Sex Roles, VoL 25, Nos. 7/8, 1991

His and Her Marital Satisfaction: The Double Standard I

Rina Shachar

Bar-llan University

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 simultaneously 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 autonomous 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 part, the study reported here is based on a doctoral dissertation (1988) prepared for the Depaz'tment of Education, Bar-llan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. This research was supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation received through the Israel Foundatkms Trustees. The author is grateful to Prof. Dafna Izracli, Prof. Fern Kramer-Azima, Dr. Ruth Katz, and Dr. Yoav Lavee for their insightful comments, and to Helen Hogri for her editorial assistance.

451

0360~025/91/1000~3451506.50/0 © 1991 lqenum Publishing Corporation

452 Shachar

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,

His and l ler Marital Satisfuction 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 (autonomous 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 better 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 better 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 concluded that premarital cohabitation contributes to increased satisfaction in married life.

Many authors have suggested that 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, Holman, & Burr, 1984; Burr, 1973; Lewis & Spanier, 1979), but this issue needs further in-depth re- search. The degree to which a given individual wishes to marry is generally affected by the attitudes and values he or she has developed with respect to his or her social group. The more conservative the individual's views, the greater the desire to conform to group expectations to marry; hence, realization of this desire through marriage can enhance marital satisfaction. In contrast, marriage and the desire to marry are likely to be less prominent values in liberal circles. Thus, the liberal individual's desire to marly is ex- pected to be less salient and to have less of an impact on marital satisfac- tion.

Finally, the manner in which the marriage partner is chosen can also affect marital satisfaction. In most Western societies, individuals are free to choose their spouses and they generally do so on the basis of such per- sonal considerations as romantic love, sexual attraction, loneliness, a desire for offspring, and a need to express maturity (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 major criteria of selection are family connections, prestige, status, financial arrangements, basic skills, and health (Rosenblatt & Cozby, 1972).

Thus far, the literature has paid little attention to the question of whether one pattern of spouse selection is more conducive to marital sat- isfaction than another. The pattern of selection and the nature of the in- dividual's expectations from marriage may be related to the value system internalized by the individual during socialization. An arranged marriage will be acceptable to individuals with traditional, conservative views, which foster very specific and clear expectations of marriage. In contrast, indi- viduals with liberal, egalitarian views tend to choose partners on the basis of romantic love, and they are more likely to foster unrealistic expectations of married life with regard to both the affective realm and gender roles (Pines, 1988). These expectations are based on an idealized picture of mar- ried life fostered in Western culture, one that is inconsistent with routine married life and that can ultimately arouse a sense of dissatisfaction (Clay- ton, 1975; Leslie, 1982; Pines, 1988). Consequently, it might be assumed that selection on the basis of an arrangement can lead to a higher degree of marital satisfaction because of the congruency between expectations and actual married life.

His and l ler Marital Satisfaction 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) pattern of spouse selection: prearrangement vs. autonomous

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 job 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-

His and Her Marital Satisfaction 457

\

Fig. I. Model for predicting the effects of sociocultural variables on each spouse's marital 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 Shachar

Table I. Sample Distribution (%) by Years Married, Number of Children, and Ethnic Origin

(N = 412)

%

Years married Up to 1 year 40.5 1-2 years 27.1 2-3 years 24.6 3-4 years 7.8

Number of children 0 47.7 1 32.3 2 8.3 > 2 11.7

Parents ' edmic origin European-American 47.3 Asian-African 35.2 Israeli-born 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 Guttman 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 ll-item 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 differences between 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 eng th of cour t sh ip - - four categories, ranging from up to three months to over one year;

--premari tal cohabitation (yes or no); ----extent of each spouse's desire to marry, measured on a 4-point scale

ranging from very strong desb'e to no desire at all; and - -pa t te rn of spouse selection (nuptial arrangement vs. autonomous

choice).

6. Finally, each subject was asked to rank his or her own degree of marital satisfaction along a 5-point scale. Possible responses ranged from very satisfied to dissatisfied.

Procedure

The battery of questionnaires was distributed to subjects in their homes by trained interviewers, after the consent of both spouses was ob- tained. Each partner was interviewed separately so as to maximize openness and avoid criticism by the other spouse.

DATA ANALYSIS

To analyze the effect of the six sociocultural variables on marital sat- isfaction, path analysis was employed, using the LISREL approach, a method considered particularly suited to family research: "LISREL is a ver- satile and powerful method that combines features of factor analysis and multiple regression for studying both the measurement and the structural properties of theoretical models. It allows the estimation of causal rela- tionships among latent (unobserved) variables, and permits for measure- ment errors and correlated residuals" (Lavee, 1988, p. 937). The path model makes it possible to juxtapose two different systems of variables:

(a) a system of exogenous variables (independent), explained by external factors; and

(b) a system of endogenous variables (dependent and intervening), explained by variables within the causal model.

Furthermore, it enables examination of the cross effects of husband and wife variables. It predicts the effect of the variables characterizing each spouse on both his or her own marital satisfaction, and on the marital sat- isfaction of his or her partner.

l l is aud i l e r Mar i t a l Sat isfact ion 461

FINDINGS

Two variables were found to have a dominant effect upon marital sat- isfaction: the husband's desire to marry and the degree of liberalism in at- titudes toward family life (Table III and Fig. 2). First, the husband's desire to marry had a high positive effect on both his own satisfaction (beta = .38) and on that of his wife (beta = .41). These were the most statistically significant results related to marital satisfaction. In contrast, the wife's desire to marry had no significant effect on the marital satisfaction of either spouse.

Second, the variable of liberalism significantly affected the marital sat- isfaction of each spouse, but in opposite directions. The husband's marital satisfaction was greater when he held liberal views and when his wife held conservative views. Conversely, the wife's satisfaction was greater when her husband held liberal views (beta = .29). There was no significant effect of her own views, liberal or conservative, on her satisfaction. Further, it is to be noted that the husband's liberalism had a very strong negative effect on his desire to marry (beta = -.67), i.e., the more liberal the male, the less his desire to marry.

Homogamy between spouses was found to have only a limited effect on marital satisfaction. Of the four areas in which the effect of homogamy was examined-- level of religiosity, socioeconomic status, ethnic origin, and extent of liberalism toward family life---only the first two were found to have a significant effect on the husband's satisfaction. These effects worked in opposite directions, i.e., the effect was positive for homogamy in the

Tab le I lL Direct and Indirect Effects of E n d o g e n o u s and Exogenous Var iables On

H u s b a n d ' s and Wife 's Marital Satisfaction (N = 412) Beta Coefficients

H u s b a n d ' s satisfaction Wife ' s salisfaction

Direct Indirect Tota l Direct Indirect Tota l Variables effect effect effect effect effect effect

H u s b a n d ' s liberalism .23 ° - . 16 a .09 .29 a - .23 .06

Wife 's l iberalism -.37 a .16 a -.21 a - .08 .04 - .04

H u s b a n d ' s desire to ma r ry .38 a - .04 .34 ° .41 a -.01 .40 a

Wife ' s desire to mar ry - .05 .01 - .04 .08 .01 .09

H o m o g a m y in religiosity .18 a - - .18 a .05 - - .05

H o m o g a m y in socioeconomic status - . 2 2 a - - - .22 a .02 - - - .02

H o m o g a m y in ethnic origin .10 - - .10 - .25 a - - - .25 a

H o m o g a m y in at t i tudes .02 - - .(12 .01 - - .01

Pa t te rn of spouse selection - .10 - - .10 .07 - - .07

Dura t i on of cour tship .14 a - - .14 a .04 - - .04 Cohabi ta t ion -.11 - - - . 11 - .07 - - - .07

a/) < .01.

462 Shachar

I ' l u s b a n d ' s

L i b e r a l l s n ~

~ vo~e

Key: B e t a

.15 - .l~J . . . . .

,20 - .3D

.40 a n d a b o v e

Fig. 2. Significant effects of endogenous and exogenous variables on the husband 's and wife's marital satisfaction (N = 412; Beta > .15; p < .01).

level of religiosity (beta = .18) and negative for socioeconomic status (beta = -.22). That is, the greater the similarity in degree of religiosity and the greater the difference in socioeconomic status, the greater the husband's marital satisfaction. It was the difference in the socioeconomic status be- tween the husband and wife, regardless of who had the higher status, that affected satisfaction.

The only area of homogamy that significantly affected the satisfaction of wives was ethnic origin (beta = -.25). This negative statistical finding suggests that women in exogamous marriages are more satisfied than those in endogamous marriages (cf. Weller & Rofe, 1988).

The effects of duration of courtship, premarital cohabitation, and pat- tern of spouse selection (arrangement or autonomous 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 couple's premarital history had a low effect on satisfaction in married life.

tlis and l ter Marital Satisfaction 463

DISCUSSION

As revealed by the analytical model introduced 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 both spouses were the degree of liberalism (particu- larly the husband's attitudes) and the husband's desire to marry. In contrast, the wife's desire to marry had no significant effect on the marital satisfac- tion of either spouse. Further, husbands tended to be more satisfied when their 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 attitudes that contribute to their marital satisfaction seem to be threatening when they are held by their wives. This finding is in keeping with the gap that Hochschild and Machung (1989) found between the husband's declared 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: they indicate that 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 declared gender ideology, his satisfaction rises. The present findings point to the anxiety and strain resulting from the gap between the husband's emotional longing for the familiar traditional female model, which grants him so many privileges, and his need to adapt to his wife's egalitarian expectations, rooted in a social ideology favoring sexual equality and democracy, and in her need to cope with the multiple tasks of furthering her career, main- taining a home, and raising the children. Thus, the findings point to a state of ambiguous role expectations for each spouse and shed light on vulner- able spots in male-female relations in the family.

The ambivalence of males toward liberalism and sexual equality is further 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 attitudes of males, the less their desire to marry. However, once they do marry, lib- eralism has a positive effect on the satisfaction of both spouses. These con- tradictory findings seem to reflect a conflict of interests between the male's desire for freedom (i.e., from the marriage institution) and his desire to be married and live within a relatively permanent framework.

In light of earlier research, which has pointed to a positive effect of conservatism and conformity to basic family values on martial satisfaction

464 Shachar

(Burr, 1973; Clayton, 1975; Leslie, 1982), one would expect marital satis- faction to be greater when both spouses hold conservative views. However, this was only found when the wife held conservative attitudes, which in- creased the marital satisfaction of the husband, but not her own satisfac- tion. Toge the r with the low correlation between husband's and wife's satisfaction (r = .12), these findings indicate that the same factors affect marital satisfaction in different directions.

Surprisingly, the woman's marital satisfaction is largely influenced by two husband variables (his desire to marry and his degree of liberalism, precisely the variables with the highest effects in the model), yet is not affected by her own desire to marry or her own degree of liberalism. The reverse effect is not found for men. Rather, they, too, are influenced mainly by husband, rather than wife, variables. This clearly points to an asymmet- rical influence of each spouse on marital satisfaction in the family--the husband variables are obviously dominant. It can be speculated that these uneven findings reflect social norms in which husband and wife are per- ceived in nonegalitarian terms (Peres & Katz, 1981; Izraeli & Tabory, 1986).

With regard to the issue of homogamy, the finding of a positive re- lationship between similarity in religiosity and the male's marital satisfac- tion is consistent with earlier research (e.g., Clayton, 1975). However, results with regard to the other examined areas of homogamy indicate com- plex and conflicting effects. For example, husbands are more satisfied when their wives are of a different socioeconomic status, regardless of who it is that has the higher status. That is, the determining factor is the gap. This finding might be explained by the husband's desire for a clearly defined social status within a hierarchical fl'amework. He may feel less comfortable when he and his wife hold the same socioeconomic status and she has ex- pectations of equality. The present findings seem typical of a society char- acterized by changing perception of sexual identity, as these conditions pressure the male to adopt new attitudes, thereby diminishing his marital satisfaction. The finding that a higher socioeconomic status on the part of the woman does not diminish her husband's satisfaction is an interesting one and requires further investigation.

Like socioeconomic status, it was the difference in ethnic origin, rather than similarity, which affected the marital satisfaction of women. This finding suggests that women in exogamous families are more satisfied than women in endogamous families. Undoubtedly, hypergamous marriages provide women with a framework for upward social mobility, which is ex- pressed in increased marital satisfaction. With regard to hypogamous mar- riages, women who chose to marry someone of a "lower" ethnic origin may, have done so despite lack of familial support; hence, they may have been

ltis and ller Marital Satisfactiml 465

highly motivated to marry their spouses (Schrift, 1975) and to work toward a successful marriage (Kephart, 1981). In addition to the above factors, there is one that is specific to Israel. One of the major values of the Zionist tradition, upon which Israel was founded, is the "ingathering of the exiles," a melting pot ideology. It is therefore an accepted social norm to frown upon ethnic discrimination. Hence, Israeli women married to Israeli men of different ethnic origin may feel their values are consistent with prevailing social norms (Shachar, 1991). The above factors may interact with one an- other, contributing jointly to the favorable effect of exogamous marriages on the wife's marital satisfaction.

Finally, the variables pertaining to premarital behavior (i.e., duration 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 further research into how beneficial a long courtship period and premarital cohabitation are for testing expectations of gender roles, com- patibility, and adjustment to marital roles. Moreover, the findings suggest that the arranged marriage, which in its very essence denies autonomous choice, is a symmetrical option to spouse selection on the basics of romantic love, and that neither of the two options ensures or hinders marital satis- faction. This finding may very well reflect the congruency (or discrepancy) between sex role expectations of marriage and the reality of married life in egalitarian modern societies vs. conservative traditional ones. It may be tentatively speculated that the freedom involved in autonomous choice marriages is counterbalanced by the congruency between expectations and reality characteristic of traditional arranged marriages--a supposition that certainly requires further 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., lapierre-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 prominent 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, Rinehart 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 Shachar

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. Heath. Collins, R. (1988). Sociology of marriage and the family. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Demaris, A., & Leslie, G. R. (1984). Cohabitation 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: Routledge and Kegan

Paul. Falk, G. (1975). Mate selection in America. huernational Behavioral Scientist, 7, 68-80. Herzog, H. (1987). The hwolvement of women hi local politics. Unpublished 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,riagc 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 the fanaily in Israel: An outline 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: Houghton Mifflin. Lavee, Y. (1988). Linear structural relationships (LISREL) in family research. Jott171al of

Marriage atld the Family, 50, 937-948. Leigh, G. K., Holman, T. B., & Burr, W. R. (1984). An empirical test of sequence in S. V.

R. Murstein's theory of mate 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). Commitment in married and unmarried cohabitation. Sociological Focus, 10, 367-373.

Lieblich, A. 11985). Sex differences in intelligence test performance of Jewish and Arab 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). Nontraditional family forms: A decade of research. Journal of Martqage and the Family, 42, 905-922.

Macklin, E. D. (1983). Nonmarital heterosexual cohabitation. In E. Macklin & R. Rubin (Eds.), Contemporary families and alternative life styles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Moore, D. (1988). Labour market segmentation and its implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, TeI-Aviv University.

Murillo, N. (1971). The Mexican American 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). Cohabitation in Amcrica: An assessment of consequences. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 41, 597-603.

His and l ler Marital Satisfaction 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.