A study of psychological symptoms, family function, marital and life satisfactions of polygamous and monogamous women: The Palestinian case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polygamy is defined as a marriage in which a spouse of either gender has more than one mate at the same time. Polygamy is considered a valid form of marriage in many countries and communities around the globe. AIM: The purpose of this study is to examine the psychological symptoms, family function, marital satisfaction, life satisfaction and the degree of agreement with the practice of polygamy among 'senior wives' - the first wife in the polygamous marriage - and women in monogamous marriages in the West Bank, Palestine. METHOD: A convenience sample of 309 women, 187 from polygamous and 122 from monogamous families, participated in this study. All women from polygamous families were senior wives. The following instruments were deployed: the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD), the ENRICH marital satisfaction questionnaire, the SCL-90 mental health symptoms checklist, the Rosenberg self-esteem (SE) scale, the Diener et al. (1985), a life satisfaction scale, and a basic socio-demographic scale, including the degree of agreement of the practice of polygamy. RESULTS: The findings revealed significant differences between senior wives in polygamous marriages and wives in monogamous marriages with regard to family functioning, marital satisfaction, self-esteem and life satisfaction. Likewise, many of the mental health symptoms were different. Particularly noteworthy were somatization, depression, hostility psychotism and the General Severity Index (a global index of distress). More women in polygamous marriages agreed with the practice of polygamy than their monogamous counterparts. CONCLUSION: Practitioners and policy makers need to be aware of the consequences of polygamy on first wives and on society as whole.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".