National Poverty Center Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan www.npc.umich.edu
Marriage and Family Formation Among Low-Income Couples:
What Do We Know From Research? This paper was delivered at a National Poverty Center conference. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Poverty Center or any sponsoring agency. The Determinants of Marriage and Cohabitation among Disadvantaged Americans:
Two Themes from a Literature Review
David J. Fein
Abt Associates Inc.
4800 Montgomery Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814
david_fein@abtassoc.com
Presented at the conference on Marriage and Family Formation among Low-Income
Couples: What Do We Know from Research, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.,
September 4, 2003.
Rev 10/30/03
The Determinants of Marriage and Cohabitation among Disadvantaged Americans:
Two Themes from a Literature Review
There has been an impressive outpouring of basic research on family structure in the last
two decades. However, the resulting knowledge base is highly fragmented and full of
unresolved questions. This situation, and the increasing technical complexity of the
studies themselves, creates substantial potential for much getting lost or distorted in the
translation to policy. That would be a shame, since policies under development—that is,
federal initiatives to promote healthy marriage—offer outstanding opportunities to apply
what we have learned.
Fortunately, the key federal agencies involved—the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation (ASPE), and the
National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD)—see eye-to-eye on the
need for a strong research-driven approach to policy development, and they have
launched an impressive variety of knowledge-building projects to respond to this need.
This paper discusses one such project—a study Abt Associates recently completed for
ACF’s Office of Program Research and Evaluation.
For this project, we assessed the quantitative basic research literature on determinants of
marriage and cohabitation among disadvantaged Americans (Fein et al., 2003). We also
prepared a guide to aspects of nine major national surveys useful in studying marriage
and cohabitation determinants (Burstein et al., 2003). 1 We organized our review report
around ten broad themes that have been salient in union research. For each theme, we
assessed findings on the formation, quality and stability of both marital and cohabiting
unions. We also provided eleven cross-cutting research recommendations in the report’s
executive summary.
In this brief, I discuss two of the most important cross-cutting research needs we
identified. The first is the need for more research on determinants for economically
disadvantaged populations. The second is the need to study the pathways by which
external factors affect couples’ daily interactions and thereby the long-term outcomes of
their unions.
The Need for Research on Determinants of Unions among Disadvantaged
Populations
There are several reasons why it is important to study the determinants of marriage and
cohabitation for disadvantaged populations. First, poor people are at greater risk of
single parenthood, with its attendant negative implications for child well-being and
higher public spending. By the mid-1990s, children whose mothers lacked a high school
diploma could expect to spend 30 percent of their childhoods in single parent families,
compared with just 10 percent of children whose mothers had at least four years of
1
Copies of these reports may be obtained at www.abtassoc.com/reports/litrev_abt.pdf and
www.abtassoc.com/reports/dataguide_abt.pdf.
1
Rev 10/30/03
college. And black children could expect to spend 65 percent of their childhoods in
single parent families (Bumpass and Lu, 2000).
Second, descriptive analysis consistently shows that marriage and cohabitation
experiences differ for people in different economic circumstances. The relationships are
not always what we might expect. For example, most economic indicators of
disadvantage are associated with somewhat earlier marriage, and not less marriage
eventually. For example, the statistics in Exhibit 1 show that women from the poorest
communities were somewhat more likely than the average woman to have married by age
20, and about as likely to have married by age 30. This same effect appears for other
community, family, and personal indicators of economic disadvantage—though not race,
as seen in the exhibit. 2 In large part the reasons are connected with less postponement of
family building to pursue higher education. 3 Economic disadvantage also is strongly
associated with an increased likelihood of ever cohabiting (Bumpass and Lu, 2000). 4
Although economic disadvantage appears not to discourage relationship formation,
alternative indicators of disadvantage consistently are negatively associated with
relationship stability. Exhibit 2 shows that by the mid-1990s, the fraction of first
marriages lasting 10 years was 77 percent overall, 56 percent for persons from the
poorest communities, and 48 percent for African Americans. Not surprisingly, a variety
of studies have found poverty and minority group status are negatively associated with
relationship satisfaction (Brown and Booth, 1996; Johnson et al. 2002; Karney and
Bradbury, 1995; McLloyd et al., 2000; Waite, 2000).
The third reason for studying economically disadvantaged persons is that there are good
reasons to suspect that findings on influences for the general population analyses will not
apply to the poor. It is not so much that the influences are inherently different, but rather
that their effects are moderated by community, family, and personal contexts known to
vary with socio-economic status. We know from studies of middle-class white married
couples, for example, that having a first child is associated with a small decline in marital
quality. These same studies also find that transitions to parenthood can take a more
serious toll on relationships among couples with an unplanned pregnancy, depression,
poor problem-solving skills, and weak social supports (Cox et al., 1999; Cowan and
Cowan, 1995). Because all of these conditions are associated with poverty, we might
2
Ellwood and Jencks (2001) report similar findings using CPS data.
McLaughlin and Lichter (1997) find poverty associated with fewer marriages to young women after
eliminating those who are not in school, indicating that educational opportunity is a substantial motive for
marriage postponement.
4
These statistics challenge the popular view that poverty is a bar to forming intimate relationships, a view
that may reflect awareness of higher rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing among the poor. However,
David Ellwood and Christopher Jencks (2001) have shown, the disproportionate rise in single parenting
among poor women with low educations mainly has been the result of increased premarital childbearing,
rather than of decreased marriages. Some confusion also may be due to a tendency to focus analyses of
poverty on racial minorities—especially African Americans (e.g., Cherlin, 1992, Chapter 4). Unlike other
low-income populations, African Americans really are marriage-avoidant, as the exhibit clearly shows. But
only 26 percent of poor people in the U.S. are African Americans (Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2002, at
www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/income.pdf, Table 682).
3
2
Rev 10/30/03
expect transitions to parenting to be substantially more difficult for poor couples than for
non-poor couples.
So there is a compelling argument for studying the influences on marriage and
cohabitation among disadvantaged persons. We therefore were surprised to find
relatively little such research. The vast majority of studies have looked only at the
average effect of influence X on union outcome Y in the general population.
When X is itself an indicator of economic disadvantage—such as employment or
earnings—it might seem that general population studies would suffice. Unfortunately, as
most such analyses have not paid close attention to differences in effects at varying
portions of the economic distribution (that is, to nonlinearities), the problem of assuming
the average response remains. Furthermore, independent variables such as
unemployment may be imperfect indicators of economic opportunities. Of persons who
were unemployed in 2002, for example, over four fifths had a high school diploma,
nearly half had some college, and one fifth had a four year college degree. 5
An exemplary response to these issues is work by Valerie Oppenheimer on the effects on
marriage and cohabitation of career development trajectories of men with different
amounts of education (Oppenheimer, 2003; Oppenheimer et al., 1997). Her work sho ws
how finer-grained conceptualization and measurement of economic status are needed to
understand economic influences at the lower end of the income distribution.
Another approach is to study the effects of determinants of interest within a particular
disadvantaged population. There has been a substantial amount of research of this kind
on racial and ethnic groups—especially African Americans (e.g., Conger et al. 2002;
McLloyd et al., 2000; Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan, 1995). Researchers also have
devoted substantial attention to groups whose demographic status implies a high
concentration of disadvantage. Especially noteworthy here is the unfolding research on
fragile families, which is providing valuable insights into influences on unions after an
out of wedlock birth (e.g., Carlson et al., 2002). These are important groups to study
from the standpoint of both science and policy. However, racial and demographic
characteristics are not very good proxies for economic disadvantage.
Across the ten union influences we examined, we found just a few analyses for
disadvantaged populations defined more directly. The most notable was a series of
studies of the effects of financial and other stresses on marriage among poor rural whites
(Conger et al., 1999; Cox et al., 1999) and couples in southeastern Michigan where one
or both partners experienced a job loss (Vinokur et al., 1996).
Better than studies limited to particular populations are those comparing the effects of
key determinants between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged groups. Such
comparative analyses make the best science because they help to identify determinants
whose effects may or may not be unique for disadvantaged groups, as well as to assess
how any unique effects arise.
5
See table at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat7.pdf.
3
Rev 10/30/03
Again, there has been a substantial amount of this kind of analysis assessing the
differential effects of a wide range of determinants across racial and ethnic groups. 6 In
contrast, there has been relatively little analysis of differences in union determinants
across more direct measures of disadvantage. We found several analyses of differing
labor market, marriage market, and welfare effects on marriage by poverty status (e.g.,
McLaughlin and Lichter, 1997) and level of education (e.g., Blau et al., 2000). 7 In
contrast, there appears to have been little comparative work on demographic, sociological
or psychological influences by level of disadvantage.
The Need for Research on the Pathways by which External Factors Impinge on
Relationship Processes and Thereby Affect the Quality and Stability of Unions
The second finding I wanted highlight from our review is the need for improved
conceptual frameworks to guide research on disadvantaged populations. Each of the four
main disciplines contributing in this area of research—demography, economics,
sociology, and psychology—has special insights to offer. But, like the blind men and the
elephant, their stories individually seem destined to contribute only a small degree to our
understanding. Low R2 s reflect a need for improved conceptualization and measurement
of individual determinants, but also for theories that incorporate a richer array of
influences and interactions between influences.
An immediate need is to begin to integrate research perspectives from psychology with
those of the other disciplines involved in couples research. Roughly speaking, the former
stresses influences within, whereas the latter address influences outside, couples’
relationships. The “insiders” have learned a great deal about the cognitions, emotions,
and physiological processes that come into play during marital interaction and the
consequent effects on marital distress and disruption. But, until recently, psychologists
paid little attention to how external factors influenced interaction and thus were illequipped to explain variation in interaction across couples. For their part, demographers,
economists and sociologists have found a wide variety of external factors to be associated
with union outcomes, but have not made as much progress in illuminating the
mechanisms by which these correlations arise.
The insiders’ and outsiders’ research approaches also have been quite different.
Psychologists have studied mainly small, homogeneous samples of middle-class white
couples who are easier to recruit for observational research studies—and more likely to
invest in relationship education and therapy. Demographers, economists, and
sociologists have worked with large, heterogeneous samples from national surveys—and
focused mainly on the implications for anti-poverty policies.
6
See, for example, Blau et al, 2000; Harknett and McLanahan, 2000; Koball, 1995; Manning, 1993;
Manning and Smock, 1995; McLloyd et al., 2000; Sweeny, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2001.
7
A growing number of applied analyses have looked at the effects of welfare reform and other
characteristics separately for persons at different education levels, using double- and triple -difference
methods to adjust for selection biases. We did not review these studies as our focus was on basic research.
4
Rev 10/30/03
The emerging federal marriage initiatives have created an urgent need to accelerate the
integration of these different perspectives and methods. The feds’ interest in relationship
skills education for low-income couples, in particular, poses fundamental questions for
basic and applied research on union determinants.
To what degree will external conditions related to poverty constrain couples’ abilities to
acquire and apply new relationship skills? And to what degree do external forces
compete with internal dynamics in determining overall relationship satisfaction and
stability? Which external factors are most important, and how do they affect the specific
processes driving couples’ relationships?
Answering these questions requires elaboration of the basic pathways illustrated in
Exhibit 3. This scheme, based on an important review paper by Ben Karney and Tom
Bradbury (Karney and Bradbury, 1995), distinguishes two kinds of extrinsic factors. One
set encompasses a host of personal characteristics that can render couples vulnerable to
relationship troubles, and another set includes environmental influences on relationships.
This framework is useful because it emphasizes the need to understand how extrinsic risk
factors—and interactions among these factors—operate on specific aspects of couple
interaction, as well as on relationship outcomes more directly. It is especially pertinent to
understanding how a variety of different aspects of socioeconomic disadvantage may
affect relationship outcomes.
By way of illustration, let us look at an important area of recent research that is bringing
extrinsic and intrinsic factors together: the study of how stressful external conditions
influence marital relationships. “Stress” has been defined as “a process in which
environmental demands tax or exceed the adaptive capacity of an organism, resulting in
psychological and biological changes that may place persons at risk for disease (Cohen et
al., 1997).” There has been good work on the conceptualization and measurement of
stress, putting researchers in a good position to explore its determinants and
consequences (Turner et al., 1995; Turner and Wheaton, 1997). It has been established
that disadvantaged persons experience higher levels of stress, and that this elevated
exposure explains a significant amount of the socio-economic variation in mental health
outcomes (Turner et al., 1995).
Researchers have developed some promising leads on how stress can affect couple and
other family relationships. Rand Conger and his colleagues have shown, for example,
that financial pressures can increase depression, which in turn can lead spouses to (1)
withdraw from interaction, (2) see their partners more negatively, and (3) express more
negativity in their relationships. Analyses of this “family stress model” have been
replicated in different populations, including low- income rural whites (Conger et al.,
1999), rural African Americans (Conger et al., 2002), middle-class couples experiencing
a job loss (Vinokur et al., 1996), and urban families in Korea (Kwon et al., 2003). There
is some evidence that spousal support and good joint problem-solving skills can moderate
the negative effects of financial stress (Conger et al., 1999; Vinokur et al., 1996).
5
Rev 10/30/03
Other research has focused on the ways that stress may interfere with the cognitive
processes and mental models required to form and sustain positive attributions, or
judgments, of one’s partner’s behavior during interaction. These findings suggest that
when people are surrounded by negative events, they are more likely to see their partners
in a negative light and attribute negative motives to their behaviors (Neff and Karney,
2003; Tessor and Beach, 1998). This appears to be due at least in part to the fact that
with increasing exposure to negative life events, it takes progressively more cognitive
effort to apply the correct discounts in judgments about unrelated aspects of life, such as
one’s relationship with a partner.
Although work on these cognitive linkages has been limited to analyses of middle class
white couples, findings imply that the effects of stress may be far more damaging in
social groups that are subject to higher overall levels of stress. For example, Tessor and
Beach (1998) have found that the effects of stress are discontinuous—couples appear to
recognize and discount for negative events only up to a point, after which relationship
satisfaction drops precipitously. Using hierarchical modeling techniques, Karney and
colleagues (2003) ha ve found that wives experiencing higher levels of chronic, or
background, stress are more vulnerable to declines in marital satisfaction when they
experience negative life events. These authors hypothesize that chronic stress can deplete
the cognitive and emotional resources needed to respond positively to negative events.
Karney (2003) argues also that low- income couples may have less time to devote to
communication and relationship building due to a greater likelihood of non-standard
work schedules (Presser, 2000) and the need to deal with multiple demanding life
challenges.
From a theoretical standpoint, this work on stress and relationships is notable for its
attention to conceptualizing the key constructs; for its progress in identifying the
mechanisms linking external events to relationship outcomes; and for its use of advanced
techniques (structural equations and hierarchical models) to address selection and
endogeneity biases. The next step is to extend this research to low- income couples.
From a practical standpoint, the stress literature already also has important implications.
With regard to financial incentives for marriage, the findings serve as a useful reminder
that rational analysis is not necessarily the predominant process governing relationships.
Instead, they encourage us to view the cognitive faculties needed for positive attributions
and behavior as (1) varyingly available and (2) competing with emotional and
physiological reactions to stress.
If relationships were governed strictly by rational analysis, the public policy decision of
whether to eliminate “marriage penalties” by providing additional resources to married
couples or by reducing benefits to single parents mostly would be one of values—since
either outcome would have the effect of boosting marriage. However, if resources matter
because they reduce stresses interfering with positive interaction, only strategies focusing
on equipping couples to withstand and address external stresses will prove effective in
boosting marriage.
6
Rev 10/30/03
The latter may explain the well-known “MFIP effect;” that is, the finding that income
supplements to working couples receiving welfare in Minnesota had a large positive
effect in stabilizing relationships (Miller et al., 2000). But we will need to study the
mechanisms much more carefully before we can be sure.
Marriage education programs may be able to teach couples to more effectively discount
the effects of stress when interpreting their partners’ behavior. These programs also may
be able to help by strengthening spousal supports and joint problem-solving skills
allowing couples to respond more effectively to external challenges. On a more
pessimistic note, many couples may need more direct help solving life crises before they
will be able to learn and apply new relationship skills.
To return to the broader point, researchers need to explicitly investigate the linkages
between external circumstances and specific relationship processes. The concept of
stress is just one of many important external factors requiring investigation: Does formal
education strengthen cognitive processing needed to acquire relationship skills? How do
family-of-origin experiences influence the mental models and affective dispositions
governing behavior in intimate relationships? How do local environments influence
partnering options, and what processes govern the way people perceive and exercise their
options? Where and how do socially-derived norms, values and attitudes about
relationships—gender role expectations, for example—affect cognitive schemas and
emotional responses to behavior during interaction?
Conclusion
The needs I have discussed in this paper – for more work on disadvantaged groups and on
integrating different research perspectives – are just two of ma ny we identified in our
review. Readers of the report may be led to despair that we know so little even, despite
the huge outpouring of research on marriage and cohabitation in recent decades.
There nonetheless are many reasons to expect exciting breakthroughs in the next decade.
Work to date has provided some fundamental insights into the conceptualization,
measurement, and effects of key influences taken individually. And emerging federal
marriage initiatives are stimulating just the kind of interdisciplinary exchange and
collaboration needed to integrate and apply different theories to understudied
populations.
Finally, the federal agencies involved have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to
creating a strong data infrastructure for research on couples and families. ACF has
developed a series of projects, including our own Guide to Data Sources, a project to
develop measures of “healthy marriage,” and a project to develop strategies for closing
critical gaps in national marriage statistics. NICHD has launched a project to develop
new models and data collection vehicles for studying family processes. The Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics also has stimulated thinking through its
series of workshops on Counting Couples.
7
Rev 10/30/03
Thus, the conditions seem favorable, and I expect we will arrive at a vastly improved
understanding of the determinants of marriage and cohabitation among disadvantaged
Americans in the not-too-distant future.
8
Rev 10/30/03
References
Blau, F. D., Kahn, L. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2000). Understanding young women's
marriage decisions: The role of labor and marriage market conditions. Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 53(4), 624-647.
Bramlet, M., & Mosher, W. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in
the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics,
23(22).
Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of
relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 668-678.
Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's
family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
Burstein, N., Lindberg, L., Fein, D., Page, L., & LaRock, R. (2003). Guide to Data
Sources on the Determinants of Marriage and Cohabitation. Bethesda, MD: Abt
Associates Inc.
Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2002). Union formation and dissolution in
fragile families. (Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University,
Working Paper No. 01-06-FF).
Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Revised and enlarged edition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, S., Kessler, R., & Gordon, L. (1997). Strategies for measuring stress in studies of
psychiatric and physical disorders. In S. Cohen, R. Kessler & L. Gordon (Eds.),
Measuring stress: A Guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3-28). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Conger, R., Ebert-Wallace, L., Sun, Y., Simons, R., McLoyd, V., & Brody, G. (2002).
Economic pressure in African-American families: A replication and extension of
the Family Stress Model. Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 179-193.
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1999). Couple resilience to economic
pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 54-71.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1995). Interventions to ease the transition to parenthood:
Why are they needed and what can they do? Family Relations, 44, 412-423.
Cox, M. J., Paley, B., Burchinal, M., & Payne, C. C. (1999). Marital perceptions and
interactions across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 611-625.
Ellwood, D. T., & Jencks, C. (2001). The growing differences in family structure: What
do we know? Where do we look for answers?. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard
University.
Fein, D., Burstein, N., Fein, G., & Lindberg, L. (2003). The Determinants of Marriage
and Cohabitation among Disadvantaged Americans: A Literature Review.
Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc.
Harknett, K., & McLanahan, S. (2002). Racial differences in marriage among new,
unmarried parents: Evidence from the fragile families and child wellbeing study.
(Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton, NJ, Working Paper No. 0208-FF).
9
Rev 10/30/03
Johnson, C., Stanley, S., Glenn, N., Amato, P., Nock, S., Markman, H., et al. (2002).
Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Baseline Statewide Survey on Marriage and
Divorce. Oklahoma: Bureau for Social Research, Oklahoma State University.
Karney, B.R. (2003). Family demographics in Florida: Economic factors in family
formation and maintenance. Presented at the Governor’s Strengthening Families
Symposium, June 17, 2003, Tallahassee, FL.
Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
3-34.
Karney, B., Story, L., & Bradbury, T. (2003). Marriages in context: Interactions between
chronic and acute stress among newlyweds. Presented at the International
Meeting on the Developmental Course of Couples Coping with Stress, October
12-14, 2002, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Koball, H. (1998). Have African American men become less committed to marriage?
Explaining the twentieth century racial cross-over in men's marriage timing.
Demography, 35(2), 251-258.
Kwon, H., Rueter, M., Lee, M., Koh, S., & Ok, S. (2003). Marital relationships following
the Korean economic crisis: Applying the Family Stress Model. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 65, 316-325.
Manning, W. D. (1993). Marriage and cohabitation following premarital conception.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 839-850.
Manning, W. D., & Landale, N. S. (1996). Racial and ethnic differences in the role of
cohabitation in premarital childbearing. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
58(1), 63-77.
Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (1995). Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage
among cohabitors. Demography, 32(4), 509-520.
McLaughlin, D. K., & Lichter, D. T. (1997). Poverty and the marital behavior of young
women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 582-594.
McLloyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and
parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1070-1093.
Miller, C., Knox, V., Gennetian, L., Dodoo, M., Hunter J.A., & Redcross, C. (2000).
Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family
Investment Program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
Nock, S. L. (1998). The consequences of premarital fatherhood. American Sociological
Review, 63(2), 250-263.
Oppenheimer, V. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men's careerdevelopment process. Demography, 40(1), 127-150.
Oppenheimer, V. K., Kalmijn, M., & Lim, N. (1997). Men's career development and
marriage timing during a period of rising inequality. Demography, 34(3), 311330.
Presser, H. (2000). Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 93-110.
Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic
foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132-147.
10
Rev 10/30/03
Tesser, A., & Beach, S. R. (1998). Life events, relationship quality, and depression: An
investigation of judgment discontinuity in vivo. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(1), 36-52.
Testa, M., & Krogh, M. (1995). The effect of employment on marriage among black
males in inner-city Chicago. In M. B. Tucker & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), The
decline in marriage among African-Americans (pp. 59-95). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Tucker, B. M., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds.). (1995). The decline in marriage among
African-Americans: Causes, consequences, and policy implications. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Turner, R., & Wheaton, B. (1997). Checklist measurement of stressful life events. In S.
Cohen, R. Kessler & L. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and
Social Scientists (pp. 29-58). NY: Oxford University Press.
Turner, R., Wheaton, B., & Lloyd, D. (1995). The epidemiology of social stress.
American Sociological Review, 60, 104-124.
Tzeng, J., & Mare, R. (1995). Labor market and socioeconomic effects on marital
stability. Social Science Research, 24, 329-351.
Upchurch, D. M., Lillard, L. A., & Panis, C. W. (2001). The impact of nonmarital
childbearing on subsequent marital formation and dissolution. In L. L. Wu & B.
Wolfe (Eds.), Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility
(pp. 344-382). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. (1996). Hard times and hurtful partners:
How financial strain affects depression and relationship satisfaction of
unemployed persons and their spouses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(1), 166-179.
Waite, L. (2000). Trends in men's and women's well-being in marriage. In L. Waite (Ed.),
The Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (pp. 368-392).
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
11
Exhibit 1
Percent Ever Married by Ages 20 and 30: 1995 NSFG
76
80
Rev 10/30/03
73
70
60
52
50
40
30
30
20
25
16
10
0
All
Living in
African
persons low-income American
community
Ever-Married by Age 20
All
persons
Living in
African
low-income American
community
Ever-Married by Age 30
Source: Bramlett and Mosher, 2002, Tables 1, 2, 7.
12
Rev 10/30/03
Exhibit 2
Percent of First Marriages Intact after 10 Years: 1995 NSFG
80
77
70
56
60
48
50
40
30
20
10
0
All
persons
Living in
low-income
community
African
American
Source: Bramlett and Mosher, 2002, Tables 21, 22, 27.
13
Rev 10/30/03
Exhibit 3
Family Stress Model for Healthy Marriage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strengths and
Vulnerabilities of
Each Partner
Age/maturity
Family of origin
Personality
Education & training
Attitudes & values
Employment & earnings
Mental health
Physical health
Substance abuse
External Influences
(Proximal)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Healthy Marriage
Couple
Relationship
Processes
Relationship
Satisfaction/Distress
Marriage/Marital
Stability
Stressors
Norms
Alternatives to marriage
Social networks
Macro Contexts
(Distal)
Economy
Social institutions
Wider/popular culture
Discrimination
Policies/laws
14