Navigating cultural crossroads: A thematic analysis of individuals' sacrifices in intercultural romantic relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aims to explore the unique sacrifices intercultural couples make to reconcile their cultural differences. Background Partners in intercultural romantic relationships may be challenged to make sacrifices related to their cultural differences, termed cultural sacrifices. These sacrifices can act as catalysts for cultural change in families and society, yet there is a gap in our understanding of the types of cultural sacrifices partners make. Method We conducted reflexive thematic analysis on two online samples of individuals in intercultural relationships who wrote about their cultural sacrifices (n = 592). We employed a bottom‐up data‐driven approach to our analysis. Results We identified 10 themes, including nine distinct themes of cultural sacrifices—cultural practices and norms, food, gender roles, language, parenting, prejudice, religion, relocation and travel, and social orientation—and one theme of not making a cultural sacrifice. Most themes were divided into subthemes to provide more context for individuals' experiences. Conclusion Individuals in intercultural relationships often reconcile their cultural differences by giving up aspects of their own culture or finding ways to adapt to their partner's culture. This study provides the first descriptive overview of the types of cultural sacrifices partners make in their relationships. Implications These findings provide a better understanding of intercultural relationships, contribute to a more inclusive study of relationships, and offer valuable considerations for future research.
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 | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".