Se x Rol es, VoL 25, Nos.

7/8, 1991
Hi s and He r Mari t al Sat i sf act i on:
The Doubl e St andard I
Ri n a S h a c h a r
Ba r - l l a n Uni versi t y
Despite the wealth of research on marital satisfaction, tittle & known about
the cross-effects of husband and wife variables on the satisfaction of the self,
on the one hand, and the ,Wouse, on the other: The study presents a model
that si mul t aneousl y examines the direct and indirect effects of several
sociocultural factors on the satisfaction of each ,spouse. b~ a sample of 206
Israeli couples, linear structural relationships path analysis revealed two
dominant effects: the husband's liberalism and his desire to marry. The more
liberal his attitudes and the stronger that desire, the greater the marital
satisfaction of both spouses. Men were more satisfied when they themselves
held liberal views and when their wives hem conservative ones. Premarital
cohabitation and the pattern of spouse selection had little effect on marital
satisfaction, implying that arranged marriages and aut onomous choice
constitute symmeOic options.
This paper presents a unique model for analyzing the cross-effects of sev-
eral sociocultural variables on the marital satisfaction of each spouse. Spe-
cifically, the model investigates the effects of the following: each spouse' s
degree of liberalism; each partner' s desire to marry; the pattern of spouse
selection (arranged marriage vs. autonomous choice); the duration of the
courtship period; premarital cohabitation; and homogamy between spouses
Zln par t , t he s t udy r epor t ed her e is based on a doct or al di s s er t at i on (1988) pr e pa r e d for t he
Depaz' t ment of Educat i on, Bar - l l an Uni versi t y, Ra ma t Ga n, Israel . Thi s r es ear ch was
s uppor t e d by a gr ant f r om t he For d Founda t i on recei ved t hr ough t he Israel Fo u n d a t k ms
Tr us t e e s . Th e a ut hor is gr at ef ul to Prof. Da f na Izracli, Prof. Fer n Kr a me r - Az i ma , Dr. Rut h
Kat z, and Dr. Yoav Lavee for t hei r i nsi ght ful c omme nt s , and to He l e n Hogr i for her edi t ori al
assi st ance.
451
0360~025/91/1000~3451506.50/0 1991 lqenum Publishing Corporation
452 Sha c ha r
in socioeconomic status, religiosity, ethnic origin, and liberality of attitudes
regarding male-female relationships. (This paper does not treat the expres-
sive, interpersonal factors that have also been found to affect marital sat-
isfaction.) The model examines direct and indirect effects, and considers
each partner's satisfaction separately. It simultaneously investigates the ef-
fects of husband variables (e.g., his degree of liberalism) on his own satis-
faction and that of his wife, as well as the effects of parallel wife variables
(e.g., her degree of liberalism) on her own satisfaction and that of her
spouse.
Although research has pointed to a relationship between marital sat-
isfaction and several of the above factors, findings are relatively inconclu-
sive (see the comprehensive review in Spanier & Lewis, 1980). For example,
the positive effect of homogamy between spouses on their marital satisfac-
tion has been corroborated time and again (Winch, 1971; Burr, 1973; Clay-
ton, 1975; Murstein, 1976; Bowman & Spanier, 1978; Lewis & Spanier,
1979; Leslie, 1982). Yet some studies have found no link between homog-
amy and the quality of marriage among certain subpopulations (Udry, 1973;
Lewis & Spanier, 1979).
The relationship between marital satisfaction and the attitudes held
by each marriage partner (liberal, egalitarian attitudes vs. traditional, con-
servative ones) is even more ambivalent and problematic. Egalitarian divi-
sion of labor, as well as the increased power of females in both the family
and society, have been shown to contribute to a rise in the satisfaction of
married women (Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Katz & Briger, 1988). [It should
be noted, in this context, that liberal attitudes are more prevalent among
women (Shachar, 1977), particularly educated and working women, as they
hold a more integrative view of the social problems related to sexual in-
equality and place more emphasis on these issues (Izraeli & Tabory, 1986).]
However, they have also been found to increase marital conflicts (Collins,
1988) and to lead to a decline in the husband's satisfaction (Murillo, 1971;
Burk & Weir, 1976). It has also been contended that the key to satisfaction
and quality in marriage lies in the flexibility of gender roles. Spouses that
foster multiple roles and androgynous skills, which are consistent with the
changing needs of marriage, tend to be more satisfied than those who hold
a narrow view of gender identity. Flexibility in relation to gender roles al-
lows married men and women to develop open and egalitarian attitudes
that reinforce a sense of companionship, understanding, and empathy
(Orthner & Axelson, 1980; Leslie, 1982; Hiller & Philliber, 1982).
In addition to attitudes and sociocultural background variables, each
couple has a unique history regarding the mutual selection of the marriage
partner, which also can be said to affect marital satisfaction. This history
encompasses several factors: the length and nature of the courtship period,
Hi s and l l e r Mari t al Sat i s f uct i on 453
the choice or rejection of the option of premarital cohabitation, the extent
to which each of the partners desired to marry, and the manner in which
the couple' s attachment was made (aut onomous decision vs. arranged mar-
riage). The research findings of how these variables affect marital satisfac-
tion have been inconclusive.
The length and nature of the courtship period and whether or not
spouses cohabit prior to marriage are significant criteria often utilized in
modern society to make final decisions about choosing partners and mar-
riage. Furthermore, the values and attitudes held by each partner affect
these very factors, i.e., the more conservative the individual, the shorter
the period of courtship and the lesser the tendency to live together before
marriage; conversely, the more liberal the attitudes of the individual, the
longer the courtship and the greater the likelihood to cohabit prior to mar-
riage. Indeed, premarital cohabitation has been found to characterize per-
sons who are less religious, who are more liberal in their attitudes, and
who hold an androgynous view of gender roles (Macklin, 1980).
Research into the relationship between marital satisfactions and the
length of the courtship period has provided inconclusive results. While
many researchers have contended that long courtship periods involve a
process of revelation and exposure that leads to more meaningful, stable
relationships and bet t er preparation for marriage (Blood, 1969; Murstein,
1980), others have pointed to a sharp break in Western society between
the periods of courtship and marriage, making the transition difficult for
each partner. These latter researchers submit that the courtship period is
marked by expectations and behavior that do not conform with the gender
roles performed in married life (Winch, 1971; Falk, 1975; Clayton, 1975;
Kenkel, 1985). Thus, they suggest that the length of the courtship period
has a minimal influence on marital satisfaction.
The contribution of premarital cohabitation to marital satisfaction has
also been subject to much debate. In the Western world, this option has
become normative and is often considered a constructive preparatory stage
that enhances aspects of marriage for young couples (Trost, 1975; Lewis
et al., 1977; Riddley, Peterman, & Avery, 1978; Risman, Hill, Rubin, &
Peplau, 1981; White, 1987). However, there are studies that raise doubts
about its benefits (Bentler & Newcomb, 1978; Olday, 1977; Newcomb,
1979; Macklin, 1980). The yearly rise in the number of cohabiting couples
has not led to bet t er marital suitability or adjustment (Demaris & Leslie,
1984); the marital stability of couples who cohabited before marriage is no
greater than that of couples who did not live together (Macklin, 1983).
Indeed, Balakrishnan, Rao, Lapierre-Adamcyk, and Krotki (1987) have
shown that cohabitors have a higher divorce rate, findings that were con-
454 Shachar
firmed by Trussell and Rao (1989), Therefore, it cannot be concl uded t hat
premari t al cohabi t at i on cont ri but es to increased satisfaction in marri ed life.
Many aut hors have suggested t hat the individual' s desire to marry
affects the dynamics of the courtship, the final choice of partners, and mari-
tal satisfaction (Sindberg et al., 1972; Leigh, Hol man, & Burr, 1984; Burr,
1973; Lewis & Spanier, 1979), but this issue needs f ur t her i n-dept h re-
search. The degree to which a given individual wishes to marry is generally
affect ed by the at t i t udes and values he or she has developed with respect
to his or her social group. The more conservative the individual' s views,
the great er the desire to conform to group expectations to marry; hence,
realization of this desire t hrough marriage can enhance marital satisfaction.
In contrast, marriage and the desire to marry are likely to be less promi nent
values in liberal circles. Thus, the liberal individual' s desire to marl y is ex-
pect ed to be less salient and to have less of an impact on marital satisfac-
tion.
Finally, the manner in which the marriage part ner is chosen can also
affect marital satisfaction. In most West ern societies, individuals are free
to choose their spouses and t hey generally do so on the basis of such per-
sonal consi derat i ons as romant i c love, sexual attraction, loneliness, a desire
for offspring, and a need to express mat uri t y (e.g., Udry, 1973). In contrast,
spouse selection in traditional societies is characterized by nuptial arrange-
ments, generally made by the family. In these cases, the maj or criteria of
selection are family connections, prestige, status, financial arrangement s,
basic skills, and health (Rosenbl at t & Cozby, 1972).
Thus far, the literature has paid little at t ent i on to the quest i on of
whet her one pat t ern of spouse selection is more conducive to marital sat-
isfaction t han anot her. The pat t ern of selection and t he nat ure of the in-
dividual' s expect at i ons from marriage may be related to the value system
i nt ernal i zed by the individual duri ng socialization. An arranged marri age
will be acceptable to individuals with traditional, conservative views, which
fost er very specific and clear expectations of marriage. In contrast, indi-
viduals with liberal, egalitarian views t end to choose part ners on the basis
of romant i c love, and t hey are more likely to foster unrealistic expect at i ons
of marri ed life with regard to bot h the affective realm and gender roles
(Pines, 1988). These expectations are based on an idealized picture of mar-
ried life fost ered in West ern culture, one t hat is inconsistent with rout i ne
marri ed life and t hat can ul t i mat el y arouse a sense of dissatisfaction (Clay-
ton, 1975; Leslie, 1982; Pines, 1988). Consequent l y, it might be assumed
t hat selection on t he basis of an ar r angement can lead to a higher degree
of marital satisfaction because of the congruency bet ween expectations and
actual marri ed life.
Hi s and l l e r Mari t al Sat i s f act i on 455
One can offer the counterargument, however, that young couples who
select their partners autonomously on the basis of romantic love tend to
employ "selection filters" over a long period of courtship and cohabitation,
and to reserve the option to dissolve incompatible relationships before en-
tering into marriage. They are likely to be more satisfied than those who
marry without a prior deep acquaintance with the marital partner or the
opportunity to examine the degree of their compatibility. These hypotheses
require verification.
The inconclusiveness of research findings with respect to the sociocul-
tural factors underlying marital satisfaction points to the complexity of the
issue and the need for more in-depth empMcal investigation. The present
paper is a step in that direction. Specifically, the study reported here ex-
amined the effects of six sociocultural factors on tile satisfaction of Israeli
husbands and wives:
(a) attitudes, on a continuum from liberalism to conservatism;
(b) homogamy between spouses;
(c) duration of courtship;
(d) premarital cohabitation;
(e) the desire to marry; and
(f) pat t ern of spouse selection: prearrangement vs. aut onomous
choice.
The investigation had two main goals, namely,
1. the direction and degree of the effect of sociocultural variables on
the marital satisfaction of young couples, and
2. the possible differential effects on husbands and wives.
It should be noted that Israel provides a choice setting for this in-
vestigation. Israeli society shares most of the characteristics of modern
Western cultures, but at the same time it also embraces several traditional
family conceptions (Peres & Katz, 1981). Several factors appear to con-
tribute to these traditional perceptions. For one thing, Israel is a society
entrenched in the Jewish culture, in which family life is considered a central
value. Second, religious laws are the sole authority regarding marital rela-
tionships. Finally, Israel is a "besieged society" struggling for its very ex-
istence, in which the male plays a dominant authoritative role (Brandow,
1980). Indeed, inequality between the sexes is salient in most spheres of
life---education (Lieblich, 1985; Safir, 1986; Zeidner, 1986; Bentzvi-Mayer,
Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Safir, 1989), economics and the j ob market (lzraeli,
1983; Izraeli, Friedman, & Schrift, 1982; Moore, 1988), and politics (Her-
zog, 1987; Azmon, 1990)--and it affects and is affected by general social
conceptions (Izraeli & Tabory, 1986).
456 Shachar
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
In analyzing the effect of sociocultural variables on marital satisfac-
tion, a theoretical causal model was used, based on the works of Bott
(1957), Berstein (1970, 1971, 1973), and Douglas (1973, 1982). The con-
ceptual framework employed in each of these studies relates behavioral
patterns to the value system and attitudes formulated by individuals within
their social groups, thereby making it possible to predict the differential
effects of sociocultural variables upon behavioral variables. The model pre-
sented here examines a hierarchical chain of causal effects between exoge-
nous and endogenous variables, where the latter serve as both dependent
and intervening variables. It was assumed that the exogenous variables
(husband's and wife's degree of liberalism, as determined by their attitudes
toward permissiveness, bachelorhood, divorce, and gender equality) will in-
fluence the five endogenous variables (each parmer's desire to marry, the
degree of homogamy between spouses, length of courtship period, premari-
tal cohabitation, and pattern of spouse selection). In Figure 1, linear struc-
tural relationships (LISREL) analysis of the variables utilized in this model
is presented in hierarchical-causal order, illustrating the influence of male
and female attitudes on the other five sociocultural variables, and their
correspondent intermediate effects on marital satisfaction for each spouse
(for greater elaboration, see Shachar, 1988).
METHOD
Subjects
The sample included 206 young married couples from various sectors
of the Israeli population, including urban centers, rural areas, kibbutzim,
and moshavim. The sample population was taken from the marriage reg-
istries on the basis of three criteria:
(a) subjects between the ages of 18 and 30 (24.2 years average age
of men, 21.8 years average age of women). [These figures are
similar to the average marital age of the general Jewish
population in Israel (Statistical Yearbook, 1986, Jerusalem, Israel,
Table G6, p. 100).]
(b) first marriage for both partners, and
(c) couples married up to four years.
Of the couples listed in the marriage registries that met these criteria,
250 were randomly sampled. Of these, 206 (82%) agreed to be inter-
Hi s and He r Mari t al Sat i s f act i on 457
\
Fig. I. Model for pr edi ct i ng t he effect s of soci ocul t ural vari abl es on each s pous e' s mari t al
satishtction.
viewed. Table I presents the sample distribution in terms of years of mar-
riage, number of children, and parents' ethnic origin. [Sample distribution
by ethnic origin resembles that of the general population (Statistical Year-
book, 1986, Jerusalem, Israel, Table B21, p. 65).]
[17S[I+ II177C + 17[S
A battery of questionnaires was constructed on the basis of a pilot
study of 3(1 couples that tested for clarity of questions and willingness of
respondents to answer openly. The final version of the instrument evaluated
five main areas:
1. demographics,
2. religiosity,
3. degree of liberalism/conservatism,
4. homogamy,
5. premarital variables, and
6. marital satisfaction.
458 S h a c h a r
Ta bl e I. Sampl e Di s t r i but i on
( %) by Year s Mar r i ed, Nu mb e r
of Chi l dr en, and Et hni c Or i gi n
( N = 412)
%
Year s mar r i ed
Up to 1 year 40.5
1- 2 year s 27.1
2 - 3 year s 24.6
3 - 4 year s 7.8
Nu mb e r o f chi l dr en
0 47.7
1 32.3
2 8.3
> 2 11.7
Pa r e nt s ' e dmi c ori gi n
Eu r o p e a n - Ame r i c a n 47.3
As i an- Af r i can 35.2
I sr ael i - bor n 17.5
1. The demographic questionnaire examined the socioeconomic status
of respondents and their parents. Items included educational level, occu-
pation, family size, housing density, gender, age, ethnic background, age
married, years married, and number of children.
There were four categories of ethnic origin: both parents of European
or American descent, both parents from Asia or Africa, both parents Israeli
born, and mixed (each parent from a different ethnic category). Homogamy
of ethnic origin was examined for the first three categories only.
The socioeconomic status of each spouse was determined oil the basis
of each parent' s educational level, each parent' s occupation, housing den-
sity in the parents' home, and number of siblings. [Katz and Peres (1986)
point to a relation between number of siblings and socioeconomic status.]
2. Religiosity was investigated by a 72-item questionnaire adapted
from the Ben-Meir and Kedem index (1979). This index meets all the re-
quirements of a Gut t man scale (reproducibility = 0.93; stability = 0.69).
Questions calling for "Yes~No" answers inquired about religious observance
in the homes of respondents and their parents.
3. Attitudes toward family life, on a continuum from conservative to
liberal, were examined through an l l -i t em questionnaire specifically con-
structed for this study. The questions examined four topics: attitudes toward
sexual permissiveness, bachelorhood, divorce, and gender equality in the
His and tier Marital Satisfaction 459
Table II. Factor Analysis of the Liberalism/Conservatism Variable: Contents and Loadings
of Four Factors
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Factor 1: Attitudes toward sexual permissiveness
1. Are women and men entitled to the
the same degree of sexual freedom? .80 -.14 .06 .01
2. Do you view favorably sexual relations
between a man and woman who do not
intend to marry? .80 -.05 .18 .10
3. Do you view favorably sexual relations
between a man and woman who hope to
marry? .68 -.08 .10 .10
4. Do you consider it acceptable for a
woman to desire to be an unwed mother? .43 -.25 .34 .04
Factor 2: Attitudes toward bachelorhood
5. Do you think an unmarried woman who
is over 30 is socially inferior? -.14 .93 -.14 -.04
6. Do you think an unmarried man who is
over 30 is socially inferior? -.17 .91 -.15 -.13
Factor 3: Attitudes toward divorce
7. Do you think a divorced woman is
socially inferior? .(17 -.07 .82 .17
8. Do you think a divorced man is
socially inferior? .29 -.23 .75 .06
Factor 4: Attitudes toward gender equality
in the family
9. Who do you think should be responsible
for supporting the family? .02 -.05 .13 .73
10. Should a woman build a career in addi-
to being a housewife, even if there is no
financial need for it? .08 -.03 .15 .66
11. Should a married career woman give her
husband' s career priority over her own? .40 -.18 -.25 .49
family. Principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation confirmed
each topic as a separate factor (see Table II). These factors explained 65%
of the variance.
4. Homogamy was analyzed with respect to di fferences bet ween
spouses regarding socioeconomic status, level of religiosity, ethnic origin,
and degree of liberalism.
5. The following premarital variables were examined by an additional
Questionnaire:
460 Shachar
- - l e n g t h of c o u r t s h i p - - f o u r cat egor i es, rangi ng f r om u p t o t h r e e
m o n t h s t o o v e r o n e year ;
- - pr emar i t al cohabi t at i on (yes or no);
----extent of each spouse' s desi re to marry, measur ed on a 4-poi nt scale
rangi ng f r om very s t r ong desb' e to n o des i r e a t all; and
- - pa t t e r n of spouse sel ect i on (nuptial ar r angement vs. aut onomous
choi ce).
6. Finally, each subj ect was asked to rank his or her own degr ee of
marital satisfaction al ong a 5-poi nt scale. Possible responses ranged from
very s at i s f i e d to di s s at i s f i ed.
Pr o c e d u r e
The bat t er y of quest i onnai r es was di st r i but ed t o subj ect s in t hei r
homes by t r ai ned interviewers, af t er t he consent of bot h spouses was ob-
t ai ned. Each par t ner was i nt ervi ewed separat el y so as to maximize openness
and avoid criticism by t he ot her spouse.
DATA ANALYSIS
To anal yze t he effect of t he six soci ocul t ural variables on marital sat-
i sfact i on, pat h analysis was empl oyed, using t he LI SREL appr oach, a
met hod consi der ed part i cul arl y suited to family research: " LI SREL is a ver-
satile and powerful met hod t hat combi nes f eat ur es of f act or analysis and
mul t i pl e regressi on f or studying bot h t he meas ur ement and t he st ruct ural
pr oper t i es of t heoret i cal models. It allows t he est i mat i on of causal rela-
t i onshi ps among l at e nt ( unobser ved) variables, and permi t s for measur e-
ment er r or s and cor r el at ed r esi dual s" ( Lavee, 1988, p. 937). The pat h
model makes it possible to j uxt apose two di fferent systems of variables:
(a) a syst em of exogenous vari abl es ( i ndependent ) , expl ai ned by
ext ernal factors; and
(b) a system of endogenous variables ( dependent and i nt erveni ng),
expl ai ned by variables within the causal model.
Fur t her mor e, it enabl es exami nat i on of t he cross effect s of husband and
wife variables. It predi ct s t he effect of t he variables charact eri zi ng each
spouse on bot h his or her own marital satisfaction, and on t he marital sat-
isfaction of his or her part ner.
l l i s aud i l er Mar i t al Sat i sfact i on 461
FI NDI NGS
Two vari abl es wer e f ound to have a domi nant effect upon mari t al sat -
isfaction: t he husband' s desi re to mar r y and t he degr ee of liberalism in at-
t i t udes t oward family life (Tabl e I I I and Fig. 2). First, t he hus band' s desi re
t o mar r y had a high positive effect on bot h his own satisfaction ( bet a =
.38) and on t hat of his wife (bet a = .41). These were t he most statistically
significant results rel at ed to mari t al satisfaction. In cont rast , t he wi fe' s desi re
to mar r y had no significant effect on the mari t al satisfaction of ei t her spouse.
Second, t he vari abl e of liberalism significantly affect ed t he mari t al sat -
isfaction of each spouse, but in opposi t e directions. The hus band' s mari t al
sat i sfact i on was gr eat er when he hel d liberal views and when his wife hel d
conser vat i ve views. Conversel y, the wi fe' s sat i sfact i on was gr eat er when her
husband hel d liberal views ( bet a = .29). Ther e was no significant effect of
her own views, liberal or conservat i ve, on her satisfaction. Fur t her , it is to
be not ed t hat t he hus band' s liberalism had a very st rong negat i ve effect
on his desi re to mar r y ( bet a = -. 67), i.e., t he mor e liberal t he mal e, t he
less his desi re to marry.
Ho mo g a my bet ween spouses was found to have onl y a limited effect
on mari t al sat i sfact i on. Of t he f our ar eas in which t he effect of homoga my
was exami ned- - l evel of religiosity, soci oeconomi c status, et hni c origin, and
ext ent of liberalism t oward family life---only t he first two wer e found to
have a significant effect on the hus band' s sat i sfact i on. Thes e effect s wor ked
in opposi t e di rect i ons, i.e., t he effect was positive for homoga my in t he
Tabl e I l L Di r ect and Indi rect Effect s of Endogenous and Exogenous Var i abl es On
Hus band' s and Wi f e' s Mari t al Satisfaction ( N = 412) Bet a Coeffi ci ent s
Hus band' s satisfaction Wi f e' s sal i sfact i on
Di rect Indi rect Tot al Di r ect Indi rect Tot al
Vari abl es effect effect effect effect effect effect
Hus band' s l i beral i sm .23 -. 16 a .09 .29 a -. 23 .06
Wi f e' s l i beral i sm -. 37 a .16 a -. 21 a -. 08 .04 -. 04
Hus band' s desi re t o mar r y .38 a -. 04 .34 .41 a -.01 .40 a
Wi f e' s desi re to mar r y -. 05 .01 -. 04 .08 .01 .09
Homoga my in religiosity .18 a - - .18 a .05 - - .05
Homoga my in socioeconomic status - . 22 a - - -. 22 a .02 - - -. 02
Homoga my in et hni c origin .10 - - .10 -. 25 a - - -. 25 a
Homoga my in at t i t udes .02 - - .(12 .01 - - .01
Pat t er n of spouse sel ect i on - . 10 - - .10 .07 - - .07
Dur at i on of cour t shi p .14 a - - .14 a .04 - - .04
Cohabi t at i on -.11 - - -. 11 -. 07 - - -. 07
a/) < .01.
462 S h a c h a r
I ' l u s b a n d ' s
L i b e r a l l s n ~
~
vo~e
K e y : B e t a
. 15 - .l~J . . . . .
, 2 0 - .3D
. 4 0 a n d a b o v e
Fig. 2. Si gni fi cant ef f ect s of e n d o g e n o u s and e xoge nous var i abl es on t he h u s b a n d ' s
and wi f e' s mar i t al sat i sf act i on ( N = 412; Bet a > .15; p < .01).
level of religiosity (beta = .18) and negative for soci oeconomi c status (beta
= -.22). That is, the great er the similarity in degree of religiosity and the
great er the di fference in socioeconomic status, the great er the husband' s
marital satisfaction. It was the difference in the soci oeconomi c status be-
tween t he husband and wife, regardless of who had the higher status, t hat
affect ed satisfaction.
The only area of homogamy t hat significantly affected the satisfaction
of wives was et hni c origin (beta = -.25). This negative statistical finding
suggests t hat women in exogamous marriages are more satisfied t han those
in endogamous marri ages (cf. Wel l er & Rofe, 1988).
The effects of durat i on of courtship, premari t al cohabi t at i on, and pat-
t ern of spouse selection ( ar r angement or aut onomous choice) were found
to be of low significance. Thus, with the exception of the husband' s desire
to marry, the group of variables reflecting the coupl e' s premari t al history
had a low effect on satisfaction in married life.
tlis and l t er Mari t al Sat i s f act i on 463
DISCUSSION
As reveal ed by t he analytical model i nt roduced here, the marital sat-
isfaction of men and women is differentially affected by several sociocul-
tural variables. The two variables with the highest significant effect on the
marital satisfaction of bot h spouses were the degree of liberalism (particu-
larly the husband' s at t i t udes) and t he husband' s desire to marry. In contrast,
t he wife' s desire to marry had no significant effect on the marital satisfac-
tion of ei t her spouse. Furt her, husbands t ended to be more satisfied when
t hei r own views were liberal and when their wives' views were conservative.
The above results suggest ambivalence among males in modern soci-
ety regarding liberalism and sexual equality; the very same liberal at t i t udes
t hat cont ri but e to their marital satisfaction seem to be t hreat eni ng when
t hey are held by their wives. This finding is in keeping with the gap t hat
Hochschi l d and Machung (1989) found bet ween the husband' s decl ared
gender ideology, supporting egalitarian division of labor in the family, and
his traditional, nonegalitarian expectations of his wife. The findings of the
present study take us one step further: t hey indicate t hat the less the hus-
band' s traditional expectations are fulfilled, the lower his marital satisfac-
tion. Conversely, when his wife tends to meet such expectations, in keeping
with the traditional family model and in opposition to his own decl ared
gender ideology, his satisfaction rises. The present findings point to the
anxiety and strain resulting from the gap between the husband' s emot i onal
longing for the familiar traditional femal e model, which grants him so many
privileges, and his need to adapt to his wife' s egalitarian expectations,
root ed in a social ideology favoring sexual equality and democracy, and in
her need to cope with the multiple tasks of furt heri ng her career, main-
taining a home, and raising the children. Thus, the findings point to a state
of ambi guous role expectations for each spouse and shed light on vulner-
able spots in mal e- f emal e relations in the family.
The ambivalence of males toward liberalism and sexual equality is
f ur t her reflected by the negative effect of the husband' s degree of liberalism
on his desire to marry, as opposed to the positive direct effect of his lib-
eralism on his marital satisfaction. That is, the more liberal the at t i t udes
of males, the less t hei r desire to marry. However, once t hey do marry, lib-
eralism has a positive effect on the satisfaction of bot h spouses. These con-
t radi ct ory findings seem to reflect a conflict of interests bet ween the male' s
desire for freedom (i.e., from the marriage institution) and his desire to
be marri ed and live within a relatively per manent framework.
In light of earlier research, which has poi nt ed to a positive effect of
conservatism and conformi t y to basic family values on martial satisfaction
464 Shachar
(Burr, 1973; Cl ayt on, 1975; Leslie, 1982), one woul d expect marital satis-
fact i on to be gr eat er when bot h spouses hol d conservat i ve views. However ,
this was onl y f ound when t he wife held conservat i ve at t i t udes, which in-
cr eased t he marital satisfaction of the husband, but not her own satisfac-
t i on. To g e t h e r with t he low cor r el at i on bet ween hus band' s and wi fe' s
satisfaction (r = .12), t hese findings indicate t hat t he same fact ors affect
mari t al satisfaction in di fferent directions.
Surprisingly, t he woman' s marital satisfaction is largely i nfl uenced by
two husband vari abl es (his desire to marry and his degr ee of liberalism,
preci sel y t he vari abl es with t he highest effect s in t he model ), yet is not
af f ect ed by her own desire to marry or her own degr ee of liberalism. The
reverse effect is not f ound f or men. Rat her , they, too, are i nfl uenced mainly
by husband, r at her t han wife, variables. Thi s clearly points to an asymmet -
rical i nfl uence of each spouse on marital satisfaction in the f ami l y- - t he
husband variables are obviously domi nant . It can be specul at ed t hat t hese
uneven findings reflect social norms in which husband and wife are per-
cei ved in nonegal i t ar i an t er ms ( Per es & Katz, 1981; Izraeli & Tabor y,
1986).
With regard to t he issue of homogamy, t he finding of a positive re-
lationship bet ween similarity in religiosity and t he male' s marital satisfac-
t i on is consi st ent with ear l i er r esear ch (e.g., Cl ayt on, 1975). However ,
results with r egar d to t he ot her exami ned areas of homogamy indicate com-
plex and confl i ct i ng effects. For exampl e, husbands are mor e satisfied when
t hei r wives are of a di f f er ent soci oeconomi c status, regardless of who it is
t hat has t he hi gher status. That is, t he det er mi ni ng f act or is t he gap. Thi s
fi ndi ng mi ght be expl ai ned by t he husband' s desire f or a clearly def i ned
social status within a hierarchical fl' amework. He may feel less comf or t abl e
when he and his wife hold t he same soci oeconomi c status and she has ex-
pect at i ons of equality. The pr esent findings seem typical of a society char-
act er i zed by changi ng per cept i on of sexual identity, as t hese condi t i ons
pr essur e t he male to adopt new at t i t udes, t her eby diminishing his marital
satisfaction. The finding t hat a hi gher soci oeconomi c status on t he part of
t he woman does not diminish her husband' s satisfaction is an i nt erest i ng
one and r equi r es f ur t her investigation.
Li ke s oci oeconomi c st at us, it was t he di f f er ence in et hni c origin,
r at her t han similarity, which affect ed the marital satisfaction of women.
Thi s finding suggests t hat women in exogamous families are mor e satisfied
t han women in endogamous families. Undoubt edl y, hyper gamous marri ages
provi de women with a f r amewor k for upward social mobility, which is ex-
pressed in i ncreased marital satisfaction. With regard to hypogamous mar-
riages, women who chose to marry s omeone of a "l ower " et hni c origin may,
have done so despi t e lack of familial support ; hence, t hey may have been
l t i s and l l er Mari t al Satisfactiml 465
highly mot i vat ed to marry t hei r spouses (Schrift, 1975) and to work toward
a successful marriage (Kephart , 1981). In addition to the above factors,
t here is one t hat is specific to Israel. One of the major values of the Zionist
tradition, upon which Israel was founded, is the "i ngat heri ng of the exiles,"
a melting pot ideology. It is t herefore an accepted social norm to frown
upon et hni c discrimination. Hence, Israeli women married to Israeli men
of di fferent et hni c origin may feel their values are consistent with prevailing
social norms (Shachar, 1991). The above factors may i nt eract with one an-
ot her, cont ri but i ng jointly to the favorable effect of exogamous marriages
on the wife' s marital satisfaction.
Finally, the variables pertaining to premarital behavior (i.e., durat i on
of courtship, cohabitation, and pattern of spouse selection) were all found
to have a low effect on marital satisfaction. These findings emphasize the
need for f ur t her research into how beneficial a long courtship period and
premari t al cohabi t at i on are for testing expectations of gender roles, com-
patibility, and adj ust ment to marital roles. Moreover, the findings suggest
t hat the arranged marriage, which in its very essence denies aut onomous
choice, is a symmetrical opt i on to spouse selection on the basics of romant i c
love, and t hat nei t her of the two options ensures or hinders marital satis-
faction. This finding may very well reflect the congruency (or discrepancy)
bet ween sex role expectations of marriage and the reality of married life
in egalitarian modern societies vs. conservative traditional ones. It may be
t ent at i vel y specul at ed t hat the freedom involved in aut onomous choice
marriages is count erbal anced by the congruency bet ween expectations and
reality characteristic of traditional arranged mar r i ages- - a supposition t hat
certainly requires furt her investigation and substantiation.
REFERENCES
Azmon, Yael. (19911). Women and polilics: The case of Israel. Women and Politics. 10, 43-57.
Balakrishnan, T. R., Rao, K. V., l api erre-Adamcyk, E., & Krotki, K. (1987). A hazard model
analysis of the covariatcs of marriage dissolution in Canada. Demography 24, 395-406.
Ben-Mcir, Y., & Kedem, P. 119791. Index of religiosity of the Jewish populalion of Israel.
Megamot, 14, 353-362 (Hebrew).
Bentler, P. M., & Newcomb, M. D. 11978). Longiludinal sludy of marital success and failure.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholog% 46, 11153-10711.
Bentzvi-Mayer, S., Hertz-Lazarrowitz, R., & Safir, M. P. (19891. Teacher' s selection of boys
and girls as promi nent pupils. Sex Roles, 21, 231-245.
Bernstein, B. 119701. A sociolinguislic approach to socialization. In J. Guperz and D. Hymens
(Eds.), Dh'ections h~ sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Ri nehart and Winston.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes" and control (Vol. l). Theoretical studies towards a sociolcLffy
of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.
Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes and control (VoL 2). Applied studies towards a sociology of
language. London: Roulledge and Kegan Paul, 1973.
Blood, R. O. (1969). Man'iage. New York: The Frce Press.
466 Sha c ha r
Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. London: Tavistock.
Bowman, H. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1978). Modern marriage. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brandow, S. K. (1980). Ideology, myth and reality: Sex equality in Israel. Sex Roles, 6, 403-419.
Burk, R. J., & Weir, T. (1976). Relations of wives' employment status to husband, wife and
pair satist~ction and performance. JotllTlal of MalT'iage and the Family, 38, 279-287.
Burr, W. R. (1973). Theory construction attd the sociology of the family. New York: Wiley.
Clayton, R. R. 11975). The family, marriage and social clmnge. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heat h.
Collins, R. (1988). Sociology of marriage and the family. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Demaris, A., & Leslie, G. R. (1984). Cohabi t at i on with the future spouse: Its influence upon
marital satisfaction and communication. JotaTlal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 77-84.
Douglas, M. (1973). Natural symbols. New York: Vintage Books.
Douglas, M. tEd. ), (1982). Essays in the sociology of perception. Boston: Rout l edge and Kegan
Paul.
Falk, G. (1975). Mat e selection in America. huernational Behavioral Scientist, 7, 68-80.
Herzog, H. (1987). The hwolvement of women hi local politics. Unpubl i shed report.
Hiller, D. V., & Philliber, W. W. 11982). Predicting marital and career success among dual
worker couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 53-56.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking Penguin.
Izraeli, D. N. (1983). Israeli women in the workforce..lerusalem Quarterly. 27, 59-80.
Izraeli, D. N., & Tabory, E. (1986). The perception of women' s slalas in lsracl as a social
problem. Sex Roles, 14, 663-678.
lzraeli, D. N., Friedman, A., & Schrift, R. (1982). The douhle bhtd: Women in Israel (Hebrew).
Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
Katz, R., & Brigcr, R. (1988). Modernity and cquality of ma, ri agc in Israel: Thc impact of
socio-cultural factors on marital satisfaction..Iota' hal of Comparative Family Studies, 19,
371-380.
Katz, R., &P c r c s , Y. (1986). The sociology of t he fanaily in Israel: An out l i ne of its
.development from the 1950s to the 1980s. European Sociological Review, 2, 148-159.
Kenkel, W. F. (1985). The family ht perq)ective. Santa Monica, CA: Cap and Gown Press.
Kephart, W. M. (1981). The family, society and the hTdividual. Boston: Hought on Mifflin.
Lavee, Y. (1988). Li near structural relationships (LISREL) in family research. Jott171al of
Marriage atld the Family, 50, 937-948.
Leigh, G. K., Hol man, T. B., & Burr, W. R. (1984). An empirical test of sequence in S. V.
R. Murst ei n' s theory of mat e selection. Family Relations, 33, 225-231.
Leslie, G. R. (1982). The family hz social context. Ncw York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. 11977). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage.
In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, I. F. Nyc, & 1, L. Rciss (Eds.), Contemportny theories about the
fionily (Vol. 1). New York: Free Press.
Lewis, R. A., ct al. (1971). Commi t ment in married and unmarri ed cohabitation. Sociological
Focus, 10, 367-373.
Lieblich, A. 11985). Sex differences in intelligence test performance of Jewish and Ar ab school
children in Israel. In M. P. Safir, M. S. Mednick, D. Izraeli, & J. Bernard (Eds.), Women's
worlds: From the new scholarship. New York: Praeger.
Macklin, E. D. (1980). Nont radi t i onal family forms: A decade of research. Journal of Martqage
and the Family, 42, 905-922.
Macklin, E. D. (1983). Nonmari t al heterosexual cohabitation. In E. Macklin & R. Rubi n
(Eds.), Contemporary families and alternative life styles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moor e, D. (1988). Labour market segmentation and its implications. Ph. D. di ssert at i on,
Depar t ment of Sociology, TeI-Aviv University.
Murillo, N. (1971). The Mexican Ameri can family. In N. Wagner & M. Haug (Eds.), Chicanos:
Social and psychological perspectives. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Murstein, B. I. (1976). Who will marry whom. New York: Springer.
Murstcin, B. I. (1980). Mate selection in the 1970s. Journal of Marriage and Ihe Family, 42,
777-792.
Ncwcomb, P. R. (1979). Cohabi t at i on in Amcrica: An assessment of consequences. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 41, 597-603.
Hi s and l l e r Mari t al Sat i s f act i on 467
Olday, D. E. (1977). Some consequences of heterosexual cohabitation for marriage. Ph.D.
dissertation, Washington State University.
Orthner, D. K,, & Axelson, L. J. (1980). The effects of wife employment on marital sociability.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 11, 531-545.
Peres, Y., & Katz, R. (19811. Stability and centrality: The nuclear family in modern Israel.
Social Forces, 59, 687-704.
Pines, A. (19881. Keeping the spark alive: Preventing burnout hi love and marriage. New York:
St. Martin Press.
Ridley, C. A., Peterman, D. J., & Avery, A. W. (19781. Cohabitation: Does it make for a
better marriage? The Family Coordinatol, 27, 129-136.
Risman, B. J., Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Pepplau, L. A. (1981). Living together in college:
Implications for courtship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 77-83.
Rosenblatt, P., & Cozby, P. (1972). Courtship patterns associalcd with freedom of choice of
spouse. Journal of Marriage attd the Family, 34, 689-695.
Safir, M. P. (1986). The effects of nature or of nurture of sex differences in intellectual
functioning: Israeli findings. Sex Roles, 14, 581-59(I.
Schrift, R. (19751. hirer-ethnic and inter-racial marriages. Master' s thesis, Tel Aviv University,
Israel.
Shachar, R. (1977). Attitudes of Israeli youth towards sea role expectations. Master' s thesis,
Bar-Ilan University Raamat Gan, Israel (Hebrew).
Shachar, R. (1988). Mate selection anzongyoung lsraelis. Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-llan University,
Ramat Gan, Israel (Hebrew).
Shachar, R. (19911. The attitudes of Israeli youth towards inter-ethnic marriage. In L.
Shamgar-Handelman & R. W. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), Families in Israel. Jerusalem: Academon,
The Hebrew University (Hebrew).
Sindberg, R. M., Roberts, A. F., & Macklin, D. (1972). Male selection factors in computer
matched marriages..IotttTlal of Marriage and the Family, 34, 611-614.
Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. (198(I). Marital quality: A review of the seventies..]Olt171al of
Ma~7"iage and the Family, 42, 825-839.
Trost, J. (1975). Married and unmarried cohabitations: The case of Sweden, with some
comparisons. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27, 477-482.
Trussell, J., & Rao, K. V. (19891. Premarital cohabitation and marital stability: A reassessment
of the Canadian evidence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 535-544.
Udry, J., R. (19731. The social context of marriage (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Weller, L., & Rofe, Y. (19881. Marital happiness among mixed and homogeneous marriages
in Israel.. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 245-254.
White, J. (1987). Premarital cohabitation and marital stability in Canada. Jout71al of Marriage
and the Family, 49, 641-647.
Winch, R. (1971). The modern family. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Zeidner, M. (1986). Sex differences in scholastic ability of Jewish and Arab collcgc students
in Israel. Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 8(11-8(13.