several decades (Oropesa & Landale, 2004). According to Oropesa and ...... Hunsley, Pinsent, Lefebvre, James-Tanner, & Vito, 1995, as cited in Strauss,. 2012).
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIP
DISSERTATION
By Fakher Nabeel Mohammad Khalili 10/311234/SPS/253
PROGRAM DOKTOR PSIKOLOGI UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA YOGYAKARTA 2013
1
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIP
DISSERTATION
By Fakher Nabeel Mohammad Khalili 10/311234/SPS/253
PROGRAM DOKTOR PSIKOLOGI UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA YOGYAKARTA 2013
i
ii
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work and that it has never been presented at this or any other university in order to obtain a degree.
Yogyakarta, November 2013
Fakher Nabeel Mohammad Khalili
iii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my friend, my lover, and the most wonderful person I have ever met; she is my wife, . Her support, encouragement, help, and patience made this accomplishment possible. Also, she has taken care of so many of the other parts of my life so that I could do the work necessary to complete my studies and so that I could remain actively involved in the lives of our children, Nabeel, Abdurrahman, Hassan and Zain. Thank you, I will be eternally grateful.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful Alhamdulillah, all praises to Allah for the strengths and His blessing in completing this dissertation. I would first like to thank my family. My Mom, a patient woman (Allah rest her soul), she always dreamed to see me as a doctor, now her dreams become reality. There truly are no words that could possibly express my thanks and gratitude to her. My sincere thanks to my dad (may Allah grant him long life). Thank you for showing me what true determination and work ethic looks like. Thank you for working so hard to provide for all of us. This dissertation was made possible by an Indonesian Ministry of National Education. I am grateful to it for the scholarship which enabled me to undertake a PhD program at UGM. At the same time, I would like to thank to the rector of UGM Prof. Dr. Pratikno, M.Soc.Sc. My gratitude is also extended to the Palestinian Prime Minister Prof. Rami Hamdallah who spent many years in developing ANU. Were it not for the efforts of the Ambassador of State of Palestine his Excellency Mr. Fariz Mehdawi, I could not get a scholarship in Indonesia. He is not just Ambassador, but he is also affectionate parent and kind friend. I am thankful for his unconditional love and support. An undertaking such as a dissertation is not completed without the support of many people in Indonesia and Palestine. My debt of gratitude must go to my Indonesian parents, Pak Rasimin Bujang Sanmustari, Ibu Dra. Nuryati Atamimi, SU, and their children Muhammad Rizman, Shinta Rahmayani, Muhammad Rozi, and Alfitri Rosita. For their love and care for me. They provided me accommodation,
v
money, meals, internet, transportation, and above all friendship, encouragement, support, prayers, and a belief that I could do it. In my attempts to see further by standing on the shoulders of scientific giants, I must acknowledge that many times I was carried along and hoisted to those heights by fellow climbers. My supervisor and co-supervisors, Prof. Dr. Sofia Retnowati, MS, Prof. Dr. Kwartarini Wahyu Y., M. Med. Sc., and Dr. Subandi, MA. Their astute guidance and supports made this dissertation possible. They patiently provided the vision, encouragement and advice necessary for me to proceed through the doctoral program and complete my dissertation.
Prof. Dr. Sofia
Retnowati, MS, Dr. Subandi, MA, and Prof. Dr. Kwartarini Wahyu Y., M. Med. Sc. were not just supervisor and co-supervisors. Ibu Sofia and her husband Prof. Dr. M. Noor Rochman Hadjam were parents; Pak Subandi and his wife Ibu Tatik, and Ibu Kwartarini and her husband Pak Giri Irwanto, all of them were mentors and friends. I am very grateful to the members of my dissertation committee, the dean Dr. Supra Wimbarti, M. Sc., Prof. Dr. Tina Afiatin, M.Si., P.si., Dr. Rahmat Hidayat, M.Sc, Dr. Tjipto Susana Dr. Tjipto Susana, M.Si., and Dra. Nuryati Atamimi, SU. Their academic support and input and personal cheering are greatly appreciated. Special thanks to them. My thanks are also extended to the team of the Palestinian embassy in Jakarta, to Ibu Sari Amalia, that generous, dedicated, caring, and sincere lady. And to my brothers and sisters there, Mr. Taher Hamad, Mr. Nael Mahmoud, Mr. Moammar Milhelm, Mbak Ade Nuke Indriyani, and Mas Chun hon Lie. My gratitude is also extended to Prof. Dr. Saifuddin Azwar, M.A., an inspiring doctor, who provided me his valuable knowledge and advices and my gratitude is
vi
also to Prof. Dr. Faturochman, MA. who has known the answer to every question and who had taught me about one of interesting topics that served me in my dissertation. Thank you Pak Azwar and Pak Faturochman. Next I’d like to thank Prof. Johana Endang Prawitasari, Ph.D. I cannot begin to express my gratitude and feelings for this gregarious woman. In her face you see wisdom, a warm and friendly heart, and one of the few whom I cannot forget ever. I would also like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Thomas Dicky Hastjarjo for guiding me in the early part of my dissertation work. This dissertation would have not have been possible without important advice that provided by Dr. Neila Ramdhani, M.Si., M.Ed. I am thankful for her guidance and help. I am thankful for the unconditional love and support that have been provided by Prof. Djamaludin Ancok. I still remember the beautiful time that I spent with Dr. Bagus Riyono, M.A, Drs. Fauzan Heru Santoso, M.Si., Drs. Helly Prajitno Soetjipto, MA. Thank you very much for your kind hearts and souls. A special thanks to my brothers Mas Fuad Hamsyah, Mas Tawfeq, and Mbak Wenty Marina Minza, those ambitious guys who helped me to translate my questionnaires to Indonesian language. I appreciate them and their assistance. My thanks are also extended to everyone who fill out my questionnaires and gave me important advices during this process particularly Dra. Budi Andayani, MA and Dra. Esti Hayu Purnamaningsih, MS. I cannot forget the first people I meet in Yogyakarta, those who welcomed me and supported me during my studying in UGM; thanks a lot for my brothers and sisters Pak Syahrul Fauzi, Pak Adi Purwanto, Pak Agus Riyanta., Mbak Rya
vii
Mardikawati, Mbak Santi Fesus, Mbak Siti Hidayati, Mbak Etik Setyaningsih, Mbak Veri Kristiningsih, Mbak Umi Widyaningsih, Mbak Umi Nurjanah, Mbak Ima Sesariana, and Pak Sunarya. My gratitude is also extended to the acting president of the An-Najah National University Prof. Maher Al-Natsheh, the Dean of the Faculty of Educational Sciences and Teachers' Training Prof. Ghassan Al-Hilo, and the Head of the Department of Psychology and Counseling Dr. Abdel Karim Ayoub. Special thanks to my Indonesian friends those who always supported me; Dr. Sumedi Nugraha and his wife, Dr. Zaki Baridwan, Mas Fuad Nashori, Mas Zakwan Adri, Mas Arnas Aidili and his wife Mbak Wiwi, Mas Contrue Erick Rafsanjani, Mas Zaldie Zidane, Mbak Dzakiyyah Ulfah, Mas Rahmat Heriono, Mbak Maria Ananta, and Mbak Siti Rohmah Nurhayati. My thanks are also extended to Ibu Tutik, and their children Mas Irvan Noviantoro and Mbak Novita Sari, those who lived with them in the same house. I still remember the beautiful time I spent with my house-mates Mas Audi Ansyah, Mas Giyantoro and his wife Mbak Retno Palupi, Pak Bejo Sihono, Mas Nurhanafi Prasetyo, Mas Hamid Mukhlis, Mas Arief Pratomo, Mas Jeffry Simson Supardi, and Mas Daniel Joel Kairupan. Thank you very much for your kind hearts and souls. Finally I’d like to thank my brothers friends from Libya, Iraq, Lesotho, and Palestine; those are Dr. Mueen Shurafa and his family, Mr. Laith Rabih and his family, Mr. Abd Alsalam Khalaf and his family, Mr. Allam Nasruallah and his family, Mr. Faraj Jouha and his family, Mr. Hamza Alturki and his family, Mr. AbdAlazeim Matuk and his family, Mr. Abdul-Ghani and his family, Mr. Mokete Nyaphisi, and Mr. Mpholle Paepae.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tittle page ...................................................................................................................... i Committee page............................................................................................................ ii Declaration ....................................................................................................................iii Dedication .....................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgment .......................................................................................................... v Table of contents ..........................................................................................................ix List of tables ...............................................................................................................xiii List of figures .............................................................................................................xvii List of appendixes ......................................................................................................xix List of abbreviations....................................................................................................xx Abstract .......................................................................................................................xxi Abstract in Indonesian language..............................................................................xxii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………….............................................. 1 A. Background of the Study ............................................................................................ 1 B. Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................53 C. Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................56 D. Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................57 E. Originality of the Study ..............................................................................................58 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................59 A. Social Cognitive Theory.............................................................................................60 1. Social Cognitive Theory Marital Relationship, and Marital Commitment ..............67 2. Social Cognitive Theory and Culture ..................................................................71 3. Social Cognitive Theory and Gender Role Orientation........................................75 4. Social Cognitive Theory and Division of Household ............................................85 5. Social Cognitive Theory and Personality Characteristics ....................................86 B. Marital Constructs and Marital Relationship...............................................................91 1. Marital Satisfaction .............................................................................................91 2. Marital Satisfaction Types...................................................................................94 3. Marital Commitment ...........................................................................................97
ix
4. Types of Marital Commitment ...........................................................................102 5. Marital Commitment and Attitudes Towards Divorce ........................................104 6. Marital Satisfaction and Marital Commitment ....................................................107 C. Gender Role Orientation .........................................................................................116 D. Division of Household .............................................................................................118 E. Personality Characteristics ......................................................................................120 1. Self-Disclosure .................................................................................................120 2. Expressiveness ................................................................................................122 3. Neuroticism ......................................................................................................124 F. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions ...............................................................................125 1. Individualism/Collectivism [IDV] ........................................................................128 2. Power Distance [PDI] .......................................................................................129 3. Uncertainty Avoidance [UAI] .............................................................................129 4. Masculinity/Femininity [MAS] ............................................................................130 5. Long-Term Orientation and Short-Term Orientation [LTO] ................................131 G. Cultural Dimensions and Marital Relationship .........................................................134 1. Collectivism/Individualism, Marital Satisfaction, and Commitment ....................134 2. Power Distance, Division of Household, and Marital Satisfaction......................138 3. Masculinity/Femininity, Gender Role Orientation, and Marital Satisfaction........142 4. Uncertainty Avoidance, Personality Characteristics, and Marital Satisfaction ...148 5. Long/Short-Term Orientation, Marital Commitment, and Marital Satisfaction ....158 H. Latent Variables Behind Cultural Dimensions..........................................................160 I. Constructing Marital Satisfaction and Commitment in One Latent Variable ..............162 J. Cultural Dimensions for Indonesia and Palestine .....................................................163 K. Measuring Constructs Across Cultures....................................................................166 L. Cross-Cultural Studies, Shortened Scales, and Structural Equation Modeling .........171 M. Measuring Marital Constructs Via Shortened Scales ..............................................174 N. Marital Relationship in Javanese Context ................................................................176 O. Marital Relationship in Palestinian Context .............................................................193 P. Theoretical Model and the Hypotheses ...................................................................211
x
CHAPTER III: METHOD OF THE STUDY .......................................................................219 A. Study Roadmap ......................................................................................................219 B. Design of the Study .................................................................................................220 C. Identifications of the Study’s Variables ....................................................................221 1. Endogenous Variables ......................................................................................221 2. Exogenous Variables ........................................................................................222 3. Operational Definitions and the Measurement ..................................................223 D. Data Sources and the Study’s Locations .................................................................235 1. Population of the Study .....................................................................................235 2. Sampling Method and the Sample ....................................................................236 3. Sample Size .....................................................................................................237 E. The Procedures .......................................................................................................238 1. Translation of Questionnaires ...........................................................................238 2. Pilot studies ......................................................................................................240 3. Shorting Technique and Questionnaires Construction ......................................241 4. Structural Equation Modeling ............................................................................244 5. Collecting Data and Selecting Respondents .....................................................252 6. Data Screening .................................................................................................253 7. Handling Violations of SEM Assumptions .........................................................260 8. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................264 9. Reliability ..........................................................................................................265 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ......................................................................268 A. Characteristics of the Study Samples ......................................................................269 B. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables ..................................................................271 C. Correlation Analysis ................................................................................................279 D. Results of Latent Variables Behind Cultural Dimensions .........................................286 E. Results of Constructing Marital Satisfaction and Commitment in One Latent Variable ...291 F. SEM Analysis for the Javanese Sample ..................................................................301 G. SEM Analysis for the Palestinian Arabs Sample .....................................................335 H. The Cultural Dimensions and Marital Relationship ..................................................357
xi
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................371 A. Discussion ...............................................................................................................371 B. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................421 C. Limitations and the Weakness.................................................................................433 D. Recommendations and Implications ........................................................................435 References ..................................................................................................................439 Summary .....................................................................................................................473 Summary in Indonesian language................................................................................539 Appendixes ..................................................................................................................426
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Index of Marital Satisfaction for Adams (2003) ............................................224
Table 2
Marital Commitment Selected Items from Johnson et al. (1999) Scale ........226
Table 3
The Components of CVSCALE for Yoo et al. (2011) ...................................231
Table 4
Wheeless’ Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (1978) ........................................232
Table 5
Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (2006) ................................................233
Table 6
Neuroticism Scale from Eysenck Personality Questionnaire RevisedShort (1984) ...............................................................................................234
Table 7
Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Role Scale for Larsen and Long (1988) ............235
Table 8
Demographic Characteristics for the Two Samples .....................................243
Table 9
The Blueprint for all Scales in the Current Study .........................................244
Table 10
The Degrees of Freedom for the all Models ................................................250
Table 11
Model Fit Indices and Recommended Values for SEM Analysis (Kline, 2005) ..........................................................................................................252
Table 12
Descriptive Statistic for the Study Items (N = 640) ......................................254
Table 13
Skewness and Kurtosis Indices for Study Variables ....................................258
Table 14
Estimates of Reliability ................................................................................266
Table 15
Demographic Characteristics and the Differences Between Samples .........270
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables ..............................................271
Table 17
Results of One Sample T-Test for the Differences Between Each Variable Score and its Cut Point Value .......................................................272
Table 18
The Results of Independent Sample T-Test for the Differences in Study Variables ....................................................................................................275
Table 19
The Results of CVs, One Sample T-Test, and Independent Sample TTest ............................................................................................................277
Table 20
Bivariate Correlations in the Javanese Sample (N= 249) ............................281
Table 21
Bivariate Correlations in the Palestinian Arabs Sample (N= 354) ................282
Table 22
Communalities for the Cultural Dimensions in the Javanese Sample ..........288
xiii
Table 23
Eigen Values, the Variances Explained, and the Loadings of Cultural Dimensions after the Rotation Using Varimax Method in the Javanese Sample .......................................................................................................289
Table 24
Communalities for the Cultural Dimensions in the Palestinian Arabs Sample .......................................................................................................290
Table 25
Eigen Values, the Variances Explained, and the Loadings of Cultural Dimensions after the Rotation Using Varimax Method in the Palestinian Arabs Sample .............................................................................................291
Table 26 Eigen Values, the Variances Explained, and The Loadings of all MS and MC Items after the Rotation Using Oblimin Method for the First-Order Factor Analysis for the Javanese Sample ...................................................293 Table 27
Eigen Value, the Variance Explained, and the Loadings of MS, PC, ATD, and MOC for the Higher-Order Factor Analysis for the Javanese Sample ..294
Table 28
Eigen Values, the Variances Explained, and The Loadings of all MS and MC Items After the Rotation Using Oblimin Method for the First-Order Factor Analysis in the Palestinian Arabs Sample ........................................295
Table 29
Eigen Value, the Variance Explained, and the Loadings of MS, PC, ATD, and MOC for the Higher-Order Factor Analysis for the Palestinian Arabs Sample .......................................................................................................295
Table 30
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Individualism-Collectivism Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample)........................................304
Table 31
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Individualism-Collectivism Model After ReSpecification Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample) ......................................................................................................307
Table 32
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Power Distance Model Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample) ......................................................312
xiv
Table 33
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Power Distance Model Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis After the Re-Specification (The Javanese Sample) .............314
Table 34
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Masculinity/Femininity Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample)........................................319
Table 35
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Uncertainty Avoidance Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample)........................................324
Table 36
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Long/Short-Term Orientation Model Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample).............................328
Table 37
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Long/Short-Term Orientation Model Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis after the re-specification (The Javanese Sample) ......................................................................................................331
Table 38
Summary of the Results in Javanese Sample ............................................334
Table 39
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Individualism-Collectivism Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) ...........................337
Table 40
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Power Distance Model Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) .........................................340
Table 41
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Masculinity/Femininity Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) ...........................344
Table 42
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Uncertainty Avoidance Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) ...........................349
xv
Table 43
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for Long/Short-Term Orientation Model Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) ................353
Table 44
Summary of the Results in Palestinian Sample .........................................356
Table 45
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for PUL, DUM, and MSPAM Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample)........................................359
Table 46
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for PUL, DUM, and MSPAM Model after ReSpecification Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Javanese Sample) ......................................................................................................362
Table 47
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for DLP, PUM, and MPAM Model Based on WithinCultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) ...........................366
Table 48
Model Fit Indices, Recommended Values for SEM Analysis, and the Observed Values for DL, PUM, and MPAM Model after Re-Specification Based on Within-Cultures Units' Analysis (The Palestinian Arabs Sample) ......................................................................................................369
Table 49
Summary of the Accepted and Rejected Hypotheses for Javanese and Palestinian Arabs Samples .........................................................................427
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Bandura’s (1986) Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model ..............................63
Figure 2
Bandura’s (1978, 1983) Unidirectional Causation Model ...........................91
Figure 3
Chart of research map hypotheses for marital satisfaction and commitment .............................................................................................213
Figure 4
Theoretical model for individualism-collectivism and perception of marital relationship ...................................................................................214
Figure 5
Theoretical model for power distance and perception of marital relationship...............................................................................................215
Figure 6
Theoretical model for masculinity/femininity and perception of marital relationship...............................................................................................216
Figure 7
Theoretical model for uncertainty avoidance and perception of marital relationship ..............................................................................................217
Figure 8
Theoretical model for long-term orientation and perception of marital relationship ..............................................................................................218
Figure 9 Figure 10
The roadmap for the current study ............................................................219 Individualism-collectivism and perception of marital relationship model using AMOS graph ...................................................................................245
Figure 11
Power distance and perception of marital relationship model using AMOS graph ............................................................................................246
Figure 12
Masculinity/femininity and perception of marital relationship model using AMOS graph ..................................................................................247
Figure 13
Uncertainty avoidance and perception of marital relationship model using AMOS graph ...................................................................................248
Figure 14
Long-term orientation and perception of marital relationship model using AMOS graph ...................................................................................249
Figure 15
The PL, DUM, and MSPAM model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ...............................................................298
Figure 16
DL, PUM, and MPAM model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample).................................................................301
xvii
Figure 17
Individualism-collectivism and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ...............308
Figure 18
Power distance and perception of marital relationship model after the re-specification based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ....................................................................................................316
Figure 19
Masculinity/femininity and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ...............320
Figure 20
Uncertainty avoidance and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ...............325
Figure 21
Long/short-term orientation and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ....332
Figure 22
Individualism-collectivism and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample) ...338
Figure 23
Power distance and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample) .................341
Figure 24
Masculinity/ femininity and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample) ..345
Figure 25
Uncertainty avoidance and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample) ...350
Figure 26
Long/short-term orientation and perception of marital relationship model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample) ...354
Figure 27
The results of PL, DUM, and MSPAM model after re-specification based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Javanese sample) ..........................363
Figure 28
PUM, DL, and MPAM model based on within-cultures units' analysis (the Palestinian Arabs sample).................................................................370
xviii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
A. Legal Permission of Conducting Study .....................................................................625 B. Indonesian Questionnaires for Pilot Study ................................................................626 C. Arabic Questionnaires for Pilot Study .......................................................................650 D. Results of the Pilot Studies ......................................................................................663 E. Final Form of Indonesian Questionnaires .................................................................715 F. Final Form of Arabic Questionnaires ........................................................................732 G. Data of the Study .....................................................................................................740 H. Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................836
xix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MS:
Marital Satisfaction
MC:
Marital Commitment
PC:
Personal Commitment
ATD:
Attitudes Towards Divorce
MOC:
Moral Commitment
IDV:
Individualism-Collectivism
PDI:
Power Distance
MAS:
Masculinity-Femininity
UAI:
Uncertainty Avoidance
LTO:
Long/Short-Term Orientation
SD:
Self-disclosure
EX:
Expressiveness
NE:
Neuroticism
GRO:
Gender Role Orientation
DH:
Division of Household
PL:
Equality and Future Orientation
DL:
Shared Destiny Orientation
PUM:
Egalitarian Orthodox Orientation
DUM:
Orthodox Collectivistic Orientation
MSPAM: Javanese Marital Relationship MPAM:
Palestinian Marital Relationship
xx
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIP ABSTRACT Background. Many researchers have studied different aspects of marital relationship to find the most important factors that affect it. Often these factors do not correspond to the real issues being faced by spouses from different cultures. The general bias that seems to appear is the assumption that all cultures and societal norms correspond to those views of Western cultures. Objectives. This study aimed to answer this question “How Hofstede’s cultural dimensions affect the perception of marital relationship in term of perception of satisfaction and commitment for Javanese and Palestinian Arabs?” Methods. Independent variables are IDV, PDI, MAS, UAI, and LTO. Mediating variables are DH that stands between PDI and MS, GRO that stands between MAS and MS, and SD, EX, and NE that stand between UAI and MS. Dependent variables are MS and MC. IDV and LTO were hypothesized to affect MS and MC directly. Research subjects are 249 Javanese and 354 Palestinians. SEM technique was used to test the hypotheses. Results. In Javanese sample, the combination of low PDI and LTO (PL) supports perception of marital relationship (β = 0.538, p < 0.001). The R2 of the effects of cultural dimensions was moderate (0.39). In Palestinian sample, the combination of low PDI, high UAI, and modest MAS (PUM) (β = 0.291, p = 0.023) supports perception of marital relationship. The R2 of the effects of cultural dimensions was small (0.136). For Javanese, they have high levels of MS and MC. PDI has more powerful effect on perception of MS. The latter effect is through DH. For Palestinians, they have high levels of MS and MC too. UAI has more powerful effect on perception of MS. The letter effect is through NE. However, Javanese hold more positive ATD comparing with Palestinians. Recommendations. Counselors can recommend strategies for spouses designed to facilitate the sense of equality specifically in division of household labor. Keywords: individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long/short-term orientation division of household, gender role orientation selfdisclosing, expressiveness, neuroticism, marital satisfaction, and commitment.
xxi
DIMENSI BUDAYA DAN HUBUNGAN PERNIKAHAN ABSTRAK Latar Belakang Masalah. Banyak peneliti telah mempelajari aspek yang berbeda dari hubungan pernikahan untuk menemukan faktor yang paling penting yang mempengaruhinya. Seringkali faktor-faktor ini tidak sesuai dengan masalah-masalah nyata yang dihadapi oleh pasangan dari budaya yang berbeda. Tujuan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjawab pertanyaan “Bagaimana dimensi budaya dari Hofstede mempengaruhi persepsi terhadap habungan pernikahan (kepuasan dan komitmen) bagi orang Jawa dan orang Arab dari Palestina?. Metode. Variabel-variabel independen adalah IDV, PDI, MAS, UAI, dan LTO. DH yang berdiri antara PDI dan MS, GRO yang berdiri di antara MAS dan MS, dan SD, EX, dan NE yang berdiri antara UAI dan MS. Variabel-variabel dependen adalah MS dan MC. IDV dan LTO mempengaruhi MS dan MC langsung. Subjek penelitian adalah 249 orang Jawa dari UGM dan 354 orang Palestina dari ANU. Teknik SEM digunakan untuk menguji hipotesis. Hasil. Dalam sampel Jawa, kombinasi PDI yang rendah dan LTO (PL) mendukung persepsi hubungan pernikahan (β = 0.538, p < 0.001). R2 dari dimensi budaya adalah moderat (0.39). Dalam sampel Palestina, kombinasi PDI yang rendah, UAI yang tinggi, dan maskulinitas sedang (β = 0,291, p = 0.023) mendukung persepsi hubungan pernikahan. R2 dari dimensi budaya itu kecil (0.136). Untuk orang Jawa, mereka memiliki tingkat kepuasan pernikahan dan komitmen yang tinggi. PDI memiliki efek yang lebih kuat pada kepuasan pernikahan. Efek yang terakhir adalah melalui pembagian peran dalam rumah tangga. Untuk orang Palestina, mereka juga memiliki tingkat kepuasan pernikahan dan komitmen yang tinggi. UAI memiliki efek yang lebih kuat pada kepuasan pernikahan, diantaranya neurotisisme. Namun orang Jawa memiliki sikap yang lebih positif terhadap perceraian dibandingkan dengan orang Palestina. Rekomendasi. Konselor keluarga diminta untuk menyerukan kepada klien mereka untuk membangun rasa kesetaraan antara suami dan istri. Kata kunci: individualisme/ kolektivisme, perbedaan kekuasaan, maskulinitas/ feminitas, penghindaran ketidakpastian, orientasi jangka panjang/ jangka pendek dalam peran rumah tangga, peran gender, keterbukaan diri, sikap ekspresif, neurotisisme, kepuasan pernikahan, dan komitmen.
xxii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study For centuries, marriage has been an important institution across societies, cultures, and nations around the world (Myers, Madathil, & Tingle, 2005). Although different cultures have had different rituals and a variation of definitions surrounding the union of a couple, generally speaking, marriage has been defined as a legally and socially accepted and recognized union that entails, lifelong emotional, economical, sexual, and social rights and responsibilities (Bachrach, Hindin, & Thomson, 2000). This institution provides the fundamentals for any relationship to cultivate and to maintain. A marital relationship creates and provides the basic structure for the growth and development of the next generations (Myers et al., 2005). For many decades, spousal relationships have long been an object of interest for psychologists. However, given the high divorce and separation rates that currently prevail as well as their consequences on individuals, their families and society at large (Ambert, 2005). Intimate personal relationships play a central role in the lives of most people. Indeed, the quality and stability of these relationships have extremely important implications for psychological health and well-being, satisfying intimate relationship is associated with substantially elevated levels of general well-being and life satisfaction (Walker, Isherwood, Burton, Kitwe-Magambo, & Luszcz, 2013). For instance, married respondents are much more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than are those who have never married (Walker et al., 2013). Research has shown happy marriages
1
are associated with longer, healthier lives (Karren, Hafen, Smith, & Frandsen, 2002). 1. Marital Relationship in Term of Satisfaction and Commitment May, the most important components of marital relationship are satisfaction and commitment (Dush, Taylor, & Kroeger, 2008; Gunter, 2004; Litzinger & Gordon, 2005). Since marital satisfaction is the strongest predictor for happiness in many areas of life (Ozgur & Fons, 2013). Satisfaction is certainly significant outcome in marriage and other variables deserve increased consideration. For example, a satisfying marriage is associated with better general adjustment and fewer health problems (Karren et al., 2002). Both partners experience better emotional and physical health, are more successful in their jobs, and seem to be protected from other sources of stress when they are satisfied with their marriages, compared with when they are not (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Marital satisfaction is associated with higher rates of productivity, lower risks of emotional and physical illness, and better rates of recovery from illness (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005). The effects of marital satisfaction extend to children as well. Even within intact families, children have fewer emotional and physical problems and better educational outcomes when the relationship between their parents is satisfying and relatively free of conflict (Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). Researchers suggest the importance of marital commitment also, especially for relationship stability, longevity, economic well-being, childrearing, and improved mental and physical health (Waite & Gallagher, 2000; Stanley & Markman, 1992). In contrast, divorce and marital distress have been associated with lower levels of psychological and physical well-being (Karren et al., 2002).
2
Therefore, it is not surprising, that researchers have been interested in identifying factors that may influence the level of, satisfaction and commitment in close interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, marital commitment serves as a valuable construct in marital studies and provides more information concerning marital processes than satisfaction (Gunter, 2004). Because of commitment to marriage shows greater stability over time and divorce than marital satisfaction, this variable can provide valuable insight marital maintenance and longevity (Gunter, 2004). In general, there is little research on marital commitment (Stanley & Markman, 1992), so there is need to conduct deeper research about marital commitment taking in the consideration the impact of national culture, since there are some cultures insensitive to divorce (Hackstaff, 2010). Most people agree that commitment is the glue that holds relationships together (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994) and is positively associated with relationship satisfaction (Gunter, 2004; Le & Agnew, 2003). Commitment has often been neglected in marital research because it has been difficult to define. However, commitment has been defined as an individual's intention to persist in marriage regardless of fluctuations in satisfaction (Le & Agnew, 2003). Commitment involves a long-term orientation, feelings of attachment, and the ability to adapt (Thompson-Hayes & Webb, 2008). This construct has proven to be meaningful in the study of marriage, providing greater insight into the process of how marital relationships are formed, sustained, and/or terminated (Adams & Jones, 1997, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003). Some researchers have argued that commitment is a primary motive in enduring relationships, highlighting this variable's strength as a single indicator of
3
overall couple functioning (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Le and Agnew (2003) even suggested, "Commitment may be the most important construct in investigating relational processes" (p. 52). The concept of commitment also appears to be meaningful to couples. Thompson-Hayes & Webb (2008) found that spouses commonly ascribe notable importance to commitment in enabling them to persist successfully in marriage. Evidence suggests that commitment provides substantially more information concerning the process of marriage than satisfaction. While a significant relationship has been consistently found between these two variables (Gunter, 2004; Le & Agnew, 2003), satisfaction is not the only component influencing a spouse's intention to persist in a marriage (Le & Agnew, 2003). Commitment also appears to have greater stability than satisfaction (Le & Agnew, 2003). Thus, the concept of commitment provides some answers as to why people persevere in marriage despite fluctuations in satisfaction. One of the earliest theories on commitment was Rusbult's (1983, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003) investment model. According to Rusbult, commitment to a relationship is dependent upon three interconnected factors (Le & Agnew, 2003). These factors work together in that a person's commitment to persist in a relationship should increase when one is satisfied with one's partner, there are no adequate alternatives, and substantial investments have been made into the relationship (Rusbult, 1983, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003). While this model has been effective in measuring commitment, others have claimed that it only captures one component of commitment (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999; Stanley & Markman, 1992). In response, Stanley and Markman (1992) theorized that commitment consists of two distinct components: personal dedication and
4
constraint. Their model recognized that unitary measures were not adequately describing the process of commitment. However, other models identified more than two components and seemed to capture the dynamic of commitment more effectively. In particular, Johnson et al. (1999) offered three types of commitment that are personal, moral, and structural commitment. Adams and Jones (1997, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003) claimed that these three dimensions best capture the general features of interpersonal
commitment
and
labeled
them
Commitment
to
Spouse,
Commitment to Marriage, and Feelings of Entrapment. Divorce rates have increased precipitously in several societies in the last several decades (Oropesa & Landale, 2004). According to Oropesa and Landale (2004), the shifting cultural and social conditions are factors contributing to the rising divorce rates, family life and marital relationships over the world have changed dramatically (Schwartz & Scott, 2010). This shift has taken place as the purpose of marriage has altered from being primarily a source of financial and political stability to a source of interpersonal connection and choice (Schwartz & Scott, 2010). This movement has caused an increasing number of scholars to reevaluate many different aspects of marital relationships, even the definition of the term, marriage (Schwartz & Scott, 2010). Recently, many researchers (Nakamatsu, 2005; Toth & Kemmelmeier, 2009) have attempted to find the underlying reasons for the lack of marital satisfaction, commitment, and the root cause of divorce among cross-cultural marriages around the world. Broman (2002) found that marital satisfaction reduces likelihood of divorce among some cultural groups but does not among
5
others. Therefore, it is valuable to conduct an empirical study in order to explore how cultural values affect marital satisfaction. 2. Marital Relationship in Java Indonesia is the largest archipelago in the world, with a population approaching more than 240 million. The distribution of population is uneven, with 60 percent of the population occupying 7 percent of the total land area. About 60 percent of the population lives in rural areas, but the urban population is growing five times as fast as the rural population (Asem, 2010). Indonesia is a culturally diverse nation. There are 36 major ethnic groups and the Javanese are the largest group in Indonesia. Forty percent of the Indonesians speak Javanese at home, and 58 percent living in Java speak this language. (Bahasa Indonesia is the national language). This study focuses on the Javanese values and beliefs. Since the highest divorce rates are concentrating in Java (Badan Pusat Statistik [BPS], 2011; Megawangi, 1997), Java is the home of 60% of the Indonesian population, the Javanese are on a broad continuum between more traditional (abangan) and more modernist (santri), and the highest divorce rates are concentrating in Java (BPS, 2011; Megawangi, 1997). In general, Indonesia has the highest divorce rates in Asia. The number of divorce cases in Indonesia reaches 200 thousand each year (Antara News [AN], 2007). Recently and according to Directorate General of Religious Courts Body in Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Direktorat Jenderal Badan Peradilan Agama [DJBPA], 2011), The number of divorce cases in Indonesia reaches 272,794 in 2011. Data shows that the number of divorce cases in East
6
Java alone in 2003 reached 40,391 in 2004 increased to 42,769, but in 2005 skyrocketed to 55,509 cases (AN, 2007). Divorce rates are still high even though they decreased from 28% in 1984 to 15% in 2011 (Guest, 1992; BPS, 2011). Recently the results indicated that in 2008, 8% of marriages had ended with divorce; in 2009, it was 10% and in 2010, it was 15% (BPS, 2011). Moreover, according to general director of ministry of Islamic religious affairs (Dirjen Bimas Islam Kementerian Agama RI) in 2008 there were 200,000 cases of divorce, in 2009 - 250,000 cases, and in 2010 285,184 cases. Every year there are 2 million marriage cases which means that percentage of divorce ranges from 10% to 14%. In general, divorce has always been common in Java, particularly among couples married at a very young age, and carries little social stigma (Nobles & Buttenheim, 2008). It is also interesting to note that divorces initiated by Muslim women increased steadily. For example, in South Jakarta there was no divorce suit initiated by Muslim women in period "between" 1968-1976. However, there were 58 cases in 1977, 118 cases in 1979, 126 cases in 1983, and 169 cases in 1986. These facts reflect the rise of new awareness among Muslim women to take legal actions if their husbands do not meet their duties in their marriages (Salim, 2003). Divorce is in general discouraged under Islamic law, but it is legal and not difficult to obtain in Java. It involves a simple process of dissolving the marriage contract, most often by repudiation (talaq), in which the husband states that the marriage is ended. Another form of divorce in Java is conditional divorce (ta’liq altalaq), in which a condition is stated in the marriage contract that will cause divorce if enacted. Ta’liq al-talaq has taken a particular form in Java in that it is used to protect women. It does this by setting up contingencies for divorce based
7
on whether the husband defaults on a certain condition. If he does, the wife can divorce him. This is different from the way it was traditionally set up in the Middle East, where it was used to establish preconditions for the wife and the husband could divorce her if she defaulted. In Java, it is just the opposite, and the wife is protected if her husband defaults on his agreement (TID, 2008). A later study by Cammack, Donovan, and Heaton (2007) looked at divorce, combining the results of a large family survey across 13 provinces in Indonesia with the official statistics on divorce. It found that more than 50% of divorces remain unreported. Research in Cianjur, a district in West Java, indicates an even higher number of unregistered divorces. In addition to that, Van Huis (2009, as cited in Cammack et al., 2007) interviewed 120 divorced women and found that more than 75% of the divorces remain unregistered. With exposure to modern education, urbanization, changed laws and social mores, and new expectations about the role of marriage, divorce rates in Java have plummeted and are now below those in most Western countries (Jones, 1997). According to Salim (2003), there is a decline in divorce rates in Java. For instance, in West Java in 1955, the divorce rate was 58% of the registered marriages, but in 1985, the rate became 17% and in 1986 was 14%. In Jakarta, this rate was 26% "between" 1954-1975. Furthermore, divorce rates in Indonesian provinces are dissimilar, for example, the lowest rates are in Lampung, Banten, Maluku, and south Sumatra, with 3.89%, 4.56%, 4.67% and 4.91 respectively. While the highest rates are in East Java, West Java and Yogyakarta, with 19.07%, 18.39% and 14.39% respectively (BPS, 2011). So it is clear that the high rates of divorce are partly centered in Java Island, thus for the purpose of current study it selected Javanese sample.
8
DJBPA (2011) carried out a survey to determine causes of divorce in Indonesia. The results indicated that there are three general important reasons leading to divorce; moral reasons (6.7%), irresponsibility (50.7%), and contradictions, conflicts, and disharmony (40.4%). Afni and Indrijati (2011) had conducted a qualitative study to specify the reasons for divorce among Javanese. They concluded that, dissatisfaction with marriage leading to divorce. It is because of the lack of fulfillment marital satisfaction aspects, which consist of material, sexual, and psychological aspect. Decision of claiming divorce comes after negative subjective evaluation of marital experience by a spouse when considering all current aspects of his/her marriage. Divorce likely to occur if there is not accordance between the expectations and the rewards actually received (Afni & Indrijati, 2011). Thus, marital satisfaction is considered as one’s global and overall evaluations or attitudes toward the partner and the relationship, which likely play important role in divorce decision-making (Afni & Indrijati, 2011; Hawkins, 1968; Holman, 2001; Sabatelli, 1988). Therefore, probably in Java, individuals who’s still married those who satisfied with their marriages and vice versa. Based on this notion, we can expect that most of married individuals in Indonesia have high level of marital satisfaction, and whether they feel dissatisfied with their marriage, divorce is most likely to occur (Afni & Indrijati, 2011). According to Malhotra (1991), divorce traditionally is a common and acceptable in Indonesia. Therefore, Congruent with the later expectation, in 26 studies concerning Indonesian marriages, approximately 65% of those studies, Javanese spouses have either high or very high degree of marital satisfaction. While 34% of those studies
9
suggested that Javanese spouses have a medium level of marital satisfaction, and there is no any study indicating a low degree of marital satisfaction. Researches that have been done related to marital commitment in Javanese context are very little. In general, the findings of those researches were conflicting (Herawati, 2008; Nurcaya, 2011; Setia, 2008; Wismanto, 2004). However, the rates of divorce in Java are still high. In fact, cultural atmosphere supports commitment to marriage as well as divorce (Hackstaff, 2010). However, there is no perfect marriage and successful marriage requires commitment and hard work (Institute for American Values [IAV], 2002). A couple can be successful in a marriage when they are committed to marriage in spite of the inevitable challenges (IAV, 2002). A strong commitment to staying married not only helps couples avoid divorce, but it helps more couples achieve a happier marriage (IAV, 2002). In one study, two-third unhappily married spouses who stay married reported that their marriages improved within five years because of commitment to their marriage and encouraged them to avoid divorce (IAV, 2002). Moreover, study of The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center [NHMRC] (2011) found that approximately 85% of divorced couples indicated a lack of commitment to the marriage and to each other as their reason for divorce. Therefore, lack of commitment is a common reason for divorce (IAV, 2002; Masters, 2006; NHMRC, 2011). Javanese culture is comfortable with the idea of divorce, many people do not commit to their marriage fully and completely (Malhotra, 1991). Instead of truly taking on the belief of "until death do us part," a prevailing attitude seems to
11
be "until a better idea comes along." Marriage is hard work and without a deeply held commitment, it does not stand a chance (DiCaro, 2005). Life in society under the Javanese ideology should be characterized by harmonious unity (rukun). Social hierarchy (high power distance) complements harmony and unity. Everyone should know his or her place and duty, honoring and respecting those in higher positions, while remaining benevolent toward and responsible for, those in lower positions (Megawangi, 1997). However, Java is undergoing rapid social changes, especially in big cities in which young people are starting to pull away from the traditional values and norms (Megawangi, 1997). The traditional Javanese family system is based on the nuclear family. Once married, a couple might live with either the husband's or the wife's family (usually the wife's family), but they live on their own as soon as they can support themselves. Kinship organization of descent is reckoned equally through father and mother. The husband is the head of the family, and the wife is the household manager, and responsible for household daily activities (Megawangi, 1997). In Javanese society, marriage traditionally has been the concern of the families of the prospective spouses. Once marriage had occurred, however, the husband-wife unit was focal and upon it was thrust the full force of attempting to maintain the marital relationship. Where spouses were not able to overcome the initial period of adapting to each other divorce was a socially accepted means of correcting the situation, with no social sanctions applied against persons breaking the marriage bond, and there is a little stigma attached to being divorced (Guest, 1992; Jones, 2002).
11
Marriages in Java are mostly monogamous. Even though polygamy is permitted in the Javanese culture, it is not generally practiced. The permission to take another wife is also discouraged by the law, which requires the first wife to consent to her husband's marriage to another wife (Megawangi, 1997). In Java, relatives or lineages count little for choosing a marriage partner. Economic and social standing, however, count a great deal and are part of the Javanese view that marriage is away to advance one’s social status (Technology Integration Division [TID], 2008). Husbands and wives do not demonstrate their affections publicly. This trait is in consistent with the Javanese principle of maintaining social harmony by controlling one’s natural impulses. It is okay to show emotions inside the family, but public conduct should be subdued, indirect, and respectfully polite. Further, if there is conflict between married couples, it should not be directly exposed or confronted. Instead, both parties stop speaking to each other and use their parents from each side of the family as third party mediators (TID, 2008). Marriage in Java has shown a trend of being affected by economic downturns. In 1998, Indonesia experienced a currency crisis with the result that prices rose, wages dropped, and poverty increased. A study found that women’s rate of marriage increased in Indonesia immediately after the crisis, particularly in the areas that were hardest hit economically. The study concludes that more women married because it gave them a measure of economic stability that they could not find elsewhere. Further, it is believed that they married men from communities that were less hard-hit than their own, thus changing the normal marriage patterns (TID, 2008).
12
Southeast Asia has long been recognized as an area where women possess high status. Much literature has documented the favorable position of Javanese women. Hull (1982, as cited in Megawangi, 1997) noted that the status of women in Java appears to be ahead of that in other Asian countries. In the domestic domain, female autonomy also has been widely recognized. The Javanese believe that husband and wife should work together as a team. It was the wife, for example, who had control of family finances, and hence made many of the family decisions. In a town in central Java, Hull (1982, as cited in Megawangi, 1997) found that in each income category and social class, 80% of married women (n=950) claim that it is they who keep the household income. Geertz observed that wives make most of the household decisions. They usually discuss with their husbands only major matters. “Strong-willed men may have a relationship of equal partnership with their wives, but families actually dominated by the man are exceedingly rare.” (Megawangi, 1997). Cultural Islamisation in Java has had mixed effects (Bennett, 2005) on gender relations. Marriage is the only social space in which sex can lawfully take place, enshrining the institution of marriage as a tenet of faith, but few Muslim marriages are directly ‘arranged’. Moreover, the theological emphasis on education for both sexes, and on the complementary partnership of marriage as the basis for family and social life, has resulted in the presence of more married women than ever in the labor force, while the moral role of men as dedicated husbands and fathers is paramount. For example, in media advertising, fathers are almost always depicted as being sensitive and involved with their wives and young children (Clark, 2004). Nevertheless, Sen (2002) maintains that now,
13
overall; women and men in Java are becoming more equal. However, as Utomo (2005) points out, marriage and sexuality remain zones of conflict as women seek new roles and men continue to pursue old practices. Researching young unmarried women, Bennett (2005) found that the sexual double standard for young men and women still exists in pre-marital sexual relations. In looking for marriage partners, women in particular have to balance the desire for independence with the need for security and the knowledge. In her study Geertz (1961, as cited in Megawangi, 1997) found that, the Javanese family reports that the wife generally makes most of the decisions and controls family finances, and although she gives her husband formal deference and consults with him on major matters, she plays the dominant role in day to day matters. A strong network of ties between related Javanese women produces a “matrifocal” kinship system. As described by Geertz (1961, 79, as cited in Megawangi, 1997): “The woman has more authority, influence, and responsibility than her husband, and at the same time receives more affection and loyalty. The concentration of both of these features in the female role leaves the male relatively functionless in regard to the internal affairs of the nuclear family”. Furthermore, equal inheritance and women's control of property give her considerable bargaining power in the family. The relatively high status and independence of women can be linked to the farming system in Java. Winzeler (1982, as cited in Megawangi, 1997) hypothesized that when men and women are both involved equally in farming, the status of women tends to be favorable. Findings from empirical data from the Javanese culture even showed a slight
14
tendency of daughter preference, even though this finding is not conclusive (Megawangi, 1997). In addition, Megawangi (1997) in her study found that the widely accepted notion about the high status of women in Southeast Asia. This high status seems to be shaped and reflected in the girl child’s early experience. The absence of sex discrimination in Java may be due to some cultural factors; according to Megawangi (1997), the agricultural system provides opportunity for women to have some economic contributions to the family. Even though gender role differentiation is present to a certain degree in Java, women have strong autonomy in the household sphere. Usually the women control the household budget. The presence of income pooling has made the issue of how much each person contributes to the household economy irrelevant; there is a famous Javanese proverb about this “A wife would say to her husband, your money is mine, and my money is mine”. Even though women get involved in agricultural jobs, they are not the primary food producers, so that it is not attractive and profitable for a man to have more than one wife. This has made families in Java mostly monogamous. The status of women in monogamous marriage is usually desirable (Megawangi, 1997). The Javanese family system is matrilocal (societal system in which a married couple resides with or near the wife's parents) and matrifocal (is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property). Javanese women enjoy a comparatively high status and financial independence within marriages, relative to other Islamic countries and other neighboring countries in Southeast
15
Asia. Married Javanese women often own land, operate businesses, and hold assets separately from their husbands (Nobles & Buttenheim, 2008). Each person would know his or her status and responsibility without expecting others to play the same roles. Mutual respect and harmonious relationships in the Javanese ideal system could force each person to subdue his or her personal interest to the consensus of the collective (Haviland, 2003; Megawangi, 1997). Javanese society is a collectivistic, husband and wife mutually dependent and adherents of spousal equality, they tend to be attention to needs and interests of each other’s, interdependence, personal issues less pronounced, depending on the emotion, and emphasizing familial loyalty (Suseno, 2001). In Javanese culture, descent kinship systems of husband and wife considered have equal rights (Suseno, 2001). Javanese culture teaches moral duty to maintain harmony among people. According to Suseno (2001), harmony principle implies the existence of demands a willingness to adjust to each other. Harmony prevents the emergence of conflicts openly. Individuals are required to be willing subordinates and release personal interests as common interest. Compliance with these demands in the marital relationship indicates willingness for sacrifice. If this cannot be achieved, then it should be pursued in order not to break the disagreement openly. That through several alternatives; such as saying "yes" or “inggih” and not saying "no" or “mboten”, to avoid disappointment by pretending or “ethok-ethok” which means not to show true feelings, especially negative feelings, do not talk to each other for a while or “jothakan”, and not to do anything to express opposition against an imposed compromise (Suseno, 2001).
16
Javanese people do not like to interfere in the affairs of others despite they talk about them in the back; people do not want to engage other people problems because it will lead to certain emotions (Koentjaraningrat, 1984). From the above description, it appears that the principle of harmony leads to demands for a husband and wife to be willing to adjust to each other (dyadic adjustment) and the willingness to sacrifice. Javanese are socialized through five stages of “nanding sariro” which means comparing ourselves with others. Ngukur sariro is making oneself as a point of reference. “Tepo sariro” is how one should treat others accordance with the treatment that provided to it; “mawas diri” is observing our feelings, and “mulat sariro” which means to be able to escape from ourselves and taking a distance to be able to supervise ourselves (Wismanto, 2011). The five stages show how husband and wife must perceive the behavior of the partner (Wismanto, 2011). Based on the above description, it can be concluded that the marriage in Javanese cultural creates positive spousal interaction. Success or failure in developing positive relationship depending on husband and wife abilities to harmonize and develop principles as mentioned above. Marriage in Javanese culture, harmony principle sought to be applied completely. Married individuals are required to be willing to put aside personal needs and expectations, to achieve harmony (Wismanto, 2011). Marriage interaction should be developed based on the purpose of maintain harmony. Husband and wife are always expected to be in harmony, calm, and serene, never quarrel or a fight, always united, ready to help each other. If there are signs of tension between partners, as soon as possible must be immediately eliminated (Wismanto, 2011).
17
In Javanese culture, satisfaction and fulfillment of expectations in marriage is only possible on a good adjustment between couples, which makes husband and wife satisfied with their marriage. Husband and wife who cannot adjust to each other and cannot even accept any more each other as a partner prefer divorce. Therefore, In Javanese culture, divorce is an indication of the absence of marital satisfaction (Wismanto, 2011). Marital satisfaction for Javanese is influenced by willingness of both partners to sacrifice. When both of them recognize that his/her partner is willing to sacrifice so he/she is strongly committed to his/her marriage (Wismanto, 2011). Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, and Agnew (1999) suggested that, commitment develops as a result of changes over time in three aspects of dependence. Individuals become increasingly dependent on their relationships. They become increasingly committed to the degree that; (a) satisfaction level is high, or the relationship gratifies the individual's most important needs, (b) quality of alternatives is poor, or the individual's most important needs could not be gratified independent of the relationship, (c) and investment size is high, or numerous resources have become attached to the relationship. Therefore, dependence on the partner develops strong commitment. Commitment promotes the behaviors that keep relationships and spousal perception of the behaviors that keep relationships will increase confidence between partners. Mutual confidence pushes couples to depend on the relationship (Suryomentaram, 2002; Wismanto, 2011). It is a Javanese ideal that husbands and wives should show affection and love to each other, although they cannot demonstrate their affection publicly (Koentjaraningrat, 1985; as cited in Guest, 1992). The wife must show respect to
18
the husband, as the husband is assumed to be older than the wife. The husband is supposed to be the leader of the household, but is concerned primarily with external matters. The wife's sphere of interest is internal household matters. Husbands and wives cooperate on significant financial decisions, but usually husbands take little interest in the day-to-day household management, including daily expenses, which are handled by the wife. Internal affairs of the household are not usually a source of conflict between husband and wife. Conflicts usually relate to compatibility of individual character traits, to sexual infidelity, and to larger affinal conflicts (Geertz, 1961; Koentjaraningrat, 1985, as cited in Guest, 1992). In sum, even though the rates of divorce are very high among Javanese, the Javanese spouses specifically wives are satisfied with their marriage. May the reasons behind that; the Javanese society is a liberal one, the absence of sex discrimination in Java (Megawangi, 1997). Women have strong autonomy in the household sphere, matrilocal culture (societal system in which a married couple resides with or near the wife's parents) and matrifocal culture (is a society in which females,
especially mothers,
have
the
central
roles
of
political leadership, moral authority, and control of property) (Megawangi, 1997). Javanese women enjoy a comparatively high status and financial independence within marriages, relative to other Islamic countries and other neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. Married Indonesian women often own land, operate businesses, and hold assets separately from their husbands (Nobles & Buttenheim, 2008).
19
3. Marital Relationship in Palestine The Palestinians are Arabs, The ethnic group that has come to be known as Arabs refers to a population of people who speak Arabic and descend from the nomadic tribes from the region of Arabia (Ghandour, 2008). Today, the Arab world comprises 21 states and stretches over 5.25 million square miles of land between the Persian Gulf and the Atlantic (Ghandour, 2008). Arabs were under foreign rule for most of their history with many countries gaining independence only about half a century ago. The pervasive foreign influence is probably a reason for the great heterogeneity within Arabic culture. However, Arabs remain united by a common language that many consider as their most treasured cultural heritage (Ghandour, 2008). If we look at the percentage of divorces in the Arabic area, including Palestine, which has the majority of Muslim population the divorce rates are very low compared to the rates of divorce in Indonesia and Western countries, According to Chatty (2006). The crude divorce rate fell slightly in Arabic area from 1.2 in 1990 to 1.0 per thousand in 2007. Whereas in Palestine, it decreased from 2.3 in 2000 to 2.0 per thousand in 2007 and in 2010 it plummeted to 1.2; and in the United Arab Emirates, it fell from 1.1 in 1990 to 0.8 per thousand in 2005 (Economic And Social Commission For Western Asia [ESCWA], 2009; Palestinian Central Bureau Of Statistics [PCBS], 2012). Divorce is almost nonexistent in Palestinian society. Adams’ (1999) sample of over 6.000 couples reported the divorce rate less than 1%. A sheikh in the Gaza village of Deir Al-Bellah who officiates at marriage contract signings and divorces said that less than 2% of the people for whom he officiates request
21
divorce. He felt confident that this was the norm in Gaza among Palestinian Muslims. In Palestinian society, there is so far some stigma surrounding divorce. Since divorce is considered shameful, some women prefer polygamous marriage to divorce. Spouses prefer to live in dissatisfying marriage to getting divorce, if the woman seeks divorce, she is sometimes abused and maltreated by her family of origin, her husband's family, and sometimes by the whole community, and if the woman wants to divorce her husband, she should return the dowry that the husband paid her. In general, in Palestine there are negative social and cultural views of divorce (Manasra, 2003). Even though the rates of divorce are very low in Palestine, Palestinian spouses are dissatisfied with their marriage (Al-Krenawi, 2010; Attala’a & Ashareef, 2011; Haj-Yahi, 2002). There are many reasons for that, such as domestic violence, which is a common behavior between spouses. Most of the studies indicated low and modest degree of marital satisfaction, suggesting that spouses are disharmonious, with the early marriage (which is a common habit in Palestinian society) being a risk factor that significantly reduces their satisfaction, happiness, and in many cases leads to divorce. Palestinian people are not satisfied with their lives in general. Palestinian society is a very traditional one, with patriarchal culture where males are dominant. Interferences in marital affairs extend to both spouses while inequality between genders is prevailing (Abu-Rmeileh & Larsun, 2008; Dhaher, Mikolajczyk, Maxwell & Kramer, 2010; Haj-Yahia, 2000; PCBS, 2005 & 2010; Khawaja, Lions, & El-Roueiheb, 2007; Palestinian Center for Democracy & Conflict Resolution [PCDCR], 2003).
21
The findings of domestic violence research in Palestinian context suggest that the typical characteristics of relationship within the family in Palestine include traditional attitudes towards women, traditional sex-role stereotypes, sexual conservatism, non-egalitarian expectations of marriage, patriarchal beliefs about marital relations, and lack of empathy towards woman’s needs (Haj-Yahia, 2000). However, the divorce rates are very low, and the marriage is still stable. A marriage is very costly and divorce would be very difficult economically for the men. It costs for men so much to get married that they work things out. They pay an enormous price and make a significant sacrifice to get married. Therefore, the divorce is unacceptable. Plus having to pay the divorce part of the mahr, it’s just too expensive. So when men put such a high price into getting married they are willing to pay a higher price to keep the marriage together (Adams, 1999). One study has been conducted in Palestinian context indicated that Palestinian spouses have a very high level of commitment (Adams, 1999). In Arab culture, an individual’s decisions are often based on values that are most important to the family, while personal satisfaction and desires are sacrificed for the collective well-being of the family. The husband assumes the role of financial provider and instills cultural, religious, and social values within the family unit (Jaghab, 2005). The wife acts as the caregiver, taking on the responsibilities of child bearing and homemaking (Nobles & Sciarra, 2000, as cited in Jaghab, 2005). Parental influence on children is a staple of the Arabic family unit, often remaining strong through adulthood (Nobles et al., 2000, as cited in Jaghab, 2005). As reported by El Saadaawi (1993, as cited in Jaghab, 2005), arranged marriages and marriages based on cultural similarity are common among Arabs.
22
When a daughter reaches early adolescence, parents begin to each for a suitable husband. The parents, through a multitude of sources including friends of the family and relatives, choose among prospective husbands. During this process, the woman’s family considers the last name of the potential husband because it enables the parents to gather information about his family. The last name is a way to measure reputation, social status, and respect within the Arab community. This is significant because the respect of the woman and her family is dependent upon marriage into a reputable family, therefore, parents will often readily accept marriage proposals based on the reputation of the man’s family. The man will also take into account the reputation of the woman’s family name and status (Jaghab, 2005). Haj-Yahia (2000) stated that once an Arab couple has married and developed a nuclear family, the roles in the family are clearly defined. With respect to children, giving birth to a son is very important because it allows the family name to be maintained. From birth, the son is taught how to maintain the family’s honor and stability. The first son is usually named after his father and the family typically refers to him as, “son of the father’s first name”. When the father dies, the eldest son is expected to take responsibility of the entire family. This responsibility includes making all household decisions (Jaghab, 2005). Due to the existing patriarchal system, it is not uncommon for sons to receive more attention and privileges than daughters. Because daughters are not given the same social opportunities as sons, they are often deprived of higher education (Jaghab, 2005), careers, and financial independence. Instead, they are taught domestic responsibilities and child rearing in order to learn how to care for their future husbands (Jaghab, 2005). Girls are taught to be polite, passive, and
23
docile, with an emphasis on etiquette and manners that are deemed acceptable in society (Jaghab, 2005). Although, Palestinian women are allowed to work outside of the household, but men still retain final authority in the family, society, and culture. Due to the man’s financial and social status, as well as his patriarchal role in the household, men expect that their wives and children will follow social conventions. In a sense, the man is considered the “master of the house”. HajYahia (2002) stated that if family members do not obey or comply with the patriarch’s rules, or he feels his rights as a father or a husband are threatened, he might respond with violence. In situations where a man hits his wife, both genders consider the man responsible for hitting the wife .Although the man has committed a violent act, there is also a tendency to understand and sympathize with his trials and tribulations as the head of the household. Divorce initiated by women is unacceptable in Palestinian culture. Only males can initiate divorce, but this is not encouraged. If a daughter were to be divorced by her husband, it would be an embarrassment to the family; blame is often placed on her for marital difficulties. In addition, she may have a difficult time remarrying, depending on her age. Should the woman divorce, she then becomes the responsibility of her father or brothers once again. She may have to relocate and live with the family member who lives closest to her (Manasra, 2003). The common type of marriage in Palestinian culture is arranged marriages. They also live in an environment of social upheaval. Palestinians political history before 1948 (the Israeli occupation since that time), and the Intifada have all contributed to a rather unique existence during the twentieth
24
century. Yet, Palestinians continue to adhere to many ancient traditions, with family being at the very center of their society (Adams, 1999). There have been some surveys have described living conditions and Palestinian family life, such as demographics, attitudes, and family formation techniques. Palestinian people are generally very traditional and concerned with privacy in their personal family lives. Globalization makes it increasingly difficult for any society to remain closed, especially with influences such as mass media. Modern curiosity impinges upon these cultures, particularly when such an ancient and intriguing custom as arranged marriage is still commonly practiced. Many societies that historically practiced arranged marriages have abandoned former traditions in lieu of more modern choice approaches (Adams, 1999). Palestinian family formation follows very traditional patterns. A marriage is very costly and divorce would be very difficult economically for the men. It costs for men so much to get married that they work things out. They pay an enormous price and make a significant sacrifice to get married. Therefore, the divorce is unacceptable. Plus having to pay the divorce part of the mahr, it’s just too expensive. Therefore, when men put such a high price into getting married they are willing to pay a higher price to keep the marriage together (Adams, 1999). Westerners may view Palestinian marriages as unfair to women, but the key is the understanding how the individuals involved perceive the equality of the exchange. Palestinians seem willing to delay gratification of self in order to benefit the society as a whole through raising strong families. The items exchanged in Palestinian marriage involve not only money but also other issues, including approval, esteem, compliance, love, affection, and other nonmaterialistic goods (Adams, 1999). In other words, exchanges can be composed
25
of social capital, status, emotional well-being, or a myriad of other non-material items. Palestinian marital formation has small allusions to material benefits, but the major domain is played out in perpetuating a strong and successful society (Adams, 1999). Palestinian marriage involves the exchange of family honor. A good name is valued so highly in Palestinian culture that it brings a tremendous amount of social capital. The harder the family works at creating an honorable and respected name in the community, the more the reward is increased through the social capital that accompanies it. The family can marry their children into higher social circles and increase their political, social, and economic capital. That status in the community brings many benefits to the extended family (Adams, 1999). An ancient tradition still followed in many Palestinian marriages is an endogamous, or “blood” marriage. This usually incorporates the marriage of cousins who are blood relatives. This practice allows the families to arrange a marriage to people they know well and with whom they share many commonalities, as well as keeping the family inheritance and any accumulated wealth within the extended family (Adams, 1999). Ata (1986, as cited in Adams, 1999) found that 42% of his samples of 925 individuals were married to a blood relative. He also found that the older couples were more likely to be involved in a blood marriage relationship than the middle aged or younger couples, again indicates to a possible influence of modernity. Palestinian people consider love blinds people to the potential problems in a relationship. An old Arab saying maintains, “The mirror of love is blind.” Another Palestinian shopkeeper in East Jerusalem viewed it this way, “Love comes after the marriage .... But love as first step to marriage, this is a joke. When we start
26
flattering, we lose balance. This is the joke of the twentieth century, we live on the moon.” (Adams, 1999, p 35). A wife in Gaza concluded; “because most of our marriage does not depend on love, love comes after marriage in our society, because most of marriage here is caused not in the university knowing each other, they have love story. Love after marriage is better than love before marriage. Why? Because love after marriage comes after knowing each other, sleeping with each other, having the children, having the same programs, going outside with each other, and helping each other. However, before marriage they do not know each other very well (Adams, 1999). To conclude, we are in front of two societies, Javanese society with satisfied and unstable marriage, and Palestinian society with unsatisfied and stable marriage. In relation to that, Lewis and Spanier (1979) identified four categories of marriage: satisfied-stable, satisfied-unstable, unsatisfied-unstable, and unsatisfied-stable marriages. Not all stable marriages are happy such as Palestinian case and not all satisfied marriages are stable such as Javanese case, so the reason might be behind that cultural values (Hackstaff, 2010). Therefore, probably in Palestine, individuals who’s still married those who committed to their marriages regardless of their satisfaction. Based on this notion, we can expect that Palestinian spouses are less satisfied in their marriages comparing with Javanese spouses. Otherwise, Palestinians spouses are more committed to their marriages comparing with Javanese spouses and whether Palestinians spouses feel dissatisfied, divorce is most unlikely to occur. People who are more traditional tend to have a stronger sense of moral commitment to their relationships than do those people who are less traditional (Johnson et al., 1999). Whereas individuals that are more egalitarian are less
27
likely to subscribe to the institution of marriage and are more accepting of divorce, many traditional individuals equate the roles of husband and wife with status and the achievement of a culturally mandated task. Insofar as these roles are central to their identity, traditional individuals may feel strongly committed to maintaining these roles in order to validate their self-worth (Sassler & Goldscheider, 2004). Research has found that men who are more traditional are more likely to marry (Sassler & Goldscheider, 2004), consistent with the centrality of marriage and the family for people who hold more traditional values (Gallagher, 2003; Xu, Hudspeth, & Bartkowski, 2005). It is important to note, however, that although moral commitment may be high in traditional couples, they tend to report less relationship satisfaction than do egalitarian couples (Helms, Proulx, Klute, McHale, & Crouter, 2006), suggesting that personal commitment may be lacking. In spite of these results, most of research has been conducted in western cultures. Therefore, this study attempted to fill the void in the literature by finding how cultural values in eastern cultures specifically Javanese and Palestinian cultures influence perception of marital satisfaction and commitment. 4. Marital Relationship Theories The previous findings indicate that marital satisfaction and commitment, which partially lead to divorce, are determined by many factors that derived from cultural settings. Cultures have significant effects on many psychological and social aspects in any society including marital, family life, gender role orientation, division of household, and personality characteristics (Bandura, 2001; H. G. Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Therefore, cultural factors and values
28
systems have critical and important roles in our lives; they are “software” for our minds (Bandura, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010). Several theories attempted to understand marital relationship. However, most of these theories are based on micro level orientation, which concerning the characteristics of marital relationship on a limited range of comprehension or perception. Macrosociology, by contrast, concerns the cultural umbrella, social structure, and broader systems (Smelser, 1997). Therefore, and since the current research is cross-cultural study and tries to discover how cultural values affect perception of marital relationship, it is appropriate to base on macro orientation. Moreover, one marital relationship theory cannot explain every aspect, on one hand and the way that cultural values determine factors that affect perception of marital relationship in term of satisfaction and commitment. Regardless of the role of culture, some theories can provide useful insight to understand the role of gender orientation, division of household, and personality characteristics in perception of marital relationship. However, these theories require collecting data from both spouses. For example, the ActorPartner Interdependence Model [APIM] by Kenny and Cook (1999) is a model of dyadic relationships that integrates a conceptual view of interdependence in two person relationships with the appropriate statistical techniques for measuring and testing it. The APIM is being increasingly used in the social sciences; for example, in studies of emotion (Butler et al., 2003), health (Butterfield, 2001), leisure activities (Berg, Trost, Schneider, & Allison, 2001), communication competence (Lakey & Canary, 2002), personality (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000), and attachment style (Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes, 2001). Additionally, the model has been recommended in the area of the study of
29
families (Rayens & Svavardottir, 2003), close relationships (Campbell & Kashy, 2002), small groups (Bonito, 2002), and as a framework for evaluating treatment outcomes in couple therapy (Cook, 1998). However, APIM requires paired sample and measuring trails, attitudes, values, preferences, and orientations for husband and his wife at the same time. Therefore, this model is not suitable for the present study since the current work interested in measuring marital satisfaction, commitment, gender role orientation, division of household, and personality characteristics for one partner, and not for both of them. In addition, this model neglected the role of culture in shaping gender role orientation, division of household, personality characteristics, and perception of marital relationship. Another theory is Social Exchange Theory [SET], which interprets marriage as a series of interactions that are based on estimates of rewards and punishments. According to this view, our interactions are determined by the rewards or punishments that we receive from our partner and all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis. The theory has its roots in economics as well as sociology and psychology. Central to the SET is the idea that an interaction that elicits approval from another person is more likely to be repeated than an interaction that elicits disapproval. We can thus predict whether a particular interaction will be repeated by calculating the degree of reward (approval) or punishment (disapproval) resulting from the interaction. If the reward for an interaction exceeds the punishment, then the interaction is likely to occur or continue (Witt, 2011). SET has its roots in a variety of research topics. Among them are mate selection research, marital stability
31
research, marital satisfaction research, and marital commitment research (Witt, 2011). SET is based on the calculation of the rewards that spouses will gain. The resources of the individuals involved influence marital relationship and interaction (Bengtson, Parrott, & Burgess, 1997). Resources in terms of social interaction are not just limited to money. Anything that elevates the status of that individual can be a resource like the idea of marriage itself especially in traditional cultures that value married person more than single person or cultures that have future orientation. In fact married persons have fewer valued resources; there is less involvement with them. A shortcoming of SET is that it does not account for the benefits of relationships that cannot be logically explained. People get benefits from interactions with people when the obvious reasons for the exchange are not present. In addition, SET does not account for why some people have more resources than others do. Therefore, SET cannot serve us to understand why dissatisfied partners still married and committed to their marriage (Wakeman, 2005). The last theory in this critical review is Attachment theory [AT], Bowlby (1973) conceptualized attachment theory as a psycho-evolutionary system that guides social behavior “from the cradle to the grave” (Bowlby, 1979, p. 129, as cited in Hirschberger, Srivastava, Marsh, C. P. Cowan, & Cowan, 2009) and functions to maintain an optimal level of proximity to a significant other. As such, the attachment theoretical framework is particularly appropriate for the study of marital relationship and for the examination of how marital relationship unfolds over time (Hirschberger et al., 2009).
31
Bowlby (1979, as cited in Hirschberger et al., 2009) considered a person’s attachment history influences marriage and primary adult relationship. Research following this prediction revealed that, compared to adults with insecure attachment styles, individuals characterized as securely attached held more positive beliefs about marriage and believed that marital relationship can be sustained over time (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, as cited in Hirschberger et al., 2009). Securely attached persons also hold more positive relationship expectations (Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1990, as cited in Hirschberger et al., 2009), and enjoy greater relationship satisfaction (Hirschberger et al., 2009). One of the major limitations of AT, it requires a longitudinal study design that can establish whether attachment security has a long-term impact on marital satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, AT requires a sample of midlife that married people have young teenage children, because this period in the family life cycle is associated with the lowest point in marital satisfaction during the relationship (Hirschberger et al., 2009). Nonetheless, marital satisfaction does not necessarily correspond to marital commitment in some cultures. Some marriages are very stable even when couples express low levels of satisfaction and experience much discord (Hirschberger et al., 2009). In addition, the transition to parenthood is often a time of declining marital satisfaction, but fairly high marital commitment (Cowan & Cowan, 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). AT is not appropriate for the present study because this study is crosscultural comparison and cross-sectional study. Furthermore, the both samples in the current study consist of married individuals who’s have children in different developmental stages.
32
5. Social Cognitive Theory and Marital Relationship In this study, the main theoretical perspective has been proposed to explain and understand the links among all the factors of interest is social cognitive theory [SCT] (Bandura, 2001). SCT interprets how national culture (as environmental factors), personality characteristics and gender role orientation (as personal factors), and division of household labor, marital satisfaction, and commitment (as behavioral factors) are linking together. This theoretical perspective was tested primarily in the United States, and only a few studies tested it in different cultural contexts. Usually comparing a sample from the USA with samples from three or four western countries, or a sample from the USA and a sample from a non-western country, whereas, that theoretical perspective was not tested between or among eastern cultures. In this way, it is difficult to establish the cross-cultural relevance of this theoretical perspective. Therefore, it is the time to test that theoretical perspective in eastern cultures, specifically in Indonesia and Palestine. Based on SCT, the cognitive-behavioral model views satisfaction and commitment in a couple's relationship as due to a combination of effects from each individual's learning history and from the pattern of interactions that the couple has developed together through a trial and error process (Bandura, 2001). Building on SCT, the current study benefited from this theoretical framework to explain how national culture and personal factors affect and determine one's marital relationship namely satisfaction and commitment. Therefore, SCT appropriately match this study because they place emphasis and focus on behavior learning (Bandura, 2001).
33
Much of the research on marital relationship has used the behavioral model of marriage as a theoretical basis for specific hypotheses (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Flora & Segrin, 2003; Paldino, 2007; Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001). The behavioral model of marriage is grounded in early interpersonal theories such as Bandura’s (2001) social learning theory that emphasize the importance of interpersonal behaviors exchanged during interactions and their reinforcing and punishing effects. It is through these reinforcing and punishing outcomes that partners evaluate their relationships, gauge their satisfaction with their relationship, and decide to remain in the relationship. Based on these theories, the quality and stability of marriages is dependent upon the behavioral patterns displayed in couples’ interactions. 6. Social Cognitive Theory and National Culture In relation to cultural values, Bandura’s social learning theory provides a useful prototype for examining the influence of national culture on the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, values, and overall lifestyles of people. Social learning theory is concerned primarily with learning and seeks to describe how individuals and groups learn from their social experiences (Bandura, 2001). Human being learns to behave in each culture through observing other men and women in that culture (Bandura, 1986). Moreover, they accept those aspects of culture that are more attractive to them. For example, through observing equality of men and women in some cultures, human being have learnt and internalized such values and react against other values. The most fundamental problem in cross-cultural psychology is to understand how cultural characteristics of societies are reflected in the psychology of individuals (Smith, Bond & Kagitcibasi, 2006; Triandis, 2001). SCT
34
(Bandura, 1986) elaborates how mental representations influence the processing that leads to evaluations of and reactions to people and events (Fleeson, 2001; Mischel & Peake, 2003). This explanation is relevant to many cross-cultural topics including, for example, cultural differences in evaluations and reactions to people and events, and the effects of mental representations about members of a cultural group. SCT also adds to this formulation by explaining other ways in which culture is learned, the processes involved and how cultural knowledge is represented in individual memories. From the side of those seeking to instill culture, these ways include both deliberate modeling of socially acceptable behaviors and avoidance (in the presence of those who they seek to socialize) of less acceptable behaviors (Bandura, 2001). Thus, SCT offers insight into basic underlying different beliefs and cultural values; SCT seeks to explain the relationship among and mutual influence of peoples’ behavior, their culture, and their internal cognition (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Bandura’s (1997) SCT accounts for cultural as well as internal cognitive factors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Bandura’s theory (2002) provides us with a good framework to understand cultural differences in perception of marital relationship based on selfidentity. This theory distinguishes among three modes of agency: personal agency exercised individually (individualism); proxy agency in which people secure desired outcomes by influencing others to act on their behalf; and collective agency in which people act in concert to shape their future (collectivism) (Bandura, 2002). a. Social cognitive theory and cultural differences. Agentic blends of personal and group may vary across cultural paradigms (Lehman, Chiu, &
35
Schaller, 2004). For example, European North Americans tend to privilege personal agency, whereas East Asians tend to privilege group agency (Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000). Markus & Kitayama (2003) refer to these as disjoint and conjoint models of agency, respectively. The former, which originates in the independent self, is agency that is separate or distinct from the actions of others. The latter, which originates in the interdependent self, is agency that in important ways is impelled by others, in relationship and interaction with those others. Therefore, in term of marital relationship, it is more likely that Eastern nations maintain a permanence of marriage more than Western nations. Thus, SCT can explain the cultural differences based on self-identity, self-recognition of interpersonal relationship, and the way that people from different cultures shape their attitudes towards gender role orientation and division of household as well as how they acquire personality characteristics through observing and imitating others. b. Cross-cultural studies and cultural zones. Cross-cultural research generates the advantages of additional information and insights that would be impossible to achieve within any single country (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede (2001) identifies at least four benefits that are possible with cross-cultural research: increased range of variables, unconfounding of variables, increased sensitivity to social contexts and identification of "emics" and "etics ". Emic approach studies behavior from within the system, examines only one culture at a time, the analyst discovers the structure of the culture, and culture elements are relative to internal characteristics. Whilst etics approach studies behavior from a position outside the system, examines two or more cultures, comparing them, the
36
analyst creates the structure of the culture, and culture elements are considered absolute or universal. The range of variables can be increased by comparisons across cultures, particularly if there is little range in a variable of interest or little differences in the behavior of people who participate in the study. An example of expanding the range of variables would be a study of gender role orientation, division of household, personality characteristics, marital satisfaction, and commitment that people from individualistic societies like the USA as compared with those that collective societies. Cross-cultural studies allow the researcher to unconfound variables or take them apart to determine the relative contribution of a particular variable and its effect on behavior. At the same time, cross-cultural research obliges the researcher to have increased sensitivity to the context in which a behavior or phenomena is being observed. Specifically, cross-cultural research allows the observer to analyze behavior within the influence of that particular social context in a fresher, less familiar mindset that someone who may take such behavior for granted (Hofstede et al., 2010). Many researchers discussed how to select cultures in cross-cultural research. According to Schwartz (2004) and Inglehart and Welzel (2005) a possible solution is in the delimitation of cultural zones. Inglehart and Welzel (2005) as well as Schwartz (2004) distinguished virtually the same eight cultural regions of the world. Inglehart and Welzel (2005) discussed Protestant Europe, English-speaking countries, Latin America, Africa, South Asia, Catholic Europe, ex-communist countries, and Confucian countries as distinguishable cultural regions.
37
Schwartz's (2004) world map looks very similar. He distinguished Western Europe, English-speaking countries, Latin America, Protestant and Catholic EastCentral and Baltic Europe, Orthodox, East Europe, South and Southeast Asia, Middle
East
and
Sub-Saharan
Africa,
and
Confucian
countries.
Both
classifications can be fruitful in that values have been found to play an important role in many of the research topics of interest cross-cultural psychologists (Schwartz, 2004). However the typologies of these approaches still suffer to some extent from the unavailability of larger sets of value preference data from non-Western parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, parts of the Muslim world, or the Caribbean, but their typologies may nevertheless form a useful sampling frame for sampling cultures
in culturally comparative
psychological research. Therefore, this study benefits from Schwartz's (2004) world map to select the cultures for the current work. They were Indonesia and Palestine, since both of them belong to different categories, in the same time there is a need to this study because both of these cultures belong to Muslim world, that the data about the values preferences in this part of the world still to some extent little. 7. Social Cognitive Theory, Culture, Gender Role Orientation, Division of Household, Personality Characteristics, and Marital Relationship Indeed, the concepts of couples’ relationships vary greatly across cultures. Numerous researchers have attempted to find the underlying reasons for the lack of marital satisfaction and commitment. In recent decades, even though cultural backgrounds, gender role orientation, division of household, and personality characteristics have become more noticeable in research and academic fields, they do not seem to be hilly explored together as they relate to
38
marriage and the role that these combinations play in a relationship. Yet literature disregards the strong influence that cultural values dictate views of gender roles, division of household, and personality characteristics (Hofstede et al., 2010; McCrae, 2002; Migliore, 2011; Minkov, 2007; Triandis, 2001). Generally, these values have been taken many years to accumulate into a system of standards and guidelines for each individual, and thus are sometimes not easily negotiable. Consequently, it becomes very important to recognize the impact that the cultural settings can have on the strength and level of satisfaction in the marriage, which in turn can determine the commitment and longevity of the relationship (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Individuals learn about gender through mental efforts to organize their social world (Coltrane & Adams, 2008). This perspective supposes that individuals they seek information from their surrounding environments to organize and predict the world around them and simultaneously develop a sense of self and place within that world. Bussey and Bandura (2004) propose a SCT of gender differentiation that specifies how life experiences interact with individual characteristics to create gender attitudes. According to SCT, personal, behavioral, and environmental factors interact to influence behavior in a process of “triadic reciprocal causation” (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). The personal component includes gender-linked conceptions, judgmental and behavioral standards, as well as self-regulatory influences that are shaped by cognitive, affective, and biological events. The behavioral component includes gender-linked patterns of activity, which influence how individuals interpret and experience the world around them. The environmental component consists of the broad network of social influences that
39
individuals experience through everyday life that provide models for behavior and sanctions for misbehavior. Gender roles are often developed and incorporated into systems of gender beliefs from the time of birth and are referred to as gender schemas (M. Worden & B. Worden, 1998). Gender schemas determine how individual views himself/herself in relation to his/her partner and further, how tasks will be divided and distributed in the family. As a result, the important roles of gender and culture become evident in the formation of a healthy relationship and its varying levels of satisfaction. Bandura’s SCT provides the best explanation of how parents transmit behavioral values and expectations to their children through the assignment of household work responsibilities, and how children interpret those experiences, internalize them as symbolic controls, and then reproduce them behaviorally. Masculine roles are more assertive, dominant, and forceful (Johnson et al., 2006), while feminine characteristics are often stereotyped and measured as more affectionate, warm, and yielding adjectives. Therefore, this study attempts to uncover the impacts of cultural values on the gender role orientation. According to SCT (Bussey & Bandura, 2004), children develop their views about gender by observing salient role models in their lives. Thus, one consequence of traditional family arrangements is that very young children associate various household tasks with gender (Deutsch, Servis, & Payne, 2001). For example, children generally view mothers as the ones responsible for the domestic work and caregiving within the family (Deutsch, 2001). When parents’ gender roles are more egalitarian either as a result of mothers’ employment outside the home or fathers’ involvement in housework and childcare children’s
41
views about gender tend to be less stereotypical (e.g., Deutsch, 2001). Thus, people who grew up in egalitarian households may be more likely to have egalitarian gender attitudes than those who were raised in traditional households. In general, the effect of women joining the labor force on marital relationship is not clear and sometimes the findings are rather contradictory. This may be caused by not paying enough attention to national culture in the societies, that these studies had been conducted. To be more specific, in Indonesian case the percentage of women who entered the workforce was 50.7% in 1980 and then changed to 58.5% in 2001 (Lim, 2009), and 53% in 2005 (BPS, 2005). In Palestine, this percentage is 15% (PCBS, 2008). Division of household labor remains a fascinating topic of inquiry even though it has been a focus of researchers for over four decades. The main concern of scientists from all social domains has been (and still is) to understand why division of labor is unequally distributed by gender. Therefore, books, journal articles, conference presentations, and magazine columns have been dedicated to explaining the ways in which people negotiate housework, the underlying mechanisms, and how specific housework arrangements affect couples' relational quality (Coltrane, 2000). The extensive preoccupation of social scientists with this topic signals the importance of division of housework labor in people's lives. More specifically, division of household labor could have a significant role in creating or destroying satisfying relationships or marriages. Primarily, most of the research on division of household labor has been conducted in western countries, whereas, few research has been conducted in eastern countries, with inconsistent results. Therefore, in order to understand this research we need to take into consideration the role of cultural values or national
41
culture of eastern countries. In addition, how satisfaction and division of household interact together across cultures. According to SCT, personality characteristics are learned through interactions with other members of society. A person will develop an adequate personality if exposed to an adequate learning environment with good models, and if the person is reinforced for appropriate behavior. Social learning theorists believe personality is simply patterns of behavior and cognitions, particularly cognitions about oneself. The leading figure in social learning theory, Bandura (1989), agrees with the view of behaviorists that personality is the sum total of learned behavior. Personality characteristics are another prominent intrapersonal factor that affects marital satisfaction (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Many studies suggest that specific personality characteristics can predict marital outcomes. For example, personality characteristics were better predictors of marital instability measured 4 years later than demographic variables, such as the age, the educational level, or the history of previous divorces of the individual (Shackelford, Besser, & Goetz, 2008). The study of personality and marital relationships has grown rapidly, personality variables have been a major focus of research studying couples' relationships to explain and predict relationship satisfaction. Relationships between personality characteristics and marital outcomes have been observed using cross-sectional designs (e.g., Froyen, Skibbe, Bowles, Blow, & Gerde, 2008; Ozgur & Fons, 2013) and longitudinal designs (Fisher, & McNulty, 2008; Shackelford et al., 2008).
42
Some authors (e.g., Gottman & Notarius, 2002) have argued that the impact of personality variables on relationships is tiny or insignificant. A study of Karney and Bradbury (1997) indicates that personality characteristic is associated with initial levels of marital satisfaction and had no additional effects on the rates of change in marital satisfaction. Contrary to Karney and Bradbury's findings, which suggest that the influence of personality variables disappear over the time, the model of Schneewind and Gerhard (2002) presented an evidence that the personality characteristics still play a role over the time by a mediator variable (conflict resolution style) which links between personality characteristics and marital satisfaction. In sum,
the results of
many studies indicate
that
personality
characteristics are related to self-reported marital relationship. However, few of these studies have used a comprehensive model of the personality (Gerhard, 2002). In many studies, only one or two personality characteristics were measured. Moreover, specific personality characteristics, like self-disclosure and expressiveness, were studied less frequently than others, like neuroticism were. This situation creates problems for between-study comparisons that have led to an incomplete understanding of personality influences on marital satisfaction. Many researchers argued that cultural settings affect personality characteristics, but with inconsistent results (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Lynn, 2000; McCrae, 2002; Migliore, 2011; Minkov, 2007; Kuppens, Ceulemans, Timmerman, Diener, & Kim-Prieto, 2006; Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2002). In addition, all or some of those factors, by turn affect marital satisfaction (Fisher, & McNulty, 2008; Froyen et al., 2008; Ozgur & Fons, 2013; Shackelford et al., 2008). The inconsistencies in the bodies of research about couple's outcomes
43
and personality, lead to believe that more needs are required to better understand how the personality characteristics associate with marital satisfaction. Little is known about how personality could exert its influence on marital outcomes (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004). Moreover, little is known about how cultural values affect personality characteristics. Therefore, the current study tries to verify the magnitude and direction of any existing effect of personality characteristics on marital satisfaction that by focusing on self-disclosure, expressiveness, and neuroticism, furthermore the current study tries to discover the impact of cultural values on those traits. For this research topic, the current study benefits from social cognitive framework and assumes that, an individual’s personality traits and gender role orientation would be included in the “personal factors” while the “environmental factors” would incorporate the effects of the context (national culture). Otherwise, division of household, marital satisfaction and commitment are translated into “behavioral factors”. In fact, many evidences suggested that the cultural settings shape the nature of marital satisfaction and commitment (Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003; Hofstede et al., 2010; Kalmijn & Uunk, 2007; Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Triandis, 2001) and personality characteristics (Bandura, 2001; Ceulemans et al., 2006; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Lynn, 2000). Those by turn, of course affect perception of marital relationship (Fisher, & McNulty, 2008; Froyen et al., 2008; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Ozgur & Fons, 2013; Shackelford et al., 2008). Moreover cultural settings allocate gender roles orientation (Bandura, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010; Triandis, 2001), which has a critical role in marital
44
relationship (Bem, 1989; Dasgupta & Basu, 2011; Steiner-Pappalardo & Regan, 2002). In addition, cultural settings determine division of household between spouses (Bandura, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010; Triandis, 2001). In the same time, division of household has an important role in marital relationship (Coltrane, 2000). Therefore, the current study tries to discover factors leading to marital satisfaction and commitment in two cultures with majority of Muslim population. Those are the Javanese culture, which has the highest rates of divorce in Asia, and Palestinian culture that shows the exact opposite having the lowest divorce rates in the Asian region (AN, 2007; Chatty, 2006; Satriani, 2007). It is being carried out through analysis of the way cultural settings affect marital satisfaction and commitment and the way cultural settings affect marital satisfaction and commitment through some psychological variables, which are derived its nature from cultural settings, specifically division of household, gender roles orientation, and personality characteristics that in Javanese and Palestinian cultures. 8. Hofstede’s Cultural Model a. Why Hofstede’s model? One prominent effort to understand cultural values and to quantify culture was by Hofstede in his works (2001, 2005, & 2010). The works of Hofstede since 1980 are considered landmark studies of cross-cultural psychology. This model describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members in any social organization including family and interpersonal relationships, and the way that these values relate to behavior, thinking styles, and cognition. In fact, many cultural models had been offered earlier (e.g., Taras, Rowney & Steel, 2009). However, Hofstede’s study was the first one to be based
45
on a wide range of international cases and to employ relatively advanced, for its time, research designs and statistical analysis tools. The product of this effort was a concise set of quantitative indices for describing and ranking countries along several cultural dimensions. This provided a simple and comprehensible model of cultural differences and created a way to conduct easily direct crossnational cultural comparisons. The popularity and need for such a model, with its quantitative cultural indices, is undisputable. According to the Web of Science Database, Hofstede’s “Culture’s Consequences” has been cited almost five thousand times, which has raised the work to the status of “super classic” in the social sciences. Interest in Hofstede’s model remains very high and continues to grow, even decades later. The various editions of the book were cited 301 times in 2003, 351 times in 2004, 361 times in 2005, 269 times in 2006. Also, variations of Hofstede’s original Values Survey Module (VSM) or comparable instruments designed to measure cultural values along dimensions of Hofstede’s model were used to collect original data on average 36 times per year in the 1990’s and 38 times per year in the 2000’s (Taras & Steel, 2011). Moreover, the literature review showed that the original indices from “Culture’s Consequences” have been used hundreds of time for secondary analyses, including a large number of cases even in most recent years (e.g., Beekun, Stedham, & Yamamura, 2003; Lim, Leung, Sia, & Lee, 2004; Litvin & Kar, 2003; Metcalf, Bird, Peterson, Shankarmahesh, & Lituchy, 2007; Newburry & Yakova, 2006; Pressey & Selassie, 2003). To further stress the impressive impact of Hofstede’s work, we can consider the types of papers where his model has been used. Given the
46
extremely high cost of collecting any data for cross-national cultural comparison, it is highly probable that the national cultural indices offered by Hofstede and other authors will remain in demand in the upcoming years (Taras & Steel, 2011). Hofstede (2001) defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (p. 25). He developed his cultural value framework with data from about 116,000 morale surveys completed by 88,000 IBM employees living in 72 countries and regions (reduced to 40 countries that had more than 50 responses each) and speaking twenty languages in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Country level factor analytic results allowed him to classify the represented countries along four dimensions and after some further studies conducted, he added another two dimensions. Hofstede’s
theory has
been
widely used
in
several
fields
as
a paradigm for research, particularly in cross-cultural psychology. Hofstede (2001) explained that cultural differences in values were attributable to a person’s “mental programs,” which were composed of different levels. Hofstede (2001) described three levels of mental programs, the “most basic” of which is the universal level of mental programming, which is shared by all, or almost all mankind. These levels are the basic survival values of the biological operation of the human body. Following this is “the collective level of mental programming which is shared with some but not all people; it is common to people belonging to a certain group, category, or culture but different among people belonging to other groups, categories, or cultures (Hofstede, 2001). One human culture and worldview belonged to this collective level of shared programming. Thus, based on the explanation Javanese and Palestinian cultures belonged to different level
47
of mental programming. Therefore, each nation has different perspective towards aspects of life, which in turn determine their gender role orientation, division of household, personality characteristics, marital satisfaction, and commitment. The most of cross-cultural studies using Hofstede’s model were conducted in business and marketing fields, with few concerning psychology, although Hofstede et al. (2010) indicated that, cultural dimensions influence many factors in social life, such as gender role orientation, division of household, personality characteristics, marital satisfaction and commitment (Hofstede et al., 2010). b. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and marital relationship. Hofstede presented cross-cultural model that includes five dimensions: individualismcollectivism, power distance, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long- vs. short- term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). It is important to study the impact of cultural settings on marital satisfaction and commitment that based on Hofstede's dimensions. Therefore, the current study benefited from Hofstede’s model in understanding how each cultural dimension affects perception of marital relationship in two different cultures - Javanese and Palestinian cultures since both cultures belong to different cultural categories (Schwartz, 2004; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). According to Hofstede’s claims in his work (2001, 2005, & 2010), in collectivistic cultures, marriage may be satisfying to the extent that it fulfills familial duties regardless of achieving happiness or hedonistic goals of husbands and wives and vice versa in Individualistic cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010). Moreover, he suggested that the marital commitment decreases and the divorce rates increase in individualistic cultures since people in individualist societies are
48
often unwilling to sacrifice their personal fulfillment for a bad marriage. In sum, it appears that people in individualist societies tend to put the self-first when it comes to entering, remaining in, or leaving a marriage (Hofstede et al., 2010). While in collectivist societies, there tends to be greater adherence to tradition and social conventions. Therefore, divorce is typically considered a bad thing and must be avoided (Hofstede et al., 2010). Another dimension in Hofstede’s model is power distance. This represents inequality; power distance can be seen in marriages and families (Hofstede et al., 2010). Power distance index assumes the inequality in positions in any relationship, such as marital relationship. Power distant cultures tend to have more power distances between husbands and wives, meaning that men held more authority over women (Hofstede et al., 2010). Power distribution between spouses partly appears in making decision about household labor division (Dekkers, 2009). Couples with unequal division of labor often view roles as being fair (Webster, 2000; Zuo & Bian, 2001). Equity in the division of labor appeared to influence marital satisfaction positively (Mickelson, Claffey, & Williams, 2006; Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001). The third cultural dimension that Hofstede (2001) suggested was masculinity versus femininity. These terms are relative, not absolute; a man can behave in a feminine way and a woman in a masculine way. It only means that they deviate from certain conventions in their society. Men are supposed to be more concerned with achievements outside their home, which is similar to hunting and fighting in traditional societies, but within contemporary social terms. According to Hofstede et al. (2010) society is called masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive,
49
tough, responsible, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. While a society is called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap, both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede et al., 2010). In the masculine countries, love and family life were more often seen as separate, whereas in the feminine countries, they were expected to coincide (Hofstede et al., 2010). In the masculine cultures women are supposed to be tender and to take care of relationships, it is uncommon for wife to work outside the house, while the husband is expected to be healthy and wealthy.
Works
that
cover
the
topic
of
marital
relationship
and
masculinity/femininity interconnection tend to support all possible combinations. Some studies were conducted in collectivistic cultures suggested femininity for the wife and masculinity for the husband is the best combination. Moreover, leads to high level of marital satisfaction. Moreover, evidences indicate that presence of masculinity in both partners promotes marital quality, while prevalence of feminine traits disrupts marital health (Dasgupta & Basu, 2011; SteinerPappalardo & Regan, 2002). Contrarily, some findings in western cultures revealed that femininity for both partners was important for marital satisfaction, as it increased mutual caring and tolerance (Dasgupta & Basu, 2011; SteinerPappalardo & Regan, 2002). The fourth cultural dimension in Hofstede’s works was uncertainty avoidance. This dimension is defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations (Hofstede et al., 2010). Hofstede suggests an idea that levels of anxiety may differ among countries. Anxious cultures tend to be expressive cultures that demonstrate
51
social acceptance to the open display of emotions, for instance, via using hands during conversation or talking in a louder voice. On the contrary, in low uncertainty avoidance countries, anxiety levels are relatively low (Hofstede, 2001). A comparison across thirty-three countries of uncertainty avoidance with national norms for the big five personality test for Hofstede et al. (2004) showed that in more uncertainty avoiding cultures, respondents scored themselves higher on neuroticism. Family life in high uncertainty avoidance societies is inherently more stressful than where uncertainty avoidance is low, feelings are more intense, and both partners express their positive sentiments as well as their negative sentiments more emotionally (Hofstede et al., 2010). Starting with 1991 Hofstede labeled the fifth dimension long-term versus short-term orientation. The fifth dimension was defined as follows: long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular; respect for tradition, preservation of “face,” and fulfilling social obligations (Hofstede et al., 2010). Marriage in high long-term orientation countries is a pragmatic, goal-oriented arrangement, while in short term orientation countries the marriage is a moral arrangement, (Hofstede et al., 2010). Levine, Sato, Hashimoto and Verma (1995, as cited in Hofstede et al., 2010) found in high long-term orientation countries the respondents agreed most with the statement “If love has completely disappeared from a marriage, it is best for the couple to make a clean break and start new lives.”, perhaps the reason is waiting future rewards (Hofstede et al., 2010). However, since marriage is viewed as a more pragmatic than romantic arrangement in a long-term oriented society,
51
therefore community is more tolerant towards divorce. When people more pragmatic they have positive attitudes towards divorce (Furstenberg & Spanier, 1987). Unfortunately, the current study could not find any direct evidence about the impact of long/short-term orientation or future orientation (Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars, 1994) on marital commitment. However, Gao (2001) indicated that, to the future orientation countries, the term ‘‘romantic relationship’’ contains the elements of necessary seriousness and long-term commitment. A romantic relationship often is perceived as one-step before marriage (Gao, 2001). Lin and Rusbult (1995) found that feelings of commitment are perceived to be stronger among future orientation countries than among past or present orientation countries. Furthermore, in the past or present orientation countries, a marital relationship is not necessarily perceived as a long-term commitment or a prelude to marriage. c. Social cognitive theory and Hofstede’s cultural model. In the current study, Hofstede’s model serves us to know how making appropriate paths from cultural dimensions to the variables of interest. Thus, integration was made between SCT and Hofstede’s model. In fact, SCT can provide us with general comprehension about the roles of culture in shaping gender role orientation, division of household, personality characteristics, marital satisfaction, and commitment. While, Hofstede’s model was supposed to guide the researcher to determine how each cultural dimension influences certain variable in the current study. Hence, the main goal of this study is to examine the role of cultural dimensions on perception of marital relationship namely satisfaction and
52
commitment in Javanese and Palestinian settings. It is being done through models explaining what happens in these societies depending on gender role orientation, division of household, personality characteristics, and cultural values (Power Distance, Individualism-Collectivism, Masculinity-Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long- vs. Short- Term Orientation. Specifically, two cultural dimensions affect perception of marital satisfaction and commitment directly those are, individualism-collectivism and long/short-term orientation dimensions, power distance dimension affects perception of marital satisfaction indirectly through division of household, masculinity-femininity dimension affects perception of marital satisfaction indirectly through gender role orientation, and uncertainty avoidance dimension affects perception of marital satisfaction indirectly through personality characteristics (self-disclosing, expressiveness, and neuroticism). B. Statement of the Problem One comprehensive effort to understand cultural values was by Hofstede’s works (2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, & 2010), who suggested fivedimensional model. According to him, these dimensions can predict and interpret various aspects in any society. These dimensions interact with each other and result in a societal identity in a specific manner. Hofstede (2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, & 2010) claimed that, his model can describe the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members in any social organization including family and interpersonal relationships, and how these values relate to behavior, thinking styles, and cognition. Despite the extensive impact and the enormous popularity of Hofstede’s model, it still can be re-examined, especially from the social or psychological point of view, since in most cases Hofstede’s model has been used in the fields
53
of business and marketing. However, Hofstede’s model is considered landmark studies of cross-cultural psychology. Furthermore, major concerns have been expressed concerning the samples of his research and the relevance of Hofstede’s original data, which is almost forty years old, to present-day conditions (for more details see McSweeney, 2002). For example, though his study was based on a total sample of more than 100,000 participants, this sample was not evenly distributed. Some nations were studied with samples of several thousand, while others such as Thailand and Taiwan, were represented by samples as small as 74 and 80 respectively. Furthermore, Hofstede’s study was based on a convenience sample. The fact that data gathered by Hofstede (2001) between 1967 and 1973 is almost forty years old is not a problem only if a culture is stable, while modern societies tend to fluctuate in a rather rapid manner. In other words, just because the USA had received higher rates in “Individualism” than Japan in 1980 does not automatically mean that this is still true today. The possibility of cultural change is likely. According to Hofstede, personality characteristics, gender roles, division of household, moral level, and others are derived from cultural dimensions. Hence, it is the time to test to what extent Hofstede’s claims in terms of its ability to explain the variation in marital satisfaction and commitment through some psychological factors in the light of those dimensions in Hofstede’s model. Another argument to carry out this kind of research is that, many researchers (Amato, 2000; Gottman & Notarius, 2002; Halford, Lizzio, Wilson, & Occhipinti, 2007; Toth & Kemmelmeier, 2009) have studied different aspects of marital relationship to find the most important factors that affect perception of
54
marital relationship. Often these factors do not correspond to the real issues being faced by couples from different cultures. The general bias that seems to appear across many of these studies and other academic fields is the assumption that all cultures and societal norms correspond to those views of western cultures, especially United States (Medora, Larson, Hortacsu, & Dave, 2002). This assumption has led to many biased research findings that do not take into concern cultural differences, traditions, religion and value systems (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2000). Different cultures hold different perspectives on how the couples should interact with each other and achieve marital satisfaction and commitment. Still, there has been little research on whether there are differences in marital relationship across particular cultures, even though this area of research is of tremendous importance. Hopefully this work will provides a better understanding of the ways different cultures influence the perception of marital relationship. However, it is only in the last decade that studies focused on culture and marriage has become more commonplace. Such research on cultural values in marriage has essentially been focused on general comparisons in values between what has become known as the individualistic (i.e., ‘Western’) versus collectivist (i.e., ‘Eastern’) societies. While useful, these analyses have often been limited to a particular part of the eastern world, namely Japan, China, and India in comparison to the U.S. and are in need of further expansion. In fact, the findings of marital satisfaction in Indonesia and Palestine are confusing. High divorce rates in Java suggest that Javanese spouses are dissatisfied with their marriage and they are uncommitted to it. At the same time, the results from Java indicated that spouses are satisfied with their marriage at a high degree. On the
55
contrary, in Palestinian society the divorce rates are very low, which suggests that Palestinian spouses are satisfied with their marriage and they are committed to it, while the research indicated that spouses are aggressive and there is a high tendency for domestic violence. Thus, the aim of the proposed study is to extend the focus of past research on Eastern cultures and to include the comparison of an Arabic nation and a Southeastern Asian nation. No empirical studies exist that compare Arabic values with that of a Southeastern Asian group. Particularly, this study explores the roles of cultural indicators in shaping the perception of marital relationship in term of satisfaction and commitment of Javanese and Palestinians. Specifically how individualism-collectivism and long- versus short-term orientation dimensions affect perception of marital satisfaction and commitment, how power distance affects division of household, which in turn affect perception of marital satisfaction, how masculinity-femininity affects perception of marital satisfaction through gender role orientation, and how uncertainty avoidance affects perception of marital satisfaction through self-disclosing, expressiveness, and neuroticism. In the current study, Palestinians are an example of Arabs, and Javanese are an example of Southeastern Asian nation. Therefore, the study question is “How Hofstede’s cultural dimensions affect the perception of marital relationship in term of perception of satisfaction and commitment for Javanese and Palestinian Arabs?” C. Purpose of the Study In general, this study attempts to fill the void in the literature by finding how different cultural settings play roles in shaping perception of marital relationship. Another goal is to determine the relative importance of cultural
56
dimensions (individualism-collectivism, power distance, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long- versus short-term orientation) in perception of marital relationship. By exploring how individualism-collectivism and long- versus short-term orientation dimensions affect marital satisfaction and commitment, how power distance affects division of household, which in turn affect perception of marital satisfaction, how masculinity-femininity affects perception of marital satisfaction through gender role orientation, and how uncertainty avoidance affects perception of marital satisfaction through self-disclosing, expressiveness, and neuroticism. Therefore, current study examines roles of two cultural dimensions in marital satisfaction and commitment, roles of three cultural dimensions in some psychological factors; personality characteristics, division of household, and gender role orientation, as mediating factors between cultural dimensions and perception of marital relationship. D. Significance of the Study The importance of this study lies in the application of Hofstede’s cultural model in the new field. Up to this point, this model has proved its efficiency in interpretation of many dependent variables in economic field, but there is no evidence of employing it in the questions of marital relationship. The researcher hopes that the findings of this work will provide psychologists, sociologists, professionals, or counselors with knowledge of the role of cultural settings in individuals’ lives, and provide marital counselors with culturally appropriate interventions to assist couples in dealing with their marital dissatisfaction. Moreover, this study will provide professionals or counselors with the most effective personality characteristics and gender roles orientation in the question of marital preservation. Hopefully, the findings will help them to guide those who
57
want to marry in selection of his/her partner, as well as in organizing courses for those who are already married to understand their perception of marital relationship in lights of personality characteristics and gender role orientation, using latter to deal with their family conflicts. E. Originality of the Study The originality of this study lies in examining of the Hofstede’s allegations that his cultural dimensions affect marital relationship directly like collectivism and long-term orientation and indirectly like power distance through division of household, masculinity-femininity through gender role orientation, and uncertainty avoidance through self-disclosing, expressiveness, and neuroticism. Moreover, this study attempts to discover the higher-order structure of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in the both cultures in order to investigate how the resultant combinations of those dimensions influence the perception of marital relationship.
58
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
The following review of the literature will present the theoretical framework that could explain the links among all the factors of interest; it is SCT (Bandura, 1986). SCT will interpret how national culture (as environmental factors), personality characteristics and the cognitive component of gender role orientation (as personal factors), and division of household labor, marital satisfaction, and commitment (as behavioral factors) are linking together. Moreover, Hofstede’s model was used to know how making appropriate paths from cultural dimensions to the variables of interest. Thus, integration was made between SCT and Hofstede’s model. In fact, SCT can provide us with general comprehension about the roles of culture in shaping gender role orientation, division of household, personality
characteristics,
marital
satisfaction,
and
commitment. While,
Hofstede’s model was supposed to guide the researcher to determine how each cultural dimension influences certain variable in the current study. Thus, this review will explain the role of cultural dimensions of Hofstede in marriage. Particularly satisfaction and commitment, regarding some mediating factors that have been suggested by Hofstede’s theory. These mediating factors are division of household, personality characteristics, and gender role orientation. In addition, the following review will present findings that support the research arguments. The purpose of this review is to present a rationale for examining how cultural settings differences between Javanese spouses and Palestinian spouses affect marital relationship in the questions of satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, at the same time to show how division of household, personality characteristics, and gender role orientation mediate this relationship.
59
Historically, research on marital satisfaction and marital commitment has been carried out primarily in Western societies. However, the unique cultural characteristics of Arab spouses and Southeast Asian spouses suggest that assumptions based on previous research should not simply be applied broadly and indiscriminately to diverse cultures. The primary goal of this project is to show how cultural dimensions in Hofstede’s model can predict national culture as a system of values and attitudes for better understanding predictors of marital relationship among Javanese spouses and Palestinian spouses. Information about each variable of interest was presented in a sequential manner, starting with a show the theoretical frameworks, then reviewing the marital constructs literature. A discussion about cultural dimensions in Hostede’s model will follow, leading into a focused exploration of the role of cultural dimensions in marital relationship. Particular attention was paid to the way that cultural dimensions affect differences in division of household, personality characteristics, and gender role orientation. Finally, this review will show the cultural dimensions’ rates for Javanese and Palestinians that have been presented by Hofstede, characteristics and features of Palestinian culture and Javanese culture and present research findings on perception of marital relationship in these countries. A. Social Cognitive Theory In the current study, SCT is utilized (Bandura, 2001). In this section, overview about this theory is shown below. This theory emphasizes the reciprocal influences between an individual's behavior and his or her environment. Central concepts in SCT are that (1) behavior is controlled by its consequences (operant conditioning) as well as by antecedent discriminative stimuli signaling the
61
existence of particular reinforcement contingencies, (2) much human behavior is learned through imitation of models, and (3) cognitive processes often mediate the learning and performance of behavior. Bandura’s social learning theory and SCT provides a model to establish the connection between cultural settings, observational learning, imitation, modeling, and social learning. Social learning theory proposed that learning is a process of acquisition in which the individual acquires new behavior through observation and imitation. Bandura believed that both negative and positive behaviors are learned through observation. He argued that it is through the context of one’s inner world that one is exposed to learning new behaviors. He also suggests that it is through the same context that new information and behavior are rejected. The social learning theory postulates that behaviors are accepted, adopted, modeled, and/or challenged through a process of observation and acquisition. Research has shown that if the observable behavior is attractive or appealing, the likelihood increases for imitating that behavior (Bandura, 2001). In most cases, social learning involves casual observations of specific behaviors in natural settings. According to Bandura (2001), modeling and imitating occur primarily through informative functioning. When learning is acquired through observation, the symbolic representation will have a significant amount of influence on the learning process. Bandura suggests that observational learning in humans involves two primary components: imagery and verbal. Bandura (2001) suggested that a specific type of behavior must be present for learning to occur. Social learning theory places emphasis on the following: symbolic, self-regulating, and vicarious processes. In order for social
61
learning to occur, both observation and imitation must take place. Bandura (2001) wrote that all individuals have the instinctive desire to copy and model the behavior of others. Bandura further believed that the majority of what is learned is largely influenced by real life experiences and modeling in our cultures. Imitative learning, he argued, usually involves responses rather than place learning. In other words, place learning is more concerned with how new behavior can be observed, organized and quickly learned. Bandura’s SCT and social learning theory are similar. SCT is more complex and more detailed than social learning theory, because it requires more thinking, thus cognitive processing (Bandura, 2002). Social learning theory is less concerned with the persons’ cognitive skills, but more concerned with how the behavior of others, environmental influences and personality traits can influence a person’s ability to acquire and learn new behaviors. Bandura (1986) identified the relationships between these three major classes of determinants in the triadic reciprocal causation including personal agency (in the form of cognition, affect and biological events), behavioral, and environmental factors. These relationships are bi-directional because they reciprocate upon one other in human functioning. However, this reciprocity does not mean the constructs interact with equal strength. It has been depicted as a triangle with bi-directional arrows pointing to each construct.
62
Figure 1. Bandura’s (1986) Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model
Each construct is an interacting determinant upon the other two constructs. Personal agency affects behavior as well as environment. Environment, in turn, affects personal agency and behavior. Finally, behavior influences personal agency and the environment. People are neither act alone, nor do they simply react to the environment. SCT allows for an emergent interactive agency model (Bandura, 1996). Bandura (1986) wrote that social learning theory and SCT provide a clear explanation for the behavioral functioning of humans. His theories place an emphasis on the mind’s ability to actively develop and construct reality. The SCT is governed by three properties. The first is personal, where individuality is the driving force. The second is proxy, in which the individual seeks to obtain or secure a desired outcome by influencing others. The third is collective, where individuals act collectively in an effort to alter or shape their future. Using a social cognitive approach means trying to understand how individuals make sense of the world around them (Fiske & Taylor, 2008). Specifically, SCT relates (1) an individual’s behavior to (2) their cognitive schema and other personal factors and
63
(3) the external environment in a triadic reciprocal causative relationship (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In 1977, Bandura expanded on his social-learning theory by including what he considered the missing element: self-efficacy beliefs. In 1986, he changed the name of his theory from social learning theory to social-cognitive theory (Pajares, 2002). Bandura’s SCT encompasses the following major assumptions: (a) people can learn through observation or modeling, (b) cognitions influence learning, and (c) learning does not necessarily lead to change in behavior. According to Bandura, childhood observational learning and social experience shape personality development (Bandura, 1997). SCT explains how people acquire and maintain certain behavioral patterns, and emphasizes that cognition strongly influences people’s capability to construct reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform behaviors (Pajares, 2002). In contrast to behaviorist theories, SCT addresses human functioning by emphasizing that inner processes are as equally influential as environmental factors. For Bandura (1997), human functioning with all of its complexities cannot be explained or understood without examination of one’s own conscious mind, because sense making begins with one’s own psychological processes. Therefore, it is too difficult to determine how an individual will cope with environmental challenges or outcomes without evaluating and understanding his or her cognitive process that which influences how environmental outcomes are interpreted (Pajares, 2002). SCT has been influential in shaping how human-service providers practice. The first task human-service provider's face is that of finding some way to understand the wide range of individual problems they encounter. In an
64
attempt to help clients understand the relationships among cognition, emotion, and behavior in human functioning, some human service providers use cognitive therapy. Cognitive therapy is designed to help individuals understand that they are influential in determining their destiny. With this in mind, human-service providers must help individuals understand how their beliefs, assumptions, and schemas shape their perception and responses to situations and events. To gain a better understanding of the phenomena under investigation from a SCT perspective, theoretical constructs such as reciprocal determinism, symbolizing capability, and vicarious capability listed below was explained to illustrate the linkage between individuals’ lived experiences and perceptions of achieving marital satisfaction and commitment. Social-cognitive theorists put forward that individual’s cultural settings; socioeconomic status, educational background, and family structure do not directly affect their behavior, because individuals’ aspirations, self-efficacy beliefs, personal standards, emotional states, and other self-control influences have more of an impact on behavior (Pajares, 2002). From this basic argument, Bandura’s (1986) conception of reciprocal determinism evolved. Reciprocal determinism emphasizes that interactions that result in a triadic reciprocity are created based on personal (cognition, affect, biological events, etc.), behavioral, and environmental influences that work together (Pajares, 2002). Bandura (1997) posited that behavior, cognition, and other environmental and personal factors influence each other bidirectionally. Furthermore, each source of influence may have different effects on other sources at different times. In addition, Bandura (1997) noted that some sources of influence might be stronger than others, depending on individual, behavioral, and situational factors. Reciprocal influences
65
are activated over time and may not occur simultaneously. Therefore, it is important to note that causal factors often trigger a reciprocal interaction. Bandura (1989) argued that individuals change their behavior to adapt to their environment, and environmental changes contribute to behavioral change in individuals. For example, imagine that a soldier does not wish to remain in the military anymore, but due to a contractual agreement, the soldier is not capable of separating. Because of feeling trapped the soldier reports increased job dissatisfaction and the soldier’s attitude and performance declines. In return, the soldier begins to act out toward colleagues and superiors, which results in the development of ill feelings and tension for all parties. Therefore, both social environment and physical behavior will generate increased tension and cause further acting out. In this example, behavior and social environmental factors influence each other, but the individual could change the course of the aforementioned factors by changing the way the person thinks about the employment situation. Changing the way the soldier thinks is linked to personal or internal factors that also influence behavior and social factors. In sum, reciprocal determinism acknowledges that change can occur in an individual, but environmental factors can significantly influence behavior and internal processing. On the other hand, symbolizing capability is a cognitive process that enables individuals to gain better understanding of the effects of external influences on behavior by formulating symbols or mental images of their experiences (Bandura, 1989). Symbolic processing serves as a mechanism for thought formulation. Through symbol and thought, formulation individuals are capable of retaining information of observed experiences that can be used to
66
guide or influence future behavior. Without the ability to retain or memorize information, individuals could not model observed behavior. Therefore, symbolic development plays an instrumental role in individuals’ ability to engage in cognitive problem solving and foresight action. According to Bandura (1989), foresight action allows individuals to think through the consequences of a behavior
without
actually
performing
the
behavior.
Research
literature
demonstrates that both internal and external processes influence much of human behavior, and that there is a correlation between cognitive processing and human behavior (Bandura, 1991). Based on SCT, the cognitive-behavioral model views satisfaction and commitment in a couple's relationship as due to a combination of effects from each individual's learning history and from the pattern of interactions that the couple has developed together through a trial and error process. In addition, Building on SCT, the current study benefited from this theoretical framework to explain how national culture, division of household, gender role orientation, and personality characteristics affect and determine one's marital relationship. 1. Social Cognitive Theory and Marital Relationship Much of the research on marital satisfaction has used the behavioral model of marriage as a theoretical basis for specific hypotheses. The behavioral model of marriage is grounded in early interpersonal theories such as Bandura’s (2001) social learning theory that emphasize the importance of interpersonal behaviors exchanged during interactions and their reinforcing and punishing effects. It is through these reinforcing and punishing outcomes that partners evaluate their relationships, gauge their satisfaction with their relationship, and decide to remain in the relationship. Based on these theories, the quality and
67
stability of marriages is dependent upon the behavioral patterns displayed in couples’ interactions. Studies based on the behavioral model of marriage focus on observable behavioral patterns between partners in interactions between spouses and often use observational methods to examine the exchange of behaviors within a couple. This theoretical foundation and methodology has led to hypotheses examining the effects of behavior on marital satisfaction and outcomes. Many studies have supported the association between observations of behavior displayed in marital interactions and marital satisfaction and outcome. Karney and Bradbury (1995) reviewed studies examining the effects of behavior on marital satisfaction and stability. Findings from the reviewed studies showed that positive behaviors, such as affection, are associated with greater satisfaction and stability whereas negative behaviors are associated with lower satisfaction and stability. Overall, the interactions of satisfied couples have been found to be characterized by a higher ratio of positive to negative behaviors than distressed couples. Findings from observational studies reviewed by Heyman (2001) are consistent with Karney and Bradbury’s findings. Heyman (2001) found that less satisfied couples are more hostile in their interactions, emit less positive behaviors, and reciprocate behavior that is more negative. Taken together, these studies support the idea that behavior patterns influence partners’ satisfaction with and decision to maintain their marriage. Perhaps one of the most plausible and comprehensive accounts of the intergenerational transmission of values and attitudes can be found in SCT (Bandura, 1986) and its predecessor, social learning theory (Bandura, 2001).
68
According to SCT, people learn attitudes and behaviors through both direct and vicarious experience. This line of reasoning has been applied to investigating an intergenerational transmission of marital commitment and divorce, marital discord, and intimate violence (Repetti et al., 2002). Such research typically focuses on the transmission of behaviors. However, for an observed behavior to be imitated, the observer must cognitively encode and retain the information (Bandura, 2001). It would be expected that witnessing parental interaction or the nature of the parents’ marital commitment would have a cognitive impact on an observing child’s perceptions of marriage. The SCT believes that people have learned much of their norms and values from their parents, as well as from the area where they live (local and national culture) (Bandura, 2001). Of course, people who are single or already married have no direct experience with marital life. Nevertheless, many people in these social contexts have vicarious experience with marital life through the relationship of others especially their parents. Given the salience and duration of modeling, it is understandable that children depart from their family of origin and area where they live having learned through observation a number of attitudes and behaviors concerning marital commitment. SCT describes several functions of modeling that are relevant to the intergenerational
transmission
of
values
and
attitudes
toward
marital
commitment, and the more general effects of parental relations on children (Segrin, Taylor & Altman, 2005). Bandura (1994) explains that ‘modeling influences can strengthen or weaken restraints over behavior that has previously been learned’ (p.71). Inhibitory effects occur when people observe models experiencing negative consequences for enacting certain behaviors. There could
69
plausibly be a number of inhibitory effects associated with parental relation. For example, if children perceive and recall their parents’ relation as having negative consequences, they may develop negative views of marriage and might be reluctant to enter into a marriage or intimate relationship (Burns & Dunlop, 2002). A parental relation could teach children that marriage is a miserable experience, and children might therefore avoid the behavior. Consistent with this explanation, Burns and Dunlop (2002) found that children of divorced parents were more wary of long-term relationships, marriage, and family life than were children from intact marriages. Potentially inhibiting effects of parental divorce on entry into marriage or long-term relationships can be explained by the behavioral concept of stimulus generalization, whereby the effect of reinforcement in response to one stimulus (e.g., marriage) spreads to another (e.g., close relationship). Disinhibitory effects occur when restraints on behavior are diminished as a result of observing a model perform the behavior, typically with some attendant positive outcomes. Few people inherently value divorce or marital separation. However, frequently observing divorce or separation could potentially teach individuals that marriage need not be permanent and that divorce is an effective solution to marital difficulties (Segrin, et al., 2005). Amato and DeBoer (2001) found that parental divorce almost doubled the odds that offspring would experience a divorce in their own marriages and their data suggested that children learn that marriage is not permanent through observing their parents’ divorce. This effect is also evident in lower commitment to marriage, and more favorable attitudes toward divorce among offspring of divorced parents (Burns & Dunlop, 2002). According to this explanation, parental divorce should reduce children’s inhibition to getting divorced themselves, and this should be evident in
71
weaker attitudes toward the permanence of marriage and more positive attitudes toward the idea of ending a troubled marriage. If this disinhibitory effect is evident in the offspring of divorced parents, then it is possible that negative marital attitudes mediate the relationship between parental and offspring divorce (Segrin, et al., 2005). Moreover, people learn that divorce is normative through observation of others if it is a common behavior in a society (Segrin, et al., 2005). People learn about marriage and divorce not only through observing their parents, but also throughout a society regardless of whether they individually experience marriage or divorce. In her book “Marriage in a Culture of Divorce”, Hackstaff (2010) contrasts marriage culture and divorce culture. A marriage culture includes the belief, assumption, and practice that marriage is a given and forever. A divorce culture, in comparison, is a set of beliefs and practices that define marriage as optional and conditional, with divorce being an option if the marriage does not work. 2. Social Cognitive Theory and Culture In SCT, learning is explained as it takes place in the social milieu (naturalistic setting) and through cognitive processes. Bandura (1986) considered that human cognition plays a key role in the learning processes of individuals and these processes drive the learner’s behavior. Unlike Skinner, who believed in a linear explanation of behavior as a result of the environment (Stimulus → Response), Bandura manifested that the key missing element was internal personal factors of consisting cognitive, affective, and biological events (Bandura, 1997). Bandura’s social learning theory provides a useful prototype for examining the influence of national culture on the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, values, and
71
overall lifestyles of people. Social learning theory is concerned primarily with learning and seeks to describe how individuals and groups learn from their social experiences. The principles of social learning theory have been effectively used in a wide range of research studies concerned with aggressiveness, competitiveness, deviant behavior, and sexual behavior (Bandura, 2001). According to Bandura’s theory (Bandura, 1986), there are four components involved in the process of modeling. Each of these components has a role to play either in the acquisition of information about events and of rules or in the decision to put this information to use in guiding behavior. First, the observer must pay attention to events (live or symbolic) that are modeled. Attention is determined by a variety of variables, including the power and attractiveness of the model as well as the conditions under which behavior is viewed. Second, when material has been attended to, it must then be retained, with the observed behavior represented in memory through either an imaginal or verbal representational system. In the third step, symbolic representation now must be converted into appropriate actions similar to the originally modeled behavior.
The
final
process
governing
observational
learning
involves
motivational variables. Human being learns to behave in each culture through observing other men and women in that culture (Bandura, 1986). Moreover, they accept those aspects of culture that are more attractive to them. For example, through observing equality of men and women in some cultures, human being have learnt and internalized such values and react against other values. Bandura (2001) argued that observational learning accounts for a great deal of newly acquired behavior. He believed that observational learning tends to
72
be reinforced through specific behaviors. Bandura believed that specific kinds of behaviors would determine whether or not new behaviors either will be accepted or rejected that partly are determined by cultural values, norms, and customs. Bandura further argued that reinforcement and punishment plays an important part in influencing the learning of new values and behaviors. Social learning theory and the application of reinforcement tend to also shape the reward process by providing direct incentive for certain acts or behaviors based upon an anticipated reward (Bandura, 2001). In most cases, the behaviors that are being witnessed will result in either a negative or a positive consequence. The most fundamental problem in cross-cultural psychology is to understand how cultural characteristics of societies are reflected in the psychology of individuals (Smith et al., 2006; Triandis, 2001). SCT (Bandura, 1986) elaborates how mental representations influence the processing that leads to evaluations of and reactions to people and events (Fleeson, 2001; Mischel & Peake, 1982). This explanation is relevant to many cross-cultural topics including, for example, cultural differences in evaluations and reactions to people and events, and the effects of mental representations about members of a cultural group. Descriptions of child development previously used to explain the links between societal values and individual values could explain how culture becomes reflected in individual thought and behavior. For example, the finding that children both spontaneously learn about societal values by repeated observation and are taught societal values through mechanisms such as stories in children’s books (Bandura, 2001) can provide an even stronger cultural explanation for patterns in the way cognition is structured.
73
SCT also adds to this formulation by explaining other ways in which culture is learned, the processes involved and how cultural knowledge is represented in individual memories. From the side of those seeking to instill culture, these ways include both deliberate modeling of socially acceptable behaviors and avoidance (in the presence of those who they seek to socialize) of less acceptable behaviors. It includes proactive selection by teachers of aspects of societal context to which children will be exposed, and similar proactive choices of context by parents (Bandura, 2001). Those experiencing socialization do not remain passive, however. Not only is modeling spontaneously offered, but it is proactively sought by newcomers as an alternative to the more costly process of learning from the consequences of direct personal experience. Wood and Bandura (1989) describe this process as a triadic interaction between behavior, cognition, and environmental events. Children as newcomers to a culture, engage in attentional processes such as proactive observation and abstract cognitive representation and cognitive rehearsal of what was observed. More overtly, they engage in behavioral production processes or imitation attempts, which generate feedback both from direct observation of the success of one’s imitation and from feedback by others. They are also active agents in motivational processes that rely on direct rewards (others’ reactions to one’s own behaviors), indirect rewards (observation of others’ reactions to a model’s behavior) and self-produced rewards (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Bandura (1997) emphasized the power of vicarious or observational learning. His research indicated that the way children behave is shaped not just by observation of others but also by perceptions of how the actions of others are valued.
74
3. Social Cognitive Theory and Gender Role Orientation According to SCT, children learn about gender through mental efforts to organize their social world (Coltrane & Adams, 2008). This perspective supposes that children are active participants in the process of gender socialization; they seek information from their surrounding environments to organize and predict the world around them and simultaneously develop a sense of self and place within that world. Bussey and Bandura (2004) propose a SCT of gender differentiation that specifies how life experiences interact with individual characteristics to create gender attitudes. According to SCT, personal, behavioral, and environmental factors interact to influence behavior in a process of “triadic reciprocal causation” (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). The personal component includes gender-linked conceptions, judgmental and behavioral standards, as well as self-regulatory influences that are shaped by cognitive, affective and biological events. The behavioral component includes gender-linked patterns of activity, which influence how individuals interpret and experience the world around them. The environmental component consists of the broad network of social influences that individuals experience through everyday life that provide models for behavior and sanctions for misbehavior. Personal,
behavioral,
and
environmental
factors
are
reciprocally
influential; both the environment and individual characteristics must be conductive form specific behavioral patterns to emerge. Unlike other theories of socialization, such as social learning theory, cognitive-behavioral theory, and gender schema theory (Bem, 1998), this theory gives greater weight to factors that are outside of the cognitive (personal) and behavioral spheres by equally emphasizing all three components within the triadic model.
75
Because Bussey and Bandura’s (2004) SCT of gender development utilizes both psychological and socio-structural elements, this approach reflects an ecological perspective that takes into account the influence of both personal characteristics and larger social and environmental influences. This theoretical approach “underscores the interplay of environmental influences and the individual’s own active role in acquiring an understanding of gender” (Crouter Shawn, Whiteman, McHale, & Wayne, 2007). SCT for gender differentiation not only articulates the process of gender acquisition, but it specifies the mechanisms that regulate gendered behavior (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Over the period of childhood, social sanctions (praise or punishment) for adhering to or diverging from gendered behaviors are replaced by regulatory self-sanctions that are based on individual direction and standards (Bandura, 1986). Individuals are not just reactive to external events, but “self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and self-regulating;” personal efficacy is critical to the process of gendered differentiation (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). As children age and become more cognitively adept, they move through a process of gender categorization namely placing individuals, activities, attitudes and behaviors into dichotomous gendered categories, to a period of gender role learning that requires higher-level abstraction than the simpler process of categorization (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). This process requires active participation on the individual level, and includes the interaction of the personal and behavioral components of Bussey and Bandura’s (2004) model of triadic reciprocal causation. The ecological nature of SCT allows for the exploration of multiple arenas of influence on gender attitudes at the personal, social, and environmental levels.
76
The following section explores what Bussey and Bandura (2004) call gender socialization subsystems. These subsystems exist in the environment in which individuals are socialized and contribute to the gender differentiation of attitudes, behaviors, and roles. Specifically, SCT includes the following subsystems: family, peers, education, media, and occupational systems. Each of these subsystems contributes strongly to the development of gendered selves over the life course. Bussey and Bandura (2004) stress the interdependence and reciprocity of each of these systems and how individuals actively create their own gendered selfdevelopment through their interactions with these systems. Throughout the course of history, there has been debate about whether gender identity is an innate natural course of development or conditional upon environmental forces (Bosacki, 2007; Bussey & Bandura, 2004; Diamond, 2006). Present in research are the biological assumptions that being male or female is a state that simply is (Bosacki, 2007; Gurian & Stevens, 2005). Other theories posit that becoming male or female is influenced through social factors and determined by exposure to role models. Theories of social learning operate on the assumption that the acquisition of gender roles occurs through observations and experiences (Bandura, 1986; Bussey & Bandura, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978, as cited in Yasnitsky, 2012). Biological gender differences cannot be negated in a study with gender as a variable of interest. The fact that men and women develop based on biological determinants of an X or Y chromosome is evidence of gender differences (Diamond, 2006). Hormone concentrations are different in the male and female brain, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indicates the presence of biological brain differences in size and volume (Diamond, 2006; Gurian &
77
Stevens, 2005). Research supports biologically attributed differences that boys are more physically active and demonstrate more spatial awareness, while girls exhibit linguistic skills at an earlier age (Carrier, 2009; Gurian & Stevens, 2005). Biological differences between male and female brains are also credited with decisions to control impulse behaviors and organize information, and language skills are affected by the differing chemical balances (Diamond, 2006; Gurian & Stevens, 2005). Hyde (2005) conducted a meta-analysis to examine biological gender differences in cognition, communication, socialization, psychological well-being, and motor skills. She concluded 78% of the gender differences were small or close to zero. Gurian and Stevens (2005) identified three biological stages of the gendered brain: (a) chromosome markers at conception, (b) chromosome induced hormone surges, and (c) biological cues at birth based on genetics to family, community, and overall culture. The last stage recognizes the interconnectedness of biological and environmental factors that influence gender awareness and expectations within social constructs. A common thread among researchers who supported biological gender influences was the emphasis that gender awareness and development should no longer be considered a battle between nature and nurture (Diamond, 2006; Gurian & Stevens, 2005; Hyde, 2005). Rather, biological gender characteristics are determined by nature and intricately interwoven through socialization processes that nurture gender awareness and expectations. The social and cultural experiences of childhood will determine how pronounced these already present biological differences become.
78
Vygotsky (1978, as cited in Yasnitsky, 2012) theorized that internal developmental processes emerge and are applied through interaction and cooperation with others. Children inherently come to understand themselves in terms of gender attributes they encounter within social constructs (Vygotsky, 1978, as cited in Yasnitsky, 2012). Children’s sense of gender identity develops, socially
and
academically.
Personal
factors,
behavior
patterns,
and
environmental factors interact in a model known as triadic reciprocal causation that influences gender development. Culture or environmental structures include the imposed, selected, and constructed environments. Modeling is considered a powerful means of transmitting values, attitudes, and patterns of behavior. Enactive experiences promote gender-linked conduct through exposure to people and social systems. Direct tuition provides a means to infer socially acceptable behavior. Social cognitive views maintain people are self-organizing, proactive, selfreflective, and self-regulating (Bandura, 1986; Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Gendered behavior and expectations are formed through gender specific behavior rules and experiences. The formulated rules and socially constructed behavior norms will later influence society’s gender expectations within the professional environment (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). SCT emphasizes the importance of perceived self-efficacy, gender beliefs related to capabilities to perform and overcome failures, as well as self-regulation, or decisions to engage in self-satisfactory behavior (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Kommer (2006) reported that gender differences are a function of biological forces but are also shaped by the environment. Biological influences are mediated by cultural forces and interactions within the culture. Gendered
79
skills are learned as they are valued by the culture through observation and subsequent interactions. Development is the result of joint operational forces between child and environment. Paechter (2006) explained that boys and girls develop understanding of being male and female through physical and cultural produced norms established within their local communities. Bussey and Bandura (2004) stated that gender and sex roles are the “primary basis on which people get differentiated with pervasive effects on their daily lives” (p. 92). Accordingly, there has been much attention focused on the concept of gender role orientation within psychology over the past 50 years, due to the observation that gender role orientations have a significant effect on an individual’s interpersonal behaviors and attitudes (Eagly, 2009). O’Neil (2010) defined gender role orientations as constellations of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings of individuals that are “culturally regarded as appropriate to males and females” (p. 203). According to Bem (1998), gender roles are culturally constructed patterns of behavior and represent societal definitions of sexappropriate behaviors. Eagly (2009) stated that gender roles exert “trait-like influences on behavior” because gender roles function as a personal standard by which an individual judges their own behavior (p. 651). To Eagly (2009), individuals operate in the social world according to what they believe is appropriate and acceptable behaviors for their sex. In doing so, individuals are essentially operating according to internalized role sets for a given sex, or rather, gender role orientations. Eagly (2009) proposed that sex and gender role orientation influence the behaviors of men and women through biological, sociocultural, and individual factors.
81
In regards to biological bases of behavior, psychobiological researchers have been aware of how hormonal differences between males and females significantly affect behaviors of men and women (Hampson & Moffat, 2004). For example, women have higher levels of oxytocin which is responsible for more nurturing, affectionate, and bonding behaviors (Campbell, 2008), whereas testosterone in men may account for men’s penchant for competitive, dominant, and physical behaviors (Archer, 2006). Thus, some differences in behaviors of men and women may be primarily accounted for by biological differences, rather than psychological differences. However, sociological and cultural factors also influence behaviors of men and women. According to SCT, gender role orientations form collective expectations within a society as to what behaviors are appropriate for men and women (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). In general, society may reward behaviors that are consistent with a specific sex, and disapproves of sex-atypical behaviors. Research has shown that males tend to describe themselves as more agentic in nature, while women tend to describe themselves as more communal (Eagly, 2009). Agency is central to the gender role orientation of masculinity while communion is central to the gender role orientation of femininity. Wood and Eagly (2009) suggested that gender role orientations become embedded in an individual’s personal identity and thus influence behavior. She suggested that gender role orientation influences behaviors of men and women through the internalization of agency and communion orientations and the expectations of social sanctions for gender-related behaviors (Eagly, 2009). For example, for men, socio-cultural forces foster an internalization of personal identity that corresponds to the social construct of agency. Such men then regulate and
81
govern their own behaviors to correspond with this identity. This idea is consistent with the SCT of gender development (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Bussey and Bandura (2004) stated that "for much of early childhood, individuals gain “predictive knowledge” about the potential social outcomes of gender-typed behaviors" (p. 98). These social outcomes function as incentives and reinforcements, which negatively sanction gender-atypical play and positively sanction gender-typical play. Concerning sex-typed play, Bussey and Bandura (2004) stated that “anticipated outcomes serve as incentives and disincentives for action” and thus shape behaviors according to behavioral reinforcements (p. 98). Bandura (1986) also stated, "Once self-regulatory capacities are developed, individuals internalize social sanctions which become personal standards of behavior, particularly in the area of what is regarded as appropriate for each sex. Corresponding to Eagly (2009), Bussey and Bandura (2004) claimed that in SCT, social sanctions for gendered behaviors become personal self-sanctions, which then influence subsequent gender-related behaviors. In these ways, gender roles are both prescriptive and descriptive (Eagly, 2009). Gender roles are descriptive in that they can be used to understand what is typical for each sex (Eagly, 2009). When discussing the descriptive aspects of gender roles, Eagly (2009) stated that in situations where norms or roles are ambiguous, gender roles often guide individuals to enact and conform to gender typed behaviors. Gender roles are prescriptive in that they establish a standard for what behaviors are desirable for a given sex. She (Eagly, 2009) explained that gender roles influence behaviors of men and women because they pervade social norms and personal identities. Gender roles form social norms because they are contained in others’ expectations for an individual’s behavior. Gender
82
roles are internalized, and thus act as part of one’s character similar to personality traits. The majority of individuals categorized as masculine are males (Bem, 1998). Therefore, the male socialization process has a bearing on the constellation of behaviors and attitudes that typify masculinity. The socialization process begins in infancy and occurs throughout boy’s and men’s lives. In general, boys are provided with a greater variety of toys to choose from that are oriented towards learning skills necessary outside the home (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Related to the male socialization process, O’Neil (2010) has described the pressures that men feel to maintain a behavior of toughness consistent with stereotypical masculinity. He suggested that many men strive for an intangible ideal of masculinity that he termed the “masculine mystique” (p. 205). He suggested that pervasive to the male psychological mindset is a desire to strive for the masculine mystique, and at the same time eschew what is perceived as feminine. He asserted that part of the masculine ideology is the belief that women, men and children who display feminine attributes are inferior, inappropriate, and immature. O’Neil (2010) described this as a “fear of femininity” and proposed that it is central to pressure to maintain a masculine ideal in men’s lives (p. 203). He proposed that men shun aspects of themselves that are stereotypically feminine so as not to be seen as weak, dependent, and submissive. Out of a fear of femininity, O’Neil (2010) proposed that men avoid behaviors that they believe are feminine. He proposed the following list of behaviors and attitudes that encompass this: restrictive emotionality, socialized
83
control, power, and competition, homophobia, restrictive affectionate behaviors, obsession with achievement and success, and health care problems. O’Neil (2010) has provided a comprehensive review of the relationships between masculinity and psychological constructs. In general, his review shows that the masculine gender role orientation, is associated with the following: drinking and use of drugs, loneliness, fear of appearing feminine, antigay attitudes, overt hostility and aggression, adversarial sexual beliefs, rape myths, psychological violence (O’Neil, 2010). Consistent with SCT, masculinity is antithetical to emotional expressiveness and emotional sharing; second, masculinity is essentially an agentic orientation that involves self-assertion, independence, and toughness, rather than connectedness and closeness with others. SCT would also seem to suggest that masculinity would be associated with angry rumination. Boys are socialized to restrict emotions that resemble femininity and amplify emotions and behaviors that appear tough and strong (O’Neil, 2010; Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Anger, revenge, and aggressiveness are behaviors that are socially acceptable to men (McDermott, Schwartz, & Trevathan-Minnis, 2011). Research shows that men experience and display more angry behaviors that women (Campbell & Muncer, 2008). Additionally, several authors (Eagly, 2009; O’Neil, 2010; Plant, Hyde, Keltner, & Devine, 2001) have suggested that masculinity involves a higher tendency to experience and express anger than femininity. Thus, according to SCT, masculinity should be positively associated with anger. Whilst, the femininity is often associated with being emotionally warm, nurturing, affectionate, and relational (Bem, 1998; Gardner & Gabriel, 2004).
84
Gardner and Gabriel (2004) have suggested that feminine individuals value interdependence, whereas masculine individuals value independence. Feminine individuals are also said to be emotionally expressive, concerned for others welfare, sensitive to emotion, and unselfish (Eagly, 2009). The social construction of gender role orientation is primarily derived from what is assumed appropriate behaviors for males and females (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Thus, the feminine gender role orientation is derived from what is deemed typical and appropriate for females. Intimacy is often associated with femininity and females. This may be because women are largely socialized to be emotionally expressive (Bussey & Bandura, 2004). Garner and Gabriel (2004) have noted that women are socialized to view themselves as interdependent and embedded within a relational context, whereas men are socialized to view themselves as primarily independent. This self-concept, according to Garner & Gabriel (2004), account for women’s greater tendency to maintain harmony and closeness with others. Likely, this socialization process begins in childhood. Research shows that in treatment of girls, parents generally reward gentle, caring, emotional, and relational behavior more often than independent and assertive behavior (Pomerantz, Ng, & Wang, 2004). Research shows that women express anger less frequently than men express, and more often suppress feelings of anger (Campbell & Muncer, 2008). 4. Social Cognitive Theory and Division of Household Bandura’s SCT provides the best explanation of how parents transmit behavioral values and expectations to their children through the assignment of household work responsibilities, and how children interpret those experiences, internalize them as symbolic controls, and then reproduce them behaviorally.
85
According to SCT (Bussey & Bandura, 2004), children develop their views about gender by observing salient role models in their lives. Thus, one consequence of traditional family arrangements is that very young children associate various household tasks with gender (Deutsch et al., 2001). For example, children generally view mothers as the ones responsible for the domestic work and caregiving within the family (Deutsch, 2001). When parents’ gender roles are more egalitarian either as a result of mothers’ employment outside the home or fathers’ involvement in housework and childcare children’s views about gender tend to be less stereotypical (e.g., Deutsch, 2001). Thus, people who grew up in egalitarian households may be more likely to have egalitarian gender attitudes than those who were raised in traditional households. Perhaps to a lesser extent, fathers’ and mothers’ combination of affiliation and control in their parenting may provide a nontraditional model that affects developing gender attitudes. In particular, fathers who are perceived as high in nurturance and other affiliative behaviors reflect a counter stereotypical image of masculinity. 5. Social Cognitive Theory and Personality Characteristics According to the social learning theory of personality, personality is learned through interactions with other members of society. A person will develop an adequate personality if exposed to an adequate learning environment with good models, and if the person is reinforced for appropriate behavior. Social learning theorists believe personality is simply patterns of behavior and cognitions, particularly cognitions about oneself. The leading figure in social learning theory, Albert Bandura (1989), agrees with the view of behaviorists that personality is the sum total of learned behavior. However, his views differ from
86
those of behaviorists in two main ways. First, he sees people as playing an active role in determining their own actions, rather than being passively acted upon by the learning environment. Second, he emphasizes the importance of cognition in personality (Bandura, 2001). Bandura (2001) sees people as playing an active role by stating that social learning is reciprocally determined. This means that a person’s behavior is not only learned, but the social learning environment is altered by the person’s behavior. For example, if a person behaves toward others in a friendly way, those people will react very differently than they would if the person had behaved in a hostile way. Our perceptions are also a prime determinant of our behavior. Selfefficacy is the perception that one is capable of doing what is necessary to reach one’s goals, both in the sense of knowing what to do and being emotionally able to do it (Bandura, 2001). Our perceptions of self-efficacy are learned from what others say about us, our direct experiences of success and failure, and other sources. People who see themselves as self-efficacious accept greater challenges, expend more effort, and may be more successful in reaching their goals as a result (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1989) believes that we learn our personal standards from observing the personal standards that other people model, and from the standards that others use when rewarding or punishing us. Although we are passive recipients of these standards, we actively use them to govern our own behavior in a process Bandura calls self-regulation. This is a process of cognitively reinforcing and punishing our own behavior, depending on whether it meets our personal standards (Bandura, 1989).
87
According to the social cognitive approach, personality can be conceptualized in terms of a set of distinctive if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies and the mediating mechanisms between situational features and behavioral expressions. In this formulation, of particular importance is the operationalization of the mediating mechanisms between situational features and behavioral expressions. Mischel and Shoda (1998) have suggested that these mediating mechanisms form a complex network consisting of a number of cognitive affective units such as encodings, expectancies and beliefs, affects, goals and values, and competencies and self-regulatory plans. While these suggested mediating mechanisms allow a wide range of possibilities, the specific ways in which they can be empirically captured have not been formulated systematically. The mediating mechanisms between situational features and behavioral expressions can be sufficiently captured by the explanations people provide for their behaviors in situations. This operationalization clearly does not preclude any mediating mechanisms suggested by previous researchers. Instead, as explanations often play an essential role in eliciting, influencing, and interpreting behaviors (Simonson & Nowlis, 2000); they are likely to capture a wide variety of mediating mechanisms suggested by previous researchers. In personality psychology, it has been well established that personality judgments must take information concerning the target person’s behaviors in situations into account. Here, the patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations together give us the most precise descriptions of personalities. Moreover, several recent studies have shown that explanations for behaviors in situations well reflect the attitudes, beliefs, norms, and values widely
88
shared in a culture (Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2000). Thus, having people describe the kinds of situations they find themselves in, their behavioral responses to those situations, and their explanations of behaviors in those situations may allow us to sample more culturally typical personalities. To conclude, it is suggested that personality can be conceptualized and described by a set of distinctive if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies and the explanations for the behaviors in situations; or in short, patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations. Although the relationship among the three variables; cognition/personal factors, external environment, and an individual’s behavior is dialectical, the focus of this research is one direction; namely, how the environmental or contextual factors (national culture or cultural values) influence the personal/cognitive factors (which include gender role orientation and personality characteristics). How the environmental or contextual factors (national culture or cultural values) influence the behavioral factors (which include division of household, marital satisfaction and commitment). How the personal/cognitive factors influence the behavioral factors. While how personal/cognitive factors affect the national culture and how behavioral factors affect the national culture and the personal/cognitive factors are not the focuses of this study. Theoretically, the relationships between the person’s characteristics, environment, and behavior are all reciprocal. However, the pathways in the proposed model for this study are unidirectional as supported by the findings from the literature. Many authors have recognized Triadic Reciprocality as an idea that is universally accepted but not empirically tested (Baranowski, Perry, & Parcel, 1997). There are many difficulties in accomplishing the goal of empirical
89
validation of Triadic Reciprocality. Along with the non-unidirectional nature of the model, another difficult issue involves the temporal dynamics of the model. The triadic factors do not operate in a manner of a simultaneous interaction between factors. The reciprocal nature is not indicative of direct temporal interaction; these interactions may take time to manifest themselves. It takes time for causal factors to influence the other aspects of the triadic relationship. Thus, a second issue in exploring this relationship; the variables must also be studied over time as well. Thus, due to these difficulties the relationship has yet to be verified empirically. Therefore, the current study assumes that the environmental or contextual factors have played a significant role in shaping personal/cognitive factors and the behavioral factors more than personal/cognitive factors and the behavioral factors do in shaping the environmental or contextual factors. In addition, this study assumes that the personal/cognitive factors have played a significant role in shaping the behavioral factors more than behavioral factors do in shaping the personal/cognitive factors. For this research topic, the current study benefits from social cognitive framework and assumes that, an individual’s personality traits and gender role orientation would be included in the “personal factors” while the “environmental factors” would incorporate the effects of the context (national culture). Whilst, the division of household, marital satisfaction and marital commitment are translated into “behavioral factors” These three factors and their relationship are illustrated in figure 2. The factors in figure 2 are built into individuals’ cognitive schema or “mental models” of how the world works.
91
Figure 2. Bandura’s (1986) Unidirectional Causation Model B. Marital Constructs and Marital Relationship 1. Marital Satisfaction There has been much confusion in the research with the terms marital satisfaction and marital quality. These terms are often wrongly used synonymously (Heyman, Sayers, & Bellack, 1994). Most research over the past two decades has focused on the term marital quality rather than marital satisfaction. Marital quality is defined as a multidimensional concept that includes “happiness with marriage, the frequency of shared activities, and thoughts or actions that may lead to divorce” (Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003, p. 5). The literature has evidence of attempts to discriminate between these concepts. Hawkins (1968) has defined marital satisfaction as “the subjective feelings of happiness, and pleasure experienced by a spouse when considering all current aspects of his/her marriage, this feeling is conceived as a continuum running
from
much satisfaction to
much
dissatisfaction”.
(p.
22).
So
marital satisfaction is clearly an attitudinal variable and, thus, is a property of
91
individual spouses. Hawkins (1968) also thought that the core component of marital adjustment is marital satisfaction. Although Hawkins’s definition of marital satisfaction includes happiness, marital happiness is usually considered a different variable. It is necessary to take into account that the terms marital happiness and marital satisfaction are closely related, but are not synonymous (Robert & Stimson, 2011). Robert
and
Stimson
(2011),
consider
happiness
to
be
similar
to satisfaction. However, these two qualities do differ in one important aspect, such term as “happiness” seems to evoke an emotional state, whereas “satisfaction” implies a more cognitive judgment, since happiness (and marital happiness) indicates an emotional state, it has been known to be affected by the mood swing of the individuals. Some scholars conceptualize marital satisfaction as “the amount of congruence between the expectations of husband/wife and their rewards actually receives from each to other” (Holman, 2001). From this definition satisfaction is an outcome of two cognitive components (expectations and evaluation of rewards). Each spouse is waiting for the satisfaction of his/her needs from the other. Therefore, this question is related to rights and duties for both of them based on gender roles. On the other hand, Rika, Jemain, Khairul Anuar and Saludin (2009) concluded, “marital satisfaction includes three dimensions which are marital relationship, marital adjustment, and marital Intimacy”. Marital satisfaction is also typically used to refer to as a “person’s attitudes toward the partner and the relationship”, where the unit of analysis is the individual (i.e., the individual’s attitudes or feelings) and the object of the analysis is the individual’s subjective impressions rather than objective accounts of the
92
relationship. Hence, when satisfaction is conceived of as a component of adjustment, the measure’s unit of analysis becomes both the dyad and the individual, and the measure’s object of analysis becomes both the objective aspects of dyadic interaction and the subjective impressions of the relationship (Huston & Robbins, 1982). Therefore, marital satisfaction in other words “one’s global and overall evaluations or attitudes toward the partner and the relationship” (Sabatelli, 1988). At the same time, Snyder (1979) considers marital satisfaction as a construct including ten dimensions. Those are global distress, affective
communication,
problem-solving
communication,
time
together,
disagreement about finances, sexual dissatisfaction, role orientation, family history of distress, dissatisfaction with children and conflict over child rearing. Most recently, marital satisfaction is seen as just one component of the multidimensional concept of marital quality (Amato et al., 2003). The current study focused specifically on the dimension of marital satisfaction, since it appears that marital commitment is used as a component or sub dimension of marital quality also (Swanson & Trahaug, 1985). The present study, defined marital satisfaction as a global and overall evaluations or attitudes toward the partner and the relationship (Hawkins, 1968; Holman, 2001; Huston & Robbins, 1982; Sabatelli, 1988). During the last few decades, there has been an impressive breadth and scope of work on marital satisfaction (Berardo, 1990; Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Glenn, 1990). The results of these studies indicate that marital satisfaction is determined by many interacting factors (Billingsley Lim, Caron, Harris, & Canada, 2005; Busby Christensen, Crane, & Larson, 1995; D. H. Olson & Olson, 2000). The research on marital satisfaction has evolved over time from
93
a unidimensional to a more multidimensional approach (Allen & Olson, 2001; Garrett, 2004; Glenn, 1990; Lewis & Spanier, 1979) where couple satisfaction is measured by multiple dimensions (Garrett, 2004; Huston, 2000). 2. Marital Satisfaction Types Olson and Fower (1993) categorized marital satisfaction in five types: a. Devitalized couples. These couples had the lowest scores on marital satisfaction scales. These couples seemed to be dissatisfied with their marriages. The individuals in these couples tended to be younger, less educated, have lower status occupations and incomes, and husbands had two jobs more frequently. The couples were also married for a shorter period, and had a higher incidence of racial and religious heterogamy. These characteristics are commonly associated with lower marital satisfaction. b. Conflicted couples. This group had moderately low scores overall with relatively greater consensus on having egalitarian roles and making religion an important part of their relationship. Their lowest scores were on marital relationship scales reflecting difficulties in communication and resolving conflict. These couples were demographically similar to the devitalized couples with less education, lower income and job status, and more religious heterogamy. They also tended to be younger, and to be married more recently. c. Traditional couples. The profile for traditional couples is characterized by scores slightly above average on scales assessing satisfaction with marital interaction. They were the most satisfied of all groups in how they are handling their children and parenting duties. These couples also had a relative high on their agreement about the place of religion in their marriages. Examination of the individual scores indicates that they see religion as an important aspect of their
94
marriage. This group tended to be younger, but married longer and have more children than the other types. They tended to have more education and higher incomes than the less satisfied couple types. The wives were less frequently employed full-time. These couples appeared to be traditional in their approach to marriage as seen by their relatively greater frequency of being in their first marriage, and less than 1% of them were separated. They married younger, had more children, and the wives tended to work less than in other couples. In addition, neither partner had considered divorce in the majority of couples and both reported being satisfied in the vast majority of cases. d. Harmonious couples. These couples had moderately high scores on the scales assessing marital interaction, second only to vitalized couples. This group had a drastically lower level of consensus on issues involving parenting. The couples in this group tended to be older, married for a shorter period of time, and have the fewest children of any group. They tended to be more educated and have higher status jobs. The men have lower incomes more frequently than expected and women earned more money with greater than expected frequencies. The wives in this group worked full-time more than in other groups and were less often unemployed. e. Vitalized couples. The highest levels of satisfaction across all of the domains of marriage were found among the vitalized couples. They had particularly high scores on marital interaction scales. This means that these couples were particularly comfortable with their spouse’s habits and personality, felt comfortable with their ability to communicate, and were able to resolve conflict successfully. The couples in this group tended to be older, married longer, were more educated, and had higher incomes and job status. Husbands
95
tended to have two jobs less frequently and to be working part-time more often. All of these indicators are typically associated with higher marital satisfaction and less stress on the relationship. In the present study, the Kansas Marriage Satisfaction Scale [KMSS] was used; it was designed as a brief measure of the marriage satisfaction dimension of marital quality. The KMSS has been used extensively in research (e.g., Grover, Russell, Schumm, & Paff-Bergen, 1985; Morris & Blanton, 1994; Hunsley, Pinsent, Lefebvre, James-Tanner, & Vito, 1995, as cited in Strauss, 2012). The KMSS consists of three questions on a likert-type scale. The questions ask about marital satisfaction in a straightforward manner, including questions such as, “How satisfied are you with your marriage?” The test-taker then selects his or her answer from a scale ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). The KMSS does not contain any subscales (Byington, 2008). A strength of the KMSS is that it does not take long to administer. Also, the questions are straightforward and easy-to-read (Byington, 2008). A limitation to the KMSS is that the correlation between the KMSS and a measure of social desirability suggests a possibility of bias in responses (Schumm, et al., 1986). High internal validity, high convergent validity; and high criterion validity (Green, Woody, Maxwell, Mercer, & Williams, 1998) have been found for the KMSS. Internal consistency coefficients this high may indicate that the scale does not capture a broad enough scope of information about the individual’s satisfaction with all aspects of his or her marriage to give an accurate score (Byington, 2008). Given that, the KMSS is only three questions long, the scale may be lacking in breadth and depth, failing to capture important aspects of marital satisfaction.
96
The breadth of the KMSS was found to be inadequate for assessing the changes in marriage satisfaction (Byington, 2008). However, in the current study it was used as a brief screening tool since this study is cross-cultural comparison and cross-sectional work at particular point in time. In addition, using longer measures of marital satisfaction were considered problematic for this study since the present study interested in measuring several variables. Larsen and Olson (1990) conclude that while there are multiple approaches to calculating couple’s scores, each spouse represents a separate dimension of the relationship. Thus, if the husband and wife’s scores were averaged or in some way combined, the meaning and potential significance of individual responses could be lost. Marital satisfaction is typically viewed as an individual quality and since SCT emphasizes the importance of individual perceptions in relationships, either husband or wife’s level of marital satisfaction was assessed in the present study. Finally, in the present study, marital satisfaction refers to a spouse's overall perception of his or her marriage, partner, and spousal relationship as measured by the KMSS (Hyun, 2006).
3. Marital Commitment Marital commitment is used as a component or sub dimension of marital quality (e.g., Swanson & Trahaug, 1985) and it is another significant interpersonal variable that has been found to be related to marital satisfaction. It can be difficult to posit marital commitment and marital satisfaction as two separate and distinct variables due to their high interconnectedness. However, Sabatelli and Cecil-Pigo (1985) differentiate between these two constructs by asserting that marital satisfaction varies over time and is situational and circumstantially determined;
97
while marital commitment is chosen, self-determined, and usually stable over time. Definitions vary widely in the literature with regard to commitment, although most researchers seem to agree that commitment involves the consistent pursuit of a line of action over the long run (Surra, Hughes, & Jacquet, 1999). Similarly, Rusbult (1983, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003) viewed commitment as a connection to a relationship with the intent to remain in the future. She found that commitment increased with increases in satisfaction toward the relationship. Greater rewards also promoted increases in commitment to maintain the relationship but costs to it generally had no effect on commitment. In fact, there are numerous reasons that couples stay together including positive feeling of mutual attraction or love, perceptions of limited viable alternatives, or fear of losing irretrievable investments if the marriage ends. There are others, including the well-studied construct of marital satisfaction. However, it can be argued that the desire to remain in the relationship regardless of motivations is one of the most powerful aspects of marital stability (ThompsonHayes & Webb, 2008). Marital commitment is a major reason that people persevere in marriage despite fluctuations in satisfaction. Thompson-Hayes and Webb (2008) maintain that spouses identify commitment as a critical aspect in enabling them to successfully persist in marriage. They expect their marriages will last and do not consider divorce an option. Theoretical writings and research on marital commitment emerged approximately 40 years ago (Gunter, 2004). Yet, despite the frequent use of the term to describe relationships, commitment is rarely defined and seldom researched (Nock, 1995).
98
Kiesler (1971) provides a theoretical perspective and an extensive body of research on commitment coming from a psychological viewpoint. Kiesler and Sakumura (1966) assume that the commitment is behavior itself that commits the individual. Much of Kiesler's research focuses on the determinants that characterize this behavior. The numerous experiments he used to investigate his views are in the general tradition of social psychology. For example, he tested the notion that the less subjects are paid to do something that is consistent with beliefs (internal component), the less susceptible they will be to later attack on those beliefs and the more committed they will be to the act (Kiesler &Sakumura, 1966). Another approach to the study of commitment has come via life-span development theorizing. Fiske and Smelser (1980) follow an Ericksonian approach as they look at work and love in adults. Fiske (1980) identifies four clusters
of
commitment:
(a)
interpersonal
commitments,
(b)
altruistic
commitments, (c) mastery/competence commitments, and (d) self·protective commitments. Fiske emphasizes the “moral task” of self-actualization as the primary object of commitment. In this same tradition, Wyatt (1983) built a theory of marital commitment based on Maslow's hierarchy of psychosocial needs. Wyatt's contribution is presented in more depth in the section on marital commitment. She identified six factors involved in commitment: (a) trust and fairness, (b) primacy and durability, (c) belonging, (d) actualization, (e) esteem and (f) security. Moreover social exchange theory has also been proposed as a theoretical framework for understanding commitment (e.g., Le & Agnew, 2003). Social exchange principles rest in large part on the theory of Skinner that individuals
99
continue behaviors that are rewarded (external component) and discontinue those that are not rewarded. In social exchange terms, individuals involved in social interactions seek rewards and avoid costs to achieve the most profitable or least unprofitable outcome (Nye, 1980). Social exchange theorists discuss rewards in terms of being intrinsic rewards or extrinsic rewards. Consistency with SCT spouses used “comparison level” in social interactions (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Comparison level is a standard based on past outcomes with other persons that can be used to evaluate present relationships. This idea involves a monitoring of alternative opportunities. Heath (1976) argues that people do choose the most profitable or rewarding mate, using the information and perspective available at the time. Although there are many views, this study mainly depends on the distinction that Johnson (1991) made, along with the work of Rusbult (1980 & 1983, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003). Rusbult (1991) promulgates the notion that commitment involves two elements: behavioral intent and psychological attachment to a relationship. She argues that the two covary, that is, partners who demonstrate intent to remain in the relationship should also report feelings of psychological attachment. She concluded that the two are so highly correlated; they should be viewed as a unitary construct. Johnson (1991) argues that psychological attachment is similar to what he describes as personal commitment, and that combining the two elements represents a confound to what he refers to as the "tripartite model" (personal, moral, and structural commitment). Johnson (1991) believes that the two should remain distinct and separate, but does concede that psychological attachment is a significant predictor of the
111
desire to remain in a relationship. Lund (1985) refers to commitment as the degree to which an individual wishes to pursue an existing relationship into the future and the willingness to maintain it. Lund's definition involves an individual's perceptions regarding the relationship's future, balanced with alternative possibilities and the emotional cost of its termination. For Stanley and Markman (1992), commitment involves two elements: personal dedication to a relationship and constraints from leaving it. Personal dedication involves the couple's perceptions of being partners and the couple's desire to continue the relationship, while constraints involve the barriers to terminating the union. Various theories about marital commitment have been developed. The Ballard-Resich and Wiegel Model portrays commitment as a circular, dynamic, ongoing, dialectical process negotiated by marital partners through implicit and explicit communication (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2010). They view commitment as an individual’s intention rather than mutual desire; and they assert that the origins of marital commitment should be in the identification of forces that motivate spouses’ desire to remain married (Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 2008). Commitment to close relationships has been defined comprehensively by Johnson (1991) as having three components involving personal, moral, and structural aspects. Johnson (1991) defined commitment as a couple's perception regarding the future of their relationship and their willingness or motivation to persevere in the relationship. The willingness to continue in the relationship comes from the couple's feeling that they wish to stay, that they ought to stay, and that they have to stay. These three components correlate directly with personal, moral, and structural commitment, respectively (Johnson, 1991).
111
The tripartite nature of commitment in Johnson's model is similar to that of Levinger (1976, as cited in Grieco, 2001). Levinger (1976, as cited in Grieco, 2001) investigated the structural and moral barriers that constrain individuals to remain in a relationship, the attractions that partners share in the relationship and the alternative attractions that may pull them away. 4. Types of Marital Commitment The basic assumption of the commitment framework is that the decision to remain in a relationship is a function of three different types of commitment (personal, moral, and structural). These three types take into account that people tend to experience commitment differently based upon their reasons of why they choose to remain. Clearly, the statement that, "I am emotionally committed to you and there is nothing you can do to change that," is quite different from, ''I cannot possibly back out now, I'm committed" and represents a clear underlying difference (Grieco, 2001). Johnson’s Tripartite Model of Commitment [TMC] attempts to effectively tease apart the various forms of commitment and examine the underpinnings as to why a person chooses to remain in a relationship. Personal and moral commitments in TMC are considered internal and structural commitment is considered external (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999). a. Personal commitment. As previously stated, personal commitment refers to the sense of wanting to stay in the relationship. Personal commitment according to Johnson (1991) consists of three components. First couples may wish to continue a relationship due to mutual attraction, secondly, personal commitment is a function of attraction to the relationship, and while these two components are correlated, they are different. A person can be strongly attracted
112
to another; however, in the context of the relationship, one may find it unattractive. For example, physically abusive spouse may manifest negative emotions about the violent relationship but still experience strong emotions of love for that person. Third, personal commitment involves couple identity thus being part of a particular relationship can develop into a significant aspect of one's self-concept (Johnson et al., 1999). b. Moral Commitment. It refers to feeling morally obligated to stay in a relationship. Moral commitment may also be thought of having three components in the context of a relationship (Johnson et al., 1999). The first component refers to relationship type obligation involving the morality of the divorce. Many may feel that marriage should be until death do us part. Second, one may espouse a personal moral obligation such as a spouse that states that, "I promised Fatima I would stay with her the rest of my life." Third, one may embrace the notion of finishing a task that one has begun; in other words, it may be in keeping with a general consistency about events in their lives (Grieco, 2001). c. Structural Commitment. It refers to feeling constrained to stay regardless of the level of personal or moral commitment (Johnson, 1991; Johnson et al., 1999). Structural commitment (i.e., a sense of constraint or barriers to leaving a relationship) becomes more crucial when personal or moral commitment is low. Structural commitment often contributes to the feeling that one is locked into a relationship whether one wants to be or not. Often times, one begins to view alternatives to the present relationship if they believe more attractive offers a wait. The decision-making process often involves economic considerations, type/quality of housing, job changing, and children (Johnson et al., 1999).
113
5. Marital Commitment and Attitudes Towards Divorce Much more is known about divorce behaviors than divorce attitudes, and because this study focuses on attitudes, it is important to review the relationship between behaviors and attitudes. An attitude is a favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone exhibited in ones beliefs, feelings, or intended behavior. The relationship between attitudes and behaviors is a complex one. Attitudes were commonly thought to determine behavior, yet social psychologists (Festinger, 1964, as cited in Givetz, 2009) found that attitudes were actually poor predictors of behavior and that the correlation between measured attitudes and behavior is often only about 0.40 to 0.50. Cialdini, Petty, and Cacioppo (1981, as cited in Givetz, 2009) proposed that low correlation between attitudes and behavior could be attributed to the fact that habits, moods, situational constraints, individual traits, and impulses may conflict with our attitudes. Furthermore, they stated that individuals have the need for consistency between behavior, thoughts, and feelings. They also indicated that lack of consistency between behavior, thought, and feelings leads to cognitive dissonance, which is a disturbing state for most individuals. Therefore, individuals may find it easier to change their attitudes, and do so, rather than their behaviors in order to alleviate cognitive dissonance. Cialdini, et al. (1981, as cited in Givetz, 2009) point out that the low correlations between attitudes and behaviors could also be attributed to the fact that attitudes and behaviors expressed in one manner may change as new experiences present themselves. In essence, they believe that behavior is better predicted from external, situational variables.
114
It is important to emphasize that behavior can be a predictor of attitudes, but attitudes do not predict behavior. Actions affect attitudes because there is a need for self-presentation (impression management), self-justification (cognitive dissonance), and self-perception (Amato & Rogers, 1999). Self-presentation refers to the avoidance of being viewed as hypocritical because the behavior does not match an attitude. Self-justification refers to changing attitudes to match the behavior so that there are no internal conflicts within an individual. Selfperception refers to a self-image developed by the behaviors, not by attitudes. In all of these, behavior predicts attitudes; attitudes do not predict the behavior (Amato & Rogers, 1999). The nature of the relationship between experienced divorce and attitudes toward divorce is an important issue (Thornton, 1985, as cited in Givetz, 2009). For example, in a longitudinal study, Thornton found that attitudes toward divorce are a poor predictor of divorce behavior, whereas the actual divorce behavior does significantly influence individual attitudes. One study suggested that attitudes toward divorce are influenced by specific individual circumstances and experiences. When studying attitudes, it is also important to understand that there are individual attitudes and there are social attitudes, and the two may or may not differ (Givetz, 2009). While individual attitudes refer to a single person’s attitude, social attitudes refer to the collective societal attitudes toward a specific concept (Glenn, 1996). For example, an individual may have a positive attitude toward divorce while living in a society that holds negative attitudes toward divorce. Even though there may be a difference between individual attitudes and social attitudes, it in no way guarantees that the individual will engage in a behavior that is consistent with either the social or individual attitude. It is
115
important to clarify that although divorce behavior is related to the topic of divorce attitudes, the focus of this study is on the correlates of divorce attitudes as one aspect of marital commitment as suggested by Johnson et al. (1999) and not divorce behavior. A strong commitment to staying married not only helps couples avoid divorce, but it helps more couples achieve a happier marriage (IAV, 2002). In one study, two-third unhappily married spouses who stay married reported that their marriages improved within five years because of commitment to their marriage and encouraged them to avoid divorce (IAV, 2002). Moreover, study of The NHMRC (2011) found that approximately 85% of divorced couples indicated a lack of commitment to the marriage and to each other as their reason for divorce. Therefore, lack of commitment is a common reason for holding positive attitudes towards divorce and claiming divorce (IAV, 2002; Masters, 2006; NHMRC, 2011). In culture of divorce, people are comfortable with the idea of divorce, many people do not commit to their marriage fully and completely (Malhotra, 1991). Instead of truly taking on the belief of "until death do us part," a prevailing attitude seems to be "until a better idea comes along." Marriage is hard work and without a deeply held commitment, it does not stand a chance (DiCaro, 2005). Marriage is an institution, which needs commitment from both parties. It is impossible for just the single person to make a marriage successful. A marriage is a partnership between husband and wife and thus it takes both the people to make it work. Commitment must be there from both the partners and when one does not care about the relationship, it will certainly die. When we talk about commitment, it also means that there should be some sacrifices too. Commitment and sacrifice goes hand in hand to make a marriage successful. Without
116
commitment from both partners, there will be high possibility of breaking a relationship (DiCaro, 2005). In TMC, moral predictors of commitment include the personal obligation to a specific partner, values placed on being consistent in general, attitudes toward the morality of divorce, and a sense of duty to a specific relationship (Johnson et al., 1999). Stanley and Markman (1992) found that measures of moral commitment, such as attitudes about divorce, were significantly associated to commitment. Amato and Rogers (1999) argued that individuals who adopted more favorable attitudes toward divorce tended to experience declines in relationship quality, whereas those who adopted less favorable attitudes toward divorce tended to experience improvements in relationship quality. The present study used Johnson et al. (1999) scale in TMC, since this scale consists of aspects of commitment that help the researcher to achieve his objectives. The researcher interested in measuring morality and attitudes towards divorce as aspects of moral commitment, as well as personal commitment that includes couple identity, love and attachment. Because these aspects theoretically affected by cultural dimensions in Hofstede’s model, specifically collectivism and long-term orientation, which will be discussed later (Cross et al., 2003; Gao, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010; Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Kalmijn & Uunk, 2007; Lin & Rusbult, 1995; Yodanis, 2005). 6. Marital Satisfaction and Marital Commitment The most important components of marital relationship are satisfaction and commitment (Dush et al., 2008; Gunter, 2004; Litzinger & Gordon, 2005). Since marital satisfaction is the strongest predictor for happiness in many areas of life (Ozgur & Fons, 2013). For example, a satisfying marriage is associated
117
with better general adjustment and fewer health problems (Karren et al., 2002). Both partners experience better emotional and physical health, are more successful in their jobs, and seem to be protected from other sources of stress when they are satisfied with their marriages, compared with when they are not (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Marital satisfaction is associated with higher rates of productivity, lower risks of emotional and physical illness, and better rates of recovery from illness (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005). The effects of marital satisfaction extend to children as well. Even within intact families, children have fewer emotional and physical problems and better educational outcomes when the relationship between their parents is satisfying and relatively free of conflict (Repetti et al., 2002). On the other hand, researchers suggest the importance of marital commitment, especially for relationship stability, longevity, economic well-being, childrearing, and improved mental and physical health (Stanley & Markman, 1992; Waite & Gallagher, 2000). In sum, some studies showed that marital satisfaction is an important determinant in making a divorce decision (Fan & Lui, 2004; Gottman & Notarius, 2002). Whereas, other studies reported that, marital satisfaction has not any impact on decision of divorce (Hirschberger, Srivastava, Marsh, Cowan, & Cowan, 2009). However, Broman (2002) found that marital satisfaction predicted divorce among some cultural groups but not among others. On the other hand, marital commitment serves as a valuable construct in marital studies and provides more information concerning marital processes than satisfaction (Gunter, 2004). Because of commitment to marriage shows greater
118
stability over time and divorce than marital satisfaction, this variable can provide valuable insight marital maintenance and longevity (Gunter, 2004). After reviewing the marital literature, this study examines marital perception of relationship depending on marital satisfaction, marital commitment since it uses self-reports scales, and since it is a cross-sectional study. The decision to deal with marital satisfaction is based on the idea that the more adequate
unit
of
analysis
is
the
individual’s
perception,
with
marital satisfaction being a characteristic of individual spouses. Hawkins (1968) also considered marital satisfaction to be the core component of marital relationship. It is possible to say that there are always two marriages in a family: the husband’s marriage and the wife’s marriage. Marital satisfaction is a wide term encompassing marital happiness and it is as a continuum variable that can change significantly in the course of marriage. Marital satisfaction is an outcome of two cognitive components (expectations and evaluation of rewards) where each spouse expects for his/her needs to be satisfied by the other. This is directly related to rights and duties of both of them based on gender roles. As Rika et al. (2009) puts it “marital satisfaction includes three dimensions which are marital relationship, marital adjustment, and marital intimacy”. Marital satisfaction is also typically used to refer to a “person’s attitudes toward the partner and the relationship”. Therefore, marital satisfaction in other words is “one’s global and overall evaluations or attitudes toward the partner and the relationship”. On the other hand, marital commitment is used as a component or sub dimension of marital quality. Marital commitment is a result of positive feeling of mutual attraction or love, the desire to remain in the relationship, which makes it
119
one of the most powerful aspects of marital stability. Marital commitment is a major reason that people persevere in marriage despite fluctuations in satisfaction. Thompson-Hayes and Webb (2008) maintain that spouses identify commitment as a critical aspect in enabling them to successfully persist in marriage. Marital commitment also seems to be a good instrument for the assessment of marital stability since true marital stability is difficult to measure. The reason for that is that researchers would have to wait until one partner died to definitely determine whether the marriage stayed intact. The measures of marital stability cannot be considered a “true” measure because we cannot tell if dissolution will happen in the future. However, measurements of couples’ commitment or discussions and thoughts of divorce or separation are strongly correlated to future dissolution. Thus, self-reports of commitment can be a valid measure of marital stability. Furthermore, not all stable marriages are satisfied or happy, so the reason behind marital commitment could come from personal, moral, and structural motivations. Commitment has proven to be a meaningful component in the study of marital relationships, providing greater insight into the process of how romantic relationships are formed, sustained, and/or terminated (Adams & Jones, 1997, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003). Many researchers have argued that commitment is a primary motive in enduring relationships (e.g., see Van Lange et al., 1997), highlighting the strength of this variable as a single indicator of overall couple functioning (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Commitment has been defined in both theoretical and practical ways with various authors focusing differentially on outcomes, processes, and related
111
qualities. One word that is commonly used when defining commitment is intention. Focusing on a general definition, Adams and Jones (1997) described commitment as an individual’s “intention to maintain indefinitely a particular course of action” (p. 193). Applying this to marriage, commitment can be viewed as the intent to persevere (Rusbult et al., 1998) and remain in a relationship in spite of fluctuations in satisfaction (Le & Agnew, 2003). Intent, as used in these definitions, has a strong cognitive element and decisional quality to it. Thus, commitment can be viewed as a decision over which individuals have substantial control (Sternberg, 1986). Sternberg
(1986)
utilized
this
idea
of
control
to
describe
the
interconnectedness between decision and commitment. In the short term, an individual decides if he or she loves a specific partner. In the long term, the individual chooses whether or not to commit to maintain that relationship. Commitment has also been described as an outlook of permanence. When couples who had been married for an average of forty years were asked about significant factors contributing to their enduring relationships, commitment was frequently identified (Thompson-Hayes & Webb, 2008). Speaking about their commitment, these couples cited their expectation that they would persist in their marriage and not consider divorce as an option. Their commitment represents a long-term orientation, which is believed to include feelings of attachment and a desire stay together for better or worse (Le & Agnew, 2003). The above definitions seem to suggest that commitment propels an individual toward a greater desire for the relationship. This is just a portion of the picture. Commitment also involves restraining forces that both inhibit
111
individuals from exiting a relationship and confine spouses to one another (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Marital commitment has both cognitive and affective components. Due to the strong cognitive component, some aspects of commitment can be described as premeditated. This being the case, it is possible to separate commitment from both its determinants and outcomes (Adams & Jones, 1997, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003). Specifically, what behaviors are associated with being committed to a romantic relationship? While direct causal relationships have not been determined, some behaviors are seen as strengthening commitment whereas others are seen as the product of increased commitment, though the relationship between these variables is likely reciprocal. Commitment
appears
to
be
involved
in
fortifying
romantic
interconnectedness in numerous ways. When couples report high levels of commitment, they indicate that they express more “love” to their spouses and report greater levels of marital satisfaction (Clements & Swensen, 2000). Looking specifically at how couples communicate their commitment to one another, Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (2002) found that behaviors labeled as “providing affection” (e.g., saying, “l love you”, giving gifts, and physical affection) were the most frequently reported indicators of commitment. Behaviors that create a positive relationship atmosphere, such as “speaking well of one’s partner to others”, “accepting differences”, and “being honest”, were seen as indirect ways of communicating commitment. Level of commitment is also strongly related to relationship stability, and marital stability has received a significant amount of attention in the literature. Research supports this assertion. In comparison to variables such as relationship
112
rewards, costs, satisfaction, investments, and alternatives, commitment has proven to be a superior predictor of stay/leave behaviors (Le & Agnew, 2003). Commitment even appears to be a stronger predictor of breakup status than dyadic adjustment. With high levels of commitment that encouraging relationship perseverance (Rusbult et al., 1998). Commitment to marriage influences long-term relationship stability for both husbands and wives. However, their combined commitment is an even greater predictor than their individual levels (Impett, Beals, & Peplau, 2001). These results do not indicate that individuals with low levels of commitment invariably terminate their relationships. However, individuals who do leave their marriages have lower levels of commitment earlier in the relationship (Impett et al., 2001). Commitment demonstrates greater utility than many other variables used to predict relationship stability. On the other side of this reciprocal relationship, certain behaviors appear to strengthen commitment. Relationship commitment is also associated with many personal qualities and attitudes. Just as high levels of commitment are correlated with positive relationship characteristics, low levels are associated with relationship difficulties. For example, the lower the level of personal commitment for husbands and wives, the greater the negativity within the relationship (Johnson et al., 1999). Individuals with many inherent values and belief systems promote the idea of commitment and strongly discourage divorce. Commitment demonstrates a strong and consistent relationship with a construct that receives a great deal of attention in marital research-satisfaction. The relationship between these two appears to be strong and consistent (Gunter, 2004). For example, of the three components in Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, commitment was the
113
variable most consistently associated with satisfaction for both genders (Acker & Davis, 1992). Much of the evidence suggests that increases in satisfaction lead to subsequent increases in commitment (Johnson et al., 1999; Le & Agnew, 2003). However, there is evidence that this relationship is bi-directional. In addition, commitment levels prior to the start of therapy have been shown to account for variance in marital satisfaction that is not explained by communication skills (Sabatelli, 1988). Thus, while some studies suggest causal directionality from satisfaction to commitment, other indications propose interdependence between these two variables. Determining the extent of this relationship is dependent on how these variables are measured. Due to the strong relationship between satisfaction and commitment, one may wonder if these variables are truly different. Steiner-Pappalardo and Regan (2002) suggested that the distinction between satisfaction and commitment might not be as marked as some believe, particularly in satisfied relationships. “It is possible that for such spouses, both satisfaction and commitment may blend into an overall experience of marital well-being that cannot be partitioned psychometrically” (p. 931). If the overlap is so great, does commitment truly provide
researchers
with
unique
information
for
understanding
marital
relationships? The answer is an emphatic “Yes” Overwhelming evidence points to the fact that commitment is distinct from relationship satisfaction (Gunter, 2004; Le & Agnew, 2003; Stanley & Markman, 1992). Specifically, commitment is a better predictor of stay/leave behavior in couples. Steiner-Pappalardo and Regan (2002) found commitment, but not satisfaction, to be positively related to relationship length and negatively related to the number of times married.
114
Understanding why spouses feel satisfied with their marriages is not sufficient to explain how and why relationships persist through better or worse (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Even in the most fulfilling relationships, satisfaction plummets to seriously low levels, highlighting the fact that it cannot be the most important variable influencing an individual’s commitment to persist (Le & Agnew, 2003). Indeed, commitment shows greater stability over time in comparison to satisfaction. This is why some authors defined commitment as a spouse’s intention to remain married regardless of fluctuation in satisfaction. Thus, commitment is a relatively stable variable that provides researchers with vital insight into what makes marriages last (Steiner-Pappalardo & Regan, 2002). According to Rusbult (1983, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003), marital commitment is the comparison of the level of satisfaction with the relationship (the ratio of rewards to costs). Ballard-Reisch and Weigel (1999, as cited in Guerrero et al., 2010) have put a model of commitment, part of which sought to explain levels of marital commitment by examining how couples organize and manage their marital system through the negotiation of role and influence structures. Ballard-Reisch and Weigel (1999, as cited in Guerrero et al., 2010) contend that how couples structure roles and influence levels in their marriages and, more important, satisfaction with those structures is associated with commitment. Spouses’ satisfaction with the roles and influence impacts their individual perspectives on the relationship, which, in turn, influence each spouse’s level of commitment to the marriage. Hence, each person’s assessment of the roles and influence in the marriage will be related to his or her overall perceptions of
115
commitment (Weigel, Bennett, & Ballard-Reisch, 2006). In general, the roles and power patterns that people negotiate have been found to affect their perceptions of satisfaction with their marriages (Coltrane, 2000). Clements et al. (2000) found that commitment was positively correlated with marital satisfaction (r = 0.35, p < 0.01). In contrast to the views of several exchange theorists (Dean & Spanier, 1974; Leik & Leik, 1977), the degree of personal dedication toward a relationship is found to be negatively correlated with the exchange orientation (Stanley & Markman, 1992). Studies on dedication commitment have found that, commitment is positively associated with marital adjustment (Murstein & MacDonald, 1983). It is positively associated with satisfaction and investment (Rusbult, 1980, 1983, as cited in Le & Agnew, 2003), highest among engaged subjects, next highest among married subjects, and lowest among dating subjects (Johnson & Shuman, 1983), and higher with females than with their male partners (Murstein & MacDonald, 1983). Along with others (e.g., Le & Agnew, 2003), Stanley and Markman (1992) hypothesized that constraints are a major determinant of relationship stability. From his longitudinal studies, Lund (1985) suggested, “factors associated with constraint are better predictors of relationship stability than are measures more related to relationship satisfaction and attraction” (p. 597). On the other hand, Lund also revealed that personal dedication is a key element in determining the future level of relationship quality. C. Gender Role Orientation Gender role orientation also called gender identity, gender ideology, or gender role adherence. It refers to how rigidly one thinks and behaves in
116
accordance with societal beliefs of what constitutes appropriate behavior for men and women (Kerr & Holden, 1996). It is a disposition that is conditioned by an established social system, in which males and females are expected to think and behave as males and females in ways that are customary and traditional (Williams & Best, 1982). The totality of a person’s gender traits that categorize behaviors, values, and attitudes are classified to determine one’s gender role orientation as masculine or feminine, androgynous (being highly masculine and highly feminine), or undifferentiated (being neither masculine nor feminine (Williams & Best, 1982). Femininity and masculinity are gender roles that are routinely conceptualized with regard to the totality of gender traits or characteristics that one possesses regardless of gender (Bem, 1974, as cited in Thomas, 2011). Gender orientation such as self-reliance, independence, achievement orientation, coordination, adaptation, and agency lie in the dimension of instrumentality and agency and are synonymous with masculinity or a masculine gender role orientation. Gender orientation such as emotional, sensitive, expressive, tactful, gentle, and interdependent lie in the dimensions of communion and expressiveness and are synonymous with femininity or a feminine gender role orientation (Thomas, 2011). An individual with a lot of masculine and a lot of feminine gender traits is deemed to have an androgynous gender role orientation, and a person with very little masculine or feminine gender traits is considered to be “undifferentiated,” or to have an undifferentiated gender role orientation (Bem, 1981, as cited in Thomas, 2011). In 1988, Larsen and Long wanted to create a traditional-egalitarian value measure that demonstrated reliability and validity, as well as had a verified factor
117
analysis structure (Larsen & Long, 1988, as cited in Guzman, 1996). From this intention, they developed the Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Role Scale [TESR]. Their development process did not begin with a clearly articulated theory. However, it did begin with selection of measures that would be later used for testing of convergent validity. These
selected
scales
included
a
sex
role
orientation
scale,
authoritarianism scale, birth control scale, religious orthodoxy scale, religious fanaticism scale, same-sex touching scale, rape myth scale, rape acceptance scale, measure of divorce attitudes, measure of authoritarian personalities, and conservatism scale) (Coyne, 2009). These choices were based on their conception of egalitarianism, which, in turn, helped to establish a definition of the construct they intended to measure (Coyne, 2009). Therefore, TESR is a good tool to measure gender role orientation since it was established on wide range of societal topics that affected by gender Larsen & Long, 1988, as cited in Guzman, 1996). Therefore, the researcher used TESR scale since it is based on part of a broader set of liberal versus conservative beliefs and authoritarianism (Coyne, 2009). Thus, it is fitting the present study purposes that to measure gender role orientation on wide range because this study is cross-cultural one.
D. Division of Household Labor Household labor is defined in a variety of ways (Shelton & John, 1996). At its most basic, household labor is divided into tasks that require frequent attention and that are almost compulsory for a household to perform such as cooking,
118
cleaning, and laundry, and more occasional tasks such as household repairs, gardening, driving people, and paying bills. Several terms have been afforded to each (Briggs, 2011). The former tasks have been labeled ‘mundane’, ‘repetitive’, ‘onerous’, and ‘unrelenting’. The latter have been termed ‘residual’, ‘occasional’, and ‘other’ (Briggs, 2011). Others have used gender to differentiate the tasks, calling the former ‘feminine’ or ‘female-dominated’ and the latter ‘masculine’ or ‘male-dominated’ (Blair & Lichter, 1991, as cited in Briggs, 2011). Whilst separating household labor is an important step in furthering our understanding, there is a potential hazard by differentiating tasks by gender. By grouping certain duties as belonging to the domain of men or women, researchers risk acting as a cause in the very phenomena they are studying (Coltrane, 2000). Breaking up household labor along other lines besides gender is something that some researchers have already achieved. Baxter (1997) refers to tasks accomplished indoors and outdoors, Starrels (1994) uses the frequency of tasks as the crucial divider whilst Barnett and Shen (1997) separate tasks into those with high-schedule-control and those with low-schedule-control. This study focuses only on the core household chores that need to be performed frequently. These tasks is labeled “routine household labor” and it is not interested in irregular tasks. This focusing consistent with Coltrane’s (2000) suggestion that, in households, for every 1 hour spent on other domestic labor 23 hours are spent on routine household labor. Twiggs, McQuillan, and Ferree (1999) declare that 70-90% of all household labor goes towards routine household labor. This may provide some justification for focusing on everyday tasks which is also standard practice in the field (Kan, 2008).
119
E. Personality Characteristics The current study interested in three characteristics that theoretically affected by uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s model (2010) that will be discussed later. These characteristics are self-disclosure, expressiveness, and neuroticism, so this section focuses on these characteristics. 1. Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure
is the communication
of
thoughts, feelings,
and
experiences that individuals verbally reveal about themselves to others (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). In other words, self-disclosure refers to a process by which persons let themselves be known to others (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). Self-disclosure occurs only in the presence of others and consists of both intra- and interpersonal aspects (Hendrick et al., 1988, as cited in Lee, 2010). Scholars have examined self-disclosure from a variety of frameworks, including factual and emotional dimensions (Reis & Shaver, 1988, as cited in Lee, 2010) and depth and breadth dimensions (Collins & Miller, 1994, as cited in Lee, 2010). Factual self-disclosure is the revelation of personal facts and information; emotional self-disclosure is the revelation of private feelings, opinions, and judgments (Pietromanaco, Laurenceau, & Barrett, 1998). Research indicates that emotional self-disclosure generates more intimacy than factual disclosure (Lee, 2010). In addition, two dimensions, depth and breadth can categorize self-disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994). Depth refers to the intimacy level of disclosure and breadth refers to the amount of information shared (Lee, 2010). Moreover, in this framework, as relationships develop, self-
121
disclosure tends to be deeper and include more personal and a wider range of topics (Lee, 2010). Wheeless (1976, as cited in Mount, 2005) utilized the multidimensional construct of self-disclosure to investigate the relationship between self-disclosure and the broad concept of interpersonal solidarity. He criticized previous research for its failure to distinguish between disclosure to an individual and generalized disclosiveness (is a generalized characteristic or trait of the individual representing that person's predilection to disclose self to other people in general, his or her openness). Wheeless (1976, as cited in Mount, 2005) aimed to address a failure to allow for variability in the dimensions of disclosure. He indicated that the general disclosiveness of an individual might have a strong impact on the occurrence of self-disclosure in the majority of relationship. In addition, Wheeless and Grotz (1977, as cited in Mount, 2005) conceptualized self-disclosure as a multidimensional construct including five dimensions including, consciously intended disclosure, amount of disclosure, positive-negative nature of disclosure, honesty-accuracy of the disclosure, and control of the depth or intimacy of disclosure. Based on Wheeless’ works, the current study used Wheeless’ Revised Self-Disclosure Scale [RSDS] (Wheeless, 1978, as cited in Mount, 2005) since this scale aims to measure general disclosiveness as well as self-disclosure. This scale includes 31 items, and 5 subscales that measure the content areas of Intent, Amount, Positiveness (Valence), Control of Depth, and Honesty/Accuracy. For the purposes of the current study, it uses two subscales of the RSDS: Amount and Control of Depth subscales, since these constructs theoretically affected by uncertainty avoidance dimension in Hofstede’s model (McCrae, 2002;
121
Migliore, 2011). The Amount subscale includes six items indicating the extent of the disclosures. While the Control of Depth subscale consists of five items reflecting how personal and intimate the disclosures about the respondents were. 2. Expressiveness Expressiveness is as a persistent pattern or style of exhibiting nonverbal and verbal expressions that often, but not always, appear to be emotion-related (Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifter, Parke, & Fox, 1995). Early research in the area of expressiveness was broad, but current studies typically employ more narrow definitions, such as “individual differences in the extent to which people outwardly display their emotions” (Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994, p. 934) or “the behavioral (e.g., facial, postural) changes that typically accompany emotion” (Gross & John, 1998, p. 171). Expressiveness has been measured by both self-report and other-rated coding systems, which are moderately related to one another (e.g., Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994). While expressiveness can be measured as a state reaction to particular stimuli, the concept of expressiveness generally refers to a dispositional or trait-level characteristic. The trait conception of expressiveness implies that state reactions for a given individual may fall within a relatively narrow range. Although self-report measures have inherent limitations, advances in expressiveness measures have been made. Earlier self-report measures of expressiveness were unidimensional (e.g., Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980; Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994, as cited in Miller, 2010) and likely did not reflect the construct’s complexity. More recent studies have moved toward a multifactor approach (e.g., Gross & John, 1998).
122
Using multiple expressiveness measures, Gross and John (1998) found evidence of a hierarchical model in which the overarching concept of general expressiveness is comprised of three domains: core emotional expressivity, confidence in emotion expression, and ability to mask emotion. Core emotional expressivity was further divided into positive expressivity, negative expressivity, and emotion intensity. Significant empirical support exists for the core domain of emotion expressivity, as evidenced by similarities in extant measures. For example, three of the instruments used by Gross and John (1998) used separate scales for the expression of positive and negative emotions. Two extant measures had scales to assess the strength of emotional impulses for expression. All three of these areas were supported by the authors’ exploratory factor analysis. The authors theorized that it is this central domain that encompasses what researchers have typically defined as expressiveness (i.e., the behavioral expression of emotion). Expressive confidence refers to comfort in expressivity skills and in social situations (Moller, 2010). Masking refers to discrepancies between inner emotional experience and outward display and hiding emotions for impression management purposes (Miller, 2010). Confidence and masking issues may be less central. The scale of Gross & John (1995, as cited in Stein, 2006) is used in the present study. This scale called the Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire [BEQ]. BEQ is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that takes a multifaceted approach in measuring expressions of emotion. It is designed to assess both the general strength of emotion-response tendencies and the degree to which such
123
tendencies are typically expressed as manifest behavior. The BEQ provides additional information in various dimensions of emotion. Three facets representing typical levels of behavioral modulation have been found in this scale: Positive Expressivity, which represents the degree to which positive emotional response tendencies are expressed behaviorally. Negative Expressivity, which represents the degree to which negative emotional response tendencies are expressed behaviorally. And Impulse Strength, which is conceptualized as the general strength of the emotional response tendencies (Gross & John, 1997). 3. Neuroticism Neuroticism refers to such traits as anxiety, apprehension, excessive fatigue, and depressive moods that blend into an individual's personality (H. J. Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1984). Eysenck et al. (1984) define neuroticism emotionally over responsive and having difficulty in returning to a normal state after emotional experiences. Such individuals frequently complain of vague somatic upsets of a minor kind (Eysenck et al., 1984). Neuroticism also is the tendency to experience negative emotional states such as depression or anxiety (McCrae & Costa, 1987). It is comprised of a lack of emotional stability and individuals high on neuroticism are prone to experience negative emotions such as depression, anxiety, or anger and tend to be impulsive and self-conscious (McCrae, 1992). Higher on neuroticism have been found to use more passive or emotionfocused strategies such as escape avoidance, self-blame, wishful thinking, and relaxation, as well as interpersonally antagonistic means of coping such as hostile reactions, catharsis (venting of negative emotions), confrontative coping
124
(David & Suls, 1999). Typically, they have also been found to report lower levels of problem-focused coping (David & Suls, 1999) than do those lower on neuroticism. In general, people with higher levels of neuroticism have been found to be sensitive to negative environmental stimuli and more likely than those with lower levels of neuroticism to assume that ambiguous aspects of the environment are negative or threatening (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For the purposes of this study, the conceptual definition of neuroticism relies on the term originally used by Hans Eysenck: emotional instability (Eysenck & Jurgen, 1975, as cited in McMillian, 2013). H.J Eysenck and Eysenck (1994) further describe highly neurotic individuals as pessimistic, negative, and anxious. F. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions The concept of culture can help us understand the puzzle of human diversity, on the other hand, view national culture more as a dynamic process affecting a wide range of behaviors (Alkailani, Azzam, & Athamneh, 2012). Triandis (2001) illustrates that culture cannot be separated from the individual; it is not a system of abstract values that exists independently of individuals. Neither can culture be separated from its historical context; culture is to society what memory is to an individual. It includes the things that have worked in the past, shared beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles, and values found among speakers of a particular language who live during the same historical period in a specific geographic region. These shared elements of subjective culture are usually transferred from generation to generation. Language, time, and place, therefore, help define culture.
125
In his try to elaborate on the effect of values in shaping national cultures, Hofstede (1997, as cited in Alkailani et al., 2012) proposed two aspects of values that must be distinguished: (1) values as guiding principles in life, and (2) values as preference for one mode of behavior over another. The distinction refers to the desirable and the desired, or what people think ought to be desired and what people actually desire, in the other word how people think the world ought to be versus what people want for themselves. Mead (1994, as cited in Alkailani et al., 2012) defined values as the abstract ideas about what a group believes to be good, right, and desirable. Another important part that shapes culture is attitudes. De Mooij (2002, as cited in Alkailani et al., 2012) views attitudes as a lasting general evaluation of people, objects, and issues. Equally important, are attitudes that are expressed values that dispose a person to act or to react in a certain way toward something. Values refer to a single belief of a very specific kind, as opposed to an attitude that refers to an organization of several beliefs around a specific object or situation (Adler, 1989, as cited in Alkailani et al., 2012). Furthermore, Kotler (2005, as cited in Alkailani et al., 2012) thinks that attitudes put people into a frame of mind of liking or disliking things, of moving towards or away from them. Some researchers (e.g. see Alkailani et al., 2012) tried to study components of culture more deeply. They distinguished three kinds of culture: Meta culture, evoked culture, and epidemiological culture. The conceptual background of culture implies that values are among the important factors that form the basis of a given culture. Values are shared among people living in the same generation and are transmitted from one generation to another by the socialization process. These historically learned values provide a basis for the
126
formation of a culture and a standard for socially acceptable norms that affect people’s formation of attitudes. Many as the most essential component consider values in defining and studying culture. In most of the culture studies, reviewed herein, the fundamental component of culture reflected is its value system; hence, values were the analytic focus of cultural assessment. Values are at the core of Hofstede’s model of culture. These values form the most hidden layer of culture. Values as such represent the ideas that people have about how things “ought to be”. Hofstede also emphasizes the assumption that values are strongly influencing behavior. Beyond the values, Hofstede (2001) describes three levels of culture that are more clearly observable, rituals, heroes, and symbols. The differences that exist among societies inspired many researchers (Alkailani et al., 2012). Furthermore, Hofstede (2001) argued that the cultural orientation of a society reflects the complex interaction of values, attitudes, and behaviors displayed by its members. Individuals express the normative qualities of culture through the values they hold about life and the world around them. These values, in turn, affect their attitudes about the form of behavior considered most appropriate and effective in any given situation. Hofstede (2001) found that, there are three factors at least to some degree determine the behavior such as, national culture, occupational culture, and organizational culture. Hofstede (2001) believes that culture influences behavior through its manifestations: values, heroes, rituals, and symbols. These are the forms through which culturally determined knowledge is stored and expressed. Thus, each cultural group possesses different cultural manifestation. On the other side, Schwartz (1994) tried to establish an alternative approach for deriving cultural dimensions of values. In his study, a set of 56 value questions
127
were used. Respondents rated each value for importance as “a guiding principle in their own life”. From these 56 values, 10 individual level value types were derived. The technique used was smallest space analysis. A consequence of this technique is that the value types are dependent. The 10 value types were organized on two basic bipolar dimensions. Each pole constitutes a higher-order value type that combines two or more of the 10 types. One dimension opposes Openness
to
Change
(Self-Direction
and
Stimulation)
to
Conservation
(Conformity, Tradition, and Security). The other dimension opposes Salttranscendence
(Universalism
and
Benevolence)
to
Self-Enhancement
(Achievement and Power). Although this structure applied to individual values, it was used as a hypothesis for the structure of culture-level values. Analysis across 47 cultures established that of the 56 values, 45 had nearly equivalent meanings across cultures (Schwartz, 1994). Hofstede (2001) introduced new cultural dimensions to the field of cultural studies, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism and Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, and long-term vs. short-term orientation. The following represent a thorough investigation of these dimensions. 1. Individualism/Collectivism [IDV] The dimension of individualism refers to the extent to which the ties between individuals are loose (Hofstede, 2001). In individualist cultures, people look after themselves and their immediate family only. In collectivist cultures, people belong to groups that look after them in exchange for loyalty. In individualist cultures, the identity is in the person; in collectivist cultures, identity is based in the social network to which one belongs. In individualist cultures, there
128
is more explicit, verbal communication; in collectivist cultures communication is more implicit (Alkailani et al., 2012). 2. Power Distance [PDI] It is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 2001). It ranges in value from zero, for a culture with a small power-distance, to about 100, for a culture with a large power distance. In cultures with large power distance, everybody has his/her rightful place in society, there is respect for old age, and status is important to show power. In cultures with small power distance, people try to look younger than they are and powerful people try to look less powerful (Alkailani et al., 2012). 3. Uncertainty Avoidance [UAI] It is the degree to which individuals feel threatened by unknown or uncertain situations. Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth, “there can only be one Truth and we have it”. Uncertainty avoidance is scored from zero, indicating a culture with the weakest uncertainty avoidance, to 100, indicating a culture with the strongest uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001). In cultures of strong uncertainty avoidance, there is a need for
129
rules and formality to structure life and competence is a strong value resulting in belief in experts. In weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, there is a strong belief in the generalist. Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation. Decisions are taken after careful analysis of all available information (Hofstede, 2001). 4. Masculinity Versus Femininity [MAS] In masculine cultures, the dominant values are achievement and success performance and achievement are important. Status is important to show success. In contrast, the dominant values in feminine cultures are caring for others and quality of life. Feminine cultures have a people orientation, small is beautiful, and status is not very important. In masculine cultures, there is substantial role differentiation between males and females whereas, in feminine cultures, there is less role differentiation (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2005, as cited in Alkailani et al., 2012). The cultural characteristic of masculinity refers to societies where gender roles are clearly divided. Men are expected to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success. Women are expected to be “modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede, 2001).
131
5. Long-Term orientation and Short-Term Orientation [LTO] Long-term orientation and short-term orientation have two different characteristics. Long-term directions societies, in the one hand, are characterized by persistence, ordering relationships by status and observing this order, thrift, and having a sense of shame. On the other hand, People from short-term societies are characterized by personal steadiness and stability, protecting the ‘face’, respect, or tradition and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts. Long term oriented cultures found in East Asia value acceptance of change, perseverance, thrift, and pursuit of peace of mind unlike the short-term oriented cultures found in the Western world (Alkailani et al., 2012). Long-term orientation tries to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West (Alkailani et al., 2012). The extent to which a society exhibits a pragmatic, future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historic or short-term perspective is another component of long-term orientation. Moreover, this dimension describes a society’s “time horizon,” or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In short-term oriented societies, values include normative statements, personal steadiness, and stability, protecting ones face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts. Hofstede (2001, p. 14) defines a dimension of culture as “an aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures”. Cultural dimensions are determined by utilizing Individual Cultural Values Scale [CVSCALE]. Blindly looking at national culture and using that to target individual orientation may not work. Researchers should realize that equating the stereotypical culture of a country would be misleading. While culture is defined at the national level, whether an individual shows such a cultural orientation
131
consistent with the national culture needs to be measured (e.g., Does this person show a collectivistic orientation?). This concern is truer a country consists of a heterogeneous population with different cultural backgrounds. The concept of national culture has been very useful for the study of nations and societies. However, in some situations, the reflection of culture at the individual level is more important and relevant (Yoo, Donthu & Lenartowicz, 2011). Accordingly, a strong need has been raised to measure culture at the individual level (Yoo et al., 2011). Hofstede's metric has been used in such a way that individuals are equally assigned Hofstede's national culture indices by their national identity. For instance, Aaker and Lee (2001, as cited in Yoo et al., 2011) treated all Chinese as collectivists and all Americans as individualists. Dawar and parker (1994, as cited in Yoo et al., 2011) grouped participants in their study based on national identity and assigned Hofstede's national indices to them to examine the effect of culture on consumer behaviors. This tradition is very acceptable when the unit of analysis is a country (culture is used as a contextual variable). However, it is not appropriate when a study examines the effect of an individual's cultural orientation. By measuring individual cultural orientations and not equating them to the national culture, researchers can avoid the ecological fallacy that occurs when ecological or country-level relationships are interpreted as if they are applied to individuals using Hofstede's measures, as a contextual variable has been a tradition. It has own benefit and would continue as a mainstream use of the scale. However, if someone needs to assess Hofstede's cultural dimensions at the individual level, he/she would wish to have an alternative). It is often necessary to measure culture at an individual level (e.g., for countries with
132
heterogeneous population). Consequently, there has been a strong demand to develop a psychometrically sound measure of Hofstede's culture at the individual level. Therefore, the research of Yoo et al. (2011) was in this direction. Those researchers developed a scale to assess Hofstede's cultural dimension at the individual level (hereafter referred to as CVSCALE-Individual Cultural Values Scale). There exists an enormous diversity of culture among members of any nation. Given today's heterogeneity and mobility of the members of a nation and worldwide communication channels, assigning the country level, culture score to every member of the society becomes less meaningful. CVSCALE benefits researchers who deal with individuals across cultures. Moreover, this scale makes it possible to link individual attitudes and behaviors to individual level cultural orientations. For developing CVSCALE, Yoo et al. (2011) suggested 26 and surveyed American, Korean-American, and South Korean undergraduate students. According to Yoo et al. (2011), South Korea and the United States have been often selected for cross-cultural research because they represent East and West. Yoo et al. (2011) conducted exploratory factor analysis for their items, and five distinct factors emerged in the pooled sample and in each of the three individual samples. This scale included 26 items with five cultural orientation factors. All items loaded on their corresponding constructs. In addition, the overall fit of the measurement model was excellent: χ2 (df = 289) was 714.14; goodnessof-fit index (GFI) = 0.96; adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.96; root mean square residual (RR) = 0.033; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.031; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.90; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.94; and in cremental fit index (IFI) = 0.94. The reliability ranged from 0.79 (long-term
133
orientation) to 0.91 (power distance) for American and from 0.78 (long-term orientation) to 0.89 (collectivism) for Koreans. For the current study, it is appropriate to utilize CVSCALE instrument since Palestinians and Javanese are on a broad continuum between more traditional and more modernist (Haj-Yahia, 2001; Megawangi, 1997). Table 3 illustrates blueprint of CVSCALE. G. Cultural Dimensions and Marital Relationship Interpersonal relationships are heavily guided by norms, customs, and expectations that are derived from culture (Lalonde, Hynie, Pannu, & Tatla, 2004). In particular, satisfaction with one’s spouse may largely depend on the degree to which a marriage fulfills culturally determined expectations and obligations. The criteria for a satisfying marriage may be highly varied and may depend on a unique set of culturally enforced norms, values, and obligations. Therefore, current section discusses these notions from Hofstede perspective. 1. Collectivism/Individualism, Marital Satisfaction, and Commitment In collectivistic or traditional cultures, marriage may be satisfying to the extent that it fulfills familial duties. Those include the production of a male heir for the continuance of a family line, the acquisition of a daughter-in-law who will provide support for the husband’s parents, and the begetting of sons, who will provide for the security of the couple in their old age (Hofstede et al., 2010). In addition, traditional marriages often represent the formation of an alliance of two extended families, whose interests supplant those of the to-be-married couple (Hofstede et al., 2010). On the other hand, in individualistic generally view marriage as serving fewer instrumental and more personal functions and are thus thought to be
134
satisfying to the extent that they fulfill happiness or hedonistic goals of husbands and wives (Lalonde et al., 2004). In addition, although social obligations are a defining feature of marriage in many Eastern cultures, such influences may be viewed as obstacles to personal happiness in Western cultures (Lalonde et al., 2004). However, according to Kim and Hatfield (2004) there are two types of love, passionate love versus companionate love. Passionate love involves intense feelings and sexual attraction. Compassionate love involves feelings of mutual respect, trust, and affection. Companionate love is based on intimacy and commitment without the wild fire of passion. Companionate love is more common in collectivistic cultures, while passionate love is more common in individualistic cultures. In their study, the companionate love was the strongest predictor of life satisfaction, whereas passionate love was the strongest predictor of positive emotions. These results suggest that the relationship between love and happiness is not linear but multidimensional, and the meaning of love is different across culture. Traditional or collectivistic culture values interpersonal harmony, respect for seniority, dedication to partner and family, and so on, and the collectivistic cultures emphasized interpersonal harmony more so than did individualistic cultures (Chen & Li, 2012). In cultural studies, many researchers suggested that the level of marital commitment and divorce rates are associated with type of culture for any nation. For example Yodanis (2005) found that in individualistic cultures such as Austria have the strongest acceptance of divorce with a mean score of 4 on a 5-point scale, and Japan has the lowest acceptance with a mean score of 2.87. Divorce
135
rates range from a high of 4.29 in the United States to lows of 0.46 in Italy and zero in Ireland and the Philippines, where divorce is not legal. The United States has the strongest divorce culture. Catholic, familialistic, and collectivist countries, including Italy, Ireland, Poland, China, and the Philippines, have the lowest culture of divorce. Many studies suggested that the marital commitment decreases and the divorce rates increase in individualistic cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010; Kim & Hatfield, 2004). Similar findings occur within the United States such that states with higher divorce rates tend to be higher in individualism and lower in collectivism (Kim & Hatfield, 2004). Multiple explanations have been advanced for this relationship. Cross et al. (2003) argued that there is a distinct individualist perspective on marriage and divorce such that marriage (and romantic relationships in general) enables individuals to disclose dimensions of one-self and thus share their “real self” with a partner (Cross et al., 2003). Thus, when people perceive that their marital relationship no longer allows for self-discovery and selfdisclosure, they opt out. People in individualist societies are often unwilling to sacrifice their personal fulfillment for a bad marriage, even when the act of divorce implies great emotional and financial costs. In sum, it appears that people in individualist societies tend to put the self-first when it comes to entering, remaining in, or leaving a marriage (Hofstede et al., 2010). While in collectivist societies, there tends to be greater adherence to tradition and social conventions. For instance, divorce is typically considered a bad thing and must be avoided (Kalmijn & Uunk, 2007). Furthermore, East Asian societies tend to place greater emphasis on family unity and self-sacrifice (Kim &
136
Hatfield, 2004). As a result, marriages are less likely to be dissolved even when remaining in the marriage is at odds with one’s personal level of satisfaction (Kim & Hatfield, 2004). As this broad comparison between cultural perspectives on marriage indicates, levels of divorce in a society can be seen as a concrete, behavioral expression of individualist values (Hofstede et al., 2010, 1996; Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Triandis, 2001). Furthermore, according to some authors, in collectivistic cultures, married persons experience moral and structural commitment, rather than personal commitment. Whereas, there is a sense of obligation toward mutual support and help. Failure to fulfill the obligation causes deep bitterness as if the sacred bond is broken and the family feels betrayed. On the other hand, in individualistic cultures they experience personal aspect of commitment (Pfeil, 2006; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2003). Other authors suggested that, the assumption that there is a relationship between a type of culture (collectivism and individualism), marital commitment, and divorce is still not fully confirmed. For instance, there are many nations holding collectivistic values with high rates of divorce and less marital commitment or more marital dissatisfaction that can be seen in Javanese case (Toth & Kemmelmeier, 2009). Moreover, some factors considered risk factors and affect attitudes towards divorce sharply such as, age, number of children, gender, religiosity, educational level, financial pressure, marital problems, and mental health problem (Martin & Parashar, 2006; Toth & Kemmelmeier, 2009). In addition, Toth and Kemmelmeier (2009) found there is a curvilinear relationship between culture and divorce attitude, such that highly individualist and highly collectivist societies are similar with regard to the structure of prevailing divorce attitudes.
137
To conclude, marital commitment is affected by many critical factors and more than cultural values. Such factors include love/caring and positive conflict resolution, age of couples, the number of children, husbands' job, wives' employment, marriage type, satisfaction in the relationship, attractive, available of alternatives, and level of investment in the marriage (M. H. Browne & Browne, 2007; Toth & Kemmelmeier, 2009). In addition to the prior, many theories tried to understand and explain how some factors affect attitudes towards divorce. For instance, social exchange theory argued that each relationship contains the expected benefits, costs and results, which mean that both partners in a marriage relationship they need not cost much. Other supporting alternative to the relationship than the relationship itself is not much better. Social exchange can weaken or strengthen marriage. If the costs outweigh the benefits of marriage and marriage alternatives are attractive, then divorce may occur (Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 2007). 2. Power Distance, Division of Household, and Marital Satisfaction Another dimension in culture which Hofstede (2001) showed interest in was the power distance. Hofstede’s power distance index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality; it suggests that the followers as much as by the leaders recognize a society’s level of inequality. Power distance can be seen in marriages, families, in governments, and even in friendships. Inequality of power within organizations is expected and desirable in many cases for organizations to function effectively; while in other groups it may lead to problems and conflicts.
138
Hofstede et al. (2010) categorized cultures as possessing either large or small power distance. Cultures with a smaller power distance emphasize that inequalities among people should be minimized and that there should be interdependence between less-powerful and more-powerful people. In cultures with small power distance (e.g., the United States, Canada, Austria), family members are generally treated as equal and familial decisions are reached democratically. Hofstede et al. (2010) maintained that in cultures with a larger power distance, inequalities among people are both expected and desired. Less powerful people should be dependent on people that are more powerful. In larger power distance cultures, there is a strict hierarchy among family members where typically the father/husband rules authoritatively, followed by the mother/wife then eldest son and moving down the ladder by age and sex. Power distance index assumes the inequality in positions in any relationship, such as marital relationship. Power distant cultures tend to have more power distances between husbands and wives and between parents and children meaning that men held more authority over women (Dekkers, 2009). A decision made by one person that influences others is thought to be a source of inequity (Dekkers, 2009). Part of having power includes the perspectives others have regarding the power that a person has. Another part of power includes holding power over others (Dekkers, 2009). Power distribution between spouses partly appears in making decision about household labor division (Dekkers, 2009). Household labor involves a number of areas including finances, cleaning, cooking, shopping, children, and maintenance/repairs. Studies suggest that men generally have
139
more decision-making power in finances, major purchases, socialization of children, and work outside the home (Becker, Fonseca-Becker, & SchenckYglesias, 2006; Dekkers, 2009). Women, even though they may work as many hours at a paid job, still come home and put in another shift at home in unpaid labor which Hochschild (1989) termed the “second shift.” Women are working more in paid labor than in previous decades yet the division of labor has not changed (Dekkers, 2009). In most situations the woman contributes significantly more to household labor than the man (Becker et al., 2006). Sometimes it appears as though women justify this imbalance or do not see the division as imbalanced. Couples who unequal divide labor often viewed roles as being fair (Webster, 2000; Zuo & Bian, 2001). Perceived distribution of labor and power may not therefore be great predictors of perceived equity and fairness. When couples admitted to having unbalanced power in relationships, it was most often that the man had more power (Dekkers, 2009). The social expectation was that women would do more household labor. Therefore, men who minimally contributed to household labor may be viewed more positively than men who did not contribute at all. This may maintain the view of fairness despite the unequal division of labor. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, as cited in Dekkers, 2009), when examining marital satisfaction, determined that satisfaction with the ways couples divide household labor rather than equity in the division of household labor influences marital quality. Equity in the division of labor appeared to influence marital quality as well as other relationship qualities. Mickelson et al. (2006), for example, found that women have higher marital satisfaction when they felt more
141
supported and appreciated for their contributions to the home and the family regardless of the degree of imbalance in the division of labor was (Mickelson et al., 2006; Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001). On the other hand, Coltrane (2000) and Choi and Harwood (2004) found that, the sense of fairness affects the perception of marital satisfaction. According to him, the perception of inequality appears especially in the division of labor, For example, if the division of labor is felt to be unfair, then negative consequences for the marriage may be manifested in more marital conflicts and high divorce rates (Coltrane, 2000) and less marital satisfaction (Choi & Harwood, 2004). The more powerful spouse increase the power distance from the less powerful spouse to gain satisfaction (Choi & Harwood, 2004). In high power distance cultures, many husbands use their culturally traditional power to increase the power distance from the less powerful wives. Therefore, the degree of power balance, balancing rewards, and costs that contributes to marital satisfaction. It is predicted that one can associate more equal power distribution increasing levels of satisfaction (Choi & Harwood, 2004). In general, the evidence of equity’s influence on marital relationship is contradictory, and most of the studies in this field were conducted in cultures with small power distance (e.g., the USA, Canada, or Scandinavian countries). Such works have shown that women’s marital satisfaction is directly related to the level of housework egalitarianism and equal distribution of marital power (Coltrane, 2000). Moreover, in the same cultural context, this relationship does not hold for men. What one nation defines and perceives as egalitarian will most likely be different from household to household since nations’ rules of distribution of household work can hardly be the same.
141
The allocation of household tasks may is associated with perceived fairness while perceived fairness or equality is associated with marital outcomes. A number of researchers have considered fairness as a mediating variable between the division of household labor and marital satisfaction (Coltrane, 2000). According to the distributive justice framework (Coltrane, 2000) women do not perceive gendered division of housework as unfair if it relates to what they are socially taught to value in a marital relationship, if it matches their social and normative standards, and consequently is perceived as justifiable or legitimate. In addition, different cultural groups may attach different symbolic meanings to housework, which in turn are reflected in the perception of fairness (John, Shelton, & Luschen, 1995). Research on the division of household labor for husbands and wives in some Western cultures during the 1990s, Coltrane (2000) concluded that although men’s relative contributions have increased, women still do at least twice as much routine housework as men. Inequality in the division of household labor, in turn, is associated with women’s sense of unfairness, depression, and marital dissatisfaction, whereas men’s participation in routine repetitive chores is the primary predictor of marital satisfaction. 3. Masculinity/Femininity,
Gender
Role
Orientation,
and
Marital
Satisfaction In psychology of gender, masculinity-femininity is a central construct (or dimension) both at individual and at cultural level of analysis. In the cultural level, the third cultural dimension which Hofstede (2001) suggested was masculinity versus femininity. These terms are relative, not absolute; a man can behave in a feminine way and a woman in a masculine way. It only means that they deviate
142
from certain conventions in their society. Men are supposed to be more concerned with achievements outside their home, which is similar to hunting and fighting in traditional societies, but within contemporary social terms. According to Hofstede et al. (2010) society is called masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, responsible, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. While a society is called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap, both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Generally, in high masculine cultures, the strict role division between a husband who earns the family income and a wife who handles the household is relatively more common (traditional marriage) (Hofstede et al., 2010). In the masculine countries, love and family life were more often seen as separate, whereas in the feminine countries, they were expected to coincide (Hofstede et al., 2010). In the masculine cultures women are supposed to be tender and to take care of relationships, it is uncommon for wife to work outside the house, while the husband is expected to be healthy and wealthy. Preservation of family ties in this culture is very important regardless of love between spouses. By turn, in feminine cultures the relationships and quality of life are important; both husband and wife are to be modest, tender and focused on their relationship; they are sharing the responsibilities of care and provision; husbands play roles that are more similar to boyfriends, and the feeling of love is very important (Hofstede et al., 2010).
143
In relation to cultural level, according to Hofstede’s view, masculinity and femininity differ in the social roles that are associated with the biological fact of the existence of the two sexes, and in particular in the social roles that are attributed to men. Masculinity and femininity refer to the dominant sex role pattern in the vast majority of both traditional and modern societies: that of male assertiveness and female nurturance (Hofstede, 2001). Cultures labelled as masculine strive for maximal distinction between how men and women are expected to behave and to fulfill their lives. Masculine cultures expect men to be assertive, ambitious, and competitive, to strive for material success, and to respect whatever is big, strong, and fast. Masculine cultures expect women to serve and care for the non-material quality of life, for children and for the weak. Feminine cultures, on the other hand, define relatively overlapping social roles for the sexes, in which, in particular, men need not be ambitious or competitive but may go for a different quality of life than material success; men may respect whatever is small, weak, and slow (Hofstede, 2000). An important aspect of this masculinity-femininity dimension is role differentiation: small in feminine societies, large in masculine societies. In masculine cultures, household work is less shared between husband and wife than in feminine cultures. Men also do more household shopping in the feminine cultures (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). In Hofstede’s (2001) view, the more feminine cultures tend to be more egalitarian, with less differentiation in gender roles; both men and women are concerned equally with relationships, tasks, labor household, quality of life, and less with power and personal achievement. As a result of the increased
144
emotionalisation of partnership it might be expected that feminine cultures contribute more positively to marital satisfaction than masculine cultures. In the individual level, Bem (1998) proposed two separate dimensions of femininity and masculinity (with androgyny as their fusion, characterized by high scores on both of them). Hofstede’s (2001) cultural conceptualization of masculinity-femininity is bipolar and unidimensional: "An individual can be both masculine and feminine at the same time, But what I found is that a country culture is either predominantly one or predominantly the other" (p.19). Masculine and feminine individuals regardless of biological sex are likely to show different patterns of adjustment and have different coping skills as resources (Bem, 1998). One the other hand, androgynous individuals (who have both masculine and feminine traits) may possess a wider range of coping resources. Generally, works that cover the topic of marital relationship and masculinity/femininity interconnection tend to support all possible combinations. Some early studies, starting from Bem (1998) have reported that androgynous self-schema facilitates marital relation. Some studies were conducted in India (collectivistic culture) suggested femininity for the wife and masculinity for the husband is the best combination. Moreover, leads to high level of marital satisfaction (Steiner-Pappalardo & Regan, 2002). Furthermore, the study of Dasgupta and Basu (2011) in India also found that a preference for traditional pattern, as masculinity for men and femininity for women, were associated with better marital quality. Modern gender role attitude was significantly associated with marital quality in case of nonworking women.
145
Moreover, evidences indicate that presence of masculinity in both partners promotes marital quality, while prevalence of feminine traits disrupts marital health (Dasgupta & Basu, 2011; Steiner-Pappalardo & Regan, 2002). Contrarily, some findings in western cultures especially in America revealed that femininity for both partners was important for marital satisfaction, as it increased mutual caring and tolerance (Dasgupta & Basu, 2011; Steiner-Pappalardo & Regan, 2002). Overall, the findings are apt to reveal only little consistency; it may be caused by the fact that these studies were not sufficiently considering cultural settings. In addition to the prior, Research has indicated that men and women have different experiences in marriage (Kapinus, 2004). It appears that women are less satisfied with their marital relationships than men (Kapinus, 2004). The belief is that although gender roles orientation has become less traditional for both genders, the role-related changes for men are more passive than for women (Crane, Soderquist & Gardner, 1995) and therefore more demands are placed on women. When women marry, they experience financial gain but relinquish more of their privacy, control over their schedules, and time with their friends (Crane et al., 1995). This may account for Kapinus and Johnson’s (2002) suggestion that women are more likely than men to have positive attitudes towards divorce. Crane et al. (1995) demonstrated that the fact that potential consequences of divorce greatly differ for men and women. While men often experience a financial increase following a divorce, women will likely experience economic hardship and additional stress because they will have a disproportionate amount of responsibilities to their home and their children
146
(Crane et al., 1995). On the other hand, in cultural level, Hofstede suggested that, feminine cultures are more permissive towards divorce (Hofstede, 2001). Furthermore, other studies suggested that women are more likely than men to initiate divorce (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Trent and South (1992), who studied gender differences on attitudes toward divorce, found that females showed more positive attitudes toward divorce than did males. Therefore, and based on this review attitudes toward divorce may correlate with femininity more than masculinity, in addition to that moral commitment to marriage involves a sense of obligation, familial responsibility, as controlled by a person’s values and moral principles (Adams & Jone, 1997). In the contrast, Sorrentino (2005) claimed that there is no relationship between masculinity-femininity and divorce rates. In individual level, Tang and Curran (2012) found that, husbands are more likely to be morally committed to marriage more than wives. According to these authors, husbands' gender ideology associates with moral commitment in their marital relationship more than wives gender ideology does. When husbands high in moral commitment they are more likely to protect their marriage and respond to their spouse’s needs, because they emphasize the long term perspective of marriage, and they feel they are more responsible than their wives to protect their marriage. On the other hand, in the cultural level, Dorfman and Howell (1988) concluded that in the more masculine culture individual more moral committed. Moreover, Randall (1993) suggested that individuals in feminine cultures might exhibit stronger affective commitment, whereas individuals those who scored highly in masculinity are more committed, then high sacrifice rather than
147
emotional attachment. May the reason behind that, individuals in masculine culture are goals-oriented, and emphasize the long-term perspective of marriage. Moreover, many authors emphasized the relationship between power distance and masculinity (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; House, et al., 2004). Power distance and masculinity correlate each other in describing the hierarchical culture of a society. Both variables capture underlying inequality between various traditionally hierarchical groups and classes, such as superior and subordinate, old and young, and man and woman. This is particularly relevant when considering Asians cultures, where inequality and hierarchy between social groups and classes is expected and accepted. In a sense, power distance and masculinity are intertwined in such cultures, especially on dimensions of status, hierarchy, and equality. Indeed, high femininity predominates in low power distance cultures. High masculinity, in contrast, predominates in high power distance cultures. In general terms a country with a high power distance and masculinity, stand for a norm of a dominant based on gender, tough men, and submissive women. 4. Uncertainty Avoidance, Personality Characteristics, and Marital Satisfaction The fourth cultural dimension in Hofstede’s works was uncertainty avoidance. This dimension is defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. This feeling is, among other manifestations, expressed through nervous stress or anxiety and a need for predictability (Hofstede et al., 2010). Hofstede suggests an idea that levels of anxiety may differ among countries. Anxious cultures tend to be expressive cultures that demonstrate
148
social acceptance to the open display of emotions, for instance, via using hands during conversation or talking in a louder voice. On the contrary, in low uncertainty avoidance countries, anxiety levels are relatively low (Hofstede, 2001). According to Lynn’s work (2000), more people in these countries (weak uncertainty avoidance cultures) die from coronary heart disease. This statistic can be explained by the lower expressiveness of these cultures. These cultures have larger number of people with chronic psychosis. Since aggression and emotions are not supposed to be shown: people who behave emotionally or noisily are being met with social disapproval. This means that stress cannot be released through external activity; it has to be internalized. If this happens again and again, it may cause cardiovascular damage. A comparison across thirty-three countries of uncertainty avoidance with national norms for the big five personality test for Hofstede et al. (2004) showed that in more uncertainty avoiding cultures, respondents scored themselves higher on neuroticism. Neuroticism combines the following set of self-scored personality facets: anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability. Those correlations explain why people from strong uncertainty avoidance cultures may come across to others as busy, fidgety, emotional, aggressive, or suspicious. Moreover, these correlations explain why people from weak uncertainty avoidance countries to others may give the impression of being dull, quiet, easygoing, indolent, controlled, or lazy (Hofstede et al., 2010). According to Verderber (2012), uncertainty avoidance influences how people communicate in their relationships, people in high uncertainty avoidance
149
cultures tend to refrain from self-disclosing and guard their privacy to feel more secure and reduce the risk of self-disclosing. It is also coherent to think that these cultures tend to regulate negative emotions. Bandyopadhyay (2009) found a negative correlation between uncertainty avoidance and social desirability of negative emotions, confirming that these cultures tend to be more normative or reinforce rules of rejection of negative emotions. High uncertainty avoidance affects expression of joy; verbal expression of sadness and non-verbal expression of anger negatively (Fernandez, Carrera, Sanchez, Paez, & Candia, 2000). In less developed countries and in Asian countries, masculine, high power distance, and high uncertainty avoidance cultures express less emotion than more developed, feminine, low power distance and low uncertainty avoidance cultures (Fernandez et al., 2000). Therefore, in high uncertainty avoidance cultures people tend to regulate emotions, particularly negative ones like sadness. To reduce uncertainty, people in cultures having a high uncertainty avoidance index are likely to be more protective of private information (Bandyopadhyay, 2009; Fernandez et al., 2000). Disclosure of personal information or self-disclosing might be considered as an example of risk-taking situation information control (Christofides, Muise & Desmarais, 2009). Information control can be defined as the ability of being able to control what kind of information you are willing to share with others (Christofides et al., 2009). Furthermore, cultures with high collectivism and high uncertainty avoidance, people tend to be more polite. Therefore, these cultures tend to be intolerant towards expressiveness and people should keep their emotions (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2010; Fernandez et al., 2000).
151
Family life in high uncertainty avoidance societies is inherently more stressful than where uncertainty avoidance is low, feelings are more intense, and both partners express their positive sentiments as well as their negative sentiments more emotionally (Hofstede et al., 2010). However, this association between uncertainty avoidance and emotional intensity disappears in some countries if we take in consideration other cultural dimensions like masculinity (Fernandez et al., 2000). Data from the World Values Survey showed that satisfaction with home and marital relationship was negatively correlated with high uncertainty avoidance, at least in the more affluent countries (Hofstede, 2001). In general, the high uncertainty avoidance cultures regarded family life as stressful with more marital conflict and violence. Contrarily, in the low uncertainty avoidance cultures the members of families experience more satisfaction with different situations, especially with their partners (Hofstede et al., 2010). Moreover, Oudenhoven, Mechelse and DeDreu (1998) found that the cultures with low uncertainty avoidance index tend to solve the conflict by discussion, while in the cultures with high uncertainty avoidance index tend to solve the conflict physically through fighting and crying. In the contrast, Argiropoulou and Pavlopoulos (2011) found that, in high masculine cultures, couples tend to be more satisfied in their marriage, since they display a readiness to avoid ambiguous and uncertain situations. This kind of culture also associated with low levels of interpersonal conflict (Ting-Toomey, 1991). Moreover, uncertainty avoidance correlates with societal cynicism (Bond et al., 2004), suggesting distrust in laws and the social system, possibly leading to a higher investment in close relationships as a counterbalance. The greater the
151
desire to avoid uncertainty and maintain harmonious intimate relationships in a culture, the less frequent conflict resolution strategies, in general, and negative conflict resolution strategies. Since the uncertainty avoidance dimension determines the personality characteristics (McCrae, 2002; Migliore, 2011) like expressiveness, selfdisclosing, extraversion, aggression, anxiety, agreeableness, and neuroticism. In addition, since personality characteristics are related with marital satisfaction (Fisher, & McNulty, 2008; Froyen et al., 2008; Ozgur & Fons, 2013; Shackelford et al., 2008) we can say that uncertainty avoidance dimension predicts the marital satisfaction by mediating variable that is personality characteristics. Many studies suggest that specific personality characteristics can predict marital outcomes (Shackelford et al., 2008); results that are more consistent were found using emotional stability versus instability (i.e., neuroticism) as predictors (e.g., Fisher, & McNulty, 2008). For instance, the results of a broad longitudinal study conducted over 50 years on a sample of 300 couples revealed that the level of neuroticism of both spouses was a key determinant of their marital satisfaction (Fisher, & McNulty, 2008). Results of a meta-analytic review (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) the spouses who divorced and the spouses who were dissatisfied with their union scored higher on neuroticism. That was measured before their marriage; both researchers found the mean effect size for the predictive power of neuroticism for marital duration to be (r = -0.22, seven studies) for women and (r = -0.20, six studies) for men. In general, neuroticism has the biggest effect on marital relationships (Fisher, & McNulty, 2008).
152
As cited in Chen et al. (2007) Kelly and Conley (1987) reported that neuroticism was an important predictor of later divorce and if not divorce, marital dissatisfaction. In Japan, as cited in Chen et al., (2007) Kitamura, Watanabe, Aoki, Fujino, and Ura (1995) reported that a lower neuroticism in wives and a lower psychoticism in husbands correlate to a better marital adjustment. Researchers have consistently linked neuroticism with dissatisfying and unstable marriages (Chen et al., 2007). People who are highly neurotic tend to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and anger, and are likely to overestimate stressful situations (Chen et al., 2007). In addition, individuals high in neuroticism report the greatest number of complaints and conflicts with their partners (Chen et al., 2007). On the other hand, expressiveness is as a persistent pattern or style of exhibiting nonverbal and verbal expressions that often, but not always, appear to be emotion-related (Halberstadt et al., 1995). According to Mirgain and Cordova (2007), during the course of their lives, people are more likely to have positive and negative emotional experiences within the context of their family than in any other setting. Similarly, Mirgain and Cordova (2007) wrote, "Of all the domains of life, marriage and family relationships are perhaps the most consistently emotionally challenging" (p. 983). Subsequently, developing communication skills has been stressed as a means of preserving marital satisfaction (RosenGrandon, Myers & Hattie, 2004). Within the last two decades, the communication of emotions, in particular, has garnered much attention (Mirgain & Cordova, 2007). Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between expressiveness between spouses and
153
marital satisfaction and have produced substantial support for a positive correlation between these two variables. Commenting on this relationship, Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach (2000) referred to expressiveness as "an essential dimension . . . in accounting for variability in the quality of marriage" (p. 966). As a result of these positive findings, clinical interventions to improve marital satisfaction have focused on encouraging spouses to not only express their emotions to each other (Bradbury et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2005), but to do so in a positive and sensitive manner (Gottman & Notarius, 2002). Halberstadt et al. (1995) distinguished between positive expressiveness, characterized by openness and sensitivity to family members (e.g. being appreciative, empathic, loving, and concerned), and negative expressiveness, marked by anger and contempt. Moreover, associations have been found between positive and negative expressiveness and more stable personality characteristics such as neuroticism and extraversion (Halberstadt et al., 1995). Expressiveness, then, appears to reflect a stable pattern of how individuals communicate emotions within the marital context, and indeed, partners’ positive and negative expressiveness have been linked to marital satisfaction quality (Rauer & Volling, 2005). For example, negative expressions of emotions are generally related to marital conflict, poorer marital
interactions,
and
lower
marital
satisfaction,
whereas
positive
expressiveness is associated with more positive marital interactions and higher marital satisfaction (Halberstadt et al., 1995; Rauer & Volling, 2005; Kolak & Volling, 2007).
154
Positive expressiveness is theorized to increase marital satisfaction by creating intimacy within the relationship (Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2004). Emotional expressivity assumes several forms (Gottman & Notarius, 2002) and is generally operationalized either as verbal behavior (e.g., statements of affection or anger, vocal cues) or nonverbal behavior (e.g., facial expressions, physical posture) (Trierweiler, Eid, & Lischetzke, 2002). The preponderance of research findings for positive emotional expressivity support both modes of expression as positively correlated with marital satisfaction. Additionally, wives' level of satisfaction increased as a function of their husbands' expression of positive affect toward them. Johnson et al. (2005) reported findings that supported the ability of expressed positive affect to increase partners' level of relationship satisfaction. Specifically, the authors examined what partners said to each other during problem-solving interactions, and the manner in which partners communicated with each other (i.e., with positive or negative affect). Consistent with other findings in the literature, the authors found that positive affect significantly predicted husbands' and wives' levels of relationship satisfaction, while negative affect predicted lower levels. In the other direction self-disclosure is conceptualized as verbally revealing thoughts, feelings, and experiences to others (Derlega et al., 1993). However, self-disclosure is more than talk that is personal and private. Selfdisclosure involves revealing personal information to another with the implicit or explicit understanding that it not be relayed further (Derlega et al., 1993). The research on self-disclosure makes a distinction between two types of self-disclosure; self-disclosure given and self-disclosure received. Self-disclosure given, also referred to as self-reported self-disclosure, refers to disclosing one’s
155
own personal feelings, thoughts, and experiences. Self-disclosure received, also referred to as partner perceived self-disclosure, is information disclosed by the other (Sprecher, 1987). These two types of self-disclosure are sometimes compared in the literature. For example, Sprecher (1987) found that selfdisclosure received is a more important predictor of liking, love, and stability than self-disclosure given in romantic relationships. Studies found that self-reported self-disclosure and partner-perceived self-disclosure was both significant and positively related to relationship satisfaction, but partner-perceived self-disclosure (received) was a stronger predictor of relationship satisfaction (Meeks, 1996). In another study, Satisfaction was correlated with own self-disclosure and partner's perceived disclosure, though these correlation's did not differ (Meeks, S. S. Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1998). Self-disclosure is one type of marital communication in particular that has been identified as a key factor in the development of fulfilling and stable marital relationships (Gilbert, 2000). Self-disclosure is a process by which a marriage partner expresses feelings, perceptions, fears, and doubts of the inner self to the other partner, allowing relatively private and personal information to surface in the relationship. The focus of research has mainly been on specific levels of selfdisclosure and the influence of levels of self-disclosure on relationship maintenance and satisfaction. However, the level of self-disclosure is only one possible explanation for the link between disclosing and relational satisfaction. Wheeless and Grotz (1976) found that there were three important factors of self-disclosure. The three are breadth (amount of information), depth (intimacy of information), and duration (amount of time spent self-disclosing). Self-
156
disclosure plays many important roles in interpersonal interactions and relationships. Dickson-Markman (1984, as cited in Williams, 2012) sought to identify what types of self-disclosure (amount, intent, honesty, valence, and depth) are related to marital satisfaction. She found that honesty, intent, and valence were related to marital satisfaction, but amount and depth were not. Dickson-Markman notes the finding is contrary to other researchers who found that as relationships become more intimate, the amount and depth of self-disclosure increases (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). The difference in the studies is the length of relationships. In the Dickson-Markman’s study, participants were in long-term stable relationships averaging 12 years. Whereas in new relationships couples selfdisclose greater amounts and depth of information as they get to know one another, this type of self-disclosure is not as relevant once the relationship is established. Sprecher (1987) reported that Self-disclosure is positively correlated with love between partners. Self-disclosing to partners helps couples to renegotiate their expectations, which may in turn increase satisfaction (Sabatelli & Pearce, 1986). Self-disclosure also functions to decrease uncertainty. Uncertainty in relationships is uncomfortable, and individuals try to eliminate uncertainty through reciprocal and appropriate self-disclosure (Hofstede et al., 2010). Self-disclosure also allows individuals to develop, escalate, and maintain interpersonal relationships. Self-disclosure is also a catalyst for increasing intimacy in interpersonal relationships. Intimacy is the process of knowing a partner.
157
Therefore, one way to achieve intimacy in interpersonal relationships is through self·disclosure. Although self-disclosure superficial information is easy for most people, disclosing personal information relating to self-concept makes individuals vulnerable. Therefore, there are many risks associated with self-disclosure. Selfdisclosing person’s risk being rejected by what they say, having the shared information used as power or manipulation against them, and being betrayed with the information. Despite those very logical connections drawn between self-disclosure and certain desirable outcomes in marriage, however, considerable disagreement between marriage and family experts continues to exist in regard to how much and what types of self-disclosure will maximize these desirable developmental outcomes. Gilbert (2000) suggested a curvilinear model to describe the relationship between self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Where a moderate level of selfdisclosure might be associated with a high level of marital satisfaction and where both low and high levels of self-disclosure might be associated with low levels of marital satisfaction, especially if a high levels of self-disclosure include contents of complaint and censure or unhappiness. 5. Long-term/Short-Term Orientation and Marital Relationship Starting with 1991 Hofstede labeled the fifth dimension long-term versus short-term orientation. The fifth dimension was defined as follows: long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation,
158
stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular; respect for tradition, preservation of “face,” and fulfilling social obligations. Marriage in high long-term orientation countries is a pragmatic, goaloriented arrangement, while in short term orientation countries the marriage is a moral arrangement, (Hofstede et al., 2010). Levine et al. (1995, as cited in Hofstede et al., 2010) found in high long-term orientation countries the respondents agreed most with the statement “If love has completely disappeared from a marriage, it is best for the couple to make a clean break and start new lives.”, perhaps the reason is waiting future rewards (Hofstede et al., 2010). However, since marriage is viewed as a more pragmatic than romantic arrangement in a long-term oriented society, therefore community is more tolerant towards divorce. When people more pragmatic they have positive attitudes towards divorce (Furstenberg & Spanier, 1987). Unfortunately, the current study could not find any direct evidence about the impact of long/short-term orientation or future orientation (Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars, 1994) on marital commitment. However, (Gao, 2001) indicated that, to the future orientation countries, the term ‘‘romantic relationship’’ contains the elements of necessary seriousness and long-term commitment. A romantic relationship often is perceived as one-step before marriage (Gao, 2001). Lin and Rusbult (1995) found that feelings of commitment are perceived to be stronger among future orientation countries than among past or present orientation countries. Furthermore, in the past or present orientation countries, a marital relationship is not necessarily perceived as a long-term commitment or a prelude to marriage.
159
Cultures high on long-term orientation take a long-term perspective to relationships and, thus, are more likely to regulate emotional reactions to preserve the possibility of future good relationships (Schwartz, 2004). A positive relationship may also suggest greater overall need for emotion regulation as a whole. Therefore, long-term orientation contributes to marital satisfaction (Matsumoto et al., 2003). H. Latent Variables Behind Cultural Dimensions Second order factor analysis is a statistical method consisting of repeating steps factor analysis – oblique rotation – factor analysis of rotated factors. Its merit is to enable the researcher to see the hierarchical structure of studied phenomena. Therefore, the purpose of conducting second order factor analysis is to explore the presence of an overarching relationship factor (Loehlin, 2013). For this goal, Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, and De-Luque (2006) conducted a second-order factor analysis to determine whether higher-order factors could summarize the underlying construct/s for cultural dimensions. They performed an exploratory principal components analysis on Hofstede’s five culture scales. Based on 26 countries, the results reveal that only two factors were retained (accounting for approximately 66% of the societal-level variance among the original Hofstede scales). The first factor is composed of individualism (negative loading), power distance, and long-term orientation. The second factor is composed of masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. On the other hand, Hofstede (1980, as cited in Earley & Gibson, 1998) reported a high correlation between individualism-collectivism and the construct of power distance. Indeed, his factor analysis resulted in the extraction of three factors corresponding to masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and a third factor
161
representing a combination of power distance and individualism-collectivism. Thus, although Hofstede (1980) preferred to separate the latter two dimensions conceptually, data collected in his landmark study on cultural dimensions suggested that empirically speaking, there might be overlap between the constructs of individualism-collectivism and power distance (Earley & Gibson, 1998). In later years, researchers sought to clarify these constructs. Bond and a group of researchers named the Chinese Cultural Connection [CCC] (1987, as cited in Earley & Gibson, 1998) sampled a domain of values derived from Chinese culture in 20 countries that were also present in Hofstede's (1980) study. Moderate correlations were reported between the Hofstede power distance and individualism-collectivism dimensions and the CCC integration and moral discipline factors. These four factors loaded together in a second order factor analysis, suggesting that they may represent one underlying dimension. Following this research, Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) conducted multi-dimensional scaling analysis on data representing 8,841 respondents in 43 nations. Their analysis yielded two dimensions closely interrelated at the country level of analysis- -individualism-collectivism and power distance. Smith et al. (1996) defined individualism-collectivism as having to do with "the nature of one's obligations to groups and organizations" (1996, p. 17). Hofstede's individualism-collectivism concept captures one aspect of this, but the Smith et al. (1996) dimension also covers the overall basis of one's obligations toward all other ingroup members. Triandis (2001) suggested that a clearer and complete picture of collectivist and individualistic individuals emerged when considering the vertical
161
and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism. Individualism and collectivism may be horizontal (like small power distance) where equality is emphasized or vertical (like large power distance) where hierarchy is emphasized. Horizontal individualistic people desire to be unique and to do their own thing whereas vertical individualistic people not only want to do their own thing but also strive to be the very best. People who are horizontal collectivists cooperate with their in-groups. In contrast, those collectivists who submit to the hierarchy defined by their in-groups and are willing to sacrifice themselves for their in-groups are generally vertical in their orientation (Triandis, 2001; Triandis & Suh, 2002). In the horizontal-vertical aspect, in essence, both individualism and collectivism may be horizontal (emphasizing equality) or vertical (emphasizing hierarchy). Research has shown that some individualistic cultures emphasize equality whereas other individualistic cultures, emphasize hierarchy (Lee & Choi, 2005). This horizontal-vertical distinction could also be a useful starting point to understand the situations in Javanese and Palestinian cultures. Kaasa and Vadi (2008) conducted another study. Their analysis resulted in different structure of cultural dimensions comparing with the results of previous studies. In 20 European countries, four correlated factors loaded into one factor and overall individualism into the second factor. Hence, it seems to be possible to reduce the cultural dimensions to two main dimensions. I.
Constructing Marital Satisfaction and Commitment in One Latent Variable The research in the area of marital relationship frequently utilizes
concepts
lie
marital
satisfaction,
commitment,
consensus,
success,
162
companionship, or some such synonym reflective of quality of marital relationship. Spanier and Lewis (1980) said that the most important advancement was in operationalizing the construct of marital relationship by moving from a unidimensional to a multidimensional measure. They go on to list the correlates and predictors of the construct. In recent years, the school of conceptualization marital relationship in one construct has gained more recognition among scholars (Zhang, Xu, and Tsang, 2013). Some researchers suggested that, marital satisfaction and commitment are used as two dimensions of marital relationship or quality (Spanier and Lewis, 1980; Swanson & Trahaug, 1985). Moreover, it can be difficult to posit marital commitment and marital satisfaction as two separate and distinct variables due to their high interconnectedness (Duncan, 2011). However, Sabatelli and Cecil-Pigo (1985) differentiate between these two constructs by asserting that marital satisfaction varies over time and is situational and circumstantially determined; while marital commitment is chosen, self-determined, and usually stable over time. According to this line of thinking, the current study constructed one latent variable that reflects marital satisfaction and commitment. In addition, constructing marital satisfaction and commitment in one construct can help to overlap the problem of multicollinearity among the items of these variables. J. Cultural Dimensions for Indonesia and Palestine 1. Individualism and Collectivism Index for Indonesia and Palestine According to Hofstede et al. (2010) the individualism index for Indonesia is (14) with rank 70 (out of 76 countries) and the range of this index is "between" 6 to 91. The top rank indicates that the nation is more individualistic. In addition, it belongs to USA. The lowest rank was given to Guatemala with score of six. Thus,
163
according to this index Indonesia is a very collectivist society (Hofstede et al., 2010). For Palestinian case, Hofstede et al. (2010) did not mention Palestine in their book, but they mentioned some Arabic countries. For example, the scores of Egypt and United Arab Emirates are 25, with rank 55 and 56 respectively. Jordan also seems relevant since it is very close to Palestine culturally and geographically, is also the country whose population is mostly constituted by Palestinians that moved to Jordan after Israeli occupation in 1948 and 1967 (Shoup, 2007). It has received the score of 30 with 48-th rank. In general, the Arab world has received the score of 38 with 41-st rank (Hofstede et al., 2010). Both the score and the rank are relatively modest and located in between extreme collectivism and individualism. 2. Power Distance Index for Indonesia and Palestine According to Hofstede et al. (2010) the power distance index for Indonesia is (78) with rank 16 (out of 76 countries) and the range of this index from 11 to 104 where the higher value indicates that the nation is the state of inequality. The first rank was given to Malaysia with the score of 104, and the lowest rank was given to Austria with the score of 11. Thus, according to this index Indonesia is a large power distance culture. Again Hofstede et al. (2010) did not mention Palestine in their book, but they mentioned some Arabic countries. The score of Jordan, which is very close to Palestine, is 70 with 21-st rank In general, the Arabic world has received the score of 80 with 12-th rank both of these score and rank are high and that indicates that Arabic culture has a large power distance. Therefore, we can say
164
that Indonesia and Palestine are similar in this cultural dimension where inequality and hierarchy are acceptable. 3. Masculinity And Femininity Index for Indonesia and Palestine The masculinity index for Indonesia is 46 with 41-st rank (out of 76 countries) and the range of this index is from 5 to 110. The top value belongs to Slovakia and it indicates that the nation is more masculine. The last rank was given to Sweden with the score of 5. The score of Jordan was 45 with rank 42. In general, the Arab world has received the score of 52 with 33-d rank. Thus, according to this index both cultures in Palestine and Indonesia are considered feminine since their score is lower than the average one (57.5). While not entirely like most North European countries that are very feminine, Indonesia and Palestine are less masculine than some other Asian countries like Japan, China and India. These scores for Indonesia and Palestine let us assume that these cultures may be in transitional stage, which is caused by globalization process (Hofstede et al., 2010). 4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index for Indonesia and Palestine This study has examined the scores of Indonesia and Palestine in the uncertainty avoidance. For Indonesia it was 48 with 63-d rank (out of 76 countries), and the range of this index is from 8 to 112. The top value belongs to Greece that indicates that the nation tends to avoid uncertainty, while the lowest rank was given to Singapore with the score of 8. The score of Jordan was 65 with 43-d rank In general; the Arab world has received the score of 68 with 40-th rank (Hofstede et al., 2010).
165
5. Long and Short Term Orientation Index for Indonesia and Palestine This study has examined the scores of Indonesia and Palestine in the long-term orientation index. Indonesia had the score of 62 with the 26-th rank (out of 93 countries), and the range of this index is "between" 0 to 100. The highest ranks belong to Eastern Asian countries and indicate those nations tend to longterm orientation. The top rank was given to South Korea with the score of 100, and the lowest rank was given to Puerto Rico with score zero. The score of Jordan was 16 with 82-nd rank In general; the Arab world has received the score of 19 with 80-th rank (Hofstede et al., 2010). K. Measuring Constructs Across Cultures When a psychometric measure is used in different cultural settings, to compare test candidates from different cultural backgrounds. The need for multiple language versions of tests, questionnaires, and surveys is continuously increasing. Therefore, many tests are adapted from one language and culture to another. A well-translated survey instrument should have semantic equivalence across languages, conceptual equivalence across cultures, and normative equivalence to the source survey (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 1998). Semantic equivalence refers to the words and sentence structure in the translated text expressing the same meaning as the source language (smith, 2004). Conceptual equivalence is when the concept being measured is the same across groups, although wording to describe it may be different (Smith, 2004). Normative equivalence describes the ability of the translated text to address social norms that may differ across cultures (Behling, 2000). Below are four
166
common methods of translation of survey instruments into multiple languages in cross-cultural research. 1. Beaton et al. (1998) method These authors provide a brief guide to adapting self-report measures for cross-cultural use, especially in health issues and clinical research. The authors suggest a six-phase process of translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, pretesting, and submission and appraisal. In more details, Translation: it should involve at least two independent forward translations by bilingual translators, which can then compare their versions to identify discrepancies indicative of ambiguous wording within the original survey or other problems. Synthesis: During synthesis a third, bilingual person mediates a discussion between the two translators to develop one version of the survey. Back translation: another person blind to the original survey then back translates the new survey into the source language and compares it to the original document to check the validity of the translation. Expert committee review: it comprised of the translators, experts in the subject matter, and language professionals, meets with the purpose of consolidating the different versions of the survey to produce a final form and ensure equivalence between the source and new versions. Pretesting: the translated survey should then be pretested in a sample of 30-40 persons from the target population as a pilot study. The final stage is a submission of all the reports and forms to the developer of the instrument or the committee keeping track of the translated version. They in turn probably have a means to verify that the recommended stages were followed, and the reports seem to be reflecting this process well.
167
2. Pan and De la Puente method (2005) Pan and De la Puente (2005) followed and recommended five steps for translating surveys in cross-cultural research: prepare, translate, pretest, revise, and document (Pan & De la Puente, 2005). This method does not recommend solo or direct translation with back translation, but instead strongly promotes a process of translation and review by a team of translators, reviewers, and adjudicators. At a minimum, the team should include two translators to perform the translation, an expert in the subject matter, a person knowledgeable in survey design and an adjudicator (Pan & De la Puente, 2005). Translators should be supplied with a summary of the scope of the project, explanation of the target audience and survey mode, survey documentation that provides definitions of terms or concepts, and access to people who can assist them with questions about the subject matter or questionnaire design (Pan & De la Puente, 2005). Pretesting is a necessary step that identifies problems in the translated text or helps identify other concepts that may be relevant within the target population (Pan & De la Puente, 2005). 3. Smith (2004) method Developing items that work equivalently across cultures is hindered by words that have no equivalent translation, or words that have linguistic equivalence but represent to some extent different concepts. The problems related to linguistic and conceptual equivalence can be addressed by using multiple indicators for each construct. Smith recommended that, using at least three items and each item using different terms for the same concept can solve this problem.
168
4. Multiple forward translations [MFT] method (Ponce et al., 2004) This method, also called the committee method, involves several bilingual individuals (at least three) who work independently to translate an instrument from the source into the target language. A committee consisting of translators and researchers deals with discrepancies. The committee method has the advantage of bringing together individuals with language expertise and researchers with expertise in the topic. They work together to make informed decisions about whether the chosen words in the target language have the same connotations as the words in the source language. The current study did not follow Beaton et al. (1998) method, that based on six stage process of translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, pretesting, and submission and appraisal, that for many reasons. In the first, Beaton et al. method, based on rigid, complicated, and complex stages. (Beaton et al., 1998; Crabtree & Miller, 1999; Ghelfi & Bedsaul, 2013; Portela, Santaella, & Cruz-Gomez, 2010). Secondly, Beaton et al. (1998) method is necessarily should be followed when a researcher intends to develop questionnaire or instrument specifically in clinical and health studies (Bhui, Mohamud, Warfa, Craig, & Stansfeld, 2003; Guillemin, Bombardier, & Beaton, 1993). In this kind of studies, the researcher should be alert, sensitive, and responsible when he wants to measure any clinical construct in new settings. The results of those studies play a significant role in clinical practice, so the need for accurate information about the mental health problems requires very valid measures for using them in a number of languages and cultural settings (Bhui et al., 2003); therefore, it is very important to adapt the
169
original instrument into target language. Nevertheless, the current study is not a clinical work. Thirdly, the need for adapting instrument arises when the researcher intends to develop an equivalence version of the original instrument as a primary goal; therefore, this task is a main task for this researcher and nothing else. While the current study is merely an attempt to suggest a theoretical model, and it is one effort to understand how cultural settings affect perception of marital relationship in Eastern cultures. Fourthly, adapting one instrument and based on Beaton et al., (1998) method requires a long time, many facilities, much efforts, and financial support. So adapting nine instruments in the current study is not a practical or wise idea. Therefore, the researcher preferred to benefit from recommendations of Pan and De la Puente (2005) method, because they are more practical and easily to apply it in the reality. De la Puente (2005) method recommended five steps for translating surveys in cross-cultural research: prepare, translate, pretest, revise, and document (Pan & De la Puente, 2005). This method did not recommend direct translation with back translation, but instead strongly promoted a process of translation and review by a team of translators, reviewers, and adjudicators. At a minimum, the team should include two translators to perform the translation, an expert in the subject matter, a person knowledgeable in survey design and an adjudicator (Pan & De la Puente, 2005). Based on these recommendations, the translated (Indonesian) questionnaires were reviewed by five academic members from Faculty of Psychology in UGM. On the other hand, the translated (Palestinian) questionnaires were reviewed by five academic members from the
171
department of Psychology in Faculty of Education in ANU. Many meetings were held with the reviewers and translators in the both country, in order to make required corrections in light of the goals of the current study. Then the researcher conducted two pilot studies, and the translated and reviewed questionnaires were administered to two samples in the two cultures.
L. Cross-Cultural Studies, Shortened Scales, and Structural Equation Modeling Often, in developing scales in a purely domestic context, researchers may include domains or aspects of a construct, which are non-central, secondary, or context-specific. In a cross-cultural context, this may reduce the predictive strength of the measurement instrument. Multiple-item or long scales pose challenges for structural equation modeling [SEM] too; that if all the items are used as indicators of a latent construct (Yang, Nay, & Hoyle, 2010). A model could have a lot of parameters to estimate relationship to the available sample size, resulting in reduced power to discover important parameters (Yang et al., 2010). In addition, it might not fit the data suitably well, leading to the rejection of a true model (Yang et al., 2010). Yang et al. (2010) suggested three general approaches that can be used to address these challenges are shortening, parceling, and transforming a lengthy scale into latent score variables through preliminary analyses. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. The current study focused on shortening approach, and presented a further discussion about this approach; furthermore, a review for its advantages and disadvantages is presented. Use of shortened scales has been found in other contexts to improve predictive ability (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1995a). Shortened scales are used
171
for assessment of a latent construct. In fact, researchers have successfully applied few or single-item measures in a broad range of different research areas. Such as clinical psychology, quality of life research, social and personality psychology, and occupational psychology (Christophersen & Konradt, 2010). A few indicators of a latent construct with convinced validity may be selected from a lengthy scale to yield a shortened scale (Moore, Halle, Vandivere, & Marina, 2002), which can be easily integrated into SEM. According to behavior domain theory (McDonald, 1996), an underlying construct could have an unlimited number of indicators. Accordingly, a shortened scale is merely a smaller sample of all possible indicators. One need not be overly concerned that the shortened scale may not be equivalent with the large scale in its content validity. Empirically, a five-item scale selected out of 30 items with empirical data could be equivalent to the large scale (Moore et al., 2002). According to Little, Lindenberger, and Nesselroade (1999), a smaller number of continuous indicators with moderate diversity of loadings performed as well as six indicators with high diversity of loadings in recovering the true correlation of the two constructs. Short scales can be used in large-scale surveys, in which many constructs are measured, if they have appropriate measurement properties and similar predictive ability to their large source scales (Stephenson, Hoyle, Palmgreen, & Slater, 2003). Additional issue in shortened scales is how to decide the minimum number of indicators. From the viewpoint of model identification, four indicators are the best for a latent construct and “anything more is gravy.” (Yang et al., 2010). Shortening a large scale to fewer than four items might undermine its content validity, although its predictive validity could be retained (Yang et al.,
172
2010). Another issue was which techniques to apply to reducing the scale length. One could depend on the magnitude of correlations between the endogenous and exogenous construct indicators, as in the study conducted by Moore et al. (2002), or on the scope of the behavioral domain the indicators reflect (Little et al., 1999). The most important benefit of shortened scales measures concerns the economy of survey design. Compared to multiple-item measures or lengthened scales measures, it shortens surveys and thus reduces the time needed for completing a questionnaire (Christophersen & Konradt, 2010). Moreover, multiple-item measures or lengthened scales measures often show strong redundancy and include a large number of items that appear to be similar, which leads to participants’ fatigue, frustration, and boredom, resulting in a large amount of missing information and thus incomplete data (Christophersen & Konradt, 2010). Furthermore, high redundancy leads to lower cognitive participation of respondents and therefore to invalid answers (Christophersen & Konradt, 2010). On the other hand, there are two main arguments against the usage of shortened scales measures or single-item measures; the first is related to reliability. When multiple-constructs are given, multiple-items are seen as more reliable because measurement error is reduced by aggregating more items on a scale (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Many authors, thus, argue that shortened scales measures or single-items are inadequate measures because the measurement error is generally too high (e. g., see Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). However, this argument can be refuted because many scales are constructed by using multiple items that differ only slightly in formulation and/or word order. For
173
these scales, errors are unlikely to be averaged out by increasing the number of items, because systematic errors across the items have to be considered (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Generally speaking, one or three ‘good’ item may allow a more valid and reliable measurement than many ‘bad’ items (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). The second argument against the usage of shortened scales measures or single-item measures concerns the amount of information that may be assessed by these scales, which are assumed to be lower than that for multiple-item measures (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Authors mainly claim that multiple-item measures would be better suited for assessment of all of the constructs’ facets (e.g., Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). However, this argument fails to consider that many constructs do not consist of different facets and, thus, additional items would not improve measurement because no additional information is obtained (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Some researchers have defended the use of shortened scales measures or single-item measures under circumstances in which the construct is unidimensional, clear to respondents, and sufficiently narrow (Kardatzke, 2009). Nevertheless, results involving this measure should be interpreted with caution. M. Measuring Marital Constructs Via Shortened Scales Shortened
scales
measures
or
single-item
indicators
of
marital
satisfaction or marital commitment are relatively common in research (e.g., Bryant, Taylor, Lincoln, Chatters, & Jackson, 2008). Additionally, research has found that shortened scales measures or single-item indicators of marital satisfaction are highly correlated with multi-item measures, and provide similar results (Bryant et al., 2008).
174
Schumm and colleagues at Kansas State University (Schumm et al., 1986) developed the KMSS was designed as a short and direct assessment of marital satisfaction. The theoretical foundation of the measure is based on Spanier and Cole's (1976) conceptual distinction between satisfaction with spouse, marriage, and the marriage relationship. Thus, the scale consists of three items where respondents are directly asked how satisfied they are with their partner as a spouse, with their marriage, and with their relationship with their spouse. In a series of studies, the scale has performed reliably, with alphas ranging from 0.89 to 0.93 (Mitchell, Newell, & Schumm, 1983; Schumm et al., 1983; Shectman, Bergen, Schumm, & Bugaighis, 1985, as cited in Sabatelli, 1988). Test-retest reliability, over a 10-week interval, was found to be 0.71 (Mitchell et al., 1983, as cited in Sabatelli, 1988). Evidence of the validity of the scale is derived from its correlations with the QMI and DAS, and particularly the Dyadic Satisfaction subscale of the DAS (Grover, Paff-Bergen, Russell, & Schumm, 1984; Schumm et al., 1986, as cited in Sabatelli, 1988), its correlation with selected scales of Moos's Family Environment Scale (Mitchell et al., 1983), its ability to discriminate between wives from intact marriages and wives who had recently separated (Schumm et al., 1986). Schumm et al. (1986) conclude that the "scale seems to be able to assess one dimension of marital quality (satisfaction) with enough items to estimate internal consistency reliability while not requiring the space required for longer scales" (p. 385). On the other hand, to measure marital commitment construct researchers oftentimes assess commitment via the use of single-item measures that basically ask either "What is the likelihood that you will be with
175
your partner in 5 years?” The Broderick Commitment Scale [BCS] (Beach & Broderick, 1983, as cited in Sabatelli, 1988) is an example of a single-item measure of commitment adapted for use with married samples. The measure entails respondents reading a definition of commitment and rating their level of commitment on a scale from zero to 100. The primary concern with the use of the BCS revolves around the problems associated with single-item measures. Even measures of unidimensional concepts must be made up of multiple items rather than a single item because a single item will not typically represent the full content of a theoretical concept and cannot discriminate among fine degrees of an attribute (Sabatelli, 1988). N. Marital Relationship in Javanese Context Many studies were conducted targeting marital satisfaction directly and indirectly including the effects of some psychological and demographical factors. Current study presents the researches’ findings that mainly relate to marital satisfaction. Unfortunately, the researcher could not get any study that aimed to compare Javanese marriage with any other society using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model. First, Rowe, Fakihsutan, and Dulka (2006) conducted a qualitative study to investigate the domestic violence against academic working wives in Medan. Trying to determine what factors lead to this phenomenon, the study used purposive and snowball sampling techniques. This study found that, the intensity and frequency of incidents of marital violence varied among the informants. Some reported being beaten, having dishes thrown at them, having their hair pulled and being kicked. Women also experienced psychological abuse, including insults, ridicule, and unfounded accusations. Their husbands would
176
threaten to have extramarital affairs and to divorce, beat and even murder them. Financially
independent
women
experienced
financial
abuse,
including
dishonesty, unfairness and in some instances their husbands’ outright refusal to support the family. Some husbands refused to share in household chores and women had to bear a double burden. According to Rowe et al., (2006) another factor associated with domestic violence included husbands having extramarital affairs and even marrying other women. Some husbands left their wives, while others remained married to them. Spousal abuse often followed a wife’s complaint about her husband’s affair. Rowe et al., (2006) added there are two central theoretical points in Indonesian context: first that domestic violence is at least as much as, if not more than, the product of patriarchy that related to power distance, collectivism and masculinity in the culture than material dependence of the wives on the husbands. Second, the material well-being and presumed independence of wives actually contributes to the violence, because it challenges cultural patriarchy and makes it financially and socially easier for the man to engage in some forms of violence. A study by Meiyanti (1999, as cited in Rowe et al., 2006) suggests the financial dependence of women contributes to situations of marital violence. In this study, it was found that women’s economic independence also contributes to the incidence of marital violence. Husbands’ decreased financial contribution to their households provided those with the money needed to have extramarital affairs and to support new wives and families. In general, Montenegro (2001, as cited in Rowe et al., 2006) pointed out that, in cultures with high power distance husbands tend to solve their familial problems and conflicts by using violence
177
against their wives and children. Domestic violence is also strongly linked with collectivist cultures (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 2001). Some studies indicate that violence against women in general, and domestic violence in particular, is intricately linked to real or perceived fulfillment of masculinities (Moore, 1994). It appears that men are more likely to use violence against women if they are unable to fulfill a hegemonic masculinity. In East Africa, socioeconomic change has increasingly led to men’s inability to fulfill their role as breadwinner while women are increasingly economically independent (Silberschmidt, 2001). Silberschmidt contends this situation has resulted in men exaggerating or turning more often to other masculine behaviors in order to compensate for their economic disempowerment. Specifically, men use violence against women in order to express their masculine dominance and have sex with multiple partners in order to express their masculine sexuality. Men’s expression of masculinity is also closely linked to controlling women in their family and ensuring that women fulfill expected roles. Women who do not fulfill required roles or who challenge men’s actions threaten men’s masculinity, often resulting in a violent reaction. Violence, therefore, is at one level a sign of a struggle to maintain sense of identity and power (Silberschmidt, 2001). Many abuser husbands have low self-esteem and are more depressed compared with men who are violent in other contexts (Goldstein & Rosenbaum, 1985; Hamberger & Hastings, 1988; Neidig, Friedman, & Collins, 1986, as cited in Rowe et al., 2006). Heightened dependency needs are prevalent among men who abuse their wives (Dutton & Painter, 1993; Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1988, as cited in Rowe et al., 2006). Men reported feeling powerless (Petrik,
178
Petrik, & Subotnik, 1994, as cited in Rowe et al., 2006) and highly sensitive to feelings of abandonment by women (Dutton & Strachan, 1987; HoltzworthMunroe & Hutchinson, 1993, as cited in Rowe et al., 2006). Related to marital violence, Nugraha (2009) tried to determine the effect of conflict management on marital satisfaction, for this goal the researcher selected 111 spouses from Yogyakarta with their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, and they had been married from one to 30 years. The results indicated that, the marital satisfaction for the subjects was high, however the degree of marital conflict management was modest, moreover the correlation coefficient between conflict management and marital satisfaction was (r = 0.372, p < 0.01). Furthermore,
Astutik (2008)
discovered the relationship between
management of marital conflict and marital satisfaction. This study was in Ngasem Bojonegoro district in east Java. The sample consisted of 70 whom wives their ages between 20-40 years old with 1-5 years in marriage. The results showed that, the samples have a high degree of marital satisfaction, and there was a significant and positive relationship between confronting conflict style (r = 0.385, p
