Tuesday , October 17 2017
Home / Research Papers / Psychology / The Relationship Between Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Relationship

The Relationship Between Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Relationship

To Investigate The Relationship Between Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Relationship

Acknowledgement

In the name of Allah the most gracious and the most beneficent.

I am grateful to Allah almighty for helping and enabling me to complete my thesis. This thesis would not have been possible without the support and guidance of many people. First of all, special thanks to my parents who helped me in every aspect of my life especially to my father who supported me and gave me courage and the confidence to attain the maximum. Without his support and specially without his prayers I can’t do anything. Without them I would never have achieved all the milestones of my life.

I am very much thankful to my supervisor, whose encouragement and guidance enabled me to develop an understanding of the subject and for giving me her valuable time. I will surely say that she is such a so much nice and supportive supervisor. I was really happy to have her as my supervisor. May God bless her with lots of blessings and happiness. I am thankful to respected authors who gave me permission to complete my research.

I am so much thankful to my best ever friend, who supported me a lot in my work. He never let me to get stress about my work. He helped and guided me a lot.

Very special thanks to my family and friends for supporting me.

Table of Contents

TitlePage No.
Declarationi
Certificateii
Acknowledgementsiii
Table of Contentsiv
List of Tablesx
List of Symbolsxii
Abstract1
Chapter I
Introduction2
1.1.Trust3
1.1.1. Theories of Trust4
1.1.1.1. Social Interactive perspective5
1.1.1.2. Theory of Trust6
1.2. Possessiveness6
1.2.1. Theories of Possessiveness9
1.2.1.1. Evolutionary Perspective on Jealousy9
1.2.1.2. Pheiffer and Wong’s conceptualization of jealousy10
1.3.Marital Relationship12
1.3.1. Theory of Marital Relationship16
1.3.1.1. Scocial exchange theory16
Chapter II
Literature Review17
2.1. Researches17
2.2. Rationale26
2.3. Objectives27
2.4. Hypothesis27
Chapter III 
Method28
3.1. Research Design28
3.2. Sample28
3.2.1. Sampling technique28
3.2.2. Inclusion criteria28
3.2.3. Exclusion Criteria28
3.3. Operational definitions28
3.3.1. Trust28
3.3.2. Possessiveness29
3.3.3. Marital Quality29
3.4. Assessment Measures29
3.4.1. Demographic information questionnaire30
3.4.2. Trust in close relationships30
3.4.3. Possessiveness in intimate relationships30
3.4.4. Marital Quality30
3.5. Procedure31
3.6. Ethical considerations31
3.7. Statistical Analyses33
Chapter IV 
Results 34
4.1 Summary of findings39
Chapter V
Discussion41
5.1. Conclusion43
5.2. Limitations43
5.3. Suggestions44
5.4. Implications of the study44
References45
Appendices49

List of Tables

Tables Page No
Table 3.1Descriptive Statistics Of Study Variables and Demographics32
Table 4.1Reliability Analysis34
Table 4.2Relationship Between Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Quality35
Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Independent sample t-test and one-way Anova

Simple Linear Regression Analysis of Predictors of Marital Quality

     36

39

List of Appendices

AppendicesTitle
Appendix APermission letter from Author
Appendix BInformed Consent
Appendix CDemographic Questionnaire
Appendix DAssessment Scales

List of Symbols

  • N                                 Total number in a sample
  • n                                  Number in Sub-sample
  • k                                  Number of items in subscales            
  • M                                 Average arithmetic mean
  • SD                               Standard deviation
  • Min                              Minimum Score
  • Max                             Maximum Score
  • α                                  Alpha; Cronbach’s Index of Internal Consistency
  • df                                 Degree of Freedom
  • p                                  Significance level
  • f                                   Frequency
  • %                                 Percentage

Abstract

The research was conducted to investigate the relationship between Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Relationship. It was hypothesized that Trust is Positively correlated with marital relationship, and it was also hypothesized that Possessiveness is negatively correlated with marital relationship. The sample for current research comprised of (N=120), 60 males and 60 females. Trust was assessed by The Trust in Close Relationships Scale by Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G. & Zanna, M.P. ( TICRS, 1985), Possessiveness was assessed by Possessiveness in Intimate Relationship Scale by Rodger P. Pinto and James G. Hollandsworth, Jr. ( PIIRS,1984) ,and Marital quality was assessed by Couples Satisfaction Indexs by Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R. D. ( CSI, 2007). Pearson Product Moment correlation and Simple linear regression was conducted to analyze the data.This study will have important implications on relationship quality of couples to make their relationship quality more better. Results showed that there was positive relation between trust and marital quality, and there was negative relation between possessiveness and marital quality. It was concluded that trust from both the partners contribute towards the high marital quality and satisfaction.

Chapter I

Introduction

            Any close relationship need trust as certainly one of the most desired quality. It is many times mentioned in convergence with love and commitment as of major importance in ideal relationship (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1983). Married relationships also express negative effects from jealousy. Pazak (1998) operationalized jealousy as a type of possessiveness and intrusiveness into partner’s life. The effects of possessive jealousy may change, depending on the style of expression and the function worked by the jealousy. Possessive jealousy can be used by a person to control one’s partner obsessively (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). Over time, development and changes occur in a relationship, jealousy expression are affected by three factors i.e commitment, insecurity, and arousability. Bringle (1991) theorized for a jealous response to occur these three factors are compulsory i.e more jealousy will occur with the increase in intensity and frequency of investment. In the transactional model of jealousy, Bringle (1991) stated that perception of events is a constructive process in which the perceptual prospects of an individual combine with sensory information from the social environment to construct a final perception. As the change in the levels of commitment, insecurity, and arousability will also cause change in the perception of threatening behaviors. Barelds and Dijkstra (2006) stated that “people who self-report that they feel possessively jealous also have self-reported that they are less satisfied in a relationship. Similarly, Barelds and Dijkstra (2007) found that “there is low relationship adjustment in the people who are in serious intimate relationship as they report anxious jealousy i.e they are anxiously jealous towards their partner, and people who reveal reactive jealousy towards their partners, these people show higher relationship adjustment. These types of jealousy cause uneasiness and control of a partner’s contact between members of the opposite sex (Buunk, 1997). Thus, these types of jealousy have predicted a strong negative relationship with relationship quality. Scanzoni (1979) also advocates that “trust demands a willingness of an individual to put oneself in a situation of risk and that probably trust does not develop early in a relationship because there would be little importance of past experiences on the basis of which trust would be develop. Larzelere and Huston (1980) found that with love and with intimacy of self-disclosure trust between partners is developed. Their emphasis was on dyadic trust between intimates, which they defined as The extent to which a person believes the other to be benevolent and honest. Driscoll, Davis and Lipetz (1972) tested the association between love and trust. Their interest was with the distinction between romantic and conjugal love. It was hypothesized by the authors that as the trut develops between the intimates, the romantic love progresses and achieves a more mature form of conjugal love. According to their thinking, trust evolves when there would be mutual satisfaction interaction between the intimates and they have increasing confidence on one another in a relationship.

1.1. Trust

 Deutsch (1973) defined trust as confidence that one will find what is desired from another, rather than what is feared. A more contemporary hypothetical statement by Scanzoni (1979) defines trust as an actor’s willingness to arrange and repose his or her activities on other because of confidence that other will provide expected gratifications. Scanzoni also proposes that “trust requires a willingness to place oneself in a position of risk and that trust is not likely to appear early in a relationship because there would be little basis in past experience for its development.

Apart from the specific area of close relationships, Rotter (1980) has calculated that trust is an distinct personality variable. He states trust as a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, or statement of another individual can be relied on. Larzelere and Huston (1980) found that “with love and with intimacy of self-disclosure trust between partners is developed. Trust is associated in significant ways to the success of a close relationship. It is likewise obvious that construst of trust involves a number of different elements, and these all elements do not contribute correspondingly. The faith is believes to be the most important feature of trust in close relationships, the faith is the belief that one’s partner will act in loving and caring ways whatever the future holds (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna,1985).

The following aspects characterized the situation that refers to the trust. One individual (trustor) is agree to trust the actions of other individual (trustee), that situation leads to the future. In addition, the control of the trustor over the actions that are performed by the trustee is forcefully abandoned. At the end, the trustor is not assured about the consequences of actions of the trustee. He can only develop and assess the anticipations. It there will not be the desirable behavior from the trustee, then there would be insecurity involving the risk of damage to the trustor (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

Stinnett and Walters (1977) suggests that level of security in any relationship is increased by the trust and trust reduces the inhibitors and defensiveness, and people get free to share their feelings and dreams.

Trust is seen as a prerequisite for married partners to open their marriage to their full potential for personal and interpersonal growth ( O’Neil & O’Neil, 1972).

1.1.1. Theories of Trust

  •  1.1.1.1 A social interactions perspective on trust and its determinants (Thomas, 2012).

This perspective studies that the decisions that an individual made about whether to trust the other, relative strangers in their respective families are altered by the social influences. Two possible types of social influences are present that can put influence on the trust decision, these are: first, if there are country specific characteristics present that made an individual to to trust more or less on others comes under the contextual or exogenous social interactions. Second, if the trust decision behavior of other people in the society exerted influence on the individual’s decision to trust the others, such that if people are more or less trusting toward other’s behavior then it is due to the influence of other people as they are also more or less trusting, this results due to endogenous social interactions effects. When there is behavioral endogeneity of the second type of influence, then people would tend to conform to the particular norm or culture of trust predominant in their society. The trust decisions between individuals are tested through the feedback that would result in multiple social trust equilibria, which could alone describes both the conformity within country in true decisions and the worldwide diversity in average trust apparent in the World Values Survey trust data. The existence of composite contextual and endogenous social interactions effects on the trust decision is confirmed by the empirical evidence provided in this paper, and though it is hard to separately identify these two effects, the assessed models strongly suggest the existence of endogenous effects in trust (Thomas, 2012).

  • 1.1.1.2 Theory of Trust (Fukuyama, 1995)

            Cultural habits exaggerate the amount of family exclusivity. The amount of no kinship interaction among the society members and the openness of family structure is affected by this family exclusiveness. Fukuyama notes that societies and groups that show the high level of family openness also permit great non-kinship within the society. Low level of trust in deliberate relations will show low level of non-kin interaction within the societies. While societies with high level of trust will reveal high levels of non-kin interaction in voluntary associations (Brewter, 1998).

1.2. Possessiveness

            Possessiveness refers to a constellation of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that seek to initiate and maintain control over the actions of other person in a relationship (Peele & Brodsky, 1976). Pazak (1998) gave operational definition of jealousy as a type of possessiveness and intrusiveness into their partner’s life. Buunk (1997) states possessive jealousy as behaviors an individual engages in to prevent their partner from intimate contact with a third person. Jealousy is conceptualized as a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral response to a relationship threat. In the case of sexual jealousy, this threat emanates from knowing or suspecting that one’s partner has had (or desires to have) sexual activity with a third party. In the case of emotional jealousy, an individual feels threatened by her or his partner’s emotional involvement with and/or love for a third party. (Guerrero, Spitzberg, & Yoshimura, 2004).

Buunks (1991) describes that suspicions that one person hold causes possessive jealousy in them for their partner, but that suspicions have no evidence of supporting possessive jealousy. Romantic jealousy has been defined as a complex of thoughts, emotions, and actions due to which the self esteem of an individual is put as loss or threatening condition and the romantic relationship or the existence of it is also put at loss or threatening conditions (White & Mullen, 1989).

Jealousy is demonstrated to be an emotion that is universally experienced by all individuals (Bernhard, 1986) and is considered as one of the predominant emotions experienced in couple relationships (Guerrero, 1998). In particular settings with appropriate jealousy or when occurring in low levels, productive relational outcomes appear as a result of romantic jealousy. First, romantic jealousy has been demonstrated to aid in the identification and establishment of relational boundaries required for relationship stability (Guerrero, 1998). In this way, jealousy can assist in mate retention by protecting couples from straying (Buss, 1995; Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Research has also revealed that jealousy in couple relationships can be positively related to romantic love (Mathes, Adams, & Davies, 1985; Pheiffer & Wong, 1989) and passionate sex between partners (DeLemeter, 1991). Finally, jealousy restored confidence that one is loved and get value by their partners (Buss, 20000; De Silva & Marks, 1994). Hence, from an adaptive standpoint, jealousy can be regarded as an exemplary and necessary emotion within romantic relationships (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006).

However, jealousy can have a harmful impact on general and relationship satisfaction, when occurring often, in high levels, or in response to baseless or imagined situations (Guerrero & Eloy, 1992; Pheiffer & Wong, 1989; Zusman & Knox, 1998). First, problems related to romantic jealousy are cited as one of the most common reasons for which young adults seek couples therapy (Zusman & Knox, 1998). Jealousy has also been linked with varied psychological difficulties, including the more frequent experience of negative emotions, anger, rage, depression, and anxiety (Bernhard, 1986). Additionally, romantic jealousy is consistently identified as a leading motive for intimate partner violence, with the severity of physical abuse experienced by an individual often proportional to the level of jealousy reported by the perpetuator (Hoehing, 2001; O’Leary, Smith-Slep, & O’Leary, 2007; Puente & Cohen, 2003). Finally, increased suicidal and homicidal tendencies within the context of romantic relationships has been related to the frequent and high levels of jealousy (Bernhard, 1986; Hoehing, 2001; O’Leary et al., 2007). Given the co-occurring negative and positive functions of jealousy on general well-being and relationship quality (Bernhard, 1986; Guerrero et al., 1992; Zusman & Knox, 1998), as well as its omnipresent influence on romantic relationships, a multitude of models of jealousy have surfaced.

Research studies have generally revealed a negative relation between jealousy and couple satisfaction. Briefly, Barnett and colleagues (1995) found that one’s jealousy (as defined by anxious jealousy, sexual jealousy, and general feelings stemming from relationship threats) was negatively linked with one’s marital satisfaction. Guerrero and Jorgensen (1991) similarly demonstrated individuals’ overall romantic jealousy to be negatively correlated with the stability of their marriage and positively related with discussions pertaining to divorce or separation. Correspondingly, Bringle and Evenbeck’s (1979) research showed that husbands’ dispositional jealousy (measured as an overall character trait) was negatively associated with their marital outcomes.

Despite the commonly demonstrated negative relation between jealousy and couple satisfaction, studies have also revealed the adaptive functions of jealousy in romantic relationships. First, Hansen’s (1983) findings showed that one’s affective responses to

Hypothetical jealousy-producing events were positively related with one’s dyadic adjustment among a sample of married men. Similarly, Rosmarin and LaPointe’s (1978) research demonstrated that individuals reporting high or low levels of relationship quality displayed higher levels of anxiety about a hypothesized romantic rival when compared to those indicating moderate satisfaction. In this way, highly valuing the relationship, or feeling insecure about its dissolution, may be related to greater affective responses to potential relationship threats. Finally, Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) highlighted the co-occurring detrimental and positive consequences of jealousy by revealing that one’s reactive jealousy (i.e., jealousy instigated by a jealousy-evoking event) was positively related with one’s relationship quality, whereas one’s anxious jealousy (i.e., jealousy occurring irrespective of a jealousy-producing event) was negatively related with this construct.

1.2.1. Theories of Possessiveness

  • 1.2.1.1. Evolutionary Perspective on Jealousy (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Daly, Wilson & Weghorst, 1982).

Evolutionary psychologists (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Daly, Wilson & Weghorst, 1982) have suggested that based on the functional mechanisms the prevalent of jealousy is there. The production of offsprings is considered to be the one of the primary goals of investment on the opposite relationship. The likelihood of passing on genes is lowered, If a cooperative relationship does not exist between the two parents. Although different losses for each sex are manifested as a result of losing investment in a relationship, finally, these relationship investments are protected by presence of the jealousy in women and men. If one’s partner is not truthful, there is a risk of loss of investment and loss of reproductive rewards for the one (Buss, 2000).

An evolutionary perspective describes that if someone’s partner is engaged in extra relationship sexual behavior and his or her partner is not getting jealous, then he or she would stands to lose any or all investment. According to Buss and Shackelford (1997), the common adaptive problem that exists between partners is mate retention.19 mate retention tactics were found by them that partners employ in different frequencies depending on the self, partner, and relationship characteristics. Men are when in the longer relationships, then they tend to use the jealousy induction, the initiation of the jealousy (Buss & Shackelford). Jealousy induction is considered to serve as a form of mate retention according to which, the partner who is inducing the jealousy reaction would view it in a positive manner. The lack of jealousy in this situation would show a nonexistence of investment from mates. Possibly, the need for security in other partner in their investment can be the reason of expression of feelings of jealousy.

  • 1.2.1.2. Pheiffer and Wong’s conceptualization of jealousy.

Pheiffer and Wong’s (1989) formulation of jealousy emerged from both Lazarus’ (1984) model of emotions and White’s (1981) theory of jealousy. Lazarus’ (1984) model of emotions asserted that when a threat is inferred (primary cognitive appraisal), an individual will search for relevant emotional cues (secondary emotional appraisal) that will subsequently elicit behavioral coping strategies to deal with the inferred threat (Lazarus, 1984). White (1981) believed that this broad-based model of emotions similarly applied to jealousy. Specifically, he proposed a sequential process of jealousy that is instigated by the cognitive appraisal of a relationship threat, followed by the experience of an emotional reaction (i.e., jealousy), terminating with secondary appraisals (i.e. behavioral coping strategies) to deal with the inferred threat (White, 1981). Given the varied internal experiences of jealousy emphasized by White (1981), he maintained that certain facets may not be observable or known to others, including one’s partner (White, 1981).

Pheiffer and Wong (1989) agreed with White’s conceptualization of jealousy but believed that, in addition to a sequential process of jealousy (whereby one facet of jealousy leads to the experience of a subsequent facet of jealousy), this could take place as a parallel interactive model by which the emotions, cognitions, and behaviors that involve jealousy occur simultaneously and influence with one another (Pheiffer & Wong, 1989). Efforts by Pheiffer and Wong (1989) to operationalize this model resulted in the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) which assesses the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral sides of jealousy.

Emotional jealousy is defined as anticipated affective and reactive responses to diverse situations that vary in degree of relationship threat from one’s partner working with someone of the opposite sex to one’s partner having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Cognitive jealousy is defined as the existence of suspicions, thoughts, and worries about a partner’s extra dyadic behaviors or the existence of a (potential) rival, and ranges from suspicions that one’s partner may be attracted to someone else to worries that “someone of the opposite sex may be seducing their partner. Lastly, behavioral jealousy is defined as checking/snooping behaviors stemming from a (perceived or actual) relationship threat. These behaviors range from joining in whenever one’s partner is seen talking to someone of the opposite sex to looking through one’s partner’s drawers, handbags, or pockets (Pheiffer & Wong, 1989). Aligned with this conceptualization, Pheiffer and Wong (1989) advocated for the view of emotional jealousy as reactive in nature given their deduction that such emotions more commonly occur in response to a (genuine or hypothetical) jealousy-evoking situation. This is distinction in the cognitive and behavioral facets of jealousy which they viewed as more likely to occur irrespective of a jealousy evoking situation, and therefore, more similar to suspicious and pathological forms of jealousy (Pheiffer & Wong, 1989).

1.3. Marital Relationship

            Marriage is often seen as an institution that improves women economic wellbeing by providing them access to men economic resources (Tyree & Treas, 1974). Marriage is a social responsibility and commitment of a male with a female to spend their whole life with each other. It is most important, most institutionalized interpersonal relationship in people’s lives (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983). Two persons that share different background live together whole life when they are united by the ties of marriage (Mooney, 1992).

One of the most important and necessary relationship between a man and woman is marriage. It involves legal and emotional commitment that is very important in any one’s life for smooth functioning of life. Moreover, entering into the marital contract and selecting a partner is considered both personal achievement and maturation mild stone. The choice of marital partner no doubt, is one of the most essential and important decision one makes in his/her life time (Thomas, 1977).

Marital satisfaction has more importance in married life as it has direct effects on marital life. Marital satisfaction is included love and interest shown by spouse, help given by spouse at home, treatment by in laws, sexual gratification and time spent with spouse in outdoor activities. Popular belief is that children tend to solidify a marriage and increase marital satisfaction. A growing body of research however, suggest that the presence of children has the opposite effect (Spector, 1996).

Marital satisfaction is a broader term that covers all aspects of human life. Wieten and Lloyd (2003) indicated some predictors of marital success. One of the main factor is family background on marital success. They argued that the people, whose parents were divorced, were more likely to divorce.

People get married for many reasons like love, physical attraction, desire for   children, pleasure, company and to get off from worries. Those people who are well adjusted and more satisfied with their marital life run along and others get separated or divorced as they do not share interests and activities to each other (Berry, 1998).

There are basically three types of marriages. First Monogamy in which one wife is for one husband. Secondly Polygamy in which unification of one husband with one or more wives. Thirdly Polyandry in which unification of one wife with one or more than one husband (Lee, 1961).

Marriage is the strong bond. It is socially, legally and religiously accepted. It is not only sacred institution in Islam but in other religions also. Though the types and the resources of marriage are different (Berry, 1998).

Myer (1996) suggest that marriage is not just a burden and duty, It increases the happiness as well, and he explained two important reasons. First, married people enjoy more close and supportive relationship and experience less worries and loneliness. Second, it enhance the self-esteem as it offers role of spouse and parents. In Pakistan marriage is not only relationship of two people, but of two families’ i.e. in laws extended relationships (Hashmi, 2007).

Romantic relationships and marriage bonds are considered to be the most important attachments formed in adulthood (Graham, Liu, & Jeziorski, 2006). Their significance is exemplified by the profound impact that relationship quality can have on the general functioning of individuals comprising a romantic dyad (Davila & Bradbury, 1998; Whiffen & Aube, 1999). First, the presence of a caring and supportive romantic relationship is shown to be related with increased emotional and psychological health, including decreased risk for depression, anxiety, and general psychopathology (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Prigerson, Maciejewski, & Rosenheck, 1999). Respectively, satisfaction in couple relationships is demonstrated to be linked with enhanced physical and immune health, including decreased cortisol levels, lowered rates of physical illness, and increased recovery from illness (Davila & Bradbury, 1998; Patridge, 2001; Schmaling & Sher, 1997; Whiffen & Aube, 1999).

Research has similarly shown that the physical availability and support of one’s romantic partner during difficult times can diminish the effects of distressing experiences (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Finally, the pervasive role of romantic relationships on general well-being is further illustrated by findings showing that marital and relationship discord are amongst the most common reasons for which adults seek therapy (Fincham & Bradburry, 1987). Given the significant influence of couple quality on general welfare, psychological well-being, and physical health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Prigerson et al., 1999), a thorough understanding of the factors that may decrease or increase couple satisfaction remains an important empirical endeavor. In pursuit of such aims, diverse conceptualizations of couple satisfaction were developed.

Relationship satisfaction and constancy depend on partners that show mutual responses towards one another’s needs i.e. partners should be mutually responsive to one another’s needs for the satisfaction and stability of their relationship (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Some scholars con­sider “the degree of interdependence between partners in a relationship to be correspondent to the closeness in a relationship between partners” (Kelley et al., 1983). “The degree to which one partner depends on other symbolizes the extent to which one person’s behavior is likely to produce changes in the other person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The change that appear in other to what level, indicates the degree of interdependence, or mutual influence, between the two individuals in a relationship. The four different categorizations of the relationship are included in the definition of closeness that include the strength, frequency, diversity, and duration of influence within the relationship” (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 2004). The strength of influence within the relationship is the first dimension of the closeness. This is evi­dent in how strongly, the oner partner’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors either directly or indirectly influenced by the other partner. The more time the partners spend interacting with each other, the more influence they have on their relationship closeness describes the frequency of closeness. The diversity feature of closeness discusses the array of different life domains in which one partner’s decisions and behaviors are influenced by the other partner. The last category of closeness is the duration or relationship longevity that is based on the idea that there will be more closeness between the partners if they are longer interdependent on each other (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 2004).

1.3.1. Theory of Marital Relationship

  • 1.3.1.1. Social Exchange Theory (Paul & Wayne, 2008).

Social exchange theory is a feasible theoretical framework for the marital and familial relationships to examine relational processes in these relationships. The paradigm of social exchange theory is derived from the behavioral psychology, sociology, and classical economics, that seeks to explain the development, maintenance(e.g., solidarity, power), and decline of exchange relationships in terms of the stability between the rewards that marital partners gain and the costs that they incur by selecting themselves into the marital relationships. Costs are those factors that inhibit or prevent a performance of a sequence of behaviors that exist within a marriage, while rewards are the pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications that a person enjoys within a marital relationship. Hence, the marital relationships can be conceptualized as the cyclic pattern of connections of valued resources, tangible or intangible, between partners and the rewards and costs that are associated with such transactions, which terminate in dyadic or individual outcomes of profit or loss. The marital relationships according to this theory was conceptualized as the transactions of the resources that are tangible or intangible, cyclic pattern exists between these resources, the rewards and the costs are also related with these transactions, which then end in the dyadic or the outcomes of the profit or loss (Paul &Wayne, 2008).

Chapter II

Literature Review

Following is the literature review on Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Relationship in Married individuals.

Researches

According to Rempel and Holmes (1985), complex and integrated views of the relationship are appeared more in women than men. A theoretical model of interpersonal trust in close relationships was tested in 47 dating, cohabiting, or married couples (mean ages were 31 years for males and 29 years for females). An analysis of the instrument that was measuring trust component was consistent with the view that the predictability, dependability, and faith components represent distinct and coherent dimensions. The perception of the intrinsic motives in a partner appeared as a dimension, as did instrumental and extrinsic motives appeared. As estimated, happiness and love were closely related to the feelings of faith and the attribution of intrinsic motivation to both self and the partner. Women appeared to have more integrated, complex views of their relationships than men. There was a tendency to view their own motives as less self-interested and more exclusively essential than their partner’s motives.

Likewise, Couch and Jones (1997), conducted study that involved the students of college as respondents that were involved in romantic relationships (N= 445) and questionnaires were completed by them containing measures of trust and related constructs. Analyses focused on the two sets of issues. The first issue is related with the validity of the Trust Inventory, that was the innovative self-report measure that divides the trust into separate domains that include (a) trust in specific relationship i.e. partners, that is called Partner Trust; (b) trust in family and friends, termed as Network Trust; and (c) trust among people-in-general, called as Generalized Trust. The second set of issues involved the some unanswered questions that were derived from the trust literature, specially: (a) the comparability among competing measures of trust, (b) the conjunction between trust in specific people vs trust in human nature, and (c) whether trust is more closely linked to one’s personality or emotions or to the quality of one’s relationships. Results involve the supportiveness of the validity of the Trust Inventory and its division of types of trust including the new concept of Network Trust. In addition, there were numerous measures of trust that were moderately to strongly inter-related. Though, the dissimilarity between relational trust i.e. trust in relationship partners and global trust i.e. trust in human nature was found in the results”. Measures of the relational trust showed significantly more strong relation with relationship quality and commitment, whereas measures of global trust showed slightly more strongly relation to indices of personality and emotion.

Moreover, German (2008), examined the trust’s mediation of the relationship between depression and marital satisfaction in the individuals who had or had not suffered a betrayal. Self-report measures that involve assessing dyadic trust, depressive symptoms, marital adjustment, and presence of betrayal were administered to the couples. Couples who had experienced a betrayal, both trust and depression was found to predict marital satisfaction. Moreover, trust mediated the relationship between depression and marital satisfaction in those women who had experienced a betrayal. In men who had experienced a betrayal, trust was found to predict the marital satisfaction but not depression, thus mediation was not established in this case.

Similarly, Mohsin, Adnan, Sultan and Sabira (2013) examined the role of trust in marital satisfaction. They selected a sample of 140 couples including 70 single & 70 dual-career couples. Moreover, gender differences were also studied in the research. Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale (Fowers & Olson, 1993), and Trust Scale (Rempel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985) were used to measure the constructs in a sample. The age of the sample selected was ranged from 25 to 61 years. Multiple regression analysis was conducted that demonstrated trust as a significant predictor of marital satisfaction for single career couples, dual-career couples and for the whole sample respectively. Significant gender differences were found to be present for trust in both single and dual-career couples.

Guerrero and Eloy (1992), using a sample of married individuals (N = 66), investigated that there exist negative relationship between one’s emotional, cognitive, and behavioral jealousy. Gender effects were not examined within their study. Anderson, Eloy, Guerrero, and Spitzberg (1995) verified the above mentioned study findings amongst a sample of individuals who were involved in a long-term or married relationship (N = 346). Their results also verified that emotional and cognitive jealousy were negatively associated with the relationship satisfaction, behavioural jealousy effect was not evaluated within their study. Gender differences were examined for all relations but none were found. The combination of all findings proposes the fact that cognitive jealousy exhibits the strongest negative association with couple satisfaction, followed by behavioral jealousy, and finally, emotional jealousy.

Similarly, Imamoglu and Yasak (1997) investigated the marital satisfaction of the husbands’ and the desire of wives’ for sexual possessiveness, degree of socioeconomic development, and relations with the extended family were found to be significant predictors of wives’ marital satisfaction. Furthurmore husbands’ marital satisfaction was predicted by the wives’ satisfaction and husbands’ relations with the extended family. Factor analysis generated four factors: Degree of socioeconomic development, harmonious relations with the extended family, marital satisfaction and desire for sexual possessiveness. The frequency of self-selected marriages increased with higher SES and decreased with the length of marriage, suggesting a trend toward modernism.

Another, Attridge (2013), confirmed a hypothesis from the Emotion-in-Relationships conceptual model, which predicts that the potential for jealousy is created when there exists greater interdependence or closeness between relationship partners. The study also wanted to better define the positive features of romantic jealousy in addition to its more negative features. Questionnaires were completed by college students qho were in premarital relationships (N = 229), that include the 27 different measures and the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale. The data was obtained from 122 cases at 3-month continuation. Each jealousy scale was tested for relationship with demographic (age, sex, and race), person (life satisfaction, loneliness, romantic attachment styles, love styles, and romantic beliefs), and relationship (affective, closeness, and social exchange theory) constructs”. Results clearly differentiated the emotional/reactive jealousy as mostly “good” and cognitive/suspicious jealousy as “bad”.

Moreover, Denise, Richard, Lisa, Michael and John (2015), inspected the interpretation of people about the minor relationship transgressions’ influence on the well-being of a relationship. It is suggested that visualizing the transgression of a relationship from a perspective of third person visual perspective stimulates people to think of the chronic relationship beliefs and goals. People who show anxious attitude towards their relationship become more insecure, while less anxious individuals find comfort. People with high level of anxiety about their relationship will made less positive evaluations of their relationships when picturing the event using a third-person perspective.

Davis and Mann (1987), used a sample of seventy heterosexual undergraduate couples to test the effectiveness of the new measures developed by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) of six of Lee’s (1973) basic love styles that were developed to predict individual and couple relationship qualities. The six love styles i.e Eros, Storge, Pragma, Ludus, Agape and Mania were related to six aspects of relationship quality that includeViability, Intimacy, Care, Passion, Satisfaction and Conflict/Ambivalence, that were derived from Davis & Todd’s (1982, 1985) work on friendship and love relationships. The pattern of relations present among love styles was consistent across the gender. Eros and Agape showed a positive relation to individual reports of relationship qualities, and Ludus showed negative relation. Mania was found to be positively related to the Passion. The results were supportive of Lee’s theory for these love styles i.e. Eros, Agape, Ludus and Mania, but not supportive for Storge and Pragma. Couples showed significantly similarity in all love styles except Pragma and Mania. Absolute differences that are reported between couple members in specific love styles were found to be related to relationship quality measures for Eros, Agape and Ludus. Prediction of lower Intimacy and Viability (for women) and Care (for men) were found as a result of Agape discrepencies. Eros discrepancies were found to be prediction of generally poorer relationships for women, and Ludus discrepancies were prediction of generally poorer relationships for men.

Similarly, Hendrick, Susan, Hendrick, Adler and Nancy (1988), studied on a variety of relationship measures among fifty-seven dating couples. The primary interest was of interrelations among love attitudes and relationship satisfaction. Though, there was one subsample of couples, for whom sexual attitudes, self-esteem, self-disclosure, commitment, investment, and relationship continuation/termination were also taken in to study. Partners showed a similarity on a variety of measures that include several love attitudes, disclosure, investment, commitment, and relationship satisfaction. Some of the love attitudes were associated with the satisfaction, but several other measures e.g., commitment, investment, self-esteem, and self-disclosure were also important correlates of the satisfaction.

Price and Clovis (2005), investigated the most evident marital anxieties of elementary and secondary public school teachers because of their occupation, and they also desire to create a stress inventory to help the employed married teachers of the Chicago public School in the professional counseling and guidance. They used a Likert-type scale that was based on items from the Teacher Concerns Inventory (TCI) and the Abbreviated Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI). The population sample included 48 elementary and secondary public school teachers in the Chicago Public School System who were administered the TCI and MSI. Results revealed a significant but low correlation between occupational stress and marital satisfaction among the participants.

Moreover, Vangelisti and Daly (1997), found that the similar standards of romantic relationships is founded among the men and women, but it was also founded  that it is more likely reported from the women that their standards are not being met by their partners.

Another, Bouchard, Lussier and Sabourin (1999), used the five factor model of personality to investigate that how much the personality traits contribute to the marital adjustment. The sample that was selected comprised of the 446 couples that complete the Neo-Five Factor personality inventory that measures the personality traits i.e. neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness. Dyadic adjustment scale was also completed by the sample. Results from the hierarchical regression analysis showed that the self-reported personality traits were significantly predict the self-reported marital adjustment. Personality traits were found to predict the marital adjustment.

Similarly, Murray and colleagues (2000), proposed that partners who give positive regard to one another might be in a superior position that those partners sustain intimacy in their relationship. They showed that people define the level of weakness in their relationship, to some degree, on the basis of how positively they believe their partner perceives them. Expressions of the positive feelings from the partner contribute uniquely to partner’s daily experience of intimacy (Lippert & Prager, 2001).

Likewisw, Amato and DeBoer (2004), used the national, longitudinal data for the intergenerational diffusion of marital instability from 2 generations to assess the explanation from these 2 generations, one explanation was based on the skills in relationship and the other based on marital commitment. Offspring would see their own marriages end in the divorce if their parents had a divorce. Offspring who had maritally distressed parents who were in continuously married relationship, those offspring did not have a higher risk of divorce. If parents reported a low, rather than a high, level of discord, then the divorce was most likely to be transmitted across generations. These results, along with other findings from the study, proposed that offspring who have divorced parents have a higher risk of viewing their own marriages end in divorce because these offspring possess a relatively weak commitment to the norm of lifelong marriage.

Indifferent to others, Kurdek (2005), found the differences between husbands and wives (N= 526 couples at the first assessment) on the growth curves over the first 4 years of marriage for psychological distress, marriage specific appraisals, spousal interactions, social support, and marital satisfaction. He also assessed the strength of intraspouse links and cross-spouse links that involved the initial assessment of the first four variables and the growth curve for marital satisfaction and differences between spouses that were regulated for divorce against spouses that were in stable marriages on the growth curves for all the five variables. On the basis of evidence of result that inter-spouse differences were largely non-significant, there was little support for this view that there are his and her varieties of the processes that affect marital outcomes.

Moreover, Quinn and Odell (2008) found that marital difficulties occur for many couples early in marriage. They proposed that there are approximately 21% of marriages that end within the first two years and 40% marriages that end by the fourth year. The consequences for individuals and their families after marital difficulties affect emotional well-being, financial stability, and child development. A sample that was selected include 93 couples that participated in a study in which data was collected on the marriage aspect at five intervals between one month and two years. It was concluded that during the first months, age, income, and education have found to put some impact on marital adjustment but this influence deteriorates in time. Examining results across the two year interval proposed that interpersonal trust, desired spousal behavior change, and emotional maturity are found to be highly associated with the marital adjustment. In general, marital processes of interpersonal trust and desired spousal behavior change at one month are the predictors of marital adjustment at two years.

Similarly, Lucas, Parkhill, Wendorf, Imamoglu, Weisfeld, Weisfeld, and Shen (2008), suggested that couples have set numerous culturally determined criteria to assess their satisfaction with one another. Though, evolutionary perspectives on marriage highlight that adaptive fitness is also a concern for husbands and wives, and this proposes that some features of marital satisfaction may be cross-culturally consistent. They inspected whether the marital satisfaction reveals both `culturally unique’ and `adaptively universal’ concerns of husbands and wives. Approximately 2000 couples from Britain, Turkey, China and the United States were selected that completed a multidimensional measure of marital satisfaction that they assessed for the measurement invariance. All four cultures show similarity in the measures of romantic love and spousal support, indicating the possibility of a universal pair-bonding component of marital satisfaction. However, invariant measurement structure was less healthy across these samples, proposing a culturally derived component of the marital satisfaction. In general, results suggest that in-variance analyses can be used to clarify cultural and evolutionary perspectives on marriage.

Likewise, Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson and Collins (2011), confirms that if an individual has partner who is better at recovering the conflict is related with experiencing more positive relationship emotions and greater relationship satisfaction. There are many of evidences that demonstrate the consequence of how the partners talk to one another and how they manage their problem-solving efforts (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000).

Moreover, Derrick, Griffin, Holmes and Murray (2015), suggested a new equilibrium model of relationship maintenance. A relationship bonds can be protected if a person practice 3 threat-mitigation rules i.e. Trying to helpful when a partner is hurtful, guaranteeing mutual dependence, and withstand devaluing a partner who hinder one’s personal goals. Evidence for this model was revealed by the longitudinal study of newlyweds, such that relationship well-being as referred by satisfaction and commitment, decreasing from its usual state predicted increase in a threat-mitigation; in order, increase in threat mitigation from its usual state predicted increase in relationship well-being. Longitudinal findings further discovered adaptive advantages to uncertain trust. First, the match between trust and partner-risk predicted the path of threat mitigation over time. People became more likely to mitigate threats over 3 years who hesitated to trust a high-risk partner, but people who show hesitation to trust a safe partner, they became less likely to mitigate threats. The match between the threat mitigation and partner-risk also predicted when being less trusting destroy the later relationship well-being. Namely, when women paired with high-risk partners became more likely to mitigate threats, being less trusting at marriage lost its capacity to erode later relationship well-being.

Rationale       

            The importance of this study is to determine the relationship between the Trust, Possessiveness and marital quality. Trust  reveal positive marital relationship. It is also seen that over possessiveness can cause marital distress. Marital satisfaction demands partners mutual response towards one another’s needs. Relationship satisfaction and stability depend on partners being mutually responsive to one another’s needs (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). .Lack of trust and over possessiveness can lead ways to marital distress, separation and divorce. Jealousy is associated with greater dissatisfaction with the relation­ship in general (Anderson, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995; Guerrero & Eloy, 1992) and with sexual aspects of the relationship in particular (Hansen, 1983; Pines & Aronson, 1983). Marital dissatisfaction is now a days a major issue in our country, because there is a lack of trust and the possessiveness is so high. These factors cause conflicts and results in divorce. Trust is certainly one of the most desired qualities in any close relationship. It is often mentioned in conjunction with love and commitment as a cornerstone of the ideal relationship (C. Hendrick & S. Hendrick,1983).This study will find the factors behind these issues that results in marital dissatisfaction. Implications and suggestions would be given to get over these conflicts and how to make a healthy relationship.

 Objective of the study

  • The objective of the study is to investigate the relationship between the Trust, Possessiveness and Marital Quality.

 Hypothesis

  • There is likely to be a positive relationship between Trust and Marital Quality.
  • There is likely to be a negative relationship between possessiveness and Marital Quality.

Chapter III

Method

3.1 Research Design

Correlations research design was used in the present study to assess the relationship between Trust, Possessiveness and Marital quality.

3.2 Sample

The sample comprised of 120 married men and women (n=60 men and n=60 women). Convenient sampling technique was used to collect the data form men and women.

  • 3.2.1 Inclusion criteria

Duration of marriage not more than five years.

  • 3.2.2 Exclusion criteria

Separated partners were excluded

Operational definitions

            Following are the operational definitions of the variables.

  • Trust

Deutsch (1973) has defined trust as “confidence that one will find what is desired from another, rather than what is feared.”

  • Possessiveness

Possessiveness refers to a constellation of attitudes,feelings,and behaviors that seek to initiate and maintain control over the actions of other person in a relationship (Peele & Brodsky, 1976).

  • Marital Quality

Relationship satisfaction and stability depend on partners being mutually responsive to one another’s needs (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004).

Assessment measures

  1. Demographic information questionnaire
  2. Trust in close relationships scale
  3. Possessiveness in intimate relationships scale
  4. Couples satisfaction index
  • Demographic questionnaire

            A Demographic information questionnaire consisting of items will be used to assess the demographic variables such as age, gender, number of  siblings,birth order , family system (nuclear, joint),education, profession, residence, monthly income, education of spouse, employment status of spouse, birth order of spouse, type of marriage, no. of children, and opinion about marriage.

  • Trust in Close Relationships

Trust in Close Relationships ( Rempel & Holmes,1985), A 17-item measure designed to assess levels of trust in one’s relationship partner.Each item is answered based on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).The reliability of the scale is 0.81.

  • Possessiveness

The Possessiveness Scale ( Rodger and Holmes, 1984 ) is a 21-item self-report measure of possessiveness in intimate relationships.Test-retest reliability of scale is 0.85.

  • Marital Relationship

The Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge 2007). A 32-item scale designed to measure one’s satisfaction in a relationship. The scale has a variety of items with different response scales formats. The authors have also specified that the scale safely be shrunk to either a 16-item format or even a 4-item format depending on a researcher’s needs.

3.4   Procedure

Questionnaires were retrieved from the available sources. No authority letter was used to collect data. After finalizing the questionnaire, the questionnaires were distributed on the sample of men and women that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The instructions were given to the participants that the purpose of my research. The participants were given demographic information questionnaire (DIQ),Trust in close relationships scale, possessiveness in intimate relationships scale, couples satisfaction index. However, it was assure that anonymity and confidentiality was to be kept and maintain by all mean. All the participant were belonged from different areas of Lahore and Sargodha to participate in the study. The consent form along with questionnaire was administered on each participant. Step by step instructions were given to the participant. It took them 15 to 20 minutes to complete them. Some participant took more time while completing the questionnaire. After completing, the questionnaires were taken back and participants were thanked for cooperation .Overall 120 questionnaires were distributed. The sample was 120. After collecting the responses, the data was scored and analyzed by using statistical techniques and SPSS version 20 was used.

3.5 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations were as follows.

  • Prior permission for the use was sought from respective authors.
  • Informed consent was taken from concerned married men and women and they were briefed about the research.
  • Anonymity of the participants and confidentiality of the data was maintained.
  • Participants were given the right to withdraw at any part of the research.

The descriptive statistics of demographic variables are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Descriptive statistics of Demographic Variables (N = 120).

CharacteristicsF%M(SD)
Age27.4(3.57)
Gender   
Male6050%
Female6050%
Family System                        
Nuclear7764.2%
Joint4335.8%
Education
Monthly income64182.6(28015.8)
Type of Marriage
Arrange7764.2%
By-choice1210.0%
Both3125.8%
Marriage duration2.73(.961)
Education of Spouse3.53(1.46)
No.of children1.35(.569)
Residence
Own10688.3%
Rented1411.7%
CharacteristicsF%M(SD)
Birth order of spouse2.62(1.13)
Siblings of spouse3.37(1.34)
Opinion about marriage   
It should be fully arranged1411.7%
It should be fully by-choice75.8%
Both9982.5%

Chapter IV

Results

The results of the current study are presented for Trust, Possessiveness and Marital quality traits in married people. The data was analyzed in four key steps. In the first step, reliability analysis was conducted for each scale and Cronbach’s alpha for the scales were reported. In the second step, Pearson product moment correlation was employed to assess the relationships among the study variables and in the third step, independent sample t-test was conducted. In fourth step simple linear regression was conduction for prediction. Finding of all analysis and summary of findings were discussed in this chapter.

4.1 Reliability Analysis

Reliability coefficients of the scale used in the present study are shown in Table 4.1

Table 4.1

Reliability coefficients of the Scales used in the Present Study (N=132).

Range
VariablesKαPotentialActual
Trust

Possessiveness

Marital Quality

17

21

16

.8

.5

.9

    17-119

21-105

16-80

     49-103

39-78

24-71

Note. k = No. of items, α = Cronbach’s alpha

Table 4.1 showed the reliability of the corresponding scales. Trust scale has .8 value of reliability and marital quality scale has .9 value, it is very good value of reliability. Possessiveness scale has good reliability of value .5.

4.2 Main Analysis

It was hypothesized that trust and possessiveness are likely to have a relationship with marital quality. Trust is likely to have positive relation with the marital quality. Possessiveness is likely to have negative relation with marital quality. Pearson product moment correlation analysis was conducted to assess the relationships as shown in Table 4.2.

Results in table 4.2 showed that age has significant negative relation with trust and marital quality. Whereas education, monthly income and education of spouse has negative significant relation with possessiveness. Education of spouse has significant positive relation with trust and marital quality. Trust has positive significant relation with marital quality. Possessiveness has negative significant relation with marital quality. Results support our hypothesis.

4.3 Additional Analysis

Independent Samples t-Test and One-way Anova was conducted as additional analysis as shown in Table 4.3.1

Table 4.3.1

Independent Samples t-Test for Gender and Marital Quality (N=120).

VariablesMales

(n=60)

Females

(n=60)

Cohen’s            d
 95% CI
MSDMSDtpLLUL
Marital quality     42.113.9 60.5   11.1-8.0

 

.000

 

-23.0-13.9  1.4

Note. M= Mean. SD= Standard deviation, CI= Confidence Interval

Independent samples t-test was conducted to find the difference between males’ and females’ marital quality. The test was significant. Cohen’s d showed that there is large effect size. The means interpret that marital quality is more prevalent in females than males.

Table 4.3.2

Independent Samples t-test marital quality and residence (N=120).

VariablesOwn  (n=106)Rented

(n=14)

Cohen’s d
 95% CI
MSDMSDtpLLUL
Residence53.215.137.412.1      3.8.027.524.1     1.1

Note. M= Mean. SD= Standard deviation, CI= Confidence Interval

Independent samples t-test was conducted to find the difference among marital quality and residence. The test was significant. Cohen’s d showed that there is large effect size. It was interpreted that own residence has more prevalence for marital quality.

Table 4.3.3

Independent Samples t-test marital quality and family system (N=120).

VariablesNuclear  (n=77)Joint

(n=43)

Cohen’s d
 95% CI
MSDMSDtPLLUL
Family System50.116.553.613.8      -1.2.01-9.52.3     0.2

Note. M= Mean. SD= Standard deviation, CI= Confidence Interval

Independent samples t-test was conducted to find the difference among marital quality and family system. The test was significant for family system. Cohen’s d showed that there is small effect size. It was interpreted that joint family system has more prevalence for marital quality.

Table 4.3.4

One-way Anova was conducted for marriage type and marital quality.

Arrange

( n=77)

By-choice

(n=12)

Both

( n=31)

VariablesM                 S.DM                   S.D   M            S.DFp2
Marital Quality49.7           16.4 42.8                  8.6 58.6           13.06.050.00    .093

Note. M= Mean. SD= Standard deviation.

Results from table 4.3.4 showed that there is significant difference among marriage types for marital quality. It is interpreted that “both” has high prevalence for marital quality. The value of the eta-square showed that 9.3% variance is attributable to the differences among type of marriage.

Table 4.4

Simple linear regression analysis predicting marital quality

VariablesMarital quality
 βSE95%CI
Trust .83***.05[.69 – .87]
Possessiveness-.08.09[-.31 – .03]
F

R2

177.9***

.753

Note. N = 120, R2 = R Square, CI = Confidence Interval. *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .0

Results from table 4.5 showed that trust is significant predictor of marital quality and possessiveness is not a predictor of marital quality.

Summary of the Findings:

Correlation analysis interpreted that trust has significant positive relation with marital quality i.e. it is consistent with the hypothesis. Possessiveness was found to has significant negative relation with the marital quality i.e. it is also consistent with the hypothesis. Moreover it was found that age has significant negative relation with trust and marital quality. Whereas education, monthly income and education of spouse has negative significant relation with possessiveness. Education of spouse has significant positive relation with trust and marital quality. Results from t-test interpreted that females have high marital satisfaction than males and those who have joint family system and possess their own residence showed a high level of marital satisfaction than those who have nuclear and rented residence. It was also interpreted from Anova analysis that people who fall in category of “both” marriage type showed a high level of marital satisfaction. Regression analysis interpreted that trust is a significant predictor of marital quality but possessiveness is not a predictor of marital quality.

Chapter V

Discussion

The present study was conducted on the Trust, Possessiveness and marital quality. Marital dissatisfaction is now a days a major issue in our country, because there is a lack of trust and the possessiveness is so high. These factors cause conflicts and results in divorce. Trust is certainly one of the most desired qualities in any close relationship. If one partner trusts other partner, it will result in good marital quality.Trust is often mentioned in conjunction with love and commitment as a cornerstone of the ideal relationship. Possessiveness is now a days consider as a factor that is the reason of dissatisfaction with the relation. This study will find the factors behind these issues that results in marital dissatisfaction. Marriage is a social responsibility and commitment of a male with a female to spend their whole life with each other. It is most important, most institutionalized interpersonal relationship in people’s lives.Trust is seen as a prerequisite for married partners to open their marriage to their full potential for personal and interpersonal growth Possessive jealousy can have a harmful impact on general and relationship satisfaction, when occurring often, in high levels.

It was hypothesized that the trust has a significant positive relationship with the marital quality. These researches are also consistent with the hypothesis. Trust was as a significant predictor of marital satisfaction for single career couples, dual-career couples and for the whole sample respectively (Mohsin, et, al., 2013). Interpersonal trust, desired spousal behavior change, and emotional maturity are found to be highly associated with the marital adjustment (Quinn & Odell, 2008). . Moreover, trust mediated the relationship between depression and marital satisfaction in those women who had experienced a betrayal. In men who had experienced a betrayal, trust was found to predict the marital satisfaction but not depression (German, 2008). Measures of the relational trust showed significantly more strong relation with relationship quality and commitment, whereas measures of global trust showed slightly more strongly relation to indices of personality and emotion (Couch & Jones, 1997). Result from the correlation showed that trust has a significant positive relation with the marital quality. Result is consistent with the researches are our hypothesis is approved.

It was also hypothesized that Possessiveness has a significant negative relationship with marital quality. These researches are consistent with the hypothesis. Cognitive jealousy exhibits the strongest negative association with couple satisfaction, followed by behavioral jealousy, and finally, emotional jealousy (Guerrero & Eloy 1992). Jealousy can have a harmful impact on general and relationship satisfaction, when occurring often, in high levels, or in response to baseless or imagined situations (Guerrero, et al.,). Barnett and colleagues (1995) found that one’s jealousy (as defined by anxious jealousy, sexual jealousy, and general feelings stemming from relationship threats) was negatively linked with one’s marital satisfaction. Guerrero and Jorgensen (1991) similarly demonstrated individuals’ overall romantic jealousy to be negatively correlated with the stability of their marriage. Correspondingly, Bringle and Evenbeck’s (1979) research showed that husbands’ dispositional jealousy (measured as an overall character trait) was negatively associated with their marital outcomes. Result from the correlation showed that possessiveness has a significant negative relation with the marital quality. Result is consistent with the researches and the hypothesis is approved.

Conclusion

            So it can be concluded from the above discussion that trust is the major component in the spousal relationship, the stronger the level of trust there would be greater satisfaction between the partners. Possessiveness reflects the negative side, the greater the possessiveness, there would be less satisfaction between the partners.

Limitations

  • There were several limitations in the study, which are discussed below.
  • Time was limited for the data collection.
  • Sample was taken only from two cities, so this factor may limit to generalization of the results.
  • Sample was composed of only couples livings together therefore the findings may not be applicable to the couples who are living partially separate due to job or other work related reasons.
  • Conditions under which the scales were administered were not ideal because distracting variable were not controlled which might affect the responses of the participants.

Suggestions

  • There would be certain suggestions for future researches.
  • The sample should be taken from the different cities of Pakistan.
  • Both partially separated and living together couples should be taken, so that the results can be applicable to the population.
  • Lectures on the trust and possessiveness should be arranged to build more trust and less possessiveness among their relationships.
  • Building the trust in such away which can make their spousal relationship trustworthy and successful.

Implications

  •  The findings of the present research can be helpful in building trust and satisfaction among the newly married couples.
  • The current research will prove to be effective for those who are interested in investigating the relationship of trust, possessiveness and spousal relationship among the newly married couples.

Also Study:

The Correlation Between Personality Traits, Conflict Resolution Styles and Relationship Quality Among Married Couples

References;
  • Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14(3), 176-188.
  • Barelds, D. P. H., & Dijkstra, P. (2006). Reactive, anxious and possessive forms of jealousy and their relation to relationship quality among heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 183-198.
  • Barry, W. A. (1970). Marriage research and conflict: An integrative review. Psychological             Bulletin73(1), 41.
  • Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (2004). Measuring close­ness: The Relationship Closeness Inventory revisited. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy, 81-102. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment: Utility of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 651-660.
  • Bringle, R. G. (1991). In P.Salovey (Ed.), Psychological aspects of jealousy: transactional model.
  • Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics         in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2),  346-361.
  • Buunk, B. P. (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: An exchange-theoretical perspective. The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 148-177). New York, NY:     Guilford.
  • Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to various types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6), 997-1006.
  • Daly, M., Wilson, M. I., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology & Sociobiology, 3(1), 11-27.
  • Derrick, J. L., Griffin, D. W., Holmes, J.G., & Murray, S.L. (2015). A new Equilibrium Model of Relationship Maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 93–113.
  • Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
  • Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.
  • German, N. M. (2008). Depression and marital adjustment.
  • Guerrero, L.K., Spitzberg, B.H., & Yoshimura, S.M. (2004). Sexual and Emotional Jealousy. In J.H. Harvey, S. Sprecher, and A. Wenzel (Eds.),The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships (pp. 311-345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1983). Liking, loving and relating. Monterey, CA  Brooks/Cole.
  • Imamoglu, E. O., & Yasak, Y. (1997). Dimensions of marital relationships as perceived by Turkish husbands and wives. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs123(2), 211-232.
  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.New York Wiley.
  • Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic Trust Scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42. 595 604.
  • Marigold, D. C., Eibach, R. P., Libby, L. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). Framin memories of relationship transgressions How visual imagery perspective activates relational knowledge. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
  • Nakonezny, P. A., & Denton, W. H. (2008). Marital relationships: A social exchange theory             perspective. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(5), 402-412.
  • Pazak, S. J. (1998). Predicting sexual satisfaction and marital satisfaction. ProQuest Information & Learning). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58(11), 6244-6244.
  • Quinn, W. H., & Odell, M. (1998). Predictors of marital adjustment during the first two years. Marriage & family review27(1-2), 113-130.
  • Reis, H. T., Clark,M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D.Mashek, & A. P. Aron(Eds.),Handbook of closeness and intimacy, 201–225. Mahweh,   NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology49(1), 95.
  • Rodger P. Pinto and James G. Hollandsworth, Jr. (1984). A Measure of Possessiveness in Intimate Relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2(3), 273-279.
  • Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,    35, 1-7.
  • Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., & Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in Intimate Relationships. A Comparison of Married and Dating College Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence3(4), 414-429.
  • Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social exchange and behavioral interdependence. In R. L. Burgess & T. L.Huston, Social exchange in developing relationships.New York: Academic Press.
  • Singh, T. B. (2012). A social interactions perspective on trust and its determinants. Journal of Trust Research, 2(2), 107-135.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *