Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences
What do we know about the importance of marriage for children, for adults and for society? There has been a sharp increase over the last two generations in the proportion of American children who do not live with their own two married parents, spurred first largely by increases in divorce, and more recently by large jumps in unmarried or cohabiting childbearing. A vigorous public de-bate sparked by these changes in family structure has generated a growing body of social science literature on the consequences of family fragmentation.
This report is an attempt to summarize this large body of scientific research into a succinct form useful to Americans on all sides of ongoing family debates — to report what we know about the importance of marriage in our family and social system.
Marriage in America has changed a great deal over the past two generations, including increased incidence and social acceptance of divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex, and unwed childbearing. Other important changes include dramatic increases in the proportion of working wives, reduced tolerance for domestic violence, and a change in gender roles. Over the past 40 years, both men and women have become increasingly likely to support greater participation by men in the household and women in the labor force, and less sharp differentiation between wo-men’s and men’s roles. Yet when it comes to the benefits of marriage, research shows more impressive evidence of continuity than change or decline.
Social science is better equipped to document whether
certain social facts are true than to say why they are
true. We can assert more definitively that marriage is associated with
powerful social goods than that marriage is the sole or main cause of
these goods.
Good research seeks to tease out what scholars call “selection effects,”
or the pre-existing differences between individuals who decide to divorce,
marry, or become unwed parents. Does divorce cause poverty, for example,
or is it simply that poor people are more likely to divorce? Good social
science attempts to distinguish between causal relationships and mere
correlations in a variety of ways. The studies cited here are for the
most part based on large, nationally representative samples that control
for race, family background, and other confounding factors. In many, but
not all cases, social scientists have been able to use longitudinal data
to track individuals as they marry, divorce or stay single, increasing
our confidence that marriage itself matters. Where the evidence is, in
our view, overwhelming that marriage causes increases in well-being,
we say so. Where marriage probably does so but the causal pathways are
not as well understood, we are more cautious.
We recognize that, absent random assignment to marriage, divorce or single parenting, social scientists must always acknowledge the possibility that other factors are influencing outcomes. (For example, relatively few family-structure studies attempt to assess the role of genetics.) Reasonable scholars may and do disagree on the existence and extent of such selection effects and the extent to which marriage is causally related to the better social outcomes reported here.
And of course individual circumstances vary.[1] While divorce is associated with serious increased psychological risks for children, for example, the majority of children of divorce are not mentally ill.[2] While marriage is a social good, not all marriages are equal. Research does not generally support the idea that remarriage is better for children than living with a single mother.[3] Marriages that are unhappy do not have the same benefits as the average marriage.[4] Divorce or separation provides an important escape hatch for children and adults in violent or high-conflict marriages. Families, communities, and policy makers interested in distributing the benefits of marriage more equally must do more than merely discourage legal divorce.
Social science is typically better equipped to answer general questions (Are high rates of divorce and unwed childbearing likely to reduce overall child well-being?) than to answer questions facing individual parents (Will my particular children in my particular circumstances be harmed or helped by divorce?).
But we believe good social science, despite its inherent limitations, is a better guide to social policy than uninformed opinion or prejudice. The public and policy makers deserve to hear what research suggests about the consequences of marriage and its absence for children and adults. This report represents our best judgment of what the current social science evidence reveals about the importance of marriage in our social system.
Here is our fundamental conclusion: Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike.
Family structure and processes are of course only one factor contributing to child and social well-being. Our discussion here is not meant to minimize the importance of other social and economic factors, such as poverty, child support, unemployment, neighborhood safety, or the quality of education for both parents and children.
But whether American society succeeds or fails in building
a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.
Family
1. Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers
have good relationships with their children.
Mothers as well as fathers are affected by the absence of marriage. Single mothers on average report more conflict with and less monitoring of their children than do married mothers.[5] As adults, children from intact marriages report being closer to their mothers on average than do children of divorce.[6] In one nationally representative study, 30 percent of young adults whose parents divorced reported poor relationships with their mothers, compared to 16 percent of children whose parents stayed married.[7]
But children’s relationships with their fathers are at even greater risk. Sixty-five percent of young adults whose parents divorced had poor relationships with their fathers (compared to 29 percent from nondivorced families).[8] On average, children whose parents divorce or never marry see their fathers less frequently[9] and have less affectionate relationships with their fathers[10] than do children whose parents got and stayed married. Divorce appears to have an even greater negative effect on relationships between fathers and their children than remaining in an unhappy marriage.[11]
2. Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.
As a group, cohabitors in the United States more closely resemble singles
than married people.[12] Children with cohabiting parents
have outcomes more similar to the children living with single (or remarried)
parents than children from intact marriages.[13] Adults
who live together are more similar to singles than to married couples
in terms of physical health[14] and emotional well-being
and mental health,[15] as well as in assets and earnings.[16]
Selection effects account for a large portion of the difference between married people and cohabitors. As a group, cohabitors (who are not engaged) have lower incomes and less education.[17] Couples who live together also, on average, report relationships of lower quality than do married couples — with cohabitors reporting more conflict, more violence, and lower levels of satisfaction and commitment.[18] Even biological parents who cohabit have poorer quality relationships and are more likely to part than parents who marry.[19] Cohabitation differs from marriage in part because Americans who choose merely to live together are less committed to a lifelong relationship.[20]
3. Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the
likelihood that children will themselves divorce or become un-wed parents.
Children whose parents divorce or fail to marry are more likely to be-come
young unwed parents, to divorce themselves, and to have unhappy marriages
and/or relationships.[21] Daughters raised outside of
intact marriages are approximately three times more likely to end up young,
unwed mothers than are children whose parents married and stayed married.[22]
Parental divorce approximately doubles the odds that adult children will
also divorce. Divorce is apparently most likely to be transmitted across
the generations when parents in relatively low-conflict marriages divorced.[23]
4. Marriage is a virtually universal human institution.
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society.[24]
Exactly what family forms existed in prehistoric society is not known,
and the shape of human marriage varies considerably in different cultural
contexts. But at least since the beginning of recorded history, in all
the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists,
marriage has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal
human idea, marriage is about regulating the reproduction of children,
families, and society. While marriage systems differ (and not every person
or class within a society marries), marriage across societies is a publicly
acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations
and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their
sexual union may produce.
Economics
5. Divorce and unmarried childbearing increase poverty for both children
and mothers.
Research has consistently shown that both divorce[25] and unmarried childbearing[26] increase the economic vulnerability of both children and mothers. The effects of family structure on poverty remain powerful, even after controlling for race and family background. Changes in family structure are an important cause of new entries into poverty (although a decline in the earnings of the household head is the single most important cause). Child poverty rates are very high primarily because of the growth of single-parent families.[27] When parents fail to marry and stay married, children are more likely to experience deep and persistent poverty, even after controlling for race and family background. The majority of children who grow up outside of intact married families experience at least one year of dire poverty (family incomes less than half the official poverty threshold).[28] Divorce as well as unmarried childbearing plays a role: Be-tween one-fifth and one-third of divorcing women end up in poverty following the divorce.[29]
6. Married couples seem to build more wealth on average
than singles or cohabiting couples.
Marriage seems to be a wealth-creating institution. Married couples build
more wealth on average than do otherwise similar singles or cohabiting
couples, even after controlling for income.[30] The
economic advantages of marriage stem from more than just access to two
incomes. Marriage partners appear to build more wealth for some of the
same reasons that partnerships in general are economically efficient,
including economies of scale and specialization and exchange. Marital
social norms that en-courage healthy, productive behavior and wealth accumulation
(such as buying a home) also appear to play a role. Married parents also
more often receive wealth transfers from both sets of grandparents than
do cohabiting couples; single mothers almost never receive financial help
from fathers’ kin.[31]
7. Married men earn more money than do single men with
similar education and job histories.
A large body of research, both in the United States and other developed
countries, finds that married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more
than do single men with similar education and job histories.[32]
While selection effects may account for part of the marriage premium,[33]
the most sophisticated, recent research appears to confirm that marriage
itself increases the earning power of men, on the order of 15 percent.[34]
Why do married men earn more? The causes are not entirely understood, but married men appear to have greater work commitment, lower quit rates, and healthier and more stable personal routines (including sleep, diet and alcohol consumption). Husbands also benefit from both the work effort and emotional support that they receive from wives.[35]
8. Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase
children’s risk of school failure.
Parental divorce or nonmarriage has a significant, long-term negative
impact on children’s educational attainment. Children of divorced
or unwed parents have lower grades and other measures of academic achievement,
are more likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high
school.[36] The effects of parental divorce or nonmarriage
on children’s educational attainment remain significant even after
controlling for race and family background. Children whose parents divorce
end up with significantly lower levels of education than do children in
single-mother families created by the death of the father.[37]
Chil-dren whose parents remarry do no better, on average, than do children
who live with single mothers.[38]
9. Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children
will graduate from college and achieve high-status jobs.
Parental divorce appears to have long-term consequences on children’s
socioeconomic attainment. While most children of divorce do not drop out
of high school or become unemployed, as adults, children of di-vorced
parents have lower occupational status and earnings and have increased
rates of unemployment and economic hardship.[39] They
are less likely to attend and graduate from college and also less likely
to at-tend and graduate from four-year and highly selective colleges,
even after controlling for family background and academic and extracurricular
achievements.[40]
Physical Health and Longevity
10. Children who live with their own two married parents en-joy better
physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms.
Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects on children’s physical health and life expectancy.[41] Longitudinal research suggests that parental divorce increases the incidence of health problems in children.[42] The health advantages of married homes remain, even after taking socioeconomic status into account.
The health disadvantages associated with being raised outside of intact marriages persist long into adulthood. Even in Sweden, a country with extensive supports for single mothers and a nationalized health care system, adults raised in single-parent homes were more likely to report that their health was poor and/or to die (during the study period) than were those from intact homes; this finding remained after controlling for economic hardship.[43]
One study which followed a sample of academically gifted, middle-class children for 70 years found that parental divorce reduced a child’s life expectancy by four years, even after controlling for childhood health status and family background, as well as personality characteristics such as impulsiveness and emotional instability.[44] Another analysis found that 40-year-old men whose parents had divorced were three times more likely to die than were 40-year-old men whose parents stayed married: “[I]t does appear,” the researchers conclude, “that parental divorce sets off a negative chain of events, which contribute to a higher mortality risk among individuals from divorced homes. . ..”[45]
11. Parental marriage is associated with a sharply lower
risk of infant mortality.
Babies born to married parents have lower rates
of infant mortality. On average, having an unmarried mother is associated
with an approximately 50 percent increase in the risk of infant mortality.[46]
While pa-rental marital status predicts infant mortality in both blacks
and whites, the increased risk due to the mother’s marital status
is greatest among the most advantaged: white mothers over the age of 20.[47]
The cause of this relationship between marital status
and infant mortality is not well known. There are many selection effects
involved: Un-married mothers are more likely to be young, black, less
educated and poor than are married mothers. But even after controlling
for age, race, and education, children born to unwed mothers generally
have higher rates of infant mortality.[48] While unmarried
mothers are also less likely to get early prenatal care, infant mortality
rates in these instances are higher not only in the neonatal period, but
through infancy[49] and even early childhood.[50]
Children born to unmarried mothers have an in-creased incidence of both
intentional and unintentional fatal injuries.[51] Marital
status remains a powerful predictor of infant mortality, even in countries
with nationalized health care systems and strong supports for single mothers.[52]
12. Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance
abuse for both adults and teens.
Married men and women have lower rates of alcohol consumption and abuse
than do singles. Longitudinal research confirms that young adults who
marry tend to reduce their rates of alcohol consumption and illegal drug
use.[53] Children whose parents marry and stay married
also have lower rates of substance abuse, even after controlling for family
background.[54] Twice as many young teens in single-mother
families and stepfamilies have tried marijuana (and young teens living
with single fathers were three times as likely). Young teens whose parents
stay married are also the least likely to experiment with tobacco or alcohol.[55]
Data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse show that, even
after controlling for age, race, gender, and family income, teens living
with both biological parents are significantly less likely to use illicit
drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.[56]
How does family fragmentation relate to teen drug use?
Many pathways are probably involved, including increased family stress,
reduced paren-tal monitoring and weakened attachment to parents, especially
fathers.[57]
13. Married people, especially married men, have longer life expectancies
than do otherwise similar singles.
Married people live longer than do otherwise similar people who are single
or divorced. Husbands as well as wives live longer on average, even after
controlling for race, income and family background.[58]
In most developed countries, middle-aged single, divorced, or widowed
men are about twice as likely to die as married men, and nonmarried women
face risks about one and a half times as great as those faced by married
women.[59]
14. Marriage is associated with better health and lower
rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
Both married men and women enjoy better health on average than do single
or divorced individuals.[60] Selection effects regarding
divorce or remarriage may account for part of this differential, although
research has found no consistent pattern of such selection.[61]
Married people appear to manage illness better, monitor each other’s
health, have higher incomes and wealth, and adopt healthier lifestyles
than do otherwise similar singles.[62]
A recent study of the health effects of marriage drawn from 9,333 respondents
to the Health and Retirement Survey of Americans between the ages of 51
and 61 compared the incidence of major diseases, as well as functional
disability, in married, cohabiting, divorced, widowed, and never-married
individuals. “Without exception,” the authors report, “married
persons have the lowest rates of morbidity for each of the diseases, impairments,
functioning problems and disabilities.” Marital status differences
in disability remained “dramatic” even after controlling for
age, sex, and race/ethnicity.[63]
Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being
15. Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psychological
distress and mental illness.
Divorce typically causes children considerable emotional
distress and increases the risk of serious mental illness.[64]
These mental health risks do not dissipate soon after the divorce. Instead,
children of divorce remain at higher risk for depression and other mental
illness, in part because of reduced education attainment, increased risk
of divorce, marital problems, and economic hardship.[65]
The psychological effects of divorce appear to differ, depending on the
level of conflict between pa-rents. When marital conflict is high and
sustained, children benefit psychologically from divorce. While more research
is needed, the majority of divorces appear to be taking place among low-conflict
spouses.[66]
16. Divorce appears significantly to increase the risk of suicide.
High rates of family fragmentation are associated with an increased risk
of suicide among both adults and adolescents.[67] Divorced
men and women are more than twice as likely as their married counterparts
to attempt suicide.[68] Although women have lower rates
of suicide overall, married women were also substantially less likely
to commit suicide than were divorced, widowed, or never-married women.[69]
In the last half-century, suicide rates among teens and young adults have
tripled. The single “most important explanatory variable,”
according to one new study, “is the increased share of youths living
in homes with a divorced parent.” The effect, note the researchers,
“is large,” explaining “as much as two-thirds of the
increase in youth suicides” over time.[70]
17. Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single or cohabiting
mothers.
The absence of marriage is a serious risk factor for maternal depression.
Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single or co-habiting
mothers.[71] One study of 2,300 urban adults found that,
among parents of preschoolers, the risk of depression was substantially
greater for unmarried as compared to married mothers.[72]
Marriage protects even older teen mothers from the risk of depression.
In one nationally representative sample of 18- and 19-year-old mothers,
41 percent of single white mothers having their first child reported high
levels of depressive symptoms, compared to 28 percent of married white
teen mothers in this age group.[73]
Longitudinal studies following young adults as they marry,
divorce, and remain single indicate that marriage boosts mental and emotional
well-being for both men and women.[74] We focus on maternal
depression because it is both a serious mental health problem for women
and a serious risk factor for children.[75] Not only
are single mothers more likely to be depressed, the consequences of maternal
depression for child well-being are greater in single-parent families,
probably because single parents have less support and because children
in disrupted families have less access to their (nondepressed) other parent.[76]
Crime and Domestic Violence
18. Boys raised in single-parent families are more likely to engage in
delinquent and criminal behavior.
Even after controlling for factors such as race, mother’s education, neighborhood quality, and cognitive ability, boys raised in single-parent homes are about twice as likely (and boys raised in stepfamilies are three times as likely) to have committed a crime that leads to incarceration by the time they reach their early thirties.[77]
Teens in both one-parent and remarried homes display more
deviant behavior and commit more delinquent acts than do teens whose parents
stayed married.[78] Teens in one-parent families are
on average less attached to their parent’s opinions and more attached
to their peer groups. Combined with lower levels of parental supervision,
these attitudes appear to set the stage for delinquent behavior.[79]
The effects of marital status on delinquency may be stronger for whites
than for African-Americans.[80]
19. Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either perpetrators
or victims of crime.
Overall, single and divorced women are four to five times more likely
to be victims of violent crime in any given year than are married women.
Single and divorced women are almost ten times more likely than are wives
to be raped, and about three times more likely to be the victims of aggravated
assault. Similarly, compared to husbands, unmarried men are about four
times as likely to become victims of violent crime.[81]
A study of 500 chronic juvenile offenders found that those
who married and stayed married reduced their offense rate by two-thirds,
compared to criminals who did not marry or who did not establish good
marriages.[82] Married men spend more time with their
wives, who discourage criminal behavior, and less time with peers, who
often do not.
20. Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing domestic
violence than do cohabiting or dating women.
Domestic violence remains a serious problem both inside and outside of
marriage.
While young women must recognize that marriage is not a good strategy for reforming violent men, a large body of research shows that be-ing unmarried, and especially living with a man outside of marriage, is associated with an increased risk of domestic abuse.[83] One analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households found that cohabitors were over three times more likely than spouses to say that arguments became physical over the last year (13 percent of cohabitors versus 4 percent of spouses). Even after controlling for race, age, and education, people who live together are still more likely than married people to report violent arguments.[84] Overall, as one scholar sums up the relevant research, “Regardless of methodology, the studies yielded similar re-sults: Cohabitors engage in more violence than do spouses.”[85]
Selection effects play a powerful role. Women are less
likely to marry, and more likely to divorce, violent men.[86]
However, scholars suggest that the greater integration of married men
into the community, and the greater investment of spouses in each other,
also play a role.[87] Married men, for example, are
more responsive to policies such as mandatory arrest policies, designed
to signal strong disapproval of domestic violence.[88]
21. A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents
is at greater risk of child abuse.
Children living with single mothers, stepfathers, or mother’s boyfriends
are more likely to become victims of child abuse. Children living in single-mother
homes have increased rates of death from intentional injuries.[89]
As Martin Daly and Margo Wilson report, “Living with a stepparent
has turned out to be the most powerful predictor of severe child abuse
yet.”[90] One study found that a preschooler living
with a stepfather was 40 times more likely to be sexually abused than
one living with both of his or her biological parents.[91]
Another study found that, although boyfriends contribute less than 2 percent
of nonparental childcare, they commit half of all reported child abuse
by nonparents. The researcher concludes that “a young child left
alone with a mother’s boy-friend experiences elevated risk of physical
abuse.”[92]
Conclusion
Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social
good. Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised
outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good-enough
marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women, and men
than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing,
and high-conflict or violent marriages. As policy makers concerned about
social inequality and child well-being think about how to strengthen marriage,
more funding is needed for research into both the causes of the marriage
gap in child and social well-being and ways to close that gap. Solid research
is pointing the way toward new family and community interventions to help
strengthen marriage. Ongoing, basic scientific re-search on marriage and
marital dynamics contributes to the development of strategies and programs
for helping to strengthen marriages and reduce unnecessary divorce.[93]
Who benefits from marriage and why? How can we prevent both di-vorce and the damage from divorce? How can families, counselors, communities, and public policy help at-risk and disadvantaged parents build healthy marriages?
If marriage is not merely a private preference, but also a social good, concerned citizens, as well as scholars, need and deserve answers to questions like these.
Endnotes
1. See for example, R.E. Heyman et al., 2001. “The
Hazards of Predicting Divorce without Crossvalidation,” Journal
of Marriage and Family 63: 473-479.
2. E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, 2002. For
Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (New York: W.W. Norton
& Co.).
3. For example, Hanson et al. find that remarriage decreases
parental supervision and lowers college expectations for children. McLanahan
and Sandefur show that children whose mothers remarried had no higher
rate of high school graduation (or lower levels of teen childbearing)
than did children living with single mothers. T. Hanson et. al., 1998.
“Windows on Divorce: Before and After,” Social Science
Research 27: 329-349; Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, 1994. Growing
Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
4. See for example, Kristi Williams, 2001. “Has
the Future of Marriage Arrived? A Contemporary Examination of the Effects
of Marital Status and Marital Quality on the Psychological Well-Being
of Women and Men,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Council on Family Relations. (Rochester, NY).
5. Alan C. Acock and David H. Demo, 1994. Family Diversity
and Well-Being (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
6. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, 1997. A Generation
At Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
7. Nicholas Zill et al., 1993. “Long-Term Effects
of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement
in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology 7(1):
91-103.
8. Nicholas Zill et al., 1993. “Long-Term Effects
of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement
in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology 7(1):
91-103; E. Mavis Hetherington, in a study of largely white middle-class
children, reports that two-third of young men and three-quarters of young
women whose parents divorced did not have close relationships with either
their father or a stepfather. E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, 2002.
For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (New York: W.W.
Norton & Co.).
9. J.A. Seltzer and S.M. Bianchi, 1988. “Children’s
Contact with Absent Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family
50: 663-677.
10. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, 1997. A Generation
At Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press); William S. Aquilino, 1994. “Impact of
Childhood Family Disruption on Young Adults’ Relationships with
Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56: 295-313;
Teresa M. Cooney, 1994. “Young Adults’ Relations with Parents:
The Influence of Recent Parental Divorce,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 56: 45-56; Alice Rossi and Peter Rossi, 1990. Of
Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations Across the Life Course (New
York: Aldine de Gruyter).
11. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, 1997. A Generation
At Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
12. Steven Nock, 1995. “A Comparison of Marriages
and Cohabiting Relationships,” Journal of Family Issues
16: 53-76; Ronald R. Rindfuss and Audrey VandenHeuvel, 1990. “Cohabitation:
A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?” Population
and Development Review 16(4) (December): 702-726.
13. William H. Jeynes, 2000. “The Effects of Several
of the Most Common Family Structures on the Academic Achievement of Eighth
Graders,” Marriage and Family Review 30(1/2): 73-97; Donna
Ruane Morrison and Amy Ritualo, 2000. “Routes to Children’s
Economic Recovery After Divorce: Are Cohabitation and Remarriage Equivalent?”
American Sociological Review 65 (August): 560-580; Lingxin Hao,
1996. “Family Structure, Private Transfers, and the Economic Well-Being
of Families with Children,” Social Forces 75: 269-292;
Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter, 1996. “Parental Cohabitation
and Children’s Economic Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 58: 998-1010.
14. Amy Mehraban Pienta, et al., 2000. “Health
Consequences of Marriage for the Retirement Years,” Journal
of Family Issues 21(5): 559-586.
15. Susan L. Brown, 2000. “The Effect of Union
Type on Psychological Well-Being: Depression Among Cohabitors versus Marrieds,”
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41 (September): 241-255;
Allan V. Horwitz and Helene Raskin, 1998. “The Relationship of Cohabitation
and Mental Health: A Study of a Young Adult Cohort,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 60: 527-536; Arne Mastekaasa, 1994. “The
Subjective Well-Being of the Previously Married: The Importance of Unmarried
Cohabitation and Time Since Widowhood or Divorce,” Social Forces
73: 665-692.
16. Lingxin Hao, 1996. “Family Structure, Private
Transfers, and the Economic Well-Being of Families with Children,”
Social Forces 75: 269-292; Kermit Daniel, 1995. “The Marriage
Premium,” in Mariano Tommasi and Kathryn Ierullli (eds.) The
New Economics of Human Behavior (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press): 113-25.
17. Marin Clarkberg, 1999. “The Price of Partnering:
The Role of Economic Well-Being in Young Adults’ First Union Experiences,”
Social Forces 77(3): 945-968.
18. S.M. Stanley, H.J. Markman, & S. Whitton, (under
review). “Maybe I Do: Interpersonal Commitment Levels and Premarital
or Non-Marital Cohabitation”; S.L. Brown and A. Booth, 1996. “Cohabitation
versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 58: 668-678; R. Forste and K. Tanfer,
1996. “Sexual Exclusivity among Dating, Cohabiting and Married Women,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 33-47; Steven Nock, 1995.
“A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships,”
Journal of Family Issues 16: 53-76; L.L. Bumpass, et al., 1991.
“The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 913-978; J.E. Straus and
M.A. Stets, 1989. “The Marriage License as Hitting License: A Comparison
of Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting and Married Couples,” Journal
of Family Violence 4(2): 161-180.
19. Thomas G. O’Connor et al., 1999. “Frequency
and Predictors of Relationship Dissolution in a Community Sample in England,”
Journal of Family Psychology 13(3): 436-449; Susan L. Brown and
Alan Booth, 1996. “Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of
Relationship Quality,” Journal of Marriage and the Family
58 (August): 668-678.
20. S.M. Stanley, H.J. Markman, & S. Whitton, (under
review). “Maybe I Do: Interpersonal Commitment Levels and Premarital
or Non-Marital Cohabitation”; S.W. Whitton, S.M. Stanley, and H.J.
Markman, 2002 (in press). “Sacrifice in Romantic Relationships:
An Exploration of Relevant Research and Theory,” in H.T. Reiss,
M.A. Fitzpatrick, A.L. Vangelisti (eds.), Stability and Change in
Relationship Behavior across the Lifespan. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
21. E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, 2002. For
Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (New York: W.W. Norton):
240-47; Catherine E. Ross and John Mirowsky, 1999. “Parental Divorce,
Life-Course Disruption, and Adult Depression,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 61(4) (November): 1034ff; Paul R. Amato, 1996. “Explaining
the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 58(3): 628-640; J.I. McLeod, 1991. “Childhood
Parental Loss and Adult Depression,” Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 32: 205-220; N.D. Glenn and K.B. Kramer, 1987. “The
Marriages and Divorces of the Children of Divorce,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 49: 811-825.
22. Andrew J. Cherlin et al., 1995. “Parental Divorce
in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography
32: 299-318.
23. Paul R. Amato and Danelle D. DeBoer, 2001. “The
Transmission of Marital Instability Across Generations: Relationship Skills
or Commitment to Marriage?” Journal of Marriage and the Family
63(4) (November): 1038ff.
24. See, for example, Kingsley Davis (ed.), 1985. Contemporary
Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New
York: Russell Sage Foundation). “Although the details of getting
married — who chooses the mates, what are the ceremonies and exchanges,
how old are the parties — vary from group to group, the principle
of marriage is everywhere embodied in practice. . . .The unique trait
of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval.
. .of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and
rearing offspring.” (p. 5); See also, Helen Fisher, 1992. Anatomy
of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage and Why We Stray (New
York: Fawcett Columbine): 65-66; George P. Murdock, 1949. Social Structure
(New York: Macmillan).
25. See, for example, Pamela J. Smock, et al., 1999.
“The Effect of Marriage and Divorce on Women’s Economic Well-Being,”
American Sociological Review 64: 794-812; Ross Finie, 1993. “Women,
Men and the Economic Consequences of Divorce: Evidence from Canadian Longitudinal
Data,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 30(2):
205ff. Teresa A. Mauldin, 1990. “Women Who Remain Above the Poverty
Level in Divorce: Implications for Family Policy,” Family Relations
39(2): 141ff.
26. Sara McLanahan, 2000. “Family, State, and Child
Well-Being,” Annual Review of Sociology 26(1): 703ff; I.
Sawhill, 1999. “Families at Risk,” in H. H. Aaron and R.D.
Reischauer (eds.) Setting National Priorities (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings): 97-135.
27. Rebecca M. Blank, 1997. It Takes a Nation: A
New Agenda for Fighting Poverty (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).
28. For example, one recent study found that 81 percent
of children living in nonmarried households will experience poverty during
the course of their childhood, compared to 22 percent of children living
with married parents. Fifty-two percent of children in nonmarried households
will experience dire poverty (income 50 percent or less of the official
poverty threshold) compared to just 10 percent of children in married
households. Mark R. Rank and Thomas A. Hirschl, 1999. “The Economic
Risk of Childhood in America: Estimating the Probability of Poverty Across
the Formative Years,” Journal of Marriage and the Family
61(4): 1058ff.
29. Suzanne Bianchi, 1999. “The Gender Gap in the
Economic Well Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial Mothers,”
Demography 36: 195-203; Mary Naifeh, 1998. Trap Door? Revolving
Door? Or Both? (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports:
Household Economic Studies) (July): 70ff.; Ross Finie, 1993. “Women,
Men and the Economic Consequences of Divorce: Evidence from Canadian Longitudinal
Data,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 30(2):
205ff.
30. Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, (forthcoming, 2002).
“Marriage, Assets and Savings,” in Shoshana Grossbard-Schectman
(ed.) Marriage and the Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press); Janet Wilmoth, 1998. “The Timing of Marital Events Over
the Life-Course and Pre-Retirement Wealth Outcomes,” (paper presented
at meetings of the Population Association of America) (Chicago) (April);
Lingxin Hao, 1996. “Family Structure, Private Transfers, and the
Economic Well-Being of Families with Children,” Social Forces
75: 269-22.
31. Lingxin Hao, 1996. “Family Structure, Private
Transfers, and the Economic Well-Being of Families with Children,”
Social Forces 75: 269-292.
32. Jeffrey S. Gray and Michael J. Vanderhart, 2000.
“The Determination of Wages: Does Marriage Matter?” in Linda
J. Waite et al. (eds.) The Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage
and Cohabitation (New York: Aldine De Grutyer): 356-367; J. Gray,
1997. “The Fall in Men’s Return to Marriage,” Journal
of Human Resources 32(3): 481-504; K. Daniel, 1995. “The Marriage
Premium,” in M. Tomassi and K. Ierulli (eds.) The New Economics
of Human Behavior (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 113-125;
Robert F. Schoeni, 1995. “Marital Status and Earnings in Developed
Countries,” Journal of Population Economics 8: 351-59;
S. Korenman and D. Neumark, 1991. “Does Marriage Really Make Men
More Productive?” Journal of Human Resources 26(2): 282-307.
33. See, for example, C. Cornwell and P. Rupert, 1997.
“Unobservable Individual Effects: Marriage and the Earnings of Young
Men,” Economic Inquiry 35(2): 285-294; R. Nakosteen and
M. Zimmer, 1997. “Men, Money and Marriage: Are High Earners More
Prone than Low Earners to Marry?” Social Science Quarterly
78(1): 66-82.
34. Donna K. Gunther and Madeline Zavodny, 2001. “Is
the Male Marriage Premium Due to Selection? The Effect of Shotgun Weddings
on the Return to Marriage,” Journal of Population Economics
14: 313-328.
35. For a discussion of possible explanations for the
male marriage premium, see Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000.
The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and
Better-Off Financially (New York: Doubleday): 97-109.
36. Paul R. Amato, 2001. “Children of Divorce in
the 1990s: An Update of the Amato and Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis,”
Journal of Family Psychology 15(3): 355-370; William H. Jeynes,
2000. “The Effects of Several of the Most Common Family Structures
on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Graders,” Marriage and
Family Review 30(1/2): 73-97; Catherine E. Ross and John Mirowsky,
1999. “Parental Divorce, Life-Course Disruption, and Adult Depression,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(4) (November): 1034ff; Sara
McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, 1994. Growing Up With a Single Parent:
What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
37. Timothy J. Biblarz and Greg Gottainer, 2000. “Family
Structure and Children’s Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced
Single-Mother Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family
62(2) (May): 533.
38. William H. Jeynes, 1999. “Effects of Remarriage
Following Divorce on the Academic Achievement of Children,” Journal
of Youth and Adolescence 28(3): 385-393; Nicholas Zill et al., 1993.
“Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships,
Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of
Family Psychology 7(1): 91-103.
39. Catherine E. Ross and John Mirowsky, 1999. “Parental
Divorce, Life-Course Disruption, and Adult Depression,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 61(4) (November): 1034ff; Paul R. Amato
and Alan Booth, 1997. A Generation At Risk: Growing Up in an Era of
Family Upheaval (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press); Sara McLanahan
and Gary Sandefur, 1994. Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
40. Zeng-Yin Cheng and Howard B. Kaplan, 1999. “Explaining
the Impact of Family Structure During Adolescence on Adult Educational
Attainment,” Applied Behavioral Science Review 7(1): 23ff;
Jan O. Johnsson and Michael Gahler, 1997. “Family Dissolution, Family
Reconstitution, and Children’s Educational Careers: Recent Evidence
From Sweden,” Demography 34(2): 277-293; Dean Lillard and
Jennifer Gerner, 1996. “Getting to the Ivy League,” Journal
of Higher Education 70(6): 706ff.
41. Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, 1988. “Single
Motherhood and Child-ren’s Health,” Journal of Health
and Social Behavior 29: 38-52.
42. Jane Mauldon, 1990. “The Effects of Marital
Disruption on Children’s Health,” Demography 27:
431-446.
43. Olle Lundberg, 1993. “The Impact of Childhood
Living Conditions on Illness and Mortality in Adulthood,” Social
Science and Medicine 36: 1047-1052.
44. J. E. Schwartz et al., 1995. “Childhood Sociodemographic
and Psychosocial Factors as Predictors of Mortality Across the Life-Span,”
American Journal of Public Health 85: 1237-1245.
45. Joan S. Tucker et al., 1997. “Parental Divorce:
Effects on Individual Behavior and Longevity,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 73(2): 381-391.
46. Relative odds range from 1.44 to 1.7. J.A. Gaudino,
Jr., et al., 1999. “No Fathers’ Names: A Risk Factor for Infant
Mortality in the State of Georgia,” Social Science and Medicine
48(2): 253-65; C.D. Siegel et al., 1996. “Mortality from Intentional
and Unintentional Injury Among Infants of Young Mothers in Colorado, 1982
to 1992,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine
150(10) (October): 1077-83; Trude Bennett and Paula Braveman, 1994. “Maternal
Marital Status as a Risk Factor for Infant Mortality,” Family
Planning Perspectives 26(6): 252-256.
47. Trude Bennett, 1992. “Marital Status and Infant
Health Outcomes,” Social Science and Medicine 35(9): 1179-1187.
48. The reduced risks associated with marriage are not
equally distributed, however. In general, marriage appears to confer the
strongest benefits on children of mothers who are already advantaged:
older, white, and better educated. Marital status does not appear to reduce
the infant mortality rates of children born to teen mothers, or to college
graduates. Trude Bennett and Paula Braveman, 1994. “Maternal Marital
Status as a Risk Factor for Infant Mortality,” Family Planning
Perspectives 26(6) (November/ December): 252ff.
49. Trude Bennett, 1992. “Marital Status and Infant
Health Outcomes,” Social Science and Medicine 35(9): 1179-1187.
50. J. Schuman, 1998. “Childhood, Infant and Perinatal
Mortality, 1996: Social and Biological Factors in Deaths of Children Aged
under 3,” Population Trends 92: 5-14.
51. Carol D. Siegel, et al., 1996. “Mortality from
Intentional and Unintentional Injury Among Infants of Young Mothers in
Colorado, 1986 to 1992,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine 150 (October): 1077-1083.
52. In Sweden: A. Armtzen et al., 1996. “Marital
Status as a Risk Factor for Fetal and Infant Mortality,” Scandinavian
Journal of Social Medicine 24(1); 36-42; In England: J. Schuman,
1998. “Childhood, Infant and Peirnatal Mortality, 1996. “Social
and Biological Factors in Deaths of Children Aged Under 3,”
Population Trends 92: 5-14; In Finland: E. Frossas et al., 1999.
“Maternal Predictors of Perinatal Mortality: The Role of Birthweight,”
International Journal of Epidemiology 28(3): 475-478.
53. Jerald G. Bachman, et al., 1997. Smoking, Drinking
and Drug Use in Young Adulthood (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates);
Carol Miller-Tutzauer et al., 1991. “Marriage and Alcohol Use: A
Longitudinal Study of Maturing Out,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol
52: 434-440.
54. I. Sutherland and J.P. Shepherd, 2001. “Social
Dimensions of Adolescent Substance Use,” Addiction 96(3)
(March): 445ff; W.J. Doherty and R.H. Needle, 1991. “Psychological
Adjustment and Substance Abuse Among Adolescents Before and After Parental
Divorce,” Child Development 62: 328-337; R.A. Turner et
al., 1991. “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Experimenting
with Substances During Adolescence,” Journal of Research on
Adolescence 1: 93-106.
55. Robert L. Flewelling and Karl E. Bauman, 1990. “Family
Structure as a Predictor of Initial Substance Use and Sexual Intercourse
in Early Adolescence,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:
171-181.
56. Robert A. Johnson et al., 1996. The Relationship
Between Family Structure and Adolescent Substance Use (Rockville,
MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations, Office
of Applied Studies, U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services).
57. See, for example, John P. Hoffman, 1993. “Exploring
the Direct and Indirect Family Effects on Adolescent Drug Use,”
Journal of Drug Issues 23(3): 535ff.
58. Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite, 1995. “’Til
Death Do Us Part: Marital Disruption and Mortality,” American
Journal of Sociology 100: 1131-56; Catherine E. Ross et al., 1990.
“The Impact of the Family on Health: Decade in Review,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 52: 1059-1078.
59. Yuanreng Hu and Noreen Goldman, 1990. “Mortality
Differentials by Marital Status: An International Comparison,” Demography
27(2): 233-50.
60. Paul R. Amato, 2000. “The Consequences of Divorce
for Adults and Children,” Journal of Marriage and the Family
62(4): 1269ff. Linda J. Waite and Mary Elizabeth Hughes, 1999. “At
the Cusp of Old Age: Living Arrangements and Functional Status Among Black,
White and Hispanic Adults,” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences
54b (3): S136-S144.
61. Men with health problems, for example, are more likely
to remarry than are otherwise similar healthy men. However, men with healthy
lifestyles are more likely to marry than are other men. Lee A. Lillard
and Constantijn Panis, 1996. “Marital Status and Mortality: The
Role of Health,” Demography 33: 313-27.
62. Jerald G. Bachman et al., 1997. Smoking, Drinking
and Drug Use in Young Adulthood (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates);
Carol Miller-Tutzauer et al., 1991. “Marriage and Alcohol Use: A
Longitudinal Study of Maturing Out,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol
52: 434-40; James S. Goodwin, et al., 1987. “The Effect of
Marital Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Cancer Patients,”
Journal of the American Medical Association 258: 3125-3130.
63. Amy Mehraban Pienta et al., 2000. “Health Consequences
of Marriage for the Retirement Years,” Journal of Family Issues
21(5): 559-586.
64. E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, 2002. For
Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (New York: W.W. Norton
& Co.); Paul R. Amato, 2001. “Children of Divorce in the 1990s:
An Update of the Amato and Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis,” Journal
of Family Psychology 15(3): 355-370; Judith S. Wallerstein et al.,
2000. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study
(New York: Hyperion); Paul R. Amato, 2000. “The Consequences of
Divorce for Adults and Children,” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 62(4): 1269ff. Ronald L. Simons, et al., 1999. “Explaining
the Higher Incidence of Adjustment Problems Among Children of Divorce
Compared with Those in Two-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 61(4) (November): 1020ff.; Judith Wallerstein and
Sandra Blakeslee, 1989. Second Chances: Men, Women and Children a
Decade After Divorce (New York: Ticknor and Fields).
65. Catherine E. Ross and John Mirowsky, 1999. “Parental
Divorce, Life-Course Disruption, and Adult Depression,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 61(4) (November): 1034ff; Andrew J. Cherlin
et al., 1998. “Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health Throughout
the Life Course,” American Sociological Review 63: 239-249;
P.L Chase-Lansdale et al., 1995. “The Long-Term Effects of Parental
Divorce on the Mental Health of Young Adults: A Developmental Perspective,”
Child Development 66: 1614-1634.
66. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, 2001. “Parental
Predivorce Relations and Offspring Postdivorce Well-Being,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 63(1): 197ff.
67. Gregory R. Johnson et al., 2000. “Suicide Among
Adolescents and Young Adults: A Cross-National Comparison of 34 Countries,”
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 30(1): 74-82; David Lester,
1994. “Domestic Integration and Suicide in 21 Nations, 1950-1985,”
International Journal of Comparative Sociology XXXV (1-2): 131-137.
68. Ronald C. Kessler et al., 1999. “Prevalence
of and Risk Factors for Lifetime Suicide Attempts in the National Comorbidity
Survey,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56: 617-626.
69. Jack C. Smith, James A. Mercy, and Judith M. Conn,
1988. “Marital Status and the Risk of Suicide,” American
Journal of Public Health 78: 78-80.
70. David M. Cutler et al., 2000. “Explaining the
Rise in Youth Suicide,” Working Paper 7713 (Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research) (May).
71. Susan L. Brown, 2000. “The Effect of Union
Type on Psychological Well-Being: Depression Among Cohabitors versus Marrieds,”
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41 (September): 241-255.
72. Ronald C. Kessler and Marilyn Essex, 1982. “Marital
Status and Depression: The Importance of Coping Resources,” Social
Forces 61: 484-507.
73. Marriage did not, however, appear to protect school-age
teen mothers or black 18- and 19-year old mothers from depression. Lisa
Deal and Victoria Holt, 1998. “Young Maternal Age and Depressive
Symptoms: Results from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey,”
American Journal of Public Health 88(2): 266ff.
74. Nadine F. Marks and James David Lambert, 1998. “Marital
Status Continuity and Change Among Young and Midlife Adults: Longitudinal
Effects on Psychological Well-Being,” Journal of Family Issues
19652-86; Allan V. Horwitz et al., 1996. “Becoming Married and Mental
Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 58: 895-907; Allan V. Horwitz and Helene
Raskin White, 1991. “Becoming Married, Depression, and Alcohol Problems
Among Young Adults,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior
32:221-37.
75. See, for example, Tiffany Field, 1992. “Infants
of Depressed Mothers,” Journal of Development and Psychopathology
4: 49ff; A.D. Cox et al., 1987. “The Impact of Maternal Depression
in Young Children,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
28(6): 917ff; Mayer Ghodsian et al. 1984. “A Longitudinal Study
of Maternal Depression and Child Behavior Problems,” Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 25(1); Cheryl Tatano Beck, 1995. “The Effects
of Postpartum Depression on Maternal-Infant Interaction: A Meta-Analysis,”
Nursing Research 44(5): 298ff.
76. Sherryl H. Goodman et al., 1993. “Social and
Emotional Competence in Children of Depressed Mothers,” Child
Development 64: 516-531.
77. Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, 1998. “Father
Absence and Youth Incarceration.” (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association) (San Francisco) (August).
78. Chris Coughlin and Samuel Vuchinich, 1996. “Family
Experience in Preadolescence and the Development of Male Delinquency,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 58(2): 491ff; R. J. Sampson
and J.H. Laub, 1994. “Urban Poverty and the Family Context of Delinquency:
A New Look at Structure and Process in a Classic Study,” Child
Development 65: 523-540; Robert J. Sampson, 1987. “Urban Black
Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness and Family Disruption,”
American Journal of Sociology 93: 348-82.
79. Ross L. Matsueda and Karen Heimer, 1987. “Race,
Family Structure and Delinquency: A Test of Differential Association and
Social Control Theories,” American Sociological Review
52: 171-181.
80. See, for example, George Thomas and Michael P. Farrell,
1996. “The Effects of Single-Mother Families and Nonresident Fathers
on Delinquency and Substance Abuse,” Journal of Marriage and
the Family 58(4): 884ff.
81. Ronet Bachman, 1994. “Violence Against Women,”
A National Crime Victimization Survey Report NCK-145325 (Washington
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics) (January): See Table 2 and 3.
82. John H. Laub et al., 1998. “Trajectories of
Change in Criminal Offending: Good Marriages and the Desistance Process,”
American Sociological Review 63: 225-238.
83. Margo I. Wilson and Martin Daly, 1992. “Who
Kills Whom in Spouse Killings? On the Exceptional Sex Ratio of Spousal
Homicides in the United States,” Criminology 30(2): 189-215;
J.E. Straus and M.A. Stets, 1989. “The Marriage License as Hitting
License: A Comparison of Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting and Married Couples,”
Journal of Family Violence 4(2): 161-180.
84. Linda J. Waite’s tabulations from the 1987-1988
waves of the National Survey of Families and Households. See Linda J.
Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married
People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially (New York:
Doubleday): 155-156.
85. Nicky Ali Jackson, 1996. “Observational Experiences
of Intrapersonal Conflict and Teenage Victimization: A Comparative Study
among Spouses and Cohabitors,” Journal of Family Violence
11: 191-203.
86. Catherine Kenney and Sara McLanahan, 2001. Are
Cohabiting Relationships More Violent than Marriage? (Princeton,
NJ: Center for Research on Child-Well Being): Paper #01-22. Available
at: http://crcw.princeton.edu/ CRCW/papers/papers.htm.
87. Jan E. Stets, 1991. “Cohabiting and Marital
Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 53: 669-680.
88. Lawrence Sherman et al., 1992. Policing Domestic
Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas (New York: The Free Press): Chapter
7, cited in Richard J. Gelles, 1997, Intimate Violence in Families,
3d. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage): 138.
89. C.D. Siegel et al., 1996. “Mortality from Intentional
and Unintentional Injury Among Infants of Young Mothers in Colorado, 1982
to 1992,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
150(10) (October): 1077-1083.
90. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, 1996. “Evolutionary
Psychology and Marital Conflict: The Relevance of Stepchildren,”
in Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives.
David M. Buss and Neil M. Malamuth, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press):
9-28.
91. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, 1985. “Child
Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with Both Parents,” Ethology
and Sociobiology 6: 197-210.
92. Leslie Margolin, 1992. “Child Abuse by Mothers’
Boyfriends: Why the Overrepresentation?” Child Abuse & Neglect
16: 541-551.
93. See for example, S.M. Stanley, et al., 2001. “Community
Based Premarital Prevention: Clergy and Lay Leaders on the Front Lines,”
Family Relations 50: 67-76; W. J. Doherty, 2000. “Family
Science and Family Citizenship: Toward a Model of Community Partnership
with Families,” Family Relations, 49: 319-325; John M.
Gottman and Clifford I. Notarius, 2000. “Decade Review: Observing
Marital Interaction,” Journal of Marriage and the Family
62: 927-947; K. Hahlweg, et al., 1998. “Prevention of Marital Distress:
Results of a German Prospective Longitudinal Study,” Journal
of Family Psychology 12: 543-556; J. Gottman, 1994. Why Marriages
Succeed or Fail (New York: Simon & Schuster).
About
the Authors
William J. Doherty is a professor of family social science and the director
of the marriage and family therapy program at the University of Minnesota.
William A. Galston is a professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland, and the director of the university’s Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy.
Norval D. Glenn is a professor of sociology and American studies at the University of Texas in Austin.
John Gottman is a professor of psychology at the University of Washington and the co-founder or the Gottman Institute.
Barbara Markey is the associate director of the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University, and the director of the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha’s Family Life Office.
Howard J. Markman is a professor of psychology at the University of Denver and the co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.
Steven Nock is a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia.
David Popenoe is a professor of sociology and the co-director of The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
Gloria G. Rodriguez is the founder and president of AVANCE, Inc., in San Antonio, Texas.
Isabel V. Sawhill is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and the president of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
Scott M. Stanley is the co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.
Linda J. Waite is a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago.
Judith Wallerstein is a child psychoanalyst and a marriage and divorce researcher in Belvedere, California.
This Statement
comes from a team of family scholars chaired by Norval Glenn of the University
of Texas, Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, and Linda Waite of
the University of Chicago. The project is sponsored by Center of the American
Experiment; the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education;
and the Institute for American Values. The sponsors are grateful to Maggie
Gallagher for her research and editorial assistance, to Arthur E. Rasmussen
for helping to initiate the project, and to their respective financial
contributors for their generous support.
© 2002, Institute for American Values. No reproduction of the materials
contained herein is permitted without the written permission of the Institute
for American Values.
ISBN #1-931764-01-8
About the Sponsoring Organizations
Center
of the American Experiment
Center of the American Experiment is a nonpartisan, tax-exempt public
policy and educational institution. Founded in 1990 and based in Minneapolis,
the Center focuses on a wide range of issues, but none more frequently
than those of families and their importance. From an early emphasis on
the problem of fatherlessness, American Experiment has grown increasingly
interested in strengthening marriage more generally, as evidenced in the
special Summer 2001 issue of its flagship publication, American Experiment
Quarterly, focusing on "Marriage and Children: A Symposium on
Making Marriage More Child Centered," guest edited by Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead and David Popenoe.
Center of
the American Experiment
1024 Plymouth Building
12 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: 612.338.3605
Fax: 612.338.3621
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.amexp.org
Coalition
for Marriage, Family and Couples Education
The Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education (CMFCE), founded
in 1996, is an independent, nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization focused
on strengthening marriage and reducing family breakdown through couple-empowering
education and information. CMFCE provides consultation at the national,
state and community level; sponsors a website, e-newsletter, forum, directory,
and the Smart Marriages Conference — an annual summit of researchers,
educators, clinicians, clergy, policy makers, journalists, and the public.
The conference also trains and certifies marriage and family educators.
Coalition
for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC
5310 Belt Road, NW
Washington, DC 20015-1961
Tel: 202.362.3332
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.smartmarriages.com
Institute
for American Values
The Institute for American Values, founded in 1987, is a private, nonpartisan
organization devoted to research, publication, and public education on
issues of family well-being and civil society. By providing forums for
scholarly inquiry and debate, the Institute seeks to bring fresh knowledge
to bear on the challenges facing families and civil society. Through its
publications and other educational activities, the Institute seeks to
bridge the gap between scholarship and policy making, bringing new information
to the attention of policy makers in the government, opinion makers in
the media, and decision makers in the private sector.
Institute
for American Values
1841 Broadway
Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Tel: 212.246.3942
Fax: 212.541.6665
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.americanvalues.org