Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01199 Psychology Data Report Marital Satisfaction, Sex, Age, Marriage Duration, Religion, Number of Children, Economic Status, Education, and Collectivistic Values: Data from 33 Countries Sorokowski Piotr 1 * Randall Ashley K. 2 Groyecka Agata 1 Frackowiak Tomasz 1 Cantarero Katarzyna 3 Hilpert Peter 4 Ahmadi Khodabakhsh 5 Alghraibeh Ahmad M. 6 Aryeetey Richmond 7 Bertoni Anna 8 Bettache Karim 9 Błażejewska Marta 1 Bodenmann Guy 10 Bortolini Tiago S. 11 12 Bosc Carla 1 Butovskaya Marina 13 14 Castro Felipe N. 15 Cetinkaya Hakan 16 Cunha Diana 17 David Daniel 18 David Oana A. 19 Espinosa Alejandra C. Domínguez 20 Donato Silvia 8 Dronova Daria 13 Dural Seda 21 Fisher Maryanne 22 Akkaya Aslıhan Hamamcıoğlu 23 Hamamura Takeshi 9 Hansen Karolina 24 Hattori Wallisen T. 25 Hromatko Ivana 26 Gulbetekin Evrim 27 Iafrate Raffaella 8 James Bawo 28 Jiang Feng 29 Kimamo Charles O. 30 Koç Fırat 23 Krasnodębska Anna 31 Laar Amos 7 Lopes Fívia A. 16 Martinez Rocio 32 Mesko Norbert 33 Molodovskaya Natalya 1 Qezeli Khadijeh Moradi 34 Motahari Zahrasadat 35 Natividade Jean C. 36 Ntayi Joseph 37 Ojedokun Oluyinka 38 Omar-Fauzee Mohd S. B. 39 Onyishi Ike E. 40 Özener Barış 41 Paluszak Anna 1 Portugal Alda 17 Realo Anu 42 43 Relvas Ana P. 17 Rizwan Muhammad 44 Sabiniewicz Agnieszka L. 1 Salkičević Svjetlana 26 Sarmány-Schuller Ivan 45 Stamkou Eftychia 46 Stoyanova Stanislava 47 Šukolová Denisa 48 Sutresna Nina 49 Tadinac Meri 26 Teras Andero 50 Ponciano Edna L. T. 51 Tripathi Ritu 52 Tripathi Nachiketa 53 Tripathi Mamta 53 Yamamoto Maria E. 15 Yoo Gyesook 54 Sorokowska Agnieszka 1 55 1Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw Wroclaw, Poland 2Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, United States 3Faculty in Sopot, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities Sopot, Poland 4Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of Washington Seattle, DC, United States 5Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran 6Department of Psychology, King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7School of Public Health, University of Ghana Legon, Ghana 8Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan Milan, Italy 9Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, Hong Kong 10Department of Psychology, University of Zurich Zurich, Switzerland 11Graduate Program in Morphological Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 12Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience Unit, D'Or Institute for Research and Education Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 13Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia 14Russian State University for the Humanities Moscow, Russia 15Laboratory of Evolution of Human Behavior, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte Natal, Brazil 16Department of Psychology, Faculty of Languages History and Geography, Ankara University Ankara, Turkey 17Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal 18International Institute for the Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Romania 19Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Romania 20Department of Psychology, Universidad Iberoamericana Mexico City, Mexico 21Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Izmir University of Economics Izmir, Turkey 22Department of Psychology, Saint Mary's University Halifax, Canada 23Department of Anthropology, Cumhuriyet University Sivas, Turkey 24Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw Warsaw, Poland 25Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Uberlândia Uberlândia, Brazil 26Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia 27Department of Psychology, Akdeniz University Antalya, Turkey 28Department of Clinical Services, Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital Benin-City, Nigeria 29Central University of Finance and Economics Beijing, China 30Department of Psychology, University of Nairobi Nairobi, Kenya 31Institute of Pedagogical Sciences, University of Opole Opole, Poland 32Department of Social Psychology, University of Granada Granada, Spain 33Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs Pécs, Hungary 34Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Razi University Kermanshah, Iran 35Institute of Psychology, University of Science and Culture Tehran, Iran 36Institute of Psychology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 37Faculty of Computing and Management Science, Makerere University Business School Kampala, Uganda 38Faculty of Social and Management Sciences, Adekunle Ajasin University Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria 39School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok, Malaysia 40Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria 41Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University Istanbul, Turkey 42Department of Psychology, University of Warwick Coventry, United Kingdom 43Department of Psychology, University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia 44University of Karachi, Institute of Clinical Psychology Karachi, Pakistan 45Center of Social and Psychological Sciences, Institute of Experimental Psychology SAS Bratislava, Slovakia 46Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands 47Department of Psychology, South-West University “Neofit Rilski” Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria 48Educational Research Center, Matej Bel University Banská Bystrica, Slovakia 49Coaching Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Bandung, Indonesia 50Mõttemaru OÜ Tartu, Estonia 51Institute of Psychology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 52Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management Bangalore, India 53Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Guwahati, India 54Department of Child and Family Studies, Kyung Hee University Seoul, South Korea 55Department of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic medicine, Technische Universität Dresden Dresden, Germany

Edited by: Marcel Zentner, University of Innsbruck, Austria

Reviewed by: William J. Chopik, Michigan State University, United States; Roy Spina, University of Chichester, United Kingdom

*Correspondence: Piotr Sorokowski sorokowskipiotr@yahoo.co.uk

This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

 21 07 2017 2017 8 1199 17 03 2017 30 06 2017 Copyright © 2017 Sorokowski, Randall, Groyecka, Frackowiak, Cantarero, Hilpert, Ahmadi, Alghraibeh, Aryeetey, Bertoni, Bettache, Błażejewska, Bodenmann, Bortolini, Bosc, Butovskaya, Castro, Cetinkaya, Cunha, David, David, Espinosa, Donato, Dronova, Dural, Fisher, Akkaya, Hamamura, Hansen, Hattori, Hromatko, Gulbetekin, Iafrate, James, Jiang, Kimamo, Koç, Krasnodębska, Laar, Lopes, Martinez, Mesko, Molodovskaya, Qezeli, Motahari, Natividade, Ntayi, Ojedokun, Omar-Fauzee, Onyishi, Özener, Paluszak, Portugal, Realo, Relvas, Rizwan, Sabiniewicz, Salkičević, Sarmány-Schuller, Stamkou, Stoyanova, Šukolová, Sutresna, Tadinac, Teras, Ponciano, Tripathi, Tripathi, Tripathi, Yamamoto, Yoo and Sorokowska. 2017 Sorokowski, Randall, Groyecka, Frackowiak, Cantarero, Hilpert, Ahmadi, Alghraibeh, Aryeetey, Bertoni, Bettache, Błażejewska, Bodenmann, Bortolini, Bosc, Butovskaya, Castro, Cetinkaya, Cunha, David, David, Espinosa, Donato, Dronova, Dural, Fisher, Akkaya, Hamamura, Hansen, Hattori, Hromatko, Gulbetekin, Iafrate, James, Jiang, Kimamo, Koç, Krasnodębska, Laar, Lopes, Martinez, Mesko, Molodovskaya, Qezeli, Motahari, Natividade, Ntayi, Ojedokun, Omar-Fauzee, Onyishi, Özener, Paluszak, Portugal, Realo, Relvas, Rizwan, Sabiniewicz, Salkičević, Sarmány-Schuller, Stamkou, Stoyanova, Šukolová, Sutresna, Tadinac, Teras, Ponciano, Tripathi, Tripathi, Tripathi, Yamamoto, Yoo and Sorokowska

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 marital satisfaction cross-cultural research relationships Religion and Psychology family studies Introduction

Forms of committed relationships, including formal marriage arrangements between men and women, exist in almost every culture (Bell, 1997). Yet, similarly to many other psychological constructs (Henrich et al., 2010), marital satisfaction and its correlates have been investigated almost exclusively in Western countries (e.g., Bradbury et al., 2000). Meanwhile, marital relationships are heavily guided by culturally determined norms, customs, and expectations (for review see Berscheid, 1995; Fiske et al., 1998). While we acknowledge the differences existing both between- and within-cultures, we measured marital satisfaction and several factors that might potentially correlate with it based on self-report data from individuals across 33 countries. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the raw data available for anybody interested in further examining any relations between them and other country-level scores obtained elsewhere. Below, we review the central variables that are likely to be related to marital satisfaction.

Gender

Gender has long been identified in the literature as a predictor of marital satisfaction (Bernard, 1972). Specifically, early works suggested that men report being more satisfied with their marriages compared to women in both Western (e.g., Schumm et al., 1998) and non-Western (e.g., Rostami et al., 2014) cultures. However, sex differences in marital satisfaction may differ across cultures due to traditional sex roles (Pardo et al., 2012) and larger-scale cultural variables, such as sex egalitarianism (Taniguchi and Kaufman, 2013).

 Age

Few studies have explicitly examined age effects on reports of marital satisfaction (see Schmitt et al., 2007). Thus, no clear predictions concerning age-related patterns of results can be derived from the literature. However, in some studies, age was found to be negatively related to marital satisfaction (e.g., Lee and Shehan, 1989). Importantly, age should be examined as a predictor of marital satisfaction with respect to the duration of the marriage.

 Duration of the marriage

The time that partners have spent together has been shown to correlate with marital satisfaction (Kurdek, 1999; Lavner and Bradbury, 2010). The effect of marriage length on marital satisfaction is negative (it decreases with a relationship length) or U-shaped (it decreases in the beginning and increases after some time) (Karney and Bradbury, 1995; Kurdek, 1999). One could predict that this variable may differ across cultures as, for example, in arranged marriages relationship satisfaction might be lower in the early stages of a marriage (Xiaohe and Whyte, 1990).

 Religiosity

For many cultures, religion is strongly connected to numerous relationship-related values and norms and thus it may be correlated with marital satisfaction (Call and Heaton, 1997; Fincham et al., 2011). Positive associations between religiosity and marital satisfaction have been found across different religious groups, such as Christians, Jewish, Mormons, and Muslims (Marks, 2005).

 Children

Some previous studies from various cultures revealed contradictory results regarding the correlation between the number of children and marital satisfaction (see Twenge et al., 2003; Onyishi et al., 2012). This suggests that some culture-dependent factors may influence the association between marital satisfaction and the number of children.

 Economic status

Low income or material hardship is associated with a serious threat to marital quality and stability (Lichter and Carmalt, 2009). However, some studies showed cross-cultural differences in the strength of this association (Kamo, 1993).

 Education

Few studies examine whether education level is related to marital satisfaction. For example, Janssen et al. (1998) found that highly educated women had higher rates of unstable marriages. Using the National Survey of Family Growth data, Heaton (2002) round opposite results, wherein marital dissolution was lower among women who were more educated. Therefore, the findings regarding the association between marital satisfaction and education level based primarily on Western culture are not clear and raise the question of whether such an association exists globally.

 Cultural considerations (collectivism vs. individualism)

The criteria of a satisfying marriage may vary greatly based on one's larger cultural context, specifically on whether the culture primarily identifies as a collectivistic or an individualistic one (Dillon and Beechler, 2010). Collectivistic and individualistic cultures have different cultural norms, values, and familial obligations (Hofstede, 2001). For example, fulfilling familial duties may be beneficial for marital satisfaction in a traditional Chinese marriage (Wang, 1994), whereas fulfilling hedonistic goals of husbands and wives seems to predict marital satisfaction in Western countries (e.g., Lalonde et al., 2004).

The current dataset gathers the data about marital satisfaction and its potential correlates from 33 Western and non-Western countries. We measured gender, age, duration of marriage, religiosity, number of children, economic status, education and individualism/collectivism. The dataset is introduced in order to supplement previous studies conducted typically on Westernized samples.

 Materials and methods Participants

Data from 7,767 individuals was collected in 33 countries: Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Uganda. All participants were over the age of 18 and were currently married. Due to missing data 589 subjects were excluded. The final sample included data from 7,178 participants. On average, the participants were 40.7 years old (SD = 11.4), and the average marriage duration to date was 14.8 years (SD = 11.6).

 Procedure

The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The data were collected from July 2012 to December 2013 by the co-authors and their respective research teams in their home countries. All samples were convenience samples. Depending on the country, students were recruited in different ways (e.g., students, acquaintances of the researchers, participants of vocational courses, inhabitants of home towns of the researchers etc.). All participants took part in the study on a voluntary basis and provided an informed consent. The procedure across almost all study sites was identical—they completed the paper-and-pencil questionnaires with an approximate time of participation of 30 min, with an exception of two countries (Switzerland and Bulgaria) where some participants filled in the questionnaires online. In general, participants were not compensated for their participation, however participants in Hong Kong were compensated 50 Hong Kong dollars. In countries where more than one person filled in the questionnaire at the same time, we were concerned with their anonymity and the fact that they were not influencing each other. The detailed sampling strategies and research forms are presented for each country separately in Table 1.

Detailed place of the study, recruitment strategy and form of the study.

Country Place of the study Recruitment strategy Form of the study
Brazil Natal, Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro Students, their acquaintances and families Group
Bulgaria Blagoevgrad, Sofia Students, members of the fitness club, customers in shopping malls, acquaintances of the researcher Individual or group
Canada Halifax Students Individual
China Beijing Students and participants recruited by HR managers of some companies Individual or group
Croatia Zagreb, Rijeka, Osijek, Split Students, their acquaintance and families Individual
Estonia Tartu Students, their acquaintance and families, researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual
Germany Jena, Friedrichshafen People in a public library Individual
Ghana Legon Students, their acquaintance and families, researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual
Greece Thessaloniki People at the police station applying for issuing the passport Individual
HongKong Hong Kong Students, their acquaintance and families Individual
Hungary Pécs Students and people from academic community Individual
India Bangalore Working executives on part-time courses Individual or group
Indonesia Bandung Students, teachers, lecturers, government employees Individual
Iran Tehran, Kermanshah Students, their acquaintance and families, researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual
Italy Milan Students, their acquaintances and families, professionals at part-time courses Individual
Kazakhstan Kokshetau Researcher's acquaintances and neighbors Individual
Kenya Nairobi Acquaintances of the researcher and accidently met people Individual
Malaysia Kedah, Sintok Students Group
Mexico Ciudad de Mexico Students, their acquaintance and families, researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual
Nigeria Akungba-Akoko, Benin City, Nsukka People at the local government offices, staff from secondary school and their acquaintances Individual
Pakistan Karachi University students, faculty members and their families Individual
Poland Wrocław, Brzeg Students, their acquaintance and families, researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual
Portugal Coimbra, Aveiro, Leiria, Lisboa Students, their acquaintance and families Individual
Romania Cluj-Napoca Students Individual or group
Russia Moscow Students, their acquaintances and families, professionals at part-time courses Individual
Saudi Arabia Riyadh Students Individual
Slovakia Banská Bystrica, Nitra Students and students of the University of the Third Age Group
South Korea Seoul Students, acquaintances of the researchers Individual
Spain Granada, Valencia Students, their acquaintances and families, acquaintances of the researchers Individual
Switzerland Zurich Students, their acquaintances and families, researchers' workplaces Individual or group
Turkey Ankara, Sivas, Izmir Researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual or group
U.K. Cardiff Researchers' acquaintances, their families, people working in services (stores, travel agencies, foodservice, banks etc.) Individual
Uganda Kampala Students, their acquaintance and families, researchers' acquaintances and neighbors Individual

The original version of the questionnaires were in English, and in all non-English speaking countries the questionnaires were translated into participants' native language by research team members fluent in English using the back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). Specifically, the research teams translated the measures into the native language of the participants, and then had a bilingual person back-translate the measures into English. Differences between the original English version and the back-translation were discussed, and mutual agreements were made on the most appropriate translation.

 Measures Marital satisfaction

Marital satisfaction was measured with two scales to ensure that results were not dependent upon the applied questionnaire. In the first step, participants completed the Marriage and Relationships Questionnaire (MRQ) developed by Russell and Wells (1993). Specifically, the 9-item version of the MRQ (“Love Scale”) was used because it has been found to be appropriate for cross-cultural use in terms of satisfactory psychometric characteristics (Lucas et al., 2008; Weisfeld et al., 2011). Sample questions from this questionnaire included: “Do you enjoy your husband's/wife's company?”; “Do you enjoy doing things together?”; “Are you proud of your husband/wife?”. Participants answered these questions on a 5-point scale, which ranged from 1 (yes) to 5 (no). A higher number indicated higher marital satisfaction. Secondly, participants completed the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS; Schumm et al., 1983; Schumm and Bugaighis, 1986), which is also a well-established tool of satisfactory psychometric characteristics (Schumm and Bugaighis, 1986; Crane et al., 2000). The KMSS has previously been validated for studies involving non-Western samples (Shek and Tsang, 1993). The scale contains 3 questions: “How satisfied are you with your marriage?”; “How satisfied are you with your wife/husband as a spouse?”; “How satisfied are you with your relationship with your wife/husband?”. Participants answered this questions on a 7-point scale, which ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). A higher number indicated higher marital satisfaction.

In order to test whether the scales were culturally equivalent, we conducted exploratory factor analysis and then compared factor score loadings obtained in each country with the pooled data using the proportionality coefficient (Tucker's Phi). We also analyzed the reliability of each scale of marital satisfaction (Table 1), and we conducted an exploratory factor analysis in each sample for the MRQ scale. One item (“Do you love your husband/wife?”) had low factor score loadings for several countries (Romania: −0.382; Nigeria: 0.286; Malaysia: 0.247; Kenya: 0.396), so it should be excluded from the further analysis. We then calculated the proportionality coefficient (Tucker's phi) by comparing factor score loadings of the 8-item scale between the pooled data and each sample's factor score loadings separately. The results indicated that the scale was culturally equivalent (Table 2). Cronbach's alpha for the scale calculated on the pooled data was 0.90. Results of this analysis indicated that KMSS scale was reliable and culturally equivalent (Table 2). Cronbach's alpha on the pooled data reached 0.94.

Results of the analysis of cultural equivalence of the scale.

Country Cronbach's α MRQ scale Tucker's Phi coefficients MRQ scale Cronbach's α KMSS scale Tucker's Phi coefficients KMSS scale
Brazil 0.86 0.99 0.97 1.00
Bulgaria 0.91 1.00 0.76 1.00
Canada 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00
China 0.88 1.00 0.93 1.00
Croatia 0.89 1.00 0.96 1.00
Estonia 0.91 1.00 0.96 1.00
Germany 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00
Ghana 0.88 0.99 0.95 1.00
Greece 0.93 1.00 0.96 1.00
Hong Kong 0.94 1.00 0.98 1.00
Hungary 0.92 1.00 0.98 1.00
India 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00
Indonesia 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00
Iran 0.86 0.99 0.95 1.00
Italy 0.83 1.00 0.92 1.00
Kazakhstan 0.74 0.98 0.93 1.00
Kenya 0.92 1.00 0.94 1.00
Malaysia 0.93 0.99 0.89 1.00
Mexico 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00
Nigeria 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00
Pakistan 0.89 0.99 0.87 1.00
Poland 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00
Portugal 0.89 0.99 0.98 1.00
Romania 0.94 0.98 0.97 0.92
Russia 0.87 0.99 0.94 1.00
Saudi Arabia 0.82 0.98 0.92 1.00
Slovakia 0.92 1.00 0.95 1.00
South Korea 0.90 1.00 0.97 1.00
Spain 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.00
Switzerland 0.90 1.00 0.98 1.00
Turkey 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.00
United Kingdom 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00
Uganda 0.89 0.99 0.98 1.00

Tucker's phi coefficients were analyzed by comparing factor score loadings of each country with the pooled data.

 Potential predictors of marital satisfaction

Participants completed a series of standard questions concerning: (1) gender, (2) age, (3) marriage duration in years (4) number of children and number of raised children, (5) religiosity and religious affiliation, (6) subjective economic status (7) education, (8) individual level of collectivistic values, and (9) cultural level of individualism.

Religiosity was measured using a single item (“Are you religious?”), and responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely religious). Economic status was measured by asking participants to rate their material situation on a 5-point scale—1 (much better than average in my country), 5 (much worse than average in my country).

Perceived level of country Collectivism - Individualism was measured by a scale taken from the GLOBE survey (global study on different variables across 62 countries; House et al., 1999). Because our study concerned family, we used only items regarding familial collectivism (Family Collectivistic Practices; House et al., 1999). This scale was created to test pride in and loyalty to family (and/or organization) and family (and/or organizational) cohesiveness. Sample questions from this scale are: “In this society, parents take pride in the individual accomplishments of their children,” “In this society, aging parents generally live at home with their children.” Participants answered this sentence on a 7-point scale (from 1—strongly agree to 7—strongly disagree). We recoded the answers so that a higher number indicated higher collectivism. Because the original items were constructed to test Collectivism on the national level (i.e., “In this society, aging parents generally live at home with their children”), we added also their modified version, measuring collectivism on the individual level (i.e., “I think, aging parents should live at home with their children”). The possible answers in this scale were the same as in its original version (House et al., 1999).

 Strengths and limitations

Compared to previously published cross-cultural studies, the present data set has a number of distinctive features: (1) our data set involves thousands (N = 7,178) of participants allowing large-scale analyses; (2) we considered five different regions of the world, some of which have only been included in a handful of previous studies (e.g., Onyishi et al., 2012); (3) all participants filled in the same questionnaires and almost all of them followed the same procedures; (4) all participants took part in the study in the same years (2012-2013) to control for any temporal effects; and (5) we measured many variables previously shown to correlate with marital satisfaction. To facilitate the further analyses, we provide basic descriptive statistics of the measured variables (see Table 3).

Descriptive Statistics (average age, marriage duration, education, number of children, marital satisfaction, and collectivistic values).

Country Number of participants Age M (SD) Marriage duration M (SD) Education M (SD) Number of children M (SD) Marital satisfaction MRQ scale M (SD) Marital Satisfaction KMSS scale M (SD) Collectivism-Individualism—national level M (SD) Collectivism-Individualism—individual level M (SD)
F M
Brazil 180 301 36.4 (10.3) 10.5 (9.9) 4.57 (0.75) 1.1 (1.2) 4.64 (0.50) 17.3 (3.8) 11.8 (6.0) 10.5 (6.5)
Bulgaria 39 63 38.6 (9.0) 8.8 (6.6) 4.65 (0.77) 1.1 (0.5) 3.94 (0.61) 17.2 (1.6) 8.4 (1.9) 10.2 (2.3)
Canada 44 25 38.7 (10.4) 11.8 (9.4) 4.64 (0.57) 0.8 (1.0) 4.42 (0.82) 16.7 (5.1) 12.7 (2.5) 16.5 (3.2)
China 72 47 33.2 (6.4) 7.6 (6.7) 4.49 (1.02) 1.0 (0.5) 4.47 (0.61) 17.8 (3.4) 10.4 (4.4) 10.7 (4.2)
Croatia 311 300 44.6 (11.6) 18.0 (11.8) 3.99 (0.98) 1.7 (1.1) 4.40 (0.60) 17.3 (3.8) 12.1 (3.5) 11.8 (3.8)
Estonia 99 51 42.6 (12.2) 17.0 (12.6) 4.45 (0.81) 1.9 (1.1) 4.49 (0.59) 17.5 (3.7) 11.9 (3.8) 11.0 (3.6)
Germany 59 42 47.7 (12.5) 17.7 (15.3) 4.17 (1.03) 1.7 (1.0) 4.56 (0.62) 15.3 (5.8) 14.3 (3.8) 13.7 (3.6)
Ghana 50 53 40.3 (9.5) 12.0 (9.6) 4.24 (1.06) 2.5 (1.5) 4.68 (0.50) 17.7 (4.4) 8.4 (3.2) 8.0 (3.2)
Greece 49 46 38.8 (9.0) 11.6 (9.8) 4.21 (0.80) 1.5 (1.0) 4.48 (0.69) 17.4 (3.8) 11.1 (3.8) 12.6 (4.7)
Hong Kong 43 56 47.0 (10.0) 20.3 (10.5) 3.88 (0.96) 1.5 (1.1) 4.01 (0.91) 15.8 (4.9) 12.0 (2.9) 11.6 (3.2)
Hungary 161 75 37.8 (9.5) 12.6 (9.5) 4.08 (0.93) 1.6 (1.0) 4.40 (0.67) 15.9 (4.8) 19.7 (3.6) 18.8 (3.8)
India 164 135 34.1 (8.0) 7.6 (7.4) 4.94 (0.26) 1.0 (0.8) 4.75 (0.40) 18.5 (3.5) 8.7 (3.6) 8.6 (4.3)
Indonesia 64 24 41.8 (9.6) 16.1 (10.8) 4.51 (0.95) 2.0 (1.1) 4.58 (0.65) 18.0 (4.2) 7.2 (3.4) 6.5 (3.3)
Iran 342 263 38.8 (10.8) 15.3 (11.1) 3.68 (1.14) 2.0 (1.5) 4.09 (0.79) 16.5 (4.8) 9.4 (4.0) 9.1 (4.2)
Italy 193 123 48.6 (10.9) 24.6 (11.5) 4.0 (0.8) 1.7 (0.9) 4.61 (0.43) 18.3 (3.3) 11.2 (3.2) 11.0 (3.7)
Kazakhstan 60 60 37.0 (8.3) 13.0 (7.4) 4.3 (1.0) 1.9 (0.6) 4.74 (0.31) 18.2 (3.2) 9.2 (3.2) 8.0 (3.0)
Kenya 47 47 32.4 (7.3) 7.6 (6.0) 4.40 (1.0) 1.8 (1.2) 4.66 (0.57) 17.1 (3.8) 10.4 (4.9) 10.6 (5.1)
Malaysia 50 49 40.0 (8.9) 13.5 (9.2) 4.5 (0.7) 2.9 (2.0) 4.85 (0.36) 19.4 (2.6) 8.0 (2.6) 6.3 (2.1)
Mexico 85 83 38.8 (11.4) 11.7 (9.8) 4.0 (1.8) 1.6 (1.1) 4.65 (0.61) 16.6 (5.0) 10.0 (3.6) 10.32 (4.1)
Nigeria 293 310 38.9 (9.0) 10.4 (8.8) 4.3 (0.9) 2.5 (1.8) 4.71 (0.48) 18.3 (3.7) 9.2 (4.0) 9.6 (4.4)
Pakistan 71 60 35.9 (10.4) 10.3 (9.6) 4.8 (0.6) 1.8 (1.4) 4.54 (0.56) 17.7 (3.5) 8.4 (3.9) 8.1 (3.9)
Poland 278 166 40.5 (11.6) 16.3 (11.9) 4.4 (0.7) 1.8 (1.2) 4.44 (0.69) 14.8 (4.3) 10.9 (3.7) 10.4 (3.8)
Portugal 180 101 46.1 (11.0) 20.8 (12.2) 3.8 (1.0) 1.6 (0.8) 4.63 (0.49) 17.0 (4.8) 8.7 (3.0) 7.1 (2.5)
Romania 47 6 35.2 (6.8) 8.3 (6.6) 4.9 (0.6) 0.9 (0.8) 4.31 (0.90) 16.4 (5.0) 11.0 (3.7) 15.5 (4.9)
Russia 103 121 38.6 (13.9) 13.8 (13.2) 4.6 (0.9) 1.0 (0.8) 4.48 (0.57) 16.9 (4.1) 11.2 (3.3) 11.0 (4.3)
Saudi Arabia 112 81 36.1 (8.3) 12.3 (8.5) 4.6 (0.8) 2.8 (1.7) 3.91 (0.65) 15.8 (4.5) 6.6 (3.1) 6.6 (3.4)
Slovakia 157 77 42.7 (11.8) 18.3 (11.9) 4.5 (0.6) 1.8 (1.0) 4.26 (0.78) 16.3 (4.6) 10.8 (3.3) 11.2 (3.4)
South Korea 50 50 41.8 (7.7) 15.0 (8.2) 4.4 (0.6) 1.7 (0.8) 4.36 (0.56) 16.7 (3.7) 11.56 (3.6) 10.9 (3.8)
Spain 108 92 47.1 (9.4) 19.4 (10.1) 3.8 (1.1) 1.8 (0.9) 4.54 (0.60) 17.2 (4.0) 11.5 (3.4) 11.1 (3.3)
Switzerland 68 104 49.4 (12.4) 21.7 (13.0) 4.4 (0.6) 2.0 (1.3) 4.54 (0.55) 15.9 (5.4) 15.9 (2.9) 15.9 (3.6)
Turkey 153 239 42.7 (13.6) 16.6 (13.8) 4.1 (1.1) 1.7 (1.2) 4.40 (0.66) 17.7 (10.0) 8.7 (3.3) 9.6 (4.2)
United Kingdom 58 42 45.0 (11.6) 19.4 (13.1) 4.3 (0.7) 1.7 (1.4) 4.61 (0.47) 19.0 (2.8) 12.8 (3.2) 10.8 (3.5)
Uganda 39 62 34.9 (9.9) 8.2 (8.2) 4.1 (1.0) 2.7 (2.1) 4.49 (0.59) 16.2 (4.5) 12.6 (4.1) 11.3 (4.4)
In total 3,827 3,351 40.7 (11.4) 14.8 (11.6) 4.2 (0.9) 1.8 (1.3) 4.47 (0.64) 17.2 (4.2) 10.7 (4.5) 10.5 (4.7)

Despite the numerous strengths, our study has some limitations. Firstly, due to sampling procedures it could have been the case that both partners in the relationship completed the survey. There is no way to be certain about this, but it is unlikely that multiple individuals within relationship jointly participated in the study which might potentially cause issues related to the interdependence of the data. However, even if both partners took part in the study, their answers did not influence each other, because when both a wife and a husband were taking part in the research, they were completing their questionnaires separately. We were highly concerned with our participants' anonymity and sincerity. Secondly, our sample might not be fully representative of the participating countries, as data was collected in particular sites.

 Possible research paths

Based on the presented dataset, scientists can conduct numerous analyses and publish articles concerning various research questions: they can examine cross-cultural differences in marital satisfaction, identifying other country-level predictors of marital satisfaction or use the measures of individualism/collectivism provided in the dataset. These potential country-level predictors (for example shared values in a culture given or demographic data) are likely to be obtainable from other online sources. These may include for example Schwartz's value orientations (Schwartz, 2006) or Hofstede's culture dimensions (Hofstede, 2001). Further, they can examine the indirect replicability of previously conducted studies of correlates of marital satisfaction. Although differences in marital satisfaction have been investigated in a number of cross-cultural and cross-ethnic studies, due to the vast amount of data from this set, the data may also serve as a reference point in further studies regarding marital satisfaction. The dataset can be used for purposes of methodological papers about the validity of existing marriage satisfaction scales (their psychometric properties across different countries).

One previously published study has been based on the presented dataset. Hilpert et al. (2016) found a culturally differentiated association between dyadic coping and marriage satisfaction. They also tested whether gender might moderate the association and found that in some nations the association is higher for men and in other nations it is higher for women.

 Dataset description

The data discussed in this manuscript have been deposited in Figshare repository and is accessible through the following hyperlink: https://figshare.com/s/d2bd33a9605a3a204881 under the name: “Marital, Sex, Age, Marriage Duration, Religion, Number of Children, Economic Status, Education, and Collectivistic Values: Data from 33 Countries.” The deposit contains two files: (1) Marital satisfaction_Data, a xlsx file containing the raw data, and (2) Marital satisfaction_Questionnaire, a doc file containing the questionnaire, along with an exhaustive description of the column labels in the dataset.

 Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Institutional Review Board of the University of Wroclaw with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 Author contributions

All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. PS, AR, PH, and AS designed the study, PS, AS, AG, TF, KC, AR, PH contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. PS and AS coordinated the project. The rest of the authors collected data.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

This paper was made possible by the funds of Polish National Science Centre (grant number N N106 012740). In Saudi Arabia, the research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University.

 References Bell D. (1997). Defining marriage and legitimacy. Curr. Anthropol. 38, 237–253. 10.1086/204606 Bernard J. (1972). The Future of Marriage. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Berscheid E. (1995). Help wanted: a grand theorist of interpersonal relationships, sociologist or anthropologist preferred. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 12, 529–533. 10.1177/0265407595124005 Bradbury T. N. Fincham F. D. Beach S. R. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: a decade in review. J. Marr. Fam. 62, 964–980. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x Brislin R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1, 185–216. 10.1177/135910457000100301 Call V. R. Heaton T. B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability. J. Sci. Study Relig. 36, 382–392. 10.2307/1387856 Crane D. R. Middleton K. C. Bean R. A. (2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas marital satisfaction scale and the revised dyadic adjustment scale. Ame. J. Fam. Ther. 28, 53–60. 10.1080/019261800261815 Dillon L. M. Beechler M. P. (2010). Marital satisfaction and the impact of children in collectivist cultures: a meta-analysis. J. Evol. Psychol. 8, 7–22. 10.1556/JEP.8.2010.1.3 Fincham F. D. Ajayi C. Beach S. R. (2011). Spirituality and marital satisfaction in African American couples. Psychol. Relig. Spiritual. 3, 259–268. 10.1037/a0023909 Fiske A. P. Shinobu K. Hazel R. M. Nisbett R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology, in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds Gilbert D. T. Fiske S. T. Lindzey G. (San Francisco, CA: McGraw-Hill), 915–981. Heaton T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. J. Fam. Issues 23, 392–409. 10.1177/0192513X02023003004 Henrich J. Heine S. J. Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X20550733 Hilpert P. Randall A. K. Sorokowski P. Atkins D. C. Sorokowska A. Ahmadi K. . (2016). The associations of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction vary between and within Nations: a 35-Nation Study. Front. Psychol. 7:1106. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106 Hofstede G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. House R. J. Hanges P. J. Ruiz-Quintanilla S. A. Dorfman P. W. Javidan M. Dickson M. . (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: project GLOBE, in Advances in Global Leadership, eds Mobley W. H. Gessner M. J. Arnold V. (Stamford, CT: JAI Press), 171–233. Janssen J. P. Poortman A. R. De Graaf P. M. Kalmijn M. (1998). De instabiliteit van huwelijken en samenwoonrelaties in Nederland. Mens en Maatschappij 73, 4–26. Kamo Y. (1993). Determinants of marital satisfaction: a comparison of the United States and Japan. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 10, 551–568. 10.1177/0265407593104005 Karney B. R. Bradbury T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, methods, and research. Psychol. Bull. 118, 3–34. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 Kurdek L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage. Dev. Psychol. 35, 1283–1296. 10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.128310493654 Lalonde R. N. Hynie M. Pannu M. Tatla S. (2004). The role of culture in interpersonal relationships do second generation South Asian Canadians want a traditional partner? J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 503–524. 10.1177/0022022104268386 Lavner J. A. Bradbury T. N. (2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the newlywed years. J. Marr. Fam. 72, 1171–1187. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00757.x21116452 Lee G. Shehan C. L. (1989). Retirement and marital satisfaction. J. Gerontol. 44, 226–230. 10.1093/geronj/44.6.S2262809116 Lichter D. T. Carmalt J. H. (2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples. Soc. Sci. Res. 38, 168–187. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.07.003 Lucas T. Parkhill M. R. Wendorf C. A. Imamoglu E. O. Weisfeld C. C. Weisfeld G. E. . (2008). Cultural and evolutionary components of marital satisfaction A multidimensional assessment of measurement invariance. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 39, 109–123. 10.1177/0022022107311969 Marks L. (2005). How does religion influence marriage? Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim perspectives. Marr. Fam. Rev. 38, 85–111. 10.1300/J002v38n01_07 Onyishi E. I. Sorokowski P. Sorokowska A. Pipitone R. N. (2012). Children and marital satisfaction in a non-Western sample: having more children increases marital satisfaction among the Igbo people of Nigeria. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 771–774. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.06.005 Pardo Y. Weisfeld C. Hill E. Slatcher R. B. (2012). Machismo and marital satisfaction in Mexican American couples. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 44, 299–315. 10.1177/0022022112443854 Rostami A. Ghazinour M. Nygren L. Richter J. (2014). Marital satisfaction with a special focus on gender differences in medical staff in Tehran, Iran. J. Fam. Issues 35, 1940–1958. 10.1177/0192513X13483292 Russell R. J. H. Wells P. A. (1993). Marriage and Relationship Questionnaire: MARQ Handbook. Kent: Hodder and Stoughton. Schmitt M. Kliegel M. Shapiro A. (2007). Marital interaction in middle and old age: a predictor of marital satisfaction? Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 65, 283–300. 10.2190/AG.65.4.a18351172 Schumm W. R. Bugaighis M. A. (1986). Marital quality over the marital career: alternative explanations. J. Marriage Fam. 48, 165–168. 10.2307/352240 Schumm W. R. Nichols C. W. Schectman K. L. Grigsby C. C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychol. Rep. 53, 567–572. 10.2466/pr0.1983.53.2.583 Schumm W. R. Webb F. J. Bollman S. R. (1998). Gender and marital satisfaction: data from the National Survey of Families and Households. Psychol. Rep. 83, 319–327. 10.2466/pr0.1998.83.1.3199775689 Schwartz S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comp. Sociol. 5, 137–182. 10.1163/156913306778667357 Shek D. T. Tsang S. K. (1993). The Chinese version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: some psychometric and normative data. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 21, 205–214. 10.2224/sbp.1993.21.3.205 Taniguchi H. Kaufman G. (2013). Gender role attitudes, troubles talk, and marital satisfaction in Japan. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 31, 975–994. 10.1177/0265407513516559 Twenge J. M. Campbell W. K. Foster C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: a meta-analytic review. J. Marr. Fam. 65, 574–583. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x Wang L. (1994). Marriage and family therapy with people from China. Contemp. Fam. Ther. 16, 25–37. 10.1007/BF02197600 Weisfeld G. E. Nowak N. T. Lucas T. Weisfeld C. C. Imamoğlu E. O. Butovskaya M. . (2011). Do women seek humorousness in men because it signals intelligence? A cross-cultural test. Hum. Int. J. Hum. Res. 24, 435–462. 10.1515/humr.2011.025 Xiaohe X. Whyte M. K. (1990). Love matches and arranged marriages: a Chinese replication. J. Marriage Fam. 52, 709–722. 10.2307/352936