Sociocultural Context, Relationship Quality, and Gender:
A First Glimpse at “His” and “Her” Experiences in Married and
Cohabiting Couples of Mexican Origin in their Childrearing Years
Yuliana Rodriguez, Jinni Su, & Heather M. Helms
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Abstract
Results
It is well established in both theoretical and empirical literatures that marital experiences are
differentiated by gender and that marriage is a dyadic enterprise comprised of two often
distinctly different experiences: “his” and “hers” (Bernard, 1972; Crouter & Helms-Erikson,
2000). This may be particularly true for couples of Mexican origin about whom much has been
theorized regarding gendered relations in marriage but for whom few empirical investigations
exist. Using data gathered during home interviews with legally married and “living as married”
(cohabiting) couples recruited via cultural insiders and snowball sampling methods, we
describe within couple gender differences and similarities in 120 Mexican-origin partners’
sociocultural experiences, values, and relationship quality. The focus of our study is largely
descriptive and was addressed via t-tests for dependent samples and Pearson
correlations. Results suggest that within couples, spouses were similar to one another in
personal well-being, English competency, social network support, and experiences of racism in
the workplace. What appeared to be uniquely gendered within couples, however, was husbands’
and wives’ employment, perceptions of marital quality, values related to familism and gender,
and acculturation. These findings represent an important first step in understanding the
gendered nature of Mexican immigrant couples’ marital and sociocultural experiences.
Sample
•Marital Status: 69.2% married, 30.8% cohabiting
•Ethnicity: Wives: 95.8% Mexican, 4.2% other Latin origin, Husbands: 93.3% Mexican,
6.7% other Latin origin
•Parents’ Birth Place: Wives: 93.3% Mexico, 4.2% US, 2.5% other Latin country, Husbands:
90.8% Mexico, 3.3% US, 5.8% other Latin country
•Employment Status: Wives: 54.2% employed, Husbands: 98.3% employed
Variables (N= 120)
Age
Wives
Husbands
First born (in years)
Years in US
Wives
Husbands
Marital duration (years)
Education (years)
Wives
Husbands
M
SD
28.13
30.33
5.87
5.463
5.79
3.88
Range
18 – 47
18 – 48
.08 – 13.64
8.81
11.40
7
4.41
5.26
3.96
<1 – 22
2 – 27
1 – 15
9.66
9.01
3.17
3.18
0 – 16
1 – 18
Measures
 Gender role attitudes, α = .81 (.84), Hoffman & Kloska, 1995
 Familism attitudes, α = .71 (.72): MACV, Knight et al., 2010
 English competency, α = .86 (.86), Pressure to Acculturate, α = .85 (.83), Pressure against acculturation, α = .83
(.76); MASI, Rodriguez et al., 2002
 Emotional support, α = .979(.916), Global Network Satisfaction, α = .930 (.872); Levitt, Weber, & Clark, 1986
 Depression α = .79 (.73); CESD, Radloff, 1977
 Marital satisfaction, α = .94 (.91); Huston et al., 1986
 Martial Conflict, α = ..58 (.63); Braiker & Kelley, 1979
 Neighborhood Quality, α = .94 (.91); Roosa et al., 2005
 Mexican orientation, α = .77 (.81); Anglo orientation, α = .82 (.87); ARSMA-II, Cuellar et al., 1995
 Racism in the Workplace, α = .91 (.85), Hughes & Dodge, 1997
Note: α in parenthesis is for husbands.
Gender role attitudes
Familism attitudes
Mexican orientation
Anglo orientation
English competency
Pressure to acculturate
Pressure against
acculturation
Perceived Family economic
hardship
Neighborhood quality
Emotional support
Global network satisfaction
Depression
Marital satisfaction
Marital conflict
For Employed Spouses
Income
Occupational prestige
Work hours
Racism in workplace
Wife
Husband
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
2.26
.81
2.46
4.38
.40
4.56
4.44
.43
4.17
2.14
.64
2.44
1.97
1.17
1.78
1.51
1.01
1.71
.79
.87
.96
.85
.32
.46
.63
.96
.99
.87
Paired Difference
Correlation
Mean
SD
(W-H)
-.20*
.96
.343**
-.18***
.50
.062
.28***
.56
.207*
-.30***
.79
.223*
.19
1.34
.217*
-.20+
1.19
.286**
-.16+
1.06
.258**
11.92
4.25
11.18
3.49
.73+
4.71
.273**
3.12
4.42
7.73
20.43
7.21
4.65
.59
.51
1.14
5.18
1.34
1.41
3.02
4.36
7.63
20.98
7.57
3.83
.51
.48
1.00
4.63
.96
1.35
.11*
.06
.09
-.56
-.36**
.83***
.56
.69
1.51
6.66
1.48
1.57
.493**
.018
.009
.082
.205*
.354**
15138
3240
38.21
4.09
6559
837
6.35
1.92
24149
3532
43.01
4.36
9021 -9011***
746 -293*
8.18
-4.81**
1.58
-.27
10015
1101
10.84
2.14
.204
.036
-.100
.400**
Note: † p < .10. * p < .05. **p<.01 *** p<.001
Conclusion
The results of the descriptive study described the similarities and differences in husbands’ and wives’ sociocultural
and marital experiences and perceptions.
 The pattern of correlations suggests that spouses’ cultural orientations, gender-role beliefs, perceptions of
sociocultural stressors and marital and neighborhood quality are, at best, modestly correlated.
Husbands’ and wives’ gender role beliefs and familism values, cultural orientations, perceptions of marital and
neighborhood quality, and their work related qualities appear to be uniquely gendered within couples.
Husbands reported more conventional views about gender roles and family, were more Anglo oriented, and
reported more marital satisfaction than their wives. Wives’ were more Mexican oriented, had more positive views
of neighborhood quality, and reported more marital conflict than their husbands.
For employed spouses, gender differences were found for income, occupational prestige and work hours
suggesting that husbands were employed in higher prestige jobs than were wives, worked approximately 5 hours
more per week than wives, and earned $9000 more, on average than wives.
No gender differences were found in spouses’ English competency, depression, and perceptions of emotional support,
satisfaction with their social networks, and racism in the workplace.
“Interpreting the different replies of husbands and wives in terms of selective perception, projection of needs, values,
attitudes, and beliefs, or different definitions of situation, by no means renders them trivial or incidental or justifies
dismissing or ignoring them. They are, rather, fundamental for an understanding of the two marriages, his and her,
and we ignore them at the peril of serious misunderstanding of marriage, present as well as future” (Bernard, 1982).
Acknowledgements: This research was funded by a UNCG Regular Faculty Grant, the HES Grant Incentive Program, and an
Agricultural Research Service Award #NC07299 granted to Dr. Heather Helms, PI. Many thanks to participating couples and project
staff including Monsy Bonilla, Diana Escobar, Mary Julia Moore, Darlene Pitaluga, Ashley Valezquez, and Jill Walls.