Journal of Family Psychology 2015, Vol. 29, No. 6, 850 – 862

© 2015 American Psychological Association 0893-3200/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000126

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Beyond the Average Marital Communication: Latent Profiles of the Observed Interactions Among Chinese Newlywed Couples Hongjian Cao

Xiaoyi Fang

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Beijing Normal University and Tianjin Normal University

Mark A. Fine

Xiaoyan Ju

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

China Youth University for Political Sciences

Jing Lan

Xuanwen Liu

Beijing Normal University

Hangzhou Normal University

Employing a multicontext observational design, using a person-centered approach, and treating the marital dyad as the unit of analysis, this study examined the within-couple communication patterning of 144 Chinese newlywed couples and its association with relationship satisfaction. Latent profile analysis consistently revealed 3 profiles of spouses’ interactive behaviors across contexts differing in both topic nature (i.e., problem-solving vs. social support) and initiator (i.e., husbands vs. wives): (a) traditionally undemonstrative profile, (b) emotionally quarrelling profile, and (c) warmly supportive profile. The prevalence of communication profiles changed markedly with the nature of the discussion topic and the topic initiator. Further, using latent class analysis, we classified couples into subgroups based on their identified profile memberships across contexts (i.e., consistency of interaction mode across contexts). Three classes were identified: (a) consistently quarrelling class, (b) consistently supportive class, and (c) modestly traditional class. Both the consistently supportive class and the modestly traditional class reported significantly higher levels of marital satisfaction than did the consistently quarrelling class. Keywords: communication, Chinese newlywed couples, problem-solving, social support, observation

ples, even though some recent studies have found that couple communication processes vary in systematic ways across cultural contexts (e.g., Lee, Nakamura, Chung, Chun, Fu, Liang, & Liu, 2013; Williamson, Ju, Bradbury, Karney, Fang, & Liu, 2012). In terms of the limited yet expanding observational research on non-Western couples’ communication processes, several important gaps can be identified. First, although significant progress has been made in our understanding of non-Western couples’ global positive and negative communication behaviors (Williamson et al., 2012), a more nuanced description about their specific communication behaviors is needed. Second, whereas subtle interaction patterns have been thoroughly investigated among Western couples (e.g., Gottman, 1994), very little is known about how much variation there might be in non-Western couples’ interactions. Third, existing observational research on non-Western couples’ interactions has focused either on how they contend with disagreements (Lee et al., 2013) or how they seek/provide support for one another (Williamson et al., 2012). However, marital relationships are built not only on the resolution of differences, but also on spouses’ abilities to conduct pleasant conversations (Roberts & Greenberg, 2002). To acquire a more representative sample of couple communication behaviors, it might be helpful to observe them in both conflictual and nonconflictual situations. Fourth, previous studies of non-Western couple communication processes have taken a variable-centered approach rather than a person-

Several prominent theories of marriage emphasize the role of couple communication in determining marital satisfaction and stability (Bradbury & Karney, 2010; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). A substantial body of observational research has demonstrated that the quality of couple communication can reliably distinguish between distressed and nondistressed couples (Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Heyman, 2001; Kerig & Baucom, 2004). However, it is noteworthy that the existing observational research on couple communication has been conducted primarily with Western cou-

This article was published Online First July 20, 2015. Hongjian Cao, Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Xiaoyi Fang, Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University; and Academy of Psychology and Behaviour, Tianjin Normal University; Mark A. Fine, Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Xiaoyan Ju, School of Social Work, China Youth University for Political Sciences; Jing Lan, Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University; Xuanwen Liu, College of Education, Hangzhou Normal University. This research was supported by a grant from the Chinese Yangzi-River Professor Supportive Program to Xiaoyi Fang. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Xiaoyi Fang, Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China. E-mail: [email protected] 850

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COUPLE INTERACTION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

centered approach. The latter focuses on examining the individual as an integrated functioning totality and identifying groups of individuals who share similar profiles across indicators that are believed to be inextricably interwoven with one another (Bergman & Trost, 2006). This approach may offer unique insights into couple interactions by examining how different communication behaviors combine in subgroups of couples. In addition, according to family development theories, the associations between marital communication and marital outcomes may be particularly salient in the early years of marriage because handling conflicts and maintaining and promoting intimacy through daily interactions are among the most primary interpersonal tasks faced by newlyweds, considering their inevitably increased exposure to stressful life events in this transitional period (Cohan & Bradbury, 1997; Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004; Storaasli & Markman, 1990). Furthermore, a substantial body of research has demonstrated that couple communication in the newlywed stage may set in motion processes that contribute to the establishment of interactive patterns and determine long-term marital outcomes (e.g., Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). The current study therefore sought to extend previous research by addressing the following three questions. First, we examined whether meaningful person-centered profiles of marital communication could be identified in a sample of Chinese newlywed couples based on their specific communication behaviors observed from different types of interactions. Second, we also examined whether the prevalence of identified profiles varied as functions of the nature of interactive topic (i.e., problem solving vs. social support) and who initiated the topic (i.e., husbands vs. wives). Finally, we further classified couples into subgroups based on their probabilities of adopting certain interaction modes in specific contexts (e.g., some may consistently interact with one another in a particular pattern across contexts, whereas others’ interactions may be manifested in diverse styles across contexts), and examined whether these subgroups of couples also varied in marital satisfaction.

851

disengagement, aggression, and complaining) and fewer positive behaviors (e.g., humor, empathy, responsiveness, and warmth). Furthermore, negative behaviors during marital interactions may have stronger detrimental effects on couple relationship when few positive behaviors are exchanged between partners (e.g., Smith, Vivian, & O’Leary, 1990).

Broader Communication Patterns Extensive studies among Western couples have demonstrated that the most commonly observed patterns within distressed couples’ interactions include the demand–withdraw pattern and the negative reciprocity pattern (for reviews, see Driver, Tabares, Shapiro, & Gottman, 2012; Eldridge & Christensen, 2002; Fincham, 2004). The demand–withdraw pattern involves one partner making demands (e.g., complaints) and the other partner withdrawing from the interaction (e.g., physically leaving), which has been shown to be negatively associated with both concurrent and long-term marital outcomes across cultures (e.g., Christensen, Eldridge, Catta-Preta, Lim, & Santagata, 2006). Negative reciprocity is a pattern in which one partner responds to the other partner’s negativity with similar or escalated levels of negativity. Compared with happily married couples, distressed spouses are more likely to reciprocate negativity in interactions and to get stuck in the cycles of negative reciprocity rather than edit behaviors to exit such reciprocity loops (Bradbury & Karney, 2010; Fincham, 2004).

Typologies of Couples Based on Communication Styles

A brief overview of the literature regarding marital communication among Western couples may highlight the potential utility of examining marital interactions among Chinese couples. To summarize research findings clearly, we organize them into three themes: specific communication behaviors, broader communication patterns, and typologies of couples based on communication styles. Considering that couples in the current study are newlywed and one of our focuses is on couple communication across contexts, we also add sections about these topics.

Typologies that have proven to be the most useful to marital interaction researchers for decades are proposed by Fitzpatrick and Gottman. Fitzpatrick (1988) identified three types of couples: traditional, independent, and separate. Traditional couples describe their interactions as nonassertive, less confrontational, and more conciliatory. Independent couples’ interactions are characterized by assertiveness and tendency to engage in open conflicts. Separate couples tend to avoid open conflict. Gottman (1994) also found three types of couples: validators, volatiles, and avoiders. Validators are adept at validating emotions and opinions, have few disagreements, and tend to openly discuss disagreements in noncoercive ways. Volatiles tend to be passionate and to express both negativity and positivity in conflicts, with warmth, love, and affection counterbalancing negativity. Avoiders tend to minimize and avoid conflicts. Another couple type labeled “emotionally disengaged” also was identified in their subsequent research (e.g., Gottman & Levenson, 2002), whose interactions are characterized by an absence of extreme negativity and also a lack of positivity. Spouses in these couples demonstrate little concerns toward one another.

Specific Communication Behaviors

Newlywed Couples’ Communication Processes

Based on several reviews of marital interaction research by leading scholars (e.g., Bradbury & Karney, 2010; Fincham, 2004; Flora & Segrin, 2014; Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Heyman, 2001; Kelley, 2012; Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004), it seems warranted to conclude that compared with nondistressed couples, distressed couples’ communications show more negative behaviors (e.g., criticism, contempt, blaming, hostile, defensiveness, stonewalling,

As noted already, newlyweds are faced with a set of challenging tasks such as learning ways to maintain and nurture their conjugal bond. Although these tasks often continue throughout marriage, the newlywed period is the time when these issues become particularly salient (Storaasli & Markman, 1990). It is usually through dyadic communication that newlyweds try to work out how to resolve their conflicts and to support each other during this stress-

Marital Communication Processes Among Western Couples

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

852

CAO, FANG, FINE, JU, LAN, AND LIU

ful transition. Moreover, their communication during early years also may establish interaction patterns affecting the long-term marital outcomes (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2001; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). Despite the relatively high relationship satisfaction for most newlyweds, previous studies concerned with newlyweds’ interactions have demonstrated that negative behaviors (e.g., hostility, anger, disengagement, negative reciprocity, avoidance, physical aggression, criticism, and contempt) still can clearly distinguish between couples high and low in marital satisfaction and stability (e.g., Gottman et al., 1998; Leonard & Roberts, 1998; Markman et al., 2010; Noller & Feeney, 2002; Pasch, Bradbury, & Davila, 1997). As also might be expected, newlyweds’ marital outcomes are positively related to positive behaviors such as responsiveness, warm expression, affective validation, empathy, active listening, support provision, and humor (e.g., Driver & Gottman, 2004; Gottman et al., 1998; Huston et al., 2001; Kilpatrick, Bissonnette, & Rusbult, 2002; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). Furthermore, the noted finding that positivity may neutralize the potentially negative effects of negative behaviors in marital interactions on couple relationships also have been found among newlyweds (e.g., Bradbury & Karney, 2004; Johnson et al., 2005).

Couple Communication Stability Couple communication stability involves (at least) two distinct yet interrelated aspects: the stability of communication behaviors or patterns over time, and the consistency of communication behaviors or patterns across contexts. In terms of the former aspect and its associations with various marital outcomes, prior research undergirds two models that provide different explanations of why some marriages succeed and others fail: the enduring dynamics model and the emergent distress model (Huston, 2009; Huston et al., 2001). The enduring dynamics model posits that couple interactive patterns (e.g., lack of love and affection) established during the early stages of marriage (or even before marriage) persist over time and augur later marital satisfaction and stability, whereas the emergent distress model presumes that marital distress develops as interpersonal disagreement and negativity increase and escalate over time, ultimately leading some couples to divorce. However, the two models may not be mutually exclusive but complementary in explaining the long-term fate of the marital relationship. Indeed, some recent studies found that couple communication behaviors assessed before and shortly after marriage (i.e., the initial levels) were associated with later marital outcomes (e.g., Lavner & Bradbury, 2010; Markman et al., 2010), and changes in communication behaviors over time also could clearly distinguish between later distressed and nondistressed couples (e.g., Markman et al., 2010). Very few studies to date have specifically investigated the consistency of couple communication behaviors or patterns across situations and its influences on the marital relationship. By observing couple interactions in both problem-solving and social support contexts, Pasch, Bradbury, and colleagues (Pasch & Bradbury, 1998; Sullivan, Pasch, Johnson, & Bradbury, 2010) found that spouses tended to display more positive behaviors and fewer negative behaviors in social support interactions than they did in problem-solving interactions. Spouses’ interactive behaviors also may vary as a function of whether they or their partner initiated the discussion topic. Christensen and Heavey (1990) found that

spouses were more likely to be demanding when discussing a change they wanted, but more likely to withdraw when discussing a change their partners wanted. Heyman et al. (2009) found that both men and women behaved more positively during the partnerinitiated conversations than during their own-initiated conversations. In addition, several marriage scholars (e.g., Bradbury & Karney, 2010; Fincham, 2004; Gottman, 1979) have stated that the interactions of unhappy couples often can be more predictable across contexts than those of happy couples; that is, no matter how their interactions get started or what topics they choose to discuss, their communications seem to unfold in similar negative ways. Furthermore, the consistently negative interaction mode across contexts may be especially detrimental to the couple relationship, considering the noted buffering effects of positive behaviors (Bradbury & Karney, 2004).

Marital Communication Processes Among Chinese Couples Historically, Chinese culture is characterized as emphasizing the maintenance of group harmony (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), which might encourage Chinese people to suppress rather than express their intensely negative emotions within interpersonal interactions to avoid hurting others and to preserve relationships (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007). Moreover, the overt expression of affection also should be relatively uncommon within Chinese marital interactions because Chinese spouses: (a) are inclined to place more importance on factors outside of marriages than on the fulfillment of individual and couple needs within marriages (Chang & Chan, 2007); (b) are socialized to suppress intimate emotions (Markus & Kitayama, 2003); and (c) tend to convey affection in indirect ways (e.g., sacrifice, Chen & Li, 2007). However, the aforementioned traditional norms of interpersonal relationships are likely to be reconstructed by the unprecedented social, legal, and economic reforms China has experienced during the past several decades. The passing of several laws (e.g., “1950 Marriage Law”) acknowledged individuals’ freedom and interests in marriages and promoted women’s equal rights with men (Davis, 2014). The “1978 Reform and Opening-Up Policy” increased exchanges between China and Western countries. The Western marital culture characterized by emphases on intimacy and equality has been introduced into China (Xu, Xie, Liu, Xia, & Liu, 2007). The “1979 One-Child Policy” has changed the structure of Chinese families from extended families with multiple children to nuclear families with one child. The vast majority of Chinese married youth were born after the introduction of this policy. Their upbringing experiences are often characterized by parental indulgence, which may contribute to their emphases on self-interests within interpersonal interactions (Wang & Fong, 2009). Thus, it appears warranted to speculate that the communication processes of some Chinese couples may be characterized by overt and vigorous expressions of emotions. Furthermore, recent studies on Chinese couples’ interactions found that Chinese spouses, especially wives, displayed more negativity than spouses in other countries, but did not differ from their Western counterparts in positivity within marital interactions (e.g., Schoebi et al., 2010; Williamson et al., 2012).

COUPLE INTERACTION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

Method

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sampling Sampling was undertaken to identify couples who were within 3 years of their first marriage, and without children. Couples who met the above eligibility criteria were recruited by research assistants at Beijing Normal University and Zhejiang Normal University. They were trained to contact acquaintances to locate eligible couples, or post announcements on websites and in communities to call for eligible couples. Ultimately, 147 couples participated in this observational study. Of those couples, data from three couples were deleted because one or both spouses had no data in at least one of the videotaped interactions because of participants’ voluntary withdrawal. Thus, the final sample for the current study comprised 288 partners in 144 couples. These couples had been married a mean of 13.14 months (SD ⫽ 10.59). Husbands and wives were on average 29.01 (SD ⫽ 3.32) and 27.51 years old (SD ⫽ 2.33), respectively. The modal level of education for both husbands and wives was a bachelor’s degree. The median levels of monthly income for husbands and wives were 7,000 RMB (SD ⫽ 9934.56, approximately $1,137.5) and 4,500 RMB (SD ⫽ 4538.22, approximately $731.25), respectively.

Procedures The following procedures conforming to the requirements of the Institutional Review Board at the study’s home institution were implemented. Both husbands and wives were invited to the university lab to participate in this study. For couples who could not come to the lab, research assistants collected the data by means of a home visit (N ⫽ 36 couples). Considering the potential differences of couples’ interactive behaviors in lab and home settings, the video recording locale was included as a control in analyses. First, the study was described in general terms by the trained research assistants and the signed informed consent form was obtained from each participating spouse. Then, husbands and wives were asked to separately complete a series of self-report measures regarding their demographic, individual, and relational characteristics. After a short break, partners were reunited for four 10-min videotaped discussions: two problem solving interactions and two social support interactions. For problem solving interactions, husbands and wives were asked to separately identify a topic of disagreement within marriage. They were asked to try to use this discussion as an opportunity to work toward a solution to issues, even though they cannot solve the problem completely during this interaction. After finalizing the topics, the couple was asked to discuss one topic identified by one spouse for 10 min, followed by a discussion of the topic identified by the other spouse for another 10 min after a short break. To start the conversation, one randomly chosen spouse was asked to “briefly say what you think about the issue” and the other partner was then told to “say what you think about the issue.” For social support interactions, husbands and wives were also asked to separately identify something about themselves that they want to change. Spouses were instructed to avoid selecting any topic that was a source of tension or conflict in their marriage. After finalizing the discussed topics, the couple was asked to discuss one topic identified by one spouse for 10 min, followed by

853

a discussion of the topic identified by the other spouse for another 10 min after a short break. To start the conversation, one randomly chosen spouse was asked to “describe what it is that you would like to change about yourself and how this makes you feel” and the other partner was told to “respond however you want to so that you are involved in the discussion.” Although the order of the initiator within both problem-solving and social support interactions was randomly decided by flipping a coin, all couples were asked to conduct problem-solving interactions first and then social support interactions. We employed this design for two primary reasons: (a) this procedure is consistent with previous studies examining couple interactive behaviors in both conflictual and nonconflictual contexts (e.g., Pasch & Bradbury, 1998; Sullivan et al., 2010); and (b) from research ethic perspective, ending the observation tasks with social support interactions may be more likely to make participants go back to their lives in a positive rather than a negative mood. However, we acknowledge that complications may arise from carryover effects in our current design and counterbalancing different types of interactions may be the optimal choice (Pollatsek & Well, 1995), which could be a direction for future efforts. At the end, couples were debriefed and were paid 50 RMB (approximately $8) or were given a gift worth approximately $10 for participation. All the instructions for the behavioral interactions and items of the self-report measures used in the current study were originally developed for American couples. A team of graduate students majoring in family studies who are fluent in both Chinese and English first translated measures into Mandarin, and then another team of bilingual graduate students back-translated them into English. The investigators also worked with the translators to revise items as needed until it was evident that the Chinese items had meanings equivalent to the English version. All Mandarin version measures were also sent out to professors with expertise in Chinese marriage studies for suggestions. We repeated this process until no new suggestions for revision were made.

Measures Interaction behavior. Videotapes were coded by 10 coders by using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (IFIRS; Melby & Conger, 2001). Coders participated in 10 hr of training per week for 3 months and were required to pass both a written test and a coding test with 75% accuracy before coding the formal tapes. The actual training coding accuracy ranged from 79% to 88% with a mean of 82% across all coders. The criterion scores used to judge coder accuracy were determined by experienced IFIRS coders. Coders also participated in weekly 2-hr training meetings in which a series of structured activities were implemented. Qualified coders viewed each of the interaction tasks three or four times and took notes at the same time about the interactive behaviors of both spouses throughout the entire interaction, considering the frequency, intensity, proportion of behaviors, affect, and contextual cues. Based on notes, coders assigned a single score for each spouse for each IFIRS behavioral code. The following scales were used: avoidance, dominance, hostility, interrogation, communication, listener responsiveness, physical affection, warm support, humor, and anxiety. Each behavior was rated using a 1 (not present) to 9 (mostly characteristic) response format.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

854

CAO, FANG, FINE, JU, LAN, AND LIU

To assess reliability, 28% of the videos were selected randomly to be coded by a second coder and the mean agreement across raters was .72, which is acceptable and comparable with previous studies that have used the IFIRS (Melby & Conger, 2001). Any discrepancies between coders were resolved by both coders working together to finalize the scores used in analyses. Interrater reliability was assessed by calculating single-item intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The average ICC across the four interactions for each IFIRS code for husbands and wives in the current study was comparable to the previous studies that have used the IFIRS (Melby & Conger, 2001): avoidance (h ⫽ .66, [.62, .69], w ⫽ .79, [.69, .84]); dominance (h ⫽ .72, [.62, .77], w ⫽ .72, [.56-, 84]); hostility (h ⫽ .77, [.68, .84], w ⫽ .80, [.77, .83]); interrogation (h ⫽ .63, [.50, .75], w ⫽ .73, [.63, .81]); communication (h ⫽ .69, [.66, .75], w ⫽ .75, [.69, .80]); listener responsiveness (h ⫽ .76, [.70, .87], w ⫽ .75, [.69, .80]); physical affection (h ⫽ .92, [.88, .93], w ⫽ .90, [.87, .95]); warm support (h ⫽ .71, [.64, .74], w ⫽ .75, [.66, .82]); humor (h ⫽ .77, [.69, .88], w ⫽ .69, [.63, .77]); and anxiety (h ⫽ .67, [.56, .77], w ⫽ .54, [.50, .67]). Marital satisfaction. The 6-item unidimensional Quality Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983) was used to assess marital satisfaction. The first five items asked spouses to indicate their agreement with statements such as “My relationship with my partner makes me happy” on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very strong disagreement) to 7 (very strong agreement). The last item asked spouses to indicate how happy they are in their marriage when all things were considered on a 10-point scale from 1 (very unhappy) to 10 (perfectly happy). All six items were worded in a positive direction. Mean scores were calculated and used in analyses. Coefficient alphas in the current study were .94 for both husbands and wives.

Analytic Strategy We used latent profile analysis (LPA) in Mplus 7.11 to examine whether meaningful profiles could be identified in a sample of Chinese newlywed couples based on their communication behaviors observed from different interactions, controlling for the video recording locale. Compared with previous studies that have employed LPA, the sample size of the present study is relatively modest, but it is noteworthy that: (a) other factors such as the model fit statistics and the accuracy of classification are more important than is the sample size in determining profiles (Tein, Coxe, & Cham, 2013); and (b) the sample size in the current study (N ⫽ 144 couples) is comparable with recent marital studies using LPA (e.g., Wood, Helms, Supple, & Perlman, 2015; N ⫽ 120 couples). However, we acknowledge that LPA is sample-dependent, and the modest sample size may limit the number of profiles identified in our study. The first step in the LPA procedure was to run successive latent profile models specifying an ascending number of profiles and assessing the numerous model fit statistics for each solution. In general, lower log-likelihood, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (ABIC) values signify a better model fit, and the Parametric Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) provide statistical tests for whether the addition of a latent profile significantly improves the overall model fit. The BLRT was chosen over the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (VLMRT) because, in the context of the significant bootstrapped test, the nonsignificant VLMRT is immaterial (Nylund, Asp-

arouhov, & Muthén, 2007). Entropy denotes the accuracy of classification into each profile based on the manifest indicators, with higher values denoting higher classification accuracy, with the maximum being 1.00. In addition, we also considered some other factors (e.g., model interpretability) for each solution to determine the optimal number of profiles. Based on the LPA results, we got four categorical profile membership variables for each couple. Then, we used latent class analysis (LCA) in Mplus 7.11 to further classify couples into subgroups based on their memberships across the four interactions. As such, we could identify different subgroups of couples defined by their probability of adopting a particular interaction mode in one specific context. Then, the Class Membership ⫻ Spouse mixed model analysis of covariance was conducted through the PROC MIXED procedure within SAS 9.3 to examine whether the newly identified subgroups of couples differing in their probability of adopting certain interaction modes in specific contexts varied in marital satisfaction. We treated spouse as the within-group factor, class membership as the between-groups factor, and spouses’ age, education, income, and the length of marriage as covariates. The mixed model is often used by researchers to account for the nonindependence of couple dyadic data. Because cell sizes were unequal, we examined Type III sums of squares. Significant univariate findings were followed up by running post hoc analyses through the LSMEANS statement with a Bonferroni correction.

Results Latent Profiles of Chinese Newlywed Couples’ Interactive Behaviors in Different Contexts The details of how the log-likelihood, AIC, BIC, ABIC, VLMRT, BLRT, and Entropy values changed as the class number specified in the LPA model increased are displayed in Table 1. For all of the four interactions, the three-profile model was consistently selected as the optimal model considering both the model fit statistics and interpretability. (a) Compared with the one-profile solution and the two-profile solution, the three-profile solution had the lowest log-likelihood, AIC, BIC, and ABIC values across the four different couple interactions, which signifies a better model fit. (b) Although the VLMRT did not support the three-profile solution for husbands’ problem-solving interaction (HPS) and wives’ problem-solving interaction (WPS), the BLRT consistently indicated that the three-profile solution fit the data significantly better than the two-profile solution. (c) The entropy scores above .90 for the three-profile solution for all of the four interactions indicated the high accuracy of classification. Possibly because of the relatively modest sample size in the current study, one or more latent profiles in the four-class solution comprised few couples, which further inhibit analyses and interpretability. Thus, the four-class solution was removed from consideration. An illustration of the three-profile model is presented in Figure 1. Profiles were assigned labels based on the primary features that distinguished them from each other. Interestingly, very similar profiles were consistently identified across the four interactions. The first class was characterized by relatively low levels of both overt negativity (e.g., hostility) and positivity (e.g., physical affec-

COUPLE INTERACTION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

855

Table 1 Comparison of Models for Latent Profiles of Chinese Newlywed Couples’ Communication Behaviors (N ⫽ 144 Couples) Interaction context HSS WSS

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

HPS WPS

Number of latent classes

Log likelihood

AIC

BIC

ABIC

VLMRT

BLRT

Entropy

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

⫺5209.779 ⫺4914.042 ⫺4797.999 ⫺5300.352 ⫺5000.709 ⫺4887.636 ⫺5492.551 ⫺5152.017 ⫺5066.829 ⫺5508.731 ⫺5196.814 ⫺5108.856

10503.558 9952.083 9763.998 10684.704 10125.419 9943.273 11069.102 10428.034 10301.659 11101.461 10517.628 10385.712

10628.290 10136.212 10013.462 10809.437 10309.547 10192.737 11193.834 10612.162 10551.123 11226.193 10701.756 10635.177

10495.391 9940.027 9747.664 10676.538 10113.363 9926.939 11060.935 10415.978 10285.325 11093.295 10505.572 10369.379

— 0.0047 0.0407 — 0.0234 0.0096 — 0.0007 0.5027 — 0.0002 0.1940

— 0.0000 0.0000 — 0.0000 0.0000 — 0.0000 0.0000 — 0.0000 0.0000

— 0.941 0.962 — 0.987 0.918 — 0.909 0.900 — 0.928 0.941

Note. HSS ⫽ husbands’ social support interaction; WSS ⫽ wives’ social support interaction; HPS ⫽ husbands’ problem solving interaction; WPS ⫽ wives’ problem solving interaction; AIC ⫽ Akaike Information Criterion; BIC ⫽ Bayesian Information Criterion; ABIC ⫽ sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; VLMRT ⫽ Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test; and BLRT ⫽ Parametric Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test.

tion) but relatively high levels of communication and listening responsiveness. Such an avoidance of emotional expression within marital interactions is somewhat consistent with the Chinese traditional cultural norms of interpersonal relationships emphasizing that individuals should suppress their intense emotions within interpersonal interactions. Moreover, it is important to note that the lack of both positivity and negativity probably does not necessarily indicate disengagement in the interaction, because of the relatively high levels of constructive communication behaviors at the same time. Thus, this profile could be labeled “traditionally undemonstrative profile,” and constituted 66%, 41%, 30%, and 48% of the sample, respectively, for the husbands’ social support interaction (HSS), wives’ social support interaction (WSS), HPS, and WPS. The second profile was distinguished from others based on its relatively high scores on negative behaviors (e.g., dominance, hostility, interrogation). Moreover, it seems that this group did not have enough positivity to counterbalance such negativity, given the rare displays of warmth, love, and affection within interactions. However, it is likely that the negativity was accompanied by high levels of communication, which might indicate an arguing process with tension. Thus, this profile could be labeled “emotionally quarrelling profile”, and constituted 24%, 17%, 28%, and 36% of the study sample, respectively, for HSS, WSS, HPS, and WPS. The final profile was characterized by relatively high levels of positive behaviors (e.g., physical affection, warm support, humor), low levels of negative behaviors (e.g., hostility, interrogation), and high levels of communication and listening responsiveness. Thus, this one could be labeled “warmly supportive profile,” and constituted 10%, 42%, 42%, and 16% of the study sample, respectively, for the HSS, WSS, HPS, and WPS.

The Prevalence of Couple Communication Profiles Across Interactions Although similar profiles were consistently identified across the four interactions, the prevalence of profiles changed markedly across interactions, suggesting that couples’ communication style varied as functions of the nature of interactive topic and who initiated the topic. The total percentages of couples classified into the respective profiles

are shown as stacked columns—with percentages displayed in the bars—for each interaction in Figure 2. A chi-square distribution test of the profile distribution in HSS against the distribution in HPS was significant, ␹2(4, N ⫽ 144) ⫽ 40.82, p ⬍ .001. As displayed in Panel a, the “traditionally undemonstrative” profile was the most frequent in HSS, which indicated that spouses within more than half of the couples communicated with each other in an unexpressive way in this context, but it appeared that couple communication became more emotional in HPS because the “warmly supportive” profile and the “emotionally quarrelling” profile became more frequent in HPS than in HSS, especially for the “warmly supportive.” A chi-square distribution test of the profile distribution in WSS against the distribution in WPS was significant, ␹2(4, N ⫽ 144) ⫽ 30.59, p ⬍ .001. Although the “traditionally undemonstrative” profile was more frequent in WPS than in WSS, it appeared that couple communication in WPS was more intense than that in WSS because the frequency of the “warmly supportive” profile decreased dramatically and the frequency of the “emotionally quarrelling” profile notably increased. A chi-square distribution test of the profile distribution in HSS against the distribution in WSS was significant ␹2(4, N ⫽ 144) ⫽ 43.28, p ⬍ .001. As displayed in Panel b in Figure 2, whereas the distribution of profiles in HSS was more characterized by the “traditionally undemonstrative” profile, it appeared that the distribution of profiles in WSS had a tendency to become more emotionally supportive because of the dramatic increase in the frequency of the “warmly supportive” profile and the notable decreases in the frequencies of the “emotionally quarrelling” profile and the “traditionally undemonstrative” profile. A chi-square distribution test of the profile distribution in WPS against distribution in HPS was significant, ␹2(4, N ⫽ 144) ⫽ 38.65, p ⬍ .001. The distribution of profiles in WPS had a tendency to become more unexpressive or negatively intense because there were notable increases in the frequencies of the “emotionally quarrelling” profile and the “traditionally undemonstrative” profile but a dramatic decrease in the frequency of the “warmly supportive” profile as compared with those in HPS.

CAO, FANG, FINE, JU, LAN, AND LIU

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

856

Figure 1. Profiles of couples’ communication behaviors in different interactions (N ⫽ 144 couples). From top to bottom: HPS, WPS, HSS, and WSS. AV ⫽ avoidance; DO ⫽ dominance; HS ⫽ hostility; IT ⫽ interrogation; CO ⫽ communication; LR ⫽ listener responsiveness; AF ⫽ physical affection; WM ⫽ warm support; HU ⫽ humor; AX ⫽ anxiety.

857

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COUPLE INTERACTION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

Figure 2. Percentage of couples classified into each communication profile in each interaction. Arrows indicate the pattern changing pathways between interactions. Numbers at arrows indicate percentage of couples out of the total number (N ⫽ 144 couples). See the online article for the color version of this figure.

Stability of Couple Communication Style Across Interactions and Marital Satisfaction The considerably changing prevalence of communication profiles across interactions suggests that some spouses might consistently interact

with one another in a particular pattern across contexts, whereas others’ communication processes might be manifested in diverse styles in different interactions. Using the LCA procedures, we further classified couples into subgroups defined by their probabilities of adopting a particular interaction mode across different contexts.

CAO, FANG, FINE, JU, LAN, AND LIU

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

858

The details of the LCA model fit statistics are displayed in Table 2. According to the same criteria we previously described when selecting the three-profile solutions, the three-class model was selected as the optimal model. A further description of the threeclass solution is presented in Table 3. Classes were assigned labels based on the primary features that distinguished them from each other. This first class was characterized by consistently high probabilities of interacting in a warmly supportive style across different contexts, suggesting that the communication processes of couples classified into this class seem to unfold in warmly supportive ways, no matter how their interactions get started or what topics they discuss. Thus, this class could be labeled “consistently supportive class,” which constituted 17% of the sample. In contrast, the third class was featured by the consistently high probabilities of interacting in an emotionally quarrelling fashion across different contexts. We therefore labeled it as a “consistently quarrelling class,” which constituted 33% of the sample. The second class was distinguished from the other two based on its switch or oscillation between the traditionally undemonstrative mode and the warmly supportive mode across contexts. Compared with spouses in the other two, it seems that spouses classified into this class tend to interact with each other in a relatively neutral and restrained way (i.e., neither very positive nor very negative). Thus, it may be appropriate to label it as a “modestly traditional class,” which constituted 50% of the sample. Further, we examined whether these subgroups of couples also varied in marital satisfaction. Only a significant between-class effect was found, F(2, 135) ⫽ 5.63, p ⫽ .0045. Specifically, couples in the “consistently supportive” class (estimate ⫽ 6.30, SE ⫽ .17) reported significantly higher levels of marital satisfaction than did couples in the “consistently quarrelling” class (estimate ⫽ 5.71, SE ⫽ .12), t(135) ⫽ 2.89, adjusted p ⫽ .0136; couples in the “modestly traditional” class (estimate ⫽ 6.14, SE ⫽ .10) also reported significantly higher levels of marital satisfaction than did couples in the “consistently quarrelling” class (estimate ⫽ 5.71, SE ⫽ .12), t(135) ⫽ 2.84, adjusted p ⫽ .0158; but there was no significant difference in marital satisfaction between the “consistently quarrelling” class and the “modestly traditional” class.

Chinese newlywed couples. Our findings challenge the stereotypes regarding Chinese couple communication (e.g., inexpressive and introverted) and lend preliminary support to the view that it is important to go beyond monolithic characterizations of Chinese marital interaction to examine the variation within it. Furthermore, we observed Chinese spouses’ communication processes within multiple interactions differing in both topic nature (i.e., problem-solving vs. social support) and topic initiator (i.e., husbands vs. wives), which not only helped us to acquire a more representative sample of couple communication behaviors but also provided us a valuable opportunity to examine how couple communication varies across different contexts. In particular, we also examined a relatively understudied research question: the stability/consistency of couple communication styles across contexts and its association with marital satisfaction. Compared with previous studies focusing only on couple interactions in one particular context, our findings are likely to provide a more complete and more accurate reflection of couples’ complex communication processes during their everyday lives largely because (a) handling disagreements and conflicts and maintaining intimate connections and positive regards for one another are two primary and distinct interactional tasks couples confront in their daily lives, and (b) it is not the couple interactions in a particular context but the complex combinations of couple interactions within various contexts that ultimately determine the development of marital relationships. In addition, couples in the present study are all newly married who are usually in a period of flux and transitional stress and whose interactive patterns are particularly open to influence and change. Considering that long-term marital outcomes can be attributed to couples’ success or failure in resolving interpersonal problems and consolidating their newly formed conjugal bond through everyday interactions during the early years, our findings may serve as a foundation for developing prevention and early intervention programs aimed at promoting newlywed adaptations. Moreover, our use of a sample of newlyweds also likely avoids the possibility that important effects have been masked by differences associated with varying marital durations.

Heterogeneity Within Chinese Newlyweds’ Marital Communication Processes

Discussion The current study contributes to the paucity of observational research regarding communication processes among non-Western couples and extends previous literature in several important ways. The first central focus in this study was to advance our understanding of the heterogeneity in marital communication among

The three meaningful communication profiles consistently identified across different contexts in the present study suggest that there exists at least three types of interaction modes in Chinese newlyweds’ marital communication processes (i.e., traditionally undemonstrative, emotionally quarrelling, and warmly supportive). It is interesting that

Table 2 Comparison of Models for Latent Classes of Chinese Newlywed Couples’ Communication Patterns Across Multiple Interaction Contexts (N ⫽ 144 Couples) Number of latent classes

Log likelihood

AIC

BIC

ABIC

VLMRT

BLRT

Entropy

1 2 3

⫺571.290 ⫺486.309 ⫺469.035

1158.580 1006.617 990.070

1182.339 1057.104 1067.285

1157.025 1003.312 985.015

— 0.0000 0.5569

— 0.0000 0.0000

— 0.893 0.907

Note. AIC ⫽ Akaike Information Criterion; BIC ⫽ Bayesian Information Criterion; ABIC ⫽ sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; VLMRT ⫽ Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test; and BLRT ⫽ Parametric Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test.

COUPLE INTERACTION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

859

Table 3 Probabilities of Each Identified Interaction Pattern in Different Contexts as a Function of Latent Class Membership (N ⫽ 144 Couples) Probability of each interaction pattern Interaction context

Interaction pattern

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

HSS

Traditionally undemonstrative Emotionally quarrelling Warmly supportive WSS Traditionally undemonstrative Emotionally quarrelling Warmly supportive HPS Traditionally undemonstrative Emotionally quarrelling Warmly supportive WPS Traditionally undemonstrative Emotionally quarrelling Warmly supportive N (proportion) of couples for each latent class

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

0.478 0.000 0.522 0.288 0.042 0.671 0.205 0.082 0.713 0.078 0.000 0.922 24 (16.7%)

1.000 0.000 0.000 0.324 0.050 0.625 0.258 0.118 0.624 0.818 0.182 0.000 72 (50%)

0.248 0.729 0.022 0.436 0.564 0.000 0.369 0.631 0.000 0.143 0.833 0.024 48 (33.3%)

Note. HSS ⫽ husbands’ social support interaction; WSS ⫽ wives’ social support interaction; HPS ⫽ husbands’ problem solving interaction; WPS ⫽ wives’ problem solving interaction.

these modes are quite similar to, but also subtly different from, those identified in Western couples’ interactions. It appears that the “traditionally undemonstrative” profile characterized by a lack of both positivity and negativity within interactions is similar to the communication styles demonstrated by the “separate,” “avoider,” and “emotionally disengaged” couples in Western marriages (Driver et al., 2012; Fitzpatrick, 1988). However, it also is important to note that this profile also involved relatively high levels of communication and listening responsiveness, suggesting that spouses might not be emotionally disengaged. Instead, it may represent the very traditional Chinese marital communication style featured by avoidance of direct and intense emotional expressions (Butler et al., 2007; Matsumoto et al., 2008). However, our interpretation about this “culturally less demonstrative but no less emotionally engaged” communication style is speculative. One of the better ways to address this in future studies might be using ratings by both outsiders (e.g., trained coders) and insiders (e.g., both spouses) to explain the thoughts and feelings underlying explicit behaviors over the course of conversation (Noller & Feeney, 2004). There were relatively high levels of both negativity and communication behaviors but rare displays of positivity in the interactions for the “emotionally quarrelling” profile. On one hand, this profile is similar to the communication styles demonstrated by the “volatile” couples identified by Gottman and colleagues (Gottman, 1994; Gottman & Levenson, 1992) and the “independent” couples identified by Fitzpatrick (1988) in terms of their overt expressions of negativity during communication. On the other hand, interactions of the “volatile” and the “independent” couples also are characterized by the displays of positivity, which may counterbalance the negativity, but the interactions for the “emotionally quarrelling” profile in our study were almost exclusively characterized by negativity. The communication processes for the “warmly supportive” profile were characterized by relatively high levels of positive behaviors, low levels of negativity, and high levels of communication and listening responsiveness. It appears that this profile is comparable with the communication styles of “validator” spouses in Western marriages featured by validations of emotions and opinions and few disagreements.

Interestingly, the “emotionally quarrelling” and “warmly supportive” communication modes identified in the current study are somewhat inconsistent with Chinese traditional norms of interpersonal interactions. As noted already, we speculate that the unprecedented social, legal, and economic reforms China has experienced during the past several decades are probably changing the microlevel dynamics within Chinese marriages and families by making Chinese people’s marriage and family related values and beliefs more Westernized (Davis, 2014; Wang & Fong, 2009; Xu et al., 2007). This may be especially true for Chinese urban newlywed young couples (as was the case in the current study) because they are considered to be a generation confronted with social changes that generate novel values and behaviors. Although we did not explore these macrolevel explanatory mechanisms in the present study, to our knowledge this is the first study to look at the possible heterogeneity in Chinese marital communication. In future research, it would be promising to conduct studies employing a multiple-cohort, longitudinal design to more directly examine the association between Chinese social changes and couple interactions. However, another possibility also may be the case: social changes in China may not necessarily lead to the emergence of emotional communication modes in Chinese marital interactions; instead, these changes may only make Chinese spouses become more emotionally expressive in marriage than before. In other words, it is possible that there has been no lack of variability in Chinese marital communications across different historical times, and such an inherent heterogeneity may be just overlooked in prior research because of some prevalent stereotypes about Chinese couple communications (e.g., inexpressive).

Couple Communication Profiles Across Interactions Differing in Topic Nature and Initiator The prevalence of identified couple communication profiles changed markedly with the discussion topic nature and initiator. In terms of the effect of topic nature, it appears that in general, couple communication in the problem-solving context tended to be more emotionally expressive (either more emotionally supportive or more

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

860

CAO, FANG, FINE, JU, LAN, AND LIU

intensely negative) than that in the social support context. This finding is partially consistent with previous research revealing that spouses tended to display more negativity in problem-solving interactions than they did in social support interactions (e.g., Pasch & Bradbury, 1998; Sullivan et al., 2010). However, it seems that our findings also extend prior research by showing that the reverse also can be the case; that is, spouses may communicate with each other more negatively in social support interactions than they do in problem-solving interactions (see “HSS vs. HPS” in Panel a of Figure 2). As such, the nature of the discussion topic may not necessarily set the tone for couple communication, but something beyond it must play a more critical role in shaping marital interaction modes. For the latter finding that appears inconsistent with prior research, we also note the importance of considering another two possibilities. (a) Although coders were intensively trained, they still might unconsciously adjust their scores to the nature of couple interactive context (Hoyt & Kerns, 1999); for example, they might overrate the levels of negative behaviors in a supportive context than in a conflictual context. (b) From a Chinese traditional culture perspective (e.g., Butler et al., 2007), Chinese spouses, husbands in particular, may feel anxious in social support contexts because they are likely socialized to suppress emotions and may be unskilled in expressing affection, and the social support situations may be relatively uncommon in their everyday marital lives (Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008). As to the effect of topic initiator, we found that couple discussions in WPS had a tendency to become more unexpressive or even more intensely negative than those in HPS, whereas couple discussions in WSS were more emotionally supportive than those in HSS. Previous research has demonstrated that spouses, wives in particular, tended to behave more dominantly and negatively during their own-initiated conversations than they did during partner-initiated conversations (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Heyman et al., 2009; Klinetob & Smith, 1996). It is important to note that these studies focused on changes in individual communication behaviors (i.e., either husbands or wives) with topic initiating status, but our finding suggests that (a) couple dyadic interaction modes also may vary as a function of topic initiator, and (b) there might be an interactive effect between topic nature and topic initiator on couple dyadic interaction mode. Future studies are needed to replicate these findings and also to extend them by elucidating the mechanisms through which such effects occur.

Stability of Couple Communication Style Across Interactions and Marital Satisfaction By observing marital interactions within multiple contexts, we were able to investigate one relatively understudied yet important aspect of couple communication: the consistency of communication mode across contexts. As the first observational study to address this question, we identified three types of couples based on their communication modes within four interactive contexts: “consistently quarrelling,” “consistently supportive,” and “modestly traditional.” Despite the relatively high levels of relationship satisfaction for most newlyweds, marital satisfaction clearly varied among the three types of couples identified in the present study. Specifically, the “consistently supportive” group reported the highest levels of marital satisfaction, the “emotionally quarrelling” group the lowest, and the “modestly traditional” group in the middle. Furthermore, the relation-

ship satisfaction of the “consistently quarrelling” group was significantly lower than that of the “consistently supportive” group and the “modestly traditional” group, respectively. These findings: (a) are consistent with previous studies revealing positive associations between positivity with marital relationship outcomes, and the detrimental effects of negativity on marital relationship outcomes (see Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Heyman, 2001); and (b) provide preliminary support for the long-standing view that interactions of unhappy couples often can be characterized by predictable negativity: no matter how their interactions get started or what topics they discuss, their interactions seem to unfold in similarly negative ways (Bradbury & Karney, 2010; Fincham, 2004).

Limitations and Future Directions Although some limitations of the present study and possible avenues for future inquiries have been pointed out earlier, the following ones also should be noted. First, most of the communication behaviors examined in this study were sampled in a laboratory setting, which may not represent couples’ interactions in natural settings. Second, the present study was cross-sectional, which not only weakens our ability to draw causal inferences from findings but also prevents us from examining how the initial levels and changes in communication behaviors influence later marital outcomes. However, considering the high levels of plasticity of couple communication in the early years of marriage (Carrére, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000), future research may benefit from collecting longitudinal data to investigate these issues. Third, because the present study was an examination of a relatively small sample of Chinese newlywed couples living in urban areas, and also considering the sampling process, participants in the current study may not be representative of Chinese newlywed couples in urban areas. Thus, further research with more representative samples is needed, and our findings should be cautiously generalized to Chinese couples in other marital stages and living in rural areas. Fourth, it also is noteworthy that participants in the current study had relatively higher levels of SES than did the broader population in the recruitment areas, according to the census data from the year of data collection (e.g., Beijing Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Considering that individuals with higher levels of education and income in collectivistic societies may held more individualistic marital values characterized by emphases on equality, intimacy, and happiness (e.g., Xu et al., 2007), couple communication in the current study may be more similar to those of Western couples than is the case with the general population of Chinese marriages, and future research should include Chinese couples from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, there may be great within-culture variation in Chinese spouses’ orientations or attitudes toward collectivistic and individualistic beliefs about Chinese traditional marriages, which may play roles in determining how individuals assign meanings to their marital communication behaviors (Lee et al., 2013). We did not assess these variables in the present study, but future research is needed to explore if Chinese couples’ communication processes vary as functions of these variables. Finally, the coding system used in the present study was originally developed for American couples. Although previous studies have already used this coding system to examine Chinese couples’ communication processes (Williamson et al., 2012) and we also tried to validate them preliminarily, future studies would benefit

COUPLE INTERACTION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

from systematically examining whether they are accurately assessing constructs in Chinese samples.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

References Beijing Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Beijing statistical yearbook 2011. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. Bergman, L. R., & Trost, K. (2006). The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 601– 632. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0023 Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Understanding and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 862– 879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00059.x Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2010). Intimate relationships. New York, NY: Norton. Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7, 30 – 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30 Carrére, S., Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., Coan, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 42–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0893-3200.14.1.42 Chang, S., & Chan, C. (2007). Perceptions of commitment change during mate selection: The case of Taiwanese newlyweds. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 55– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0265407507072583 Chen, F. M., & Li, T. S. (2007). Marital enqing: An examination of its relationship to spousal contributions, sacrifices, and family stress in Chinese marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 393– 412. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.4.393-412 Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., Catta-Preta, A., Lim, V. R., & Santagata, R. (2006). Cross-cultural consistency of the demand/withdraw interaction pattern in couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1029 –1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00311.x Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73 Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 114 –128. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.114 Davis, D. S. (2014). Privatization of marriage in post-socialist china. Modern China, 40, 551–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0097700414536528 Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43, 301–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00024.x Driver, J., Tabares, A., Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2012). Couple interaction in happy and unhappy marriages: Gottman Laboratory studies. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (pp. 57–77). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communication during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 289 –322). New York, NY: Cambridge. http://dx .doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511500077.016 Fincham, F. D. (2004). Communication in marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 83–103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fitzpatrick, M. (1988). A typological approach to marital interaction. In P. Noller & M. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 98 –120). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual. Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (2014). Family conflict and communication. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of family communication (pp. 91–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

861

Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York, NY: Academic Press. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353438 Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.63.2.221 Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41, 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.x Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 927–947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00927.x Heyman, R. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13, 5–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5 Heyman, R. E., Hunt-Martorano, A. N., Malik, J., & Slep, A. M. (2009). Desired change in couples: Gender differences and effects on communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 474 – 484. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0015980 Hoyt, W. T., & Kerns, M. (1999). Magnitude and moderators of bias in observer ratings: A meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 403– 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.4.403 Huston, T. L. (2009). What’s love got to do with it? Why some marriages succeed and others fail. Personal Relationships, 16, 301–327. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01225.x Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252. Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence, E., Rogge, R. D., Karney, B. R., . . . Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Problem-solving skills and affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 15–27. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.15 Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 Kelley, D. L. (2012). Marital communication. Malden, MA: Polity. Kerig, P. K., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Couple observational coding systems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kilpatrick, S. D., Bissonnette, V. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples. Personal Relationships, 9, 369 –393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/14756811.09402 Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist, 63, 518 –526. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand–withdraw communication in marital interaction: Tests of interpersonal contingency and gender role hypotheses. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 945–957. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353982 Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1171–1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00757.x Lee, W. Y., Nakamura, S., Chung, M. J., Chun, Y. J., Fu, M., Liang, S. C., & Liu, C. L. (2013). Asian couples in negotiation: A mixed-method observational study of cultural variations across five Asian regions. Family Process, 52, 499 –518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.12040

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

862

CAO, FANG, FINE, JU, LAN, AND LIU

Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). Marital aggression, quality, and stability in the first year of marriage: Findings from the Buffalo Newlywed Study. In T. N. Bradbury (Eds.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 44 –73). New York, NY: Cambridge. Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 289 –298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019481 Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Culture, self, and the reality of the social. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 277–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1047840X.2003.9682893 Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S., Fontaine, J., Anguas-Wong, A., Arriola, M., Ataca, B., . . . Grossi, E. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 55–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022107311854 Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (2001). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. In P. K. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 33–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (2002). Communication, relationship concerns, and satisfaction in early marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 129 –155). New York, NY: Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511499876.009 Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). Studying family communication: Multiple methods and multiple sources. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 31–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141–151. http://dx .doi.org/10.2307/351302 Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396 Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.219 Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.1997.tb00151.x Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful

analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 785–794. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.785 Roberts, L. J., & Greenberg, D. R. (2002). Observational “windows” to intimacy processes in marriage. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 118 –149). New York, NY: Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511500077.008 Schoebi, D., Wang, Z., Ababkov, V., & Perrez, M. (2010). Affective interdependence in married couples’ daily lives: Are there cultural differences in partner effects of anger? Family Science, 1, 83–92. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424620903471681 Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of family relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 413– 446). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). Longitudinal prediction of marital discord from premarital expressions of affect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 790 –798. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.790 Storaasli, R. D., & Markman, H. J. (1990). Relationship problems in the early stages of marriage: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 80 –98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.4.1.80 Sullivan, K. T., Pasch, L. A., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Social support, problem solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 631– 644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017578 Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 640–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781 Wang, Y., & Fong, V. L. (2009). Little emperors and the 4:2:1 generation: China’s singletons. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 1137–1139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI .0b013e3181bc72f8 Williamson, H. C., Ju, X., Bradbury, T. N., Karney, B. R., Fang, X., & Liu, X. (2012). Communication behavior and relationship satisfaction among American and Chinese newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 308 –315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027752 Wood, C. A., Helms, H. M., Supple, A. J., & Perlman, D. (2015). Gendertyped attributes and marital satisfaction among Mexican immigrant couples: A latent profile approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 321–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000077 Xu, A., Xie, X., Liu, W., Xia, Y., & Liu, D. (2007). Chinese family strengths and resiliency. Marriage & Family Review, 41, 143–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v41n01_08

Received December 9, 2014 Revision received June 1, 2015 Accepted June 5, 2015 䡲