Search

Relationship standards are beliefs about what is important in a satisfying couple relationship, which vary considerably between cultures, and might mean that what couples seek from couple therapy differs across cultures. We assessed the standards of n = 49 Pakistani couples and whether those standards predicted couple satisfaction. To provide referents for the Pakistani standards, we also assessed selfreported relationship standards in n = 33 Western couples and n = 30 Chinese couples. Pakistani couples endorsed couple bond standards (e.g., expressions of love) as similarly important, and family responsibility (e.g., extended family relations) standards as more important, than Western or Chinese couples. In Pakistani couples, Couple Bond predicted couples' relationship satisfaction, but family responsibility and Religion predicted only wives' satisfaction. Modest sample sizes necessitate caution in interpreting results but suggest existing couple therapies might need modification to address the distinctive relationship standards of Pakistani couples.

Research on couple relationships has increasingly focused on the concept of "we-ness", the subjective closeness of the couple bond, as crucial to predicting relationship outcomes including satisfaction and dissolution. However, diverging perspectives on the definition, terminology, and measurement of this concept persist. We drew upon social identity theorizing to clarify the nature of we-ness and investigate its predictive utility. Participants were 375 members of the general community in long-term intimate relationships. The sample were aged 18-74 (M = 37.22; SD = 12.00) and 69% were women. Participants completed seven measures of we-ness drawn from both the couple literature and the social identity literature. We used exploratory factor analyses to establish the latent structure of we-ness, and regression analyses to examine the utility of each we-ness factor in predicting relationship satisfaction and likelihood of dissolution. A four-factor solution was extracted and the factors were labeled couple identity, partner liking, relationship orientation, and partner similarity. Each of the four factors explained unique variance in relationship quality, with couple identity being most strongly associated with positive outcomes. We conclude that couple research can fruitfully draw upon social identity theorizing in conceptualizing we-ness. This has implications both for more effectively measuring key concepts and for more precisely targeting interventions in couple therapy.对伴侣关系的研究越来越关注 "我们 "这个概念，即主观方面认知的伴侣关系亲密度，它对预测伴侣关系的结果包括满意度和关系破裂至关重要。然而，对这一概念的定义、术语和测量仍然存在不同的观点。我们利用社会认同理论来阐明 "我们 "这个概念的本质并调查其预测效用。参与者是375名处于长期亲密关系的普通社区成员。该样本的年龄为18至74岁(M=37.22；SD=12.00)，69%为女性。参与者完成了七项关于 "我们“概念的测量，这些量表来自于关于伴侣关系研究的文献和社会认同相关研究文献。我们使用探索性因素分析来建立 "我们 "这个概念的潜在结构，并使用回归分析来探究每个 "我们 "的因素在预测关系满意度和关系破裂的可能性方面的效用。笔者提取了一个四因素解决方案，这四个因素具体被称为伴侣身份认同、伴侣好感、关系取向和伴侣相似性。四个因素中的每一个都解释了关系质量的独特变异，伴侣认同与积极正向的结果联系最紧密。我们的结论是，情侣方面的研究在概念化 "我们 "的时候可以有效地借鉴社会认同理论。这对更有效地测量关键概念，以及更精确地针对伴侣治疗的干预措施都有意义。.