University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A cross-cultural comparison of marital power and dyadic adjustment among American, Indo-American, and East Indian dual-career and single-career couples

(USC Thesis Other)

A cross-cultural comparison of marital power and dyadic adjustment among American, Indo-American, and East Indian dual-career and single-career couples

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in ^ ew riter 6ce, while others may be
from any ^ e of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF MARITAL POWER
AND DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AMONG AMERICAN,
INDO-AMERICAN, AND EAST INDIAN DUAL CAREER
AND SINGLE CAREER COUPLES
by
Kala Paramesh
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education - Counseling Psychology)
July, 1997
Copyright 1997 Kala Paramesh
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 9816058
UMI Microform 9816058
Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. Ail rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-NiVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE g r a d u a t e s c h o o l
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertatioTir written by
Kalanidhi Paramesh
under the direction of h^x. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
D O C TO R O F PHILOSOPHY
Dean o fC radjig^ Studies
Date
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
...
Oultrpenon
Reproduced with pemrission of the copyright owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IX
DEDICATION
To my father and mother who always
believed in me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My gratitude to my Dissertation Committee
Chairperson. Dr. Michael Newcomb, who has been most
patient and stood by me for all these years. My special
thanks to Dr. JoAnn Farver, whose guidance, comments, and
suggestions were most helpful. Dr. Ruth Chung who
stepped in to help me out.
My love and deepest gratitude goes to my son, Vivek,
who was there any time of the night or day, with never a
frown or grumble, to help me with the computer. My
daughter, Ritu, who is always supportive. Last but not
least, my thanks and love to my husband, who has been my
rock all these years and is always proud of me.
Thanks to Cathy C.B., my best friend, whose insight
and understanding have supported me through the years at
U.S.C. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Paul Bloland,
who was my original Committee Chair, and Dr. Betty
Walker.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
LIST OF TABLES V
1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RATIONALE
FOR THE STUDY 1
Background 1
Background of the Indian Population 9
Literature Review 15
Social Exchange and Resource Theory 15
Gender Role Theory 21
Gender Role and Marital Power 25
Dual Career Marriages 25
Marital Satisfaction Literature 30
Empirical Research 30
Measurement Issues in Marital
Satisfaction Research 34
The Concept of Marital Power 37
Statement of the Problem 46
Hypotheses 48
2 METHODOLOGY 52
Research Design 52
Selection of the Sample 52
Descriptive Profile of Study Sample 53
Instrumentation 57
Dyadic Adjustment Scale 57
Decision Making Scale 59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER PAGE
Procedures 60
Statistical Methods 61
3 RESULTS 62
Preliminary Analysis 62
Results of Hypothesis Tests 68
4 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 81
Chapter Overview 81
Discussion 81
Implications for Theory 89
Conclusions 91
Implications for Future Research 95
REFERENCES 98
APPENDIX A 117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VI
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Breakdown of Age, Number of Children, and
Years Married by Cultural Group 54
2 Breakdown of Occupation and Education by
Cultural Group 56
3 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability on
Study Scales 63
4 Correlations Between Age and Study Scales 65
5 Within Group Correlations of Possible
Control Variables 67
6 Group Means and Two-Way ANCOVA Models;
Patriarchal Decision Making and Dyadic
Adjustment as Dependent Variables 72
7 Correlations Between Patriarchal Decision-
Making and Dyadic Adjustment, by Cultural
Group 75
8 Correlations Between Patriarchical Decision-
Making and Dyadic Adjustment Scales, by
Cultural Group and Gender 76
9 Comparison of Dual Career to Single Career
on Marital Power and Marital Satisfaction
(All Cultural Groups Combined) 78
10 Group Means and Two-Way ANCOVA Models:
Analysis of Single Versus Dual Career Couples 79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
Background
Marital satisfaction has a wide range of definitions
and is shaped by numerous factors. Marital satisfaction/
dyadic adjustment can be conceptualized on an
unidimensional satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum
with several interrelated dimensions (McNamara & Bahr,
1980). On the most general level, marital satisfaction
refers to the spouses' subjective satisfaction with the
marriage as a whole, as well as their satisfaction with
specific aspects of the relationship. When the partners
in a marriage are not satisfied, the outcome may result
in a gradual drifting apart and eventual divorce.
In the United States legal basis for conventional
marriages has traditionally involved the husband as head
of the household. He was economically responsible for
family support, while the wife was "responsible for the
home and was obligated to provide domestic service and
child care" (Weitzman (1981) in Scanzoni, 1983, p. 14).
However in recent years, this model has become
increasingly less valid. Over the past few decades the
American family has undergone many changes. For example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
the typical American family of the 1950s and early 1960s,
the mother sacrificed her career aspirations to be a full
time homemaker and mother. The mothers' early childhood
socialization created a willingness to fill this role,
while American males were socialized from an early age
into their role as head of the household and economic
provider (Smith & Reid, 1986; Whicker & Kronenfeld,
1986). Women developed their identities through their
nurturing roles, by raising healthy, "normal" children as
their ultimate accomplishment (Blumenstein & Schwartz,
1983). From an early age little boys learned to value
their masculinity, their superiority to little girls, and
their ultimate importance as the carrier of the family
name (Seccombe, 1986).
Scanzoni (1979) traced the increase in divorce rates
from American Colonial times to the present. In Colonial
times women were the "property" and the men the "owners".
Since then marital power balance has slowly shifted to a
more egalitarian position. He asserts the rise in
women's power to be the cause for increased divorce
rates, and it is a problem only when the male does not
adjust to the egalitarian roles. Norton and Click
(1976), contend that the changes have been too rapid and
people have not had adequate time to adjust to these
changes, and so the increase in divorce rates.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
The changes in women's role were fundamental, with
far-reaching implications for the American family in the
years to come (Osmond, 1980). In 1987, for example, 53%
of married mothers with infants were working; this can be
compared to the rate of 24% in 1970 (Hoffman, 1989) . The
rate of maternal employment for two-parent families is
now 71%, and continues to increase each year (Hoffman,
1989) .
In short, the conventional model of the marital
relationship, with the man as the breadwinner, and the
woman as the homemaker and child raiser is no longer
prevalent. The number of married women working outside
the home has increased by 70% according to the 1990
census (Priest, D. 1992). Today's couples are much more
likely to be dual-earner couples, than the pre- World War
II couples. One consequence is that the division of
labor within the family is no longer clear cut. However,
new values and formats for marital relationships have
been slow to develop causing "role-strain," the "felt
difficulty in meeting role demands" (Goode, 1960: p.483).
This in turn causes lower marital satisfaction (Bowen &
Orthner, 1983), one result being an ever-increasing rate
of divorce in American society.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF STUDY
COVARIATES I.V. MEDIATOR D.V.
Age Indians in
India
Dual vs.
Single
Careers
Marital
Satisfaction
Length
of
Marriage
Indians in
the U.S.
Americans
Husband
Dominance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Divorce trends had been stable for many decades
until the mid-1960's, a period during which the divorce
rate rose sharply (Sussman & Steinmetz, 1988) . According
to Scanzoni (1978) there has been a rapid increase in the
divorce rate over the last few decades. This trend may
be associated with the major changes in power distribu
tion associated with the increased number of women in the
work force. Changes in social and cultural norms and
events, such as increased women in the workforce, have
significant effect on marital stability (Newcomb &
Bent1er, 1981).
According to Norton and Click (1979), the upsurge in
divorce over the last two decades is the consequence of
questioning old values and traditions, and the shifting
of the power balance (Newcomb & Bentler, 1981). With
women becoming wage earners and having an increased
decision-making power, the conventional husband-wife
relationship has changed. Research has consistently
found that egalitarian couples report higher levels of
marital satisfaction, than couples in a hierarchical
power structure (Blood & Wolf, 1960; Centers, Ravens, &
Rodrigues, 1971; Corrales, 1975; Gray-Little & Burks,
1983; Gray-Little, Baucom & Hamby, 1996).
Unsuccessful marriages and the ensuing divorces have
been blamed for many of the ills facing society today.
Various researchers have demonstrated that divorced
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
families face many challenges, including a relatively
unstable lifestyle, high rates of delinquency and drug
use by children, and high poverty rates (Magid, 1987;
Scanzoni & Fox, 1980). Therefore, it appears that if a
stable family unit, consisting of father, mother and
children, is seen as the base unit on which our society
is based. It is necessary to find ways that families can
cope with the many challenges and changes faced in
society. When the stability of this unit is jeopardized
or becomes unstable it is necessary to find ways to help
it stay intact or prevent or lower divorce rates.
Marital power has been shown to be a key correlate
of marital satisfaction in the many studies starting in
the seventies (Conklin, 1973). This study is focused on
power and marital satisfaction to identify the impact of
different power structures on marital satisfaction.
Power in relationships has been associated with marital
stability (Scanzoni, 1968), to violence (Babock, Waltz,
Jacobson & Gottman, 1993; Hamby & Gray-Little, 1994), to
psychopathology (Mirowsky, 1985) and therapy outcome
(Whisman, & Jacobson, 1990; & Gray-Little, Baucom &
Hamby, 1996).
The focus of this study is the Indo-American or
Indian immigrant population in the United States. They
face not only the stress of moving to a new culture,
having to learn a new language, leave behind families.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
and social support systems, they also need to make
enormous adjustments to their new values and life-style
changes, facing discrimination and ostracism. Sex roles
and power are well delineated hierarchical structures
prescribed in Indian mythology as well as religion, that
becomes blurred in the acculturation process, due to
wives working outside the home, as well being exposed to
the more egalitarian relationships and attitudes present
in this society. These adjustments cause stress on
relationships, marriages, leading to divorce, health
problems, and even to death and/or suicide.
The author being an Indian immigrant, and working
with students in university settings has been made aware
of the problems faced by Indian families living in the
United States. Some of these problems appeared to stem
from the power issues within families. The perceived
power differential between parents, as well as parents
and children caused by the autocratic, patriarchal,
father as head of the household attitude that is
prevalent among Indian immigrant families.
Indians are one of the few truly patriarchal
cultures still maintaining the power differential between
males and females in the household. Husbands do not do
housework, or child care of any kind, and the wife does
not expect any help from him. In fact the husband who
does help his wife is considered to be less of a man, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
"hen-pecked”. The immigrants coming from this culture,
and living in the U.S. would make an ideal group to
study, as they are expected to transition from
patriarchal to egalitarian relationships to fit better
into this society. And compare them with the traditional
Indians in India, who are Patriarchal or husband
dominated in their marriages, along with the Caucasian
Americans living here, who are more egalitarian. This
comparison is made to better understand the differences
between these three populations. Looking at marital
satisfaction and power will not only give credence to
previous literature but also identify the ideal marriage
partnership among the three groups.
As the American society consists of many cultures it
is important to study and understand the different
cultures. To help maintain stable family units and/or
help families cope with the changing lifestyles and
values adopted in the new country. Families and
individuals need to understand better the impact of the
new lifestyle that causes problems within the marital
dyad as well as the family system. Studies on one
immigrant population may also be generalized to other
immigrant populations with similar acculturation issues
and thus increase the scope of the study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Background
The profile of the East Indian community is that;
(1) It is an urban community (91% reside in the
metropolitan areas) ; (2) it is comparatively a young
community; (3) the majority of the population was born
outside the U.S. (70% are foreign born); (4) the
community is well-educated (80% are at least college
educated) ; (5) most of the community maybe categorized as
middle class (median income $2,993; only 9.9% were
considered poor); (6) most families are traditional; that
is, males head most households (only 6% of families are
headed by women) ; and (7) 47% of the East Indian
community participate in the labor force (Dasgupta, 1986
p.297).
The Indian culture is more traditionally based in
that it is a patriarchal society with the male as the
head of the household and has the most power in the
marital relationship (Yogev, 1983). The American society
as mentioned has undergone changes and the power balance
in relationships has undergone shifts. This is one more
difference that the Indian immigrant couple has to deal
with in their new home.
The East Indian immigrant family living in the
United States is currently undergoing tremendous
acculturative stress. In the traditional Indian culture
changes in sex roles and gender equality have not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
occurred or have been very slow to develop (Cromwell,
Corrales, & Torsiello, 1973; Heath, 1958; Moghaddam,
Ditto, & Taylor, 1990). Women have been socialized to
defer to their husbands wishes/demands at all times. In
the old Indian scriptures, the Vedas, the woman's
position in the world is that of being first the property
of the father, then the husband and lastly the property
of her oldest son. Women did not have a voice in any
decision that was made, regarding themselves or their
family. In a joint family household the oldest married
son, after his father, was the authority figure. His
mother was next in the hierarchy, and the wife was under
the mother-in-law. For the many families that immigrate
to the United States from such cultural settings, the
clash of cultures is extreme. It can contribute to the
rapid deterioration of traditional value systems, when
the Indian women become more "Western" in their ideas, or
behavior— and the breakdown of marriages.
Divorce is not culturally accepted in India, it
became a census item only in 1991 (Agarwal & Agarwal,
1991). In-laws have been known to set their daughter-in-
law on fire, or drown her if she did not come up to their
expectations. In some cases women were so ashamed of
being "sent away" from their husband's home that they
would commit suicide rather than bring shame to their
father's family by returning home. However, even in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
India, values and cultural norms are changing, although
very slowly, and divorce rates are gradually starting to
rise (Moghaddam et al., 1990).
East Indians, and other members of traditional
cultural groups, live and conduct their lives very
differently in the United States than they would in their
country of origin. The different cultural norms and
values, wherein the wife is not allowed to have any
•power' in the relationship, contribute to a variety of
problems for Indian immigrants residing in the United
States as they wrestle with conflicting values and
attempt to adapt to an entirely new way of life. Some
cling on to old values even harder for security. If the
wife holds on to traditional values the husband feels
that she is "old fashioned" and derides her for this, and
finds her lacking for his tastes, and looks elsewhere for
companionship. Or, if the husband is more traditional,
he finds his wife's "Western ways" threatening, leading
to marital discord.
Another problem is the nuclear family unit, the pre
vailing type of family in the United States, is quite
foreign to the East Indian immigrant. Most East Indians
grow up in large extended family system that included the
father's parents, siblings, and other relatives
(Zimmerman, 1975). This causes families to feel
isolated, and without support when they reach here.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
A fundamental difference is that Indian families
tend to be patriarchal, with the husband having the
decision-making authority within the family unit. Family
lineage is traced through the husband and, in general,
the role of the father is substantially elevated over
other family members, including the wife (Sethi & Allen,
1984) . Husband is seen as the head of the household, has
"most power, is older, bigger, better educated, paid more
and superior in occupational status to his wife" (Yogev,
1983 p.38). The husband is not expected to do any
household chores as there are servants and female
relatives in the house to help with chores. Even in the
poorest of families the wife will serve the husband first
before sitting down to eat, or have to wait till he eats
before eating herself. This model implied that women
working outside the home caused "more conflicts and less
marital happiness" as this caused roles to become blurred
when they both shared housework and childcare (Yogev,
1983), causing difficulty in the relationship.
The children growing up in the U.S. are also faced
with alienation and conflicting values. Indian parents
frown on dating and "love marriages." The sons and
daughters are torn between what is considered "normal"
with their peers and appeasing their parents sense of
morality. All of these changes and differences increase
household clashes, leading to miserable lives and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
violence in the home, runaways, and possibly suicide or
murder.
This study was conducted to educate and enlighten
these families on the changing roles and ensuing power
differential that causes marital dissatisfaction
(Barbera, Pastor, Martinez-Benlloch, and Castano, 1991).
By education and understanding, help cope better with
these issues, or even seek counseling. Most of all
prevention is better than cure, and by understanding the
differences that cause the problems, families may be able
to continue intact and not become part of an ever
increasing divorce statistic.
The current study explores differences in marital
satisfaction and marital power among married couples
living in two distinct cultural groups: Caucasian
American and East Indian. More specifically, three
groups will be compared: East Indian couples living in
India, East Indian couples living in the United States,
and Caucasian couples living in the United States. A
quasi-experimental design is used wherein the dependent
variables of marital satisfaction and marital power are
correlated with cultural group, sex, single and dual
career status and compared.
The study addresses the effects of cultural shift,
dual and single careers, and levels of marital power on
marital satisfaction. Indo-Americans or East Indians
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
were chosen as subjects because there has been little
research on this group, either in India or among
immigrants to America. Furthermore, there are no studies
exploring the correlates of marital satisfaction in India
a patriarchal society, with marital satisfaction among
couples in an egalitarian society such as the United
States. Another difference is that in this study both
husbands and wives are used, in the past most of the
studies have only used wives as subjects. It is also
unique in that it compares immigrant couples with couples
from their country of origin and Caucasian American
couples.
There is also incidence of violence in the homes as
the couples attempt to accommodate to the power shifts in
the household, as evidenced by shelters for Indian women,
run by Indian women. The fact that this is a study of an
immigrant population, it maybe used to generalize
findings to other immigrant populations from patriarchal
cultures, which experience similar problems.
This study is interesting as it not only compares
the level of marital adjustment and power between these
three groups, but it will also show whether egalitarian
form of marriage is the most ideal or not. Whether
immigrants are happier because of this power shift, or do
they make a shift at all?— is the more interesting
question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
Literature Review
The current study compares dyadic adjustment and
power in relationships in two highly diverse cultures.
It is informed by two primary bodies of theoretical
literature, social exchange theory and gender role
theory. These theoretical areas are relevant for
enhancing our understanding of decision-making power and
how it affects marital satisfaction.
Social Exchange and Resource Theory
Social exchange theory is based on the assumption
that human beings are rational and that they make choices
based on their ability to predict the future; that is,
they seek to determine which alternatives would maximize
profit/rewards at the least cost (Safilios-Rothschild,
1967). In general, the term "social exchange" refers to
social relationships involving reciprocity. This
reciprocity may involve the exchange of economic goods or
resources, status, or information (Bahr, 1974; Nye, 1980;
Brinberg & Castell, 1982). In the context of the marital
relationship, each partner invests in the relationship
and expects to get something back in return; that
"something" is generally an intangible such as approval,
loyalty, and love (Foa, 1976).
In many cases, one or both individuals may feel that
adequate reciprocity is not present; or the social
exchange has been inequitable. In other cases, one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
partner may feel he or she has gotten more out of the
exchange than the other, or one or both partners in the
relationship may feel that the exchange was unfair
(Leventhal, 1976). The perception of unfairness can
interfere with the quality of the relationship.
It is necessary to examine how the social exchange
theory has been applied to family relationships. It was
Blood and Wolf's (1960) study of marital power based on
the resource theory of family power that stimulated
considerable interest and research in this area. The
term "marital power" refers to anything in the way of
tangible or intangible resources that a partner brings to
the relationship and can be used to modify the other's
behavior" (Rollins & Bahr, 1976 p.620). Marital power is
the ability of one spouse to impose her or his will
within a marital relationship.
As applied to families, family resource theory holds
that the "relative resources held by each partner
determine conjugal power" (Shihadeh, 1991). Blood and
Wolf (1960) define a resource as "anything that one
partner may make available to the other, helping the
latter satisfy his needs or attain his goals" (p. 12).
Thus, a resource might be economic or non-economic; and
tangible (education, income, property) or intangible
(degree of commitment, withholding or bestowing
affection).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Resource theory, may be interpreted as a special
application of social exchange theory to the domain of
marital power (Scanzoni, 1978). Resource theory states
that the greater the resources that spouse A has relative
to spouse B, the greater the decision-making power of
spouse A relative to spouse B (Blood & Wolf, 1960). To
the extent that spouse B has a psychological need for
change over time which is not met by spouse A, A's power
over B will decrease. On the other hand, when both A and
B provide near equal resources the distribution of power
may become increasingly egalitarian.
Power is a central concept for describing marital
interactions (Bahr, 1974) . Whenever a dyad is formed a
power structure evolves which is not necessarily
egalitarian in nature (Heer, 1962). The power structure
within any particular marital dyad is shaped by diverse
variables, including education, age, and sex role
attitudes (Barnard, 1938; Burr, 1973; Blood & Wolf, 1960;
Cartwright, 1959; Komarovsky, 1962; Rodman, 1972). While
much attention has been paid to this concept, there has
been no consensus in the literature regarding either
theoretical definitions or measurement of power.
However, there is a consensus that power is a
multidimensional construct (Cromwell & Olson, 1975;
McDonald, 1980; Safilios-Rothschild, 1979).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
At a general level, power may be defined as "the
ability of an individual within a social relationship to
carry out his or her will" (McDonald, 1980, p. 842).
Power also refers to the ability to modify the behavior
of others (Rollins & Bahr, 1976). Numerous studies
explored power, conceptualized in terms of one spouse's
influence over the other (Bahr & Rollins, 1971; Blood,
1967; Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Buric & Zecevic, 1967;
Centers, Raven, & Rodrigues, 1971; Cromwell, Corrales, &
Torseillo, 1973; Gray-Little, B. Baucom, D. & Hamby,
S.L., 1996; Heer, 1962; Kandel & Lesser, 1972;
Komarovsky, 1962; Lupri, 1969; Michel, 1967; Olson, 1969;
Olson & Rabunsky, 1972; Oppong, 1970; Safilios-Rotschild,
1967; Turk & Bell, 1972).
Cultural issues are also important in shaping power
relationships (Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979; Richmond,
1976). Possibly the same tangible and intangible
resources may have a totally different effect in diverse
cultural settings. For example, Rodman (1972) modified
standard resource theory by stating that "the balance of
power is influenced by the interaction of 1. the
comparative resources of husband and wife, and 2. the
cultural and subcultural expectations about the
distribution of marital power" (p. 60). Rodman argued
that, with respect to husbands' power, resources are
positively related to power in egalitarian cultures.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
However, in the substantially different context of a
patriarchal or "modified patriarchal" culture, those same
resources are inversely correlated. This being due to
the fact that when there is increased resources such as
education, the husband is more egalitarian in his views
than a traditional, less educated husband in a
patriarchal culture. This argument may be interpreted in
terms of the observation that high resource persons are
strongly influenced by the new egalitarian norms, as
higher education leads to newer values (Rodman, 1972).
According to Rodman (1972):
To the extent that a man's higher status operates as
a valued resource that gives him more leverage within the
marital relationship, it increases his power. To the
extent that it operates to place a man in a patriarchal
society in closer touch with equalitarian norms, it
decreases his marital power (p. 58).
This suggests that long-established patriarchal
norms may be associated with a "spontaneous consensus"
(Scanzoni, 1979) that the husband's interests take
priority, while the wife's contribution of resources does
not necessarily give her any more power in the
relationship because the norms will not allow it (Warner,
Lee & Lee, 1986). The resources do not change the power
structure in a patriarchal culture as all marriages are
husband-dominated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
According to Rodman (1972), analysis of resources in
a cultural contest adds another aspect to the effect of
resources on husband's power in marriage in a patriarchal
culture. He states that in egalitarian cultures the
resources are directly related to power. Whereas in
patriarchal cultures the "norms" override the power
gained from resources. In "modified patriarchal
cultures," where the norms are changing to more egalitar
ian power structure, resources are negatively related to
power (Lee & Peterson, 1982).
Research conducted on 13 3 "urban wives" in the
modified patriarchal culture of Greece (Safilios-
Rothschild, 1967), found that the predominant norm was
husband dominance using an eight-item decision-making
scale, and that marital satisfaction was highest for this
group. Whereas in couples where the wife was dominant
the marital scale was lowest. Similar findings were
reported in Yugoslavia (Buric & Zecevic, 1967) where the
predominant norm was husband-dominance. In both
countries when there was wealth and/or more education,
then an egalitarian norm was prevalent. Turkey (Fox,
1973), Korea (Kim & Kim, 1977), and Japan (Blood, 1967)
have also provided empirical support for Rodman's theory
of resources in a cultural context. A study conducted on
325 Mexican-American couples in Texas (Bean, Curtis &
Marcum, 1977) and 75 African-American couples in North
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Carolina (Gray-Little, 1982) found that the norm was
husband dominance, even though the cultural norm was more
egalitarian. Whereas, in Belgium, Denmark, France, the
U.S., and West Germany the resources had an influence on
power in the relationship, and egalitarian relationships
evidenced most marital satisfaction.
In both Burr, Ahern and Knowles (1979) and Richmond
(1976) found that cultural norms wherein the husband was
considered head of household had a significant influence
on marital power. However, other researchers have
disagreed with Rodman's thesis (Bossen, 1975; Richards,
1975). Bossen (1975) and Rogers (1975) found that women
exercise considerable influence in certain areas (e.g.,
marital and community matters) even when cultural norms
are strictly patriarchal.
Most of the studies indicate that, in terms of
"resource theory" (McDonald, 1980; Safilios-Rothschild,
1970b.) power in marital relationships is dependent upon
the contribution of resources by each spouse to the
marriage. In patriarchal societies the husband has the
power, irrespective of the resources of the wife.
Gender Rolg.. Theory
Gender role theory emphasizes the roles which men
and women have been socialized to accept in society
(Shihadeh, 1991). Sex roles are central to family
studies (Scanzoni & Fox, 198 0) and have been described as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
"one of the most important determinants of human
behavior"(McClelland, 1975, p. 81). Mirowsky and Ross
(1987) argue that belief in innate sex roles is a "major
ideological prop for an ascriptive, sex-based
stratification system in which men are in the advantaged
position" (p.527).
In most cultures traditional sex roles stereotype
men as being born with more "drive to be ambitious and
successful"; in contrast, women are seen as being "by
nature happiest when making a home and caring for
children" (Mirowsky & Ross, 1987) . These stereotyped
images, which dominate in a traditional, patriarchal
belief system, contribute to gender-based stratification
and have allowed men to dominate over women in all walks
of life.
Skewed and unequal sex role expectations can be
traced in large part to socialization in childhood.
Children learn how they are "supposed" to behave in
largely sex-segregated peer groups from an early age. It
has been shown that sex role differences observed
empirically in adulthood can be traced back to socializa
tion processes during childhood (Maccoby, 1990). A good
example is the expectation that women should gravitate
towards certain stereotyped occupational roles.
Every society or culture has its own culturally
prescribed roles for males and females. Such culturally
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
prescribed behaviors may be referred to as sex roles
(Bern, 1974).
All cultures distinguish behaviors considered
appropriate for males and females; differences between
males and females appear early in life and continue to be
reinforced and maintained through differential socializa
tion of males and females (Sethi & Allen, 1988, p. 15).
Kohlberg's (1966) cognitive development theory
explains the development of sex-role preferences as being
antecedent to imitation— a child learns as early as 18 to
thirty-six months to categorize himself or herself as
male or female. In contrast social learning theory
postulates that ”. . . social agents (particularly
parents) shape the child's performance by articulating
expectancies regarding gender-appropriate behavior,
positively reinforcing desired behaviors, punishing those
that are deemed unacceptable, and providing models for
the child to emulate" (O'Leary, 1977 p.37).
Stereo-typing of gender identity begins at birth as
demonstrated by Hansen (1980) wherein medical personnel
attending the delivery of babies describe males as
"sturdy, handsome, big, tough" and females as "dainty,
delicate, sweet, charming." Research suggests that
stereotyped gender identity development maybe due to the
fact that girls and boys are often treated fundamentally
differently in their families.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Also relevant are theories developed in evolutionary
psychology; these theories refer to the process of
evolution and sexual selection. Such theories predict
that female behavior will differ significantly from male
behavior in terms of having to solve quite different
adaptive problems (Kenrick, 1994). Researchers with this
theoretical perspective tend to stress sex differences
more closely related to reproduction (i.e., choice of
mate). In contrast, researchers working from an
environmental/socialization perspective generally deal
with sex differences across a broader range of variables.
From an anthropological perspective, the two sexes
are seen as exhibiting fundamentally different survival-
related functions. Women were primary responsible for
child-rearing; men were primarily responsible for hunting
and gathering (Shukla & Kapoor, 1990). The hunting
function, it might be argued, required a great deal of
accurate communication among peers who were at relatively
similar levels of physical, cognitive, and social
development. In contrast, the nurturing function
required communication between the developmentally more
advanced mother and the developmentally immature and
vulnerable child (Adkins, 1980) .
Some studies have reported the emergence of gender
differences at a surprisingly young age. Olesker (1990),
for example, identified differences between boys and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
girls during infancy (nine to 12 months); girls showed an
earlier and more focused interest in the immediate social
environment. Infant girls initiated more contact with
the mother and approached peers and other adults more
frequently than did boys.
Gender Role and Marital Power
The study of gender roles is also implicit in the
study of marital power (Frieze, Parsons, Johnson, Ruble &
Zellman, 1981; McClelland, 1980; Scanzoni, 1978).
Patriarchal societies may be described as being dominated
by widely held beliefs in traditional gender roles, with
women placed into a structurally secondary position
(Shukla & Kapoor, 1990). In such societies, men and
women have assumed well-defined roles, with such roles
having been the norms for many centuries. Men are
automatically in the role of head of household, and
occupy a position of great authority. They are expected
to assume all the responsibilities of provider and wage
earner. In contrast, women are expected to fill the
domestic role and to accept a position of lesser power in
the marital relationship and are entrusted with
housekeeping and childcare.
Dual Career Marriages
Since World War II a significant change has taken
place in gender roles in Western society. As more women
have entered the work force, roles have gradually become
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
more egalitarian. Women can choose jobs other than
nursing or teaching. They won the right to vote, as well
as vie for jobs that were traditionally held by men, such
as physicians, and engineers. ' The increasing prevalence
of dual-career marriages has helped women expand their
choices beyond the traditional option of being a wife,
mother and homemaker. It would be logical to expect this
trend to continue as women continue to acquire more
resources, expertise and economic advantages.
Rice (1979) distinguishes dual-career marriages from
traditional ones, based on the criterion that both
spouses have a high level of education, occupation, and
economic status, the power balance between the marriage
partners would change. Research has found that a wife's
power in the marriage unit increases with increased
resources (Safilios-Rothschild, 1970b.). Nadelson and
Nadelson (1980) comment that this situation requires
special adaptation by dual-career marriage partners, and
the "allocation of marital power is one such
modification".
Research on dual career marriages indicates that
there have been changes caused by women holding jobs and
maintaining households. Palomas and Garland (1970) found
that the wife bore the major burden of child care and
household maintenance and that the husbands' careers took
precedence over the wives'. Thus, the early pattern of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
dual career family lifestyle was not very different in
the role structure of dominance and responsibility in the
wives' feminine role (Rapaport & Rapaport, 1971, 1977).
Biernat and Wortman(1991) identified several potential
causes, including socioeconomic status and the
psychological importance of the working mother's job.
However, they found that the most important factor
remains the impact of early socialization and traditional
sex role. Early socialization has shaped the attitudes
of both men and women for generations, and is only now
beginning to change.
Parker, Peltier, and Wolleat (1981) describe dual
career couple as two people who pursue "a separate career
role along with a committed love relationship" (p. 14).
Fogarty, Rapoport and Rapoport (1971) differentiate
between career-oriented women who view work as a
"developmental occupational sequence" and the "job-
oriented woman" who has economic security as the reason.
However, there were other changes like the feminist
movement, and ideological changes that advocated
independence and autonomy as the goals of adult
development (Sethi & Allen, 1984) .
The increase of women in the work force, higher
education and the shift in thinking has caused the
marital power in relationships to change with wives'
having more power through increased resources (Gray-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Little & Burk, 1983). According to resource theory women
with greater earning capacity bring more valuable
resources to the marital unit and influence the power
balance (Hesse-Biber & Williamson, 1984).
The consequences of this broad social trend are
substantial for working mothers, their children, and for
the family system as a whole. Particularly important is
the impact of the multiple role stress experienced by
working mothers as they seek to juggle the roles of
mother and wage earner. Managing multiple roles is
always challenging, but this is particularly the case for
women with heavy responsibilities in both household and
workplace (Emmons, Biernat, Tiedhe, Lang, & Wortman,
1990). They inevitably encounter situations in which the
demands of the two roles conflict with one another.
One issue faced by many working mothers is that they
feel a sense of guilt about the impact of their
professional careers on their household responsibilities
(Baruch & Barnett, 1986) . Women who value traditional
sex-role expectations, or women raised in other cultures,
may feel an obligation to take primary responsibility for
household and child-care tasks. They are also likely to
worry about the possibility of resentment on their
husband's part (Belsky, 1990).
Much of the research in gender roles is grounded in
theory of role conflict. This theory focuses on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
expectations created by multiple roles, and the resulting
psychological pressure (Hall & Hall, 1982). For the
working mother, the additional demands generated by the
professional or occupational role lead to an increase in
the volume of tasks that have to be accomplished in any
particular day. The mother who enters a career at a
somewhat later age may have even more difficulties in
adapting to the substantial demands of both roles (Hall &
Hall, 1982).
Not surprisingly, pressure on the working mother
increases rapidly when the demands of the job begin to
encroach on evenings or weekends (Beutell & Greenhaus,
1983). For many women, there is a dual process leading to
greater pressure; increased demands from the professional
role, while family responsibilities also expand (e.g.,
having a child) . Given the fact that many working women
are saddled with a disproportionate responsibility for
household chores, these demands become even more
difficult to cope with.
It is not surprising that the level of the husband's
participation in household tasks is directly associated
with the wife's marital satisfaction (Yogev & Brett,
1985) . Some researchers have reported that the wife's
attitudes towards her spouse's involvement in household
tasks depended in part on her employment status. For
example, if the wife is working, she is more likely to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
demand more involvement in household chores by the
husband. Other researchers (Ross, Mirowsky, & Huber,
1983) have found that a more active involvement in
household tasks by the husband is predictive of lower
levels of depression in his working wife.
In analyzing the reasons for inequitable chore
distribution in dual-career couples, Biernat and Wortman
(1991) identified several potential causes, including
socioeconomic status, and the psychological importance of
the working mother's job. However, they argue that the
most important factor remains the impact of early
socialization and traditional sex role stereotypes should
not be underestimated. Early socialization and tradi
tional sex role stereotypes have shaped the attitude of
men and women for generations, wherein the man is
considered head of the household. This attitude has been
slowly changing with the feminist movement, dual careers
and viewing independence and autonomy as the goal for men
and women. Research has shown that marital satisfaction
increased with more egalitarian power structures in the
marital unit (Yogev, 1983).
Marital_Satisfaction Literature
Empirical Research. Most marital research conducted
before 1960 did not focus on any particular area or
dimension of marital interaction (Snyder, 1979) . The
focus of such research was concerned with identifying and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
exploring the sociodemographic and psychological
correlates of marital satisfaction (Ferguson, 1938;
Hamilton, 1951; Kelly, 1941).
Terman's (1938) correlational studies were
representative of research during this period. Terman
examined hundreds of potential correlates of marital
satisfaction in a large sample exceeding 1,000 married
and 100 divorced couples. Such studies led to the
development of global measures of marital satisfaction
and marital success (Burgess & Cottrell, 1939; Burgess &
Wallins, 1944, 1952; Corsini, 1956; Locke, 1947; Terman &
Wallins; 1949).
By the 1970s research methodology and statistical
techniques became more sophisticated, and researchers
used larger and more representative samples, and
longitudinal designs (Berardo, 1980). There was also a
growing interest in the effects of marital satisfaction
and dual career patterns on the well-being of children.
Marital satisfaction was researched on all aspects
of the relationship. McDonald(1980) reported a
curvilinear relationship between family stage and marital
satisfaction. Specifically, marital quality was found to
be higher for pre-parental and post-parental stages.
Other researchers have supported these findings
(Anderson, Russell, & Schumm, 1983) .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Some studies on marital satisfaction have focused on
the transition to parenthood; most researchers have
reported lower marital quality after birth of the first
child (Belsky, Gilstrap & Rovine, 1984; Goldberg,
Michaels, & Lamb, 1985; Miller & Sollie, 1980; Waldron &
Routh, 1981). However, such findings do not "prove" that
parenthood itself has a negative impact on marital
quality. The transition to parenthood generally occurs
in the early years of the marriage, which is the period
during which marital quality is likely to decline,
whether the couple had a child or not. Most of the
studies in this area have also reported that wives
exhibited lower perceived marital quality than their
husbands (McHale & Huston, 1985).
McHale and Huston (1985) conducted a study of the
marital satisfaction of 168 couples; they collected data
two months after the wedding and again after a one-year
period. Both couples who did and did not have children
experienced a decline in martial satisfaction and
decreased feelings of love. This study was important in
that it provided evidence that lower marital quality
attributed to the transition to parenthood may in fact
reflect a duration-of-marriage effect.
A second important study of 220 couples was
conducted by White and Booth (1985b.). These researchers
collected data on 220 couples over a three-year interval.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Statistical comparisons were made between 107 couples who
had a child during that period and 113 who did not.
Findings showed a decline in marital quality for both
groups, lending credence to the duration of marriage
effect rather than transition to parenthood. White and
Booth argued that the presence of children by themselves
did not lower marital quality; instead, having children
may have delayed the divorce of many couples.
Other studies have explored the effects of diverse
independent variables on marital quality. Locksley
(1980) found that in a large American sample exploring 14
potential predictors of marital quality, wives'
employment had no relationship to reported marital
quality by either husband or wife. Houseknecht and Macke
(1981) studied 663 women with graduate degrees from the
same university, and found marital adjustment
significantly higher for the wives who worked outside the
home.
Lee (1988a) found that older couples reported higher
levels of marital satisfaction. This finding was
attributed to the diminishing demands of non-marital
roles. They also found marital satisfaction was higher
for couples who spent more time with friends. Lee
(1988b), in another study using the same data, found that
spouses who confided in their marital partners had higher
marital satisfaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
Bowen and Orthner (1983) studied 331 military
couples; results showed that a discrepancy in
satisfaction was associated with couples wherein the
husband was more traditional and the wife more
progressive. Others have found that husbands in dual
earner marriages and wives in single-earner marriages are
more satisfied (Glenn, 1990).
Measurement Issues in Marital Satisfaction Research
In the same sense that there have been diverse
conceptual models of marital satisfaction, there have
also been a variety of methodological and measurement
tools. Marital satisfaction has traditionally been
measured with rating scales (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983).
Some of the more established instruments which have been
demonstrated to have acceptable reliability and validity
tap into marital success (Bernard, 193 3), marital
adjustment (Bowerman, 1957; Locke & Wallace, 1959) and
marital happiness (Terman, 19 38).
One of the most widely used instruments in the
literature is the short form of the Locke-Wallace
Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959); these
researchers emphasized the importance of marital
adjustment. Some critics, however, have questioned
whether the Locke-Wallace is the most appropriate
instrument. Edmonds et al. (1972), for example, reported
that marital adjustment scales in general, and the Locke-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Wallace in particular, was distorted by subjects who
skewed the answers in a socially desirable fashion.
Hawkins (1966) found that social desirability explains
only a small proportion of the variance in the Locke-
Wallace, and argued that it has remained a valid measure.
Various researchers have sought to develop measures
that minimize the impact of socially desirable responses
by developing more "objective" measures. Such efforts
have contributed to a proliferation of new assessment
devices seeking to measure couples' happiness. The usual
techniques have involved seeking to avoid contamination
by carefully identifying items that do not load heavily
on social desirability for inclusion in new scales
(Roach, Frazier, & Bowden, 1981). One instrument
considered an improvement on the Locke-Wallace is
Spanier's (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) which is
used in this study.
There has been a great deal of research conducted in
the area of marital satisfaction, yet there is no
consensus on conceptualization or definition of terms.
In many cases terms such as dyadic adjustment, marital
adjustment, happiness, integration, success,
satisfaction, and effectiveness have been used
interchangeably. However, these terms have been poorly
defined and researchers have often used identical terms
for quite distinct conceptual ideas. Burr (1973), in an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
effort to resolve some of this diversity, defined marital
satisfaction as:
. . . a goal that is highly valued in a number
of contemporary cultures. It is defined as
the degree to which the desires of
individuals are fulfilled. This can be
conceptualized either as satisfaction with
marriage situation as a whole, which would
be marital satisfaction, or as satisfaction
with specific aspects of the marriage
situation, such as satisfaction with sex, or
satisfaction with companionship. Apparently
in all of these different ways of
conceptualizing this phenomenon it is viewed
as a continuous variable varying in degrees
from low to high satisfaction. Whereas
marital stability is an overt process that
can be objectively detected, satisfaction is
a subjective phenomenon that occurs within
individuals, (p. 42).
Many researchers have conceptualized marital quality as
simply the way couples feel about each other (Huston &
Robins, 1982; Norton, 1983, Huston, McHale, & Crouter,
1986; & Fincham & Bradbury, 1987); they have generally
relied on self-report measures as indicators of marital
satisfaction. Other researchers (Johnson et al., 1986),
have seen marital satisfaction as being an inherent
characteristic of the relationship between husbands and
wives; in this case, items tapping patterns of conflict
and communication have been incorporated into
questionnaires (Holman & Burr, 1980).
Even though there has been a great deal of research
on marital satisfaction, a need for more sophisticated
analyses of causal relationships still remains. Causal
associations can be established with the use of informed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
theory and knowledge about the phenomena under study
combined with appropriate research methodologies. The
current study will explore both the antecedents and
, consequences of marital power as related to marital
satisfaction, while placing these issues in appropriate
cross-cultural context.
The Concept of Marital Power
The study of marital power has been of substantial
interest to scholars exploring marital behavior (Rollins
& Bahr, 1976). In general, the creation of a new marital
dyad implies the evolution of a particular power
structure within the marriage and is significantly
affected by the norms of the culture within which it
takes place.
One of the first major researchers on marital power
was Strodtbeck (1951), who investigated the dominant
patterns in husbands' and wives' interaction. He asked
both spouses to separately rank various characteristics
of their marriages and families. Findings showed that
the spouse who talked the most typically won arguments;
further, these were generally the husbands. There was
also significant cultural variation; among Mormon
couples, husbands were generally dominant (they won 42
out 71 arguments); among white Protestant couples,
husbands were winners in 39 out of 72 arguments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
However, for Navajo couples, wives were more dominant,
winning 42 out of 71 arguments.
Some early studies like Terman's (1938) indicated
that an egalitarian decision-making style was important
for satisfaction in marriage. He found that of 1,250
middle-class couples, those who reported fewer disagree
ments and more "give and take" in the settlement of
arguments had higher marital satisfaction. In contrast,
unhappily married wives were more likely than others to
insist on having their own way in disagreements, the
results may have been due to the fact that Terman
included "items concerning marital disagreement in his
index of marital happiness" (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983).
Lu (1952) found that high marital adjustment was
associated with egalitarianism; at the same time, poor
marital adjustment is often associated with a situation
in which one of the marital partners was dominant.
One of the most important studies in this area is
Blood and Wolfe's (1960) investigation of decision-making
power as husbands and wives moved away from traditional,
patriarchal norms towards more egalitarian partnerships.
Blood and Wolfe argue that balance of power in a marriage
may tilt towards the one who has the most resources. It
has been an ongoing theme in the literature for over 30
years (Bahr & Rollins, 1971; Buric & Zecevic, 1967;
Centers, Raven & Rodriguez, 1971; Cromwell, Corrales &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Torsiello, 1974; Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Heer, 1962;
Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Komarovsky, 1962; Lupri, 1969;
Michel, 1967; Olson, 1969; Olson & Rabunsky, 1972;
Oppong, 1970; Rollins & Bahr, 1976; Safilios-Rotschild,
1967; Turk & Bell, 1972; Shukla, 1987, Shukla & Kapoor,
1990).
Blood and Wolf based their "Resource Theory" on the
argument that marital power was no longer patriarchal but
rather depended on the "comparative resources" of the
partners. Most of the research that followed gave
confirmation to this (Scanzoni, 1979) . The exceptions
were interpreted in terms of the inherent limitations of
resource theory for explaining all aspects of the power
relationship. These deficiencies provided a catalyst for
further research attempting to clarify the relationship
between the distribution of marital power and the
partner's resources. In addition, subsequent studies
have broadened their focus to take into account other
variables such as culture (Rodman, 1967; Scanzoni, 1978;
Wilkening & Morrison, 1963).
Blood and Wolf conceptualized marital power as being
potentially held by one spouse exclusively or by both
partners equally. They defined power as "the potential
ability of one partner to influence the other's behavior"
(p. 11). They argued, based on resource theory, that the
"source of power in so intimate a relationship as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
marriage must be sought in the comparative resources
which the husband and wife bring to the marriage, rather
than in brute force" (p. 12) .
Blood and Wolf defined a "resource" as; "anything
that one partner may make available to the other, helping
the latter spouse satisfy his/her needs or attain his/her
goals" (p. 12). Resources might include, for example,
the capacity to earn money, attractiveness, education,
occupational status, competence or anything one spouse
might desire for self-fulfillment supplied by the other.
Blood and Wolf studied a sample of Michigan wives who
customarily made final decisions in each of eight areas
ranging from choice of husband's job to purchase of life
insurance. They categorized couples as "husband
dominant," "wife dominant," or "egalitarian." The
egalitarian category was further divided into "syncratic
marriages" (decisions made by both spouses jointly) and
"autonomous marriages" (equal numbers of separate
decisions made by both spouses).
Blood and Wolf found that in strictly patriarchal
families, fewer than one half of 1% of husbands made all
eight decisions, while the number of wives who made all
decisions was even fewer in number. However, the
aggregate of power was found to tilt decidedly towards
the husband. Blood and Wolf found that the power to make
decisions was "primarily from the resources which the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
individual can provide to meet the needs of his marriage
partner" (p. 44). In other words, the distribution of
power depended upon the tangible resources and skills
that each spouse brought into the marriage. It is also
important to note that the advent of women into the work
force has moved the power balance away from traditional
sex-linked cultural norms, based on patriarchal, father
as head of household, to a more equitable relationship
between husband and wife.
Blood and Wolf took into account a number of
important demographic and background variables. These
were enumerated as follows.
1. Place of birth. Results showed no significant
differences between wives who were native-born and
foreign-born in terms of husband's power.
2. Age. Husband's power was found to decline with
increasing age. Although there was an upsurge at age 60-
69 years for husbands, this was the only point at which
there was a reversal. In general, trend analysis showed
a steady decline with age.
3. Ethnicity. There was a significant effect of
race on marital power, in that husbands from the Far East
wielded the greatest power while Afro-American husbands
had the least.
4. Religion. No significant effect was found.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
5. Duration of marriage. Results showed that the
majority of the couples had children and "the data on
duration of marriage pertained to the family-life cycle."
The association was husband's power was curvilinear;
during both pre-parental and child rearing stages the
husbands' power rose. Husbands' power increased from
childless stage to a high point when the children were in
pre-school (married 4 to 7 years); it then started to
decline when married 8 to 15 years. It declined further
for couples married 16 to 22 years and even more for
those married 22 years or longer. Thus, husbands' power
clearly decreased with duration of the marriage.
6. Education. Husbands' power increased with the
amount of education; however, wives' education showed a
curvilinear trend. Greater differentials on education
also showed a relationship, with the spouse having the
higher education exercising more power. Blood and Wolf
attributed this to the superior verbal skills acquired
with education.
7. Work/employment status. Not surprisingly given
the status of money as the most tangible of all
resources. Blood and Wolf found that the spouse who
worked held more power in the relationship. The wife who
had worked more years had more decision-making power in
the marriage. They also found in an analysis of
husbands' occupational status that "generally speaking
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
the higher the husband's occupational prestige, the
greater his voice in marital decisions." The wives'
occupational level, however, was not analyzed.
Blood and Wolf concluded that decision-making power
in a marriage is generally shaped by the tangible
resources held by each partner. The greater the tangible
resources such as education, work-status, salary, the
greater the power that partner wields. However, they
also acknowledged that this was only one aspect of power
and that power was multi-dimensional in nature; the
implication, of course, is that intangible resources such
as self-esteem, love, and other personality
characteristics needed to be considered in later
research.
Blood and Wolf's study was instrumental in
generating large amounts of research on the topic of
power, with numerous studies having been done to test and
retest their theoretical model (McDonald, 1980). This
body of research as a whole has led to theoretical and
methodological progress in the research on marital power.
It should also be noted that the current study draws
extensively on Blood and Wolf's work, including the use
of an adaptation of their Decision-Making Index (DMI) and
the incorporation of their theoretical rationale in
resource theory.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Most of the criticism aimed at this study was
because Blood and Wolf interviewed only the wives. They
had justified this based on the argument that there would
be a "close correlation" between what the husband and
wife say about their marriage and therefore that they
could rely on only one partner's responses. Subsequent
studies have utilized interviews conducted with both
husbands and wives (Buric & Zecevic, 1967; Centers,
Ravens & Rodrigues, 1971; Heer, 1962; Houseknecht &
Macke, 1981; Locksley, 1980; Olson & Rabunsky, 1972;
Richmond, 1978; Safilios-Rotschild, 1969; Scanzoni, 1978;
Turk & Bell, 1972).
A second major problem often cited is the reliance
on survey-type, self-report measures which conceptualize
relationship in terms of power, something which most
individuals are not used to doing. Perceptual biases may
also have occurred due to the social desirability of
egalitarian power structures (Olson & Rabunsky, 1972).
It is possible that reported perception responses may
reflect the wives' subjective realities rather than
objective reality (Olson & Rabunsky, 1972) ; it is also
possible that the wives may have experienced difficulty
in determining who made decisions (Turk & Bell, 1972).
McDonald (1980) points out that Blood and Wolf may have
tapped "perceived authority" rather than power itself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Another problem was the assigning of equal weights
for all decisions. Safilios-Rotschild (1970b) question
the assumption that all decisions are equally important.
This critical attitude is supported by Price-Bonham
(1977), who compared differential relations between
unweighted and weighted decision-making scores with
selected resources weighted for importance. She found
that there was no significant difference when simple
correlational methods were used. However, the use of
step-wise multiple regression revealed that one spouse
may rank a decision as "very important," whereas the
other may rank the exact same decision as "very
unimportant".
One study of the importance of decision areas by
Brinkerhof and Lupri (1978) found that there was a large
discrepancy between husbands and wives. These
researchers found that wives' power was derived from
items that were not considered equally important by
themselves and their husbands. In contrast, husbands'
decision-making power was derived from items considered
important by both spouses.
One final criticism is that the DMI scoring schemata
may tend to skew the power differential. In the scoring
of the DMI, a response of '3' designates egalitarian
decision-making style. However, it is possible that a
mean of three between the spouses represents two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
different power scores. When a spouse answers an equal
number of twos ("mostly husband") and number fours
("mostly wife") , the total power mean would be three
(husband and wife exactly the same) . If, on the other
hand, the partner answers all threes (husband and wife
exactly the same), then the mean power score would still
be three. The interpretation would be that both are the
same, having identified an egalitarian style, even though
there should be a clear difference. Thus, great care
should be employed both in scoring and in interpreting
scores.
Statement of the Problem
While much research on minority families in the U.S.
has been conducted, much of it has focused on immigrant
groups from other Western countries (Berardo, 1980) .
Over the past 20 years there has been a significant
transition in the demographic characteristics of
immigrants. Instead of being of European origin, most
originate now in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean
(U.S. Census, 1996). There has been an infusion of
ethnic and cultural diversity into American society and
researchers have been slow in adjusting to this important
change.
Despite the importance of the problem, few studies
comparing marital satisfaction in a patriarchal society
such as India with an egalitarian society such as the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
United States have been attempted. However, it should be
interesting and informative to explore the differences in
marital satisfaction among couples living in the quite
diverse cultural settings. Most American marriages have
shifted to a more egalitarian power structure during the
years since World War II with the rapid entrance of women
into the work force. In contrast, India remains a
patriarchal society on the threshold of major cultural
change.
There are many objective and subjective conditions
which influence the quality of life (Berry & Williams,
1987). The reason immigrants move to a new continent is
to improve the quality of life in some way, whether in
the form of enhanced professional opportunities, higher
income, or moving away from involvement with family of
origin and extended family. However, the same conditions
which immigrants seek out in order to improve their
quality of life also contribute to problems in married
life. This suggests that the relationship between
economic variables and processes and marital satisfaction
represent an important area for research.
This empirical study compares levels of marital
satisfaction among East Indian couples living in India,
East Indian immigrant couples residing in the United
States, and Caucasian American couples. Power, which is
a basic component of all relationships, is the crucial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
variable in this comparative study of marital satisfac
tion between couples in two different cultures (Safilos-
Rotschild, 1976a.)* Safilos-Rotschild argues that "all
ground rules of married life are expressions of power"
(p. 275).
The current study, then, explores the antecedents
and consequences of family power (Shukla & Kapoor, 1990)
in the patriarchal society of India. The specific focus
is on profiling patterns of decision-making power and
relating decision-making power to marital satisfaction.
H ypotheses
The first three hypotheses refer to potential
differences on the measure of Husband Dominance Index/
marital power. The specific hypotheses were as follows.
Hypothesis 1. East Indians will score significantly
higher on the Patriarchal Decision-Making/Husband
Dominance Index than Indians living in the United States.
This hypothesis is based on Rodman's theory that in
patriarchal cultures the man is the decision-maker. India
is still a patriarchal country, and therefore the East
Indian men who live there will conform to the cultural
norm of the husband being the head of the household and
make more decisions. On the other hand the East Indians
who live in the U.S. have moved away from these norms and
will be more influenced by the egalitarian relationships
in this country.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Hypothesis 2. East Indians will score significantly
higher on the Husband Dominance Index than Caucasian
Americans. This is again is based on the fact that East
Indian men raised and living in a patriarchal culture
will demonstrate higher decision-making scores than the
Caucasian men in the U.S., who are more exposed to
egalitarian norms.
Hypothesis 3. Indians living in the U.S. will score
significantly higher on the Husband Dominance Index than
Caucasian Americans. This is based on the fact that the
East Indian men were raised in a patriarchal culture
before moving to the U.S. their socialization and gender
role stereotype will be traditional. Therefore they would
score higher on the decision-making score than the
Caucasian men.
The second set of three hypotheses refer to
postulated differences in marital satisfaction as
dependent variable.
Hypothesis 4. Indians living in the U.S. will score
significantly higher on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale than
East Indians. As they have become more egalitarian in
their marital relationships, and Rodman (1972) has
theorized that egalitarian marriages have higher levels
of marital satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5. Caucasian Americans will score
significantly higher on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale than
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
East Indians. Again, according to Rodman, Caucasian
Americans will have higher levels of marital adjustment
as they will be more egalitarian in their power structure
compared to East Indians living in the U.S.
Hypothesis 6. Caucasian Americans will score
significantly higher on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale than
Indians living in the U.S. as they will have a more
egalitarian marital power structure than Indians from a
patriarchal country like India.
The third set of three hypotheses refer to
postulated correlation among study variables, assessed
separately within each of the three cultural groups.
Hypothesis 7. Among East Indian couples, higher
levels of Husband Dominance will be associated with
higher levels of marital adjustment. The couples raised
in this culture will not experience role-dissonance, and
will follow the norm.
Hypothesis 8. Among Indians living in America,
lower levels of Husband Dominance will be associated with
higher levels of marital adjustment. Here the couples
having adopted the egalitarian power structure of the
host country, will experience higher levels of marital
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9. Among Caucasian Americans, lower
levels of Husband Dominance will be associated with
higher levels of dyadic adjustment. The U.S. having a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
more egalitarian marital power structure, the studies
show that egalitarian couples experience higher levels of
marital satisfaction based on the marital power and role
theory by Rodman (1972) and Blood and Wolf's (1960) .
The final two hypotheses refer to postulated
difference between couples in which only the husband
works (single career) and those in which both spouses
work (dual career).
Hypothesis 10. Single career couples will score
significantly lower on dyadic adjustment than dual career
couples, regardless of cultural group. Here the power
differential between the couples will be different, due
to the fact that the wives who are not working will have
less power in the relationship. Rodman (1972) in his
extensive research on power, has demonstrated that in
Western cultures where the norm is more egalitarian,
husband dominated couples experience lower levels of
marital satisfaction, and career wives admitted to higher
satisfaction than women who stayed at home.
Hypothesis 11. Single career couples will score
significantly higher on the Husband Dominance Index than
dual career couples, regardless of cultural group.
Single career couples have been shown to experience less
dyadic adjustment due to the fact that wives do not have
resources (money or position status) to boost their power
in the relationship.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
A quasi-experimental design was employed to study
the relationship between cultural group, husbands' and
wives' employment, family power structure, and marital
satisfaction. Group comparison and ANCOVAs were selected
as the most appropriate for ascertaining the extent to
which there is significance in the postulated
relationships.
Independent variables in the design are the three
cultural groups (Indians residing in India, Indians in
America, and Caucasian Americans), single (traditional)
versus dual career and sex. Level of education, length
of residence in America (for Indo-American couples), age,
number of children and length of marriage were tested as
co-variates. Dependent variables are level of marital
satisfaction and level of husband dominance (patriarchal
decision-making ) for both husbands and wives in the two
countries.
Selection of the Sample
The questionnaires were mailed to volunteers who
were contacted through the Indian Association of Southern
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
California in the United States, as well as leaving
questionnaires at Indian restaurants and other gathering
places, as well as mailed to other states through means
of networking. Caucasian couples were sought by
networking. East Indian couples were contacted through a
library, as well as mailing questionnaires to other
South Indian states through means of a referral network.
All the couples in both countries were from the middle
class as identified by the level of income, and the fact
that they understood English. For the Indian sample, 65%
of the questionnaires were returned. For the Indian
sample in India there was a 52% return rate, and for the
Caucasian American population the return rate was 51%.
Individuals from lower socioeconomic strata were not
sought out due to possible language problems (i.e., lack
of English fluency). Participants ranged in age from
20's to late 60's.
Descriptive Profile of Study Sample
The sample consisted of 372 married individuals (186
couples). As shown in Table 1, participants included 130
East Indians (34.9%), 128 Indians living in America)
(34.4%), and 114 Caucasian Americans (30.7%). The
breakdown of the demographic information, age, number of
children, years married, occupation, and education, for
the three cultural groups is provided in this table.
Occupation which had five categories, professional,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Table 1
Breakdown of Aae. Number of Children, and
Years Married bv Cultural Group
Group
Indian in
______F Values___ Indian America Americc
fN=130) fN=1281 fN=114)
Age—Female
Mean 38.22 36.84 45.88
S.O. 7.66 11.26 13.90
Min 22 18 25
Max 53 63 85
Age—Male
Mean 44.00 40.99 48.30
S.D. 8. 03 12.01 14.13
Min 27 18 23
Max 59 76 88
Total 41.23 38.94 47.09
Number of Children
Mean 1.58 1.39 1.79
S.D. 0.79 1.14 1.48
Min 0 0 0
Max 4 4 7
Years Married
Mean 11.58 12.12 17.07
S.D. 9.98 11.66 13.71
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 30.0 43.0 48 . 0
-S£g ___ £*S
16.10* 12.09* 0.64
2.48
7.83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
administrative, clerical, blue-collar and housewife/not
working, was reduced to three categories for ease of
viewing.
Table 1 shows a breakdown of age and number of
children by cultural group. In all three cultural
groups, husbands were somewhat older; the differential
was greater among the Indians living in India and least
among American couples. Number of children was similar
among the three groups (m=1.39, SD=1.1 among Indians
living in America; m=1.79, SD=1.48 among American
couples, and m=1.58, SD=0.79 among East Indian couples).
Table 2 also pools males and females and compares
mean age across the three cultural groups. Results here
show that the American couples were the oldest (mean age
of 47.09 years), as compared to mean ages of 41.23 for
Indians in India and 38.94 for Indians living in the
United States. This difference was highly significant as
tested by the main effect of cultural group in an ANOVA
model (F = 15.65, p < 0.001). Post hoc tests were also
done using Tukey tests. These tests revealed that there
was no difference in mean age between East Indians and
Indians living in the United States. Significant differ
ences observed were between (a) East Indians and
Caucasians (p < 0.01), and (b) Indians living in the U.S.
and Caucasians (p < 0.01).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Table 2
Breakdown of Occupation and Education
by Cultural Group
Group
Indian in
Indian America American
CN=112)________ CN=122)________ (N=.112l_
Q g S A ipatio n
Professional 36 (32.1%) 37 (30.3%) 35 (31.2%)
Administrative 42 (37.5%) 52 (42.6%) 25 (22.3%)
other 34 (30.4%) 33 (27.0%) 52 (46.4%)
X- = 14.68, E = .005
Education
High School
or Some
College 7 (5.8%) 9 (7.2%) 55 (50.0%)
4-Year Degree 76 (62.8%) 47 (37.6%) 29 (26.4%)
Graduate
Degree 38 (31.4%) 69 (55.2%) 26 (23.6%)
= 108.61, E < .001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Mean scores on all study scales, pooled across the
three cultural groups, are shown in Table 2. These
scores are generally within the range of established
norms.
Instrumentation
The demographic questionnaire collected data on
variables of interest to the researcher and pertinent to
the study. This questionnaire was designed by the
researcher to answer specific questions, such as single
career or dual career, number of children, etc.
(Appendix A) . In addition to the demographic question
naire, two published instruments were utilized for this
research study— Dyadic Adjustment scale and Blood And
Wolf's adapted Power Scale.
Dyadig-Adjustment Scale
The DAS has been widely used in empirical research,
and with populations including married couples at various
stages of their relationship, cohabiting couples, and
gay/lesbian couples (Kurdek, 1986), and groups from other
cultures and countries— Yugoslavia (Buric & Zecevic,
1960, France (Michel, 1967) India (Shukla, 1987). The
scale has been used in over 1500 studies (Spanier, 1988)
and numerous studies of its psychometric properties have
been conducted. It is 32-item Likert scale ranging from
a. husband always, b. husband more than wife, c. husband
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
and wife exactly the same, d. wife more than husband,
e. wife always.
In completing the DAS, respondents are asked to rate
the level of agreement or disagreement that exists on a
range of issues, including finances, decision making, and
intimacy behaviors. The DAS yields subscales measuring
four dimensions; dyadic satisfaction (10 items), dyadic
cohesion (5 items), dyadic consensus (13 items), and
affactional expression (4 items). The subscales may be
interpreted as follows:
Internal consistency for these subscales has been
found to be .94, .86, .90 and .73 respectively.
Reliability for overall dyadic adjustment has been found
to be .96. deTurck and Miller(1986) reported reliability
coefficients of .92 for dyadic consensus, .63 for
affectional expression, .85 for dyadic satisfaction, and
.86 for dyadic cohesion.
Content validity was assessed by having three
independent judges examine over 200 items for the
original pool of items. Concurrent validity has been
evaluated by calculating correlation with the Locke-
Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale. Criterion validity was
evaluated by comparisons of married and divorced
individuals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Decision Making Scale
This scale was constructed and used on Indian
couples (Shukla, 1987) using 8 items from the Blood and
Wolfe's Decision Making Scale (1960) ; 6 items from
Centers, Raven, and Rodrigues (1971); and 4 items from
Price-Bonham (1976). Shukla (1987) used only the items
considered "relevant and important in the Indian
context". Items related to children were not included as
the life cycle stages of the families varied. This was
pre-tested on a small group and 2 items were dropped as
the subjects indicated that such decision choices were
rarely made. The two items were (a) what job the husband
should take, and (b) which house or apartment to take.
This 16 item scale was used in this study.
In this project mean scores were categorized husband
dominant (HD), wife dominant (WD), autonomic (A) , or
syncratic (S). Both autonomic and syncratic processes
are egalitarian types of decision making. Autonomic
power structure refers to situations in which equal
number of separate decisions are made by both partners,
whereas in the syncratic power structure most decisions
are made jointly. The overall score on this instrument,
referred to as "Patriarchical Decision Making,"or husband
dominance score reflects the extent to which the husband
exercises dominance in household decision-making; thus,
higher scores reflect a greater degree of patriarchal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
dominance. This was the main focus for comparison in
this study, to see if there was a difference in decision
making power between the three groups— the Indian couples
in India, the India couples in the U.S. and the Caucasian
couples in the U.S.
The wife or husband answering the questionnaire had
to identify whether the husband or wife actually made the
decision. Five answers were possible for each question:
wife always, wife more than husband, wife and husband
equal, husband more than wife, and husband always. For
calculating the power indices the responses were scored 1
to 5, higher scores indicating greater power. For this
study only the husband dominance score was used.
Procedure
Questionnaires were distributed to couples in the
United States and to couples in India. All participants
were asked to respond to the questionnaires, which
incorporated both the published instruments and the
demographic questionnaire.
The packet included a cover letter signed by the
researcher and committee chair explaining the research.
All questions were posed in a non-threatening manner and
respondents were assured of anonymity. Participants were
provided with a stamped return envelope. Indian
respondents were asked to mail back questionnaires to a
research assistant recruited specifically for this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
purpose. The research assistant then collected all
questionnaires and mailed them back to the researcher in
the United States for analysis, or the questionnaires
were collected by the researcher when visiting there.
Statistical Methods
All data were entered into an IBM computer for sta
tistical analysis. Frequency distributions and
descriptive statistics were examined and all scales
calculated following authors' directions.
For the first six hypotheses, each of which
postulated certain relationships among the three cultural
groups, 2-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Models were
calculated. For each model independent variables were
defined as cultural group and gender; age and years
married were entered as a covariate for each ANCOVA
model.
For Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9, which refer to within-
group correlations, the Pearson product moment
correlation coefficient was employed. For Hypotheses 10
and 11, both the independent groups t-test and analysis
of variance were utilized.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
In order to assess the congruence of perceptions
between husbands and wives in each cultural group,
comparisons of partners' responses on dependent measures
were conducted. Results of a preliminary t-test
analysis, conducted separately within each cultural
group, are shown in Table 3. These results were further
explored using 2-way analysis of variance later in this
chapter.
Among the East Indian couples, there were no
significant differences on the marital adjustment scale
or patriarchal decision-making. Husbands tended to
exhibit higher levels of dyadic adjustment on all
measures; however, none of the observed differences were
significant as measured with the t-test statistic.
Husbands and wives had nearly identical mean scores on
Patriarchal Decision-Making.
The second section of Table 3 shows mean scores on
study scales within the subsample of East Indian couples
living in the United States. The profile of mean scores
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Reliability on Study Scales
1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Study Scales
Number of
Cronbach's
Overall
Dyadic
Adjustment 372 48
— iiCCtI 1 «3 , w #
130.16 14.94
i I J. 11 « 1 IQ A .
82 177
— Aiwua--
.85
Patriarchal
Decision-
Making 372 16 48.51 6.86 30 75 .63
2. Alpha Reliabilities by Study Group
Indian
fN=130)
Group
Indian in
America
fN=128t
American
fN=114)
Overall
Marital
Satisfaction 0.87 0.84 0.85
Patriarchal
Decision-
Making 0.54 0. 67 0.51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
is quite similar, with no significant differences being
observed.
Table 3 breaks down mean scores on study scales
within the sub-sample of American couples. There were no
differences on the dyadic adjustment measures. However,
there was a significant difference on mean scores on the
patriarchal decision-making dimension. Specifically,
husbands (M = 46.07) scored significantly higher than
wives (M = 44.05); this difference was significant at p <
0.05.
In order to determine whether or not age should be
controlled in the subsequent statistical analysis, the
following research question was posed: What is the
relationship between age and patriarchal dominance and
marital satisfaction? This question was assessed by
examining the Pearson correlation coefficients between
age and the study scales; results are shown in Table 4.
Results here show that age is highly and inversely
correlated with Husband Dominance. This provides a
strong rationale of controlling for age as a covariate in
the hypothesis tests.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Table 4
■Correlations Between Aae and Study Scales
fAll Participants. N = 372)
C o rre la tio n .w ith Ags
----------------------------- c______________e______
Overall Dyadic
Adjustment -0.21* 0.0001
Patriarchal
Decision-Making -0.05 0.31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
In addition, within-group correlations were
calculated to assess other possible control variables.
Specifically, years married and number of children were
correlated with the two dependent measures; these
correlations were calculated separately for each cultural
group. Results are shown in Table 5.
Within the Indian subgroup, none of the observed
correlations were significant. Among Indian couples
living in the United States, however, there were three
significant correlations. Specifically, dyadic
adjustment was found to be inversely correlated with age
(p < .01), number of children (p < .05), and years lived
in the United States (p < .05). In the American
subgroup, there was one significant correlation; this was
an inverse correlation between years married and dyadic
adjustment (p < .01).
Based on these correlation results, a decision was
made to control statistically for age and years of
marriage in the hypothesis tests. Number of children was
not controlled because it was highly correlated with
length of marriage; thus, including it in a multivariate
context would have been inappropriate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Table 5
Within Group Correlations of Possible Control Variables
1. Indians (N=130)
Dyadic
Adjustment
Patriarchal
Decision-
Making
Age
- 0.02
-0.04
Years
Married
0.01
0.07
Number of
Children
-0.09
—0.15
2. Indians in U.S. (N=128)
Age
-0.25** -0.15
Dyadic
Adjustment
Patriarchal
Decision-
Making 0.03
Years
Married
0.03
Number of Years in
Children U.S.
-0.22*
0. 05
-0.22*
-0.21*
3. Americans (N = 114)
Dyadic
Adjustment
Patriarchal
Decision-
Making
Age
-0.14
0.01
Years
Married
-0.25**
- 0.10
Number of
Children
-0.29
-0.08
*5t < .05
** B < .01
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Results of Hypothesis Tests
The first three hypotheses referred to potential
differences among the three cultural groups on the
measure of patriarchal dominance, referred to as the
Husband Dominance Index. The specific hypothesis were as
follows:
Hypothesis 1. East Indians will score significantly
higher on the Husband Dominance Index than Indians living
in the United States.
Hypothesis 2. East Indians will score significantly
higher on the Husband Dominance Index than Caucasian
Americans.
Hypothesis 3. Indians living in the U.S. will score
significantly higher on the Husband Dominance Index than
Caucasian Americans.
These three hypotheses were tested using a 2-way
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Model. For each model
independent variables were defined as cultural group and
gender; age and years married were entered as a covariate
for each ANCOVA model.
The ANCOVA model for the first hypothesis test is
shown in Table 5.
Statistical findings, as summarized in the ANCOVA
table in Table 5, show that the main effect of group is
highly significant (F (2,356) = 23.12, p < 0.001);
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
further, there is no significant effect for the
covariates age or years married.
Results show that there is a clear distinction among
the three cultural groups on Patriarchal Decision Making;
both the Indians and Indians in the U.S. group have
higher mean values than the American cultural group.
Further, within each group there appears to be little
difference between males and females.
Post-hoc tests (Tukey tests) were also done to test
for specific differences among the groups. Findings here
showed that both the Indian group and the Indians in
America group scored significantly higher (p < 0.01) than
Americans on Patriarchical Dominance. However, the Tukey
test showed that there was no difference between the East
Indians and the Indians in the United States.
In terms of the three stated hypotheses, then, these
results support both Hypothesis 2 (i.e., that East
Indians would score significantly higher on the Husband
Dominance Index than Caucasian Americans) and Hypothesis
3 (i.e., that Indians living in the U.S. would score
significantly higher on the Husband Dominance Index than
Caucasian Americans). However, results did not support
the first hypothesis, which had stated that East Indians
would score significantly higher on the Husband Dominance
Index than Indians living in the United States.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
The second set of three hypotheses were as follows.
Hypothesis 4. Indians living in the U.S. will score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than East
Indians.
Hypothesis 5. Caucasian Americans will score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than East
Indians.
Hypothesis 6. Caucasian Americans will score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than Indians
living in the United States.
These hypotheses were tested using a similar
statistical technique to that employed in the first set
of three hypotheses. For each model, independent
variables were again defined as cultural group and
gender; age and years married were entered as a covariate
for each ANCOVA model.
In terms of the three stated hypotheses, then, these
results support both Hypothesis 2 (i.e., that East
Indians would score significantly higher on the Husband
Dominance Index than Caucasian Americans) and
Hypothesis 3 (i.e., that Indians living in America would
score significantly higher on the Husband Dominance Index
than Caucasian Americans). However, results did not
support the first hypothesis, which had stated that East
Indians would score significantly higher on the Husband
Dominance Index than Indians living in America.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
The second set of three hypothesis were as follows:
Hypothesis 4. Indians living in America will score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than East
Indians.
Hypothesis 5. Caucasian Americans will score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than East
Indians.
Hypothesis 6. Caucasian Americans will score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than Indians
living in America.
These hypotheses were tested using a similar
statistical technique to that employed in the first set
of three hypotheses. Independent variables were again
defined as cultural group and gender; age and length or
marriage were again entered as covariates. Results of
this ANCOVA model are also shown in Table 6.
Results for this hypothesis test are consistent with
the earlier findings, with the two cultural groups living
in the United States being similar in mean values and
appearing to be distinguished from the East Indians
living in India. The main effect of cultural group was
significant (£ = 3.82, p < 0.05). Results of the post-
hoc tests showed a similar result to those already
observed, with the East Indians living in America scoring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Group Means and Two-Way ANCOVA Models;
Patriarchal Decision Making and
Dyadic Adjustment as Dependent Variables
72
P Values
Indians in
Indians America American
(N=123) (N=126) {N=114)
..Mgan________ Mean_____________ _
Group Sex G'S Age Married
Pat. Decision-Making
Male 50.23ab
Female 51.05a
Total 50.62ab
Dyadic Adjustment
Male 128.64ab
Female 125.Slab
Total 127.28ab
49.14b
50.24b
49.68bc
46.05a
44.05ab
45.05ac
133.12b 131.84a
132.64bc 129.09ac
132.89ab 130.46ab
23.35*'* .01 2.08 2.77 0.09
3.82* 3.84** 0.25 7.48** 2.09
Note. Identical letters by the mean scores indicate significant
differences among the groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
significantly higher on dyadic adjustment than East
Indians still in India (g < 0.05). This finding provides
further support for Hypothesis 4.
In general, the ANCOVA model provides consistent
support for Hypothesis 4, which states that East Indian
couples living in America would demonstrate higher levels
of satisfaction than East Indian couples living in India.
There was no support for Hypothesis 5. For Hypothesis 6
which stated that Caucasian Americans would score
significantly higher on Dyadic Adjustment than Indians
living in America, the observed mean was in the opposite
direction, with Indians living in America showing the
highest mean score on dyadic adjustment.
The next set of three hypotheses, which were
correlational in nature, were as follows.
Hypothesis 7. Among East Indian couples, higher
levels of Husband Dominance will be associated with
higher levels of marital satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8. Among Indians Living in the U.S.,
lower levels of Husband Dominance will be associated with
higher levels of marital satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9. Among Caucasian Americans, lower
levels of Husband Dominance will be associated with
higher levels of marital satisfaction.
These hypotheses were examined with several sets of
correlations. Initially, correlations between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
partriarchal decision-making and the dyadic adjustment
measures were calculated separately for each cultural
group. These findings are shown in Table 7.
To explore these correlations further, the sample
was broken down by both cultural group and gender, with
correlations then being calculated within each of the six
resulting cells. These results are shown in Table 8.
More specifically. Table 8 shows Pearson correlation
coefficients between (a) the Husband Dominance scale, and
(b) DAS. Table 8 showed no significant correlations
between decision-making and dyadic satisfaction among
either Indian males or Indian females.
The next two hypotheses referred to postulated
differences between single career and dual career
couples, quite apart from cultural group.
Hypothesis 10. Single career couples will score
significantly lower on dyadic adjustment than dual career
couples, regardless of cultural group.
Hypothesis 11. Single career couples will score
significantly higher on the Husband Dominance Index than
dual career couples, regardless of cultural group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Table 7
Correlations Between Patriarchical Decision-Making and
Dyadic Adjustment, by cultural Group
Correlation with Patriarchical Decision-Making for:
Indians in
Indians America American
r p r p r p
Overall Dyadic
Adjustment 0.027 0.760 -0.043 0.628 0.367 0.0001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Table 8
Correlations Between Patriarchical Decision-Making and
Dyadic Adjustment Scales, by Cultural Group and Gender
Correlations With Patriarchical Decision-Making For:
Indian in
Indian America American
M F M F M F
Dyadic Adjustment
0.03 0.01 -0.12 0.02 0.34** 0.37**
Note. Cells show Pearson correlation coefficients.
*B < 0.05
**B < 0.01
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
These two hypotheses were tested initially with the
t-test comparisons shown in Table 9. Results here show
that there is very little difference in dyadic adjustment
between the two groups. However, there is a significant
difference on patriarchal decision-making (Husband
Dominance), with those in single career marriages scoring
significantly higher (t = -3.61, p < 0.001). These
results provide no support for Hypothesis 10; they do,
however, lend credence to Hypothesis 11.
In order to obtain a fuller picture of the effects
of both partners having a career, additional analysis was
conducted utilizing a two-way ANCOVA model with cultural
group and dual career vs. single career as independent
variables. The dependent variable in the ANCOVA model
shown in Table 10 is the overall dyadic adjustment scale
of the DAS. Results here show that among Indian couples
living in India, those in dual career marriages show
higher levels of satisfaction (m=129.3, as compared to
m=124.9) than those in single career marriages. There is
almost no difference among Indian couples living in
America. However, among Caucasian American couples,
those in single career marriages score somewhat higher
than those in dual career marriages.
Thus, there appears to be a differential effect by
cultural group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Table 9
Comparison of Dual Career to Single Career on Marital
Power and Marital Satisfaction fAll Cultural Groups
Combined!
Dual Single
Career (N=269) Career (N=103)
_______________M______ SD_____ M______ SD________ t-test
Dyadic
Adjustment 130.75 14.75 128.64 15.38 1.19
Patriarchal
Decision-
Making 47.72 6.71 50.57 6.87 -3.61***
***0 < 0.001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Table 10
Group Means and Two-Way ANCOVA Models;
Analysis of Single Versus Dual Career Couples
F Values__
Indian in
Indian America American Single/
(N=123) (N=126) (N=114) Dual
____________ Mean Mean_____Mean______Group___Career G*D__Acre Married
Pat. Decision-Making
Single 52.36a 51.59b 46.60ab 23.98*** 10.52*** 0.11 2.82 0.09
Dual 49.65a 48.97b 44.72ab
Total 50.62a 49.68b 45.05ab
Dyadic Adjustment
Single 124.73ab 132.00a 132.45b 3.82* 1.08 1.30 7.47** 2.09
Dual 128.71ab 133.22a 130.04b
Total 127.28ab 132.89a 130.46b
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Table 10 shows a similar analysis for husband
dominance as the dependent measure. As can be seen in
the mean values, single career couples score higher on
husband dominance in all cultural groups. Further, the
differences are relatively uniform, being on the order of
two points in all cases.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Chapter Overview
This chapter will discuss the findings presented in
the previous chapter in light of the theoretical and
empirical literature reviewed in Chapter 1 of the
dissertation. This will include alternative possible
explanations for study findings and comparisons of
current study findings to those previously reported in
the literature.
The chapter will also further discuss the
acknowledged limitations of this study, discuss the
relevance of the study for counseling psychology, and
present recommendations for future research.
Discussion
Findings of this study were somewhat mixed, with
some support for the stated hypotheses and at least one
finding in the opposite of the predicted direction. The
first three hypotheses referred to a possible systematic
relationship between Patriarchal Decision-Making and
cultural group, specifically:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
East Indians : Highest
Indians living in the U.S.: Moderate
Americans: Lowest
Findings provided only partial support for this model.
Specifically, there was a clear differentiation between
(a) East Indians and Indians in the U.S. on the one hand,
and (b) Americans on the other. Both groups of Indian
heritage showed significantly higher levels of decision
making as compared to Caucasian Americans; they did not,
however, differ from one another.
These findings are consistent with the literature
showing that East Asian families in general, and Indian
families in particular, are often characterized by highly
traditional family structures (Shon & Ja, 1982). The
father is considered to be the leader of the family: he
makes most if not all important decisions and his
authority is never questioned. At the same time, the
mother is expected to conform to the traditional role of
nurturing caretaker and to defer to the male patriarch in
all areas. Given this cultural profile, it is not
surprising that Indian couples in general showed higher
levels of husband dominance.
However, the lack of differentiation between East
Indians and Indians living in the American cultural
setting were somewhat surprising. According to the
theory of acculturation, immigrants typically undergo a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
process through which they adapt to the new culture
(Melikian & De Karapetian, 1977) . As part of this
process they generally move in the direction of
mainstream values and away from traditional values.
The pattern observed here, however, suggests that
there has been little change in the values of these
particular Indian immigrant couples. It is possible that
the acculturation process may be difficult for Indian
immigrants, in that they continue to feel a tremendous
loyalty to their traditional culture, while also feeling
like outsiders in American society. This may be
explained in terms of the "Bicultural Hypothesis," which
argues that it is important for the immigrant to retain a
balance of identification with the culture of origin,
while also adapting to the culture of the new environment
(Szapocznik, Kutinez, & Fernandez, 1980). The process
necessarily includes aspects of both the host and
traditional culture, with some elements of the
traditional culture being maintained and some elements of
the host culture assimilated (Mendoza, 1989).
The second set of three hypotheses stated that there
would be a systematic relationship on level of marital
satisfaction, specifically:
Caucasians: Highest
Indians living in America: Moderate
East Indians: Lowest
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
This hypothesis was based on the existing body of
literature showing that, at least in many samples,
marital satisfaction increases with a more egalitarian
power structure, the change from patriarchal to
egalitarian power structure may be associated with
increased happiness.
Analysis with dyadic satisfaction as dependent
variable further confirmed these findings, with a
clustering pattern differentiating (a) East Indians from
(b) Indians living in the U.S. and Caucasians. While
these results provide only partial support for the
hypothesis, they are highly consistent with the results
of the analysis for Husband Dominance. The fact that the
East Indians showed consistently higher Husband Dominance
and consistently lower dyadic adjustment suggests that
the traditional model of marriage in Indian society may
not be all that constructive for positive marital
relationships. It may also be reflecting the change
towards less satisfaction with the level of husband
domination prevalent among East Indian couples— a trend
towards a need for more egalitarian power structure.
The explanation for the Indians living in U.S.
scoring higher than Americans, could be the fact that
being away from a culture that does not allow husbands
and wives to freely express affection. In fact, sometimes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
prevents it, they feel less dissonance in the
relationship and therefore express greater adjustment.
Americans were hypothesized to have greater dyadic
adjustment than the Indians living in the United States.
This proved to be opposite in direction, with Indians
scoring higher than the American sample. This could be
explained by the fact that Indians living away from the
patriarchal culture, and away from family that may have
been problematic in the first place express or experience
greater adjustment. The fact that the American sample is
older and correlation between age and dyadic adjustment
is inverse could account for the fact that they expressed
less satisfaction. Research found that longer the
relationship less the stated satisfaction, and American
couples in this sample were married for an average of
17.07 years, while the Indians in the U.S. averaged 12.12
years.
Hypothesis 7 stated that, among East Indian couples,
higher levels of Husband Dominance would be associated
with higher levels of dyadic adjustment. This was not
found to be the case; in fact, there was no relationship
between husband dominance and marital satisfaction one
way or the other. The fact that they live in a
patriarchal culture and the norm is that husband's are
the decision-makers could account for the lack of
relationship.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Hypothesis 8 stated that, among Indians living in
America, higher levels of Husband Dominance would be
associated with lower levels of dyadic adjustment, though
this was the case, it was not at the significant level.
And the above explanation holds true for Indians in the
U.S. as well.
Hypothesis 9 stated that, among Caucasian Americans,
higher levels of Husband Dominance would be associated
with lower levels of marital satisfaction. These were
among the more interesting findings, in that they were
opposite of the hypothesized direction; i.e., higher
levels of patriarchal dominance were associated with
higher scores for marital satisfaction. This indicates a
completely different direction from all previous
research, where the egalitarian norm in relationships was
related to marital satisfaction. This needs to be
researched further. It may be reflecting a change, now
that women have more freedom of choice, they struggle to
balance jobs, homes, husbands and children, and the
burden is too much. They may feel less burdened when the
husband shoulders some responsibilities, such as
decision-making, other areas of power with marital
satisfaction need to be researched before definitive
conclusions can be made.
Hypotheses 10 and 11 referred to postulated
differences between single and dual career families.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Specifically, single career couples were expected to
score significantly lower on dyadic adjustment and signi
ficantly higher on the husband dominance Index than dual
career couples, regardless of cultural group. Basic
t-test comparisons showed no differences on dyadic
adjustment. However, participants in single career
marriages scored significantly higher on husband domin
ance, and this was true for the three cultural groups.
For East Indian couples, those in dual career
marriages showed higher overall marital satisfaction,
indicating that husbands and wives benefit in more than
one way when they are in dual careers. They benefit
economically, and also the fact that the wife is away
from the home and therefore away from the constant
control or demands of her family, who maybe the children
or the in-laws or extended family. Being a wage-earner
increases self-esteem and worth, and power, giving
credence to Rodman's theory of resources.
However, there was no difference in marital
adjustment between dual career versus single career among
Indian couples living in the United States. This could
be accounted for by the fact that wives experience more
responsibility, as Indian husbands are traditional in
their upbringing and do not share in the household
chores. The compensations for being a wage-earner is
nullified by the increased responsibilities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
American couples in single career marriages (i.e.,
traditional family structure) scored somewhat higher on
dyadic adjustment than those in dual career situations.
This finding may be interpreted in terms of the
substantial role stress experienced by working mothers.
Juggling the roles of wife, mother, and wage earner can
create high levels of emotional distress and thus
dissatisfaction in the marriage (Emmons, Biernat, Tiedhe,
Lang, & Wortman, 1990) . It is almost inevitable that the
responsibilities of the various roles will conflict with
one another.
These findings should also be seen in light of
evidence in the literature that dual career couples are
more egalitarian in decision-making power (Goode, 1963;
Rapoport & Rapoport, 1971; Rice, 1979; Scanzoni, 1980;
Shukla, 1987). But it seems to be more of a trend,
noticed by the researcher, for women to want to stay at
home when the baby is born. The Caucasian American
couples in single careers maybe reflecting this
availability of choice to stay at home and raise their
children. Therefore indicating more marital
satisfaction.
Indians in single careers living in the U.S. maybe
experiencing more freedom of choice, having left the
joint family system. Most Indian women are not raised
with high job aspirations, and maybe happy staying at
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
home raising children. Also many women do not have the
visa status to hold a job, and maybe content to wait
while they adjust to the new culture and stay at home.
The fact that the Indian couples in the U.S. were
husband-dominated does not affect their marital
satisfaction, as this is consistent with the norm that
they were raised in. But the fact of being away from a
joint family system which emphasizes and encourages male
dominated life-style, the wives may in reality experience
less domination from their husbands, and therefore
express more satisfaction.
Implications for Theory
This study was consistent with the theories that
generated it. The fact that both Indian groups in the
two different settings were husband dominated confirms
both Blood and Wolf's theory of marital power in a
cultural context, as well as the gender role theory. The
Indians in the U.S. had high levels of husband dominance
(females = 50.31, males = 49.02) comparable to the
Indians In India (females = 50.0, males = 50.67)
confirming Blood and Wolf's theory that cultural norms
over-ride power brought to the relationship by resources.
These findings did not provide support for theories of
acculturation where the immigrant takes on the values and
norms of the host country. This could be because
cultural pluralism (where the immigrant holds on to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
ethnie identity, while taking on only some of the host
country’s norms and values) rather than assimilation is
the paradigm that is at work here (Agarwal, 1991).
Results of analyses showed Indians in India to have
the least satisfactory relationship as the relationships
were unequal due to it being a patriarchal society.
Blood and Wolf (1960) had concluded from their research
and confirmed by other researchers (Corrales, 1975,
deTurk & Miller, 1986, Hamby & Gray-Little, 1994) that
unequal relationships were the least satisfactory.
The Americans level of dyadic adjustment was less
than for the Indians in the United States. This could be
accounted for by the research literature (Blood & Wolf,
1960) that length of marriage was inversely related to
marital adjustment, as was age of the participants.
Dyadic adjustment and husband dominance were
inversely correlated for the American sample. This
finding was in contradiction to most of the research on
marital satisfaction and power (Rodman, 1972, Gray-Little
and Hamby, 1996). It maybe interesting to investigate
this further to see if there is indeed a trend towards
greater marital adjustment with greater husband
dominance. As explained earlier this could be accounted
for by the role stress experienced by wives, and
therefore husbands decision-making is seen as one less
responsibility for them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Results of dual career marriages adhered to theory
for the East Indian sample, for couples in dual career
marriages expressed greater dyadic adjustment. Resource
or social exchange theory states that the greater the
resources a partner brings to the relationship, the
greater the power and more equal the marriage
relationship. In this case there was not equality of
relationship as this sample had higher levels of husband
dominance. The fact wives get to leave the home and go
away from controlling in-laws for part of the day.
Elevated status in the family due to being a wage earner,
and increased self-esteem, may compensate for the fact
that there is more husband domination in this group, and
therefore greater satisfaction is expressed.
Conclusions
It is important to acknowledge the inherent
limitations of the current study. The socioeconomic
status of the population poses an inherent limitation
which limits the ability of the researcher to draw
generalizations from study findings. Given that the
sample selected all spoke English, with the ability to
speak English reflecting higher socioeconomic status,
this raises questions about the representativeness of
the sample and generalizability of study findings.
Another inherent limitation lies in the well-known
tendency towards "socially desirable responses," although
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Hawkins (1966) has shown that variance due to this
dimension is likely to be small. Issues of cultural
appropriateness and sensitivity must also be mentioned,
westernized measures may or may not be appropriate for
individuals raised in a totally different socio-cultural
setting.
It is also important to acknowledge that the current
study may have been affected by a certain selection bias,
in that Indian couples who choose to immigrate to America
may already have different characteristics than those who
do not immigrate. That is, they may have had
difficulties coping with stress in traditional Indian
society. A second bias is that the majority of Indians
who come to the U.S. are highly educated (70% as
reflected in census in Chapter I.), and may effect the
outcomes.
There are also limitations in the extent to which
resource theory can be effectively used to address the
many complex dimensions of power. From an empirical
perspective, it may not be feasible to incorporate all
possible variables into analytic models. It is also
important to acknowledge that there is no single theory
which can comprehensively explain the many factors which
shape the structure and dynamics of family power
(McDonald, 1980). Nevertheless, social exchange theory
has become the "predominant orientation in family power
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
and decision-making research" (Brown, 1983) and provides
a useful tool in exploring findings of the current study.
The fact that women in dual careers had lower levels
of dyadic satisfaction suggests a significant degree of
role stress. The finding is consistent with Emmons et
al.'s (1990) argument that women who had higher levels of
role conflict are at much higher risk for experiencing
mood disorders. These researchers found that women in
high stress situations enjoyed their occupational and
household tasks less than women faced with fewer overt
role conflicts. This finding also suggests that
clinicians need to be constantly aware of the major
negative impact which excessive role strain can create.
The greatest difficulty encountered was in
collecting data. The first set of research questions
which were shown to some potential Indian and East Indian
subjects elicited hesitations on discussing their
marriage relationships with total strangers. Some were
diffident about it becoming public, even though they were
assured about anonymity by the researcher and the letter
for informed consent. In spite of this many people
admitted that they never returned their questionnaires as
they were not comfortable discussing their marital
relationship. It took over four years to collect this
data, and the fact that culturally Indians are not open
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
to discussing their private lives with strangers, or even
anonymity assured questionnaires was apparent.
Implications for Counseling Psychology
Findings of this study have substantial implications
for the field of counseling psychology, especially in
terms of helping couples cope with the inevitable stress
associated with the acculturation process. The results
of this study should be of use for clinicians working not
only with East Indian couples who have immigrated to the
United States, but also with Indian couples in India who
will be going through changes in power structure as more
and more women enter the work force.
The significance of the current study is enhanced by
the fact that there is a continuous stream of immigrants
who continue to relocate from India to the United States;
as a consequence. East Indians represent a growing
proportion of the American population. Results of this
dissertation research may be of use in easing the
transition process and enhancing our understanding of
power and marital satisfaction; in the longer term, it
might make some contribution to lowering divorce rates.
It is hoped that the results will be of value in
enhancing our understanding of marital satisfaction in
cross-cultural context. Though there is still hesitancy
to seek counseling, this may change with second and third
generations. To some extent, findings may be valuable in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
moderating couples' unrealistically high expectations of
the marital relationship, leading to less strain and
demand on the partners.
It is hoped that findings of the study may be useful
to immigrants seeking information to help them integrate
into the society better. Ideally, they can find ways to
retain at least part of their traditional cultural values
and identity while still maintaining psychological and
physical well-being.
Individuals who immigrate to the United States are
usually seeking a "better life," which may include
education, improved economic status, professional
opportunities, better quality of life, and modern
lifestyles far removed from the old traditions and
values. All of these factors do not necessarily
contribute towards a better quality of life; in fact, the
same factors may decrease the quality of life, especially
given the ongoing struggle to balance new and old values
and traditions. Clinicians clearly have an obligation to
understand these dynamics and to work with new
immigrants, and especially women, as they seek to adjust
to the many stressors of life in America.
Implications for Future Research
The results of this study should be seen as highly
suggestive for future research. There is an ongoing
debate among clinicians and researchers about the extent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
to which egalitarian norms automatically accompany
immigration to Western society. As the couple are
exposed to the more progressive, egalitarian norms and
values of the new society, do they necessarily become
more egalitarian? Or do husbands continue to make the
major decisions in the household, especially those
related to finances? will single career families show
different decision-making patterns than dual career
families? Future studies should address these and
related issues using improved and innovative
methodologies.
There is clearly a need for a "resurgence of
interest in the assimilation patterns of national and
racial groups and the emergence of new kinds of ethnic
identification and power" (Berardo, 1980). Researchers
must invest special effort to avoid the negative stereo
types and pejorative terms which have often been used to
depict such families in the literature.
Future studies should be conducted utilizing
improved methodologies. For example, more representative
samples could be utilized. It would also be important to
develop more sensitive instrument, and/or develop native
language questionnaires. The latter strategy would allow
researchers to explore couples from lower socioeconomic
strata in India (i.e., those couples who might never have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
the economic opportunity to immigrate to the United
States).
The comparison of East Indian couples living in the
fundamentally different settings of India and America has
helped clarify the role played by power relationships in
shaping marital satisfaction in the "modified patriarchal
society" of India. Results also shed light on the
changes that occur in marital relationships in the new
cultural setting of the United States. Ideally, findings
of this cross-cultural study may be generalizable to
other immigrant groups whose original culture is
characterized by patriarchal family structures. The
finding in this study also shows a need to re-explore
marital satisfaction, power, single and dual-careers, to
find out if there is a change in the trend since World
War II again.
At the most general level, then, the current study
has deepened our understanding of marriage and family
relationships and clarifies the nature of the change in
marriage and family patterns in recent years between
married couples in India and in the United States (Shukla
& Kapoor, 1990).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
REFERENCES
Adkins, E.K. (1980). Genes, hormones, sex, and gender.
In G.W. Barlow & J. Silverberg (Eds.), Sociobiology;
Beyond nature/nurture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Agarwal, P. (1991). Passage from India - Post 1965
Indian Immigrants and Their Children. Palos Verdes,
CA: Yurati Publication.
Aldous, J. (1978). Family careers: Developmental change
in families. New York, Santa Barbara, Chichester,
Brisbane, Toronto; John Wiley & sons.
Anderson, S.A.,Russell, C.S., & Schumm, W.R.(1983).
Perceived marital quality and family life-cycle
categories: A further analysis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. Ü, 127-139.
Babock, J.C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N.S. & Gottman, J.M.
(1993). The relation between communication
patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic
violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. èX, 40-50.
Bahr, S., & Rollins, B.C. (1971). Crisis and conjugal
power. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 11, 3 60-
367.
Barbera, E., Pastor, E., Martinez-Benlloch, I., &
Castano, D. (1991). Analisis-y-Modificacion-de-
Conducta. 12(53-54), 405-412.
Bardwick, J.M. (1979). In transition:__How feminism.
sexual liberation, and the search for fulfillment
have altered our lives. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The function of the executive.
Cambridge; Harvard University Press.
Baruch, G.K., & Barnett, R.C. (1986). Consequences of
fathers' participation in family work: Parents' role
strain and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 11(5), 983-992.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Bean, F.D., Curtis, R.L. & Marcum, J.P. (1977).
Familism and marital satisfaction among Mexican
American: The effect of family size, wife's labor
force participation, & conjugal power. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 759-767.
Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and non-parental child care
and children's socioemotional development: A decade
in review. Journal of Marriage and the Familv.
885-903.
Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The
Pennsylvania Infant and Family development project.
Child Development. 692-705.
Belsky, J. (1979). The interrelations of parental and
spousal behavior during infancy in traditional
nuclear families: An exploratory analysis. Journal
of Marriage and the Family. H, 62-68.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 12(2), 155-162.
Bentler, P.M., & Newcomb, M.D. (1978). Longitudinal
study of marital success and failure. Journal of
Counseling and Clinical Psychology. 16 (5), 1053-
1070.
Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New Haven,
London: Yale University Press.
Berardo, F.M. (1980). Directions for family research
and theory in the 1980's. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. Nov. 723-728.
Berry, R.E. & Williams, F.L. (1987). Assessing the
relationship between quality of life and marital
and income satisfaction: A path analytic approach.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 12., 107-116.
Beutell, N.J., & Greenhaus, J.H. (1983). Integration of
home and nonhome roles: Women's conflict and coping
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 62, 43-48.
Biernat, M., & Wortman, C.B. (1991). Sharing of home
responsibilities between professionally employed
women and their husbands. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 66(6), 844-860.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Blake, J. (1974). Changing status of women in developed
countries. Scientific American. 221, (Sept) 137-
147.
Block, J.H. (1983). Differential premises arising from
differential socialization of the sexes: Some
conjectures. Child Development. 54., 1335-1354.
Blood, R.O. (1967). Love match and arranged marriage.
New York: The Free Press.
Blood, R.O. , & Wolf, D.M. (I960). Husbands and wives.
New York: The Free Press.
Blumenstein, P. & Schwartz, P. (1983). American
couples, money work, and sex. New York: William
Morrow.
Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. (1983). Measuring
Marital Instability. Journal of Marriage and the
Eamily;, 45, 387-394.
Bossen, L. (1975). Women in modernizing societies.
American Ethnologist. 2, 587-601.
Bowen, G.L., & Orthner, D.K. (1983). Sex-role
congruency and marital quality. Journal of Marriage
and the Familv. Feb. 223-230.
Bowerman, C.E. (1957). Adjustment in marriage: Overall
and in specific areas. Sociology & Social Research.
42 f (March-April): 257-263.
Brinkerhoff, M. & Lupri, E. (1978) . Theoretical and
methodological issues in the use of decision-making
as an indicator of conjugal power: Some Canadian
observations. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 2,
139-159.
Brinberg, D., & Castell, P. (1982). A resource exchange
theory approach to interpersonal interactions: A
test of Foa's theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 42, 260-269.
Broderick, C. (1971). A decade of family research.
National Council on Family Relations.
Brown, B.W. (1978). Wife-employment and the emergence
of an egalitarian marital role prescriptions 1900-
1974. Journals of Comparative Family Studies. 2, 5-
17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Burgess, E.W. & Cottrell, L.S. (1939). Predicting
success or failure in marriage. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Burgess, E.W. & Wallins, P. (1944) . Predicting
adjustment in marriage from adjustment in
engagement. American Journal of Sociology.
(Jan): 325-336.
Buric, O., & Zecevic, A. (1967). Family authority,
marital satisfaction, and the social network in
Yugoslavia. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 23.,
325-336.
Burr, W.R. (1973). Theory construction and the
sociology of the family. New York: Wiley.
Burr, W.R., Ahern, L., & Knowles, E. (1977). An
empirical test of Rodman's theory of resources in
cultural context. Journal of Marriage and the
Zamily, 23, 505-5i4.
Burr, W.R., Hill, R., Nye, I., & Reiss, I.L. (1979).
Contemporary theories about the family. New York:
Macmillan.
Cartwright, D. (1959) . A field theoretical construction
of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). Studies in
social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Centers, R., Raven, B., & Rodrigues, A. (1971). Conjugal
power structure: A re-examination. American
Sociological Review. 23., 245-263.
Conklin, G.H. (1973). Emerging conjugal role patterns in
a joint family system: Correlates of social change
in Dharwar, India. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, Nov. 742-748.
Corrales, R.G. (1975). Power and satisfaction in early
marriage. In R.E. Cromwell & D.H. Olson (Eds.),
Power in families (pp. 197-216). New York: Wiley.
Corsini, R.J. (1956). Multiple predictors and marital
happiness. Marriage and family Living, 1& (Aug.),
240-242.
Cromwell, R.E., Corrales, R., & Torsiello, P.M. (1973).
Normative patterns in marital decision making power
and influence in Mexico and the United States: A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
partial test of resource and ideology. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 5 . , 177-196.
Cromwell, R.E., Klein, D., & Wieting, S. (1975). Family
power: A multitrait-multi-method analysis. In R.
Cromwell and D. Olson (Eds.), Power in Families.
New York: Wiley.
Cromwell, R.E. & Olson, D.H. (1975) . Power in families.
New York; Wiley.
Dasgupta, S. (1986). Marching to a different drummer?
Sex roles of Asian Indian women in the United
States. Women and Therapy. £, 297-311.
DeMaris, A. & Leslie, G.R. (1984). Co-habitation with
the future spouse: Its influence upon marital
satisfaction and communication. Journal of Marriage
flpd-ths-Family, 16, 743-747.
deTurck, M.A., & Miller, G.R. (1986). The effect of
husbands' and wives' social cognition on their
marital adjustment, conjugal power, and self-esteem.
Journal of Marriage and the Familv. 1&, 715-724.
Edmunds, V.H., Withers, G. & Dibatista, B. (1972).
Adjustment, conservatism, and marital
conventionalization. Journal of Marriage and the
family, 2A, (Feb): 96-103.
Eichler, M. (1981). Power, dependency, love and the
sexual division of labour: A critique of the
decision-making approach to family power and an
alternative approach with an appendix: On washing my
dirty linen in public. Women's Studies
International Quarterly. 4. (2), 201-219.
Emmons, C., Biernat, M., Tiedje, L.B., Lang, E.L., &
Wortman, C.B. (1990). Stress, support, and coping
among women professionals with preschool children.
In J. Eckenrolde & S. Gore (Eds.). Stress between
work and familv (pp. 61-93). New York: Plenum
Press.
Feldman, S.S. & Nash, S.C. (1984). The transition from
expectancy to parenthood: Impact of the first born
child on men and women. Sex Roles. H, 84-92.
Ferguson, L.W. (1938). Correlates of marital happiness.
Journal of Psychology, â, 284-294.
À
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1987). The assessment
of marital quality: A re-evaluation. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 45., 797-809.
Flaherty, J.F., & Dusek, J.B. (1980). An investigation
of the relationship between psychological androgyny
and components of self concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. iS. (6) , 984-992.
Foa, U.G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchanges.
In J.S. Thibaut, J. Spence, & R. Carson (Eds.),
Contemporary tg plgg_iD., s o ç ia l psychology.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Fogarty, M.P. Rapoport, R. , & Rapoport, R.N. (1971) .
Sex, career and family. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Fox, G. (1973). Another look at the comparative
resources model. Assessing the balance of power in
Turkish marriages. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 15, 718-730.
Frieze, J.H., Parsons, J.E., Johnson, P.B., Ruble, D.N.,
Zelman, G.L. (1981). Women and sex roles: A social
psychological perspective. New York: W.W. Norton &
Co.
Fremon, S. (1977). Women and men traditions and trends.
(Eds.). New York: The H.W. Wilson Co.
Glenn, N.D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital
quality in the 1980's: A critical review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 52, 818-831.
Glen, N. & McLanahan, S. (1982). Children and marital
happiness; A further specification of the
relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Familv.
ÛA, 63-72.
Glen, N. & Weaver. (1981). The contribution of marital
happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 45, 161-168.
Glick, P., & Norton, A. (1988). 50 years of family
demography: A record of social change. Journal of
Marriage and the Familv. 55, 861-873.
Goldberg, W. A., Michaels, G. Y. & Lamb, M.E. (1985).
Husbands' and Wives'; Adjustment to pregnancy and
first parenthood. Journal of Marriage Family
Issues. 5 (4), 483-503.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Goode, W.J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American
Sociological Review. Al: 483-496.
Goode, w. (1963). World r evolu tio n an d -fam ily p a tte r n s .
New York: Free Press.
Goodenough, W. (1975). On cultural theory. Science.
186 (Nov) 435-436.
Gove, W.R. (1972) . Relationship between sex roles,
marital status and mental illness. Social Forces.
(Sep), 34-44.
Gove, W.R. & Tudor, J.F. (1973) . Adult sex roles and
mental illness. American Journal of Sociology. %&
(Nov.) 812-835.
Gray-Little, B. (1982) . Marital quality and power
process among black couples. Journal of Marriage
and the Family. 11, 633-644.
Gray-Little, S., & Burks, N. (1983). Power and
satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique.
Psychological Bulletin. 12 (3), 513-538.
Gray-Little, B., Baucom, D.H. & Hamby, S.L. (1996).
Marital power, marital adjustment, and therapy
outcome. Journal of Family Psychology, H (3), 292-
303.
Grindstaff, C.F. & Trovata, F. (1990). Junior Partners:
Women's contribution to family income in Canada.
Social Indicators Research. 22., 229-253.
Hall, D.T., & Hall, F.S. (1982). Stress and the two-
career couple. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.), Current
concerns in occupational stress (pp. 254-266). New
York: Wiley.
Haller, M. (1981). Marriage, women and social
stratification: A theoretical critique. American
Journal of Sociology, M (4), 766-793.
Hamby, S.L. & Gray-Little, B. (1994). Shared power in
in tim a te r e la tio n s h ip s ; a new look at power and
force. Unpublished manuscript.
Hamilton, G. (1951). Theory and Practice of Social Work
(2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press,
Hamilton, G.V. (1951) . A research in marriage. New
York: Boni.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Hansen, I. (1980 February) Sex education for young
children. Lecture presented at Wayne
University—Health Care Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
Heath, D.B. (1958). Sexual division of labour and
cross-cultural research. Social Forces. 2% (Oct)
77-79.
Heer, D.M. (1962). Husband and wife perceptions of
family power structure. Marriage and Familv Living.
24 f 65—67.
Hess-Beber, S. & Williamson, J. (1984). Resource theory
and power in families: Life cycle considerations.
Family Process, 262-78.
Hicks, M., & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and
stability: A review of research in the sixties.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 22., 553-574.
Hirsch, B.J., & Rapkin, B. (1986). Multiple roles,
social networks, and women's well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 51(6), 1237-1247.
Hoffman, L.W. (1986). Work, family, and the child. In
M.S. Pallak & R.O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and
work: Productivity, change and employment (pp. 173-
220). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Houseknecht, S.K. & Macke, A.S. (1981). Combining
marriage and career: The marital adjustment of
professional women. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 45, 651-661.
Holman, T.B., & Burr, W.R. (1980). Beyond the beyond:
The growth of family theories in the 1970's.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Nov. 729-741.
Huston, T.L. & Robins, G. (1982) . Conceptual and
methodological issues in studying close
relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
14-, 901925.
Huston, T.L., McHale, S.M. & Crouter, A.C. (1986). When
the honeymoon is over: changes in the marriage
relationship over the first year. In R. Gilmour &
S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of close
relationships. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Izard, C. (1971). The face of emotion. New York:
Appleton Century Crofts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Johnson, D.R., White, L.K., Edwards, J.N. & Booth, A.
(1986). Dimensions of marital quality: Towards
methodological and conceptual refinement. Journal
gf..Fam ily 2., 31-49.
Kandel, D. & Lesser, G. (1972). Marital decision-making
in America and Danish urban families: A research
note. Journal of Marriacre and the Family. 2A, 134-
138.
Kelly, E.L. (1941). Marital compatibility as related to
personality traits of husbands and wives as rated by
self and spouse. Journal of Social Psychology. Ü,
193-198.
Kenrick, D.T. (1994). Evolutionary and social
psychology: From sexual selection to social
cognition. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 75-121). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Kim, O.J.L. & Kim, K.D. (1977). A causal interpretation
of the effect of mother's education and employment
status on parental decision-making role patterns in
the Korean family. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies. &, 117-131.
Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis
of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In
E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences
(pp. 243-278). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Komarovsky, M. (1962). Blue-collar marriage. New York:
Random House.
Krupinsky, J. (1967). Sociological aspects of mental
ill-health in migrants. Social Science and
Medicine. 1, 267-281.
Lebowitz, A. (1980). Overview: The health of working
women. In D.C. Walsh (Ed.), Women, work and health:
Challenges to corporate policy. New York:
Springer/Verlag.
Lee, G.R. (1988a). Marital intimacy among older
persons: The spouse as conficant. Journal of Family
Issues. £, 273-284.
Lee, G.R. (1988b). Marital satisfaction in later life:
The effects of non-marital roles. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 512, 775-783.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Lee, G.R. & Petersen, L.R. (1982). Conjugal power and
spousal resources in patriarchal cultures. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies. 14., 23-28.
Leventhal, G.S. (1976) . The distribution of rewards and
resources in groups and organizations. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, Vol.9. New York: Academic Press.
Lewis, R.A., & Spanier, G.E. (1979). Choice, exchange
and the family. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye, &
I.L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the
fam ily, (pp. i-4i).
Locke, H.J. (1947). Predicting marital adjustment by
comparing a divorced and happily married group.
American Sociological Review. 12(April), 187-191.
Locke, H.J. & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short marital-
adjustment and prediction tests: their reliability
and validity. Marriage and Family Living. 21(Aug.),
251-255.
Locksley, A. (1980). On the effects of wives' employment
on marital adjustment and companionship. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 42, 337-346.
Lu, Y.C. (1952). Marital role an marital adjustment.
Sociology and Social Research. 26, 364-368.
Lupri, E. (1969). Contemporary patterns in West German
family: A study of cross-national validation.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 21, 134-144.
Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A
developmental account. American Psvchologist. 45,
513-520.
Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1973). The psychology of
sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Madden, M.E. & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1981) Blame, control,
and Marital Satisfaction: Wives' attribution for
conflict in Marriage. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 42 (Aug), 663-673.
Magid, R. (1987). When mothers and fathers work:
Creative strategies for balancing career and family.
New York: AMACOM.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Handle, J.D. (1979). Women and social change in
America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Books.
McDonald, C.W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of
a decade of theory and research. Journal of
Marriage and the Familv. 42., 841-854.
McHale, and Huston, (1985). The effect of the
transition to parenthood on the marriage
relationship. Journal of Family Issues. £ (4), 409-
433.
McClelland, D.C. (1980). Power; The inner experience.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McNamara, M.L., & Bahr, H.M. (1980). The dimensionality
of marital role satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and the Family. (Feb.), 45-55.
Melikian, L.H., & De Karapetian, A. (1977). Personality
change over time: Assimilation of an ethnic minori
ty in Lebanon. Journal of Social Psychology, 102.,
185-191.
Mendoza, R.H. (1989). An empirical scale to measure type
and degree of acculturation in Mexican American
adolescents and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology. 4, 372-385.
Michel, A. (1967). Comparative data concerning the
interaction in French and American families.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 21, 227-244.
Miller, and Sollie, (1980). Normal stresses during
transition to parenthood. Family Relationships. 21,
459—465.
Mirowsky, J. (1985). Depression and marital power: An
equity model. American Journal of Sociology. £1,
557-592.
Mirowsky, J. & Ross, C.E. (1987). Belief in innate sex
roles: Sex stratification vs interpersonal
influence in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 41, 527- 540.
Moghaddam, F., Ditto, B., & Taylor, D.M. (1990).
Attitudes and attributions related to psychological
symptomatology in Indian immigrant women. Journal
of Cross Cultural Psychology, 21 (3), 335-35-.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Nadelson, C.C. & Nadelson, T. (1980). Dual-career
marriages: Benefits and costs. In F. Pepitone-
Rockwell (Ed.). Dual career couples (pp. 91-110).
Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage Publications.
Newcomb, M.D. & Bentler, P.M. (1981) . Marital Breakdown.
In Duck, S., & Gilmour, R. (Eds) Personal
relationships 3: Personal relationships in disorder.
London: Academic Press.
Norton, A. & Glick, P. (1976). Marital instability,
past, present and future. Journal of Social Issues.
22., 5-20.
Nye, F.I., with Bahr, H.M., Bahr, S.J., Carlson, J.E.,
Gecas, V., McLaughlin, S. & Slocum, W.L. (1976).
Role structure and analysis of the family. Beverly
Hills: Sage. Nye, F.I. (1980). Family theories as
special instances of choice and exchange theory.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 42, 479-489.
O'Leary, V.E. (1974) . Some attitudinal barriers to
occupational barriers in women. Psychological
Bulletin. 21, 809-826.
O'Leary, V.E. (1977). Toward understanding women.
Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Olson, D.H. (1969). The measurement of family power by
self-report and behavioral methods. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 34, 55-550.
Olson, D.H. & Rabunsky, C. (1972). Validity of four
measures of family power. Journal of Marriage and
the Fam ily, 2A, 224-234.
Oppong, C. (1970). Conjugal power and resources: An
urban African example. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 2 2 , 676-680.
Osmond, M.W. (1980). Cross-societal family research: A
macro sociological overview of the seventies.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. Nov, 995-1016.
Palomas, M., & Garland, T.N. (1970, September). The
myth of the egalitarian family: Familial roles and
the professionally employed wife. Paper presented
at. the...6.5th Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Parker, M., Peltier, S., & Wolleat, P. (1981).
Understanding dual-career couples. Personnel and
Guidance Journal. 1£, 14-18.
Pepitone-Rockwell, F. (Ed.). (1980). Dual-Career
couples. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Peters, R. D., McMahon, R.J. (1988). Social learning
and systems approach to marriage and the family.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Piazza, T., & Clock, C. (1979). Images of God and their
special meaning. In New directions in quantitative
research (pp 69-92). New York: Academic Press.
Pleck, J.H. (1985). Working wives/working husbands.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Pluchik, R. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory
of emotions. In R. Pluchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.),
Emotion: Theorv. research, and experience (Vol. I)
(pp. 3-33). New York: Academic Press.
Price-Bonham, S. (1976) . A comparison of weighted and
unweighted decision-making scores. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 1&, 629-640.
Priest, D. (1992). Manor changes seen in female labor
force. The Washington Post. P.A21.
Rappaport, R., & Rappaport, R. (1971). Dual career
families. New York: Penguin.
Rappaport, R., & Rappaport, R. (1977). Dual career
families re-examined. New York: Harper & Row.
Ravinder, S. (1987) . An empirical investigation of
Garnet's and Peck's sex role strain analysis. Sex
Roles. !£. (3/4), 165-179.
Reading, J., & Amatea, E.S. (1986). Role deviance or
role diversification: Reassessing the psychosocial
factors affecting the parenthood choice of the
career-oriented women. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 48, 255-260.
Rice, D.G. (1979). Dual-career marriage. London:
Collier Macmillan.
Richardson, A. G. (1987). Differences in Adolescent's
self-esteem across cultures. Psychological Reports.
èJi, 19-22.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
Richmond, M.L. (1976). Beyond resources theory:
Another look at factors enabling women to family
interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
IS., 257-266.
Roach, A.J., Frazier, L.P. & Bowden, S.R. (1981). The
Marital Satisfaction Scale: Development of a measure
fro intervention research. Journal of Marriage and
th e Family, Æ1 (3), 537- 546.
Rodman, H. (1967). Marital power in France, Greece,
Yugoslavia and the United States: A cross-national
discussion. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 22.,
320-325.
Rodman, H. (1972) . Marital power and the theory of
resources in cultural context. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies. 1 50-67.
Rogers, L.R. (1975) . Female forms of power and the myth
of female/male interaction in peasant society.
American Ethnologist. 2, 727-756.
Rogers, L.R. & Farace, R.V. (1975). Analysis of
relational communications in dyads: New measurement
procedures. Human Communication Research. 1, 222-
223.
Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S.J. (1976). A theory of power
relationships in Marriage. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 619-627.
Ross, C., Mirowsky, J., & Huber, J. (1983). Dividing
work, sharing work, and in-between: Marriage
patterns and depression. American Sociological
Review. 12, 809-823.
Sabatelli, R.M. (1984a). The marital comparison level
index: A measure for assessing outcomes relative to
expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Familv.
46 651-662.
Sabatelli, R.M. (1984b). Measurement issues in marital
research. Journal of Marriage and the Family. £fi,
891-915.
Saegert, S., & Hart, R. (1976). The development of sex
differences in the environmental competence of
children. In P. Burnett (Ed.), Women in society.
Chicago: Maaroufa Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1967). A comparison of power
structure and marital satisfaction in urban Greek
and French families. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 23L, 345-352.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1969). Family sociology or
wives' family sociology: A cross-cultural
examination of decision-making. Journal of Marriage
and th e Fam ily, 21, 290-301.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970b). The study of family
power structure: 1960-1969. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 22, 539-551.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976a). A macro and micro
examination of family power and love: An exchange
model. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 22, 355-
362.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1979). Women as change agents:
Towards a conflict model of sex role change. In J.
Lipman-Blumen & J. Bernard (Eds.), Sex roles and
social policy. London: Sage Publications.
Sanua, V.D. (1969). Immigration, migration and mental
illness: A review of the literature with a special
emphasis on schizophrenia. In E.B. Brody (Ed.)
Behavior in new environments (pp. 291-352), Beverly
Hills, Ca: Sage.
Scanzoni, J. (1968). A social system analysis of
dissolved and existing marriages. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, lû, 452-461.
Scanzoni, J. (1978). Sex roles, women's work, and
marital conflict. Massachusetts: Lexington Book,
D.C. Heath & Co.
Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social processes and power in
families. In Contemporary theories about the
family. (Vol. I); Research-Based theories. New
York: The Free Press.
Scanzoni, J., & Fox, G.L. (1980). Sex roles, family and
society: The seventies and beyond. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. Nov. 743-756.
Scanzoni, J. (1983). Shaping tomorrow' s family.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
Seccombe, K. (1986). The effects of occupational
conditions upon the division of household labor: An
application of Kohn's theory. Journal of Marriage
and the Family. A&(4),839-848.
Sekaran, U. (1986). Dual career families. San
Francisco: Jossy-Bass Inc.
Sethi, R. R., & Allen, M.J. (1984). Sex role-stereo
types in Northern India and the United States. Sex
Roles. 11 (7/8), 615-627.
Seward, G.H. (1970). Sex roles in changing society.
New York: Random House.
Shihadeh, E.S. (1991). The prevalence of husband-
centered migration; Employment consequences for
married mothers. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 51, 432-444.
Shon, S.P., Sc Ja, D.J. (1982). Asian families. In M.
McGolderick (Ed.), Ethnicitv and family therapy (pp.
208-228). New York: Guilford.
Shukla, A. (1987). Decision making in single- and dual
career families in India. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. (Aug.), 621-629.
Shukla, A., & Kapoor, M. (1990). Sex role identity,
marital power, and marital satisfaction among
middle-class couples in India. Sex Roles. 22, 693-
706.
Smith, A.D. Sc Reid, W.J. (1986) . Role sharing marriage.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, A.D. & Reid, W.J. (1986). Role expectations and
attitudes in dual-earner families: Social Casework.
Journal of Contemporary Social Work. 52(7), 394-402.
Snyder, D.K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of
marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, (Nov.),813-823.
Spanier, G.E. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New
scales for assessing the quality of marriage and
similar dyads. JoAirnal of Marriage and the Family,
28., 15-38.
Spanier, G., & Lewis, R. (1980). Marital quality—Review
of the 70's. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
42,825-839.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Spanier, G., & Thompson, L. (1982). Measuring Dyadic
Adjustment; New scale. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 4A,731-738.
Sprey, J. (1972). Family power structure: A critical
comment. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2A
(May), 235-238.
Steinberg, L. & Silverberg, S. B. (1987) . Influences on
marital satisfaction during the middle stages of the
family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. (Nov.). 751-760.
Strauss, M.A. & Tallman, I. (1971) . S IMF AM: A technique
for observational measurement and experimental study
of families. In J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M.
Strauss & I. Tallman (Eds.), Family problem-solving.
Hinsdale, 111: Dryden.
Strodtbeck, F.L. (1951). Husband-wife interaction over
revealed difference. American Sociological Review,
la,468-473.
Sussman, M.E. & Steinmetz, S.K. (1988). Handbook of
Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press.
Szapocznik, J., Kutinez, W.M., & Frenandez, T. (1980).
Bicultural involvement and adjustment in Hispanic
American youths. Journal of Intercultural
Relations. 1,353-365.
Terman, L.M. (1938). Psychological factors in marital
happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Terman, L.M. & Wallins, P. (1949). The validity of
marriage prediction and marital adjustment tests.
American Sociological Review. 11,497-505.
Trussell, J. & Rao, K.V. (1989) . Premarital co
habitation and marital stability: A reassessment of
the Canadian evidence. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 51,713-725.
Turk, J.L. & Bell, N.W. (1972) . Measuring power in
families. Journal of Marriage and the Family.
11,215-222.
Vannoy-Hiller, D., & Dyehouse, J. (1987). A case for
banishing "dual-career marriages" from the research
1iterature. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
(Hoy.),787-795.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
Verbrugge, L.M. (1979a.). Marital status and health.
Journal of Marriage and the Familv. 11,267-285.
Veveers, J. (1977). The family in Canada. In profile
studies. (Vol. 5. Part 3). Ottawa: Statistics
Canada.
Warner, R.L., Lee, G. & Lee, J. (1986). Social
organization, spousal resources, and marital power:
A cross-cultural study. Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 4 . (Feb.). 121-128
Watson, R.E. (1983). Premarital co-habitation versus
traditional courtship: Their effect on subsequent
adjustment. Family Relations. 2Z, 139-147.
Waldron, H. & Routh, D.K. (1981). The effect of the first
child on the marital relationship. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 41, 785-788.
Whicker, M.L. & Kronenfeld, J.J. (1986). Sex role
changes, technology, politics and policy. New York:
Prager.
Whisman, M.A. & Jacobson, N.S. (1990). Power, marital
satisfaction, and response to marital therapy.
Jo u rn al.,Qf Family Psycho logy, 4 (2), 202-212.
White, J.M. (1987). Premarital co-habitation and
marital stability in Canada. Journal of Marriage
and-the Family, 41, 41-647.
White, J.M. (1989). Reply to comment by Trussel and
Rao: A re-analysis of the data. Journal of Marriage
and-ttie .family/ 11, 540-544.
White, L,K. Sc Booth, A.V. (1985b.).
parenthood and marital quality.
lSi5U.es, 1(4), 435-449.
The transition to
Journal of Family
White, L.K., Booth, A.V., & Edwards, J.N. (1986).
Children and marital happiness: Why the negative
correlation? Journal of Familv Issues, %, 131-147.
Whyte, M.K. (1978). The status of women in pre
industrial societies. Princeton, N.J: Princeton
University Press.
Wilkening, E.A. & Morrison, D.E. (1963). A comparison of
husband and wife response concerning who makes farm
and home decisions. Marriage and family living. 25.
349-351.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
Yamaguchi, K. & Kandel, D. (1985). An event history
analysis of role selection and role socialization
and illicit drug use: An event history analysis of
role selection and role socialization. American
Sociological Review. 5Ü,530-546.
YogeVf S. (1983). Dual-career couples: Conflicts and
treatment. American Journal of Family Therapy,
11,38-44.
Yogev, s . & Brett, J. (1985) . Perceptions of division of
housework and child-care and marital satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 12,609-618.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
APPENDIX A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
118
SEX: AGE: Date of Birth / / Religion:
State of origin in India
mth day yr
State of Domicile
I. Arranged marriage Œ
Number of years married: _
2. Love marriage (circle one)
Date o f Marriage:____ m th_____ date
yr
Number of years in the United States:
CHILDREN: Order of birth
1.
2.
3.
4.
If previously married, please give:
Date of marriage:
# of yrs married:
Sex, age & d.o.b. of children:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Your highest level of education:
OCCUPATION:
SEX AGE DATE OF BIRTH
Date of marriage:
# of yrs married:
Sex, age & d.o.b. of children:
1.
2.
3.
4.
(Indicate one that applies to you.)
Full-time work or Part-time work____
Indicate number of hours/week that you work if part-time
NUMBER OF YEARS ON JOB:
1. Who earns the greater income in the family? Husband OR Wife____
2. How many people live in the same house besides you, your spouse and your children:
3. How are they related to you? (e.g., brother, aunt, mother-in-law, etc.)
4. Your annual income: $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000
$50,000 $100,000 Above $100,000 (circle one)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
ADAPTATION OF BLOOD AND WOLFE’S DECfSrON-lVTAKING INDEX
(DMI)
In every family, somebody has to decide such things as where the family will live and so
on. Many couples talk such things over first, but the final decision often has to be made
by the husband or the wife. For the following questions, please choose only fins of the
answers that applies to you.
1. Inviting guests to the house?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
2. Decorations for the house?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
3. W hat movies to watch?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
4. Who decides on the meals?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
S. Clothes for self?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
6. What magazines and papers to
read?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
7. Clothes for the spouse?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
8. What car to get?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
9. Whether or not to buy life
insurance?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
10. How much money to spend on
clothes?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
11. W hat kind of savings and
investments to make?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
12. Where to go on vacation?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
13. How to budget the payment of
bills?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
14. What doctors to have if someone is
sick?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
15. How much money the family can
afford to spend on food?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
16. Whether or not the wife should go
to work or quit work?
a. husband always
b. husband more than wife
c. husband and wife exactly the same
d. wife more than husband
e. wife always
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the
approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each
item on the following list.
Always
Agree
Almost
Always
Agree
Occasionally
Disagree
Frequently
Disagree
Almost
Always
Disagree
Always
Disagree
1. Handling family
finances
2. Matters of
recreation
3. Religious matters
4. Demonstrations of
affection
5. Friends
6. Sex relations
7. Conventionality
(correct or proper
behavior)
8. Philosophy of life
9. Ways of dealing
with parents or in
laws
10. Aims, goals, and
things believed
important
11. Amount of lime
spent together
12. Making major
decisions
13. Household tasks
14. Leisure lime
interests and
activities
IS. Career decisions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
All the
Time
Must of
the Time
More Often
Than Not Occasionally Rarely Never
16. How often do you
discuss or have
you considered
divorce,
separation, or
terminating your
relationship?
17. How often do you
or your mate leave
the house after a
fight?
18. In general, how
often do you think
that things
between you and
your partner are
going well?
19. Do you confide in
your mate?
20. Do you ever regret
that you married?
(or lived together)
21. How often do you
and your partner
quarrel?
22. How often do you
and your mate “get
on each other’s
nerves?”
Everyday
Almost
Everyday Occasionally Rarely Never
23. Do you kiss your
mate?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
All of
Them
Must of
Them
Some of
Them
Very Few of
Them
None of
Them
24. Do you and your
mate engage in
outside interests
together?
How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate?
Never
Less Than
Once a
Month
Once or
Twice a
Month
Once or
Twice a
Week
Once a
Day
More
Often
25. Have a
stimulating
exchange of
ideas
26. Laugh together
27. Calmly discuss
something
28. Woiic together
on a project
These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your
relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no)
Yes No
29. Being too
tired for
sex
30. Not
showing
love
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your
relationship. The middle point, “happy,” represents the degree of happiness of
most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of
happiness, all things considered in your relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect
Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy
32. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of
your relationship?
I want desperately for my relationship to succeed and would
go to almost any length to see that it does. ____________
I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will
do all I can to see that it does.
I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will
do my fair share to see that it does.
It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can’t
do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed.
It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more
than I am doing now to keep the relationship going.
My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more
that I can do to keep the relationship going.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Child sexual abuse in a sample of male and female Hispanic and White nonclinical adolescents: Extending the reliability and validity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI)

PDF

Concordant and discordant drug use in intimate relationships: A longitudinal study

PDF

Gender role conflict, cultural identity, and self-esteem among African-American men

PDF

"It's always something": African-American women's college reentry experience

PDF

Effects of parenting style and ethnic identity on European American and Asian Indian adolescents' academic competence and self esteem

PDF

Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics

PDF

An investigation of the psychological well-being of unaccompanied Taiwanese minors/parachute kids in the United States

PDF

Vietnamese-Americans embedded in multicultural contexts: Structural equation modeling of acculturation and family

PDF

Intergenerational conflict, family functioning, and acculturation experienced by Asian American community college students

PDF

Cognitive and non-cognitive factors as predictors of retention among academically at-risk college students: A structural equation modelling approach

PDF

A cultural -ecological analysis of educational aspirations and satisfaction of educational opportunities of Asian -Americans and Hispanics: Understanding the interaction of race and class, paren...

PDF

Childhood precursors of adult reality distortion: A prospective study.

PDF

Behavioral and demographic predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis

PDF

A Comparison Of Female Inmates With And Without Histories Of Prostitution On Selected Psychosocial Variables

PDF

Consequences of heritage language loss and maintenance and factors that affect heritage language development: Voices from second-generation Korean-American adults

PDF

The effects of parenting style, cultural conflict, and peer relations on academic achievement and psychosocial adjustment among Korean immigrant adolescents

PDF

Married Japanese women with children: The relationship between perceived spousal support, childrearing, outside employment, and levels of depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and life satisfaction

PDF

A comparative study of the realm of meaning of four child prostitutes in Taiwan: A hermeneutic approach

PDF

A stress model of acculturation, depressive symptoms, and self-esteem among Mexican-American undergraduates

PDF

Self-Concept In Adult Women: A Multidimensional Approach

Asset Metadata

Creator Paramesh, Kalanidhi (author)

Core Title A cross-cultural comparison of marital power and dyadic adjustment among American, Indo-American, and East Indian dual-career and single-career couples

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Counseling Psychology)

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social,sociology, ethnic and racial studies,sociology, individual and family studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Newcomb, Michael (committee chair), Chung, Ruth H. (committee member), Farver, Joann (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-294528

Unique identifier UC11350242

Identifier 9816058.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-294528 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9816058.pdf

Dmrecord 294528

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Paramesh, Kalanidhi

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA