Cultural Values,Self-Disclosure,and Conflict Tactics as Predictors of Marital Satisfaction Among Singaporean Husbands and Wives

Abstract

In the present study, we examined the relationship between marital satisfaction and cultural value orientations (e.g., collectivism–individualism), self-disclosure, and conflict tactics (e.g., exit and loyalty) among Singaporean couples. A total of 160 individuals (80 husbands and 80 wives) participated in this study. The results indicated that self-disclosure and exit conflict tactics were strong predictors of couples’ marital satisfaction. Collectivism which has a significant association with loyalty conflict tactics impacts husbands’ satisfaction. In contrast, neither collectivism nor individualism was related to wives’ satisfaction. Implications for future study and clinical practice were discussed.

Keywords

Singapore collectivism individualism self-disclosure conflict tactics

Substantial knowledge of marital satisfaction research has defined clinical competencies (Gottman, 1999). Yet, modern global conditions have had growing influence on clinical practices which require continued understanding of couples’s relationship within their cultural contexts (Seto & Cavallaro, 2007; Sullivan & Cottone, 2006). Consequences of not attending to the contextual knowledge may limit the progress of couples’ treatment and hinder clinicians’ development (Quek & Storm, 2012). For these reasons, it is important for counselors/therapists to continue to learn about the relationship processes of couples in various countries.

Despite the emergence of diverse intimate relationships, marriage remains the primary relationship form in many cultures (Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). Marriage is valued in personal, familial, and religious contexts as a union that fosters closeness between adult partners and exemplifies community values (Yarhouse & Nowacki, 2007). Despite a common emphasis on marriage across cultures, the characteristics that affect marriage in specific cultures have not been fully delineated. It is entirely possible that unique factors (e.g., resources, values, communication practices) affect marital satisfaction in different cultures. For instance, in Japan, living arrangement with in-laws influenced couples satisfaction (Kamo, 1990), equity in household tasks were considered pertinent in the United States (Steil, 1997), and increasing women’s status added to marital satisfaction in Bolivia (Orgill & Heaton, 2005). Each study contributes to an understanding of marital satisfaction, but more countries remain to be explored. One country which is worthy of more empirical/clinical attention is Singapore. Compared to other Asian countries (e.g., China, Japan), less is known about the nature of Singaporean marriage. This study expands knowledge by examining the role of cultural values (e.g., collectivism, individualism) and communication processes (e.g., self-disclosure, conflict tactics) in Singaporean spouses’ marital satisfaction.

Conceptual Framework

This study is guided by Bradbury and Fincham’s (1987) contextual model. According to this model, the distal context reflects the cognitive and affective characteristics of each partner, such as shyness, relational expectations, social values, or belief systems (Fletcher & Fitness, 1990; Kurdek, 1991). According to Bradbury and Fincham (1988), distal characteristics are not inherently restricted to the romantic/marital relationship, but can influence relational dynamics (proximal context) and quality (e.g., satisfaction, commitment). Thus, individuals might have cultural values or belief systems which become integrated into their identity (Sue & Sue, 2003) and influence the ways in which they respond to various areas of their lives (e.g., marriage).

In contrast, the proximal context reflects more immediate thoughts, feelings, or actions of relationship partners (Bradbury & Fincham, 1987). This context includes factors such as attributions, verbal communications (e.g., self-disclosure), and nonverbal behaviors (Fletcher & Fitness, 1990; Frisbie, Fitzpatrick, Feng, & Crawford, 2000; Kurdek, 1991). For example, individuals’ attributions during discussions will likely influence the outcomes of the discussions and perceptions of their relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1987, 1988). Distal and proximal factors impact the nature of marriage and evaluations of marital satisfaction (Sowan & Goodwin, 2009).

In this study, the cultural values of individualism and collectivism represent the distal factors. Individualism and collectivism represent two different general orientations toward self/other dynamics. These orientations are often conceptualized at a national level (Triandis, 1995). However, the fact that people are exposed to national values does not necessarily mean that they accept the values. Indeed, prior research has shown that there are individual variations in both the levels of these values (Pilgirm & Rueda-Riedle, 2002) and the relative importance of these values to marital satisfaction (Fitzpatrick, Feng, & Liang, 2006).

The proximal factors in this study are self-disclosure and conflict tactics. These factors were chosen because they represent common forms of communication between spouses. Although the specific ways in which spouses communicate might vary across cultures, cross-national studies have revealed that of revelation of information (self-disclosure) or efforts to address problems (conflict tactics) are quite common (Bell & Bell, 2000). For example, past research has shown that self-disclosure and conflict affected marital satisfaction among Chinese and American spouses (Fitzpatrick, Feng, et al., 2006). Given that prior research has demonstrated relevance to marital satisfaction, it seemed worthwhile to examine the role of such proximal factors among Singaporean husbands and wives.

Marriage in Singapore

Singapore is the site chosen for this study because this city-state strongly endorses collectivist traits, adopts individualist traits of assertiveness and egalitarianism, and continues to grow economically (Quek & Knudson-Martin, 2006). The institution of marriage in Singapore still stands strong. The 2011 census indicates that married-couple households account for 70% of resident households, and there are more couples (66%) where wives equal or exceed their husbands’ educational status. Singapore women are as well educated, if not better educated, as their male counterparts and this presents them with better employment opportunities. Both spouses in 47% of marriages are employed (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2011). The traditional arrangement where only the husband worked is less prevalent (Chew & Liao, 1999). However, Singaporean working mothers are finding it hard to juggle home and work (Cheo & Quah, 2005).

On one hand, the family system in Singapore has been characterized by collectivism. Collectivism is a cultural pattern of “high in conservatism and hierarchy and low in autonomy and mastery” (Schwartz, 1994, p. 111). As collectivists, Singaporeans value their connection to the group over personal assertion (Bresnahan, Ohashi, Liu, Nebashi & Liao, 1999; Triandis, 1995). Thus, they should be likely to avoid conflict tactics that potentially threaten interpersonal harmony and increase the risk of shame (Avruch, 1998; Bresnahan et al., 1999). They assume a nonconfrontational attitude toward conflicts and express concern for face-saving that prevails in marital relationships as well (Jandt & Pedersen, 1996).

On the other hand, Quek and Knudson-Martin (2006) posited that many Singaporean couples are now operating from a more equal relationship. Researchers indicated that Singaporeans are manifesting more independent values (Ministry of Community Development, 2011; Teo, Graham, Yeoh, & Levy, 2003). The nation continues to promote traditional family structure, yet encourages women to be more economically active, and supports equal access to education (Yenn, 2007). In this time of change, the factors that lead to marital satisfaction among Singaporeans are not well understood.

Distal Factors: Collectivism and Individualism

Traditionally, collectivism emphasized group cohesiveness and group privilege. It means that the needs of a group (in this case, the family) supersede those of the individuals. Its emphasis on social obligation places the importance of otherness before self. Collectivistic norms foster harmony, altruism, and consideration of others (Gohm, Oishi, Darlington, & Diener, 1998; Quek & Knudson-Martin, 2006). Thus, collectivistic values can be seen in such practices as arranged marriages (Madathil & Benshoff, 2008) or indirect communication that allows others to save face (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). Singapore is a culture that has tradition of collectivistic values (Foo, Merrick, & Kazantzis, 2006) and it is possible for such values to be enacted in marital dynamics.

In contrast, individualism promotes independence, personal autonomy, and self-actualization (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individualists are encouraged to stress their uniqueness and stand up for their own beliefs. There is an emphasis placed on one’s unique identity and self-oriented behaviors (Pilgirm & Rueda-Riedle, 2002). Individualism promotes directness and openness in communications with others (e.g., Goodwin & Plaza, 2000; Gudykanst et al., 1992). Findings from Western studies have shown that favoring individual autonomy and tolerance for family diversity do not destroy relational well-being or marital satisfaction (Thornton & Young-Demarco, 2001). Marital patterns consistent with individualism have been found in traditionally collectivistic countries, such as China (Pimental, 2000). As societies become more industrialized, it is not uncommon for people to show signs of varying degrees of both collectivistic and individualistic traits (Bresnahan et al., 1999).

Proximal Factors: Self-Disclosure and Conflict Tactics

Self-disclosure refers to the verbal communication of personal information to others (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Self-disclosure is described as the core of interpersonal communication and important to relationship outcomes (Bradford, Feeney, & Campbell, 2002). Couples can utilize self-disclosure as a means to develop intimacy, reduce emotional distance, and promote marital satisfaction (Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991). In the West, achieving closeness or intimacy with a spouse is an important goal for family therapy (Gilliard, Blanton, & Bartley, 2007), and self-disclosure can be one means to achieve such closeness. In addition, self-disclosure has been associated with outcomes such as decreased depression (Waring, Chamberlaine, Carver, Stalker, & Schaefer, 1995).

Conflict tactics represent the communication behaviors that individuals use to address and/or resolve disagreements (Green, 2008). Rusbult, Johnson, and Morrow (1986) identified four conflict tactics that are used in close relationships: exit, loyalty, neglect, and voice. The present study focuses on exit and loyalty conflict tactics. Exit conflict tactic is an active strategy in which individuals engage in destructive (e.g., threatening the partner) or disruptive (e.g., leaving the home without notice) behaviors (Gaines et al., 1997). These tactics are negatively valenced, as they are disrespectful toward the partner, and can exacerbate unpleasant interactions between spouses (Kilpatrick, Bissonnette, & Rusbult, 2002).

In contrast, loyalty conflict tactic is an indirect strategy in which individuals engage in optimistic or faithful (e.g., prayer) behaviors (Gaines et al., 1997). Loyalty is represented in passivity, such as simply hoping or waiting for conditions to improve (and conflicts to resolve themselves). Yet, loyalty tactics have been characterized as positively valenced because they reflect a commitment to the relationship during problematic or uncomfortable periods (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). Prior research has shown that (a) the conflict tactics are distinct from each other, (b) general tendencies (e.g., to prefer exit or loyalty conflict tactics) are predictive of actual tactics used during specific disagreements, and (c) individuals tailor tactics to particular relationships (Overall & Sibley, 2010). In this way, conflict tactics are reflective of a specific behavior rather than a personality trait (Gaines et al., 1997). Thus, conflict tactics are more reflective of the proximal context rather than the distal context.

Self-disclosure and conflict tactics matter because they are directly relevant to relationship quality and stability. Self-disclosure is the primary process by which partners share information with each other. It is foundational to the formation of romantic relationships and maintenance of satisfying marriages (Osarugue, 2008). Similarly, conflict tactics are quite important to relationship quality. Indeed, Segrin, Hanzal, and Domschke (2009) noted that the ways in which spouses engage in conflict is “highly consequential to marital success” (p. 207). Spouses who engage in prosocial conflict tactics (e.g., negotiation, active listening) are able to solve problems and build closer marital bonds (Meunier & Baker, 2012). In contrast, spouse who engage in negative conflict tactics (e.g., withdrawal, contempt) are less likely to be satisfied with their marriages (Hanzal & Segrin, 2009) and at greater risk for divorce (Markman, Rhoades, Scott, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010).

Given the importance of self-disclosure and conflict tactics, these proximal factors seem worthy of empirical and clinical attention. It seems reasonable to expect that if one can identify the factors that detract or contribute to marital satisfaction, then one can develop more effective therapeutic techniques for addressing marital distress (e.g., Green, 2008). Much of the prior research on self-disclosure and conflict tactics has utilized North American samples (e.g., Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991). Little is known about the communication patterns among Singaporean husbands and wives.

East Asians’ work has identified inconsistent patterns to date. For example, Asian cultures socialize individuals to be more restrained, more reserved in their interactions, and to frown upon verbal expression (Hocker & Wilmot, 1995), which would suggest low self-disclosure. However, some research has indicated that individuals from Asian cultures might engage in self-disclosure in the privacy of intimate relationships. For example, Kito (2005) reported that Japanese students disclosed more to their romantic partners than their friends. Quek and Knudson-Martin (2006) also reported that there was significant self-disclosure about important topics among Singaporean spouses. Similarly, past research has revealed linkages between self-disclosure and marital satisfaction for Chinese spouses (Fitzpatrick, Liang et. al, 2006).

Asian cultures traditionally promote nonconfrontational communication (Hocker & Wilmot, 1995), which would be consistent with loyalty conflict tactics. However, conflict is influenced by the relationships and culture in which it occurs (Honeycutt, Woods, & Fontenot, 1993; Jandt & Perdersen, 1996). For example, Avruch (1998) remarked that Chinese individuals use more passive tactics in handling conflict. In reference to conflict resolution or problem solving, Singaporeans are compliant in accommodating friend’s request (Bresnahan et al., 1999), which might be consistent with indirect tactics.

There have been some observational studies of communication in Singapore. However, such research has focused typically on hypothetical scenarios (Elfenbein, Foo, Boldry, & Tan, 2006) or stranger situations (Sriram, 2002). These studies enhance a general understanding of communication in a cultural context, but fail to capture the unique features of spousal communication. Thus, the present study extends prior work by assessing how wives and husbands’ specific conflict tactics (exit and loyalty) and self-disclosure affected marital quality.

The Present Study

The purpose of this study was to explore associations among distal factors (collectivism, individualism), proximal factors (self-disclosure, conflict tactics), and marital satisfaction. Given inconsistent findings from past Asian research, specific hypotheses do not seem warranted. Rather, this study addressed the following question: To what extent do the distal and proximal factors contribute to marital satisfaction for Singaporean husbands and wives?

Method

Recruitment and Procedure

In order to recruit respondents, a snowball sampling technique was used. This sampling technique is warranted when researchers are seeking to learn about understudied or underrepresented groups. Given that there has been little research on Singaporean spouses, this technique seemed appropriate to the present study. Recruiters were given instructions (e.g., recruitment script, information about sample criteria). Recruiters contacted individuals who met the criteria and explained the study to them. If individuals agreed to participate, then two research packets (one for each spouse) was personally delivered to the individuals. The individuals were asked to give one of the two packets to their spouses.

Each packet contained a cover letter, informed consent form, questionnaire, and return mail envelope. Three hundred packets were distributed and 182 were returned. However, 22 returned questionnaires were completed by only one spouse in a couple. These questionnaires were excluded from this study. Thus, the final sample was 160 respondents (80 couples).

Sample

The mean age was 38.8 years for wives and 41.1 years for husbands. The mean length of marriage was 11.0 years. All respondents had children (M = 1.15 children). In reference to ethnicity, 89% were Chinese, 3% were Indians, 6% were Malays, and 2% were members of other ethnic groups. Most respondents (85% husbands, 78% wives) had college degrees.

Measures

Distal factors: collectivism and individualism

Collectivism and individualism were measured by items selected from Schwartz’s (1992) Value scale. Three collectivism domains (security, conformity, and tradition) were used to generate a single collectivism scale (n = 19 items). For each item (e.g., honoring parents and elders), respondents indicated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not important, 7 = of supreme importance) the extent to which the value was a guiding principle in their lives. This scale was internally consistent (r = .88 for husbands; r = .87 for wives). Similarly, five individualism domains (power, hedonism, achievement, stimulation, and self-direction) were used to generate an individualism scale (n = 22 items). Respondents indicated the value of each item (e.g., independence) in guiding their lives. The Cronbach’s α for the individualism scale were the same for husbands and wives (r = .89).

Proximal factor: self-disclosure

Self-disclosure was measured with an abbreviated version of Jourard and Lasakow’s (1958) Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (SDQ). The original SDQ contained 60 items that measured six topics on which individuals could share personal information (attitudes, body, money, personality, tastes, work). Fitzpatrick, Liang, et al. (2006) generated a shortened (18 items to 3 items/topic) version of the SDQ, which was used in this study with Singaporean respondents. For each item, respondents indicated the extent (1 = told nothing, 7 = told full detail) to which they had disclosed to their spouses. The Cronbach’s α for the husbands and wives in this study were .94 and .95, respectively.

Proximal factor: conflict tactics

Tactics were measured with the subscales of Rusbult et al.’s (1986) conflict scale. Seven items assessed exit conflict tactics (e.g., I take action to end the relationship) and 7 items comprised the loyalty conflict tactic subscale (e.g., I wait awhile before saying anything to see if things will improve on their own). For each item, respondents indicated on a 7-point Likert-type scale how frequently they engaged in the conflict tactic during disagreements. Cronbach’s α indicated internal consistency (exit-husbands = .68; exit-wives = .78; loyalty-husbands = .78; loyalty-wives = .71).

Outcome factor: marital satisfaction

Satisfaction was assessed by Schumm et al.’s (1986) Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale (KMSS). The KMSS is comprised of 3 items (e.g., How satisfied are you with your marriage?). For each item, respondents indicated their degree of satisfaction (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 7 = extremely satisfied). In this study, Cronbach’s α were quite high (r = .96 for Singaporean husbands, r = .93 for Singaporean wives).

Results

This study focused on the following research question: To what extent do the distal and proximal factors contribute to marital satisfaction for Singaporean husbands and wives? In order to address this question, a series of hierarchical stepwise regressions were conducted. Given that differences in satisfaction might be due to variations in age or marital length, these two factors were entered as control variables in the first step of each regression. Two types of regressions were conducted. To assess self-associations, (e.g., whether husbands’ distal and proximal factors were associated with husbands’ satisfaction), two-step regressions were conducted. More specifically, the control variables were entered in the first step and distal/proximal factors were entered in the second step. To assess spousal associations (e.g., whether husbands’ distal and proximal factors were associated with wives’ satisfaction), three-step regressions were conducted (control variables, self-factors, and spousal factors).

Wives’ Marital Satisfaction

The control variables (age, marital length) accounted for 9% (R ² adjusted = .05, p < .001) of variance in wives’ marital satisfaction (Table 1). In the second step, women’s distal and proximal factors accounted for an additional 40% (p < .001) of the variance. This finding suggested that wives’ collectivism, individualism, self-disclosure, and conflict tactics affected their evaluations of marital quality. When spousal factors were entered into the third step of the regression equation (Table 1), husbands’ proximal and distal factors accounted for an additional 19% (p < .001) of the variance in their marital satisfaction. Husbands’ characteristics had unique associations to wives’ satisfaction. In the final equation, the β values indicated that wives’ self-disclosure and wives’ exit conflict tactics were unique predictors of wives’ marital satisfaction.

Table 1.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Wives Variables Predicting Marital Satisfaction of Singaporean Wives.

Wives’ Variables Predicting Wives Satisfaction^a,b
Model	R	R ²	Adjusted R ²	R ² Change	F Change	β	t	F	Significance
1	.300	.090	.052	.090	2.44	7.613	11.153	2.440	.000
2	.706	.499	.440	.409	11.246	6.073	5.568	8.577	.000
Husbands’ variables predicting wives satisfaction^c
1	.445	.198	.144	.198	3.614	5.164	4.237	3.614	.000

Note. N = 80.

^aPredictors: (constant), length of marriage, age-spouse, age-own.

^bPredictors: (constant), length of marriage, age-spouse, age-own, wife loyalty, wife exit, wife self-disclosure, wife individualism, wife collectivism.

^cPredictors: (constant), husband loyalty, husband individualism, husband disclosure, husband exit, husband collectivism.

Husbands’ Marital Satisfaction

In the first step (Table 2), the control variables did not account for significant variance in husbands’ satisfaction (R ² = .04, R ² adjusted = .00, p > .05). In the second step, men’s distal and proximal factors accounted for an additional 37% (p < .001) of the variance. When spousal factors were entered in the third step (Table 2), wives’ proximal and distal factors accounted for an additional 16% (p < .001) of husbands’ satisfaction variance. Wives’ characteristics contributed to husbands’ satisfaction in a manner that was distinct from husbands’ own distal and proximal factors. In the final equation, the β values indicated that husbands’ loyalty tactics, self-disclosure and exit conflict tactics, and wives’ self-disclosure were unique predictors of husbands’ marital satisfaction.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Husbands Variables Predicting Marital Satisfaction of Singaporean Husbands.

Husbands’ Variables Predicting Husbands’ Satisfaction^a,b
Model	R	R²	Adjusted R²	R² Change	F Change	Beta	t	F	Significance
1	.203	.041	.002	.041	1.040	6.958	9.145	1.040	.380
2	.637	.406	.336	.365	8.365	2.257	1.854	5.815	.000
Wives’ variables predicting husbands’ satisfaction^c
1	.404	.163	.105	.163	2.801	4.817	3.457	2.801	.001

Note. N = 80.

^aPredictors: (constant), length of marriage, age-spouse, age-own.

^bPredictors: (constant), length of marriage, age-spouse, age-own, husband loyalty, husband exit, husband self-disclosure, husband individualism, husband collectivism.

^cPredictors: (constant), wife loyalty, wife individualism, wife self-disclosure, wife exit, wife collectivism.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between marital satisfaction and cultural dimensions of collectivism–individualism, self-disclosure, and conflict tactics among Singaporean wives and husbands. Our findings provided important insight into various significant predictors that influence couples’ satisfaction and have implications for marital counseling and education. In reference to cultural values, Singaporean wives valued collectivism. This is consistent with previous research that indicated that Asian women may be more egalitarian at work, but express more collectivist traits in social domains (such as marriage; Shek, 2006). Even though Singapore has made progress in providing equal opportunity for women, its government consistently stressed that wives’ primary responsibilities within the family should not be neglected, thus reinforcing a collectivist-gendered mindset (Lazar, 2001). Singaporean husbands’ marital satisfaction was positively associated with collectivist values. Quek’s (2009) findings indicated that some collectivist values (i.e., we-consciousness and doing family) facilitated marital equality, which in turn contributed to relationship satisfaction.

The results revealed that the cultural value of collectivism was associated with loyalty conflict tactics for Singaporean husbands and wives. This finding was consistent with the other-oriented emphasis and face-saving practices in Asian family cultures (Ow & Katz, 1999). Loyalty, a passive but constructive conflict tactic, fits the collectivist paradigm of restrained emotionality for the sake of social harmony. Collectivism is relevant to a certain range of communication behaviors, including loyalty (Quek & Knudson-Martin, 2008).

In contrast to loyalty, collectivism was unrelated to self-disclosure and exit conflict tactics. However, the findings do not suggest that exit conflict tactics and self-disclosure are wholly unimportant. Rather, both communication behaviors are strong predictors of Singaporean couples’ marital satisfaction. In fact, the use exit conflict tactics by both spouses decreased their marital satisfaction. Spouses who are less satisfied with their marriages might feel less restrained during conflict or invested in positive outcomes. Thus, they might engage in more aversive conflict tactics. Consistent with Quek and Knudson-Martin’s (2006) report on Singapore marriages, wives commonly engage in direct communication to resolve problems. Although some researchers have examined a singular form of conflict resolution (Hwang, Chun, Kurasaki, Mak, & Takeuchi, 2000), our findings are more consistent with the argument that conflict tactics are multidimensional and have differential effects (e.g., Gottman, 1999).

Self-disclosure had a significant positive contribution on wives’ and husbands’ satisfaction. The linkage of self-disclosure to satisfaction is consistent with research on Japanese romances (Kito, 2005) and American marriages (Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005). While self-disclosure in nonintimate relationship may conflict with the Asian values of restraining feelings and shame avoidance (Sue & Sue, 2003), self-disclosure between Asian marital partners is important for relational enhancement. It is possible that Singaporean wives and husbands utilize self-disclosure as a means to build closeness with their partners (Derlega et al., 1993). Thus, they become more satisfied as they engage in more self-disclosure. In addition, Yenn (2007) noted that as the Singaporean family claims the necessity of “modern” adaptations to compete globally, wives and husbands are experiencing a transitional period in cultural values that might require more direct negotiation of marital roles. Thus, the linkage between self-disclosure and satisfaction might (in part) reflect this negotiation process.

Overall, the findings are consistent with cross-national research (Fitzpatrick, Liang et al., 2006). Certainly, Singaporean culture has some unique elements that are reflected in marital relations, such as the distinct importance of self-disclosure. However, it is possible (in several countries) that the private nature of marriage allows spouses to interact in ways that are less tied to broad cultural norms and more tied to satisfying interactions. If this premise is correct, then it would suggest that marriage might be more similar than different in some countries. This premise fits research on “universal” patterns of attraction (Buss, 1989).

Implications for Practice

Results of this study have important clinical implications for marital counseling as they clearly demonstrate that specific relational values such as self-disclosure, exit and loyalty conflict tactics are related to marital satisfaction. In addition to the traditional professional training mostly with a Western orientation, focusing on cultural attitudes and practices beyond one’s personal experiences (Foo et al., 2006; Lee, 2002) may increase therapists’ understanding of couple relationship in diverse cultural background. This can lead to more effective interventions in marital therapy. The cultural context and communication subtleties of Singaporeans might need particular sensitivity for accurate detection (Elfenbein et al., 2006). Similar to Ma’s (2000) argument about Chinese families, therapists should also learn about the diversity within Singaporean culture. Cross-cultural competence will enhance the therapeutic experience for both clinicians (Goh, 2005) and couples (La Taillade, 2006).

Furthermore, the findings highlighted that marital satisfaction linkages with self-disclosure, conflict tactics, and culture might be more complex than presumed previously. Exploring these various aspects may help therapists to assess the marital communication strategies (and their meaning) to effectively tailor interventions in a culturally responsive manner. Contemporary Singaporean couples are exhibiting egalitarian values and are willing to engage in open dialogue (Quek, 2009; Quek & Knudson-Martin, 2006). Therefore, increasing self-disclosure (via therapy) will impact their relationship positively. More specifically, it is beneficial for therapists to help Singaporeans to focus on sharing both thoughts and feelings. Additionally, therapists could provide communication skills training in sharing what is personal and vulnerable in an effective way (Epstein & Baucom, 2008). Culturally attentive therapist must attend both to the communication process and the important themes in the couple’s self-disclosure simultaneously.

The results suggested that exit conflict tactics were negatively related to marital satisfaction. The frequent use of aversive conflict tactics fosters the likelihood of divorce (Gottman, 1994). Therefore, therapists must help couples monitor the quality of couples’ conflict management. For example, therapists should confront the use of exit conflict tactics in sessions. In addition, therapists can train couples to replace exit tactics with culturally relevant rituals of connection that make Singaporean couples feel bonded. Such honoring rituals of connection go well with Singaporean couples’ engagement in loyalty conflict tactics for the sake of social harmony.

Future research on Singaporean marriages can be improved in several ways. For example, data can be collected from husbands, wives, and close network members (e.g., in-laws) for multiple perspectives. Second, data can be gathered via qualitative methods (e.g., interviews) to learn about spouses’ perceptions of their marital communication processes. Third, data can be gathered longitudinally to track changes in marital communication/quality over the years.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Avruch

(1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Bell

(2000). Japanese and U.S. marriage experiences: Traditional and nontraditional perceptions of family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31, 309–319.

Bradford

Feeney

Campbell

(2002). Links between attachment orientations and dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and partner effects. Personal Relationships, 9, 491–506.

Bradbury

Fincham

(1987). Affect and cognition in close relationships: Toward an integrative model. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 59–67.

Bradbury

Fincham

(1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 713–721.

Bresnahan

Ohashi

Liu

Nebashi

Liao

(1999). A comparison of response styles in Singapore and Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Culture Psychology, 30, 342–358.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.

Cheo

Quah

(2005). Mothers, maids and tutors: An empirical evaluation of their effect on children’s academic grades in Singapore. Education Economics, 13, 269–285.

Chew

Liao

(1999). Family structures on income and career satisfaction of managers in Singapore. Journal of Management Development, 18, 464–476.

10.

Cordova

J. V.

Gee

C. B.

Warren

L. Z.

(2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 24, 218–235.

11.

Derlega

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

(1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

12.

Elfenbein

Foo

Boldry

Tan

(2006). Dyadic effects in nonverbal communication: A variance partitioning analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 20, 149–159.

13.

Epstein

Baucom

(2008). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

14.

Finkel

Rusbult

Kumashiro

Hannon

(2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 956–974.

15.

Fitzpatrick

Feng

Liang

(2006). Cultural context of spousal communication in China and USA. Invited Symposium Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Rethymnon, Greece.

16.

Fitzpatrick

Liang

Feng

Crawford

Sorell

Morgan-Fleming

(2006). Social values and self-disclosure: A comparison of Chinese native, Chinese resident (in U.S.) and North American spouses. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37, 113–127.

17.

Fletcher

Fitness

(1990). Concurrent social cognition in the close relationship interaction: The role of proximal and distal variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 464–474.

18.

Foo

Merrick

Kazantzis

(2006). Counseling/psychotherapy with Chinese Singaporean clients. Asian Journal of Counseling, 13, 271–293.

19.

Frisbie

Fitzpatrick

Feng

Crawford

(2000). Women’s personality traits, interpersonal competence and affection for dating partners. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 28, 585–594.

20.

Gaines

Reis

Summers

Rusbult

Cox

Wexler

… Kurland

(1997). Impact of attachment style on reactions to accommodating dilemmas in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 93–113.

21.

Gilliard

Blanton

Bartley

(2007). Gender and generation: The relative influence of intimacy and individuation with mother and with father for spousal intimacy and individuation among dual-earner husbands and wives. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 350–358.

22.

Goh

(2005). Cultural competence and master therapists: An inextricable relationship. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 71–81.

23.

Gohm

Oishi

Darlington

Diener

(1998). Culture, parental conflict, parental marital status, and the subjective well-being of young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 319–334.

24.

Goodwin

Plaza

(2000). Perceived and received social support in two cultures: Collectivism and support among British and Spanish students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 282–291.

25.

Gottman

(1994). Why marriages succeed or fail . . . and how you can make yours last. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

26.

Gottman

(1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. New York, NY: Norton.

27.

Green

(2008). Individuals in conflict: An internal family systems approach. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 125–131.

28.

Gudykanst

Gao

Schmidt

Nishida

Bond

Wang

Barraclough

. (1992). The influence of individualism-collectivism, self-monitoring and predicted-outcome value on communication in in-group and outgroup relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 196–213.

29.

Hanzal

Segrin

(2009). The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the relationship between enduring vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 150–169.

30.

Hocker

Wilmot

(1995). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

31.

Honeycutt

Woods

Fontenot

(1993). The endorsement of communication conflict rules as a function of engagement, marriage, and marital ideology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 285–304.

32.

Hwang

Chun

Kurasaki

Mak

Takeuchi

(2000). Factor validity of scores on a social support and conflict measure among Chinese Americans. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 808–816.

33.

Jandt

E. F.

Pedersen

B. P.

(1996). Constructive conflict management Asia-Pacific cases. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

34.

Jourard

Lasakow

(1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 91–98.

35.

Kamo

(1990). Husbands and wives living in nuclear and stem family households in Japan. Sociological Perspectives, 33, 397–417.

36.

Kilpatrick

Bissonnette

Rusbult

(2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behaviors among newlywed couples. Personal Relationships, 9, 369–393.

37.

Kito

(2005). Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and Japanese college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 127–140.

38.

Kurdek

(1991). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: Integration of contextual, investment, and problem-solving models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 910–922.

39.

La Taillade

J. J.

(2006). Considerations for treatment of African American couple relationships. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 341–358.

40.

Lazar

(2001). For the good of the nation: ‘Strategic egalitarianism’ in the Singapore context. Nations and Nationalism, 7, 59–74.

41.

Lee

(2002). One therapist, four cultures: Working with families in Greater China. Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 258–275.

42.

(2000). Treatment expectations and treatment experience of Chinese families towards family therapy. The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice, 22, 296–307.

43.

Madathil

Benshoff

(2008). Importance of marital characteristics and marital satisfaction: A comparison of Asian Indians in arranged marriages and Americans in marriages of choice. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 222–230.

44.

Markman

Rhoades

Scott

Ragan

Whitton

(2010). The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 910–922.

45.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotions, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

46.

Meunier

Baker

(2012). Positive couple relationships: The evidence for long-lasting relationship satisfaction and happiness. In Roffey

(Ed.), Positive relationships: Evidence-based practice across the world (pp. 73–89). New York, NY: Springer.

47.

Ministry of Community Development, Youth, and Sports. (2011). State of the Family Report 2011. Retrieved September 21, 2012, from http://www.nfc.org.sg/pdf/StateoftheFamilyinSingapore.pdf

48.

Orgill

Heaton

T. B.

(2005). Women’s status and marital satisfaction in Bolivia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 23–40.

49.

Osarugue

(2008). Communication: A vital strategy for managing marital problems. Journal of Counseling, 1, 114–126.

50.

Overall

Sibley

(2010). Convergent and discriminant validity of the accommodation scale: Evidence from three diary studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 299–304.

51.

Katz

(1999). Family secrets and the disclosure of distressful information in Chinese families. Families in Society, 80, 620–628.

52.

Pilgirm

Rueda-Riedle

(2002). The importance of social context in cross-cultural comparisons: First graders in Colombia and the United States. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 283–295.

53.

Pimental

(2000). Just how do I love thee? Marital relations in urban China. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 32–47.

54.

Quek

(2009). “We” consciousness: Creating equality in collectivist culture. In Knudson-Martin

& Mahoney (Eds.), Couples, gender and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 193–214). New York, NY: Springer.

55.

Quek

Knudson-Martin

(2006). A push toward equality: Processes among dual-career newlywed couples in a collectivistic culture. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 56–69.

56.

Quek

Knudson-Martin

(2008). Reshaping marital power: How dual-career newlywed couples create equality in Singapore. Journal of Social and Interpersonal Relations, 25, 513–534.

57.

Quek

Storm

(2012). Chinese values in supervisory discourse: Implications for culturally sensitive practices. Contemporary Family Therapy, 34, 44–56.

58.

Rosenfeld

Bowen

(1991). Marital disclosure and marital satisfaction: Direct-effect vs. indirect-effect models. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 69–84.

59.

Rusbult

Johnson

Morrow

(1986). Impact of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 744–753.

60.

Schumm

Paff-Bergen

Hatch

Obiorah

Copeland

Meens

Bugaighis

(1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381–387.

61.

Schwartz

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–63). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

62.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim

Triandis

H. C.

Kagiscibasi

Choi

S. C.

Yoon

(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

63.

Segrin

Hanzal

Domschke

(2009). Accuracy and bias in newlywed couples’ perceptions of conflict styles and the association with marital satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 76, 207–233.

64.

Seto

Cavallaro

(2007). Cross-national couples in the Mainland United States. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 258–264.

65.

Shek

Y. L.

(2006). Asian American masculinity. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 379–391.

66.

Singapore Department of Statistics. (2011). Household size and structure. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2010sr2/findings.pdf

67.

Sowan

Goodwin

(2009). Experiencing marital satisfaction across three cultures: A qualitative study. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 26, 1011–1028.

68.

Sriram

N. N.

(2002). The role of gender, ethnicity, and age in intergroup behavior in a naturalistic setting. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 251.

69.

Steil

(1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

70.

Sue

(2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley.

71.

Sullivan

Cottone

(2006). Culturally based couple therapy and intercultural relationships. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14, 221–224.

72.

Teo

Graham

Yeoh

Levy

(2003). Values, change and inter-generational ties between two generations of women in Singapore. Ageing & Society 23, 327–347.

73.

Thornton

Young-DeMarco

(2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63, 1009.

74.

Ting-Toomey

Chung

L. C.

(2005). Understanding intercultural communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

75.

Triandis

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.

76.

Waring

Chamberlaine

Carver

Stalker

Schaefer

(1995). A pilot study of marital therapy as a treatment for depression. American Journal of Family Therapy, 23, 3–10.

77.

Yarhouse

Nowacki

(2007). The many meanings of marriage: Divergent perspectives seeking common ground. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 222–230.

78.

Yenn

T. Y.

(2007). Inequality for the greater good: Gendered state rule in Singapore. Critical Asian Studies, 39, 423–445.