marriage arrangement & divorce powerpoint

8/12/2019 Marriage Arrangement & Divorce Powerpoint

1/14

3/22/2014 1

Marriage Arrangement

& Divorce

By Zeina Nehme


2/14


3/14

3/22/2014 3

Hypothesis (contd)

To test the hypothesis, I used Cross-

Tabulations with correlations and

statistical significance.I also researched authors who have

coded these variables and they are:

Goody, Rosenblatt, Schlegel,Coppinger, Eloul, etc


4/14

3/22/2014 4

TablesTable 1a

Cross-tab of Marriage Arrangement & Attitudes TowardsDivorce.

Crosstab

Count

1 1 2

3 2 2 5 12

1 1 2

2 4 2 8

1 2 2 1 6

1 2

3

7 11 7 7 1 33

1 Selects and courtspartner autonomously:approval not needed

2 Selects partnerparental, kin approv alneeded

3 Suggests partner toparents,is approvedarrangements proceed

4 Indiv idual choice &arranged marriages arealternatives

5 Parents choosepartner: individual canobject

6 Parents choosepartner: individualcannot easily object

V740

Total

1 Expected,accepted,

tolerated, notdisapproved

2 Mildlydisapprovedattempts by

other toreconcile

couple

3 Approved ifreasons areconsideredjusitif ied

4 Expected,accepted,

tolerated, notdisapprovedin 1st years

5 Stronglydisapproved,

stigmaattached to

divorce

V743

Total


5/14

3/22/2014 5

Tables (contd)

Table 1b Symmetric Measures for the results from Table 1a

Sym me tric Me asures

-.248 .139 -1.782 .075

33

Kendall's tau-bOrdinal by Ordinal

N of V alid Cases

ValueAsy mp.Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.

Not assuming the null hypothesis .a.

Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.


6/14

3/22/2014 6

Tables (contd)Table 2a

Cross-tab of Marriage Arrangement & Frequency of Divorce.Crosstab

Count

1 2 1 4

3 9 2 2 2 18

1 1

3 3 1 1 8

2 2 2 2 8

1 2 1

4

5 18 8 7 5 43

1 Selects and courtspartner autonomously:approval not needed

2 Selects partnerparental, kin approvalneeded

3 Suggests partner toparents,is approvedarrangements proceed

4 Individual choice &arranged marriages arealternatives

5 Parents choosepartner: individual canobject

6 Parents choosepartner: indiv idual

cannot easily object

V740

Total

1 Universal

or almostuniversal

2 Common,

frequent, notuncommon

3 Moderate:a small

minority of

couplesdivorce

4 Frequentin first yearsof marriage

and beforechildren

5 Rare,isolated

instances,never

V744

Total


7/143/22/2014 7

Tables (contd)

Table 2b

Symmetric Measures for the results from Table 2a

Sym me tric Measures

.170 .130 1.320 .187

43

Kendall's tau-bOrdinal by Ordinal

N of Valid Cases

ValueAsy mp.Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.

Not ass uming the null hypothes is .a.

Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.


8/143/22/2014 8

Results

I reject the null hypothesis when I test it

with the attitudes of divorce variable

Divorce attitudes are stricter in societieswhere individuals select their partner as we

can see in tables 1a & 1b. Therefore this

proves my hypothesis wrong

The correlation is a negative slope.

P value is significant at .075


9/143/22/2014 9

Results (contd)

However, I accept the null hypothesis

when I test it with the frequency of

divorce variable Frequency of Divorce is more in societies

where individuals select their partners and

less in arranged marriage societies. The correlation is positive in this case

P value is significant at .187


10/143/22/2014 10

Conclusion

The correlations of arranged marriage withattitudes towards divorce are opposite to

those with frequency of divorce (behavior).

With a larger sample size, the standard error will be

smaller, making the results more significantespecially in the second case where frequency of

divorce was tested and the p value is at .187, a larger

sample would have reduced that value making it

more significant. Whether a larger sample wouldproduce significance would require testing with a

larger sample.


11/143/22/2014 11

References

Bell, Robert R. Marriage and Family

Interaction. Illinois: The Dorsey Press,

1971.Blood, Robert O. Jr. and Donald M.

Wolfe. Husbands and Wives the

Dynamics of Married Living. Illinois:The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960.


12/14

3/22/2014 12

References (contd)

Goody, Jack. "Comparative Studies in

Kinship". Stanford: Stanford University Press,

1969.Coppinger, Robert M. and Paul C.

Rosenblatt. Romantic Love and Subsistence

dependence of Spouses. Southwestern

Journal of Anthropology: vol. 24, no.3, p.310-319. Albuquerque, 1968.


13/14

3/22/2014 13

References (contd)

Goody, Jack. ed. "The Character of Kinship".

London/New York: Cambridge University

Press, 1973.Goody, Jack. and S.J. Tambiah. eds.

"Bridewealth and Dowry". New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Rheinstein, Max. Marriage Stability, Divorce,

and the Law. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1972.


14/14

3/22/2014 14

References (contd)

Rosenblatt, Paul C. Marital Residence and

the Function of Romantic Love. Ethnology:

vol. VI, no.4, p.471-480. Pittsburgh, 1967.Schlegel, Alice and Rohn Eloul. Marriage

Transactions: Labor, Property, Status.

American Anthropologist: vol. 90, no.2, p.291-

309. Washington D.C., 1988.

marriage arrangement & divorce powerpoint

Documents