Marital Attitude Scale/The Marital Scales
A Name and Type of Measure
The Marital Attitude Scale (MAS) is a self-report measure of both married and unmarried individuals’ attitudes and opinions toward heterosexual marriage. The Marital Scales applies to individuals of any age, ethnicity, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation and is comprised of three different scales that measure overall attitudes toward marriage, expectations to get married, and assumptions of what marriage will be like.
The primary use of the MAS (Braaten and Rosén 1998) is to assess an individual’s feelings regarding their own marriage (present or future), and their feelings toward marriage concepts in general. The benefit of this scale is that it includes assessments of marital attitudes from those who have never been married, which had not previously been included in any other measure. The MAS has since been used in studies assessing individuals’ attitudes toward marriage as a result of ever-changing social roles and the influence of...
- Christensen, E. J. (2014). Young adults’ marital attitudes and intentions: The role of parental conflict, divorce, and gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colorado: Colorado State University.Google Scholar
- Liu, Y., Wang, D., Cai, J., & Duan, W. (2015). Marital attitude of college students in contemporary Chinese culture: A comparative study of gender and love experience. In T. Xie, L. Hale, & J. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of cross-cultural occupational health psychology forum (pp. 184–189). Marietta: American Scholars Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Wang, X., Yu, Y., Xiao, S., & Sun, Z. (2011). The marital desire and its related factors of the users in gay QQ groups affiliated to universities. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25(2), 122–127.Google Scholar
- Yaacob, S. N., Yuin, F. J., Mukhtar, F., & Arshat, Z. (2016). Being caught in the middle of inter-parental conflict: Relationship between inter-parental conflict and attitudes towards marriage among male and female adolescents from divorced families. Asian Social Science, 12, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar