Table 5.
A brief summary of included study findings
| Study | Results |
|---|---|
| Abbo et al. (2008) | As indicated by a Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) score cut-off of 6, ‘married females with co-wives were over three times more likely to be distressed than those who were the only wife (p = 0.012; OR 3.62 [95% CI 1.38–10.98])’ |
| Abou-Saleh et al. (2001) | According to the CIDI, 13.7% (95% CI 5.13–22.27) is the lifetime prevalence rate of ICD-10 psychiatric disorders for polygamous women and 10.6% (95% CI 7.28–13.95) for monogamous women, a statistically insignificant difference |
| Al-Krenawi (2001) | ‘Of the polygamous subjects, 58.4% compared with 7.7% of monogamous subjects, described feelings of low SE (chi-squared = 28.11, df = 1, p < 0.001); a sense of loneliness was expressed by 64.1% of polygamous respondents, compared with 12.8% of monogamous subjects (chi-squared = 26.359, df = 1, p < 0.001)’ |
| Al-Krenawi (2004) | At the p < 0.001 significance level, ‘family functioning is perceived higher in monogamous marriages as compared to polygamous marriages (M = 2.94, s.d. = 0.52 v. M = 2.49, s.d. = 0.56, respectively), and women from monogamous marriages were found to be more satisfied with their lives as compared to women from polygamous marriages (M = 4.57, s.d. = 1.38 v. M = 3.72, s.d. = 1.47, respectively)…Women from polygamous marriages express more psychological symptoms than women from monogamous marriages (M = 1.39, s.d. = 0.87 v. M = 0.80, s.d. = 0.61, respectively)’ and less marital satisfaction (M = 3.94, s.d. = 0.84 v. M = 2.99, s.d. = 1.22, respectively). The regression results indicated that ‘women from polygamous marriages were found to have more distress symptoms than women from monogamous marriages (β = 0.23, p < 0.001)’ and to be less satisfied (β = −0.10, p < 0.05) |
| Al-Krenawi (2010) | Senior wives reported more problems in family functioning than women from monogamous families, t(308) = 4.56, p < 0.001; more problems in marital satisfaction, t(308) = 5.89, p < 0.001; lower SE, t(308) = 2.89, p < 0.01; and less life satisfaction, t(308) = 3.53, p < 0.01. Women from polygamous marriages also scored significantly higher across all categories of the Symptoms Checklist, with a significantly higher GSI, t(308) = 3.79, p < 0.01. According to regression analysis, polygamy accounted for 31% of the variance in family functioning (FAD) (p < 0.01), 36% of the variance in marital satisfaction (ENRICH) (p < 0.001), 29% of the variance in SE (p < 0.01), 18% of the variance in life satisfaction (SWLS) (p < 0.05), 19% of the variance in somatization (p < 0.05), 19% of the variance in anxiety (p < 0.05), 29% of the variance in hostility (p < 0.01), 28% of the variance in psychoticism (p < 0.01), and 26% of the variance in GSI (p < 0.05) |
| Al-Krenawi & Graham, (2006b) | Polygamous women ‘reported higher levels of somatization, obsession-compulsion, depression, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, phobia, anxiety, paranoid ideation, psychoticism, GSI-general symptom severity, PST and PSDI’ ((BSI): F(2, 350) range = 23.2 to 44.02, p < 0.001), as well as more problems in family functioning (FAD), F(2, 350) = 41.14, p < 0.001; more problems in the marital relationship (ENRICH), F(2, 350) = 50.36, p < 0.001; and less satisfaction in life (SWLS), F(2, 350) = 19.89, p < 0.001) |
| Al-Krenawi et al. (2011) | Senior wives reported more problematic family functioning (FAD), t(198) = 3.95, p < 0.001; less SE, t(198) = 2.53, p < 0.01; and less life satisfaction (SWLS), t(198) = 3.29, p < 0.01. First wives also scored higher across all categories of the Symptoms Checklist, with significantly higher somatization, t(198) = 3.74, p < 0.01; hostility, t(198) = 3.89, p < 0.001; psychoticism, t(198) = 3.92, p < 0.001; and GSI, t(198) = 3.19, p < 0.01. According to the regression analysis, polygamy accounted for 18% of the variance in family functioning (FAD) (p < 0.05), 33% of the variance in marital relationship (ENRICH) (p < 0.001), 16% of the variance in SE (p < 0.05), 16% of the variance in life satisfaction (SWLS) (p < 0.05), 17% of the variance in somatization (p < 0.05), 20% of the variance in anxiety (p < 0.05), 27% of the variance in hostility (p < 0.01), 26% of the variance in psychoticism (p < 0.01), and 20% of the variance in GSI (p < 0.05) |
| Al-Krenawi & Slonim-Nevo (2008) | ‘The findings show that the wives in polygamous marriages suffered from more psychological difficulties than those in monogamous marriages’ with higher levels of somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility and paranoid ideation, greater general severity (GSI), and total number of symptoms (BSI), t(313) range = 0.77–2.22, p range = less than 0.001 to non-significant. Wives in polygamous marriages also reported lower SE, t(313) = −3.6, p < 0.001; less marital satisfaction (ENRICH), t(313) = 8.55, p < 0.001); and more problematic family functioning (FAD), t(313) = 6.28, p < 0.001. Family functioning was the strongest and most consistent predictor of mental distress (FAD and BSI: F(2, 313) range = −0.45 to 0.49, p < 0.001). When family functioning was held as a dependent variable, polygamy was only significantly predictive of SE (Polygamous/Monogamous and SE: F(2, 313) = −0.19, p < 0.001) |
| Al-Sherbiny (2005) | ‘The symptoms reported by the subjects on the GHQ showed difference between the Study group (first wife) and the Control group’ for somatization (χ2(1) = 19.48, p < 0.0001), anxiety (χ2(1) = 36.97, p < 0.0001), social dysfunction (χ2(1) = 5.47, p < 0.02) and total GHQ score with a cut-off of 8 (χ2(1) = 16.32, p < 0.001) |
| Chaleby (1987) | ‘Reviewing the psychiatric diagnosis of the monogamous patients, 48 were in the category of dysthymic-anxiety disorder, 19 obsessive-compulsive disorder, 5 hysterical conversion disorder, 22 somatoform disorder. In the polygamous group the respective figures were 28, 0, 0, and 4′, χ2(3) = 13.79, p < 0.01 |
| Daradkeh et al. (2006) | 340 (35.9%) only wives, 34 (7.5%) first wives, 37 second wives (44.6%) and 2 third wives (25.0%) were identified as sustaining a mental disorder. Being the second wife was found to be significantly associated with psychiatric morbidity (p = 0.0001). |
| Eastwell (1974) | ‘Of the thirty three females…four are only wives, monogynously married. Twenty-one are polygynously married, although [the community registrar reports] only twice the number of polygynous wives as compared with only wives’ |
| Ghubash et al. (1992) | ‘Of those in monogamous marriages, 17.8% were cases, in contrast to 39.1% of women in polygamous marriages…Subjects who lived in polygamous marriages were at a significantly higher risk for psychiatric disorder’ (PSE), t(178) = 2.04, p = 0.04 |
| Gwanfogbe et al. (1997) | ‘Senior wives who were young were less happy with their marriage (2.46, N = 13) than older, senior wives (3.05, N = 20)’, F(2, 235) = 4.45, p < 0.014. ‘Our results suggest that wife order in polygyny has no substantial effects on either life or marital satisfaction overall, though we did observe a rather trivial (r = 0.11), though statistically significant, relationship between wife order and life satisfaction. However, the relationship failed to retain significance (p < 0.05) when controlling for other independent variables’ |
| Hamdan et al. (2008) | According to cross-tabulation, ‘number of wives was not related to depression’ wherein 22 (14.2%) women in monogamous marriages sustained moderate BDI scores and 21 (13.5%) received severe BDI scores while 7 (25.0%) women in polygamous unions sustained moderate BDI scores and 5 (28.0%) received severe BDI scores, p = 0.285 |
| Hinks & Davies (2008) | For subjective well-being, polygamy does not generally appear to be a significant determinant for women. However, ‘among those following traditional beliefs, the impact of polygamy is…strongly negative and significant for women’, t(2,580) = −1.99, p < 0.05 |
| Kianpoor et al. (2006) | ‘Present results showed that 47% of cases were in polygamous families’, a disproportionate number compared to a reported 8.3–12.7% prevalence of polygamous marriages in the province |
| Leighton et al. (1963) | ‘For the women in Abeokuta those who are co-wives have much worse mental health than those who are not, while in the villages it seems to make no difference’. While 15% of monogamous women and 16% of polygamous women in the village qualified as significantly impaired, 11% of monogamous women and 31% of polygamous women in Abeokuta qualified as significantly impaired |
| Maziak et al. (2002) | Four polygamous women scored less than 8 on the SRQ and 22 polygamous women scored greater than or equal to 8 on the SRQ, OR(95% CI 1.5–13.4) = 4.5, p = 0.003. Polygamy proved a significant predictor of psychiatric distress in logistic regression models for scores both greater than or equal to 8, OR(95% CI 1.1–12) = 3.3, p = 0.03, and SRQ scores greater than or equal to 12, OR(95% CI 2.5–33.2) = 9.1, p < 0.001 |
| Mumford et al. (1996) | ‘Married women whose husbands had more than one wife had higher Bradford Somatic Inventory (BSI) scores than other married women (24.3 v. 21.5) but this difference did not reach statistical significance (N = 11)’ |
| Ozkan et al. (2006) | ‘The prevalence of major depressive disorders and conversion disorder was the highest in polygamous senior wives, but did not reach a statistically significant level…The mean total SDQ scores varied significantly among the three groups (F = 20.10, p < 0.001). It was the highest in senior wives. A Bonferroni post hoc test revealed the differences between senior and junior wives (p < 0.001), and senior and monogamous wives (p < 0.001)’ |
| Patil & Hadley (2008) | ‘There were no differences in anxiety, depression, or the combined measures of distress across the measures of marriage types. This was true regardless of the way in which polygyny was defined…Marriage type was not significant in any of the models (p > 0.05)’ |