INTRODUCTION:

People marry for many reasons, but usually for legal, social, and economic stability, procreation, nurturing of children, legitimizing sexual relations, and public declaration of love (Marriage-Wikipedia).

Young adulthood is the time of life when many people begin to get involved in intimate relationships. They tend to start thinking about the future in terms of love, marriage, and children.

The expectations one holds about these events affect the manner in which they are approached. There are many factors that may influence one's expectations for these events. Research on marital relationships has examined the role of gender, age, and experience with divorce and cohabitation in affecting one’s attitudes and expectations toward marriage.

Marital adjustment is difficult to conceptualize and measure through empirical research. After more than half a century of conceptualization about and research on marital adjustment, the best that can be said may be that there is disagreement among scholars about the concept, the term, and its value (Lively 1969; Donohue and Ryder 1982; Trost 1985).

According to Akers-woody (2004) positive parental and family dynamics are related to more positive attitude to marriage. Attitudes towards marriage are influenced by many other factors in society, such as divorce, culture, and religion. Therefore, it is not surprising that attitudes toward marriage can be both positive and negative depending on the experience of the individual.

Larson, Benson, Wilson, and Medora (1998) and Valerian, (2000) found that negative factors, such as substantial parental conflict and low parental happiness are both related to more negative attitudetowards marriage among their children. According to Amato (1996), adult children who have divorced parents are more prone to problems, conflict, unstable relationships and a lack of trust within their own relationships.

Tejpreet, and Bawa (1999) revealed that both males and females had positive attitudes towards marriage, there was no difference. The researchers went deeper into the attitudes of the participants toward marriage, stating that 60% of males and 37% of females felt that they will lose their independence after getting married. Amongst males and females 55% and 77% respectively, want to get married for emotional security, while, 95% of males and 87% of females want to get married to satisfy the feeling of fatherhood and motherhood respectively.

Shurts, and Myers (2011) stated that even though the family has been found to be the most influential mechanism where individual's attitudes, values, and morals towards marriage and relationships are formed; there have also been many other contributing factors that have found to be just as influential as the family. Research has been conducted to find out the other influential factors; these included, friends (Bourgeois and Bowen, 2001), the mass media (Segrin and Nabi, 2002) and social institutions such as schools, religious and non-religious organization (Thomsen, and Rekve, 2003).

These findings explained about the marital dissatisfaction, family conflict, children adjustments problems, depression among the couples, increasing divorce rate and also increasing the psychiatric disorders due to unrealistic expectations about marriage, less preparedness for marriage and also maladjustment towards the marital life. The researcher has noticed that the children of alcoholic parents would first prefer or strongly expect a spouse to be a teetotaller or non-alcoholic. For these reasons the researcher selected a study of marital expectations about marriage among college students and it suggests the importance of developing the marital adjustment for unmarried students especially who are in less preparedness to adjustment for marriage.

OBJECTIVES:

1 To assess the marital expectations among unmarried college students.

2 To compare the marital expectations of unmarried male and female college students.

3 To find out the association between the marital expectations and selected demographic variables (age, gender).

METHOD:

The descriptive research design was adopted for this study. The study was conducted on a sample of 200 male and female Post Graduate final year students were able to talk and read Tamil / English, willing to participate in the study were included. Students from other countries were excluded. The following tools were used for collection of data.

Tool - i. Demographic variables include age, gender, family income, residence, type of family and religion.

Tool - ii. Rating scale to assess the marital expectations of unmarried male and female college students. The rating scale comprised of 35 statements under four headings that are physiological well-being, self-concept, role function and interdependence to assess the marital expectations, each statement was rated on a 4-point scale: Much more, More, Less, Much less and each was measured by numerical value 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The total score of a subject ranges from 30-140. The data was collected after the permission from concern authorities of the selected colleges. Descriptive and inferential statistics (Chi-square) were used to compute the data.

RESULTS:

Table-1: Frequency and percentage distribution of demographic data of college students N=200

S. No.

Demographic Variables

F (%)

Age in years

a) 20-23

b) 24-27

c) 28-31

154 (77)

43 (21.5)

3 (1.5)

Gender

a) Male

b) Female

100 (50)

Residence

a) Urban

b) Rural

105 (52.5)

95 (47.5)

Type of family

a) Nuclear

b) Joint

c) Broken

119 (59.5)

71 (35.5)

10 (5)

Family income per month

a) Less than 6000

b) 6000-10,000

c) Above 10,000

40 (20)

79 (39.5)

81 (40.5)

Religion

a) Hindu

b) Christian

c) Muslim

139 (69.5)

53 (26.5)

8 (4)

The above table reveals that 77% of the students were at the age group of 20-23 years and male and female students were equal in number of 50%. Regarding residence, 52.5% of the samples were from urban and 59.5% were from nuclear family. 40.5% of the students’ family income was above Rs. 10, 000 and majority 69.5% of them belongs to Hindu religion.

Table-2: Item analysis of marital expectations in physiological well-being N = 200

S.No	Physiological well being	Much more (compulsory)	Much less (minimal expectations)
S.No	Marital Expectations	F (%)	F (%)
1.	Spousewith dark complexion.	12 (6)	38 (19)
2.	Spouse with good personality.	96 (48)	7 (3.5)
3.	Spouse who takes care during illness and pregnancy.	140 (70)	14 (7)

Regarding, marital expectations in physiological well-being 140 (70%) of the unmarried college students strongly expected a spouse who would take care during pregnancy and illness, and 96 (48%) of them compulsorily expecteda spouse with the good personality. 38 (19%) of the samples had minimal expectations of a spouse with dark complexion.

Table-3: Item analysis of marital expectations in self-concept

N = 200

S. No	Self concept	Much more (compulsory)	Much less (minimal expectations)
S. No	Marital expectations	f (%)	f (%)
1.	Spouse without any bad habits.	105 (52.5)	42 (21)
2.	Spouse with honesty and openness.	134 (67)	2 (1)
3.	Spouse to admire.	61 (30)	10 (5)
4.	Spouse who maintains general happiness.	110 (55)	4 (2)

The above table represents the level of marital expectations in self-concept, majority 134 (67%) of the students compulsorily expected the spouse with honesty and openness, while 110 (55%) of them strongly expected the spouse who maintains general happiness and 61 (30%) of them compulsorily expected the spouse to admire. 105 (52.5%) of the samples had a much more expectation about the spouse without any bad habits.

Table-4: Item analysis of marital expectations in role function

N = 200

S. No	Role function	Much more (compulsory)	Much less (minimal expectations)
S. No	Marital expectations	f (%)	f (%)
1.	Spouse with government job	33 (16.5)	62 (31)
2.	Spouse who disciplines the Children	104 (52)	2 (1)
3.	Spouse who spends time with children.	117 (58.5)	1 (0.5)
4.	Spouse who discuss family problems	122 (61)	2 (1)

The above table indicates the level of marital expectation in role function, majority 122 (61%) of the subjects expected much more the spouse who discusses family problems, and 117(58.5%) of them compulsorily expected spouse who spends time with children and. Majority 62 (31%) of the samples had minimal expectations for a spouse with the government job.

Table-5: Item wise analysis of marital expectations in interdependence N = 200

S. No	Interdependence	Much more (compulsory)	Much less (minimal expectation)
S. No	Marital expectations	f (%)	f (%)
1.	Prefers love marriage	52 (26)	43 (21.5)
2.	Prefers spouse who has involvement in religious activities	53 (26.5)	20 (10)
3.	Spouse who take care of their family	135 (67.5)	1 (0.5)

The above table represents the level of marital expectations in interdependence, majority 135 (67.5%) of the students compulsorily expected the spouse should take care of their family also and 53 (26.5%) of them expected the spouse should involve in religious activities. 52 (26%) of them had a more preference for love marriage.

Table-6: Mean, standard deviation and mean score percentage of marital expectations N = 200

S.No	Area of marital expectations	Max. possible score	Marital expectation score		Mean score %
S.No	Area of marital expectations	Max. possible score	Mean	SD	Mean score %
1.	Physiological well being	20	15	2.08	75.00
2.	Self-concept	24	19	2.94	79.17
3.	Role function	40	31	3.35	77.00
4.	Interdependence	56	43	5.50	81.00
Overall		140	108	13.87	77.00

The maximum possible score of physiological well-being was 20, self-concept was 24, role function is 40, interdependence 56 and overall was 140. The mean score percentage of marital expectations on physiological well-being was 75%, self-concept was 79%, role function was 77%, and interdependence was 81%. Overall marital expectations score was 108 with the SD of 13.87 and the mean score of 77%.

The bar diagram depicts the male and female mean score percentage and overall marital expectations.

DISCUSSION:

The results of the study indicated that, in physiological well-being, 70% (140) of the unmarried college students had much more expectations that the spouse should take care during pregnancy and illness. 48% (96) of them had much more expectation for a spouse with the good personality.The study results were supported bySandhya SJ (2013) revealed that 227 (29.79%) of respondents indicated that good nature is preferred, it is followed by education, family status, physical beauty and income. The respondents seem practical because good nature includes mutual understanding, kindness and love. Education generally assures a good job with better remuneration as well as it helps to fill up certain communication gap between the mates. Family status physical beauty income next in priority.

In this study 67% (134) of the samples compulsorily expected the spouse with honesty and openness, while 30% (61) of them compulsorily expected the spouse to admire. 52.5 % (105) samples that had much more expectation for a spouse without any bad habits. Majority 61% (122) of the students had a strong expectation that the spouseshould discuss their family problems. 67.5% (35) of the students compulsorily expected a spouse should take care of their family. 58.5% (117) of them compulsorily expected the spouse must spend time with children. The study findings were supported by Murstein BI, Reif JA, and Syracuse-siewert G. (2002) conducted a study on the comparison of the function exchange in couples of similar and differing physical attractiveness. The results revealed that couples perceived themselves as equal to their partners in attractiveness or as inferior. Although men compared to women, were more likely to agree with working full-time while their partner assumed primary childcare/household responsibilities. Females agreed more than males with traditional childcare attitudes. In the present study, both male and female college students were expected to spend time with their children.

The mean score of female marital expectations was greater than the male.Barich, R.R., and Bielby, D.D. (1999) conducted a study on change and stability in expectations. This study investigates the relationship between individual’s expectations for marriage and their beliefs about the social world. The study revealed the evidence of both stability and change in marriage expectations and that cultural notion of marriage differ for men and women.

Traditionally, Indian women were prepared for accepting marital roles like adapting according to in-laws value system, taking up voluntarily responsibility at in-laws home, to consider husband as God and accept his verdict as final, to accept restrictions on her own behavior. In today's dynamic world women's role expectations from society and role relations are also radically changing. She becomes more aware due to the influence of mass telecommunication and education (Duvall, 1977).

Tamil Nadu was home to the highest percentage of widowed/divorced or separated (WDS) individuals in India in 2010 (8.8%) according to the Registrar General of India's Sample Registration System 2010 data. Hence to have a healthy nation and family, the health professionals, the social workers and media have to make them understand the importance of marital adjustments. We need to prepare the young adults to have appropriate marital expectations.

CONCLUSION:

The findings of this study will help medical, nursing and health professionals toplan and implement health education program regarding marital adjustments. The study results help the psychologist to identify and provide counselling for couple with disharmony, mal adjustment and dissatisfaction with the marital life. In this modern society the media, friends, parents and other modalities are influencing the young adults to expect more regarding their marriage. Moreover woman is well educated, self-sufficient and they are financially independent which makes them to expect their companion should be adjustable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I immensely grateful to my researchguide, Dr. S. Maragatham, M.Sc (N)., M.Phil (N)., Ph.D., who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research and enlightened my path to complete this work systematically.

I would also like to show my gratitude and sincere thanks to my Clinical Specialty Guide Mrs. B. Devi Arul, M.Sc. (N)., for her guidance for the study.

REFERENCES:

1. Akers, woody. (2004). Attitude towards marriage and life satisfaction among mid adults The International Journal of Indian Psychology,3(3), 11.

2. Amato, P.R. (2000). The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children. Journal of Marriage and the Family,62, 1269-1287.

3. Barich, R.R., Bielby D.D. (1996). Rethinking marriage: change and stability in expectations, 1967-1994. Journal of Family Issues, 17(2), 139-69.

4. Bharsalchale, R. L. (2013). A study of marriage and adjustment among arts and science faculty students. Golden Research Thoughts, (2), 231-506

5. Botkin, D., Weeks, M., and Morris, J. (2000). Changing marriage role expectations: 1961– 1996. Sex Roles,42(9-10), 933-942.

6. Bourgeois, M. J., and Bowen, A. (2001). Self-organization of alcohol-related attitudes and beliefs in a campus housing complex: An initial investigation. Health Psychology, 20, 434-437.

7. Burton, L.M., Tucker, M.B. (2009). Romantic unions in an era of uncertainty: A post- Moynihan perspective on African American women and marriage. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 132–148.

8. Darla, R., Botkin, M., O'Neal Weeks Jeanette E., Morris. (2000) Changing Marriage Role Expectations Sex Roles, 42(9–10), 933–942.

9. Donohue, Kevin, C., and Robert, G., Ryder. (1982). A Methodological Note on Marital Satisfaction and Social Variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44,743–747.

10. Duvall, and Evelyn, M. (1977). Marriage and Family Development, 5^th ed. Philadelphia; Lippincott. Heidi, R., Riggio, Dana, A., and Weiser. (2008). Attitudes toward marriage: Embeddednessand outcomes in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, (1). 123-140.

11. Larson, J. H., Benson, M. J., Wilson, S. M., and Medora, N. (1998). Family of origin influences on marital attitudes and readiness for marriage in late adolescents. Journal of family issues, (6) 756-768.

12. Lively, and Edwin, L. (1969). Toward Concept Clarification: The Case of Marital Interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 108–114.

13. Marriage - Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

14. Murstein, B.I., Reif, J.A, and Syracuse-Siewert, G. (2002). Comparison of the function of exchange in couples of similar and differing physical attractiveness.Psychol. Rep., 91(1), 299-314.

15. Segrin, C., Taylor, M., and Altman, J. (2005). Social cognitive mediators and relational outcomes associated with parental divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 361-377.

16. Segrin and Nabi. (2002). Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage? Journal of communication, 52(2), 247–263.

17. Shurts, W. M., and Myers, E, J. (2011). Relationships among young adults’ marital messages received, marital attitudes and relationship self –efficacy. Adult Span Journal, 11(2), 97-111.

18. Smt. Sandhya, S.J. (2013). Socio-Economic Status and Physical Attractiveness in Mate Selection Choice.International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(10), (1ISSN) 2250-3153.

19. Tejpreet, K.K., and Bawa, S.K. (1999). Attitude of young adults towards marriage. Golden Research Thoughts, 30(1), 39-42.

20. Thomsen, S. R., and Rekve, D. (2003). The influence of religiosity on reaction to alcohol advertisements and current drinking among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Media and Religion, 2(2), 93-107.

21. Thorn, B., and Gilbert, L. (1998). Antecedents of work and family role expectations of college men. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(2), 259-267.

22. Trost, and Jan E. (1985). Abandon Adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1072–1073.

23. Valerian, A. V. (2000). The Relationship between the Family of Origin Processes and Attitudes towards Marriage and the Likelihood to Divorce among College Students. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 62 (9), 42-78.

Received on 16.08.2017 Modified on 12.10.2017

Asian J. Nursing Education and Research. 2018; 8(3): 324-328

DOI: 10.5958/2349-2996.2018.00064.2