .71. These five subscales include a total of 20 items, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Participants were asked to rate their agreement to items such as the following examples, “I tend to express my feelings to my partner by running errands for him/her” or “I tend to express my feelings to my partner by giving my partner a kiss.” Higher scores from each subscale indicated greater agreement with specific expressions of love.

Conflict Style. The Conflict Communication Scale assesses individual differences in approach to general conflict (direct and avoidant) (Goldstein, 1999). These two subscales include a total of 15 items, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Participants were asked to rate items such as the following examples, “I wait to see if a dispute will resolve itself before taking action” or “Conflicts make relationships interesting.” Higher scores from each subscale indicated greater agreement of engaging in that specific conflict approach style. Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was .69 and .85.

Dependent variable

Relationship Quality . The Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory assesses satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, and love (Fletcher et al., 2000). These five subscales include a total of 18 items, ranginf from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Participants rated their agreement to items such as the following examples, “How satisfied are you with your relationship?” and “How much can you count on your partner?” Higher scores indicate higher relationship quality. The full 18-item scale was used and Cronbach’s alpha was .91.

Laboratory questionnaire

Mediation Variable

Perceived Partner Responsiveness. After each emotional conversation, both partners completed a short survey, which included the Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempt Inventory assessing perceptions of a partner’s responsiveness to the sharing of emotions (Gable et al., 2004). This measure included a total of six items, from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very true). Active perceived partner responsiveness was assessed by three items such as, “When I told my partner about something good that happened to me, my partner reacted to my good fortune enthusiastically.” Passive perceived partner responsiveness was assessed by three items such as, “When I told my partner about something good that happened to me, my partner tried not to make a big deal out of it, but I know he/she was happy for me.” Higher scores for each subscale indicated higher perceived partner responsiveness. Cronbach’s alpha for active was .72 and for passive was .65.

Data Analysis

To test the associations between gender and ethnicity with relationship goals (Hypothesis 1), and whether the association between similarity of relationship goals and relationship quality was mediated by perceived partner responsiveness (Hypothesis 2) a Bayesian Multilevel framework was used via the brms package in R (Bürkner, 2018). Multilevel Modeling was used to account for the interdependence found in couple data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). All models included a random dyad intercept, but slopes were treated as fixed due to convergence problems. A Bayesian estimation approach was implemented, given growing concerns about the Frequentist framework, including misinterpretation of p-values and being limited to the binary decision of whether to reject the null or not (Baldwin & Larson, 2016). For our purposes, a Bayesian approach had the added advantages that it easily accommodates non-normally distributed outcome variables and allows the testing of mediation models in small samples with greater accuracy than Frequentist methods (Kruschke et al., 2012).

In Bayesian analysis, a prior distribution that encompasses a-priori beliefs about the parameters of the model is combined with the parameter distribution estimated from the observed data (i.e., the likelihood) to yield the posterior distribution, which represents the updated probability distribution for the parameters of the model based on the combination of prior knowledge and the sample data (Baldwin & Larson, 2016). Although Bayesian analysis allows for the incorporation of prior research, we used the default uninformative priors provided by brms due to the complete lack of prior research relevant to our model. The actual estimation of the posterior distribution is typically accomplished with some form of sampling, most commonly Markov Chain Monte Carlo as in brms. For the sampling, we used 1,000 burn-in iterations for each of the four chains and then used up to 20,000 subsequent iterations as needed to ensure chain convergence (e.g., some models converged with as few as 1,000 subsequent iterations and others required as high as 20,000). Posterior convergences were assessed with trace plots, effective sample sizes and Rhat statistics.

Although Bayesian analysis can include strict hypothesis testing using Bayes Factors (e.g., What is the evidence that an effect is zero, compared to some specified alternate hypothesis?), our focus is on parameter estimation for the model as a whole (e.g., What is the evidence regarding the size and direction of all the paths in the model?), which is informed by the 95% Bayesian Credibility Intervals (CrI) for the posterior distributions of the parameters (Wagenmakers et al., 2018). For our results, we present 95% CrI’s for the paths in the model, which can be interpreted as evidence that there is a 95% probability that the population parameter is between the CrI lower and upper bound (Kruschke et al., 2012). Another issue is that specifying appropriate priors for estimating Bayes Factors for a model as complex as ours is nontrivial, making them sub-optimal for model comparison (Wagenmakers et al., 2018). Instead, model comparisons were done with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO). Cross-validation is the gold-standard for model comparison, and all other approaches (Bayes Factors, BIC, AIC, etc.) are intended to approximate it. Finally, a number of our outcome variables were not normally distributed, but instead showed noticeable skew. This is easily accommodated in brms by specifying either gaussian or skew_normal for the likelihood distribution as appropriate and then comparing the models with LOO to choose the one most likely to replicate in new data.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Demographic statistics of the sample and the main variables of interest, including the profile correlation for relationship goals (i.e., Sim_Relationship), are in Table 1. In addition, Tables 2 and 3 display self-identification for all participants by ethnicity. Based on previous studies that have found cultural differences between non-Hispanic White (NHW) and individuals of color, and due to our relatively small sample that precludes fine distinctions, couples are described as being either (1) Color-Woman with Color-Man, (b) NHW-Woman with Color-Man, (c) Color-Woman with NHW-Man, and (d) NHW-Woman with NHW-Man. Lastly, the majority of couples self-identified as coming from different racial and ethnic backgrounds (n = 16), followed by different racial, ethnic, language, and/or religious backgrounds (n =14), or different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds (n = 11) (see Table 4).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for 40 Intercultural Couples (N = 80).

			Women	Men
Age (years)			23.65^a (3.09)	23.65^a (3.09)
Relationship length (years)			2.81 (0.29)
Living together (years)			0.90 (0.20)
Sim_relationship			0.62 (.01)
Active responsiveness			4.87^a (0.13)	4.89^a (0.14)
Passive responsiveness			3.75^a (0.18)	3.94^a (0.18)
Relationship quality			410. 67^a (26.25)	415. 23^a (26.07)

Living status (frequency)	Alone6	Friends 13	Family14	Significant Other34	Roommate13	Other0
Education level (frequency)	<High School0	High School4	Professional College1	Some College49	Undergraduate Degree18	Graduate Degree8

Note. Means within a row with different superscripts indicate groups where the 95% CrI for their population parameters do not overlap. SE = Standard Error; Responsiveness = Perceived Partner Responsiveness; Sim_Relationship is the profile correlation for relationship goals.

Table 2.

Couple Types Based on Participant’s Self-Identification as Non-Hispanic White (NHW) or Color (N = 80).

Couple Type	Total
Color-Woman with Color-Man	11
NHW-Woman with Color-Man	12
Color-Woman with NHW-Man	11
NHW-Woman with NHW-Man	6

Table 3.

Ethnic Self-identification by Person (N = 80).

Ethnic Identity	African	Asian	Caucasian	Hispanic	Native America	Native Hawaiian	Biethnic	Multiethnic
	1	11	35	21	2	0	8	2

Table 4.

Descriptive Identification of Intercultural Couples (N = 80).

Intercultural Couple Identification	Women	Male	Total
Different racial backgrounds	3	1	4
Different ethnic backgrounds	4	3	7
Different language backgrounds	2	2	4
Different religious backgrounds	3	3	6
Different racial and ethnic backgrounds	6	10	16
Different racial and language backgrounds	0	0	0
Different racial and religious backgrounds	0	0	0
Different ethnic and language backgrounds	2	1	3
Different ethnic and religious backgrounds	2	1	3
Different ethnic, language, and religious backgrounds	2	2	4
Different racial, ethnic, and language backgrounds	3	5	8
Different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds	6	5	11
Different racial, ethnic, language, and religious Backgrounds	8	6	14

Hypothesis 1: Gender and Ethnicity as Predictors of Relationship Goals

We tested a set of models with relationship goals (e.g., definition and expression of love, and conflict style) as the outcomes and gender or ethnicity as the main predictor and discovered complete support for this hypothesis. We also included the interaction of gender and ethnicity as an exploratory. Mean differences between NHW and individuals of color for all relationship goals are in Table 5.

Table 5.

Mean Differences of Intercultural Couples by Non-Hispanic White (NHW) and of Color (N = 80).

		NHW		Color
Relationship goals		Women	Men	Women	Men
		Mean (SE)	Mean (SE)	Mean (SE)	Mean (SE)
Defining love	Eros	1.57^a,c (0.06)	1.49^b,c (0.07)	1.50^a (0.07)	1.42^b (0.07)
	Storge	0.93^c (0.11)	1.09^a (0.10)	1.07^b,e (0.10)	1.16^d,e (0.11)
	Pragma	3.74^c (0.18)	3.99^a,c (0.17)	3.16^b,e (0.08)	3.52^d,e (0.19)
	Mania	3.36(0.13)	3.36(0.12)	3.39(0.15)	3.27(0.14)
	Agape	1.00^c (0.07)	0.94^a,c (0.08)	1.01^b,d (0.08)	0.82^d (0.07)
Conflict styles	Direct approach	1.65^c,e (0.09)	1.96^a,e (0.08)	1.97^b (0.08)	2.48^d (0.10)
	Avoidant approach	3.29^c,e (0.11)	2.78^a,e (0.11)	2.76^b (0.11)	2.49^d (0.10)
Expressions of love	Acts of service	3.97^c (0.11)	3.26^a,c (0.14)	4.22^b,e (0.11)	3.75^d,e (0.11)
	Physical touch	4.60^c (0.11)	4.05^a,c (0.11)	4.23^b,e (0.10)	4.00^d,e (0.09)
	Affirmation	4.46^a (0.10)	4.20^b (0.10)	4.55^a (0.11)	4.36^b (0.10)
	Quality time	4.58^a (0.08)	4.48^b (0.07)	4.61^a (0.01)	4.43^b (0.07)
	Gifts	3.63^a (0.15)	3.03^b (0.16)	3.32^a (0.16)	2.88^b (0.15)
Sim_relationship		0.61^a (0.02)	0.63^a (0.01)	0.61^a (0.02)	0.61^a (0.03)

Note. Means within a row with different superscripts indicate groups where the 95% CrI for their population parameters do not overlap. SE = Standard Error.

Defining love

Evidence for two main effects were found. First, NHW individuals reported higher levels of Eros (intense/amorous love) compared to individuals of color (b = 0.07, SE = 0.06, [95% CI = 0.01, 0.03]). Second, men reported lower levels of Eros compared to women (b = −0.08, SE = 0.03, [95% CI = −0.12, −0.03]). In addition, two interactions were found. NHW-Women reported lower levels of Storge (friendship based love) than men of color (b = −0.19, SE = 0.08, [95% CI = −0.33, −0.03]) and NHW-Men reported higher levels of Pragma (practical/mutually beneficial love) (b = 0.96, SE =0.19, [95% CI = 0.59, 1.33]) than women of color. In addition, women of color reported higher levels of Agape (gentle/caring love) than NHW-Men (b = 1.01, SE = 0.08, [95% CI = 0.85, 1.16]). In sum, NHW individuals reported higher levels of intense/amorous love and mutually beneficial love. Equally supportive of past research, individuals of color reported higher levels of friendship based love and gentle caring love, whereas women of color seemed to favor these types of intimate love more compared to men.

Expressions of love

Evidence of three main effects were found, where women reported higher preference compared to men for words of affirmation (b = 4.41, SE = 0.08, [95% CI = 4.26, 4.56]), quality time with partner (b = 4.55, SE = 0.07, [95% CI = 4.47, 4.68]), and providing gifts to their partner (b = 3.47, SE = 0.15, [95% CI = 3.19, 3.76]). Additionally, evidence of two interactions were found. First, NHW-Men reported lower preference for acts of service compared to individuals of color (b = −0.92, SE = 0.20, [95% CI = −1.32, −0.54]) and NHW-Women reported higher preference for physical touch compared to individuals of color (b = 4.60, SE = 0.11, [95% CI = 4.38, 4.81]). In sum, NHW-Men reported lower preference for acts of service (e.g., running errands, cleaning up, doing chores, etc.) as a way of showing love to their partner compared to individuals of color. In addition, NHW-Women reported higher preference for physical affection compared to individuals of color and, more generally, women reported higher preference for spending time with, positively affirming and providing gifts to their partner as expressions of love compared to men.

Conflict Styles

Evidence of two interactions were found, where men of color reported lower avoidance (b = 2.49, SE = 0.10, [95% CI = 2.30, 2.69]) but higher direct approach to conflict (b = 2.48, SE = 0.10, [95% CI = 2.29, 2.67]) compared to NHW individuals. In other words, contrary to what the literature suggests, men of color preferred more direct approaches to managing conflict than NHW individuals.

As predicted, we found evidence for wide-ranging ethnic differences for the various components of relationship goals that we assessed. We also found gender and gender-by-ethnicity variability for these goals. Together these results support the assumption that partner’s in cross-cultural relationships are likely to experience differences between them on relationship goals, making their relative similarity or difference an important component to consider for relationship functioning.

Hypothesis 2: Mediation Analysis

We ran two separate models in which perceived partner responsiveness (active and passive) mediated the relationship between Sim_Relationship and relationship quality, and found partial support for this hypothesis. Contrary to our predictions, neither model indicated evidence of mediation via indirect effects for either active (a*b estimate = 0.26 [95% CI = −8.09, 11.63]) or passive (a*b estimate = 6.65 [95% CI = −11.25, 27.84]) perceived partner responsiveness. Given the lack of evidence for mediation, we tested a set of simplified “independent outcomes” versions of our initial model, where Sim_Relationship was the main model predictor, and perceived partner responsiveness (active and passive) and relationship quality were the main model outcomes. Here, evidence of two independent effects were found, where Sim_Relationship was associated with higher active perceived partner responsiveness (b = 1.54, SE = .76, [95% CrI = 0.06, 3.02), but not passive perceived partner responsiveness (b = 1.11, SE = 1.05, [95% CrI = −1.02, 3.12), and higher relationship quality (b = 368.42, SE = 163.20, [95% CrI = 57.02, 702.32]). In sum, there is a 95% probability, given our model and data, that greater similarity in relationship goals between partners was related to greater active perceived partner responsiveness and relationship quality.

Discussion

This study tested two set of hypotheses about the cultural similarities and differences in relationship goals in intercultural romantic couples. Overall, our results provide support for our first hypothesis and partial support for our second mediation hypothesis. We expect that these patterns are due to the fact that our thinking was necessarily grounded in a literature where “cultural differences” has been assessed with categorical responses of race/ethnicity that is largely decontextualized and, as such, our results represent an important addition that can provide a starting point for research in intercultural couples by focusing on similarities/differences in cultural beliefs and values between partners.

Generally, our first hypothesis regarding cultural differences in relationship goals is in line with previous studies. More specifically, our findings suggest that relationship goals (e.g., definition and expression of love, and conflict style) vary across ethnicities and are therefore an important factor to consider for intercultural couples. For example, we found that NHW and individuals of color vary in how they define and express love in their relationship, which is similar to past research where Westerners compared to East-Asian individuals have been found to report higher levels of passionate love versus friendship-based love (Pilishvili & Koyanongo, 2016). Moreover, previous research studies have found that women, compared to men, report greater expression of love as a way of having their needs met and avoiding being hurt by their partner (Vogel et al., 2003). Our findings add to this literature, since women of color seemed to favor these types of intimate love more compared to their NHW counterparts. In addition, women in general reported higher preferences for spending time with, positively affirming and providing gifts to their partner as expressions of love.

Given that ethnic and gender differences were found in the present study, future studies should consider whether modification of these cultural beliefs and values become more similar between partners and are keys to long-term relationship success. For example, at the start of the relationship intercultural partners may be unconsciously performing and preferring culturally-conditioned ways of defining and expressing love as methods for maintaining their relationship. However, this may be harmful if the partners are discrepant in their cultural values, since in that case they may not be meeting each other’s relational expectations and needs (Linhof & Allan, 2019; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2000). Yet successful intercultural relationships may be found when both partners consider changing such traits and developing new ways of demonstrating love (Till & Baker, 2015). Awareness and change of goals from each partner may help build trust by turning individual relationship goals into couple goals (Silva et al., 2013). However, future studies should consider testing whether this is true in general and, more particularly, if it becomes more salient in these types of couples in the long-run.

In addition, as the United States becomes more culturally diverse, future studies should consider testing other forms of culture to further understand why differences exist in relationship goals within-and-across groups of people, given that race and ethnicity are socially constructed ideas. Someone’s racial, ethnic, and religious identification may not be associated with the types of cultural beliefs/values that have been historically attributed to a specific group of people (e.g., all Latinos are collectivist and therefore, value and are highly family-oriented). More nuanced assessments of culture could help to overcome these generalizations.

Further, contrary to what the literature suggests, we found that men of color preferred more direct approaches to managing conflict than NHW individuals. As suggested by previous studies, gender plays an important role in approaches to conflict. Our findings add to this literature by suggesting that variation in this domain may be due to the intersectionality of several subcomponents of culture (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). This idea is supported by Lou and colleagues (2015) who found that among men, stronger egalitarian gender role ideology mediated the relationship between mainstream acculturation and interracial relationship outcomes (e.g., relational openness). Other studies suggest that people of color, particularly men who are more acculturated, are involved in more direct expressions and approaches to conflict in their marriages compared to those who are less acculturated (Flores et al., 2004). Our results suggest that although the issue of gender and ethnicity are related to conflict, how this association plays out may depend on the intersectionality of culture (e.g., nativity, acculturation, etc.) that we did not account for in this study. Accordingly, future studies ought to examine the ethnic, gendered, and mainstream acculturation levels of each partner as important predictors for explaining why gender and ethnic differences exist in approaches to conflict when partners come from different cultural backgrounds (Lou et al., 2015).

Lastly, in our second hypothesis, neither of our models indicated evidence of mediation via indirect effects for either active or passive perceived partner responsiveness, yet partial support was found in simpler versions of these models. More specifically, we did find evidence of two independent effects, where greater similarity in relationship goals between romantic partners was related to greater active perceived partner responsiveness and higher relationship quality. These findings align with previous studies that have indicated that compatible goals between partners are important to responding to partner’s emotional needs and enhancing relational satisfaction (Chartrand et al., 2006; Kappes & Schrout, 2010). Adding to this literature, our findings suggest that similar relationship goals between partners is important to increasing active perceived partner responsiveness, as well as leading partners to feel more emotionally satisfied and develop good quality relationships (Brooks et al., 2018; Gottman & Levenson, 1992).

Overall, our findings provide empirical support for the benefit of considering similarities in couples who identify as coming from different cultural backgrounds. We believe that our findings may be helpful to counselors and therapist working with this population by providing empirical evidence of the strengths of similarities in relationship goals. That is, our findings suggest that it is the similarity of cultural beliefs and values in relationship goals between partners that serves as a proxy to understanding what culture means (i.e., adoption of cultural beliefs and values) in intercultural couples, rather than socially constructed ideas of culture such as race and/or ethnicity. In addition, our findings suggest that differences between partners in relationship goals may not be operating on the basis of whether couples identify as a specific type of intercultural couple (e.g., White and non-Hispanic) or are labeled as a specific type of intercultural relationship (e.g., interracial versus interethnic) but by the similarity/difference that arise when partners adopt different sets of cultural beliefs/values to define what a romantic relationship is, what it should entail, and how it should appear. As intercultural couples and their multicultural families arise in the United States, we anticipate that similarities/differences in cultural beliefs and values between partners in relationship goals may be a better proxy for understanding the multidimensional aspect of “culture” in intercultural couples.

Moreover, it may be the case that intercultural couples who are seeking therapy may be largely focused on their differences in relationship goals (Sullivan & Cottone, 2006). Here the primary focus for a therapist would be to help couples shift this perception by focusing on couple’s similarities rather than differences and helping them constructively deal with differences as they arise. However, more empirical work is needed to understand what daily strategies intercultural partners can practice to enrich similarities in their relationship and productively deal with differences to improve relationship functioning. This information can be used to assist clinicians in understanding the interpersonal processes that make-up healthy relationship functioning in intercultural couples.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

The findings from this study represent several contributions. First, a majority of the research on intercultural couples is based on public records (e.g., census or court records), or interviews and qualitative methods (e.g., Rosenblatt et al., 1995). This study is the first to target relationship functioning within self-identified intercultural couples and to analyze this through a Bayesian mediation framework. Second, these findings, along with others (Killian, 2002) challenge the prejudicial view that intercultural relationships are fraught with relational differences. Our findings suggest that while differences may exist in intercultural couples (as in all relationships), partners who are able to accommodate to each other and focus on similarities (commonality) may be able to increase relational satisfaction and stability for years to come.

Despite these important implications, the limitations of this data warrant conservative interpretation of the results. Our sample was fairly small (n = 40 couples) and only included young couples, which is representative of the general intercultural population, but limits the generalizability to other intercultural couples. Future research should replicate these findings with larger and more diverse samples, including dating and married couples, as well as couples who identify with other sexual orientations (e.g., LGBTQ) and capturing other important variables (e.g., nativity status, SES, personality type, etc.), which may account for effects related to gender, ethnicity, and/or partner responsiveness. In addition, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, the direction of effects cannot be determined. Thus, future studies should broaden this exploration using experimental and longitudinal methods. Lastly, future studies are encouraged to assess other psychological elements of culture (e.g., acculturation level, nativity, etc.) shared across partners that may help to explain why certain interpersonal interactions and behavioral-variations of healthy relationship functioning are found in some couples but not in others.

Conclusion

The current investigation represents the first empirical study to explore similarities in relationship goals between intercultural romantic partners. Our analyses revealed support for the cultural similarities and differences that exist in relationship goals, and their associations with perceived partner responsiveness and relationship quality. Further research would be helpful to unravel what processes in daily life are related to separation and divorce in intercultural couples. Further understanding is needed of how couples express love daily and manage conflict during stressful events and in amorous moments, as well as studies that highlight the potential adverse pressures of change that each intercultural partner may face to meet their partner’s emotional needs. Largely, our findings provide new empirical support for further studying similarity in intercultural couples and demonstrate the importance of considering cultural factors such as ethnicity, gender, and the sharing of goals, which may be vital for creating successful relationships long-term. Given the rise of intercultural couples, and the lack of knowledge on this population, our findings make an important contribution for the direction of future intercultural relationship research.

Footnotes

Authors' Note

Ana Laura Fonseca thanks Matthias Mehl for his comments and assistance in the making of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ana Laura Fonseca

Melissa Curran

References

Barbara

(2008). Gender differences in the verbal expression of love schema. Sex Roles, 11-12, 814–821. https://10.1007/s11199-008-9404-8

Baldwin

S. A.

Larson

M. J.

(2017). An introduction to using Bayesian linear regression with clinical data. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 58–75. https://10.1016/j.brat.2016.12.016

Beichen

Murshed

(2015). Culture, expressions of romantic love, and gift-giving. Journal of International Business Management, 14(1), 68–85.

Blount

A. J.

Young

M. E.

(2015). Counseling multiple-heritage couples. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 43, 137–152. https://10.1002/j.2161-1912.2015.00070.x

Bratter

J. L.

King

R. B.

(2008). “But will it last?”: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171. https://10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00491.x

Brooks

J.E.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Monk

J.K.

(2018). Commitment in interracial relationships: Dyadic and longitudinal tests of the investment model. Journal of Family Issues, 39(9), 2685–2708. https://10.1177/0192513X18758343

Bustamante

Nelson

Henriksen

Monakes

(2011). Intercultural couples: cping with culture-related stressors. The Family Journal, 19, 154–164. https://10.1177/1066480711399723

Bürkner

P.-C.

(2018). Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395. https://10.32614/RJ-2018-017

Burns

(2002). Women in love and men at work. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 4, 149–172. https://10.1080/1461666031000063629

10.

Christensen

Heavey

C. L.

(1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1):73–81. https://10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73

11.

Cionea

I. A.

Johnson

J. A.

Bruscella

J. S.

Van Gilder

(2015). Taking conflict personally and the use of the demand/withdraw pattern in intraethnic serial arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 32–43.

12.

Dion

K. K.

Dion

K. L.

(1996). Cultural perspectives on romantic love. Personal Relationships, 3(1), 5–17. https://10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00101.x

13.

Donato

Pagani

Parise

Bertoni

Iafrate

(2014). The capitalization process in stable couple relationships: Intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 207–211. https://10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.411

14.

Drahanović

Hasangic

(2014). Exploring the difference between Turkish and Bosnian students in triangular love scale. Epiphany Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies, 7, 129–141.

15.

Dunbar

R. I. M.

Machin

A. J.

(2014). Sex differences in relationship conflict and reconciliation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(2-4), 109–133. https://10.1556/JEP-D-13-00024

16.

Dillion, L., Nowak, N., Weisfeld, G., Weisfeld, C., Shattuck, K., Imamoglu, E., Butovskaya, M., & Shen, J. (2015). Sources of marial conflict in five cultures. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 13, 1–15.

17.

Egbert

Polk

(2006). Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity test of Chapman’s five love languages. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 19–26. https://10.1080/17464090500535822

18.

Fletcher

Simpson

Thomas

(2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 933–940. https://10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933

19.

Flores

Tschann

J. N.

VanOss Marin

Pantoja

(2004). Marital conflict and acculturation among Mexican American husbands and wives. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(1), 39–52. https://10.1037/1099-9809.10.1.39

20.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Impett

E. A.

Asher

E. R.

(2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245.

21.

Goldstein

S. B.

(1999). Construction and validation of a conflict communication scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(9), 1803–1832. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00153.x

22.

Gottman

(1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 57–75. https://10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57

23.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. https://10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221

24.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Love and sexual attitudes, self-disclosure and sensation seeking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 281–297.

25.

Hendrick

S. S.

Dicke

(1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol 15(2), 147–159. https://10.1177/0265407598152001

26.

M. K.

(1990). Intermarried couples in therapy. Thomas. https://10.1093/sw/37.3.271-b

27.

Humbad

M. N.

Brent Donnellan

Iacono

W. G.

McGue

Alexandra Burt

(2013). Quantifying the association between personality similarity and marital adjustment using profile correlations: A cautionary tale. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 97–106. https://10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.007

28.

Kline

S. L.

Horton

Zhang

(2008). Communicating love: Comparisons between American and East Asian university students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 200–214.

29.

Kruschke

J. K.

Aguinis

Joo

(2012). The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 722–752.

30.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Feldman Barrett

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(1998). Intimacy as a process: The importance of self-disclosure and responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238

31.

Leikas

Ilmarinen

V. J.

Verkasalo

Vartiainen

H. L.

Lönnqvist

J. E.

(2018). Relationship satisfaction and similarity of personality traits, personal values, and attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 191–198. https://10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.024

32.

Linhof

A. Y.

Allan

(2019). A Narrative expansion of emotionally focused therapy with intercultural couples. Family Journal, 27(1), 44–49. https://10.1177/1066480718809426

33.

Livingston, G., & Brown, A. (2017). Intermarriage in the U.S. 50-years after Loving v. Virginia. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/

34.

Lou

Lalonde

R. N.

Wong

J. Y. T.

(2015). Acculturation, gender, and views on interracial relationships among Chinese Canadians. Personal Relationships, 22(4), 621–634. https://10.1111/pere.12099

35.

MacNeil

T. A.

Adamsons

(2014). A bioecological view of interracial/same-race couple conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(3), 243–260. https://10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0063

36.

Mesquita

Frijda

N. H.

(1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 179–204. https://10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.179

37.

Missildine

Feldstein

Punzalan

Parsons

(2005). S/he loves me S/he loves me not: Questioning heterosexist assumptions of gender differences for romantic and sexually motivated behaviors

Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 12(1), 65–74.

38.

Pines

A. Y.

Friedman

(1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(1), 54–71. https://10.1080/00224549809600353

39.

Rosand

G. M. B.

Slinning

Roysamb

Tambs

(2014). Relationship dissatisfaction and other risk factors for future relationship dissolution: A population-based study of 18,523 couples. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49(1), 109–119. https://10.1007/s00127-013-0681-3

40.

Rosenblatt

P. C.

Karis

T. A.

Powell

R. D.

(1995). Multiracial couples: Black & white voices. SAGE Publications.

41.

Shiota

M. N.

Campos

Gonzaga

G. C.

Keltner

Peng

(2010). I love you but …: Cultural differences in complexity of emotional experience during interaction with a romantic partner. Cognition and Emotion, 24(5), 786–799. https://10.1080/02699930902990480]

42.

Silva

L. C.

Campbell

Wright

(2017). Intercultural relationships: Entry, adjustment, and cultural negotiations. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43(6), 857–870. https://10.3138/jcfs.43.6.857

43.

Sullivan

Cottone

R. R.

(2006). Culturally based couple therapy and intercultural relationships: A review of the literature. The Family Journal, 14(3), 221–225.

44.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the United States. International Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 15, 29–46.

45.

Tang

Bensman

Hatfield

(2012). The impact of culture and gender on sexual motives: Differences between Chinese and North Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 286–294.

46.

Taras

Rowney

Steel

(2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15(4), 357–373. https://10.1016/j.intman.2008.08.005

47.

Ting-Toomey

Gao

Trubisky

Yang

Kim

H. S.

Lin

Nishida

(2008). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4), 275–296. https://10.1108/eb022702

48.

Ting-Toomey

Oetzel

J. G.

(2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. SAGE Publications.

49.

Tsai

J. L.

(2007). Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspective on Psychological Science, 2(3), 242–259. https://10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00043.x

50.

Tsai

J. L.

Knutson

Fung

H. H.

(2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–307. https://10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288

51.

Tsai

J. L.

Levenson

R. W.

McCoy

(2006). Cultural and temperamental variation in emotional response. Emotion, 6(3), 484–497. https://10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.484

52.

Vater

Schroder-Abe

(2015). Explaining the link between personality and relationship satisfaction: Emotion regulation and interpersonal behaviour in conflict discussions. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 201–215. https://10.1002/per.1993

53.

Vogel

D. L.

Wester

S. R.

Heesacker

Madon

(2003). Confirming gender stereotypes: A social role perspective. Sex Roles, 48(11–12), 519–528.

54.

Wagenmakers

E. J.

Marsman

Jamil

Verhagen

Love

, … Morey

R. D.

(2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(1), 35–57.

55.

Watts

Stenner

(2003). Definitions of love in a sample of British women: An empirical study using Q methodology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 557–572. https://10.1111/bjso.12048

56.

Wilcox

B. W.

Nock

S. L.

(2006). What’s love got to do with it? Equality, equity, commitment and women’s marital quality. Social Forces, 84, 1321–1345. https://10.1353/sof.2006.0076

57.

Wilkins

Gareis

(2006). Emotion expression and the locution “I love you”: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(1), 51–75. https://10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.003

58.

Williams

Husk

(2013). Can we, should we, measure ethnicity? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(4), 285–300. https://10.1080/13645579.2012.682794

59.

Zhang

Van Hook

(2009). Marital Dissolution among Interracial couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(February), 95–107. https://10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00582.x