Integrating Two Families: Factors Influencing Relationship Satisfaction Among Intercultural Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though rates of people dating and marrying outside of their own culture continue to rise across the U.S., families may struggle to accept this choice. In turn, the family’s attitudes toward one’s partner can impact relational dynamics of an intercultural couple. Framed within Ecological Systems Theory, this study examines individual, couple, and family level influences on relationship satisfaction among individuals in intercultural relationships. Participants ( N = 264) self-identified as being in a relationship with someone who was of a different race, ethnicity, or culture and completed a brief online survey. Results from a hierarchical regression show that psychological well-being (psychological distress, satisfaction with life), conflict management strategies (constructive, destructive), and family acceptance account for 58% of the variance of relationship satisfaction indicating they are significant factors in overall relationship satisfaction among individuals in intercultural relationships. Furthermore, family acceptance moderated the connection between both constructive and destructive conflict management styles and relationship satisfaction; however, family acceptance did not moderate psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction. Findings shed light on the importance of individual psychological well-being, couples’ conflict management strategies, and family acceptance as significant contributors to relationship satisfaction among those in intercultural relationships.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".