1 / 9

SCCS and Marriage Arrangements

SCCS and Marriage Arrangements. Abiha Bilgrami Anthro 174AW 11/19/09. Hypothesis. The first time marriage arrangements for a female were influenced by her parental and kin approval.

glynnis
Télécharger la présentation

SCCS and Marriage Arrangements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCCS and Marriage Arrangements Abiha Bilgrami Anthro 174AW 11/19/09

  2. Hypothesis • The first time marriage arrangements for a female were influenced by her parental and kin approval. • The bride’s age, exogamy/endogamy, and attitudes to pre marital sex would all influence how and who arranged her marriage. • I set out trying to prove that a young female has relatively little control over mate selection.

  3. My depvar- 1st time marriage • 740. Marriage Arrangements (Female) • 35 . = Missing data • 12 1 = Individual selects and/or courts partner autonomously: • approval by parents or others unnecessary • 40 2 = Individual selects and/or courts partner autonomously: • parental, kin, and/or community approval necessary • or highly desirable • 4 3 = Individual suggests partner to parents or others; • arrangements for courtship or marriage then proceed • if choice is approved • OR parents ask approval of individuals to initiate • a match • OR individual is approached by parent or others on • behalf of suitor and can accept or reject the match • 27 4 = Individual choice and arranged marriages are • alternatives • 35 5 = Parents choose partner: individual can object • 33 6 = Parents choose partner: individual cannot easily • object or rarely objects in fact

  4. Indep vars • 603. Role of Older Generation in Arranging Marriage • 604. Voice of Potential Bride and Groom • 612. Relative avg. age of 1st marriage • 282. Norms of Premarital Sex Behavior of Girls • 220. Community Marriage Organization • 209. Mode of Marriage • 72. Intercommunity Marriage • 634. Control of Sex Scale

  5. Unrestricted model • When I ran my unrestricted model, I got some interesting results.

  6. Restricted model • depvar = arranged marriages • coef Fstat ddf pvalue VIF • (Intercept) -0.107 0.001 36901.816 0.975 NA • fyll 1.113 1.984 10745.185 0.159 1.280 • dateobs * -0.001 2.448 40445.967 0.118 1.101 • cultints 0.186 2.813 17850.507 0.093 2.255 • cereals * -0.876 6.767 13234.615 0.009 1.749 • bovines 0.840 5.103 14865.559 0.024 1.877 • foodtrade 0.027 3.967 77497.447 0.046 1.246 • popdens * -0.204 3.236 7830.208 0.072 1.973 • exogamy 0.242 4.954 105534.447 0.026 1.118 • localjh 0.490 4.396 24655.067 0.036 1.184 • fempower * -0.169 5.149 749.082 0.024 1.057 • pctFemPolyg 0.014 7.107 205.293 0.008 1.083 • agrlateboy 0.140 3.313 173.884 0.070 1.084 • r2 0.2451251 (Courier New Font) • Depvar diminishes with asterisked variables • Depvar somewhat clustered within language families

  7. Diagnostics of restricted model R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language) 0.2451251 0.9108772 0.9008883 <--good R2 Fstat df pvalue RESET 0.371 1252.574 0.542 <--good diagnostic, no significant nonlinear transformations of independent variables Wald on restrs. 2.233 1016.628 0.135 <--good diagnostic, no significant excluded variables NCV 1.630 763.710 0.202 <--good diagnostic, no bunching of autocorrelation errors SWnormal 5.108 47610.956 0.024 <--diagnostic ok, don’t expect normality lagll 1.756 556755.724 0.185 <--good diagnostic, no language residuals lagdd 0.651 146180.887 0.420 <--good diagnostic, no distance residuals

  8. Depvar/indvar relationship • The likelihood of arranged marriage is increased by intensive cultivation, cattle, trade in food, exogamy, jurisdictional hierarchy within the community, percentage of polygyny, and aggression of late-age boys. This likelihood is decreased by date of observation, cereal agriculture, population density, and power of females, i.e., Sanday’s v663 for low Female Power in a Guttman Scale for variables 657-662: • 11 1 = all items absent • 9 2 = flexible marriage mores only (657) • 5 3 = plus female nondomestic production (658) • 13 4 = plus demand for female produce (659) • 23 5 = plus female economic control (660) • 41 6 = plus female political participation (661) • 31 7 = plus female solidarity groups (662) • There is a tendency for arranged marriage and perhaps some of these traits to cluster in the same language family. All these effects are statistically significant in the range .07 > pvalue > .008. They indicate smaller-scale, exogamous, male-dominant societies with polygyny and high adolescent male aggression and local community complexity with complex characteristics of intensive cultivation, cattle, trade in food, exogamy, and jurisdictional hierarchy within the community.

  9. Now what? • Seven highly significant (p <.05) predictors for arranged marriage: • cereals * -0.876 6.767 13234.615 0.009 1.749 • bovines 0.840 5.103 14865.559 0.024 1.877 • foodtrade 0.027 3.967 77497.447 0.046 1.246 • exogamy 0.242 4.954 105534.447 0.026 1.118 • localjh 0.490 4.396 24655.067 0.036 1.184 • fempower * -0.169 5.149 749.082 0.024 1.057 • pctFemPolyg 0.014 7.107 205.293 0.008 1.083 • agrlateboy 0.140 3.313 173.884 0.070 1.084 • Four close to significance: • fyll 1.113 1.984 10745.185 0.159 1.280 • dateobs * -0.001 2.448 40445.967 0.118 1.101 • cultints 0.186 2.813 17850.507 0.093 2.255 • popdens * -0.204 3.236 7830.208 0.072 1.973 • agrlateboy 0.140 3.313 173.884 0.070 1.084 • Islam is a predictor & displaces some above

More Related