To continue the discussion from my prior post on Arranged
Marriage I will report on a 2015 article from Psychology Today, authored by Utpal Dholakia. David Foster, of the Chicago Boyz blog, linked it in the comments section yesterday and it is
well worth our attention.
Dholakia offers an astute and valuable analysis of how and
why the custom of arranged marriage works in India. Evidently, the custom does not force young Indians to marry someone they do not want to marry. At the
same time their parents do not just send them out on their own, with only their adolescent
judgment to guide them. Parents participate actively in the selection process.
One must emphasize that the terms, arranged marriage and free
choice marriage, are slight misnomers. In an Indian marriage, young people have
a free choice among several options. They can choose one or even none. In what
is called a free choice marriage, it’s more like a free-for-all. You can choose
anyone you want from a myriad of possibilities.
In India parents take charge of the situation by choosing a small
number of acceptable mates. It makes a certain amount of sense, since the new
spouse will become part of a family. People do not see marriage in terms of coupling two individuals, but as an alliance between families:
For
both men and women, the individual’s parents or older family members screen
for and find prospective mates for
further consideration through their social circle, community, or by advertising on matrimonial websites or
newspapers. There is an initial meeting in a family gathering, after which the
couple has a few opportunities for chaperoned courtship. At this point if
neither party has vetoed the match and if they are so inclined, they may spend
some time together alone. And then it is time to make the decision. It is not
unusual for the process from initial introduction to the final yes/ no decision
to unfold within a few days. A 2013 IPSOS survey found that 74% of
young Indians (18-35
years old) prefer an arranged marriage over a free-choice one. Other sources report that as many as 90% of all Indian
marriages are arranged.
It matters that most young people prefer to arranged
marriage to free-choice marriage. And that the arranged marriages yield a very
low divorce rate and a high level of satisfaction:
The
first is that Indians have an astonishingly low divorce rate. Despite doubling in urban areas since 2007, only
about 1 in
100 Indian marriages
end in divorce. This is one of the lowest divorce rates in the world. Even more
impressive is the second statistic, about the high levels of satisfaction
reported by those in arranged marriages over the longer-term.
If this form of arranged marriage works, the question is
why? Enquiring minds want to know.
Dholakia looks at the decision-making angle. I addressed the
same issue, but in slightly different terms. He writes:
From
a decision making perspective, choosing a marriage
partner through arrangement has at least two major advantages. The first is
that people that one respects and trusts, AKA parents or elders prescreen the available
options, leaving a small and manageable choice set.
The couple is not flying blind. They do not have to spend
untold months trying to judge each other’s character. Moreover, as I mentioned,
decision making is easier when each person has fewer options.
Dholakia continues:
But for
most people, it is difficult to figure out when to stop searching and just as
hard not to begin again once they have settled for chosen a partner.
And also, people who have too many options tend to overthink
the issue:
Another negative
consequence of
thinking too hard about different options is that people get attached to them
so that choosing one option produces regret at having lost out on others (what
psychologists call as the “choosing feels like losing” effect). Nowhere is this
truer than in dating and marriage decisions where
potential partners may have different attractive qualities, and none may have
all the qualities one is looking for.
Whereas parents choose prospective mates according to
objective criteria, young people operating according to a free choice system
tend to emphasize more subjective criteria, like looks, attractiveness and
feeling:
In
free-choice marriage decisions, one of the hardest challenges is finding a good
set of options to choose from. From those interested in marriage, complaints about how hard it is to find a good
man or a good woman are commonplace. Just as problematic, when left to their
own devices, people tend to use prescreening criteria that emphasize outward
appearances (looks, possessions, etc.). These are short-term oriented but may
not necessarily contribute to longer-term marital outcomes. For instance,
social psychologists have found impressive evidence for “attractiveness
matching” in which daters give heavy weight to physical attractiveness of
potential partners, and favor those whose attractiveness is comparable to their own.
Evidently, but not to evident not to mention, when parents
choose the dating pool, their children are meeting prospective mates with whom
they have the most in common. This might tamp down passionate intensity, but it
is a better predictor of marital durability:
What is
more, they share many characteristics such as social class, religion, caste (yes, even
today, for
Hindus), and educational attainment that signal similarity and may be important
predictors of longer-term marriage success. The vetting process also limits the
choice set size and puts a grinding halt to further search once a choice is
made. Making others you trust do all the hard work in the choice process pays
off.
As it happens, young people who are meeting prospects chosen
by their parents do not really go out on dates. They do not engage in a
courtship ritual. They spend time together, first chaperoned, next on their own, to see whether they find each other
suitable and presumably, sufficiently attractive. So much of the process has
been taken care of already, that very little remains:
In an
arranged marriage, the speed with which one must decide whether or not to marry
the person they have been introduced to doesn’t leave much time for careful
thinking or comparisons. Instead, it encourages going with one’s gut feelings
about the partner, which in turn may leads to more satisfying outcomes. In free
choice marriages, on the other hand, the long and elaborate dating process
provides lots of time and opportunity to judge potential partners critically
and deliberately, and long for the ones that got away.
I would be more careful about saying that the young people
are following gut feelings. Just because you have only spent a few days getting to know a
person, does not mean that your judgment is gut-level. Allow me also to mention
that these young people are not engaging in very much pre-marital sex. Since our
current culture tells young people that they must have premarital sex, to see
if they are sexually compatible, the point deserves emphasis. Dholakia does not
mention it, but it is worth noting.
By
and large, a couple entering an arranged marriage simply doesn’t know each
other that well compared to those beginning free-choice marriages. (The only
exception is a free-choice marriage to a stranger during a Las Vegas trip.)
Consequently, the expectations from each other at the relationship’s outset
will be lower. This is because in-depth knowledge is crucial to forming accurate expectations, and
more knowledge produces higher expectations. In Indian arranged
marriages, in particular, many people give greater
weight
to compatibility and
financial security over romantic love, further contributing to restrained
expectations.
Finally, Dholakia explains that couples who have chosen
mates selected by their parents have lower expectations from marriage and are
less likely to be disappointed. They are also less likely to see marriage as a
long term love affair, and more likely to understand it as a cooperative enterprise:
As
research on satisfaction judgments shows, when expectations are low, they are
more likely to be met or
exceeded,
leaving the newly-wed highly satisfied. In a free-choice marriage, in contrast,
high expectations often develop during an elaborate dating period, with the
culture placing great weight on the romantic
love ideal. This
sets people up for a let-down after the honeymoon period is over.
Also in India...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9108642/Indian-dowry-deaths-on-the-rise.html
The other feature of Indian marriages I recall is a wedding isn't a single day, but like a week long event for a whole community, and families will save for decades to be able to host them. One Indian coworker described his caste as "one step below royalty" so his descriptions might not be average. It did show an older sense of wealth - where your generosity is the measure of your social status, not just the size of your house or car. OTOH, my coworker told me he was chastised by his uncle when he'd visit home for giving money to children or beggars. He also said between weddings, funerals and religious celebrations, it can seem like one big continuous celebration which is fun growing up but also overwhelming.
ReplyDelete--> Another negative consequence of thinking too hard about different options is that people get attached to them so that choosing one option produces regret at having lost out on others (what psychologists call as the “choosing feels like losing” effect)
ReplyDeleteMaybe the same as "Buyer's remorse" where the worst state is having two seemingly equally attractive and incompatible options, like Frost's two roads diverging in a yellow wood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyers_remorse
While rationalization is apparently the best strategy after a decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
Or maybe the best strategy can use randomizing factor like flipping a coin (yes/no or A/B). At least resentment against a coin for a less than happy decision is better than resentment against a parent's advice.
I don't think that question (Did I marry the right person) can be answered until the end however that may come.
ReplyDeleteJames
You beat me to it, David; I was about to mention that a box of matches is cheaper than a divorce.
ReplyDelete@David Foster
ReplyDeleteWhere's Sir Charles James Napier when you need him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier
Re the argument about too much choice making people unhappy: this argument could also be made about lots of other things in life: career choice, where to live, etc. Why not just return to a traditional feudal society, in which the family you are born into controls many aspects or your life, and the local Lord controls the rest? Gets rid of all those troublesome choice problems...
ReplyDeleteDavid Foster, choice seems to be a divergent problem, potentially oppressive if you have too many, or if you have too few. Adam Curtis looked into choice in his "Century of Self", ending with the predicament "Although we feel we are free, in reality, we have become the slaves of our own desires."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s