MARITAL QUALITY AND GENDER ROLE STEREOTYPE: A MIXED METHOD STUDY

Subrata Dasgupta* & Jayanti Basu**

Running head: marital quality and gender role stereotype

* Reader, Department of Applied Psychology, Calcutta University, 92 APC Road, Kolkata 700009. email: subratadasgupta.dasgupta@gmail.com ** Professor, Department of Applied Psychology, Calcutta University, 92 APC Road, Kolkata 700009. email: basumjt@gmail.com

MARITAL QUALITY AND GENDER ROLE STEREOTYPE: A MIXED METHOD STUDY

ABSTRACT

A quantitative and a qualitative study explored the relationof marital quality with gender role stereotype. In Study 1, a cohort of 350 couples aged 30 to 50 years were assessed for marital quality, gender role identity and gender role attitude. Results revealed a preference for traditional pattern, as masculinity for men and femininity for women were associated with better marital quality. Gender role attitude was not significantly associated with marital quality. In Study 2, 10 maritally distressed and 10 maritally satisfied couples were interviewed about their notions of masculinity, femininity, and gender role attitudein the context of marital quality. Content analysis revealeda traditional pattern, but unlike in Study 1, gender role attitude was considered a significant factor influencing marital quality. The significance of using mixed method in bringing out different aspects of responses has been pointedout.

Key words: Marital quality, masculinity, femininity,traditionality, modernity, mixed method

MARITAL QUALITY AND GENDER ROLE STEREOTYPE: A MIXED METHOD STUDY

INTRODUCTION

The answer one gets may depend on the way one asks. The present study is an attempt to understand marital quality inrelation to gender role stereotype by quantitative and qualitative methods. Despite numerous studies in this domain, contradictory results still crop up, confusing the role of gender in marital relationship. Mixed method (Greene and Caracelli, 1997) was the choice in this research, because it may shed light on whether the findings from the psychometric investigation is corroborated by the relatively open probe, thus taking care of the angle of viewing. A mixed method approach is one in which the

researcher uses both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in multiple studies to reach an answer to a specific question (Creswell 2003). In an illuminating article, Kelle (2006) had discussed the sequences of qualitative and quantitative study exploring a single problem. When qualitative research follows quantification, as has been done in the present paper, limitations of quantification may be discovered and new agendas for subsequent research may emerge.

Marital quality may be operationalised as the overall quality of fitness of two individuals in a harmonious and relatively conflict free existence within the institutional bond of marriage (Bowen, 1990). Filsinger (1998) pointed out that the ability to which individuals have fit together into a smooth functioning dyad is an important index of marital quality.

Who between the couples is more satisfied in marriage –the husband or the wife? Men in comparison to women in many countries (Ng et al., 2008; Schumm et al., 1998; Shek, 1995)have consistently reported greater satisfaction. Some Indian studies, surprisingly, reported absence of sex difference in marital satisfaction (Mohan and Nalwa, 1991; Kumar, 1994; Pasch et al., 1997), despite greater restriction on women in this culture. The findings may be anindicator of the different ways culture shapes ones beliefs about gender and satisfaction itself. Indeed, most recent researchers point out that sex difference or absence of it is meaningless without taking into account the cultural connotations and other personal-social variables moderating it (Dillaway and Broman, 2001; Wunderer and Schneewind, 2008).

Gender role stereotype reflects this cultural meaningand imperatives associated with sex difference. Deaux andLewis (1984) suggested that gender role stereotype is anumbrella concept involving many components. In a critique ofmeasures of gender role stereotype, Archer (1980, 1989)identified two components, namely,

i) Gender role identity, referring to what an individualconsiders oneself to be in terms of perceived masculinityand femininity, and ii) Gender role attitude referring to the belief as to

what the members of a given sex should do.The review of literature that follows examines the

relation of marital quality with masculinity and femininity as personality traits, and with gender role attitude. A relevant variable in such investigations is the work status of the wife, since power balance shifts as the woman joins the payroll (Harrell, 1990). That this might not be unequivocally true, and that ‘women remain women’ despite outside work involvement has also been reported (Chowdhary, 1995; Greenstein, 1995). The present research took into account the work status of the woman, and observed if the relationship of marital quality with gender role stereotype differed across work status.

Masculinity, Femininity And Marital Quality

The earlier notion of Masculinity and Femininity as two endsof a single dimension (Terman and Miles, 1936) had been challenged in Constantinople’s classic paper in 1973. According to Constantinople, masculinity and femininity are not contrary, but co-existent. This epochal step in recognizing the complexity of psychological variations in gender construct was greeted by the feminists of the day andreflected in subsequent tool development (Bem, 1974; Broverman et al., 1972; Heilbrun, 1976). Conceptualization of masculinity and femininity as orthogonal constructs enables to identify masculine, feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated persons between both sexes.

Earlier literature in this regard yields support for all possible combinations. Some early studies, starting fromBem (1974) have reported that androgynous self-schema facilitates marital relation for both partners (Peterson et al., 1989; Langis et.al., 1994, and in India, Agarwal and Srivastava, 1989; Isaac and Shah, 2004). Some have suggested

that femininity for the wife and masculinity for the husbandis the best combination (Davidson and Sollie, 1987; Steiner–Pappalardo, 2002; and in India, Dasgupta and Basu, 1997; Priscilla and Karunanidhi, 1993). Masculinity hypothesis on the other hand states that masculinity is associated with good mental health. Evidences indicate that presence of masculinity in both the husbands, wives promote martial quality, and feminine traits disrupt marital health (Haris and Schwab, 1990; Sayers and Baucom, 1991; Whisman and Jacobson, 1989). Contrarily, some findings revealed that femininity for both the partners was important for marital satisfaction, as it increased mutual caring and tolerance (Campbell and Snow, 1992; Juni and Grimm, 1994; Lamke, 1989). In sum, the findings were equivocal revealing little consistency.

Gender Role Attitude And Marital Quality

The literature on the relationship of gender role attitude and marital relation is also similarly ambiguous. Earlier studies in India (Ramu, 1989; Rani, 1976), indicated that traditional attitude was more appropriate for a happy marriage. Similar notion has been offered elsewhere by Gerber (1990), Guilbert et al. (2000), Lye and Biblarz (1993). Contrarily some studies revealed that non-traditional sex-role attitude served as indicator of good marital relationship (Harrell, 1990; Lange et al., 1991; Pollock and Die, 1990). Wilcox (2006) observed that a combination of old and new attitudes is most comfortable formarried women. In India, Dasgupta and Basu (1997) similarly found that couples with a traditional husband and a modern wife experience lowest degree of marital satisfaction. Non-traditional husbands and traditional wives were found to be better adjusted.

In resolution of the contradictory findings, it has been indicated that length of marriage, age, having a child and other factors like situational context may be significant moderators of the relationship. Pilcher (1998)

observed from a qualitative interview that older cohorts of women reacted in a hostile manner when they were asked to support family role reversal, while younger ones were ready to embrace the change.

Women’s Work Status And Marital Relationship

Both the facilitatory and detrimental spillover of work in family integration have been reported (Balmforth and Gardner, 2006). It has been suggested that that wife’s employment casts detrimental effect on marital happiness by generating marital conflict through husband’s dissatisfaction and negative self-perception within the wifeherself (Olds et al., 1993; Starkey, 1991). Chowdhary (1995)found that employed mothers stated that they were not happy with their work outside home and felt guilty of neglecting their children and family. Hyde et al (2001) observed that working women feel themselves failing in responsibility if they cannot care for the child themselves due to work. This perceived failure seems to be reflected in marriage also. Contrarily, other studies found that wives' employment leaves a positive note on the quality of marriage (Nathawat and Mathur , 1993; Nicola and Hawkes, 1985).

Perry et al. (1992) interviewed dual earner and single earner families. Using Discriminant Function Analysis, they found that the wives, who were ambivalent about their responsibilities as provider, reported higher level of depression, role overload and lower marital satisfaction. Others observed the role of gender ideology moderating employment of the woman and marital relationship (Greenstein, 1995). Thus, not the work status per se, but the placement of self within marital role enactment seems tobe the key to marital happiness / discord.

The Present Research

The present research purports to examine the marital qualityamong Bengali adults as a function of two components of

gender stereotype variables, namely gender role identity andgender role attitude in both single earner and dual earner families. In this paper, the results of one quantitative andone qualitative study have been reported. To explore the interconnectivity of the variables, a multivariate approach was resorted to in Study 1. In Study 2, a qualitative comparison of a small number of individuals with positive and negative marital experience was conducted to enhance / validate the findings of Study 1 and to identify unstable domains of knowledge, if any.

STUDY 1MASCULINITY, FEMININITY AND GENDER ROLE ATTITUDE IN RELATIONTO MARITAL QUALITY

Based on the earlier review of literature, the following objectives were formulated: (1) to determine whether maritalquality varies with sex, (2) to determine whether marital quality varies between members of single earner or dual earner families and (3) to determine whether masculinity, femininity and gender role attitude are associated with marital quality.

Methods

Hypotheses1. There would be significant difference between the mean

scores of marital quality of middle aged husbands andwives

2. There would be significant difference between the meanscores of marital quality of (i) husbands and (ii)wives in single earner and dual earner families

3. There would be significant association of maritalquality scores of wives of single earner families with(a) masculinity, (b) femininity and (c) gender roleattitude

4. There would be significant association of maritalquality scores of husbands of single earner familieswith (a) masculinity, (b) femininity and (c) genderrole attitude

5. There would be significant association of maritalquality scores of wives of dual earner families with(a) masculinity, (b) femininity and (c) gender roleattitude

6. There would be significant association of maritalquality scores of husbands of dual earner families with(a) masculinity, (b) femininity and (c) gender roleattitude.

Participants

The participants of the study comprised of 350 Hindu Bengalicouples from Kolkata, belonging to middle and upper middlesocioeconomic class, at least graduates, half of them beingsingle earner and half dual earner. The age of the husbandranged between 35 – 50 years, and that of the wife between30 – 45 years. They had at least one child, the eldest beingbetween 10 and 16 years. All the men and the working womenwere permanent service holders for at least 5 years. Thenature of the job was traditional (teacher, bank employee,general office employee etc.). The salary of the wives wasconsistently lower than that of the man. Those with anyhistory of chronic physical or mental disease, history ofdivorce, separation or remarriage, history of earlierresidence in rural areas were excluded.

Stratified Random Sampling Technique was used forsampling. Stratification was done in terms of residentialterritory and earning status of the wife. A list ofGovernment and Semi-Government organizations located in theNorthern, Southern, Western and Eastern zones of Calcuttawas collected from the telephone directory and short-listed.The organizations were approached and a list of men andwomen employees was made. The residential addresses of thesepersons were collected and a zone-wise mapping was done.

From a random selection of these persons, the selected oneswere asked to volunteer for the study. Those who agreed wereinitially given the detailed information schedule. Those whomet the criteria defined for the study were included asprospective subjects, and again randomly short-listed forfinal inclusion.

Measures Used

(a) A detailed information schedule for familial and personal information was administered.

(b) General health questionnaire (GHQ-28) by Goldberg andHiller (1979) adapted for use in Bengali culture by Basu andDasgupta (1996) was used for screening psychiatric cases.Threshold for case identification was taken as 4/5 i.e.score 4 signifies a non-psychiatric case and 5 signifies apsychiatric case. The split half reliability is 0.97. Itssensitivity and specificity are 1.00 and 0.88 respectively. (c) Marital Quality Scale (MQS) by Shah (1995) was used forassessing marital quality. The scale has 50 items instatement form, with a 4-point rating scale. The scale hashigh internal consistency (Coefficient alpha =0.91) and hightest-retest reliability (r = 0.83). High score indicatespoor marital quality. (d) Sex Role Attitude Scale by Scanzoni (1975) was used toassess gender role attitude about traditionality andmodernity. It contains 20 items assessing wife role, motherrole and father role. The split half reliability of thetotal scale is 0.79 and test-rest reliability is 0.75. Highscore indicates modernity. (e) A Gender Role Identity Scale roughly following Bem’s procedure (1981), but modifying upon its drawbacks, has beendeveloped (Dasgupta, 2000). It has been developed specifically for middle-aged persons, and reflects the

culturally accepted trait names for Masculine, Feminine and Neutral characteristics. It contains 54 trait names that include 18 Masculinity traits, 18 Femininity traits and 18 neutral items. Test retest reliability, Chronbach’s alpha and Split half reliability are .79, .84, and .86 for the Masculinity scale and .85, .75. and .79 for the Femininity scale.

Procedure For Data Collection And Scoring

The families selected based on the stratification technique stated earlier were contacted over phone or at their workplace and appointments at their home were made. Data from each family was collected individually.

Analysis and Results

The means and standard deviations of the scores of marital quality for couples from single earner and dual earner families have been presented in Table 1.

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of the MQ values of the wivesand husbands from single earner and dual earner families

separately and in totalWife Husband

Single Earner

Dual Earner

Total

Single Earner

Dual Earner

Total

N 175 175 350 175 175 350Mean 80.22 83.54 81.8

877.65 81.17 79.

41SD 15.61 15.71 15.7

216.52 16.20 16.

44

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted with sex andwork status as independent variables and marital quality as dependent variable after checking for homogeneity of variance by Levene’s F test. The results revealed that the Levene’s F value was 0.4851 (NS), thus assuring homogeneity.The main effect of sex was significant (F = 4.168, p = <.05,with df 1, 696). The main effect of work status was significant (F = 7.981, p = <.01, with df 1, 696). The interaction effect of was not significant (F = .008, p = >.05, with df 1, 696). Referring to Table 1, it was apparentthat men enjoyed better marital quality than the wives did. For both the wives and the husbands, the MQ scores for the dual earner families were higher, indicating relatively poormarital quality for the couples of the dual earner families (since higher MQ score reflects poor marital quality). So Hypotheses 1, 2 (i) and 2(ii) were accepted.

Subsequently, Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated to explore the relationship of femininity, masculinity and gender role attitude with marital quality for the wives and the husbands. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficients betweenMQ and the gender role stereotype (masculinity, femininity

and gender role attitude) scoresWives HusbandsSingleEarner(N=175)

Dual Earner(N=175)

Total Single Earner(N=175)

Dual Earner(N=175)

Total

Masculinity

-0.19**

-0.15* -0.17** 0.27** -0.30**

-0.29**

Femininity -0.23**

-0.21**

-0.24** -0.06 0.01 -0.04

Gender role attitude

-0.12 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.03

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

Based on Table 2, it may be observed that both femininity and masculinity were associated negatively and significantly with marital quality in wives of both single and dual earner families. Masculinity was associated with marital quality in husbands of both single and dual earner families. Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4a, 5a, 5b, 6a weare thus retained, and the rest rejected.

Since high score on MQ Scale indicates poor marital quality, the negative association implies that among wives both higher masculinity and higher femininity were conduciveto better marital quality. For husbands, only masculinity was associated with greater marital satisfaction.

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses were done to determine which of the gender role stereotype variables (masculinity, femininity and gender role attitude) could successfully predict marital quality of the wives and the husbands for single and dual earner families. The results are presented in the Tables 3 to 8.

Table 3Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with masculinity, femininity and gender role attitude as predictors and MQ as predicted variable in wives

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t RAdj R

2

F

BStd.Error Beta

1 (Constant)

109.4236.057 18.066 . .2

4.05 21.06**

Femininity

-.326 .071 -.239 -4.589

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

Table 4

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with masculinity, femininity and gender role attitude as predictors and MQ as predicted variable in husbands

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t RAdj R

2

F

BStd.Error Beta

1 (Constant)110.58

45.684 19.454*

*.285 .079 30.76**

Masculinity

-.359 .065 -.285 -5.546**

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

The above tables reveal that for husbands, only masculinity was significant predictor of MQ, and so was femininity for wives. Masculinity had been found to be associated with wives marital quality in the table of correlation (Table 2),which was not found in the Stepwise Regression Analysis. Thus, gender typical roles were needed for promoting maritalquality. Attitude was not a significant predictor. Thus, theresults of the correlation table (Table 2) were qualified when the correlation among the variables was partialled out in the Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis.

Subsequently the analyses were run once again with single earner and dual earner families separately for wives and husbands.

Table 5Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with masculinity,femininity and gender role attitude as predictors and MQ aspredicted variable in wives of single earner families

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t RAdj R2

FB

Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 110.221 9.532 11.563*

*.23 .05 10.05**

Femininity -.344 .109 -.234 -3.170**

2 (Constant) 125.093

11.924 10.491*

*.28 .07 7.21**

Femininity -.373 .108 -.254 -3.441**

Gender role attitude -.233 .114 -.151 -2.044*

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

Table 6Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with masculinity,femininity and gender role attitude as predictors and MQ aspredicted variable in wives of dual earner families

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t RAdj R2

FB

Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant)

106.493 8.208 12.974*

*.21 .04 7.98

Femininity -.281 .099 -.210 -

2.825** * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

For single earner wives, both femininity and attitude towardgender role were significant predictors of marital quality.

Greater the modernity better was the marital quality. Femininity only was the significant predictor of marital quality in working wives.

Table7Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with masculinity, femininity and gender role attitude as predictors and MQ as predicted variable in husbands of single earner families

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t RAdj R2

FB

Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 106.699 7.734 13.797*

*.28 .07 14.46**

Masculinity -.334 .088 -.278 -3.803**

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

Table 8Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis with masculinity,femininity and gender role attitude as predictors and MQ aspredicted variable in husbands of dual earner families

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t RAdj R2

FB

Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 114.745 8.344 13.752*

*.30 .08 16.51**

Masculinity -.387 .095 -.295 -

4.064** * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

For husbands, Masculinity was the only predictorirrespective of work status of wife.

Discussion

The present results are commensurate with the earlier observations suggesting that the man obtains greater benefitfrom marriage. The finding that couples from single earner families enjoy greater marital quality is also supported by some earlier studies of Nicola and Hawkes (1985), Nathawat and Mathus (1993).

No insight may be gained from the results unless there is sensitivity to the meaning of masculinity and femininity put in context. Gender role stereotype, as assessed in this study, serve as underlying cognitive and affective factors influencing the behaviour of the couples. Results revealed that marital quality was more strongly associated with sex specific gender role identity, that is, masculinity for men and femininity for women, rather than the opposite.

It seems that ultimately the intra-dyad relationship was more of a stereotyped sort, despite all the hue and cry raised about women’s freedom and gender equity. The influx of modernization, globalisation, consciousness raising movements, women's participation in work etc. have contributed little to alter the traditional conception of happiness––the change has been only skin deep, at least for the sample.

Among women with no income, some modernity of attitude also helped (Table 5), probably because she can compensate for the lack of her engagement in the labour force by keeping abreast of the technological developments that facilitate efficient home making, and also by being an updated companion for her husband. If this be true, then, this modernity of attitude does not really liberate the woman, but makes her more equipped to be a better ‘object’ adorning her husband’s home. We may recall Steil (1997), whocompared US couples in the ’70s and the ’90s and concluded

‘across all measures, attitudes have become increasingly egalitarian. Yet ... equality has yet to be achieved.’ (p.101).

STUDY 2QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF MEANING OF GENDER AMONG MARTIALLYDISTRESSED AND NORMAL COUPLES

The qualitative study was framed keeping the findings of thequantitative study in mind. Following Kelle (2006), extreme groups (martially distressed and martially satisfied) were taken for comparison and questions were posited with the explicit purpose of clarifying the meaning of gender role stereotypes in the context of marital relationship. The specific objectives of the study were: (1) to assay the notion about the role played by gender role stereotype in marital relationship, (2) to explore the subjective meaning of femininity and masculinity as well as gender role attitude, and (3) to explore how gender stereotype is contextualized within the dyadic existence of the participants.

Methodology

Methodology selection in qualitative research requires a distinctive stance. Qualitative analysis typically involves a smaller number of data, but examines them in critical detail (Macnaughton, 1996). The singular advantage of qualitative method is in looking beyond the apparent (Caudle, 1994), and this has been utilized as a powerful tool in interpretative research. The comparison of the findings between quantitative and qualitative approaches is supposed to lead to comprehensive understanding of the issueat hand.

The Interview Technique and the Schedule

Face to face interview was the technique of choice. Thequestions have been put up by consulting experts in social psychology and clinical psychology, as well as from sharing the general experience of the researchers in interaction with people from different professions. The questions were concerned with the respondent’s general notion about masculinity, femininity, gender specific roles, and what they thought ‘ideal’ in these respects; whether they though masculinity, femininity and gender role attitude were relevant factors in marital relationship, and if so how; whether these can be altered, and whether they thought they would change themselves to fit to their ideas. Finally, theywere asked to evaluate their own standing in terms of masculine and feminine identification and gender role attitude. To cater to the problem of validity of the questions for each qualitative study, the questions were derived carefully from the earlier quantitative analysis. Two social science experts of the University of Calcutta didrelevance judgment for the questions for each interview. Only those questions were kept which were unanimously accepted as valid by the judges.

The interview questions in qualitative research may be of different degrees of stringency (Foddy, 1993). In the present study, the questions were prepared in more or less structured format to facilitate reduction of bias. The relatively structured format also enabled the researcher to compare the responses of different respondents. Here the qualitative method followed quantitative investigation, and definite hints about the way of responses were already available, thus making structuring of questions easier. However, some flexibility was exerted for explaining the questions as and when required without diverting from the guidelines.

Participants

The participants comprised of 2 groups. The first group consisted of 10 couples, who had a score more than 90 on

Marital Quality Scale (falling within high 25% score). This was named the martially distressed group. However, none of them had sought advice for legal separation, and stayed in the same house. But they had visited mental health professionals for consultation. Data had been collected fromthe couple on the first day of their visit to the mental health professional before any specific diagnosis or intervention. Among them 5 were dual earner and 5 were single earner families. The GHQ –28 score of each participant was less than 5, indicating that despite personal distress, they were not in need of immediate psychiatric attention.

The second group was a comparison group matched roughlywith the former in terms of significant demographicvariables, but differing on marital quality variable. All ofthem had a score below 75 on Marital Quality Scaleindicating satisfying marital relation.

All of them came from middle-income level, were atleast graduates and aged between 32 and 40. All of them hadonly one child between 10 and 12 years of age.

Data Collection, Recording and Analysis

Consent from each of the participants has been taken for volunteering in the study. Each participant was met separately either at the residence or at the interviewer’s office in a separate room. The guidelines for interviewing were followed roughly and modifications were made as and when required. The dialogue was recorded verbatim and transcribed for further analyses.

Content analysis of the responses was done. All the responses were given to two senior psychologists who judged the items to fall in different categories. Inter-rater agreement on different questions and categories ranged from 0.94 to 0.99. After identifying the nature of responses in each category, the frequency of individuals falling in each category were calculated for relevant items.

Results

The results are presented according to the questions asked. The categories of responses were obtained based on the raters’ suggestions.

Q.1. Do you think that feminine and masculine identificationvaries among people? Can you describe them and give instances?

All participants believed in the separate notions of femininity and masculinity. They described cases from their experiences to justify their subscription to the traits associated with feminine and masculine stereotype. Many of the traits used in the measuring scale of Study 1 spontaneously appeared in these responses. Some frequent examples were ‘assertive’, ‘tough’, ‘decisive’ etc. for masculinity and ‘tender’, ‘submissive’, ‘soft-spoken’ etc. for femininity.

Q. 2. What is your idea about the traits in an ‘ideal’ womanand man of your generation? What degree and kind of feminineand masculine traits should s/he have?

The respondents subscribed roughly to the idea that women should be feminine and men masculine. The results of the Content analysis revealed that among the 10 maritally satisfied women, 8 individuals (4 single earners and 4 dual earners) and among the 10 maritally satisfied men, 9 individuals (5 single earners and 4 dual earners) consideredthat the ideal person should be gender typed. Precisely, they described ideal men as possessing typical traits and roles of masculinity and ideal female as having traits of femininity. Among the 10 maritally distressed women, 6 individuals (3 single earners and 3 dual earners) and among the 10 maritally distressed men, 8 individuals (3 single earners and 5 dual earners) had stereotyped notions of gender role identity. However, many have criticized the fixed notion of femininity and masculinity. ‘The qualities

change as situation demand. A person is feminine and masculine in one situation and opposite in another’. Additionally, it was an interesting observation, that, among the martially distressed couples, women gave greater emphasis on the observance of stereotyped identity and roles of men (for example, ‘Women want to marry a man, who is strong and courageous, and not a sissy’) and the men emphasized on greater desirability ofstereotyped qualities in the women (for example, “‘Home’ meanshaving a loving and caring woman around”). Probably, their own dissatisfaction with their spouses resulted in greater strictness regarding the behaviour of the opposite sex.

Q. 3. Do you think that women should be confined to women’s roles and men to men’s? How inflexible should such roles be?That is, do you think that a wife’s role is mainly to becomea good wife, and the same is true for a mother, father and ahusband? Or do you think they can learn, unlearn and shift roles?

In this question concerned with egalitarian role, the same stereotypy was prominent. The women were slightly more egalitarian than men, supporting greater flexibility particularly for women’s role. Among the 10 maritally satisfied women, 5 individuals (3 single earners and 2 dual earners) and among the 10 maritally satisfied men, 8 individuals (4 single earners and 4 dual earners) endorsed stereotyped roles. Examples are: ‘After all, women suit better in motherly role. Society would be devoid of love if they do not’. Among the martially distressed couples, women expressed view that is more egalitarian. Among them, only 2 (1 single earner and 1 dual earner) and among the 10 maritally distressed men, 7 (4single earner and 3 dual earner) endorsed stereotyped roles.Those who did not endorse traditional roles often referred to their own lives voluntarily, stating, for example, that ‘We have always thought that men and women have different functions. Look how things are changing in my case. Now I do everything inside and outside the home… I have become a man and woman in one body (laughs).’

Q. 4. Do you think that being feminine and masculine, in addition to being female or male has any impact on marital relationship? Please justify.

Almost all respondents thought that masculinity and femininity was not a very relevant factor for marital relation, and other things were more important. In other words, they thought that a woman should be, by definition, feminine, but it may not have much relevance when marital relationship is concerned. ‘Problems in marriage crop up, not because some women are less of a woman, but because they use their womanhood in bad fashion’, said an employed woman. Another well-formulated reaction was: ‘I have never thought it this way. Yes, if somebody is very much of a tomboy, it may cause disturbance. But that is rarely the major problem in day to day conjugal life.’

Q. 5. Is your own or your spouse’s feminine and masculine characteristics, in any way related to your own marital relationship?

When categorically asked to comment on their own relationship, they mostly thought that traditional gender role identity is good for marital relationship. All the martially satisfied couples opined so. Typical responses were: ‘My husband knows that unless I was so tolerant and caring, the family would have been destroyed’, or ‘I am a rather tough man – my wife admires me for that’. However, all of the respondents remarked about the relativity of such notion, and stated that the opposite gender stereotyped traits are also important under certain circumstances. ‘I have always been more decisive than my husband. I don’t think that has made any marked difference in our relation.’ Some believed in sharing opposite gender characteristics to some extent for both women and men. ‘You need to have a bit of both for being perfect’. In other words, gender role identity was viewed less as a set of fixed traits and more in interaction with context.

Among the martially distressed couples also, gender role identity was considered as only moderately relevant. ‘We have problems because… well … may be I am not much of a traditional

woman – I do not cry easily and I am strong in my opinion. My husband cannot take it.’ ‘I know some women want tough guys as their husbands. I am not very aggressive. That might be one reason of her dissatisfaction. But there are other more important reasons….’. They also seemed to like a rather androgynous kind of person more than a sex typed one.They gave examples from their life stating that their spouses either did not have the opposite sex characteristicseven when needed, or had it too much in a wrong way. Some cited examples of other acquaintances who they thought had the right mix. ‘My mother-in-law is very dominating, and so is my wife. Too self-opinionated to be of any support to me. Very aggressive too … is jealous of D, my office colleague, who is a good friend. D is intelligent, yet very soft – something you would expect in a lady’. It seems that masculinity andfemininity are also used in marital conflict as instrumentalto mutual bickering.

Q. 6 Is there any impact of traditionality and modernity of gender role attitude on one’s marital relationship?

Most respondents thought that gender role attitude is very relevant for marital relationship. However, there was no unanimous notion as to what kind of gender role attitude is more beneficial. Modernity of attitude, particularly on the part of the man, was generally considered congenial to good relationship (for example, ‘Many marriages break because men and their families do not understand the needs of independence of women’), but sex typical role-playing was also important. ‘Your attitude and what you do to make it a home is very important. Marriage means the man will do a man’s job and a woman will do hers. ’. ‘There are certain age old rules insociety. The upper crust is changing, has changed really – but at the core, men want a caring wife, and women a dependable husband’. Some egalitarianresponses were: ‘These days, too much traditionality kills a marriage. Both the partners must be flexible and accommodating.’

Q. 7. Does gender role attitude influence your own spousal relationship?

Many women spontaneously recounted personal experiences of how traditional values, particularly of their spouses,

negatively influenced the wellness of the family. Among the martially distressed women, 9 individuals (5 single earners and 4 dual earners) thought so: ‘He is incapable of living with an educated woman, he lives in the 18th century’. Among the martially distressed men, 6 individuals (4 single earners and 2 dual earners) subscribed to the notion that traditional attitude of the wife caused disruption to their marriage. ‘She comes from a backward family and her mentality is very old-fashioned. I do not find thepleasure of companionship from her.’ However, many also condemned the ‘ultra-modern’ attitude. Nobody said that her/his own gender role attitude had been causing the marital problem.

Among the martially satisfied women, 4 single earners and 4 dual earners endorsed modernity of attitude as facilitating marital relationship. Among the martially satisfied men too, 4 single earners and 4 dual earners held the same view. Typical responses were : ‘We share our duties. We are happy because we do not think that she has to do this, or I have to do that. ………. openness is very important in our life’. ‘I am grateful to him, because he never complained about my pursuing of interests and hobbies. He is very modern in his outlook’.

Q. 8. What kind of gender role identification do you have? Are you predominantly feminine, masculine, neither or both to some extent? Are you rather traditional or modern in attitude toward gender role? Do you think that if you or your spouse altered some of your gender role orientations you would have experienced a different quality of marital relationship?

Most women and men could correctly identify their own genderrole identity and attitude. The martially distressed participants of both sexes considered that their spouses should change their gender role attitudes, and a few among them considered that they too should change themselves. ‘We have follies, both of us. May be both of us should sacrifice a part of ourselves……she might be a bit accommodating, and I should help her more in looking after the child…’. The martially satisfied couples indicated little

personal need for change. ‘Things are as they are, who needs change after so many years?’ – was a typical response.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The studies, taken together, reveal that 30-50 year old couples of Kolkata considered a predominantly traditional pattern of gender role identity as contributory to positive marital relationship. The findings are straightforward and commensurate with a number of earlier studies (for example, Priscilla and Karunanidhi, 1993). Studies in the West have been showing a renewed interest in gender and relationship under the gradual de-institutionalisation of marriage (Axinnand Thornton 2000; Cherlin 2004). The institution of marriage in India, as revealed from the present studies, clings to the traditional pattern of attitude.

The qualitative study supported the quantitative one, except for a reverse significance of gender role identity and attitude. In Study 1, gender role attitude had little contribution to marital quality. In the qualitative interview of Study 2, gender role attitude was given far more importance than in the quantitative studies.

The probable reason of this reversal may lie in the methodology employed and the resultant changes in connotation of the gender role stereotype. In the first study, the use of the Gender Role Identity Scale involved animplicit assessment of femininity and masculinity. The Scanzoni Traditionality – modernity Scale was an explicit measure of gender role attitude. The participants of Study 1responded to the items of both tests by thinking in terms oftheir self traits and declared attitude respectively, not connecting it directly to their married life. The association of marital quality with it was later found ‘statistically’, and the connection between the two was ‘inferred’ by the investigators.

In Study 2, the connection between stereotype and marital quality was clearly brought to focus in the questions. It was found that the respondents put greater

emphasis on attitude and less on identity in response to explicit questions. It seems they believed that men are naturally masculine and women feminine, and this has little to do with marital relation. Femininity and masculinity were, to these respondents, simple givens that ‘naturally’ emerge with time. Contrarily, attitudes seemed to them more important in marriage and something to be nurtured, probablybecause they do not look up at the term ‘attitude’ as simplya set of questions ‘ in a scale, but as a long lasting and deeply embedded construct generated through experience.

Also, the nature of gender role attitude congenial to marital quality seemed to differ when asked in general as compared to when asked in context of one’s own marriage. Traditional attitude was endorsed as resulting in good marital quality by the respondents in general, but when brought down to one’s own case a relatively egalitarian attitude also seemed to be preferred by some. The meaning ofattitude may change with context; indeed attitudes are more situationally variable than traits. Therefore, the context of the question seemed to influence the answer, thus eschewing the possibility of a fixed and final finding. It was also notable that martially distressed people blamed their spouse’s gender role attitude too often (either for oragainst traditionality), but rarely thought that they themselves did not fulfil the role and contributed to makingthe marriage problematic.

This is not to say that the scaled measures and open-ended measures were completely different. Indeed, the identification of the participants’ gender role identities and attitudes matched their scaled categories. But the mixedmethod adopted here highlights some anomalies in the findings, and points to the need for new in depth research.

We do not know if the same results would have been obtained if we had a younger cohort of couples. Indeed age and length of marriage does something to the partners, making them more resistant to gender role reversal (Pilcher,1998). Another limitation of the study is the small number of respondents in the qualitative part, which made generalizing redundant. However, the study posits a few

questions about the ‘reality’ of gender stereotype within marital context, and highlights the significance of the mixed methods of study for future research.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, P & Srivastava, S. (1989). Sex role conception ego development and marital harmony, Indian Journal of Current Psychological Research, 4, 75-79.

Archer, J. (1980) The distinction between gender stereotype and sex role concepts. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 51.

Archer, J. (1989). The relationship between gender role measures: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 173-184.

Axinn, W. G. & Thornton, A. (2000). The Transformation in the Meaning of Marriage. In L. Waite,C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, and A. Thornton. (Eds.) Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Pp.147-165.

Balmforth, K. & Gardner, D. (2006) Conflict and Facilitationbetween Work and Family: Realizing the Outcomes for Organizations. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 69-76.

Basu, S. & Dasgupta, S. K. (1996) Adapted Bengali version of General Health Questionnaire-28. Calcutta: Dept. of Applied Psychology, Calcutta University.

Bem, S. L. (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1981) Manual of Bem Sex Role Inventory. California: Mind Garden.

Bem, S. L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration, Paper Presented at Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

Bowen, G. L. (1990). Marital quality scale (MQS). In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & M.A. Straus (Eds.). Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques (Volume 1). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. Pp. 89-91.

Broverman , I.K., Broverman , D.M., Clarkson, F.E. & Rosenkrantz, P.O. & Vogel. S.R. (1972). Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1-7.

Campbell, J.L. and Snow, B.M. (1992). Gender role conflict and family environment as predictors of men’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 84-87.

Caudle, S. L. (1994) "Using Qualitative Approaches." In J. S. Wholey, M. P. Hatry, and K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, Ch. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cherlin, A.J. (2004). The Deinstitutionalization of AmericanMarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.

Chowdhary, A. (1995). Employed mothers and their families inIndia. Early Child Development and Care, 113, 65-75.

Constantinople, A. (1973) Masculinity – femininity: An exception to a famous dictum. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407.

Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. CA: Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks.

Dasgupta, S. (2000). Role of gender stereotype of couples infamily relationships. Unpublished PhD thesis of CalcuttaUniversity.

Dasgupta, S. & Basu, J. (2001) Effects of gender role identity of couples and earning status of the wife on marital quality. Social Science International , 17 16-30.

Davidson, B. & Sollie, D.L. (1987). Sex role orientation andmarital adjustment, Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 59-69.

Deaux, K. & Lewis, L.L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationship among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.

Dillaway, H. & Broman, C. (2001) Race, Class, and Gender Differences in Marital Satisfaction and Divisions of Household Labor Among Dual-Earner Couples. A Case for Intersectional Analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 309-327.

Filsinger, E.E. (1998). Marital adjustment, Concise Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd edition (Ed.) Raymond J. Corisini and AlanJ. Aurbach. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.

Foddy, W. (1993) Constructing Questions for Interviews. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Gerber G.L. (1990). Social acceptability of hypothetical married couples and their relationships, Journal of Psychology, 124, 575-586.

Goldberg, D. P. & Hiller, V. E. (1979) A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 9, 139-146,

Greene, J. C. & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds.). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 5-18.

Greenstein, T. N. (1995). Gender ideology, marital disruption, and the employment of married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 31-42.

Guilbert, D.E.; Vace, N.A. & Pasley, K. (2000). The relationship of gender role beliefs, negativity, distancing and marital instability. Family Journal of Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 8, 124-132.

Haris, T.L. & Schwab R. (1990). Sex-role orientation and personal adjustment. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 5, 473-479.

Harrell, W.A. (1990). Husband’s masculinity, wife’s power and marital conflict. Social Behaviour and Personality, 18, 207-215.

Heilbrun, A.B. (1976) Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, 44, 183-190.

Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., Clark, R., Klein, M. H. (2001) Maternity leave, women's employment, and marital incompatibility. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 476-491

Isaac, R. & Shah, A. (2004) Sex Roles and Marital Adjustmentin Indian Couples. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 50, 129–141.

Juni, S. & Grimm, D.W. (1994). Marital satisfaction as a function of dyadic gender role constellation. American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 106-112.

Kelle, U (2006) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: purposes and advantages. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 293 – 311.

Kumar, P. (1994). Gender difference, wife’s employment and marital duration as factor in marital adjustment, Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 23-26.

Lamke, L.K. (1989). Marital adjustment among rural couples :The role of expressiveness. Sex Roles, 21, 579-590.

Lange, A.; Markus, E.; Haglman, W. & Hanewald, G. (1991). Status inconsistency, traditionally and marital distressin the Netherlands. Psychological Reports, 68, 124-1253.

Langis, J. & Sabourin, S., & Lussiex, T. (1994) Masculinity,Femininity, and Marital Satisfaction: An Examination of Theoretical Models. Journal of Personality 62, 393-414.

Lye, D. & Biblarz, T.J. (1993). The effects of attitudes toward family life and gender roles on marital satisfaction, Journal of Family Issues, 14, 157-188.

Macnaughton, R.J. (1996) Numbers, scales, and qualitative research. Lancet, 347, 1999-2000.

Mohan, V. & Nalwa, K. (1991). Marital adjustment and interpersonal relations of army and civilian couples. Indian Journal of Community Guidance Service, 8, 51-62.

Nathawat, S.S. & Mathur, A. (1993). Marital Adjustment and subjective well-being in Indian educated housewives and working women. Journal of Psychology, 123, 353-358.

Ng, K., Loy , J. T., Gudmunson, L. G. & Cheong, W. (2008) Gender Differences in Marital and Life Satisfaction among Chinese Malaysians. Sex Roles, 60, 33-43.

Nicola, J.A. & Hawkes, G.R. (1986). Marital satisfaction of dual earner couples : Does sharing increase happiness? Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 1, 47-60.

Olds, J.; Schwartz, R.S.; Eisen, S.V. & Belcher, R.W. (1993). Part-time employment and marital well-being : A hypothesis and pilot study. Family Therapy, 20, 1-16.

Pasch, L.A.; Bradbury, T.N. & Davila, J. (1997). Gender negative affectivity and observed social support behaviour in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361-378.

Perry, J.M.; Serry, B. & Crouter, A.C. (1992). Kinkages between women’s provider role attitudes, psychological well-being and family relationships. Psychology of women quarterly, 16, 311-329.

Peterson, C.D.; Baucom, D.H.; Elliot, M. J. & Farr, P.A. (1989). The relationship between six role identity and marital adjustment. Sex Roles, 21, 775-787.

Pilcher, J. J. (1998) Gender Matters? Three Cohorts of WomenTalking about Role Reversal. Sociological Research Online, vol.3, no. 1, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/1/10.html

Pollock, A.D. & Die, A.H. (1990). Relationship of communication style to egalitarian marital role expectations. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 619-624.

Priscilla, S. & Karunanidhi, S. (1993) Sex-role orientationin relation to martial adjustment and stress among married couples. Journal of Psychological Researches, 38, 28-33.

Ramu, G.N. (1989). Women, Work and Marriage in Urban India. A Study of Dual and Single Earner Couples, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Rani, K. (1976). Role conflict in working women, Chetana Publishers, New Delhi.

Sayers, S.L. & Baucom, D.H. (1991). Role of feminity and masculinity in depressed couples communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 641-647.

Scanzoni, J. (1975) Sex roles, life style and child bearing. New York: Free Press.

Schumm, W.R.; Bollman, S.R. & Jurich A.P. (1998). Gender & Marital Satisfaction : A replication using a seven-pointitem response version of the Kansas Marital SatisfactionScale. Psychological Reports, 1, 1004-1006.

Shah, A. (1995) Clinical validity of Marital Quality Scale. NIMHANS Journal, 13, 23-31.

Shek, D.T.L. (1998). Adolescents perception of parental and maternal parenting styles in Chinese context. Journal of Psychology, 132, 527-537.

Starkey, J.L. (1991). Wives earnings and marital instability: Another look at the independence effect. Social Science Journal, 28, 501-521.

Steil. J. (1997). Marital Equality : Its Relationship to theWell-being of Husbands and Wives, Sage : Newborn Park, CA.

Steiner–Pappalardo, N.L. & Gurung, R.A.R. (2002) The Femininity Effect: Relationship Quality, Sex, Gender, Attachment, and Significant–Other Concepts. Personal Relationships, 9, 313-325.

Terman, L.M. and Miles, C.C. (1936) Sex and Personality: Studies in Masculinity and Femininity. New York: Russell & Russell.

Whisman, M.A. & Jacobson, N.S. (1989). Depression, marital satisfaction and marital and personality measures of sexroles, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 177-186.

Wilcox, W. B. (2006) What’s Love Got To Do With It? Equality, Equity,Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality.Social Forces, 84 (3), 1321 – 1345.

Wunderer, E. & Schneewind, K. A. (2008) The relationship between marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 462-476.