There is a noticeable dearth of studies directly analysing the narratives of well-functioning couples. Consequently, this research explores the content of narratives from individuals in relationships deemed to be well functioning. To identify such couples, a triple criterion was employed: (1) participants’ self-declaration of their relationship as well-functioning, (2) evaluation of relationship satisfaction using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and (3) alignment with Olson’s Circumplex Model. From this criterion, 20 couples were selected and participated in separate face-to-face narrative interviews. Thematic analysis revealed seven dominant themes: 1. Feelings and mutual attitudes; 2. Us together; 3. Relationship changes and development; 4. Our history; 5. Dialogue; 6. Relationship problems; 7. Children. Such narrations from well-functioning couples, emphasize mutual sentiments, collective memories, dialogue and a pronounced we perspective.
AgusMPudduLRaffagninoR (2021) Exploring the similarity of partners’ love styles and their relationships with marital satisfaction: a dyadic approach. Sage Open11(4): 21582440211040785.
2.
AleaNSingerJALabunkoB (2015) “We-ness” in relationship-defining memories and marital satisfaction. In: SkerrettKFergusK (eds) Couple Resilience. Springer, 163–178.
3.
AndersonHGoolishianHAWindermanL (1986) Problem determined systems: towards transformation in family therapy. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies5(4): 1–13.
4.
AydinCBuyukcan-TetikA (2021) Remembering the romantic past: autobiographical memory functions and romantic relationship quality. PLoS One16(5): e0251004.
5.
BraunVClarkeV (2022) Thematic Analysis. A Practical Guide. Sage.
6.
BrunerJ (1987) Life as narrative. Social Research: An International Quarterly71(3): 691–710.
7.
BrunerJ (1991) The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry18: 1–21.
8.
BuehlmanKGottmanJKatzL (1992) How a couple views their past predicts their future: predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology5: 295–318.
9.
Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznych [Polish Centre for Social Opinion Research] (2019) Rodzina – jej znaczenie i rozumienie [Family: its significance and definition]. Komunikat z badań Nr 22/2019. https://cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2019/K_022_19.PDF
CierpkaA (2013) Tożsamość i narracje w relacjach rodzinnych [Identity and narratives in family relationships]. ENETEIA Publishing House.
12.
CieślakK (1989) Polska wersja skali G. B. Spaniera służącej do pomiaru jakości związku małżeńskiego (DAS) [Polish version of G. B. Spanier’s marriage quality measurement scale (DAS)]. Przeglad Psychologiczny32(4): 1041–1049.
13.
CreswellJ (2022) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Sage.
14.
CruwysTSouthEIHalfordWK, et al. (2023) Measuring “we-ness” in couple relationships: a social identity approach. Family Process62(2): 795–817.
15.
DallosR (2019) Don't Blame the Parents: Corrective Scripts and the Development of Problems. Open University Press.
16.
DallosRDraperR (2015) An Introduction to Family Therapy: Systemic Theory and Practice. Open University Press.
17.
DunlopWLBühlerJLMaghsoodiA, et al. (2020) The stories couples live by. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 38(2), 690–710.
18.
FishbaneM (2023) Couple relational ethics: from theory to lived practice. Family Process62(2): 446–468.
19.
FivushR (2019) Family Narratives and the Development of an Autobiographical Self: Social and Cultural Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory. Routledge.
20.
FivushRBohanekJGDukeM (2008) The intergenerational self: subjective perspective and family historySelf Continuity: Individual and Collective Perspectives. Psychology Press, 131–143.
21.
FreedmanJCombsG (2002) Narrative Therapy with Couples... and a Whole Lot More! A Collection of Papers, Essays, and Exercises. Dulwich Centre Publications.
22.
GabbJFinkJ (2015) Telling moments and everyday experience: multiple methods research on couple relationships and personal lives. Sociology49(5): 970–987.
23.
GirgzdeVKeturatisV (2013) Narratives of difference in onset of group couple counseling. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science84: 1866–1871.
24.
GoolishianHAWindermanL (1988) Constructivism, autopoiesis and problem determined systems. The Irish Journal of Psychology9(1): 130–143.
25.
GottmanJM (1994) What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Taylor & Francis.
26.
HolmbergDOrbuchTVeroffJ (2004) Thrice Told Tales: Married Couples Tell Their Stories. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
KarneyBRBradburyTN (2020) Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family82(1): 100–116.
28.
MargasińskiA (2015) The Polish adaptation of FACES IV-SOR. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology13(1): 43–66.
29.
McAdamsDP (1985) Power, Intimacy, and the Life Story: Personological Inquiries into Identity. Guilford Press.
30.
McAdamsDP (1989) Intimacy: The Need to Be Close. Doubleday.
31.
McCoyARauerASabeyA (2017) The Meta marriage: links between older couples' relationship narratives and marital satisfaction. Family Process56: 900–914.
32.
MontesanoAMadiganSÇakmakKet al. (2023) Reconnecting with relational values in highlyconflicted separating couples: A narrative therapy‐informed relational interviewing teamwork‐based supervisionapproach. Journal of Clinical Psychology,79(6)1521–1536. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23480
33.
OlsonDHSprenkleDHRussellCRS (1979) Circumplex model of marital and family systems. I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process18: 3–28.
PlaceMHusmeierJBrownriggA, et al. (2005) The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES): an instrument worthy of rehabilitation?Psychiatric Bulletin29: 215–218.
36.
RiekkolaJRuthberSLiljaM, et al. (2019) Strategies of older couples to sustain togetherness. Journal of Aging Studies48: 60–66.
37.
RiversASSanfordK (2020) When we say “perceived support,” what do we mean? Contexts and components of support among people with serious medical conditions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships37(10–11): 2758–2778.
38.
RoismanGIClausellEHollandA, et al. (2008) Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: a multimethod comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads. Developmental Psychology44(1): 91–101.
39.
SegrinCWoszidloAGivertzM, et al. (2013) Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology32(6): 569–595.
SmythCCraigL (2017) Conforming to intensive parenting ideals: willingness, reluctance and social context. Families, Relationships and Societies6(1): 107–124.
42.
SpanierG (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family38: 15–28.
43.
TsengC (2016) My love, how I wish you were by my side: maintaining intercontinental long-distance relationships in Taiwan. Contemporary Family Therapy38(3): 328–338.
44.
VagniG (2022) From me to you: time together and subjective well-being in the UK. Sociology56(2): 262–279.
45.
WeitkampKBodenmanG (2022) Couples coping together: a scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence and conceptual work across three decades. Frontiers in Psychology13: 876455.
46.
WilligC (2008) Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method. Open University Press.
