- , rage- ~- 0“ 1’: fig: _.. _- _. "3 -. mac . , ,,‘,,. 55:33.1, 3. ,1E333553“ 5,3353, 3, fl" .3 55355355553555 3 [33.3 ,33‘..3,-3 2,3,, 3 3-3,.‘03533 .\5- '35 3553,555555355 T {'Jk~ué’ ,, 3'55l333 575,53'5j55,, 5 ,333 3'. 33233333,,33333 3:33'3 4,.w- I 3:33:3333,; 3.3 >33- 3 3 3 ,55 33513 .I 3. ' "3 55 3'3.‘-.333,3 333 l.‘, 3 . £555,1535'5355555553555555555 3:. 5|, 2 5 3 3 i 3351 .35, ”3:3,; 3.3.3,, ,3, .33' 3 , ' '3 ,‘33'357-y.3'.5.,-3333!.3 ‘3' ' _ A, (.9, 3 33333.33. 3 . . 33 3 ‘ ' 3333’355553333'535-'355.3"b 5'3‘ 53' . f 3 5 3 E 33 3!;3! "’T'}3;3 7:33! 253335 3-333 . ,-:.3.3 ”'3 " 5 g 32:, - 3,.1 3 3,3, r‘3‘llt'3'l'vf'5'5 3533'353 3" ‘ '.,'5,5‘,5 33‘53'3'5 ' -’35fl3,P¢," !:~-3~.3 3 . 3 3. 3..l3- 333333 3'3 - 3 3 ~ : . 53' %s 3 3 3, 3 5.'m ', 53555523333353? :33! 3' 433.33, : 3'3‘333L" 33 ’3, 3 5“ 3“ ,3 , 3 3 3 {53 ,5£;53:§+-“53535 ‘ $33533 . 39353 5 .3 j 3 3'5'3f.‘ 353.335.53355515 ' . , ,5‘22 35355-515335'_55 3'33 .3 3,5 . , :1,;337.33 £1,533,33512.353555. 3 .L,‘ 3 o g P’f‘w'3'dr33 3' ‘33 3f535-3F'm‘3'3 '. , , , , 3 ., '3 3-. 53’5'15'553“ ,.5 . . , ,,‘,3 3| 5 5 «5 3ft”! '5" 5'5'55 W ‘ 5 .13' 3‘ ' ' 3...; ' '2 3533’s ”"23 ? 55.5"»95’3 3‘3 3“ ~. ““5555“ .u ,.3 . , . ’.,._~., '.‘ 3*.“ M! . .. -7 4 3 . 3.5553 333.5535 5'5"" '33 35339:; 3: 33‘; '3533' 33,3 i 5 3, : 3 3 a L ': :3 735* {-3,7' "3:=it5 :2 3 3': 555' . .3222: |15l,'55' 4 3 5 5 55 515.53,“, 4 3533 53333533531455333, 57.3535 55553. 55555 553 $3M; 555x555 55 5' .3 3,3 1 5 I3 'h’l "*' “UV” 735.55; L5,, , I'd 3, " gt, . ..' ' '3 s 3 .,2 . 553'“, 35 , H3 ,' 5 ' 3 ”5M3 '53 ,'33 ,;2' . ' - ‘55-‘55}1-2'!‘ " *5‘ “:5: ,,, fl" . ,., - 5:55.755, 5,55 “I. .3. 9.3 553,3“;53,( 55355555 3,5,3 555:} 3.,5555-‘,5 5’3 33535333.; : :33131 3,3353%, ‘5535353, 3,3”, , . 3,3'3 5',I 33. 3- .3 .' . , , 3 . 55" ‘ 530'. ‘3. .5 3 v , 9,,' , 5.. 3 , , , , 3 I, , , . 5 ’5 . ."3 33 15319.3, ,3'“'3‘_,,33|55,3‘3 ' ,3 3.33333 - 3... , 3,9 33, , ,l ’5'": ,1 ,, ,,,, , , . , '03 3 a 3 _ , ‘73 , ' , . 3 33 ,. . ,>,3 - 3 , O 33 I $33,333 3 , 3.”, , 3,, . Ha : 3' . . , , ,,, 3 - . ' ' ~ 3 '55'353'555‘ '5'55 I '55 335 V 5 53" 555'53 55" 5 3' 55 . ' 535- 5' 3.‘ - 3. .3?‘ 3. . ? ‘ ' 5 ‘ .3,3'fl3,3,$:”;5,5,. 3".3 3, .. ,., .3 3‘ I3 5 ,. o , . .J 3 3333 - 3 .3 3 3- 3 3- ‘ 3 . 3 ' A ‘55‘1'53353'1' 3535335 33 3 5 5 5 3 ‘ 3 3 5 5 5,33 3 555 5 5 5 ' 5 5‘ '. 5 5 ’ 5'3 , 3,‘:3. 5 , ’. 5 3 .f 5 3 3‘, 3 3 3 . , , 3' , 3., 3 3 . ' ,3’3§.,:",,5' D i I I3 '5 3 3 3 .5 , 3 I ', , g . ‘35 , ' 54,: t3 3", , ”5'53 3 3. 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 " ' 5 3 '3 " ' ' I!‘ 05' ‘ 5 3 55 3 5 ' 55 3 'l‘5 ‘5 b -’t 5 5. ' P3 3 53 ‘. 3 3 3 I |\,3 3, 5 5 , ‘ 335 . 5 , ' 3 , is. __.; . . :3. .—'~ :. - Al . .143" " 553'”, ‘ .313 3, [,3,3.,3'3,. 535553 3 555' ‘555 ‘,~" 53"5,,5‘ 5 55'555'5"555555555'5'55" 35,535'355: 3. 3333-3133 I3.'3, 5|“ 5~5-,,"..;‘[.;33'.133.,. 353" '. m! .,._ .3, 33,33 55.1555555555'5'5.(. , I _'5 7 .,.3. 1‘35'35; ‘ .3, .,, . o . s) 5-. " V ~553‘ ‘-.‘~ . :_?.1~ .... . .. 3.3. .. ...-.. ‘3::- Alt: -. w’ \— -. .4. 3 ”h..— .«H W... u. 9 w. v.‘ " ‘W n 3 -.-~._,,(‘. _. 5”} 33357.35:y 3 . 13’ ‘5 -o ‘ . 3 , 3 3 '335, 5,355 ,3. . 53:35:355'5553333} ' 5353'43555'885’535‘5 '5 '55 55555 “3; 355% 35:13555 5" 1r. 55:“ i.‘$55;h55- {if 5,33 33:35., "5555'?" 3:55 3.,3,3;3.,7§§3,; 3553.332; 3553 55-5355 3355353335 555555555555555‘55555155 3 33333. 33323333, 433.331},,3§-3, 3333. W9 :53 353,:5 .mt.‘ rpm; -V... fl. - m3 4-- - —..—.. ”'53:. _..-..-. “no-“ L “a“ 5.33‘5 3 51' 55‘ 3’33332-35 L . _ 3 «P- - s... . -..4 4.‘ 7-. «m. __... V m 0-».- a. 5.; ”1'57; I {5315‘ . .. ‘3“?- -—_.. Q W w-o .- 333..., 'H m m .. :33" 3. a-.. 3.3.. .. ... {:0- «2": .. .. -.-... nr -- xv-qml —.o - 3R "33 5555:5355; 32. 3,33,}: ,3; -lv—o~ W ...::3....-~ 3”“ .‘C—w -~' M- £5335 33 5555‘} n--o.-.. “I? .o-s o- *- N .222 ..;,, Wt‘ .. 3‘ mu, 2 L. "“m n... ”.3 w‘-“ ”M... :53 ring; w.“ ., T”: z..l< L m 5—3: :1 3. '-' . .::a==-=; :2_ on... r 3.3:. 9.- >5 g , 3 a ‘- ,. v3- i'_..'.. {—‘I- u w W- u up- ,. '1... ~ ...., v u- .- u “'1':— .12“; 6"- -__: Spru-u—V. .«m “—“od. a.“ M . .233 .. . u. ~u.c~..3—- r E at". a? - n Q ‘—~ c... w.— “ '. I *— ”d...“ Qws 3.. .. my“ 9‘. gm w s—-— 1:-“M u;_. v— *- .m __ . 3_ . A -_, : a..- . , _ _ 3 - tug-3: m , ..3;,: .. 3 . . ' ; 'I" I3. - . , ‘ 3 __x 3.. ., , , A 3- -3- -. M's 3' t: - w>-.. .,,, ,3 ,, _ 3.3 , , A . —-v-v\-— ’-3. .- * "34 . , . -V'V- on ,l':.‘ ,, - n3 .. .. _ . ' .-'i -c '5 ‘ ‘ <. . . . -.,. ,5 3" r; r‘h- ‘ ‘3 ~ . ., ‘ ran-fl w.” , _ , . .. ‘thu -, Jr“: ‘3‘ 3’ .1 . .. .. _ .. “-mr cu 3. ..u . - . . mumw. e>v--3 -,, ' 3., .. "V- O-onfl 3' 3 - r<~o ._. ,___. ~3< <3 ‘3... .‘ A.. . - , . .- .. 3 . 3 31355 33 353:! 3 8'3. —. - o lllll(131WIIIHHJHJUIIHIIHfill/Ill”!!!lllllllll . g n 931 S 0 | 300550 4570 LIBRARY Michigan State L Univenity This is to certify that the thesis entitled Attributes of the Desired Wife: A Case Study of Saudi Single Male Students In The United Stafies presented by Saad A.N. AlSaaran has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Wdegree in 50‘110108)’ @421sz Major professor Date /I/ ”(/M 0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution mi . MSU LIBRARIES n. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. an"; 1.3 21 4‘2 ATTRIBUTES OF THE DESIRED WIFE: A CASE STUDY OF SAUDI SINGLE HALE STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES By: Saad A.N. AlSaaran A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements For the degree oF MASTER OF ART Department oF Sociology 1988 ABSTRACT ATTRIBUTES OF THE DESIRED NIFE: A CASE STUDY OF SAUDI SINGLE MALE STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES By Saad A.N. AlSaaran An exploratory study was conducted to ascertain Saudi male single students in the United States evaluations of 18 attributes and their attitudes toward some issues regarding the selection of future wife. in the study. 155 students participated via returning the questionnaire which was utilized for data collection. Percentages. Mann-Whitney. Kruskal-Hallis. Chi-Square. Lambda. and Theta were the statistical techniques used for data analysis. The findings indicated that the five most important attributes sought in future wife are: (I) chastity and virginity: (2) similar religion: (3) mutual attraction-love; (4) emotional stability; and (5) dependable character. respectively. And the least important five attributes are: (1) similar level of education; (2) similar socioeconomic status; (3) similar age; (4) good financial prospect: and (5) relationship to family. respectively. Students were found to have favorable attitudes toward marrying working woman. seeing the future wife before engagement. and participation and involvement in selecting the future wife. Saad A.N. AlSaaran Different tendencies toward homogamy were found on the basis of religion. education. age. and socioeconomic status. Significant relationships were found between the students’ level of education. field of study. length of stay in the United States. and their evaluations of some attributes of future wife. Significant relationships were found between the students’ exposure to American culture and their evaluations and attitudes toward some attributes and issues in selecting future wife. Recommendations and suggestions for further research are provided. DEDICATION To my beloved parents. Abdulaziz and Norah. who never knew how to read or write. but provided me with their sincere and continuous support and encouragement throughout my study. I dedicate this humble harvest. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my academic advisor and Committee Chairperson. Professor Christopher K. Vanderpool. for his helpful encouragement and guidance throughout my master's program. His insightful comments and suggestions were very valuable in guiding this thesis. I would also like to extend my deep thanks and appreciation to the other committee members. Professor Jay w. Artis and Professor Marilyn Aronoff. for their comments and suggestions. Special thanks are due to each student who participated in this study. and to the Saudi Arabian Educational Mission for their cooperation in collecting the data. Also special thanks to Mrs. Joanne Lewis for her wonderful Job in typing this thesis. iii TABLE List of Tables . . . . . CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . Statement of the Problem CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW . . . Mate Selection . . . . Ideal Wife Attributes Saudi Society . . . American Society . Conclusion . . . . . . CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY . . . . . . Unit of Analysis . Instrument . . . . Data Collection . Study Variables . . . Independent Variables MaJor Independent Variables Other Independent Variables Dependent Variables . Research Questions and Hypotheses Questions . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . Statistical Analysis . . OF CONTENTS iv PAGE vi 10 II 16 18 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Profile of the Study Subjects . Descriptive Analysis of the Study Attributes of the Future Wife Marrying Working Woman . . . . Ideal Age for Marriage . . . . Selection of Future Wife . . . . . . Seeing a Future Wife Before Engagement and Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Variations in the Students' Evaluations of Attributes About the Future Wife . . . . . . . . . . Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Length of Stay in the United States . . . . . Effect of Exposure to American Culture on the Students' Evaluation of Attributes and Issues Regarding the Future w ‘ Fe O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX A SAUDI ARABIA REGIONS DELINEATION HAP . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE COVER LETTER . . . APPENDIX C ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 34 37 37 42 43 46 48 SI 52 53 54 56 69 77 7B 79 86 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2.1 Rank of 18 personal characteristics in mate selection based on mean value by year (I) . . . . 17 3.1 Test of reliability for exposure to American culture scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.1 Characteristics of the study subjects . . . . . . . 34 4.2 Attitudes towards characteristics of future Wives O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 38 4.3 The rank of the 18 characteristics about the future wife according to the characteristics' means 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,0 O O 0 40 4.4 Preference of marrying working woman. frequencies. and percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.5 Ideal age for marriage and ideal age and level of education for future wife. frequencies. and percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.6 Prefer to select and initiate betrothal for future wife. frequencies. and percentages . . . . . . . . 46 4.7 Preference of seeing future wife before engagement 49 4.8 Variation in evaluating attributes about a future wife by level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.9 Variation in evaluating attributes about a future wife by field of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.10 Variation in evaluating attributes about potential wife by length of stay in the United States . . . . 54 4.11 Relationship of degree of exposure to American culture to personal characteristics of future W'Fe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 56 vi Relationship of degree of exposure to American culture to religious and family orientation characteristics of future wife . . . . . . . . Relationship of degree of exposure to American culture to marrying working woman . . . . . . . Relationship of degree of exposure to American culture to the selection of future wife . . . . Relationship of degree of exposure to American culture to seeing future wife at and before bet rOtM I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Relationship of degree of exposure to American culture to future expectation of seeing future wife at and before betrothal . . . . . . . . . vii SB 61 62 64 66 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The study of the desired qualities or attributes in a spouse is not a new one. particularly in the United States. As Powers (1971:207) notes: One area in which replication has occurred is the study of ideal or desirable attributes in a spouse emphasized by young people. often referred to as ideal mate characteristics. With regard to Saudi Arabia. the case is somewhat different. IA few related studies can be found. For instance. Al-Yamamah (1987) had conducted a small scale study. "Love Prerequisites." The study consisted of one open-ended question presented to 30 male and 30 female university students: "What are the attributes of the dream girl whom you want to be your wife? (p. 17). Also. in this master's thesis. ”Selection for Marriage in the Saudi Family." Almosa (1987) has tackled such a problem. Other than these two studies. the author could only find scattered information in the writings and descriptions of the Saudi society and culture. particularly by travelers (e.g.. Lipsky. 1959: Parssinen. 1980). A discussion of these related studies and writings will be made later in the literature review. 2 Given this paucity of studies and information about the ideal mate characteristics or the attributes of the desired wife with regard to the Saudi’s case. an exploratory study was conducted. Statement of The Problem The present study investigates the attributes of the desired wife. as perceived by Saudi single male students living in the United States. The students were asked to evaluate certain traits or characteristics in selecting their future wives. These characteristics are: similar age: similar level of education: similar religion: chastity and virginity: pleasing disposition: emotional stability: good looks (physical attraction): good health: good cook- housekeeper: desire for home and children: ambition and industriousness: relationship to family: dependable character: good financial prospect: similar social and economic status: sociability: mutual attraction—love: and education and general intelligence. In addition. there was an investigation of these students' preferences of their age at marriage: their future wife’s age and level of education: their attitudes toward marrying a working woman: the process of selecting their future wives: and their present and future expectation about the opportunities of seeing one's future wife both at and before betrothal were examined. This study also explores whether there are variations in such evaluations and preferences by the students’ level of 3 education. length of stay in the United States. field of study. and exposure to American culture. The study provides a cross-cultural dimension to the study of the desired attributes in spouse in the field of marriage and family. It seeks to promote further studies land research on family and marriage patterns in Saudi Arabia. ‘The study may have implications for marriage and family therapy and counseling in Saudi Arabia. The study will assist in understanding the inpact of cross-cultural educational experiences on mate selection and the emergence of new patterns in periods of rapid societal change. CHAPTER THO LITERATURE REVIEH Mate Selection Eckland (1982) and Epstein and Guttman (1984) provide an elaborate and excellent discussion of the process of mate selection. A brief summary of their assessments of the field will be presented. For Eckland (1982:10): Mate selection is not simply a matter of preference or choice. Despite the increased freedom and opportunities that young people have to select what they believe is the "ideal" mate. there are a host of factors. many well beyond the control of the individual. which severely limits the number of eligible persons from which to choose. The freedom of mate selection differs from society to society. There are some societies which limit freedom and hence practice "arranged marriages:" that is. "the pairing of marriage partners by persons other than the mate-to-be" (Theodorson a Theodorson. 1969:244). Saudi society might be a case in point in this regard. at least in the past. Lipsky (1959). in his description of the Saudi culture and society. pointed out that. "marriage in the towns and villages are usually arranged by parents or relative without the bride and groom seeing each other until the day of the wedding" (p. 52). Parents and kin intervened in the process 4 5 of mate selection because. "the arrangement of marriage is thought to be too important an event to be left to the vagaries of young people's emotions" (ibid:53). Racent studies. however. have observed a new trend of flexibility and change regarding the process of mate selection. Young people now are demanding some degree of freedom in selecting their future wives. even if this freedom is still to some extent confined within the limit of consultation with one’s own family. For instance. Almosa (1987) found that the vast majority. 77% of his respondents. preferred that they themselves. accompanied by their family. select their future wife. He also found that 40% wanted the betrothal to be accomplished by both the groom and his father. An implication of this trend might be that young people want to know beforehand the accord of the prospective wife to that of their ideal one. In contrast. there are some societies. like Western societies. including of course the United States. that have arrived to a stage of providing a great degree of freedom in mate selection. Eckland (1982) attributes this freedom to "the disappearance of unilineal kinship system." However. even when more freedom is given to mate selection. society has developed a certain apparatus or device to check on such vital process. e.g.. "the elaborate rating and mating complex and the ceremonial engagement" (Ibid:16). 6 Due to such a freedom in mate selection. several studies have attempted to provide an understanding and explanation of such a fUndamental and complex process. A set of systematic models or theories of mate selection have emerged as an outcome of these studies. These theories can be classified under four maJor categories: homogamy. complementary. socio-cultural. and psychological theories (e.g.. Epstein & Guttman. 1984: Eckland. 1982). Homogamy is the "marriage of persons having similar characteristics. either physical. psychological. or social . . . (or) . . . the tendency of like to marry like" (Theodorson a Theodorson. 1969:188). Epstein and Guttman (1984) reported homogamy for several characteristics. Among these characteristics are: (1) intelligence: (2) education: (3) personality traits and social characteristics: (4) physical traits and physical attractiveness: (5) age: (6) religion: (7) socioeconomic status: (8) mental retardation and psychiatric disorder: (9) family structure: and (10) personal habits. Of these characteristics. age reveals the highest degree of assortment. Epstein and Guttman (19843254) indicated that several studies had ”reported 2.7 years to be the mean difference in age between husbands and wives in the United States." They also pointed out that education is "second to age" in sorting partners. A high degree of homogamy. 99$. 90%. and 50% to 80% is reported for 7 racial. religion. and class. respectively. in the United States (Eckland. 1982). Complementary theory of mate selection was introduced by Winch (1954). He argued that a person seeks a mate who provides him/her ”with maximum need-gratification." Where he defined the term "complementariness" as: When two persons. A and 8. are interacting. we consider the resulting gratification for both to be 'compiementary' if one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) the need or needs in A which are being gratified are different in kind from the need or needs being gratified in B: or (2) the need or needs in A which being gratified are very different in intensity from the same need in 8 which is also being gratified (1bid:243). Thusly. while homogamy is based on the idea that "like attracts like.” the complementary theory of mate selection rests cu: the notion that "opposites attract." and in this regard. it is ”the first serious assortative mating theory alternative to the theory of homogamy" (Epstein a. Guttman. 1984:257). In their studies of mate selection. sociologists have been focusing into two interrelated factors. propinquity and social stratification. Propinquity was found to be a major factor in mate selection (e.g.. Clarke. 1952). Proponents of propinquity believe that propinquity plays a fundamental role in the process of mate selection because "it is a precondition for engaging in interaction . . . (where) . . . 8 a person usually selects a mate from the group of people he knows" (Eckland. 1982:16). On the other hand. inequality is believed to affect mate selection: that is: Social-class endogamy not only plays a significant part in the process of mate selection. it may also help to explain other forms of assortative mating. For example. part of the reason why marriage partners or engaged couples share many of the same values and beliefs no doubt is because they come from the same social background (1bid:18). Eckland (1982) considered propinquity and social class endogamy as two interlocking factors. making it difficult to determine which can be best applied to give a clear explanation of the process of mate selection. Not only because they overlap. but because one cannot tell what precedes the other in its effect. Psychologists have introduced quite a few theories in their attempts to account for the process of mate selection. Among these theories are: psychoanalytic theory. parental image theories. the unconscious archetype. value theory. filter and process theories. ideal mate theory. and instrumental theory (e.g.. Epstein a Guttman. 1984). The gist of the psychoanalytic theory of mate selection is that a person in selecting his/her mate tends to look for that one who resembles his/her opposite-sex parent. Parental image theories stress the resemblance of one’s mate to his/her parents without restriction to that of the 9 opposite sex parent (Epstein 8 Guttman. 1984). Jedlicka (1980. 1984) confirms the influence of the opposite-sexed parent image on mate selection. The unconscious archetype perspective contends that instinct is the guide for mate selection. Proponents of such perspective "believed that there must be for each particular man a particular woman who. for reasons involving the survival of the species. correspond most perfectly with him" (Eckland. 1982:14). Value theory suggests that persons tend to mate when they "share or perceive themselves as sharing similar values orientations” (Epstein & Guttman. 1984:267). Filter and process theories argue that mating goes through three "successive filters" which are "social background.” "high consensus." and ”complementary filter." Only when the potential mate span these three stages of filtering. do they view each other as "possible spouse" (1bid:267). ideal mate theory of mate selection focuses on the resemblance between one’s ideal and actual mate. It argues that "an individual eventually marries the person who most closely resembles his image of the ideal mate” (Ibid:268). Such a resemblance has been reported by Strauss (1946). particularly for personality traits. instrumental theory of mate selection indicates that a person search for that mate "whose behavioral and other 10 resources provide (or perceived to provide) maximum gratification and minimum punification for his needs" (Epstein a Guttman. 1984:268). These are some of the influential theories in the field of mate selection which have emerged to explain the process of mate selection in societies. where much freedom is given to such process. e.g.. United States. Whether these theories can be applied to the case of the Saudi society. where arranged marriage still occupies a place. is a fundamental question or issue for comprehensive study to answer and investigate. In this study. however. a reference to homogamy and ideal mate theories is made. iggal Wife Attributes Previously. we indicated that the ideal mate theory of mate selection stressed the resemblance between the ideal and the actual mate. in other words. a person marries the one who best fits his/her image about the ideal mate. Where the term ideal mate is used to: Refer to the image or images which a person of marriageable age may have of the kind of person he would like to marry. In common speech. this image is sometimes called ’dream man.’ ’dream girl.’ 'the notion 1 had in the back of my mind.’ ’my ideal' (Strauss. 1946:204). Thusly. if we were to follow the guidance of the ideal mate theory of mate selection. especially since it has been supported by the empirical studies (e.g.. Strauss. 1946). 11 then knowing the characteristics of the ideal mate is very important if we were to conjuncture about future spouse patterns. Therefore. this section will present a discussion of some of the most related studies about ideal wife attributes both in Saudi and American societies. in this regard. a comparison or evaluation is not implied. Each society has its own unique values. traditions. and norms regarding the family. marriage and mate selection patterns. which stems from their different and distinctive cultural backgrounds. However. this discussion seeks the provision of a more comprehensive picture of the kind of social background and the social environment the study’s subjects are experiencing. The findings of this study should be interpreted and understood within such a framework. W Almosa (1987) found that 857. of his respondents (n = 103 single male university students) wanted wives younger than themselves versus 12% who wanted wives with similar age. However. while the vast majority. 65‘]. belong to the category of 20-25 years of age. he found that the vast majority. 64%. wanted wives aged between 16-20 years. The mean age desired for marriage for his respondents was 24 years. but the mean age they desired in a wife was 20 years. resulting in four years of difference in mean age between the potential spouses. 12 With respect to education. he found that 521. of the students wanted wives with a lower level of education versus 421. who wanted wives with a similar level of education. While the respondents were university students. 61% wanted wives with secondary education. Education of the prospective wife took the fifth rank among six attributes about the future wife. These attributes were as follows: (1) religiosity: (2) morality and ethics: (3) common ancestor: (4) physical appearance: (5) education: and (6) wealth. Alyamamah (1987) arrived at a similar finding. where the preference of young and less educated wife was the trait cannon to 901. of the respondents about the prospective wife. Aljasser (1987) attributed this tendency toward younger and less educated wives to the males' desires to keep their authority and prestige in the family. He described such a tendency as (in translation). "expressing a narrow horizon and futile insistence on the tribal tradition which considers the man to be the cavalier while the woman is only a mere part of property" (p. 9). Such an argument by AlJasser confirms Lipsky's (1959348) observation that. "in the family relation a husband's position is dominant: wife and children are obliged to submit to his authority.” Clearly. such a tendency to mate younger and less educated wives is not explained within the framework of homogamy theory of mate selection. Rather. it might be best understood within the perspective of resource theory of 13 conjugal power which postulates that. "the greater the relative contribution of resource by one spouse. the greater that spouse's authority in marital decision-making" (Lee. 1982:232). According to the resource theory of conjugal power then. males want to be superior in age and education. This superiority means more experience in life and greater job opportunities and consequently income to provide for family needs. Hence. they ultimately hold more resources in the family and will be more able and eligible to exert their authority and power in family affairs. A further support to such an argument is the lower evaluation given to the prospective wife's wealth. as indicated above. Religiosity is one of the highly considered attributes of the future wife. Almosa (1987) found that 90 respondents (n - 103) had ranked religiosity as the most important trait they consider in selecting their future wives. Also. Alyamamah (1987) indicated that 901. of the respondents (n - 30) insisted that they wanted their dream girl to abide by islamic teachings and ethics. Here. we see an indication of homogamy between the potential spouses on the basis of religion. Saudi culture emphasizes preserving the chastity and virginity of women (Lipsky. 1959). After marriage. fidelity is valued. Parssinen (1985:145) indicates that: Among those values which relate specifically to women. pre-marital chastity and fidelity within 14 marriage are most highly treasured. The preservation of these attributes in the women population represent the fundamental core or cornerstone to which other values related to women are anchored . . . honor and shame in the family are intimately tied to the chastity and fidelity of the women. The concern of the woman's chastity is cannon to Arabic and islamic cultures as well (Goods. 1963). Almosa (1987). in a question regarding the importance of virginity in selecting the future wife. found that 971 of the respondents wanted wives who were never married (31. had no preference). it should be noted that marriage is consider the only way to lose virginity since pre-marital sex is forbidden and punished. Beauty and pleasing disposition are among the attributes sought in a wife in the Saudi society. Lipsky (1959:53) states that "physical beauty (cannonly defined by poetic reference to a skin as fair as milk. a face round as the moon. or eyes like a gazelle) and pleasant disposition are sought in a bride.” Almosa (1987) confirms such evaluation of women's physical appearance. where he found 94% of the respondents indicate the importance of the prospective wife's physical appearance. However. Alyamamah (1987) reported that only 10% (n - 30) were looking for a wife who was modern in outlook and good looking. Also among the attributes considered on selecting future wife is emotion stability and comnitment to family. e.g. 901. of Alyamamah (1987) respondents were looking for a 15 wife who "does not frown or is pessimistic. but smiling and accept life with me in~ its sweetness and bitterness" (p. 18). They wanted her to be a housewife who would take care of the children and cook well. particularly the folk and local meals. without complaint or annoyance because of the many invitations. Similarity in socioeconomic status is among the valued attributes of a future wife. Lipsky (1959:53) noted that ”the most desirable arrangement is for both parties to come from families of the same social and economic status. as is usually the case when cousins marry.” Such a tendency might be taken as revealing a sort of class or socioeconomic homogamy as has been explained earlier. However. it is relevant here to indicate that from a sociobiological perspective. inbreeding weakens the offspring because it: increases the probability of producing homozygous. recessive. harmful characteristics . . . (for example) . . l. a certain amount of inbreeding depression has also been reported for intelligence in first-cousin marriage (Epstein & Guttman. 1984:245). Finally. a non-working woman is more favorable than a working woman as a fUture wife. Almosa (1987) found that although the majority. 57%. viewed working woman as suitable within limits or conditions (e.g.. (1) her work should be separated from men and within the framework of Islamic teachings. 52%. n a 44: (2) her work should not preclude or interfere with her role toward the home and the children. 16 43%: there should be an urgent need for her work. 51%. He found that the vast majority. 95% (n = 102). indicated that they would not select a working woman as a future wife. He commented on such findings as expressing the husband's desire for economic independence in providing for the family's expenditure. American Society Previously. we discussed some of the theories which had emerged to explain the process of mate selection in the United States. U1 this section. a brief discussion will center on some of the most important attributes of the American ideal wife. Hill (1939) conducted a study entitled. "Campus Values in Hate Selection." at the University of Wisconsin. in this study. "the relative importance of eighteen different factors in choosing a mate" were evaluated by the students (p. 556). These characteristics or attributes are: dependable character: emotional stability and maturity: pleasing disposition: mutual attraction-love: good health: desire for home-children: refinement: good cook-housekeeper: ambition- industriousness: chastity: education-intelligence: sociability: similar religious background: good looks: similar educational background: favorable social status: good financial prospect: and similar political background. The same study was replicated by HcGinnis (1956. 1959). Hudson and Henze (1967. 1969). and Hoyt and Hudson (1977. 17 1981). Table 2.1 represents the result with regard to males’ preferences in these four replicated studies. Table 2.1 Rank of 18 personal characteristics in mate selection based on mean value by year (1) 1939 1956 1967 1977 1- Dependable character 1 1 1 3 2- Emotional stability 2 2 3 1 3- Pleasing disposition 3 4 4 4 4- Mutual attraction 4 3 2 2 5- Good health 5 6 9 5 6- Desire for home-children 6 5 5 11 7- Refinement 7 8 7 10 8- Good cook-housekeeper 8 7 6 13 9- Ambition-industriousness 9 9 8 8 10-Chastity 10 13 15 17 11-Education-intelligence 11 11 10 7. 12-Sociability 12 12 12 6 13-Similar religious background 13 10 14 14 14-Good looks a 14 15 11 9 15-Similar educational background 15 14 13 12 16-Favorable social status 16 16 16 15 17-Good financial prospect 17 17 18 16 18-Similar political background 18 18 17 18 (1) Source: Hoyt & Hudson. "Personal Characteristics Important in Hate Preference Among College Students." Social Behavior and Personality. 9(1). 1981 (p. 95). Although there was a fluctuation in the ranks of this set of traits. we see a kind of continuous ascending and decline for certain characteristics. For example. similar educational background continued to move forward (15-14-13- 12) iri r939. 1956. 1967. and 1977 studies. respectively). Chastity exhibited a continuous decline (10—13-15-17) in 1939. 1956. 1967. and 1977 studies. respectively. 18 However. if we took Hoyt and Hudson's study (1977). which was the latest of these replicated studies. we can conclude that the five most important attributes of prospective wife among American male students are emotional stability. mutual attraction. dependable character. pleasing disposition. and good health. respectively. And that the five least important attributes are similar religious background. favorable social status. good financial prospect. chastity. and similar political background. respectively. Table 2.1 also indicates that "students in this sample appear to be less concerned with the home and children aspects of family life and more concerned with the social aspects" (Hoyt 8 Hudson. 1981:930). Also. more evaluation was given to education. As indicated by Hudson and Henze (1969). the median of preferred age for marriage from the male's point of view was 25.1. 24.9. and 24.5 years in 1939. 1956. and 1967 studies. respectively. The preferred age difference between potential husband and wife was 2.3. 1.2. and 1.5 years in 1939. 1956. and 1967 studies. respectively. However. previously we have seen that 2.7 was reported to be the mean different in age between spouses. Conclusion The resulting freedom of choice given to mate selection in the United States has brought about the emergence of a complex body of theories to explain such fUndamental 19 process. Homogamy. complementary. socio-cultural. and psychological theories of mate selection present a diverse perspective for understanding such a vital process. These perspectives of mate selection were briefly discussed. Some of Saudi and American ideal wife attributes were reported. While Saudis tend to emphasize religion. chastity. good looks. and commitment to family. e.g.. housewife. good cook. take care of children. Americans. on the other hand. tend to evaluate characteristics related to social aspects of the family. e.g.. dependable character. emotional stability. pleasing disposition. and mutual attraction are more favored than the other traits on prospective wife. The susceptibility of values regarding family and mate selection to change is a controversial issue between those who stress their stability through the transformation process between generations and those who indicate their susceptibility to change. For instance. Hudson and Henze (1969:772) in their replicated study. "Campus Values of Hate Selection." found a "remarkable degree of consistency between the values voiced by the two generations." They attribute such a consistency to the socialization process. where "parents play highly significant roles in the courtship of their children in that they have much to do with the kind of person the child will choose as a mate." They argue further that children cannot escape ideas and 20 values which shaped them in childhood. despite occasional occurrences of rebellion. Such an argument was challenged by Hoyt and Hudson (1981) where they concluded their replicated study saying that "several important changes have taken place." A similar conclusion was reached by Almosa (1987) where he saw "modernization” had caused some changes in what he called "material value." e.g.. education. age at marriage. woman's work. but "moral values." e.g.. religion. chastity of the woman. persist without change. 1 agree with Hudson and Henze (1969:772) that "social values regarding family tend to change slowly.” but 1 believe that this slow change will be accelerated and hastened in reference to the Saudi students under the present study. This pattern of change occurs because Saudi students in the United States are exposed to a different culture with its unique and distinctive values and traditions regarding family and mate selection. making them prone to the effect of acculturation which is the ”modification of the culture of a group or an individual through contact with one or more other cmHtures and the acquiring or exchange of culture traits" (Theodorson a Theodorson. 196923). Thus. we arrive at the following question: Given that Saudi students in the United States come from such a socio-cultural background and are now living in a different social environment. what will be their preferences and evaluations of these attributes and issues 21 regarding the selection of their future wives? This is the key issue investigated in this thesis. CHAPTER THREE HETHODOLOGY Unit of Analysis All Saudi single male students who were sponsored by Saudi Arabian Educational Mission (SAEM) in Washington D.C. and studying in the United States at the time of conducting such a study. served as participants in this study. SAEM has a complete list of these students. The total population consisted of 249 students: 97 completed questionnaires were received in the first mailing and 58 were received through a follow up. totaling 155 (62%) usable questionnaires on which this study is based. 19% Based on the literature review a questionnaire was developed. Back translation was used for increased validity. The first English draft was translated to Arabic by the researcher: and this translation was given to an academic Saudi student who translated it back to English. This translation was compared with the original one and slight modifications were introduced. Then. the questionnaire was written in both English and Arabic. This version was pretested to assure clarity. understanding. and to check for sensitivity. Slight modifications were made. 22 23 This final revised version consists of 46 items designed to assess these students’ preferences and opinions on issues regarding mate selection. The final questionnaire appears in the appendix. ta lle ion The final version of the questionnaire was mailed to each subject along with a self-addressed and stamped envelope for returned responses. A cover letter was included with each questionnaire describing the purpose of the study. Also. the students were informed that their participation was voluntary. and they were assured the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Data was collected from the period between March 28. 1988 to May 17. 1988. This period includes the first and fOllow-up mails. Stugy Variables 1ndaaendent Variables Me n e nden V riable Exposure to American culture is the major independent variable. The effect of American cultural exposure on the students' evaluations of a set of attributes and issues regarding selecting their future wives is explored. Operationally. exposure to American culture is defined as the extent of contact and interaction students have while residing in the United States with American values. norms. and traditions regarding family and mate selection. A scale 24 consisting of several items. which were included in the questionnaire. was set up to measure such exposure. These items are. watching American television. going to American movies. dating American girls. association out of class rooms. and type of living arrangements. (See Questions 23. 24. 25. 26. 29 in appendix.) The students were classified as having high or low exposure to American culture according to their responses. A student who indicates that he often or sometimes watches American television. goes to American movies. dates American girls. associates mostly with American students and lives with an American roommate or family. was classified as having high exposure to American culture. On the other hand. a student whose responses reveal that he rarely or never watches American television. goes to American movies. dates American girls. associates mostly with fellow Saudi or Arabic students. and lives alone or with a Saudi or an Arabic roommate. was classified as having a low exposure to American culture. However. it should be noted here that classifying the students as having a low exposure to American culture is not equivalent to saying that they are not exposed. Just by being in the United States. per se. the minimum exposure to American culture is assumed. Also. it should be noted that classifying the students as highly or lowly exposed does not imply a ranking or ordinal procedure. 25 The previously mentioned scale was tested for reliability and to determine the consistency between its constituting items. Table 3.1 reveals the following result. Table 3.1 Test of reliability for exposure to American culture scale. Alpha of Items Correlation items Deleted 1. Going to American movies .2025 .2324 2. Watching American TV -.0485 .3727 3. Association Out of Class Room .2424 .2204 4. Dating American Girls .2078 .2256 5. Living Arrangement .1474 .2857 Overall Alpha I .3242 item #2. watching American T.V.. had a low correlation (-.0485) with the other items. This is because when classifying the cases as having a low or high exposure to American culture. almost all the cases. 96.8%. fail in the category of having a high exposure. but having a high exposure in this particular item is not consistent with having high exposure in the other items. Therefore. the relationship between watching American T.V. and the other items is rather week which was revealed by a low correlation of -.0485. An alpha of .3727 was indicated for watching American T.V. if the item is deleted.. This means deleting this item from the scale will increase Alpha and 26 consequently the consistency between the remaining items. Due to the inconsistency of this item with the other items. watching American T.V. will be eliminated from the scale. and hence will be excluded from the analysis. cher 1ndaaandent Variable; The effect of several other variables on mate selection are also studied: (1) level of education: (2) field of study: and (3) length of stay in the United States. The importance of including such variables in the study stems from the belief that these factors might be related to the students' exposure to American culture in one way or another. The type of education the students pursuing while H1 the United States might offer them more opportunity of) acquiantance or familiarity with some of the American values. norms and traditions regarding family and mate selection than the other types of education. e.g.. social sciences vs. natural sciences and engineering. The students' duration of stay in the United States might be a vehicle for acculturation to take place. Not only because the extended duration might provide a chance for the exposure process to operate. but also it might reduce the enforcement of the home values and traditions since the agents of supervision and control (e.g.. family) are remote. Thusly. these variables or factors are supplementary to our investigation of the effect of exposure to American cullture 27 cww the students' evaluation and attitudes toward some attributes and issues in selecting their future wives. Degendent Variables The dependent variables under investigation in the present study are: examined. Queations I. l. The students’ evaluation of 18 characteristics regarding their future wives. The students' ideal age for marriage. and the age and level of education they desire for future wives. Their attitudes toward marrying working women. Their attitudes toward arranged marriage. Their attitudes toward and future expectations of seeing a future wife before engagement and marriage. e rch ue ions nd H th e The following research questions and hypotheses are What are the most and least desirable attributes of the future wife among the Saudi single male students in the United States? Are these students in favor of or against marrying working women? 28 What is the desired age for marriage. and what are the age and level of education desired of their fUture wives? Are arranged marriages favored or is there a demand for personal involvement and participation in selecting future wives? Are these students in favor or against seeing future mates before engagement. Are there variations in evaluating these attributes about the future wife in relationship to students' level of education. field of study. and length of stay in the United States? Hyaathasas 1. Students highly exposed to American culture will indicate a higher evaluation of the following personal attributes of a future wife: (a) dependable character: (b) pleasing disposition: (c) emotional stability: (d) mutual attraction: and (e) educational and general intelligence than students with a low exposure. Students highly exposed to American culture will have a lower evaluation of the fbllowing religious and family orientation attributes of a future wife: (a) chastity and virginity: (b) similar religion: (c) good looks: (d) good cook-housekeeper: (e) desire home and children: and (f) relationship to family. about a future wife than students with a low exposure. 29 Students highly exposed to American cultune will be favorable to marrying working women than students with a low exposure. Students highly exposed to American culture will demand more involvement and participation on selecting future wife than students with a low exposure who will favor an arranged marriage. Students highly exposed to American cultune will be more in favor of seeing a future wife before and at betrothal than students with a low exposure. Students highly exposed to American culture are more likely to believe that in the future there will be more opportunity of seeing a prospective wife both at and before betrothal than students with a low exposure. ti tical A l sis Selecting the appropriate statistical techniques to describe and analyze the data depends on: 1. The variables' level of measurement (e.g.. nominal. ordinal. interval and ratio) and meeting the assumptions for the test to be performed. 2. Whether the independent and dependent variables have been determined in advance. in other words. whether a distinction has been made between the dependent and independent variables. 30 3. What the researcher wants to know about the variable or variables in hand (e.g.. test for the significance of the relationship between the variable or a measure of association) (e.g.. Frank H. Andrews et al.. 1981: Freeman. 1965). With regard to the study under investigation: (1) a distinction has been made between independent and dependent variables. as indicated earlier: (2) the objective is to have statistical techniques that best describe the study variables and inform us of the significance and strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables which have been set up for investigation: and (3) the variables' level of measurement is as follows: A. The independent variables are nominal. 8. The dependent variables are both ordinal and nominal. They are ordinal for the 18 characteristics about the future wife. (See question #44 in Appendix C.) And for the preference of seeing the future wife both before and at betrothal. (See questions #37. 38 in Appendix C.) The remaining dependent variables are nominal. When the analysis involves two nominal variables. independent and dependent. Chi-Square (x2). and Lambda (71) are appropriate as the statistical test and measure of association respectively. When the independent variable is nominal and the dependent variable is ordinal. Hann- Whitney (H-W) and Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) tests are 31 apprOpriate statistical tests. Mann-Whitney when the independent variable is a two point scale (two groups) and Kruskal-Wallis when it is more than two points (more than two independent groups). Theta (a) is the appropriate measure of association when the independent variable is nominal and the dependent variable is ordinal (e.g.. Freeman. 1965: Frank Andrews et al.. 1981). Chi-Square (X2) is a test of independence between the variables. it is "sensitive to any systematic departure from independence or total nonpredictability" (Freeman. 1965:215). Kruskal-Wallis test is "an extension of the Mann- Whitney test” (Marija J. Norusus/SPSS. inc.. 1988). and alternative to analysis of variance for ordered or ranked data (Blalock. 1979). Both Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. test the hypothesis that: "samples drawn from same continuous population" (ibid:260.368). in computing Mann-Whitney test: the observations from both samples are first combined and ranked from smallest to largest . . . if the groups have the same distribution. their sample distributions of ranks should be similar. if one of the groups has more than its share of small or large ranks. there is reason to suspect that the two underlying distributions are different . .. . the mean rank is the sum of the ranks divided by the number of cases (Marija J. Norusus/SPSS. inc.. 198838-178). 32 Lambda (A ) is a measure of association between two nominal variables. it "always range between 0 and 1. A value of 0 means the independent variable is of no help in predicting the dependent variable. A value of 1 means that independent variable perfectly specifies the categories of the dependent variable" (1bid:8-101). However. it should be noted that Lambda is not sensitive to every simple association. A lambda of 0 need not imply statistical independence . .. . other measures of association may find association of different kind even when Lambda is 0. A measure of association sensitive to every imaginable type of association does not exist (1bid:8-101). »~Theta ( 0 ) is: a measure of association between a nominal scale and an ordinal scale. it may vary between 0 and 1 and its magnitudes may be interpreted in terms of comparisons of the rankings of individuals in different nominal scale classes. Theta is the difference between the proportion of comparisons in which members of one class predominate and the proportion in which members of another class predominate (Freeman. 1965:112). The value of theta (a) ranges between "1.0 for perfect association (and) 0.0 for no association at all" (1bid:112). These statistical techniques are utilized in analyzing the data whenever applied as described above. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (Spss) was used in performing such tests and analysis. 33 Since the study hypotheses had predicted the direction of the relationship between the exposure to American culture and the students’ evaluation of attributes and issues regarding the selection of fUture wife. the .05 level of significance one tail test is set up for testing such hypotheses. CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS A Profila of the Study Subjects in this section. a brief report of the most important characteristics of the study participants will be presented. Table 4.1 Characteristics of the study subjects. Characteristic 1. Age groups 19-23 18.0% (n=28) 24-28 66.5% (n=103) 29-33 15.5% (n=24) Total 100.0% (naiSS) 2. Regions of Saudi Arabia Northern Region 5.8% (n89) Southern Region 11.0% (n=17) Western Region 18.0% (n=28) 34 35 Table 4.1 (Continued) Eastern Region Central Region Total Size of City of Origin Big City Small City Village Total Level of Education Undergraduate Graduate Total Field of Study Social Sciences Engineering Natural Sciences 18.7% (n-29) 46.5% (n-72) 100.0% (n-lSS) 61.3% (n-95) 25.2% (n—39) 13.5% (n-Zi) 100.0% (n-155) 53.6% (n-82) 46.4% (n-71) 100.0% (n-153) 17.4% (n=27) 36.8% (n-57) 11.6% (n-18) 36 Table 4.1 (Continued) Arts and Letters Business Total Length of Stay in U.S. Less than a year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7 or more years Total Exposure to American Culture Low Exposure High Exposure Total 10.3% (naié) 23.9% (n-37) 100.0% (n-155) 13.6% (n=21) 40.0% (na62) 37.4% (n=58) 9.0% (n-14) 100.0% (n-155) 53.5% (n-83) 46e51 (n-72) 100.0% (n8155) 37 As shown in Table 4.1. the vast majority. 66.5%. of the study’s participants ranged between 24 to 28 years of age. This is understandable since almost half of the students are graduate students. Most of the students. 46.5%. came from the central region of Saudi Arabia. (For delineation of these regions. see map in Appendix A.) The majority of the students. 61.3%. had grown in a big city. where the classification of the city size left to the students' criteria and judgement. The students were somewhat evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate. 46.4% and 53.6%. respectively. The majority. 48.4%. of the students are pursuing engineering and natural science studies. Next are business. 23.9%: social science. 17.4%: and art and letters. 10.3%. respectively. The majority. 40%. of the students have been in the United States for one to three years. and 37.4% for four to six years. Finally. somewhat evenly the students were divided between having low and high exposure to American culture. 53.5% vs. 46.5%. respectively. Descrigtiva Analysis of the Study Attributes of tha,Futura Wifa Question #1. What are the most and least desirable attributes of the future wife among the Saudi single male students in the United States? 38 Table 4.2 reveals the students’ evaluation of the eighteen characteristics about their future wives. The table presents the frequencies and the percentages for each characteristic. Table 4.2 Attitudes towards characteristics of future wives. Unim— Desir- impor- indis- portant able tant pensable Total Character- istics 0 1 2 3 Similar age 38.7% 32.0% 25.3% 4.0% 100% (n-58) (n-48) (n=38) (na6) (n=150) Similar level of education 16.9% 44.6% 30.4% 8.1% (n-25) (n-66) (n-45) (n=12) (n=148) Similar religion 4.6% 5.3% 19.7% 70.4% (n-7) (n-8) (n-30) (n=107) (n2152) Chastity and virginity 2.0% 5.3% 23.2% 69.5% (n83) (ns8) (n-35) (n-71) (n=151) Dependable . character .7% 5.3% 47.0% 47.0% (n-i) (n-B) (n-7i) (n=71) (n=151) Pleasing disposition 2.1% 15.3% 52.1% 30.6% (n-3) (“822) (n-75) (n-72) (nsi44) Table 4.2 (Continued) 39 Emotional stability .7% (n=1) Good looks 1.3% (n22) Good cook- housekeeper 4.0% (n-6) Desire home and children 4.1% (n-6) Similar socioeconomic status 28.5% (n-43) Relationship to family 87.5% (n=133) Good finan- cial pros- pect--rich 78.9% (n-iZO) Sociability 2.7% (n=4) Ambition & industries 1.3% (n-Z) Mutual attrac- tion-—iove .7% (n-l) Education and general intelligence .6% (n-i) Good health .0% (n-O) 4.6% (n27) 24.2% (na37) 28.0% (n=42) 14.3% (n-Zi) 37.1% (n=56) 8.6% (n813) 17.8% (n-27) 16.0% (n-24) 20.8% (na3l) 6.0% (n29) 13.0% (n-ZO) 9.8% (n=6) 47.4% (n=72) 52.9% (naBi) 44.0% (n-66) 42e2‘ (nc62) 25.2% (n=38) 2.6% (n=86) 2.6% (n-4) 56.0% (n-84) 46.3% (n=69) 33.8% (n85!) 53.9% (n=83) 43.1% (ns66) 47.4% (n=33 21.6% (na36) 24.0% (n-58) 39.5% (n814) 9.3% (n=14) 1.3% (n=152) (n=153) (n=150) (n=147) (n=151) (n=2.6)(n-152) .7% (n-i) 25.3% (n=152) (n=38)(n=150) 31.5% (n847) 59.6% (n=90) 32.5% (n=50) 47.1% (n-72) (n=149) (n=151) (n-154) (n=153) 40 Table 4.3 The rank of the 18 characteristics about the future wife according to the characteristics’ means 0 Characteristics Mean Rank Chastity and Virginity 2.603 1 Similar Religion 2.559 2 Mutual Attraction-Love 2.523 3 Emotional Stability 2.414 4 Dependable Character 2.404 5 Good Health 2.373 6 Education and General intelligence 2.182 7 Desire Home and Children 2.170 B Pleasing Disposition 2.111 9 Ambition and industriousness 2.081 10 Sociability 2.040 11 Good Looks 1.948 12 Good Cook—Housekeeper 1.880 13 Similar Level of Education 1.297 14 Similar Socioeconomic status 1.152 15 Similar Age .947 16 Good Financial Prospect .250 17 Relationship to family .178 18 41 Based on the majority of the students responses. as indicated by the percentages in Table 4.2. we can classify these attributes about the future wife into four categories: 2. indisaensable charaageristics. This category includes: similar religion (70.4%. chastity and virginity (69.5%) and mutual attraction (59.6%). lmaartant gharaateristics. This category includes: pleasing disposition (52.1%). good looks (52.9%). good cook-housekeeper (44.0%). desire home and children (42.2%). sociability 56.0%). ambition and industriousness (46.3%). education and general intelligence (53.9%). and emotional stability (47.4%). However. the latter two attributes were evaluated as equally important and indispensable. Qaairaala characteriatics. This category includes: similar level of education (44.6%). and similar social and economic status (37.1%). Unimaortant chacactariatics. This category includes: similar age (38.7%). relationship to family (87.5%). and good financial prospect (78.9%). However. ranking these characteristics about the future wife according to their means of evaluations. indicates. as shown in Table 4.3. that the five most 42 important attributes of the future wife are: (1) chastity and virginity: (2) similar religion: (3) mutual attraction: (4) emotional stability: and (5) dependable character. respectively. And the least five attributes are: (1) similar level of education: (2) similar social and economic status: (3) similar age: (4) good financial prospect: (5) relationship to family. respectively. M rr in rkin n Queagian a; Are these students in favor or against marrying working women? Table 4.4 Preference of marrying working women. frequencies. and percentages. Like to Marry Working Woman Yes 29.4% (n-45) Yes. if separate from men 54.3% (n-83) No 16.3% (n-25) Tbtal 100.0% (n-153) From Table 4.4. we see that only 16.3% (n a 153) of the students oppose the idea of marrying a working woman. Hence. we can conclude that the majority of the students are in favor or support of their future wives’ work. The only 43 thing that seems to concern them is the social environment of her work. where the majority. 54.3% (n a 153). wanted her work to be separate from men. However. when the students were asked what would they do had they selected working women as their future wives. 42.4% (n a 151) replied they would let her continue. 8.6% indicated that they would ask her to quit. and 49.0% said they would let her continue under certain conditions. These conditions. as revealed by the students’ responses. are that: her work does not affect taking care of the children. 36.6% (ria- 52). her work does not preclude the family requirements and her role as a wife. 44.2%. and her work does not contradict religion. 19.2%. Students in the study seemed to follow the same pattern which had been found by Almosa’s (1987) study in putting some conditions for their future wives’ work. e.g.. separate from men. does not preclude or affect her role as a housewife and taking care of children. However. a clear difference'iri‘the students’ attitudes toward marrying working woman can be noted. Students in the present study showed more favorable attitudes toward marrying workhu; women e lgaa! Aga far flarriage Question #3. What is the desired age for marriage. and what are the age and level of education desired of future wives? 44 Table 4.5 ideal age for marriage and ideal age and level of education for future wife. percentage. frequencies. and Desired age for marriage: Less than 25 25-30 Above 30 Total Desired age for future wife: Less than 21 21-25 Above 25 Total Desired level of education for future wife: Preparatory or less Secondary University Degree Graduate Degree Total 9.6% (nal4) 76.0% (n=111) 14.4% (n-21) 100.0% (n=146) 39a 4% (n=58) 49.6% (n=73) 11.0% (n-16) 100.0% (n=147) 1.3% (n22) 24.2% (n=37) 64.0% (n=98) 10.0% (n-16) 100.0% (n-153) 45 Table 4.5 reveals that the vast majority of the students. 76% (n a 146). desire to marry between 25 and 30 years of age. However. the vast majority. 89% (n a 147). want their future wife to be less than 25 years of age. This suggests approximately five years difference in age desired for marriage between the students and their future wives. “1 other words. the students want to be at least five years older than their prospective wives. With regard to education. the table shows that the vast majority of the students. 64% (n a 153) want their future wives to carry a university degree. it should be recalled that 53.6% (n a 153) of the students are undergraduates and 46.4% are graduates. Thusly. we have no indication that age is of great importance in sorting the potential spouses. This tendency coincides with the previously discussed studies (e.g.. Almosa. 1987: Alyamamah. 1987). Education. however. seems to reveal a slight tendency toward homogamy between the potential mates. Students evaluated the similarity of their future wife’s education as a desirable one. While Lipsky’s (1959) writings suggest a kind of homogamy on the basis of socioeconomic status. this study revealed that such a tendency is a rather weak one among students in the present study. Students evaluated the future wife similarly in soiceconomic status as unimportant and one of the least attributes sought in a future wife. However. a fundamental 46 tendency toward homogamy in the basis of religion is reported in this study. as it was familiar to the previously mentioned studies (e.g.. Almosa. 1987: Alyamamah. 1987). Students evaluated the future wife similarity in religion as an indispensable attribute. and one of the most important attributes that they look for in a future wife. Selection af Future Wifa Question # . Are arranged marriages favored or is there a demand for personal involvement and participation in selecting future wives? Table 4.6 Prefer to select and initiate betrothal for future wife. frequencies. and percentages. Prefer to Select Future Wife: Mother 5.2% (n=8) Both Parents 1.3% (n22) Himself with Family Consultation 73.5% (n=1i4) Himself Alone 14.8% (n=23) Sister 5.2% (n-B) Total 100.0% (naiSS) 47 Table 4.6 (Continued) Prefer to initiate Betrothal: Father 16.6% (n=25) Mother 13.2% (n=20) Both Parents 29.1% (n=44) Himself Alone 10.6% (ns16) Himself and the family 30.5% (n-46) Total 100.0% (n=151) Table 4.6 indicates that the majority of the students. 73.3% (n a 155). wanted the selection of future wife to be made by themselves with their family consultations. and that 14.8% wanted the tasked to be fulfilled by themselves alone. However. if we combined these two categories. we would end up with 88.1% of the students who are demanding their involvement and participation on the process of selecting their prospective wives. For initiating the betrothal. the table shows that 41.r% (n a 151) of the students demand their participation or free will vs. 59.9% who favor the fulfillment of such a task to be done by one or both of their parents. Selection of future wife differs from initiating the betrothal in the 48 sense that the selection is the stage of reaching the decision and determination of future wife. while initiating the betrothal is a mere implementation of such a decision. The fact that the majority of the students. though not high. prefer that the initiation of the betrothal be done by their parents is understandable within the context of their home culture which casts great respect on the older people. particularly the parents. As an answer to our question above. we can conclude that. in general. students are in support of their involvement in the selection of the future wife. This demand for involvement or participation in selecting the future wife surpasses that found by Almosa’s (1987) study. ias indicated earlier. and presents a drastic challenge to the ideal customs in the Saudi socieity. where Lipskey (1959) had observed the domination of arranged marriage. Seaing A FQture Wifa Bafora Engagemeng and Marriage Qaestion # . Are these students in favor or against seeing future mate before engagement? 49 Table 4.7 Preference of seeing future wife before engagement. Seeing future wife at time of betrothal: 1. Strongly Agree 68.2% (n-iDS) 2. Agree 18.8% (n-29) 3. Uncertain 6.5% (n-10) 4. Disagree 1.9% (n-3) 5. Strongly Disagree 4.5% (n=7) Tbtal 100.0% (na154) Seeing future wife before betrothal: 1. Strongly Agree 53.0% (n=80) 2. Agree 25.0% (n£37) 3. Uncertain 7.0% (nail) 4. Disagree 4.0% (n-6) 5. Strongly Disagree 11.0% (n=17) Total 100.0% (n=153) 50 Table 4.7 (Continued) in future. seeing a prospective wife at betrothal: Yes 90.2% (n=138) No 9.8% (n-15) Total 100.0% (nu153) in future. seeing a prospective wife before betrothal: Yes 89.5% (n=137) No 10.5% (n-16) Total 100.0% (n-153) if we combined the two categories. strongly agree and agree. and classified them as in favor of. we will find that 87% (n a 154) of the students are in favor of seeing their future wife at betrothal. Also. 78% (n a 151) of the students are in favor of seeing their future wife before betrothal. When the students asked about their future expectations of seeing the prospective wife both at and before betrothal. the majority. 90.2% (n = 153). 89.5% (n a 153) answered yes. respectively. Based on the majority 51 responses as revealed in Table 4.7. we can conclude that this study showed that these students are generally in favor of seeing their future wife before engagement and marriage takes place. 'ers new trend of attitudes will be of question and challenge to the predominant traditton and norms as Lipsky (1959:52) noted of the prevalence of the arranged marriage "without the bride and groom seeing each other until the day of the wedding." Same Variatons in the Stagents’ Evaluations of Atgributes About the Future Wife Question 7, Are there variations in evaluating these attributes about the future wife in relationship to a student’s level of education. field of study. and length of stay in the United States? in this section. Mann—Whitney. and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to assess the students’ differences in evaluating the 18 characteristics of future wives by the students’ different level of education. and field of study. and length of stay in the United States. respectively. Only these differences in evaluation that turned out to be significant at the .05 level of significance two tail test. since there is no direction predicted. were reported. 52 Level of ducation Table 4.8 Variation in evaluating attributes about future wife by level of education. Characteristics Level of Education 1 2 Under— Graduate Graduate Mean Ranks Similar Religion 67.96 83.89 2 a - 2.7829 P a .005 8 a .21 Mann-Whitney (M-W) test was performed to assess the students’ differences in evaluating the 18 characteristics by their-(drfferent educational level. No significant difference was observed at the .05 level of significance two tail except for "similar religion" characteristic. As shown in Table 4.8. graduate students tend to evaluate similar religion more than undergraduate students. as indicated by a mean rank of 83.89 for the graduate students vs. 67.96 for the undergraduates. resulting in a value of Z a -2.7829 which is significant at .005 level two tail test. since there is no direction predicted. The association between the students’ level of education and similar religion is indicated by a value of theta (a) =- .21. This suggests 53 that only 21% of the comparisons among students expressing different categories of educational level exhibits a consistent difference in evaluating "similar religion" characteristic about the future wife. Thusly. a relatively moderate predicthon of students’ evaluation of "simiLar religion" can be made from knowing the students’ level of education. Fiald OF Study Table 4.9 Variation in evaluating attributes about future wife by field of study. Field of Study” Characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 Means Ranks Pleasing Dispo- ' sition 73.92 63.92 97,16 72.50 73.37 X2 - 9.5158 Sig - .049 B a .16 '1 a Social Science: 2 8 Engineering: 3 a Natural Science: 4 - Art and Letter: 5 a Business Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) test was executed to explore the students’ differences in evaluating the 18 characteristics by their different field of study. No significant difference was reported at the .05 level of significance two tail except fbr "pleasing disposition" characteristics. As indicated in Table 4.9. natural science students are more 54 concerned with pleasing disposition in their fUture wife and engineering students are the least concerned in this regard. This difference in students from different fields of study was strong enough to be significant at the .05 level of significance. two tail test. Theta (8) indicated a value a .16 for the association between field of study and the evaluation of "pleasing disposition" characteristics about the future wife. This indicates only 16% of the comparisons among students showing different field of study reveal a consistent difference in evaluating "pleasing disposition" about the future wife. Therefore. it is rather relatively weak in predicting the students’ evaluation of ”pleasing disposition" attributes of future wife from their field of study basis. Length of Stay in tha United States Table 4.10 Variation in evaluating attributes about a future wife by length of stay in the United States. Characteristics Length of Stay Less 7 or than a 1-3 4-6 more year years years years Means Ranks Good financial prospect 78.88 69.05 79.43 94.39 x2 3 8.7494 Sig s .032 B a .16 55 Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) test was conducted to determine ‘the studentsfl ‘ “2’2; q,ha- I.ahf .nfi’4?4~:5"“433 «51931:. 40ch: (to; u’veeét‘jubcflifi {51¢}; i; “’30?wa My 51". ””110“ e)“ . flu: wit—'19)}- J)! fi'JJi'fi‘djy‘I": J} “awed-513*”? 034-9 J55: 'dfivu. ”I sail; 41:314..“ Alvin—l . .. ‘ . ' #Jh’I~—vi;e’10-3 Mai. «handy. ~14)“th 51.4..) .1. ,1 393.11%...»er J5”: slur” Wifiakhjfi 0 “\LLUJZI.‘¢’LUAI’»| ‘éW1' :) ”uh-«3’10“ M U“ .hayy.es~2:.1szs.1 (J’Ky—arsllhén’£Jh~;hbbahiflgnnv5,.dflaptflLufll431—thkEJc; ‘L/"'*J'.AI—vr «vdfliushnli 78 APPENDIX C ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Pl s indic t your snsssr hy 9%}EW3&---m ”31;. M ‘r: in the persnthssis.-¢0-WU-v¢w‘— - It the snsvsr is in nusher pleese ...¢unu:bu.;-,teuuLdsurlitlt..... put the number in the persnthesis. HflfiaM-EJW l-.'.;; ( z-los seny brothers end sisters do you hevs? l-hrothsrs 1 3-sistsrs ( J-los ssny ot your brothers end sisters ere asrried? l-hrother; é: I-sister; ( t-Ihet is your rank between your hrothsrs?--( Hith shoe did you live? l-hoth your persnts ( 1 . ' sr-‘h'L-Jt-i .E.:n s11. . I . I s 1% Eu 1"”! I. . . C s C 2-your tether only-.— 1 1+ . J-your sother only-u-o-«o—i 3233.93.“an “either at your persnts--( l W'M C-Plssss indicets your persnts' levels ##WJ' ot education: WyW“ tether 1 no er ‘4. " I A3 g g-illitueteT—T-g gm: : v ‘ 's'éj _: -rssdsndvrteony- “- . . ”9"". " J-slsssnterr-—--—-( )--°-( l--'—;‘~--:.-3 ' . Hm Owner-torrmi )---i i—‘r—ai—‘g-et—m 3 ::“ ‘ “y ( 1".“1 I . fir - C-univsrsity level-«.1 ).....( influx- 7-ssster-—------( ).....¢ ) A. . _‘.‘. 1-ls your sothsr tron your tethsr’s rsletivss? ‘5: i) 3-n; t-Ilhet region ot Saudi Archie ere you tron? lonorthsrn region z-southsrn regi“ l-ssstsrn region d-sesters region s-csntrsl region 79 Q-Uhere sore you raised? l-hig city 3-ssall :; Sevillage lO-lstore your present study in USA.hevs you traveled to the western countries (north hasrica and luropsl? l 7:; s-ee Wm“ ll-tt yes:nushsr ot travel; la-tength ot stay: l-a ten days z-ons to tour seeks J-s tee sai%:: t-oes year S—ssvsral year: lJ-Purposs ot travels: l-pleasure-(touriss) z-study J-husi““ t-other please specity. ls-letors you case to the 03h.havs you traveled to the nonesstsrn countries? l is: a--- “A--- “a“- 80 .., .54 ,‘ . ww«3rurfl-o4{¢+:: ' O C , Mae. 1 firs£!::: 3,0,!“3l0 so !a! I..1‘.I lS-It yes. rich countrisszi ( 14wtft‘3i'fli " " 4' ”Liliana; 14;»: 41.14.4131? '4 e 'IJd if}: i. #dyéj fl... 1 , 9'3“ 11A; 1 r - :‘MMLWQWQV-‘il—u lG-tn Saudi lrehia.hstors you case to Ulh.did you have relationships with sssternsrsitroe north haerica and luropsl? l-;:; W l7-lt yes. type ot relationships: l-nsighhorhood----------i a-triendshi; ( J-colleagues in norh------( t-classsstss-- --¢-( S-tsecher; ( ) élfiMkw ' ' veg-1 1 +4.- Wud-e 1... iflv=459Eesluv~¥Iqarc " ----§L«HEsnnr‘:r-‘ 1 9L9 1 else ‘ 0 e O O . P .0 ‘s '«w-l' 4' fist-18’ ",1-,.1¢&K~.;4.1v 3‘3 .,se-o------ ....... ..... "glwru---- ---- -‘J“eLO4r--‘--- 81 "ee‘ ll-In Saudi Arabia. bstors you cans to USA. W‘“3’T-Jn§-4A have seen western (north Anerice and lurops) til-s? s s l-otten‘ -------1 : , ‘4” ' s ...-;, 3 §W~ em“ : ...... : 1W4”— lQ-Iow long have you been in USA? WM?" W- Jr" ' " ' awn—ins—s—e—s—sdl—s-s—1¢—n—-—-——-.sW-L---- 3-yssr—l—2—3—l—5-6--7-t--!—lO—ll-12_..__:ll:u4-¢...-o-- zo-Ihet is ur current at status? WWW 1° “‘1 . . ' l-Inglish language study ( 1W“...— Z-acadsnic study-—--—-- Wtefiaw J-bnth English and acadsnic—( )MrMh-ew—Q‘m Il-Ihnt are you studying now? flséglvwlfih—Ji : - - 1 14.144.11.14“ 2-nastsr--—---—-—--— ( 1 —-—-—-g\-‘—-A-\A—$o--—- n—-—-—-------1 1—-—-—-—-55—fs~v—-—- 32411.: is your 21.14 at study?-( --—)—??MM,A1L-