Soc 971: Week 3, Handout
Data and Methods
Hyun Sik Kim and Tetyana Pudrovska
Carlson, McLanahan, & England (2004)
Data sets
 To test which variables contributed to transition from one stage of union status to another,
Carlson et al. use the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study(hereafter Fragile Families
Study).

The Fragile Families Study is a longitudinal survey following 4,898 children who was born
between 1998 and 2000 in the 20 cities, among whom, 3,712 children had unmarried parents
and 1,186 children had married parents. The authors analyze 3,285 respondents in the former
case, which provide information on parents’ union status at the children’s birth and one year
later.

All variables were measured at the child’s birth except parents’ fertility history. In case of the
fathers, missing cases increase as one moves down the relationship hierarchy with the highest
response rates (90%) in cohabitation and the lowest rates (38%) in nonromantic relationship.
All missing data are substituted with the overall mean.
Variables
 Dependent variable is union status one year after the child’s birth, which comprises married,
cohabiting, visiting(romantically involved but living apart), and not in a romantic
relationship(friends, separated, or no contact)

Explanatory variables consist of background characteristics, parents’ economic resources,
parents’ attitudes and beliefs, and the quality of the parents’ relationship. Background
variables include age, parents’ race, family backgrounds of each parent, parents’ fertility
history, both parents’ self-reported health status, and the duration of time between two
interviews. Variables related to parents’ economic resources contain self-reported level of
education and earnings in the past year and state-level welfare benefit. In relation to parents’
attitudes and beliefs, parents’ attitudes toward marriage, traditional attitudes toward gender,
parents’ distrust of the opposite sex roles are measured. Finally, physical violence, frequency
of conflict, supportiveness in the relationship, and a substance-abuse problem of the father
are chosen as indicators of the quality of parents’ relationship.
Models
 Carlson et al. used multinomial logistic regression with a reference being a group of not in a
romantic relationship to identify variables which have a significant causal relationship to
union status one year after their child’ birth.

They test three models. Model 1 includes the background and economic variables, Model 2
adds relationship status at the baseline, and Model 3 contains all the variables we discussed
above. Therefore, these are a kind of nested modeling. But they don’t provide indicators for
data fitting.
Oppenheimer et al. (1997) and Sweeney (2002): Pose similar questions and, to a certain extent,
use similar data and methodology because Sweeney’s work draws on Oppenheimer’s research.
Data sets
 Because Sweeney’s study is designed to investigate historical change, she compares
experiences of successive birth cohorts (“early” and “late” baby-boomers) using data from
three sources: Young Men (NLSM), Young Women (NLSW) and Youth (NLSY) cohorts of
the National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Market Experience.

The NLSY sample was interviewed annually from 1979 through 1994; the NLSM sample
was interviewed annually from 1966 to 1971, and then in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, and
1981. The NLSW sample was interviewed annually form 1968 through 1973, and then in
1975, 1977, 1978, 19880, 1982, and 1983.

Sweeney uses Young Men’s and Young Women’s samples to investigate marriage among the
early baby-boom cohort (b. 1950-1954), while data from the Youth sample are used to
investigate marriage among the late baby-boom cohort (b. 1961-1965).

Like Sweeney, Oppenheimer et al. use data form the National Survey of Labor Market
Experience, but only the Youth cohort.

Neither Oppenheimer et al. nor Sweeney consider cohabitation because the relevant
questions were not asked consistently in the NLS. The fact that one can’t distinguish between
the timing of first marriages versus the timing of first unions of any type is the limitation of
the NLS data––just like of almost any survey conducted prior to the mid-1980s.
Variables
 In both studies, the dependent variable is a dichotomous indicator of whether a marriage
occurred in the interval between two given years.

Sweeney’s focal independent variables are earnings, educational attainment, and employment
status.

Oppenheimer et al.’s measures capturing men’s career entry process are school enrollment
combined with time out of school, educational attainment, job type, yearly work experience,
and annual earnings.
Models
 Oppenheimer et al. and Sweeney organize their data into person-year records, with one
record for each annual interval in which respondents were at risk of first marriage (the risk of
marriage is assumed to begin at age 17).
2

Oppenheimer et al. and Sweeney use logistic regression to estimate discrete-time hazard
models of the effects of SES standing on entry into first marriage. Overall, a discrete-time
event history analysis is a typical approach for micro-level studies of marriage formation.

Both Oppenheimer et al. and Sweeney did analyses separately for blacks and whites, but only
Sweeney conducted tests of statistical significance of race differences within cohorts.

In addition to estimating hazard models, Oppenheimer et al.’s analysis contains a second
part. They argue that a transition to a stable work career is a multi-year process. Therefore, it
is not enough to examine the effect of career-status variables on marriage formation in any
single year––one needs to look at the cumulative impact of these variables.
o To illustrate this cumulative impact, Oppenheimer et al. modeled predicted
survival curves (using their regression results and life-table techniques) for men
undergoing “easy” versus “difficult” transitions.
o “Easy” transition: moving rapidly into a mature career once out do school;
“difficult” transition: unstable labor-market attachment for several years (no
work in a year, part-time work only, or FT/PY employment).
o Projections were developed separately for 8 race/education groups.
Waite (1995) : Just compare means on several issues among marital status using various data
sets and research results in order to show how beneficial outcome marriage can bring.

Health Behaviors comparison on number of alcohol-related problems and number of risktaking behaviors by divorced, widowed, and married, citing results of Umberson(1987)

Mortality comparison of survival curve among married, widowed, divorced, and nevermarried by sex, using the Panel Study of Income Dynamic

Partnered Sex comparison on frequency, physical satisfaction and emotional satisfaction of
sexual activity among single, cohabiting, and married, using the National Health and Social
Life Survey(NHSLS)

Asset and Wealth comparison of median household wealth among never-married, widowed,
divorced, separated, and married, using estimates by Smith(1994)

Children’s Well-Being comparison on percentages of high school drop-out and poverty
rates between two-parent and one-parent families, quoting McLanahan and Sandefur(1994)

Labor Force and Career comparison of log hourly wage between cohabitation and marriage
by race and sex, and comparison of log hourly wage according to number of children by race,
using Daniel’s estimates(1994)
3