sex roles and marital adjustment in indian couples

SEX ROLES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT IN INDIAN COUPLES

RATHNA ISAAC & ANISHA SHAH

ABSTRACT

Background: Marital theorists suggest a link between sex role differences andclose relationships for men and women. Marriage is often a context for the activa-tion and expression of sex roles. As marital adjustment is influenced by comple-mentarity of roles between husband and wife, the same could hold true for sexroles as well.Aim: To study the relationship between sex roles and marital adjustment in Indiancouples.Methods: The sample consisted of 20 distressed and 20 non-distressed couplesfrom a marital and family therapy centre in the city of Bangalore, India. Themeasures used included a sociodemographic data sheet, the Dyadic AdjustmentScale, the Bem Sex Role Inventory and a semi-structured interview schedule forgendered experiences. Means, percentages and ANOVAS were used to analysestatistically the data. Content analysis was applied on material from the semi-structured interview schedule.Results: The study revealed that: (a) the group as a whole showed greaterfemininity than masculinity; (b) more non-distressed individuals show high andro-gyny; (c) androgynous dyads show better marital adjustment; and (d) qualitativeanalysis suggests a trend for couples to move towards more gender-neutralconstructions of marriage.Conclusions: The results indicate a link between androgyny and marital adjust-ment. The results also suggest the type of match between dyads.

Key words: androgyny, marital adjustment, marital distress, sex role

INTRODUCTION

The study of marriage and marital adjustment is of great importance in the field of mentalhealth. Several studies have demonstrated that marital status is linked with improvedmental health and personal well being (Gottman, 1998; Stack & Eshleman, 1998). Poorermarital quality has been specifically associated with greater risk for the development ofdepression and other psychiatric disorders (Dehle & Weiss, 1998; Whisman & Bruce,1999). Some studies in this area of research suggest that women are more adversely affectedby marriage than men (Sitamma & Sridevi, 1996; Amato & Rogers, 1997). This has beenlinked to experiences of devaluing events, loss, humiliation and entrapment in relationships(Brown et al., 1995; Cano &O’Leary, 2000). However, this finding is not unequivocal. Studies

International Journal of Social Psychiatry. Copyright & 2004 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and

New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com Vol 50(2): 129–141. DOI: 10.1177/0020764004040960

www.sagepublications.com

such as one by Hintikka et al. (1999) show that men in an unhappy dyadic relationship are atgreater risk for developing a psychiatric disorder than women in similar situations.

Marital theorists suggest that the impact of close relationships on men and women maybe linked to their sex role differences. Traditionally, women’s roles emphasise care taking,sensitivity to the needs of others, emotional experience, emotional adaptability, reflection,expressiveness and sensitivity to cues from internal experiences. In contrast to this, men’sroles emphasise emotional stability, instrumentality, self-protection, self-expansion andself-assertion. Researchers also report other differences. For instance, women are seen asmore responsive to intrafamilial issues and men to extrafamilial issues (Block, 1973; Fisheret al., 1993). Studies on masculinity and femininity as personality traits have also added tothe current understanding of sex roles. Bem (1981) suggests that all human beings possessboth masculine and feminine traits that they can call upon to meet situational demands.These personality traits are postulated to be bi-dimensional. Masculine and feminine indi-viduals regardless of biological sex are likely to show different patterns of adjustment andhave different coping skills as resources (Constantinople, 1973; Bem, 1978; Deaux, 1985).Thus, androgynous individuals may possess a wider repertoire of coping resources as theyhave both masculine and feminine traits at their disposal. Research suggests that this maycontribute to better marital adjustment (Antill, 1983).

Studies on sex role attitudes show a non-linear relationship between sex role attitude andmasculinity/femininity. Huston and Geis (1993) report that while women with egalitarian sexrole attitudes view themselves as more masculine than women with traditional sex role atti-tudes, there is no such difference for men. The authors suggest that men and women have thepotential to behave in a variety of ways and the immediate social context acts as a powerfulforce in mediating this behaviour. One such social context is that of marriage. The systemsperspective of marriage emphasises the importance of interaction between husband andwife and gives the concept of complementary and symmetrical couples (Prosky, 1992).This view suggests that husband–wife match or mismatch may have a stronger bearing onmarital adjustment than individual personality styles.

Research on Indian families also shows that marital adjustment is related to mental health(Kumar et al., 1989). Marital research in India has focused on the following areas: roles(Agrawal, 1971; Channabasavanna & Bhatti, 1985); stresses and strains associated withsingle and dual income households, conflicts over finances, multiple roles played by womenand conflicts over division of labour (Kapur, 1970; Hemalatha & Suryanarayana, 1983;Ramu, 1987; Patel et al., 1996) and psychological correlates of marital satisfaction.

Ganesh, while discussing the evolution of sex roles opines that (men and) ‘women negotiatea position for themselves by drawing upon alternate conceptions of gender available in thelarger culture, as well as by making use of structural lags and ambivalences in patriliny’(1999, p. 236). This is usually done within the context of interpersonal relationships likemarriage. Indeed, as people move from the family of origin to the family of procreation,they might get the space required to recreate their sex roles. According to Bharat (2001),Bem’s conceptualisation of masculinity and femininity remains the most influential frame-work for research in gender. Reviewing published studies in the area, she highlights thefollowing findings: (a) cross-culturally, the masculine stereotype remains stable, while thefeminine one changes; (b) family-oriented traits, which are seen as feminine in western cul-tures, are seen as gender-neutral and valued in India; (c) both traditional and modern traits

130 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY 50(2)

are valued in Indian women; and (d) sex differences are mostly along the lines of greaterautonomy for men. Another important finding is that across generations, while womenshow less femininity, masculinity remains stable (Basu et al., 1995). However, the associationbetween sex roles and marital adjustment needs to be examined for normal couples as well ascouples with marital discord.

Thus in the present study an attempt was made to examine the relationship between sexroles and marital adjustment in distressed couples. A normal sample of married coupleswas taken as a control group.

METHODS

Participants

Married couples in the age group of 20 to 50 years, who were living together at the time of theassessment, participated in research. Couples with a history of mental retardation, psychoses,chronic/severe medical disorder in either partner or a history of having received any maritaltherapy were excluded from the study. Distressed couples were defined as any couple seeking,undergoing or referred for marital/family therapy with at least one partner scoring above thecut-off score on the Marital Quality Scale (MQS). Non-distressed couples were taken fromthe community and defined as any couple where both partners scored below the cut-offscore on the Marital Quality Scale (MQS) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ).

Instruments

1. Sociodemographic Data Sheet: This was used to elicit the basic information of age, sex,education, occupation, income, duration of marriage, type of marriage, type of family,family life cycle stage and the number and age children, if any.

2. Marital Quality Scale (Shah, 1995): This is a multi-dimensional scale that was used as ascreening instrument in the present study. It consists of 50 items in statement form,with a four-point rating scale and male and female forms. The total scaled score wasused for screening purposes. Scores range from 50 to 200 with higher scores indicatinga poorer quality of married life. Scores above 80 indicate presence of marital distress.The scale has an internal consistency of 0.91 and a test–retest reliability of 0.83.

3. The General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972): This is a 28-item screening instrumentdeveloped for identifying possible psychiatric cases and is widely used in research. TheGHQ scoring system of 0-0-1-1 was used, with a threshold score of four.

4. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976): This is a 32-item scale that defines maritaladjustment as a process. It comprises four factors: dyadic satisfaction (10 items), dyadicconsensus (13 items), dyadic cohesion (five items) and affectional expression (four items).The items are in the form of questions, yes/no statements and rating scales. Scoresrange from zero to 150 with higher scores indicating better adjustment. Scores below100 indicate marital distress. It has a strong internal consistency with an alpha of 0.96for total score (Sharpely & Cross, 1982).

5. The Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1978): This measures masculinity and femininity asorthogonal variables on two different scales. An individual high on both types of traits

ISAAC & SHAH: SEX ROLES AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT IN INDIAN COUPLES 131

is considered androgynous. An individual low on both traits is considered undifferen-tiated. Scores are therefore used to classify individuals into masculine, feminine, androgy-nous or undifferentiated. An Indian adaptation of the scale that has 30 items (Bhogle,1998, personal communication) was used in this study. Fifteen items are adjectives repre-senting culturally ‘masculine’ qualities, and 15 items are adjectives representing culturally‘feminine’ qualities. All items are rated on a seven-point scale, with ‘1’ indicating ‘not at alltrue about me’ and ‘7’ indicating ‘very true about me’. The scale has been standardised onthe Indian population.

6. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed to examine the gendered experiencesand attitudes towards sex roles. The schedule covered the following: gendered expecta-tions, source of the expectation, conflict experienced with regard to performance ofgendered roles, attitude towards the opposite gender, perceived ability/desire to breakfree from gendered expectations constraints for changes and transgenerational trans-mission of such ideas.

In addition, division of household labour was also studied using the Hurvitz’s (1960) MaritalRole Inventory and two structured interview schedules developed by the researcher. How-ever, the data on marital roles and adjustment are not presented in this article.

Data collection

A purposive method of sampling was used to select two groups, i.e. distressed and non-distressed couples. A pilot study was completed on two distressed and two non-distressedcouples. This was used to develop data management techniques for the structured interviewand semi-structured interview schedules.

Distressed couples were selected from the in-patient and out-patient population of amarital and family therapy centre located in a mental health care facility in a cosmopolitanurban city in Southern India. This centre is also the largest multidisciplinary mental healthtraining centre in Asia and provides training in marital/family therapies. Details about thissetting are available in Shah et al. (2000). Non-distressed couples were selected from the com-munity. They were contacted through schools, hospitals and other work places. The sampleincluded two couples where both husband and wife were construction workers. Seventy-threecouples were contacted for this study. The purpose and nature of the study was explained toall couples contacted, and written informed consent was taken from those couples whoagreed to participate in the study. The couples were then individually administered the setof tools in a fixed order. The data for each individual were collected in one sitting, lastingfrom 90 to 120 minutes. All couples were assured of confidentiality. Couples under treatmentwere assured that participation or non-participation would not interfere with the course oftreatment. Couples from the community sample who did not meet the inclusion/exclusioncriteria were offered therapeutic help. Thirty-three couples were excluded from the finalsample as: (1) two couples gave incomplete data; (2) 14 couples were unwilling to participatein research; (3) one distressed couple scored below the cut-off on the MQS; (4) 11 non-distressed couples scored above the cut-off on the MQS; and (5) five non-distressed couplesscored above the cut-off on the GHQ.


Sociodemographic and psychiatric characteristics of the sample

Twenty distressed and 20 non-distressed couples formed the sample of this study. Among the20 distressed couples, in four cases the wife was the index patient. Three of the wives werediagnosed with depression and one with dissociative disorder. In two of the cases the husbandwas the index patient and diagnosed with alcohol dependence. In 10 of the cases the child wasthe index patient and diagnosed with disorders ranging from conduct disorder to childhoodautism. In four of the cases, the couples were referred for marital therapy alone. Most indi-viduals (67% of the distressed group and 62% of the non-distressed group) were graduates orpostgraduates. Ninety per cent of the families in both groups were in the second (marriedcouple with eldest child up to two-and-a-half years old) and fifth (married couple witheldest child a teenager) life cycle stage. While most distressed couples (40%) had school-going children, most of the non-distressed couples (50%) had teenage children. Seventy-five per cent of distressed couples and 65% of non-distressed couples were from nuclearfamilies. Fifteen per cent of distressed couples and 20% of non-distressed couples werefrom joint families. The remaining couples were from extended families. Seventy per centof distressed couples were from single career households and 80% of non-distressed coupleswere from dual career households.

Data were analysed using means, standard deviations and percentages. Groups werecompared using ‘t ’ tests and a one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Sociodemographic data analysis

Distressed and non-distressed couples were compared on sociodemographic variables.Nominal variables were compared using chi-square tests where possible. On the variables ofeducation, family life cycle stage and type of family, groups appear comparable. The differ-ence between the two groups on the type of family is not significant (chi-square ¼ 0.971).Significant differences were present in single career/dual career households (chi-square ¼

20.20, significant at 0.0001 level).For the variables of age, income and duration of marriage, the two groups were com-

pared using ‘t ’ test. The mean age was 37.67 years (SD ¼ 7:04) for distressed couples and36.48 years (SD ¼ 7:39) for non-distressed couples. The mean duration of marriage was14.4 years (SD ¼ 6:78) for distressed couples and 11.7 years (SD ¼ 6:94) for non-distressedcouples. The two groups did not differ significantly on mean age (t ¼ 0:46, NS) and meanduration of marriage (t ¼ 0:07, NS). On mean income, the groups differed significantlywith the distressed group showing lower income (mean for distressed group ¼ Rs. 4806.25and SD ¼ 6097:63; mean for non-distressed group ¼ Rs. 9867.50 and SD ¼ 11152:10). The‘t ’ value of 2.51 is significant at the 0.01 level.

Thus, the analysis suggests that distressed and non-distressed groups are statistically com-parable on age, marital duration and type of family. Although it was not possible to deter-mine statistical similarity on the variables of education and life cycle stage, they appearcomparable. However, the groups differ significantly on single career/dual career statusand income.


Distressed and non-distressed couples

Distressed and non-distressed couples were compared on the variables of marital adjustmentand sex roles.

Marital adjustmentOn the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) the mean score for distressed couples was 85.10(SD ¼ 26:56) and that for non-distressed couples was 116.28 (SD ¼ 11:45). The ‘t ’ valuewas 6.68 and the difference between the two groups was significant at the alpha level of 0.001.

Sex rolesOn the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), the group as a whole had a mean masculinity scoreof 69.53 (SD ¼ 11:92) and a mean femininity score of 79.93 (SD ¼ 9:87). The ‘t ’ value is 6.68,which is significant at an alpha level of 0.01. The median score for the entire group on themasculinity subscale was 69, and on the femininity subscale, it was 82. This indicates thepresence of significantly higher feminine than masculine traits. Distressed and non-distressedcouples did not differ significantly on either scale.

Relationship between sex roles and marital adjustmentThis relationship was studied using (1) percentages of distressed and non-distressed indi-viduals in each of the four sex roles and (2) differences between types of sex role dyads.One-way ANOVA was also applied for both categories of data.

With regard to distressed and non-distressed couples, Table 1 indicates certain trends:(a) more than one-third of the non-distressed individuals show characteristics of high andro-gyny; (b) more than one-third of the distressed individuals show characteristics of highfemininity; (c) 60% of distressed couples show characteristics of masculinity/femininity ascompared to 45% of the non-distressed group; and (d) 60% of husbands in the distressedgroup show characteristics of masculinity/femininity as compared to 35% of husbands inthe non-distressed group.

Subsequently, a one-way ANOVA for the interaction between marital adjustment and sexroles was done. An examination of the mean scores of subgroups showed better marital

Table 1Percentages of distressed and non-distressed couples and husbands and wives on sex roles of androgyny,

masculinity, femininity and undifferentiated

Androgyny Masculinity Femininity Undifferentiated% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

Distressed couplesa

Husbandsb

Wivesb

201525

(8)(3)(5)

253515

(10)(7)(3)

352545

(14)(5)(9)

202515

(8)(5)(3)

Non-distressed couplesa

Husbandsb

Wivesb

32.53530

(13)(7)(6)

202515

(8)(5)(3)

251040

(10)(2)(8)

22.53015

(9)(6)(3)

a N ¼ 40; b N ¼ 20


adjustment in: (a) distressed husbands with androgynous traits (mean DAS score ¼ 108); (b)non-distressed wives androgynous traits (mean DAS score ¼ 124:66); and (c) distressed wiveswith masculine traits (mean DAS score ¼ 96). However the F ratio (1.849) was non-significant.

Types of dyadsSince the literature suggests that it is not the individual sex role but the interaction betweendyads that is linked to marital adjustment (Greenstien, 1996), it was decided to analyse thecouples based on types of dyads. The couples were categorised by the researchers into fourtypes of dyads:

1. Androgynous Dyads: Both partners with high androgyny.2. Traditional Dyads: The husband with high masculinity and the wife with high femininity.3. Semi-traditional Dyads: One partner with the traditional sex role and the other partner

with androgynous or undifferentiated sex role; or both partners undifferentiated.4. Non-traditional Dyads: Both partners masculine/both partners feminine/both non-

traditional/one non-traditional and the other androgynous or undifferentiated.

Table 2 shows that most couples (70%) fall into semi- or non-traditional categories.Comparing distressed and non-distressed couples, it can be seen that more non-distresseddyads than distressed dyads are androgynous. Double the number of distressed to non-distressed dyads are traditional. Another observation is that 15% more distressed couplesshow a non-traditional type of match.

A one-way ANOVA exploring the interaction between type of dyad and marital adjust-ment was done. The F ratio was 3.357 with degrees of freedom of three (d:f: ¼ 3). A posthoc Newman–Keuls test was then applied at an alpha of 0.05. A harmonic mean was used,as group sizes were unequal. The results indicate that androgynous dyads are significantlybetter adjusted than other types of dyads. Semi-traditional dyads showed the poorest maritaladjustment in both groups (distressed ¼ 74.5 and non-distressed ¼ 111.68).

To summarise, the type of match between dyads was found the most robust predictor ofthe relationship between gender and marital adjustment. Sex and individual gender stereo-types showed insignificant effects. Androgynous dyads were significantly better adjustedthan any other type of dyad.

Table 2Percentages of couples in each type of dyad in the distressed and non-distressed groups

Androgynous Traditional Semi-traditional Non-traditional% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

Distressed couplesa 5 (1) 20 (4) 35 (7) 40 (8)

Non-distressed couplesa 25 (5) 10 (2) 40 (8) 25 (5)

Total b 15 (6) 15 (6) 37.5 (15) 32.5 (13)

a N ¼ 20 couples; b N ¼ 40 couples


Qualitative analysis of attitude towards sex roles

Content analysis of material from the semi-structured interview schedule shows that hus-bands see themselves as being less authoritarian than their fathers and having closer relation-ships with their wives. Wives see themselves as having more independence than their mothersand having closer and more egalitarian relationships with their husbands. Distressed wives inparticular, expressed a desire for this trend to continue and intensify with their daughters.

Thus, marital relationships seem to have moved from a more traditional attitude in earliergenerations to a more egalitarian model in the last two decades. This impetus seems to bestronger in women. Some androgynous husbands demonstrated this transition from amore traditional model to a more egalitarian one. One husband said that he had wantedto be a leader and a decision-maker and be completely respected and obeyed. However,when he found that this led to too much friction in the house, he decided to give it up.Though distressed, he now had more respect for his wife’s contributions. For his son, hewishes that he is ‘gentle, chivalrous, wise and considerate’ and wants him to make decisionswith his wife. It was also noted that androgynous dyads share in more tasks. As one wife putit, ‘my husband helps me so much’ that working nights does not cause her much stress. Theyshow more respect for their spouse’s capabilities, and feel less constrained in their genderroles. One distressed husband mentioned that while he was expected to earn the money, hewas sure his wife was capable of doing it if he could not. Semi- and non-traditional couplescould perhaps be seen as those in transition from one model to the other.

Husbands and wives

Husbands and wives were compared on the major variables. The results are summarised asfollows: (a) husbands and wives do not differ in their marital adjustment; (b) husbandsand wives do not differ in masculinity and femininity scores; and (c) while 45% of wivesshow characteristics of high femininity, only 30% of the husbands show characteristics ofhigh masculinity.

DISCUSSION

Marital adjustment

The mean for the distressed group implies that the group as a whole fell below the clinical cut-off for distress (100). The mean for the non-distressed group lies above this cut-off. Similarresults of statistical and clinical significance were found in studies carried out with Indiancouples, suggesting that DAS is a useful research tool (Mayamma & Sathyavathi, 1985;Gaonkar, 1995; Gaur, 1996; Naz, 1998). Since the two groups were screened using theMarital Quality Scale, the significant difference found on dyadic adjustment establishesbeyond doubt that the relationship experiences of distressed couples are significantly differentfrom those of non-distressed couples. It is important to remember this while viewing the resultson sex roles as many of the findings of non-significance also clarify the variables under study.

Sex roles in India

Some of the important findings on sex roles can be understood in the terms of the culturalcontext. The group as a whole showed a higher level of femininity than masculinity. One


possible explanation for this could be the positive connotation of certain feminine items like‘home loving’, ‘generous’ and ‘loves children’. At the same time certain masculine items suchas ‘arrogant’, ‘conceited’ and ‘self-centred’ carry strong negative connotations. Since thegroup as a whole showed a bias towards high scores, low ratings on these few items mayhave tipped the balance towards femininity. Bhogle (1999), however, opines that the Indiansociety is an interdependent one. Feelings of mutual care and interdependence (femininetraits) are culturally reinforced and individuality and competition (masculine traits) are dis-couraged. She also suggests that in the religious texts on which much of Indian culture isbased, the female stereotype is a highly valued one. Further, as mentioned, family-oriented‘feminine’ traits are valued by both men and women (Bharat, 2001). Therefore, the cultureas a whole may be a more feminine one. Thus, people may subscribe to the feminine sex role.

Interaction between sex roles and marital adjustment

FemininityIndividuals with predominantly feminine traits account for 35% of the distressed group andform the largest subgroup among distressed couples. One could hypothesise that these datalend support to the differential vulnerability hypothesis. Being more feminine may meanbeing more affected by interpersonal relations and therefore showing more distress.

MasculinityHigh masculinity also seems linked with marital distress. More distressed husbands (35%)than non-distressed husbands (25%) are high on masculinity. Since masculinity emphasisesagency and instrumentality rather than emotional expression and understanding (Fisher etal., 1993), this may mean that masculine men are disadvantaged in close relationships,which usually require interpersonal sensitivity and adaptability. At the same time, 15%more distressed husbands than non-distressed husbands show femininity. Huston and Geis(1993) found that the presence of more expressive/feminine traits in husbands is related tolower levels of discord among distressed couples. The authors explain this finding in termsof the healing power of feminine traits in handling distress. It is possible that while femininityis more crucial to success in relationships, femininemen in India may be looked on as showinggender-inappropriate behaviour, and therefore are not accepted.

An overall conclusion that can be drawn from these findings, is that while being femininealone can lead to interpersonal distress, so can being masculine alone. It seems that the andro-gynous individual is the one most capable of functioning in an adaptive manner. Also, assuggested by Huston and Geis (1993), looking at gender as a personality variable may bean incomplete way of understanding the issue. They opine that patterns of marital inter-actions are not driven by matters of either personality or ideology alone, but reflect varyingcombinations of the two. As this study does not adequately examine gender ideologies, thiscould be one explanation for the contradictory findings.

Types of dyadsThe finding that more individuals that are androgynous are non-distressed is in keeping withthe literature, which suggests that androgyny is related to better marital adjustment (Shaveret al., 1980; Antill, 1983). However, as discussed above, sex roles per se did not adequately


differentiate distressed from non-distressed couples in this study. Examining couples’ matchon type of dyad lent clarity to the above relationship.

As proposed in the results, it is possible that couples are moving from a traditional to amore egalitarian model. This trend has been identified in western countries. Rogers andAmatao (2000) explored gender issues and marital adjustment in two comparable cohortsfrom 1980 and 1997. They found that in the more recent cohort, wives contribute more tofamily income, face more work–family demands, husbands and wives hold less traditionalgender role attitudes, husbands do more housework, husbands are less influential andwives are more influential.

The preponderance of non-traditional dyads in the distressed group and their better adjust-ment in terms of DAS scores is an interesting finding. It is possible that when one member ofthe family has a psychiatric illness, both husband and wife will have to take on new and per-haps non-traditional roles. Couples who are successful at this may therefore end up withbetter adjustment. This finding is partially reflected in India in a study by Shekar (1996).He found that in couples where the husband had emigrated, the marital relationship andwell being of the family depended on the ability of wives to take over the ‘masculine’ respon-sibilities of guardianship of the home, financial decision making, etc. Even after the return ofthe husbands, the wife continued to play a more powerful role in the household.

Thus, within the Indian context, one can see that gender plays an important role inmarriage. The populace appears to be more feminine; at least in this sample. While andro-gyny is clearly linked with better adjustment, the role of masculinity and femininity is lessclear. The type of match between couples is the best predictor of marital adjustment, suggest-ing that the better the couple are at negotiating gendered roles, the better their adjustment willbe. In conclusion, gender stereotypes as a personality variable are not useful in themselves forexplaining large domains of behaviour or adjustment. However, they throw light on some ofthe processes that affect marital relations in India.

Certain limitations restrict the above interpretations. Since the groups are not comparablein terms of income and wife’s career status, the results must be viewed with caution. This is sobecause there may be a complex association between sex role attitudes, socioeconomic statusand career status of the wife. One Indian study that linked income directly with maritaladjustment, found a small association between higher incomes and better marital adjustment(Kapur, 1970). Another study linked lower socioeconomic status with more rigid sex roles(Srivastava, 1992). This may account for the preponderance of traditional couples in the dis-tressed group. However, the study of sex roles is a complex affair. The tool used showed somebias towards femininity. It needs to be re-examined in this light. The methodology used tostudy attitudes towards sex roles may not have been adequate and may not have tappedenough information, as not many differences could be found between individuals of the fourdifferent stereotypes. More information on gender ideology or sex role attitudes mighthave been useful. Many Indian studies have looked at the relationship between singlecareer/dual career status and marital adjustment. While results are not conclusive, there isa trend for dual career status to be correlated with poorer marital adjustment (Kapur, 1970;Hemalatha & Suryanarayana, 1983; Sharma & Vohra, 1998). In this sample however, thisphenomenon could not be explored satisfactorily. The link between occupational statusand sex roles is also not clear (Ramu, 1987; Dasguptha & Basu, 1997; Sharma &Wellington,


1998). Marital adjustment in these couples may rest on either the wife accepting a traditionalrole or both partners accepting egalitarian roles.

This study has clinical implications for gender and role issues in couple therapy. Couplescan be encouraged to a more androgynous mode of functioning. The aforementioned insightsmay be particularly useful for helping distressed couples with non-traditional matches.

Future research implications include the further study of sex role typology of marriage,examining types of dyads and exploring the significance of income and single/dual careerstatus in the understanding of marital processes. Bharat (2001) opines that the static sexrole model focuses on socialisation and assumes that certain environmental influences aregiven. A more dynamic model on gender that also looks at how these influences are construedmay provide a more complete picture.

To conclude, the study clearly points to the link between androgyny and marital adjust-ment. The results suggest that the type of match between dyads could be an importantpredictor of marital adjustment. This variable should therefore be included in future studiesof gender and marital adjustment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Dr D.K. Subbakrishna of the Department of Biostatistics, NIM-HANS for his guidance on statistical analysis.

REFERENCES

AGRAWAL, A.K. (1971) Patterns of marital disharmonies. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 13, 185–193.AMATO, P.R. & ROGERS, S.J. (1997)Marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 59, 612–624.ANTILL, J.K. (1983) Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 45, 145–155.BASU, J., CHAKROBORTY, M., CHOWDHURY, S. & GHOSH, M. (1995) Gender stereotypes, self-ideal

disparity and neuroticism in Bengali families. Indian Journal of Social Work, 56, 298–311.BEM, S.L. (1978) Bem Sex Role Inventory Professional Manual. California: Consulting Psychologists Press.BEM, S.L. (1981) Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.BHARAT, S. (2001) On the periphery: the psychology of gender. In Psychology in India Revisited: Develop-

ments in the Discipline (ed. J. Pandey). New Delhi: Sage Publications.BHOGLE, S. (1999) Gender roles: the construct in the Indian context. In Culture, Socialisation and Human

Development: Theory, Research and Applications in India (ed. T.S. Saraswathi). New Delhi: SagePublications.

BLOCK, J.H. (1973) Conceptions of sex role: some cross cultural and longitudinal perspectives. AmericanPsychologist, 512–526.

BROWN, G.W., HARRIS, T.O. & HEPWORTH, C. (1995) Loss, humiliation and entrapment among womendeveloping depression: a patient and non patient comparison. Psychological Medicine, 25, 7–21.

CANO, A. & O’LEARY, K.D. (2000) Infidelity and separations precipitate major depressive episodes andsymptoms of non specific depression and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,774–781.

CHANNABASAVANNA, S.S. & BHATTI, R.S. (1985) Utility of role expectation model in understanding thequality of marital life and treatment of marital problems. Indian Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1, 105–120.

CONSTANTINOPLE, A. (1973) Masculinity–femininity: an exception to the famous dictum. PsychologicalBulletin, 80, 389–407.


DASGUPTHA, S. & BASU, J. (1997) Effects of sex role stereotypes on marital relations. Journal of Commu-nity Guidance and Research, 14, 197–207.

DEAUX, K. (1985) Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.DEHLE, C. & WEISS, R.L. (1998) Sex differences in prospective associations between marital quality and

depressed mood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 1002–1011.FISHER, L., RANSOM, D.C. & TERRY, H.E. (1993) The California Family Health Project: summary and

integration of findings. Family Process, 32, 69–86.GANESH, K. (1999) Patrilineal structure and agency in women: issues in gendered socialisation. In Culture,

Socialisation and Human Development: Theory, Research and Applications in India (ed. T.S. Saraswathi).New Delhi: Sage Publications.

GAONKAR,M. (1995) Relationship attributions and marital quality in couples with depressed wives. Unpub-lished M.Phil. thesis, National Institute of Mental health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore.

GAUR, S.M. (1996) A comparative study of attributions and marital quality in women with depression andfamily pathology. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, National Institute of Mental health and Neuro Sciences,Bangalore.

GOLDBERG, D.P. (1972) The Determination of Psychological Illness by Questionnaire. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

GOTTMAN, M.J. (1998) Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,169–197.

GREENSTIEN, T.N. (1996) Husband’s participation in domestic labour: interactive effects of wives’ andhusbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585–595.

HEMALATHA, P. & SURYANARAYANA, M. (1983) Married working women: a study of their role inter-actions. Indian Journal of Social Work, 44, 153–156.

HINTIKKA, J., KOSKELA, T., KONTULA, O., KOSKELA, K. & VIINAMAKI, H. (1999) Men, womenand marriages: are there differences in relation to mental health? Family Therapy, 26, 213–218.

HURVITZ, N. (1960) The Marital Role Inventory and the measurement of marital adjustment. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 16, 377–380.

HUSTON, T.L. & GEIS, G. (1993) In what ways do gender related attributes and beliefs affect marriage?Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87–106.

KAPUR, P. (1970) Marriage and the Working Woman in India. Dehli: Vikas Publications.KUMAR, P., MORI, J.B. & PATEL, M.N. (1989) Consequences of marital maladjustment: a study of mental

health. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 5, 61–63.MAYAMMA, M.C. & SATHYAVATHI, K. (1985) Communication disturbances and marital disharmony in

neurotics. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 27, 315–319.NAZ, A.A. (1998) Personal commitment and marital relationship in clinical and non-clinical groups. Unpub-

lished M.Phil. thesis, National Institute of Mental health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore.PATEL, S.K., GAONKAR, V. & HUNSHAL, S.C. (1996) Wives perception regarding husband’s participa-

tion in household work. Indian Psychological Review, 47, 274–280.PROSKY, P.S. (1992) Complementary and symmetrical couples. Family Therapy, 19, 215–221.RAMU, G.N. (1987) Indian husbands: their role perceptions and performance in single- and dual-earner

families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 903–915.ROGERS, S.J. & AMATAO, P.R. (2000) Have changes in gender relations affected marital quality? Social

Forces, 79, 731–753.SHAH, A. (1995) Clinical validity of the Marital Quality Scale. NIMHANS Journal, 13, 23–31.SHAH, A., VARGHESE, M., UDAYAKUMAR, G.S., BHATTI, R.S., RAGURAM, A., SOBHANA, H. &

SRILATHA, J. (2000) Brief family therapy training in India: a preliminary evaluation. Journal of FamilyPsychotherapy, 11, 41–53.

SHARMA, S. & VOHRA, S.S. (1998) Roles, role expectations and role strain in couples and patterns in theirmarital adjustment. Journal of Research and Applications in Clinical Psychology, 1, 50–64.

SHARMA, N. & WELLINGTON, M. (1998) Role expectations of couples with employed and non employedwives. Praachi Journal of Psycho-Cultural Dimensions, 14, 33–37.

SHARPELY, C.F. & CROSS, D.G. (1982) A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic AdjustmentScale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 739–741.

SHAVER, P., PULLIS, C. & OLDS, D. (1980) Report on the LHJ ‘Intimacy Today’ survey. Private researchreport to the Ladies Home Journal. Cited in Ickes, W. (1993) Traditional gender roles: do they make andthen break our relationships? Journal of Social Issues, 49, 71–85.


SHEKAR, T.V. (1996) Male emigration and changes in the family: impact on female sex roles. Indian Journalof Social Work, 57, 277–294.

SITAMMA, M. & SRIDEVI, K. (1996) Gender inequality: a psychological stressor. Indian PsychologicalReview, 46, 71–80.

SPANIER, G.B. (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage andother similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–21.

SRIVASTAVA, S. (1992) The effect of socio-economic status on sex-role preferences of the children. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 36, 59–63.

STACK, S. & ESHLEMAN, J.R. (1998) Marital status and happiness: a 17 nation study. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 60, 527–536.

WHISMAN, A. & BRUCE, M.L. (1999) Marital dissatisfaction and the incidence of a major depressiveepisode in a community sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 674–678.

Ms Rathna Isaac, M.Phil., PhD Scholar in Clinical Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, NationalInstitute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.

Dr Anisha Shah, PhD, Associate Professor, Clinical Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, NationalInstitute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.

Correspondence to Ms Rathna Isaac, M.Phil., PhD Scholar in Clinical Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychol-ogy, National Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences, Bangalore, India-560029.Email: [email protected]


sex roles and marital adjustment in indian couples

Documents