Effects of Marriage on Society

Marriage is the foundational relationship for all of society. All other relationships in society stem from the father-mother relationship, and these other relationships thrive most if that father-mother relationship is simultaneously a close and closed husband- wife relationship. Good marriages are the bedrock of strong societies, for they are the foundations of strong families. In marriage are contained the five basic institutions, all the basic tasks, of society: 1) family, 2) church, 3) school, 4) marketplace and 5) government. These fundamental tasks, well done, in unity between father and mother, make for a very good marriage. Within a family built on such a marriage, the child gradually learns to value and perform these five fundamental tasks of every competent adult and of every functional society.

1. Family

(See Effects of Divorce on Family Relationships)

Marriage enhances an adult’s ability to parent.1) Married people are more likely to give and receive support from their parents and are more likely to consider their parents as means for possible support in case of an emergency.2)

The National Survey of Children's Health showed that families with both biological or (adoptive) parents present have the highest quality of parent-child relationships.3) (See Chart)

Quality of Parent-Child Relationship by Family Structure

The General Social Survey showed that adults who grew up living with both biological parents experience higher levels of marital happiness.4) (See Chart Below)

Percent of Married People Very Happily Married

According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 72.6 percent of always-intact married adults believe in the importance of having their own children, followed by 70.8 percent of married, previously-divorced adults, 57.2 percent of single, divorced or separated adults and 35.2 percent of single, never-married adults. 5) (See Chart Below)

The Personal Importance of Having Children

2. Church

(See Effects of Religious Practice on Marriage and Effects of Religious Practice on Family Relationships)

Social science shows that marriage has important implications for religious practice. Direct marriage (rather than cohabitation prior to marriage) has a positive effect on religious participation in young adults.6) Young adults raised in happily married families are more religious than young adults raised in stepfamilies,7) and attend religious services more frequently than those raised in divorced families.8) Young adults whose parents divorced prior to age 15 are much more likely than others to identify as “spiritual but not religious.”9) Those from married families are less likely to see religion decline in importance in their lives, less likely to begin attending church less frequently, and less likely to disassociate themselves from their religious affiliation.10)

The General Social Survey shows that adults who attended religious services at least monthly as adolescents and grew up in an intact family are significantly more likely to attend religious services monthly or more frequently, as adults, than are those who attended less frequently and whose family of origin was non-intact. Additionally, those who attended religious services at least monthly as adolescents were substantially more likely to attend religious services as adults, regardless of whether they came from an intact or non-intact family. In other words, with regard to adult religious worship, frequent worship in adolescence significantly mitigates the negative effects of growing up in a non-intact family.11) (See Chart)

Attending Religious Services Monthly or More in Adulthood

Looking at family structure alone shows that a larger fraction of adults who grew up in an intact married family than non-intact family attend religious services at least monthly.12) (See Chart Below)

Attending Religious Services Monthly or More Frequently in Adulthood

3. School

(See Effects of Marriage on Children's Education, Effects Divorce on Children's Education, and Effects of Family Structure on Children's Education)

A greater fraction of children from intact married families earn mostly A’s in school,13) and children in intact married families have the highest combined English and math grade point averages (GPAs).14) Children from intact married families have the highest high school graduation rate,15) and are more likely to gain more education after graduating from high school than those from other family structures.16) Moreover, children of married parents are more engaged in school than children from all other family structures.17) Adolescents from intact married families are less frequently suspended, expelled, or delinquent, and less frequently experience school problems than children from other family structures.18)

4. Marketplace

(See Effects of Family Structure on the Economy)

Government and survey data overwhelmingly document that married-parent households work, earn, and save at significantly higher rates than other family households as well as pay most of all income taxes collected by the government. They also contribute to charity and volunteer at significantly higher rates, even when controlling for income, than do single or divorced households, leading Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute to write that “single parenthood is a disaster for charity.”19)

Married men are more likely to work than cohabiting men,20) and married fathers work more hours than cohabiting fathers.21) Children living with their two biological cohabiting parents are 263 percent more likely to experience poverty than children living with their two biological married parents. Likewise, children living with their married stepparents have significantly better economic outcomes than those living with cohabiting stepparents.22)

Additionally, married men earn more than single men.23) Men’s productivity increases by 26 percent as a result of marrying.24) Correspondingly, married families have larger incomes.25) Intact married families have the largest annual income of all family structures with children under 18.26) Married households have larger incomes than male and female householders.27) Married couples save more than unmarried couples,28) and married households have larger average net worth at retirement than other family structures.29) Young married couples tend to have goals for retirement and to save more for retirement than cohabiting couples or single people.30) Intact married families have the highest net worth of all families with children (widowed families excepted).31)

5. Government

5.1 Health Care

(See Effects of Marriage on Physical Health and Effects of Marriage on Mental Health)

Family intactness has a negative influence on, or reduces, an area’s fraction of 25- to 54-year-olds and minors receiving public healthcare,32) and a positive influence on an area’s fraction of 25- to 54-year-olds and minors with private healthcare coverage.33) Married men and women are also more likely to have health insurance.34) Furthermore, married individuals occupy hospitals and health institutions less often than others,35) are released from hospitals sooner, on average, than unmarried individuals,36) and spend half as much time in hospitals as single individuals.37) Married individuals are also less likely to go to a nursing home from the hospital.38)

5.2 Crime

(See Effects of Family Structure on Crime)

Marriage may diminish individual propensity to commit crime.39) For example, married men are less likely to commit crimes.40)

For children, living in a non-intact family is associated with an increased likelihood of committing violent and non-violent crime and the likelihood of drunk driving.41) Adolescents from intact families are less delinquent and commit fewer violent acts of delinquency.42) Correspondingly, a lower fraction of adults and youth raised in intact families are picked up by police than those from non-intact families.43)

The Adolescent Health Survey showed that adolescents living in an intact married family steal less frequently than adolescents living in any other family structure.44) (See Chart)

Theft

Similarly, only eight percent of adolescents living with married parents and six percent of adolescents living with cohabiting biological parents are repeat shoplifters (3+ times), according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Waves I and II.45) (See Chart Below)

Repeat Shoplifting

5.3 Abuse

(See Effects of Family Structure on Child Abuse)

Marriage is associated with lower rates of domestic violence and abuse, in comparison to cohabitation.46) Domestic violence against ever-married mothers is lower than domestic violence against always-single mothers.47) In arguments, married couples are less likely to react physically (to hit, shove, or throw items) than cohabiting couples are.48)

Married women are murdered by their spouses at a far lower rate than cohabiting women are murdered by their partners,49) and in Canada, when couples of similar age are compared, murder is rarer among married than cohabiting couples. Similar results have been found in the U.S. Cohabiting women are 8.9 times more likely to be murdered by their partner than married women.50) Married women are less likely to have been forced to perform a sexual act (9 percent) than unmarried women (46 percent).51) Pregnant, married, non-Hispanic white and black women are less likely to be physically abused than those who are divorced or separated.52)

Compared to teenagers from intact families, teenagers from divorced families are more verbally aggressive and violent toward their romantic partners,53) and are more likely to have volatile and violent relationships in adulthood.54) Men raised in stepparent households are also more likely to have physical conflict in their romantic relationships.55)

Married parents are less likely to neglect their children than are divorced parents.56) Children in intact married families suffer less child abuse than children from any other family structure.57) British children were found to be less likely to be injured or killed by abuse in the intact married family than in all other family structures.58)

1) Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Angel, Painful Inheritance: Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Families (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1993): 139, 148. As cited in Glenn T. Stanton, “Why Marriage Matters.” Available at http://www.ampartnership.org/resourcecenter/news/89-why-marriage-matters.html. Accessed 27 July 2011.
2) David Eggenbeen, “Cohabitation and Exchanges of Support,” Social Forces 83, no. 3 (2005): 1105.
3) This chart draws on data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics in the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) in 2003. The data sample consisted of parents of 102,353 children and teens in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 68,996 of these children and teens were between six and 17 years old, the age group that was the focus of the study. The survey sample in this age range represented a population of nearly 49 million young people nationwide.
Nicholas Zill, “Quality of Parent-Child Relationship and Family Structure.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-46-48-164.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2011.
4) This chart draws on data collected by the General Social Survey, 1972-2006. From 1972 to 1993, the sample size averaged 1,500 each year. No GSS was conducted in 1979, 1981, or 1992. Since 1994, the GSS has been conducted only in even-numbered years and uses two samples per GSS that total approximately 3,000. In 2006, a third sample was added for a total sample size of 4,510.
Patrick F. Fagan and Althea Nagai, “Intergenerational Links to Marital Happiness: Family Structure,” Mapping America Project. Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-31-33-159.pdf
5) This chart draws on data collected by the General Social Survey, 1972-2006. From 1972 to 1993, the sample size averaged 1,500 each year. No GSS was conducted in 1979, 1981, or 1992. Since 1994, the GSS has been conducted only in even-numbered years and uses two samples per GSS that total approximately 3,000. In 2006, a third sample was added for a total sample size of 4,510.
Patrick F. Fagan and Althea Nagai, “The Personal Importance of Having Children by Marital Status.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-79-81-175.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2011.
6) Arland Thornton, William G. Axinn, and Daniel H. Hill, “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage,” The American Journal of Sociology 98, no. 3 (1992): 643.
Jiexia Elisa Zhai, et al, “Spiritual, But Not Religious: The Impact of Parental Divorce on the Religious and Spiritual Identities of Young Adults in the United States,“ Review of Religious Research 49, no. 4 (June 2008): 390, 391.
7) Scott M. Myers, “An Interactive Model of Religiosity Inheritance: The Importance of Family Context,” American Sociological Review (1996): 864.
8) Jiexia Elisa Zhai, et al, “Parental Divorce and Religious Involvement Among Young Adults,” Sociology of Religion 68, no. 2 (2007).
9) Jiexia Elisa Zhai, et al, “Spiritual, But Not Religious: The Impact of Parental Divorce on the Religious and Spiritual Identities of Young Adults in the United States,” Review of Religious Research 49, no. 4 (June 2008): 390, 391.
10) Jeremy E. Uecker, “Losing My Religion: The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood,” Social Forces 85, no. 4 (June 2007): 1667-1692. As cited by The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/22/navigating-the-winding-road-how-family-and-religion-influence-teen-and-young-adult-outcomes. Accessed 20 July 2011.
11) The statistics in this chart draw on data from the General Social Surveys, 1972-2006. From 1972 to 1993, the sample size averaged 1,500 per year. No survey was conducted in 1979, 1981, or 1992. Since 1994, the GSS was conducted only in even-numbered years, with two samples per survey, totaling approximately 3,000 respondents. In 2006, a third sample was added for a total sample size of 4,510.
Patrick F. Fagan and Althea Nagai, “Adult Religious Attendance by Religious Attendance and Family Structure in Adolescence,” Mapping America Project. Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-70-72-172.pdf
12) The statistics in this chart draw on data from the General Social Surveys, 1972-2006. From 1972 to 1993, the sample size averaged 1,500 per year. No survey was conducted in 1979, 1981, or 1992. Since 1994, the GSS was conducted only in even-numbered years, with two samples per survey, totaling approximately 3,000 respondents. In 2006, a third sample was added for a total sample size of 4,510.
Patrick F. Fagan and Althea Nagai, “Adult Religious Attendance by Family Structure in Adolescence.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-70-72-172.pdf. Accessed 26 August 2011.
13) Patrick F. Fagan and Scott Talkington, “‘Likely to Receive Mostly A's’ by Structure of Family of Origin and by Current Religious Attendance.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-100.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2011.
14) Patrick F. Fagan, “Family Structure and School Performance of U.S. High School Students.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-1-3-149.pdf. Accessed 29 August 2011.
15) Patrick F. Fagan and Scott Talkington, “‘Ever Received a High School Degree’ by Structure of Family of Origin and Current Religious Attendance.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-99.pdf. Accessed 30 August 2011.
16) Jan O. Jonsson and Michael Gahler, “Family Dissolution, Family Reconstitution, and Children's Educational Careers: Recent Evidence for Sweden,” Demography 34, no. 2 (1997): 285.
M. A. Monserud and G. H. Elder, “Household Structure and Children's Educational Attainment: A Perspective on Coresidence with Grandparents,” Journal of Marriage and Family no. 73 (2011): 988-990.
17) Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental Cohabitation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 66, no. 2 (2004): 362. Also Jay D. Teachman, “The Living Arrangements of Children and their Educational Well-Being,” Journal of Family Issues 29, no. 6 (2008): 747.
18) Patrick F. Fagan, “Family Structure and Expulsion or Suspension from School.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-19-21-155.pdf. Accessed 22 September 2011. Also Paul R. Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Wellbeing of the Next Generation,” Future of Children 15 (2005): 86. Also Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb, “Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabitating, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 65, no. 4 (2003): 885-893. Also A.U. Rickel and T.S. Langer, “Short-term and Long-term Effects of Marital Disruption on Children,” American Journal of Community Psychology 13, (1985): 599–661.
19) Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 104–05.
20) Wendy Manning and Daniel Lichter, “Parental Cohabitation and Children’s Economic Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58, no. 4 (1996): 1003.
21) U.S. Census Bureau, “Evidence From Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women,” Census 2000 Special Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce, (Washington, D.C. 2004).
Brett V. Brown, “The Single-father Family: Demographic, Economic, and Public Transfer Use Characteristics,” Marriage and Family Review 29, (2000): 203-220.
W. D. Manning, and S. Brown, “Children’s Economic Well-Being in Married and Cohabiting Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family no. 68 (2006): 351-352
22) W. D. Manning, and S. Brown, “Children’s Economic Well-Being in Married and Cohabiting Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 68 (2006): 354.
23) Linda J. Waite, and Evelyn L. Lehrer, “The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis,” Population and Development Review (2003): 258.
24) Kate Antonovics and Robert Town, “Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering Sources of the Marital Wage Premium,” American Economic Review 9, (May 2004): 317-321. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, “The Family GDP: How Marriage and Fertility Drive the Economy,” The Family in America 24, no. 2 (Spring 2010): 141.
25) Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage, Assets, and Savings,” Labor and Population Program, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 16-17. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,” (May 2011). Available at http://marri.us/research/research-papers/marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/. Accessed 20 July 2011.
26) Survey of Consumer Finance, 2007. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,” (May 2011). Available at http://marri.us/research/research-papers/marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/. Accessed 20 July 2011.
27) Statistical Abstract of the United States 2010. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-235 (published August 2008): “Table 683, Median Income of Families by Type of Family in Current and Constant (2007) Dollars.” Available at http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html. Found on July 8, 2010. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Thomas J. Tacoma, Brooke A. Tonne, and Alexander W. Matthews, “The Annual Report on Family Trends: 2011, The Behaviors of the American Family in the Five Major Institutions of Society” (February 2011): 101-102. Available at http://marri.us/family-demographics/the-annual-report-on-family-trends-2011-the-behaviors-of-the-american-family-in-the-five-major-institutions-of-society/. Accessed December 6, 2013.
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-249 (Issued September 2014). “Table 1, Income and Earnings Summary Measures by Selected Characteristics: 2012 and 2013.” Available at http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.pdf Accessed 17 June 2015.
28) Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage, Assets, and Savings,” in Marriage and the Economy: Theory and Evidence From Advanced Industrial Societies, ed. Shoshana A. Grossbard-Schectman (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 129-152. As cited by The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/31/family-structure-and-economic-well-being. Accessed 20 July 2011. Also Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage, Assets, and Savings,” Labor and Population Program, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 20. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,” (May 2011). Available at http://marri.us/research/research-papers/marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/. Accessed July 2011.
29) Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage, Assets, and Savings,” Labor and Population Program, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 33.
Matthew Painter, and Jonathan Vespa, “The Role of Cohabitation in Asset and Debt Accumulation During Marriage,” Journal Of Family & Economic Issues 33, no. 4 (December 2012): 491, 499, 503.
30) M. A. Z. Knoll, C. R. Tamborini, and K. Whitman, “I Do … Want to Save: Marriage and Retirement Savings in Young Households”, Journal of Marriage and Family no. 74 (2012): 86, 92-93.
31) Survey of Consumer Finance, Federal Reserve Board (2007). As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,” (May 2011): Chart 5: Median Net Worth of Households with Children by Family Structure. Available at http://marri.us/research/research-papers/marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/. Accessed 1 September 2011.
32) Specifically, family intactness has a very precisely determinable, negative influence on an area’s fraction of 25- to 54-year-olds and minors receiving public healthcare.
Precision has no formal meaning. It indicates how clearly determinable (distinguishable from zero) an influence on an outcome is. Precision is comparable to standard deviation. Low/ no precision indicates a high standard of deviation in which data points spread over a large range of value, signifying that the influence of one variable over another is relatively uncertain. High precision indicates a low standard of deviation in which data points hover around the mean, signifying that the influence of one variable over another is relatively certain. For further elaboration see “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage”
Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan, U.S. Social Policy Dependence on the Family, Derived from the Index of Belonging, (Washington, D.C.: Marriage and Religion Research Institute, 2013), 45-46. Available at http://marri.us/research/research-papers/u-s-social-policy-dependence-on-the-family/
33) Specifically, family intactness has a very precisely determinable, positive influence on an area’s fraction of 25- to 54-year-olds and minors with private healthcare coverage.
Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan, “U.S. Social Policy Dependence on the Family, Derived from the Index of Belonging,” (2013). Available at http://marri.us/research/research-papers/u-s-social-policy-dependence-on-the-family/.
34) R.G. Wood, B. Goesling, and S. Avellar, The Effects of Marriage on Health: Synthesis of Current Research Evidence, Contract # 233-02-0086 (Washington, D.C.: ASPE, HHS 2007). Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/marriageonhealth/index.htm. As cited in Jana Staton, “Making the Connection Between Healthy Marriage and Health Outcomes: What the Research Says” National Healthy Marriage Resource Center Research Brief (2009): 1-18. Available at http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/resource-detail/index.aspx?rid=3649. Accessed 8 September 2011. Also Lauren Duberstein Lindberg and Susheela Singh “Sexual Behavior of Single Adult American Women,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40, no. 1 (March 2008): 1
35) P.M. Prior and B.C. Hayes, “Marital Status and Bed Occupancy in Health and Social Care Facilities in the United Kingdom,” Public Health 115, (2001): 402. Lois M. Verbrugge, “Marital Status and Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 41, no. 2 (1979): 278.
36) Howard S. Gordon and Gary E. Rosenthal, “Impact of Marital Status on Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients: Evidence from an Academic Medical Center,” Archives of Internal Medicine 155, (1995): 2467.
37) Lois Verbrugge and Donald Balaban, “Patterns of Change, Disability and Well-Being,” Medical Care 27, (1989): S128-S147. As cited in Glenn T. Stanton, “Why Marriage Matters.” Available at http://www.ampartnership.org/resourcecenter/news/89-why-marriage-matters.html. Accessed 27 July 2011.
38) Howard S. Gordon and Gary E. Rosenthal, “Impact of Marital Status on Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients: Evidence from an Academic Medical Center,” Archives of Internal Medicine 155, (1995): 2466, 2468.
39) Arjan A.J. Blokland and Paul Nieuwbeerta, “The Effects of Life Circumstances on Longitudinal Trajectories of Offending,” Criminology 43, (2005): 1220-1224.
40) Ryan D. King, Michael Massoglia, and Ross McMillan, “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending in Early Adulthood,” Criminology 445, (2007): 33-65. As cited by The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/26/marriage-and-family-as-deterrents-from-delinquency-violence-and-crime. Accessed 22 September 2011. Also Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub, “Crime and Deviance Over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds,” American Sociology Review 55, (1990): 609-627.
W. Forrest, “Cohabitation, Relationship Quality, and Desistance From Crime,” Journal of Marriage and Family no. 76 (2014): 547-549.
41) Anu Sauvola, The Association Between Single-Parent Family Background and Physical Morbidity, Mortality, and Criminal Behaviour in Adulthood, PhD dissertation, University of Oulu. (Oulu, Finland: Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Medica D) 629, 47-52.
42) Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, no. 1 (February 2004): 58-81. As cited on The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/26/marriage-and-family-as-deterrents-from-delinquency-violence-and-crime. Accessed 20 July 2011.
43) Anu Sauvola, “The Association Between Single-Parent Family Background and Physical Morbidity, Mortality, and Criminal Behaviour in Adulthood,” PhD dissertation, University of Oulu (Oulu, Finland: Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Medica D.) 629, 47-52.
44) This chart draws on a large national sample (16,000) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. This work was done by the author in cooperation with former colleagues at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Patrick F. Fagan, “Family Structure and Theft.” Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-22-24-156.pdf. Accessed 29 August 2011.
45) This chart draws on a large national sample (16,000) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. This work was done by the author in cooperation with former colleagues at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Patrick F. Fagan, “Family Structure and Shoplifting,” Mapping America Project. Available at http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/MA-10-12-152.pdf
46) Catherine T. Kenney and Sara S. McLanahan, “Why Are Cohabiting Relationships More Violent than Marriages?” Demography 43, (2006): 133. Also Jan Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, no. 3 (1991): 674. Also Galena Kline, et al., “Timing Is Everything: Pre-Engagement Cohabitation and Increased Risk for Poor Marital Outcomes,” Journal of Family Psychology 18, no. 2 (2004): 315.
47) Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk Johnson, “Marriage: The safest place for women and children,” Backgrounder no. 1535, The Heritage Foundation, 2002.
48) Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case For Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2002).
49) Todd Shackelford, “Cohabitation, Marriage, and Murder: Woman-Killing by Male Romantic Partners,” Aggressive Behavior 27, (2001): 285-286.
50) Margo Wilson, Martin Daly, and Christine Wright, “Uxoricide in Canada: Demographic risk patterns,” Canadian Journal of Criminology 35, (1993): 277.
Todd K. Shackelford, “Cohabitation, Marriage, and Murder: Woman-Killing by Male Romantic Partners,” Aggressive Behavior 27, no. 4 (July 2001): 285, 288.
51) Edward O. Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Also called the “Sex in America” survey, this study used data from the National Health and Social Life Survey, a stratified clustered sample of 3,432 individuals.
52) A.B. Berenson, et al., “Drug Abuse and Other Risk Factors for Physical Abuse in Pregnancy Among White Non-Hispanic, Black, and Hispanic Women,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 164, (1991): 1491-1499.
53) Robert E. Billingham and Nicole L. Notebaert, “Divorce and Dating Violence Revisited: Multivariate Analyses Using Straus’s Conflict Tactics Subscores,” Psychological Reports 73, (1993): 679-684.
54) David M. Fergusson, Geraldine F. H. McLeod, and L. John Horwood, “Parental Separation/Divorce in Childhood and Partnership Outcomes at Age 30,” Journal Of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (April 2014): 355,357.
55) Sarah Halpern-Meekin, et al, “Relationship Churning, Physical Violence, and Verbal Abuse in Young Adult Relationships,” Journal of Marriage & Family 75, no. 1 (February 2013): 8.
56) Y. Egami, “Psychiatric Profile and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adults Who Report Physically Abusing or Neglecting Children,” American Journal of Psychiatry 153, (1996): 921–928.
57) A.J. Sedlak, et al., Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress (2010): 5-19.
58) Patrick F. Fagan, “The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community,” Backgrounder no. 1115, The Heritage Foundation, (1997): 11.


This entry heavily draws from 164 Reasons to Marry.