Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T03:26:56.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Socioeconomic benefits and limited parent–offspring disagreement in arranged marriages in Nepal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2023

Elizabeth Agey*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Savannah Crippen
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Alyx Wells
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Parash Upreti
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: eagey@ucsb.edu

Abstract

Mate preferences probably evolved to increase fitness; however, studies using arranged and non-arranged marriage as proxies for limited and free mate choice (respectively) do not find any reproductive differences. We explore why arranged and non-arranged marriages are an imperfect proxy for limited and free-choice matings and what fitness effects different marriage types could produce. Data from focus group discussions with men and women in Nepal show that there are three spouse choice categories with differing levels of parental influence over mate choice, reinforcing that arranged and non-arranged are not dichotomous. Discussions also show that parents and offspring, especially sons, may be more aligned in in-law/mate preferences than expected, demonstrating the need to establish clear domains of parent–offspring disagreement over spouse choice in the community before investigating fitness. Several social and financial benefits that are only available to arranged couples in this community were detected, and these benefits could compensate for any costs of not choosing a spouse independently. These benefits of arranged marriage are more salient for women than for men. These discussions indicate that predictions about the effects of spouse choice on fitness outcomes may differ for men and women and depend on community-specific socioeconomic benefits.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Image of the study site in Dhading, Nepal, showing the highway that passes through the town, terraced fields and hilly terrain.

Figure 1

Table 1. Focus group summary statistics for each demographic category

Figure 2

Table 2. Summary of marriage types and their associated forms of support

Figure 3

Figure 2. Potential for parent–offspring agreement and disagreement over traits in a potential spouse. These diagrams represent the potential for disagreement between daughters and their parents (a) and sons and their parents (b) based on focus group discussions with unmarried and older participants. Areas of overlap represent agreement on the listed traits, while non-overlapping areas represent disagreement. (a) Daughters, mothers and fathers agree that a potential spouse should be of a similar caste and come from a family with a good reputation. They also agree that marriage should occur in the daughter's mid-20s and not occur in their teenage years. Mothers and daughters agree that physical attractiveness is desirable and important in a potential spouse. Daughters sometimes express a preference to marry after age 30, which would not be desirable for mothers or fathers. (b) Sons, mothers and fathers agree that a potential spouse should be of a similar caste and come from a family with a good reputation. They should also agree that marriage should occur in the son's mid-20s or 30s and not occur in their teenage years. Sons and fathers agree that physical attractiveness should not be a priority for choosing a spouse, while mothers think that physical attractiveness is desirable and important.

Supplementary material: File

Agey et al. supplementary material

Agey et al. supplementary material

Download Agey et al. supplementary material(File)
File 54.7 KB