Parental Interference and Marital Stability: A Scoping Review of Sociocultural Influences on Indian Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In India, marriage is seen as a union between two families, not just individuals. Parental interference significantly contributes to marital discord and rising divorce rates. This review examines the extent of parental interference, its impact on marital stability and divorce rates, and the underlying sociocultural factors. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for studies published between 2010 and 2023. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The review revealed a significant association between parental interference and marital instability, with an overall effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.65. Excessive parental involvement often leads to resentment, loss of privacy, and conflicts between couples, exacerbated by the husband's feelings of being overshadowed and the wife's divided loyalty. Parental interference significantly contributes to rising divorce rates in India, reflecting a shift towards individualism among younger generations. Traditional family structures and cultural norms encourage high parental involvement, often continuing due to economic dependencies and respect for elders. This leads to increased stress, anxiety, and emotional estrangement among couples. Legal implications involve misuse of protective provisions, leading to prolonged legal battles and social stigmatisation. Parental interference is a critical factor in marital instability and rising divorce rates in India. Promoting marital autonomy, educating families on boundaries, and implementing legal reforms can be beneficial in fostering healthier marriages.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".