vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Barriers and Alternatives to Marital Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. METHOD
..................................................
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Variables in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Gathering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III.
RESULTS
....................................... ..........
Demographic Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Individual Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Melody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Nelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Cristy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Sheila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Melissa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Leslie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Sandra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Liezl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Marivic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrative Themes Across the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Beliefs on Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marital Annulment Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sources of Marital Annulment Beliefs and Degree of Influence . . . . .
Cost of Marital Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits of Marital Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
9
21
34
35
37
37
38
38
39
40
41
41
45
45
53
64
75
85
93
104
113
124
138
138
141
144
148
152
vii
Page
IV. DISCUSSION
...............................................
Stresses and Problems in Marriage as Starting Points in the
Decision-Making Process in Marital Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Common Marital Problems of the Woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perceived Serious Personality Flows of the Husbands . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Signs of Problematic Marriages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Role in Social Context in Cost-Benefit Analysis
and Belief Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Traditional Beliefs on Marriage and Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Women’s Unemployment and Lack of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unfulfilled Traditional Gender Roles (Husbands as Breadwinner) . . .
Presence or Absence of Children In the Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Safety Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Coping Function of Nontraditional Beliefs on
Marriage and Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Negative Consequences of Highly Romantic
Beliefs on Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Role of Life Changes and External Influences in Belief Change . . . . .
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spousal Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Sources of Beliefs and External Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Critique of the Psychosocial Model as Theoretical Framework
to the Decision-Making Process in Marital Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Beliefs on Marriage and Resistance to Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Relationship Between Beliefs on Marriage and
Marital Annulment Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cost Benefit Analysis as Nonsequential and Multidirectional . . . . . .
Lived Experiences, External Influences and Emerging
Beliefs as Agents of Belief Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Role of Personal Transformation in Belief Change . . . . . . . . . . .
The Decision-Making Process in Marital Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES
..................................................
155
155
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
163
163
164
164
165
166
166
167
168
172
172
173
174
175
176
182
186
191
191
194
APPENDIXES
A. Personal Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Demographic Profile of the Study Sample During Annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
2. Premarital History of the Study Sample
..............................
43
3. Demographic Variables for the Sampled Women’s Spouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
A social psychological model on the decision-making process
in marital annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
A social psychological model on the decision-making process
in marital annulment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
185
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The emotional anguish of being trapped in a hellish marriage affects Filipino women
from different walks of life. The deluge of cases in Philippine courts involving annulment
and legal separation has exposed the veiled fact that many women suffer from abuse and
battering in the home. (Asia Week, January 12, 1994). The physical and verbal abuse that
women experience in a dysfunctional marriage is dehumanizing and robs them of their
personal dignity. In the Philippine Constitution’s Declaration of Principles, it categorically
states that, “the state shall strengthen the family as a basic autonomous unit.” Further, the
Family Code (Article XV, Sections 1 and 2) considers “marriage as an inviolable social
institution.” Although legal separation is allowed, spouses are not allowed to remarry.
Church annulments follow strict and rigorous procedures, which practically involve one
going through “the eye of the needle” before one is granted an annulment. Aside from
religious, moral, and legal underpinnings, many women continue to stay in hurting marriages
due to financial dependence on their husbands, their need to protect their children, and the
stigma attached to a broken home (Manila Times, July 6, 2003). Cultural norms and
traditional gender roles dictate that in a marital relationship, women are expected to do more
in order to preserve their marriage. Thus, even if things become unbearable, they choose to
remain status quo.
Recent socioeconomic changes though, have changed the structure of the Filipino
family. Women have invaded all levels of the labor force and their participation in
government, the private sector as well in the political arena has been recognized. They are
2
now active contributors to nation building. Through the enactment of laws and creation of
programs for their benefit, a redefinition of their role in the family has taken place. Likewise,
legislation, as incorporated in the New Family Code, (Article 36, dated August 1988) has
given women the chance to free themselves from their painful and tragic marriages, to help
regain control of their situations, and to enable them to chart new directions in their lives.
Marital annulment is now possible and psychological incapacity is cited as basis to void a
marriage. Still, the struggle to give up a doomed marriage or to remain in it is a dilemma that
women face. What deters women to seek marital annulment despite their terrible marital
circumstances? Is it possible that traditional values, beliefs, and attitudes continue to
influence their behaviors and marital annulment decisions? With the increasing number of
annulment applications filed by women, is it not possible that they have overcome these
barriers and whatever meanings these cultural norms have are now irrelevant for them?
These questions provide the backdrop from which beliefs of women on marital annulment
becomes an interesting subject of inquiry. The Social Exchange Theory is used as theoretical
framework to explore how women make sense out of the complex and contradictory beliefs
and social meanings of marital annulment, and the reconceptualization that takes place to
arrive at a more positive meaning of marital annulment, which leads to a change in beliefs.
Theoretical Framework
This study draws from the Social Exchange Theory for theoretical guidance in
explaining the marital annulment beliefs of Filipino women who are undergoing marital
annulment and the process of belief change.
3
Social Exchange Theory
A fundamental tenet of the Social Exchange Theory is that people in their interactions
try to maximize rewards and minimize costs in order to obtain the most profitable outcomes.
According to Simon, (1997) because people assign meaning to role identities in terms of their
advantages and disadvantages, the balance between the perceived benefit and costs of role
involvement may be an accurate predictor of the meaning and impact of role occupancy and
role loss as contexts, appraisal, identities or beliefs. In relation to this theory, Reisman’s
study (1990) suggests that divorce is less distressing to those people for whom the perceived
benefits of staying in the marriage are less than the perceived costs. Events and strains in the
role domain are stressful and distressing only when they challenge, threaten, or harm an
important meaning of the identity of the person. Levinger (1968) elaborated the principles of
the Social Exchange Theory by introducing the concept of “relationship barriers,” which
provided a theoretical basis for making predictions regarding liberality of attitudes toward
divorce. Both Levinger (1965) and Lewis and Spanier (1979) suggest that the dyad is a
social group and marital cohesiveness functions under the same principles as group
cohesiveness. That is, the strength of the dyad is a direct function of the attractions and
barriers from other relationships. If there are sufficient barriers around the marriage, such as
the presence of children and religious proscriptions against divorce, only a few attractions
within the marriage, and a lack of alternative sources of attraction outside the marriage, then
the marriage might be stable without being satisfying. Conservative attitudes toward divorce
also serve as a barrier because such attitudes function as a force operating against marital
dissolution. Moreover, children are often an important source of fulfillment for women
4
who are not experiencing a satisfying marital relationship, who believe that divorce may be
psychologically harmful to children and who may not be as likely as childless spouses to
accept divorce as a legitimate avenue for dealing with marital crisis (Blood & Wolfe, 1960;
Luckey & Bain, 1970; Jorgensen & Johnson, 1980).
To explain the process of change in marital annulment beliefs, a social-psychological
model formulated by Edwards and Saunders (1981), which was conceptualized by Levinger
(1965), was adapted and modified. Drawing from the Social Exchange Theory, the model
focuses on barriers to a change in marital dissolution beliefs and alternative attractions which
act as “push” and “pull” forces bearing on the maintenance of the marriage.
According to Levinger, (1965) barriers and alternative attractions act as external push
and pull forces bearing on the maintenance of the marital dyad. Among such barriers are
feelings of obligation, moral proscriptions, and various social pressures such as family group
affiliations, community stigma, legal and economic constrictions, traditionality of one’s sexrole ideology, high religiosity, dependence on marriage for psychological well-being, and
large number of children. Alternative attractions, the “pulling” forces, include such factors
as the desirability of single-hood, means of self-support, an emphasis on personal growth and
development, liberal sex-role ideology, and the sense of being finite.
As the barriers and alternatives impinge on the dyad, they have the potential to create
a tenuous balance between the rewards and costs entailed in the relationship, which
results in distress and affects one’s psychological well-being. An evaluation of costs and
rewards takes place leading to heightened awareness of alternatives available. Crucial here is
the comparison level of alternatives. The outcome of every interaction is evaluated on
5
the basis of past experience, this experience providing a standard or comparison level by
which present (and possible future) interaction is to be judged. From this, one perceives his
or her goodness of outcome, a cognitive evaluation of costs and rewards. Assuming
permanent availability, one is unlikely to maintain a relationship when the goodness of
outcomes derived from interaction in that relationship falls below the projected outcomes to
be obtained in some alternative arrangement. In the absence of attractive alternatives, on the
other hand, an individual is likely to tolerate the present relationship even if it is perceived as
being unsatisfactory or unprofitable. Once the barriers are overcome in a psychological
sense and an alternative to the unhappy marriage has been perceived, the marriage is judged
by a new cognitive standard.
Although the model hypothesizes a sequential and unidirectional process of attitude
change, it is possible that there is no straightforward process for a change in marital
annulment beliefs even as marital dissolution decision is reached. Findings
therefore, will hopefully yield a better understanding of the marital annulment belief
change process.
In relation to the conceptual framework, the next section tackles theories relevant to
the decision-making process on marital annulment, which includes the meanings of marriage
and marital annulment beliefs and belief change.
Marital Annulment Beliefs
Bruner (1990) argues that the selves and lives we construct are the outcomes of the
process of meaning construction, which is embedded in a culture of meaning. These
meanings allow individuals to make past events more readily understandable and future
6
events more predictable. Further, the meanings of marriage represent a narrative or a
psychological reality that may or may not be related to a more objective, historical reality
(Gergen & Gergen, 1987). In short, the meanings of marriage are part of a cognitive
structure that allows people to understand and evaluate their marital relationships.
When couples are first married, individual meanings of marriage may be more
determined by the accumulation of social experiences (such as premarital parenthood),
language, and prevailing beliefs about marriage than by interaction with a spouse (KnudsonMartin & Mahoney, 1998). In general, individuals’ beliefs about marriage are not based on
systematic and formal training, but instead are developed from observing marriages, being
exposed to media images or marriage, and through other socializing agents that share cultural
values and norms (Baucom & Epstein, 1998). Unfortunately, media images and popular
portrayals of marriage are likely to foster unrealistic beliefs. Romantic love is central to
contemporary notions of marriage (Barich & Bailey, 1996)
and typically, young people do not expect this feeling to wane or change and are
disappointed when it does (Glenn, 1991).
Simon and Marcussen (1999) also mention three theoretical approaches in the search
for the underlying causes of the differential impact of divorce or separation, which emphasize
either the characteristics of the event itself, the characteristics of the person experiencing the
transition, or the social context surrounding the stressor. Much of earlier researches focused
on the first two theoretical approaches. More recently, attention has shifted to the third
theoretical approach, which attributes variation in the mental health consequences of life
events to variation in the larger social context surrounding stresses. Advocates of this
7
approach argue that the social circumstances or context in which events occur are crucial in
explaining variation in psychological impact because they shape the personal meaning and
the emotional significance of the stressor. The aspects of social context that have been
shown to moderate the impact of life events on symptoms includes role loss (Wheaton, 1990)
and subsequent role strain (Umberson, Wortman & Kessler, 1992).
However, although these studies highlight the centrality of social factors for the
etiology of mental illness, theoretically, contextually-based studies have focused on structural
(e.g., demographic variables) and have overlooked more sociocultural aspects of context such
as people’s beliefs and values. The failure to consider sociocultural factors in general, and
people’s beliefs about social roles in particular, could have serious consequences for theory
and research in this area in so far as results underestimate the contribution of social
conditions to stress and mental health.
Using Simon and Marcussen’s definition of beliefs (1999), the term beliefs refer to
cognitions that involve understandings and convictions about some aspect of reality.
Further, they contend that in explaining the role of beliefs in the variations of the impact of
role transitions, beliefs are important for stress and mental health issues because they serve as
perceptual lens through which life events are interpreted. This line of argument is
shared by other researchers (Brown & Harris, 1989; Pearlin, 1989). A few studies have
acknowledged the potential importance of values and beliefs in the stress process. For
example, Pearlin (1989) wrote that an individual’s values, which are shared by their
structural locations, influence the event to which experiences are perceived as stressful and
may, therefore, help explain individual and group differences in the impact of events on
8
mental health symptoms. In general, the preceding studies indicate that people’s beliefs
moderate the meaning and impact of negative experiences on mental health.
Belief Change on Marital Annulment
The myriad of changes in our society lead to questions about how union formation is
internalized as beliefs about the appropriate standards for members of society. Traditional
sex roles in society center on the division of labor in the family. These roles prescribe
behavior regardless of marital status and age, but are most centrally concerned with the
gender-based breadwinner-versus-homemaker specialization. This prescribed division of
labor is often justified by beliefs about innate sex differences and children’s needs. In recent
years though, there has been a dramatic and pervasive weakening of the normative
imperative to marry, to remain married, and to have children. Apparently, the power of
socially shared beliefs that individuals “ought to” or “should” follow these particular family
patterns have been diminished (Thornton, 1989).
Simon and Marcussen (1999) contend that marital dissolution as a life event
results in changes in beliefs about marriage over time. Social conditions influence people’s
beliefs about marriage. In other words, marriage is especially beneficial (and a marital loss is
especially harmful) for mental health during historical periods when beliefs about the
permanence, desirability and importance of marriage are culturally strong and pervasive.
Likewise, experiences such as becoming married, having a child, and becoming employed
were associated with lessened traditionalism (Mason, 1988). Apparently, recent global
trends have brought about demographic and cultural changes that have significantly altered
women’s status and roles within and outside of the family. Women today have a wider
9
range of opportunities for the fulfillment of socially accepted goals, which are no longer
limited to having a happy and harmonious family. Further, as women’s work force
participation increased, economic barriers to leaving strained marriages have weakened. In
the light of these developments, one gets the notion that changes in women’s beliefs about
marital dissolution are possible and the process of belief change becomes an interesting area
for exploration.
A summary of the study’s theoretical framework using the Social Exchange Theory
(Figure 1) is presented to explain the process of change in women’s marital annulment
beliefs.
Review of Literature
The literature review is guided by the Social Psychological Model, which utilizes the
Social Exchange Theory as theoretical framework to explain the decision-making process in
marital annulment. Initial discussion will focus on the antecedents to belief change, which
involve women’s the meanings of marriage, marital annulment beliefs and sources. Stresses
and problems in marriage as well as barriers and alternatives to marital annulment will
follow. Change in marital annulment beliefs as was well as the decision to file for marital
annulment will also tackled. A summary of salient points emerging from the literature
review constitutes the final portion of this section.