.. . “‘1‘! 5hr“... ”human”... A. ‘nq. I l fibula.) I: . - .. .119. . .. II. .1193; “"«krwpvmw is fil-‘ v.14 lvflgflm3.§lo . .., ., , . L. . . : .. . .. . . 1.. . . u. . ... ‘ y ‘. . . ... ‘ . A. ». ‘ . .‘ln‘llfl . . . . .[K ,0; l twlliv‘li j . . Pluuli‘u3a ‘ffill’n'idlt‘ b fiJd. 1., o n.1L.I)o,IkUI‘-.Iu&.ow . ' I . bfhl‘ [,1-12. I} ‘ .rvs pa...” i0.- ‘15 a.“ i'.. luv. .. .. ‘ . a; xiv-"1.4.094. . . .b‘msfllhnu: . 3.5.1.31 . E...» .. [6-3-33 ..!..u|.. .. .v1JOthJiv... olfii at \ .Ill . I . AX. ‘vt..II~¢\h‘DII K 90"); 5... .n‘ I? o? I! l.. :3 ‘ . .Hsammmn .h\¢........r«ft Lu: 7!: . ~. : l. A . .2. _. it 11.... . st ‘ I.|l’ ''''' n l mgr. III. I 1-: ll!’ .35? ‘ . I I.» ‘ .17.. s. . .‘A‘A . 1|... ‘1; .2 ham- v . .n. 2. ?:IVO-‘¢.~I.il|0.n . . . c .. . ". IlVl". - ’ I? I’D I'Oltsn“, I I‘|" I u u . L .1... .7 lx‘f (lull! . ..... .QOZ . 1 1:1: 55:32.. . 31E4nu’. u. Hf... -n ‘1. :3 t! Y...» . . «Ritual A.......Si vnri.lf.i ‘13:»? ill nufltb'rnfsi: “1511». . «55:19.13. . . .‘itll’i'f L . .I A . 1.:‘Ibl...lil.||!§v.»l|:v \Clkl‘tl.. » ligvv 3P. . s h, 2 u, -91. A c it" .HI .o. .S «out». n: .LI! . 1.3.1.11.- .lnlv' sir-1v! . I}! V «5 lb-1 1 ‘ . Ijv o . : . ....Il¢‘v nr\l . . TX: I (a; O THESES (”ZR v) lllllllllllllIll!“HUN!IIIIIIHJHIHNIUIHlllllllllllHl 293 01570 7726 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled MARITAL QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER-ROLE EGALITARIANISM AMONG THE MALAY-MUSLIM STUDENT COUPLES IN THE MIDWEST REGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA presented by RUMAYA JUHARI has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. degmin FAMILY AND CHILD ECOLOGY W 50444;?— Major professor Date APRIL 28, 1997 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty ~orv'9vvvfiv V v ‘9 V ‘ “ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your noord. To AVOID FINES Mum on or baton duo duo. DATEDHE .-» DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opponunlty lnotltwon Wanna-M MARITAL QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER-ROLE EGALITARIANISM AMONG THE MALAY-MUSLIM STUDENT COUPLES IN THE MIDWEST REGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY RUMAYA JUHARI A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1997 ABSTRACT MARITAL QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER-ROLE EGALITARIANISM AMONG THE MALAY-MUSLIM STUDENT COUPLES IN THE MIDWEST REGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY Rumaya Juhari The study investigates the relationship between gender- role egalitarianism, socio-demographic and economic background, degree of adaptation towards life in a foreign country and marital quality of the Malay-Muslim student couples in the United States of America. Marital Quality is operationally defined by scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and by a modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. It was hypothesized that an individual who behaves in an egalitarian gender-role, who has a high degree of adjustment towards life in the United States, and who has a higher socioeconomic status would have higher marital quality. Findings from the study indicate that for husbands, gender-role egalitarianism, number of children, and age at marriage were significant predictors of their marital adjustment. The husbands’ age at marriage, number of children, and adaptation to life in the United States were found to predict their marital satisfaction. On the other hand, only the number of children predicted wives’ estimated marital adjustment and marital satisfaction. Husbands’ gender-role egalitarianism also was found to be significantly related to the couples’ marital adjustment. In addition, the couples’ gender-role congruency was found to be significantly related to the husbands’ marital adjustment. However, when the couples were divided into two groups of gender-role congruent and incongruent, there was no significant difference in mean marital adjustment or marital satisfaction scores. Nevertheless, there were significant differences in mean marital satisfaction scores between the student and non student couples, and according to stages of the family life— cycle. In the name of Allah, The Mbst Gracious, The Most Merciful .... And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from.among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect. (Al-Quran 30:21) iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In utter humbleness, I thank Allah, The Al-Mighty God, the Most Merciful and The Most Knowing for His Blessings which have enabled me to reach the stage where I am today. My gratitude and appreciation go to each and every one who has directly or indirectly contributed to the whole process of my doctoral program and this dissertation. My utmost special and sincere appreciation go to the chairperson of my guidance committee and research advisor, Dr. Norma Bobbitt, for her insightful support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my doctoral program. She has been a prominent mentor, a distinguished teacher, and a remarkable friend. I would also like to thank the other members of my guidance committee: Dr. Thomas Luster for his insightful advice and interest, particularly in the area of data analysis; Dr. Robert E. Lee for his continuous support and interest regarding the subject matter, and Dr. Don Hamachek, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, for his enthusiasm and support throughout my program. Many thanks are also extended to the other professors at the department and college: Associate Dean Dr. Mary Andrews for her genuine interest in my academic pursuits; Chairperson Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik for her moral support; Dr. Marsha Carolan for providing me with the chance to work in her qualitative research team; and Professor Emeritus Dr. Linda Nelson, who has served as the chairperson for my guidance committee during my Master’s program, for her kind support and interest in my professional as well as personal endeavors. Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Frank Bobbitt, Dr. Murari Suvedi, and Dr. Steve Raudenbush who have introduced me to the interesting world of statistics. My greatest gratitude and thanks go to the respondents who have willingly participated in the study. I would like to acknowledge the Universiti Putra Malaysia (University of Agriculture, Malaysia) for granting me the scholarship to pursue my graduate programs as well as the Graduate School and College of Human Ecology at MSU for granting me the dissertation fellowship that made this project possible. My utmost special love and gratitude go to my parents Juhari Bachik and Robiah Yusop, my in—laws, my sister and brothers for their love and continuous support across the continents. My beloved son Muhammad Harith has indirectly helped me better understand the meaning of life and endured the long separation from me. Finally, my love and appreciation go to my husband, Zainul Anzaid, who has believed in me all along, supporting, understanding, and accepting me for what I am. Due to him and our marriage, I am personally inspired to research the topic. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................... x LIST OF FIGURES .................................. xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction ................................ 1 - 7 Statement of Problem ........................ 8 Theoretical Perspectives .................... 10 - 14 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Marital Quality ............................. 15 - 18 Correlates of Marital Quality ............... 18 - 32 Individual Characteristics Age and Age at Marriage Income, Employment, Education Length of Marriage, Number of Children, Age of Children and Family Life-Cycle Length of stay in the United States Adaptation to life in the United States Gender-Role Egalitarianism & Marital Quality 33 - 36 Gender-Role Congruency and Marital Quality.. 37 - 38 vii Measuring Marital Quality & Gender-Role ..... Egalitarianism The Dyadic Adjustment Scale The modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale Characteristics of The Malay-Muslims of Malaysia ................................. Chapter Summary ............................. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Conceptual Framework ......................... Research Variables ........................... Conceptual & Operational Definitions Research Questions ........................... Hypotheses ................................... Research Design .............................. Respondents .................................. Procedures ................................... Measurement Instruments ...................... Limitations .................................. Assumptions .................................. Analysis ..................................... CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 39 - 52 53 - 55 - 61 62 — 7O 7O 73 - 82 82 83 48 51 54 6O 69 73 81 Description of respondents .................... 84 - 89 Family Profile ......................... viii 89 - 91 Adaptation to life in the U.S ................ 92 - 94 Gender-role egalitarianism ................... 95 — 96 Gender-role congruency ...................... 97 - 99 Marital Quality ............................ 100 - 111 Marital Adjustment Marital Satisfaction Factors determining differences in .......... 111 - 135 Marital Quality Spousal student status Family life stages What predicts marital quality?.............. 136 - 139 Chapter Summary ............................. 140 - 146 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSSIONS Correlates of Marital Quality ............... 147 - 153 Conclusion .................................. 154 - 155 Suggestions ................................. 155 - 157 REFERENCES MATERIALS APPENDICES: ................................ 158 - 170 Consent Form & Questionnaire UCRIHS Letter of Approval Letter of Permission to Reproduce Copyrighted Material Certificate of Translation LIST OF REFERENCES .......................... 171 - 189 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Profile of Malay-Muslim Husbands Sample 2 Profile of Malay—Muslim Wives Sample 3 Profile of Malay-Muslim Family Sample 4 Mean Adaptation Scale Scores for Husbands and Wives 5 Mean Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale Scores for Husbands and Wives 6 Mean Sex-Role Congruency and Pairing of the Couples Based on Gender-role Congruency 7 Mean Dyadic Adjustment Scale Score for Husbands and Wives 8 Mean m-Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale Score for Husbands and Wives 9 Bivariate Correlations between Individual Characteristics and Marital Quality of Husbands 10 Bivariate Correlations between Individual Characteristics and Marital Quality of Wives 11 Mean Differences between Husbands and Wives according to Their Student Status in Measures of Marital Quality 12 Mean Differences in Marital Quality by Couples’ Student Status 87 88 91 94 96 99 101 103 105 108 113 116 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mean Differences in Measure of Marital Quality by Family Life-Cycle Bivariate Correlation between Gender-Role Egalitarianism and Marital Quality of Husbands and Wives Bivariate Correlation between Gender-Role Congruency and Marital Quality of Husbands and Wives Bivariate Correlations between Individual Characteristics and Gender-Role Egalitarianism Mean Differences in Scores of Gender-Role Egalitarianism According to Student Status Mean Differences on Scores of Gender—Role Egalitarianism According to Student Status and Family Life—Cycle Bivariate Correlations between Individual Characteristics and Gender-Role Congruency Mean Differences in Scores of Gender-Role Congruency According to Student Status Mean Differences in Scores of Gender-Role Congruency According to Couples’ Student Status and Family Life-Cycle xi 120 123 125 128 129 130 132 133 135 22 23 24 Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables 137 Predicting Husbands’ and Couples’ Marital Adjustment Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables 139 Predicting Husbands’ and Couples’ Marital Satisfaction Summary of Findings Pertinent to 143 Research Questions # 1, 2 and 3 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Theoretical Framework 11 2 Conceptual Framework 54 xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In spite of the overwhelming new ideologies on how to live one’s life, marriage is still a prominent event in an adult’s life in almost every culture in the world. Family scientists continue to focus on issues pertaining to marital relationships, yet more research is needed. Issues pertinent to gender differences as they relate to the quality of marriage, particularly in dual-career marriages have been extensively studied in the United States (Rappoport & Rappoport, 1971; Staines, Pleck, Shepard & O’Connor, 1978; Hardesty & Betz, 1980). However, marriage as a topic is yet to be explored extensively in other cultural and ethnic contexts, within and outside the United States. This study attempts to investigate the relationship between gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality in selected Malay—Muslim student couples in the Midwest Region of the United States. The concept of marital quality, as conceived in the early eighties, has been extensively used as an umbrella term for various dimensions of marriage. Variables such as 2 marital happiness, satisfaction, affective evaluation, adjustment, and stability have been used interchangeably to indicate marital quality. Snyder (1979) revealed in his work the weaknesses of marital assessments in evaluating marital quality. He indicated that the lack of a comprehensive, multidimensional measure implying a simultaneous assessment of the various aspects of marriage seemed to be one of the major weaknesses. Two decades later, the statement still plagues the nature of research in marital quality. Lewis and Spanier (1979) proposed marital quality as the single greatest predictor of marital stability. They noted marital quality as the process that took place in a marriage relationship, while marital stability relates to the outcome. A year later, Spanier and Lewis (1980) indicated that the definition of marital quality does not convey a fixed idea of discrete categories of high and low, but rather a continuum that ranges from high to low. In their ten-year review of literature related to this field, they found that quality of marriage involves multi- dimensional phenomena governing marital interaction and marital functioning. In the present study, the concept of marital quality is indicated by marital adjustment and marital satisfaction. Thus, an individual with high quality of marriage is mirrored by his or her high adjustment and high satisfaction in the marriage. Locke (1951), Spanier (1976), and Spanier 3 and Cole (1976) agreed upon utilizing the concept of marital adjustment as an indicator of those processes presumed to be needed for a harmonious and functional relationship. Conceptually, marital adjustment refers to a person’s individual perception of the dyadic aspects of the relationship, which is claimed to be objective in nature (Thompson & Walker, 1982; Sabatelli, 1988). The concept of marital satisfaction, on the other hand, refers to a person’s attitude toward the partner and the relationship (Roach, Frazier & Bowden, 1981). This notion captures the subjective impressions of the relationship (Sabatelli, 1988). Therefore, employing both concepts to indicate marital quality provides both the objective and the subjective dimensions of the relationship. Over the years, numerous studies have suggested that marital quality is related to personality-derived measures of gender-roles. Marital adjustment, as an indicator of marital quality, is a process of interaction and communication between the spouses (Spanier, 1976). Through— out the marital relationship, couples become adjusted to fit within each other’s roles. Among the major factors that may influence the process of adjustment would be the gender-role attitudes of the individual spouse. Studies of gender-role attitudes often include questions regarding the causes and consequences of attitude change (Thornton, Alwin & Camburn, 1983). Higher levels of education obtained by women, their greater involvement in the labor force, and a smaller 4 family structure are often associated with egalitarian gender-role attitudes of women (Mason, Czajka, & Arber, 1976; Thornton & Freedman, 1979). Traditional gender-role attitudes in the context of marriage are often associated with the husband employing the role of breadwinner, and the wife the role of homemaker- mother. In contrast, egalitarian gender-role attitudes emphasize shared roles and egalitarianism. Gender-role attitude is perceived to have an impact on the personal and dyadic aspects of the relationship (Amato & Booth, 1995). The present study strives to identify the relationship between gender-role attitudes and the marital quality of respondents, who come from geographical, religious, and cultural background from outside the United States. No such study has ever been reported for this population. In addition to gender-role attitudes, gender—role congruency is also known as an important correlate of relationship satisfaction. Earlier studies indicated that attitude congruency is an important determinant of success in establishing and maintaining relationships (Allen & Thompson, 1984; Byrne, 1971; Ferreira & Winter, 1974). The partners or friends who are congruent in their attitudes perceive themselves as being rewarded and validated by each other, which leads to satisfaction with the relationship. Similarly, the marital relationship is assumed to be enriched by having both partners congruent in their gender- role attitudes. In other words, marital quality is enhanced 5 when both spouses are congruent in their gender-role attitude, and marital strain is the consequence of spouses’ gender-role attitude incongruency (Bowen & Orthner, 1983; Nordlund, 1978). The respondents in the present study are married couples who originate from Malaysia and who are currently either pursuing their studies or accompanying spouses who are studying at midwest universities. Malaysia is situated in southeast Asia. In 1995, the total population of Malaysia was 19.9 million; and it is projected to be 27.5 million and 34.5 million in the years 2010 and 2025 respectively (Source: Population Reference Bureau, Washington D. C., 1996). There are three major ethnic groups in Malaysia: Malay (50.0%), Chinese (30.0%), and Indians (15.0%) (Source: 1991 Census Report of Malaysia). The Malays of Malaysia are Muslims, according to the legal constitution of the country. Despite their contemporary lifestyle, the Malay Muslims of Malaysia religiously and culturally continue to value marriage as a lifetime event that has advantages both in their current lives and in the hereafter. Islam denotes that marriage is a blessed event that unites man and woman for the sake of the well-being of the universe. It is the only proper, blessed and righteous way of unity for procreation and forming a family. According to the Islamic teachings, there are means and ways to lead a high quality married life; if all efforts fail, 6 however, the couple is allowed to divorce, the final alternative and the one least sanctioned by the religion. The 1991 Census Report of Malaysia indicates that there was a 42.3% increase in the number of households (for all ethnic groups) from the previous census in 1980. However, the sacred union of marriage is facing a great challenge as the country experiences drastic changes resulting from modernization and industrialization. The 1992 Report on the Malaysian Family Life Survey indicated that the divorce rate among the Malays is 8.4%, as compared to those of the Chinese (2.2%) and Indians (2.9%) (Kuala Lumpur: National Population & Family Development Board, Malaysia and RAND Corporation, USA). Higher rates of divorce and separation and an increase in the number of family and children’s problem, are acknowledged to have been rooted in a poor quality of marriage and family life. The Analytic Report on the 1984/85 Malaysian Population and Family Survey (Arshat, Tan, Peng, Subbiah, 1988) indicated that the age at first marriage of women in Malaysia has increased over the years. For the Malay women who were 45-49 years of age (born in the years of 1935-39), their mean age at first marriage was 16.4, as compared to those aged 25 to 29 (born in the years of 1955-1959), who have an average age at first marriage of 20.7 years. The authors concluded that the impact of various socioeconomic and cultural factors influenced the shift to a later marriage. Various opportunities for educational and 7 occupational pursuits, along with the relative availability of suitable spouses-to-be, may also have been viewed as temporary incentives, discouragements, or alternatives to marriage. This may also indirectly indicate the cultural changes in socializing young girls into women in terms of their gender-roles attitudes. Marital status impacts one’s life as a foreign student. Studies in the past have indicated mixed-messages about being married and having the spouse living with the student while studying in the United States. Collins’s (1976) study of international students' perceived problems reveals that single students have more problems than married, separated or divorced foreign students. Other studies indicate that having a spouse in a foreign country contributes positively to the student’s life and studies provided that the spouse is contented and happy (Hull, 1978; Klineberg and Hull, 1979; Ng, 1981). Unfortunately, most studies relating to foreign students' adjustment were of students only and did not include spouses. The most common marital or familial variable analyzed in such studies is marital status and its effects on the student’s adaptation and academic well-being. Malaysia is one of the top ten countries in the world in sending students for abroad study (Pyle, 1986). In 1981, Malaysian students became one of the ten largest groups of foreign students enrolling in American universities (Source: Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange). In 1994, Malaysians were the seventh largest group of foreign 8 students in the United States following the Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Indians and Canadians. As of September, 1994, a total of 13,617 students from Malaysia were reported to have enrolled in American Universities (Source: Institute of International Education, Washington D. C.). These students pursue either undergraduate or graduate degrees. Approximately forty percent of the students pursue their degrees in the Midwest Region of the United States. The students may be sponsored by the Malaysian Government through its various agencies, by semi- government agencies such as local universities and colleges, by the private sector, or even by the students themselves. Statement of problem This study investigates the relationship between gender-roles egalitarianism and marital quality among Malay- Muslim couples currently residing in the Midwest region of the United States. Its aim is to identify the relationship between gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality. Individual characteristics of age, age at marriage, education level, and income are explored in terms of their relationships to marital quality. Family variables such as length of marriage, number of children and age of children are also examined in terms of their relationships to marital quality. Length of stay in the United States and perceptions of one’s own de ree of adjustment as a student 9 9 and/or spouse in the United States are also utilized as independent variables. In this study, the assessment of marital quality is derived from husbands and wives independently. Two separate measures of marital quality are used. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) and a modified version of The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (Schumm, Paff-Bergen, Hatch, et al., 1986) are used to indicate marital adjustment and marital satisfaction respectively. Gender-role egalitarianism is measured by using the Sex-Role Egalitarian Scale (Beere, King, Beere & King, 1984). Gender-role congruency is measured by subtracting the wife’s scores on the SRES from the husband’s. Findings from the study enable the researcher to obtain insights on the relationships of gender—role attitudes and gender-role congruency between spouses, to marital quality and the correlates of marital quality in general. The findings also contribute to teaching, research and practice in Family Studies, as well as to the Marriage and Family Advising/Counseling program which will be implemented in Malaysia in the near future. Finally, the findings can also promote further research related to marriage and the family living patterns of the Malays of Malaysia. 10 Theoretical Perspectives Three major theories have been identified as highly related to the study. Due to the nature of the study, some dimensions are found to be pertinent in a number of different theories. However, only theories that globally fit the phenomena are integrated into the conceptualization of this study. The three major theories are: (Refer to Figure 1) 1. Family Ecology 2. Symbolic Interaction 3. Family Development Family Ecology theory serves as the governing theory for the study. Concepts such as environment, adaptation, communication, interaction, and time are pertinent to the study and also relate to the other theories. Environment consists of the totality of the physical, biological, social, economic, political, aesthetic, and structural surroundings for human beings and becomes the context for behavior and development (Bubolz & Sontag, 1994). In the present study, the respondents are in a temporary setting, living in a foreign country. Adjustment in the context of the study refers to the adaptation made by the individual husband and wife, who are not only adapting to the new environment, but are also modifying the environment to reach their desired outcomes. Communication refers to the process of interaction where information and meanings are created ll 5550 4.4%: $80.5 T coufifigm [Ii ............... modem # acumen _ \ “Hum HZEZAOAEMD >§<§ NEH 02032 Zngbicm MAOMim—DZMO no 20:02?» < m4 >EA I, MARITAL QUALITY Marital Adjustment Marital Satisfaction 55 used together in determining marital quality of the respondents. Variables Marital Qdality: Dimensions of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction are independently measured for both husbands and wives. Marital quality serves as the dependent variable. Individual Characteristics: Age. Age at marriage. Length of marriage. Education: Highest grade completed/years of education. Household student status: husband-only, wife-only, both students Income (in Malaysia and United States) Number of children. Age of children (Age of oldest and youngest children). Family life cycle (based on age of oldest child) Length of stay in the United States. Overall perception of degree of adjustment/adaptation to life in the United States. Gender-Role Egaliterienism Gender-role attitudes Gender-role congruency 56 Summary of the variables Individual characteristics and gender-role egalitarianism are the independent variables when used in determining correlates of marital quality. Gender-role egalitarianism is the independent variable when analyzing correlates of marital quality. Individual characteristics are the independent variables for studying both correlates of gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality. Independent Variebles Dependent Verieblee Individual characteristics ---> Marital Quality Individual characteristics ——-> Gender-roles egalitarianism Gender-role egalitarianism ---> Marital Quality Individual characteristics and -—-> Marital Quality Gender-role egalitarianism Gender-role congruency ---> Marital Quality Definitions Marital Quality Conceptual definition: (i) Marital quality, as indicated by marital adjustment, refers to an interpersonal process of movement along a continuum, which can be evaluated at any point in time on a dimension from well-adjusted to maladjusted (Spanier, 1976). It denotes the degree of satisfaction in 57 the marital relationship, commitment to its continuance, degree of engaging in activities together, degree to which the couple agrees on matters of importance to the relationship, and the degree to which the couple is satisfied with expression of affection and sex in the marital relationship. Marital adjustment also defines the degree to which couples fit together and satisfy each other’s needs, desires, and expectations (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). The term adjustment is also associated with adaptation, ability to perform, flexibility, and satisfaction. Adjustment is also considered to be the ability of a person to comply his or her social position to the expected roles (Biddle, 1979). (ii) Marital quality as an indication of global marital satisfaction refers to the degree of satisfaction with the marriage, with the relationship with one’s spouse, and with the spouse (Schumm et al., 1986). Operational definition: (1) Scores on the 32-item scale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) in 4 areas: 1-Marital satisfaction (10 items); 2-Consensus, i.e., the extent of agreement on such issues as finances, goals, career decisions, etc. (13 items); 3-Cohesion, i.e., the extent of quality of shared leisure time and other activities (5 items); and 4- Affectional expressions (4 items). 58 (ii) Scores on the modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (m-KMS) indicate degree of marital satisfaction. This scale contains 4 items, one each for overall marital satisfaction, satisfaction with the marital relationship, satisfaction with one’s spouse, and satisfaction with expression of affection in the relationship; these are all used to measure an individual’s perception of his or her marital satisfaction. A higher score indicates high satisfaction, while a lower score indicates lower satisfaction. A higher satisfaction scale score indicates a high quality of marriage. These items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Gender-Role Egalitarianism Conceptual definition: According to Beere, King, Beere and King (1984), sex- role egalitarianism is defined as "an attitude that causes one to respond to another individual independently of the other individual’s sex". Possession of this attitude reflects the belief that the sex of an individual should not influence the perception of an individual’s abilities or the determination of an individual’s rights, obligations, and opportunities. It also refers to a person’s general overall position in reference to a continuum ranging from traditional to egalitarian gender-role attitudes. True sex- role egalitarians, according to the authors, exhibit 59 tradition-free attitudes to persons of either sex; they do not discriminate against either women or men who exhibit non-traditional behaviors. Operational definition: Scores on a five-point Likert Scale using items of the Sex—Role Egalitarian Scale (SRES) with three out of five areas measured: 1-marital roles, 25parental roles, and 3- educational roles. The two areas which are not included in the study are employment-roles and heterosexual relationships-roles. Gender-Role Congruency Conceptual definition: The attitude congruency of gender-roles between the husband and the wife. Operational definition: The difference or similarity in scores on the SRES between husband and wife. Wives’ scores on the SRES are subtracted from husbands’ scores on the SRES. A positive value indicates the husband being more egalitarian and a negative value indicates the wife being more egalitarian. 60 The variables involved in this definition are: HSRES - Husbands’ scores on the SRES WSRES - Wives’ scores on the SRES HWSRES - subtraction of wives’ scores from husbands' on the SRES (HSRES - WSRES) ABSRES — absolute values of the differences in scores of HSRES and WSRES. Besides using the continuous data, the scores are also divided into categories based on the difference in scores of the HWSRES. The possible categories are: Husband egalitarian Wife egalitarian (HEWE) Husband traditional - Wife traditional (HTWT) Husband traditional - Wife egalitarian (HTWE) Husband egalitarian - Wife traditional (HEWT) The nature of these variables provides flexibility in analyzing the relationship of gender-role congruency to marital quality. Adeptetion to life in the united Stetes. Conceptual definition: The satisfaction of those needs related to survival or the process whereby an individual accommodates to an environment (Surdam & Collins, 1984). Two major components of adaptation are adjustment and assimilation. 61 Operational definition: Scores on 10 items based on a five-point Likert Scale, ranging from poorly unadjusted to well adjusted, on degree of perception of own adjustment and adaptation in the United States. Research Questions The central research questions for the study are: Are there any significant relationships between gender- role egalitarianism and marital quality among the Malay- Muslim student couples residing temporarily in the United States? If so, what are the dynamics? What are the relationships between marital gender-role congruency/incongruency and marital quality? What are the relationships between individual characteristics and marital quality? What are the roles of the individual characteristics in explaining the relationships between gender-role egalitarianism and gender-role congruency with marital quality? To answer the central research question and related research questions, several hypotheses are formulated. These hypotheses are organized to reflect the conceptual framework and the research questions for the study. 62 Hypotheses R arch ion 1- What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Marital Quality? Age : Hm: There is no relationship between marital quality and age for husband/wife. HM: Older husband/wife has higher marital quality than younger husband/wife. Age at marriage: Hm: There is no relationship between age at marriage and marital quality for husband/wife. HM: Husband/wife who is married at earlier age has lower marital quality than husband/wife who marries later. Education: Hm: There is no relationship between education and marital quality for husband/wife. HM: Husband/wife who is more educated has higher marital quality than husband/wife who is less educated. Hm: There is no mean difference in marital quality between husband/wife who studies and one who is not studying. HM: Husband/wife who studies has higher marital quality than one who is not studying. Income : H06 : 63 There are no mean differences in marital quality among husband/wife of husband-only studying couples, wife-only studying couples, and both-spouses studying couples. Husband/wife from husband-only studying couple has higher marital quality than one from wife-only studying and both-spouses studying couples. There is no relationship between income (family income in United States, both spouses’ income in Malaysia and individual income in Malaysia) and marital quality for husband/wife. Husband/wife who earns more income (family income in United States, both spouses’ income in Malaysia, and individual income in Malaysia) has higher marital quality than those who earn less income. Length of marriage Hm: HA7 : There is no relationship between length of marriage and marital quality for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has been married longer has higher marital quality than one who is just married. Number of children Hoe : There is no relationship between marital quality and number of children for husband/ wife. Husband/wife who has more children has lower marital quality than one who has fewer children. 64 Age of children H09 : HA9 : H010 : HAIO: H011: HA1}: There is no relationship between age of first child and marital quality for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has older first child has higher marital quality than one who has younger first child. There is no relationship between age of youngest child and marital quality for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has younger youngest child has lower marital quality than one who has older youngest child. There is no mean difference in marital quality among husband/wife at any stage of the family life-cycle. Husband/wife who comes from family at earlier stage of family life-cycle has higher marital quality than one who comes from family at later stage of the family life- cycle. Length of stay in the United States. H012 : HA12: There is no relationship between length of stay in the United States and marital quality for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has stayed longer in the United States has higher marital quality than one who has just arrived. Adaptation to life in the united States. H013: Han: There is no relationship between adaptation to life in the United States and marital quality. Husband/wife who is better adjusted to life in the United States has higher marital quality than one who is less adjusted. 65 Reeearch Qdegtion £2 What are the relationships between Gender-Roles Egalitarianism.and Marital Quality? Gender-roles Egalitarianism: Hm: There is no relationship between gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality for husband. Egalitarian husband has higher marital quality than traditional husband. There is no relationship between gender—role egalitarianism and marital quality for wife. Traditional wife has higher marital quality than egalitarian wives. Reeearch Qdestion 33 What are the relationships between Gender—Roles Congruency/Incongruency and Marital Quality? Gender-roles Congruency/Incongruency: Hm: There is no relationship between gender-role congruency and marital quality for both husband and wife. Higher gender-role congruency decreases marital quality for both husband and wife. There is no mean difference in marital quality between husband/wife who is congruent and incongruent in their gender-role egalitarianism with their spouse. Husband/wife whose gender-role egalitarianism is congruent with his/her spouse has higher marital quality than husband/wife whose gender-roles egalitarianism incongruent with his/her spouse. R H03: 66 There is no mean difference in marital quality among the pairs of gender-role congruency/ incongruency for the couples. Traditional husband—egalitarian wife couple has lower marital quality than those from egalitarian husband—traditional wife, both traditional, and both egalitarian couples. e rch es ion 4- What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Gender-roles Egalitarianism? Age: There is no relationship between age and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Older husband/wife is less egalitarian than younger husband/wife. Age at marriage: Hm: There is no relationship between age at marriage and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. HA2 Husband/wife who is married at earlier age is less egalitarian than one who marries later. Education: Hm: There is no relationship between education and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/ wife. HM Husband/wife who is more educated is more egalitarian than husband/wife who is less educated. Income : 67 There is no mean difference in gender-role egalitarianism between husband/wife who studies and husband/wife who does not. Husband/wife who studies is more egalitarian than those who do not study. There is no mean difference in marital quality among husband/wife from husband-only studying couples, wife—only studying couples, and both-spouses studying couples. Husband/wife from husband—only studying household is less egalitarian than one from wife-only studying or both-spouses studying couples. There is no relationship between income (family income in United States, both spouses’ income in Malaysia, and individual income in Malaysia) and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Husband/wife who earns more income (family income in United States, both spouses’ income in Malaysia, and individual income in Malaysia) is more egalitarian than one who earns less income. Length of marriage Ho7 : There is no relationship between length of marriage and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has been longer married is more egalitarian than one who is just married. 68 Number of children Hos: HA8 : There is no relationship between number of children and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has more children is less egalitarian than one who has fewer children. Age of children Hm: H010 : HAIO: H011 : HA1}: There is no relationship between age of first child and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has older first child is less egalitarian than one who has younger first child. There is no relationship between age of youngest child and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has younger youngest child is more egalitarian than one who has older youngest child. There is no mean difference in gender-role egalitarianism among husband/wife at any stage of the family life-cycle. Husband/wife who comes from family at earlier stage of family life-cycle is more egalitarian than one who comes from family at later stage of the family life-cycle. Length of stay in the United States. H012 : HA12: There is no relationship between length of stay in the United States and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. Husband/wife who has stayed longer in the United States is more egalitarian than one who has just arrived. 69 Adaptation to life in the United States. 1%”: There is no relationship between adaptation to life in the United States and gender-role egalitarianism for husband/wife. It”: Husband/wife who is better adjusted to life in the United States is more egalitarian than those who are less adjusted. Reeeareh Qdestien 35; What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Gender-role Congruency? This research question is exploratory in nature; therefore, no null hypothesis is being tested. The statistical analysis performed for this question is to explore the likelihood of having any linear relationship between individual characteristics and gender-role congruency. 70 Research Design The study is descriptive, exploratory, correlational in design, and cross-sectional in nature. The units of analysis are the individual spouses and the couples. Respondents According to the Census Bureau of the United States, the Midwest region consists of two parts: East North Central (Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin) and West Central (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas). All married Malay-Muslim students from Malaysia who are currently enrolled in midwestern universities and have their spouses residing with them are eligible for the study. Due to the non-availability of recorded data on Malaysian students’ marital, racial and religious backgrounds, the sampling list was obtained manually. The Malaysian Student Department of the Midwest Region in Chicago, Illinois provided a list of contact persons from various midwestern universities. Most of the contact persons are student leaders of the Malaysian Student Organization at their universities. Through these contact persons, a listing of names and telephone numbers of eligible respondents was assembled. A total of 148 student couples were identified to be eligible for the study. 71 Respondents are analyzed individually and as a couple. Each spouse responds to the questionnaire that is appropriately modified for their gender. The respondents are student couples with a husband, wife, or both studying at a midwestern university. Procedures A total of 148 student couples (N=148 husbands and 148 wives) were contacted via telephone. The initial contact was made in order to verify their student status, length of time in the United States, the year they plan to return to Malaysia, and their addresses and to provide information about the study. Only those who had completed at least one academic semester in the United States were screened as eligible. A mail survey was used for the study. A total of 148 sets of questionnaires were mailed to the student couples. Included in the envelope were 2 questionnaires which were labelled for each spouse, and 2 self-addressed postage paid envelopes for them to use to individually mail back the completed questionnaires. Each participant was requested to respond to a questionnaire covering the following sections: (i) Marital Quality, (ii) Gender—Roles Egalitarianism, (iii) Adaptation to Life in the United States, and (iv) Individual Characteristics. As mentioned in the consent form and 72 instruction sheet, respondents were requested not to share their responses with their spouses. For the first round, respondents were given three weeks to respond to the questionnaires. After the first round, another phone call was made to contact persons to ask them to remind all the eligible respondents about participating in the study. Three weeks after the second round, a thank you and reminder letter was mailed to each couple. This letter served to thank those who returned the completed questionnaire, as well as to remind others to return the questionnaire. The letter also offered the availability of a new set of questionnaires in case they were needed by the respondents. Those who did not respond within two weeks following the thank you letter were considered not to be interested in participating in the study. At the conclusion of the data collection time frame, a total of 97 sets (65.5% response rate) of the questionnaires were returned. It was assumed that not all of the spouses would be well-versed in the English version of the questionnaire, therefore, both the husband and wife versions of the questionnaires were translated into Bahasa Malaysia, the native language for the Malaysian-Malays and also the national language of Malaysia. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale and Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale used in the study were translated by the researcher in January, 1996. Also, the translation was verified by a faculty member of the 73 Department of Family Studies and Development, College of Human Ecology, University of Agriculture, Malaysia in March, 1996. The translated versions of the instruments were approved by the Unit of Translation, Center of Linguistic Study, University of Science, Malaysia in April, 1996. Prior to data collection, a pilot study was completed with local Malay-Muslim student couples who were scheduled to return soon to Malaysia. The pilot served to determine the appropriateness of wordings and structure of the questionnaire, as well as to identify the time frame needed to complete the questionnaire. The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) provided approval prior to the sending of the questionnaire to the respondents (see appendix). Measurement Instruments Marital Quality The study utilized Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). The DAS is a 32-item scale that assesses 4 aspects of marital quality: 1-Marital satisfaction (10 items); 2-Consensus, i.e., the extent of agreement on such issues as finances, goals, career decisions (13 items); 3- Cohesion, i.e., the extent of quality of shared leisure time and other activities (5 items); and 4-Affectional expressions (4 items). A total score and sub-scores for each area are obtained by summing the responses. Two of the 74 items are measured in a yes-no response, two items use a 5- point Likert scale, one item uses a 7-point Likert scale and the remaining one use a 6-point Likert scale. The total scores may range from 0 to 151 with higher scores indicating higher levels of marital adjustment. Since all four areas are different in nature, the computation of the standardized scores of these items is used as the total score for this scale. All 32 items were standardized and computed into a total score of marital adjustment. As presented in Chapter 2, evidence for the reliability and the validity of the DAS was reported by Spanier (1976). Throughout the years, many studies have employed this instrument and established that the instrument is reliable and valid. Cronbach’s alpha of .96 for the entire scale and ranges from .73 to .94 for the sub-scales have been reported for the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Information on content, criterion-related, and construct validity have also been reported on this instrument (Sabatelli, 1988). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale is chosen to measure marital quality in the study based on its broad conceptual base which covers a broad range of marital quality criteria, as well as its established use over the past two decades. Alpha reliabilities for the DAS in this study are .85 and .86 for husband and wife respectively. The Cronbach alpha for each area ranged from .41 to .85 for husbands (husbands’ Dyadic Consensus = .85, Dyadic Cohesion = .78, Dyadic ~ *- .__...- l.——o 75 satisfaction = .65, and Affection Expression = .41). For the wives, the Cronbach alpha for each area ranges from .57 to .83 (wives’ Dyadic Consensus = .83, Dyadic Cohesion = .57, Dyadic Satisfaction = .65, and Affection Expression = .57). These results of the reliability testings are slightly lower than the reported values from other studies; however, with an exception of the Affection Expression sub— scale, the sub-scales manifest moderate alpha values. As an addition to the DAS, a modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (m-KMS) (Schumm et al., 1986), which consists of 4 items measuring an individual’s global marital evaluation, is included in the study. The three original items specifically are: 1) satisfaction with the marriage, 2) satisfaction with one’s relationship with one’s spouse, and 3) satisfaction with one’s spouse. An additional item on satisfaction with the showing of affection in one’s relationship is included in the scale. It was assumed that items related to detail measures of expression of affection may not be culturally appropriate for the respondents. Therefore, this additional item is included in order to obtain responses that might have been hindered from similar measure of expression of affection in the DAS. All of these four items are measured in a 7-point Likert scale on satisfaction from "extremely unsatisfied" to "extremely satisfied". 76 The total score for the modified version of the KMS may range from 0 to 28 with higher scores reflecting higher level of marital satisfaction in the areas measured. Cronbach’s alpha reported for the original version of 3- items KMS ranges from .89 to .93 (Schumm et al., 1983). Information on criterion-related and construct validity has also been established for this scale (Sabatelli, 1988). The alpha reliabilities established for the m-KMS in this study are .95 and .93 for husband and wife respectively. These figures are slightly higher than the reported range of Cronbach’s alpha for this scale. The correlational factor between the DAS and the KMS is t = .51 (p g .01) for husbands, and t = .59 (p g .001) for wives. Gender-Role Egalitarianism The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) developed by Beere, King, Beere and King (1984) measures gender-role egalitarianism in this study. Details of this scale are covered in Chapter 2. The SRES contains 5 sub-scales: Marital Roles, Parental Roles, Employment Roles, Social— Interpersonal-Heterosexual Roles, and Educational Roles. Each sub-scale contains 19 items with responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". For the study, only 3 out of the 5 sub-scales in Form B of the SRES are used; they are the marital, parental, and educational sub-scales. These sub- 77 scales reflected the current roles of the respondents: their marital relationship, their parental role, and their role as student (for at least one member of the couple). The other two sub-scales contained some items judged by the researcher as not appropriate to fit the Malay-Muslim religious and cultural standards; therefore, they are not included in the study. According to the author of the scale, "Marital Roles" pertains to beliefs about the equality or inequality of husbands and wives regarding various aspects of relationships to each other and their home life; it does not pertain to beliefs about their roles as parents. "Parental Roles" pertains to beliefs about the equality or inequality of fathers and mothers regarding their roles as parents. "Educational Roles" pertains to beliefs about the equality and inequality of males and females in school, university, or training facility settings, including roles as students or providers of education and training. Since one or both spouses may be in an educational setting, the educational role sub-scale is perceived to be appropriately included in the measures for this study. The response format for each item is a 5-point Likert- type scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly <3isagree". The scoring indicates a score of 5 as the most eegalitarian position, and a score of 1 as the least eegalitarian position. Scores on each sub-scale are used 78 both independently and as a group. A higher score indicates egalitarianism while a lower score indicates traditionalism. The SRES is chosen for use in the study due to the comprehensive coverage of the marital and parental sub- scales and also the balance in the number of items for both traditional and egalitarian gender-roles. Scoring for the SRES is done independently for each of the sub-scales and a total score is computed by summing all three sub—scales. There are 23 items out of the total 57 items that need to be recoded in order to have the high score that indicates high egalitarianism. The possible range of scores for each sub-scale is 19 to 95 and for the total scale is from 57 to 275. The primary goal of the SRES, according to the authors, is to reliably measure individual differences so that meaningful answers to scientific questions can be obtained. As a non-clinical instrument, the SRES does not denote guidelines for categorizing persons as "very traditional", "moderately egalitarian", "highly egalitarian" and the like (King and King, 1993). The alpha reliabilities for the total scale used in this study of 57 items are .89 and .88 for husband and wife respectively, which is consistent with the Cronbach’s alpha reported by other investigators (.81 to .97) (King & King, 1993). The Cronbach alpha for each sub- scale of the SRES in this study ranges from .68 to .80 for husbands (Marital Role = .70, Parental Role = .68, and t 79 Educational Role = .80). The Cronbach alpha for each sub— scale ranges from .69 to .79 for the wives (Marital Role = .69, Parental Role = .77, and Educational Role = .79). Gender-Role Congruency This study operationalizes gender-role congruency based on the discrepancy between husbands’ and wives’ scores on the SRES. Wives’ scores (WSRES) are subtracted from husbands’ scores (HSRES). A positive value indicates husbands’ scores as being higher than wives’, thus implying the husband is more egalitarian in his gender-role attitudes relative to his wife. A negative value indicates wives scoring higher than husbands; therefore, it implies the wife is more egalitarian than her husband relatively. Li (1985) used the differences in scores to create variables that refer to (i) magnitude—only of the discrepancy, (ii) direction of the discrepancy, and (iii) ‘magnitude plus direction of the discrepancy. This is an attempt to ensure that the negative and positive values of the discrepancy do not "cancel out each other" in the Mu1tiple Regression Analysis. Following in the same manner, ABSRES is created to indicate absolute value of the (rifference between HSRES and WSRES. ABSRES contains only ENDSitive values. Unlike Li (1985), who used the discrepancy Df scores in two different settings to indicate the Inagnitude when the husband is egalitarian and the magnitude 80 when the wife is egalitarian (magnitude plus direction) variables, this study employs a categorical variable to meet the same purpose. The HSRES and WSRES are divided into categories to imply highly traditional or highly egalitarian based upon the husbands’ and wives’ median scores. Following this step, the variable MATCH is created to indicate the configuration of the couples’ gender-role egalitarianism. As mentioned earlier, four categories of MATCH reveal the possible combinations of gender-role egalitarianism for the couple: HEWE (both spouses are egalitarian), HTWT (both spouses are traditional), HTWE (Husband traditional-wife egalitarian), and HEWT (Husband egalitarian-wife traditional). It is assumed that this categorical variable provides a better understanding of the configuration of gender-role congruency or incongruency between the couple. 81 Adaptation Scale A self-developed lO-item scale measuring individual adaptation to various aspects of life in the U.S. is used in the study. Individuals’ adaptation to place to live, weather, the language, their financial situation, food, relationships with American students, relationships with American families, social relations, practicing Islam in general, and an overall adaptation towards life were measured. The response format for each item is based on a S-point Likert scale ranging from "least adapted" to "most adapted". The possible range of scores for this scale is from 10 to 50. In order to obtain more comprehensive insights into the respondents’ backgrounds, information was gathered on age, age at marriage, length of stay in the United States, income, education, occupation while in Malaysia, number and particulars of children, and perceptions of their parents’ marital happiness. This data was also obtained with a questionnaire. 82 Lhmitations 1. The validity and reliability of the instruments for use with the Malay-Muslims are unknown since these instruments have not been reported being used with a similar group. 2. Mailing, as the mode of data collection, may have yielded a lower response rate. 3. The couples’ cooperation in terms of answering the questions independently from their spouses is critical to the quality of the study. Assumptions 1. Marital quality is a process that the couple undergoes throughout the marital relationship. 2. Marital quality is indicated by the level of marital adjustment and a high level of marital satisfaction for both spouses. 2. Gender-role egalitarianism is a learning process that may be influenced by early childhood experiences. 3. Given different contexts, situations, time and various systems with which to interact, a person’s gender- role egalitarianism may become flexible. 4. All responses are accurate and couples did not share their responses with each other. 83 Analysis Initially, descriptive statistics and frequencies were utilized to determine the basic distributional characteristics of all the independent and dependent variables. Correlation analysis identified the relationships between the independent and the dependent variables. T-test analyzed the mean differences in marital adjustment scores and marital satisfaction scores between the husbands and wives. One-way ANOVA examined the mean differences of various scores of Marital Quality among the respondents based on their student status, family life—cycle stages and gender-role incongruency. Finally, Multiple Regression Analysis was used to examine predictors of Marital Quality. Whenever appropriate, tests of assumptions were carried out prior to running the statistical analysis. Such tests included assumptions on normal distributions and homogeneity of variance. For all of the analysis, the .05 level of chance of probability is used in testing the null hypotheses. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The study of Marital Quality as a Function of Gender- Role Egalitarianism Among the Malay-Muslim Student Couples in the Midwest Region, United States utilized a mail survey. This chapter includes descriptions of socio-demographic information of the respondents and results of the hypotheses testings. The organization of this chapter is in accord with the research questions and hypotheses of the study. A total of 97 couples (N = 97 husbands and 97 wives) completed the questionnaires on various dimensions of individual characteristics, gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality. Seventy nine (81.4%) of the husbands and 39 (40.9%) of the wives are enrolled in a midwestern university at the time of the study. Description of the respondents The 97 couples who responded to the questionnaires represent 10 out of the 12 states in the midwest region of the United States. Those states include Michigan (32.0%), Illinois (19.6%), Indiana (18.5%), Ohio (11.3%), Iowa (5.2%), Missouri (5.2%), Wisconsin (4.1%), Minnesota (2.1%), Kansas (1.0%), and Nebraska (1.0%). 84 85 Tables 1 and 2 describe the respondents’ socio- demographic backgrounds (note that Table 1 presents information for the husbands and Table 2 provides information about the wives). The majority of the husbands (60.4%) are 31 to 40 years old, with a mean age of 35.87 and standard deviation 5.34. As for the wives, 65.9% are 31 to 40 years old, with a mean age of 32.85 and standard deviation of 5.07. The mean age at marriage for husbands is 26.41 and it is slightly higher than the mean age of wives at marriage (24.11). The youngest age at marriage for the husbands is 20 and for the wives, 16 years. The majority (79.4%) of the wives married by the time they were 25 years old. Fifty percent of the husbands married between the ages of twenty- six and thirty. Since the respondents are selected from a student population, the educational level presented indicated either the students’ current educational status or the highest level of education obtained by those who are non-students. The Malaysian Certificate of Examination (MCE) is the lowest level noted by the respondents. This certificate denotes the completion of the highest level in the Malaysian public school, which governs eleven years of schooling. The High School Certificate (HSC) indicates the two additional years of schooling following MCE, also known as pre-university years. Students who earn the certificate complete 13 years 86 of schooling. A diploma is a 3 year program at a college or university following the MCE. Students who earn a diploma complete 14 years of schooling. A Teaching Certificate is conferred on students who complete a 3 year program at any of the teacher training colleges in Malaysia. The MCE, HSC, Diploma, and Teaching Certificates are considered as non- degree qualifications in this category. The first degree holder or candidate is considered as having a total of 17 years of study; a Master’s degree holder or candidate has 19 years of study and a Ph.D degree holder or candidate has 23 years of study. The findings indicate that the average years of education for the husbands is 18.65 and for the wives, 15.96 years. A total of 7.4% of the husbands and 44.8% of the wives are non-degree holders. In describing the couples according to their student status, a total of 58 (59.8%) of couples constitute husband-only studying, 18 (18.6%) couples constitute wife-only studying, and 21 (21.6%) are couples which include both members studying at the time of the data collection. 87 Table 1 Profile of Malay-Muslim Hpeband Sample (N=97) n (%) M §Q min. max. Age in yeare 96 35.87 5.34 23 50 23 - 3O 21 (21.9) 31 - 40 58 (60.4) 41 - 50 17 (17.7) Age at marriage 96 26.41 3.14 20 37 20 — 25 39 (40.6) 26 - 30 48 (50.0) 31 - 37 9 ( 9.3) Educetion 95 18.65 2.69 11 23 Non-degree 7 ( 7.4) 1st degree 33 (34.7) Masters 34 (35.8) Ph.D 21 (22.1) Inceme (1 US$ = 2.5 Malaysian Ringgit) Individual income 97 $ 805.20 $455.73 0 $2400 (monthly in Malaysia) MR=(2013.62) (1134.33) 0 (6000) Family income 96 $1226.16 $603.63 $506 $4350 (monthly in U.S.$) Both spouses income 92 $1250.34 $649.71 0 $3200 (monthly in Malaysia) MR=(3125.85) (1624.27) (8000) 88 Table 2 Profile of Malay-Muslim Wife Sample (N=97) n (%) M §Q min. max. Age in yeere 97 32.85 5.07 22 45 22 - 30 28 (28.9) 31 — 40 64 (65.9) 41 - 50 5 ( 5.2) Age at marriage 97 24.11 2.60 16 34 16 - 25 77 (79.4) 26 - 30 17 (17.5) 31 - 37 3 ( 3.1) Education 96 15.96 3.65 11 23 Non-degree 43 (44.8) lst degree 28 (29.2) Masters 13 (13.5) Ph.D 12 (12.5) Income (1 US$ = 2.5 Malaysian Ringgit) Individual income 97 $ 448.40 $306.40 0 $1200 (monthly in Malaysia) MR=(1121.48) (766.87) 0 (3000) 89 Since some respondents were working in Malaysia prior to coming to the United States, it is important to also consider whether or not their income from their jobs in Malaysia continued. In describing income, two categories were considered. The first category is the total family income in United States, in which all sources were taken into account. These sources include scholarship and family allowances for sponsored students, salaries from both the husband’s and the wife’s jobs in the United States, food stamps, money received from home, and other resources. In U. S. dollars, the average family monthly income in the United States is $1226.16. The other category is the individual income earned in Malaysia prior to coming to the United States. This is the income from salaries or other sources. The average Malaysia income for the husbands is US $805.20, and for wives US $448.40. The majority (55.2%) of the husbands continue to receive their income while studying in the United States. Only 32.8% of the wives’ income continued. For those whose incomes continued, the mode of continuation is either full or partial. Family Profile Table 3 indicates the family profile of the respondents. The mean length of marriage for the respondents is 8.73 years with 24 years as the maximum 90 length. More than one-third of the respondents (38.1%) have been married for 6 to 10 years. The mean number of children in the household is 2.18, with the majority of the respondents (36%) having 3 to 4 children. A total of 23.7% of the respondents are childless. The average age of the first child in the study is 102.92 months or 8.58 years. The youngest age for the first child is 2 months old and oldest age is 239 months or 19.91 years. A slightly higher number of boys live in the households as compared to girls (115:96). Following Duvall’s (1977) eight stages of family life cycle, the respondents are grouped according to the age of their first (oldest) child. The findings indicate that 23 (23.7%) are at Stage 1 (without children), 7 (7.2%) couples are at Stage 2 (childbearing families - oldest child age less than 30 months), 14 (14.4%) couples are at Stage 3 (families with preschool children - oldest child 2.5 - 6 years old), 43 (44.3%) couples are at Stage 4 (families with school-aged children - oldest child aged 6-13 years old), and 10 (10.3%) couples are at Stage 5 (families with teenagers - oldest child 13-20 years old). For those couples who have children, 53 (71.6%) have school-aged children or teenagers as the oldest child in their homes. Of those who are childless, the range of length of marriage for them is 1 to 19 years (n: 23, M = 3.96, ep = 4.17). Table 3 91 Prefile of Malay-Muelim Family Semple (N=27) n (%) M ep min. max. Length of merriege 97 8.73 5.15 1 24 (in years) 1 - 5 26 (26.8) 6 - 10 37 (38.1) 11 — 15 27 (27.8) > 15 7 ( 7.2) Children 97 2.18 1.67 0 6 Without children 23 (23.7) 1 - 2 31 (32.0) 3 - 4 35 (36.0) 5 - 6 8 ( 8.3) Age of children in menthe: 1st child 74 102.92 50.23 2 239 2nd child 62 81.65 40.85 2 175 3rd child 43 63.05 35.07 10 161 4th Child 22 44.86 31.06 5 139 5th Child 8 50.50 34.51 5 119 6th child 2 17.0 22.62 1 33 Age of first (oldest) child in years: (Family life stages 1-5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) No children 1 MGM < Ht46\ 2.5 - 6 - 13 - 20 23 7 14 43 10 (23.7) ( 7.2) (14.4) (44.3) (10.3) Age of youngest child in monthe: No children < 24 > 25- 49- 48 72 72 23 27 22 12 13 (23.7) (27.8) (22.7) (12.4) (13.4) 92 Adaptation to life in the United States The majority of husbands (66%) and wives (70%) in the sample are visiting the United States for the first time. Those who have been in the United States more than once have been here for their Bachelor’s or Master’s degree prior to their current educational pursuits or were accompanying their spouses. A total of 81.4% of the husbands and 40.9% of the wives are currently studying in one of the universities in the midwest Region of the United States. For husbands, the mean length of stay in the United States is 30.68 months or 2.6 years; and for the wives it is 28.30 months or 2.4 years. The majority (81.4%) of the respondents came together to the United States. For those couples who did not come together, their non-student spouses and children came later. Table 4 indicates the Adaptation Scale score of the respondents. The goal of this scale is to measure the respondents’ degree of adaptation to life in the U.S. Using the median as the base for the cutting point, a score below the median indicates low adaptation while a score above the median indicates high adaptation to life in the United States. Findings from the paired sample t-test indicate that there is a significant difference in mean adaptation scores between the spouses (t = 3.6, p g .001). That is, 93 the husband’s mean adaptation score is significantly higher than the wife’s. This implies that the husbands are more adjusted to life in the United States than the wives. Table 4 Mean A a tation Scale Score 94 for Husban s and Wive N=97 n (%) M §Q min. max. med. Possible Score Range 10 50 Total score (husbands) 94 31.65 5 63 18 49 31 low adaptation 50 (53.2) high adaptation 44 (46.8) Total score (wives) 88 29.66 5 73 18 48 29 low adaptation 52 (59.1) high adaptation 36 (40.9) Paired samples t-test: 86 Husbands 31.81 5.66 Wives 29.58 5.72 (L = 3.6 p g .001) 95 Gender-Role Egalitarianism As identified in Chapter 3, as a non-clinical instrument, the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale does not provide guidelines to classify an individual’s gender-role orientation into highly egalitarian, moderately egalitarian, and so on. However, for the purpose of discussion, the respondents’ scores on this scale have been divided into two categories by using the median score as the cutting point. Those who scored lower than the group median are indicated as having a low score, thus implicated as having a less egalitarian or a more traditional gender role. On the other hand, those who scored higher than the group median are indicated as being highly egalitarian. Table 5 indicates the mean scores for both husbands and wives on the Sex-Role Egalitarian Scale. Scores on the 3 sub—scales are also presented in the table. The mean total score for husbands is 208.41, which is slightly lower than the wives’ score of 214.52. Findings from paired sample t— test indicate that there is a significant difference in mean gender-role egalitarianism scores between the husbands and the wives (t = -2.88, p g .01). The mean egalitarianism score for the wives is higher than the husbands’ score. This finding implies that the wives are more egalitarian than the husbands, as measured by the scale in this study. Table 5 96 Meen Sex-Role Egalitarianiem Seele Scores fer Huepande end Wives (N=97) n (%) M §Q min. max. med. Possible Score Range 57 285 Total score (husbande) 84 208.41 18.42 157 258 206 Highly Traditional 43 (51.2) Highly Egalitarian 41 (48.8) Sub-scale score Marital role 89 69.28 6.75 44 84 Parental role 91 69.26 6.72 56 89 Educational role 89 70.45 7.84 51 91 Total score (wives) 84 214.52 16.76 182 251 216 Highly Traditional 43 (51.2) Highly Egalitarian 41 (48.8) Subaecale score Marital role 87 72.21 6.06 60 90 Parental role 94 71.93 7.04 54 95 Educational role 93 70.72 7.19 53 94 Paired samples t-test 75 Husbands 208.04 5.66 Wives 214.77 5.72 t = -2.88, p g .01 97 Gender-role congruency As noted earlier, the variable of gender-role congruency derives from the discrepancy of husbands’ and wives’ scores on the Sex—Role Egalitarian Scale (SRES). Wives’ scores are subtracted from husbands’ scores on the scale. Table 6 indicates the variables related to this construct. Variable HWSRES indicates the discrepancy of score between husband and wife. The minimum value for this variable is -52 and the maximum is 60. Positive values indicate husbands scored higher than wives and negative values indicate the reverse. A total of 44 (58.9%) of the husbands scored less than their wives. It is also evident that 28 (28.9%) of the husbands scored higher than their wives, while 3.1% scored exactly the same as their wives. Another variable, ABSRES, is also constructed from the discrepancy of scores between the spouses. ABSRES represents the absolute difference of scores between husbands and wives. Thus, ABSRES displays only the magnitude of the discrepancy of the scores. The minimum value of ABSRES is 0 and maximum value is 60. 98 The couples are paired according their gender-role congruency based upon their median scores on the SRES Nineteen (25.3%) of the couples are both egalitarian (HEWE), 22 (29.3%) are both traditional (HTWT), 17 (22.7%) are Husband Traditional-Wife Egalitarian (HTWE), and 17 (22.7%) are Husband Egalitarian-Wife Traditional (HEWT). 99 Table 6 Mean Sex-Rele Congrueney and Pairing pf the Codples Based on Gen er-Rol Con enc N=97 n (%) M SQ min. max. HWSRES 75 (77.3) -6.30 20.22 -52 60 Negative scores 44 (58.7) Same scores 3 ( 3.1) Positive scores 28 (28.9) ABSRES 75 (77.3) 15.99 14.0 0 60 Pairing of congruency 75 HEWE 19 (25.3) HTWT 22 (29.3) HTWE 17 (22.7) HEWT 17 (22.7) Negative score of HWSRES indicates husbands less egalitarian. Positive score indicates husbands more egalitarian than their wives relatively. HWSRES=Wives’ scores on the SRES subtracted from husbands’ scores on the same scale. ABSRES=the absolute values of the discrepancy of HWSRES HEWE=Husband Egalitarian-Wife Egalitarian HTWT=Husband Traditional-Wife Traditional HTWE=Husband Traditional—Wife Egalitarian HEWT=Husband Egalitarian-Wife Traditional 100 Marital Adjustment - The Dyadic Adjustment Scale The Dyadic Adjustment Scale measures the degree of dyadic adjustment in four selected areas of the marital relationship. In this study, the correlational between the husbands’ and wives’ scores on marital adjustment scale is t = .23 (p _<_ .01). Table 7 indicates the findings on both husbands’ and wives’ scores on the scale plus the total and sub-scales scores. Using the total median score as a separation point, the couples are divided into two categories of having low or high marital adjustment. The findings also indicate that husbands’ mean scores are higher than wives’ mean scores on Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, and Affectional Expression. Only in the Dyadic Cohesion sub-scale are the wives’ mean scores found to be slightly higher than their husbands’. It is important to note that there were quite a number of missing cases for both husbands and wives in Dyadic Satisfaction (14 missing cases for husbands and 12 for wives) as well as Affectional Expression (14 missing cases for husbands and 16 for wives). For some cases, only selected items were found missing; while for others, the whole section of the sub-scale was unswered. A further discussion of this phenomenon occurs in Chapter 5. Table 7 101 Mean Dyedie Adjustment Seele Spore fer Huebands and Wives (N=97) n (%) M SQ min. max. med. Possible Score Range 0 151 Total score hus nds 72 122.33 11.75 91 149 124 Low Adjustment 38 (52.8) High Adjustment 34 (47.2) Sub-eeele score Dyadic Consensus 94 52.49 5.43 40 65 Dyadic Cohesion 92 19.17 4.19 4 24 Dyadic Satisfaction 83 40.76 4.31 30 49 Affectional 83 9.98 1.62 2 12 Express1on Total score (wives) 74 120.15 10.74 91 145 121.5 Low Adjustment 37 (50.0) High Adjustment 37 (50.0) S - c le core Dyadic Consensus 94 51.10 5.17 39 63 Dyadic Cohesion 90 19.40 3.28 10 24 Dyadic Satisfaction 85 39.94 4.11 31 50 Affectional 81 9.78 1.50 6 12 Expre381on Paired samples t-test 63 Husbands 122.89 11.28 Wives 119.41 10.60 L = 2.17, p S .05 102 Marital Satisfaction - The modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (mrKMS) The four items in the modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (m-KMS) aim to measure the respondents’ degree of satisfaction with the marital relationship, which is based on their satisfaction with the marriage itself, the relationship, the spouse, and their expression of love in the relationship. In this study, the correlation between husbands’ and wives’ scores on marital satisfaction is t = .42 (p g .001). Table 8 indicates the summary of findings from the modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. The mean score for the husbands is 22.81, which is slightly higher than the mean score of 21.0 for the wives. Findings from paired sample t—tests indicate that there is a significant difference in mean marital satisfaction scores between the husbands and wives in the sample (t = 4.27, p g .001). That is, the husbands’ mean marital satisfaction score is higher than that of the wives. This indicates that the husbands report higher marital satisfaction than the wives. 103 Table 8 Mean m-Kaneae Maritel Setiefaetion Stale Spore for Huebende and Wives (N=97) n (%) M SD min. max. med. Possible Score Range 4 28 Total score (husband) 97 22.81 3.55 15 28 24 Low Satisfaction 73 (75.3) High Satisfaction 24 (24.7) Total score (wives) 90 21.00 4.17 12 28 20 Low Satisfaction 47 (52.2) High Satisfaction 43 (47.8) Paired samples t-test 90 Husbands 22.89 3.59 Wives 21.00 4.17 L = 4.27, p g .001 104 Hypotheses Testings In order to present the results of the hypotheses testings, the findings are organized according to the research questions. Research Question #1: What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Marital Quality? Bivariate correlations are computed to examine the relationships between the individual characteristics and marital quality. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) and the modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (m—KMS) provide the measures of marital quality. Therefore, tests on the hypotheses are done for each Individual Characteristic with the DAS and the m-KMS. An average of the husband’s and the wife’s score for each of the Marital Quality measures serves as a variable to indicate an average score of marital adjustment and marital satisfaction of the couple. Tables 9 and 10 reveal the results of bivariate analysis between individual characteristics and measures of Marital Quality for husbands and wives respectively. Table 9 reveals that none of the husbands’ individual characteristics are significantly related to their scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. However, there is a significant negative relationship between the number of Table 9: 105 Bivariate Correlations between Individuel gharecteristics and Marital Quality of Huepande p DAS mean-DAS meKMS mean-m—KMS (n) (n) (n) (n) Age -.22 -.2o -.15 -.16 (78) (63) (96) (90) Age at -.15 —.13 -.22 * -.12 marriage (72) (63) (96) (90) Education .01 .05 .17 -.18 in years (71) (62) (95) (88) Income -.13 -.14 -.07 -.06 in Malaysia (70) (61) (94) (87) Income -.05 -.06 -.04 -.09 in U. S. (72) (63) (96) (89) Length of -.12 -.24 —.08 -.09 marriage (72) (63) (97) (90) Number of -.23 -.29 ** -.13 -.22 * children (72) (63) (97) (90) Age of first .11 .21 .07 .04 child (55) (63) (74) (70) Age of .13 .30 * -.00 -.04 youngest child (55) (63) (74) (70) Length of stay -.09 —.07 .03 .03 stay in U.S. (72) (63) (97) (90) Adaptation —.05 -.00 .30 ** .22 * Scale score (69) (60) (94) (87) * p < .05 ** P 5 .01 mean-DAS: an average of husbands’ Dyadic Adjustment Scale mean-m-KMS: an average of the couples’ version of the KMS and wives’ scores on the scores on the adapted 106 children, the average score on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale of the couples (; = -.29), and the couples’ average scores on marital satisfaction (p = -.22). These findings indicate that as the number of children increased, the couples’ marital adjustment and marital satisfaction decreased. The findings also reveal a significant relationship between age of the youngest child and the average score on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale of the couples (3 = .30). This implies that if the younger child was older, marital satisfaction tended to be higher for the husbands. Husbands’ age at marriage is found to be significantly negatively correlated with their scores on the m-KMS (t = -.22). In other words, husbands who married at a younger age report a high satisfactory marriage. Husbands’ scores on the Adaptation Scale are also found to be significantly related to scores on the m-KMS (t = .30) and the couples’ average scores on the mean-m-KMS (t = .22). That is, when the husband is more adjusted to life in the United States, he tends to be more satisfied with his marriage. Table 10 indicates the results of the bivariate analysis for wives. For the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, it is found that number of children (p = -.28) and age of youngest child (t = .27) are significantly related to the wives’ scores on the scale. These findings indicate that as the number of children increased, wives’ marital adjustment 107 decreased. If the age of the youngest child is older, wives’ marital adjustment tends to be higher. Wives’ duration of stay in the United States is found to be significantly negatively correlated with the couples’ average score on marital adjustment. This implies that as their stay in the United States is lengthened, wives’ marital adjustment tends to decrease. The number of children is also found to be significantly negatively related with wives’ scores on marital satisfaction (£= -.22) and the couples’ average score on marital satisfaction (£= -.22). In other words, as the number of children increases, the wives’ and couples’ marital satisfaction tends to decrease. 108 Table 10: Bivariate Correlations Between Individual Characteristics and Marital Quality of Wivee (N=27) ; DAS mean-DAS m-KMS mean-m—KMS (n) (n) (n) (n) Age -.19 -.16 -.11 -.08 (74) (63) (90) (90) Age at -.04 -.04 .06‘ .02 marriage (74) (63) (90) (90) Education .07 -.04 .07 -.00 in years (74) (63) (89) (89) Income in -.11 -.14 .03 -.06 Malaysia (72) (61) (87) (87) Income in .02 .06 -.10 -.09 U. S. (74) (63) (89) (90) Length of -.17 -.24 -.14 -.09 marriage (74) (93) (90) (90) Number of -.28 * -.29 ** -.22 * -.22 * Children (74) (63) (90) (90) Age of .15 .21 .01 .04 first child (55) (63) (70) (74) Age of .27 * .30 * .06 .04 youngest (55) (63) (70) (74) child Length of -.14 -.22 * -.02 -.03 stay in U.S. (74) (63) (90) (90) Adaptation -.06 .09 .16 .21 Scale score (69) (59) (80) (81) * p g .05 ** P g .01 mean-DAS: an average of husbands’ and wives’ scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale mean-m-KMS: an average of the couples’ scores on the adapted version of the KMS 109 Age at marriege: Hm: There is no relationship between age at marriage and marital quality for husband/wife. The findings indicate that husbands’ age at marriage is significantly negatively related to their scores on marital adjustment. This implies that husbands who are married at an earlier age have higher scores on marital adjustment. Therefore, null hypothesis 2 is not rejected. NUmber of children: H“: There is no relationship between number of children and marital quality for husband/wife. There is a significant negative relationship between number of children and husbands’ score on marital satisfaction, wives’ scores on marital adjustment, wives’ scores on marital satisfaction, couples’ average scores on marital adjustment and couples’ average scores on marital satisfaction. As mentioned above, these findings imply that as the number of children increases, husbands’ marital adjustment, wives’ marital adjustment, wives’ marital satisfaction, and couples’ marital satisfaction decreases. Therefore, null hypothesis 8 is rejected. 110 Age of youngest child: Ihm: There is no relationship between age of youngest child and marital quality for husband/wife. The findings also indicate that the age of the youngest child is significantly related to the wives’ marital adjustment, couples’ average score on marital adjustment, and couples’ average score on marital satisfaction. In other words, if the age of the youngest child was older, wives and couples tended to be more adjusted in their marriage and couples tended to be more satisfied in their marriage. Therefore, null hypothesis 10 is rejected for wives. Length of stay in the United States: 1%”: There is no relationship between length of stay in the United States and marital quality for husband/wife. The findings reveal that wives’ duration of stay in the United States is significantly negatively related with the couples’ average score on marital adjustment. This finding implies that as the wives’ stay in the United States lengthened, the couples’ marital adjustment tended to decrease. Therefore, null hypothesis 12 is rejected for the couples. 111 Adaptation Scale Score: It”: There is no relationship between degree of adaptation to life in the United States and marital quality for husband/wife. It is also evident from the findings that husbands’ adaptation scale scores are significantly related to their scores on marital adjustment and the couples’ average score on the marital adjustment scale. That is, as the husbands’ adaptation to life in the United States increased, their marital satisfaction and the couples’ marital satisfaction tended to increase as well. Therefore, null hypothesis 13 is rejected for the husbands and the couples. Factors determining differences in Marital Quality Student Status T-tests and One-way ANOVAs are used to examine mean differences of marital quality scores among the husbands and wives based on their student status "A" (husband-student or non student, wife—student or non-student), student status "B" (husband-only student, wife-only student or both students), presence of children, and family life stages. As shown in Table 11, there are significant mean differences in marital satisfaction scores between the student and non-student husbands in the sample. The mean score on marital satisfaction for husbands who are students is slightly higher than the mean marital satisfaction score for non-student husbands (t = —2.46, p 5 .05). Student- 112 husbands also have higher mean scores than the non-student husbands in the couples’ average score of marital satisfaction (t = -2.32 p g .05). Although student-wives also indicate higher mean scores than non-student-wives on each measure of marital quality, the differences are not significant. The hypothesis that is pertinent to this research question is: Student versus non-student status; Hm: There is no difference in marital quality between husbands/wives who are studying and those who are not. It is evident from the findings that there is a significant mean difference in marital satisfaction scores between husbands who are students and those who are non- students. The student-husbands have higher mean scores than the non-student husbands. There is also a significant mean difference in couples’ average score on the marital satisfaction scale between the two groups of husbands. Student-husbands indicate higher couples’ average scores than non-student husbands in the sample. Therefore, Null hypothesis 4 is rejected. 113 Table 11: Mesn Differences Between Husbands end Wives According to Their Student Status in Messures of Maritsl Quslity (N=27) Means Student Non-Student t-value (n) (n) Husbands DAS 123.53 117.80 —1.70 (57) (15) mean-DAS 122.06 118.23 -l.48 (48) (15) m-KMS 23.23 21.00 -2.46 (79) (18) mean-m-KMS 22.32 20.32 -2.32 (73) (17) Wives DAS 121.39 119.15 -.89 (33) (41) mean-DAS 120.83 121.42 .26 (29) (34) m-KMS 21.64 20.57 -1.19 (36) (54) mean—m-KMS 22.11 21.83 -.39 (36) (54) mean-DAS: an average of husbands’ Dyadic Adjustment Scale mean-m-KMS: an average of the couples’ version of the KMS * p 5 .05 S = Student NS = Non-student and wives’ scores on the scores on the adapted 114 A One-way ANOVA was utilized to compare the mean marital quality scores among the couples who differ in terms of student status. Prior to performing this analysis, the couples were divided into 3 categories: 1) Husband as student, 2) Wife as student, and 3) Both as students. Table 12 summarizes the mean differences in various measures of marital quality according to the student status of the couples. There is a significant mean difference in husbands’ scores on marital satisfaction among the three groups. The mean score for husbands from couples with husband-only studying, and for husbands from couples where both are studying are significantly different from the mean score of husbands from the wife-only studying group (3(2, 94) = 3.24, p g .05). The Bonferroni test is used to determine which means are significantly different from each other. The findings indicate that the mean marital satisfaction score for husbands from the husband-only studying group is significantly different from the mean marital satisfaction score of husbands from the wife-only studying group. The mean marital satisfaction score of the husbands from the both-spouses studying group is also significantly different from the mean marital satisfaction score of husbands from the wife-only studying group. Husbands from the both- spouses studying group have higher mean marital satisfaction scores than husbands from the other two groups. 115 Table 12 also indicates that there is a significant difference in mean scores of wives on marital satisfaction among the three groups based on student status. The mean score for wives from couples of both-spouses studying is significantly different from the other two groups - namely, wife-only studying and husband-only studying couples (s(2, 87) = 4.74, p g .05). Significant mean differences between groups in the average score on the couples' marital satisfaction is also evident from the analysis. Couples who are both students indicate a higher mean score in couples’ marital satisfaction than couples with wife—only students (F(2, 87) = 5.34, p g .05). The null hypothesis that is pertinent to the findings is: Student versus non-student status: H“: There is no difference in marital quality among the couples from all 3 groups of student-status. It is evident from the findings that there is a significant mean difference between the groups of couples in terms of husbands’ marital satisfaction, wives’ marital satisfaction, and couples’ average score on marital satisfaction. It is revealed that husbands/wives/couples from both-spouses studying group have a higher mean score on the marital satisfaction scale. Therefore, null hypothesis 5 is rejected. 116 Table 12: Mean Differences in Merital Quslity py Seuple’s Student Stetus (N=97) DAS m-KMS n M n M Huspands Group 1 42 123.38 58 23.06 Group 2 15 117.80 18 21.00 Group 3 15 123.93 21 23.67 Total 72 122.33 97 22.81 E: 1.44, df (2, 69) £=3.24, df (2, 94) * ‘ Wives Group 1 41 119.15 54 20.57 Group 2 16 117.50 17 19.65 Group 3 17 125.06 19 23.42 Total 74 120.15 90 21.0 E: 2.54, df (2, 71) 3:4.74, df (2, 87) ** b Couples Group 1 34 121.43 54 21.83 Group 2 15 118.23 17 20.32 Group 3 14 123.61 19 23.71 Total 63 121.28 90 21.93 E: 1.37, df (2, 60) E=5.34, df (2, 87) ** ° * p g .05 ** p g .01 Group 1 = Couples with husband only studying Group 2 = Couples with wife only studying Group 3 = Couples with both spouses studying Bonferroni post-hoc test indicates these groups differ: a = Group 1 & 2, b = Group 3 & 2, c = Group 3 & 2 3 & 2 3 & 1 117 Feuily Life-dele and Merital Quelity The families in this study are grouped into various stages in the family life-cycle by using the adapted version of Duvall’s (1977) Family Life—Cycle stages. As mentioned in the family background section, the respondents in this study represent five stages of the family. They are at Stage 1 through 5, with 44.3% of them being at Stage 4 (family with school-aged children, oldest child aged 6 through 13). Table 13 indicates the findings for the One-way ANOVA on marital quality measures by family life-cycle. The findings indicate a significant difference in mean scores on the marital adjustment scale for both husbands and wives according to the stages in the family life-cycle. The mean score in marital adjustment for husbands who come from families without children is significantly higher than the mean score of those husbands that come from families with children under 30 months of age (Stage 2) and families with school-aged children (Stage 4) (E(4, 67) = 2.78, p g .05). Husbands in Stage 1 (without children) indicate a higher mean score than the others, followed by husbands in Stage 5 (oldest child is a teenager), and Stage 3 (oldest child is a preschooler). It is also evident that husbands’ mean scores on marital satisfaction are also significantly different among the groups based on family life stages. Husbands without 118 children and husbands with a teenager as their oldest child indicate significantly higher mean scores than husbands in Stage 3 (preschool-aged children) (3(4, 92) = 2.52, p g .05). Husbands in Stage 5 (oldest child is a teenager) have the highest mean, followed by husbands in Stage 3 (oldest child is a preschooler) and Stage 1 (without children). As for the wives, those without children are found to have a significantly higher mean marital adjustment score than those with preschool-aged children. Those with infants and toddlers as their oldest child have a significantly lower mean marital adjustment score than those with school— aged children (3(4, 90) = 2.54, p g .05). Wives at Stage 1 (without children) have the highest mean, followed by wives at Stage 4 (oldest child at schooling age) and Stage 5 (oldest child is a teenager). The findings also indicate that there is no significant mean score difference in couples’ average score on marital adjustment and marital satisfaction between the couples in the 5-family life stages. The null hypothesis pertinent to these findings is: Family life stages 1%“: There is no significant difference in marital quality among the husband/wife/couples at all stages of family life-cycle. 119 The findings emphasized that there are significant differences in mean scores on marital adjustment for husbands and wives, and in mean scores on marital satisfaction for husbands between the family life stages. Evidently, husbands and wives at Stage 1 (childless couples) differ significantly in terms of the mean scores on marital adjustment from the other family life stages. Husbands at Stage 1 also differ significantly in terms of the mean scores on marital satisfaction from their counterparts. Therefore, null hypothesis 11 is rejected. 120 Table 13: Mean Differences in Measures of Marital Quality by Family Life gycle (N=97) DAS m-KMS n M n M Husbands Stage 1 17 128.00 23 23.78 Stage 2 7 116.57 7 24.00 Stage 3 10 124.40 14 20.93 Stage 4 30 118.60 43 22.33 Stage 5 8 126.75 10 24.50 Total 72 122.33 97 22.81 s: 2.78, df (4, 64) * a 3:2.52, df (4, 92) * b Wives Stage 1 19 125.95 20 22.10 Stage 2 6 115.17 7 23.71 Stage 3 10 115.00 12 19.52 Stage 4 31 119.65 41 20.54 Stage 5 8 118.50 10 20.60 Total 74 120.15 90 21.00 E: 2.54, df (4, 69) * C E=1.67, df (4, 85) Couples’ Stage 1 16 126.25 20 22.90 Stage 2 6 117.25 7 23.86 Stage 3 9 120.50 12 20.25 Stage 4 25 118.78 41 21.50 Stage 5 7 122.14 10 22.55 Total 63 121.15 90 21.94 E: 2.24, df (4, 58) E=2.21, df (4, 85) * p 5 .05 Stage 1 = Couples without children Stage 2 = lst child birth through 2.5 years Stage 3 = lst child 2.6 through 6 years old Stage 4 = lst child 6.1 through 13 years old Stage 5 = 1st child 13.1 through 20 years old 121 Table 13 continued Duncan post—hoc test indicates that these groups differ from each other significantly: Group 1 & 2, Group 1 & 3, Group 1 & 3, OU‘SD llllll NUlH 24mm ewe 122 Research estion 2 What are the relationships between Gender-Roles Egalitarianism.and Marital Quality? Bivariate analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between gender-role egalitarianism of husbands and wives and measures of marital quality. As with the individual characteristics, the association between the couples’ average scores on each measure of marital quality and gender-role egalitarianism is also examined. Table 14 shows the results of the bivariate analysis of gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality. It is revealed that husbands’ scores on gender-role egalitarianism are significantly related to the DAS scores (t = .41) and the couples’ average score of DAS (t = .33). Wives’ scores on the SRES are not significantly related to any of the marital quality measures. Gender-role egalitarianism: Hm: There is no relationship between gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality. The findings from the bivariate analysis indicate that null hypothesis 1 can be rejected at p g .05. That is, when the husband’s score on the SRES increased, his marital quality as measured by marital adjustment tended to increase. However, there is no significant evidence to reject null hypothesis 2. 123 Table 14: Biveriate Correlations between Sender-Rele Egalitarisnism and Marital Quality of Husbands and Wives (N= 97) t DAS mean—DAS m-KMS mean-m-KMS (n) (n) (n) (n) HSRES .41 *** .33 * .18 - .11 (67) (58) (84) (78) WSRES .02 .06 -.02 .00 (66) (58) (78) (77) * p g .05 ** P 5 .01 *** p g .001 HSRES: Husbands’ scores on the Sex-Role Egalitarian Scale WSRES: Wives’ scores on the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale 124 Reseereh Questien #3 What are the relationships between Gender-Role congruency and Marital Quality? In order to test the hypotheses pertinent to the above research question, bivariate correlational analysis is first utilized to check the relationship between the discrepancy scores (congruency) on HWSRES (husband’s minus wife’s scores) and various measures of marital quality. T-tests are used to examine mean differences between groups of couples’ classification on the basis of their discrepancy scores. One-way ANOVA is used to examine the mean differences of scores on marital quality among various gender-role (egalitarianism) congruency/incongruency pairs of husbands and wives. Table 15 summarizes the results of the bivariate correlations between gender-role egalitarianism and marital quality. The gender-role congruency score is significantly related to husbands' scores on the marital adjustment scale (t = .34). This indicates that as the congruency increases, husbands’ scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale also increase. For wives, the correlation is close to zero. Null hypothesis 1 under research Question #3 is pertinent to these findings. 125 Table 15: Bivariate Correletions between Sender-Role Sengtueney and Marital Quality of Husbands and Wives (N: 97) (n) HWSRES E ABSRES Meritel Adjustment Husbands’ DAS (61) .34 ** -.20 Wives’ DAS (61) -.01 -.04 mean-DAS (68) .24 -.13 Maritel Satisfaction Husbands’ m-KMS (75) .11 -.12 Wives’ m-KMS (69) -.02 .02 mean-m-KMS (75) .07 -.05 * p g .05 ** P g .01 *** p 5 .001 HWSRES: Subtraction of wives’ scores from husbands’ scores on the Sex-Role Egalitarian Scale ABSRES: The absolute value of HWSRES (Note: Congruency = discrepancy of score) 126 Sender-Role Congruency: Hm: There is no relationship between gender-role congruency and marital quality for husband/wife. It is hypothesized that high scores on gender-role congruency are negatively related to marital quality for husbands and wives. However, the findings indicate that gender-role congruency is significantly related to husbands’ marital adjustment (t = .34). In other words, if there is an increase in score discrepancy between husband and wife in the direction of the husband being more egalitarian, his marital adjustment tends to increase. Therefore, null hypothesis 1 is rejected for husbands only. Research Question #4: What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Gender-Role Egalitarianism? Bivariate correlation analyses are performed to test the hypotheses pertinent to the above research question. Table 16 indicates the results of the analysis. It is evident that wives’ scores on the adaptation scale are significantly related to their scores on sex-role egalitarianism (t = .26). Null hypothesis 13 under research question #4 is rejected. None of the husbands’ individual characteristics are significantly related to either their scores on the SRES or to the couples’ discrepancy scores. 127 T-tests are used to compare the mean gender-role egalitarianism scores of students and non-students. Table 17 indicates findings from individual sample t-tests on the gender-role egalitarianism scores of husbands and wives. There is no significant difference between students and non-students’ mean gender-role egalitarianism scores for either husbands or wives. Although student-husbands and wives indicate a higher gender-role egalitarianism mean score than non-students, the difference is not significant. As presented in Table 18, there is no significant mean score difference in gender-role egalitarianism between the three couples’ student status and five family life stages. 128 Table 16: Bivariete Sorreletions Between Individusl Cherscteristics an en er-R l E 1i ri nism N= 7 E HSRES WSRES Age .02 -.20 (84) (84) Age at .02 .01 marriage (84) (84) Education -.03 .18 in years (82) (83) Income in .12 .05 Malaysia (82) (81) Income in .12 .15 U. S. (83) (83) Length of .01 - .20 marriage (84) (84) NUmber of .05 - .15 children (84) (84) Age of .05 - .17 first child (70) (65) Age of .05 - .21 youngest (63) (65) child Length of - .09 .18 stay in U.S. (84) (84) Adaptation .08 .26 Scale score (82) (77) 129 Table 17: WW According to Student Status (N=27) M Student status t;ye;ue t en N n- nt (n) (n) Husbands’ SRES 208.85 206.50 -.46 (68) (16) Wives’ SRES 216.45 213.14 -.89 (35) (49) *p_<_.05 Note: student status = husband student or non-student, wife student or non-student 130 Table 18: Mean Differences in Scores on Gender-Role Egalitarianism According to Student Status and Family Life chle (N=97) SRES n M F-ratio (df) Husbands Student status 1.16 (2, 81) Husband-only studying 48 210.94 Wife-only studying 16 206.50 Both studying 20 203.85 Total 84 208.40 Family Life-cycle 0.40 (4, 79) Stage 1 21 208.19 Stage 2 6 205.17 Stage 3 10 203.10 Stage 4 38 209.37 Stage 5 9 212.89 Total 84 208.40 Wives Student status 0.45 (2, 81) Husband-only studying 49 213.14 Wife-only studying 18 215.50 Both studying 17 217.47 Total 84 214.52 Family Life-cycle 1.07 (4, 79) Stage 1 19 219.32 Stage 2 7 220.14 Stage 3 13 212.08 Stage 4 37 213.43 Stage 5 8 207.25 Total 84 214.52 *p<.05 131 Research Question #5: What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Gender-Role Congruency? As mentioned in Chapter 3, this research question is exploratory in nature. Bivariate correlation analysis examines the relationship between individual characteristics and gender-role congruency. None of the variables listed under individual characteristics are found to be significantly related to gender-role congruency for either husbands or wives (See Table 19). However, there is a significant relationship between husbands’ education and the absolute value of congruency (I = .26, p 5 .05). This implies that when the husbands have higher education, the absolute value of the congruency tend to increase. In other words, when the husbands are more educated, the discrepancy of scores on gender-role egalitarianism between the husbands and wives tends to increase. T-tests examine the differences in mean scores of gender-role congruency between student and non-student husbands and wives. Table 20 indicates that the mean score on gender-role congruency is significantly different between student and non-student wives (t = 2.40). This finding implies that the student-wives are more egalitarian than their husbands, as compared to non-student wives. 132 Table 19: WWW—WWW end Gender-Role angtueney (N=27) p HWSRES ABSRES Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Age .20 .18 .15 -.13 Age at .08 .04 .09 -.09 marriage Education —.10 -.21 .26 .01 in years Income in -.00 .01 .01 -.00 Malaysia Income in -.01 - .06 - U. S. Length of .16 - .10 - marriage Number of .15 — .03 - children Age of .14 - .02 - first child Age of .14 - .08 - youngest child Length of -.17 -.12 .03 .03 stay in U.S. Adaptation -.18 -.09 .04 .05 Scale score * p < .05 ** P < .01 *** p < .001 133 Table 20: Mean Differences in S ores on Gender—Role Con ru nc Accordin to Student tat s N: 7 M Student status t—value Student Non—student W HWSRES —6.08 -9.13 -.53 (59) (16) ABSRES 16.90 12.63 -l.18 (59) (16) Wives HWSRES -13.03 -2.05 2.40 * (32) (43) ABSRES 16.84 15.34 -.45 (32) (43) * p < .05 ** P < .01 *** p < .001 134 Table 21 indicates the results of One-way ANOVA on gender-role congruency by couples’ student status and family life stage. It reveals that there is a significant difference in the mean scores on the gender-role congruency between couples from husband-only student and both-students couples (3(2, 72) = 3.52). In other words, for couples who are both students, the wives are more egalitarian than the husbands as compared to wives from couples with husband-only studying group. Table Mean Differences in Scores on Gender-Role Congtuency 21: 135 According to Household Student Stetus and Family Life-Sycle (N=97) Congruency n M F—ratio (df) Student status 3.53 (2, 72) * a Husband-only studying 43 - 2.05 Wife-only studying 16 - 9.13 Both studying 16 -l6.94 Total 75 - 6.73 Family Life-cycle 1.02 (4, 70) Stage 1 18 -11.06 Stage 2 6 -13.00 Stage 3 10 - 7.70 Stage 4 34 - 5.56 Stage 5 7 5.42 Total 75 - 6.73 * pg.05 Bonferroni post—hoc test indicates these groups differ: a = Group 1 & 3 (husband-only studying & both-spouses studying) 136 Must predicts Marital Quelityz Based on the findings from bivariate correlational analyses on marital quality, several models combining different variables that are theoretically expected to predict marital quality are used in the Multiple Regression Analysis. Interestingly, for wives in the study, none of the models can very well predict marital quality. The only factor that accounts for variation in the wives’ report of marital adjustment or marital satisfaction is the number of children. On the other hand, as indicated in Table 22, husbands’ marital quality is predicted by their score on the gender- role egalitarian scale, number of children and age at marriage. This model accounts for 27% of the variance in marital quality (£(3, 63) = 7.59, p g .001). Table 22 also indicates a prediction model for the couples’ average score on marital adjustment. The model combines number of children, wives’ duration of stay in the U.S., husbands’ gender-role egalitarianism, and husbands’ age at marriage. This model accounts for 28% of the variance in marital quality (F(5, 69) = 6.9, p g .001). Table 23 presents a summary of the regression analysis for variables predicting marital satisfaction for husbands and couples. When marital satisfaction is utilized as the dependent variable, significant predictors for husbands include his age at marriage, number of children, and their 137 Table 22 Summety of Regressien Anelysis for Veriebles Predigting H nds’ and u les’ Marital Ad'u tment N= 7 Variable B SE B Beta t Husbandsl marital adjustment (DAS) Gender-role .26 .07 .41 3.84 *** egalitarianism Number of children -.20 .83 -.27 -2.45 ** Age at marriage -.87 .41 -.23 —2.11 * Multiple R = .52 R squared = .27 Adjusted R = .23 (F-ratio = 7.59, df 3,63, p = .0002) Souples’ maritel adjustment (DAS) NUmber of children -2.08 .62 —.35 -3.36 ** Wives’ duration of -.09 .04 -.29 -2.52 ** stay in U.S. Husbands’ gender-role .18 .05 .36 3.49 *** egalitarianism Husbands’ age -.66 .32 -.22 -2.07 * at marriage Multiple R = .53 R squared = .28 Adjusted R = .24 (2(4, 70) = 6.9, p g .001) * p g .05 ** P g .01 *** p 5 .001 138 score on the adaptation scale. This model accounts for 16% of the explained variance in the marital satisfaction score for husbands. Number of children serves as a good predictor of wives’ marital satisfaction. For couples’ marital satisfaction, number of children and husbands’ scores on the adaptation scale account for 9% of the variance. 139 Table 23 Summaty of Regressien Analysis for Verieples Predietiug H s nds’ an o l ’ Mari l i fa ti n N: Variable B SE B Beta t Husbands’ marital satisfaction(m-KMS) Age at marriage —.28 .11 .25 -2.49 * Number of children -.39 .22 .18 -1.79 *** Adaptation to U. S. .18 .06 .28 2.86 ** Multiple R = .41 R squared = .16 Adjusted R = .13 (3(3, 89) = 5.7, p g .01) Couples’ marital satisfaction (m-KMS) Number of children -.40 .19 .20 —2.02 * Husbands’ adaptation .13 .06 .22 2.20 * to U. S. Multiple R = .30 R squared = .09 Adjusted R = .07 (E(2. 91) = 4 6. P s 05) * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 140 Chapter Summary This section summarizes the aforementioned findings in accord with the research questions. Re r h e i n 1- What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Marital Quality? Table 24 indicates the summary of the results of the hypotheses testings. Evidently, for husbands, none of the individual characteristics are significantly related to their marital adjustment. However, age at marriage and adaptation to life in the United States are found to be significantly related to their marital satisfaction. As for the wives, number of children, age of youngest child, and length of stay in the United States are significantly related to their marital adjustment. Only number of children is significantly negatively related to the wives’ marital satisfaction. The findings also indicate that there is a significant mean marital satisfaction score difference between student husbands and non-student husbands. One-way ANOVA further indicates that there is a significant mean marital satisfaction score difference among the groups with different student household status for husbands and wives. It is evident that husbands’, wives’ and couples’ mean marital satisfaction scores are significantly higher than husband-only and wife-only student couples’ scores. In 141 other words, when both spouses are studying, their scores in marital satisfaction tend to increase. There are also significant differences in husbands’ and wives’ mean marital adjustment scores among the stages of family life-cycles. Across the groups, couples from Stage 1 (without children) have the highest mean score in marital adjustment. Only husbands’ mean marital satisfaction scores are found to be significantly different among the family life-cycle stages. Husbands from Stages 1 and 5 have significantly higher mean marital satisfaction scores than husbands from Stage 3. In other words, husbands from families without children and families with oldest child over 13 years old (teenager) have higher marital satisfaction than husbands from families with a preschooler as their oldest child. Res arch uestion 2: What are the relationships between Gender-Roles Egalitarianism.and Marital Quality? Only husbands’ gender-role egalitarianism is found to be significantly related to their marital adjustment (t = .41) and the couples’ marital adjustment (t = .33). That is, when the husband is more egalitarian, his and the couple's marital adjustment tends to increase. 142 R r h ion What are the relationships between Gender-Role Congruency and Marital Quality? The findings indicate that there is a significant correlation between gender-role congruency and husbands’ marital adjustment (t = .34). This implies that when the congruency score is increased in the direction of the husband being more egalitarian than the wife, his marital adjustment tends to increase. However, there are no significant mean differences in gender-role congruency among the groups of student status, household student status, and family life stages. 143 Table 24 Summaty of Findings Pertinent to Reseereh Questigns 1, 2, an 3. U (I) EL. anMS H W Couple H W Couple Variables H Age at marriage - - — -.22* - - No. of children -.23 -.28* -.29** -.13 -.22* - Age of youngest - .27* .30* - _ _ child Length of stay - -.22* - - - _ in U.S. Adaptation scale .30** - .22* score Husbands’ SRES .4l*** - .31** - - - Congruency .34** - - _ - _ Gender-Role .41** egalitarianism .33* — — _ Gender-Role .34** - - - — _ Congruency Education: t—value Student vs. non- — - - —2.46* — -2.32 student E;nm;2 Student household - — - 3.24* 4.74* 5.34** status Family life 2.78* 2.54* - 2.52* - - stages 144 R earch ion 4: What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Gender-Roles Egalitarianism? The findings reveal that wives’ scores on the adaptation scale are significantly related to their gender- role egalitarianism (; = .26). In other words, when the wives are more adapted to life in the United States, their scores on the gender-role egalitarianism scale tend to increase. There is no significant mean score difference in gender-role egalitarianism between students and non-students for husbands or wives. There is no significant mean difference in gender-role egalitarianism among student-household status and family life stages for husbands or wives. 145 R r h e i n - What are the relationships between Individual Characteristics and Gender-Role Congruency? There is no significant relationship between any of the individual characteristics and gender—role congruency for both husbands and wives. However, there is a significant mean score difference in gender-role congruency between student—wives and non-student wives (t = 2.40). That is, student-wives tend to be more egalitarian than their husbands as compared to non-student-wives. There is a significant mean gender-role congruency score difference between households with only husband studying and those with both spouses studying (3(2, 72) = 3.52). This finding implies that wives from couples both spouses studying are more egalitarian than their husbands as compared to wives from couples only the husband studying. 146 Predictors of Maritel Quelity. Marital Adjustment; For the husbands, the Regression model that includes husbands’ gender—role egalitarianism, number of children and age at marriage accounts for 27.0% of the explained variance in the model. On the other hand, only number of children predicts wives’ marital adjustment. The couples’ marital adjustment is predicted by number of children, wives’ duration of stay in the United States, husbands’ gender—role egalitarianism, and husbands’ age at marriage, which accounts for 28% of the explained variance in the model. Marital Satisfaction- For husbands’ marital satisfaction, the regression model that includes age at marriage, number of children, and score on the adaptation scale accounts for 16.0% of the variance. Again, only number of children predicts wives’ marital satisfaction. Couples’ marital satisfaction is predicted by the model that includes number of children and husbands’ scores on the adaptation scale, which accounts for 9% of the variance in the outcome. CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The study on Marital Quality as a Function of Gender- Role Egalitarianism Among the Malay-Muslim Student Couples in the Midwest Region of the United States is designed to investigate the relationship between gender-role attitudes and perceived marital quality of the respondents. Marital quality in this study is conceptualized as perceived marital adjustment, as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and perceived marital satisfaction, as measured by the modified version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. This chapter discusses the findings and conclusions of the study, as well as recommendations for future research. A total of 148 sets of questionnaires were distributed for this mail-survey study to Malay-Muslim student couples currently residing in the midwest region of the United States. Each set contained 1 questionnaire for each spouse. At the end of the study, a total of 97 (65.5%) couples (N = 97 husbands and 97 wives) returned the completed questionnaires. 147 148 Correlates of Marital Quality Past research indicates various factors that contribute to marital quality. Given a different context, these factors may vary. In this study, the sample was the Malay— Muslim student couples of Malaysia who were currently residing in the midwest region of the United States. They were expected to stay in this country for approximately two to six years depending upon their academic pursuits. It is important to note that the temporal nature of their stay may somewhat influence the results of the findings. The idea of staying in a foreign country for a relatively short period of time and having a country, and most likely a better quality of life to return to, may explain this phenomenon. However, this notion of the phenomenon is not explored directly in this study. It is evident from the study that the husband’s age at marriage is negatively related to his perceived marital satisfaction. That is, the younger he was at marriage, the more satisfied he is with his marriage at the time of the study. Interestingly, this finding is not aligned with previous research focusing on age at marriage. Although previous findings are not directly focused on marital adjustment, early age at marriage is often associated with multiple problems, such as economic hardship, which contribute to marital difficulties (Moore and Waite, 1981). In the present study, it appears that the later the age at 149 marriage for the husband, the less satisfied he is with the marriage. Issues of maturity and economic stability (i.e., graduated from college and employed) as well as the capability to make better choices in life, may explain this phenomenon for the sample in this study. The major predictor of wives’ reported marital quality in this study is the number of children. This finding confirms the results of previous research (i.e., Burr, 1972; Olson et al., 1983; Rollins & Galligan 1978). Since earlier findings suggest that perhaps the number of children alone does not explain the phenomenon perfectly, the age of the first and the youngest child are examined to check the impact of children on marital quality. The age of the first child is reflective of the family life—cycle stages. It is predicted that as the age of the first child increases, so does the perceived marital quality of husbands, wives and couples. However, the results of these analyses do not support this phenomenon in the present study. In the present study, age of the youngest child is found to be positively related to wives’ and couples’ marital adjustment. That is, the older the youngest child is, the more adjusted the wives and the couples. This result supports the findings of Rollins and Feldman (1970), Rollins and Galligan (1978), and Schumm and Bugaighis (1986). It implies that the presence of dependent children in the household complicates marital adjustment and 150 decreases marital satisfaction. As suggested by Anderson et a1. (1983), the presence of young and dependent children may interfere with the allocation of time and other resources spent on one’s spouse, which may further explain this phenomenon. With regards to age of children, the stage of family life-cycle has also been identified as influencing marital quality. The expected curvilinear relationship between family life-cycle and marital quality is not evident in this study. This is not surprising since, in general, the couples in this study are at the early stage of the cycle and none have a child leaving their home. However, findings reveal that the childless couple or those at Stage 1 report higher marital quality than couples at other stages of the cycle. This finding supports previous claims regarding the effects of the presence of children in the family and its impact on perceived marital quality. Because the sample is from a student population, it is important to examine the influence of couples’ student status on marital quality. The findings reveal that student status is important in determining husbands’ marital satisfaction. Student-husbands report higher marital satisfaction than non-student husbands. Among the 3 types of student household status, husbands from husband—only studying couples indicate higher marital satisfaction than husbands from wife-only studying couples. Husbands from 151 both-spouses studying couples report higher marital satisfaction than husbands of wife-only studying couples. These findings indicate that being a student and a husband provide the man with greater marital satisfaction as compared to his counterparts. On the other hand, wives who come from both-spouses studying couples report higher marital satisfaction than wives from husband-only studying and wife-only studying couples. Wives from wife-only studying couples indicate the lowest mean marital satisfaction score among the three groups of student status. Interestingly, findings from this study reveal that being a wife and a student presents a great challenge to the wives’ marital satisfaction, particularly if the husband is not a student. Duration of stay in the United States is a factor that influences wives’ marital adjustment. The longer they have been in the United States, the lower their marital adjustment. An explanation for this phenomenon could be that the wives are challenged to adjust to a different environment and culture; they may also be eager to go home. When husbands in the sample indicate that they are more adapted to life in the United States, they report higher marital satisfaction. Husbands’ adaptation also influences the couples’ satisfaction about the marriage. In other words, husbands who are well adapted to life in the United States manage to cope better with their marriage as well. 152 Since this is a cross-sectional study, there is no way to check on the changes that might have occurred over time. Previous studies of gender-role egalitarianism indicate that gender-role egalitarianism influences marital quality in a variety of ways. It was predicted that an egalitarian husband who has a traditional wife will have high marital quality. From the study, the husbands’ scores on gender— roles egalitarianism are found to be significantly related to their marital adjustment scores. This implies that husbands who are more egalitarian perceive their marriages as being more adjusted. Interestingly, wives’ traditional gender-role attitudes do not influence their perceived marital quality. These findings indicate that for the wives in the study, their gender-role egalitarianism is not significantly related to their perceived marital adjustment and marital satisfaction. Analyses of gender-role congruency of the couples reveal an interesting finding. The larger the discrepancy in score between husband and wife (indicating the husband being more egalitarian relative to the wife), the more adjusted the marriage. This finding substantiates Li and Caldwell’s (1987) findings. The couples are further grouped by pairs in relation to their gender-role congruency. Interestingly, none of the husband-wife gender-role congruency/incongruency pairs relate to marital quality. This finding does not support 153 Bowen and Orthner’s findings on the traditional wife- egalitarian husband pair who reports low marital quality. The only individual characteristic that is found to be associated with wives’ gender-role egalitarianism is their degree of adaptation to life in the United States. The finding reveals that the more adapted the wife is to life in the United States, the more egalitarian she becomes, or vice versa. Looking at student status and gender-role congruency, student-wives had lower mean scores for gender—role congruency as compared to the mean scores for non-student wives. This implies that relative to the husbands, the student-wives are more traditional than the non-student wives. However, with further examination of the couples’ student status, it is evident that couples with the husband only as a student had higher gender-role congruency. In other words, husbands in the husband-only studying couples are more egalitarian than other categories of husbands. Regression analysis indicates that husbands’ marital quality as measured by marital adjustment is explained by their gender-role egalitarianism, number of children, and age at marriage. Their marital satisfaction is explained by age at marriage, number of children, and degree of adaptation to life in the United States. Wives’ marital adjustment and marital satisfaction are only explained in relation to the number of children in the family. 154 Conclusions It is important to note that the differences in context (cultural, religious and/or geographic) may have influenced the findings of the study. These findings are only generalizable to the sample in this study. Most of the variables that are found to be related significantly to marital quality of this sample are also found significant elsewhere. Evidently, there are differences in marital adjustment and marital satisfaction reported by the husbands and the wives. Looking at the student status provides a better understanding of this phenomenon. For future research, it is also worthwhile to explore the dynamics of role-enactment between the husband and wife, such as regards power, decision makings and division of household tasks in these unique, temporary setting households. The findings on the relationship between number of children and perceived marital quality of the wives describes the importance of exploring child-related venues in future studies. As concluded by Rollins and Galligan (1978), the presence of young and dependent children in the home has some negative impact on couples’ economic, physical, and emotional resources. An explanation for this phenomenon for the sample in the study is that the wives are the prominent caretakers of the households as well as of the children, especially in households where the husbands are 155 studying. The burden of household tasks with regards to childcare may have resulted in decreased perceived marital quality in the wives. Egalitarianism is only evident to be important in predicting husbands’ marital adjustment. This finding may be explained by the cultural perspective that the husband is considered the leader in the family and that his leadership is an important contribution to family well-being and marital quality. Recommendations Since this study is conducted on a sample that is culturally different from those of previous studies, the norms that are used in comparison of the findings may be misleading. Research should be replicated in order to establish norms that are more culturally sensitive. Furthermore, the instruments used to measure marital adjustment and marital satisfaction are developed in the United States for the norms of the United States. This may explain discrepancies in findings which result from cultural differences of the sample being studied. Items that were found to be culturally or religiously inappropriate for the population may need to be revised or replaced. An issue of power may have influenced the significance of the findings. Increasing the sample size may improve the power to detect findings. In this study, a sample of less 156 than one hundred couples, became further reduced because responses to individual items were missing. Methodologically, the use of individual spouses’ scores to indicate attitude congruency is still being debated. Subtracting the wives’ scores from the husbands' may not be the best way to measure congruency. Ideally, an instrument that includes items on individuals’ perceptions of their spouses’ gender-role attitudes, and their own attitude congruency may fulfill this gap. Using such an instrument, a researcher could directly measure the congruency of the couples. Measurement of marital adjustment, although claimed to be multidimensional, may not have covered all the marital domains that may be important to the group being studied. For example, assessment of affection in a marital relationship can be better assessed in terms of intimacy, not merely the sexual relationship. The wordings of the items may have somewhat hindered the actual meaning of the scale. In an eastern culture, expressiveness in affection may also be displayed by other means and ways. Sharing the "intimate" details of a marital relationship (such as on sexual activities) may be viewed as taboo; therefore, future research should take precautions in rewording statements pertinent to this idea. Islamically, Muslims are not encouraged to brag about their sexual activities to others. 157 In the early stage of the development of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, items were excluded from the scale based on responses that were skewed. However, these items may be pertinent to some and not to others. Literature review of previous studies has also noted weaknesses of the scale; however, at this point in time, the DAS is the only popular, multidimensional, short, and reliable instrument available. Finally, there are other areas in the marital relation- ship that may explain marital quality. Examples would be role enactment, role performance, and role strain. Since the presence of children plays a major role in determining marital quality, exploring other variables related to children and childcare may be worth the effort. For example, it may be valuable to examine the characteristics of the children in terms of spacing, gender, and so on. Variables such as parenting style, stresses in the parent- child relationship and others may also be worth exploring. Future researchers may want to include these areas in order to better understand the relationship between gender-role attitude and marital quality. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM & QUESTIONNAIRE MARITAL QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER-ROLE EGALITARIANISM AMONG SELECTED MALAY MUSLIM STUDENT COUPLES CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THE MIDWEST REGION OF UNITED STATES CONSENT FORM Marital quality is a central aspect in any marital relationship. Factors contributing to marital well—being have been frequently researched in the United States. However, such studies have not been done in Malaysia, especially focusing on the Malays. This study attempts to describe the relationships between gender-role orientation and marital quality among the Malay student couples in the U.S. Findings from this study will enable couples, professionals, and society at large to better understand marital relationships of Malays which can help to improve the quality of marriages. This study is a part of the doctoral degree in Family Studies that I am pursuing at the Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University. Mail-survey is conducted through-out Mid-West Region. I will be grateful to you if you will spend around 30 to 45 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your participation is highly appreciated. All information obtained in the study will be strictly confidential. Results from the study will be reported as an aggregate for the whole group with no individual identified in the record. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw your consent and participation at any time. You are free not to answer any question if you do not prefer. Please do not discuss your responses with your spouse. A copy of the results of this study will be made available to you upon request. Please complete the following information: *** I have read the above statement and agree to participate in this study. I understand that my participation is voluntary, and I can withdraw at any time. Date: / /1996 (Signature) Phone number: ( )- Address: Number Street City Zip Code I would like/would not like to receive a copy of the research findings. Thank You very much for your participation. Rumaya Juhari Tel:(517)-355-2761 Doctoral Student, Dept. of Family & Child Ecology, MSU. 158 159 QUESTIONNAIRE (Form.A:HUSBAND) MARITAL QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER-ROLE EGALITARIANISM AMONG THE MALAY-MUSLIM STUDENT COUPLES IN THE MIDWEST REGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Status:Student/Non-student #Time visiting USA: 1 or More 1. Birthdate : / / Age: I::|::( 2. Date of marriage: / / Length of marriage: yrs Age at marriage: Did you get married in the US?: YES / NO . Date FIRST came to US: month year Length of stay in the US: years and months When do you expect to return to Malaysia? Month Year Did your spouse come with you to the U.S.? YES / NO If not, when did your wife arrive in the US: month/year Please fill in the following table regarding your children: Gender' IBirthday Place of Length of stay (M/F) birth in US (Mo/year) OlU'lrfiWNI-I 6. Please state your highest/current educational level: SPM STPM Teaching Certificate Diploma Undergraduate majoring in Masters majoring in PhD majoring in Other (specify) majoring in University: [ II II ] 160 Understanding marital quality of one’s parents helps one to understand own marital quality. Please provide information about your parents’ marriage as you can recall for at least until you are up to 9-13 years old. 1. What is your parents’ marital status when you were about 9 to 13 years old? married divorced separated death of a parent (name who): father/mother others (please specify) DaOaOU‘CD If your parents are still married (or at least were until you were 9 years old): in your own opinion, how do you perceive your parents’ marital happiness? (Please circle one) a. Extremely unhappy e. Very happy b. Fairly unhappy f. Extremely happy c. A little unhappy g. Perfect d. Happy What aspects of your parents marriage did you most admire? i.e their way of problem solving, communication When one of your parents was not around due to divorce/ separation, or death, did the other parent that you resided with remarry? YES / NO How old were you when your parent you were residing with remarried? If your parent(s) are still alive, how old is: Your father = Your mother = Did your mother work outside the home? YES / NO What is your parents' level of education? Father 3 O n :3‘ (D H No formal education Some elementary Elementary Junior high Secondary Teachers college College degree Graduate (Masters/Ph.D) Other (specify) ........ 161 PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ADAPTATION To THE U.S. KEY: 1-Extremely unadapted 4-Moderately adapted 2-Somewhat unadapted Sanighly adapted 3-Neutral 1. How un-adapted or adapted are you in these areas: a. Housing arrangement 1 2 3 4 5 b. Climate 1 2 3 4 5 c. American language proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 d. Financial 1 2 3 4 5 e. Food 1 2 3 4 5 f. Contact with American students 1 2 3 4 5 g. Contact with American families 1 2 3 4 5 h. Social interaction 1 2 3 4 5 i. Practicing Islam (in general) 1 2 3 4 5 j. In general, how adjusted are 1 2 3 4 5 you to life in the U.S.? k. If you are a student, how 1 2 3 4 5 well do you fit in with the faculty members? (i.e yours and their expectations of each other) 1. If you are a student, how 1 2 3 4 5 well do you fit in academically? (i,e understanding lectures, participating in class, preparing assignments, examination) 2. In your opinion, have you changed in terms of your attitudes towards the roles of the opposite sex? . Never Somewhat . Neutral Moderately changed Total changed (DQOO‘OI 162 Please provide the following information regarding your background information: 1. State of origin (in Malaysia): 2. Your job prior to coming to US: Title of job Rank Category 3. Your income for the above job: $MR /mo 4. Does your income continue? YES/NO If YES, at full pay or half pay or 5. What are the sources of income here in the U.S.? Check all that apply: Source: Amount (monthly in US$) Scholarship : Family income from sponsor: Job (temporary job here) Wife’s job (here) Food stamp or the alike Money from home (salary or other sources): «mm-mm {I} $ Others (Specify) : $ Total income: $ /month 8. Did your wife work in Malaysia? YES/NO If yes, please provide the following answers: Title of job Rank Category Income (MR) mo/year 9. Does her income: a. continue - full pay b. continue - half pay c. discontinued 10. While living in the U.S. is your wife working?: YES/NO If YES, please give the following answers: Title of job Income (MR) mo/year 163 SEX-ROLE EGALITARIAN SCALE 164 DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE 165 THE MODIFIED VERSION OF KANSAS MARITAL SATISFACTION SCALE APPENDIX B UCRIHS LETTER OF APPROVAL OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES lMNwflWCWmmflheon Research Involving Michigan State University 232 Administrahon Bwldmg East Lansing. Mlcmgan 48824-1046 517/355-2180 FAX: 517/432-1171 The Him/gar) Srale UNIVPISII)’ IDEA rs Inst/runonal Dwerszty. Exceuence m Action MSU Is an affirmative-action, equal-opponunxry mshluhon MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY May 22, 1996 TO: Rumaya Juhari ' 1514 F Spartan Village E. Lansing, MI 48823 RE: IRB#: 95-353 TITLE: MARITAL QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER-ROLE EGALITARIANISM AMONG SELECTED MALAY MUSLIM STUDENT COUPLES CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THE MIDWEST REGION OF THE UNITED STATES REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: l-C APPROVAL DATE: 05/21/96 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjectsf(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to aQVise that tne rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this prOJect and any reViSions listed above. RINIIAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a maXimum of four such expedite renewals p0351ble. Investigators wishing to continue a prOJect beyond that time need to submit it again or complete reView. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To reVise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB # and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. pnosnnls/ . CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems (unexpected Slde effects, comp aints, etc.) involving uman subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than eXisted when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us at (517)355-2180 or FAX (Sl7)4 2-ll7l. Sincerely, 0 David E. Wright, Ph.D. UCRIHS Chair DEW:bed cc: Norma Bobbitt 166 APPENDIX C LETTER OF PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS SIGMA ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS, INC. Research Psychologists Press Division 1110 Military Street, PO. Box 610984, Port Huron, Ml 48061-0984 (8M) 265-1285 Fax (800) 361-9411 January 18, 1996. Rumaya Juhari 1514 F Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 Dear Ms. Juhari: Please find enclosed two copies of our standard licensing forms for permission to reproduce copyrighted materials. These forms grant you the right to translate Forms 8, BB 8: K of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES), for use in your research only. Please read through the forms to ensure that they correctly express the terms you have outlined in your letter. If all seems to be correct, please sign and date both copies of the license, have your advisor do the same, and return them to our office, for final endorsement. One authorized copy will then be sent back to you for your personal records. Once you have determined which items you intend to use, please inform me of this information. The License allows for a total of not more than 150 administrations of the items to be made over a one year period. If for some reason you later find that you require an adjustment to either of these terms (time frame or quantity), simply contact us again citing the license number PTR470. We wish you well with your research. Sincerely, / -: y 3 I 4 gr: (‘ ”(- V (hi/LLLJ/L/eszjila/ L ' (fl)! lac—L ’\ Maureen Moffatt-Small ‘ Director of Administration /MMS 167 168 PTR470 SIGMA ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS, INC. P.O. BOX 610984 PORT HURON, MI 48061-0984 PERMISSION TO COPY OR REPRODUCE COPYRIGHT MATERIAL Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc., on this date January 18, 1996 hereby authorizes: NAME: Rumaya Juhari and Dr. Norma Bobbitt TITLE: Graduate Student and Advisor INSTITUTION: Michigan State University DEPARTMENT: Family Studies ADDRESS: (Home) 1514 F Spartan Village, East Lansing, MI 48823 (Licensee) to copy or reproduce the material identified below as The Work, subject to all of the terms. conditions, and limitations of this license. A. may The Work means: NAME: Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) AUTHOR(S): Lynda King, Ph.D. and Daniel King, Ph.D. SPECIFIC FORM OF THE TEST OR THE WORK: Forms BB, KK & B PARTICULAR SCALES OR PARTICULAR WORK USED: All items to be translated into Malay B. W: The license granted hereby is specifically limited to the following uses and, no other. Items from the SRES will be translated into Malay and used in an exploratory study investigating the relationship between marital sex-role orientation and marital quality of the Malay students currently pursuing their studies in the United States. 169 PERMISSION TO COPY OR REPRODUCE COPYRIGHT MATERIAL...PAGE 2 C. Emhibitesulm: The license granted herein specifically excludes the right to adapt, revise, or otherwise reproduce, publish, or distribute any copies of the Work (neither separately nor as part of a larger publication, such as in articles, books, research bulletins, or dissertations). except as specifically permitted by Section B and Section F. D. WW: All rights in the Work not herein granted to the Licensee are ex- pressly reserved by Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. . Non-_‘llansjerabjflty: This license is non-transferable. Any attempt to transfer the license will automatically revoke it. . BMW: Any copy, reproduction, or other use authorized hereby shall be accompanied by full reference to the source of the original material and the author(s). The statement shall include the phrase: ”Reproduced by Permission of Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 610984, Port Huron, Ml 48061 -0984" All 00pies shall bear the appropriate copyright notice that appears on the cover of the material used. This notice shall appear on the title page of each reproduction or copy of the Work. It should be noted that a total of not more than 150 administrations may be pre- pared. This permission is valid for a one year period beginning with the date of this authoriza- tion. Further permission to copy or reproduce copyright material beyond this one year period will require a renewal of Permission between the Licensee and Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. G. ms: Licensing Fee $25.00 Test use royalty $Waived TOTAL $25.00 . BMW: This license is not effective unless signed by an authorized official of Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. and unless countersigned by the Licensee. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: SIGMA ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS, INC. r. G W ’ ‘ ' WM, M v/ , - .- ”t, I" /' "1.17) - - - It L -LLCLL&;\J. L -9»; ll L'dlsz’ \_ Licensee Authorized Signature llsm 1/3/1‘ X7 f. t“, {l' (1’- Date Date A APPENDIX D CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA IAHAN JEN TRANSLATION PI‘SAT BAH—\SA DAN~ TER CENTRE FOR l.A\GL‘AGES AND lOMayl996 'I'O IROM IT MAY CONCERN I certify that. to the best of my knowledge. this is a true and accurate translation of the original research documents that were written in English entitled: a. Dyadic Adjustment Seale(by Graham Spanier) b. farm B. I’ann fl! and farm 88 ofSlfliS'Iby King 8: King) submitted by Rumaya Juhari of Michigan State University in East Lansing. The above documents were translated by a couple of translators from this Center i.e.z Zainuddin bin Ghazali M.Phil. (Translations and Interpretation) CNAA. London. Abidin Shafre MEd. (Bilingualism and Translation). Wales. and the translated versions were edited by Associate Prof. Razak Dali. .................................... ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. RAZAK DALI CHAIRMAN OF THE ENGLISH PROGRAMME PULAU PINANG 0 11800 0 MALAYSIA TEL: 04-6577888 Samb. (Ext) : 3l45. 3751. 3158 o FAX : 04-6569122 O TELEX : MA 40254 170 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Abdalati, H. (1975). Islam in focus. Indianapolis: American Trust Publication. Adams, B. N. (1988). Fifty years of family research: What does it mean? Journal of Marriage and the FamilyI 50l 5-17. Agarwal, P., & Srivastava, S. (1989). Sex-role conception, ego development and marital harmony. Indian Jggrnal of Current Psychological Researgh, 4, 75-79. Allen, A., & Thompson, T. (1984). Agreement, understanding, realization, and feelings understood as predictors of communicative satisfaction in marital dyads. Journal of Marriage and the FamilyI 52l 915-921. Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1995). Changes in gender-role attitudes and perceived marital quality. Amerigan Sociological Review. 60. 58—66. Anderson, S. A., Russell, C. S., & Schuum, W. R. (1983). Perceived marital quality and family life—cycle categories: A further analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45, 127-139. Arshat, H., Tan, B. A., Tei, N. P., & Subbiah M. (1988). Marriage and family formation in Peninsular Malaysia: Analytic report on the 1984185 Malaysian Population g Family Survey. Kuala Lumpur: National Population & Family Development Board. Bahr, S. J., Chappell, C. B., & Leigh, G. K. (1983). Age at marriage, role enactment, role consensus, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45L 795-803. Bahr, S. J., & Galligan, R. J. (1984). Teenage marriage and marital stability. Youth and Society, 15(4), 387-400. 171 172 Bates, F. L. (1956). Position, role and status: A reformulation of concepts. Sgcial Fgrgea, 34, 313-321. Baruch, G., Barnett, R., & Rivers, C. (1983). Life prints. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bayer, A. E. (1975). Sexist students in American college: A descriptive note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37l 391-400. Becker, G. S., Kanes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Pplipical EconomyI 85, 1141—1187. Beere, C. A. (1979). ngan and women'g issues: A handbook of tests and maaaaraa. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., King, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between sexes. Sax Roles, 19. 563—576. Belsky, J. (1979). The interrelation of parental and spousal interaction during infancy in traditional nuclear families: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Marriaga and phe Family, 41. 62-68. Benin, M. H., & Agostinelli, J. (1988). Husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with the division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50l 349-361. Biddle, B. J. (1979). Rola theopy: Eapectations. identities.and bahaviors. New York: Academic Press. Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross- cultural and longitudinal perspectives. Amarican ngcholggisg, 28, 512-526. Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital instability. qurnal pf Marriage and tha Family, 45, 567-583. Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., White, L. K. (1984). Women, outside employment, and marital instability. American Joarnal pf Sggiplpgy, 90. 567-583. Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., Edwards, J. N. (1991). Maripal instability over phe life course: Methodological rapor; and goge book for a phree wava panal atpdy. Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. 173 Bowen, G. L. (1989). Marital sex—role incongruence and marital adjustment: A comment on Li and Caldwell. Journal of Family Issues, 10(3), 409-415. Bowen, G. L. (1989). Sex—role congruency and marital quality revisited. Journal pf Social Behavipr and Personalipy, 4, 61-72. Bowen, G. L. & Orthner, D. K. (1983). Sex-role congruency and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 223-230. Brabeck, M. M. & Weisgerber, K. (1989). College students’ perceptions of men and women choosing teaching and management: The effects of gender and sex-role egalitarianism. Sex Roleg. 21l 841-857. Breese, J. R. & O'Tool, R. (1994). Adult Women Students: Development of a transitional status. Journal pf College Student Development, 35. 183-198. Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1994). Human ecology theory. In P.G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theorias and methods; A gontaxtual apprpach. NY: Plenum Press. Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1972). Differentials in marital instability: 1970. American Sociological Review. 37. 754-766. Burchardt, C. J., & Sebin, L. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny and personality adjustment in college and psychiatric populations. Sax Roleg. 8, 835— 851. Burgess, E., & Locke, H. S. (1953). Tha FamilyI (2nd. ed.). New York: David McKay, Inc. Burn, B. B., (1980). Expanding the intarnational dimension of higher education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Burnett, P. (1987). Assessing marital adjustment and satisfaction. Measurement and Evalpation in Counseling and Developmant. 29. 113-121. Burr, W. R. (1970). Satisfaction with various aspects of marriage over the life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 3gp 29-37. 174 Burr, W. R. (1972). Role transition: A reformation of theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 34. 407-416. Burr, W. R., Leigh, G., Day, R., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In w. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporapy theoriea about the familyI (Vol. 2). New York: Free Press. Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and - nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289-308. Byrne, D. (1971). The atpractipn paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Calahan, C. A. (1996). Correlations of scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Quality Marriage Index. Payghglggidal Repprpa, 73, 530. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The gdality of American life; Pargeppign. evaluations. and satisfactiona, New York: Russell Sage. Chodorow, N. (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and tha sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chongolnee, B. (1978). Academic, situapional. organismic, and attitudinal factors affegting the academic achievement of fgraign graduate studanps at Iowa State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University. Clark-Nicolas, P., & Gray-Little, B. (1991). Effect of economic resources on marital quality in Black married couples. qurnal pf Marriage and tha Family, 53I 645-655. Collins, P. L. (1976). Self-perceived problema of international studenta attanding Howard University; Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University. Cotrell, L. (1933). Roles and marital adjustment. Publications of the American Sociologist Society, 27, 107-115. 175 Crane, D. R., Allgood, S. M., Larson, J. H., & Griffin, W. (1990). Assessing marital quality with distressed and nondistressed couples: A comparison and equivalency table for three frequently used measures. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52l 87-93. Crane, D. R., Busby, D. M., & Larson, J. H. (1991). A factor analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with distressed and non-distressed couples. Tha American Journal of Family Therapyl 19(1), 60-66. Doi, A. R. (1984). Shari’ah: The Ialamic law. London: Ta Ha Pub. Dunnett, S. C. (1977). A stddy of phe affagpa of Engliah langpage training and grientation prggram on foreign student adaptation at the Spate Univeraipy of New York at Buffalo. Council on International Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo, Special studies No. 93. Duvall, E. M. (1977). Family devalopmant. (5th. ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. El-Lakany, F. A. (1970). Predigpion of academic achievement of foreign atddents at Iowa State Universityl 19§9-1270. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University. Etaugh, C., & Spiller, B. (1989). Attitudes toward women: traditional-aged and older college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 41-46. Faragallah, M. H. (1995). An exploratopy study of Arab- American acculturation in the United Stapaa. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Kansas State University. Ferreira, A. J., & Winter, W. D. (1974). On the nature of marital relationships: Measurable differences in spontaneous agreement. Family Process. 13, 355-370. Figley, C. R. (1973). Child density and the marital relationship. Jodrnal of Marriage and phe Familyl 35, 272-282. Finch, J. (1983). Married :0 the job: wives' inpopporation in men's work. London: George Allen & Unwin. 176 Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of tha Marriage and phe Familyl 49. 797-809. Fleishman, E. G. (1983). Sex-role acquisition, parental behavior, and sexual orientation: some tentative hypotheses. Sax Rolesl 9. 1051-1059. Fox, G. L. (1973). Another look at the comparative resources model: Assessing the balances of power in Turkish marriages. Jgdrnal pf Marriaga and tha Familyl 35. 718-730. Galligan, R. J., & Bahr, S. J. (1978). Economic well- being and marital stability: Implication for income maintenance programs. Jgdrnal of Marriage and the Familyl 40, 283-290. Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1982). Family communiaation; gohesipn and phanga, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Glenn, N. D. (1990). Quantitative research on marital quality in the 19808: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and the Familyl 52, 818-831. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1978). A multivariate, multisurvey study of marital happiness. Jgdrnal of Marriage and tha Familyl 40I 269-282. Gottman, J. M. (1994). Whap pradippa divorae? Tha relationahip bepwean maripal prgcesaas and marital outdomes, Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Greenberg, E. F., & Nay, W. R. (1982). The Inter— generational transmission of marital instability considered. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 44l 335-347. Han, P. E. (1975). A aaddy pf ggals and problams of foreign graddape atddenpa from the Far East at the University of Southern Califprnia, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Handal, P. J., & Salit, E. D. (1988). The relationship of gender role to positive and negative aspects of adjustment: A function of type of scoring methods. Journal of Sgcial Behavipr and Parsonality. 3l 49-62. 177 Hardesty, S., & Betz, N. (1980). The relationship of career salience, attitudes toward women, demographic and family characteristics to marital adjustment in dual career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior 17 242-250. Heath, L. L., Roper, B. S., & King, C. F. (1974). A research note on children viewed as contributors to marital stability: The relationship to birth control use, ideal and expected family size. Journal of Marriaga and The Family, 35. 304-306. Henkinheimo, P. S., & Shute, J. C. M. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student's views and institutional implications. Jodrnal of Collega Studant Parsonnel, 5(27), 399-406. Heiss, J. (1972). On transmission of marital instability in Black families. Amaridan Sociological Reviaw, 37, 82-92. Heiss, J. (1981). Social roles. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.). Social psychglggy: Spcioldgical perspectives. New York: Basic Books. Hicks, M. W., & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: Review of the research of the sixties. In C. B. Broderick (Ed.). A decade pf family research and agtion. Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations. Hicks, M. W., & Platt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review of research in the 60's. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32. 553-574. Hill, R., & Becker, H. (1942). Marriage and the Family. New York: Heath. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The aaaond shift: Wgrking parents and the re-evolution at home. New York: Viking. Honeck, S. M. (1981). An aaplgrapopy study of the Beera- King Sex-Rala Egaliparianism Sgale, the MacDanald Sex Role Survey and Spence and Helmreich'a Attitudes Towarda Women Scale. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Central Michigan University. Hoopes, D. S., Pedersen, P. B., & Renwick, G. W. (1978). Overview of Inaaradltural Eduaationl Training and Resaarch. Washington: Society for International Education, Training and research. 178 Houseknecht S. K. (1979). Childlessness and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriaga and the Family‘ 41I 259-265. Houseknecht, S. K., & Spanier, G. B. (1980). Marital disruption and higher education among women in the United States. Sociolggy QdarparlyI 21, 375-383. Hughes, D., Galinsky, B., & Morris, A. (1992). The effects of job characteristics on marital quality: Specifying linking mechanism. Jgdrnal pf Marriage and the Familyl 54. 31-42. Hull, W. F. IV. (1978). Foreign atddents in the Unitad States of America: Coping behavior within the educational environment. New York: Praeger. Jeong, G. J., & Schumm, W. R. (1990). Family satisfaction in Korean/American marriage: An exploratory study of the perceptions of Korean wives. Journal of gamparaaiva Family Stadies, 21(30), 325-337. Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1986). Dimensions of marital quality: Toward methodological and conceptual refinement. Jodrnal of Family Iasdes, 7(1), 31-49. Jones, G. W. (1981). Malay marriage & divorce in Peninsular Malaysia: Three decades of change. Population & Development Review. 7(2), 255-278. Jorgenson, S. R. (1979). Socioeconomic rewards and perceived marital quality: A re-examination. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 825-835. Juni, S., & Grimm, D. W. (1993). Sex-role similarities between adults and their parents. Contemporapy Family Therapy, 15, 247-251. Juni, S., & Grimm, D. W. (1994). Marital satisfaction as a function of dyadic gender-role constellations. The American Journal of Family Tharapy. 22(2), 106-112. Karim, W. J. (1987). The status of Malay women in Malaysia: From culture to Islam and industrialization. Inparnational Jodrnal of Sociology of the FamilyI 17. 41-55. 179 Katz, R., & Briger, R. (1988). Modernity and quality of marriage and Israel. Journal pf gamparative Family Studiesl 12, 371-380. Kazak, A. E., Jarmas, A., & Snitzer, L. (1988). The assessment of marital satisfaction: An evaluation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal pf Family Psychology. 2l 82-91. Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, §(4), 417-431. King, D. W., & King, L. A. (1983). Measurement precision of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A generalizability analysis. Educational and Psychological MeasurementI 43, 435-447. King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1985). Sex-Role egalitarianism: Biographical and personality correlates. Psychological Repprtal 57, 787-792. King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Abbreviated measures of sex-role egalitarian attitudes. Sex Rolea. 659-673. King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1993). SRES: Sex-role Egalitarianism Scale Manual, Michigan: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. Klineberg, O. & Hull, W. F. (1979). At a fpreigp university: An international spudy of adappatipn and cpping, New York: Praeger. Kling, Z. (1995). The Malay families: Beliefs and realities. Jodrnal of gomparapive Family Stadies. .2-6—(1), 43-66. Landis, J. T. (1963). Some correlates of divorce or nondivorce among the unhappy married. Marriage and the Family Livingl ZS. 178-180. LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1994). Symbolic Interactionism and family studies. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, S.K Steinmetz (Eds.). Sodraebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. New York: Plenum Press. 180 Lee, M. Y., Abd-Ella, M., & Burks, L. A. (1981). In Stephen C. Dunnett (Ed.). Needs pf foreigp students from develaping nations at H. S, aalleges and dniversipias, Washington, D. C. : National Association of Foreign Student affairs. Lenthall, G. (1977). Marital satisfaction and marital stability. Jgurnal of Marriage and Family Counaeling, 3, 25-32. Leslie, G. R., & Leslie, E. M. (1980). Marriage in a changing world. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lewis, H. M. (1970). Occupapional rales and family roles: A study of coal mining families in the sodphern Appalachians, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss (Eds.). Cpntamporapy theories apou; tha family: Raaearah- based theories Vol. 1 New York: The Free Press. Li, J. T. (1985). The relapipn papwean pawar pase perceptions and marital adjustment aa a function of marital sex-rple prientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Li, J. T., & Caldwell, R. A. (1987). Magnitude and directional effects of marital sex-role incongruence on marital adjustment, Journal of Family Issues, 8. 97-110. Locke, H. J. (1951). Prediating adjdstman; in a marriage: A comparison of a divorcad and happily married grodp, New York: Holt. Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. L. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriaga and Family Living, 21, 251-255. Luckey, E. B., & Bain, J. K. (1970). Children: A factor in marital satisfaction. Journal pf Marriage and ahe Family, 32. 43-44. Lueptow, L. B., Guss, M. B., & Hyden, C. (1989). Sex role ideology, marital status, and marital happiness. Journal of Family Isauea, 10(3), 383-400. 181 MacDonald, A. P. Jr., (1974). Identification and measurement of multidimensional attitudes toward equality between the sexes. dernal pf HomosexualityI 1. 165-182. Macke, A. S., Bohrnstedt, G. W., Bernstein, I. N. (1979). Housewives’ self-esteem and their husband's success: The myth of vicarious involvement. Journal of Marriage and phe Family, 41. 51-57. Main, F., & Oliver, R. (1988). Complementary, symmetrical and personality priorities as indicators of marital adjustment. Individual Paycholpgy Journal of Adlerian Theopyl 44, 324-332. Maines, D. R., Surgue, N. M., & Katovich, M. A. (1983). The sociological import of G. H. Mead’s theory of the past. American Sociplggical Review. 48, 161-173. Mangus, A. R. (1957). Role theory and marriage counseling. Social Forces March, 200-209. Mason, K. 0., Czajka, J., & Arber, S. (1976). Change in U.S. women's sex-role attitudes: 1964-1975. American Sociological Raviewl 41, 573-596. McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1992). You can’t always get what you want: Incongruence between sex-role attitudes and family work roles and its implications for marriage. Jodrnal pf Marriage and The Family. 54L 537-547. Melendez-Craig, M. (1970). A atddy of agadamia aahiavement and related problems among Latin American saddents enrolled in the major Utah gnivarsities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Miller, B. C. (1976). A multivariate developmental model of marital satisfaction. Jgurnal of Marriaga and tha Family, 33. 643-657. Moore, K. A., & Waite, L. J. (1981). Marital dissolution, early motherhood and early marriage. Social Forces 60 20-40. Mott, F. L., & Moore, S. F. (1979). The causes of marital disruption among young American women: An interdisciplinary perspective. Jgurnal pf Marriage and aha Familyl 41l 355-365. 182 Mueller, C. W., & Pope, H. (1977). Marital instability: A study of its transmission between generations. Journal of Marriage and the Familyl 32, 83-93. National Population & Family Development Board, Malaysia & RAND Corporation, USA. (1992). Report of the Malaysian Family Life Survey - III 1988. Kuala Lumpur. Ng., J. T. P. (1981). use of the Mooney Problema ghecklist for identifying psychosocial adjdstment problems of the international students at four universities in Colorado. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado. Nordlund, A. (1978). Attitudes, communication and marital satisfaction. International Journal of Sociology of the Family. 8. 115-117. Norton, A. J. (1983). Family life cycle: 1980. Jadrnal of Marriage and the Familyl 45, 267-275. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. dernal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141-151. Nye, F. I. (1976). Role structure and analysis of the family. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nye, F. I., & Berardo, F. M. (1973). Tha family; Ipa structure and interaction New York: MacMillan. Nye, F. I., Carlson, J. & Garret, G. (1970). Family size, interaction, affect and stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 216-226. Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. B., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Families: Whap makes them wgrk. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Institute of International Education (IIE), (1994). Open Doors. Washington D. C. Orthner, S. B., & Whitehead, H. (1981). Sexual maanings: The cultural construction of sexdality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavri, D. M. (1963). A study of ahe scholaatic achievement and related prablema pf foreigd stddants at the University of Virginia frgm 1257 Lo 1261, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. 183 Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives/working huabands. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Pyle, R. K. (1986). Guiding the development of foreign students. New diractipna for apudant aervices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rachlin, V. V. (1987). Fair vs. equal role relations in dual-career and dual-earner families: Implications for family interventions. Family Relations, 36, 187-192. Rappoport, R., & Rappoport, R. (1971). Dual aaraer families. London: Penguin Books. Rappoport, R., & Rappoport, R. (1976). Working addples. New York: Harper & Row. Renne, K. S. (1970). Correlates of dissatisfaction in marriage. Journal pf the Marriage and the Family, 32, 54-66. Rho, J. J., & Schumm, W. R. (1989). Components of family life satisfaction in a sample of 58 Korean/ American couples. Payahglpgiaal Raports, 55(3). 781-783. Richmond, M. L. (1976). Beyond resource theory: Another look at factors enabling women to affect family interaction. Jgurnal pf Marriaga and tha Family, 38, 257-266. Roach, A. J., Frazier, L. P., & Bowden, S. R. (1981). The marital satisfaction scale: Development of a measure for intervention research. Journal of Marriaga and tha Family, 4;, 537-546. Rodgers, R. H & White J. M. (1994). Family development theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.). Source 0 k of family thagriea and mathgds; A cgntextual approach. New York: Plenum. Rollins, B. C., & Cannon, K. L. (1974). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle: A re- evaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 271-282. 184 Rollins, B. C., & Galligan, R. (1978). The developing child and marital satisfaction of parents. In R. M. Lerner and G. B. Spanier (Eds.). thld influences an marital and family inperaction. New York: Academic Press. Rollins, B. C., & Feldman, H. (1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 20-28. Ross, C. E., Mirowski, J., & Huber, J. (1983). Dividing work, sharing work, and in—between marriage patterns and depression. Amariaan Saciologidal Review 48 809-823. Ross, H., & Sawhill, J. (1975). Time of tranaipion. Washington, D. C. : Urban Institute. Ryder, R. G. (1973). Longitudinal data relating marital satisfaction and having a child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 605-606. Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Measurement issues in marital research: A review and critique of contemporary survey instruments. qurnal of Marriage and phe Family. 50. 891-195. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1975). Family and stratification: Some macro-sociological observations and hypotheses. Jgurnal of Marriage and tha Family, 37, 855-860. Santos, R. (1975). The economics of marital status. In C. Lloyd (Ed.). Sax diaariminapign and the diviaion of labor. NY: Columbia University Press. Scanzoni, J. (1975). Sex Roles, economic factors and marital solidarity in Black and White marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 130-144. Scanzoni, J. (1976). Sex-role change and influences on birth intentions. Jodrnal of Marriaga and the Family, 38, 43-60. Scanzoni, J. (1978). Sex rgla, women’a work, and marital conflict: A atddy pf family ahanga. Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Scanzoni, L. D., & Scanzoni, J. (1981). Man, women and change: A aoaiology pf marriaga and the family, (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. 185 Schram, J., & Lauver, P. (1988). Alienation in international students. Journal of College Student Development. 29. 146-150. Schumm, W. R., Anderson, S. A., Benigas, J. E., McCutchen, M. B., Griffin, C. L., Morris, J. E., & Race G. S. (1985). Criterion-related validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports, 56, 719-722. Schuum, W. R., Bollman S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1982), The "marital conventionalization" argument: Implications for the study of religiosity and marital satisfaction. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 10(3), 236-241. Schuum, W. R., & Bugaighis M. A. (1986). Marital quality over the marital career: Alternative explanations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 165-168. Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Shectman, K. L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychologiaal Reports, 53, 567-572. Schuum, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and phe Family, 48, 381-387. Scott, J. F. (1973). Stratification and the family: Status ascription and stratum viability. In G. W. Thielbar & S. D. Feldman (Eds.). Iasues in social inegpality (pp 580-597). Boston: Little, Brown. Scott, J. W. (1988). Gender as a useful category of analysis. In J. W. Scott (Ed.). Gender and the Politics of History. New York: Columbia University Press. Shek, D. T. L. (1994). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Psychologia, 37, 7-17. Shek, D. T. L. (1995). Marital quality and psychological well-being of married adults in a Chinese context. The Journal of Ganetia Payahplogy, 156(1), 45-46. 186 Shek, D. T. L., & Tsang, S. K. (1993). The Chinese version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Some psychometric and normative data. Spaial Bahavior and Personality, 21, 205-214. Shek, D. T. L, Lam, M. C., Tsoi, K. W., Lam, C. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 241—250. Sidel, R. (1978). Urban aurvivalgThe warld of working class woman. Boston: Beacon. Siriboonma, U. (1978). An analyais of atddant gapiafaction as perceived by foreigp saddants at Iowa Spate University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University. Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Jgdrnal pf Marriaga and the Family, 41, 813-823. Spanier, G. B. (1973). Whose marital adjustment? A research note. Sociolpgical Ingdipy, 43(1), 95-96. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal pf Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28. Spanier, G. B. (1979). The measuring of marital quality. Journal of Sex and Maripal Tharapy, 5(3), 288-300. Spanier, G. B., & Cole, C. L. (1976). Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment. Inparnatianal Jgurnal Sociology at the Family, 6, 121-146. Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. (1980). Marital quality: A review of the seventies. Jgdrnal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 825-839. Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. & Cole, C. L. (1975). Marital adjustment over the family life cycle: The issue of curvilinearity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 263-275. 187 Sparks, R. J. (1996). Role indongpdenca and marital adjustmanp late in tha tranaition ta parenthogd (egalitarianism). Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1996). Diasertation Abspraats International, 56l 6422. Spitze, G., & South, S. J. (1985). Women’s employment, time expenditure, and divorce. Journal of Family Issues 6 307-329. Staines, G.L., Pleck, J. H., Shepard L. J., & O’Connor, P. (1978). Wives’ employment status and marital adjustment: Yet another look. Paychology pf Waman Quarterly, 3, 90-120. Steggell, G. L. & Harper, J. M. (1991). Family interaction patterns and communication processes. In S. J. Bahr (Ed.). Family raaaarch: A aixpy-yaar raview, 1930-1990. Vol. 1. New York: Lexington Books. Strong, B., Devault, C., Suid, M., & Reynolds, R. (1983). The marriage and family experience. (2nd. ed.). New York: West Suitor, J. J. (1991). Marital quality and satisfaction with the division of labor across the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 221-230. Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. C. (1984). Adaptation of international students: a cause for concern. Journal of Collega Students Parsonnel, 25(3), 240-245. Thompson, L. (1988). Women, men, and marital quality. Journal of Family Paychglpgy, 2(1), 95-100. Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Iaauea, 12(2), 181- 196. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and tha Family, 44, 889-900. Thomson, M. (1995). Raport on Malayaian Students entering U. S. Institutians, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian-American Commission on Education Exchange. 188 Thornton, A. (1985). Changing attitudes toward separation and divorce: Causes and consequences. Ameriaan Journal of Sociology, 90, 857-872. Thornton, A. (1989). Changing attitudes toward family issues in the United States. Jodrnal of Marriaga and phe Family, 51, 873-894. Thornton, A., Alwin, D. F., & Camburn, D. (1983). Causes and consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change. American Sociological Review, 4S, 211-227. Thornton, A., & Freedman, D. S. (1979). Changes in the sex-role attitudes of women, 1962-1977. American Sociological Review, 44, 832-842. Thornton, A., & Freedman, D. S. (1982). Changing attitudes towards marriage and the single life. Family Planning Perspective, 14, 297-308. Udry, J. R. (1966). Social context of marriage. New York: Lippincott. Vanfossen, B. E. (1977). Sexual stratification and sex- role socialization. Jodrnal pf Marriage and the Family, 32, 563-574. Vannoy, D., & Philliber, W. W. (1992). Wife’s employment and quality of marriage. Journal of Marriaga and the FamilyI154. 387-398. Vannoy, D., & Philliber, W. W. (1989). Equal partners: Successful women in marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1970). Marriage and work in America. New York: Van Nostrand Rainhold. Wasielewski, M. C. (1991). Marital adjustment in bicultural and monocultural marriages. M. A. thesis, University of Arizona. Maater’s Abatragts International, 22(2), 232. Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transition, role histories, and mental health. Ameriaan Soaialogical Review, 55, 209-223. White, L. K. (1983). Determinants of spousal interaction: Marital structure or marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and phe Family, 45, 511-520. 189 White, L. K., Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1986). Children and marital happiness: Why the negative correlation?. Jodrnal pf Family Iasues, 7, 131-148. Wilcoxon, S. A., & Hovestadt, A. J. (1983). Perceived health and similarity of family of origin experiences as predictors of dyadic adjustment for married couples. Jgdrnal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 431-434. Ying, Y. W. (1991). Marital satisfaction among San Francisco Chinese-Americans. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 37(3), 201-213. Zuo, J. (1992). The reciprocal relationship between marital interaction and happiness: A three-wave study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 870-878. .Irr‘ .l‘rlltr ,. u I), ~ a will. I. 0 rs: . . r . , .. a . .\ ... a \ iL 6.1L- -v..r\. lrb.. \ .L {ls-I IoLl~Lil~ _I.) lst-II...it)tilliIbi...mi..lprllt:la -