Family-of-Origin Triangulation and Marital Quality of Chinese Couples: The Mediating Role of In-Law Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Triangulation is an important subject in marriage and family therapy. Chinese family culture emphasizes consanguinity, which means that adult children have great difficulty separating from their original families and establishing clear boundaries. This results in the unique problem of family-of-origin triangulation in Chinese marriages. The current study explored the relationship between family-of-origin triangulation and the marital quality of Chinese couples, and examined the mediating role of in-law relationships. A total of 341 Chinese couples, ranging from newlyweds to those with school-aged children, participated in the survey. The results demonstrate that family-of-origin triangulation of both husbands and wives negatively predicted wives’ marital quality, whereas husbands’ marital quality was only predicted by their own family-of-origin triangulation. Moreover, family-of-origin triangulation not only predicted marital quality directly, but also indirectly by damaging the relationships with in-laws. The actor effects of family-of-origin triangulation were partially mediated by in-law relationships, whereas the partner effects of husbands’ triangulation on wives’ marital quality was fully mediated by in-law relationships. Family therapists in China should pay more attention to intergenerational relationships and reestablishing the sub-system boundaries of husband and wife, and at the same time, focus on repairing the couple’s relationships with the in-laws.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".