Non-Environmental Cost-Benefit News

Samples of urban community couples in Shanghai, China, and suburban U.S. couples were administered measures of relationship adjustment and personal standards regarding characteristics of couple relationships. There were few gender differences in adherence to relationship standards but many differences between Chinese and U.S. couples. Fewer cultural differences existed in degree of couple consensus on relationship standards, but both adherence to standards and couple consensus on standards were associated with partners' levels of marital adjustment. Implications of the findings for clinical assessment and intervention with distressed couples, in particular for Western therapists working with Chinese couples whose standards may conflict with goals and methods of couple therapy, are discussed.

There has been growing evidence that the ways in which members of couples perceive, interpret, and evaluate each other and the events that occur in their relationship have a significant impact on the quality of their relationships (Epstein & Baucom, 2002). Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, and Sher (1989) identified five major types of cognition that have potential to influence partners' emotional and behavioral responses to each other: (a) Selective perceptions, or the particular aspects of relationship events that each partner notices; (b) attributions, the inferences that each person makes about causes of positive and negative aspects of the relationship; (c) expectancies or predictions about the likelihood that particular events will occur in the relationship; (d) assumptions that involve basic beliefs or schemas about the characteristics that individuals and relationships have in general, or about characteristics of one's own relationship; and (e) standards involving beliefs or schemas about the characteristics that relationships and their members "should" have.

Whereas selective perceptions, attributions, and expectancies are forms of moment-to-moment information processing, assumptions and standards tend to be more long-standing schemas or "cognitive structures"-relatively stable concepts that an individual develops about the world, including the characteristics of intimate relationships. The temporal distinction between schemas and the more moment-to-moment forms of cognition becomes less clear when members of a couple develop relatively stable attributions about the causes of events in their relationship (e.g., "She forgets things I tell her because I'm not important to her."). Such a cross-situational attributional style (Noller, Beach, & Osgarby, 1997) can be considered a form of schema in that it is a stable assumption about relatively consistent aspects of the partner that shape the partner's behavior.

Research studies have provided evidence that all five forms of cognition identified by Baucom et al. (1989) affect partners' level of satisfaction with their relationships and the degrees to which they communicate with each other in positive or negative ways (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Epstein & Baucom, 1993, 2002; Fincham & Beach, 1999; Noller et al., 1997). The two types of cognitions that have received the most empirical attention and support as factors in couples' relationship quality have been attributions and standards. This study was intended to expand knowledge of the role of standards in couple relationships, exploring cross-cultural differences, because most research has been conducted with U.S. samples. Cultural differences in partners' relationship standards must be taken into account to achieve culturally sensitive assessment and treatment of relationship problems.

The results of this study expand on prior research indicating that couples' relationship standards play an important role in marital adjustment and should be one of the realms that couple therapists assess and be prepared to intervene with when working with distressed couples. Whereas prior research demonstrating the importance of relationship standards focused on couples in the U.S. and other Western countries, this study indicated that standards are also important in marital adjustment in China, evidence of their broad impact across diverse cultures. The findings also revealed a number of cultural differences between Chinese and U.S. couples in relationship standards and their association with marital distress, an area that had not been examined in previous studies of couples' cognitions. Although previous research has identified cultural differences in areas of marital conflict between Asian and Western marriages, research on cognitive factors involved in marital conflict and distress has been lacking. This study indicated that Chinese and U.S. couples differed significantly on seven of the 11 IGRS subscales, with U.S. spouses wanting more boundaries around their relationship (less sharing of information about the relationship with outsiders, accepting less advice from others) than do Chinese spouses, and Chinese couples holding stronger standards supporting the exercise of power/control in their relationships (giving in to one's partner, trying to change the partner, and resisting control by the partner). Thus, what U.S. couples tend to consider excessive intrusion into their relationships by extended family, friends, and other outsiders Chinese couples find more acceptable, and what U.S. couples are likely to view as undesirable "power struggles" are considered more acceptable by their Chinese counterparts. Finally, Chinese couples reported stronger standards for sharing values (an emphasis on unity and avoidance of conflict), as well as standards for more instrumental investment in one's relationship and greater efforts to make the relationship perfect.

Although the finding that Chinese couples held standards for fewer boundaries around their relationships than did U.S. couples was contrary to the hypothesis, it was consistent with research indicating that Chinese individuals' concerns about privacy of personal issues pertain to those viewed as relative strangers, and when other people are defined as trustworthy close friends, Chinese individuals are more likely than Westerners to disclose personal information to them. The standards that Chinese couples set for allowing others into their relationships pose a potential barrier for couple therapists, in that a therapist is likely to be viewed as an outsider whose trustworthiness has not been demonstrated, in contrast to close extended family members and friends with whom there is considerable self-disclosure and help-seeking. As Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) have found greater differentiation between close friends and casual friends among the Chinese than among Americans, therapists attempting to form a therapeutic alliance with Chinese couples must be sensitive to the possibility that it may be a gradual process and he or she should convey respect for the couple's boundary; for example, by deferring questions about intimate areas of the clients' lives. On the positive side, our results suggest that if a therapist is successful over time in conveying a sense of trustworthiness and concern to a Chinese couple, the couple may become more open to therapeutic input than many U.S. couples.

The finding here that Chinese couples' standards support greater exercise of power/control in their relationships than U.S. couples' standards was consistent with the hypothesis and prior information about couple relationships in Chinese and U.S. societies. Chinese society has a longer and more consistent history of being hierarchical, with females valued less than males from birth. Even though Chinese women's status is improving and many couples now report egalitarian decision making, gender roles are in flux in China, and it is not surprising that many individuals see a need for exercising power as partners struggle to define their degrees of influence with each other. Western family therapists whose own relationship standards and approaches to couple therapy are likely to emphasize egalitarian relationships must be cautious not to impose their own values when working with Chinese couples, especially not interpreting acceptance of power strategies as evidence that Chinese partners place their own needs over the welfare of the relationship. Indeed, our finding that the Chinese couples did not differ from U.S. couples in standards for egalitarian outcomes in decision making suggests that Chinese couples may differentiate more than U.S. couples do between the process of trying to influence each other versus the outcome of having a relationship that is equitable overall. The Chinese couples also held stronger standards than the U.S. couples for sharing values, instrumental investment in one's relationship, and efforts to make their relationships perfect, consistent with prior research indicating a Chinese cultural emphasis on collectivist values, including harmony and devotion to the family. Thus the control strategies that Chinese partners believe it is acceptable to use with each other may not be viewed as incompatible with investment in the relationship and overall marital harmony. Overt expression of control strategies also need not be inconsistent with Chinese beliefs that one should not express negative feelings overtly. Nevertheless, the findings that Chinese females' marital adjustment was associated with their male partners holding lower standards for resisting control by one's partner and that Chinese males' marital adjustment was associated with their own and their female partners having lower standards for resisting control by one's partner suggest that Chinese spouses may be ambivalent about the traditional exercise of power in Chinese marriages. Consequently, the problem- solving skills commonly taught to couples in cognitive-behavior couple therapy (Epstein & Baucom, 2002) may be appealing to Chinese couples because the procedures of jointly defining a problem, brainstorming possible solutions without dismissing each person's ideas, collaborating on evaluating the costs and benefits of each proposed solution, and selecting a solution to be attempted on a trial basis allow partners opportunities to influence each other's positions while working as a team. This approach to problem solving is consistent with the standards for instrumental investment in one's relationship and efforts to make one's relationship as good as possible that were expressed by Chinese couples in this study.

The multiple regression analyses predicting individuals' marital adjustment from their own and th\eir partner's adherence to relationship standards indicated that both parties' standards are associated with a person's relationship adjustment, with considerable amounts of variance in marital adjustment scores accounted for by relationship standards. In most cases adjustment was predicted by a combination of standards, each accounting for unique variance in adjustment. For example, 40.7% of the variance in Chinese males' DAS scores was predicted by a combination of their own standards for more sharing of time together, more sharing of values, and less resisting control by one's partner. This combination seems consistent with prior research, such as Gottman's (1994) findings that marital adjustment is associated with a high rate of positive experiences between partners and a low rate of "stonewalling" or defensiveness and withdrawal. The tendency for adjustment to be predicted more strongly by the person's own standards is consistent with the idea that a person becomes more distressed as he or she perceives that the realities of the relationship fail to meet personal standards (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982). The impact of one person's standards on the other's relationship adjustment is likely to be indirect, mediated by the ways that the first person's standards influence his or her behavior toward the second person. However, it also is possible that the stronger association found in this study between one's own standards and marital adjustment is due to common method variance (i.e., both are measured by questionnaires administered to the same person).

An intriguing aspect of the results of the multiple regression analyses is that there was a tendency for the relation between marital adjustment and one's own standards, as well as for degree of partner consensus on standards, to be stronger for Chinese males and U.S. females than for Chinese females and U.S. males. The finding for U.S. females seems consistent with prior evidence that, in U.S. couples, wives play a key role in maintaining the emotional climate of the relationship and are concerned about and monitor the degree to which the members of the couple are attending to their relationship. Among Chinese couples, wives traditionally have left their families of origin to become part of their husband's family, and their personal values (and standards) may be more subjugated to those of the husband. Because this pattern is only suggestive and should be explored further in future research, it underscores how cultural comparisons must be made along a variety of dimensions, in this case with culture defined in terms of both country and gender. Therapists working with couples must strive to understand the different subjective experiences that females and males have in growing up in each culture, so their interventions will have good potential to increase each individual's satisfaction within his or her intimate relationship.

Another dyadic aspect of relationship standards that was investigated in this study was degree of couple consensus on each type of standard, cultural differences in consensus, and the degree of association between consensus and marital adjustment in each culture. Overall, there were fewer cultural differences on couple consensus (3 of 11 IGRS subscales) than there were on degree of individuals' adherence to relationship standards (7 of 11 subscales). Chinese couples' lower consensus than U.S. couples on degree of boundaries around their relationship might reflect rapid changes in family structure within China, with increasing numbers of couples developing autonomy from their families of origin. The Chinese couples' lower consensus on sharing time together may be due to increasing demands that partners' jobs and opportunities for further education (including abroad) place on the time that they can spend together, as China and its economy grow rapidly. For many Chinese couples there is a conflict between traditional collectivist valuing of family relationships and pressures to pursue education and jobs that take one away from the family. Evidence of the strength of this potential conflict can be found in the greater consensus we found among Chinese couples than among U.S. couples on standards for seeking perfection in the relationship, a reflection of the high value still placed on quality of the couple and family relationships in Chinese society. Couple therapists who work with Chinese couples need to be sensitive to the powerful forces, shaped by societal values that are internalized within individuals in the form of their relationship standards, that can contribute to both internal conflict within individual partners and to conflict between partners.

The multiple regression analyses indicated that couple consensus on relationship standards predicted marital adjustment for all four groups (Chinese and U.S. females and males), although they accounted for less variance in adjustment than individuals' adherence to standards did. As with adherence to standards, the types of standards for which couple consensus was associated with adjustment most often concerned two aspects of cohesiveness (sharing of time, sharing of values) and one concerning power/control (resisting control from one's partner). These findings suggest that couple therapists should routinely assess both individual adherence and couple consensus on these core dimensions of relationship functioning (Epstein & Baucom, 2002), being prepared to intervene when these standards appear to be contributing to conflict and distress.

Although it was not a major focus of this study, we found that members of this sample of U.S. community couples had higher total DAS scores than the Chinese community couples. Caution must be used in interpreting the group difference as any indication of lower marital adjustment in China, because there is reason to be concerned that the DAS is a culturally biased measure of relationship adjustment, due to its development on the basis of Western research on couple relationships and Western beliefs about relationship quality. A post-hoc analysis of cultural differences on the set of DAS items2 revealed that U.S. couples reported more frequent agreements concerning a variety of areas in their relationship (e.g., recreation, friends, philosophy of life, aims and goals), higher cohesiveness (e.g., engaging in outside interests together, exchanging ideas), and more open expression of both affection and conflict, among other differences. Rather than reflecting less relationship satisfaction or adjustment in Chinese than in U.S. couples, the differences in the two groups' responses to the DAS items may be due to differences in characteristics that are considered normative and acceptable in each culture, as revealed by prior research and by our findings concerning differences in relationship standards. For example, given the Chinese tradition of inhibiting open expressions of affection, it is likely that many partners who love each other still would not endorse items such as kissing one's partner frequently, thereby lowering their DAS score. In addition, the lower consensus on various relationship areas that members of Chinese couples reported on the DAS items is consistent with our finding of lower consensus among Chinese than U.S. couples on relationship standards. Their lower consensus can be considered in light of prior findings that Chinese couples commonly avoid open communication, both positive and negative, following the Chinese emphases on implicit communication and the avoidance of open conflict in interpersonal relationships (Gao et al., 1996; Huang, 1981 ; Wu, 1996). This avoidance pattern might seem to be inconsistent with the findings described earlier regarding Chinese couples' stronger adherence to standards for exerting power in their couple relationships, but control strategies need not involve open exchanges of ideas and feelings. Chinese couples who consider themselves to be happy within their relationships still may receive relatively low DAS scores by reporting low consensus on various aspects of the relationships. The low consensus on aspects of their relationships may not elicit concern or distress on their parts, whereas open discussions and conflict would. Consequently, a relatively low level of discussion of topics such as recreation choices, religion, friends, philosophy of life, goals, and the others that are assessed by DAS consensus subscale items, and the lower level of consensus on relationship standards found in the present study, may result in Chinese couples having many unresolved issues but not in distress.

Nevertheless, the avoidance of direct conflict by means of indirect communication that Chinese society encourages may be a risk factor for the development of relationship distress. Thus, the present finding of lower DAS scores among the Chinese couples may not reflect more distress than among the U.S. couples, but the combination of lower consensus and more avoidant communication among Chinese couples may pose a risk for the development of relationship problems. As Chinese couples increasingly approach marriage as a personal choice rather than a formal arrangement between families based on practical concerns, it is possible that partners' awareness of areas of conflict will increase the probability of relationship distress and divorce. In the face of evidence of an increasing divorce rate in China (Bullough & Ruan, 1994), there may be a need for new preventive and therapeutic programs focused on improving couples' communication and negotiation skills. Western therapists working with distressed Chinese immigrant couples also should assess areas in which partners lack consensus and examine communication patterns that may impede resolution of important differences. Work with these couples will require cultural sensitivity to traditional values concerning implicit communica\tion and maintenance of outward harmony. Communication skills training that commonly is embraced by U.S. couples may initially be quite uncomfortable for Chinese couples, so therapists may need to introduce them in small doses, simultaneously conveying understanding of the importance of harmony within the family. Given the potential for the development of reciprocal coercive control in Chinese couples' relationships if they make continuing efforts to exert control but fail to use good communication and problem-solving skills to resolve conflicts, the gradual introduction of such skills in couple therapy appears to be important.

The performance of the IGRS as a measure of relationship standards in both Chinese and U.S. couples suggested that despite modest internal consistency of some subscales, the set of subscales demonstrated considerable utility in tapping cognitions related to relationship adjustment. Although it will be important to conduct further studies with additional samples in a number of countries in order to determine the overall reliability, validity, and clinical utility of the IGRS for use in the assessment of couples, these results have been encouraging. At present, clinicians should use the instrument cautiously, perhaps using partners' responses to IGRS items as stimuli for more in-depth discussion with a couple of their relationship standards along the dimensions assessed by the subscales.

In summary, the results of this study further support the relevance of cognitive factors in couple relationships, and they underscore the importance of taking culture into account in assessing and intervening with individuals' standards or schemas about their intimate relationships. Given that cognitive-behavioral approaches to couple and family therapy that explicitly address relationship standards have for the most part been developed in Western countries, this research raises a concern that cognitive- behavioral concepts and methods such as communication skills training and cognitive restructuring methods that challenge partners' standards likely require tailoring to meet the needs of members of different cultures.

Source: Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
Red Nova www.rednova.com
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126969