Sex Roles

, Volume 53, Issue 5–6, pp 327–335 | Cite as

I Can't Wait to Get Married: Gender Differences in Drive to Marry

  • Judith E. Owen Blakemore
  • Carol A. Lawton
  • Lesa Rae Vartanian
Article

Abstract

In this study we examined a new construct—the Drive to Marry (DTM). Young single men and women (149 men and 246 women) rated their desire to get married and completed measures of their valuing of marital, parental, and occupational roles; concern about others' views of them; and feminist attitudes. We found that women had a higher DTM than did men. In both genders, DTM was predicted by the value of parental role and by concern about others' views of them. In women, DTM was also predicted by traditional attitudes toward gender roles, and there was a trend for women who valued the occupational role to have a lower DTM. Conservative women, women who valued the parental role, and women with a higher DTM were also more likely to want to use the title “Mrs.” and to adopt their husband's surname.

Keywords

drive to marry marriage gender roles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career-oriented men and women: The Life Role Salience Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 831–838.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, D. L. (1987). Names and titles: Maiden name retention and the use of Ms. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, 9, 56–83.Google Scholar
  3. Botkin, D. R., Weeks, M. O. N., & Morris, J. E. (2000). Changing marriage role expectations: 1961–1996. Sex Roles, 42, 933–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bridges, J. S. (1987). College females' perceptions of adult roles and occupational fields for women. Sex Roles, 16, 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brightman, J. (1994). Why Hillary chooses Rodham Clinton. American Demographics, 16, 9–11.Google Scholar
  6. Chasteen, A. L. (1994). “The world around me”: The environment and single women. Sex Roles, 31, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duggan, D. A., Cota, A. A., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Taking thy husband's name: What might it mean? Names, 41, 87–102.Google Scholar
  8. Etaugh, C., & Birdoes, L. N. (1991). Effects of age, sex, and marital status on person perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 491–497.Google Scholar
  9. Etaugh, C., & Hoehn, S. (1995). Perceiving women: Effects of marital, parental, and occupational sex-typing variables. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 320–322.Google Scholar
  10. Etaugh, C., & Stern, J. (1984). Person perception: Effects of sex, marital status, and sex-typed occupation. Sex Roles, 11, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, G. (1976). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Foss, K. A., & Edson, B. A. (1989). What's in a name? Accounts of married women's name choices. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 356–373.Google Scholar
  14. Fowler, R. I., & Fuehrer, A. (1997). Women's marital names: An interpretive study of name retainers' concepts of marriage. Feminism and Psychology, 7, 315–320.Google Scholar
  15. Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Mapes, D. (1990). A meta-analytic review of family structure stereotypes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 287–297.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffnung, M. (2004). Wanting it all: Career, marriage, and motherhood during college-educated women's 20s. Sex Roles, 50, 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huddy, L., Neely, F., & Lafay, M. R. (2000). The polls—Trends: Support for the women's movement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 309–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Intons-Peterson, M. J., & Crawford, J. (1985). The meanings of marital surnames. Sex Roles, 12, 1163–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaslow, F. W. (1992). Thirty-plus and not married. In B. R. Wainrib (Ed.), Gender issues across the life cycle (pp. 77–94). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Kerpelman, J. L., & Schvaneveldt, P. L. (1999). Young adults' anticipated identity importance of career, marital, and parental roles: Comparisons of men and women with different role balance orientations. Sex Roles, 41, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kline, S. L., Stafford, L., & Miklosovic, J. C. (1996). Women's surnames: Decisions, interpretations and associations with relational qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 593–617.Google Scholar
  22. Kreider, R. M., & Simmons, T. (2003). Marital status: 2000. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
  23. Lawton, C. A., Blakemore, J. E. O., & Vartanian, L. R. (2003). The new meaning of Ms.: Single, but too old for Miss. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, K. G., & Moon, S. (1997). Always single and single again women: A qualitative study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 115–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mennino, S. F., & Brayfield, A. (2002). Job–family trade-offs: The multidimensional effects of gender. Work and Occupations, 29, 226–256.Google Scholar
  26. Murrell, A. J., Frieze, I. H., & Frost, J. L. (1991). Aspiring to careers in male- and female-dominated professions: A study of Black and White college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 103–126.Google Scholar
  27. Nilsen, A. P. (1977). Sexism in the language of marriage. In A. P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H. L. Gershuny, & J. P. Stanley (Eds.), Sexism and language (pp. 131–140). Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  28. Novack, L. L., & Novack, D. R. (1996). Being female in the eighties and nineties: Conflicts between new opportunities and traditional expectations among White, middle class, heterosexual college women. Sex Roles, 35, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pauwels, A. (2001). Spreading the feminist word: The case of the new courtesy title Ms. in Australian English. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, Vol. 1: Impact, studies in language and society (pp. 137–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Peake, A., & Harris, K. L. (2002). Young adults' attitudes toward multiple role planning: The influence of gender, career traditionality and marriage plans. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynolds, J., & Wetherell, M. (2003). The discursive climate of singleness: The consequences for women's negotiation of a single identity. Feminism and Psychology, 13, 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Russell, J. E., & Rush, M. C. (1987). The effects of sex and marital/parental status on performance evaluations and attributions. Sex Roles, 17, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandfield, A., & Percy, C. (2003). Accounting for single status: Heterosexism and ageism in heterosexual women's talk about marriage. Feminism and Psychology, 13, 475–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stone, L., & McKee, N. P. (2000). Gendered futures: Student visions of career and family on a college campus. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 31, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Twenge, J. M. (1997). “Mrs. His Name”: Women's preferences for married names. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 417–429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith E. Owen Blakemore
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carol A. Lawton
    • 1
  • Lesa Rae Vartanian
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana University Purdue University Fort WayneFort Wayne
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyIndiana-Purdue University Fort WayneFort Wayne

Personalised recommendations