Is spousal decision making a culturally situated phenomenon?

1035

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Base of text

Psychology & Marketing� 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vol. 17(12):1035–1058 (December 2000)

Top of text

Top of CT

Base of DF

Is Spousal Decision Makinga Culturally SituatedPhenomenon?Cynthia WebsterMississippi State University

ABSTRACT

The research reported here examines the underlying personalityantecedents for marital power in purchase decision making. Takingthe stance that spousal decision making is a culturally situatedphenomenon, the research was conducted in India, a culture vastlydifferent from the one in which the existing antecedents of powerwere established. Data were collected via participant observationand multiple, in-depth ethnographic interviews and analyzed by aconstant comparative method. Contrary to popular impression, thisarticle finds that Indian wives wield considerable decision-makingpower. Further, the findings reported here argue that that a spouse’spersonality traits will largely dictate his or her relative influence indecision making. � 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The social structure of a family consists of the positions members occupyin relation to each other. The most important aspect of family structureis the power positions of the members, particularly that of the spouses(Cromwell, Corrales, & Torsiello, 1973). The preponderance of the re-search effort in the marital power arena has been geared toward deter-mining who has greater relative influence in decision making and whoultimately makes decisions. These studies have assumed that the morepowerful spouse makes most of the decisions for the couple in a diverseset of situations (e.g., Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Davis, 1970; Sharp & Mott,1956; Webster, 1994). Other studies have focused on family decision

1036 WEBSTER

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

Top of textBase of text

Base of RF

processes or the interaction techniques, such as assertiveness, persua-sion, problem solving, or making demands, that individuals use in theirattempts to gain control (Cromwell & Olson, 1975; McDonald, 1980;Park, 1982; Spiro, 1983). This research has concentrated on assessingthe degree of conflict typical in family decision making, strategies ofconflict management, and spousal use of influence strategies within thehome.

There has been a scarcity of research, however, on the explanationsof marital power—the antecedents or reasons why one spouse is morepowerful or has greater influence than the other in decision making. Fordecades, three theories or concepts have primarily guided studies per-taining to marital power. The first one, resource theory, holds that thebalance of power will be on the side of that partner who contributesmore resources to the marriage (Blood & Wolfe, 1960). Rodman (1972)extended this concept when he posited that the relationship betweenresources and power is moderated by normative influences. For in-stance, in patriarchal cultures, such as India, wives cannot influencedecisions because the norms prevent them from doing so, regardless oftheir relative contributions of resources. The second theory, ideology,posits that the manner or content of thinking characteristic of a partic-ular culture will have a pervasive effect on individuals’ behavior. Forexample, the more one identifies with a patriarchal culture, the morehusband-dominant the decision making. Last, the least-interested-part-ner hypothesis holds that the least-interested spouse has less to lose ifthe relationship dissolves and will consequently have more power.

Although these established antecedents aid in our understanding ofmarital power, they appear to explain a nominal amount of the decision-making power phenomenon. For instance, with respect to resource the-ory, Allen and Straus (1984) found weak correlations between decisionpower and resources. Perlman (1989) found that dual-career and single-career couples did not differ in perceived power or in self-reported strat-egies for influencing spouses. Other studies have found that a wife’sresources, or the absence of them, do not justify more or less of herinfluence (Gauthier, Forsyth, & Bankston, 1993; Mirowsky, 1985;O’Connor, 1991). Even casual observations reveal many cases in whichcouples’ decision-making power is not explained by these concepts.

The inadequacy of the current theoretical base is even more apparentoutside the countries (mainly the United States) in which it was estab-lished. In particular, there is evidence that the Western theories do notfully explain the marital power patterns that can be found in a countrysuch as India. Contrary to the ideology and resource-in-cultural-contexttheories, for example, ethnographic studies indicate that Indian womenmay exercise considerable influence in both marital and community af-fairs even though norms are explicitly patriarchal (e.g., Bossen, 1975).Further, and contrary to Rodman’s (1972) resource theory in a culturalcontext, Lee and Petersen (1983) found that wives’ power in marriage

SPOUSAL DECISION MAKING 1037


shortstandard


Base of RF

is greater when they contribute substantially to subsistence produc-tion—even in patriarchal societies. Further, in patriarchal societies,lower-class females were often found to exercise unusual authority.These deviant cases of female dominance usually occurred when thefemale had the resources to free herself of dependence on the male (Aus-tin & Porter, 1980).

Perhaps Western theories are inadequate because marital decision-making is a culturally situated phenomenon that resists explanation bytheories and concepts that have been imported and applied in wholesalefashion. India is an interesting culture in which to explore the antece-dents of marital power because its social and intellectual grains operatein ways vastly different from those the West now takes for granted (Sa-berwal, 1983). For instance, unlike Western cultures, where the nuclearand neolocal family is both the ideological and factual norm, the jointfamily has been and continues to be an important element of the Indianculture (Kapadia, 1993). Also, the individualist philosophy of the Westis not totally embraced by Indians. Collectivism is still the preferredmodel, with various adjustments to individual desires. There is not any-thing in contemporary thought and practice in India to suggest that anindividualist framework will be incorporated into the Indian ethos(Ramu, 1989). Further, the literature on Indian familial or spousal re-lationships reveals an ongoing clash between traditionalism and mod-ernism. Although India, particularly its urban areas, is witnessing somesignificant changes in the economic and social status of women and thenature of household structure, the pull toward maintaining traditionremains quite strong. This tension between developing a more progres-sive element and maintaining what is desirable and acceptable in thetraditional context is nowhere more evident than in the case of changingwomen’s roles (Venkatesh, 1994).

The purpose for this study is to gain insight into the underlying rea-sons why a spouse—particularly an Indian wife—has more power orinfluence in purchase decision making. To meet this purpose, data werecollected via participant observation and in-depth interviews with cou-ples in different parts of India. Studying such phenomena in a culturesuch as India should facilitate the discovery of themes that might bemissed in a more familiar culture.

INDIAN FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS

The literature on Indian familial or spousal relationships may be en-capsulated in what appears to be two opposing themes. One theme, fol-lowing the dictates of pativratya,1 is that Indian households are patri-

1Pativratya means an unswerving and steadfast devotion of a wife to her husband.

1038 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

archal. The second declares that Indian females wield considerabledecision-making power.

The Pativratya Ideal

The ideology of pativratya is well known in the literature relating toHindu society. The androcentric ideology of pativratya dictates thatwomen be economically dependent on men, because property is inher-ited by and transmitted through male heirs. The family structure ispatriarchal; patrilineage is recognized and the residential pattern ispatrilocal (Dhruvarajan, 1988). The most universal model in terms ofkinship structure is the tridependent relationship. This model declaresthat from birth until marriage, a woman is under the protection of herfather; during married life, her husband; and during later years, herson (whether her husband is alive or not). These relationships will makeit impossible for a woman to be independent of male omnipresence intheory and practice, or to claim her own social space during her entirelife (Mines, 1988).

The ideal family type is joint. A woman ceases to be a member of herfamily of orientation and becomes a member of her husband’s familyafter an arranged marriage. She spends part of her life cycle in doublepowerlessness, subordinated not only to men but also to other womenat higher status stages of their own life cycles (Das Gupta, 1995; Visaria,1993). The relatively young wife is expected to follow household rulesmost scrupulously and it is not uncommon for her to be battered (Gupta,1981). She occupies a marginal status in this family until she has chil-dren, at which time she is gradually integrated into the family. As amother, she is in charge of training the next generation to abide by thetenets of this ideology.

Financial decisions are considered to be generally male dominated;however, a wife may be consulted if her husband chooses. A woman maygive her ideas to her husband in private and encourage him to presentthem to others as his own (Dhruvarajan, 1988). Even when she is en-gaged in outside employment, pativratya dictates that her paid work beconsidered part of her feminine obligations, thus nullifying the powerof economic resources as an instrument of change in her domestic status(Bharat, 1995; Ramu, 1989).

Scholars (e.g., Suppal, Roopnarine, Buesig, & Bennett, 1996) believethat the patriarchal nature of Indian society is steeped in historicalinjunctions laid out in the Laws of Manu and other Sanskrit texts suchas the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Upanishads, and Puranas. The leg-ends, myths, and moral fables in these sacred texts are translated intothe vernacular of different regions and frequently retold in the form ofdidactic tales, edifying poems, and in skits by village elders, grandpar-ents, and priests. Messages emanating from these tales and poems high-light traditional male–female role dichotomy, complete loyalty to the



shortstandard


Base of RF

husband, filial obligation, respect accorded to men and older membersof the society, and the interdependent nature of the community basedon customs of caste and class. They also point to penalties that mayaccrue due to failure to adhere to traditional beliefs. In short, the socialvalues and beliefs exemplified in the old texts have demarcated cultural,societal, and religious norms for the people of India for centuries andmost of the population appear to hold on to them.

The Nonpatriarchal Gender Relation Reality

Although patriarchy appears to be a self-evident component of Indiansociety, some anthropologists argue that the reality of social organiza-tion is much more complex than the simplistic unilineal model, whichundermines the impact of nonpatriarchal gender relations, overempha-sizes unilineal descent, and fails to effectively rank or evaluate societieswith mixed patriarchal features (Uberoi, 1995). For example, bothMcHugh (1989) and Mines (1988) state that Indians—including fe-males—demonstrate autonomy and the expression of individuated per-sonal goals, finding evidence for this in instances of rebellions againsthierarchical expectations and the depiction of oneself as an active agentin shaping the direction of one’s life course.

Although India is stereotyped as being an extremely male-dominantsociety, the preponderance of research declares that Indian females pos-sess considerable power in interpersonal relations. One group of studiesespouses that female relational and household power is a relatively re-cent occurrence due to changes taking place in India: industrialization,mass communication, urbanization and the ensuing social mobility, anincrease in educational and occupational status among women, confer-ment of political and property rights to women, and the general weak-ening of caste as a social force (Beteille, 1992; Nevadomsky, 1980). Sev-eral scholars believe that these factors have led to the alteration of thefamily structure and the transformation of familial interrelationships(e.g., Gupta, 1981; Nevadomsky, 1980; Sinha, 1984; Venkatesh, 1995;Wadley, 1976). However, it must be pointed out that these changes haveprimarily affected women and their families in certain urban contexts(especially the urban middle-class group, or career women, or educated/professional segments) (e.g., Conklin, 1988; Ruth & Commuri, 1998).There continues to be a lack of development among women in variousother social categories (e.g., urban poor, rural, and agrarian workers),primarily because of severe structural, cultural, and economic impedi-ments (Sinha, 1984; Venkatesh, 1994).

On the other hand, a second group of studies declares that Indianfemales have always had some degree of power. As Dhruvarajan (1988)stated, as giver of life and nurturer of children, the woman is alwaysrevered. According to Ramu (1987), the literary portrayal of Indian hus-bands as patriarchal in matters of domestic power is rather exagger-

1040 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

ated, although most husbands would like others to perceive it as such.She reports that a considerable number of wives have customarily ex-ercised influence in domestic decisions on critical matters, and theirhusbands, in turn, have always valued their opinions and guidance.Even female children often have substantial power in their family be-cause of the expectation they will marry into a family higher in statusthan their natal kin (Wadley, 1976). And even in lower-status familiesin which close-kin marriages are relatively common, women tend tohave a favorable position. They retain a comparatively high status anda considerable degree of independence because of the equal relationshipthat exists between their family and the groom’s family (Kapadia, 1993).

Other Indian scholars (i.e., Nayak & Donoghue, 1982) have arguedthat the seeming inequality of wives in public may mask the real powerthey wield in private. Indeed, Khatri (1996) found that Indian childrenperceive their mothers to have considerable decision-making power. An-other study found that although Indians say that husbands have theright to make important decisions and hold undisputed authority overtheir wives, there is, in fact, close consultation and bargaining in theexercise of domestic authority (Ramu, 1989). Thus, the literature onIndian familial relations maintains that although Indian society is gov-erned by the dictates of pativratya, Indian women have somehow es-tablished and maintained considerable decision-making power. Thisposes an interesting question: Why have Indian wives wielded consid-erable decision-making power in what has always been characterizedas a male-dominant society? It seems that personality, a construct notpreviously explored in relative influence studies, may be an importantfactor affecting power in purchase decision making. The following sec-tion details the ethnographic study that was done to explore this issue.

THE ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

Ethnographic research techniques were relied upon in this research tomeet two primary objectives: (a) to examine the applicability of the es-tablished theories and concepts of marital power in an Indian context,and (b) to identify and analyze emergent antecedents with the intentionof increasing current understanding of the determinants of maritalpower in decision making.

This research was approached with the desire to uncover and portraythe antecedents of marital power in decision making of Indian consum-ers from their perspective. During residency in India, the researcherlived in different Indian households that ranged from upper to lowerclass2 and from patriarchal to matriarchal with respect to dominance.

2Individuals were grouped into six social classes according to the Driver and Driver’s (1983) clas-sification scheme.



shortstandard


Base of RF

Although the researcher lived primarily in the south (Bangalore in thestate of Karnataka), data were also collected from the northwest (Ra-jasthan) and from the east (West Bengal). Because of prior study of therelevant languages (Hindi and Kannada) beforehand and the availabil-ity of a translator (for working with some of those in the lower social-class stratum), no language problems were encountered. Establishingrapport with family members in the households in which the researcherlived and with their guests and friends was relatively easy; however,some time and patience were required before the researcher perceivedshe was accepted and trusted.

The observations of spouses’ characteristics related to dominance orpower issues began immediately after the researcher became settled inthe first household. Observational data were collected in various situ-ations, such as in household and restaurant settings in which spousesdiscussed purchases and in retail settings, where the researcher posedas a shopper while listening to spouses discuss purchases. The obser-vations covered a wide range of decisions, such as those pertaining toautomobiles, wedding jewelry and saris, curtains, and food items. Dur-ing this time, emphasis was placed on the establishment of acquain-tances in neighborhoods and markets. These relationships would laterbe used for networking to obtain interviews. After a few weeks, inter-viewing began. Trustworthiness was enhanced by the rapport stemmingfrom the interviews, sustained contact, noticeably earnest intentions,and by becoming total immersed in the culture. The researcher lived asan insider with and among the populace; visiting households, attendingweddings, joining neighborhood gossip and tea sessions, and accompa-nying locals on shopping excursions and on physician and temple visits.As an indication of increased trust, invitations to visit homes and toaccompany residents on shopping, sightseeing, and errand trips wereextended to the researcher. Further, as time and trustworthiness pro-gressed, intimacy and referrals increased.

In addition to the data stemming from observations, data were alsocollected via in-depth interviews. The primary goal of the interviewswas to investigate the relative power or influence of the spouses withrespect to decision making and the antecedents of power or the lackthereof. Once rapport was established, marital power in a wide rangeof decisions was discussed. The decisions, based on previous research(e.g., Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Bonham, 1976), included items related toproduct purchases, finances (both orchestration and implementation),responsibility for household tasks and the caring and rearing of chil-dren, and the general lifestyle of the family (i.e., where to live, how tospend leisure time, etc.). Also stemming from past research (e.g., Crom-well & Olson, 1975; Lukes, 1974), various aspects of marital power werecovered as well. For instance, informants were asked about outcomepower (i.e., who made the decisions), manifest power (i.e., attempts atchange, conflicts, and strategies), and what they would have done (or

1042 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

failed to have done) in the absence of their spouses’ power or wishes.Loosely and informally interwoven in the interviews were questions re-lated to the reasons, explanations, or antecedents of the marital powerstructure.

To achieve the greatest possible validity and reliability, the inform-ants were rated on the following attributes, which have been shown tobe indicative of a good informant: (a) comfortable and unstrained in theinteractions, (b) not hurried, (c) generally open and truthful, (d) able toprovide solid answers with detail, (e) able to stay on the topic or relatedimportant issues, and (f) thoughtful and willing to reflect on what theyhave said (Dobbert, 1982). Data from a particular spouse were elimi-nated if the informant did not meet these criteria. However, this wasrare because of the extent of the researcher’s immersion in the partici-pants’ everyday lives. Usable observational and interview data resultedfrom 133 couples. In 23 cases where power issues were known and easilydiscussed, the couples were interviewed together. The other 110 coupleswere interviewed separately, with one spouse being interviewed im-mediately after the other. Privacy and cross-gender situations appearednot to be a problem. Further, observational data alone were collectedfrom 56 couples, and interview data alone were collected from 77spouses. Thus, observation and/or interview data were collected from atotal of 261 couples. Respondents were observed primarily in homes andshops and were interviewed in a variety of settings, such as homes,offices, restaurants, and outdoor benches. Each interview was tape-re-corded, and the transcriptions of those tapes resulted in a collection of923 pages. The database also included 441 pages of observational/fieldnotes and 194 photographs. Given the purposes of this research, amethod was used that facilitates the achievement of a balance betweenbeing overly restrictive (theory-laden) and overly permissive (theory-free). Interviews with informants began with “grand-tour” questions(Creswell, 1994) pertaining to their biographies and their experienceswith marital power in decision making (i.e., the decision or action takenhad the spouse been able to act alone, reactions of the partner to opin-ions, impediments to decisions, conflicts and strategies for effecting orpreventing decisions, etc.). Interviews were kept as loosely structuredas possible, allowing informants the freedom to broach topics in theirown ways and at their own paces. This method was considered mostappropriate for the objectives of this research, because it evokes richlytextured descriptions of reasons for marital power that otherwise mightbe dismissed or overlooked. Under these conditions, rapport developedrapidly, evidenced by the frankness with which informants divulgedintimate details of their experiences, attitudes, and thoughts. As themesemerged and as rapport with informants increased, it became possibleto use more probing questions to test and explore themes across inform-ants.



shortstandard


Base of RF

Content analysis was used to extract the plausible explanations forrelative influence in decision making. Analysis was not relegated to theend of the project, but formed an integral part of an ongoing project.The validity and reliability of each piece of observational and interviewinformation was assessed by examining its fit into the total body of data.As new data were collected, they were analyzed in the context of pre-viously gathered data and examined for points of similarity and con-trast. The constant comparison of new data to old occurred informallyduring interviews and more formally and exhaustively between inter-views. As themes emerged, they were used to guide, but not necessarilyrestrict, the foci of future interviews.

Analysis was an iterative process of coding, categorizing, and ab-stracting the data (McCracken, 1988). Data of apparent thematic sim-ilarity were identified throughout the field notes, highlighted, and codedwith key words or phrases. Coded data were compared and contrastedto yield a few broad categories that, through further sorting and clus-tering, were reduced to the more basic patterns that constitute the prin-cipal emergent themes.

Interpretations of the key analyst were periodically submitted to col-leagues of differing backgrounds (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989), who some-times challenged the interpretations or proposed alternatives, exposingthe analyst’s personal biases and leading to further scrutiny of the dataand literature. Selected conclusions were also submitted to the studyparticipants for their reactions. There was general assent to the plau-sibility of the interpretations. Complete agreement was deemed less im-portant than dialogue and a thorough reexamination of questioned con-clusions (Schouten, 1991).

Thus, where possible, techniques set forth by Lincoln and Guba(1985) (i.e., triangulation across sources, methods, and researchers) andWallendorf and Belk (1989) (i.e., independent audits), were used to de-velop more trustworthy interpretations. However, because ethno-graphic significance is derived socially, not statistically, from discerninghow ordinary people in particular settings make sense of the experi-ences of their everyday lives (Geertz, 1973), an attempt was made toavoid a preoccupation with method, as it alone is not sufficient to vali-date ethnographic research. Emphasis was also placed on insightfulnessby the use of Thompson’s (1990) explication of the gestalt experience,specifically conceptual gestalt.

ETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNT

This section reveals the personality or psychological antecedents of pur-chase decision-making power that emerged during the study.

1044 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

Aggressiveness

Observation and interview data revealed that the spouses who had con-siderably more power than their partners differed with respect to ag-gressiveness. Albeit perhaps rare, aggressive young wives were ob-served to have considerable decision-making power even in a joint orextended-family setting. Marie (27, homemaker, upper–lower-class, vil-lage, joint family) is an example of such an individual. She and otherfamily members were observed discussing some relatively expensiveclothing for an upcoming wedding. Although others in the family (e.g.,her husband and in-laws) seemed to dominate during the early decisionphases, Marie became very outspoken and domineering when the dis-cussion moved toward the final decision phases (e.g., whether or not theitems would be purchased, and if so, how much should be spent, wherethey should be purchased, etc.). Her father-in-law exclaimed later,“. . . we don’t know what to do with Marie . . . (sigh) . . . she be-comes bent in hell on doing something, and she won’t give in until shegets her way.”

In another case involving a lower–upper-class couple, Rekha (49, pro-fessor) has considerably more power than her higher-paid husband,Raghul (50, engineer). In all situations, Rekha appeared to be very opin-ionated. In decision-making situations, she was always highly aggres-sive. This couple was observed making both low-involvement (e.g.,where to eat out) and high-involvement (e.g., savings decisions). Al-though Raghul would state his opinions and desires, Rekha would re-spond with insensitivity and aggressiveness. She invariably got herway.

Many spouses who hold the less powerful position in decision makingrelative to their spouses tend to be low in aggressiveness. These spousestend to make only minor purchase decisions and engage in only theminor decision phases. Vasant and Neelam (35 and 32, upper–lower-class, village) typify this point. Vasant (tractor operator) would calmlystate what he wanted. Neelam (homemaker) would always take a veryaggressive stance, telling Vasant he did not know his own mind, andthat her way was better. Her aggressiveness also revealed itself stronglyin her nonverbal behavior (facial expressions and body posture). Vasantwould eventually shrug his shoulders and comply.

Relatedly, those spouses skilled in communication appear to havemore power in decision making than their lesser-skilled partners. Com-munication skill involves the ability to achieve coercion—an advantagethat a skilled communicator has over a less skilled one. Ramsundar (28,clerk, lower–middle-class, medium-size village) mentioned:

She simply talks or argues better than me. We can start talking aboutsome decision, and she is very convincing when she explains her pointof view . . . For example, not too long ago she wanted to update ourhome by getting many new items. I explained that it wasn’t a good time



shortstandard


Base of RF

to do that, our money was too tight. But it didn’t do any good. Sheargues until she gets her way.

His wife, Sarmila (24):

I can argue better than he can. I remember last year, I wanted a lot ofnew things for the house. He didn’t agree, but I could explain whywe needed them. I got them right away . . . curtains, table andchairs. . . .

Summary. The highly aggressive spouses generally decide on familyrules, boundaries, and modes of acceptable and unacceptable conduct.These highly aggressive individuals tend not only to dominate in pur-chase decision making, but also in decisions regarding who in the familyis going to do what and how they are going to do it. Highly aggressiveindividuals appear to have disdain for individuality, disorganization,and spontaneity. They seen to place a relatively low level of importanceon getting along with others; instead, their focus is on control and power.They also appear to be more skilled in communication than their lessaggressive spouses.

Locus of Control

Many spouses who possess more power in decision making relative totheir partners tend to differ with respect to locus-of-control orientation.Consistent with locus of control theory, those spouses who have morepower in the household tend to believe they can control their own out-comes and are thus less malleable to influence from their partners. Theyare more persuasive and assertive. What one wife, Ramani (38, middle-class, urban, extended family) said typifies the comments of many oth-ers:

My husband and I are just different in our outlook. I think thateverything I do and get is up to me—it is in my control. I really go afterwhat I want. But I decide what I want and what should be done andwhich way it should be done and then I do it. I am not so controlled byother people. It’s up to me. Therefore, I make most of our purchasedecisions—even large items.

Ramani and her husband, Mohan, were observed during a shopping tripfor living-room furniture. There were several instances in which theydisagreed (whether new furniture was needed, when to buy, style to buy,and selection of actual pieces). Ramani would softly, but firmly, stateher wishes. At all times (even when conceding on minor issues), sheappeared to be in control. Mohan later declared, “What to do? Thingsare as they are.”

1046 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

On the other hand, those who have considerably less power in decisionmaking do not support their own interests as vigorously as their morepowerful spouses. These individuals tend to fit into, rather than controltheir environments. As one husband exclaimed, “. . . it’s just my badluck that things aren’t the way I would want them to be . . .” Theseexternally controlled individuals tend to be more sympathetic and lessannoyed by their spouses’ demands and counterarguments than theirmore powerful, internally controlled partners. Consider the case ofRamraj and Hema (31 and 28, lower-class, field workers, village, ex-tended family). This household was observed as its members made avariety of decisions (e.g., whether or not to attend a festival, which floorcovering to buy, how much money to spend on the floor covering, etc.).All of the adult members of the household were quite vocal in expressingtheir opinions and engaging in debates and arguments. However,Hema’s demeanor was different from the others (incidentally, she wasthe only nonsuperstitious adult in the household) in that she was alwaysself-contained and unsympathetic to others’ wishes.

Relatedly, those spouses who exhibited aspects of self-esteem relativeto their partners, such as personal integrity, self-responsibility, andawareness or consciousness, had considerable control over decisionmaking. The reverse was true as well, in that those individuals who didnot exhibit traits associated with self-esteem were likely to hold the lesspowerful position in decision making. Self-esteem, or the lack thereof,is more nebulous than the other themes and was detected primarilyfrom observational data.

Kumari has been married for 13 years, has four children, and livesin a shanty in a village in south India. Her home consists of two rooms.There are no gas or electrical appliances and no running water and toiletfacilities. Neither she nor her husband had any formal education. He isa construction worker and she is a homemaker. She said:

I get my way most of the time. My husband and others probably won’tadmit it because of he wants to think he is the boss, but things mostlygo my way. I am good at doing things, at deciding on things. I makegood decisions. Other people think that, too. I think about them firstand do them. My husband is a little more wishy-washy.

Kumari, who tends to take the lead in decision making, is obviouslyconfident and sure of herself. She perceives that she is very capable andefficient. Her husband, Ram, appears to be the opposite, in that he ap-pears very unsure of himself and hesitant:

It’s best that she decides on things for us, our family. (Shrugs) I makea lot of mistakes . . . my wife decides on most things, such as whatwe buy, whether we should buy or not, where we walk . . . She evendecided on my scooter.



shortstandard


Base of RF

Kumari and Ram were observed making several decisions, such as thoserelated to food and clothing items and the medical care for Ram’s illfather. Although Ram would participate in decision making and wouldsometimes be very opinionated, he ultimately shrugged his shouldersand declared he was not really sure what to do.

The next couple, Ravi and Madhavi, have been married almost threeyears. Unlike the typical Indian woman, Madhavi was 26 before she gotmarried. She works in an advertising agency and Ravi is an assistantmanager of a department store. This couple was observed going throughthe decision-making process for several products (e.g., a set of glasses,restaurant selection, and new upholstery for their car). Where Madhaviappeared very confident, Ravi appeared unsure of himself and what hewanted. In the case of the car upholstery decision, Madhavi began thediscussion by saying that new upholstery was needed. Ravi agreed, butsuggested the existing upholstery could be repaired. Then immediatelyhe admonished himself, saying that his idea was “stupid.” Madhavi inresponse: “OK, what should we do, then?” Ravi came up with an idea,but admonished himself yet again. This characterizes the nature of mostof their discussions. According to Madhavi:

Ravi and I are different in how we are. It’s true that I decide on manythings. We already have many fights or arguments, but I tend to standmy ground. Ravi often does things without thinking; he realizes laterwhat a mistake he has made. I think a lot; I weigh advantages anddisadvantages and then decide. I’m also very responsible and Ravi isn’t.He’s always shifting blame. I think that comes from how his father hasalways treated him. I think I’m worth more than he thinks he’s worth.

Consistent with pativratya, many Indian women feel they do not havecontrol over their lives or their environment. However, as can be seenby the examples just cited, there are Indian women who fit McHugh’s(1989) and Mines’s (1988) descriptions; that is, there are Indian femalesin all age groups who express individuated personal goals and opinionsand who view themselves as active agents in shaping some importantaspects of their lives.

Summary. Spouses with an internal locus of control tend to place con-siderable importance on their autonomy and are more likely to developthe social skills necessary to manipulate their environment. Internalstend to be less malleable to social influence and more persuasive andassertive than externals. The tendency for internal spouses to behavemore assertively than their external counterparts is consistent with lo-cus-of-control theory. Because they believe they can control events, in-ternals are thought to pursue valued outcomes more vigorously and per-sistently than externals. The idea that internal individuals are reactiveto their spouse’s influence attempts is supported by the finding that

1048 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

internal individuals sometimes described their spouses as strong andtrying. A quietly self-contained, internal person is likely to be unsym-pathetic to, and annoyed by, his or her more external spouse’s demands.Thus, married individuals’ locus-of-control orientations appear to be as-sociated with assertive and yielding behavior in conflict situations.

Further, individuals with relatively high levels of self-esteem arelikely to assume the dominant role in decision making in their house-holds. They exhibit behaviors that appear in line with their purposes;they are self-confident and act on what they see and know. In otherwords, they have a sense of personal worth.

Detachment

The third major theme that emerged from the data analysis is that ofdetachment. This theme has two components: indifference and a lack ofinvolvement.

In several of the households in which the wife dominated in decisionmaking, both she and her husband indicated in separate interviews thatshe tended to dominate, not because of aggressiveness or other reasons,but because of his general indifference. This finding existed even inhouseholds with characteristics associated with patriarchy. Kumar andMeenakshi represent an excellent example of such a household. Thiscouple has been married 7 years; he is a factory worker and she is ahomemaker in a midsize town. According to Meenakshi,

Yes, it ends up that I do make most of our decisions, but it’s not like Ihave to. I decide on all kinds of things, like our clothes, what we do onholiday, how we spend our money, and on and on. Sometimes he doesn’ttell me what he wants at all, and other times he does, but he neverpushes it. He’s always saying it doesn’t matter to him.

Kumar says

I don’t care what we buy in many cases. Sometimes I do, but that’s justto say, well, we can do this, that, or the other—it doesn’t matter whichone—and then she chooses.

This couple was establishing the tradition of taking a special holidayonce a year (driving to another area and staying in a hotel for a coupleof nights). They were observed discussing the approaching special week-end. Meenakshi mentioned two places she would like to visit and Kumarmentioned one. He then said it didn’t matter to him which one wasselected. Meenakshi weighed the alternatives and made a choice.

Rajan and Sujatha represent another case in which the wife domi-nates in decision making. He is a domestic servant and she is a home-maker and they have been married for almost two years. Rajan states,



shortstandard


Base of RF

It’s just me, that’s the way I am . . . a lot of things don’t matter.There’s very few things I want . . . just a job, enough money, my wife,my son . . . I don’t care about little things, like how we spend thatmoney . . . just as long as it’s there. Sometimes she asks me thingslike, “what do you want to do, go for a walk or visit friends” or “shouldwe buy that one or this one?” It doesn’t matter to me. She can make allthe decisions. These things really don’t matter to me.

Observations definitely supported Rajan’s statements. With respect topurchasing behavior, his only concern was not spending too muchmoney. Otherwise, Sujatha dominated in all the decision areas.

Anand and Sashikala represent a case where he is clearly the powerholder and she is basically indifferent. They have been married 35 yearsand live in a large city; both have recently entered early retirement fromlucrative careers. Anand describes the nature of their decision making:

I make most of our decisions, both the little and major ones—such aswho to hire for help, finances, which school our daughters attended, ourclothes, how the house is decorated. Don’t get me wrong, Sashi is de-cisive and will make decisions, but most of the time she lets me leadthe way. It has nothing to do with the man being the leader of thehousehold. Our household is not like that. She has always stated, sincewe were first married, that she doesn’t care about which choice is de-cided on—and I really believe she doesn’t.

Sashikala states:

Anand decides many things for us. It’s not that he’s always right, be-cause many of the times he’s decided, they haven’t exactly turned outfor the best. It’s just that a lot of things really don’t matter to me. No,that sounds wrong. They do matter, but when it comes to deciding on1, 2, or 3, it mainly doesn’t matter. I would just close my eyes and pickone. So, he might as well decide.

Sashikala and Anand were observed discussing hosting a party that wasto take place in the near future. Sashikala said the details did not matterto her, and Anand then said when the party would be held, who wouldbe invited, what would be served, etc. From time to time, he asked heropinion, and she would reply “it doesn’t matter—whatever you think.”

The observation and interview data suggest that as a spouse’s levelof involvement with a decision increases, his or her power in makingthat particular decision also increases.

Observational data were collected over time from Vivek and Rekka(mid-50s, upper–middle-class, urban). It was obvious that Vivek washighly involved with culinary concerns and Rekka was highly involvedwith automobiles. They each dominated in each decision in their re-spective areas across items varying in cost. Rekka’s statement typifiesthose of other informants:

1050 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

It’s not that one of us is more powerful than the other. It’s more likewho cares more about that decision that is being made. For example, Itend to choose the autos or scooters because I’m very interested in them.My husband makes all choices regarding food and cooking—he takesgreat pleasure in those types of things.

Vivek says:

On some things, she knows better than I do. And, just the opposite; Iknow for other things. I’m the one who’s interested in cooking and food;I like to think of myself as a gourmet cook. It is a hobby of mine.

Summary. One major reason for a spouse to be the less powerful onein the dyad is that he or she is simply indifferent when faced with al-ternatives or has a lower level of involvement with a particular decisionthan his or her partner. Indifferent or insouciant spouses are not con-cerned whether or not a certain product is purchased, when it is pur-chased, where it is purchased, or which alternative is selected. Althoughthese individuals may play an instrumental role in narrowing the al-ternatives to an evoked set, they are then likely to shrug their shouldersand tell their spouses they do not care which one of the alternatives isactually chosen. In other cases, these insouciant spouses will not evenplay an important role in narrowing or limiting the choice set. Similarly,uninvolved spouses tend to relinquish decision-making power to theirmore involved partners.

Unlike the first two antecedents, conflict does not necessarily occurhere for one spouse to be more powerful in decision making than theother one. If conflict does occur, it is generally not long-lasting. In thecase of insouciance, the more powerful spouse does not even necessarilydesire his or her relatively high degree of influence. Rather, they becomedecisive because their spouses are not.

Compliance

Another major theme that emerged from this research is that of com-pliance level. It was apparent that individuals give in to their spousesbecause of the need for acceptance and for conflict avoidance. On theother hand, the dominant, noncompliant spouses pursue their desiredcourse of action because they know from past experience that their part-ners want to avoid conflict and will consequently submit to them. Fur-ther, they tend to be resistant, individualistic, and obstinate. Followingare three detailed examples in Indian households of wife dominance dueto the compliant nature of the husband.

Kannan and Mala (28 and 26, middle-class, urban) have been marriedfour years. She is definitely the power holder in their household, makingthe majority of the decisions. According to Kannan,



shortstandard


Base of RF

We can both know exactly what we want and sometimes our wantsclash. She ends up getting what she wants because we’re so different.I don’t always want to, but I usually give in. . . . I think that’s thenice thing to do. But, not my wife. She is very stubborn and insists ongetting what she wants. She thinks she is always right and I’m wrong.I do blame myself for things . . . probably too much . . .

His wife, Mala says:

Well, I really make our decisions, how the money is spent. (Laughs)Maybe it shouldn’t be like that, but I know that my husband will givein . . . that’s just the way he is. When we talk about buying some-thing, like our car, we kind of share the whole thing. It’s back and forth.Then, we’ll disagree on something, such as price, or which cars areacceptable, and I always end getting my way. He ends up shrugginghis shoulders.

Kannan and Mala were observed one evening while discussing the pos-sible remodeling of their home. At first, Kannan appeared eager andexcited about some plans for remodeling he had in mind. Mala listened,but then calmly disagreed—she had a completely different plan. Afterdebating for several minutes, Kannan backed down and told her thework could be done as she wished. It was discovered later that Mala’splan had been implemented.

The next couple, married for seven years, lives with the husband’sfamily. When queried about relative influence, the husband, Coover,said it is generally equal, but his wife, Chan, and his parents said Chanoften has more clout in making decisions. As mentioned previously, pastresearch has shown that wives tend to have a relatively low level ofpower in the extended family, unless they are older and have assumedthe matriarchal role in the family. However, Chan was observed to haveconsiderable power because her husband and in-laws are relatively com-pliant. They were observed discussing whether or not to attend a partyat an acquaintance’s home. Coover seemed eager to go, because he en-joys his friend’s company. Coover’s parents also seemed eager to attendthe party, because not doing so would appear rude. On the other hand,Chan quietly stated that the family should not attend because shethought the other woman had been unkind to her in the past. They alldebated until the argument became quite heated. At that point, he gavein, telling his parents he should support his wife. His parents said theyshould then support him. They did not go to the party.

The next couple has been married 15 years. Nagarajan has a civilservant job and Ramani is a homemaker. He is compliant and she usu-ally makes the decisions. As an example of the power structure in thehousehold, this couple was observed in several occasions in which theydiscussed whether or not to purchase a new refrigerator. Ramaniwanted a new one, and Nagarajan thought their existing one worked

1052 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

fine and that they could not afford a new one anyway. It was very ob-vious that Nagarajan had fixed ideas about the refrigerator and that hewanted to please his wife. Indeed, she got her way. Interestingly, oncethe decision to buy was made, Ramani did not seem to care about re-maining related decisions (where to buy, brand, etc.) and therefore be-came quite compliant herself. Like many other couples associated withthis theme, Nagarajan is not pleased with the power imbalance:

What am I supposed to do? She ends up getting her way on many thingsbecause I don’t want her to be unhappy. But, it seems like it’s okay forher if I’m the one who is unhappy. I like it very much when we getalong. I try to do things she likes. When things go her way, then she iseasier to get along with. And besides, she is a very good woman andmother and I like to please her. I think sometimes, though, that shetakes advantage of me.

And, according to Ramani:

I don’t know what’s wrong with him [Nagarajan]. We start a debateand he quits on me . . . just throws up his hands and leaves. I decideon a lot of things, but other people don’t know that. Nagarajan acts likehe does and that what our neighbors and family think also. We let themthink that way. But I do most of the deciding here. You know, he couldeasily win our arguments if he would be different! He’s such a goodman, so sensitive and unselfish. It really is easy for anyone to takeadvantage of him.

Summary. The compliance theme holds that the spouse with thestronger compliance personality trait will have less decision-makingpower in the household. On the other hand, the low-compliance individ-ual tends to place more emphasis on his or her needs and desires, ismore individualistic and obstinate, and consequently possesses moredecision-making power. Compliant individuals tend to be apologetic andwilling to blame themselves rather than others when things go wrong.They have a particularly strong desire to be loved, appreciated, and tobe involved in activities of others.

Spouses with more decision-making power appear to be cognizant ofthe fact that their partners want to avoid conflict. Although there maybe some disagreements, conflict rarely ensues because of avoidance onthe part of one spouse. In some cases, individuals are manipulative inthat they will act more upset than they actually are and stage heatedarguments, knowing meanwhile that the spouse will avoid the conflictand concede. The spouse with the majority of the power in the householdand his or her partner view the costs and benefits of conflict differently.Although the benefits of conflict outweigh the costs for the power holder,the opposite is true for the spouse, although he or she may be verydissatisfied with the consequences of the decisions.



shortstandard


Base of RF

DISCUSSION

Although psychologists, sociologists, and consumer behaviorists haverecognized the importance of marital power in decision making for dec-ades, there has been a scarcity of research on the explanations of powerin decision making. Indeed, marital power studies across all disciplineshave been guided by a theoretical base which was proposed decades agoin the context of U.S. culture, is considered inadequate even in theUnited States, and has generally ignored the marital role phenomenonin other cultures.

The current research was conducted in India, a culture vastly differ-ent from the one in which the established antecedents stem. AlthoughIndia is stereotyped as a male-dominant society, research studies showthat Indian wives wield considerable decision-making power. Thus, thegoal of the research reported here was to gain insight into the under-lying personality factors that affect marital power in purchase decisionmaking.

Four personality antecedents of marital power in decision makingemerged during the course of data collection and analysis. First, thosepartners exhibiting a relatively high level of aggressiveness dominatein purchase and lifestyle decisions. They de-emphasize empathy, viewself-interested behavior as natural, and take advantage of being in apowerful bargaining position. On the other hand, those possessing moreof a retiring, submissive personality exhibit far less power in decisionmaking. For some Indian wives, particularly relatively young ones en-sconced in joint families, their desire to exercise control may not nec-essarily lead to power. However, those with aggressive personalitiestend exercise a fair amount of dominance. Further, communication skillwas found to be an important resource. Power in decision making relatesto how proficient one is at arguing, expressing wants, and convincingothers their wishes are inappropriate.

Second, spouses with a relatively strong internal locus-of-control ori-entation revealed considerably more power in decision making. Theyseem to have more knowledge of themselves, are more persuasive andassertive, and are not as easily influenced by others as their externalcounterparts. Consistent with the teachings of pativratya, some Indianwives feel they do not have control over their lives, thus partially ex-plaining their lack of influence. Related to this, self-esteem emerged asan underlying reason for either power or the lack of power in decisionmaking. Although some theorists (e.g., Osmond, 1977) have speculatedthat self-esteem would seemingly affect power in interpersonal rela-tionships, they were uncertain as to how the effect would manifest itself.The findings of this research suggest that a spouse’s perception of per-sonal worth represents a significant input into how decisions are madeand the outcomes that a spouse thinks he or she deserves from the re-lationship. Generally, persons with high self-esteem achieve equitable

1054 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

outcomes. As a consequence of feeling positive toward themselves, theytend to assert themselves.

Third, spouses with partners who are either indifferent or uninvolvedtend to have more influence in purchase decision making. This findingis particularly interesting in light of the other antecedents of power—notably those that have guided related research for decades. Here,spouses relinquish control and power simply because they do not care—they have a lighthearted indifference regarding who makes decisionsand which alternative is selected.

Finally, spouses may dominate in decision making because they pos-sess less compliance than their partners. Consequently, they are willingto engage in conflict while realizing their partners will back down toavoid conflict. Spouses with avoidance as their priority appear to beemotionally expressive and somewhat hypersensitive. They generallydesire to avoid rejection, embarrassment, or ridicule. This antecedentof power occurs differently than does the aggressiveness antecedent.Those exhibiting low levels of aggressiveness—that is, relatively highlevels of submissiveness—have lower levels of dissatisfaction duringand after decision making than those who are avoiding conflict. Spouseswho take the inferior position in decision making are likely to be verydissatisfied with the manner in which decisions are made and with theoutcomes of the decisions.

It was pointed out earlier that the guiding question in this researchwas why Indian wives have wielded considerable decision-makingpower in what has always been characterized as a male-dominant so-ciety. This research revealed that her power in decision making mightbe due to her aggressive personality, her skill in communication, herinternal locus-of-control orientation, her relatively high level of self-es-teem, her high involvement in decisions, her insouciant-natured spouse,or her relatively compliant husband. It is important to note that thisresearch supports the writings and studies of other scholars (McHugh,1989; Mines, 1988; Ramu, 1987, etc.) in that Indians—including fe-males—have personal goals and depict themselves as active agents inshaping the direction of their life courses. A casual glance across theIndian culture may lead one to label it as patriarchal, but an in-depthinvestigation into the culture reveals that many Indian wives exerciseconsiderable purchase decision-making power, even in matters tradi-tionally considered in the domain of their husbands. As Ramu (1987)noted, Indian females have always had noteworthy power, a point oftenoverlooked by scholars who emphasize the tenacity of pativratya andtraditional Indian familial patterns.

These findings indicate a need to broaden the theoretical underpin-nings surrounding the phenomenon of marital power in decision mak-ing. The current research unveiled several additional reasons why onefamily member dominates in decision making. Future research is



shortstandard


Base of RF

needed to investigate the relationships proposed here. Because the per-sonality antecedents of power were uncovered in an Indian context, fu-ture research might first empirically investigate the relationships be-tween the antecedents (i.e., an aggressive personality) and power indecision making in an Indian context as well. In other words, futureresearch might determine the nature of the statistical relationships be-tween Indian spouses’ personality traits and their relative influence indecision making. Further, the relationships between the antecedentsand decision-making power might be studied in other cultures, partic-ularly those in the West. It would be interesting to discover if the pa-rameters of the relationships between the antecedents and decision-making power significantly vary across cultures. Future research mightalso investigate the relative effect of the antecedents on decision-mak-ing power across various product categories and across different deci-sion phases.

Another issue that deserves research attention pertains to power infamily decision making and conflict. In their review of the consumer-behavior literature, Wilkie, Moore-Shay, and Assar (1992) concludedthat underlying conflict in family decisions appears to be a pervasivephenomenon. Further, Rollins and Bahr (1976, p. 621) have argued thatpower and control are relevant constructs in families only when conflictexists between the family members. Other researchers (i.e., Bahr, Bow-erman, & Gecas 1974) have actually advocated the weighting of deci-sion-making items by conflict. However, the findings reported here pro-vide the impetus for us to rethink this issue because they clearlyindicate that decision-making power does not necessarily imply conflictsituations (e.g., when such factors as insouciance and compliance act asantecedents of power). Attention to such theoretical and conceptual is-sues will illuminate the marital power construct and the manner inwhich is should be studied, thereby enhancing our knowledge of familydecision making.

REFERENCES

Allen, C. M., & Straus, M. A. (1984). “Final say” measures of marital power:Theoretical critique and empirical findings from five studies in the UnitedStates and India. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15, 329–344.

Austin, R. L., & Porter, E. (1980). Adolescent perception of parental power inthree Caribbean islands. Social and Economic Studies, 29, 247–263.

Beteille, A. (1992). Caste and family in representations of Indian society. An-thropology Today, 8, 13–18.

Bharat, S. (1995). Attitudes and sex-role perceptions among working couplesin India. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 371–388.

Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics ofmarried living. New York: Free Press.

1056 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

Bonham, S. P. (1976). A comparison of weighted and unweighted decision-mak-ing scores. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 629–640.

Bossen, L. (1975). Women in modernizing societies. American Ethnologist, 3,587–601.

Conklin, G. H. (1988). The influence of economic development on patterns ofconjugal power and extended family residence in India. Journal of Compar-ative Family Studies, 19, 187–205.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative ap-proaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cromwell, R. E., Corrales, R., & Torsiello, P. M. (1973). Normative patterns ofmarital decision making power and influence in Mexico and the UnitedStates: A partial test of resource and ideology theory. Journal of ComparativeFamily Studies, 5, 177–196.

Cromwell, R. E., & Olson, D. H. (1975). Power in families. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Das Gupta, M. (1995). Life course perspectives on women’s autonomy andhealth outcomes. American Anthropologist, 97, 481–491.

Davis, H. L. (1970). Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision making.Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 168–177.

Dhruvarajan, V. (1988). Religious ideology and interpersonal relationshipswithin the family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 19, 273–285.

Dobbert, M. L. (1982). Ethnographic research. New York: Praeger.Driver, E. D., & Driver, A. E. (1983). Social class and height and weight in

metropolitan madras. Social-Biology, 30, 189–204.Gauthier, D. K., Forsyth, C. J., & Bankston, W. B. (1993). The effects of wife’s

occupation on the structure of decision-making authority in the offshore oil-worker’s family. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 23, 87–98.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretative theory of culture.In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 231–267). New York:Basic Books.

Gupta, K. (1981). Structural-functional role-strain theory of family system inIndia. Indian Journal of Social Research, 22, 210–229.

Kapadia, K. (1993). Marrying money: changing preference and practice in tamilmarriage. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 27, 25–51.

Khatri, A. A. (1996). East Indian children’s perceptions of decision-making byparent figures (working paper). Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama.

Lee, G. R., & Petersen, L. R. (1983). Conjugal power and spousal resources inpatriarchal cultures. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14, 23–38.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Lukes, S. (1974). Power: a radical view. London: Macmillan.McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McDonald, G. W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of a decade of theory

and research, 1970–1979. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 841–854.McHugh, E. L. (1989). Concepts of the person among the gurungs of Nepal.

American Ethnologist, 16, 75–86.Mines, M. (1988). Conceptualizing the person: hierarchical society and individ-

ual autonomy in India. American Anthropologist, 90, 568–579.



shortstandard


Base of RF

Mirowsky, J. (1985). Depression and marital power: An equity model. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 91, 557–592.

Nayak, V. T., & Donoghue, G. O. (1982). Conjugal egalitarianism. Journal ofComparative Family Studies, 12, 277–289.

Nevadomsky, J. (1980). Changes over time and space in the east Indian familyin rural Trinidad. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 11, 433–456.

O’Connor, P. (1991). Women’s experience of power within marriage: An inex-plicable phenomenon? Sociological Review, 39, 823–842.

Osmond, M. W. (1977). Marital organization in low-income families: A cross-race comparison. Journal of Sociology of the Family, 7, 143–156.

Park, C. W. (1982). Joint decisions in home purchasing: a muddling-throughprocess. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 151–162.

Perlman, D. S. (1989). Couples’ career orientation, gender role orientation andperceived equity as determinants of marital power. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 51, 933–941.

Ramu, G. N. (1987). Indian husbands: their role perceptions and performancein single- and dual-earner families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,903–915.

Ramu, G. N. (1989). Women, work and marriage in urban India: a study ofdual- and single-earner couples. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rodman, H. (1972). Marital power and the theory of resources in cultural con-text. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1, 50–67.

Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 619–627.

Saberwal, S. (1983). For a sociology of India: Uncertain transplants: Anthro-pology and sociology in India. Contributions to Indian Society, 17, 301–315.

Scanzoni, J. (1978). Sex roles, women’s work, and marital conflict: A study offamily change. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in transition: Symbolic consumption in personalrites of passage and identity reconstruction. Journal of Consumer Research,17, 412–425.

Sharp, H., & Mott, P. (1956). Consumer decisions in the metropolitan family.Journal of Marketing, 21, 149–156.

Sinha, D. (1984). Some recent changes in the Indian family and their impli-cations for socialization. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 45, 271–286.

Spiro, R. L. (1983). Persuasion in family decision-making. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9, 393–402.

Suppal, P. G., Roopnarine, J. L., Buesig, T., & Bennett, A. (1996). Ideologicalbeliefs about family practices: Contemporary perspectives among north In-dian families. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 29–37.

Thompson, C. J. (1990). Eureka! and other tests of significance: A new look atevaluating interpretive research. In R. Polly & G. J. Gorn (Eds.), Advancesconsumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 25–30). Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Uberoi, P. (1995). Problems with patriarchy: Conceptual issues in anthropologyand feminism. Sociological Bulletin, 44, 195–221.

Venkatesh, A. (1994). Gender identity in the Indian context: A socioculturalconstruction of the female consumer. In J. A. Costa (Ed.), Gender issues andconsumer behavior (pp. 42–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1058 WEBSTER


shortstandard


Base of RF

Venkatesh, A. (1995). Ethnoconsumerism: a new paradigm to study culturaland cross-cultural consumer behavior. In J. A. Costa & G. J. Bamossy (Eds.),Marketing in a multicultural world: Ethnicity, nationalism, and culturalidentity (pp. 26–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Visaria, P. (1993). Demographic aspects of development: The Indian experi-ence. Indian Journal of Social Science, 6, 219–242.

Wadley, S. S. (1976). Brothers, husbands, and sometimes sons: Kinsmen innorth India ritual. The Eastern Anthropologist, 29, 149–170.

Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R. W. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalisticconsumer research. In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive consumer re-search (pp. 69–84). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Webster, C. (1994). Effects of Hispanic ethnic identification on marital roles inthe purchase decision process. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 319–331.

Wilkie, W. L., Moore-Shay, E. S., & Assar, A. (1992). Family decision-makingfor household durable goods. Working paper, Marketing Science Institute,Cambridge, MA, April, 92–108.

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Cynthia Webster, Pro-fessor of Marketing, Mississippi State University, Box 9582, Mississippi State,MS 39762 ([email protected]).

Documents

Is spousal decision making a culturally situated phenomenon?