Download The similarities and differences between a marriage - UvA-DARE

The similarities and differences between a marriage from a
collectivistic and individualistic country
Laudi de Vries
Bachelorthesis
5681146
Mentor: Juliane Degner
Date: 29-06-2011
Words: 6392
1
Table of contents
1. Abstract
3
2. Preface
4
3. Marital satisfaction in an arranged marriage?
6
4. Differences or similarities in attitudes towards love between a collectivistic and
10
an individualistic culture
5. Importance of marital characteristics for marital satisfaction in a collectivistic and
16
an individualistic culture
6. Discussion
21
7. Literature
24
8. Research proposal: Marital Satisfaction: An Expectation of Life?
29
2
Abstract
In this paper we looked at the similarities and differences between a marriage from a
collectivistic and individualistic culture. The results showed that arranged marriages show not
less, but sometimes even more marital satisfaction than a free-choice marriage. We also found
that love seems to exist in every culture, but differs in frequency, function and need. Love
seems to be an aspect for experiencing marital satisfaction, but also differs in need, function
and frequency. Marriages in individualistic cultures need different characteristics for
experiencing marital satisfaction than marriages in collectivistic cultures.
3
What are the similarities and differences between a marriage from a
collectivistic and individualistic culture?
This paper will focus on the differences and similarities between a marriage from a
collectivistic and individualistic culture. People from Western countries are often amazed by
the fact that people from other cultures can be involved in an arranged marriage and are
actually experiencing happiness. Marriage is seen as a legally and socially recognized union,
ideally lifelong, that entails sexual, economic, and social rights and obligations for the
partners (Bachrach, Hindin, and Thomson, 2000). In an arranged marriage the parents or other
family members choose the partner. However in a free-choice marriage partners are expected
to first fall in love and then choose to marry (Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). So the common
question which people from a free-choice marriage ask their selves is: How can you be
satisfied if you cannot choose your own partner? Actually the thought of experiencing no
satisfaction in an arranged marriage might be stereotypical. This idea comes from a common
thought in the West, that love is considered to be the primary basis for a marriage (Chang &
Myers, 1997). Love can be described as an emotion of strong affection and personal
attachment (http://oxforddictionaries.com/).
An important question that researchers are trying to answer in this area is: what is
important for experiencing marital satisfaction? Marital satisfaction can be defined as an
individual’s subjective evaluation of the specific components within her or his marital
relationship (Durodoye, 1997).There has been a lot of research on this topic, for example
Coppinger & Rosenblatt (1968) found that subsistence dependence was an important
characteristic for experiencing marital satisfaction. However the results of this study are based
on experiencing satisfaction in a marriage from Western countries. But as we know in other
cultures, there are different types of marriages. Arranged marriages are for example the norm
in India, more than 90% of all Indian marriages are arranged (Gautam, 2002). Because an
4
arranged marriage is different than a free-choice marriage it can be that the stereotypical
thought from people from a free-choice marriage is true. Therefore in the first chapter of this
paper we will take a look if people from arranged marriages really do experience no, little or
even more satisfaction in their marriage than people from a free-choice marriage.
The most common marriage in Western countries is a free-choice marriage (Medora,
Larson, Hortacsu, & Dave, 2002). Western countries are considered to be an individualistic
culture, whereas for example Asia is considered to be a collectivistic culture. Arranged
marriages are more common in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures.
Individualism and collectivism is not the only dimension which defines characteristics that a
culture more or less owns and on which cultures can be compared.
Hofstede (1980) defined five social value dimensions. The first dimension is power
distance, which means to what extent there is accepted inequality between individuals. The
second dimension is uncertainty tolerance versus avoidance, which means the (lack of)
tolerance for ambiguity and the need for formal rules. The third dimension is masculinity
versus femininity: The extent to which a culture is conducive to dominance, assertiveness and
acquisition of things. Versus a culture which is more conducive to people, feelings,
nurturance and quality of life. The fourth dimension is long-term versus short-term
orientation, which means to what extent virtues are oriented towards the future versus values
oriented towards the past & present, like respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations
(Hofstede, 1980). The last dimension is individualism and collectivism.
Individualism emphasizes the independence of an individual, while collectivism
emphasizes the interdependence of individuals. In individualistic cultures individuals give
priority to goals concerning personal identity, whereas collectivistic cultures emphasize the
value of the extended family or the immediate community (Hui & Triandis, 1986). From an
individualistic perspective, family and society exists to maximize the individual. This means
5
that there is a variety of practices and customs that encourage individuals to prioritize their
own personal goals ahead of those of the collectivistic (Sodowsky, Kwam, & Pannu, 1995;
Triandis, 1989). While people from collectivistic cultures do not focus on the individual but
more on group identity and group cohesiveness (Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). Individualism
has disjoint agency, which is originated in the independent self and is agency that is separate
or distinct from the actions of others. Agency is defined as a state of being in action or
exerting power (http://www.elook.org/dictionary/agency.html). A collectivistic culture has the
interdependent self and is agency induced by others, in relationship and interaction with those
others (Markus & Kitayama, 1998).
Although individualism and collectivism is not the only dimension, it might explain
some differences in how people from different cultures behave and think. As mentioned
before free-choice marriages are most common in individualistic countries whereas arrangedmarriages are more common in collectivistic countries. Considering individualism and
collectivism, this can also show some differences in behaving in marriages from both cultures.
This also can say that for experiencing marital satisfaction different marital characteristics are
needed. To get a clearer answer on the question what the differences and similarities are
between a marriage from an individualistic and collectivistic country first will be discussed if
there are differences or similarities in attitudes towards love between a collectivistic and
individualistic culture. At last will be discussed what marital characteristics are important for
marital satisfaction and to what extent are these similar or different for a marriage from a
collectivistic or individualistic culture.
Marital satisfaction in an arranged marriage?
As mentioned before Western people ask their selves if people from an arranged
marriage can experience marital satisfaction. Is this stereotypical thought true or shows the
6
literature the opposite? We will try to find an answer on this question in this chapter.
Yelsma & Athappilly (1968) found that couples from an arranged marriage from India
indicate that they experience more marital satisfaction than couples from a free-choice
marriage in America. Marital satisfaction was measured by the Dyadic adjustment Scale. This
marital satisfaction is dependent on two different kinds of communication, namely verbal and
nonverbal communication. The communication styles were measured by the Primary
communication Inventory. Arranged marrieds have less verbal and nonverbal communication
in their marriage than partners in free-choice marriages. Marital satisfaction in a free-choice
marriage from America was dependent on verbal and nonverbal communication. Marital
satisfaction in an arranged marriage from India was not dependent on verbal and nonverbal
communication. The interpretation from the researchers for this result was that in an arranged
marriage marital satisfaction is dependent on a sense of life-long commitment and cultural
tradition. However in American free-choice marriages marital satisfaction seems to be
affected when there are poor communication styles (Yelsma & Athappilly, 1968).
Although Yelsma & Athapilly (1968) shows that couples from an arranged marriage
experience more marital satisfaction than people from a free-choice marriage, is it important
to keep in mind that there has been found a contradiction.
Women from an arranged marriage from China experience less marital satisfaction
than woman from a free-choice marriage from China (Xiaohe & Whyte, 1990). I think that a
possible explanation for the finding from Xiaohe & Whyte (1990) can be that China has
already been making a transition to more western ideas about marriages. Arranged marriages
were the main tradition in China, but Mao Zedong promoted freedom of mate choice, in the
1950’s China enacted a new law which said that marriage should be based on free choice
(Yang, 1959). 60 years of promoting freedom of mate choice, probably influenced the
Chinese women, which might imply that arranged marriages are outdated in China. Having a
7
free-choice marriage could have been the new tradition in China, which can mean that the
new cultural values says that a marriage should be free-choice and not arranged. It can be that
Chinese women consider an arranged marriage as something negative, because it has never
been promoted after the law of 1950. And when a Chinese woman is in an arranged marriage,
it can be forced on her because that is not what China has been promoting for the last 60
years. Because of this, it might be that Chinese woman experience more marital satisfaction in
a free-choice marriage than in an arranged marriage.
Since arranged marriages in China are no longer the main tradition (Witke, 1973) and
in India the most marriages are still arranged marriages (Gautam, 2002), it is hard to compare
these countries with each other on experiencing marital satisfaction in an arranged marriage.
Although India and China are considered to be both collectivistic, it shows that there are
differences in marriages.
Yelsma & Athappilly (1968) found that people from an arranged marriage in India
experience more marital satisfaction than people from a free-choice marriage In America.
Myers, Madathil & Tingle (2005) found different results. They compared Indian arranged
marriages living in India and free-choice marriages living in United States on marital
satisfaction. There was no difference in marital satisfaction between the arranged marriages in
India and the free-choice marriages in the United States. But differences were found in
importance of marital characteristics for marital satisfaction. People from arranged marriages
as well as people from free-choice marriage thought shared values were important for marital
satisfaction. Shared values were for example that both spouses either believed or not believed
in God, religious commitment or no religious commitment. Shared values means to what
extent the spouses share the same values. Couples from the United States rated priority on
love and loyalty to their spouses higher than couples from an arranged marriage from India
did. Love included respect, forgiveness, romance and sensitivity/support, whereas loyalty
8
included lifetime commitment, loyalty to their spouse and strong moral values (Myers,
Madathil & Tingle, 2005).
There has been found some contradicting findings in the literature about marital
satisfaction from an arranged marriage and a free-choice marriage. As Xiaohe & Whyte
(1990) shows that there can also be different results in one country when comparing marital
satisfaction from arranged marriages and free-choice marriages, it is important to investigate
if people from an arranged marriage but not living in a collectivistic culture experience more
marital satisfaction compared to free-choice marriages in an individualistic culture.
Madathil & Benshoff (2008) included Asian Indians in arranged marriages living in
the United States to their research. The researchers made comparisons for marital satisfaction
between arranged marriages in India, Indian arranged marriages immigrated to the United
states and free-choice marriages from Americans in the United states. Participants from an
arranged marriage living in United States experience more marital satisfaction than arranged
marriages living in India and free-choice marriages living in United States. There was no
difference for marital satisfaction between arranged marriage living in India and free-choice
marriage living in United States. Marital satisfaction was measured by The Characteristics of
Marriage Inventory scale (CHARISMA). There were three underlying scales, loving, loyal
and shared values. The Loving scale was defined as that open communication and agreement
on the expression of affection are important. Mutual respect, forgiveness and sensitivity are
valued. The Loyal scale was defined as a high level of consensus, a sufficiently high level of
sexual activity, lifetime commitment to the marriage, interpersonal loyalty and strong moral
values. Shared values means means to what extent the spouses share the same values. For
example if gender roles are traditional or not or if religiosity is important or not. People in
arranged marriages living in United States found love more important for marital satisfaction
than participants from arranged marriages living in India and participants from free-choice
9
marriages from United States. People from Free-choice marriages from United States thought
shared values are less important than people from arranged marriages living in United States
as well living in India. Loyalty was more important for marital satisfaction in free-choice
marriages. For people from an arranged marriage living in United states as well living in India
found the finance characteristic more important for marital satisfaction than people from a
free-choice marriage in United states. The researchers thought this might be related to a
cultural perspective, because financial security and lack of debt are key cultural values for
Indians (Madathill & Benshoff (2008).
As the literature shows, the stereotypical idea of the West is not confirmed. People
from the West wonder if people from an arranged marriage can experience marital
satisfaction. It shows that marital satisfaction in arranged marriages is not lower but equal or
even sometimes higher than in free-choice marriages. It seems that marital satisfaction from a
free-choice or arranged marriage is dependent on several marital characteristics (Myers,
Madathil & Tingle, 2005; Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). Before people get married they have
an attitude towards love and how marital satisfaction in a marriage can be accomplished. That
is why it is important to first investigate how people from an individualistic and collectivistic
culture think about the concept of love and how this might be related to relationship
satisfaction. Differences or similarities in attitudes towards love between a collectivistic and
individualistic culture will be discussed.
Differences or similarities in attitudes towards love between a collectivistic and
individualistic culture
Although there has been found some conflicting results in the literature on marital
satisfaction, we can assume that marital satisfaction is related to several marital
10
characteristics. Before people get married they have certain expectations about the marriage
and how marital satisfaction in a marriage can be accomplished. Attitudes towards love might
have an influence later on what marital characteristics a person finds important for
experiencing marital satisfaction. First attitudes towards love in different cultures will be
explained.
An idea in Western countries is that romantic love is not universal and moreover does
not exist in collectivistic cultures (Philippe Aries, 1962) cited in Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992).
Romantic love is any intense attraction that involves the idealization of the other, within an
erotic context, with the expectation of enduring for some time into the future (Jankowiak &
Fisher, 1992). Romantic love is defined differently from Love. Sex plays a bigger role in the
definition for romantic love than in the definition of love.
Despite the western thought there might be a possibility that romantic love might be
universal. This was shown by a study from Jankowiak & Fisher (1992). The researchers did
research to romantic love in six cultural areas, Circum-Mediterranean, Sub-Saharan Africa,
East Eurasia, Insular Pacific, North America and South & Central America. In every cultural
area an ethnographer had to make a clear distinction between lust and love. An ethnographer
is a person who studies and systematic records human cultures (http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ethnography). If a clear distinction was made between lust and love
then romantic love was present in that cultural area. If there was no clear distinction made
romantic love was not present. Romantic love present or absent in a culture was measured by
5 indicators. The first indicator was if there was any use of love songs or folklore that
highlights the motivations behind romantic involvement. The second indicator was if native
accounts were affirming the existence of romantic love. The third indicator was the
ethnographer’s affirmation that romantic love was present. The fourth dimension was if there
would be elopement due to mutual affection. The last dimension is if there were accounts
11
available depicting personal anguish and longing. The researchers found that romantic love
can be found in 88,5 percent of the sampled cultures. They concluded that romantic love is
universal (Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992).
A limitation from this study is that they concluded that 88, 5% is equal to universal,
but actually all you can conclude from 88, 5%, is that romantic love might be an existential
universal. An existential universal means that a cognitive tool (romantic love) exists in
multiple cultures, although romantic love is not necessary and accessible in every culture
(Norenzayan & Heine, 2005).
In further research it appears that people from the United States have higher scores on
romanticism than Turkish and Indian people do, which might also imply that romantic love is
an existential universal term for every culture.
Medora, Larson, Horacsu & Dave (2002) compared attitudes towards romanticism and
preferences for qualities in prospective mates in three cultures, United States, India and
Turkey. As Spanier, 1972 said: “Romanticism can be defined as a general disposition an
individual has towards love, marriage, the family, and with relationships involving malefemale interaction in which the affective component is regarded as primary” (p481-482). In
this study romanticism was measured by the attitudes toward romantic love scale. It existed of
a 29 items which participants had to fill in on a scale from 1 to 5 with strongly agree to
strongly disagree. An example of how romanticism was measured was ”love at first sight is
often the deepest and most enduring type of love” and “somewhere there is an ideal mate for
most people”. The American young adults scored highest on the romantic love scale, then the
Turkish and at last the Indians. In regard to future mate-selection Americans thought similar
interests, being intelligent and being affectionate the most important, whereas Turkish
participants thought being well educated and having a sense of humor was most important in a
relationship (Medora et al., 2002). These results seem to confirm that romantic love is an
12
existential universal. Taken into account that Turkey is a collectivistic culture and the United
States is an individualistic culture (Triandis et al., 1988), you can see that young people from
both cultures, who are not married or having a relationship think differently about love which
might implies that romantic love is an existential universal.
It is not only important to take a look at the attitudes towards love from unmarried
people but also the attitudes people have towards love when they are already married. This is
important because when you are already married it might be that your attitude is different than
single people. When you are already married it can be that due to experience in the
relationship you have changed your attitude towards love.
There appears to be a difference in attitude towards love between single, young people
and married people (Jackson, Chen, Guo & Gao, 2006). The researchers compared dating and
married couples from the United States and China. Conceptions of love among dating and
married couples from China and United States were measured by Sternberg’s Love stories
Scale. Several love story components were revealed. The first component had items which
were associated with threat and incomprehensibility and involved themes like intimidation,
fear, secrecy and conflict in love. Second component reflected themes of devotion and sharing
through time. Component 3 reflected themes pornography story and involved excitement
through treating and being treated as a sex object. Component 4 was composed of items
reflecting love as a series of battles in an ongoing war. Component 5 reflected themes as
pragmatism (following appropriate steps to achieve relationships success) and economic
considerations. Component 6 represented love as a fairy tale in which partners live “happily
ever after”. Component 7 represented power sharing and partnership. There was found a
difference in the attitudes towards love between the single and married couples. There is also
a difference found in attitudes towards love between the dating and married couples from the
United States and China. Dating Americans scores higher than their married counterparts on
13
objectification, pornography, war and fairy tale and on devotion-caring and pragmatism. In
contrast to the Americans married Chinese scored higher than their dating counterparts on
pornography and incomprehensibility of partner (Jackson et al. 2006).
It is not only important to examine the difference between dating and married couples
on attitudes toward love, but also what people think what is important to maintain a marriage.
It might be that other attitudes are shown for entering and maintaining a marriage. The next
study examined the differences between Chinese and American students on relationship
beliefs for entering and maintaining a marriage.
Sprecher & Toro-Morn (2002) examined how American students differ from the
Chinese students in relationship beliefs. The researchers did not ask whether these students
had a relationship or not. They made a distinction between what is important for entering and
maintaining a marriage. The Chinese thought passionate love (sexual attraction) was slightly
less important than being in love for entering a marriage than the Americans. An example
question how passionate love for entering marriage was being measured is: “if a man
(woman) had all the other qualities you desired and you experienced a
friendship/companionate love but not a sexual attraction or passionate love for him/her, would
you marry him/her? The Americans considered passionate love to be less important than
being in love for maintaining a marriage but more important for entering a marriage than the
Chinese did. For the Chinese love was considered to be more important for entering a
marriage than for maintaining a marriage than for the Americans. An example question how
love for maintaining a marriage was being measured is: “if love has completely disappeared
from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and start new
lives”. Physical pleasure was more important for the Americans for maintaining a marriage
than for the Chinese. An example question how psychical pleasure for maintaining a marriage
was being measured is: “How important is it to you that a marriage be physically pleasurable
14
in order for you to want to continue it?” (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).
These results show that there is a difference in what is important for entering and
maintaining a marriage between Chinese and American students. One limitation in the study
of Sprecher & Toro-Morn (2002) is that they didn’t ask the participants if they were in a
relationship or not. This is important because if you are in a relationship you might have a
different attitude to what is important for a marriage or a relationship than when you are not in
a relationship. Maybe because you will have a different kind of vision at the future or you
already experienced being in a long-term relationship. Therefor the next study will take a look
at having a positive illusion about the partner for people who are already in a marriage.
One last attitude towards love might be having a positive illusion about one’s spouse.
Fowers, Fisiloglu & Procacci (2008) showed that having a positive illusion about one’s
spouse is more common in individualistic countries than in a collectivistic country. The
researchers compared American with Turkish in arranged and free-choice marriages. Positive
illusions were measured by the Evaluation and Nurturing Relationship issues,
Communication, and Happiness (ENRICH) scale (Olson, 1987), two measures asks
respondents about the extent to which they agree with unrealistically positive descriptions of
the spouse or relationship. The other two measures are trait ratings of the spouse. Participants
from USA had more positive illusions about one’s spouse than did the Turkish from an
arranged and free-choice marriage. One possible explanation about these findings can be that
the researchers did not use backtranslation with the ENRICH marital satisfaction scale for the
Turkish participants. Backtranslation is a method of translating research material from one
language to another. Whereby one translator translates it from language A to B and then
another translator translates it back from language B to A to see if there are any differences in
meaning of the research material (Brislin, 1970). If the researchers didn’t use this, it can mean
that the questions from the scale mean different things in the United States and Turkey, which
15
can make the data biased.
The above results show us that there are differences but also similarities in attitudes
towards love between a collectivistic and individualistic culture. It appears that married
couples, couples in a relationship and single people have different attitudes towards love. This
applies for cross-culturally but also within one culture. What we can conclude is that love
seems to exist everywhere. What we do not know if love has the same function and frequency
in every culture. Love does exists but it is not needed everywhere for entering and
maintaining a marriage or relationship.
When you are in a relationship or marriage some characteristics are important for
experiencing marital satisfaction. Before a person enters a relationship he or she might have
already an on what is important in a relationship for satisfaction. That is why attitudes
towards love might have an influence on what characteristics are important for marital
satisfaction. It is likely that marital characteristics are not equal for every marriage crossculturally. Therefore the question to what extent are these marital characteristics similar or
different for a marriage from a collectivistic and individualistic culture will be discussed.
Importance of marital characteristics for marital satisfaction in a collectivistic and an
individualistic culture
As we have seen in the previous chapter, attitudes towards love or romanticism cannot
be seen as completely universal. This might also be the case for what marital characteristic
important are for marital satisfaction. Lucas and collegues (2006) used invariance testing to
examine the equivalency of marital satisfaction across four cultures: Britain, Turkey, China
and United States. Invariance testing is a form of covariance structure analysis designed to
assess whether measures are defined similarly across different groups (Byrne & Campbell,
16
1999). They tried to find to what extent satisfying marriages are cross-culturally similar or
unique. They examined two possible characteristics for marital satisfaction: Love and
Partnership (Lucas et al., 2008). Love was understood as the emotional and romantic
attachment to one’s spouse. An example question what measured romantic love was: “Do you
find your spouse attractive?” Partnership was considered to be perceived communication and
support of one’s spouse. An example question how this was being measured is: “Is there
enough give and take in your relationship?” The results showed that there was not much
cultural invariance, which implies that aspects like love and partnership of marital satisfaction
might also be defined uniquely by particular norms, values and expectations about marriage
from a culture (Lucas et al., 2008). This study shows us that what marital characteristics are
important for experiencing marital satisfaction is an existential universal. This might imply
that there might be a difference in what marital characteristics are important for marital
satisfaction in a collectivistic of individualistic culture.
As we have seen in the first chapter different styles of communication are important to
maintain or gain marital satisfaction. Yelsma & Athapilly (1968) showed that marital
satisfaction in a free-choice marriage in America was dependent on verbal and nonverbal
communication. Experiencing marital satisfaction in an arranged marriage verbal and
nonverbal communication was less needed.
In the next study they made a distinction between positive and negative marital
communication behavior (Rehman & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2007). The researchers videotaped
couples from Pakistan and America while discussing marital problem discussions. After that
the couples were rated for negative and positive marital communication behavior. Negative
communication exists of overall level of negative affect and behavior that the spouse showed
during the interaction. Positive communication exists of overall level of positive affect and
behavior the spouse showed. For American couples marital satisfaction is strongly related to
17
positive and negative communication behaviors during marital interactions, for the arranged
marriages from Pakistan marital communication behavior is unrelated or modestly related to
their marital satisfaction. The conclusion about this study can be drawn as that there is a
difference in relevance of marital communication for marital satisfaction between an
individualistic culture and a collectivistic culture. Whereas negative and positive marital
communication behavior is strongly related to marital satisfaction in American marriages, it is
not important for the Pakistan marriages (Rehman & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2007). Taken into
account that America is an individualistic culture, marital communication might be an
important characteristic for marriages from an individualistic country.
There cannot only be drawn a distinction in negative and positive behavior, but also in
constructive communication and demand/withdraw communication (Christensen, Eldridge,
Catta-Preta, Lim & Santagata, 2006). Constructive behavior means that when there are marital
problems, these problems should be solved and not be evaded. Christensen and colleagues
(2006) explained the demand/withdraw communication as that for example the woman wants
to discuss a problem and making criticism and demands of the man, whereas he wants to
avoid a discussion and is defensive and withdrawn. The same explanation can be given for the
man, which means if he wants to discuss a problem and making criticism and demands of the
woman, whereas she wants to avoid the discussion and is defensive and withdrawn.
Constructive communication was positively associated with relationship satisfaction.
Demand/withdraw communication was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction.
The results showed that not only in individualistic countries (United States) the
demand/withdraw interaction pattern is associated with relationship dissatisfaction, but also in
collectivistic countries (Taiwan) (Christensen et al., 2006).
While marital communication behavior is an important characteristic for marital
satisfaction in a marriage from both cultures, some other characteristics can be influencing
18
marital satisfaction. In a study of Wong & Goodwin (2009) shows that a stable relationship
with the spouse, spousal support, partnership with the spouse and stable family finances were
important factors that contributed to marital satisfaction in United Kingdom, Hong Kong and
Beijing. A stable relationship was described as a marriage that worked well or gave feelings
of happiness or contentment. Spousal support was described as contributing positively to the
experiences of marital satisfaction. Partnership with the spouse was described as both spouses
working together on the marriage or working on the family as a whole. At last family finances
was described as when there is a stable family income it would help promote marital
satisfaction by reducing possible conflicts between the spouses. Although there has been
found some cultural variations. Companionship was more important for UK, whereas
harmonious marital relations were more important for Hong Kong. Companionship was
described as sharing leisure activities with the spouse. The UK saw the spouse as a friend or
soul mate, more than people from Hong Kong and Beijing. These findings were conducted by
phone interviews. When the researchers asked whether participants were very satisfied or
average satisfied or not satisfied in their marriage, UK participants were more likely to answer
very satisfied than the Chinese and people from Hong Kong. This can mean that UK
participants are very satisfied with their marriage, or they have the tendency to fill in very
satisfied or not at all satisfied. But another explanation can be given that the people from a
collectivistic country have the tendency to give moderate answers, also known as the neutral
response bias should be taken in to account (Schmitt & Allik, 2005).
This study shows that some marital characteristics which are needed for marital
satisfaction are the same in a collectivistic and individualistic country, with some cultural
variations. Other research showed the same, with other characteristics.
Gao (2001) used the triangular theory of love from Sternberg (1968) for examining
what marital characteristics are needed for experiencing marital satisfaction for couples living
19
in China and couples living in the United states. The theory of love exists of intimacy, passion
and commitment. Intimacy is considered to be to what extent partners have an emotional
investment in a relationship. Qualities as experienced happiness with the love one, mutual
understanding, intimate communication and emotional support are important. Passion means
internal forces that lead to romance, physical attraction, and sexual satisfaction. Commitment
means a short-term decision to love someone and a long-term commitment to a loving
relationship. As well couples from China and America find that the characteristics intimacy
and commitment were important for satisfaction in a relationship. American couples value
passion in their relationship higher than the Chinese couples (Gao, 2001)
That American couples find passion important for being satisfied in their marriage is
also confirmed in a study from Rosen-Grandon, Myers & Hattie (2004). They used the
CHARISMA scale to measure the relationship between marital characteristics and marital
satisfaction. They found that for couples from America the most important characteristics of
loving marriages were identified as respect, forgiveness, romance, support and sensitivity.
The path to marital satisfaction is mediated by satisfaction with loyalty in the relationship.
Sexual satisfaction is a very important factor in loyal relationships. The results of the present
study suggest that satisfaction with the characteristics of a loving relationship is not sufficient
to achieve marital satisfaction. Spouses who value loyalty and who are satisfied with the
loyalty in their relationship can achieve marital satisfaction (Rosen-Grandon, Myers & Hattie
(2004).
What we can conclude from this chapter is that love exists everywhere, but there are
different characteristics needed for experiencing marital satisfaction. It seems that
communication and passion is important for marital satisfaction in an individualistic culture
and less for a collectivistic.
20
Discussion
This paper shows that there are differences and similarities found between a marriage
from a collectivistic culture and an individualistic culture. What we can conclude is that the
stereotypical thought from individualistic cultures, that people in arranged marriages cannot
experience marital satisfaction is not confirmed. Because when we take a look at marital
satisfaction in arranged marriages in India, it seems that they experience not less, but even
more marital satisfaction in their marriage then people from a free-choice marriage. Second
we can conclude that love seems to exists everywhere, but it differs in frequency and is not
needed everywhere to experience marital satisfaction. For experiencing marital satisfaction
different characteristics are needed in different cultures and different marriages.
A notable difference what marital characteristics are needed for experiencing marital
satisfaction between an arranged marriage a free-choice marriage, is that it shows that
communication styles are more important for marital satisfaction in a free-choice marriage
than in an arranged marriage (Rehman et al., 2007; Yelsma & Athapilly, 1968).
A possible explanation for the difference in importance of communication styles
between a free-choice and arranged marriage can be explained by conjoint and disjoint
agency. Seen that an arranged marriage is most common in collectivistic cultures and
conjoint agency mainly occurs in collectivistic cultures, it might be that the finding of needing
less communication in an arranged marriage is explanable by using conjoint agency. In
conjoint agency actions are interdependent from others and are responsive to obligations and
expectations of others. Preferences, goals and intentions are interpersonally anchored (Markus
& Kitayama, 2003). This can mean that less communication is needed in an arranged
marriage, because the two spouses let their actions depend on the preferences, goals and
expectations of the other. For example they might experience less arguing because two
different preferences from the spouses might less occur, and therefore less communication is
21
needed. In a free-choice marriage from an individualistic culture where disjoint agency is
present, more communication might be needed because actions in disjoint agency are
independent from others and contingent on one’s own preferences, intentions and motives
(Markus & Kitayama, 2003). When a couple has an argument it might be related to that both
of them behave and think differently. They behave and think from their own perspective and
not from the perspective of the partner. To fully understand each other and solve the problem
more communication is needed to experience marital satisfaction than in an arranged
marriage.
All the specific findings in the literature seem to have some overlap but also some
cultural variations. The question is can I even compare all these studies on the level of
collectivism and individualism? Actually the meaning of collectivism and individualism is
very broad and hard to compare with each other (Fiske, 2002). Collectivism and
Individualism is just one of many dimensions in which cultures can be compared with each
other. For example the literature shows more differences between an arranged and a freechoice marriage, than a free-choice marriage from a collectivistic culture and a free-choice
marriage from an individualistic culture. This might be related to the fact that for example
china is considered to be a collectivistic country whereas India is also considered to be a
collectivistic country, but in the end they do not have the same values, cultural traditions,
thought, behaviors etc. Therefor if we have different results considering experiencing marital
satisfaction, attitudes of love and importance of marital characteristics, it is hard to compare
them on the level of individualism and collectivism. So if there can be drawn a conclusion
about the findings, there should be taken into account that individualism and collectivism is
not the only dimension, but one of many.
A limitation in cross-cultural research on differences in marriages is that when they for
example compare married Americans with married Chinese people, they do not account for
22
differences in divorce rates (Jackson, Chen, Guo, 2006). There are more divorces in the
United States than in China (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorcerate). The reason is that when people are not satisfied with their marriage in the United States
they tend to divorce faster than unsatisfied married couples in China. The results of the study
from Jackson, Chen & Guo (2006) might actually be biased, because they found that
Americans thought that passion was more important for a satisfied marriage than for Chinese
people. This might be related to the fact that even less satisfied Chinese couples, stayed
together. If you still stay together in a less satisfying marriage, you find different
characteristics important for a marriage. What these findings also can show is that people
from different cultures have different expectations about how a marriage should be. People in
Western countries often say that being in love is an important aspect for a marriage (Sprecher
& Toro-Morn, 2002). When their expectations are not met, they become unsatisfied with the
relationship or marriage. It is possible that being satisfied in a marriage is related to what
people’s expectations are before entering and also already being in a marriage. For further
research it might be important to measure people’s expectations about marriage and to what
extent this is related to marital satisfaction in their marriage.
Although western people are often amazed by the fact that people in arranged
marriages experience marital satisfaction, it might be that people from arranged marriages are
surprised by how western people see marriages. For example if you consider a dating site for
higher educated people from Western countries, people “arrange” themselves with another
person. First of all they have to have a high education, second they write their characteristics
down and last they write the characteristics down which they find important in the other
person (e.g. www.e-matching.nl). Here you can ask a similar question, how can people
experience marital satisfaction if they found each other on a dating site?
23
References
Bachrach, C., Hindin, M., & Thomson, E. (2000). The changing shape of this that bind: an
overview and synthesis. In L.J. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, & A.
Thornton (Eds.), The ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 316.) Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
.Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1, 185-216.
Bullough,V., & Fang Fu, R., (1994). Marriage, divorce, and sexual relations in
contemporary china. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 383-393.
Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of
equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555-574.
Chang, C.Y., & Myers, J.E. (1997). Understanding and counseling korean americans:
implications for training. Counseling Education and Supervision, 37, 35-49.
Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., Bokel Cata-Preta, A., Lim, V.R., & Santagata, R. (2006).
Cross-cultural consistency of the demand/withdraw interaction pattern in couples.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1029-1044.
Coppinger, R.M., & Rosenblatt, P.C. (1968). Romantic love and subsistence dependence of
spouses. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 24, 310-319.
Durodoye, B.A. (1997). Factors of marital satisfaction among African American couples and
nigerian male/african american female couples. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 28, 71-81.
24
Fiske, A.P. (2002). Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures—A Critique
of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al.
(2002).
Fowers, B.J., Fisologlu, H., & Procacci, E.K. (2008). Positive marital illusions and culture:
American and Turkish spouses perceptions of their marriages. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 25, 267-285.
Gao, G. (2001). Intimacy, passion and commitment in chinese and us American romantic
relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 329-342.
Gautam, S. (2002). Coming next: Monsoon divorce. New Statesman, 131, 32-33.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hui, H., & Triandis. H. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism: A study of cross-cultural
researchers. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.
Jackson, T., Chen, H., Guo, C., & Gao, X., (2006). Stories we love by conceptions of love
song couples from the people’s republic of china and the united states. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 446-464.
Jankowiak, W.R., Fischer, E.F., 1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love.
Etnology, 31, 149-155.
Lucas, T., Parkhill, M.R., Wendorf, C.A., Imamoglu, E.O., Weisfeld, C.C., Weisfeld, G.E., &
Shen, J. (2008). Cultural and evolutionary components of marital satisfaction: a
multidimensional assessment of measurement invariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 39, 109-123.
25
Madathil, J., & Benshoff, J.M., (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, 16, 222-230.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1998) The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63-87.
Medora, N. P, Larson, J. H., Hortacsu, N., & Dave, P. (2002). Perceived attitudes towards
romanticism: a cross cultural study of american, asian indian, and turkish young
adults. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 155-182.
Myers, J.E., Madathil, J., Tingle, L.R., (2005). Marriage satisfaction and wellness in india and
the united states: a preliminary comparison of arranged marriages and marriages of
choice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 183-190.
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S.J., (2005). Psychological universals: what are they and how can
we know? Psychological Bulletin by the American Psychological Association,131,
763-784.
Olson, D.H., Fournier, D.G., & Druckman J.M. (1987). PREPARE/ENRICH, Counselor’s
Manual, Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
Rehman, U.S., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2007). A cross-cultural examination of the
relationship of marital communication behavior to marital satisfaction. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, 759-763.
Rosen-Grandon, J.R., Meyers, J.E., & Hattie, A. (2004). The relationship between marital
characteristics, marital interaction processes, and marital satisfaction. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 82, 58-68.
26
Sodowsky, G. R., Kwan, K. K., & Pannu, R. (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in the United
States. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. K. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 123-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sprecher, S., & Toro-Morn, M. (2006). A study of men and women from different sides of
earth to determine if men are from mars and woman are from venus in their beliefs
about love and romantic relationships. Sex roles, 46, 131-145.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M., & Luca, N. (1988). Individualism
and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspective on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 323-338.
Witke, Roxane (1973). Mao Tse-tung, women, and suicide. Pp. 7-31 in Marilyn Young (ed.),
Women in China. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Chinese Studies.
Wong, S., & Goodwin, R., (2009). Experiencing marital satisfaction across three cultures: a
qualitative study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1011-1028.
Xiaohe, X., & Whyte, M. K. (1990). Love matches and arranged marriages: a chinese
replication. Journal of Marriage and Family. 52, 709-722.
Yang, C. K. (1959). The Chinese Family in the Communist Revolution (2nd edition).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27
Yelsma, P., & Athappilly, K. (1968). Marital satisfaction and communication practices:
comparisons among Indian and American couples. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies, 11, 37-54
28
Marital Satisfaction: An Expectation of Life?
It has shown that it is hard to compare a marriage from an individualistic culture and a
collectivistic culture. It is more common in collectivistic cultures to have an arranged
marriage than in an individualistic culture (Medora, Larson, Hortacsu, & Dave, 2002). It is
also very hard to compare two countries which are both considered to be collectivistic and
have the same type of marriage, for example an arranged marriage from China versus an
arranged marriage from India. This is hard because the two marriages have a different
meaning in China and India. As in India it is still common to be in an arranged marriage,
whereas in China it is no longer the main tradition (Xiaohe & Whyte, 1990; Yelsma &
Athapilly, 1968).
Therefore it is important to first investigate differences in different types of marriage
in one country. In this study we have chosen for India because still 90% of all Indian
marriages are still arranged (Gautam, 2002) but also free-choice marriages are becoming more
approved than before (Hamon & Ingoldsby, 2002).
Earlier research showed that arranged marriages from India experience more marital
satisfaction in a marriage than free-choice marriages from the United States (Yelsma &
Athappilly, 1968). Later research showed that there was no difference in marital satisfaction,
but this was related to different marital characteristics (Myers, Madathil & Tingle, 2005;
Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). This might imply that different kinds of marriages need different
characteristics for marital satisfaction.
Research showed us that there can be found differences in what marital characteristics
are needed in a free-choice and an arranged marriage (Madathil, Myers & Tingle, 2005;
Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). These studies focused on differences cross-culturally and not on
differences from different marriages in one country. They also focused on what marital
characteristics are needed, but no one has taken account for expectations of life from the
29
individual. Expectation can be explained as to look forward to the probable occurrence or
appearance of something (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/expect). In this case, how a
person thinks about a marriage. For example if they are going to be in an arranged or freechoice marriage and what they expect of being in that kind of marriage. This study will be
longitudinal, because then we can follow the same individuals during 20 years. We can study
if their earlier expectations matched their eventual outcome.
In this study we will ask the question if marital satisfaction is dependent on someone’s
expectation in life. Our hypotheses will be: When people are expecting to end up in an
arranged marriage, and eventually end up in an arranged marriage, they will experience more
marital satisfaction than when they don’t end up in an arranged marriage. Second when
people are expecting to end up in a free-choice marriage, and eventually end up in a freechoice marriage, they will experience more marital satisfaction than when they don’t end up
in a free-choice marriage
Method
Participants
Participants should be all Indians living in India. At the beginning of this study, the
sample should consist of at least 200 individuals (100 women and 100 men). We can assume
that both expectations are going to be found. If not the sample might and can shrink to at last
50 individuals, because this is a longitudinal study a lot of participants are not needed. We are
going to take three measurements over 20 years. The first measurement will take place when
they graduate high school, which means around the age of 18. The second measurement will
take place when they are 26. The age of 26 is chosen, because other research implied that the
mean age of Indian men is 25 years and women 23 years (Rao, 1993). The last measurement
30
will take place when they are 38. Participants will be recruited from high schools and should
be volunteers
Instrumentation
For measuring marital satisfaction in this study we will use the Enriching and Nurturing
Relationship Issues, Communication and Happiness Inventory (ENRICH) scale (Olson,
1987). We will also be using the Characteristics of Marriage Inventory; CHARISMA (RosenGrandon, 1998). This is a measurement which measures characteristics related to marital
satisfaction. The instrument lists 18 characteristics of marriage, with three subscales: Lifetime
commitment, loyalty, and respects. Respondents are first asked to indicate importance to them
of each characteristic and then their satisfaction with each characteristic on a 6-point Likerttype scale, ranging from extremely unimportant to extremely important.
Data analysis
At the first measurement we will ask participants what their life expectations are. Like if
they think of going to be in an arranged a free-choice marriage. At the second measurement
we will ask the participants several questions. First: if they are in an arranged, free-choice
marriage. Second: they have to fill in the ENRICH and CHARISMA scale. At the last
measurement, we ask the participants if they are still married. After that they have to fill in the
ENRICH and CHARISMA scale again. After collecting all the data, we will compare the
second measurement with the first on expectation and in what kind of marriage they
eventually ended up in. Also we will take a look at how satisfied they are and what marital
characteristics are needed for that. After that we will compare the third measurement with the
second. If there are people who already got a divorce, we will include these in our comparison
too. We will compare on marital satisfaction and what marital characteristics are needed. At
last we will compare the third with the first measurement on expectation and in what kind of
31
marriage they eventually ended up in. Then we will take a look at if participants with fulfilled
expectations are truly experiencing more marital satisfaction than participants with failed
expectations. At last we will take a look if there is a difference marital satisfaction when
fulfilled expectations and what marital characteristics are needed for marital satisfaction in a
free-choice marriage compared to an arranged marriage. We will compare the data from the
second, and also from the third.
Interpretation results
What we expect from this study is that a person with fulfilled expectations either in a freechoice or arranged marriage will experience more satisfaction in a marriage than a person
with failed expectations. If the results show us differently, then we can conclude that marital
satisfaction is not dependent on life expectations, but on other characteristics. Therefore we
included the CHARISMA scale, to measure which marital characteristics are needed for
marital satisfaction. It is also possible that there can be found a difference in marital
satisfaction between an arranged and free-choice marriage. Due to this it is likely that
different characteristics are needed for marital satisfaction in a free-choice and arranged
marriage (Madathil & Benshoff, 2008). We also think we can find that other marital
characteristics are needed in a short and long term marriage. This applies for both arranged
and free-choice. Because we are going to do a longitudinal we can compare both
measurements and see if there are different characteristics needed.
The findings of this study are relevant for a better understanding the differences and
similarities about different types of marriages India. If our results show that indeed marital
satisfaction is dependent on the individual’s expectation, then marriages are better comparable
cross-culturally. Because then we can account for people’s expectations. When expectations
don’t match the outcome (e.g. being in an arranged marriage) we can reveal that this
dissatisfaction is not related to different marital characteristics, but to failed expectations.
32
When we account for fulfilled or failed expectations in both arranged and free-choice
marriages, we can take a closer look at what characteristics are needed for marital satisfaction
in both marriages. And from this point explain possible differences between an arranged and
free-choice marriage.
References
Gautam, S. (2002). Coming next: Monsoon divorce. New Statesman, 131, 32-33.
Hamon, R.R., & Ingoldsby, B.B. (2002) Mate selection across cultures (1st edition). New
York: Sage publications.
Madathil, J., & Benshoff, J.M., (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, 16, 222-230.
Medora, N. P, Larson, J. H., Hortacsu, N., & Dave, P. (2002). Perceived attitudes towards
romanticism: a cross cultural study of american, asian indian, and turkish young
adults. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 155-182.
Myers, J.E., Madathil, J., Tingle, L.R., (2005). Marriage satisfaction and wellness in india and
the united states: a preliminary comparison of arranged marriages and marriages of
choice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 183-190.
Olson, D.H., Fournier, D.G., & Druckman J.M. (1987). PREPARE/ENRICH, Counselor’s
Manual, Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
Rao, V. (1993). The Rising Price of Husbands: A hedonic analysis of dowry increases in rural
India. The Journal of Political Economy, 101, 666-677.
33
Rosen-Grandon, J.R., Meyers, J.E., & Hattie, A. (2004). The relationship between marital
characteristics, marital interaction processes, and marital satisfaction. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 82, 58-68.
Xiaohe, X., & Whyte, M. K. (1990). Love matches and arranged marriages: a chinese
replication. Journal of Marriage and Family. 52, 709-722.
Yelsma, P., & Athappilly, K. (1968). Marital satisfaction and communication practices:
comparisons among Indian and American couples. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies, 11, 37-54
34