本研究之目的是探究在台灣/華人社會文化的變遷脈絡下，兩性伴侶於情感關係中，既要追求自我需要的滿足，同時又要顧及伴侶關係之維繫需要的滿足，而這兩方面需要的滿足產生衝突時，個人如何在其中達成衝突協調。本研究之研究問題分別為：1.在伴侶諮商中，兩性伴侶的情感關係及自我的衝突與協調之主要議題為何？2.兩性伴侶於其情感關係衝突中，所呈現出來的互動模式與互動關係為何？3.在伴侶諮商中，促進兩性伴侶情感關係衝突協調組成成分為何？以及4.在伴侶諮商中，兩性伴侶情感關係衝突協調的結果為何？
本研究之研究參與者為兩對年約三十歲、未婚，且在其情感關係中正有關係衝突或協調困擾之兩性伴侶，他們分別參與在一個混合著個別諮商與伴侶諮商的諮商歷程中。本研究取得兩對伴侶於混合諮商歷程中，共十一次之伴侶諮商晤談資料，其中一對為六次，而另一對則有五次晤談資料。研究者採用質的研究方法，參考紮根理論之開放編碼與主軸編碼程序，來做為資料分析之步驟。
綜合資料分析結果，本研究從兩對伴侶於伴侶諮商晤談的資料中，抽取出兩性伴侶情感關係衝突協調之核心主題與次核心主題，其中一對伴侶有三個核心主題，另一對伴侶有一個核心主題，而這四個核心主題分別還包括了以下五個次核心主題：
1.情感關係衝突：共分為兩類，一類著重在兩性伴侶於情感關係中，關係互動與關係期待的衝突問題上，另一類則為兩性伴侶在其原生家庭關係與兩性伴侶情感關係中，有著優先順序上的衝突問題。
2.情感關係中的自我衝突：共有五類，分別為「直接或抑制表達自我的衝突」、「關注自我或關注對方的衝突」、「主導或尊重對方的衝突」、「結束或繼續關係的衝突」，與「被依附需要與不被依附需要的衝突」。
3.互動模式與互動關係：互動模式上包含有「情緒相互牽連」、「一方主動直接溝通一方逃避隱藏」、「一方承接情緒一方宣洩情緒」、「一方生氣指責一方以不變應萬變」，與「一方積極主導一方選擇性配合」之互動模式；互動關係上包含有「順從配合卻有情緒」、「抑制自我需要表達」、「顧慮配合卻有情緒」、「各自堅持無法妥協」，與「無法完全承諾」之互動關係。
4.伴侶諮商中促進情感關係衝突協調組成成分：共有九類，分別為「有改變的意願與動機」、「清楚表達自己的需要」、「有充分的表達與溝通」、「增進對自我與關係的覺察」、「感受到彼此的關心與善意」、「願意表達出對彼此的肯定與感謝」、「有信心處理關係的問題」、「有照顧彼此需要的意願與行動」，與「期待建立新的溝通模式」。
5.情感關係衝突協調的結果：兩對伴侶透過諮商中的情感關係衝突協調，其中一對伴侶有效改善與處理其情感關係衝突，而獲得較佳之情感關係衝突協調的結果，並增進彼此情感的連結與關係的親密，另一對伴侶則是仍然在其情感關係衝突上各自堅持，而無法獲得彼此都滿意之情感關係衝突協調的結果。
研究者根據研究結果，與相關的研究文獻進行討論，另外再從兩性伴侶情感關係衝突協調之性別觀點，以及從諮商歷程中促進兩性伴侶情感關係衝突協調之觀點一一探討。文末說明本研究之研究限制，並根據研究發現，針對兩性伴侶情感關係的衝突與協調、兩性伴侶情感關係衝突協調之諮商實務工作，與未來之相關研究提出建議。

The purpose of the current research is to examine how individuals coordinates needs between individual satisfaction and maintaining relationship in couple relationship under the Taiwan/Chinese cultural transition when conflicts of these two types of need exist. The research questions were: 1) what are the major issues of the relationship which causes conflict within self and the action to coordinate in couple counseling? 2) what are the interaction pattern and interaction relation between the couple in conflict? 3) in couple counseling, what components facilitate the couples to coordinate in their relationship? And, 4) in couple counseling, what is the result of conflict-coordinating in these conflicts?
The participants of this study were two couples around 30 years of age, unmarried, and were having conflicts or difficulty in coordinating individual and relational needs. Each couple was involved in the counseling sessions which combined individual and couple counseling. This research obtained a total of eleven tape-recorded sessions in couple counseling of the participants. The first pair of couple had six sessions while the other couple had five sessions. A qualitative approach using reference to open coding and selective coding in Grounded Theory was adapted to analyze the data. Following the data analysis, the researcher wrote up the relational issues of these two couples based on the results of data analysis.
Integrating the results form data analysis, primary and secondary core relational issues of coordinating in conflicts were extracted from the studied two couples. The first one couples had three core issues and the second couple had one. These four core issues consist of the follow five sub-categories of core issues. The contents of these sub-categories are articulated as follows:
1. Conflicts in the relationship: this theme consist of two categories: the first one emphasizes on the problem of interaction and expectation in the relationship and the second one focus on conflict of different priority between family of original and the couple relationship.
2. inner conflict within self: five categories were developed in this category including “conflict in expressing self directly or suppressing”, “conflict between in caring for self versus the other”, “conflict between being directive and being respectful”, “conflict in either terminate or retain the relationship”, and “conflict in the whether or not to be attached”.
3. pattern and interaction in relation: this issue comprises of five categories including “emotional ties”, “one initiate direct communication, the other is avoidant”, “one receive emotions, the other wants catharsis”, “one angrily criticize, the other remains calm”, and “one is actively directive, the other cooperate selectively”; interaction relation include “obedient cooperation with emotions”, “suppress the need to express self”, “apprehend cooperation with emotions”, and “cannot make promises”.
4. components that facilitate the couple to coordinate in the relationship: nine categories were developed including “motivation and willingness to change”, “clearly expression of one’s own needs”, “sufficient communication”, “enhancing awareness of self and the relationship”, “feeling each other’s care and goodwill”, “willing to express affirmation and appreciation”, “having confidence in dealing with problems in the relationship”, “willingness and action to take care of each other’s needs”, and “expectation to establish new communication patterns”.
5. results of conflict-coordinating in the relationship: both couples tried to coordinate in their relational dilemma through counseling; one couple was effective in improving their relationship, dealing with conflicts, gained better results, and increased the relationship ties and intimacy. However, the other couple was insistent in their conflicts, hence was not able to obtain a satisfactory conflict- coordinating result for both partners.
Comparison of the findings in the current research with previous research was made based on the research result with special focuses on perspectives from gender difference and conflict-coordinating in couple counseling. At the end of the thesis, the research limitations, recommendation for counseling and future research with regard to relationship conflicts and coordinates were highlighted

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王沂釗(2000)。婚姻衝突的敘說性研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導系，博士論文。未出版，彰化市。
何友暉、陳淑娟、趙志裕(1991)。關係取向：為中國社會心理方法論求答案。楊國樞、黃光國主編，中國人的心理與行為 (頁49-66)。台北：桂冠。
利翠珊(1995)。夫妻互動歷程之探討：以台北地區年輕夫妻為例的一項初探性研究。本土心理學，4，260-321。
利翠珊(1997)。婚姻中親密關係的形成與發展。中華心理衛生學刊，10，(4)，101-128。
利翠珊(1999)。婚姻親密情感的內涵與測量。中華心理衛生學刊，12，(4)，29-51。
吳芝儀(1999)。諮商研究的方法與現況。載於中正大學教育學研究所主編。教育學研究方法論。高雄：麗文。
吳嘉瑜(2004)。子代夫妻對偶代間關係經驗：「他」的矛盾？「她」的矛盾？中華輔導學報，15，123-149。
李亦園(1996)。傳統中國價值觀與華人健康行為特性。曾文星主編，華人的心理與治療(頁29-52)。台北：桂冠。
李良哲(1997)。婚姻衝突因應行為歷程模式之驗證研究。國立政治大學學報，74，53-94。未出版，台北市。
洪雅真(2000)。夫妻性別角色、權利與衝突之研究。國立嘉義大學家庭教育研究所，碩士論文。未出版，嘉義市。
徐玉青、卓紋君(2003)。訂婚情侶衝突與因應歷程之分析。諮商輔導文粹，8，61-90。
徐宗國(1996)。紮根理論研究法：淵源、原則、技術。載於胡幼慧編，質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例 (頁47-74) 。台北：巨流。
恩愛過一生：幸福婚姻七守則(諶悠文譯)。台北：天下遠見。(原作1999年出版)
張思嘉(2001)。婚姻早期的適應過程：新婚夫妻之質性研究。本土心理學，16，91-133。
梁淑娟(2004)。婚姻諮商改變歷程研究：案家夫妻之觀點。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系所，博士論文。未出版，彰化市。
梁翠真(2005)。高學歷職業婦女新婚階段之婚姻調適研究。國立台中教育大學諮商與教育心理研究所，碩士論文。未出版，台中市。
許潔雯(2002)。夫妻權力分析：以夫妻衝突處理模式與家庭決策模式為例。國立台北大學社會學研究所，碩士論文。未出版，台北市。
陳秉華(2001)。華人「人我關係協調」之諮商工作架構。測驗與輔導，167，3511-3515。
陳秉華(2004)。諮商中的人我關係協調歷程初探—個案研究。發表於第七屆華人心理與行為科技學術研討會。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心、佛光人文社會學院心理學系、台灣大學華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫、及台灣大學心理學系共同主辦。2004.10.24。台北：中央研究院。
陳靜宜(2001)。新婚調適歷程研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所，碩士論文。未出版，高雄市。
黃光國(2005)。儒家關係主義：文化反思與典範重建。台北：臺大。
黃宗堅、周玉慧、張思嘉(2000)。家庭系統的測量與類型：以青少年原生家庭為例之初探。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告，（報告編號：NSC89-2413-H032-001）。
黃宗堅、葉光輝、謝雨生(2004)。夫妻關係中權力與情感的運作模式：以衝突因應策略為例。本土心理學研究，21，3-48。
黃囇莉(2006)。人際和諧與衝突－本土化的理論與研究。台北：揚智。
黃囇莉、許詩淇(2006)。虛虛實實之間：婆媳關係的和諧化歷程與轉化機制。本土心理學研究，25，3-45。
楊國樞(1992)。中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點。載於中央研究院民族學研究所主編，中國人的心理與行為科學研討會論文集。台北：中央研究院民族學研究所。
楊國樞(1997)。父子軸家庭與夫妻軸家庭的運作特徵與歷程：夫妻關係。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告，（報告編號：NSC85-2417-H-002-028-G6）。
楊國樞(2002)。傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否同時並存？載於楊國樞主編，華人心理的本土化研究 (頁377-146)。台北：桂冠。
楊雅惠(1995)。婚姻衝突現象與因應歷程之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所，碩士論文。未出版，台北市。
葉光輝、黃宗堅、邱雅沂(2006)。現代華人的家庭文化特徵：以台灣北部地區若干家庭的探討為例。本土心理學研究，25，141-196。
劉惠琴(1999a)。女性主義觀點看夫妻衝突與影響歷程。婦女與兩性學刊，10，41-77。
劉惠琴(1999b)。從辨證的歷程看夫妻衝突。本土心理學研究，11，153-202。
劉惠琴(2003)。夫妻衝突調適歷程的測量。中華心理衛生學刊，16，(1)，23-50。
質化研究設計：一種互動取向的方法(高熏芳、林盈助、王向葵譯)。台北：心理。(原作1996年出版)
質性研究概論(徐宗國譯)。台北：巨流。(原作1990年出版)

二、英文部分
Billings, A. (1979). Conflict resolution in distressed and non-distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 368-376.
Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work and sex. New York: William Morrow.
Brown, N. M. & Amatea, E. S. (2000). Love and intimate relationship: Journeys of the heart. Philadelphia, PA : Brunner/Mazel.
Buysse, A., Clercq, A. D., Verhofstadt, L., Heene, E., Roeyers, H., & Oost, P. V. (2000). Dealing with relationship conflict: A picture in milliseconds. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 574-597.
Chen, P. H. (2004). The Self-Other Coordination Theory for Counseling Chinese Clients. Paper presented at the 28th International Congress of Psychology. China: Beijing.
Christensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg & M. J. Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family interaction research (pp. 250-265). New York: Family Process Press.
Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpartrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31-52). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73-81.
Christensen, A.,Eldridge, K.,Catta-Preta, A. B.,Lim, V. R.,& Santagata, R. (2006). Cross-Cultural Consistency of the Demand/Withdraw Interaction Pattern in Couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1029-1044.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without givingin. New York: Penguin.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Floyd, F. J., Markan, H. J., Kelly, S., Blunberg, S. L., & Stanley, S. M. (1995). Preventive intervention and relationship enhancement. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy (pp.212-226). New York: Guilford Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). The relationship between marital interaction and marital satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47-52.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1988). The social psychophysiology of marriage. In p. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 182-200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mastters.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Toward a typology of marriage based on affective behavior: Preliminary differences in behavior, physiology, health, and risk for dissolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221-233.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The Roles of Conflict Engagement, Escalation, and Avoidance in Marital Interaction:A Longitudinal View of Five Types of Couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 6.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottman, J. M. (1996). Against empathy. Panel presentation at International Network on Personal Relationships conference, Seattle, WA.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S. & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 240-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holman, T. B., & Jarvis, M. O. (2003).Hostile, volatile, avoiding, and validating couple- conflict types: An investigation of Gottman's couple-conflict types. Personal Relationships, 10 (2), 267–282.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1953). Americans and Chinese: Two ways of life. New York: Abelard- Schuman.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1963). Clan, caste and club. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1971). Psychological homeostasis and jen：Conceptual tools for advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropologist, 73, 23-44.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. Devos & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspective. (pp. 24-55). New York: Tavistock.
Hwang, K. K. (1997-8). Guanxi and mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7(1), 17-37.
Koren, P., Carlton, K., & Shaw, D. (1980). Marital conflict: Relations among behaviors, outcomes and distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 460-468.
Krokoff, L. (1987). Recruiting representative samples for marital interaction research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 317-328.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation, Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Peterson, D. R. (1983). Conflict. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 360-396). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. D. (1980). The development of integrative agreements in social conflict. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Living with other people (pp. 151-182). New York: Academic.
Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ridley, C. A., Wilhelm, M. S., & Surra, C. A. (2001). Married Couples' Conflict Responses and Marital Quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 517-534.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Famiy Process, 41, 659-675.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thoudand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
White, B. (1989). Gender differences in marital communication patterns. Family Process, 28, 89-106.
Yang, K. S. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 49, 175-255.
Young, M. E., & Long, L. L. (1998). Counseling and therapy for couples. NY: An International Thomson Publishing Company.
Zvonkovic, A. M., Greaves , K. M., Schmiege, C. J., & Hall, L. D. (1996). The marital construction of gender through work and family decisions: A qualtative analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 91-100.