Gender,Race,Adult Attachment,and Marital Satisfaction Among Malaysians

Abstract

This study investigated the gender and race differences on attachment-related avoidance, attachment-related anxiety, and marital satisfaction in the three major Malaysian ethnic groups (i.e., Malays, Chinese, and Indians). Results showed the females reported higher levels of anxiety and lower levels of marital satisfaction than did the males. The Malays were found to report higher levels of anxiety than both the Chinese and Indians. Further regression analyses revealed that anxiety and avoidance were significant predictors of marital satisfaction in the Chinese females, Indian males and females, and Malay males and females while avoidance was the only significant predictor in the Chinese males. Gender and race differences were also observed in the association between attachment and marital satisfaction.

Keywords

attachment marital satisfaction Malaysians race gender

Research has thus far generated considerable amount of findings supporting the association between attachment quality and adult close relationships such as marital relationship (Banse, 2004; Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Davila, Bradbury, & Fincham, 1998; Feeney, 1999). However, the majority of these studies were conducted in Western contexts (Selcuk, Zayas, & Hazan, 2010). Additional research is needed to verify the cross-cultural validity of adult attachment and the generalizability of extant adult attachment-related findings to non-Western populations. This is particularly important because cross-cultural research in recent years has shown that culture plays an important role in the manifestation of adult attachment and researchers have cautioned the potential for overgeneralization of the Western-based attachment perspectives to non-Western populations (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006).

A recent review of the literature revealed that adult attachment research on Malaysians has been very limited. To our knowledge, no research has investigated the relationship between attachment quality and marital satisfaction among Malaysians. Malaysia provides an excellent avenue to undertake research dealing with cross-cultural issues because it is a multicultural nation with diverse and distinct racial groups among its population. As a multicultural society, the authors believe that the country provides a fertile ground for research that presents a unique Asian perspective. As such, the current study was designed to investigate the relationship between adult romantic attachment, conceptualized in terms of attachment avoidance and anxiety, and marital satisfaction among married Malaysians. The study focuses on gender and race differences in the link between participants’ attachment quality and marital satisfaction.

Context and Culture in Malaysia

Malaysia is considered one of the fastest-growing developing countries in Southeast Asia. Due to its consistent economic growth in recent decades, the country has been subject to numerous socioeconomic changes and stressors such as increased urban migration, aging of the population, rising divorce rate, family structure transformation, and illegal immigration (Azizah, 1997; Mafauzy, 2000; Moris, 2007). Additionally, globalization and competition from China have resulted in much economic insecurity in the country (Shari, 2003).

Malaysia’s population in 2010 totaled about 28.3 million with 7.4 million (26%) Chinese, 2.2 million (7.7%) Indians, and 15.1 million (53.3%) Malay (U.S. Department of State, 2011). Due to the country’s colonial history, English is a commonly used language in private and commercial sectors. Religiously, the Malays are primarily Muslims. The Malaysian constitution defines a Malay person as one who is a Muslim (Laws of Malaysia, 2006). Since the nation’s birth in 1957, the Malays have controlled the political system, including the police force, the army, and the civil service. Majority of the Malays are overwhelmingly represented in rural areas. Resulting from national economic policies, there has been a gradual exodus of Malay rural migrants to industrial locations in major urban centers in the country. Such changes have brought about a shift in cultural norms with a growing sense of individualism and less willingness to sacrifice personal desires and ambitions for the family (Husin Ali, 2008).

The Chinese Malaysians control a significant portion of Malaysia’s economy (Phang, 2000). They have generally maintained a distinct communal identity as a result of religious, racial–political, and economic barriers against assimilation with the Malay majority (Tan, 2004). About 80% of the Chinese observe a blend of Buddhism and Taoism. Due to their focus on economic advancement, the Chinese mainly live in major urban cities.

The majority of the Indian Malaysians are Tamils with ancestry tracing back to immigration from India during the British colonial days (Kuppuswamy, 2003). Most of the Indians are Hindus. Though they make up about 16% of the professionals in Malaysia (Ramachandran, 2002), they own less than 2% of Malaysia’s national wealth (Kuppuswamy, 2003). Much of the poverty among the Indians is tied to their history as rubber plantation workers. Many Indians believe they have been left out in the country’s economic progress (Kuppuswamy, 2003; The Times of India, 2009).

Arranged marriages were the preferred marriage systems among Malaysians up until the 1960s. Connected with rapid socioeconomic development and a shift toward nuclear families in the last few decades, Malaysians have achieved higher levels of education, greater career opportunities, and increased aspirations for independent living, resulting in arranged marriages giving way to more marriages by choice as well as delayed marriage and nonmarriage (Tey, 2007). About 41% of the Indian Malaysian women reported marrying a partner of their choice, compared to 42% of the Malay women and 67% of the Chinese women (Tan, 2003). Unlike other ethnic groups, the Malay men who are Muslim are permitted to have up to four wives concurrently by their religion (Jones, 1981).

Adult Attachment

Attachment is conceptualized as an evolved behavioral system that motivates infants to seek closeness with caregivers during times of distress (Bowlby, 1988). The goal of attachment is felt security and survival. Similar emotional and behavioral dynamics in infant–caregiver attachment relationships are believed to also motivate adult romantic relationships (Shaver & Hazan, 1993). Contact with the attachment figure will allow an individual whose attachment system is activated to gain felt security and deactivate the behavioral system, resulting in resumption of exploratory activities. Infant attachment behaviors are observed in infant–caregiver relationships, whereas in adults, attachment behaviors are directed toward romantic partners, close friends, and adult children. Hence, adult attachment is defined as the propensity of adults to seek and maintain proximity to, and contact with, one or few specific individuals for physical and/or psychological safety.

The innate desire for attachment is theorized to be regulated by internal working models (Bowlby, 1988). Bartholomew’s (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) four-category typology of attachment style is the most frequently used conceptualization of adult attachment pattern. It is defined by the dimensions of model of self and model of others: secure (positive model of self, positive model of others), preoccupied (negative model of self, positive model of others), fearful (negative model of self and model of others), and dismissing (positive model of self, negative model of others). However, since the late 1990s, researchers have argued for a dimensional conceptual framework that is defined by two latent dimensions: attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley & Waller, 1998). Insecure attachment is defined by higher scores on either or both of these dimensions. Secure attachment is reflected by lower scores on these dimensions. The current study follows the dimensional conceptualization.

From an evolutionary perspective, attachment theory posits that the need in humans, primates, and other species to attach with conspecifics is universal and such need supersedes cultural and contextual differences (Selcuk et al., 2010). This universality hypothesis has received substantial support in infant–caregiver research across the world (van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). There is also evidence supporting the universality hypothesis in adulthood (Selcuk et al., 2010); for example, Schmitt et al.’s (2004) multinational study found evidence in support of the validity of the two attachment dimensions across cultures.

However, to date, the literature also indicates that culture and other contextual variables play a role in the development of attachment quality. For example, Schmitt et al. (2004) in a multinational study found that East Asians tended to be particularly prone to preoccupied romantic attachment. Among other things, Mickelson, Kessler, and Shaver (1997) found in their U.S. nationally representative sample that “being white, female, well-educated, middle-class, married, middle-aged, and from the Midwest were all associated significantly with an increased likelihood of attachment security in adulthood” (p. 1102) and anxiously attached individuals were more likely than others “to be young, previously married, Black or Hispanic, less well educated, and less well-off financially” (p. 1097). Schmitt et al.’s cross-national findings led them to posit that individuals from regions with higher stress and hardship are more likely to develop insecure attachment in adulthood.

Gender differences in attachment quality have been documented in the literature, though not consistently. For example, Schmitt et al.’s (2003) multinational study revealed that, contrary to findings in Western cultures, men were not significantly more dismissing than women across all cultural regions. Schmitt (2008) argued that ecological stressors influence dismissing orientations across genders and geographies. Others have also argued that gender differences in adult attachment orientations are culture specific (Li, He, & Li, 2009).

Though extant findings indicate that ethnicity and gender differences in attachment quality exist, most adult attachment research has relied on Caucasian samples and was conducted in Western settings (Selcuk et al., 2010). Knowledge on the role of ethnicity and gender in adult attachment remains limited; and authors have called for more research involving diverse backgrounds (Selcuk et al., 2010).

Adult Romantic Attachment and Marital Satisfaction

In general, research has also consistently shown that men report higher levels of marital satisfaction than do women (e.g., Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Ng, Loy, Gudmunson, & Cheong, 2009; Simon, 2002). The link between adult romantic attachment styles and relationship satisfaction has been well documented (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). For example, attachment security is positively associated with marital satisfaction (Feeney, 1999) and attachment-related avoidance and anxiety are negatively associated with marital satisfaction (Davila et al., 1998). Attachment theory suggests that relationship dissatisfaction comes from attachment-related worries and insecurities (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Partner’s attachment style and the attachment configuration of the romantic dyad also contribute to a person’s relationship satisfaction (Banse, 2004). Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) explain that “attachment injuries (experiencing a partner’s unavailability, infidelity, abuse, or rejection) can cause especially strong relationship distress whenever they activate defensive patterns of attachment-system hyperactivation or deactivation that foster either angry, clingy demands for a partner’s attention, or cold detachment from a disappointing or frustrating partner” (p. 108).

The effects of attachment security on relationship satisfaction seem to be conditioned by gender (Banse, 2004). For example, avoidant men in serious dating relationships tend to report less relationship satisfaction than secure or anxious men, whereas relationships involving anxious women tend to be perceived less satisfactorily by both partners in the relationship (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994).

Recent research has also investigated the mediators of the association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. For example, Davila, Bradbury, and Fincham (1998) found that negative affectivity mediated the association between certain aspects of attachment insecurity and marital dissatisfaction while attachment also maintained a direct association with marital satisfaction in some cases. Meyers and Landsberger (2002) reported that, whereas psychological distress mediated the association between secure attachment and marital satisfaction, social support mediated the association between avoidant attachment, and marital satisfaction in a community-based sample of 73 married women. Marchand (2004) further reported that husbands’ conflict resolution behaviors partially mediated the link between husbands’ depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction; but, wives’ conflict resolution behaviors only partially mediated the association between wives’ attachment anxiety and marital satisfaction.

Though extant findings provide an impressive support for the association between attachment quality and marital relationship, such findings have been based primarily on Western Caucasian samples (Selcuk et al., 2010). Only a few studies investigated attachment and marital relationship in non-Western samples. For example, Onishi and Gjerde (2002) studied the attachment strategies in Japanese urban middle-class couples in relation to the asymmetry in Japanese marital roles. These researchers found that secure husband’s strategy seemed to be enhanced using his “motherly” wife as a secure base resulting in higher marital attachment security. However, dismissing husband seemed to further intensify deactivating strategies through downplaying the emotional significance of his motherly wife and experienced lower marital attachment security. In a study in Turkey, Ozmen and Atik (2010) reported negative correlations between marital adjustment and the two attachment dimensions. Ozmen and Atik’s findings further revealed that only attachment-related avoidance uniquely predicted marital adjustment and males reported higher levels of marital adjustment.

Adult Attachment Research in Malaysia

Attachment research in Malaysia is sparse; and adult attachment research is even more limited. Malaysians were included in Schmitt et al.’s (2003, 2004) multinational cross-cultural studies. Unlike findings in Western contexts, Schmitt et al. (2003) did not find significant gender differences in dismissing romantic attachment style in 141 Malaysians. Schmitt et al. (2004) further reported that Malaysians showed significantly higher levels of dismissing romantic attachment than secure romantic attachment with the later being normative across 79% of the cultures they studied. However, Schmitt et al.’s (2003, 2004) studies were limited by their use of a modest size convenience sample of college students and a translated measure which had not been systematically validated on a large number of Malaysians (Ng, Trusty, & Crawford, 2005). Also, Schmitt et al. (2003, 2004) did not examine race differences in their Malaysian sample.

The Present Study

The present study represents an effort to investigate the generalizability of the well-documented link between adult attachment and marital satisfaction to the Malaysian context. Specifically, the study focused on gender and race differences in attachment, marital satisfaction, and the link between attachment and marital satisfaction.

In light of extant findings, we expected the following

Gender differences would be found in attachment-related avoidance and attachment related anxiety. This difference would be found across the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia.

Males would report high levels of marital satisfaction than females. This difference would be found across the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia.

Gender and race differences would be observed in the relationship between attachment and marital satisfaction.

Method

Sampling Procedures

Sampling was conducted in Klang Valley, an urbanized and populous region of Malaysia where Kuala Lumpur, the country’s capital, is located. Staff and students of two universities and members of two local churches volunteered to participate or to recruit others to participate in the study. Individuals who responded positively to the invitation to participate were given a research packet. All participants completed and returned the research materials to the researchers. No incentives were given for participation.

Participants

A total of 1,050 response sets were received. For the purposes of this study, only 873 individuals who were in a marital relationship (n = 863) or cohabiting with a partner (n = 10) and had indicated their gender and race were included in this study. Among them were 439 Chinese Malaysians, 229 Indian Malaysians, and 205 Malay Malaysians.

Chinese

Among the Chinese were 186 (42.4%) males and 253 (57.6%) females. Their ages ranged from 20 to 80 (M = 42.57, SD = 9.92; 43 did not report age). Among them were 170 (38.7%) Buddhists, 13 (2.9%) Taoists, 223 (50.8%) Christians, and 6 (1.4%) Muslims. Twenty-two (5.0%) had no religious affiliation, 3 (0.7%) referred to themselves as free thinker, 2 (0.5%) claimed to observe a mixture of faiths, and 1 (0.2%) did not report religious affiliation. Two hundred and seventy-nine (63.6%) were employed full-time, 28 (6.4%) employed part-time, 72 (16.4%) self-employed, 6 (1.4%) unemployed, 50 (11.4%) full-time homemakers, 1 (0.2%) student, and 3 (0.7%) did not indicate employment. One hundred and twenty-five (28.5%) finished up to secondary education, 138 (31.4%) had some posthigh school professional training, 118 (26.8%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 48 (12.9%) had graduate degrees.

Indians

Among the Indians were 95 (44.5%) males and 134 (58.5%) females. Their ages ranged from 23 to 42 (M = 42.33, SD = 10.05; 23 did not report age). Among them were 2 (0.9%) Buddhists, 81 (35.4%) Christians, 138 (57.9%) Hindus, 5 (2.2%) Muslims, 3 (1.3%) Sikhs, 1 “free thinker,” and 1 (0.4%) had no religious affiliation. One hundred and fifty-five (67.7%) of them were employed full-time, 31 (13.5%) self-employed, 9 (3.9%) employed part-time, 8 (3.5%) unemployed, 23 (10.0%) full-time homemakers, 2 (0.9%) students, and 1 (0.4%) did not provide employment information. Educationally, 57 (24.9%) finished up to secondary education, 57 (24.9%) had some posthigh school professional training, 64 (27.9%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 48 (20.9%) had graduate degrees. Three (1.3%) did not report educational level.

Malays

There were 71 (34.6%) males and 134 (65.4%) females. Their ages ranged from 21 to 77 (M = 40.03, SD = 10.26; 31 did not report age). They were predominately Muslims (202, 98.5%) with 1 (0.5%) Christian, and 2 (1.0%) Hindus. One hundred and forty-four of them (70.2%) were employed full-time, 17 (8.3%) self-employed, 28 (13.7%) full-time homemakers, 10 (4.9%) employed part-time, 4 (2.0%) unemployed. Two (1.0%) did not report employment status. Thirty-nine Malay respondents (19.0%) finished up to secondary education, 61 (29.8%) had some post high school professional training, 73 (35.6%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 31 (15.1%) had graduate degrees. One (0.5%) did not report educational level.

Instruments

The Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR)

The two 18-item subscales of the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998) assess attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, respectively. Sample items are “I worry about being abandoned” (anxiety) and “I tell my partner just about everything” (avoidance). Respondents use a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) to endorse the items.

Because the ECR had not been previously tested among Malaysians, exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the factor loadings of items using maximum likelihood extraction method with Promax rotation. Based on criterion of interpretability, scree plots, and Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s (1998) proposed factor solution, 2 factors were retained. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 7.99 that accounted for 22.21% of the variance. The second factor had an eigenvalue of 4.61 that accounted for 12.81% of the variance. Following Tabachnick and Fidell’s (1996) recommendation of .32 as acceptable factor loading cutoff for interpreting item salience, 11 of the 18 attachment-related avoidance items loaded saliently and uniquely and were retained to form the anxiety subscale. Thirteen of the 18 attachment-related anxiety items loaded saliently and uniquely and were retained to form the anxiety subscale. Cronbach’s α for the avoidance and anxiety subscales in the present study were .81 and .85, respectively.

The Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale (KMSS)

The KMSS (Schumm et al., 1986) is a widely used 3-item self-report measure that assesses respondents’ perceived satisfaction with their marital relationship. Respondents use a 7-point scale to rate the items. The Cronbach’s α for the scale in the present study was .85, indicating strong score reliability.

We used an exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood extraction method to examine the factor structure of the KMSS. Based on criterion of interpretability and scree plot, the unifactorial structure of the scale was indicated for the study sample. The factor had an eigenvalue of 2.78 that accounted for 92.51% of the variance, indicating strong evidence for score validity.

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of the assessed variables for the whole sample and for each gender in all three major Malaysian ethnic groups. Both attachment subscales were significantly negatively correlated with marital satisfaction in the entire sample. Similar pattern of relationships were found among Chinese females, Indian females, Indian males, Malay females, and Malay males. For the Chinese males, however, only avoidance was significantly correlated with marital satisfaction. The correlation between the two attachment subscales was not significant in the entire sample and other subsamples, except in the Chinese male sample where a mild significant positive correlation was found.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson-Moment Correlations of Study Variables for the Whole Sample and Each Gender in the Three Ethnic Groups.

Variable	M	SD	2	3	M	SD	2	3
Entire sample (N = 873)
1. Avoidance	2.93	.91	.02	−.28**
2. Anxiety	3.66	1.07		−.24**
3. Marital satisfaction	16.19	3.66
Chinese females (n = 253)					Chinese males (n = 186)
1. Avoidance	2.92	.96	−.04	−.38**	2.93	.85	.14*	−.20*
2. Anxiety	3.68	1.03		−.26**	3.37	.90		−.12
3. Marital satisfaction	15.71	3.61			16.98	3.32
Indian females (n = 134)					Indian males (n = 95)
1. Avoidance	2.99	.95	−.02	−.30**	2.89	.90	.10	−.28*
2. Anxiety	3.82	1.18		−.16*	3.35	1.15		−.36**
3. Marital satisfaction	15.98	3.74			16.76	3.71
Malay females (n = 134)					Malay males (n = 71)
1. Avoidance	2.88	.89	−.02	−.19*	3.09	.84	−.08	−.36*
2. Anxiety	4.04	1.11		−.20*		3.75	.97	−.29*
3. Marital satisfaction	15.35	4.02				17.00	3.22

Note. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Gender and Race Differences

A two-way multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to determine gender and race effects on avoidance, anxiety, and marital satisfaction. Results indicated that gender (Wilks’s λ = .958, F(3, 865) = 12.713, p < .001, partial η² = .042) and race (Wilks’s λ = .980, F(6, 1730) = 2.899, p = .008, partial η² = .010) significantly affected the combined dependent variable of avoidance, anxiety, and marital satisfaction. Interaction effects between gender and race were not significant (Wilks’s λ = .991, F(6, 1730) = 1.315, p = .247, partial η² = .005). There is a general pattern that males in all three ethnic groups reported higher levels of marital satisfaction than their female counterparts.

Tests of between-subjects effects revealed that gender effects were significant in anxiety, F(1, 867) = 21.044, p < .001, partial η² = .024 and marital satisfaction, F(1, 867) = 21.465, p < .001, partial η² = .024). The females (M = 3.81, SD = 1.10) reported higher anxiety levels than the males (M = 3.44, SD = 1.00). The males (M = 16.93, SD = 3.40) reported higher marital satisfaction levels than the females (M = 15.69, SD = 4.02). Significant gender difference was not found in avoidance. Hence, the expectation of gender differences in attachment was only partially supported.

Tests of between-subjects effects further revealed that race effects were significant in anxiety, F(2, 867) = 8.386, p < .001, partial η² = .019, but not in avoidance and marital satisfaction. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the Malays (M = 3.94, SD = 1.07) reported higher levels of anxiety than both the Chinese (M = 3.55, SD = .99) and the Indians (M = 3.63, SD = 1.19) while such difference was not significant between the Indians and the Chinese. Hence, the expectation of race differences in all study variables was not fully supported.

Relationship Between Attachment and Marital Satisfaction

A standard regression was performed with the two attachment subscales as the predictors of marital satisfaction to examine the relationship between attachment and marital satisfaction in the entire study sample. Results showed that both avoidance (β = −.31, t = −6.92, p < .001) and anxiety (β = −.22, t = −5.05, p < .001) combined to significantly explain 13.6% of the variance in marital satisfaction with avoidance being the stronger predictor.

Six additional multiple regressions were performed to examine the gender and race effects in the relationships between attachment and marital satisfaction. Table 2 presents the results of the six analyses where marital satisfaction was regressed on the two attachment subscales for Chinese females, Chinese males, Indian females, Indian males, Malay females, and Malay males. Results revealed the following:

Table 2.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Attachment Dimensions Predicting Marital Satisfaction Across Groups.

	Females							Males
	n	B	SE	β	t	R ²	Adj. R ²	n	B	SE	β	t	R ²	Adj. R ²
Chinese	253					.23	.22	186					.05	.04
Avoidance		−1.49	.21	−.40	−7.10**				−.75	.29	−.19	−2.63*
Anxiety		−.98	.20	−.28	−4.99**				−.34	.27	−.09	−1.28
Indians	134					.12	.10	95					.19	.17
Avoidance		−1.17	.32	−.30	−3.64*				−1.00	.39	−.24	−2.58*
Anxiety		−.53	.26	−.17	−2.03*				−1.09	.30	−.34	−3.60*
Malays	134					.07	.06	71					.23	.21
Avoidance		−.85	.38	−.19	−2.22*				−1.48	.41	−.39	−3.62*
Anxiety		−.69	.31	−.19	−2.26*				−1.08	.36	−.32	−3.04*

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. Adj. = Adjusted.

Avoidance and anxiety combined to significantly predict marital satisfaction in Chinese females, explaining 23% of the variance in marital satisfaction. Avoidance (β = −.40) was a stronger predictor than anxiety (β = −.28).

Avoidance and anxiety combined to significantly predict marital satisfaction in Chinese males, accounting for 5% of the variance in marital satisfaction. But, unlike the case of the Chinese females, avoidance (β = −.19) was the only unique predictor.

Similar to the Chinese females, avoidance and anxiety combined to significantly predict marital satisfaction in both Indian females and males, explaining 12 and 19% of the variance in marital satisfaction, respectively. Both attachment dimensions were significant predictors; however, avoidance (β = −.30) was a stronger predictor than anxiety (β = −.17) in the Indian females, but the trend was reverse in the Indian males.

Similar to the Chinese females and the Indian males and females, avoidance and anxiety combined to significantly predict marital satisfaction in the Malay females and Malay males, explaining 7 and 23% of the variance in marital satisfaction, respectively. Both avoidance and anxiety were relatively equal in strength as predictors in both groups of Malays (Females: β_avoidance = −.19, β_anxiety = −.19; Males: β_avoidance = −.39, β_anxiety = −.32), though they seemed greater among the males.

The pattern of relationship between attachment and marital satisfaction in the Chinese and the Malays appeared to be reversed gender wise. That is, attachment only explained relatively a small amount of the variance in marital satisfaction in the Chinese males (5%) and the Malay females (7%); but it explained a moderate amount in the Chinese females (23%) and the Malay males (23%). It is to be noted, however, avoidance was the only significant predictor in the Chinese males while both attachment dimensions were significant in the Malay females and Malay males.

Additional analyses using Fisher’s Z transformation test to compare the coefficients between the groups of Malaysians revealed that for attachment-related avoidance the β weight in the Chinese females (−.40) was significantly higher than that in the Chinese males (−.19; z = −2.378, p = .017), the β weight in the Chinese females was also significantly higher than that in the Malay females (−.19; z = −2.145, p = .032). Significant differences in avoidance were not found among other group comparisons.

With regard to attachment-related anxiety Fisher’s Z transformation test revealed that the β weight in the Chinese females (−.28) was stronger than that in the Chinese males (−.09; z = −2.029, p = .042) and the β weight in the Chinese males was weaker than that in the Indian males (−.34; z = 2.062, p = .039). Significant differences in anxiety were not found among other group comparisons.

Discussion

The present study sought to examine gender and race differences in attachment quality as well as the relationship between attachment and marital satisfaction in married Malaysians. Our results supported most of what we expected, indicating gender and race effects in attachment quality as well as the association between attachment and marital satisfaction.

Consistent with the literature (Banse, 2004; Feeney, 1999; Marchand, 2004), our findings of associations between the two attachment dimensions and marital satisfaction among Malaysians as a whole support the theoretically expected relationship between attachment and relationship functioning whereby attachment security, as indicated by lower levels of avoidance and anxiety, promotes relationship satisfaction. However, the nonrelationship between anxiety and marital satisfaction in the Chinese males contradicts the findings in the literature that consistently indicate a significant relationship between anxiety and marital satisfaction. This finding in the Chinese males may indicate that such association may be contextual. Ozmen and Atik (2010) also reported that avoidance but not anxiety uniquely contributed to marital adjustment in a Turkish sample. It is unclear what may explain such nonassociation in this sample of Malaysian Chinese males. Future research should consider investigating contextual factors that influence the association between marital relationship and attachment dimensions such as gender role socialization.

Gender and Race Differences

Results in this study showed that females scored higher levels of attachment-related anxiety and lower levels of marital satisfaction. The finding of gender difference in anxiety but not in avoidance indicates support for the argument that gender differences in attachment quality are context specific (Li et al., 2009; Schmitt, 2008). Hence, attachment research should always control for gender effects. Additional work should also investigate the contextual and cultural factors that contribute to gender effects on attachment formation. Research should also go beyond gender to examine gender role and gender identity in relation to attachment.

The finding of males reporting higher levels of marital satisfaction in this study is consistent with the literature that has well documented such association (Gove et al., 1983; Simon, 2002). Though marital satisfaction did not differ according to race in this study, there is a general pattern that males across races in this study reported higher levels of marital satisfaction than their female counterparts.

Among the study variables, race difference was only found in anxiety where the Malays reported higher levels than both the Chinese and Indians. This finding only partially supported our expectation of race differences in attachment dimensions across the three ethnic Malaysian groups. Given that these three Malaysian ethnic groups were sampled in the urban setting and their educational levels were somewhat similar, it is unclear at this time what contextual and/or group factors contributed to the difference in anxiety but not in avoidance. Given the trend for the Malay females (M = 4.04) to report higher levels of anxiety compared to the Malay males (M = 3.75), future work should also investigate if the religious belief and practice of polygamy in the Malay population might be related to the overall higher levels of attachment-related anxiety among the Malays.

Relationship Between Attachment and Marital Satisfaction

Consistent with the literature (Banse, 2004; Feeney, 1999; Marchand, 2004; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), the findings in this study showed that both the attachment dimensions contributed uniquely to predicting martial satisfaction in the whole Malaysian sample, indicating that attachment quality is associated with marital satisfaction. That is, individuals with lower levels of anxiety and avoidance tend to experience higher levels of marital satisfaction. Avoidance appears to be a stronger predictor than anxiety, indicating that avoidance may be more detrimental to marital satisfaction.

Gender and race differences in the relationship between attachment and marital satisfaction became more apparent when the relationship was compared according to gender across the ethnic groups. Several differences were notable. First, both avoidance and anxiety significantly predicted marital satisfaction in the Chinese females while avoidance was the only significant predictor for marital satisfaction in the Chinese males. Additionally, based on Cohen’s (1988) recommendations on effect sizes, attachment only explained a small amount (5%) of the variance in marital satisfaction in the Chinese males while it was more than a medium amount (23%) in the Chinese females. The effects of attachment quality on marital satisfaction appear to be close to 5 times greater in the Chinese females than in the Chinese males. To our knowledge, such finding among Chinese has not been reported in the literature. Additional work is needed, however, to verify this finding and investigate the factors that may explain such difference. Do Chinese Malaysian males and females experience their marriage differently? Do they consider their marital relationship as pair bond in similar ways? What are other factors affecting the differential contribution to marital quality among Malaysian Chinese males and females?

Second, unlike their Chinese counterparts, the extent the attachment dimensions contribute to their marital satisfaction among the Malays is reversed, gender wise. The attachment dimensions together explain the marital satisfaction of the Malay males about 3 times more than that for the Malay females. It is unsure why the pattern of relationship between attachment and marital satisfaction among the Malays appears to be the reverse of that among the Chinese. It is reasonable to expect that cultural factors and religion may play a role in how individuals in these two ethnic groups develop their attachment and experience pair bonding. It may be particularly important to investigate how the religiously sanction practice of polygamy among the Malay males, though most Malay males do not have more than one wife, affects the impact of attachment quality on marital relationship among the Malays. As divorce rate is the highest among the Malays than the other two Malaysian ethnic groups and more of the divorces among the Malays were initiated by the men (Jones, 1981, 1997), it would be important to understand the role attachment plays in the pair bonding experiences of the Malays.

Third, the predictive strength of avoidance and anxiety in marital satisfaction among the Indians appears to be different between the genders. Unlike all other cases in which avoidance is the stronger predictor for marital satisfaction than is anxiety, it is the reverse among the Indian males. The percentage of variance in marital satisfaction the attachment dimensions explained among the Indian groups was 12% (female) and 19% (male), indicating medium effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). These effect sizes do not seem to differ as drastically as those between the genders among the Malays and Chinese; they fell between those found in the Malays and Chinese. It would be important to investigate the contextual factors that contribute to the differential between the genders among the Indians.

Finally, gender and race differences were also indicated by the significant differences in the β weights of avoidance and anxiety when compared across groups. Specifically, Chinese females’ avoidance β weight was stronger than that of the Chinese males as well as that of the Malay females. The Chinese females’ anxiety β weight was stronger than that of the Chinese males and the Chinese males’ anxiety β weight was stronger than that of the Indian males. Because of the lack of research in the literature on race differences in attachment quality in Malaysia, it is unsure what may explain the predictive strength differential of the attachment factors between genders and across races. Future research should focus on these differences in order to provide culturally useful information to practitioners who use attachment-based clinical interventions.

Because more Indians and Malays, compared to the Chinese, continue to practice arranged marriage (Tan, 2003), research should also investigate the influence of arranged marriage on marital satisfaction as well as the relationship between attachment quality and marital relationship for both genders. The current study was not able to investigate this effect because it did not collect such information.

Implications

Several implications can be drawn from the present findings. First, findings in this study support the utility of adult attachment among Malaysians. This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on the effects of attachment quality on marital satisfaction, indicating support for this well-documented link between the two constructs. Present findings indicate support for using attachment constructs to understand and treat marital relationships among Malaysians.

However, findings in this study also support the contention that cultural and contextual factors do play an important role on adult attachment quality and its associations with other correlates (e.g., Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). Attachment researchers should further investigate the effects of contextual variables on the development of attachment quality as well as on the link between attachment quality and human functioning.

Findings in this study further highlight the limitation in the generalizability of the existing adult attachment-related findings across cultural settings, even within a multiracial and multicultural society such as Malaysia. As such, researchers and practitioners need to be cautious when applying such findings in the literature as well as attachment-related treatment modalities across cultures and in multicultural settings. For example, in efforts to improve marital satisfaction, practitioners need to be aware that factors such as gender and race do affect the extent attachment security and insecurity influence marital relationships. Men and women’s attachment quality will likely influence their experience and interpretation of their marital relationship differently and such differences will be contextually dependent.

Finally, attachment therapeutic models need to account for gender and race variables though the underlying factors of attachment may be universal. Research should also investigate the effects of contextual variables when studying the effectiveness of attachment-based interventions such as emotionally focused couple and family therapy. In-depth qualitative studies may help practitioners understand and appreciate how cultural and contextual variables color their clients’ experiences of marital relationship. Quantitative studies should also focus on investigating moderators and mediators of the link between attachment quality and marital satisfaction in different cultural settings.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study need to be acknowledged. First, this study relied on convenience samples in the largest urban center in Malaysia. Also, the Chinese and females across the ethnic groups were oversampled compared to the nation’s racial composition. Furthermore, individuals who did not know English were excluded. As such, the generalizability of the findings to Malaysians living in smaller towns and rural areas as well as Malaysians who are not fluent in English is limited. Future studies should consider investigating attachment and marital relationship among rural Malaysians.

Second, interpretation of the findings in this study should also keep in view that the research relied on self-report measures that were developed in Western settings. Utilization of Western-based research measures in non-Western settings indicates an assumption of the measures’ cross-cultural validity and the universality of the studied variables. As such, contextual aspects of the study variables were precluded. Despite this limitation, the researchers of this study screened and revised the measures to ensure the measures’ scores had acceptable validity and reliability. Nevertheless, researchers should consider developing an indigenous adult attachment measure to conduct future attachment research in Malaysia.

The third shortcoming of this study was the deletion of a large number of items on both the subscales of the ECR when computing the attachment dimension scores. Though the ECR is one of the most frequently used measure for adult romantic attachment and has been shown to have cross-cultural validity in various studies (e.g., Alonso-Arbiol, Balluerka, Shaver, & Gillath, 2008; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007), additional research is needed to examine its validity for Malaysians. Finally, the analytic procedures employed in this study did not allow for direct comparisons of the correlation coefficients between two variables across groups. Future studies should consider using structural equation modeling to compare group differences.

Conclusion

This study is likely the first to investigate the association between attachment and marital relationship among the three major Malaysian ethnic groups. Findings in this study support the hypothesized association between attachment and marital quality while highlighting existence of certain gender and race differences. Despite the limitations in this study, the findings support the argument that gender and race need to be considered when studying attachment quality and its association with relationship variables. Additional studies are needed to further shed light on the observed gender and race effects on the association between the two attachment dimensions and marital satisfaction.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially supported by a research grant from the NBCC Foundation, an affiliate of the National Board for Certified Counselors.

References

Alonso-Arbiol

Balluerka

Shaver

P. R.

Gillath

(2008). Psychometric properties of the Spanish and American versions of the ECR adult attachment questionnaire: A comparative study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 9–13.

Azizah

(1997). Illegal alien labour in Malaysia: Its influx, utilization, and ramifications. Indonesia and the Malay World, 25, 50–81. doi:10.1080/13639819708729889

Banse

(2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 273–282.

Bartholomew

Horowitz

L. M.

(1991). Attachment styles in young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 226–244.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford.

Butzer

Campbell

(2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 141–154.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davila

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

(1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between adult attachment and satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 5, 467–484.

10.

Feeney

J. A.

(1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 6, 169–185.

11.

Fraley

R. C.

Waller

N. G.

(1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York, NY: Guilford.

12.

Gove

W. R.

Hughes

Style

C. B.

(1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 122–131.

13.

Husin Ali

(2008). The Malays: Their problems and future. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: The Other Press.

14.

Jones

G. W.

(1981). Malay marriage and divorce in Peninsular Malaysia: Three decades of change. Population and Development Review, 7, 255–278.

15.

Jones

G. W.

(1997). Modernization and divorce: Contrasting trends in Islamic Southeast Asian and the West. Population and Development Review, 23, 95–114.

16.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Davis

K. E.

(1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502–512.

17.

Kuppuswamy

C. S.

(2003). Malaysian Indians: The third class race. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers7/paper618.html

18.

Laws of Malaysia. (2006). Federal constitution. Retrieved December 4, 2011, from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/.../---ed.../wcms_125966.pdf

19.

(2009). Gender difference of insecure attachment: Universal or culture-specific? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 36–37.

20.

Mafauzy

(2000). The problems and challenges of the aging population of Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 7, 1–3.

21.

Marchand

J. A.

(2004). Husbands’ and wives’ marital quality: The role of adult attachment orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict resolution behaviors. Attachment & Human Development, 6, 99–112.

22.

Meyers

S. A.

Landsberger

S. A.

(2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 159–172.

23.

Mickelson

K. D.

Kessler

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1092–1106.

24.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guiford Press.

25.

Moris

(2007). The problems and challenges faced by Muslim families in present day Malaysia. The Islamic Quarterly, 51, 95–108.

26.

K.-M.

Loy

J. T. C.

Gudmunson

C. G.

Cheong

W.-N.

(2009). Gender differences in marital and life satisfaction among Chinese Malaysians. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 60, 33–43. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9503-6

27.

K.-M.

Trusty

Crawford

(2005). A cross-cultural validation of the Attachment Style Questionnaire: A Malaysian pilot study. The Family Journal, 13, 416–426.

28.

Onishi

Gjerde

P. F.

(2002). Attachment strategies in Japanese urban middle–class couples: A cultural theme analysis of asymmetry in marital relationships. Personal Relationships, 9, 435–455.

29.

Ozmen

Atik

(2010). Attachment styles and marital adjustment of Turkish married individuals. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 367–371. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.106

30.

Phang

H. E.

(2000). The economic role of the Chinese in Malaysia. In Lee

K. H.

Tan

C. B.

(Eds.), The Chinese in Malaysia (pp. 94–122). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Oxford University Press.

31.

Ramachandran

C. P.

(2002). Keynote address at the conference on the Malaysian Indian in the new millennium. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.indianmalaysian.com/new_millennium.htm

32.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2008). Evolutionary perspectives on romantic attachment and culture: How ecological stressors influence dismissing orientations across genders and geographies. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 220–247.

33.

Schmitt

D. P.

Alcalay

Allensworth

Allik

Ault

Austers

Zupaneie

(2003). Are men universally more dismissing than women? Gender differences in romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions. Personal Relationships, 10, 307–331.

34.

Schmitt

D. P.

Alcalay

Allensworth

Allik

Ault

Austers

Zupaneie

(2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and other pancultural constructs? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 367–402.

35.

Schumm

W. R.

Paff-Bergen

L. A.

Hatch

R. C.

Obiorah

F. C.

Copeland

J. M.

Meens

L. D.

Bugaighis

M. A.

(1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381–387.

36.

Selcuk

Zayas

Hazan

(2010). Beyond satisfaction: The role of attachment in marital functioning. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 258–279. doi:10.111/j.1756-2589.2010.00061.x

37.

Shari

(2003). Globalization and economic insecurity: A need for a new social policy in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Social Science, 31, 251–270.

38.

Shaver

P. R.

Hazan

(1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In Perlman

Jones

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 4, pp. 29–70). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

39.

Simon

R. W.

(2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1065–1096.

40.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.

41.

Tan

C. B.

(2004). Chinese overseas: Comparative cultural issues. Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China: Hong Kong University Press.

42.

Tan

L. E.

(2003). A century of change: Education in the lives of four generations of Chinese women in Malaysia. In Charney

M. W.

Yeoh

B. S. A.

Tong

C. K.

(Eds.), Asian migrants and education: The tensions of education in immigrant societies and among migrant groups (pp. 115–131). London, England: Kluwer Academic.

43.

Tey

N. P.

(2007). Trends in delayed and non-marriage in Peninsular Malaysia. Asian Population Studies, 3, 243–261.

44.

The Times of India. (2009, September). Ethic Indians in Malaysia to be trained in technical skills. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4982312.cms?prtpage=1

45.

U.S. Department of State. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. (2011, August). Background note: Malaysia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/277.htm

46.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Sagi-Schwartz

(2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universa and context dimensions. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 860–905). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

47.

Wang

Mallinckrodt

B. S.

(2006). Differences between Taiwanese and U.S. cultural beliefs about ideal adult attachment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 192–204.

48.

Wei

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Vogel

D. L

. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204.