Article

Journal of Family Issues

0(0) 1–26
Cultural ! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Similarities and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X20929071
Differences in journals.sagepub.com/home/jfi

Relationship Goals
in Intercultural
Romantic Couples

Ana Laura Fonseca1 ,

Tony Ye2, Melissa Curran4 ,
Jill Koyama3, and
Emily A. Butler4

Abstract
Intercultural romantic relationships and multicultural families have increased
in the United States and worldwide. Researchers have found that intercul-
tural 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 ¼ 80), we test whether greater
similarity in relationship goals between romantic partners is related to

1
Department of Psychology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
2
Department of Psychyology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University
of California, Los Angeles, CA
3
College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
4
Family Studies and Human Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Corresponding Author:
Ana Laura Fonseca, University of California Berkeley, 2121 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94720
USA.
Email: dr.analaurafonseca@gmail.com
2 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 rela-
tionship 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 cou-
ples, 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
Fonseca et al. 3

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 mecha-
nisms 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 differ-
ences 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 sec-
tions 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 (Drahanovic
& 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
4 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 rela-

tionships 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, partici-
pants 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 indi-
rect 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.
Fonseca et al. 5

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 encoun-
ters (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, com-
mitment, 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 with-
draw 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 similar-
ity 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 satis-
faction, 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
6 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 respon-
siveness depends on what each partner perceives to be culturally appro-
priate or inappropriate during an intimate interaction (MacNeil &
Adamsons, 2014; Ting-Toomey, 1991). For example, active responsive-
ness (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 relation-
ship quality is via more effective responsiveness to each other’s emo-
tional disclosures (Gottman, 1993; Gottman & Levenson, 1992; Rosand
et al., 2014).
Fonseca et al. 7

Focus of the Present Study

To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the association
between similar relationship goals between romantic partners and rela-
tionship 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 indi-
rect effects for simple as well as complex mediation models in a straight-
forward 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 dif-
ferences 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 cou-
ples 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 ¼ 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
8 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 par-
ticipate, 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 conversa-
tion 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 includ-
ed the following demographic and eligibility information: (a) age,
(b) education, (c) ethnic identification (e.g., feelings of sense of
Fonseca et al. 9

belonging or affiliation with a common ancestry, usually in terms of

feelings of membership and geographic region), (d) romantic relation-
ship status, (e) relationship length, (f) sexual orientation of the relation-
ship, 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, lan-
guage and/or religious backgrounds. Based on this definition do you
consider yourself to be involved in an intercultural romantic
relationship?” 0 ¼ no and 1¼ yes. Only couples in which both partners
answered “yes” were eligible for the study.

Baseline questionnaire
Independent variables. Similarity of Relationship Goals. Partners’ sim-
ilarity 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
10 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

(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, intima-
cy, 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 qual-
ity. 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
Fonseca et al. 11

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 conver-
gence 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 param-
eter 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 con-
vergence (e.g., some models converged with as few as 1,000 subsequent
iterations and others required as high as 20,000). Posterior convergen-
ces 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,
12 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

compared to some specified alternate hypothesis?), our focus is on

parameter estimation for the model as a whole (e.g., What is the evi-
dence 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% prob-
ability 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 distri-
bution 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 ¼ 16),
followed by different racial, ethnic, language, and/or religious back-
grounds (n ¼14), or different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds
(n ¼ 11) (see Table 4).
 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for 40 Intercultural Couples (N ¼ 80).

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

Living status Alone Friends Family Significant Roommate Other

(frequency) 6 13 14 Other 13 0
34
Education level <High High Professional Some Undergraduate Graduate
(frequency) Schoo School College College Degree Degree
l0 4 1 49 18 8
Note. Means within a row with different superscripts indicate groups where the 95% CrI for their population parameters do not overlap. SE ¼ Standard
Error; Responsiveness ¼ Perceived Partner Responsiveness; Sim_Relationship is the profile correlation for relationship goals.

13
14 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

Table 2. Couple Types Based on Participant’s Self-

Identification as Non-Hispanic White (NHW) or Color
(N ¼ 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 ¼ 80).

Ethnic Native Native
Identity African Asian Caucasian Hispanic America Hawaiian Biethnic Multiethnic

1 11 35 21 2 0 8 2

Table 4. Descriptive Identification of Intercultural Couples (N ¼ 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, 8 6 14
and religious Backgrounds

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
Fonseca et al. 15

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.

Defining love. Evidence for two main effects were found. First, NHW
individuals reported higher levels of Eros (intense/amorous love) com-
pared to individuals of color (b ¼ 0.07, SE ¼ 0.06, [95% CI ¼ 0.01,
0.03]). Second, men reported lower levels of Eros compared to
women (b ¼ 0.08, SE ¼ 0.03, [95% CI ¼ 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 ¼ 0.19,
SE ¼ 0.08, [95% CI ¼ 0.33, 0.03]) and NHW-Men reported higher
levels of Pragma (practical/mutually beneficial love) (b ¼ 0.96, SE ¼
0.19, [95% CI ¼ 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 ¼ 1.01, SE ¼ 0.08, [95% CI ¼ 0.85, 1.16]). In sum,
NHW individuals reported higher levels of intense/amorous love and
mutually beneficial love. Equally supportive of past research, individu-
als 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 ¼ 4.41, SE ¼ 0.08, [95% CI ¼ 4.26, 4.56]), quality time
with partner (b ¼ 4.55, SE ¼ 0.07, [95% CI ¼ 4.47, 4.68]), and providing
gifts to their partner (b ¼ 3.47, SE ¼ 0.15, [95% CI ¼ 3.19, 3.76]).
Additionally, evidence of two interactions were found. First, NHW-
Men reported lower preference for acts of service compared to individ-
uals of color (b ¼ 0.92, SE ¼ 0.20, [95% CI ¼ 1.32, 0.54]) and
NHW-Women reported higher preference for physical touch compared
to individuals of color (b ¼ 4.60, SE ¼ 0.11, [95% CI ¼ 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 com-
pared to individuals of color and, more generally, women reported
higher preference for spending time with, positively affirming and pro-
viding gifts to their partner as expressions of love compared to men.
16
Table 5. Mean Differences of Intercultural Couples by Non-Hispanic White (NHW) and of Color (N ¼ 80).

NHW Color

Relationship goals Women Men Women Men

Mean (SE) Mean (SE) Mean (SE) Mean (SE)

Defining love Eros 1.57a,c (0.06) 1.49b,c (0.07) 1.50a (0.07) 1.42b (0.07)
Storge 0.93c (0.11) 1.09a (0.10) 1.07b,e (0.10) 1.16d,e (0.11)
Pragma 3.74c (0.18) 3.99a,c (0.17) 3.16b,e (0.08) 3.52d,e (0.19)
Mania 3.36(0.13) 3.36(0.12) 3.39(0.15) 3.27(0.14)
Agape 1.00c (0.07) 0.94a,c (0.08) 1.01b,d (0.08) 0.82d (0.07)
Conflict styles Direct approach 1.65c,e (0.09) 1.96a,e (0.08) 1.97b (0.08) 2.48d (0.10)
Avoidant approach 3.29c,e (0.11) 2.78a,e (0.11) 2.76b (0.11) 2.49d (0.10)
Expressions of love Acts of service 3.97c (0.11) 3.26a,c (0.14) 4.22b,e (0.11) 3.75d,e (0.11)
Physical touch 4.60c (0.11) 4.05a,c (0.11) 4.23b,e (0.10) 4.00d,e (0.09)
Affirmation 4.46a (0.10) 4.20b (0.10) 4.55a (0.11) 4.36b (0.10)
Quality time 4.58a (0.08) 4.48b (0.07) 4.61a (0.01) 4.43b (0.07)
Gifts 3.63a (0.15) 3.03b (0.16) 3.32a (0.16) 2.88b (0.15)
Sim_relationship 0.61a (0.02) 0.63a (0.01) 0.61a (0.02) 0.61a (0.03)
Note. Means within a row with different superscripts indicate groups where the 95% CrI for their population parameters do not overlap. SE ¼ Standard
Error.
Fonseca et al. 17

Conflict Styles. Evidence of two interactions were found, where men of

color reported lower avoidance (b ¼ 2.49, SE ¼ 0.10, [95% CI ¼ 2.30,
2.69]) but higher direct approach to conflict (b ¼ 2.48, SE ¼ 0.10,
[95% CI ¼ 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 ¼ 0.26 [95% CI ¼ 8.09, 11.63]) or passive (a*b estimate ¼ 6.65
[95% CI ¼ 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 ¼ 1.54, SE ¼ .76, [95%
CrI ¼ 0.06, 3.02), but not passive perceived partner responsiveness
(b ¼ 1.11, SE ¼ 1.05, [95% CrI ¼ 1.02, 3.12), and higher relationship
quality (b ¼ 368.42, SE ¼ 163.20, [95% CrI ¼ 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.
18 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 cat-
egorical 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 sim-
ilarities/differences in cultural beliefs and values between partners.
Generally, our first hypothesis regarding cultural differences in rela-
tionship 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 cul-
tural 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 demonstrat-
ing 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
Fonseca et al. 19

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 liter-
ature 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 medi-
ated 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 ethnic-
ity 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 sim-
pler 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 part-
ner responsiveness and higher relationship quality. These findings align
with previous studies that have indicated that compatible goals between
20 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 sim-
ilar 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 con-
structed 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., interra-
cial 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 cul-
tural 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 relation-
ship 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 construc-
tively 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 pro-
cesses that make-up healthy relationship functioning in intercultural
couples.
Fonseca et al. 21

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 meth-
ods (e.g., Rosenblatt et al., 1995). This study is the first to target rela-
tionship 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 differen-
ces. 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 ¼ 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 var-
iables (e.g., nativity status, SES, personality type, etc.), which may
account for effects related to gender, ethnicity, and/or partner respon-
siveness. 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 ele-
ments 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 part-
ners. 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
22 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

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 emo-
tional 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 impor-
tant contribution for the direction of future intercultural relationship
research.

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 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3319-8477
Melissa Curran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-6030

References
Barbara, G. (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, L., & Murshed, F. (2015). Culture, expressions of romantic love, and
gift-giving. Journal of International Business Management, 14(1), 68–85.
Fonseca et al. 23

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, R., Nelson, J., Henriksen, R., & Monakes, S. (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 pack-
age brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395. https://10.32614/RJ-2018-017
Burns, A. (2002). Women in love and men at work. Psychology, Evolution &
Gender, 4, 149–172. https://10.1080/1461666031000063629
Christensen, A., & 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
Cionea, I. A., Johnson, J. A., Bruscella, J. S., & Van Gilder, B. (2015). Taking
conflict personally and the use of the demand/withdraw pattern in intra-
ethnic serial arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 32–43.
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
Donato, S., Pagani, A., Parise, M., Bertoni, A., & Iafrate, R. (2014). The cap-
italization process in stable couple relationships: Intrapersonal and interper-
sonal benefits. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 207–211.
https://10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.411
Drahanovic
, S., & Hasangic, A. (2014). Exploring the difference between
Turkish and Bosnian students in triangular love scale. Epiphany Journal of
Transdisciplinary Studies, 7, 129–141.
Dunbar, R. I. M., & Machin, A. J. (2014). Sex differences in relationship con-
flict and reconciliation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(2-4),
109–133. https://10.1556/JEP-D-13-00024
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.
Egbert, N., & Polk, D. (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
Fletcher, G., Simpson, J., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and eval-
uations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(6), 933–940. https://10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933
24 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

Flores, E., Tschann, J. N., VanOss Marin, B., & Pantoja, P. (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
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.
Goldstein, S. B. (1999). Construction and validation of a conflict communica-
tion scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(9), 1803–1832. 10.1111/j.
1559-1816.1999.tb00153.x
Gottman, J. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of
Family Psychology, 7(1), 57–75. https://10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57
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
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Love and sexual attitudes, self-disclosure
and sensation seeking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 281–297.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale:
Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol 15(2), 147–159.
https://10.1177/0265407598152001
Ho, M. K. (1990). Intermarried couples in therapy. Thomas. https://10.1093/sw/
37.3.271-b
Humbad, M. N., Brent Donnellan, M., Iacono, W. G., McGue, M., &
Alexandra Burt, S. (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
Kline, S. L., Horton, B., & Zhang, S. (2008). Communicating love:
Comparisons between American and East Asian university students.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 200–214.
Kruschke, J. K., Aguinis, H., & Joo, H. (2012). The time has come: Bayesian
methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational
Research Methods, 15(4), 722–752.
Laurenceau, J. P., Feldman Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy
as a process: The importance of self-disclosure and responsiveness in inter-
personal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1238–1251. https://10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Leikas, S., Ilmarinen, V. J., Verkasalo, M., Vartiainen, H. L., & L€onnqvist, 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
Linhof, A. Y., & Allan, R. (2019). A Narrative expansion of emotionally
focused therapy with intercultural couples. Family Journal, 27(1), 44–49.
https://10.1177/1066480718809426
Fonseca et al. 25

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/
Lou, E., 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
MacNeil, T. A., & Adamsons, K. (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
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions:
A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 179–204. https://10.1037/0033-
2909.112.2.179
Missildine, W., Feldstein, G., Punzalan, J., & Parsons, J. (2005). S/he loves me
S/he loves me not: Questioning heterosexist assumptions of gender differ-
ences for romantic and sexually motivated behaviors. Sexual Addiction &
Compulsivity, 12(1), 65–74.
Pines, A. Y., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 138(1), 54–71. https://10.1080/00224549809600353
Rosand, G. M. B., Slinning, K., Roysamb, E., & Tambs, K. (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
Rosenblatt, P. C., Karis, T. A., & Powell, R. D. (1995). Multiracial couples:
Black & white voices. SAGE Publications.
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., & Peng, K. (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]
Silva, L. C., Campbell, K., & Wright, D. (2017). Intercultural relationships:
Entry, adjustment, and cultural negotiations. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 43(6), 857–870. https://10.3138/jcfs.43.6.857
Sullivan, C., & Cottone, R. R. (2006). Culturally based couple therapy and
intercultural relationships: A review of the literature. The Family Journal,
14(3), 221–225.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan,
and the United States. International Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 15,
29–46.
Tang, N., Bensman, L., & Hatfield, E. (2012). The impact of culture and gender
on sexual motives: Differences between Chinese and North Americans.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 286–294.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (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
26 Journal of Family Issues 0(0)

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., &
Nishida, T. (2008). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling inter-
personal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 2(4), 275–296. https://10.1108/eb022702
Ting-Toomey, S. & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effec-
tively. SAGE Publications.
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
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & 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
Tsai, J. L., Levenson, R. W., & McCoy, K. (2006). Cultural and temperamental
variation in emotional response. Emotion, 6(3), 484–497. https://10.1037/
1528-3542.6.3.484
Vater, A., & Schroder-Abe, M. (2015). Explaining the link between personality
and relationship satisfaction: Emotion regulation and interpersonal behav-
iour in conflict discussions. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 201–215.
https://10.1002/per.1993
Vogel, D. L., Wester, S. R., Heesacker, M., & Madon, S. (2003). Confirming
gender stereotypes: A social role perspective. Sex Roles, 48(11–12), 519–528.
Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., . . .
Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical
advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
25(1), 35–57.
Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (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
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
Wilkins, R., & Gareis, E. (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
Williams, M., & Husk, K. (2013). Can we, should we, measure ethnicity?
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(4), 285–300.
https://10.1080/13645579.2012.682794
Zhang, Y., & Van Hook, J. (2009). Marital Dissolution among Interracial
couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(February), 95–107. https://10.
1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00582.x