Indian Arranged Marriages

A Social Psychological Perspective

Tulika Jaiswal

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317694083
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Social Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Despite the fact that more than 80% of cultures practice varying degrees of arranged marriage, scholars have thus far concentrated exclusively on American and European cultures from choice marriages, not yet fully exploring the psychology of arranged marriages. India is a prominent South Asian nation that continues to retain the historical tradition of arranged marriages in the 21st century. This book therefore provides a timely addition to marital research as it offers a comprehensive and systematic psychological examination on Indian arranged marriages.

This book explores the role of individual, interactional, contextual, and cultural factors in predicting marital satisfaction in individuals who were in arranged marriages and living in India. The discussion is drawn from a survey collecting data from individuals married through the arranged marriage system in India. In light of this empirical study, the book considers the cross-cultural applicability of Western findings and proposes some key methodological and clinical considerations for examining marital relationships in Indian arranged marriages.

Providing useful, much-needed scholarly insight on arranged marriages and widening the research conceptualization of marriage, this book will be of particular interest to scholars of Social Psychology, Sociology, Marital and Cross-cultural studies.

1 Perspective on Western and cross-cultural marital research

Across cultures, marriage is a recognized, formal arrangement that constitutes the cornerstone of family. Married individuals strive for marital success, which includes both marital satisfaction and marital stability (Knox & Schacht, 2009). Marital satisfaction refers to the subjective evaluation of marriage and the partner, and marital stability refers to the actual duration of a marriage, or how long couples stay together without divorcing (Whyte, 1990). Researchers highlight that it is not simply marital status, but also the quality of the marriage that influences an individual’s overall well-being (Dush & Amato, 2005; Hawkins &Booth, 2005; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Williams, 2003). Weiss (2005; p. 25) notes the importance of examining marital satisfaction in marriages when he comments, “satisfaction matters most when we invest our hopes, expectations, and efforts in people and situations that can exert fate control.” Marital satisfaction has continued to be the center of attention in the study of marriage, being used as the criterion variable in more than 2,500 articles since the 1960s (Bradbury, Fincham & Beach, 2000; Weiss, 2005).

In the last two decades of marital research, researchers have attempted to empirically answer the question of what helps married individuals maintain satisfying and stable marriages. This book confines its attention to marital satisfaction rather than stability. This is simply because there is strong research evidence that marital satisfaction influences the likelihood of relationship dissolution (Le & Agnew, 2003). The construct of marital stability is also not much applicable in the current cultural context of India, where divorce rates remain among the lowest in the world (no official government statistics are available). Since the seminal work of Terman, Butterweiser, Ferguson, Johnson and Wilson (1938), numerous potential explanations and possible predictors for a satisfying and successful marriage have been put forward. These efforts have guided in the identification of the possible risk and protective factors in marital relationships. Although the progress in marital research has been tremendous, the area of marital research continues to maintain its focus on American/European couples in choice marriages (Flanagan et al., 2002; Goodwin, 1999; Markus, 2004). Despite marital research having been active for two decades, little effort has been made to examine the robustness of the Western-based predictors to marital success on non-Western cultures. More specifically, there has been a lack of research in cultures in which arranged marriage systems are prevalent, though arranged marriage systems stand in clear and direct contrast to choice marriage practices in the West. Adopting a cross-cultural perspective to the study of marriage will thus be informative in highlighting the individual and relational constructs, as well as in ascertaining the universal and cultural components of marital satisfaction (Duck, West & Acitelli, 1997; Halford, Markman & Stanley, 2003; Lucas, Parkhill, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Weisfeld & Shen, 2008).

The present chapter begins with a discussion on the conceptualization of marital satisfaction and provides an overview of the cross-cultural differences in marriage practices and marital satisfaction reports. Next, the theoretical model for examining marital satisfaction and methodological procedures to be undertaken in the cross-cultural examination of marital satisfaction are discussed. Finally, the concluding remarks for this chapter are presented.

Marital satisfaction and cross-cultural differences in marriage practices

Marital researchers have witnessed a long debate over the best ways to conceptualize satisfaction in marriage, with the most debated constructs being marital satisfaction and marital quality. Marital satisfaction is defined as a subjective global evaluation of one’s marriage and spouse, and is an attitude that is subject to change over time (cf. Roach, Frazier & Bowden, 1981; Weiss, 2005). Marital quality can be seen as a broader construct and is operationalized as having multidimensional components that include satisfaction, adjustment, disagreements, problems, interaction and stability (Spanier & Lewis, 1980; Weiss, 2005). Researchers have acknowledged that the conceptualization of marital quality as a multidimensional construct is empirically ill-advised in that it prevents the investigation of causes of low versus high satisfaction (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987; Glenn, 1980). Marital satisfaction may be a more empirically reliable and valid criterion for use in examining marriages (Bradbury et al., 2000). Given this conceptual framework, researchers have sought to measure marital satisfaction using self-report measures (Kashy & Snyder, 1995). Self-report measures have important benefits compared to other quantitative methodology. Self-report measures can inform researchers of individuals’ experiences and are easy to conduct, inexpensive and efficient. However, the use of self-report measures brings several potential limitations to the forefront, particularly stability of reports, shared method variance (i.e., statistical errors arising due to use of self-reports to examine both marital satisfaction and its predictors), and social desirability biases in responding to questionnaires. Researchers suggest these limitations can be overcome by assessing specific, objective and recent events; using a multi-method approach (such as using observational studies to examine the determinants of marital satisfaction and self-report to examine marital satisfaction), and by using social desirability measures along with marital satisfaction self-reports (cf. Miller, Perlman & Brehm, 2002d).

Researchers have also examined marriage using the constructs of romantic love, intimacy, sexual satisfaction and life satisfaction, and how each of these is associated with marital satisfaction. Romantic love has been defined as a sentiment involving erotic, cognitive, emotional and behavioral components (Sternberg & Weis, 2006). Intimacy has been conceptualized as the sharing of one’s inner self and feeling close to one’s partner (Moss & Schwebel, 1993). Sexual satisfaction has been defined as the degree to which an individual feels satisfied with the sexual aspects of his or her relationship (Harvey, Wenzel & Sprecher, 2004). Life satisfaction has been referred to as an individual’s judgment about the overall quality of their life (Veenhoven, 1991). There is substantial evidence that all of these constructs are highly and positively correlated with marital satisfaction, and that these constructs change concurrently with marital satisfaction (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Harvey et al., 2004; Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988; Masuda, 2003; Sandra, 2005; Sternberg & Weis, 2006). Furthermore, it has been indicated that there are basic human drives for romantic love, intimacy and sex, and that gender and cultural differences occur only in their expression and relative importance to marital satisfaction.

The universality of the construct of marital satisfaction is recognized amongst both cultural and evolutionary psychologists, who indicate that the success of a marriage rests on how well it facilitates the development of a sense of satisfaction between the spouses (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Lucas et al., 2008; Shackelford & Buss, 1997). The cultural and evolutionary psychology perspectives differ only in their explanations of how individuals evaluate marital satisfaction. From the evolutionary perspective, marital satisfaction serves as an adaptive motivation. According to this line of thinking, mate selection is the weighing of the overall benefits over the costs, whereas marital satisfaction is a psychological process that simply keeps track of the cost–benefit analysis and influences motivation to stay in or leave the relationship (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). Cultural psychology regards social context to as an important determinant of interpersonal representation in that individuals tend to evaluate their marriages based on how well the marriages fulfill embedded cultural obligations (Berscheid, 1995).

Thus research points out that in examining marriages, marital satisfaction is an index that remains universally applicable. However it has been pointed out that the determinants of marital satisfaction are culturally bound (Adams, 1988). Triandis defined culture as, “unstated assumptions, standard operating procedures, ways of doing things that have been internalized to such an extent that people do not argue about them” (1994, p. 16). Culture influences individuals’ expression, interactions, cognitions and attributions, and subsequently influences their relationships. Cultures can be categorized as either individualistic or collectivistic based on their value orientations and the social structuring of relationships (Dion & Dion, 1993). The distinction between individualist and collectivistic societies represents important cultural differences, including differences in marriage practices (Goodwin, 1999; Lee & Stone, 1980; Markus, 2004; Reis, Collins & Berscheid, 2000).

Individualistic societies emphasize an independent self (defined as a self-construal that emphasizes the separateness and uniqueness of the individual), personal autonomy, self-realization and personal goals. In accordance with these individualistic values, such societies practice a free-choice system of mate selection. Here, the decision making powers about marriage lie with the individuals concerned. It is the responsibility of each individual to search for a suitable partner for himself or herself. The primary selection criteria are romantic love and attraction. Marriages in such societies are preceded by a courtship period. The term “choice marriage” is thus used to describe marriages formed through such mate selection practices. Marriages in such contexts are seen as emotionally- charged relationships (Dion & Dion, 1993; Lee & Stone, 1980; Levine, Sato, Hashimoto & Verma, 1995; Rosenblatt & Cozby, 1972; Theodorson, 1965). Personal well-being and marital satisfaction depend on how well the marriage fulfills an individual’s psychological need for intimacy. Divorce becomes justifiable if romantic love fades away. This marriage practice is common amongst highly industrialized societies with higher standards of living, higher remarriage rates, higher divorce rates and a prevalent nuclear family system in which the husband and wife live with their unmarried children (Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990).

In contrast, collectivistic societies are characterized by an interdependent self (defined as a self-construal that emphasizes connectedness, social context and relationship), group loyalty and emotional dependency on groups. In line with their primary concern for group loyalty, mate selection practices in collectivistic societies are not individual endeavors. In collectivistic cultures, the preferred norm is to arrange marriages; in this process, individuals have little to no autonomy regarding marriage decisions. This type of mate selection does not rely on romantic love, and there is frequently no courtship period. Instead, the family takes on the role of searching for a suitable partner for the individual to marry. Marriages in such societies are known as “arranged marriages,” because it is the family that dictates the decisions of when and whom to marry. In such marriages, the focus is on economic and socio-demographic matching between spouses (Batyabal, 2001; Blood, 1967; Dion & Dion, 1993; Lee & Stone, 1980; Markus, 2004). Marriages in such societies fulfill functions that are instrumental rather than personal. Compared to choice marriages, marital satisfaction in arranged marriages is less dependent on emotional intimacy and personal needs. Arranged marriage systems are more prevalent in cultures with extended family systems in which the husband and wife live with their married and unmarried children, lower living standards, higher fertility rates and low divorce rates (Lee & Stone, 1980; Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990). Maintaining harmony in the family is crucial within the extended family structure; thus, great consideration is given when a new person is included in the family so as to not disrupt the family harmony. The family’s judgment in the marriage process is important and the decision is characterized as rational rather than motivated by pleasure or attraction (Batyabal, 2001; Dion & Dion, 1993; Lee & Stone, 1980). Pragmatic, economic concerns in collectivistic societies further govern marriage practices, and monetary exchanges take place between the families of the bride and groom when the marriage is formalized (De Munck, 1998).

It should be noted that collectivistic cultures like those in Asia that historically practiced arranged marriage systems have been observed to have shifting patterns in marriage practices with increased globalization. In the wake of globalization, there has been ever-increasing consumerism, including access to education, employment and Western media. These have all influenced the social values and norms of the collectivistic cultures, in turn encouraging adoption of individualistic values. Researchers have noted a shift of Asian societies towards increased individualistic attitudes, from mate selection practices to family systems (Arnett, 2002; Gordon, 2003; Pasupathi, 2002). This shift towards more individualistic values has been most dramatic in Southeast Asia and East Asia. These regions have largely abandoned arranged marriage traditions and moved towards a choice marriage system. With this change, a rise has been noted in the age at which individuals marry and in the formation of nuclear households following marriage (Chang & Chan, 2007; Kamo, 1993; Lloyd, 2005). This movement towards independent mate selection practices has been associated with an increase in premarital sex (mostly with the future partner), a decline in age difference between spouses, an increase in sexual intimacy in the early years of marriage and a delay in the onset of parenthood (Lloyd, 2005). However, embracing choice marriages has not completely eliminated the involvement of family in the marriage process (Gordon, 2003; Higgins, Zheng, Liu & Sun, 2002; Hirschman & Minh, 2002; Hortacsu & Oral, 1994; Huang, 2005; Litson & Salts, 1988). Even in present times, parental consent on the prospective partner is still considered important.

In contrast, despite the increasing infiltration of individualistic values in society and their impact on young people, the tradition of arranged marriage has continued in South Asia (Lloyd, 2005; Pasupathi, 2002). Family members still make the decisions regarding whom children or youth in the family will marry and when they will marry. An increase in nuclear households has been witnessed in the most urban cities in such nations, but rural areas still have a prevalence of extended household structures (Arnett, 2002). Young people in these nations, particularly in urban areas, are becoming increasingly involved in decisions about their own marriages, although the family retains the power to make the final decisions regarding spouse selection and marriage timing (Alsuwaigh, 1989; Chowdhury & Travato, 1994; De Silva, 2005; Ghimire, Axinn, Yabiku & Thornton, 2006; Medora, 2003; Sprecher & Chandak, 1992).

An integrated framework for exploring marital satisfaction

Having reviewed the construct of marital satisfaction along with its methodological limitations and strengths, it is of relevance to consider a suitable framework that examines marital satisfaction and its predictors. The section commences by presenting the most comprehensive, up–to-date model in the area of marital satisfaction, the Vulnerability–Stress–Adaptation model (VSA, Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Karney and Bradbury’s (1995) extensive meta-analysis of two decades of marital research provided a critical evaluation of the key theoretical, methodological and empirical research. In the VSA model, the individual predictors are referred to as “enduring vulnerabilities,” contextual predictors as “stressful events,” and interactional predictors as “adaptive processes.” Enduring vulnerabilities are considered the individual-level characteristics, or the stable individual characteristics (such as personality, attachment style and socio-demographic experiences) that a partner brings to the marriage. Stressful events encompass external stressful events, which can be normative or nonnormative transitions, stressful circumstances and major life events (e.g., death of a family member, loss of a job) that couples encounter. Adaptive processes refer to the interaction pattern and problem solving behaviors (such as adequate communication skills and positive behaviors) that couples display when encountering everyday events. In the VSA model, the pathways between vulnerabilities, stress, adaptative processes and marital satisfaction are reciprocal in nature. Karney and Bradbury proposed that marital satisfaction and marital stability are functions of vulnerabilities, stress and adaptative processes.

Karney and Bradbury’s critical review highlighted that, although the marital researchers had successfully identified numerous theoretical correlates and predictors of marital satisfaction, there was no coherent explanatory framework available to organize these predictors or to understand the mechanisms underlying their associations. Two decades of marital researchers had identified the individual, interactional and contextual predictors to marital satisfaction in only a segregated fashion, but the VSA model addressed the limitations of the existing research and theories to provide a coherent account of the associations between individual, interactional and contextual predictors and provided insight into how these influence marital satisfaction. The pathways in the VSA model have garnered considerable empirical support and the latter chapters of this book will review these numerous predictors under the three components of VSA model.

The model proposes specific reciprocal pathways between individual, contextual and interactional predictors of marital satisfaction. Adaptive processes are the core component to the marriage. In the VSA model, it is postulated that adaptive processes and marital satisfaction have a bi-directional relationship (depicted through paths F and G) in determining the stability of the marriage (depicted through path H). The individuals’ characteristics, enduring vulnerabilities, along with the presence or absence of stressful events, influenc...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: marital relationships
• 1 Perspective on Western and cross-cultural marital research
• 2 Contemporary India: the cultural context of arranged marriage
• 3 How are we getting along?: findings from Western, cross-cultural and Indian research on couple interaction and marital satisfaction
• 4 Do personal characteristics matter?: findings from Western, cross-cultural and Indian research on individual characteristics and marital satisfaction
• 5 Stressed out?: findings from Western, cross-cultural and Indian research on dyadic stressors and marital satisfaction
• 6 Examining the psychometric validity of the Indian version of the marital functioning test battery
• 7 Psychological examination of predictors of marital satisfaction in Indian arranged marriage
• 8 Toward a better understanding of Indian arranged marriages
• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• References
• Index