Relationship Satisfaction among South Asian Canadians: The Role of ‘Complementary-Equality’ and Listening to Understand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the ways in which adherence to traditional marital expectations in ones marriage was related to styles of interpersonal listening and marital satisfaction among IndoPakistanis living in a Western country. Participants (n = 114) were recruited from a large metropolitan city in Canada, were married, and their ages ranged from 19 to 67 years. They completed measures of marital satisfaction, listening styles, and traditional orientation to marriage. Results indicated that greater adherence to traditional marital beliefs were correlated with lower levels of interpersonal listening and marital satisfaction. However, closer examination of the traditional orientation subscales revealed that expectation of traditional husband and wife roles did not result in lower empathic listening in one’s marriage or lower marital satisfaction, but the lower degree to which one believed in upholding equality in undertaking such traditional roles did. Furthermore, empathic listening mediated the relationship between belief in equality in one’s relationship and marital satisfaction. The implications of these results for enhancing relationship satisfaction for Indo-Pakistanis are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".