marriage

The San Francisco Chronicle reported today on new research from sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University about the impact of living together before marriage. The Chronicle reports: 

Spurred by the sexual revolution and buoyed by recent economic concerns and marital trends, cohabitation – as a temporary situation, a lengthy arrangement or something in between – has become a unique, multifaceted institution in its own right, and a hot field of study among sociologists.

It’s not without controversy. Conventional wisdom – backed up by studies in the 1980s and ’90s – has held that so-called serial cohabitants have higher divorce rates than those who wait until marriage to live together. However, new data suggest that when someone cohabits only with a future spouse, divorce rates are the same or lower than if they didn’t live together before marriage.

But new research from a number of sociologists suggests its time to revise our views on the effects of living together:

A study published in November by sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University found that the odds of divorce among women who married their sole cohabiting partner were 28 percent lower than those of women who never cohabited. (See “Behind the numbers” story on D3.)

“They used to say that cohabitation was a risk factor for divorce. Now that we have broader samples, that’s not true,” says Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of “Marriage, a History.”

The majority of Americans now live together before getting married. Of couples married after 1995, 65 percent of men and women in first-time marriages lived together beforehand, according to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.

“For most people, cohabitation is still a transition point,” says University of Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock. “This is not the case for everyone, as there is an increase in the percentage of cohabiters who live together for a long period of time – a subgroup for whom it’s not just a train stop. But by and large, cohabiting relationships tend to be short, as the couple either breaks up or marries within a number of years.”

She expects that in coming years, as much as 80 percent of the population will live together unmarried at some point in their lives, up from the current 70 percent.

One can’t talk about cohabitation without also talking about marriage. As the average age of a first marriage in the United States has risen to 27 years for men and 25 for women, young adults are filling in before that with “marriage lite,” in Coontz’s words.

Read more.

The Boston Globe reports, “Husbands do it by gassing up their spouse’s car. Wives do it by having a heart-to-heart confessional. Each is expressing intimacy, but in a stereotypical Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus fashion. As Framingham State College sociologist Virginia Rutter notes, “Both men and women value a feeling of closeness with their partner, but they get to that feeling by somewhat different routes.” And they often think their partner is taking the wrong route.”

Stephanie Cootz (for the Globe) writes:

Over the past 30 years, however, husbands and wives have become much less likely to specialize exclusively in either breadwinning or nurturing. As men and women try to mix and match the traits that were once parceled out between them, the 19th-century gender differences in emotional orientation hamper a couple’s ability to sustain relationships that are now based on equality and friendship. A growing body of research confirms that men and women who hold traditional gender attitudes have lower-quality relationships than couples with more gender-neutral values.

Rutter’s response…

Rutter argues that we can “learn to draw from both the masculine and the feminine tool kits.” She points to studies showing that children who combine what are usually thought of as masculine and feminine coping skills have higher academic and social skills than more “traditional” boys and girls. Such flexibility also translates into higher marital quality later in life. This may be why University of Washington researcher John Gottman finds that same-sex couples, who tend to combine “male” and “female” emotional styles, remain calmer and more positive with each other during disagreements than do heterosexual couples.

Take home message?

So where men need to learn how to connect with painful feelings, women need to learn when to step back from such feelings to engage in activities that calm both partners down. And sometimes, when deciding whether to use the “female” or the “male” way of making up after an argument, couples might be better off splitting the difference. Instead of talking it out before sex or having sex before talking it out, why not head off to a movie and hold hands in the dark?

Read on…

The Boston Globe reports on a series of new studies which draw upon mapping social networks and behavioral economics to help us better understand those new year’s resolutions to lose weight. These studies suggest that a spouse’s weight loss success can rub off on the other.

The study from the University of Connecticut says that couples not only tend to gain weight together, they can also lose it as a pair, even if only one of them is enrolled in a formal program. The spouses of the patients who attended regular meetings to encourage making dietary changes lost about five pounds over the course of a year, according to the results of the large clinical trial that examined weight loss strategies for people with type 2 diabetes.

“It was impressive, given they were not involved in the study program,” Amy A. Gorin, assistant professor of psychology at UConn and lead author of the article published in the International Journal of Obesity, said in an interview. “Intervening with one person in a family has a larger impact than we realized before.”

This new study draws upon the work of sociologist Nicholas Christakis…

Harvard sociologist and internist Dr. Nicholas Christakis made waves with a study last year linking obesity to social networks. Gorin, who cites his work in her paper, finds the power of peer influence encouraging when it’s flipped to the positive side.

Among the 357 couples she tracked, many of their food choices in the home became healthier – fewer potato chips and more fruits and vegetables, for example. Physical activity picked up, too.

“For some people, it was motivating to see someone start to exercise and eat healthier food,” she said, citing anecdotal evidence.

“I think my message would be, don’t underestimate the power of the environment on you,” she said. “If you start your New Year’s resolution with ‘I’m going to have enough willpower this time,’ I think you set yourself up for failure if you don’t have the support of the environment around you.”

Read more.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports this morning on recent speculation that financial woes from the deepening recession may mean that families will be having fewer children. The AJC reports on how parents are increasingly filled with doubts about their ability to provide for additional children as job prospects shrink, retirement savings plummet, and home values continue to fall.

Many economists fear that the recession will become one of the worst since the Great Depression. When that hit in the 1930s, the birthrate dropped precipitously, and the effects of having fewer people in the work force rippled through the economy two decades later. “If you can’t pay your mortgage, the last thing on your mind is to have another child,” said Dr. Khalil Tabsh, chief of obstetrics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who expects to start seeing a drop in pregnancies.

Bring in the sociologists…

Starting or growing a family often becomes more of a financial decision than an emotional one as parents calculate the sometimes overwhelming costs of health care, child care, education and other necessities, said Kathleen Gerson, a sociologist at New York University.

Though birthrates usually decline in a recession, there is a countervailing theory popular with some economists: Births may swell. Some women who lose their jobs may decide it’s an opportune time to raise a child, said Gary Becker, a University of Chicago economist and sociologist.

Read more.

USA Today reports on statistics from the Census that indicate “the age at first marriage has been climbing steadily for all racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. The median age is now the oldest since the U.S. Census started keeping track in the 1890s: almost 26 for women and almost 28 for men.”

There are general pros and cons for marrying at different times, but there seems to be little agreement…

And as young people wait longer to marry, there is growing debate over whether waiting is a good idea, and if so, how long is best. Those who advocate marriage in the early to mid-20s say that’s the age when the pool of possible mates is larger, it’s when couples can “grow up” together and it’s prime for childbearing. But others favor the late 20s or early 30s, saying maturity makes for happier unions and greater economic security — both of which make divorce less likely.

Sociologist Andrew Cherlin weighs in…

“It’s better not to get married as a teenager,” says sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University. “Beyond that, I don’t think there’s an ideal age.”

There does seems to be sociological evidence that earlier is better…

A study being drafted by sociologist Norval Glenn of the University of Texas-Austin finds that those who marry in the early to mid-20s are slightly happier and less likely to break up than those who marry in the later 20s, but are significantly more satisfied with their relationships than those who marry at 30 or older.

But marrying later might be best, according to Paul Amato…

But research by sociologist Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University for a 2007 book he co-wrote suggests quite the opposite. The studies for Alone Together: How Marriage in America Is Changing used different data and different criteria and found distinct benefits to marrying older.

“We found that the delay in marriage was actually a good thing and it actually improved the average marital quality by a fair amount,” he says.

“Older marriages (30s vs. 20s) were more cohesive in the sense they did things more often together as a couple. And couples who married at older ages were less likely to report thinking about divorce or that their marriage was in trouble.”

But ultimately whether or not you are ‘ready’ does seem to matter…

“People are more concerned with their own self-development than they used to be,” [sociologist Andrew] Cherlin says. “People are postponing marriage until everything in their lives is working in order. The order means after you’ve finished your education, perhaps after beginning your career, and increasingly after you’ve lived with your partner. They’re postponing marriage until they think they’re ready for it.”

Read the full story.

USA Today reports on new research which suggests a link between children with ADHD and the likelihood of their parents’ divorce. Researchers William Pelham Jr. and Brian Wymbs of the State University of New York-Buffalo find that a child’s disruptive behavior ‘probably pours fuel on other stresses that spark marital conflict.’

Marilyn Elias reports:

Because ADHD can be inherited, parents often have it too, and that may hinder marriage, says Andrea Chronis-Tuscano, a psychologist at the University of Maryland. If children have ADHD, their mothers are 24 times more likely than other mothers to have it, and fathers are five times more likely, her studies find. Adults with ADHD may be impulsive and find it hard to concentrate or solve problems.

“That can lead to conflict in marriage,” she says, “and a child with ADHD only adds to the stress.”

But the sociologist disagrees…

In other studies, parents of children with ADHD have said they’re less satisfied with marriage. But not all researchers agree that they divorce more. A large Canadian report last year found no higher divorce rate for parents of children with ADHD. Pelham’s group may have particularly bad symptoms because their parents sought treatment, says Lisa Strohschein, a sociologist at University of Alberta who did the Canadian study.

Read more.