Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Cultural diversity within couples: Risk or
chance? A meta-analytic review of relationship
satisfaction
Maximiliane Uhlich
1
| Tamara Luginbuehl
2
|
Dominik Schoebi
1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
2
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Switzerland
Correspondence
Dominik Schoebi and Maximiliane
Uhlich, Department of Psychology,
University of Fribourg, Rue P.A. de
Faucigny 2, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland.
Email: dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch and
maximiliane.uhlich@gmail.com
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that couples with differ-
ent sociocultural backgrounds (DISC) are less stable and
less satisfied than culturally homogeneous couples, puta-
tively because of the stressors these couples face, for
example, discrimination. However, a review of the litera-
ture suggests that findings across studies are somewhat
mixed, and correlates of different sociodemographic vari-
ables are potentially important. We identified and
reviewed 20 studies that examined relationship satisfac-
tion in couples with different and homogeneous socio-
cultural backgrounds so that comparisons between the
two groups were possible and effect sizes could be com-
puted. Overall, our meta-analysis found no evidence for
DISC couples being less satisfied than culturally homo-
geneous couples, challenging this assumption. Only a
few effect sizes, with large confidence intervals,
Statement of Relevance: This review summarizes the current literature on relationship satisfaction in DISC couples. To
our best knowledge, it is the first review summarizing the evidence on this growing population. This work contributes
to the understanding of intimate relationships of this significant minority and helps in reducing stereotypes by
contextualizing the evidence.
Received: 27 August 2020 Revised: 8 September 2021 Accepted: 18 September 2021
DOI: 10.1111/pere.12405
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Personal Relationships published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of IARR.
Pers Relationship. 2021;1–26. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere 1
suggested lower relationship satisfaction in DISC couples
than in culturally homogenous couples, and these differ-
ences may be explained by demographic correlates.
Based on our findings, we provide recommendations for
relationship researchers conducting research on DISC
couples.
KEYWORDS
intercultural couples, marital quality, non-Western, relationship
satisfaction
1|INTRODUCTION
In many countries, the frequency of couples with partners of different sociocultural back-
grounds (DISC) has been rising in the past two decades (e.g., Hiew et al., 2015a; Joyner &
Kao, 2005). In the United States, for example, in 17% of all marriages, partners are from DISC
(Pew Research Center, 2021). The overall number of such socioculturally mixed couples within
a society is likely to be even higher when unmarried couples are also taken into account
(Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010).
Nevertheless, the current literature on intimate relationships is predominantly based on
studies investigating mixed samples, likely consisting of a majority of culturally homogeneous
couples and a small proportion of socioculturally diverse couples, but without specifically
reporting on or examining this subgroup. In light of the growing number of socioculturally
diverse couples, it should be of general interest to investigate the quality of these relationships,
and whether they differ from culturally homogeneous relationships. Of particular importance is
knowledge on relationship satisfaction, a key indicator of relationship functioning and a central
factor contributing to the stability of a relationship (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
The goal of this report is, first, to review existing literature that compared levels of relation-
ship satisfaction between socioculturally diverse couples and socioculturally homogeneous cou-
ples. Second, we examine whether and in which way cultural heterogeneity within a couple is
relevant to intimate relationship quality. To this end, we report a meta-analysis of group com-
parisons of relationship satisfaction between socioculturally diverse versus socioculturally
homogeneous couples. In addition, we review effect sizes of group differences in relationship
satisfaction between socioculturally diverse couples and the respective culturally homogeneous
subgroups of each of the partners.
In the remainder of the introduction, after clarifying issues of terminology, we discuss
potential implications of culture and cultural differences for relationship processes. We then
review research on culturally variant norms, values, and sociodemographic correlates that have
been discussed as (potentially) impacting intimate relationships.
1.1 |Terminology
Multiple labels have been used to describe couples in which partners have diverse sociocultural
backgrounds. Some authors used the expression interethnic (e.g., Gaines et al., 2015), others
2UHLICH ET AL.
intercultural (e.g., Lainiala & Säävälä, 2013), mixed marriage (Skowro
nski et al., 2014), inter-
marriage (Obúcina, 2016), binational (Klein, 2001), bi-ethnic (Pereyra et al., 2015), or interracial
relationships (e.g., Bratter & Eschbach, 2006). Most studies did not specifically define the terms
culture, race, and ethnicity, and often studies relied on participants' self-identified culture or
race. Scholars such as Phinney (1996) refer to ethnicity as encompassing race as well as culture,
although the terms race and ethnicity are here sometimes also used interchangeably. However,
in general, the term ethnicity is considered broader than race or culture (Markus, 2008) and it
usually incorporates several racial or cultural groups (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996), such as Chi-
nese, Korean, or Japanese, identifying as Asian Americans (Craig-Henderson & Lewis, 2015).
The term race is mostly used as a social category based on apparent physical differences, such
as skin color, and involves a certain overlap with biological heritage (Gaines et al., 2015).
For this review, we define couples with DISC broadly as unions composed of partners who
identify, or are identified, as having a cultural, racial, or ethnic background that differs from
the partner's cultural, racial, or ethnic background. We contrast these couples with couples in
which both partners share similar cultural, racial, or ethnic backgrounds, and we will use the
term culturally homogeneous couples throughout the paper when referring to them. Although,
the term Western is used inconsistently in different contexts, referring to geographical locations,
regions with a certain historical background (“the occident”), or more narrowly to cultural con-
texts with predominant roots in Western Europe, we use “Western”when referring to North
America, the majority of Europe (specifically countries belonging to the European Union), and
Australia.
1.2 |Culture and its implications for relationship processes
Culture can be defined as a collective programming of the mind, which differentiates members
of one group from another group (Hofstede, 2011) and is passed on from one generation to the
next (Matsumoto et al., 2008). It comprises a collection of meanings and practices that inform
and guide individuals in their interactions with their social environments (Campos &
Kim, 2017; Kitayama et al., 2002), and thus shapes individuals' experiences and behaviors in
the social domain, including in the formation, regulation, and maintenance of intimate rela-
tionships (X. Fu et al., 2001; Kalmijn & Van Tubergen, 2006). If two relational partners hold
divergent culturally shaped norms, values, and practices that concern core processes in an inti-
mate relationship, this is likely to impact their activities as a couple, their interactions, and their
relational experiences more broadly. The literature emphasizes several such dimensions that
shape social organization and interaction. The most common among them tend to be individu-
alism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 2011;Triandis, 2001), or independence versus
interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Although these have served well to contrast Western from some other cultures, recent
approaches in cultural psychology emphasize that considering different blends of culturally var-
iant dimensions within the broader cultural categories is necessary to adequately describe and
characterize cultural variation, allowing for important differentiations within broad dimen-
sions, such as harmony collectivism and convivial collectivism (Campos & Kim, 2017). More-
over, cultural variation along similar dimensions also exists within broader regions and
countries and may coincide with other sociocultural factors such as socioeconomic status or
religion (Campos & Kim, 2017). Therefore, the findings reviewed here should be interpreted
through a lens of multifaceted cultural diversity.
UHLICH ET AL.3
Differential orientations along with the broader dimensions of independence versus
interdependence and individualism versus collectivism are likely relevant for how partners in a
couple negotiate their relations with each other, their families of origin, and their social group
(Hofstede, 2011;Triandis, 2001). Individualistic or independent orientations emphasize the
uniqueness of a person, while the collectivistic, interdependent self emphasizes the social con-
nectedness of an individual (Triandis, 2001). Whether an individual holds a more independent
or interdependent orientation is likely to have implications for how close partners relate to each
other in relationships (Boiger, 2019).
When partners hold more independent orientations, they value their autonomy within the
relationship. In such relationships, prioritizing the own needs is considered healthy (Heine
et al., 1999), and individuals create closeness and intimacy through self-disclosure (Kito, 2005).
Negotiating and resolving conflict is viewed as an important mechanism to balance these indi-
vidual, and sometimes conflicting, needs (Canary et al., 1995). At the same time, partners are
relatively free to leave the relationship, and it is therefore especially important to signal com-
mitment regularly (Schug et al., 2010).
This contrasts with a more interdependent orientation, which places more attention on the
needs and expectations of others, such as the parents and siblings, but also the extended family
and other individuals of the broader social network. Adjusting the relationship in accordance
with these needs and expectations is considered functional (Morling et al., 2002). This manifests
as loyalty and a sense of obligation toward family members and other important individuals
from the broader social group (Rothbaum et al., 2002), and the family's approval of the relation-
ship is highly valued (Dion & Dion, 1993). Some forms of collectivism favor conflict avoidance
to maintain harmony (Rothbaum et al., 2002). This contrasts with Western societies, where con-
flicts regarding the interference of the family of origin is a more frequent cause of distress and a
reason for divorce (Hawkins et al., 2012). These contrasting norms regarding the relations with
partners' families of origin bear conflict potential for DISC couples.
Similar culturally variant preferences for intimate interactions can lead to misunderstand-
ings if discrepant and are thus potentially relevant to relationship satisfaction in DISC couples.
Westerners tend to favor direct and explicit communication, whereas individuals from some
collectivistic backgrounds prefer to use more implicit and indirect ways of communicating
(Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). Such divergent communication preferences may make it
more difficult to interpret each other's intentions and interests in the context of DISC relation-
ships. As a consequence, divergent norms for how to negotiate conflict and interact with each
other could be a challenge for DISC couples. Divergent behavioral norms may also be nested in
divergent endorsement of central values. What is considered constructive communication in
Western couples (e.g., Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) may have a different impact in arranged mar-
riages in India (Yelsma & Athapilly, 1988). For instance, a recent study demonstrated that what
is considered constructive communication differs between socioeconomically well-situated cou-
ples and couples with low socioeconomic status (Ross et al., 2019). Similar differences could
also exist between culturally homogeneous couples and DISC couples, depending on the spe-
cific context they live in.
1.3 |Value distance and DISC relationships
One important part of culture shaping moral beliefs and promoting norms for intimate relation-
ships and sexuality is religion (Laumann et al., 1994; Wilcox et al., 2004). A study among women
4UHLICH ET AL.
with DISC partners found Christian religiosity of the wife to be associated with lower relation-
ship satisfaction and less intimacy when their spouse belonged to a different religion (Abu-
Rayya, 2007). Thus, differences in religious norms may undermine relationship satisfaction in
couples.
It is possible that DISC couples benefit less from a shared meaning space that facilitates
understanding each other's expectations (X. Fu et al., 2001) and helps to find consensus in deci-
sion making (Kalmijn et al., 2005). The potential importance of developing a shared reality as a
couple has been pointed out by Rossignac-Milon and Higgins (2018). Although some aspects of
creating a shared reality may be independent of different cultural backgrounds (e.g., shared
feelings about an artist), others may be impacted by cultural differences such as when co-
constructing the reality through conversations. A similar language style in the initial phase of
relationship formation has been found to predict later relationship stability (Ireland
et al., 2011). Furthermore, DISC couples may lack benefits conferred by people's tendencies to
choose partners who are similar to themselves regarding personality (McCrae et al., 2005),
values, interests, cultural background, and education (Kalmijn, 1998), which may benefit rela-
tionship functioning (e.g., Gonzaga et al., 2007). Indeed, in DISC couples, the similarity
between the values in the host country and the values endorsed in the partner's country of ori-
gin was found to be associated with higher relationship satisfaction (Lainiala & Säävälä, 2013).
In both DISC and mixed samples, more discrepancy between spouses' values was associated
with a higher risk for separation or divorce (Dribe & Lundh, 2012; Kalmijn et al., 2005) and
lower relationship satisfaction (Acitelli et al., 2001). Moreover, couples with more discrepant
values may also experience more conflict (Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008).
Yet, dissimilarity could also be appealing, in that people are attracted to what they perceive
as different or exotic (Yancey, 2003), and this may boost self-expansion experiences in develop-
ing relationships (Ketay et al., 2020) and confer a sense of unity, uniqueness, and identity as a
couple.
1.4 |Gender differences and discrepant gender role orientations in
DISC relationships
The gender constellation may be of importance in DISC couples, that is, if the gender of the
DISC partner is relevant for the level of relationship satisfaction. The tendency for women to
report lower relationship satisfaction (Hendrick et al., 1998) and to initiate relationship dissolu-
tion more often than men (Pettit & Bloom, 2012) extends to DISC couples (Dribe &
Lundh, 2012). Moreover, women's relationship satisfaction was lower in DISC relationships
than their counterparts in culturally homogeneous relationships (X. Fu et al., 2001). The obser-
vation that the level of women's acculturation, but not that of men, predicted relationship satis-
faction (Abu-Rayya, 2007; Kim et al., 2012) points to the potential importance of gender roles.
Indeed, acculturation was found to be associated with less conservative gender role attitudes
among immigrants in the United States (Negy & Snyder, 2000), and it may be that advanced
acculturation reflects less discrepancy in gender-relevant values. However, immigrants and ref-
ugees are more frequently male than female, and therefore more first-generation DISC relation-
ships include a foreign man and a local woman (Neyrand & M'Sili, 1998). Because men tend to
benefit more from traditional gender roles, they may be reluctant to adapt to more egalitarian
gender attitudes, which may lead to more discrepancy and hence more conflict in DISC rela-
tionships with a relatively egalitarian partner in Western society. Women, in contrast, tend to
UHLICH ET AL.5
adapt more easily to a new culture and exhibit higher acculturation levels than men (Kim
et al., 2012). Whether the wife or the husband in a DISC couple has a foreign background may
thus make a difference in Western societies, and maybe more generally. Studies on relationship
satisfaction and stability in DISC couples support this view, suggesting that when a man rather
than a woman is the foreign spouse, DISC relationships are less satisfied (Dribe & Lundh, 2012)
and less stable (Bratter & King, 2008; Neyrand & M'sili, 1998; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009).
1.5 |Minority stress and sociodemographic correlates in DISC
relationships
Immigrant status not only increases divergence in culturally shaped values and norms in a rela-
tionship but also comes with specific stressors. Minority stress theory suggests that belonging to a
minority exposes one to additional stressors associated with legal, social, and financial disadvan-
tage, which impact mental and physical health outcomes (Meyer, 2003). Familiarity with such
stressors is elevated in DISC couples (Gagliardi et al., 2010). Some suggest that a local partner
may perceive engaging in a relationship with a partner from a foreign minority as an added
investment or burden when compared to alternative local partners, which may then contribute to
lower stability of DISC couples (Troy et al., 2006). This is in line with interdependence theory
(e.g., Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Van Lange & Balliet, 2015), which suggests that rela-
tionships persist because of high levels of satisfaction due to a balance between costs and rewards,
poor alternatives, and investments in the relationship. Not only the foreign partners but also the
local partners in DISC couples experience more negative reactions, rejection, prejudice, and other
forms of racism from others (Herman & Campbell, 2012; Solsberry, 1994), including their families
(e.g., Shenhav et al., 2017). Although acceptance levels are rising with the increasing number of
DISC couples in Western societies such as the United States (Joyner & Kao, 2005), negative atti-
tudes toward DISC couples still persist (Z. Qian, 2005). Disapproval and receiving less support
from friends, family, and the public is associated with lower relationship satisfaction in DISC cou-
ples (Shibazaki & Brennan, 1998) and constitutes a risk factor for DISC relationships.
DISC couples differ from culturally homogeneous couples, particularly those of the locally
predominant cultural group, in sociodemographic characteristics, such as lower level of educa-
tion, lower income, higher unemployment rate, more past relationships, and higher probability
of remarriage (e.g., Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Dribe & Lundh, 2008). Several of these factors may
increase the risk for relationship distress (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Interestingly, several stud-
ies that adjusted for such sociodemographic correlates found no disadvantage in terms of rela-
tionship satisfaction or stability of the relationship for DISC couples compared to culturally
homogeneous couples (Feng et al., 2012; Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008; Van Mol & De
Valk, 2016; Weller & Rofé, 1988; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009). Specifically, factors such as limited
availability of social support by family and friends and complex relationship histories with for-
mer partners accounted for differences in relationship satisfaction (Hohmann-Marriott &
Amato, 2008), and lower socioeconomic status in DISC couples was predictive of lower relation-
ship satisfaction (Weller & Rofé, 1988). Still, although DISC couples may overall be more likely
to feature such risk characteristics, this is not a uniform group, and the particular cultures
involved, as well as the level of acculturation and cultural diversity of the society in which they
live in, play a relevant role. For example, in one study, no significant differences in perceived
social support have been found between DISC couples and culturally homogeneous couples
(MacNeil & Adamsons, 2014).
6UHLICH ET AL.
It is further possible that higher rates of psychological distress in immigrants may also con-
tribute to difficulties in DISC relationships. Turkish partners in a DISC relationship with British
spouses, for instance, had higher levels of depressive symptoms associated with the experience
of more cultural differences in their relationship (Baltas & Steptoe, 2000). Finally, DISC couples
seem to get married at an earlier stage of their relationship, which can be considered a risk fac-
tor for the relationship during the first years of marriage (Kalmijn et al., 2005). When younger
age at marriage is controlled for, differences between DISC couples and the general population,
regarding relationship stability, diminish (Feng et al., 2012).
1.6 |Relationship instability in DISC couples
The increased risk, stressors, or disadvantage that cultural diversity within couples may confer
may take its toll on the functioning of DISC relationships and render them less satisfied with
their relationship. Lower satisfaction was reported to be a reliable predictor of relationship dis-
solution (see e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995), and being in a dissatisfactory relationship may be
one factor contributing to partners taking steps toward separation or divorce and the instability
of a relationship (Schoebi et al., 2012). At the same time, cultural differences exist in standards
regarding marriage and divorce (X. Fu, 2006). Indeed, marriages with different cultural back-
grounds have been reported to be at a higher risk of divorce (Kalmijn et al., 2005). Even in
Hawaii, with a high percentage and high levels of acceptance of DISC couples (X. Fu, 2006),
these relationships are less stable than culturally homogenous relationships (X. Fu et al., 2001).
Lower relationship stability was also found in younger DISC couples: DISC relationships in
adolescents were less stable in comparison to culturally homogeneous relationships of adoles-
cents (Wang et al., 2006).
These findings suggest that the relationship stability of DISC couples, as a result of low rela-
tionship satisfaction, tends to be lower than that of culturally homogeneous couples. However,
the evidence regarding differences in relationship satisfaction between DISC couples and cul-
turally homogeneous couples is far less clear.
2|THE CURRENT META-ANALYTIC REVIEW
To approach the research question of whether DISC couples are less satisfied than culturally
homogeneous couples, we conducted a meta-analysis, allowing us to combine the results of mul-
tiple scientific studies addressing this topic. Specifically, to examine differences between DISC
couples and culturally homogeneous couples in relationship satisfaction, we screened the litera-
ture for studies that included group comparisons between DISC couples and culturally homoge-
neous couples on measures of relationship satisfaction (or dissatisfaction). More specifically, we
sought to determine the magnitude, reliability, and direction of a group difference in relationship
satisfaction by calculating a pooled estimate across studies. As each individual study tends to
have some degree of error, applying meta-analytic techniques (such as a funnel and forest plot)
will lead to a more accurate estimate of the overall effect (Field & Gillett, 2010). Owing to the
heterogeneity in methodologies, in the measurement of relationship outcomes, and in the statis-
tical information provided in the studies, we computed several different effect size estimates. We
report Cohen's dto reflect the size of a group difference whenever possible (Cohen, 1988). In
studies with major differences in sample sizes, we also report Hedges g(Hedges, 1981).
UHLICH ET AL.7
3|METHOD
3.1 |Literature search
The literature search led to a total number of N=377 articles. We used Google Scholar and Ovid
to search for relevant studies, using any of the keywords intercultural, interracial, and interethnic,
in combination with any of the terms couples, relationships, marriage, relationship satisfaction,
relationship quality,orrelationship functioning. We also checked the references of included stud-
ies for additional papers (see Figure 1 for more details regarding the selection process).
3.2 |Inclusion criteria
We screened all articles written in English or German for inclusion (because of the language
skills of the collaborators doing the screening). In a first step, we excluded all qualitative publi-
cations, cross-cultural comparisons between couples, as well as all studies that did not examine
relationship satisfaction as the outcome variable. We checked unpublished dissertations,
FIGURE 1 Adapted PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) to illustrate the selection process of included
studies for the meta-analytic review
8UHLICH ET AL.
reviews, as well as books (and book chapters) and included all studies published after 1980 that
included comparisons between a sample of culturally homogeneous couples and a sample of
DISC couples regarding relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, the studies needed to report rel-
evant statistical information regarding the sample and outcome of interest to be able to com-
pute effect sizes. This resulted in a total number of n=20 studies, which featured considerable
heterogeneity regarding sample size and country of origin of the partners (see Table 1). We first
report findings from the meta-analytic comparisons between DISC couples and culturally
homogeneous couples. Furthermore, we additionally report results from several subgroup ana-
lyses of DISC couples with both culturally homogeneous reference groups as well as differences
between DISC couples depending on the specific gender constellation.
3.3 |Coding process and interrater agreement
Studies were coded for statistical information regarding the computation of effect sizes
(e.g., mean, SD, F-values of ANOVAs), the size of the subsample, as well as the type of sample
(individuals vs. dyadic data of couples), and descriptive data such as the involved sociocultural
backgrounds and the specific instrument used to assess relationship satisfaction. We included
studies measuring satisfaction as well as dissatisfaction.
To assess inter-rater agreement, all studies were first selected and coded by one person;
afterward, a second person rated again the studies based on a randomly selected subsample of
studies (35%). An inter-rater agreement of 93% was achieved, and any disagreements were
resolved by discussion.
3.4 |Measures
Most studies used well-validated measures such as the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS;
Hendrick, 1988), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) and the Revised Dyadic Adjust-
ment Scale (R-DAS; Busby et al., 1995), Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI; Snyder, 1981) and
Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R; Snyder, 1981) which measures global distress or
in other words relationship dissatisfaction, Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk &
Rogge, 2007), Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959), Relationship Satisfaction
Scale (RSS; Heyman et al., 1994), Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS; Schumm et al., 1985),
the RELATionship Evaluation Questionnaire (RELATE; Busby et al., 2001), and the Personal
Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ; Braiker & Kelley, 1979). The remaining studies used items
measuring overall relationship satisfaction that have been used in other studies before or the
authors constructed a scale themselves (X. Fu et al., 2001).
3.5 |Statistical procedure
A total of 20 studies provided relevant details to estimate a total of 41 effect sizes. For each
effect size, we computed the corresponding confidence interval and p-value. In Table 1, we
report all effect sizes including relevant subgroup comparisons (e.g., comparisons between DISC
couples with both reference groups of culturally homogeneous couples).
UHLICH ET AL.9
TABLE 1 Effect sizes for comparisons between DISC couples and culturally homogeneous couples regarding relationship satisfaction
Author Outcome variable Sample Comparison (N)pEffect size dSE dCI (95%)
Effect
size Interpretation
1 Burke (2015) Relationship
satisfaction
i DISC (1268): Non-
DISC Latino
(147)
.15 .07 .21 [.11, .24] - No effect
2 Canlas et al.
(2015 )
Relationship
satisfaction
cd DISC (239): Non-
DISC all (409)
.99 .14 .09 [.30, .02] - No effect
2.1 Canlas
et al. (2015)
Relationship
satisfaction
cd DISC (239): Non-
DISC Western
(263)
.07 .09 [.08, .27] - No effect
2.2 Canlas
et al. (2015)
Relationship
satisfaction
cd DISC (239): Non-
DISC Asian (146)
1.00 .38 [.59, .17] Small DISC couples more
satisfied than Non-
DISC Asian couples
2.3 Canlas
et al. (2015)
Relationship
satisfaction
cd DISC-M (77):
DISC-W (162)
.18 .09 [.18, .36] - No effect
3 Chung and Lim
(2011 )
KMS i DISC wives (409):
Non-DISC wives
(474)
.16 .05 .08 [.08, .18] - No effect
4 Contreras
et al. (1996)
RAS c DISC (54): Non-
DISC all (114)
.47 .15 .21 [.26, .56] - No effect
4.1 Contreras
et al. (1996)
RAS c DISC (54): Non-
DISC Western
(60)
-.17 --No effect
4.2 Contreras
et al. (1996)
RAS c DISC (54): Non-
DISC Latino (54)
-.18 --No effect
4.3 Contreras
et al. (1996)
DAS c DISC (54): Non-
DISC all (114)
-.16 --No effect
4.4 Contreras
et al. (1996)
DAS c DISC (54): Non-
DISC Western
(60)
-.18 --No effect
10 UHLICH ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Author Outcome variable Sample Comparison (N)pEffect size dSE dCI (95%)
Effect
size Interpretation
4.5 Contreras
et al. (1996)
DAS c DISC (54): Non-
DISC Latino (54)
-.19 --No effect
5 Durodoye
(1997 )
MSI c DISC (19): Non-
DISC (19)
.01 .57 .33 [.34, 1.49] Medium DISC couples more
dissatisfied
6 Forry et al. (2007) PRQ c DISC-M (52):
DISC-W (24)
-.35 -Small Corresponding mean
values not reported
7 X. Fu et al.
(2001 )
Relationship
Satisfaction
cDISC (146): Non-
DISC (130)
.49 .00 (g* =.00) .12 [.23, .24] - No effect
8 Halford et al.
(2018 )
CSI cd DISC (67): Non-
DISC all (130)
.59 .02 .08 [.32, .27] - No effect
8.1 Halford
et al. (2018)
CSI cd DISC (67): Non-
DISC Western
(64)
<.001 .42 [.08, .77] Small Non-DISC Western
couples more satisfied
than DISC couples
8.2 Halford
et al. (2018)
CSI cd DISC (67): Non-
DISC Asian (66)
1.00 .47 [.81, .12] Small DISC couples more
satisfied than Non-
DISC Chinese couples
9 Hiew et al.
(2015a )
CSI cd DISC (54): Non-
DISC all (69)
.45 .02 .18 [.34, .37] - No effect
9.1 Hiew
et al. (2015a)
CSI cd DISC (54): Non-
DISC Western
(33)
<.001 .41 [.03, .85] Small DISC couples less
satisfied than Western
Non-DISC
9.2 Hiew
et al. (2015a)
CSI cd DISC (54): Non-
DISC Asian (36)
1.00 .45 [.87, .02] Small DISC couples more
satisfied than Chinese
Non-DISC
9.3 Hiew
et al. (2015a)
CSI cd DISC-M (17):
DISC-W (37)
.11 .05 [.53, .62] -No effect
10 Johns et al.
(2007 )
MAT c DISC (28): Non-
DISC all (102)
.69 .08 .15 [.49, .34] - No effect
(Continues)
UHLICH ET AL.11
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Author Outcome variable Sample Comparison (N)pEffect size dSE dCI (95%)
Effect
size Interpretation
10.1 Johns et al. (2007) MAT c DISC (28): Non-
DISC Western
(89)
.66 .10 [.76, .56] -No effect
10.2 Johns et al. (2007) MAT c DISC (28): Non-
DISC Latino (30)
.62 .05 [.48, .37] -No effect
11 V. Lee (2010) DAS c DISC (18): Non-
DISC all (228)
.07 .29 .15 [.20, .77] Small DISC couples less
satisfied than Non-
DISC couples
11.1 V. Lee (2010) DAS c DISC (18): Non-
DISC Korean
(162)
.18 .16 [.32, .65] - No effect
11.2 V. Lee (2010) DAS c DISC (18): Non-
DISC American
(66)
.01 .58 [.05, 1.11] Medium DISC couples less
satisfied than Non-
DISC American
couples
12 S. Lee (2013 ) R-DAS i DISC (43): Non-
DISC Asian (49)
.57 .03 .25 [.44, .38] - No effect
13 MacNeil and
Adamsons
(2014 )
RAS c DISC (10): Non-
DISC (10)
.07 .48 .08 [.78, 1.73] Small Non-DISC couples
more satisfied than
DISC couples
14 Morrison (2014 ) DAS i DISC (109): Non-
DISC (130)
<.001 .29 .21 [.03, .54] Small DISC couples are less
satisfied than Non-
DISC couples
15 Negy and
Snyder (2000)
MSI-R c DISC (72): Non-
DISC all (141)
.32 .05 .17 [.24, .33] - No effect
15.1 Negy and
Snyder (2000)
MSI-R c DISC (72): Non-
DISC Latino (75)
<.001 .35 [.02, .68] Small DISC couples lower
global distress than
Non-DISC Mexican
couples
12 UHLICH ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Author Outcome variable Sample Comparison (N)pEffect size dSE dCI (95%)
Effect
size Interpretation
15.2 Negy and
Snyder (2000)
MSI-R c DISC (72):Non-
DISC Western
(66)
.99 .26 [.60, .08] Small DISC couples more
global distress than
Non-DISC Western
couples
16 Okai (2017 ) DAS i DISC (43):Non-
DISC (78)
.84 .13 .07 [.51, .24] - No effect
17 Ro (2007 ) RELATE c DISC (264):Non-
DISC all (466)
.92 .09 .13 [.24, .06] - No effect
17.1 Ro (2007) RELATE c DISC (264):Non-
DISC Asian (166)
.89 .08 [.27, .12] - No effect
17.2 Ro (2007) RELATE c DISC (264):Non-
DISC American
(300)
.88 .07 [.27, .91] - No effect
18 Shibazaki and
Brennan
(1998 )
DAS i DISC (44):Non-
DISC (56)
.11 .17 .17 [.23, .57] - No effect
19 Troy et al.
(2006 )
RSS c DISC (32):Non-
DISC (86)
1.0 .46 .45 [.87, .05] Small DISC couples more
satisfied than Non-
DISC couples
20 Van Mol and de
Valk (2016 )
Relationship
satisfaction
i DISC (224):Non-
DISC (674)
.27 .03 .20 [.13, .18] - No effect
Note: Some studies used individual and other dyadic data. Comparisons in bold were included in the meta-analysis.
Abbreviations: c, couples without accounting for dependence; cd, dyadic data accounting for dependence; d, effect size estimator according to Cohen (1988); CIS, Couples Satisfaction Index;
DAS, Dyadic Adjustment Scale; DISC, couples with different sociocultural backgrounds; DISC-M, within the dyad the husband is from a different sociocultural background; DISC-W, within
the dyad the wife is from a different sociocultural background; g*, effect size estimator with corrected variance according to Hedge (1981); i, data from one person of the dyad; KMS, Kansas
Marital Satisfaction Scale; MAT, Marital Adjustment Test; MSI, Marital Satisfaction Inventory; Non-DISC, couples with similar/same sociocultural backgrounds; PRQ, Personal Relationship
Questionnaire; RAS, Relationship Assessment Scale; RELATE, RELATionship Evaluation Questionnaire; RSS, Relationship Satisfaction Scale.
UHLICH ET AL.13
The meta-analysis was conducted only for comparisons of relationship satisfaction between
DISC couples and culturally homogeneous couples, for which an effect size was available in
18 samples. Given the heterogeneity of effects across studies, we ran a random-effects model
with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator using the metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2021)
in R (R Core Team, 2021) implemented in JASP (JASP Team, 2020).
3.6 |Hypothesis
First, based on the theoretical propositions, we examined the assumption that partners in DISC
relationships report lower relationship satisfaction than partners in culturally homogeneous
relationships. Second, because DISC relationships often involve partners from immigrant
populations, we also reviewed the effect sizes of comparisons between DISC relationships and
the respective culturally homogeneous subsamples. For example, for Chinese American DISC
couples, we computed effect sizes for Chinese as well as American culturally homogeneous cou-
ples to evaluate the satisfaction level of the DISC couples compared to the former two groups.
This is not part of the meta-analysis because the existence of cultural differences within couples,
as a variable, is confounded with culture and immigration status. We further explored this
aspect by focusing on effect sizes of relationship satisfaction differences in studies that adjusted
for demographic correlates.
4|RESULTS
Across the 18 samples, effect sizes ranged between d=.46, suggesting higher levels of relation-
ship satisfaction in DISC couples compared to culturally homogeneous couples, and d=.57,
suggesting lower levels of relationship satisfaction in DISC couples versus culturally homoge-
neous couples. The overall effect size, based on a total of N=5240 participants, was small and
not significant d=.054 (95% CI: .05, .16). The forest plot, shown in Figure 2, shows that there
was substantial heterogeneity in residuals across studies (Q[17] =54.16, p<.001;I
2
=62.86%).
Figure 3 displays a funnel plot in which the effect sizes from the different samples are plotted
against the precision of the studies (standard error). Negative values indicate higher relationship
satisfaction in DISC couples as compared to culturally homogeneous couples. Most effect sizes
were very small or approaching zero, and positive and moderate to medium effects sizes were esti-
mated with relatively wide confidence intervals, limiting their informative value. However, there
was no evident asymmetry in the funnel plot, which might hint at publication bias (Egger
et al., 1997), and a test for funnel plot asymmetry was nonsignificant (Kendall's τ=.20; p=.260).
A majority of the studies exhibited null effects. Only a few studies indicated a small to medium
effect size, and among those, four studies suggested relatively low relationship satisfaction for
DISC couples, and only one study suggested relatively high relationship satisfaction for DISC cou-
ples. However, of the studies suggesting lower relationship satisfaction for DISC couples, only
two effect sizes emerged as significant. No clear indication for publication bias emerged.
4.1 |Comparisons between subsamples
A few comparisons between DISC couples and culturally homogeneous subgroups point to the
possibility of cultural effects. For example, Asian–Western DISC couples were found to be
14 UHLICH ET AL.
somewhat less satisfied than homogeneous Western couples but were similarly satisfied as
homogeneous Asian couples (Halford et al., 2018; Hiew et al., 2015a). Also, V. Lee (2010)
reported a significant medium-sized difference, with DISC couples with a Korean partner
reporting less satisfaction than culturally homogeneous American couples. A comparison by
Canlas et al. (2015), however, indicated only a small and nonsignificant difference for DISC
couples as compared to Asian homogeneous couples.
Comparisons of White North American–Latino DISC couples with the respective culturally
homogeneous groups of Latino or American couples yielded no significant effects across three
studies (Burke, 2015; Contreras et al., 1996; Johns et al., 2007). Only in one study (Negy &
Snyder, 2000), a small but significant difference between White North American–Latino DISC
couples and homogeneous Latino couples was found, with DISC couples reporting less relation-
ship distress than Latino couples but similar levels as homogeneous American couples. All
remaining subgroup comparisons did not indicate any effect. Because most of these studies
were conducted in Western contexts, potential effects of culture may be confounded with corre-
lates of immigrant populations, and thus possibly also sociodemographic characteristics. A
study by X. Fu et al. (2001), which adjusted for demographic correlates, yielded no significant
difference. In two other studies (Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008; Weller & Rofé, 1988),
FIGURE 2 Forest plot of the effect sizes for relationship satisfaction comparing DISC couples with culturally
homogeneous couples with negative values indicating lower satisfaction and positive values higher satisfaction
for culturally homogenous couples
UHLICH ET AL.15
computing an effect size was not possible, but no significant differences in relationship satisfac-
tion were reported after controlling for demographic characteristics.
Taken together, these findings do not support the hypothesis that DISC couples are less sat-
isfied than culturally homogeneous couples, which is consistent with a large number of studies
showing no significant difference; where a significant difference emerged, it was in most cases
of a small size. As most studies relied on rather small sample sizes, the range of the
corresponding confidence intervals tends to be quite wide, indicating considerable uncertainty
of the estimates.
Finally, examination of the gender constellation of DISC couples (i.e., whether levels of sat-
isfaction differed depending on the DISC partner being male or female) was possible in three
studies only (Canlas et al., 2015; Forry et al., 2007; Hiew et al., 2015a). While in Canlas
et al. (2015) and Hiew et al. (2015a), the gender constellation was not a relevant factor, a small
effect resulted in Forry et al. (2007), but the reported results do not allow drawing conclusions
about the direction of the effects.
5|DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to review the current state research on relationship satisfaction in
couples with DISC and to determine whether the notion of previous research holds, namely
DISC couples are less satisfied than culturally homogeneous couples. The findings from a meta-
analysis and a review of effect sizes suggest that DISC couples do not differ systematically in
their relationship satisfaction from culturally homogeneous couples, either in a negative or in a
positive direction. Although positive and medium-sized effects—suggesting lower relationship
satisfaction in DISC couples than in culturally homogeneous couples—were somewhat more
FIGURE 3 Funnel plot of standard error by effect size dfor comparisons of relationship satisfaction between
DISC couples and culturally homogenous couples
16 UHLICH ET AL.
frequent in studies with relatively large confidence intervals, such results of comparisons were
infrequent. Furthermore, we found no clear indication for publication bias.
Several previous studies reported that DISC relationships are less satisfying than culturally
homogeneous relationships (e.g., Brown et al., 2019; Durodoye, 1997; Kroeger &
Williams, 2011; Sinning & Worner, 2010), and the literature on DISC couples also suggests that
these relationships are more likely to end in divorce (e.g., Dribe & Lundh, 2012; X. Fu, 2006;
V. K. Fu & Wolfinger, 2011; Kalmijn et al., 2005).This was explained as the result of divergent
values, ideologies, or attitudes (Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008; Lainiala & Säävälä, 2013;
Negy & Snyder, 2000) or additional stressors, including minority stressors (e.g., Gagliardi
et al., 2010), as well as negative experiences, like disapproval and rejection by the social envi-
ronment (Smith et al., 2012). In some cases, DISC marriages were arranged mostly for economic
reasons, or to receive a residence permit, which could partly explain why some studies found
lower relationship stability among DISC couples (Kalmijn et al., 2005; Klein, 2001). However,
the number of those cases is probably low (Smith et al., 2012). Furthermore, as emphasized by
the investment model (Rusbult, 1980, 1983), relationship satisfaction is only one determinant of
commitment and it could be that DISC couples have a different “threshold”for low satisfaction
to contribute to intentions or decisions to leave a relationship, compared to culturally homoge-
neous couples.
The current meta-analytic review is the first comprehensive overview of existing research
on the topic, indicating no difference regarding relationship quality for DISC couples and cul-
turally homogeneous couples and challenging the view that DISC couples suffer from relation-
ship dysfunction. We also compared DISC couples with both culturally homogeneous
subgroups when possible. These subgroup comparisons show some, but inconsistent, effects of
specific cultural combinations, suggesting that Asian DISC couples are less satisfied than cultur-
ally homogeneous Western couples. They also reported higher satisfaction ratings than cultur-
ally homogeneous Asian couples, but the difference did not reach significance. The general
pattern is in line with the so-called convergence effect, that is, DISC couples0level of relation-
ship satisfaction being in between the partners' respective cultures. It is also possible that tradi-
tional norms around marriage of Asian cultures, including gender role expectations,
increasingly contrast with the norms of other societies (Y. Qian & Sayer, 2016). However, we
cannot exclude the possibility that this pattern reflects the tendency of Asian participants to
choose responses closer to the mid-point of scales (e.g., Heine et al., 2002). DISC couples includ-
ing a Latino/a partner, on the other hand, did not differ from the two reference groups in their
relationship satisfaction levels based on the studies included here. Although examining such
cultural patterns may bear the potential to shed additional light on relationship functioning in
DISC couples, more systematic research with larger samples is necessary to determine whether
reliable differences exist and which factors are driving them. Unfortunately, not all studies com-
pared the satisfaction levels of both involved cultures, thus limiting the number of comparisons.
Instead, most studies compared relationship satisfaction of DISC couples with culturally homo-
geneous couples exclusively from the culture where the study was conducted as a reference
group.
Furthermore, demographic correlates of partners in DISC couples could act as moderators.
Some studies have found that controlling for demographic differences moderates differences in
divorce risk (Feng et al., 2012; Zhang & Van Hook, 2009) and relationship satisfaction
(Hohmann-Marriott & Amato, 2008; Van Mol & De Valk, 2016; Weller & Rofé, 1988) between
DISC couples and culturally homogeneous couples. A mechanism that would likely dampen
potential disadvantages of DISC relationships is acculturation (Kim et al., 2012). This may act
UHLICH ET AL.17
like selective pressure, with some minorities being more likely to enter DISC relationship than
others, making the prevalence of DISC couples for certain cultural combinations more likely
(Wu et al., 2015). For instance, larger minorities are better at preserving their values and tradi-
tions (Smith et al., 2012) and it is also easier to build and maintain necessary institutions such
as schools and churches where the community teaches and passes on their lifestyle and values
(Breton, 1964). This way, the minority keeps more social distance to the locally predominant
population and retains more options to marry within their culture (Smith et al., 2012). Larger
and more encapsulated immigrant groups are also more likely to be perceived as threatening by
the society they live in (Smith et al., 2012), which may increase the potential for discrimination.
In contrast, the ability to adjust to a foreign culture may decrease cultural barriers and dissimi-
larities. The size and cohesion of immigrant populations in a specific societal context, as well as
the level of acculturation, would be important moderators to examine in future research.
Like other couples, partners in DISC couples are also likely to be attracted to each other
because of perceived similarities (Byrne, 1969; Lewis et al., 1997) and many of them enter a
relationship with their partner because they share characteristics, preferences, or beliefs.
Although DISC couples may be different regarding apparent physical characteristics or cus-
toms, they may also be similar on a more personal level, such as having common interests
(Hawkins et al., 2012). For instance, some studies did not find significant differences between
DISC couples and culturally homogeneous couples regarding characteristics such as education
(e.g., Hiew et al., 2015b), implying that DISC relationships can be quite homogeneous in impor-
tant aspects. This is in line with the finding that higher education of a minority member raises
their likelihood of being romantically involved with a native, due to a more similar level of edu-
cation between the partners (Kalmijn & Van Tubergen, 2006). As immigrating Asians are often
highly educated in comparison to other immigrant groups (Hiew et al., 2015b), this would sup-
port the observation that the specific cultural background of the DISC partner matters.
A multidimensional and multifaceted perspective of culture, considering the degree of
acculturation (Mok, 1999) and sociodemographic characteristics that DISC partners bring into
the relationship, is likely to feature important interaction effects. More refined models, both on
a theoretical and on a methodological level, and considerably larger samples sizes are likely
necessary to disentangle potential contributions of cultural differences from sociodemographic
correlates and psychosocial factors within DISC relationships.
5.1 |Methodological recommendations for future research
On the basis of this review, we propose three recommendations for conducting research on
DISC relationships. As cultural groups vary considerably regarding many psychological out-
comes (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006), it may be possible to uncover separate effects for different cul-
tural backgrounds. As our subgroup comparisons suggest, merging DISC relationships into one
participant pool for research purposes probably masks important differences between several
DISC couple constellations.
A first recommendation is to consider alternative approaches to examine cultural diversity,
rather than using DISC relationships, as a general category. We suggest assessing specifically
cultural diversity or distance within a relationship, and relating this information to relationship
outcomes, or investigating samples of DISC couples on the basis of their specific cultural back-
grounds. Furthermore, to disentangle the interaction effects of two specific cultures from gen-
eral effects of culture, it is crucial to study DISC couples by comparing DISC relationships with
the two involved reference samples of culturally homogeneous couples.
18 UHLICH ET AL.
A second recommendation is that future studies should also consider the level of accultura-
tion, how long a DISC partner has already been living in the host country, and whether and
how they have been socialized in the host country (Feng et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2012). It may
also be useful to have a researcher (dis-) confirm the self-referred classification for the country
of origin (Craig-Henderson & Lewis, 2015) to detect subtle differences relevant for this research.
A third recommendation is to carefully assess and incorporate demographic characteristics
of DISC couples that potentially influence relationship outcomes, both in sampling and in data
analysis. This includes considering also the geographic area of the neighborhood when design-
ing research, as residential areas are segregated by culture or ethnicity (Ellis et al., 2004). Relat-
edly, also non-national sociocultural factors such as socioeconomic status (Campos &
Kim, 2017) need to be considered.
In addition to these recommendations, attention must be paid to potential sources of bias
when conducting research on DISC couples. Cultural minority individuals with a higher level
of acculturation may not only be more likely represented in DISC relationships but also be
more likely to participate in a study. Furthermore, when investigating DISC couples in which
the DISC partner has a different native language, communication problems may arise while
administering self-report tools other than in the native language (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
5.2 |Strengths and limitations
The current meta-analytic review suffers from several limitations. First of all, there was a rather
limited body of literature available for investigating DISC couples' relationship satisfaction. The
methodological heterogeneity of the studies reviewed (e.g., different instruments assessing rela-
tionship satisfaction), inconsistencies in the definition and use of the terminology, heterogene-
ity in sample structure (dyadic vs. individual data) and size, heterogeneity in cultural
backgrounds within and across studies, and heterogeneity in statistical models and inclusion of
control variables limit the validity of a general conclusion. Heterogeneity also existed with
respect to measures of relationship satisfaction. Some studies used single items to measure rela-
tionship satisfaction, and others relied on validated questionnaires, which may not necessarily
feature sufficient cultural sensitivity (Durodoye, 1997). Some satisfaction measures that are
widely used in relationship research (such as the Investment Model Scale by Rusbult
et al., 1998) were not represented in the studies included here. In addition, most of the studies
included in this review were conducted in the United States, where discrimination tends to be
related predominantly to skin color (Smith et al., 2012). Based on historical differences, other
ethnic and cultural minorities might be more exposed to discrimination in other Western and
non-Western countries.
5.3 |Future research
Understanding DISC relationships remains incomplete when research focuses heavily on poten-
tial negative effects and difficulties. Particularly, given the current results, understanding
unique strengths and resources is important, as these couples have to deal with a number of
challenges identified in the literature. This could include aspects such as new experiences, per-
ceiving oneself through different eyes, inspiration for different behaviors or thinking styles, as
well as critically questioning norms, customs, and assumptions likely enriching and
UHLICH ET AL.19
empowering in unique ways (Aron & Aron, 1996; Perel, 2000). Another resource of these rela-
tionships could be that DISC partners may be pushed to develop refined communication skills
and routines by the challenges posed by cultural differences in meaning and language, and pos-
sibly more frequent conflict.
5.4 |Conclusion
Despite social barriers, additional stressors, and other difficulties that DISC couples may still
face (Baltas & Steptoe, 2000; Kalmijn, 1998; Lewis & Ford-Robertson, 2010; Shibazaki &
Brennan, 1998), this meta-analysis yielded no evidence for DISC couples being less satisfied
with their relationship than culturally homogeneous couples. Although some studies suggested
lower satisfaction among DISC couples, a general effect was not confirmed, and the occasional
differences may be explained by demographic correlates (Feng et al., 2012). DISC couples
involve a broad variety of relationships, and the many facets discussed in this review hint at the
complexity of the processes that characterize the relationships of DISC couples. Inclusion of
culturally diverse relationships in general samples, and the specific study of culturally diverse
relationships, will be important to add crucial information for the understanding of intimate
relationships in increasingly diverse societies.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data derived from public domain resources.
ORCID
Maximiliane Uhlich https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5294-4984
Tamara Luginbuehl https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7030-6214
Dominik Schoebi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3991-2712
REFERENCES
Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2007). Acculturation, Christian religiosity, and psychological and marital well-being among
the European wives of Arabs in Israel. Mental Health, Religion & Culture,10(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13694670500504901
Acitelli, L., Kenny, D., & Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners' marital
ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships,8(2), 167–185.
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations: Relationship
skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family,63(4), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01038.x
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. Knowledge structures in close relation-
ships: A social psychological approach, 325–344.
Baltas, Z., & Steptoe, A. (2000). Migration, culture conflict and psychological well-being among Turkish-British
married couples. Ethnicity & Health,5(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/713667445
Boiger, M. (2019). A cultural psychological perspective on close relationships. In New directions in the psychology
of close relationships (pp. 83–99). Routledge.
Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In L. Burgess & T. Huston
(Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135–168). Academic Press.
20 UHLICH ET AL.
Bratter, J. L., & Eschbach, K. (2006). “What about the couple?”Interracial marriage and psychological distress.
Social Science Research,35(4), 1025–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.09.001
Bratter, J. L., & King, R. B. (2008). “But will it last?”: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples.
Family Relations,57(2), 160–171.
Breton, R. (1964). Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personal relations of immigrants.
American Journal of Sociology,70(2), 193–205.
Brown, C. C., Williams, Z., & Durtschi, J. A. (2019). Trajectories of interracial heterosexual couples: A longitudi-
nal analysis of relationship quality and separation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,45(4), 650–667.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12363
Burke, J. (2015). Investigating psychological distress in Latino romantic relationships. Race, Gender & Class,
22(3–4), 172–194.
Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy,21(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, family,
cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations,50(4), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.
00308.x
Byrne, D., & Ervin, C. R. (1969). Attraction toward a Negro stranger as a function of prejudice, attitude similar-
ity, and the stranger's evaluation of the subject. Human Relations,22(5), 397–404.
Campos, B., & Kim, H. (2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the
study of health. American Psychologist,72(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000122
Canary, D., Cupach, W., & Messman, S. (1995). Relationship conflict: Conflict in parent-child, friendship, and
romantic relationships. SAGE Publications.
Canlas, J. M., Miller, R. B., Busby, D. M., & Carroll, J. S. (2015). Same-race and interracial Asian-White couples:
Relational and social contexts and relationship outcomes. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,46(3), 307–
328. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.46.3.307
Chung, G. H., & Lim, J. Y. (2011). Comparison of marital satisfaction between immigrant wives and Korean
wives of Korean men. Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association,49(5), 33–48.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Earlbaum.
Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and satisfaction in Mexican
American and Anglo-American couples. Journal of Counseling & Development,74(4), 408–415. https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01887.x
Craig-Henderson, K., & Lewis, R. (2015). Methodological considerations and challenges to conducting research
on interethnic relationships: Using the right roolkit! Journal of Social Issues,71(4), 675–692. https://doi.org/
10.1111/josi.12143
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural con-
text of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues,49(3), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.
tb01168.x
Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2012). Intermarriage, value context and union dissolution: Sweden 1990-2005. European
Journal of Population,28, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-011-9253-y
Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2008). Intermarriage and immigrant integration in Sweden: An exploratory analysis.
Acta Sociologica,51(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699308097377
Durodoye, B. (1997). Factors of marital satisfaction among African American couples and Nigerian male/African
American female couples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,28(1), 71–80.
Egger, M., Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical
test. BMJ,315(7109), 629–634.
Ellis, M., Wright, R., Parks, V., & Ellis, M. (2004). Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic
segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,94(3), 620–637.
Feng, Z., Boyle, P., van Ham, M., & Raab, G. M. (2012). Are mixed-ethnic unions more likely to dissolve than co-
ethnic unions? New evidence from Britain. European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de
Démographie,28(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9259-0
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. Wiley Online Library,63(3), 665–694. https://doi.org/
10.1348/000711010X502733
UHLICH ET AL.21
Forry, N. D., Leslie, L. A., & Letiecq, B. L. (2007). Marital quality in interracial relationships: The role of sex role
ideology and perceived fairness. journal of family issues,28(12), 1538–1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0192513X07304466
Fu, V. K., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2011). Broken boundaries or broken marriages? Racial intermarriage and divorce
in the United States. Social Science Quarterly,92(4), 1096–1117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.
00809.x
Fu, X. (2006). Impact of socioeconomic status on interracial mate selection and divorce. The Social Science Jour-
nal,43(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2006.02.004
Fu, X., Tora, J., & Kendall, H. (2001). Marital happiness and inter-racial marriage: A study in a multi-ethnic com-
munity in Hawaii. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,32(1), 47–60.
Funk, J., & Rogge, R. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement
for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology,21, 572–583.
Gagliardi, S., Bodenmann, G., & Bregy, M. (2010). Coping bei binationalen Paaren. Zeitschrift Fur Klinische Psy-
chologie Und Psychotherapie,39(3), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000028
Gaines, S. O., Clark, E. M., & Afful, S. E. (2015). Interethnic marriage in the United States: An introduction. Jour-
nal of Social Issues,71(4), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12141
Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dat-
ing and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.93.1.34
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology,57(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47
Gudykunst, W. B., & Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of communication in personal relation-
ships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships
across cultures (pp. 19–56). Sage Publications, Inc.
Halford, W. K., Leung, P. W., Hung-Cheung, C., Chau-Wan, L., Hiew, D. N., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2018). Rela-
tionship standards and relationship satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and intercultural couples living in
Australia and Hong Kong, China. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice,7(3–4), 127–142.
Hawkins, A. J., Willoughby, B. J., & Doherty, W. J. (2012). Reasons for divorce and openness to marital reconcili-
ation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,53(6), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.682898
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. journal of Edu-
cational Statistics,6(2), 107–128.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-
regard? Psychological Review,106(4), 766.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of
subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82(6), 903–
918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903
Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family,50(1), 93–98.
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships,15(1), 137–142.
Herman, M. R., & Campbell, M. E. (2012). I wouldn't, but you can: Attitudes toward interracial relationships.
Social Science Research,41(2), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.007
Heyman, R., Sayers, S., & Bellack, A. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical
comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology,8(4), 432–446.
Hiew, D. N., Halford, W. K., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Liu, S. (2015a). Communication and relationship satisfac-
tion in Chinese, Western, and intercultural Chinese–Western couples. Journal of Family Psychology,30(2),
193–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000144
Hiew, D. N., Halford, W. K., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Liu, S. (2015b). The Chinese –Western Intercultural Cou-
ple Standards Scale. Psychological Assessment,27(3), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000090
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology
and Culture,2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hohmann-Marriott, B. E., & Amato, P. (2008). Relationship quality in interethnic marriages and cohabitations.
Social Forces,87(2), 825–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/20430893
22 UHLICH ET AL.
Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language
style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science,22(1), 39–44. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797610392928
JASP Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.14.1) [Computer software].
Johns, A. L., Newcomb, M. D., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Alcohol-related problems, anger, and
marital satisfaction in monoethnic Latino, biethnic Latino, and European American newlywed couples.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,24(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507075413
Joyner, K., & Kao, G. (2005). Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood. American Sociological
Review,70(4), 563–581.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology,24, 395–
421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395
Kalmijn, M., De Graaf, P., & Janssen, J. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands: The
effects of differences in religion and in nationality, 1974-94. Population Studies,59(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0032472052000332719
Kalmijn, M., & Van Tubergen, F. (2006). Ethnic intermarriage in the Netherlands: Confirmations and refutations
of accepted insights/Les mariages mixtes inter-ethniques aux Pays-Bas: Confirmations et infirmations des
idées reçues. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie,22(4), 371–397. https://doi.
org/10.1007/sl0680-006-9105-3
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of the-
ory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin,118(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
Ketay, S., Beck, L. A., & Welker, K. M. (2020). Self-expansion: Intergroup and sociocultural factors. In Interper-
sonal relationships and the self-concept (pp. 177–193). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-43747-3_11
Kim, H., Edwards, A. B., Sweeney, K. a., & Wetchler, J. L. (2012). The effects of differentiation and attachment
on satisfaction and acculturation in Asian-white American international couple relationships: Assessment
with Chinese, South Korean, and Japanese partners in relationships with White American partners in the
United States. The American Journal of Family Therapy,40(4), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.
2011.616409
Kitayama, S., Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Culture and basic psychological
processes-toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin,128,
89–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.89
Kito, M. (2005). Self-disclosure in romantic relationship and friendships among American and Japanese college
students. The Journal of Social Psychology,145(2), 127–140.
Klein, T. (2001). Intermarriages between Germans and foreigners in Germany. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies,32(3), 325–346.
Kroeger, R. A., & Williams, K. (2011). Consequences of black exceptionalism? Interracial unions with blacks,
depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction. Sociological Quarterly,52(3), 400–420. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01212.x
Lainiala, L., & Säävälä, M. (2013). Intercultural marriages and consideration of divorce in Finland: Do value differ-
ences matter? (Vol. 10). The Population Research Institute.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial discrimination and a
study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology,22(2), 144–168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984960222002
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Sexual
practices in the United States. University of Chicago press.
Lee, S. (2013). Comparing marital satisfaction, acculturation, and personality across Asian-mixed couples and
Asian couples in the United States (Doctoral dissertaion). Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
Lee, V. (2010). The impact of alexithymia, emotional intelligence, marital values, and culture on relationship satis-
faction (Doctoral dissertation). Howard University.
Lewis, R., & Ford-Robertson, J. (2010). Understanding the occurrence of interracial marriage in the
United States through differential assimilation. Journal of Black Studies,41(2), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.
1177/O02I934709355I20
UHLICH ET AL.23
Lewis, R., Yancey, G., & Bletzer, S. (1997). Racial and nonracial factors that influence spouse choice in
Black/White marriages. Journal of Black Studies,28(1), 60–78.
Locke, H., & Wallace, K. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity.
Marriage and Family Living,21(3), 251–255.
MacNeil, T. A., & Adamsons, K. (2014). A bioecological view of interracial/same-race couple conflict. Interna-
tional Journal of Conflict Management,25(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0063
Markus, H. R. (2008). Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: Toward a unified theory of race and ethnicity. Ameri-
can Psychologist,63(8), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.651
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review,98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relation-
ship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology,39(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107311854
Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science,1(3), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00014.x
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal
features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,88(3), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Concep-
tual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin,129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.
129.5.674
Mok, T. (1999). Asian American dating: Important factors in partner choice. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority
Psychology,5(2), 103–117.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States
and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28(3), 311–323.
Morrison, M. M. (2014). Does race matter?: Examining differences in intracultural and intercultural relationships.
Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Negy, C., & Snyder, D. K. (2000). Relationship satisfaction of Mexican American and non-Hispanic white Ameri-
can interethnic couples: Issues of acculturation and clinical intervention. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy,26(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2000.tb00299.x
Neyrand, G., & M'sili, M. (1998). Mixed couples in contemporary France. Marriage, acquisition of French nation-
ality and divorce. Population,53(2), 385–416.
Obúcina, O. (2016). Partner choice in Swedenfollowing a failed intermarriage. European Journal of Population,
32(4), 511–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9377-1
Okai, B. (2017). Influential factors of marital success among inter-ethnic and homogamous couples (Doctoral dis-
sertation). Regent University.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hr
objartsson, A.,
Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., …Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020
statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ,372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Perel, E. (2000). A tourist's view of marriage: Cross-cultural couples: Challenges, choices, and implications for
therapy. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New directions for therapists (pp. 178–204). New York:
Guilford.
Pereyra, S. B., Sandberg, J. G., Bean, R. A., & Busby, D. M. (2015). A comparison of the effects of negative com-
munication and spirituality on relationship quality among different groups of Latino and Anglo couples. The
American Journal of Family Therapy,43(5), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1081083
Pettit, E. J., & Bloom, B. L. (2012). Whose decision was it? The effects of initiator status on adjustment to marital
disruption. Journal of Marriage and Family,46(3), 587–595.
Pew Research Center (2021). Trends and patterns in intermarriage, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/
2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
Phinney, J. S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity. American Behavioral Scientist,
40(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764296040002005
24 UHLICH ET AL.
Qian, Y., & Sayer, L. C. (2016). Division of labor, gender ideology, and marital satisfaction in East Asia. Journal
of Marriage and Family,78(2), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12274
Qian, Z. (2005). Breaking the last taboo: Interracial marriage in America. Contexts,4(4), 33–37. https://doi.org/
10.1525/ctx.2005.4.4.33
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Ro, H. S. (2007). Honoring your family when they are miles away: Family-of-origin factors affecting couple relation-
ship satisfaction in Asian, Anglo, and Asian-Anglo couples (Doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University.
Ross, J. M., Karney, B. R., Nguyen, T. P., & Bradbury, T. N. (2019). Communication that is maladaptive for
middle-class couples is adaptive for socioeconomically disadvantaged couples. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,116(4), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000158
Rossignac-Milon, M., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). Epistemic companions: Shared reality development in close rela-
tionships. Current Opinion in Psychology,23,66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.001
Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2002). Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture.
Family Process,41(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41305.x
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,16(2), 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commit-
ment, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology,68(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.
3.429
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analy-
sis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026540759301000202
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level,
satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,5(4), 357–387. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
Schoebi, D., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology,102(4), 729–742.
Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between-and within-culture differences
in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science,21(10), 1471–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797610382786
Schumm, W. R., Anderson, S. A., Benigas, J. E., McCutchen, M. B., Griffin, C. L., Morris, J. E., & Race, G. S.
(1985). Criterion-related validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports,56(3), 718–
722. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.56.3.719
Shenhav, S., Campos, B., & Goldberg, W. A. (2017). Dating out is intercultural: Experience and perceived parent
disapproval by ethnicity and immigrant generation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,34(3), 397–
422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516640387
Shibazaki, K., & Brennan, K. A. (1998). When birds of different features flock together: Apreliminary comparison
of intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,15(2),
248–256.
Sinning, M., & Worner, S. (2010). Interethnic marriage and partner satisfaction. Ruhr Economic Paper, 221.
Skowro
nski, D., Othman, A., Siang, D., Han, G., Yang, J., & Waszy
nska, K. (2014). The outline of selected mari-
tal satisfaction factors in the intercultural couples based on the westerner and non-westerner relationships.
Polish Psychological Bulletin,45(3), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.2478/ppb-2014-0042
Smith, S., Maas, I., & Van Tubergen, F. (2012). Irreconcilable differences? Ethnic intermarriage and divorce in
The Netherlands, 1995-2008. Social Science Research,41(5), 1126–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.
2012.02.004
Snyder, D. (1981). Manual for the marital satisfaction inventory manual. Western Psychological Services.
Solsberry, P. W. (1994). Interracial couples in The United States of America: Implications for mental health
counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,16, 304–317.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar
dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,38(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547
UHLICH ET AL.25
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality,69(6), 907–924. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Troy, A. B., Lewis-Smith, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2006). Interracial and intraracial romantic relationships: The
search for differences in satisfaction, conflict, and attachment style. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,23(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506060178
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. Allyn & Bacon.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Balliet, D. (2015). Interdependence theory. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver, (Eds.), APA
Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 65–92). Washington, DC: APA.
Van Mol, C., & De Valk, H. A. G. (2016). Relationship satisfaction of European binational couples in The
Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,50,50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2015.12.001
Viechtbauer, W. (2021). The metafor package: A meta-analysis package for R. Http://www.Metafor-Project.Org/
Wang, H., Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2006). Stability of interracial and intraracial romantic relationships among ado-
lescents. Social Science Research,35(2), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.10.001
Weller, L., & Rofé, Y. (1988). Marital happiness among mixed and homogeneous marriages in Israel. Journal of
Marriage and the Family,50(1), 245–254.
Wilcox, W. B., CHaves, M., & Franz, D. (2004). Focused on the family? Religious traditions, family discourse,
and pastoral practice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,43(4), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1468-5906.2004.00251.x
Wu, Z., Schimmele, C. M., & Hou, F. (2015). Group differences in intermarriage with Whites between Asians,
Blacks, and Hispanics: The effects. Journal of Social Issues,71(4), 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12146
Yancey, G. (2003). A preliminary examination of differential sexual attitudes among individuals involved in
interracial relationships: Testing “Jungle Fever”.The Social Science Journal,40(1), 153–157. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0362-3319(02)00266-5
Yelsma, P., & Athapilly, K. (1988). Marital satisfaction and communication practices: Comparisons among
Indian and American couples, 19(1), 37–54.
Zhang, Y., & Van Hook, J. (2009). Marital dissolution among interracial couples. Journal of Marriage and Family,
71(1), 95–207.
How to cite this article: Uhlich, M., Luginbuehl, T., & Schoebi, D. (2021). Cultural
diversity within couples: Risk or chance? A meta-analytic review of relationship
satisfaction. Personal Relationships,1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12405
26 UHLICH ET AL.
