Temporary Marriage: Iranian Girls & Boys Attitudes Towards Mate Selection
International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 1 No. 2 (2014),
5 May 2015
Introduction: This paper compares preferences in mate selection criteria for permanent marriage and temporary marriage.
Methods: The research population participants consisted of single persons in Tehran who were in the age range between “22 - 40” and being educated and having at least Diploma.In addition, they have not been diagnosed any of psychological problems.The samples available and interested in participating in the study included 122 (61 girls and 61 boys). The researcher set up a program that mate choice is a computer program written in the C programming language and is comprised of two parts; 1) Demographic characteristics of participants 2) Testing mate selection Inventory. Measures of central tendency and parameters of dispersion were used to describe the data. Binomial test, correlation test, the median difference distribution, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for inferred statistical.
Results: The results showed that only 23% of participants (12% women and 45% men), agree with temporary marriage. The criteria of "education" and "loyalty" were more important in permanent marriage than the temporary marriage with amount of 0.551 and 0.912, respectively. “Pleasant mood” and “being obedient” had higher priority in temporary marriage than the permanent marriage.
Conclusion: Our study showed that criteria for permanent and temporary marriage differ based on their relation's duration and its expectations. In fact, understanding of reasons for agreement and disagreement regarding temporary marriage, can provide a more accurate and expertise reference for reading possible in the Muslim world.
Key words: mate selection criteria, short term mates, marriage, muslim culture.
- mate selection criteria
- short term mates
- muslim culture.
How to Cite
Ahmadi H. Socio-economic factors affecting the attitudes of young people and parents about the temporary marriage in in Shiraz. Shiraz University Press 1997.
Ahmadi Kh, Barari M, Seiedesmaeili F. Attitudes to temporary marriage. Social Welfare Quarterly 2011; 11: 43.
Amato P. R. Unhinged: love, marriage, and the continuing war over family values. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 2012; 41: 470-473.
BagheriGhahvechi Z. Temporary marriage and its social effects.MS Thesis, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran 2006.
Boxer C. F, Noonan M. C, Whelan C. B. Measuring mate preferences: A replication and extension. Journal of Family Issues 2013; DOI: 10.1177/_ 0192513X13490404.
Bozorgian M. Sociological study of the legal structure of temporary marriage in Iran. MS Thesis, TarbiatModarres University, Tehran 2005.
Buss D.M, Barnes M.L. Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986; 50: 559-57.
Buss D. M, Schmitt D. D. Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles 2011; 64, 768–787.
Buss D. M, Shackelford T. K, Kirkpatrick L. A, Larsen R. J. A Half Century of Mate Preferences: The Cultural Evolution of Values. Journal of Marriage and Family 2001; 63 (2) 491–503.
Chang L, Wang Y, Shackelford T. K, Buss D. M. Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences 2011; 50: 678-683.
Fathi M, Fekrazad H, Ghaffari G, Bolhari J. Men factors in marital disloyalty. Quarterly Journal of Social Welfare 2013; 13: 51.
FathiAshtiani A. Ahmadi Kh. Investigate the limiting factors and barriers in marriage of students. Journal of Psychology 1999; 2: 121-133.
Fisman R, Iyengar S.S, Kamenica E, Simonson I. Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2006; 121: 673–697. (a).
Campbell K, Wright D. Marriage today: Exploring the incongruence between Americans’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 2010; 41: 329-345.
Gharib R. Judicial Divorce and extend it to a temporary marriage with the study of the customary law. MS Thesis, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran 2005.
Ghazanfaryan S. Terms and barriers to temporary marriage.MS Thesis, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran 2005.
Cherlin A. Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family 2010; 72, 403-19.
Haghshenas H. Personality Psychology. Shiraz: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2009.
Haider J, Jafari H, Afzali M. A, Mohammad poor R, Mahmoudi Gh. marital criteria unmarried students of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Nursing Research 2008; 10 & 11: 62 - 55.
Jabrieli E, Mohammadi A, Heidari M. The role of cultural values of marriage and gender differences in mate selection. Journal of developmental psychology 2013; 9 (36): 377-388.
KazemZadeh V. Temporary marriage and its conditions.www.aftab.ir 2007.
Kenrick D. T, Groth G. E, Trost M. R, Sadalla E. K. Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993; 64, 951-969.
Kenrick D. T, Sadalla E. K, Groth G, Trost M. R. Evolution, traits and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality 1990; 58, 97-116.
Khallad Y. Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2005; 22, 155-168.
Kleine M. The Impact Of accounts and attributions following marital infidelity, a dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree doctor of philosophy, University of Missouri-Columbia 2007.
Li N. P, Kenrick D. T. Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short term mates: What, whether and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006; 90, 468-489.
Li N. P, Kenrick D. T, Bailey J. M, Linsenmeier J. A. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002; 82, 947-955.
Mather R. Using evolutionary psychology to account for sex differences and similarities_in psychological tendencies.Journal of Scientific Psychology 2006; 1-5.
Manning W. Trends in cohabitation: Twenty years of change, 1987-2008. (FP-10-07).National Center for Family and Marriage Research. http:// ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file87411 2010.
Payne K. K. On the Road to Adulthood: Sequencing of Family Experiences (FP-11-11). National Center for Family and Marriage Research 2011.
Pisanski K, Feinberg D. R. Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cultural Research 2013; 47, 162–197.
RastegarMoghadam Z. Temporary marriage in Islam.Master's thesis.Ferdowsi University of Mashhad 2004.
Riahi M. I. Identify the social correlates of reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with temporary marriage. Journal of Family Studies 2012; 8 (32).
Sadeghi R, Ghodsi A, Afsharkohan J. One solution to issue of analyzing and validity of marriage.Women in Development & Politics. Spring and summer 2007; 5 (17): 108- 83.
Sepehri S. Review the decision making process in selecting the method of information-seeking wife. PhD thesis.ShahidBeheshti University 2012.
Shoemake E. G. Human Mate Selection theory: An Integrated Evolutionary and Social Approach. Journal of Scientific Psychology 2007; 35-42.
Smock P. J, Manning W. D. New couples, new families: The cohabitation revolution in the United States. In B. J. Risman (Ed.), Families as they really are. New York: W.W. Norton. 2010; 131-139.
Smock P. J, Manning W. D, Dorius C. The Intergenerational transmission of cohabitation in the U.S.: The role of parental union histories. PSC Research Report 2013; 13-791.
Willoughby B. j, Hall S. S, Luczak H. P. Marital paradigms: A conceptual framework for marital attitudes, values, and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues 2013; DOI: 10.1177/0192513X13487677.
Zahid S. S, kheiriKhamene B. Attitudes of women heads of households covered by the Relief Committee Imam Khomeini, about temporary marriage. Bulletin Women, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies 2011; 66 (2): 43.
- Abstract Viewed: 1062 times
- PDF Downloaded: 421 times