Stress and Marital Satisfaction of Married Middle Eastern Students in Malaysia

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between stress and marital satisfaction from the perspective of the vulnerability–stress–adaptation model. We hypothesised that some stress factors were associated with lower marital satisfaction. Making use of the structure equation modeling, the results of data analysis on 462 Middle Eastern students in Malaysia, supported the hypotheses of our study and showed that a higher level of stress is strongly related to a negative marital satisfaction. Moreover, the results indicated that marital stress is the strongest stressors that negatively affect the marital satisfaction of the respondents. This research provides a general view of stressors that have an impact on the marital satisfaction of married Middle East students who live as sojourners in Malaysia.

Keywords

stress marital stress marital satisfaction vulnerability–stress–adaptation model

Immigration is increasing all over the world (Naghdi, 2010). According to a United Nations report (2005), there are nearly 200 million sojourners all over the world. Malaysia is one of the countries, which has been gaining popularity among international students, as it is the center of higher education and academia in the region. Among this group, nearly 10 million are Asian. According to the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia has become a popular destination for international students and annually attracts over 16% of the global international students. In 2014, Malaysia received 135,502 international students from about 160 nations (Malaysia International Students [MIS], 2015). Also, Malaysia is targeting the country’s population of international students to grow to 250,000 by 2025 (MIS, 2015). Some of the reasons behind the international students’ selection of Malaysia include the high-quality education Malaysian universities offer, which meets international education standard levels and is also internationally known. Furthermore, living costs and tuition fees are very reasonable and affordable. In addition, the courses offered in Malaysian universities are conducted in English, which makes it easy for international students to conduct their study. Above all, Malaysia offers a multicultural study environment with a safe and convenient atmosphere (Sirat, 2008).

International education is increasingly identified by the different organization as an essential export sector. As a matter of fact, various expenses such as university tuition fee, accommodation, living and travel expenses, and other in-country expenses are important reasons to make an international education as a top export category in many countries such as Malaysia (Sirat, 2008). International student flows are influenced by a variety of domestic factors such as a limited available place for domestic students in higher education institutes. Moreover, some international students wish for a better life and therefore choose to study in higher ranked institutes, and this is the reason behind their migration to countries like Malaysia (Tan, 2013).

Most international students decide to immigrate to other countries with better opportunities to work and for better welfare, but find it difficult to secure a job and obtain a permanent visa in countries such as Malaysia. This could increase the level of stress among this group (Akiba, 2008). In addition, immigrating to a new country is associated with a series of personal and interpersonal conflicts (Shekarchizadeh, 2011; Singh, McBride, & Kak, 2015). Previous studies have revealed that international students face specific strains in adapting to their new situation and lifestyle (Gebhard, 2012; Mori, 2000). In fact, studying in a new country needs more adjustments in regard to the new social environment and academic circumference (Ho, Cheung, & Cheung, 2010; Safdar, Struthers, & Van Oudenhoven, 2009; Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010; Yusoff & Chelliah, 2010). The demand associated with this new environment may incur different stresses, which is a risk factor for academic performance (Gebhard, 2012; Kuo, 2011), interpersonal relationship difficulty (De Araujo, 2011; Tochkov, Levine, & Sanaka, 2010), instil a feeling of isolation and homesickness, and cause health problems (Myers-walls, Frias, Kwon, Ko, & Lu, 2011; Sherry et al., 2010). According to previous research (Chong, 2015; Mahmud, Amat, Rahman, & Isha, 2010), international students in Malaysia face adjustment problems such as cultural differences, financial problems, and language barriers. Naeeni et al. (2015) claim that adjustment to the Malaysian culture, the weather, as well as difficulty in starting up communications and relationship conflicts are the most prevalent adjustment problems that international students face in Malaysia. In addition, the results from previous research on international student resiliency in public higher education institutions in Malaysia show that international students have a low level of resilience (Subhan et al., 2015).

From vulnerability–stress–adaptation (VSA) model perspective (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), life stressors as stressful events are a predictor of the couple’s marital quality outcomes (Karney & Bradbury, 2000). To understand the effect of stress on married international students, one should first understand the stressors that they encounter during their study as well as stressors that impact their marriage (Shollenberger, 2001). In regard to the VSA model, the level of stress received will directly affect how couples feel about their marital life. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the effects of stressors on international students’ marital quality outcomes. Thus, the main goal of this study was to examine whether life stressors affect the marital satisfaction among the married Middle Eastern students in Malaysia from the VSA model perspective (Karney & Bradbury, 1997). Additionally, this study filled the existing gap in studies on international students in Malaysia as the number of studies that have investigated marital problems among different populations and various cultures such as Middle Eastern postgraduate students in Malaysia is still scarce. This research indeed illustrated how these specific factors affect marital satisfaction among students from the Middle East in Malaysia.

VSA Model

In order to have a better understanding of how each variable is related to different marital outcomes, Karney and Bradbury (1995) devised a model called the VSA model of marital development and suggested that marital quality outcomes, such as marital satisfaction, are a result of enduring vulnerabilities, stressful events, and adaptive processes. More specifically, the model poses that enduring vulnerabilities and stressful events employ their impact on marriage through an adaptive process (Cohan & Bradbury, 1997). However, in this study, only the two concepts of stressful events and marital quality outcome in VSA model were applied to examine the hypothesis.

According to VSA model, there are two independent sources influencing the marital quality among couples, that is, enduring vulnerabilities and stressful events. These two elements could have an impact on marital satisfaction in different ways (Bradbury & Karney, 2010). As scholars confirmed (Rauer, Karney, Garvan, & Hou, 2008), these factors in a relationship may increase risky situations such as stressful circumstances. In this regard, this research aimed to find the effect of stressors on marital satisfaction in stressful situations such as immigration.

Stressful Events

According to the VSA model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), stressful events have a direct and indirect effect on marital satisfaction. In other words, the amount of stress received will influence the way couples try to manage their stress. In the current study, marital stress and life stressors are considered as stressful events.

Marital Quality

Regarding the VSA model, “the quality of marriage should be a result of enduring vulnerabilities, stressful events and adaptive processes” (Karney & Bradbury, 1997, p. 1077). Marital quality can be determined in many ways, such as satisfaction (Hanzal & Segrin, 2009). To represent marital quality, the current study examined marital satisfaction.

Empirical Background

The Middle East Students and Marital Satisfaction

The Middle Eastern countries, comprising Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, are Islamic countries and have similar marriage traditions (Monger, 2013). In the Middle East, marriage is viewed as the foundation of society and family life (Shagufta, 2014). According to international data, “one out of every thirty-five people is living away from his or her homeland all over the world” (Naghdi, 2010, p. 197). Counselors working with Middle Eastern immigrant couples have reported a drastic increase in marital conflict and divorce (Kholoki, 2007; M. Mohammadinia, personal communication, August 17, 2016). A recent study of 751 Middle Eastern students in the United States indicated a divorce rate of 21.3% (Alshugairi, 2010). However, Ghayyur (2010) claimed that a lack of empirical studies has limited the establishment of a statistically reliable divorce rate for Middle Eastern couples in different countries.

The literature highlights that the marital relationship of international students is changing in times of new emerging cultures and different lifestyles (Myers-Walls et al., 2011; Zhou, 2000). Salehy, Zuria, and Amat (2013), in their study on sojourner Iranian couples in Malaysia, stated that the challenges these couples might face as Middle Eastern sojourners in Malaysia could be categorized into psychological adaptation, cultural and social adaptation, legal issues, finance issues, and couple issues. In this regard, the finding indicates that the Middle Eastern international students have a lower marital quality and dyad coping compared to local students (Mustaqim, Yusoff, Khan, Binti, & Latif, 2015). The reason why Middle Eastern students have lower levels of marital quality and dyad coping could be because they do not have a stable marriage, as they are facing different strains. On the other hand, the lower marital quality of Middle Eastern students is due to different ethnic culture (Yusoff & Chelliah, 2010), less social support as they are living far away from family (Melnick & Yu, 2007), and also financial strain (Baharak & Roselan, 2013). All of these contribute to additional burdens in their academic career, which may adversely affect their marital quality.

In addition, previous research has found that married Middle Eastern international students face more social adjustment difficulties and more specific strains related to education and English compared to single students (Al-Horany & Hassan, 2011; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006). Moreover, Goff (2004) stated that the lack of time spent together has caused a low level of marital satisfaction among married Chinese international students in the United States. According to Gold (2006), graduate studies negatively influence the marital structure of married international students, as these put severe emotional and financial stress on student marriages, and consequently, the couple would adjust more poorly to situations compared to single students. Amato and Keith (1991, p. 28) summarized all the above concerns: “For those of us with families, the real costs of graduate school are yet to be calculated financially, psychologically, or relationally.” In principle, the challenges that sojourner couples have to confront put their marriage at risk of divorce if they do not prepare themselves to adjust to new circumstances. This is why many couples fall quickly into divorce after immigration.

Stress and Marital Satisfaction of Students

To understand the effect of stress on married international students, one should first understand the stressors that they encounter during their study as well as stressors that impact their marriage (Shollenberger, 2001). A stressful event refers to situations or events that have the potential to evoke emotional reactions in individuals, both positive and negative in nature (Cano & Vivian, 2003).

Overall, several studies have found that the process of moving to other countries can be a stressful life event for both individuals and families (Kiang, Grzywacz, Marín, Arcury, & Quandt, 2010). This process could trigger relationship conflict and stress due to the immigration between married partners. It could also modify the family structure (Espin, 1987; Smart & Smart, 1995). Studies have found that the different adjustment problems that couples confront as a sojourner increases the tension and stresses that the spouses face in their marital relationship, which decreases marital satisfaction and causes a tendency for divorce among immigrant couples (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007; Padilla & Borrero, 2006). Some studies on immigrant couples also state that married immigrant females in the United States face more marital stress, and marital satisfaction would be enhanced if marital stress were decreased (Lee, 2005).

Moreover, previous research has studied the impact of academic stress on marital satisfaction through different samples. The results indicate that academic stress negatively impacts marital dyads (Kardatzke, 2009; Powers, Myers, Tingle, & Powers, 2004). Using a college sample of young adults, Skowron, Wester, and Azen (2004) reported that academic and financial stress have a direct influence on a couple’s adjustments. The researchers noted that the stresses of graduate training appeared to be related to a decrease in marital satisfaction. On the other hand, the results of existing research highlighted the negative relationship between acculturative stress and marital satisfaction, suggesting that acculturative stress decreases marital satisfaction (Negy, Hammons, Ferrer, & Carper, 2010; Park & Park, 2013). This means that the higher the level of acculturative stress, the lower the level of marital satisfaction.

In addition, Madanian, Mansor, and Omar (2013) focused on immigrant couples in Malaysia and found that financial issues indeed influence marital satisfaction, causing stress, especially among married female students. The same results were found by Goff (2004) and Gold (2006) in that financial issues are a serious concern among married international students in the United States.

As discussed before, immigrant couples who deal with coping with two different cultures may confront many issues, such as economic hardship, language barriers, value differences, and difficulties in acculturation. These stressors might negatively affect the relationship between spouses (Helms et al., 2014). However, these issues can be increase for sojourners as they are temporarily live in a new destination. External stressors may lead to an increased number of negative interactions among couples and may influence marriage directly (Li, Zhou, & Hou, 2015). Thus, it is clear that striking a balance between studies and marital life is tough and needs much effort and attention from both spouses. Therefore, life stressors may act as a salient risk factor and influence the marital life experience of couples.

Goal and Hypotheses

This study aimed to provide a better understanding of the relationship between couples with respect to life stressors and marital satisfaction, in stressful life situations. Building on the theoretical models suggested by Karney and Bradbury (1997) and the empirical literature on life stressors, and marital satisfaction, the following hypotheses were tested.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Respondents with lower life stressors tend to be more satisfied with their marriage.

Hypothesis 2: Respondents with lower marital stress tend to be more satisfied with their marriage.

Method

Procedure and Measures

Klang Valley is an area in Malaysia. The center of this area is Kuala Lumpur, which has adjoining cities and towns in the state of Selangor where most of the highest-ranked universities in the country can be found, such as the Universiti Malaya (UM), the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), and the Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). According to the website of the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (2015), more than 135,502 international students enrolled in research-oriented public higher learning institutions in Malaysia in 2015.

The population of the current study consists of international postgraduate students from Middle Eastern countries. These students have been married for more than 1 year and live together in the same place. The research universities located in Klang Valley (Malaysia University Portal, 2014) were selected as sample sites. According to the website presenting facts and figures on these universities (UPM, UM, and UKM, 2014), the population of international students in the three research universities, namely, UM, UPM, and UKM, in Klang Valley was approximately 12,301 in 2014, and the population of Middle Eastern postgraduate students in the second semester of 2015–2016 was approximately 5,953.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) the participants should be Middle Eastern international postgraduate students and (b) they must have been married for more than 1 year and must currently live with their spouse in Malaysia. The exclusion criteria were the following: (a) students who are not married or have been married for less than 1 year and live separately from their spouse and (b) students who are divorced or widowed.

Sample Size

Based on a review of structural equation modeling (SEM) literature, a number of considerations influence the required sample size in running SEM: multivariate distribution of data, type of estimation technique, model complexity, amount of missing data, and average error variance among reflective indicators (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). In this case, Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006) recommended that more than 400 respondents were suitable because a difference was detected, thereby achieving better goodness-of-fit indices (GFIs). Thus, according to the SEM literature and in consideration of the aforementioned condition, the required sample size for this study was 450 respondents. For the actual study, approximately 15% more of the required sample size was added to the sample for incomplete or unusable questionnaires. Therefore, the total number of respondents for the actual data collection was 520. A total of 472 (86%) of the responses were completed and usable for data analysis. Thus, the total sample size in this study was 472 Middle Eastern postgraduate students who were married.

Sampling Procedure

Proportionate simple random sampling was conducted to specify the proportion of each university. By proportionate stratification, the sample size of each stratum is proportionate to its population size. This technique means that each stratum has the same sampling fraction (Yates, Starnes, & Moore, 2008).

Instruments

Index of life stress

The index of life stress (ILS; Yang & Clum, 1994) consists of 30 self-reported stress-related questions that were designed to evaluate the idiosyncratic aspects of stress that Asian international students are facing. The ILS assesses five dimensions of stress that are unique to this population, namely (1) financial constraints, (2) language barriers, (3) interpersonal stress, (4) cultural adjustment, and (5) academic pressure. The response for each item is measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). Yang and Clum (1994) reported satisfactory test–retest reliability (α = .87). The construct validity assessed via factor analyses reported gratifying overall internal consistency estimate (.86), and those for all five factors (α = .80 in financial constraints, α = .79 in language barrier, α = .82 in interpersonal stress, α = .70 in cultural adjustment, and α = .75 in academic adjustment). These estimates show that the ILS are valid measures with satisfactory psychometric properties of Cronbach’s αs, in which the total subscales were α = .89 for the current study.

Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire for Couples

The marital stress scale (Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006) included 9 items, including different goals of a spouse, sharing tasks in the household, and annoying habits of the partner. All the elements were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all stressful, 5 = very stressful). The reliability and validity of the scale have been established in a previous study (Bodenmann et al., 2006). In addition, Falconier, Nussbeck, Bodenmann, Schneider, and Bradbury (2015) found that the internal consistency of this scale was α = .82, and the Cronbach’s α was .91 for the current study.

Relationship Assessment Scale

In the present study, the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) was used to measure marital satisfaction. This scale was developed to provide a brief, global measure of marital satisfaction and was widely employed in studies examining that examine marital satisfaction. This measure consists of seven questions with 5-point Likert-type scale items, with higher scores representing greater satisfaction. The RAS has a high internal consistency with a α coefficient of .86 (Hendrick, 1988). The reliability coefficient of the RAS in the present study was α = .85.

To collect data of the current study, list of e-mail addresses of Middle Eastern postgraduate students were collected from three universities (UM, UPM, and UKM). A brief description of the study with the link to the questionnaire was e-mailed to selected students’ e-mail addresses. The online questionnaire was constructed using Google Docs. Totally, 472 (86%) of the responses were complete and usable for data analysis. Therefore, the total sample size in this study was 472 Middle Eastern married postgraduate students.

Data Analysis

In this study, SEM was used for data analysis. The construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to measure the CR and the convergent validity of the measurements. Convergent validity refers to the degree of variance shared by items designated to evaluate the particular latent construct, which means that items must be strongly interrelated to each other and constitute only one factor (Hair et al., 2006). The size of factor loading for each item must be more than 0.3 (Hair et al., 2006) to assess the convergent validity, and the AVE equal to or more than 0.5 shows high convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity refers to whether the two constructs are different from each other (Hair et al., 2006). The AVE of the two constructs is compared to assess the discriminant validity, and the square of the correlation between the two constructs should be less than AVE (Hair et al., 2006). For the model fit, Markus (2012) suggested using indices, including the comparative fit index (CFI), χ²/degrees of freedom ratio (C _min/df), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and GFI. The fit indices are believed to be an acceptable fit when the values are equal to or more than 0.90 (Markus, 2012). Moreover, the model may be classified as acceptable if the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is between 0.03 and 0.08. In our study, the data were analyzed using AMOS 23 software.

Results

Participants

As mentioned, the respondents in this study are Middle Eastern postgraduate students who are married and studying in public universities in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The respondents consisted of 56% males and 44% females with ages ranging from 22 to 51 years. In terms of nationality, 40% of the respondents were from Iran, 29% from Iraq, 14% from Yemen, 9% from Bahrain, 6% from Jordan, 2.8% from Palestine, 2% from Oman, 2% from Syria, 2% from the United Arab Emirates, and 1% from Saudi Arabia.

Missing Data

Many reasons behind missing data were identified, such as loss of information or power and bias (Hair et al., 2006). Similar to most methods of multivariate statistical analyses, SEM encounters issues related to missing data (Allison, 2003). In this study, missing data were addressed through regression imputation method (Olinsky, Chen, & Harlow, 2003).

Outliers

Outliers negatively affect the research results; thus, identifying and addressing the outliers are necessary. In the present study, high Mahalanobis d ² with both p1 and p2 equal to 0.000 was utilized to check outliers. Ten cases were identified as outliers, and they were removed (Tabachnick, Fidell, & Osterlind, 2001).

Multivariate Normality

One significant assumption for SEM application is the normality distribution. Byrne (2016) suggested that, as an acceptable guideline, when the kurtosis value is between −7 and +7 and the skewness value is between −2 and +2, the data are appropriately assumed to have multivariate normality. The results showed that the data were normally distributed because the skewness values were from −1.206 to 0.940, and the kurtosis values were from −1.456 to 0.757 for all variables. Accordingly, the data distribution in the current study is normal.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 displays the intercorrelation between life stressors, marital stress, and marital satisfaction determined among married Middle Eastern students. The actual range and mean values with the standard deviations calculated are also presented in Table 1.

Table 1.
Correlation Between Variables, and the Mean, SD, and Actual Range.

Variables MS Life Stress Marital Stress Mean SD Actual Range

Marital satisfaction (MS) 1 −0.570 −0.390 2.33 6.11 10–37

Life stress 1 0.134 79.17 23.89 31–129

Marital stress 1 20.29 6.73 3–27

Correlation is significant at the .05 level.

Model Fit of Each Construct

The RAS (Hendrick, 1988), which includes 7 items, was used to evaluate marital satisfaction. All items with factor loading values were more than 0.3. Therefore, no indicator was deleted for marital satisfaction construct. The marital stress was assessed using 9 items created by Bodenmann, Pihet, and Kayser (2006). The model showed a good fit, such that all standardized factor loadings of indicators were more than 0.3. Therefore, no indicator was deleted for multidimensional stress construct. Moreover, the ILS measures five areas of stress: (a) financial stress (15, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 30), (b) language difficulty (1, 7, 8, 19, and 28), (c) interpersonal stress (5, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 23), (d) stress from new culture (2, 4, 10, 13, 16, 22, and 26), and (e) academic pressure (3, 6, 9, 17, and 20); the total is 30 items. The factor loading values of other items were more than 0.3 except for items LS20 in academic stress and LS23 in interpersonal stress, where the factor loading values were less than 0.3. Therefore, items LS20 and LS23 were removed to obtain an acceptable model fit.

The technique of item parceling was applied given the small sample size concerning the number of measurement items on the life stressor scale (Hall, Snell, & Foust, 1999). Parceling allows for items within a single unidimensional scale to be grouped together to create two, three, or four indicators, which improves the chances of a suitable solution in the SEM (Hall et al., 1999). Parcels were computed into new variables using SPSS Version 22.0. The advantages of the parceling technique include significant reliability, few parameter estimates, and precise identification of the latent construct (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Markus, 2012). Furthermore, while using the parcel rather than an item, various indices of model fit were expected to be acceptable. This condition is due to the estimation and psychometric advantages of parcels. Models based on parceling are more parsimonious than item-level data (i.e., locally in defining a construct and globally in representing an entire model, both have fewer estimated parameters). Furthermore, in the parceling model, fewer chances of dual loadings were determined to emerge or residuals to be correlated (both because the unique variances were smaller and because fewer indicators were used), and in parceling, various sources of sampling error would be reduced (Little et al., 2002). The items of the life stressor instrument were assigned to parcels using the five subscales of the ILS given the unidimensional measures and prior rationale to guide parcel construction (Yang & Clum, 1994). Parcels included (a) financial stress (15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 30), (b) language difficulty (1, 7, 8, 19, and 28), (c) interpersonal stress (5, 11, 12, 14, and 18), (d) stress from a new culture (2, 4, 10, 13, 16, 22, and 26), and (e) academic pressure (3, 6, 9, 17, and 20). This scale had five manifest indicators of life stress to identify the latent construct. The factor loading values of all parcel items were more than 0.3.

For the model fit of each variable, although the model based on significant χ² did not fit the data, other indices exhibited a good fit. Therefore, according to Kline (2015), the model provided an acceptable fit for the model. Furthermore, Table 2 presents the CR value (must be more than 0.7) and the AVE (must be more than 0.5) of the three measurement constructs. Therefore, according to the CR and AVE values, all three constructs have acceptable reliability and validity.

Table 2.
Summary of AVE and CR for All Constructs.

Constructs AVE CR

Relationship assessment .74 .89

Marital stress .80 .96

Index of life stress .70 .80

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct reliability.

Measurement Model

Specifying the measurement model is necessary to consider the indicators or items that reflect the studying variables before evaluating the structural model. The studying variables include marital stress, life stressors, and marital satisfaction. The model fit indices are shown in Table 3. Other indices depicted good fit indices (Table 3) although the model based on significant χ² did not fit the data. Therefore, Kline (2015) indicated that the model provided an acceptable fit to the data.

Table 3.
Measurement Model for All Variables.

Model p CMIN/DF GFI CFI TLI IFI RMSEA

Default model 0 2.946*** 0.89 0.94 0.93 0.93 .06

Saturated model 1 1 1

Independence model 0 16.73 0.21 0 0 0 .18

Note. CMIN/DF = χ²/degrees of freedom ratio; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

***p < .01.

Structural Model

The structural model was used to examine the research hypotheses of the current study. The structural model is discussed and interpreted based on the research objectives and hypothesized paths between the variables.

In this study, the structural model consists of life stressors and marital stress as exogenous variables and marital satisfaction as an endogenous variable. Figure 1 shows the significant relationship between life stressors, marital stress, and marital satisfaction. In Figure 1, life stressors and marital stress were negatively related to marital satisfaction among the respondents. The results from the current study showed that life stressors and marital stress were significant predictors of marital satisfaction; this result explained 65% of the variance in marital satisfaction.

Figure 1.
Structural model.

The results of the structural model depicted good fit indices: CMIN/DF = 2.18, p < .01, CFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.83, TLI = 0.92, and RMSEA = 0.05. Other indices depicted an acceptable model fit (Table 4) although the model based on significant χ² did not fit the data. Therefore, Kline (2015) suggested that the model showed an acceptable fit.

Table 4.
The Model Fit Summary of Structural Model.

Model p CMIN/DF GFI CFI TLI IFI RMSEA

Default model 0 2.18 0.83 0.93 0.92 0.93 .05

Saturated model 1 1 1

Independence model 0 16.7 0.23 0 0 0 .18

Note. CMIN/DF = χ²/degrees of freedom ratio; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

The findings, based on the standardized estimated values, demonstrate that marital stress had the highest contribution in predicting marital satisfaction among married Middle Eastern postgraduate students in Malaysia (Table 5).

Table 5.
The Standardized Regression Weights in Structural Model of Marital Satisfaction.

Hypothesis SE Standardized Estimated (β) CR p

Marital satisfaction ← Marital stress .23 −.52 −3.58 *

Marital satisfaction ← Life stress .01 −.40 −4.16 *

Life stress ← Marital stress .34 .54 4.86 ***

Note. SE = standardized error; CR = critical ratio.

***p = .01.

Hypothesis 1: Respondents with lower life stressors tend to be more satisfied with their marriage.

The findings, as indicated in Figure 1 and Table 3, show that life stressors were significantly and negatively correlated with marital satisfaction among Middle Eastern students (β = −.40, CR = −4.16, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. That is, the students who had more life stressors were less likely to have marital satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Respondents with lower marital stress tend to be more satisfied with their marriage.

In Figure 1 and Table 3, marital stress was significantly and negatively correlated with marital satisfaction (β = −.52, CR = −3.58, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. That is, the respondents who had high levels of marital stress were more likely to experience lower marital satisfaction.

Discussion

This study aims to investigate the association between the variables, focusing on life stressors and marital satisfaction. Our study was based on the VSA model proposed by Karney and Bradbury (1995). The findings of the AMOS (SEM) test supported our hypothesis that stressors outside and in the family have a significantly negative correlation with marital satisfaction among the Middle Eastern students in Malaysia. Consequently, the current study suggests that life stressors may act as a contagion and influence the marital experiences of both spouses.

In sum, couples who experience stress in daily life may ignore spending time and effort in solving the issues. These daily inconveniences, which cause distance and conflict in the relationship between spouses, may add to the stress in their marital life. This stress might lead to increased dissatisfaction in their marriage. Merz, Meuwly, Randall, and Bodenmann (2014) and Buck & Neff (2012) reported that stress in a marriage, such as the conflict between couples, has a harmful influence on relationship longevity and marital health. Moreover, a high level of external stress was related to a higher level of internal or dyad stress, which was related to a lower level of marital satisfaction. Falconier et al. (2015) explained that the extradyadic stress of partners from daily life stresses increases intradyadic stress (relationship stress), which causes less relationship satisfaction. Middle Eastern students in Malaysia confront different kinds of stressors in their daily life within and outside their family and marriage. Our findings indicated that stresses, such as acculturation, financial, academic, and marital stress, are common and effective stressors that affect the lives of students during their stay in Malaysia. Among these stressors, marital stress, which emerges from personal stress cause by daily inconveniences, is the most powerful stressor that affects the marital life of students, thereby decreasing marital satisfaction among the couples. The marital life of respondents who experience serious issues, such as difficulty in adjusting to the new lifestyle, managing academic task, finding a part-time job, or working as a research assistant to solve their financial problems, may encounter pressures as a result of these issues, thereby preventing these respondents from solving the problems that threaten their marriage. Therefore, living together as a couple may not be helpful in reducing the outside stresses that a spouse encounters as an individual; in fact, inside stress increases the tension and pressures on both spouses.

Thus, balancing between studies and marital life is difficult and requires significant effort and attention from both spouses. Furthermore, married international students confront many stressors that they might be too busy to realize. Therefore, finding a coping strategy is suggested for these students to improve their relationship and avoid the effects of stressors on their marriage. Finally, life stressors may act as a salient risk factor and influence the marital life experiences of both spouses.

Conclusion

The current study provided a recognition of the factors that predict marital satisfaction of Middle Eastern postgraduate students in Malaysia. The VSA model provided a comprehensive framework that led to the conceptual framework and methodology of this study. The study concluded that marital stress and life stressors are related to marital satisfaction. The current study supported past research, which has shown the significant relationships among marital stress, life stressors, and marital satisfaction (Falconier, Nussbeck, Bodenmann, Schneider, & Bradbury, 2015). Furthermore, the findings of this study supported the important effect of stress in the context of immigrating to a new country on the marital satisfaction of sojourners from Middle East countries. Marital stress acted as the strongest predictor that negatively influence marital satisfaction.

Implication for Prevention/Intervention

Clarifying the relationships among marital stress and life stressors with marital satisfaction among married Middle Eastern students can provide competent prevention and intervention programs for therapists, professionals, and educational counselors to address marital conflict and divorce.

There are important implications for prevention/intervention in the current study. First, while evaluating the risk of divorce in married students with higher levels of stress, it is necessary to account for the presence of factors that can decrease the conflict in marriage, such as constructive communication. The present findings suggest that developing problem-solving methods such as constructive communication may reduce the possibility of marital dissatisfaction. Second, life stressors and mostly among them marital stress acts as significant predictors, and it was revealed that the coping style that participants use in times of facing stressors is an essential factor in their marital satisfaction. This is valuable information for married students going to another country to continue their study and could be incorporated into a specific program for students and spouses. Such programs and workshops for students and couples that could address several needs, such as preparing couples and married students for the specific kinds of life stressors that they may encounter, at the dyad level and also individually throughout their studies in the new environment and country, emphasizing that how a spouse provides support and the dyad’s coping style may be important and suggesting a practical way of managing stressors outside and inside the marriage. Addressing these issues in workshops and informing students and their spouses may have benefits for students’ marital life. In addition, being aware of these factors can help counselors and educators better understand and support married international students throughout their study in the universities. Moreover, the findings of the current study could benefit individuals in the broader system, for example, educators and counselors in universities, psychologists, and psychiatrists in treatment centers, or policy makers of the nation. The findings could also serve as the basis of a prevention program for married international students at universities. Finally, psychologists and other family professionals could use the findings of this study in counseling sessions.

Variables	MS	Life Stress	Marital Stress	Mean	SD	Actual Range
Marital satisfaction (MS)	1	−0.570**	−0.390**	2.33	6.11	10–37
Life stress		1	0.134**	79.17	23.89	31–129
Marital stress			1	20.29	6.73	3–27

Constructs	AVE	CR
Relationship assessment	.74	.89
Marital stress	.80	.96
Index of life stress	.70	.80

Model	p	CMIN/DF	GFI	CFI	TLI	IFI	RMSEA
Default model	0	2.946***	0.89	0.94	0.93	0.93	.06
Saturated model			1	1		1
Independence model	0	16.73	0.21	0	0	0	.18

Model	p	CMIN/DF	GFI	CFI	TLI	IFI	RMSEA
Default model	0	2.18	0.83	0.93	0.92	0.93	.05
Saturated model			1	1		1
Independence model	0	16.7	0.23	0	0	0	.18

Hypothesis	SE	Standardized Estimated (β)	CR	p
Marital satisfaction	←	Marital stress	.23	−.52	−3.58	***
Marital satisfaction	←	Life stress	.01	−.40	−4.16	***
Life stress	←	Marital stress	.34	.54	4.86	***

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

References

Akiba

(2008). The changing face of transnational education in Malaysia: A case study of international offshore university programs. ProQuest, 1–195.

Al-Horany

Hassan

S. A.

(2011). Marital adjustment among postgraduate students at universities in Malaysia. Elixir Psychology, 37, 3773–3776.

Allison

P. D.

(2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545–567.

Alshugairi

(2010). Marital trends in the American Muslim community: A pilot study. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 5, 256. doi:10.1080/15564908.2010.551275

Amato

P. R.

Keith

(1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.

Bacallao

M. L.

Smokowski

P. R.

(2007). The costs of getting ahead: Mexican family system changes after immigration. Family Relations, 56, 52–66.

Baharak

Roselan

(2013). Challenges faced by international students during their first year of studies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3, 138–145.

Bodenmann

Pihet

Kayser

(2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485.

Bradbury

T. N.

Karney

B. R.

(2010). Intimate relationships. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

10.

Buck

A. A.

Neff

L. A.

(2012). Stress spillover in early marriage: The role of self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 698–718.

11.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Cano

Vivian

(2003). Are life stressors associated with marital violence? Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 302–320.

13.

Chong

(2015). Relationship between demographic factors, social support and sociocultural adjustment among international post graduate students in a Malaysian public university. 5, 87–92. doi:10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p87.

14.

Cohan

C. L.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of the newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 114–129.

15.

De Araujo

A. A.

(2011). Adjustment issues of international students enrolled in American colleges and universities: A review of the literature. Higher Education Studies, 1, 2–8.

16.

Espin

O. M.

(1987). Psychological impact of migration on Latinas: Implications for psychotherapeutic practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 489–503.

17.

Falconier

M. K.

Nussbeck

Bodenmann

Schneider

Bradbury

(2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intra-dyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41, 221–235.

18.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

19.

Gebhard

J. G.

(2012). International students’ adjustment problems and behaviors. Journal of International Students, 2, 158.

20.

Ghayyur

(2010, 7 22). Divorce in the Muslim community: 2010 Survey analysis. SoundVision.com Retrieved May 20, 2015, from http://www.soundvision

21.

Goff

J. D.

(2004). Ecological factors influencing the marital relationships of Chinese international graduate students. East Lansing, MI: Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University.

22.

Gold

J. M.

(2006). Profiling marital satisfaction among graduate students: An analysis of the perceptions of masters and doctoral students. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 485–495.

23.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/

24.

Hall

R. J.

Snell

A. F.

Foust

M. S.

(1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256.

25.

Hanzal

Segrin

(2009). The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the relationship between enduring vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 150–169.

26.

Helms

H. M.

Supple

A. J.

Rodriguez

Cavanaugh

A. M.

Hengstebeck

N. D.

(2014). Economic pressure, cultural adaptation stress, and marital quality among Mexican-origin couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 77.

27.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.

28.

M. Y.

Cheung

F. M.

Cheung

S. F.

(2010). The role of meaning in life and optimism in promoting well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 658–663.

29.

IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

30.

Kardatzke

K. N.

(2009). Perceived stress, adult attachment, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of counseling graduate students (Master’s dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.

31.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–20.

32.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1094.

33.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2000). Attributions in marriage: State or trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 295–317.

34.

Kholoki

(2007). Alarming divorce rates amongst Muslims. Southern California InFocus. Retrieved from http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/986/135.

35.

Kiang

Grzywacz

J. G.

Marín

A. J.

Arcury

T. A.

Quandt

S. A.

(2010). Mental health in immigrants from nontraditional receiving sites. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 386.

36.

Kline. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

37.

Kuo

Y. H.

(2011). Language challenges faced by international graduate students in the United States. Journal of International Students, 1, 38–42.

38.

Lee

(2005). Marital conflict and social support of Korean immigrants in the United States. International Social Work, 48, 313–324.

39.

Zhou

Hou

(2015). Marital conflict of Chinese American immigrant couples: A mediator of socioeconomic incorporation and children’s behavioral problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3816–3826.

40.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

41.

Madanian

Mansor

S. M. S. S.

Omar

A. H. b.

(2013). Marital satisfaction of Iranian female students in Malaysia: A qualitative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 987–993.

42.

Mahmud

Amat

Rahman

Isha

N. M.

(2010). Challenges for international students in Malaysia: Culture, climate and care. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 289–293. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.040

43.

Malaysia International Students. (2015, 8 13). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my/en/home

44.

Markus

K. A.

(2012). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling by Rex B. Kline. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 509–512.

45.

Melnick

G. A.

(2007). Social integration and academic outcomes: The case of an international public policy and management program. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17, 569–584.

46.

Merz

C. A.

Meuwly

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2014). Engaging in dyadic coping: Buffering the impact of everyday stress on prospective relationship satisfaction. Family Science, 5, 30–37.

47.

Monger

(2013). Marriage customs of the world: An encyclopedia of dating customs and wedding traditions (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

48.

Mori

(2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 137–144.

49.

Mustaqim

Yusoff

Khan

Binti

Latif

(2015). Demographic characteristics, dyadic coping, and marital quality among university students in Malaysia. Man in India, 96, 49–55.

50.

Myers-Walls

J. A.

Frias

L. V.

Kwon

K.-A.

M.-J. M.

(2011). Living life in two worlds: Acculturative stress among Asian international graduate student parents and spouses. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42, 455–478.

51.

Naeeni

N. V.

Mahmud

Salleh

A. B. M.

Amat

Maros

Morgan

M. M.

(2015). Psycho-educational support groups and international university student adjustment in Malaysia: A qualitative inquiry. Australasian Journal of Social Science, 1, 20–38.

52.

Naghdi

(2010). Iranian diaspora: With a focus on Iranian immigrants in Sweden. Asian Social Science, 6, 197.

53.

Negy

Hammons

M. E.

Ferrer

A. R.

Carper

T. M.

(2010). The importance of addressing acculturative stress in marital therapy with Hispanic immigrant women. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10, 5–21.

54.

Olinsky

Chen

Harlow

(2003). The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 151, 53–79.

55.

Padilla

A. M.

Borrero

N. E.

(2006). The effects of acculturative stress on Hispanic family. In Wong

P. T. P.

Wong

L. C. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 299–317). New York, NY: Springer.

56.

Park

B. H.

(2013). Influence of acculturative stress of married migrant women on marriage satisfaction: The mediating effect of problem-solving ability and information support. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 7, 44–60.

57.

Powers

A. S.

Myers

J. E.

Tingle

L. R.

Powers

J. C.

(2004). Wellness, perceived stress, mattering, and marital satisfaction among medical residents and their spouses: Implications for education and counseling. The Family Journal, 12, 26–36.

58.

Poyrazli

Kavanaugh

P. R.

(2006). Marital status, ethnicity, academic achievement, and adjustment strains: The case of graduate international students. College Student Journal, 40, 767.

59.

Rauer

A. J.

Karney

B. R.

Garvan

C. W.

Hou

(2008). Relationship risks in context: A cumulative risk approach to understanding relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1122–1135.

60.

Safdar

Struthers

Van Oudenhoven

J. P.

(2009). Acculturation of Iranians in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 468–491.

61.

Salehy

Zuria

Amat

(2013). Immigration and Iranian couples in Malaysia. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 850–854.

62.

Shagufta

(2014, 9 5). Marriage in Islam: Life partnership or discriminatory family set up? An analysis of some protective legal and moral Shariah provisions for women with special reference to Surah An-Nisa. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2492224

63.

Shekarchizadeh

(2011). A sequential mixed-method approach to assessing international postgraduate students’ perceptions of service quality. Johor, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

64.

Sherry

Thomas

Chui

W. H.

(2010). International students: A vulnerable student population. Higher Education, 60, 33–46.

65.

Shollenberger

M. A.

(2001). Increasing marital adjustment in graduate students and their spouses through relationship enhancement. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

66.

Singh

McBride

Kak

(2015). Role of social support in examining acculturative stress and psychological distress among Asian American immigrants and three sub-groups: Results from NLAAS. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 62, 1–10.

67.

Sirat

(2008). The impact of September 11 on International student flow into Malaysia: Lessons learned. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 4, 80–95.

68.

Skowron

E. A.

Wester

S. R.

Azen

(2004). Differentiation of self-mediates college stress and adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 69–78.

69.

Smart

J. F.

Smart

D. W.

(1995). Acculturative stress of Hispanics: Loss and challenge. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 390.

70.

Subhan

Amat

Bakar

A. Y. A.

Abdidin

M. H. Z.

Faisal

R. A.

Tohirin

Kamin

A. H.

(2015). Level of resilient among international students in public higher education institutions in Malaysia Scientific Journal of PPI-UKM 2, 181–188

71.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

Osterlind

S. J.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Los Angeles: California State University.

72.

Tan

(2013). The international mobility of students in Asia and Pacific. Singapore: United Nations.

73.

Tochkov

Levine

Sanaka

(2010). Variation in the prediction of cross-cultural adjustment by Asian-Indian students in the United States. College Student Journal, 44, 677–689.

74.

Yang

Clum

G. A.

(1994). Life stress, social support, and problem-solving skills predictive of depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in an Asian student population: A test of a model. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24, 127–139.

75.

Yates

D. S.

Starnes

D. S.

Moore

D. S.

(2008). The practice of statistics: TI. Graphing calculator enhanced. New York, NY: Macmillan.

76.

Yusoff

Y. M.

Chelliah

(2010). Adjustment in international students in Malaysian public university. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 1, 275.

77.

Zhou

(2000, 8). The fall of “the other half of the sky”? Chinese immigrant women in the New York area. Women’s Studies International Forum, 23, 445–459.