The Family Journal

7 downloads 0 Views 203KB Size Report
who counsel intercultural couples are discussed. Keywords intercultural couples, culture-related stressors, phenomenology, ethnography. As societies become ...
The Family Journal http://tfj.sagepub.com/

Intercultural Couples: Coping With Culture-Related Stressors Rebecca M. Bustamante, Judith A. Nelson, Richard C. Henriksen, Jr and Sarah Monakes The Family Journal 2011 19: 154 originally published online 23 February 2011 DOI: 10.1177/1066480711399723 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/19/2/154

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors

Additional services and information for The Family Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/19/2/154.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 27, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 23, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

Multicultural Issues

Intercultural Couples: Coping With Culture-Related Stressors

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 19(2) 154-164 ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1066480711399723 http://tfj.sagepub.com

Rebecca M. Bustamante1, Judith A. Nelson1, Richard C. Henriksen, Jr.1, and Sarah Monakes1

Abstract The purpose of this phenomenological study was to identify potential culture-related stressors in intercultural marriages and uncover some of the conscious and unconscious strategies applied by couples to cope with these stressors. In-depth ethnographic interviews were conducted with five intercultural couples. Interview data were then analyzed using a phenomenological reduction process to synthesize the meanings and essences of participant experiences. Results revealed that the intercultural couples studied used similar coping strategies to manage marital stressors that might be attributed to or accentuated by cultural differences. Six primary coping strategies were identified: (a) gender-role flexibility; (b) humor; (c) cultural deference by one partner; (d) recognition of similarities; (e) cultural reframing or the development of blended values and expectations that redefined the intercultural relationship; and (f) a general appreciation for other cultures. These intercultural coping strategies were supported by prior empirical research in the fields of intercultural communication and marital counseling. Further research is needed to understand better the unique stressors and coping mechanisms experienced by intercultural couples. Practical considerations for therapists who counsel intercultural couples are discussed. Keywords intercultural couples, culture-related stressors, phenomenology, ethnography

As societies become more diverse and the globalizing effects of immigration, technology, and international travel take hold, people increasingly have contact with others who differ from them in religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, and other characteristics that are often associated with different cultures (i.e., shared beliefs, values, and behaviors that foster a sense of shared identity and community among members of a group) (Samovar & Porter, 1995; Triandis, 1994). With more opportunities for contact between people of different cultures, the probability of forming intimate intercultural relationships has increased. Ho (1990) defined intimate intercultural relationships as committed, loving relationships between two people who identify with different cultural groups because they represented at least two nationalities, races, or religions, while other scholars simply define intercultural relationships as the interaction of people of differing cultures (Asante & Gudykunst, 1989; Kim, 2001; Perel, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 1999; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). In this study, we focus on the intercultural marriages of people representing different national and ethnic groups, while also acknowledging the broader definition of culture and the fact that people might identify with more than one culture or subculture at any given time (Gudykunst, 1994). Worldwide statistics on the actual number of intimate intercultural relationships are difficult to determine. Based on the impact of globalization, worldwide trends might be

inferred from US statistics. For example, rises in the number of individuals immigrating to the Southern and Midwestern portions of the United States (Donato, Tolbert, Nucci, & Kawano, 2007) has made it possible for more couples to engage in intercultural relationships due to proximity and societal trends that reflect a more open and accepting view of crosscultural relationships (Jacobson & Heaton, 2008). In fact, in 2000, Pederson noted increases in intercultural and interracial dating among college students. Despite demographic increases in the number of intercultural couples around the world, limited research is available to guide counselors and therapists in addressing the role that culture plays in intimate intercultural relationships. In one review of academic literature on intercultural relationships, Sullivan and Cottone (2006) concluded that, overall, ‘‘little empirical research has been done with intercultural couples to assist with conceptualization of problems and useful interventions’’ (p. 221).

1

Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA Corresponding Author: Rebecca M. Bustamante, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Sam Houston State University, Box 2119, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

Bustamante et al.

155

While empirical research on intercultural couples remains limited, a growing body of literature on the topic suggests that cultural differences do indeed contribute to marital distress and, therefore, should be addressed in therapy (Bhugra & DeSilva, 2000; Crohn, 1998; Dalmage, 2000; Heller & Wood, 2007; Hsu, 2001; McFadden & Moore, 2001; Molina, Estrada, & Burnett, 2004; Root, 2001; Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005). Other scholars also have emphasized that intercultural couples experience stressors that differ from same-culture couples (Falicov, 1995; Fu & Heaton, 2000; Sung, 1990). Therefore, to more effectively counsel intercultural couples in therapy, helping professionals would benefit from a better understanding of (a) how culture-related stressors are manifested in intimate relationships, and (b) how intercultural couples cope with these differences in ways that lead to enduring and fulfilling relationships.

Background to the Study An understanding of what is meant by culture is essential to the study of intercultural couples. Scholars agree that culture is a learned meaning system of shared beliefs, values, norms, symbols, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that members of a group utilize to make sense of their world and one another, as well as foster a sense of shared identity and community (Gudykunst, 1994; Hall, 1976; Samovar & Porter, 1995; Triandis, 1994). Culture is historical and transmitted across generations (Brislin, 1993; Ting-Toomey, 1999), yet much of culture is not so much taught as unconsciously experienced (Lustig & Koester, 2002). Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) compared culture to an iceberg; the deeper layers (i.e., beliefs, values, and traditions) are hidden from view, and the uppermost layers (i.e., artifacts and verbal and nonverbal behaviors) are observable. In this study, culture refers to ethnic, racial, and national cultures, yet the authors further acknowledge that people might identify with more than one culture or subculture at any given time. Intercultural refers to the interaction between people of differing cultures (Asante & Gudykunst, 1989; Gudykunst, 1994; Kim, 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1999; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

Stressors in Intercultural Relationships According to Hsu (2001), ‘‘Intercultural couples have a greater likelihood of encountering problems because they hold even more diverse values, beliefs, attitudes, and habits than couples who are of similar cultures’’ (p. 225). In emphasizing communication and understanding (or misunderstanding) as vital components of a functional (or dysfunctional) relationship in any context, Waldman and Rubalcava (2005) highlighted that the potential for misunderstanding was significantly increased for intercultural couples. Overall, a variety of perspectives become apparent in reviewing the marriage and family therapy literature that informs knowledge about potential stressors in intercultural relationships. Some of the key theories and studies on sources of stress for intercultural couples have focused on:

(a) profound differences in cultural values and worldviews (Baltas & Steptoe, 2000; Falicov, 1995; Garcia, 2006; Hsu, 2001; Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005); (b) ‘‘macrocultural’’ (Bhugra & DeSilva, 2000, p. 186) or negative societal and family reactions (Biever, Bobele, & North, 1998; McFadden & Moore, 2001) and ‘‘microcultural’’ difficulties or differences in values, beliefs, and customs (Bhugra & DeSilva, 2000, p. 187); (c) distinct communication styles (McGoldrick, 1999; Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005); (e) religious and ethnic beliefs (Joanides, Mayhew, & Mamalakis, 2002); and (f) an ‘‘unbalanced view’’ of cultural differences (Falicov, 1995). In their review of the literature on intercultural couples, Sullivan and Cottone (2006) stressed that cultural similarities and differences ‘‘can and should be addressed in therapy, while specifically considering how cultural differences contribute to the distress an intercultural couple may be experiencing’’ (p. 222). According to Fu, Tora, and Kendall (2001), intercultural marriages may face higher levels of stress and conflict and have less satisfying marital relationships compared to culturally homogenous marriages. Cultural differences can place internal strains on a marriage. Therefore, it appears essential for counselors to acknowledge the salience of cultural differences in intercultural relationships and learn how these cultural differences might further exacerbate relationship conflicts. Furthermore, counselors might benefit from a better understanding of potentially viable coping mechanisms that intercultural couples employ to offset their culture-related stressors. Knowledge of these coping mechanisms might enhance therapists’ cultural competence in counseling intercultural couples.

Coping Strategies Although some researchers have focused on the culture-related difficulties of intercultural relationships, other scholars have viewed intercultural relationships as an additive or enriching interaction in which individuals either learn from each other and blend or move beyond cultural differences through appreciation and humor (Heller & Wood, 2007; Romano, 2001). These scholars have sought to understand how intercultural couples offset potential culture-related stressors in their relationships in order to establish long-lasting, satisfying intimate relationships. For example, Falicov (1995) proposed that intercultural couples maintain a balanced or unbalanced view of their cultural differences: ‘‘couples in distress usually have an impoverished, unbalanced, or distorted view of their cultural similarities and differences’’ (p. 245). Yet, balanced intercultural couples are those who integrate such cultural differences, rather than deny them or distort them. The way that cultural stressors are managed and coping strategies are used in relationships also may be dependent on how couples experience, perceive, and define their own stressors and coping mechanisms (Falicov, 1995). Heller and Wood (2007) contended that some intercultural couples appeared to explore and negotiate differences in ways that strengthened intimacy and led to greater mutual understanding than was observed in sameculture couples.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

156

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 19(2)

A Balanced Approach in Counseling Intercultural Couples In a study conducted by Falicov (1995), some intercultural couples lacked sufficient self-awareness of cultural differences and, therefore, might minimize or deny culture-related social interactions within the relationship. Falicov’s study examined how couples might obtain this ‘‘balanced’’ approach in managing their cultural differences and how this might inform marriage and family counselors in working with intercultural couples. Watts and Henriksen (1999), in their study focusing on the perceptions of White women in interracial marriages, found that intercultural couples came together for the same reasons as other couples and included ‘‘love, compatibility, similar goals, and a desire to create a family together’’ (p. 69). They also found that intercultural couples had ‘‘more differences intraculturally and intraracially than interculturally or interracially’’ (p. 70). These study outcomes suggested that intercultural couples might be more alike than different in their beliefs and further implied that counselors could highlight these similarities in the therapeutic process. While prior studies have contributed to our understanding of intercultural relationships, more research is needed to inform counseling practices with intercultural couples. Furthermore, professional counseling standards require that counselors develop competencies in working with clients from a diverse backgrounds and cultures.

Awareness of Cultural Influences in Counseling The idea that counselors should develop the capacity to acknowledge and empathize with the world views of others, as well as acquire appropriate skills to meet the needs of diverse clients is outlined in the multicultural counseling competencies (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992) that have been integrated into professional counseling standards. For example, the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs (CACREP, 2009) requires accredited counseling programs to provide students with ‘‘studies that provide an understanding of the cultural context of relationships, issues, and trends in a multicultural society’’ (p. 10). McGoldrick and Hardy (2008) proposed that the field of marriage and family therapy required a transformation in order for awareness of diversity to become actually integrated into work with couples. By recognizing and better understanding the influence of culture on counselors and their clients, counselors might enhance their ability to provide counseling services to intercultural couples in an effective manner (Henriksen, Watts, & Bustamante, 2007). Therefore, the purpose of this phenomenological study was to identify potential culture-related stressors in intercultural intimate relationships and uncover some of the conscious and unconscious strategies applied by couples to cope with these stressors. Two research questions guided this inquiry: (a) How do intercultural couples experience culture-related stressors in their relationships?; and (b) How do these intercultural couples report coping with culture-related stressors?

Method Moustakas (1994), when describing the use of psychological phenomenology, pointed out that one of the primary purposes of the methodology was to give voice to the participants in a manner that would uncover the cultural influences experienced by the study participants. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) also pointed out that phenomenology was the most appropriate method for exploring the lived experiences of people who consistently interacted in a variety of cultures. Phenomenology was determined to be the most appropriate design to address the research questions in this exploratory study, because it allowed for greater insight into the intercultural couples’ experiences. Although a phenomenological design was employed, ethnographic interviewing techniques were utilized in this study as outlined by LeCompte and Schensel (1999). Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore the experiences of selected intercultural couples as they described culture-related stressors in their relationships and how they coped with these stressors. Data from interview transcripts were then analyzed using a phenomenological reduction process (Moustakas, 1994) to synthesize meanings and essences of participants’ lived experiences.

Participants A purposive sampling strategy combining typical case and criterion sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was used to select the participants for this study. An attempt was made to recruit couples who might represent typical intercultural couples living in the United States by applying a set of predetermined criteria. Typical intercultural couples were defined as two individuals who represented two different national cultures and self-described themselves as such. In a few cases, participating couples also were of different races and religions. Intercultural couple participants were first identified from a pool of friends and families known to the researchers. From this pool, participating couples were then recruited based on a set of predetermined criteria to establish study delimitations. This criteria limited participation in the study to couples who: (a) had been married and cohabitating for 5 or more years, (b) actually self-identified as an intercultural couple, (c) had children, and (d) resided in the large urban area of a city in a southwestern state. A monogamous, committed relationship or marriage of 5 or more years was considered to represent a significant enough duration of time for couples to be able to adequately reflect on their relationship patterns. Although levels of awareness were not the primary focus of this study, a couple’s basic level of awareness and acknowledgment of intercultural differences was also deemed important for this study to assist in the identification of culture-related stressors. Since the dynamics of parenting have been shown to reflect cultural values and beliefs (Sung, 1990), only couples with children were asked to participate in this study. Finally, to allow for in-person interviews with participants, only intercultural couples residing in one metropolitan area were recruited for ethnographic interviews.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

Bustamante et al.

157

Table 1. Interview Protocol: Intercultural Couples Questions and Prompts  Tell me about what you experience being in an intercultural relationship.  [Prompt] Can you give me an example of that? (in reference to a specific statement)  [Prompt] Could you give me an example of differences you might have that you think same-culture couples do not experience?  [Prompt if couple does not provide examples in response to 1 or 3] What are your feelings or values about . . . (raising your children/your families of origin/time/gender roles)?  How do you cope with stress (or these stressors if already mentioned) in your relationship?  What advice would you want to share with other intercultural couples about coping with culture-related stressors in an intercultural relationship?

To provide us with an overall profile of the couples interviewed, all participants were asked to complete a brief background questionnaire. Participants reported an age range of 25–55 years of age. All couples had been legally married for at least 5 years and three of the participants had been previously married. Couples had between one and three children, ranging from 15 months to 14 years of age. The self-described national cultural or ethnic identities or multiple heritages (Henriksen & Paladino, 2009) of the participants included: Colombian, Syrian, Greek, Mexican American, Hispanic, American Iranian, Persian American, Anglo-American, and Mexican. Participants’ levels of formal education ranged from high school to graduate-level degrees.

Data Collection Procedures Permission from a university Institutional Review Board was obtained before initiating the data collection process. Then, each participant was asked to sign a consent form authorizing to participate in audio-taped interviews as a couple. As recommended by Patton (2000), an interview protocol was developed and used to guide researchers in asking grand-tour and minitour questions (Spradley, 1979) that would elicit responses related to the research questions on stress and coping. The interview protocol consisted of six questions and prompts and was grounded in academic literature from the fields of marriage and family counseling, intercultural communication, and crosscultural psychology. In particular, inquiry was framed around the notion of culture continuums originally proposed by Hall (1976), and further developed by Triandis (1994) and Hofstede (1980) in their seminal empirical and theoretical works. The six questions included in the interview protocol are listed in Table 1. To respect participants’ time and schedules, interview protocols were designed to allow interviewees to respond to questions within an approximate 60-min time frame. However, the interviewers did not restrict participant response times and, in all cases, participants seemed to enjoy the topic and continued sharing their experiences for periods of 2 hr or longer. Longer,

more in-depth interviews allowed the interviewers to further probe participants and obtain rich anecdotes and in-depth descriptions of the couples’ experiences. Some qualitative methodologists have suggested that, in phenomenology, one round of long interviews with at least 10 people could be sufficient to reach saturation (Boyd, 2001; Creswell, 1998). Although each couple was interviewed once, the length of the interviews and the richness of the data obtained allowed us to identify structural and textual descriptions and begin to see invariant themes (Moustakas, 1994) when we analyzed the interview transcripts. Participants and researchers were multilingual; however, all interviews were conducted in English because it was the most common language spoken between the couples interviewed and among all participants and interviewers. Following the interview, participants were sent a link to an internet questionnaire designed to obtain basic demographic information on each individual in the study. Questions solicited information on age, education level, children, number of years married, languages spoken and used with spouse, number of previous marriages, and whether or not the couple ever sought out counseling or therapy. Participants were asked to self-describe their cultural identities, rather than select from a list of predetermined racial/ethnic criteria.

Trustworthiness and Credibility Prior to and during data collection, researchers applied four specific strategies in an attempt to epoche their own beliefs and experiences about intercultural relationships (Moustakas, 1994), as well as enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the data collected. These included (a) bracketing assumptions at the outset of the study (Denzin, 1970; Moustakas, 1994), (b) maintaining subjectivity journals throughout the study (Peshkin, 1988 ), (c) conducting interpretive interviews on the interview process itself (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2008), and (d) involving participants by inviting them to review interview transcripts for accuracy as well as allowing for member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). At the outset of the study, the two researchers who conducted interviews recognized the need to epoche and to bracket their biases about intercultural relationships to document their beliefs (Moustakas, 1994) and enhance the trustworthiness of the data (Denzin, 1970). According to Fontana and Frey (2005), ‘‘the use of analytic bracketing allows the authors to analyze interviewing in its coherence and diversity as an event that is collaboratively achieved and in which product and process are mutually constituted’’ (p. 719). When the study was being conducted, both interviewers were in intercultural marriages so prior to engaging in the interview process, each interviewer listed their personal beliefs and biases related to being in intercultural relationships. Essentially, the lists revealed that both interviewers believed that aspects of intercultural relationships were unique to and that cultural differences augmented the many challenges of sustaining long term, satisfactory relationships. Researchers’ bracketed biases also included the belief that intercultural couples in enduring, satisfactory

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

158

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 19(2)

relationships, consciously or unconsciously, applied strategies to help them cope with cultural differences. Finally, researchers believed that it was important for counselors and therapists to be conscious of the need to complement traditional couples’ therapy with special culture-focused strategies when counseling intercultural couples. Moreover, in attempt to monitor researcher biases, both interviewers maintained subjectivity journals (Peshkin, 1988) throughout the study in which they noted down their thoughts and interpretations before and during the data collection and data analysis phases of the study. Following each interview, interpretive interviews were conducted with each interviewer by another researcher. The interpretive interview is a debriefing technique in which interviewers are formally interviewed themselves as a means of reflecting on their own potential sources of bias due to their backgrounds and experiences, examining their perceptions of how the study might affect participants and the researchers, exploring interpretations of participants’ nonverbal behaviors, among other interpretations (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collens, 2008). To enhance the credibility, accuracy, and authenticity of the results, researchers attempted to conduct member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1885) with the participants both during the interviews or focused exploration by establishing rapport and summarizing interviewees’ described experiences and following the horizontalization stage of analysis by sharing lists of structural descriptions or statements of meaning with each participant (Moustakas, 1994). In a few cases, statements of meaning related to childrearing values and definitions of extended family were modified based on the participant memberchecking process. Overall, however, participants appeared to concur with most of the researcher interpretations.

Data Analysis Moustakas (1994) phenomenological reduction process was used to interpret the interview data acquired from lengthy interviews conducted with intercultural couples. Researchers attempted to closely follow this process by first bracketing biases and assumptions before, during, and after the study (epoche). Interpretation of the interview transcripts involved a horizontalization process in which researchers attempted to summarize and provide structural descriptions of what was being said in the margins of the transcripts. Two researchers read through all interview transcripts individually to develop the initial structural descriptions. They then met to compare their interpretations and examine alternative meanings and divergent perspectives, while attempting to apply various frames of reference and identifying and clustering statements of similar meaning. An initial list of structural statements was then shared with the participants for their review and member checking. Based on feedback from participants, a few modifications to structural statements were made. Transcripts were then set aside for 2 months and reread and reanalyzed by the researchers to provide a fresh frame of reference. At this time, some overlapping and repetitive statements were eliminated to

develop structural themes that researchers believed adequately synthesized the essence of participants’ experiences.

Results Several primary stressors and coping mechanisms were identified through data analysis of the audio-taped interviews of intercultural couples using Moustakas’ (1994) phenomenological reduction process. Meaning statements that appeared to cluster around a metatheme of stressors consisted of (a) childrearing practices, (b) time orientation, (c) gender role expectations, (d) and external pressures from extended family members. Overall, these findings supported previous research related to relationship stressors for both intercultural couples (Hsu, 2001; Sullivan & Cottone, 2006; Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005) and same-culture couples (Gottman, 1999). Four primary coping mechanisms emerged in the interview analysis including: (a) gender role flexibility, (c) humor, (c) cultural deference by one partner, and (d) cultural reframing or the development of blended values and expectations that redefined the intercultural relationship.

Primary Stressors Analysis of interview transcripts revealed several stressors that the participants expressed as relevant to their cultural differences. In many cases, participants made specific reference to culture in describing these stressors. Many of these stressors might be similar to those in same-culture relationships; however, culture differences might exacerbate these stressors. Childrearing practices. Differences in childrearing practices appeared to be a common stressor among all intercultural couples interviewed. One participant explained that childrearing practices reflected, ‘‘a huge difference between our two cultures’’ and further stated that in her husband’s culture, ‘‘kids do what they are asked to do.’’ Another couple claimed that their parenting styles were ‘‘100% opposite’’ and emphasized their belief that this stemmed from the cultural environments in which they were raised. Another female participant explained that a primary culture stressor related to expectations about how children should be raised and disciplined: ‘‘his expectations are much stricter than mine . . . he having the Mexican upbringing . . . very Catholic, Mexican upbringing.’’ While same-culture couples may also express differences in childrearing practices, these couples appeared to believe that differences in childrearing were rooted in cultural values and experiences. Time orientation. Cultural orientation toward time frequently emerged as a stress factor. As one participant put it, ‘‘I like to take a nap during the day, that’s the Persian culture, and she hates it.’’ His wife responded that she felt that napping was a waste of time. In reference to time differences, another participant stated, ‘‘I can be a little more impulsive and spontaneous and I am a procrastinator (ha) and that’s probably from my

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

Bustamante et al.

159

Greek culture. Things are put off for (tomorrow).’’ Another husband emphasized: ‘‘She is never on time for anything. When it’s time to leave she starts getting ready.’’ His wife responded saying, ‘‘Yes, but in Colombia it is really embarrassing to show up early or on time to a social event. We just don’t do that.’’ Gender role expectations. Gender role expectations were an additional reoccurring theme among the couples interviewed; even though couples did not specifically identify gender role expectations as stressors. Gender role expectations were identified by participants from some traditionally male-dominated national cultures (Persian, Mexican, Greek, and Colombian) and related to the expectation that women should take primary responsibility for childrearing and household chores. One participant said: I’m running all over the house trying to clean up and taking care of the three kids and do 50 million things . . . and he’s resting [sarcastically said]. And I don’t agree with that and I don’t feel that just because you don’t get a nap during the day, you’re not going to be able to function for the rest of the day.

Furthermore, as one participant was discussing Persian food, he stated ‘‘you go ask every Iranian person or man, especially men, would you eat Kabob everyday if you could?’’ In this particular quote the participant neglects to separate ‘‘Iranian person’’ from ‘‘man.’’ Most of the couples interviewed also typically referred to men as the ‘‘breadwinner.’’ One male participant stated: ‘‘I’m the money maker.’’ Another participant said, ‘‘ . . . the woman is the nurturer . . . the husband is the provider . . . .’’ One woman made a clear connection between gender role expectations and culture: Nicolas helps me a lot around the house and I know it’s because he grew up here (in the U.S.). See, in Colombia, we usually grow up with maids and they do most of the things for you that everyone here has to do for themselves. So most Colombian men are not used to helping around the house.

Another participant clearly expressed: ‘‘Where I think culture really impacts, is in the male/female roles and people’s expectations about what men and women should do.’’ While scholars might argue that gender role expectations are potential stressors in any relationship, they clearly emerged as salient issues among the intercultural couples interviewed in this study. However, we were unable to determine if this was strictly a function of intercultural marriage or influenced by the fact that the participants were aware of their participation in an intercultural study.

origin, particularly when they were not fluent in the family’s native language. During family events, several participants expressed that, as an ‘‘outsider’’ spouse they frequently experienced marginalization from in-laws, particularly when family members chose to converse in their native language rather than accommodate to the language of the in-law. One couple stated that to avoid external family pressures, they, ‘‘got married by themselves’’: . . . we really got married by ourselves . . . just to digress from the whole stress of cultural differences. We would have gotten married in Mexico, but, we wanted her family to come. It’s likewise over here [America]. But if we married here, my family would not be able to come . . . so I said you know, forget about both of them, let’s offend both sets of families and just do it.

Some researchers have suggested that how family connections are described or defined (i.e., extended family vs. nuclear family) appears to be culture bound (Gudykunst, 1994; Hall, 1976; Triandis, 1994). One Caucasian American female participant described her spouse’s Mexican family as overly involved with all other family members. A major stressor appeared to be different perceptions of which family subsystem takes priority, as follows: I love your family . . . I just don’t want your crazy mother to live with us . . . there is a limit on it when it begins to affect my little family, then we can’t have it because all the time even though we’re far away . . . but at the point which it begins to interfere with my little family, that’s the priority.

Coping Mechanisms In analyzing the interviews of the intercultural couples in this study, it became evident that couples used several coping strategies to counteract the various culture-related stressors they experienced. These coping strategies appeared to offset or diminish the intensity of intercultural conflict described by the couples interviewed and consisted of: (a) gender role flexibility, (b) humor about differences, (c) cultural deference or a tendency to defer to the culture-related preferences of a partner, (d) recognition of similarities, (e) cultural reframing or an ability to redefine relational identity (Wood, 2000) into a unique way of relating that blends and transforms traditional culturerelated values into a new set of values particular to an intercultural couple, and (f) a general appreciation for other cultures. Gender role flexibility. Some couples reported that they offset differing gender role expectations with role flexibility:

Family Connections Family connections or extended family relationships were also identified as primary stressors. Several couples reported that their external, or extended, family relationships (i.e., parents, siblings, cousins, etc.) were major sources of stress and that they often felt excluded from their spouses’ family of

He’s pink and I’m blue . . . you would think Mexican macho man, wife stays at home and takes care of kids . . . um . . . no . . . that’s not me! Most Colombian women are not used to men being in the kitchen at all. I love that my husband is willing to cook and clean. We both share in these responsibilities.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

160

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 19(2)

My Greek father would shake his glass of ice and look at my mother so she would bring him something to drink. I (Greek male participant) would never dream of doing anything like that to my wife and she would never tolerate it. We talk about which roles we will take in our house, what we expect, and how we feel about them.

Communication about gender role expectations and responsibilities seemed to preclude or accompany an apparent flexibility in carrying out household duties that participants reported were associated with traditional gender norms in their national cultures. Transparency in addressing what each partner would contribute seemed evident. Humor about differences. Nearly all of the couples interviewed used humor to de-emphasize or ‘‘lighten up’’ differences. Humor and laughing were evident in the audio-taped interviews and many couples reported using it to reduce and diffuse potentially stressful situations. Many couples used cultural stereotypes as a basis for humor. One Persian male participant jokingly said to his Mexican American wife: ‘‘Kabob is in my blood, just like Enchilada is in your blood [laughing].’’ Couples expressed that they were able to find humor in their cultural differences and were able to agree that certain culture-related behaviors from extended family members were not meant to harm or hurt others. Even in these cases, they reported offsetting these family-stressors through humor and minimization of differences: ‘‘We just don’t get mad at each other . . . we don’t get angered easily . . . we don’t take things to heart if it is minor.’’ Cultural deference. The intercultural couples interviewed consistently reported that one person tended to defer more to the other person’s culture: She has assimilated . . . she has come into more Latino mainstream, than I have gone to the American. We listen to Iranian music. We never listen to Mexican music. I think I enjoy Iranian music more than he enjoys Spanish music . . . I’m a compromising person . . . I am willing to go to (an Iranian) music concert and sit there and not understand anything and just enjoy it with him . . . if it were the other way around, I don’t think he would join me. I think that being raised in the U.S. by Colombian parents, I am more bicultural. I can more easily see her side than she can understand mine so I can more easily go both ways. All of our friends are Spanish speaking or Hispanic. I always joke around about this, but I’m more Mexican than he is. I’m half-n-half, even though I’m not really half-and-half. There were some compromises . . . but you [the partner] really did all the compromising.

The apparent tendency for one individual in the couple to culturally defer to the other person consistently emerged as key in offsetting cultural differences. Many of the deferring spouses described themselves as multicultural or bicultural and seemed to more easily take the cultural perspective of their partner.

Deferring spouses in this study stated that they generally liked and respected their spouse’s culture and consciously chose to acculturate or assimilate in an effort to accommodate cultural disparities. Recognition of similarities. The intercultural couples interviewed in this study emphasized their efforts to stress similarities in values: ‘‘ . . . I think a core value system between us is there.’’ Another male participant said: With friends of mine in multicultural relationships, there is a common thread of tolerance and understanding . . . a seeking of commonalities.

Other participants also emphasized similarities: We both have strong family values. We had similar upbringings even though we grew up in different countries.

When asked what advice she might have for other intercultural couples, one woman replied: Try to find the similarities in your cultures and try to use that to strengthen your marriage rather than (stressing) all the things you maybe don’t have in common.

Others stressed the importance of, ‘‘respecting each other’s cultures because there are major differences you have to try to understand.’’ Another participant emphasized: ‘‘Everything starts with respect’’ and added, ‘‘you have to teach your children to be able to respect those (cultural) differences as they grow so that they can go on and possibly have to deal with (differences) themselves in the future.’’

Cultural Reframing In some cases, couples appeared to go beyond merely highlighting similarities in their cultural values and accepting differences. Essentially, we interpreted that couples in this study seemed to describe how they normalized various cultural stressors experienced by creating a new set of values or by creating new frameworks for interacting that blended, expanded, or transformed cultural perspectives within their unique relationships. Our notion of cultural reframing is rooted in the empirical literature in the field of intercultural communication and relates to Wood’s (2000) idea of relational identity and Casmir’s (1993) theory of third-culture building. Both abstract concepts are best defined as a newly formed reality or culture that reflects values, customs, and behaviors in an intercultural friendship and, essentially, serves to help two people maintain their relationship. In other words, relational identity or the forming of a ‘‘third-culture’’ guides behavior within a relationship, in the same way that racial, ethnic, or national cultures impact people’s attitudes, perceptions, and behavior (Wood, 2000). We interpreted the following quotes to be exemplary of cultural reframing:

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

Bustamante et al.

161

Marrying another culture is a win-win . . . . It’s like marrying your own kind . . . it’s like marrying yourself in a way. We take the best from both cultures and cultures we have lived in and make it something else that works for us. When it comes to expectations, we just blended them. I had a multicultural upbringing. I like to think we took the good elements of both cultures.

These couples appeared to ‘‘reframe’’ their culture-related stressors and differences in a way that, perhaps, created new values, rules, and customs that served to ameliorate conflict and maintain a satisfying relationship. General cultural appreciation. In general, the couples interviewed in this exploratory study expressed an overall interest in other cultures and value of being exposed to cultures other than one’s own. This idea was apparent in the positive statements couples made about being in intercultural relationships. Couples appeared to consider the experience of being in an intercultural advantageous. In particular, some participants described being in an intercultural relationship as an opportunity to learn and grow in ways that one would not in a sameculture relationship: By getting exposed to different cultures it is easier to have an appreciation for that culture. You can enrich yourself and learn from that culture. I think it is a great thing to do, to marry another culture . . . . It’s another way of educating yourself, a step up . . . I think you will learn a lot from marrying another culture. Exposure to many cultures is key.

While these ideas may reflect socially acceptable responses influenced by couples’ awareness of their participation in an intercultural study, they also reveal the study participants’ generally positive attitudes about the opportunity to learn from other cultures.

Discussion The current study provides a starting point for viewing intercultural couples from a strength-based model rather than a deficit model. The couples in this study readily offered creative coping mechanisms to the stressors unique to their intercultural marriages. Marriage counselors who approach couples in counseling with these coping methods might be more likely to provide encouragement and hope to partners from diverse backgrounds. While many of the relationship stressors identified in this study could be evident in any same-culture relationship (i.e., childrearing practices), many of the emergent stressors were described in relation to culture. These included time orientation, gender role expectations, and extended family pressures. The cross-cultural communication literature suggests that national cultures tend to orient differently to time (Hofstede, 1980). The study participants also discussed gender role expectations as a stressor related to cultural differences. According to Goldenberg and Goldenberg (2008), the expectations of

male and female behavioral patterns in different cultures impacts how well families function. It is not unusual for a gender dichotomy to exist in marriages in which partners experienced different gender roles in their families-of-origin. While gender role expectations are frequently an issue for many couples, the finding in this study implies that it could be helpful for a therapist to encourage intercultural couples to openly articulate gender expectations and discuss strategies for role flexibility. Attention to a more gender-sensitive perspective may challenge the ethnocentric views of family therapists as to what constitutes a healthy family and couple relationship (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2008). Various cultures define family differently, making it sometimes difficult for some individuals in intercultural couple relationships to distinguish between what US Anglo cultures call extended family and nuclear family. Differing perceptions of family may influence priorities and power structures. For some intercultural couples, one spouse might also feel marginalized or left out because he/she does not share the native language of his/her spouse’s family. Some of the stressors that emerged in this study point to a few areas that the counselor might need to address in therapy.

Implications In uncovering potential coping mechanisms, several implications for counseling and future research became evident. In healthy relationships, many couples use humor as a ‘‘repair mechanism’’ or as a way to offset tensions in arguments or disagreements (Gottman, 1999). Nonetheless, the use of humor displayed by the intercultural couples in this study was often directly linked to stereotypes or customs associated with one or both of the partners’ ethnic cultures, suggesting that humor may have a unique function in helping couples cope with inevitable cultural differences and also serve as a repair mechanism in conflicts. Among same-culture couples, humor may be more random and not specifically used to deflect cultural differences. Gender role flexibility was found to be an essential coping mechanism for the couples interviewed in this study. Couples reported talking openly about gender roles and negotiating whom would complete which household tasks, even when they took on more traditionally conservative female and male roles. All of the couples interviewed implied that one of the partners was more likely to defer more to the other’s culture. Gottman, Driver, and Tabares (2002) call this allowing your partner to have influence over you. In Gottman’s empirical findings, the failure of husbands to accept influence from their wives was one predictor of divorce. This finding was not reciprocal. In other words, when wives did not accept influence from their husbands, this did not predict the longitudinal course of the marriage as did the husbands accepting the wives’ influence. Not allowing the wife to have influence in the relationship manifested in male emotional disengagement or male escalation of belligerence, contempt, and defensiveness. In the current study, one partner was consistently more likely to assimilate to the other partner’s culture by speaking his/her

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

162

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 19(2)

native language, spending more time with the partner’s family, hanging out with friends who represented the partner’s culture, practicing the other’s religion and traditions, and eating food and listening to music from their partner’s culture. Both partners clearly articulated which of the two was more accommodating to the other’s culture. In the interviews, culturally deferent partners were also referred to as bicultural, multicultural, more assimilated, acculturated, or able to go many ways. This finding deserves further exploration and may have implications for marital satisfaction among intercultural couples. Future studies might examine whether or not marital satisfaction in an intercultural relationship depends on the cultural deference of one partner. If so, how does this occur, does it matter whether the wife or husband is the deferent partner, and what is the experience for the deferent partner? Counselors might need to explore issues of identity, reciprocity, resentment, resignation, and control that may be potentially related to cultural deference in intercultural couples. The concept of cultural reframing in the context of intimate intercultural relationships deserves further examination in future studies. There is a need to understand how couples coconstruct this reframed relational identity or third-culture. The notions of relational identity and third-culture building originate in the intercultural communication literature (Casmir, 1999; Wood, 2000) and have not been discussed in literature in counseling and therapy. An interdisciplinary approach to the study of intercultural couples, which also integrates seminal research from the fields of intercultural communication and cross-cultural psychology, seems essential to advancing knowledge and practice in working with intercultural couples. More research on the notion of cultural reframing, as described in this article, may prove illuminating.

Recommendations The themes that emerged in this exploratory study suggest potential interventions for counselors who work with intercultural couples. First, helping professionals need to be aware of their own worldview and potential biases and privilege as stipulated in the multicultural competencies for counseling professionals (Sue et al., 1992). By working to develop their own cultural competence, counselors and therapists may be less likely to minimize the potential influences of culture in counseling intercultural couples. Helping professionals can use the cultural genogram (Hardy & Lazsloffy, 1995) to uncover issues of pride and shame in family-of-origin histories. Additionally, the cultural genogram can be used as an effective training tool to promote both cultural awareness and sensitivity in marriage counselors. Second, therapists can use an intake form that includes questions related to potential cultural influences in the relationship. While some couples may not be aware of these influences, it is important to attempt to ascertain how the couple’s interculturality may impact the relationship. Henriksen et al. (2007) developed the Multiple Heritage Couples Questionnaire (MHCQ) that is designed to help couples explore the many

challenges they face or will face being in an intercultural relationship. The MHCQ can also be used by counselors to explore their individual and collective views concerning intercultural couples. Through the use of the MHCQ, both couples and counselors will be able to enhance their understandings of the joys and challenges of intercultural relationships. Based on the outcomes of this study, there is a need for counselors to help intercultural couples with the exploration of their relationship and the stressors they are facing or may face in the future. The MHCQ focuses on the challenges and stressors couples face and could meet this counseling need. Third, based on the findings of this exploratory study, counselors may want to assist intercultural couples in culturally reframing their relationship by helping individuals explore where their core values and beliefs may be amalgamated to facilitate intimacy despite culture-related stressors. Taking a stance of curiosity (Dyche & Zayas, 1995) and a notknowing approach (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992) would identify the therapist as a skillful facilitator in uncovering undiscovered narrative about the couple’s cultural issues. Dyche and Zayas (1995) point out that culture itself is a very personal narrative and ‘‘the adoption of another culture tests our deepest loyalties’’ (p. 391). Maturana and Varela (1984) proposed that one of the best ways to promote changes in human systems was to be a foreigner and permit one’s different background to bring a new and exciting vision of the world. It is critical for therapists to take into account the complex ways in which culture shapes the experiences of marriage. Most clinical theories about functional marriages come from a Western perspective which often does not fit the worldviews of other cultures. For example, the notion of ‘‘falling in love’’ as a prerequisite for marriage is a fairly new idea even in Western cultures and simply doesn’t exist in many other cultures (Shibusawa, 2008). Similarly, the very concept of talking to a therapist about intimate relationships is a foreign idea in some cultures. The thematic stressors and coping behaviors of the participants in this study add to the body of knowledge of this complex issue and provide marriage counselors with new ways to approach intercultural couples. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure/Funding The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A notknowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction. London: Sage. Asante, M. K., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1989). Handbook of international and intercultural. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

Bustamante et al.

163

Baltas, Z., & Steptoe, A. (2000). Migration, culture, conflict and psychological well-being among Turkish-British married couples. Ethnicity and Health, 5, 173-295. Bhugra, D., & DeSilva, P. (2000). Couple therapy across cultures. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 183-192. Biever, J. L., Bobele, M., & North, M. W. (1998). Therapy with intercultural couples: A postmodern approach. The Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 181-188. Boyd, C. O. (2001). Phenomenology the method. In P. L. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed., pp. 33-122). Sundbury, MA: Jones and Barlett. Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Casmir, F. L. (1993). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 407-428). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Casmir, F. (1999). Foundations for the study of intercultural communications based on a third-culture building model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 91-116. Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs. (2009). Council for the accreditation of counseling and related eduaction programs 2009 standards. Alexandria, VA: Author. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crohn, J. (1998). Intercultural couples. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Revisioning family therapy (pp. 295-308). New York, NY: Guilford. Dalmage, H. (2000). Tripping on the color line: Black-white multiracial families in a racially divided world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Denzin, N. (1970). The research act. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Donato, K. M., Tolbert, C. M., II, Nucci, A., & Kawano, Y. (2007). Recent immigrant settlement in the nonmetropolitan United States: Evidence from internal census data. Rural Sociology, 72, 537-559. Dyche, L., & Zayas, L. H. (1995). The value of curiosity and naivete´ for the crosscultural psychotherapist. Family Process, 34, 389-399. Falicov, C. J. (1995). Cross-cultural marriages. In N. Jacobson, & A. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 231-246). New York, NY: Guilford. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd. ed. (pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). Fu, X., & Heaton, T. B. (2000). Status exchange in intermarriage among Hawaiians, Japanese, Filipinos and Caucasian in Hawaii: 1983-1994. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31, 45-61. Fu, X., Tora, J., & Kendall, H. (2001). Marital happiness and interracial marriage: A study in a multi-ethnic community in Hawaii. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(1), 47-60. Garcia, D. R. (2006). Mixed marriages and transnational families in the intercultural context: A case study of African-Spanish couples in catalonia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Goldenberg, H., & Goldenberg, I. (2008). Family therapy: An overview. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Gottman, J., Driver, J., & Tabares, A. (2002). Building the sound marital house. In N. S. Jacobson, & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 373-399). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Gudykunst, W. (1994). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. London: Sage. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hardy, K., & Lazsloffy, T. (1995). The cultural genogram: Key to training culturally competent family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapists, 21, 227-237. Heller, P. E., & Wood, B. (2007). The influence of religious and ethnic differences on marital intimacy: Intermarriage versus intramarriage. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 241-252. Henriksen, R. C. Jr., & Paladino, D. A. (2009). Counseling multiple heritage individuals, couples, and families. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Henriksen, R. C. Jr., Watts, R. E., & Bustamante, R. (2007). The multiple heritage couple questionnaire. The Family Journal, 15, 405-408. Ho, M. K. (1990). Intermarried couples in therapy. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hsu, J. (2001). Marital therapy for intercultural couples. In W. S. Tseng, & J. Streltzer (Eds.), Culture and psychotherapy: A guide to clinical practice (pp. 225-242). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Jacobson, C. K., & Heaton, T. B. (2008). Comparative patterns of interracial marriage: Structural opportunities, third party-factors, and temporal change in immigrant societies. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 129-149. Joanides, C., Mayhew, M., & Mamalakis, P. M. (2002). Investigating inter-Christian and intercultural couples associated with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: A qualitative research project. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 373-383. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Mapping the domain of intercultural communication: An overview. Communication Yearbook, 24, 139-157. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensel, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research (Ethnographer’s toolkit, Vol. 1). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lustig, M. W. & Koester, J. (2002). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Longman. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. (1984). A a´rvore do conhecimento—As bases biolo´gicas do conhecimento humano [The tree of knowledge: Biological bases of human knowledge]. Campinas, Sa˜o Paulo: Editorial Palas Athena. McFadden, J., & Moore, J. L. (2001). Intercultural marriage and intimacy: Beyond the continental divide. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 23, 261-268.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012

164

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 19(2)

McGoldrick, M. (1999). You can go home again. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. McGoldrick, M., & Hardy, K. V. (2008). Revisioning family therapy from a multicultural perspective. In M. McGoldrick, & K. V. Hardy (Eds.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Molina, B., Estrada, D., & Burnett, J. A. (2004). Cultural communities: Challenges and opportunities in the creation of ‘‘happily ever after’’ stories of intercultural couplehood. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12, 139-147. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2008). Interviewing the interpretive researcher: A method for addressing the crises of representation, legitimization, and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 1-17. Patton, M. Q. (2000). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pederson, P. B. (2000). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness (3rd ed.). Alexadria, VA: American Counseling Association. Perel, E. (2000). A tourist’s view of marriage. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line (pp. 178-204). New York, NY: Guilford. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17, 17-22. Romano, D. (2001). Intercultural marriage (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press.

Root, M. P. (2001). Love’s revolution: Interracial marriage. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1995). Communication between cultures (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Shibusawa, T. (2008). Interracial Asian couples: Beyond Black and White. In M. McGoldrick, & K. Hardy (Eds.), Revisioning family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 378-388). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehardt, & Winston. Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 477-486. Sullivan, C., & Cottone, R. R. (2006). Culture based couple therapy and intercultural relationships: A review of the literature. The Family Journal, 14, 221-225. Sung, K. (1990). A new look at filial piety: Ideals and practices of family-centered parent care in Korea. Gerontologist, 30, 610-617. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Waldman, K., & Rubalcava, L. (2005). Psychotherapy with intercultural couples: A contemporary psychodynamic approach. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59, 227-245. Watts, R. E., & Henriksen, R. C. Jr. (1999). Perceptions of a White female in an interracial relationship. The Family Journal, 7, 68-70. Wood, J. T. (2000). Relational communication (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV LIBRAR on June 12, 2012