The Importance of MARRIAGE Is Being Overlooked Married people drink, smoke, and abuse substances less; live longer; earn more; are wealthier; and have children who do better. Yet, many public policies undermine marriage. by Linda J. Waite MARRIAGE seems to be less popular with Americans now than in the past. Men and women are marrying for the first time at much older ages than their parents did. They are divorcing more and living together more often and for longer periods. Perhaps most troubling, they are becoming unmarried parents at record rates. What are the implications, for individuals, of these increases in nonmarriage? If marriage is thought of as an insurance policy--which the institution is, in some respects--does it matter if more people are uninsured or are insured with a term rather than a whole-life policy? It does matter, because marriage typically provides important and substantial benefits, to individuals as well as society. Marriage improves the health and longevity of men and women; gives them access to a more active and satisfying sex life; increases wealth and assets; boosts children’s chances for success; and enhances men’s performance at work and their earnings. A quick look at marriage patterns today compared to, say, 1950 illustrates the extent of recent changes. Figures from the Census Bureau show that, at the height of the baby boom, about one-third of adult whites were not married. Some were waiting to marry for the first time; others were divorced or widowed and not remarried. Nevertheless, most Americans married at least once at some point in their lives, generally in their early 20s. In 1950, the proportion of black adults not married was approximately equal to that among whites, but since that time, marriage behavior of blacks and whites has diverged dramatically. By 1993, 61% of black women and 58% of black men were not married, compared to 38% of white men and 41% of white women. In contrast to 1950, when slightly over one black adult in three was not married, a majority of black adults are unmarried today. Insofar as marriage “matters,” black men and women are much less likely than whites to share in the benefits than they were even a generation ago. The decline in marriage intimately is connected to the rise in cohabitation--living with someone in a sexual relationship without being married. Although Americans are less likely to be wed today than they were several decades ago, if both marriage and cohabitation are counted, they are about as likely to be “coupled.” If cohabitation provides the same benefits to individuals marriage does, then is it necessary to be concerned about this shift? Yes, because a valuable social institution arguably is being replaced by one that demands and offers less. Perhaps the most disturbing change in marriage appears in its relationship to parenthood. Today, a third of all births occur to women who are not married, with huge, but shrinking, differences between blacks and whites in this behavior. One-fifth of births to white mothers and two-thirds of births to blacks currently take place outside marriage. Although about a quarter of the white unmarried mothers are living with someone when they give birth, so that their children are born into two-parent--if unmarried--families, very few black children born to unwed mothers live with their fathers, too. These changes in marriage behavior are a cause for concern because, on a number of important dimensions, married men and women do better than those who are unmarried. The evidence suggests that is because they are married. Healthy behaviors. Married people tend to lead healthier lives than otherwise similar men and women who are not. For example, a 1997 national survey about problem drinking during the past year compared the prevalence of this unhealthy behavior among divorced, widowed, and married men and women. Problem drinking was defined as drinking more than subjects planned to, failing to do things they should have done because of drinking, and/or drinking to the point of hurting their health. Responses showed much lower rates of problem drinking for married than for unmarried men and extremely low reports of this condition for married or unmarried women. Excessive drinking seems to be a particularly male pattern of social pathology, one that females generally manage to avoid. However, unmarried women report higher levels of other unhealthy acts than married women, in particular “risk-taking behavior.” Risk taking reflects accidents around the house, while in the car, or on the job caused by carelessness; taking chances by driving too fast or doing things that might endanger others; and/or having serious arguments or fights at home or outside the home. Males and females reveal similar levels of risk taking on national surveys, but married men and women reflect much lower levels than those who are divorced. University of Texas sociologist Debra Umberson examined a series of negative health behaviors in addition to those discussed here, such as marijuana use, drinking and driving, substance abuse, and failure to maintain an orderly lifestyle. She concludes that divorced and widowed men and women are more likely than their married counterparts to engage in unhealthy behaviors and less likely to lead an orderly and healthy life. How does marriage affect healthy behaviors? It provides individuals--especially men--with someone who monitors their health and health-related behaviors and encourages them to drink and smoke less, eat a healthier diet, get enough sleep, and generally take care of their health. In addition, husbands and wives offer each other moral support that helps in dealing with stressful situations. Married men especially seem to be motivated to avoid risky behaviors and take care of their health by the sense of meaning that marriage gives to their lives and the sense of obligation to others that it brings. Mortality. Married men and women appear to live healthier lives. Perhaps as a result, they face lower risks of dying at any point than those who never have married or whose previous marriage has ended. With RAND Corporation economist Lee Lillard, I used a large national survey--the Panel Study of Income Dynamics--to follow men and women over a 20-year period. We watched them get married, get divorced, and remarry. We observed the death of spouses and of the individuals themselves. When we compared deaths of married men and women to those who were not married, we found that, once other factors were taken into account, the former show the lowest chances of dying. Widowed women were much better off than divorced women or those who never have married, although they still were disadvantaged when compared with married women. All men who were not married currently faced higher risks of dying than married men, regardless of their marital history. Other researchers have found similar differentials in death rates for unmarried adults in a number of countries besides the U.S. How does marriage reduce the risk of dying and lengthen life? First, it appears to reduce risky and unhealthy behaviors. Second, it increases material well-being--income, assets, and wealth. These can be used to purchase better medical care, a healthier diet, and safer surroundings, all of which lengthen life. This material improvement seems to be especially important for women. Third, marriage provides individuals with a network of help and support, with others who rely on them and on whom they can rely. This seems to be especially important for men. Marriage also provides adults with an onsite, readily available sex partner. Sexual satisfaction In 1991, a national survey research organization conducted the National Health and Social Life Survey on a probability sample of 3,432 adults. It asked, among other things, how often they had sex with a partner. Married respondents reported levels of sexual activity about twice as high as singles. Married men cited a mean frequency of sexual activity about twice as high as singles. Married men cited a mean frequency of sexual activity of 6.8 times and single men 3.6 times per month over the last year. Married women indicated a mean of 6.1 times and single women 3.2 times per month over the last year. Cohabiting men and women also reported higher rates of sexual activity--7.4 and 7.2 times per month, respectively, over the past year--suggesting that, as far as sexual activity, cohabitation surpasses marriage in its benefits to the individuals involved. I also examined levels of physical satisfaction people cited from sex with their husband or wife, their cohabiting partner, or the primary partner identified by singles and found that married men more often said that sex with their wives was extremely pleasurable than cohabiting men or single men indicated that sex with their partners was. The high level of married men’s physical satisfaction with their sex lives contradicts the popular view that sexual newness or variety improves sex for men. Physical satisfaction with sex is about the same for married women, cohabiting women, and single women with sex partners. In addition to reporting more active sex lives than singles, married men and women say they are more emotionally satisfied with their sex lives than do those who are single or cohabiting. Although cohabitors report levels of sexual activity slightly higher than married people, both cohabiting men and women cite lower levels of satisfaction with their sex lives. In all comparisons where there is a difference, the married are more satisfied than the unmarried. How does marriage improve one’s sex life? Marriage and cohabitation provide individuals with a readily available sexual partner with whom they have an established, ongoing sexual relationship. Since married couples expect to carry on their sex lives for many years, and since most married couples are monogamous, husbands and wives have strong incentives to learn what pleases their partner in bed and to become good at it. Then, sex with a partner who knows what one likes and how to provide it becomes more satisfying than sex with a partner who lacks such skills. The emotional ties that exist in marriage increase sexual activity and satisfaction with it as well. Assets and wealth. In addition to having more sex, married couples have more money. Household wealth--one comprehensive measure of financial well-being--includes pension plans and Social Security, real and financial assets, and the value of the primary residence. According to RAND economist James Smith, married men and women age 51-60 had median wealth in 1992 of about $66,000, compared to $42,000 for the widowed, $35,000 for those who never had married, $34,000 among those who were divorced, and $7,600 for those who were separated. Although married couples have higher incomes than others, this fact accounts for just about a quarter of their greater wealth. Married couples can share many household goods and services, such as a television set and heat, so the cost to each individual is lower than if each one purchased and used the same items individually. Thus, they spend less than they would for the same style of life if they lived separately. Second, married people produce more than the same individuals would if they were single. Each spouse can develop some skills and neglect others, because he or she can count on the other to take responsibility for some of the household work. The resulting specialization increases efficiency and, as will be shown, leads to higher wages for men. Moreover, married couples seem to save more at the same level of income than singles. Children’s well-being. To this point, we have focused on the consequences of marriage for adults--the men and women who choose to marry (and stay married) or not--but these choices have consequences for the children borne by these adults as well. Sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur compared children raised in intact, two-parent families with those raised in one-parent families, resulting either from disruption of a marriage or from unmarried childbearing. They found that approximately twice as many teenagers raised in one-parent families drop out of high school without finishing. Children raised in one-parent families are more likely to become mothers or fathers while teenagers and to be “idle”--both out of school and out of the labor force--as young adults. Youngsters living outside an intact marriage are more likely to be poor. McLanahan and Sandefur calculated poverty rates for children in two-parent families--including stepfamilies--and for single-parent families. They found very high rates of poverty for single-parent families, especially among blacks. Donald Hernandez, chief of marriage and family statistics at the Census Bureau, estimates that the rise in mother-only families since 1959 is an important cause of increases in poverty among children. Clearly, poverty, in and of itself, is a bad outcome for kids. In addition, McLanahan and Sandefur estimate that the lower incomes of single-parent families account for about half of the worse outcomes of youngsters in these families, including higher dropout rates and unmarried childbearing. The other half comes from children’s access--or lack of access--to the time and attention of two adults in two-parent families. Presence of two parents potentially means more parental supervision, more parental time helping with homework, and another parental shoulder to cry on after a hard day. Youngsters in one-parent families not only spend less time with their fathers (not surprising, given that most don’t live with them), but less time with their mothers than those in two-parent families. Single-parent families and stepfamilies move much more frequently than two-parent families. These moves are extremely difficult for kids, both academically and socially. Finally, individuals who spent part of their childhood in a single-parent family, either because they were born to an unmarried mother or because their parents divorced, report substantially lower-quality relationships with their parents as adults and have less frequent contact with them, according to University of Washington demographer Diane Lye. Labor force and career. Wharton School economist Kermit Daniel has examined the difference in the wages of young men and women who are single, cohabiting, and married, once one takes into account other characteristics that might affect salaries, and labels the remaining difference a “wage premium” for marriage. He finds that both black and white men receive a wage premium if they are married: 4.5% for blacks and 6.3% for whites. Black women receive a marriage premium of almost three percent. White women, however, pay a marriage penalty, in hourly wages, of more than four percent. Men appear to receive some of the benefit of marriage if they cohabitate, but women do not. For women, Daniel finds that marriage and presence of children together seem to affect wages, and the effects depend on the woman’s race. Childless black women earn substantially more money if they are married, but the marriage premium drops with each kid they have. Among white women, just the childless receive a marriage premium. Once white women become mothers, marriage decreases their earnings compared to remaining single (without children), with very large negative effects of marriage on females’ earnings for those with two offspring or more. White married women often choose to reduce hours of work when they have children. They make less per hour than either unmarried mothers or childless wives. Why should being married increase men’s wages? Some researchers think that it makes men more productive at work, leading to higher wages. Wives may assist husbands directly with their work, offer advice or support, or take over household tasks, freeing their spouses’ time and energy for work. As mentioned earlier, being married reduces drinking, substance abuse, and other unhealthy behaviors that may affect men’s job performance. Finally, marriage increases men’s incentives to perform well at work, so as to meet obligations to family members. To this point, all the consequences of marriage for the individuals involved have been unambiguously positive--better health, longer life, more sex and more satisfaction with it, more wealth, and higher earnings. However, the effects of marriage and children on white women’s wages are mixed, at best. Marriage and cohabitation increase women’s time spent on housework; married motherhood reduces their time in the labor force and lowers their wages. Although the family as a whole might be better off with this allocation of females’ time, women generally share their husbands’ market earnings only while they are married. Financial well-being declines dramatically for women and their offspring after divorce or widowhood. Women whose marriages have ended often are quite disadvantaged financially by their investment in their husbands and children, rather than in their own earning power. Recent changes in law that make divorce easier seem to have exacerbated this situation, even while increases in women’s education and work experience have moderated it. Is marriage responsible? The obvious question, when one looks at all these benefits of marriage, is whether marriage is responsible for the differences. If all, or almost all, arise because those who enjoy better health, live longer lives, or earn higher wages anyway are more likely to marry, then marriage is not “causing” any changes in these outcomes. Social scientists vigorously and often acrimoniously debate the extent to which marriage is responsible for these better outcomes. When politicians point to the high social costs and taxpayer burdens imposed by disintegrating “family values,” they overlook the fact that individuals do not make the decisions that lead to unwed parenthood, marriage, or divorce on the basis of what is good for society. They weigh the costs and benefits of each of these choices to themselves--and sometimes their children. Social scientists have a responsibility to measure the evidence on the consequences of social behaviors in the same way as medical researchers evaluate the evidence on the consequences of, say, cigarette smoking or exercise. As evidence accumulates and is communicated to the public, some people will change their behavior as a result. Some will make different choices than they otherwise would have because of their understanding of the costs and benefits, to them, of the options involved. To continue with the example of medical issues such as smoking or exercise, behaviors have been seen to change substantially because research findings have been communicated to the public. In addition, there have been changes in attitudes toward behaviors shown to have negative consequences, affect others, as in the case of smoking. These attitude changes then raise the social cost of newly stigmatized behaviors. HMOs and religious organizations develop programs to help people achieve the desired behavior, and support groups spring up. In addition, society can pull some policy levers to encourage or discourage behaviors. Public policies that include asset tests (Medicaid is a good example) act to exclude the married, as do Aid to Families with Dependent Children programs in most states. The “marriage penalty” in the tax code is another example. In Illinois, young women under the age of 18 who already have become mothers must have their parents’ permission to marry. Sometimes, this leads to a situation in which young couples are able to have children, but can not marry, even if they want to do so. These and other public policies can reinforce or undermine the institution of marriage. If, as I have argued, marriage as a social institution produces individuals who drink, smoke, and abuse substances less, live longer, earn more, are wealthier, and have children who do better, society needs to give more thought and effort to supporting marriage through public policies. Dr. Waite is professor of sociology, University of Chicago (Ill.). From USA Today, January 1999, pp. 46-48. © 1999 by the Society for the Advancement of Education. Reprinted by permission.

Copyright ©2002 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin is a unit of McGraw-Hill Higher Education and is one of the many fine businesses of The McGraw-Hill Companies. For further information about this site, contact [email protected].