Perceived Women’s Marital Readiness Within a Society in Transition: The Case of Palestinians in Israel

Abstract

This study aimed to examine social change in values and social beliefs regarding women’s marital readiness among Palestinians in Israel, as a case study of a society in transition. 360 participants, divided by generation (elders, ages 60 and above versus youngsters, ages 16–19) and residence (urban, Haifa citizens versus rural, Northern Bedouins) filled out questionnaires regarding cultural values, three factors from a Marital Readiness Scale, two questions regarding women’s ideal marital age and a demographic questionnaire. Results showed a generational change in values and in marital readiness of women, so that the younger generation revealed more openness to change and less conservation values, as well as higher ideal marital age and more emphasis on achieving milestones before marriage (finishing education, having a job) than the older generation. Moreover, generational differences in marital readiness criteria were mediated by the decrease in conservation values, rather than by the increase in openness to change values. No difference was found in the importance of women’s family capacities. Those results were discussed in terms of social change in women’s social status within societies in transition toward more egalitarian gender roles in women’s education and participation in the labor market, combined with more traditional perceptions of household and child-rearing tasks as women’s responsibilities. Residential differences were less obvious. Rural elderly especially emphasized abilities to be in a relationship as a criterion for marital readiness, which was explained by the cultural term “women’s wisdom” and the expectation that women should be able to maintain the marital relationship.

Keywords

marital readiness ideal marital age social beliefs values society in transition Palestinians in Israel social change generational change residential differences women’s social status

Marital social beliefs are socially constructed and might affect the length and content of emerging adulthood (Carroll et al., 2007). Emerging adulthood is a separate developmental phase created in the West due to the delay of taking over adult responsibilities, among them marriage, toward the late twenties (Arnett, 2000). However, traditional cultures are characterized by relatively low marital age, especially for women (Julian, 2022), which may shorten or even suspend the emerging adulthood period. Thus, marital social norms regarding women may affect their actual marital age, which may further determine their possibilities for education, career and personal development.

The current study focused on the question of whether within sub-groups cultural differences in a society in transition might emerge in beliefs and social expectations of marital readiness regarding women. More precisely, we focused on the Palestinian society in Israel as an example of a society in transition. We compared the perception of marital readiness regarding women between rural and urban areas, as well as between two distinct generations. We tried to show that cultural values mediate these differences.

Values and Social Change

Schwartz (1992) defined values as general concepts that are trans-situational and serve as guidelines in shaping norms, attitudes, and beliefs, and in evaluating and making decisions regarding behaviors or events in everyday life. These values form a bi-dimensional circle structure, which reflects the relationship between the different values. The first dimension is openness to change (self-direction and stimulation) versus conservation (security, conformity, and tradition). The second dimension is self-enhancement (power, achievement, and hedonism) versus self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence). According to Schwarz, individualistic cultures, mainly Western and industrialized societies that are individual-centered, emphasize values of openness to change and self-enhancement. In contrast, collectivistic cultures, mainly non-Western or cultural minorities within Western countries, in which belonging and connectedness to the in-group are central, emphasize values of conservation and self-transcendence (Schwartz, 1992).

However, the segregation between Western-modern and non-Western-traditional societies is becoming less obvious and hermetic. Sociodemographic changes, increased urbanization, and globalization processes are causing a shift of values, from traditional and collectivistic values to values of modernization, autonomy, and individuation in rural areas (Greenfield, 2009; Manago, 2012; Weinstock et al., 2015). In addition to the regional values change, generational values change within the same culture is also occurring. Generational comparisons demonstrated that more modern values characterize younger generations compared to the traditional values that characterize older generations (Abu Aleon et al., 2019; Danis et al., 2011; Manago, 2014; Weinstock et al., 2015).

In the present study, we aim to show that the Palestinian society in Israel is undergoing social change in terms of values differences between old and young generations and between rural and urban regions. As the openness to change—conservation dimension is directly related to the shift from tradition to modernization (more than the self-enhancement—self-transcendence dimension), we focus on examining whether openness to change and conservation values are associated with beliefs regarding women’s marital readiness and perceived ideal marital age.

Marital Horizon Theory

Marital horizon theory, suggested by Carroll et al. (2007), defines the marital horizon of youngsters as their approach to marriage in relation to current situation and life plans. Three components constitute youngsters’ marital horizon: marital readiness, desired marital age, and relative importance of marriage in one’s current life plans. Differences in those components distinguish between close versus distant marital horizons, created by youngsters who desire to marry in their early 20s versus in their mid-20s or later, respectively. This age range definition follows Arnett’s original definition of emerging adulthood, ending at roughly 25 years old (Arnett, 2000). In the present study, we omitted the relative importance of marriage within current life plans, due to its irrelevance for a third party and focused on marital readiness and ideal marital age.

Perceived Marital Readiness

Marital readiness refers to the characteristics, emotions, behaviors, or roles a person should achieve or acquire in order to be considered ready to get married. To assess marital readiness, Carroll et al. (2009) developed The Criteria for Marital Readiness Scale (CMRS), which was re-validated and modified by Willoughby and Egbert (2016). Three main marital readiness factors and their expected relations with values are detailed below.

Role Transition and Family Capacities

Role transition refers to financial and educational goals achieved before marriage, as indicators of marital readiness, such as having a job and completing education. Family capacities refer to abilities associated with taking upon family responsibilities, such as becoming capable of running a household, and keeping the family physically safe (Carroll et al., 2009). Both factors are associated with gender-roles attitudes. Western-industrialized societies are characterized by egalitarian gender-roles attitudes. In those cultural contexts, educational and occupational requirements for both genders have increased, resulting in the postponement of marriage and family formation toward the late twenties (Julian, 2022), while the responsibilities of indoor tasks are perceived as belonging to both genders (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). Nevertheless, differentiated gender-roles in the family are preserved in more traditional societies (Lee et al., 2020; Lomazzi & Seddig, 2020), so that men are expected to provide for the family, while women are expected to handle indoor household tasks. Those social perceptions regarding gender-roles might be reflected in perceived women’s marital readiness. For example, Holman and Li (1997) demonstrated a positive correlation between sociodemographic variables (including education and income) and subjective readiness for marriage among American emerging adults, particularly among females. However, conservative Ghanaian seniors did not perceive financial readiness as a criterion for marital readiness regarding women. However, they did emphasize women’s ability to perform domestic responsibilities as a sign of being ready to get married (Sarfo et al., 2021). Therefore, we expect that role transition and family capacities criteria for women’s marital readiness would differentiate between conservative and modern parts of the culture.

Relationship Readiness

Marriage is a relationship that unifies two individuals “in sickness and in health.” Hence, relational competencies, which refer to the ability to be in a relationship, are crucial for the success and maintenance of marriage across different social contexts. It was indeed found that about 95% of American emerging adults ranked five out of seven criteria for relationship readiness as the most necessary criteria for marital readiness (Willoughby & Egbert, 2016).

Relationship management abilities were associated with various aspects of marriage cross-culturally. For example, European Americans and Taiwanese-Chinese described the ideal marital partner with traits of warmth and trustworthiness and the ideal marital relationship in terms of mutuality, intimacy, and loyalty (Lam et al., 2016). In addition, both Americans and Far Eastern Asians expected marital roles to include communication and faithfulness (Kline et al., 2012).

Therefore, one might conclude that relational factors form an essential component in marital readiness, both in Western and non-Western cultural contexts (U.S: Holman & Li, 1997; Turkey: Keldal & Yıldırım, 2022). However, it is still unclear whether there are cultural differences in the degree of importance of relational factors in marital readiness, a question examined as an open one in the present study.

Perceived Ideal Marital Age

Ideal marital age is the belief regarding the age at which it is best, optimal, or ideal to enter marriage. Perceived ideal marital age might shape how youngsters experience emerging adulthood. American students (ages 18–26) with close marital horizon expressed more norm-compliance behaviors (e.g., less permissive sexual behaviors, less drunkenness and drug use), and revealed more family formation values compared to emerging adults with distant marital horizon (Carroll et al., 2007). Moreover, perceived ideal marital age is socially constructed and governed by social values (Holland & De Valk, 2013). Low perceived marital age was related to higher degrees of religiosity (Ellison et al., 2011; Willoughby et al., 2012), and characterizes more conservative cultures (Fuller et al., 2015; Lissitsa, 2019; Yoo & Lee, 2019). We expect that perceived marital age would be lower among more conservative groups of the culture.

Taken together, we expect that perceived ideal marital age and role transition criteria for marital readiness would be positively related to openness values and negatively to conservation values. The opposite is expected for family capacities. We also expect that values would mediate group differences in the importance of marital readiness criteria and perceived ideal marital age.

The Studied Population: Palestinians in Israel

The Palestinians constitute about 21% of the total population in Israel. The vast majority of the Palestinians in Israel are Muslims (84.6%), and the rest are religious minorities of 9% Christians and 7.4% Druze (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics [ICBS], 2023). The Palestinian society is considered a society in transition due to rapid processes of urbanization and modernization that have been taking place during the last few decades, resulting in various changes in most realms of life (Al-Haj, 1995; Azaiza, 2013; Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004), including in women’s status. For instance, in the familial realm, women’s average marital age increased from 21.9 in 2002 to 24 by 2021 (ICBS, 2023). In the educational realm, the percentage of women with post-high-school education in 2014 was 26.1% (Gharrah, 2018), compared to only 13.6% in 2001 (Khamaisi & Gharrah, 2009). In the occupational realm, women’s participation in the labor market increased from almost 20% in 2001 to 38% by 2018 (Haddad Haj-Yahya et al., 2022).

Although social and economic change has been occurring rapidly among Palestinians in Israel, it did not affect all portions of the society similarly (Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1993). In the current study, we focus on the differences between the city of Haifa and Northern Bedouin villages that form two extremes in the degrees of modernization versus tradition within the Palestinian society in Israel.

Haifa is a mixed city with about 12% Palestinian-Arab citizens and the rest are mostly Jewish citizens (ICBS, 2019). From the Palestinian perspective, Haifa is a city that enables a more autonomous, individualistic and secular way of life, compared to more collectivistic and conservative Palestinian villages (Faier, 2005). Haifa had become a shelter for Palestinians within the state of Israel who strive to live more liberal lives (such as single mothers, cohabitants, and members of the LGTBQ community), without sacrificing their oriental and national identities. In addition, Haifa has become the cultural center for Palestinians in Israel since the 1990s due to various Palestinian leisure activities (e.g., café-bars, restaurants, and theatres), all signs of a more modern society (Karkabi, 2018).

On the other extreme lies the Bedouin society in Israel. Bedouins are Muslims, and constitute about 12% of the Palestinian population in Israel, with a majority living in the Southern Negev and the rest either in the Galilee (Northern part of Israel) or in the center of the state (Soffer, 2007). Unique historical, social, demographic and economic properties distinguish the Bedouins from the majority of the Muslim-Palestinian population in Israel, and between the Northern and Southern Bedouins. Processes of modernization and urbanization that have taken place during the last few decades have affected the Northern Bedouins faster than the Southern Bedouins. However, all Bedouins still preserve their unique traditional values and social norms and are in a continuing negotiation between tradition and modernity (Khalaf, 1990). As a result, the Bedouin society is considered one of the most traditional and conservative populations compared to other sub-groups of the Palestinian society in Israel, including conservative social norms concerning the marital institute, women’s status, and patriarchy (Ben-David & Barkai, 2012).

Besides the residential division, the Palestinian society in Israel is divided by generation as well. Abu Aleon et al. (2019) interviewed Bedouin individuals of three generations and found an increase in individualistic values related to gender-roles across generations. Similarly, Weinstock et al. (2015) found a change toward more individualistic values among young Arab women in Israel, compared to the senior generation.

We believe that both residential and generational distinctions provide distinctions within cultural groups in terms of values that allow hypotheses testing. We hypothesize group differences in both values and marital readiness as follows.

Generations would differ in values, so that youngsters, compared to elders, would be: (a) higher on openness to change values and (b) lower on conservation values.

Residential groups would differ in values, so that urban, compared to rural participants, would be: (a) higher on openness to change values and (b) lower on conservation values.

Generations would differ in marital readiness, so that youngsters, compared to elders, will have: (a) higher ratings for role transition, (b) lower ratings for family capacities, and (c) higher perceived ideal marital age.

Residential groups would differ in marital readiness so that urban, compared to rural participants, will have: (a) higher ratings for role transition, (b) lower ratings for family capacities, and (c) higher perceived ideal marital age.

Differences in the criteria for relationship readiness would be tested as an open question.

5. Group differences (generation and residence) in marital readiness would be mediated by values of openness to change and conservation, which will differ between groups and be related to criteria for marital readiness and to perceived ideal marital age of women.

Method

Participants

360 participants were equally divided between both variables: generation (youngsters versus elders) and residence (rural versus urban). Each one of the four sub-groups had the same gender distribution (67% women). Both youngster groups (rural and urban) were 11th and 12th grade students who attended high schools, with some exceptions (10%) of youngsters who just finished high school. Their age ranged between 16 and 19 (M = 17.09, SD = 0.96). The elder generation was aged 60 to 87 (M = 67.66, SD = 6.93). Most rural participants (98%) were Muslims, while among urban participants, 42% were Muslims and almost 58% were Christians. Note that Druze were not included in the samples as their percentage in the investigated regions is negligible. In order to deal with the over-presentation of Christians in the urban sample, we examined whether Christians and Muslims within each generation in the urban sample differed in all our dependent variables and in levels of religiosity and education. As shown in Table 1, urban Christians and Muslims did not differ in all variables, except in the importance given to the role transition criteria among elders, which was higher among Christians. Statistical analyses for group differences were conducted with statistical control for religion (Muslims versus Christians), for reported religiosity level and for gender.

Table 1.

Comparing Urban Christians and Muslims.

	Youngsters				Elders
Variable	M (SD) Christians	M (SD) Muslims	t	Variable	M (SD) Christians	M (SD) Muslims	t
Openness to change	0.21 (0.46)	0.21 (0.56)	0.01	Openness to change	−0.17 (0.48)	−0.19 (0.48)	−0.14
Conservation	−0.31 (0.43)	−0.26 (0.44)	0.52	Conservation	0.21 (0.34)	0.20 (0.43)	−0.06
Role transition	3.19 (0.55)	3.26 (0.58)	0.48	Role transition	3.27 (0.44)	2.96 (0.57)	−2.85*
Family capacities	3.41 (0.61)	3.45 (0.56)	0.28	Family capacities	3.40 (0.49)	3.50 (0.49)	0.88
Relationship readiness	3.23 (0.44)	3.31 (0.41)	0.83	Relationship readiness	3.31 (0.38)	3.19 (0.46)	−1.33
Ideal marital age	25.56 (1.79)	25.26 (2.07)	−0.69	Ideal marital age	24.89 (2.86)	24.79 (2.08)	−0.19
Religiosity	2.69 (1.00)	2.52 (0.71)	−0.79	Religiosity	2.53 (1.01)	2.24 (0.80)	−1.50
Educational level—Father	4.24 (1.02)	4.13 (1.18)	−0.41	Educational level	3.33 (1.46)	3.02 (1.10)	−1.13
Educational level—Mother	4.67 (0.63)	4.26 (0.06)	−1.72

p < .01.

In addition, we compared both groups (urban vs. rural) in levels of religiosity and education. As Table 2 shows, significant differences were found for both variables, supporting the notion that the division by residence indeed creates two differentiated samples. Although age differences between the urban and the rural samples within each generation were significant, the absolute difference does not change the fact that both samples belong to the same generation, the core of the current study.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Tests for Demographic Variables by Residence.

	Youngsters			Elders
Variable	M (SD) Urban	M (SD) Rural	t	Variable	M (SD) Urban	M (SD) Rural	t
Degree of religiosity	2.65 (0.93)	2.06 (0.51)	5.33***	Degree of religiosity	2.37 (0.91)	1.8 (0.57)	5.04***
Mother’s education	4.53 (0.84)	3.72 (1.05)	5.54*** v	Education	3.16 (1.27)	2.41 (0.99)	4.40***
Father’s education	4.2 (1.06)	3.3 (0.98)	7.52***
Age	17.44 (1.01)	16.73 (0.76)	5.33***	Age	69.77 (7.34)	65.54 (5.80)	4.28***

***

p < .0001.

Measures

Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-21)

The scale was developed by Schwartz et al. (2001). It includes 21 verbal portraits of different figures that describe the aspirations, goals, and wishes of an individual (e.g., “It is important to her always to behave properly, she wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong”). The portraits point implicitly to the importance of a value to the respondents and covers the 10 basic values of Schwartz et al. (2001). The ten basic values constitute four higher-order values that, in turn, create two dimensions: Openness to change (four items) versus conservation (six items) and self-enhancement (six items) versus self-transcendence (five items). The Arabic version was used. Respondents were asked to rank to what degree the person described in each portrait is similar to themselves on a scale ranging from 1: “not like me at all” to 6: “very much like me.” To correct for a scale use bias, scores were centralized using all 21 items (Schwartz, 1992). However, only scores of two high-order values were used, due to their relevance to societies in transition: openness to change, measured by the mean of the self-direction and stimulation items, and conservation, measured by the mean of the conformity, security and tradition items. Internal reliabilities were α = .76 for openness to change scale and α = .69 for conservation scale.

Ideal Marital Age

The variable was assessed using two questions. The first concerns general perceived ideal marital age for women: “In your opinion, what is the ideal age for a woman to get married?” (in years). The second concerns ideal marital age regarding oneself or close relatives. Female youngsters were asked regarding the age in which they wished to get married, male youngsters were asked about the preferred age of their future brides and elders were asked when they wished their granddaughters would be married. The correlation between the two questions was high (r = .82). In addition, comparing the mean scores of both questions using a paired t-test revealed no significant difference [t₍₃₅₃₎ = 1.53, N.S]. Therefore, the two questions were averaged to create one variable.

The Criteria for Marital Readiness Scale (CMRS)

The scale was developed by Carroll et al. (2009) and modified by Willoughby and Egbert (2016). The modified version contains five factors, from which we focused on three: Role transition, Family Capacities and Relationship Readiness. Two additional factors, Sexual readiness and Norm compliance, were omitted, as they were not culturally fit—they referred to socially and religiously forbidden behaviors in traditional Islamic societies (e.g., alcohol consumption, premarital sexual intercourse and pregnancy). Other minor adaptations to the current study were made. The item “finished with education” of the role transition scale was extended to two items, one referring to high school and the second to academic education. For family capacities, we included only the four items referring to women, ending with a total of 16 items. Participants were asked to rank the degree to which each item is important to marital readiness regarding women on a scale from 1 “not important at all” to 4 “very important.” The questionnaire was back-translated to Arabic by two bilinguals (Arabic-English), professionals in the field.

To examine the validity of the three-factor structure of the Arabic version, a principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was computed. The 16 items were grouped into three distinct factors, identical to the original ones. The criterion for inclusion was a loading of .45 or above. Internal consistencies were α = .77 for Role transition (five items, e.g., “Being employed full-time”); α = .69 for Family capacities (four items, e.g., “Becoming capable of running a household”); and α = .68 for Relationship readiness (seven items, e.g., “Be able to listen to others in an understanding way”).

Demographic Questionnaire

Each participant filled out a questionnaire including age, gender, residence, religion, degree of religiosity (ranked on a scale ranging from 1—“very religious” to 5 “atheist”), level of education (ranked on a scale ranging from 1—“did not study at all” to 5—“academic education”), and occupation. The question regarding educational level was modified for generations so that elders referred to their level of education, while youngsters referred to their fathers’ and their mothers’ levels of education.

Procedure

Ethics approval was received from the ethics committee of the University of Haifa (No. 083/23) and the Israeli Ministry of Education (No. 11254). Data was collected using a pen and paper version of the questionnaire. A minority of the youngsters who finished school were given an online version of the questionnaire. As for the older generation, we contacted senior clubs’ coordinators in both Haifa city and Northern-Bedouin villages, asking for their cooperation in administering the questionnaire. All participants (and parents of students under the age of 18) signed a consent form. They were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous and that they had the right to stop participating at any time. A research assistant was present to ensure participants filled out the entire form correctly.

Results

To test the first and second hypotheses regarding values’ differences, a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted, with two predictors, generation and residence, two response variables, openness to change and conservation values and three covariates, religion, religiosity and gender. The multivariate effect was significant for religiosity and for gender but not for religion. A multivariate effect was significant for generation. In line with hypotheses 1a and 1b, the univariate tests showed significant differences for both openness to change and conservation, so that openness was higher and conservation was lower among youngsters compared to elders. No significant multivariate effect for residence was found, contrary to hypotheses 2a and 2b. However, the multivariate effect of the interaction generation × residence was significant. The univariate tests showed significance for openness to change but not for conservation. Simple effects analyses regarding openness showed that among elders, urban and rural participants did not differ in their openness to change values [F_{(1, 174)} = 1.83, N.S]. Surprisingly, among youngsters, openness values were higher among rural compared to urban participants [F_{(1, 174)} = 5.48, η² = .03, p < .05]. Moreover, and in line with the hypothesized direction, youngsters were higher than elders among both urban [F_{(1, 174)} = 23.27, η² = .12, p < .0001] and rural participants [F_{(1, 174)} = 111.58, η² = .39, p < .0001]. Table 3 presents the relevant descriptive statistics and Table 4 presents the multivariate and the univariate effects.

Table 3.

Estimated Marginal Means and Standard Error (in Brackets) of Openness to Change and Conservation Values by Generation and Residence.

	Openness to change			Conservation
Residence	Youngsters	Elders	Total	Youngsters	Elders	Total
Rural	0.38 (0.05)	−0.34 (0.05)	0.02 (0.04)	−0.29 (0.04)	0.27 (0.04)	0.00 (0.03)
Urban	0.16 (0.06)	−0.20 (0.05)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.24 (0.05)	0.23 (0.04)	0.00 (0.03)
Total	0.27 (0.04)	−0.27 (0.04)	0.01 (0.02)	−0.26 (0.03)	0.25 (0.03)	0.00 (0.02)

Table 4.

MANCOVA for Values as a Function of Generation and Residence.

	Multivariate effect			Univariate effect
	Multivariate effect			Openness to change		Conservation
Variable	Hotelling’s T²	F _{(2, 348)}	η²	F _{(1, 349)}	η²	F _{(1, 349)}	η²
Generation	0.53	91.82	.35***	119.51	.26***	158.37	.31***
Residence	0.00	0.24	.00	0.44	.00	0.03	.00
Generation × Residence	0.04	7.09	.04**	13.52	.04***	1.48	.00
Religiosity	0.09	15.03	.08***	16.85	.05***	27.66	.07***
Religion	0.00	0.09	.00	0.03	.00	0.07	.00
Gender	0.04	6.53	.04**	2.99	.01	3.23	.01

p < .01. ***p < .0001.

A multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted in order to examine the third and fourth hypotheses regarding marital readiness, with two predictors, generation and residence, four response variables: role transition, family capacities, relationship readiness, and ideal marital age, and three covariates, religion, religiosity and gender. Again, the multivariate effect was significant for religiosity and for gender but not for religion. The multivariate effect for generation was significant. Univariate tests showed significant differences for role transition and for ideal marital age, in line with hypotheses 3a and 3c, respectively, and for relationship readiness. Contrary to hypothesis 3b, no differences were found for family capacities.

The multivariate effect for residence was significant. Univariate effects were significant for ideal marital age and for relationship readiness, but not for role transition, and for family capacities. Urban compared to rural participants declared higher ideal marital age for women, in line with hypotheses 4c and ranked lower importance for relationship readiness. However, no differences were found for role transition and family capacities between the two residences, so hypotheses 4a and 4b were not confirmed.

The multivariate effect of the interaction generation × residence was significant. The univariate tests showed significance for relationship readiness, but not for the other three variables: role transition, family capacities and ideal marital age. Simple effects analysis for relationship readiness showed that rural elders were higher in relationship readiness compared to both urban elders [F_{(1, 176)} = 33.03, η² = .16, p < .0001], and rural youngsters [F_{(1, 176)} = 54.60, η² = .24, p < .0001]. No differences were found between rural and urban youngsters [F_{(1, 174)} = 1.53, N.S], and between youngster and elder urban participants [F_{(1, 174)} = 0.00, N.S]. Thus, relationship readiness importance was ranked higher by rural elders, compared to all other sub-groups. Table 5 shows the relevant estimated marginal Means and Standard error and Table 6 presents the multivariate and the univariate effects.

Table 5.

Estimated Marginal Means and Standard Error (in Brackets) of Marital Readiness by Generation and Residence.

Marital readiness criterion		Youngsters	Elders	Total
Role transition	Rural	3.10 (0.07)	2.88 (0.07)	2.99 (0.05)
	Urban	3.13 (0.07)	3.07 (0.06)	3.10 (0.05)
	Total	3.12 (0.05)	2.96 (0.05)	3.05 (0.03)
Family capacities	Rural	3.38 (0.06)	3.49 (0.06)	3.44 (0.05)
	Urban	3.42 (0.07)	3.45 (0.06)	3.44 (0.05)
	Total	3.40 (0.04)	3.47 (0.04)	3.44 (0.03)
Relationship readiness	Rural	3.16 (0.05)	3.59 (0.05)	3.38 (0.04)
	Urban	3.23 (0.05)	3.23 (0.04)	3.23 (0.04)
	Total	3.20 (0.03)	3.41 (0.03)	3.30 (0.02)
Ideal marital age	Rural	23.92 (0.24)	23.00 (0.25)	23.46 (0.19)
	Urban	25.10 (0.27)	24.71 (0.23)	24.90 (0.19)
	Total	24.51 (0.16)	23.83 (0.16)	24.18 (0.11)

Table 6.

MANCOVA for Marital Readiness as a Function of Generation and Residence.

	Multivariate effect			Univariate effect
	Multivariate effect			Role transition		Family capacities		Relationship readiness		Ideal marital age
Variable	Hotelling’s T²	F _{(4, 347)}	η²	F _{(1, 350)}	η²	F _{(1, 350)}	η²	F _{(1, 350)}	η²	F _{(1, 350)}	η²
Generation	0.14	11.79	.12***	4.77	.01*	1.64	.01	23.54	.06***	7.69	.02**
Residence	0.12	9.47	.10***	1.76	.01	0.00	.00	7.03	.02**	24.17	.07***
Generation × Residence	0.10	8.95	.09***	1.95	.01	0.03	.00	24.09	.06***	1.44	.00
Religiosity	0.10	9.04	.09***	2.58	.01	1.31	.00	0.80	.00	35.71	.09***
Religion	0.01	0.91	.01	2.46	.01	0.08	.00	0.71	.00	0.00	.00
Gender	0.12	10.48	.11***	17.94	.05***	28.44	.08***	0.89	.00	8.53	.02**

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .0001.

To test the fifth hypothesis, regarding the mediating ability of values, we first computed simple correlations (see Table 7). The table shows that conservation was negatively related to ideal marital age and to role transition, whereas openness to change was positively related to these variables, and positively to relationship readiness.

Table 7.

Pearson Correlations Between Openness to Change, Conservation, Role Transition, Family Capacities, Relationship Readiness, and Ideal Marital Age.

Variable	Openness to change	Conservation	Role transition	Family capacities	Relationship readiness
Conservation	−.68**
Role transition	.11*	−.19**
Family capacities	.02	−.005	.33**
Relationship readiness	−.14**	.06	.233**	.31**
Ideal marital age	.18**	−.28**	.38**	.11*	.06

p < .05. **p < .01.

A SEM model was then computed to test the ability of values to mediate the generation and residence differences in role transition and ideal marital age. Figure 1 shows the tested model for role transition. Fit indices for the model were good ( $χ_{(3)}^{2}$ = 1.8, N.S, NFI = 0.996, RFI = 0.978, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.0001). Standardized estimates are shown in Figure 1. The model shows that generational differences, but not residential differences, were mediated by conservation values. However, openness values did not mediate, neither generational nor residential difference, as they were not related to marital readiness in the model.

Figure 1.

Values as mediators of the relations between sub-groups and role transition.

A second SEM model was computed for ideal marital age. Figure 2 shows the tested model. Again, fit indices for the model were good ( $χ_{(3)}^{2}$ = 1.13, N.S, NFI = 0.998, RFI = 0.988, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.001). The mediation path between generation and ideal marital age through conservation was significant, while the mediation path through openness to change was not significant. Again, residential differences were not mediated by neither openness nor conservation values. The models show that when included in the same model, conservation, but not openness values, mediated generational differences in both marital readiness and ideal marital age.

Figure 2.

Values as mediators of the relations between sub-groups and ideal marital age.

Discussion

The current study aimed to examine how a transition in society is reflected by beliefs and attitudes toward women’s marital readiness and the way values may explain these differences. Our study demonstrates that Palestinian society in Israel is a society in transition in terms of generational differences to what concerns women’s marital readiness. Generational differences in social beliefs regarding women’s marital readiness, in terms of ideal marital age and acquiring important milestones (e.g., finishing with education, having a job), were related to a decrease in conservation values, but not to an increase in openness to change values. However, all groups equally emphasized women’s ability to run a household as essential to be considered ready to marry. Finally, abilities to be in a relationship were emphasized the most by elderly rural participants.

As expected, the younger generation was characterized by higher openness to change values and lower conservation values, compared to the older generation, in line with previous studies (Abu Aleon et al., 2019; Allassad Alhuzail, 2022; Weinstock et al., 2015). Moreover, a generational difference was obtained concerning perceived women’s marital readiness. Youngsters, compared to elders, reported higher ideal marital age for women, and emphasized more the importance of achieving milestones such as finishing education or having a job for women’s marital readiness. Those two results go hand in hand, and in line with previous studies that relate the increase in women’s education and participation in the labor market with the postponement of marriage (Julian, 2022; Lewin, 2012; Uecker & Stokes, 2008).

Interestingly, generational differences were mediated by conservation values, and not by openness to change values (despite the significant, but weak, simple correlations of marital readiness criteria and openness values). In other words, it seems that what affects the change in social beliefs regarding women’s marriage is not the increase of individualistic and modern values, but rather the decrease of conservative ones. As far as we know, our study is the first to suggest this trend, which requires further examination in future research—both among other societies in transition, and regarding more social norms and beliefs in addition to marital ones.

Contrary to the straightforward generational differences, differences between social groups divided by residence (urban versus rural) were less robust. No differences were found between urban and rural participants in openness to change values and in conservation values. This result can be explained by the significant effect of religiosity as a covariate. In other words, We suggest that the hypothesized differences between rural and urban participants stem from differences in levels of religiosity between the two residential places, rather than the mere place of residence. This assumption should be further examined in future studies.

A significant interaction was obtained between generation and residence in openness to change values. Consistent with the undifferentiated conservative values between urban and rural participants, urban and rural elders also did not differ in the degree of openness to change values. However, rural compared to urban youngsters were unexpectedly higher in openness to change values. This result can be understood given the “group reference effect,” referring to the influence of the context, when people rate themselves in comparison to other sub-groups within the same culture (Heine et al., 2002). In the present context, we assume that when rural youngsters evaluated their openness to change values, they compared themselves to the older generation within the Bedouin society. As a result, rural youngsters tended to over-estimate their self-reported openness, even in comparison with urban youngsters. In terms of marital readiness, urbans declared higher ideal marital age for women compared to rural participants, as expected. However, no such difference was found in the importance of acquiring milestones to be ready to get married. One possible explanation for this result is that educated and working women are considered as more attractive mates in the marriage market (Kalmijn, 2013). Educated women tend to postpone marriage for several years, while non-educated women tend to marry at an early age, before having to compete with the preferred, educated women in the marriage market (Sabbah-Karkaby & Stier, 2017). Thus, it seems that with the gradual increase in marital age, it is better for women to acquire important milestones before marriage, to improve their odds in the marriage market.

Nevertheless, women’s ability to run a household as a criterion for marital readiness did not differ neither by generation nor by residence. The gap between attitudes toward gender equality and the actual situation might explain this result. More specifically, individualistic values were related to more egalitarian gender attitudes (Lee et al., 2020; Lomazzi & Seddig, 2020), but in reality, women still do the majority of household duties, even in Western and individualistic cultures (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). This gap between attitudinal and actual gender-roles may be even larger in a society in transition, where social change in values still occurs (Arar, 2019; Karkabi-Sabbah, 2009; Vitman-Schorr & Ayalon, 2020). Thus, for a woman to be considered ready to marry, she must also be able to handle household duties.

The last criteria for women’s marital readiness, the relationship readiness, yielded interesting results. Rural elders, compared to all other groups, gave the highest importance for women’s qualities and abilities to handle a relationship in order to be ready to get married. We think that the term “women’s wisdom” may explain this result. Women’s wisdom refers to women’s ability to guide the marital relationship and to adapt to it in order to ensure its maintenance. From Bedouin women’s perspective, being married gives women a certain social status so it is in their interest to preserve the marital relationship and to prevent divorce. In addition, the responsibility to create, nurture and maintain marital relationship and family unit is imposed on women (Allassad Alhuzail, 2022). Hence, in the cultural and generational context, interpersonal and intrapersonal capacities in the marital relationship are important signs of women’s ability to “walk on eggshells” to maintain the marital and family unit, which eventually serves the more collectivistic values of sanctity of marriage, honor and family reputation.

This study has some limitations. First, among the young generation, we sampled school students within two schools in Haifa city and one large school in a Bedouin Northern village. It would be more accurate to include several different schools from each region. Second, the choice of Christian schools in Haifa and seniors’ clubs in specific neighborhoods resulted in over-representation of Christian participants, compared to their proportion within the Palestinian society in Israel. Albeit we controlled for religion and demonstrated that among Urbans, Christians did not differ from Muslims in all dependent variables and in demographic variables such as religiosity and educational levels, it would be more accurate in future studies to sample only Muslims in both residences, or to preserve the proportions of Christians versus Muslims in both regions. However, the similarity between urban Christians and Muslims might imply that sub-groups within a society in transition are less differentiated in terms of belonging to religious groups (or residential places as our results showed). Rather, the generational change is the most robust one defining sub-groups within a society in transition. Another limitation refers to the religiosity level, which is a self-reported scale and its interpretation might differ between Muslims and Christians. Again, when examined, no differences between Christian and Muslim urbans were found in degrees of religiosity. However, it would be preferable that future studies focus on only one religion. Finally, we focused merely on women’s marital readiness. It would be interesting for future studies to include social norms regarding men’s marital readiness and marital age.

To conclude, Palestinian society in Israel is indeed a society in transition, characterized by mainly generational differences. Comparing the older and younger generations, there is an increase in modernization values, a decrease in conservation values, and a change in women’s marital norms in terms of a higher ideal marital age and more importance of acquiring milestones before marriage. In addition, we suggest that the abandonment of traditional values, rather than the adoption of values of openness, is responsible for the change in social norms. Social change does not happen simultaneously in all realms of life. In the domestic tasks, women are still expected to be able to run a household for marital readiness. This stems from the well-rooted social perception that women are the primary carriers of the burden of household and childbearing. Hence, it is their responsibility to combine the demands of the family and household with their work and careers, regardless of social values systems.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tania Azzam

Jenny Kurman

References

Abu Aleon

Weinstock

Manago

A. M.

Greenfield

P. M

. (2019). Social change and intergenerational value differences in a Bedouin community in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(5), 708–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119839148

Al-Haj

(1995). Kinship and modernization in developing societies: The emergence of instrumentalized kinship. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26(3), 311–328. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41602409

Allassad Alhuzail

. (2022). The meaning of the marital relationship in the lives of three generations of Bedouin women. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(6), 683–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221099593

Arar

K. H.

(2019). The challenges involved when Arab women forge a path to educational leadership: Context, personal cost, and coping. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217753191

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Azaiza

(2013). Processes of conservation and change in Arab society in Israel: Implications for the health and welfare of the Arab population. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00866.x

Ben-Ari

Lavee

(2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences: A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.74.2.102

Ben-David

Barkai

(2012). Habedwim be’tzfon ha’aretz be’rei hatmoorot [Bedouins in the Northern of the state in the lens of changes]. Ariel.

Carroll

J. S.

Badger

Willoughby

B. J.

Nelson

L. J.

Madsen

S. D.

Mcnamara Barry

(2009). Ready or not? Criteria for marriage readiness among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(3), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558409334253

10.

Carroll

J. S.

Willoughby

Badger

Nelson

L. J.

McNamara Barry

Madsen

S. D.

(2007). So close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407299697

11.

Danis

W. M.

Liu

L. A.

Vacek

(2011). Values and upward influence strategies in transition: Evidence from the Czech Republic. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396924

12.

Ellison

C. G.

Burdette

A. M.

Glenn

N. D.

(2011). Praying for Mr. Right? Religion, family background, and marital expectations among college women. Journal of Family Issues, 32(7), 906–931. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10393143

13.

Faier

(2005). Organizations, gender and the culture of Palestinian activism in Haifa, Israel. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203955680

14.

Fuller

J. N.

Frost

A. M. H.

Burr

B. K.

(2015). Exploring the impact of religiosity and socioeconomic factors on perceived ideal timing of marriage in young adults. Journal of Student Research, 4(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.47611/jsr.v4i1.208

15.

Gharrah

(Ed). (2018). Sefer hahevra haa’ravit beyisrael: ochlosia, hevra, kalkala [Arab society in Israel: Population, society, economy]. (Vol. 9). Van Leer institute.

16.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 401–418. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014726

17.

Haddad Haj-Yahya

Khalaily

Rudnitzky

. (2022). Shnaton hahevra haa’ravit beyisrael 2021 [Statistical report on Arab society in Israel 2021]. Israel Democracy Institute and the Authority for the Economic Development of the Minorities Sector. https://www.idi.org.il/books/39381

18.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

Peng

Greenholtz

(2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903\

19.

Holland

J. A.

De Valk

H. A.

(2013). Ideal ages for family formation among immigrants in Europe. Advances in Life Course Research, 18(4), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2013.08.002

20.

Holman

T. B.

B. D.

(1997). Premarital factors influencing perceived readiness for marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 18(2), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251397018002002

21.

Inglehart

Norris

(2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University

22.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS). (2019). Statistical Abstract of Israel. Jerusalem. ICBS.

23.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS). (2023). Statistical Abstract of Israel. Jerusalem. ICBS.

24.

Julian

C. A.

(2022). Median age at first marriage, 2021 (Family Profile No. 15). National Center for Family & Marriage Research (NCFMR), Bowling Green State University. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/julian-median-age-first-marriage-2021-fp-22-15.html

25.

Kalmijn

(2013). The educational gradient in marriage: A comparison of 25 European countries. Demography, 50(4), 1499–1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-013-0229-x

26.

Karkabi

(2018). How and why Haifa has become the “Palestinian cultural capital” in Israel. City and Community, 17(4), 1168–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12341

27.

Karkabi-Sabbah

(2009). Basis hitarginut shel ha-hamula ve-maa’mada shel haesha ha-araviya [Basis of organization of the tribe and the status of the Arab woman]. In Azaiza

Abu-Baker

Hertz-Lazarowit

Ghanem

(Eds.), Arab women in Israel, current status and future trends (pp. 47–70). Ramot

28.

Keldal

Yıldırım

(2022). Factors associated with marital readiness among Turkish young adults. Family Relations, 71(1), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12619

29.

Khalaf

S. N.

(1990). Settlement of violence in Bedouin society. Ethnology, 29(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773568

30.

Khamaisi

Gharrah

(Eds). (2009). Sefer hahevra haa’ravit beyisrael: ochlosia, hevra, kalkala [Arab society in Israel: Population, society, economy]. (Vol. 3). Van Leer institute & Hakibbutz hameuchad.

31.

Kline

S. L.

Zhang

Manohar

Ryu

Suzuki

Mustafa

(2012). The role of communication and cultural concepts in expectations about marriage: Comparisons between young adults from six countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.003

32.

Lam

B. C.

Cross

S. E.

T. F.

Yeh

K. H.

Wang

Y. C.

J. C.

(2016). What do you want in a marriage? Examining marriage ideals in Taiwan and the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216637842

33.

Lee

I. C.

W. Q.

(2020). Cultural factors facilitating or inhibiting the support for traditional household gender roles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 51(5), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120929089

34.

Lewin

A. C.

(2012). Marriage patterns among Palestinians in Israel. European Journal of Population, 28(3), 359–380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23274983

35.

Lewin-Epstein

Semyonov

(1993). The Arab minority in Israel’s economy: Patterns of ethnic inequality. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429308901

36.

Lissitsa

(2019). Perceived optimal marriage age in the internet era—Findings of a nationwide survey. Marriage & Family Review, 5(2), 126–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2018.1458005

37.

Lomazzi

Seddig

(2020). Gender role attitudes in the international social survey programme: Cross-national comparability and relationships to cultural values. Cross-Cultural Research, 54(4), 398–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120915454

38.

Manago

A. M.

(2012). The new emerging adult in Chiapas, Mexico: Perceptions of traditional values and value change among first-generation Maya university students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(6), 663–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411417863

39.

Manago

A. M.

(2014). Connecting societal change to value differences across generations: Adolescents, mothers, and grandmothers in a Maya community in Southern Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(6), 868–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114527346

40.

Sabbah-Karkaby

Stier

(2017). Links between education and age at marriage among Palestinian women in Israel: Changes over time. Studies in Family Planning, 48(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12015

41.

Sarfo

E. A.

Yendork

J. S.

Naidoo

A. V.

(2021). Examining the intersection between marriage, perceived maturity and child marriage: Perspectives of community elders in the Northern region of Ghana. Culture, Health, Sexuality, 23(7), 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2020.1749934

42.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

43.

Schwartz

S. H.

Melech

Lehmann

Burgess

Harris

Owens

(2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001

44.

Soffer

(2007). Habedouim be’ Israel: Hibeeem geographim be 2007 [The Bedouins in Israel: Geographical aspects in 2007]. Ophakim be’geographia, 1, 224–236. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23716454

45.

Uecker

J. E.

Stokes

C. E.

(2008). Early marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00530.x

46.

Vitman-Schorr

Ayalon

(2020). The changing status of Israeli Arab women as reflected in their role as main caregivers. Journal of Family Issues, 41(11), 2203–2222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19898829

47.

Weinstock

Ganayiem

Igbaryia

Manago

A. M.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2015). Societal change and values in Arab communities in Israel: Intergenerational and rural–urban comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114551792

48.

Willoughby

B. J.

Carroll

J. S.

Vitas

J. M.

Hill

L. M.

(2012). “When are you getting married?” The intergenerational transmission of attitudes regarding marital timing and marital importance. Journal of Family Issues, 33(2), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11408695

49.

Willoughby

B. J.

Egbert

(2016). Complexities in assessing marital beliefs: Illustrations across college and non-college emerging adults. Marriage & Family Review, 52(8), 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1157124

50.

Yoo

Lee

(2019). The associations of national context and subjective well-being with marriage expectations among Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 1998–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01427-3