research articles about marriage

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

A research-based approach to relationships

Marriage and Couples

Home » Our Mission » Research » Marriage and Couples

The infographic below highlights some of Dr. John Gottman’s most notable research findings on marriage and couple relationships. For a more in-depth review of the three phases of Gottman’s research with marriage and couples, continue reading.

Phase 1: The Discovery of Reliable Patterns of Interaction Discriminating the “Masters” From the “Disasters” of Relationships

In 1976, Dr. Robert Levenson and Dr. John Gottman teamed up to combine the study of emotion with psycho-physiological measurement and a video-recall method that gave us rating dial measures (still applying game theory) of how people felt during conflict. This was the new way of getting the “talk table” numbers. The research also became longitudinal. They made no predictions in the first study, but they were interested in a measure of “physiological linkage,” because a prior study showed that the skin conductance of two nurses was correlated only if they disliked one another. They thought that might be linked to negative affect in couples. Indeed it was.

They were also amazed that in their first study with 30 couples they were able to “predict” the change in marital satisfaction almost perfectly with their physiological measures. The results revealed that the more physiologically aroused couples were (in all channels, including heart rate, skin conductance, gross motor activity, and blood velocity), the more their marriages deteriorated in happiness over a three-year period, even controlling the initial level of marital satisfaction.

The rating dial and their observational coding of the interaction also “predicted” changes in relationship satisfaction. Such large correlations in the data were unprecedented. Furthermore, Gottman and Levenson had preceded the conflict conversation with a reunion conversation (in which couples talked about the events of their day before the conflict discussion), and they had followed the conflict discussion with a positive topic. Gottman and Levenson were amazed to discover that harsh startup by women in the conflict discussion was predictable by the male partner’s disinterest or irritability in the events of the day discussion. They found that the quality of the couple’s friendship, especially as maintained by men, was critical in understanding conflict. Furthermore, the ability to rebound from, or “repair” , conflict to the positive conversation became a marker of emotion regulation ability of couples.

Both Levenson and Gottman had discovered Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. Wallace Friesen’s Facial Affect Coding System (FACS), and Gottman subsequently developed the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) , which was an integration of FACS and earlier systems in the Gottman lab.

The SPAFF became the main system that Gottman used to code couples’ interaction. At first, it took 25 hours to code 15 minutes of interaction, but later Gottman was able to get the same coding done in just 45 minutes, with no loss of reliability. Gottman also began applying time-series analysis to the analysis of interaction data. He wrote, Time-Series Analysis: A Comprehensive Introduction for Social Scientists , a book on time-series analysis to explain these methods to psychologists, and developed some new methods for analyzing dominance and bi-directionality with James Ringland.

Phase 2: Prediction and the Replication of the Prediction

Soon after, Gottman and Levenson received their first grant together and began attempting to replicate their observations from the first study. The subsequent studies they conducted in their labs with colleagues eventually spanned the entire life course — with the longest of the studies following couples for 20 years, in Levenson’s Berkeley lab.

The Gottman lab at the University of Illinois also studied the linkages between marital interaction, parenting, and children’s social development with Dr. Lynn Katz, and later at the University of Washington involved studying these linkages with infants with Dr. Alyson Shapiro. Gottman developed the concept of “meta-emotion” , which is how people feel about emotion (such as specific emotions like anger), emotional expression, and emotional understanding in general. Meta-emotion mismatches between parents in that study predicted divorce with 80% accuracy.

Gottman and Levenson discovered that couples interaction had enormous stability over time (about 80% stability in conflict discussions separated by 3 years). They also discovered that most relationship problems (69%) never get resolved but are “perpetual problems” based on personality differences between partners.

In seven longitudinal studies, one with violent couples (with Neil Jacobson), the predictions replicated. Gottman could predict whether a couple would divorce with an average of over 90% accuracy, across studies using the ratio of positive to negative SPAFF codes, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt, and Stonewalling), physiology, the rating dial, and an interview they devised, the Oral History Interview , as coded by Kim Buehlman’s coding system.

Gottman could predict whether or not their stable couples would be happy or unhappy using measures of positive affect during conflict. With Dr. Jim Coan, he discovered that positive affect was used not randomly, but to physiologically soothe the partner. Gottman also discovered that in heterosexual relationships, men accepting influence from their wives was predictive of happy and stable marriages. Bob Levenson also discovered that humor was physiologically soothing and that empathy had a physiological substrate (in research with Dr. Anna Ruef), using the rating dial.

Phase 3: Theory Building, Understanding, and Prevention & Intervention

The third phase of Gottman’s research program was devoted to trying to understand the empirical predictions, and thus building and then testing theory. Ultimately, Gottman aimed to build a theory that was testable or disconfirmable.

Testing theory in the psychological field requires clinical interventions. In 1996, the Gottman lab returned to intervention research with Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. John and Julie Gottman designed both proximal and distal change studies. In a proximal change study, one intervenes briefly with interventions designed only to make the second of two conflict discussions less divorce-prone. In one of these studies, they discovered that a 20-minute break, in which couples stopped talking and just read magazines (as their heart rates returned to baseline), dramatically changed the discussion, so that people had access to their sense of humor and affection.

Together with Julie, John Gottman started building the Sound Relationship House Theory . That theory became the basis of the design of clinical interventions for couples in John Gottman’s book,  The Marriage Clinic , and Julie Gottman’s book,  The Marriage Clinic Casebook . In August of 1996, they founded The Gottman Institute to continue to develop evidence-based approaches to improving couples therapy outcomes.

Read more about The Gottman Institute’s mission here .

• Open access
• Published: 21 June 2021

Improved couple satisfaction and communication with marriage and relationship programs: are there gender differences?—a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Zeinab Javadivala   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0231-8189 1 ,
• Hamid Allahverdipour   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3700-6185 2 ,
• Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3284-9749 3 , 4 ,
• Somaye Azimi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6493-9584 1 ,
• Neda Gilani   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5399-0277 5 &
• Vijay Kumar Chattu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9840-8335 6  

Systematic Reviews volume  10 , Article number:  178 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

7617 Accesses

2 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

The aspects of marriage and relationship and their effect on couples’ satisfaction are essential and critical aspects to be explored in this globalized and contemporary world. Since there are no reported meta-analysis and systematic reviews conducted in the last two decades in this area, we aimed to investigate the effect of marriage and relationship programs (MRP) on couples’ relationship satisfaction (CRS) and couples’ relationship communication (CRC) and also to determine the gender differences if any.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and July 26, 2019, were retrieved from several online electronic databases such as Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The reported summary statistics were calculated as random effects models based on the heterogeneity between the studies model. Funnel plots and the Egger regression test was used to confirm the presence of any publication bias.

Of the total 12 intervention studies included, five (5) are education/communication skills programs, three (3) enrichment programs, and four (4) therapy programs. The impact of these programs was investigated on CRS and CRC. Therapy programs had a larger effect than other programs (pooled MD: 0.53 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.71, I 2 = 71.5% p = 0.0001) and had a larger effect size on wives (pooled MD: 0.53 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.80, I 2 = 74.1% p = 0.0001) than husbands RS (pooled MD: 0.26 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, I 2 = 72.4% p = 0.0001). In RC (relationship communication) area, the Enhancement programs showed the small to large effect on CRC (pooled MD: 1.31 (95% CI = 0.13 to 2.50, I 2 = 94.7% p = 0.0001)) and educational programs showed small to medium effect (pooled MD: 0.32 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.50, I 2 = 74.5% p = 0.0001) on women and no effect on men.

Due to the high effect of the therapy programs on CRS and enhancement program on CRC in the current meta-analysis, the priority of their utilizations in interventions, especially by psychologists and mental health professionals, should be emphasized. Therefore, mental health planning in communities to develop MRP and care for couples’ health should be given special attention to men’s health. Due to the high heterogeneity of the results and with scanty literature in this specific domain, we are uncertain about their actual effect. However, well-designed RCTs with a larger sample size would be beneficial in closely examining the effect of MRPs on CRS and CRC.

Peer Review reports

Globally, one of the most significant transitions in the human life course in almost every country is either denial from marriage and/or delays in marriage with an increase in cohabitation, divorce rate, remaining single, plus a combination of any of these [ 1 ]. Among these factors, marital conflict and subsequent divorce can have adverse consequences for the family and the community [ 2 ]. Divorce always is painful and damaging, especially for the divorcing parents and children [ 3 ]. There is extensive research evidence that suggests that growing up with single parents is associated with an elevated risk of involvement in crime by adolescents and face the most significant barriers to success in school and the workforce [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. As Heintz suggests, many interventions might prevent divorce and toxic marriage duration, such as compassionate support, encouragement and training, assisting through their difficulties, and developing the skills needed to create and maintain happy and successful marriages [ 3 ].

Recent studies in this area indicated that married adults could benefit more than single ones [ 7 , 8 ]. Marriage offers a certain degree of economic and social stability with improved health and greater satisfaction that unmarried adults do not feel [ 8 ]. Besides, it was found that married women are happier than those who were single and have more psychological wellbeing [ 7 , 9 ]. However, studies by Jackson et al indicated the mental health benefits of being married extend equally to men and women [ 10 , 11 ]. This issue’s importance is seen in the debate over whether men and women differ in their mental health response to change in marital satisfaction and communication. Though the research results were statistically significant in this study, the gender differences in marital satisfaction between wives and husbands were minimal, with wives slightly less satisfied than husbands; however, this dissatisfaction was found to be higher among wives in marital therapy than the wives in the general population [ 10 ]. However, there were no significant gender differences among couples in the general population as per the study findings of Jackson et al and Gager et al. [ 10 , 12 ].

Various types of marriage and relationship program (MRP) currently exist to increase marriages and relationships, including education/communication skills, enrichment, premarital, counseling, and therapy programs [ 13 ]. A meta-analysis published in 2005 has shown the effect of MRP on couples’ relationship satisfaction and communication [ 13 ]. Also, the recent literature and the meta-analysis by Jackson et al. indicates that there has been a substantial shift in the distribution of power in marital relationships over the last few decades [ 10 ]. According to our knowledge, no recent systematic meta-analysis or study has investigated the impact of MRP on couple satisfaction. Although there were some studies conducted between 2000 and 2019, they have investigated/ reviewed only one specific program such as marriage education [ 14 ] or focused only on a particular outcome, such as sexual function [ 15 ]. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is a contradiction among moderator variables crucial to practitioners and policymakers, e.g., participants’ gender differences.

Our meta-analysis exercise aimed to conduct a comprehensive review of articles published in the last 20 years that investigated the effect of MRP on couples’ relationship satisfaction (CRS) and couples’ relationship communication (CRC) and also to determine any gender differences.

Search strategy

The current meta-analysis was conducted according to recommendations and standards set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Supplementary file 1 ) [ 16 ]. A systematic literature review was performed in all major databases for interventional studies that examined the efficacy of MRP interventions and used CRS and/or CRC as an outcome. Both published and unpublished studies were searched by a health sciences librarian in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library up to July 26, 2019. Besides, a hand search was performed by selecting seemingly relevant articles from the reference list of each included study. To access the concepts of satisfaction, communication, relationship/marriage program, couple and intervention, and numerous text word phrases, using both adjacency operators and truncation to reach the variations in spelling and phrasing, were utilized. Synonymous phrases were first composed with the Boolean “OR”. The five concepts (i.e., satisfaction, communication, relationship/marriage program, couple, and intervention) were then composed with the Boolean “AND”. As detailed in Fig. 1 , this search resulted in 5701 non-duplicated records.

PRISMA flow diagram detailing the search strategy

Inclusion criteria

We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria using the PICO framework. P opulation: heterosexual couples who had an intimate relationship were included. Couples were excluded if they had an alcohol addiction, a history of suffering from mental illness or cancer and other chronic diseases, being infertile or pregnant; I ntervention: marriage and relationship programs. Therapeutic interventions were excluded from providing a clear description of the effects of a psychoeducational intervention. Therapeutic interventions generally have more substantial results than psychoeducational interventions. Studies that aimed to increase sexual functioning were also excluded. C omparison: marriage and relationship programs versus no-treatment / waiting list control group; O utcomes: measures of CRS and/or CRC with sufficient information to calculate standardized effect sizes and weights.

Studies reported both wife and husband outcome data separately. Studies include randomized control trials (RCTs) design and/or studies using randomization method, random assignment to intervention and control group, and having a control group. The experimental studies were excluded if they had no control group. To be included, a study must have been published between 2000 and 2019 as a full research article and included all the data required to calculate intervention effects with no language barrier.

Study selection process

The study selection process began with a title and abstract screening by two independent reviewers (ZJ and SA). The selection was based on the inclusion criteria. Articles passing the initial screen were then retrieved and reviewed by ZJ and SA. Reasons for exclusion are listed in Fig. 1 . Any disagreements in regard to the selection of articles were resolved by discussion among the four reviewers after reaching an agreement (Zj, HA, MA, and SA). The selected articles were managed by ENDNOTE X9 software. Duplicate studies were excluded. Although two papers were in the Korean language [ 17 , 18 ], the most important parts, such as tables, were available in English, and therefore the other required contents were translated using Google translator (Google, 2019).

Outcome measures

We coded measures of relationship quality that assessed two main domains: Relationship satisfaction/dissatisfaction and Relationship communication. All studies ( n = 12) used standardized measures included the following: Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) [ 19 ] ( n = 4), Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) [ 20 ] ( n = 2), Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMSS) [ 21 ], Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) [ 22 ], Index of Marital Satisfaction (IMS) [ 23 ], Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) [ 24 ], Enriching Relationship Issues, Communication and Happiness [ 21 ], and Partnership Questionnaire (PQ) [ 25 ] for assessing relationship satisfaction (RS). For the area/domain of RC, Communication Skill Test (CST) [ 26 ] ( n = 2), Marital Interaction Coding System (MICS) [ 27 ]; Marital Communication Inventory (MCI) [ 28 ], Prepare/Enrich Assessment [ 20 ] ( n = 2), Communication Deterioration Factors tool (CDF) [ 29 ], and Partnership Questionnaire (PQ) [ 26 ] were used.

We examined both immediate post-assessments and follow-up assessments, reporting these separately to reveal improvement (or deterioration) during the time. Timing of follow-up for experimental studies ranged from 3 to 48 months; Einhorn (2010) and Carson (2004) follow-up assessments hold after three (3) months and six (6) months, respectively. Only Haldfor (2000) evaluated the effects of their transition to Self-Regulatory Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (Self-PREP) greater than 12 months of intervention at 12 months and 48 months post-assessment. Considerably, most other studies had only post-assessments without any follow-up.

Data extraction

We classified interventions according to the type of program defined by each article’s author(s), including Enrichment, Education/Communication skills, Counseling and Therapy programs. Other relevant information such as the authors’ names, publication year, the country where the trials were conducted, characteristics of a couple (distressed or un-distressed), study design, type of intervention, the measurement scales, and outcomes were extracted as shown below (Table 1 ).

Risk of bias

The risk of bias was judged using the Cochrane Collaboration tool [ 38 ], which included six domains, as shown in Fig. 2 . Accordingly, each domain was assessed as having a low, unclear, or high risk of bias.

Risk of bias assessment across the studies ( n = 12)

Generation of effect sizes and data analysis

The mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Stata Corp Stata 16 software. The MD divided by the study’s standard deviation was used to create an index, the standardized MD that would be comparable across the studies. This is the approach suggested by Cohen [ 39 ] to describe the magnitude of statistical power analysis effects.

All the studies had provided quantitative data and the weighted mean difference with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed through I squared (I 2 ) statistics, and the criterion of significance was I 2 > 50%. The reported summary statistics were calculated as random effects models based on heterogeneity between the studies model. The chi-square test for heterogeneity was performed to determine whether the results’ distribution was compatible with the assumption that inter-trial differences were attributable to chance variation alone. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05 a priori. The presence of publication bias was examined using funnel plots and the Egger regression test. To reduce heterogeneity and test the results’ robustness, both the subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed.

The literature search from various databases has identified 6847 publications up to July 26, 2019, of which 1146 were excluded as they were duplicates. Around 4400 titles and 1160 abstracts were excluded during the initial screening for the titles and abstracts, and 162 articles were considered for the retrieval of the full texts. Finally, after a detailed assessment, 130 studies were included. An additional eleven studies were obtained by cross-referencing making a final total of 141 studies at this stage. Of the total 141 articles that could be retrieved, thirteen articles were excluded due to a lack of a control group. And among the remaining 116 full-text articles, 71 were excluded due to the lack of statistical information and not receiving email replies from the authors. Additionally, another 45 articles were excluded as they have not reported the effect size for both wife and husband separately ( n = 45). Finally, 12 articles remained that satisfied all the review criteria and were used for meta-analysis for the relationship satisfaction area, and 8 articles remained for the relationship communication area. Notably, 8 articles contain information for both RS and RC areas while 4 articles had information exclusively for the RS theme (Fig. 1 ).

Description of studies

The basic characteristics of the studies are shown in Table 1 . According to the type of programs mentioned above, this review contained 76 evaluations of therapy programs, 35 education/communication skills programs, twenty (20) enrichment programs, and ten (10) counseling programs. However, during computation and reporting of effect sizes, among the 12 studies that remained for meta-analysis for RS, five (5) were education/communication skills programs, three (3) enrichment programs, and four (4) therapy programs. Among the eight studies that remained for meta-analysis for RC, five (5) were education/communication skills programs, two (2) were enrichment programs, and the last one being a therapy program. Usually, therapy and counseling programs happen in a clinical setting with a trained psychologist providing treatment. These programs can be based upon a variety of different treatment formats. In this study, the therapy program included were cognitive-behavioral couple therapy (CBCT), Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT) and Support-Focused Marital Therapy (SFMT). Education and communications skills programs tend to be didactic and support both distressed and non-distressed couples. Enrichment programs are usually limited to normal and healthy couples.

Most ( n = 9) studies were conducted in high-income countries where seven (7) studies are from the USA, one (1) from Germany, and one (1) from Australia. Furthermore, only seven three were conducted in upper- and lower-middle-income countries: 2 from Korea, one (1) from China. The studies included in the meta-analysis had data from 4565 participants (2460 cases and / 2105 controls). All of the entered studies have used randomization methods, random assignment to intervention and control group, and had a control group. However, three (3) studies have reported their study design was a quasi-experimental study [ 17 , 30 , 32 ].

The educational method for Li (2015), Einhorn (2010), and Allen (2011) studies were a weekend workshop; for Alvaro (2001) study, it was held as a seminar, and Doss’s (2016) study ran online calling and chatting. Others used the trained psychologist or trainers for the operation of programs in defined sessions. Kong (2005) and Halford (2000) studies evaluated relationship satisfaction programs with five (5) sessions; Young-Ran (2012), Carson (2004), and Kroger (2017) were between 5 and 10 sessions (6, 8, and 9 sessions perceptively); Hrapczynski (2008) had ten (10) and Shapo (2001) had 12 sessions. For communication skill programs, Alvaro (2001), Allen (2011), and Kroger (2017) have included less than five sessions (4, 4, and 3 sessions perceptively), and Kong (2005), Hrapczynski (2008), Einhorn (2010), Young-Ran (2012), and Li (2015) have held more than five sessions (5, 10, 5, 6, and 6 sessions respectively). Most of the sessions in these studies have lasted for 10 h and above. From the 12 studies, five (5) studies assessed distressed couples, six (6) studies contained non-distressed couples, and one (1) study contained both distressed and non-distressed couples.

The risk of bias was assessed for clinical trials. The bias such as the unclear risk of selection bias (due to lack of information on the method of randomization n = 11 and concealment, n = 12), performance bias (due to lack of information on blinding of participants and personnel, n = 12), and detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment, n = 12) were observed. The risk of bias for the included studies was low for reporting bias, attrition bias, and other sources of bias (Fig. 2 ).

Effects of interventions (meta-analysis results)

Of the total 12 interventions, the impact of five (5) education/communication skills programs, three (3) enrichment programs, and four (4) therapy programs were investigated on RS among couples.

The pooled MD was 0.28 (95% CI = 0.08 to 0.49, I 2 = 79.3% p = 0.0001), 0.24 (95% CI = − 0.12 to 0.60, I 2 = 78.7%, p = 0.855), 0.53 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.71, I 2 = 71.5%, p < 0.0001 0.000) respectively. As a result, the therapy programs showed the medium to large effect on CRS and educational programs showed small to medium effect. But the heterogeneity among studies was high. Enhancement programs showed no effect on CRS (Fig. 3 A). In the area of RC, the enhancement programs showed small to large effect on CRC (pooled MD 1.31 (95% CI = 0.13 to 2.50, I 2 = 94.7% p = 0.0001)) similar to the educational programs which also showed small to medium effect (pooled MD 0.32 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.50, I 2 = 74.5% p = 0.0001). However, the heterogeneity among these studies was high (Fig. 5 A).

Couple relationship satisfaction subgroup analysis based on type of programs ( A ); gender and type of programs ( B ); number of sessions ( C : 1: fewer 5 sessions, 2: between 5 and 10 sessions, 3: more than 10 sessions); gender and number of sessions ( D )

Subgroup analysis

The subgroup analysis conducted for following variables: gender differences (men, women), number of sessions (1: fewer 5 sessions, 2: between 5 and 10 sessions, 3: more than 10 sessions and workshop), total hours of interventions (1: fewer 10 h, 2: between 10 and 15 h, 3: more than 15 h), distress status (distressed and non-distressed), program type (therapy, enrichment, education/communication skills, and counseling). These variables were considered as moderators of marital satisfaction and communication effects based on previous literatures [ 10 , 13 , 14 ]. Subgroup analyses show that effect sizes are different for different subgroups of studies in current study.

In the RS area, the gender-based subgroup analysis showed the therapies had a more significant effect size on wives than husbands, and education was only effective for wives and enhancement programs with no effect for both couples (Fig. 3 B). The subgroup analysis based on the number of sessions showed the between 5 and 10 sessions had a medium to large effect on CRS, and more than ten (10) sessions and workshops had small to medium effect but with high heterogeneity. Moreover, fewer than five (5) sessions did not affect couples’ relationship satisfaction (Fig. 3 C). The subgroup analysis based on both the number of sessions and gender showed between 5 and 10 sessions had a larger effect size on husbands than wives. However, the workshop had no impact, and more than ten (10) sessions had the same effect on husband and wives (Fig. 3 D). The subgroup analysis based on total hours of interventions showed fewer than 10 h of intervention had a medium to large effect on CRS while the more than 10 h had a small to medium effect (Fig. 4 A). The subgroup analysis based on both hours and gender showed fewer than 10 h of intervention had a larger effect on wives’ relationship satisfaction than husbands. In contrast, between 10 and 15 h of intervention were effective only for husbands (Fig. 4 B).

Couple relationship satisfaction subgroup analysis based on number of hours ( A : 1: fewer 10 h, 2: between 10 and 15 h, 3: more than 15 h); gender and number of hours ( B ); status of distress ( C ); gender and status of distress ( D )

The subgroup analysis based on distressed and non-distressed couples showed interventions had small to medium effects on both distressed and non-distressed couples but with high heterogeneity (Fig. 4 C). The subgroup analysis based on both distress/non-distressed and gender showed the interventions had a small to medium effect on both distressed wives and husbands but no effect on both non-distressed wives and husbands (Fig. 4 D). As well, subgroup analysis based on distressed level, program type, and gender showed the only therapy programs were effective for both distressed wives and husbands and merely for non-distressed husband with small to larger effect without heterogeneity. Therapies and educational/communication skills were non-effective for both distressed and non-distressed wives and husbands. Sensitivity analysis did not apply to these results due to non-existing outlier data.

In the RC domain, the gender-based subgroup analysis showed that “education” was effective only for wives (Fig. 5 B). The subgroup analysis based on the “number of sessions” showed that more than 5 sessions had a small to medium effect and less than 5 sessions had small to large effect on couples’ relationship communication (CRC) but with high heterogeneity (Fig. 5 C). The subgroup analysis based on both the “number of sessions” and “gender” showed that less than 5 sessions had a small to medium effect on husbands with no effect on wives. Conversely, more than 5 sessions had a small to large effect on wives with no effect on husbands (Fig. 5 D). The subgroup analysis based on “total hours of interventions” showed a small to large effect on CRC for interventions between 10 and 15 h (Fig. 6 A). The subgroup analysis based on both “hours of intervention” and “gender” showed a small to larger effect on both husband and wives’ relationship communication for interventions between 10 and 15 h. In contrast, more than 10 h of intervention were effective only for wives (Fig. 6 B).

Couple communication skills subgroup analysis based on type of programs ( A ); gender and type of programs ( B ); number of sessions ( C : 1: fewer 5 sessions 2: between 5 and 10 sessions); gender and number of sessions ( D )

Couple communication skills subgroup analysis based on number of hours ( A : 1: fewer 10 h, 2: between 10 and 15 h, 3: more than 15 h); gender and number of hours ( B ); status of distress ( C ); gender and status of distress ( D )

The subgroup analysis based on “distressed” and “non-distressed” couples showed that interventions had “small to medium” effects on distressed couples and “small to large” effect among non-distressed couples but with high heterogeneity (Fig. 6 C). The subgroup analysis based on both “distress/non-distressed” and “gender” showed that the interventions had “small to medium” effect among the distressed wives and “small to large” effect on non-distressed wives with no effect on distressed and non-distressed husbands (Fig. 6 D).

Publication bias

Funnel plot 12 studies showed no evidence suggestive of publication bias, and also, the results of the Egger test were insignificant for publication bias ( p = 0.460) (Fig. 7 ).

Funnel plot of included interventions

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate more critically the effects of recently two past decade MRP on CRS and CRC. Our analyses provide simple and clear evidence that MRPs have a “small to moderate” effect size in the overall improvement of both the CRS (0.22 to 0.50) and CRC (0.30 to 0.73). However, in our study it was found that the effect size was similar for both wives and husbands. The previous meta-analysis [ 13 ] had shown a moderate to larger effect size (0.54 to 0.82) on CRS while it was found to be small to medium effect on CRC (0.06 to 0.45) without any analysis on the gender differences. These variations may be due to differences in inclusion criteria, types of studies, and differences in included studies’ methodological characteristics. Furthermore, the findings from the vast literature indicate that there has been a substantial shift in the distribution of power in marital relationships over the last few decades [ 10 ].

Looking at differences in effect sizes across characteristics of programs discloses some similarities and differences between this study and previous meta-analyses. In our study, while comparing the program types (therapy, enrichment, education/communication skills, and counseling), any study that contained counseling program did not meet our eligibility/inclusion criteria. In contrast, the previous meta-analyses included all program types and counseling had the more effect size. Consistent with Anderson’s study, therapies were most effective compared to education and enrichment programs. The meta-analysis by Hawkins et al. [ 14 ] on marriage and relationship education on relationship quality has shown small effect sizes (0.30 to 0.36) similar to our study (0.01 to 0.40). In this study, the type of RC programs was in coherence with Anderson’s study that assessed therapy, enrichment, and education/communication skills for improving CRC. In this meta-analysis, although all program types were effective in improving couples’ communication, in Anderson’s study only education/ communication skills programs were found to be effective with “small to large” effect. Reasons for this difference may be related to the advent of modern techniques in couple therapy compared to the past.

Due to the high effect of the therapy programs on CRS and enhancement program on CRC in the current meta-analysis, the priority of their utilizations in interventions by psychologists and mental health professionals should be emphasized. Besides, our finding showed that therapy programs in improving RS and educational programs for RC are found to be more effective for women than men. The probable reason could be that the dissatisfied women are more likely to go to clinics and seek treatment to improve their condition [ 10 ], so that the early treatment may have a greater impact on them compared to men. The meta-analysis by Jackson et al. [ 10 ] showed that the dissatisfaction is higher among wives who were referred to marital therapy than the wives in the general population. Also, the wives who were referred to marital therapy were less likely to be satisfied with their marital relationship than the husbands.

Because of the small effect of educational programs on CRS and CRC, the same as the previous meta-analysis [ 13 ], future researchers should implement high quality with innovative strategies developed by psychoeducational professionals and researchers for enhancing the effectiveness. In support of the findings from Anderson’s meta-analyses, the enhancement programs were non-effective in CRS but a large effect on CRC. As enhancement programs are usually developed for non-stressed couples, they might not be very serious about leaning programs and practicing with a partner. Moreover, consistent with our study, previous studies showed that MRP was less effective for RS of non-distressed couple samples than the distressed sample [ 13 , 14 ]. Although this study indicated MRPs are effective on RC of both distressed and non-distressed couple, previous studies showed that MRP had no effect on RC of “non-distressed couple” samples compared to the “distressed couple” sample.

Surprisingly, MRP had more effectiveness for RS of distressed women than did for men and in case of RC of both distressed and non-distressed women, MRP had effectiveness, while it was non-effective for men. Therefore, mental health planning in communities to develop MRP and care for couples’ health should be given special attention to men’s health. Future studies should prioritize special MRPs to improve RS of distressed men and RC of distressed and non-distressed men.

The polled effect size for RS programs with 5 to 10 sessions had a larger effect than programs with more than 10 sessions, while for RC programs with 5 to 10 sessions had a larger effect than programs with less than 5 sessions. Anderson’s study has indicated 5 or more sessions of RS program and RC program are more effective than fewer ones. However, in both studies, less than 10 h of RS and RC programs were more effective than 10 h and above. It seems that in addition to hours and sessions, other factors might be related to increasing effectiveness in MRP. In other words, the longer session or hours might not guarantee the effectiveness of MRP; using beneficial and practical content might be more effective than the number of hours and sessions.

Further studies are needed to examine factors that can enhance the effectiveness of MRP. It is considered that the fewer sessions and hours were more effective for husbands than wives, but with increased sessions and hours, both had the same output in RSP. However, the longer sessions and hours were more effective for wives than husbands in RCP. The other aspect to highlight is that the compact sessions such as seminars and workshops were not effective for the husbands in RSP. That means the husbands might need fewer sessions and fewer hours through consecutive sessions, instead of compact ones such as a workshop, to enhance the RS. Therefore, it would be more interesting if future studies examine the effect of the number of sessions and hours of MRPs between couples and their differences among wives and husbands separately.

In the present study, most studies have been conducted in developed countries such as the USA. Such programs are negligible/ not popular in developing countries due to their poor socio-economic and political conditions. So, providing and supporting opportunities for utilization MRPs and conducting high-quality research in developing countries will play a considerable role in narrowing this gap and increasing their CRS and CRC and family psychological well-being [ 7 , 40 ].

The level of heterogeneity in our results was high. This finding is not surprising as the reviewed studies were used different scales in different cultures with differences in the sample size. The minimum sample size was estimated to be 29, and the maximum was 461 participants. The duration of interventions varied from a 1-day seminar to 12 weeks. The duration for the majority of the interventions ranged from 5 to 10 weeks. Therefore, the heterogeneity of effect size cannot be linked to the studies’ duration as there is no evidence of an association between the duration of intervention and effect size.

Delimitations and limitations of the study must be acknowledged. Different types of interventional programs and the pooling of various treatments together may be considered as we found other factors for the heterogeneity in our study findings. By applying the random effect model, we have tried to control heterogeneity to account for various studies’ variations. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to decrease heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis to assess the soundness of the results. However, no substantial reduction was detected in the observed heterogeneity. Variation in the tools applied to measure the change in MRP was recognized as a main limiting factor.

Additionally, a few numbers of measures were not validated. The nocebo effect is a substantial problem in psychosocial interventions [ 41 ]. In psychosocial studies, the absence of blinding and the failure in adjusting for the nocebo effect in the analysis were regarded as limitations in determining the true intervention effects. Due to the high heterogeneity of the results and with scanty literature and evidence available in these domains, we are uncertain about the actual effect.

Our finding showed that for women, therapy programs are more effective in improving RS and educational programs for RC than men. Surprisingly, MRP had more effectiveness for RS of distressed women than did for men, and RC of both distressed and non-distressed women, MRP had effectiveness, while, for men, it was non-effective. Therefore, planning mental health for communities to develop MRP, care for couples’ health and men’s health should be given special attention. Due to the high effect of the therapy programs on CRS and enhancement programs on CRC in this meta-analysis, the importance of their utilizations through the interventions, especially by psychologists and mental health professionals, should be emphasized. Furthermore, psychologists and mental health professionals should consider developing programs with fewer sessions and fewer hours through consecutive sessions, instead of compact ones such as workshops to enhance men’s RS. Additional research exploring the gender differences and the gaps between developed and developing countries is warranted as there are very few studies from developing countries. It would also be helpful to examine more closely the long-term effects of MRPs on CRS and CRC through well-designed RCTs with larger sample size. Lastly, it would be important to examine possible gender differences in marital satisfaction and communication among non-heterosexual couples as well.

Availability of data and materials

At present, data are not freely available (however available on request) for the reason that we are still writing up another paper for publication.

Abbreviations

Couple Marriage Relationship Program

Couple Relationship Satisfaction

Marriage Relationship Program

Randomized clinical trials

Relationship communication

Relationship Satisfaction

Sassler S, Lichter DT. Cohabitation and marriage: complexity and diversity in union-formation patterns. J Marriage Fam. 2020;82(1):35–61.

Article   Google Scholar  

Braithwaite SR, Doxey RA, Dowdle KK, Fincham FD. The unique influences of parental divorce and parental conflict on emerging adults in romantic relationships. J Adult Dev. 2016;23(4):214–25.

Rowen J, Emery RE. Parental denigration reports across parent–child dyads: divorced parents underreport denigration behaviors compared to children. J Child Custody. 2019;16(2):197–208.

Nakhaee N, Eslami M, Yazdanpanah M, Andalib P, Rahimi A, Safizadeh M, et al. Reasons for seeking a divorce in Iran. J Soc Pers Relat. 2020;37(10-11):2863–70.

Heintz-Martin VK, Langmeyer AN. Economic situation, financial strain and child wellbeing in stepfamilies and single-parent families in Germany. J Fam Econ Issues. 2020;41(2):238–54.

Kroese J, Bernasco W, Liefbroer AC, Rouwendal J. Growing up in single-parent families and the criminal involvement of adolescents: a systematic review. Psychol Crime Law. 2021;27(1):61–75.

Allahverdipour H, Karimzadeh Z, Alizadeh N, Asghari Jafarabadi M, Javadivala Z. Psychological well-being and happiness among middle-aged women: a cross-sectional study. Health Care Women Int. 2021;42(1):28–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2019.1703990 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Stavrova O, Fetchenhauer D. Married and cohabiting parents’ well-being: The effects of a cultural normative context across countries. J Soc Pers Relat. 2014;32(5):601–32.

Lee KS, Ono H. Marriage, Cohabitation, and Happiness: A Cross-National Analysis of 27 Countries. J Marriage Fam. 2012;74(5):953–72.

Jackson JB, Miller RB, Oka M, Henry RG. Gender differences in marital satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam. 2014;76(1):105–29.

Strohschein L, et al. Marital transitions and mental health: are there gender differences in the short-term effects of marital status change? Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(11):2293–303.

Gager CT, Sanchez L. Two as one? Couples’ perceptions of time spent together, marital quality, and the risk of divorce. J Fam Issues. 2003;24(1):21–50.

Reardon-Anderson J, Stagner M, Macomber JE, Murray J. Systematic review of the impact of marriage and relationship programs. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2005. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255614018_Systematic_Review_of_the_Impact_of_Marriage_and_Relationship_Programs .

Hawkins AJ, Blanchard VL, Baldwin SA, Fawcett EB. Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(5):723–34.

Javadivala Z, Merghati-Khoei E, Asghari Jafarabadi M, Allahverdipour H, Mirghafourvand M, Nadrian H, et al. Efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on low sexual interest/arousal of peri- and post-menopausal women: a meta-analysis. Sex Relation Ther. 2019;34(2):242–70.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.

Yeun YR, Yang S. Effects of a marital relationship enrichment program on communication, conflict resolution, and marital satisfaction in multicultural couples. J Korean Acad Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2012;21(3):250–61.

Kong SS. A marital-relationship enhancement program for couples: randomized controlled trial. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2005;35(6):991–1003.

Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976;38(1):15–28.

Funk JL, Rogge RD. Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. J Fam Psychol. 2007;21(4):572–83.

Fowers BJ, Olson DH. Enrich marital inventory: a discriminant validity and cross-validation assessment. J Marital Fam Ther. 1989;15(1):65–79.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Schumm WR, Paff-Bergen LA, Hatch RC, Obiorah FC, Copeland JM, Meens LD, et al. Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. J Marriage Fam. 1986;48(2):381–7.

HudsonWW. The WALMYR Assessment Scales Scoring Manual: WALMYR Publishing Company; 1992.

Norton R. Measuring marital quality: a critical look at the dependent variable. J Marriage Fam. 1983;45(1):141–51.

Hahlweg K. Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik (FPD). Partnerschaftsfragebogen PFB, Problemliste.PL und Fragebogen zur Lebensgeschichte und Partnerschaft FLP. Gottingen: Hogrefe; 2016.

Allen ES, Stanley SM, Rhoades GK, Markman HJ, Loew BA. Marriage education in the army: results of a randomized clinical trial. J Couple Relationship Ther. 2011;10(4):309–26.

Weiss RL, Tolman A. The Marital Interaction Coding System Global (MICs G): a global companion to the MICS. Behav Assess. 1990;12:272–94.

Google Scholar  

Bienvenu MJ. Measurement of marital communication. Fam Coordinator. 1970;19(1):26–31.

Kong SS. Marital relationship enhancement: program development and effectiveness. Kor J Fam Therapy. 2004;12(2):139–69.

Li Z. Effects of PREPARE/ENRICH Couple Relationship Education for Chinese College Students in Heterosexual Exclusive Dating Relationships. (PhD thesis). University of Minnesota. United States. 2015. ProQuest Information & Learning. ProQuest Number: 10186903. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1989783472?accountid=41307 . Accessed 26 July 2019.

Einhorn L. Relationship education for low income couples and individuals: new research directions (PhD thesis). University of Denver, United States. 2010. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 178. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/178 31 . Accessed 26 July 2019.

Alvaro JA. An interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation intervention: the effect on marital intimacy (PhD thesis). Southeastern Louisiana University, United States. 2001, ProQuest Information & Learning. UM! Number: 3011552. URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/304707024?accountid=41307 . Accessed 26 July 2019.

Halford WK, Sanders MR, Behrens BC. Can skills training prevent relationship problems in at-risk couples? Four-year effects of a behavioral relationship education program. J Fam Psychol. 2001;15(4):750.

Doss BD, Cicila LN, Georgia EJ, Roddy MK, Nowlan KM, Benson LA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the web-based OurRelationship program: Effects on relationship and individual functioning. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016;84(4):285.

Hrapczynski K. The impact of couple therapy for abusive behavior on partners’ negative attributions about each other, relationship satisfaction, communication behavior, and psychological abuse (master's thesis). University of Maryland, College Park. United States: ProQuest Information & Learning; 2008. https://search.proquest.com/docview/304565028?accountid=41307

Carson JW, Carson KM, Gil KM, Baucom DH. Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behav Ther. 2004;35(3):471–94.

Shapo JR. Support-focused marital therapy vs. a waitlist control: an efficacy study (PhD thesis). George Mason University. United States 2003 , ProQuest Information & Learning. UMI Number: 3061545. https://search.proquest.com/docview/305240461?accountid=41307 . Accessed 26 July 2019.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 . https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/343/bmj.d5928.full.pdf . Accessed 4 June 2021.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

Javadivala Z, Allahverdipour H, Kouzekanani K, Merghati-Khoei E, Asghari Jafarabadi M, Mirghafourvand M. A randomized trial of a relationship-enhancement approach in improving marital intimacy in middle-aged Iranian couples. J Sex Marital Ther. 2019;45(3):190–200.

Pyke RE, Clayton AH. Psychological treatment trials for hypoactive sexual desire disorder: a sexual medicine critique and perspective. J Sex Med. 2015;12(12):2451–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

There was no funding supporter for this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Education and Promotion, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 14711, Iran

Zeinab Javadivala & Somaye Azimi

Research Center of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Health Education and Promotion, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 14711, Iran

Hamid Allahverdipour

Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi

Center for the Development of Interdisciplinary Research in Islamic Sciences and Health Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Neda Gilani

Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Vijay Kumar Chattu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ZJ, MA, NG, and HA designed the study. ZJ and SA collected data. All authors analyzed and wrote the manuscript, and VKC revising it critically for important intellectual content and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeinab Javadivala .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The ethics committee at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Ethics Code: IR.TBZMED.REC.1398.824) approved this protocol. Consent to participate is not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Javadivala, Z., Allahverdipour, H., Asghari Jafarabadi, M. et al. Improved couple satisfaction and communication with marriage and relationship programs: are there gender differences?—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 10 , 178 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01719-0

Download citation

Received : 26 November 2020

Accepted : 25 May 2021

Published : 21 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01719-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Couple satisfaction
• Marriage programs
• Relationship programs
• Systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Ten Years of Marriage and Cohabitation Research in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues

• Published: 22 October 2020
• Volume 42 , pages 52–61, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Jeffrey Dew 1  

9651 Accesses

10 Citations

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

I reviewed the 36 marriage and cohabitation studies from the Journal of Family and Economic Issues articles published between 2010–2019. Nearly all of the studies used quantitative methods, and two-thirds of them used publicly available nationally-representative data. The studies fell into roughly five, unevenly sized groups: family structure, relationship quality, division of labor/employment, money management, and an “other” category. Suggestions for future research include applying some of the important questions within the articles to underrepresented groups, further examining the process of how finances and relationship quality interrelate and doing more applied and translational research.

Similar content being viewed by others

The New Roles of Men and Women and Implications for Families and Societies

Gender Inequities in Household Labor Predict Lower Sexual Desire in Women Partnered with Men

A Decade Review of Research on College Student Financial Behavior and Well-Being

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Financial issues and adult romantic relationships interface in many important ways. Whether in marriage or cohabitation, living with a romantic partner may modify how one approaches financial issues (e.g., Kenney 2004 ). This association may work in the other direction, too; financial issues may influence relationship quality (see Dew 2016 for a review).

Although many scholars study marriage and cohabitation, few of them study these couples within the financial contexts that surround them or the financial aspects that may influence the relationship processes themselves. The Journal of Family and Economic Issues , therefore, is a key outlet where scholars can publish studies that explore the nexus of financial issues and adult romantic relationships.

This review focuses on the 36 studies of marriage and cohabitation from 2010–2019 in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues . The editor/editorial staff of JFEI assigned these studies to me. In the first section, I provide a synopsis of the articles that I reviewed. In the second section, I discuss the future research directions that might further build this topic. For the purposes of this review, I define marriage as two adults whose union has been legally recognized by a state entity. Cohabitation, by way of contrast, generally denotes two unmarried persons living together in a sexual union. Footnote 1

Social norms and behaviors regarding family structure have shifted over the past 60 years. For example, 30% of all US households with children present were single-parent households in 2019 (United States Census Bureau 2020 ) . In 1960, the comparable statistic was 9%. Furthermore, an analysis of US data from 2011–2015 suggested that around 16% of people aged 18–44 cohabited during that time (Nugent and Daugherty 2018 ). Comparable statistics for 1960 do not exist. Governments and researchers did not ask individuals if they were cohabiting due to the social stigma attached to it at the time in the United States. Additionally, in 1960 72% of US adults were married; in 2016, the percentage has dropped to only 50% (Parker and Stepler 2017 ). I could cite similar statistics regarding changes in the average age at first marriage, the total fertility rate, and so forth.

At the same time family structures were changing, national economies all over the world fluctuated as well. In the US, manufacturing jobs decreased, and service sector jobs increased. Unionized jobs, which often provided living wages regardless of individuals’ education level, declined. Men’s wages stagnated after accounting for inflation. Many married women with young children in the home moved into the paid labor force.

Thus, although no one aspect, theme, or methodology links the 36 studies I reviewed, many of them examined issues related to family structure and/or economic changes that have occurred over the past sixty years in the US and other nations. Many researchers applied “older” questions regarding financial and family issues to newer and growing family forms. Other researchers updated the fields’ knowledge regarding previous findings. Still others examined existing family and finance process models and added additional nuance.

Research Methods of the Studies

The methods and analyses that scholars use as they examine the association between family and financial issues can strongly influence the findings. Consequently, as I reviewed the studies, I noted the analyses the authors’ used to examine their data. I also studied the data, samples, and demographic characteristics of the participants. I offer an overview of the methodology here.

Types of Analyses

As a body, the researchers used quantitative analyses more than any other type. That is, of the 36 articles, 30 used quantitative analyses. Three studies used qualitative analyses, one study used a mixed methods design, one study was a theoretical piece, and one study was an erratum.

Data, Samples, and Demographics

Of the 30 studies that used quantitative analyses, 21 used large data sets. I categorized any study as using a large data set if the sample size was at least 900 participants/couples, etc. I used this cutoff because when a study size reaches or exceeds 900 participants, single-item measures have psychometric properties similar to multi-item scales (Johnson 1993 ). All other things equal, larger sample sizes yield more precise estimates. Most of these data sets were publicly available (e.g., the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the General Social Survey), though a few were large proprietary data sets (e.g., the Survey of Marital Generosity).

Another important consideration was whether researchers studied marriage and cohabitation among underrepresented populations. Understanding the research coverage of these underrepresented groups is important and is one of the recommendations I make for future research (see below). Studies using large representative samples facilitate understanding adult romantic relationships. They may, however, miss crucial relationship or financial processes that vary within and across subgroups. Thus, I did not count these large data sets as focusing on underrepresented groups.

For the purposes of this review, I categorized a study as examining an underrepresented group if the sample was largely composed of individuals from race/ethnic minority groups, interracial couples, sexual minorities, low-income families, or from countries outside the United States. Footnote 2 Although the 21 studies that used large US national samples obviously included individuals from some of those groups, the studies did not focus on underrepresented groups. Some of the other quantitative studies used convenience sampling techniques, but still did not explicitly sample any underrepresented groups.

Using these criteria, nine of the studies I reviewed focused on underrepresented populations. Jones ( 2010 ) and Jang and Danes ( 2016 ) studied couples who were racially/ethnically intermarried. Oshio et al. ( 2013 ) used data from the General Social Surveys in Korea, Japan, and China. Evertsson and Nyman ( 2014 ) had a Swedish sample. Further, 50% of the couples in their study were in same-sex relationships. The Maclean et al. ( 2016 ) research took place in Australia, while Cantillon et al. ( 2016 ) took place in Ireland. Finally, Addo ( 2017 ), Högnäs and Williams ( 2017 ), and Jamison ( 2018 ) focused on low-income couples.

Creating Relationship Themes/Domains

As I reviewed the articles, I categorized them based on what I felt was the overarching theme of each piece. I have published many studies on relationship formation and dissolutionas well as studies examining the role of financial issues within adult romantic relationships. I have also edited two special issues in peer-reviewed journals on money and relationships and written several review articles and public scholarship pieces regarding the subject. Consequently, I used my own expertise to assign the studies to different domains. From my previous experience, I knew that studies often focus on financial issues and family structure issues (e.g., the financial consequences of divorce). I also knew that many previous studies have focused on relationship quality or process issues as they relate to couples’ finances (e.g., the association between consumer debt and relationship happiness). Finally, I knew that employment and the division of household labor (e.g., the paid labor force participation of mothers) have been important research foci in many fields for at least five decades. I established these three domains prior to categorizing the studies. After putting studies that belonged in the domains of family structure, relationship quality, and labor/employment, I examined the remaining studies. I created a fourth domain, financial management, from some of those studies. The last five studies did not fit in any of these categories or with each other.

Important Findings

Family structure.

As family forms and macro-economic characteristics have shifted, scholars have examined how these changes have influenced individuals, families, and societies. For example, one of the first studies linking changing family structure and child poverty was released in the early 1990’s (Eggebeen and Lichter 1991 ). Given the enormity of the social changes, it is not surprising that studies of family structure, whether as a predictor or as an outcome, was the domain that had the most articles in my review. These articles used family structure as either a main independent variable or as the dependent variable. Sub-themes in this area included the association between family structure and financial issues, the association between family structure and other outcomes, and marital stability. I assigned 12 articles to the category of family structure.

Many of these studies focused on how changing/new family structures related to financial issues. For example, one study researched whether, and under what conditions, men enjoyed a cohabitation premium (i.e., higher wages) relative to both single, non-cohabiting men, and married men (Mamun 2012 ). Men in cohabitations that led to marriage realized a wage premium relative to single men; men in other types of cohabitations did not. Married men enjoyed the largest wage premium.

Painter and Vespa ( 2012 ) also examined financial issues regarding newer family forms by comparing rates of net-worth gain between those who married without cohabiting first, and those who married after cohabitation. Interestingly, the rate of net-worth gain was higher for those who cohabited prior to marriage. Painter and Vespa studied the financial changes closely and found that those who married following a cohabitation had more debt when they married, and so they could increase their net-worth more quickly by paying debt down. Further, those who had cohabited increased their home-equity more quickly.

As an alternative to studying old questions using newer family forms, some of the studies that researched the association between family structure and finances added nuance to previous findings. For example, Tamborini et al. ( 2012 ) estimated the changes in women’s labor force participation before and after divorce. Although this question has been studied for decades, these scholars studied additional moderators that might influence the association among divorce, changes in women’s labor force participation, and changes in earnings. They found that education was positively associated with earnings gains. Having a child after the divorce was negatively associated.

In a similar study, Frech et al. ( 2017 ) investigated the association between divorce and women’s net worth. In the initial models, divorce reduced women’s overall net-worth as previous studies have demonstrated. However, after using advanced modeling techniques to account for selection into divorce and selection into remarriage, the difference between stably married wives and divorced wives who had remarried disappeared. The divorce difference was still present for divorced women who had not remarried and remarried women who went through another divorce.

Sharma ( 2015 ) researched wealth change for one of the fastest growing group of divorced persons–individuals who are 50 years or older. This is an important population to study because the divorce rate has steadily decreased for the past 40 years except for those who are 50 years or older (Allred 2019 ). For example, for women aged 50 or older, the divorce rate per 1000 married women has increased from 4.9 in 1990 to 10.3 in 2017 (Allred 2019 ). Sharma found that both older men and women lost money following a divorce; the average loss was between $369,000 and $376,000. Interestingly, the difference between men’s and women’s loss was not statistically significant, unlike other studies of couples at younger ages (e.g., Zagorsky 2005 ).

Other studies expanded the field by combining novel approaches with timely new questions. For example, using qualitative methods and a diverse sample, Jamison ( 2018 ) examined participants’ transitions into and out of residential cohabitation (i.e., living in the same domicile in an unmarried sexual union), as well as into and out of relationships (i.e., considering oneself in a couple). The innovative insight of this piece is that residential cohabitation and one’s romantic relationship may or may not overlap, especially among low-income cohabiters. Indeed, sometimes individuals would stop a residential cohabitation for various reasons, while still considering themselves a romantic couple. Other times, individuals who had been a couple in the past, but who had broken up, would reunite as a couple and as residential cohabiters. Jamison’s ( 2018 ) qualitative study captured the fluidity of these relationships.

The use of novel approaches extended to policy issues. MacLean et al. ( 2016 ) used a series of hypothetical vignettes to assess Australian participants’ views of whether, and under what conditions, step-fathers should financially support their step-children. They found that marriage and the employment status of the step-children’s mother raised people’s expectations that a man would financially support his step-children. Lerman et al. ( 2018 ) investigated variation in state-level economic indicators as a function of the proportion of married adults and/or the proportion of married parents. Their results suggested that states that had higher proportions of married adults and/or married parents also had higher per capita GDP levels, equivalent-adult adjusted median household incomes, and median personal incomes. Further, these states had lower child poverty levels.

Other studies examined family structure issues, without focusing on financial outcomes or predictors. For example, Jones ( 2010 ) assessed the stability of interracial marriages and found that most stability differences between interracial marriages and racially homogenous marriages attenuated after controlling for demographic characteristics. Kendall ( 2011 ) found no difference across state level divorce rates based on their level of broadband internet penetrations. Using the General Social Survey (US), Horner ( 2014 ) found that women’s happiness declined when their state moved to a low-barrier-to-divorce regime. Men, by way of contrast, increased their happiness. Hussey et al. ( 2016 ) studied the effects of moving from a two-parent household to a one-parent household on adolescent outcomes. They used propensity score matching to partly mitigate selection issues and found negative effects in the short term, medium term, and long term.

These many studies demonstrate the utility of both examining “old” research questions in the context of growing family forms and of striving to add nuance to “old” findings. For example, finding a male cohabitation premium among only men who transitioned to marriage (Mamun 2012 ) indicates that cohabiting unions are not monolithic relationships. This finding also further reinforces the link previous studies have found between marriage and upward economic mobility. Finding that selection accounts for wealth differences between never-divorced and divorced-but-remarried women (Frech et al. 2017 ), generates a new avenue of research. Specifically, this finding suggests that we should examine the characteristics that account for non-divorced women’s higher net worth in a bivariate analyses, but that disappear upon controlling for selection. As family forms continue to change, scholars will likely conduct similar studies.

Relationship Quality

The name of the journal suggests a natural fit for studies of the association between financial issues and adult romantic relationship quality. Eight of the eleven articles I assigned to this domain focused on the interface between financial issues and relationship quality. Three others focused on relationship quality and other issues (e.g., pornography). These studies highlight researchers’ continued interest in the predictors of relationship quality. This interest in unsurprising, given how strongly relationship happiness and individual well-being are correlated (Spuhler and Dew 2019 ).

Four studies examined the association between financial issues and relationship quality using either a unique population and/or a unique predictor. The first, Schramm and William Harris ( 2011 ), used data from low-income couples to study the association between income, government assistance, and different aspects of marital quality. Both receiving government assistance and having an income less than $20,000 was associated with lower marital satisfaction, commitment, and higher levels of divorce-proneness, negative marital interactions, and feeling trapped. An interaction did emerge, however. Couples who had an income level between $20,000–$40,000 and received government assistance reported higher levels of marital satisfaction and commitment than couples with the same income level, but who did not receive government assistance.

Using data from the married women in the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth, Britt and Huston ( 2012 ) studied the association between financial arguments and marital quality. Not surprisingly, they found that the frequency of financial arguments was negatively associated with women’s reported marital satisfaction. Interestingly, by using the longitudinal aspect of the data, they also found that when women reported increased financial arguments over time, they reported lower marital satisfaction. Finally, higher levels of financial conflict at the beginning of marriage was associated with greater likelihood of divorce.

Klein’s ( 2017 ) study tested the association between financial issues and relationship quality and used a unique predictor–changes in home values. Negative price shocks (i.e., declines in home values) were unrelated to the hazard of divorce. However, positive price shocks (i.e., increases in home values) did negatively predict the hazard of divorce. These positive price shocks needed to last at least four years to reduce the likelihood of divorce, though.

LeBaron et al. ( 2018 ) was likewise unique in that they examined how materialism was associated with marital satisfaction. Materialism was negatively associated with marital satisfaction. One’s feelings of importance about marriage partially mediated the association. That is, materialism was related to decreased feelings of marital importance; marital importance was positively related to marital satisfaction.

Many of the studies of the association between financial issues and relationship quality over the past three years have focused on the family stress model of economic pressure and marital distress (Conger et al. 1990 ), or simply “family stress model.” Since its inception in 1990, many scholars have used this model to research the association between negative financial events, feelings of economic pressure, and marital quality. The family stress model suggests that when individuals feel economic pressure, they respond affectively with greater levels of anxiety, depression, and hostility. This in turn increases marital distress (Conger et al. 1990 ).

Ross et al. ( 2017 ), tested the family stress model (Conger et al. 1990 ) in the context of military couples. This research topic is important, given the unique pressures that military couples face (Park 2011 ). Ross et al. ( 2017 ) study is the first of which I know to use the family stress model to examine military couples. Their findings suggested that husbands’ economic pressure was associated with receiving less warmth and greater hostility from their wives. Wives’ economic pressure was likewise related to reports of receiving less warmth from their husbands and increased hostility. Further, wives’ economic pressure was associated with their own reports of giving their husbands less warmth.

Dew and Jackson ( 2018 ) and Dew et al. ( 2018 ) also used the family stress model and assessed relationship attitudes and processes to determine what factors might have helped protect married couples from the difficulties of the 2007–2009 Recession. Both studies used the same national data set of married couples who were surveyed in 2009 shortly after the end of the Recession. Dew and Jackson ( 2018 ) found that relationship maintenance behaviors moderated the association between feelings of economic pressure and marital quality for wives. That is, husbands’ performance of relationship maintenance behaviors, such as doing small favors for their spouses, protected wives’ marital satisfaction from declining despite wives’ feelings of economic pressure.

Dew et al. ( 2018 ) modeled responses to a specific question that asked participants whether the recession had increased their marital commitment. Factors that were positively associated with both wives and husbands stating that the recession had increased their commitment including religious marital sanctification, relationship maintenance behaviors, and financial support from families and friends. Interestingly, the more economic pressure both wives and husbands felt, the more likely they were to say that the Recession increased their marital commitment.

Wheeler et al. ( 2019 ) was the final study that used the family stress model. These researchers examined an additional mediator in the model using longitudinal data. Relational aggression, such as social sabotage and love withdrawal, mediated the association between feelings of economic pressure and marital quality. Wheeler et al. found these associations happening both within and across longitudinal waves. In other words, negative affect is not the only mechanism through which feelings of economic pressure incite marital distress. Rather, worse relationship behaviors might arise because of economic pressure. These behaviors might then increase marital distress.

These four studies contribute to the family stress model by adding specificity while, paradoxically, also broadening the potential relationship processes that may occur when couples experience negative financial events. Ross et al. ( 2017 ) drew attention to a specific family context (i.e., military families). By doing so, they uncovered important sex differences as it relates to actor effects in the family stress model. Broader studies of the family stress model have not often found these differences.

The other four studies suggested additional mediators and moderators that researchers have previously not studied within the family stress model. For example, Wheeler et al. ( 2019 ) studied a very specific relationship process, i.e., relationship aggression, as a potential mediator in the family stress model, and found that it was important. Dew and Jackson ( 2018 ) and Dew et al. ( 2018 ) found additional protective factors that helped couples weather the 2007–2009 Recession with their marital quality intact.

The first study of relationship quality that did not deal with financial issues was Doran and Price ( 2014 ). These researchers used the General Social Survey (US) to study the association between pornography use and marital quality. Their data were drawn from the currently-married GSS participants to test some of the hypotheses, and both the currently-married and ever-married participants for other hypotheses. Their findings on the associations were too numerous to list specifically, but, in general, they found a negative association between pornography use and marital quality. For example, currently-married individuals were less happy in their marriages if they had watched an X-rated movie in the prior year. Further, pornography use decreased the association between the frequency of sex and overall life happiness for men.

The second study that investigated relationship quality without also including financial issues was a methodological piece. Leppel ( 2015a ) illustrated a new technique “Generalized Ordered Probit with Selectivity” (GOPS) to estimate marital happiness. GOPS is useful when a dependent variable is discrete (i.e., not continuous), ordered, and incorporates information that may also be associated with selection into or out of a specific state. Leppel made the argument that marital happiness ratings are an example of this type of dependent variable and that the GOPS is a superior estimation method relative to conventional ordered probit and generalized ordered probit without selectivity. The journal published an erratum (Leppel 2015b ), because some of the equations were misprinted in the original study.

Dew and Tulane ( 2015 ) was the third study that did not examine the association between financial issues and relationship quality. Instead, they studied how interactive media was associated with relationship quality in a national sample of married dyads. A negative linear association existed between husbands’ social networking website use and wives’ and husbands’ marital quality. Specifically, the more time husbands spent on social networking websites, the less maritally happy wives were, the more conflict both spouses reported, and the lower marital stability both spouses perceived. Time spent playing video games was only problematic when differences in time use were considered. The greater the difference between the spouses in terms of video game usage, the lower they reported their marital quality, on average.

Synthesizing these studies was difficult. However, together they do suggest that relationship quality is a multifaceted construct that also has many predictors–from media use, to governmental aid, to personal attitudes. Many of the predictors tested might seem somewhat pedestrian or prosaic. However, they are also the topics that daily concern families daily (Daly 2003 ). Further, given that the studies that tested the association between financial issues and relationship quality averaged almost one per year may suggest that this area of relationship quality research continues to possess importance.

Labor and Employment

Like family structure, labor force participation and the division of household labor have changed over the past seventy years. Married mothers participate in paid labor much more than in the past whereas men engage in household chores and childcare more. Researchers have studied how these changes have influenced family life.

Four of the studies I reviewed related to labor and employment. One of the studies examined paid labor force participation. Specifically, Quinn and Rubb ( 2011 ) researched the bidirectional association between being overeducated (i.e., having more education than one’s employment merits), labor force participation, and moving house. Both wives’ and husbands’ overeducation was associated with the likelihood of moving. Interestingly, moving, in turn, was associated with an increased likelihood of wives leaving the paid labor force, but was associated with a decreased likelihood of a husband being overeducated.

The other three studies researched the association between household division of labor and relationship happiness. Oshio et al. ( 2013 ) studied this association in China, Japan, and Korea. They found no aspect in common across the three countries except that good health was positively associated with marital satisfaction. In China, dual-earning couples were happier. In Korea, the more housework wives or husbands had to do, the less happy they were in their relationship. Finally, income positively predicted marital satisfaction in Japan and Korea.

Britt and Roy ( 2014 ) used the NLSY 1986 cohort to assess the relationship between the household division of labor and marital happiness. They found that perceived unfairness in the housework division was negatively associated with having high levels of marital satisfaction for wives, but not husbands. Arguments about money and affection were negatively associated with marital quality for both wives and husbands.

The final paper on division of labor and relationship quality was a theoretical and econometric piece. Skåtun ( 2017 ), outlined two types of marital bargaining. Coasean bargaining behavior within marriage occurs if all marital/family goods (whether tangible or intangible) were shared between spouses and they could transfer utility to each other without cost. Non-Coasean bargaining behavior within marriage would occur if the marital/family goods were not all shared. Skåtun asserted that the question of which of these two forms marital bargaining takes is unsettled in the literature, and that paid labor force participation behavior following divorce might help answer it.

Not many studies were in this category. It may be that scholars viewed other types of journals, such as economics journals and gender studies journals, as outlets more likely to publish their studies. It may also be because another review covered employment and wages. Labor and employment studies will continue to be important, however, as macroeconomic conditions continue to change.

Family Money Management

The actual behavior that families use to manage their financial resources is an important topic because managing these resources is associated with families being able to meet their goals (National Council on Family Relations 2014 ). Further, financial products, instruments, and regulations have grown increasingly complex over time. This trend toward more financial complexity may influence how individuals and families manage their money.

Four studies examined family money management. The first study used qualitative methodology to discover how stable, happy couples engaged in money management (Skogrand et al. 2011 ). A phenomenological analysis revealed that couples typically had one spouse managing the day-to-day aspect of their finances, that they exercised financial trust and communication, that they had little-to-no debt, and that they stayed within their financial means.

Evertsson and Nyman ( 2014 ) also used qualitative methods to examine family money management. They scrutinized how cohabiting and living-apart-together couples who claimed they manage their money independently actually manage their money. Evertsson and Nyman found that many couples had systems in place to handle joint expenses. However, sometimes the joint expenses made the distinctions between “my,” “your,” and “our” money less clear. Furthermore, these couples would sometimes intentionally engage in joint consumption as a symbol of their union. In addition to the strong qualitative analysis, this study was unique in that it included many same-sex couples.

Cantillon et al. ( 2016 ) researched predictors of individual deprivation (e.g., doing without a substantial meal in the past two weeks, feeling unable to spend money on oneself) vis-à-vis family money management. They found that having children in the household was associated with being in the “female-only” deprivation group, while female-only employment/income was associated with being in the “male-only” deprivation group. Many family characteristics were associated with being in the “both deprived” group, including income (negative), full income pooling (positive), and children in the home (positive).

Finally, Addo ( 2017 ) examined an old family money management question using a newer population. Family scholars have examined how married couples divided the money that came into their households (e.g., Pahl 1995 ). But Addo studied the bidirectional association between the ways in which cohabiting couples integrated their finances and their plans for marriage. Those cohabiting couples with definite plans to marry were much more likely to have joint bank accounts, credit card accounts, and mortgages. Further, the more joint practices cohabiting couples engaged in, the more likely they would marry.

Other Topics

Three studies did not fit any categorization. Hall and Willoughby ( 2016 ) examined the importance that emerging adults felt for different roles (e.g., career, parenthood). The found that these attitudes were linked to both future expectations and behaviors. For example, those in the child/marriage centered group and marriage centered group had less sexual experience than young adults in other groups.

Jang and Danes ( 2016 ) studied the quantity of social capital to which intermarried couples had access. Social capital are resources, whether tangible or intangible, that individuals and couples can access based on their social networks. A methodological strength of this study was that the authors examined race, ethnicity, and national origin rather than just looking at one source of heterogeneity. Jang and Danes found that interracially married couples reported less access to social capital; this was not the case for interethnic or international couples.

Högnäs and Williams ( 2017 ) assessed fatherhood identity among non-resident low-income men. A negative association existed between their partners’ extended family involvement and the strength of men’s fatherhood identity. That is, the more the women’s extended family was involved in the raising and care of the child, the less the men reported feeling like fathers.

Finally, Shamblen et al. ( 2018 ) evaluated a program meant to strengthen marriage and family life. They found the program had modest effects for the participants in some life domains, but no effects in other domains. They also estimated the return on investment (ROI) by comparing the cost of implementing their curricula and counseling regime with the benefits. Under most considerations, the ROI for the program was positive.

Future Directions

One of the ways researchers might grow the boundaries of this field is in continuing to apply important research questions we have already investigated to new relationship structures (i.e., beyond cohabitation). That is, by the editor’s assignment, my review covered marriage and cohabitation research that appeared in the journal over the past ten years. All 36 papers were strong representations of marriage and cohabitation research – at least for heterosexual individuals. Gay and lesbian couples were not well represented in the literature I reviewed. Only one study, Evertsson and Nyman ( 2014 ), had a sample where at least 50% of the participants were in same sex relationships. Of course, part of the reasons for this lack of research arises from the fact that same sex marriage was only legal in seven countries prior to 2010, Footnote 3 the beginning of my review period. As of April 2020, 29 countries have legalized same sex marriages. Because many more countries legally recognize same sex cohabitations and marriages now than in the past, it would be important to study these relationships–particularly regarding financial issues.

Furthermore, it is the case that over the past 10 years, other types of adult romantic relationships besides marriage and cohabitation have emerged and are slowly gaining cultural mainstream acceptance. For example, consensual non-monogamy (i.e., a romantic and/or sexual relationship with more than one partner in which all partners consent to the relationship), has become as a topic of mainstream conversation.

Inviting individuals and couples in these newer family forms to participate in research and studying them, generally, may be difficult. Participants may be hard to find simply because there are not many in the population. For example, a recent national study revealed that only 12% of adults in the US reported ever having been in a consensually non-monogamous relationship, and only 3% currently reside in such a relationship (Hawkins and Smith 2019 ). Furthermore, studying heterosexual marriage, researchers could take the number of spouses, gender configurations, and legal issues within the marriage for granted. This is simply no longer the case. Having so much variance in family structure and smaller groups of newer family forms certainly complicates statistical models.

In addition to studying underrepresented forms of adult romantic relationships, researchers who study marriage, cohabitation, and financial issues would serve the field and the public well by specifically studying groups that research has historically underrepresented. This includes studying different race and ethnic groups, and low-income families (beyond traditional “poverty outcomes” research). This also includes conducting more research with samples drawn from outside the United States.

The suggestion to focus on underrepresented populations may be even more important given the financial difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020. For example, Dew and Jackson (2019) found relationship attitudes and processes that helped protect couples’ relationship quality during the 2007–2009 Recession using a national sample. However, it is unknown whether these findings apply to underrepresented families during the current macro-financial problems because Dew and Jackson did not run any interactions by race or income.

Expanding Studies on Financial and Relational Process

Another way to grow this field is to more closely examine the process of how financial issues and relationship quality interrelate. In other words, while many studies have shown that financial issues and relationship outcomes relate, not as many have investigated how and why that is the case. Our understanding of marriage, cohabitation, and other romantic relationship forms would expand if we understood the role of money within them.

Indeed, many of the studies I reviewed regarding relationship quality uncovered links between financial issues and relationship quality. For example, LeBaron et al. ( 2018 ) tested whether attitudes about marriage mediated the negative association between materialism and marital quality. Further, Wheeler et al. ( 2019 ) tested some intriguing potential mediators (e.g., love withdrawal) of the association between economic pressure and marital quality within the family stress model.

A number of new directions might help this area of study flourish. First, studies of the interface between financial issues and relationship quality would benefit by greater efforts in theory construction. The family stress model is an undeniably excellent model that has generated much research. However, studies in this area cannot grow without moving beyond the family stress model. The association between financial issues and relationship quality encompasses more than negative financial events and feelings of economic pressure.

Second, nearly all the studies in this area have the causal direction running from financial issues to relationship quality. But a few economic studies suggest that the opposite direction of causality is possible, even likely. That is, it may be that a strong marital or cohabiting relationship makes sound financial management behaviors more likely. Individuals with a strong relationship are more likely to invest in it (Becker 1981 ) – including by investing in their joint financial futures. Studies have shown that couples spend down wealth or hold less of it as they approach divorce relative to couples who are stable (Finke and Pierce 2006 ; Zagorsky 2005 ). Consequently, a relatively untapped area of research is to make great use of causal and longitudinal data to detangle issues of causal direction in the association between financial issues and relationship quality.

The last aspect of process that I recommend for future study is to understand the attitudinal, relational, and behavioral aspects that protect romantic couples during financial difficulties. Almost all couples will experience negative financial events and/or feelings of economic pressure. Knowing what individual partners, spouses, and couples can do to maintain their relationships would benefit researchers, practitioners, and lay families. Some of the studies I reviewed did exactly that (e.g., Dew and Jackson 2018 ). However, much work remains to be done in this area.

More Applied/Translational Research

Related to my last point, a final call for future marriage and cohabitation research is to generate more applied and translational research. Only one of the studies I reviewed went beyond basic research (Shamblen et al. 2018 ). Interestingly, many of the studies that I reviewed covered prosaic, that is every day or mundane, issues with which couples regularly struggle. I believe that is one of the strengths of the Journal of Family and Economic Issues . It might not be difficult to take some of the issues covered in this review – the division of household labor, money management, etc. – and begin working on applied and translational research. Although the Journal of Family and Economic Issues is not a practice journal, applied and translational research would make the journal more widely relevant.

One of the studies reviewed (Jamison 2018 ), showed that cohabitation is a fluid status and may not necessarily involve the couple living together in the same household all the time.

It may seem odd to define samples from outside the United States as “underrepresented.” However, of the 36 articles I reviewed, only 4 – just slightly over 10% – used data from participants who did not live in the United States.

In the United States, same sex marriage was not legal in all states until June 2015.

Addo, F. R. (2017). Financial integration and relationship transitions of young adult cohabiters. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38 (1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-016-9490-7 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Allred, C. (2019). Gray divorce rate in the US: Geographic Variation, 2017. Family Profile, No. 20, 2019 . Retrieved April 15, 2020 from https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/allred-gray-divorce-rate-geo-var-2017-fp-19-20.html .

Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Britt, S. L., & Huston, S. J. (2012). The role of money arguments in marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33 (4), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9304-5 .

Britt, S. L., & Roy, R. R. N. (2014). Relationship quality among young couples from an economic and gender perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35 (2), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-013-9368-x .

Cantillon, S., Maître, B., & Watson, D. (2016). Family financial management and individual deprivation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37 (3), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-015-9466-z .

Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., et al. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52 , 643–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/352931 .

Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 , 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00771.x .

Dew, J. P. (2016). Revisiting financial issues and marriage. In J. J. Xiao (Ed.), Handbook of consumer finance research (2nd ed., pp. 281–290). New York, NY: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dew, J., & Jackson, M. (2018). Commitment and relationship maintenance behaviors as marital protective factors during economic pressure. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39 (2), 191–204.

Dew, J., LeBaron, A., & Allsop, D. (2018). Can stress build relationships? Predictors of increased marital commitment resulting from the 2007–2009 recession. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39 (3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-018-9566-7 .

Dew, J., & Tulane, S. (2015). The association between time spent using entertainment media and marital quality in a contemporary dyadic national sample. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36 (4), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9427-y .

Doran, K., & Price, J. (2014). Pornography and marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35 (4), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9391-6 .

Eggebeen, D. J., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Race, family structure, and changing poverty among American children. American Sociological Review, 56 , 801–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096257 .

Evertsson, L., & Nyman, C. (2014). Perceptions and practices in independent management: blurring the boundaries between “mine”, “yours”, and “ours”. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35 (1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9348-6 .

Finke, M. S., & Pierce, N. L. (2006). Precautionary savings behavior of maritally stressed couples. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34 , 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X05283594 .

Frech, A., Painter, M., & Vespa, J. (2017). Marital biography and mothers’ wealth. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38 (2), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-016-9508-1 .

Hall, S. S., & Willoughby, B. J. (2016). Relative work and family role centralities: Beliefs and behaviors related to the transition to adulthood. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37 (1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9436-x .

Hawkins, A. J., and Smith, H. (2019). National survey reveals generational differences in consensual non-monagamy. Institute for Family Studies Blog . Retrieved September 11, 2019 from https://ifstudies.org/blog/national-survey-reveals-generational-differences-in-consensual-nonmonogamy- .

Högnäs, R. S., & Williams, H. (2017). Maternal kinship involvement and father identity in fragile families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38 (2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-016-9487-2 .

Horner, E. M. (2014). Continued pursuit of happily ever after: Low barriers to divorce and happiness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35 (2), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-013-9366-z .

Hussey, A., Kanjilal, D., & Nathan, A. (2016). Disruption in parental co-habitation and its effects on short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes of adolescents. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37 (1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9435-y .

Jamison, T. B. (2018). Cohabitation transitions among low-income parents: A qualitative investigation of economic and relational motivations. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39 (1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9546-3 .

Jang, J., & Danes, S. M. (2016). Social capital accessibility of intermarrieds. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37 (4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-015-9477-9 .

Johnson, D. R. (1993) Are single-item measures of marital quality valid? The case of marital happiness. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Baltimore MD.

Jones, A. (2010). Stability of men’s interracial first unions: A test of educational differentials and cohabitation history. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31 (2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9186-3 .

Kendall, T. D. (2011). The relationship between internet access and divorce rate. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32 (3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9222-3 .

Kenney, C. (2004). Cohabiting couple, filing jointly? Resource pooling and US poverty policies. Family Relations, 53 , 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00014.x .

Klein, J. (2017). House price shocks and individual divorce risk in the united states. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38 (4), 628–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9532-9 .

LeBaron, A. B., Kelley, H. H., & Carroll, J. S. (2018). Money over marriage: Marriage importance as a mediator between materialism and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39 (2), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9563-2 .

Leppel, K. (2015a). The method of generalized ordered probit with selectivity: Application to marital happiness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36 (3), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9407-2 .

Leppel, K. (2015b). Erratum to: The method of generalized ordered probit with selectivity: Application to marital happiness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36 (3), 462–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9415-2 .

Lerman, R. I., Price, J., Shumway, A., & Wilcox, W. B. (2018). Marriage and state-level economic outcomes. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39 (1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9540-9 .

Maclean, M. J., Drake, D., & Mckillop, D. (2016). Perceptions of stepfathers’ obligations to financially support stepchildren. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37 (2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-015-9451-6 .

Mamun, A. (2012). Cohabitation premium in men’s earnings: Testing the joint human capital hypothesis. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33 (1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-011-9252-5 .

National Council on Family Relations. (2014). Family life education content areas: Content and practice guidelines . Minneapolis, MN: Author. Retrieved April 15, 2020 from https://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/downloads/news/fle_content_and_practice_guidelines_2014.pdf .

Nugent, C. N., Daugherty, J. (2018). A demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profile of cohabiting adults in the United States, 2011–2015. National Health Statistics Reports, 111 . Retrieved April 15, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr111.pdf .

Oshio, T., Nozaki, K., & Kobayashi, M. (2013). Division of household labor and marital satisfaction in China, Japan, and Korea. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34 (2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9321-4 .

Pahl, J. (1995). His money, her money: Recent research on financial organization in marriage. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16 , 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(95)00015-G .

Painter, M. A., & Vespa, J. (2012). The role of cohabitation in asset and debt accumulation during marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33 (4), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9310-7 .

Park, N. (2011). Military children and families: Strengths and challenges during peace and war. American Psychologist, 66 , 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021249 .

Parker, K., and Stepler, R. (2017). As US marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap in marital status widens. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 15, 2020 from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/ .

Quinn, M. A., & Rubb, S. (2011). Spouse overeducation and family migration: Evidence from the US. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32 (1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9213-4 .

Ross, D. B., O’Neal, C. W., Arnold, A. L., & Mancini, J. A. (2017). Money matters in marriage: Financial concerns, warmth, and hostility among military couples. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38 (4), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9522-y .

Schramm, D. G., & William Harris, V. (2011). Marital quality and income: An examination of the influence of government assistance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32 (3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9212-5 .

Shamblen, S. R., Gluck, A., Wubbenhorst, W., & Collins, D. A. (2018). The economic benefits of marriage and family strengthening programs. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39 (3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-018-9565-8 .

Sharma, A. (2015). Divorce/separation in later-life: A fixed effects analysis of economic well-being by gender. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36 (2), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-014-9432-1 .

Skåtun, J. D. (2017). Bargaining on your spouse: Coasean and non-coasean behaviour within marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 38 (2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-016-9507-2 .

Skogrand, L., Johnson, A. C., Horrocks, A. M., & DeFrain, J. (2011). Financial management practices of couples with great marriages. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32 (1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9195-2 .

Spuhler, B., & Dew, J. P. (2019). Sound financial management and happiness: Economic pressure and relationship happiness as mediators. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 30 (2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1891/1052-3073.30.2.157 .

Tamborini, C. R., Iams, H. M., & Reznik, G. L. (2012). Women’s earnings before and after marital dissolution: Evidence from longitudinal earnings records matched to survey data. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33 (1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-011-9264-1 .

United States Census Bureau (2020). National Single Parent Day: March 21, 2020. Retrieved March 21, 2020 from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/2020/single-parent-day.html .

Wheeler, B. E., Kerpelman, J. L., & Yorgason, J. B. (2019). Economic hardship, financial distress, and marital quality: The role of relational aggression. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40 (4), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-019-09632-4 .

Zagorsky, J. L. (2005). Marriage and divorce’s impact on wealth. Journal of Sociology, 41 , 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783305058478 .

Download references

Jeffrey Dew is a fellow of the Wheatley Institution. The Wheatley Institution did not directly contribute any funding toward this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Brigham Young University, 2101 JFSB, Provo, UT, 84606, USA

Jeffrey Dew

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Dew .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript and its publication in the Journal of Financial and Economic Issues .

Ethical Approval

Because this manuscript is a review of previously published studies, it does not meet the definition of human subjects research. Therefore it needed neither IRB approval nor informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This is one of several papers published together in Journal of Family and Economic Issues on the "Special Issue on Virtual Decade in Review".

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Dew, J. Ten Years of Marriage and Cohabitation Research in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues. J Fam Econ Iss 42 (Suppl 1), 52–61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09723-7

Download citation

Accepted : 03 October 2020

Published : 22 October 2020

Issue Date : July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09723-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cohabitation
• Financial distress
• Financial issues

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Does Marriage Really Bring People Happiness? A Discussion

B rad Wilcox is the director of National Marriage Project and a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. In his new book, Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization , he makes the case that the decline of marriage, the rate of which has dropped 60% over the past 50 years, has brought with it a decline of happiness and prosperity. He criticizes "liberal elites" for encouraging alternatives to marriage while themselves being married and coming from married parents. In an interview with TIME, he explains why he thinks marriage is better for people and for society, how Medicaid and education spending are making marriage harder, and why we should swap electric-car subsidies for more child tax credits.

You write in your book that many of the biggest problems across America are rooted in the collapse of marriage and family life. What do you mean by that?

Today in America the Jeffersonian vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in trouble. When it comes to life, what we're seeing is that scores of especially men are turning to drink, to pills, or the barrel of a gun, and record numbers are dying in what’s been called deaths of despair . When it comes to liberty, a lot of Americans understand that in terms of the ability to rise from rags to riches, and there are too many places in America where poor kids remain poor as adults. And when it comes to happiness, we've been seeing in both Gallup polls and the General Social Survey that happiness is down.

Read More: Why Are So Many Notable Celebrity Couples Breaking Up?

Hasn’t a lot else been happening in the U.S. that might contribute to higher levels of unhappiness?

You might think that this is about economic inequality, failing schools, race, or the current or potential future occupant of the White House. But when you look at the research, one of the most important factors is marriage or family structure. When we look at deaths of despair, for instance, what we see is that the impact of marriage on deaths of despair is more important than college, age, or racial factors. And new research from the University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman tells us that “the recent decline in the married share of adults can explain (statistically) most of the recent decline in overall happiness.”

Isn’t it also possible that people who are less socially anxious are more likely to get married and people who are less socially anxious are also less likely to commit suicide?

There’s no question in my mind that part of the story is a selection effect where the kinds of people today who are getting married are more educated, more socially skilled, more religious, and these are all factors that are linked to greater happiness. But I think what the critics are not acknowledging is that marriage gives people access to a co-pilot who gives you typically a sense of support, is in your corner when times are tough, and is someone to love and care for. Economists find a causal effect on happiness at all stages of marriage.

The book offers data that suggests children from their biological parents in an intact marriage are less likely to be impoverished, in prison, or unemployed. Might that not be because, as you say, people who are wealthier are more likely to get married?

A big part of the story here is about marriage and men. And it is true that the kinds of men who are more educated and more stably employed are also more likely to get married. So there's a way in which money shapes who gets married. But we also see in the research that men enjoy a premium from marriage, even controlling for their background characteristics. A study in Minnesota found that a married twin earned about 26% more than his identical twin who was not married. That’s evidence that there's something about marriage per se that has demonstrable effects on things like money and happiness.

Read More: You're Fighting With Your Partner All Wrong

An alternative theory is that the things that are keeping Americans from marrying—the rise of social media and of an economy that favors the highly educated, for example—are also the things that are causing the unhappiness.

It’s certainly possible. The rise of smartphones since around 2010 is having a particularly independent negative effect on the psychological fortunes of American teenagers and young adults , especially young women. It also has probably contributed to less dating and less marriage. But again, if you think that we are social animals, and that we're hardwired to connect, then the lack of this fundamental human connection between spouses is a major factor here as well.

Does it have to be marriage? Could pair-bonding in the form of living together have a similar effect on people’s futures, as it seems to in Europe?

I think the pair-bonding piece is fundamental. But in the U.S. the quality of relationships, as assessed by couples, is a bit higher for married couples than it is for cohabiting couples . Commitment levels are markedly different between married and cohabiting couples, and the understanding of where you are in the relationship is much clearer in marriage than it is in cohabiting couples. Culture matters, and having ceremonies and customs and laws governing our relationships is helpful. Cohabiting couples just don't have as much of that common culture to guide and orient their relationships.

Some of your book deals with government policies that you believe are marriage-unfriendly. Why would Medicaid, which protects the health of children, be bad for marriage?

When it comes to the marriage penalties that we see in America today, what we are seeing is that with programs like Medicaid, for instance, it's often the case that particularly working-class families, couples with kids who are kind of in that second [socioeconomic] quintile, are more likely to experience penalties if they marry. Couples have a dilemma where they've got to pick between having a higher material standard of living or marriage. The loss of [means-tested] benefits, particularly Medicaid, [if they marry] has been a central issue for them.

Read More: Why Don't More Women Propose?

Would you suggest a basic level of health care for anybody, regardless of their marital status?

I have concerns about expanding the scope of public spending in the direction of Sweden, so I'm in favor of having more of a means-tested approach to serving working-class and poor American families.

How is it family-unfriendly to spend more on education?

The point I'm making in the book is that we direct too much of our public spending to higher education. There could be efficiencies gained by devoting more of that money and attention to things like vocational education, both in community colleges and in high schools, to beef up our capacity to serve young adults, particularly young men, who would benefit from learning a trade or some kind of skill that would push them into a middle-skilled job that would help their professional and marital prospects.

What about government-funded childcare centers? How are they family-unfriendly?

We should allow families to best determine what's good for themselves and for their own children. More educated elites tend to prefer paid childcare, and working-class and poor Americans are more likely to prefer family care. Government-supported childcare privileges the two-earner model of family life over a more pluralistic approach to supporting families, and how we determine who gets to care for their kids. I'm in favor of a generous child tax credit that would give families the ability to use that money on those resources to figure out how best to care for their kids.

You raise a number of examples in your book of the media pushing an anti-marriage narrative, but there are pro-marriage shows, such as Love Is Blind , Married at First Sight , and The Bachelor , everywhere on TV. Isn't marriage actually lauded as an ideal?

Stories that say that women who stay single and don't have kids are getting richer and talking about how married heterosexual motherhood in America is a game no one wins are missing the fact that, on average and in general, marriage and motherhood are linked to more happiness for women. And that marriage is linked to markedly more income and wealth for women. There is something about what's happening in the elite culture that is not particularly marriage-friendly. I looked at differences in attitudes towards marriage and children by education and ideology and found that only 30% of liberal college-educated Americans agreed that "children are better off if they have two married parents," compared to 90% of conservative college-educated Americans. There is unfortunately a dynamic playing out where liberal college-educated Americans, who tend to dominate the heights of our culture, have bought into what I call the "family diversity myth," which makes them more skeptical of this idea that marriage matters.

Read More: How Americans Really Feel About Consensual Non-Monogamy

One of the interesting data points you raise is that the rate of children born to unmarried couples has leveled off since 2009. Why?

Childbearing is down across the board, in part because women have better educational and professional opportunities so they're more likely to postpone or forego childbearing, and in part because of technology, the rise of what I call electronic opiates—smartphones and other social media—are impeding dating and family formation. There's also a possibility that the generation that was raised after a welfare reform in 1996 became more cautious about having kids out of wedlock, because they were thinking there would not be as much economic support. I also think we are seeing more difficulty between women and men getting together in part because a lot of working-class and poor young men are seeing their sort of fortunes fall in terms of things like stable work.

To what do you attribute the rise of men, such as Andrew Tate, who advise against marriage? Is it a real thing or just a thing on the Internet?

This view is derived in part from the view that most marriages end in divorce, and so a man would have to be kind of stupid to put a ring on it. Tate would kind of prefer that men stay single, make lots of money, play with their toys, and use but not invest in the opposite sex. I do think it unfortunately does speak to a minority of men, especially younger men who are experiencing difficulty finding someone to date, and also finding an ideological divide between themselves and the opposite sex, and men who are divorced unwillingly. And then, because men are floundering when it comes to school and work in larger numbers, it can cultivate a certain kind of misogyny. What they're getting wrong is that today most marriages go the distance and that the divorce rates are no longer one in two, and that men who get and stay married are markedly happier, less lonely, and more prosperous than their peers who are not.

So you hold the position that marriage is good for people, and marriage is good for society. Do you also hold the position therefore that same-sex people should be allowed to get married?

I haven't weighed in on that. What I do in the book is mention that less than 1% of married parents are same sex.

I'm aware of the figure, but I'm interested in your view.

It’s important to wait to get some evidence. One of the surprising things about the same-sex-marriage story is that the take-up has, in terms of family life, not been as high as we might have expected. I think the jury's still out on how that's going to play out.

Your book says religious couples have more sex. Why do you think that is?

My colleague Wendy Wang and I did a YouGov survey, and we found that about two-thirds of churchgoing couples have sex at least once a week, and that less than half of more secular couples have sex once a week. I know of research saying that religious couples are happier in general and are happier with their sex lives in particular, but I wasn't expecting to see such a big gap when it comes to sexual frequency. It looks like the pattern is replicated in the 2022 General Social Survey. My hypothesis is that religious couples tend to enjoy more commitment, more trust, more emotional security, that even praying together fosters a unique kind of intimacy. But we don't know precisely what's going on here.

You, a conservative, propose raising the child tax credit to $350 a month. Do you have ideas on how to pay for that?

There are pieces in the federal budget that could be tweaked or removed. We have very generous credits for electric cars, and I would support removing that and allocating that money to the child-tax-credits budget. That particular credit tends to go to richer Americans. I think we could direct that money more to American families.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

The Effects of Marriage on Health: A Synthesis of Recent Research Evidence. Research Brief

Married people are generally healthier than unmarried people, as measured by numerous health outcomes. (1)   To investigate the complex relationship between marriage and health, this review scrutinizes recent research, focusing on studies that use rigorous statistical methods to examine whether marriage is a cause of these better health outcomes.

A focus on the most rigorous recent evidence reveals that marriage has positive effects on certain health-related outcomes. These studies find, for example, that marriage improves certain mental health outcomes, reduces the use of some high-cost health services (such as nursing home care), and increases the likelihood of having health insurance coverage. In addition, an emerging literature suggests that growing up with married parents is associated with better health as an adult. Marriage has mixed effects on health behaviors — leading to healthier behaviors in some cases (reduced heavy drinking) and less healthy behaviors in others (weight gain). For other key health outcomes — in particular, measures of specific physical health conditions-the effects of marriage remain largely unaddressed by rigorous research.

Understanding the Marriage-Health Connection

Measuring the effects of marriage.

Because marriage is likely to be both a cause and a consequence of health outcomes, research must disentangle the influence of selection from the true causal influence of marriage. Distinguishing between these two factors requires careful analysis and advanced statistical methods that have been absent from many studies. This review focuses on studies that provide the most reliable evidence on whether marriage has a causal influence on health outcomes.

The studies providing the strongest evidence use longitudinal data and examine the association between changes in health outcomes and transitions into and out of marriage. Studies of this type provide more convincing evidence of a causal relationship between marriage and health because sample members serve as their own control group, and the effect of marriage is measured by comparing their outcomes before and after marriage. This method avoids comparing two groups that may have different background characteristics — in particular, people who marry and people who do not — which may lead to misleading and inaccurate results.

Some health outcomes are not well suited for this type of analysis, however. For example, many physical health outcomes cannot be examined in this way, because changes can unfold over a long time and may not be apparent immediately after a marital transition. For this reason, the evidence on the effects of marriage on physical health is more limited and somewhat more speculative than evidence on the effects of marriage on other health outcomes examined in this review.

What Is Currently Known?

Effects on Health Behaviors.  Marriage may influence health through its effect on behaviors such as alcohol consumption, drug use, cigarette smoking, diet, and exercise. Recent research suggests that marriage has significant effects on the health behaviors of both men and women, but the pattern is mixed — marriage is associated with healthier behaviors in some cases and less healthy behaviors in others. Studies consistently indicate that marriage reduces heavy drinking and overall alcohol consumption, and that effects are similar for young men and young women, and for both African Americans and whites. ( 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )   Although the research is less extensive, marriage is also associated with reduced marijuana use for young men, but less so for women. ( 8 , 11 )   Less is known about the effects of marriage on the substance use of older adults. Studies of marriage and smoking reveal no consistent pattern of results, suggesting that marriage may have little or no influence on this behavior. ( 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

In contrast to studies of alcohol and drug use, studies of the effect of marriage on weight and physical activity suggest that marriage may have negative effects on healthy behaviors and may encourage a more sedentary lifestyle. Several rigorous studies find that marriage leads to modest weight increases for both men and women — typically averaging less than five pounds. ( 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 13 , 12 )   The research on the effects of marriage on physical activity is less conclusive because it is not based on longitudinal analysis and does not fully adjust for differences between those who marry and those who do not. The evidence that is available suggests marriage may lead to reductions in physical activity, particularly for men. (18)

For certain health behaviors — in particular, substance use among younger adults and weight gain among all adults — the influence of marriage has been well studied and is well understood. For other behaviors, less is known and additional research is needed before stronger conclusions can be drawn. One useful area for future research is to examine the effects of marriage on the alcohol use of older adults to determine whether the effects observed for young adults exist in older populations. Additional research using longitudinal data is also needed to examine the effects of marriage on physical activity to determine whether the relationship between marriage and physical activity observed in cross-sectional analyses remains when more rigorous estimation techniques are used.

Effects on Health Care Access, Use, and Costs.   Marriage may influence physical health through its effects on health care access and use. Studies of the link between marriage and health insurance suggest that — by offering access to coverage through a spouse's policy — marriage increases the likelihood of having insurance and reduces the likelihood of becoming uninsured after a job loss or other major life event. (19)   This effect is larger for women. Recent research also finds a link between marriage and health care use. Marriage is associated with shorter average hospital stays, fewer doctor visits, and reduced risk of nursing home admission. ( 20 , 21 , 22 )   Limited evidence also suggests that marriage may increase the use of preventive care such as cancer screenings. (12)

Because of its effects on health care use, marriage is also associated with lower health care costs among older adults. For example, studies show that, because marriage reduces the risk of nursing home admission, marriage may also lead to reduced nursing home costs. (22)   The effect of marriage in shortening hospital stays may also lead to reductions in health care costs. Research indicates that the effect of marriage on health care costs exists independent of the effect of marriage on physical health. (22)   Specifically, many married people rely on their spouses for informal care, and thus require fewer long hospital stays and nursing home admissions, resulting in lower health care costs — even if married and unmarried older adults are equally likely to get sick. ( 20 , 21 )   These studies find that wives are especially likely to provide informal care for their husbands at home, so the effect of marriage on health care costs may be larger for men.

The link between marriage and health care costs needs further study, because most previous research provides only indirect evidence based on examination of effects on high-cost health services, such as nursing home care. Other outcomes ripe for future research include quality of care, use of prescription medications, receipt of high-tech exams and treatments, patient adherence to prescribed treatment regimens, and use of preventive health services other than cancer screenings.

Effects on Mental Health.   Marriage may affect many aspects of mental health. This review focuses on the prevalence of depressive symptoms. The most recent rigorous research suggests that marriage reduces depressive symptoms for both men and women. ( 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )   In particular, these studies find that getting married decreases depressive symptoms, while getting divorced increases them. Research has also documented that increases in depressive symptoms after divorce are long-lasting and that the prevalence of these symptoms remains elevated years after the marital breakup. (27 , 28 )   In addition, studies comparing the mental health of stably married adults to those who remain unmarried find that those who are stably married have fewer depressive symptoms (and smaller increases in these symptoms as they grow older), even after controlling for baseline mental health. ( 23 , 25 , 26 )

Although research consistently shows that being married reduces depression, the existing evidence has limitations that future research should address. In particular, the most rigorous research typically estimates the effect of marriage and marital transitions by comparing the prevalence of depressive symptoms in the period just before a marital transition to the prevalence in the period just after the transition. This method adjusts for background differences between those who marry and those who do not. However, it may introduce other sources of bias into the estimates, and the direction of this bias is uncertain.

For example, people may experience fewer depressive symptoms in the period leading up to marriage in anticipation of this transition. Similarly, people may experience more depressive symptoms in the period leading up to a divorce, as the quality of their marriage declines. If so, comparing someone's depressive symptoms during the period just before a marital transition to the period immediately after may underestimate the effect of this transition. Conversely, if depressive symptoms are reduced for only a short time after marriage or are elevated for only a short time after a marital dissolution before returning to their pre-transition levels, comparisons of depressive symptoms just before and just after the transition would overestimate the long-term effect. To address these limitations and to obtain a more precise understanding of the relationship between marriage and depression, longitudinal data sets are needed that offer more detailed mental health histories and more information on changes in mental health status than are currently available.

Effects on Physical Health and Longevity.   Many studies have documented that people who marry live longer and enjoy better physical health than those who do not marry. ( 29 , 30 )   However, methodological issues require caution in interpreting this pattern, because most of the research in this area relies on descriptive methods that do not adequately control for the possible selection of healthier people into marriage. Although central to the overall assessment of the link between marriage and health, rigorous research evidence concerning the effect of marriage on specific physical health outcomes is limited, and few solid conclusions can be drawn.

The rigorous research currently available provides limited evidence of an effect of marriage on physical health. Recent research finds a significant positive effect of marriage on how men rate their overall physical health status; however, it finds no such effect for women. ( 30 )   Researchers find a positive effect on women's physical health, as measured by the prevalence of specific health conditions and illnesses. (31)   However, no recent rigorous studies based on U.S. samples have examined whether a similar marriage effect on the frequency of health conditions or illnesses exists among men. Similarly, little evidence exists on the links between marriage and specific health conditions or diseases. One exception is a recent study that suggests a possible link between marriage and the risk of cardiovascular disease for women; however, the study finds no such effect for men. (32)   Overall, the existing research evidence on the links between marriage and physical health is limited to a narrow range of health measures and does not offer a complete picture of the influence of marriage on physical health.

Many studies have pointed to a strong relationship between marriage and longevity, (33 , 29 , 34 )   but this research also has limitations. In particular, these studies are typically limited to simple descriptive comparisons of married and unmarried adults that do not adequately distinguish the effect of marriage from the possible effects of healthier people selecting into marriage. As noted, the most reliable studies of links between marriage and health examine measures directly before and after marital transitions. However, because longevity is determined only at the end of life, it is not possible to observe how a marital transition changes longevity. Some researchers have attempted to address selection using other statistical techniques, (5)   but these studies provide less convincing evidence than do studies of marital transitions. For this reason, the strongest evidence of a positive effect of marriage on longevity comes more from the robustness of this relationship across many studies than from the particular strengths of any single study.

A more definitive test of the effect of marriage on physical health and longevity will require very long-term longitudinal data that afford the opportunity to control for differences in initial health status measured before sample members begin to marry. With data of this type, researchers can examine how differing marital histories affect physical health, controlling for any initial health differences that exist between those who marry and remain married and those who do not.

Intergenerational Health Effects. An emerging literature on the possible intergenerational health effects of marriage suggests that marriage also has potential long-term consequences for the physical health of a couple's children. In particular, studies show that growing up with married parents is associated with better physical health in adulthood and increased longevity. (35 , 36 , 37 )   Research suggests that such intergenerational health effects are especially strong for men and operate equally for African American and white men. ( 38 , 39 , 40 )   There is less evidence examining possible differences in this relationship for African American and white women.

There are many possible reasons why parental marital status may have long-term health consequences for children. However, existing research provides limited evidence on the pathways by which childhood family structure affects adult physical health and longevity. Several studies suggest that the effects work mostly through the role of childhood family structure in shaping children's future socioeconomic attainment, and through adult health risk behaviors, such as smoking and heavy drinking. ( 35 , 39 )   On average, children raised in two-parent families obtain more education and exhibit healthier adult behaviors than children from other types of families. These differences, in turn, have consequences for adult health and longevity.

Research on intergenerational health effects has focused on trends for people born in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period when patterns of marriage, divorce, and single parenthood were much different from today. It is possible that the apparent benefits of marriage for children's health have weakened as single parenthood and divorce have become more common and less stigmatizing. In addition, much of the research is limited to data for small nonrepresentative samples. The available nationally representative evidence is based on data sets that began tracking sample members as adults, which limits the ability to control for differences in the background characteristics of those who grew up in a two-parent family and those who did not.

Future research is needed to

• Replicate the results of existing research with nationally representative data following sample members from childhood into adulthood,
• Distinguish more clearly the effect of parental marital status from the effects of other related family characteristics,
• Identify more precise mechanisms by which childhood family structure might influence adult physical health, and
• Examine whether the relationships observed in earlier generations also apply to a younger cohort of children coming of age in a period when divorce and single parenthood are increasingly common.

Marriage, Health, and Policy

Recent research suggests that marriage improves certain health outcomes. However, the picture of marriage's overall effect on health is not yet complete. Future research could more fully explore the effects of marriage on health care costs; the health effects of marriage for different racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups; the role that marital quality might play; and the intergenerational health effects of marriage. Moreover, little rigorous research has been conducted concerning the central question of whether marriage affects physical health. Additional research in these and other areas could help clarify the breadth of the health effects of marriage. Better information about how marriage affects health can contribute to discussions about the role and purposes of public policy in supporting marriage — and possibly give a new meaning to the phrase “healthy marriage.”

1. Schoenborn, Charlotte A. "Marital Status and Health:  United States, 1999-2002." Advance Data, no. 351, December 2004.

2. Lerman, Robert. "Marriage and the Economic Well-Being of Families with Children:  A Review of the Literature." Washington, DC: The Urban Institute and American University, July 2002.

3. Umberson, Debra. "Family Status and Health Behaviors:  Social Control as a Dimension of Social Integration." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 28, no. 3, 1987, pp. 306-319.

4. House J.S., D. Umberson, and K.R. Landis. "Structures and Processes of Social Support." Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 14, 1988, pp. 293-318.

5. Lillard, Lee A., and Constantijn W.A. Panis. "Marital Status and Mortality:  The Role of Health." Demography, vol. 33, no. 3, August 1996, pp. 313-327.

6. Murray, John E. "Marital Protection and Marital Selection:  Evidence from a Historical-Prospective Sample of American Men." Demography, vol. 37, no. 4, November 2000, pp. 511-521.

7. Waite, Linda J. "Does Marriage Matter?"  Demography, vol. 32, no. 4, Nov. 1995, pp. 483-507.

8. Duncan, Greg, Bessie Wilkerson, and Paula England. "Cleaning Up Their Act:  The Effects of Marriage and Cohabitation on Licit and Illicit Drug Use." Demography, vol. 43, no. 4, Nov. 2006, pp. 691-710.

9. Curran, Patrick J., Bengt O. Muthen, and Thomas C. Harford. "The Influence of Changes in Marital Status on Developmental Trajectories of Alcohol Use in Young Adults." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, November 1998.

10. Miller-Tutzauer, C; K.E. Leonard, and M. Windle. "Marriage and Alcohol Use:  A Longitudinal Study of "Maturing Out". J Stud Alcohol., vol. 52, no. 5, September 1991, pp. 434-40.

11. Bachman, J.G., K.N. Wadsworth, P.M. O'Malley, L.D. Johnston, and J.E. Schulenberg. Smoking, Drinking, and Drug use in Young Adulthood:  The Impacts of New Freedoms and New Responsibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1997.

12. Lee, Sunmin, Eunyoung Cho, Francine Grodstein, Ichiro Kawachi, Frank B. Hu, and Graham A. Colditz. "Effects of Marital Transitions on Changes in Dietary and Other Health Behaviours in U.S. Women." International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 34, 2005, pp. 69-78.

13. Eng, P.M., Ichiro Kawachi, Garrett Fitzmaurice, and Eric B. Rimm. "Effects of Marital Transitions on Changes in Dietary and Other Health Behaviours in U.S. Male Health Professionals." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 59, 2005, pp. 56-62.

14. Kahn, Henry S., and David F. Williamson. "The Contributions of Income, Education, and Changing Marital Status to Weight Change Among U.S. Men." International Journal of Obesity, vol. 14, 1990, pp. 1057-1068.

15. Kahn, H.S., D.F. Williamson, and J.A. Stevens. "Race and Weight Change in U.S. Women:  The Roles of Socioeconomic and Marital Status." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 81, no. 3, March 1991, pp. 319-323.

16. Sobal, J., B. Rauschenbach, and E. Frongillo. "Marital Status Changes and Body Weight Changes:  A U.S. Longitudinal Analysis." Social Science & Medicine, vol. 56, no. 7, 2003, pp. 1543-1546.

17. Jeffery, R.W., and A.M. Rick. "Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Associations Between Body Mass Index and Marriage-Related Factors." Obes Res, vol. 10, 2002, pp. 809-815.

18. Nomaguchi, Kei M., and Suzanne M. Bianchi. "Exercise Time: Gender Differences in the Effects of Marriage, Parenthood, and Employment." Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, May 2004, pp. 413-129.

19. Short, Pamela Farley. "Gaps and Transitions in Health Insurance:  What Are the Concerns of Women?" Journal of Women's Health, vol. 7, no. 6, 1998, pp. 725-737.

20. Freedman, Vicki A. "Family Structure and the Risk of Nursing Home Admission." Journal of Gerontology, Social Sciences, vol. 51B, 1996, pp. S61-S69.

21. Iwashyna, Theodore J., and Nicholas A. Christakis. "Marriage, Widowhood, and Health-Care Use." Social Science & Medicine, vol. 57, no. 11, 2003, pp. 2137-2147.

22. Prigerson, Holly G., Paul K. Maciejewski, and Robert A. Rosenheck. "Preliminary Explorations of the Harmful Interactive Effects of Widowhood and Marital Harmony on Health, Health Service Use, and Health Care Costs." The Gerontologist, vol. 40, no. 3, 2000, pp. 349-57.

23. Kim, Hyoun K., and Patrick McKenry. "The Relationship Between Marriage and Psychological Well-Being." Journal of Family Issues, vol. 23, no. 8, 2002, pp. 885-911.

24. Lamb, Kathleen A., Gary R. Lee, and Alfred DeMaris. "Union Formation and Depression: Selection and Relationship Effects." Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 65, 2003, pp. 953-962.

25. Marks, Nadine F., and James David Lambert. "Marital Status Continuity and Change among Young and Midlife Adults." Journal of Family Issues, vol. 19, no. 6, 1998, pp. 652-686.

26. Simon, Robin W. "Revisiting the Relationships Among Gender, Marital Status, and Mental Health." American Journal of Sociology, vol. 4, 2002, pp. 1065-1096.

27. Aseltine Jr., Robert H., and Ronald C. Kessler. "Marital Disruption and Depression in a Community Sample." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 34, 1993, pp. 237-251.

28. Johnson, David R., and Jian Wu. "An Empirical Test of Crisis, Social Selection, and Role Explanations of the Relationship Between Marital Disruption and Psychological Distress:  A Pooled Time-Series Analysis of Four-Wave Panel Data." Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 64, 2002, pp. 211-224.

29. Manzoli, Lamberto, Paolo Villari, Giovanni M. Pirone, and Antonio Boccia. "Marital Status and Mortality in the Elderly:  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Social Science & Medicine, vol. 64, 2007, pp. 77-94.

30. Williams, Kristi and Debra Umberson. "Marital Status, Marital Transitions, and Health:  A Gendered Life Course Perspective." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 45, 2004, pp. 81-98.

31. Lorenz, Frederick O., K.A.S. Wickrama, Rand D. Conger, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. "The Short-Term and Decade-Long Effects of Divorce on Women's Midlife Health." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 47, 2006, pp. 111-125.

32. Zhang, Zhenmei and Mark D. Hayward. "Gender, the Marital Life Course, and Cardiovascular Health in Late Midlife." Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 68, no. 3, 2006, pp. 639-657.

33. Kaplan, Robert M. and Richard G. Kronick. "Marital Status and Longevity in the United States Population." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 60, 2006; pp. 760-765.

34. Sorlie, P.D., E. Backland, and J.B. Keller. "U.S. Mortality by Economic, Demographic, and Social Characteristics:  the National Longitudinal Mortality Study." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 85, no. 7, 1995, pp. 949-956.

35. Hayward, Mark D., and Bridget K. Gorman. "The Long Arm of Childhood:  The Influence of Early-Life Social Conditions on Men's Mortality." Demography, vol. 41, no. 1, 2004, pp. 87-107.

36. Maier, E. Hailey, and Margie E. Lachman. "Consequences of Early Parental Loss and Separation for Health and Well-Being in Midlife." International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 24, no. 2, 2000, pp. 183-89.

37. Schwartz, Joseph, Howard S. Friedman, Joan S. Tucker, Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, Deborah L. Wingard, and Michael H. Criqui. "Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Factors in Childhood as Predictors of Adult Mortality." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 85, no. 9, 1995, pp. 1237-1245.

38. Preston, Samuel H., Mark E. Hill, and Greg L. Drevenstedt. "Childhood Conditions that Predict Survival to Advanced Ages Among African-Americans." Social Science & Medicine, vol. 47, no. 9, 1998, pp. 1231-1246.

39. Tucker, Joan S., Howard S. Friedman, Joseph E. Schwartz, Michael H. Criqui, Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, Deborah L. Wingard, and Leslie R. Martin. "Parental Divorce:  Effects on Individual Behavior and Longevity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73, no. 2, 1997, pp. 381-391.

40. Warner, David F. and Mark D. Hayward. "Early-Life Origins of the Race Gap in Men's Mortality." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 47, 2006, pp. 209-226.

2019 Hinckley Lecture - Dr. Scott Stanley: Cohabitation, Commitment, and the Future of Marriage

January 30, 2019.

Cohabitation is not an issue at BYU.

In fact, as well-educated, religious and generally economically-sound individuals, students at BYU are among the least likely to cohabitate before marriage.

But BYU students and couples are just as susceptible as anyone to experience the negative trends and effects of cohabitation on familial outcomes by avoiding commitment and relationship decisions.

At the 15 th Annual Marjorie Pay Hinckley Lecture , Dr. Scott Stanley, research professor and co-director of the University of Denver Center for Marital and Family Studies , will expound on how relationships form, how commitment develops and the dangers couples face by “sliding” through potentially life-altering relationship transitions and decision making as opposed to discussing and deciding on a future.

Dr. Stanley's lecture “Sliding vs. Deciding: Cohabitation, Commitment, and the Future of Marriage” will be held on Thursday, February 7 at 7:30 p.m. at the Hinckley Center Assembly Hall.

Sliding: The non-decision

Talking about your relationship—especially the future of it—can be hard. But the repercussions of not having critical conversations and making relationship decisions are much harder.

“Sliding,”or moving to the next stage in a relationship without discussing the consequences and making a definitive decision and commitment to the future of the relationship, can be seen in relationships at every stage.

“The people we've identified that are at greatest risk [of marital stress] are people who have decided to live together [or move forward in their relationship] before they've decided as a couple that they want a future together,” says Dr. Stanley.

Individuals who are not cohabitating face similar risk when they likewise forego crucial clarifying conversations and decision making. In the process of creating relationship ambiguity, couples, in Dr. Stanley's words, “increase the inertia for their relationship to continue before talking clearly about whether they're on the same page and where they're going.”

Following trends and giving up choices

The combination of relationship inertia developing before a couple's commitment has matured and the cultural trend of individuals preferring ambiguity results in individuals bypassing relationship steps and stages, and in the process, giving up future options.

“People don't want to be clear,” says Dr. Stanley. “They don't want clear [relationship] steps and stages because they don't want to give up any options too soon. Ironically, that's exactly what happens when they're sliding through these stages. They're giving up options before they make a choice.”

With societal trends questioning marriage as an essential life stage, individuals find themselves in situations that they never actually decide on because they bypass the stages and opportunities to make clear decisions for their futures.

Recognizing—and taking—proper steps

According to Dr. Stanley, commitment forms strongest when there are a set of steps and stages that couples move through.

Marriage not only acts as a signifier of higher commitment between two individuals, but it also acts as a major life-orienting step where individuals can make choices that influence their future lives and families.

“People slide through potentially life-altering relationship transitions now without necessarily seeing what the consequences might be in terms of their future options, stability, marriage and family,”says Dr. Stanley.

Recognizing—and taking—these steps and stages throughout a relationship are essential to establishing the commitment that creates the formation and foundation of sound, stable marriages, families and communities.

Regardless of a couple's living situation, communication and commitment to a couple's future need to be made before wedding invitations are sent or closets are merged.

Learn about commitment and the dangers couples face by “sliding” through relationship transitions at the 15 th Annual Hinckley Lecture with Dr. Scott Stanley on Thursday, February 7 at 7:30 p.m. at the Hinckley Center Assembly Hall. Admission is free to the public.

“Black Marriages Matter”: School of Family Life Professors Study Qualities of Successful Black Marriages

BYU marriage and family therapy program honored nationally for research

Why Supportive Spouses Have Better Hearts

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S.

The share of adults who have lived with a romantic partner is now higher than the share who have ever been married; married adults are more satisfied with their relationships, more trusting of their partners

Table of contents.

• 1. The landscape of marriage and cohabitation in the U.S.
• 2. Public views of marriage and cohabitation
• 3. Why people get married or move in with a partner
• 4. How married and cohabiting adults see their relationships
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

As more U.S. adults are delaying marriage – or forgoing it altogether – the share who have ever lived with an unmarried partner has been on the rise. Amid these changes, most Americans find cohabitation acceptable, even for couples who don’t plan to get married, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Even so, a narrow majority says society is better off if couples in long-term relationships eventually get married.

The survey also examines how adults who are married and those who are living with an unmarried partner are experiencing their relationships. It finds that married adults are more satisfied with their relationship and more trusting of their partners than those who are cohabiting.

The share of U.S. adults who are currently married has declined modestly in recent decades, from 58% in 1995 to 53% today. Over the same period, the share of adults who are living with an unmarried partner has risen from 3% to 7%. While the share who are currently cohabiting remains far smaller than the share who are married, the share of adults ages 18 to 44 who have ever lived with an unmarried partner (59%) has surpassed the share who has ever been married (50%), according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). 1

Young adults are particularly accepting of cohabitation – 78% of those ages 18 to 29 say it’s acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, even if they don’t plan to get married – but majorities across age groups share this view. Still, even among those younger than 30, a substantial share (45%) say society is better off if couples who want to stay together long-term eventually get married. Roughly half of those ages 30 to 49 say the same, as do majorities of those ages 50 and older.

Views about marriage and cohabitation are also linked to religious affiliation. About three-quarters of Catholics (74%) and white Protestants who do not self-identify as born-again or evangelical (76%) say it’s acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together even if they don’t plan to get married. By contrast, only 47% of black Protestants and 35% of white evangelical Protestants share this view. And while half or more across these groups say society is better off if couples who want to stay together long-term eventually get married, white evangelicals are the most likely to say this (78% do so). Among those who are not religiously affiliated, fully nine-in-ten say cohabitation is acceptable even if a couple doesn’t plan to get married, and just 31% say society is better off if couples who want to stay together eventually get married.

The nationally representative survey of 9,834 U.S. adults was conducted online June 25-July 8, 2019, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel . 2 The survey includes 5,579 married adults and 880 adults who are living with an unmarried partner. It includes married and cohabiting adults in same-sex relationships. 3  Among the other key findings:

Married adults have higher levels of relationship satisfaction and trust than those living with an unmarried partner

Majorities of married and cohabiting adults express at least a fair amount of trust in their spouse or partner to be faithful to them, act in their best interest, always tell them the truth and handle money responsibly, but by double digits, married adults are more likely than those who are cohabiting to express a great deal of trust in their spouse or partner in each of these areas.

Married adults also express higher levels of satisfaction with their relationship. About six-in-ten married adults (58%) say things are going very well in their marriage; 41% of cohabiters say the same about their relationship with their partner.

When asked about specific aspects of their relationship, larger shares of married than cohabiting adults say they are very satisfied with the way household chores are divided between them and their spouse or partner, how well their spouse or partner balances work and personal life, how well they and their spouse or partner communicate, and their spouse’s or partner’s approach to parenting (among those with children younger than 18 in the household). When it comes to their sex life, however, similar shares of married and cohabiting adults say they are very satisfied.

Married adults are also more likely than cohabiters to say they feel closer to their spouse or partner than to any other adult. About eight-in-ten married adults (78%) say they feel closer to their spouse than to any other adult in their life; a narrower majority of cohabiters (55%) say the same about their partner.

Even after controlling for demographic differences between married and cohabiting adults (such as gender, age, race, religion and educational attainment), married adults express higher levels of satisfaction, trust and closeness than those who are living with a partner.

The reasons why people get married and the reasons they move in with a partner differ in some key ways

Most married and cohabiting adults cite love and companionship as major reasons why they decided to get married or move in with a partner. But about four-in-ten cohabiters also say finances and convenience were important factors in their decision: 38% say moving in with their partner made sense financially and 37% say it was convenient. In comparison, just 13% of married adults cite finances and 10% cite convenience as major reasons why they decided to get married.

About six-in-ten married adults (63%) say making a formal commitment was a major factor in their decision to get married. This is particularly the case among those who did not live with their spouse before getting married.

Among cohabiters, about a quarter (23%) say wanting to test their relationship was a major reason why they decided to move in with their partner.

Many cohabiting adults see living together as a step toward marriage

Most married adults (66%) who lived with their spouse before they were married (and who were not yet engaged when they moved in together) say they saw cohabitation as a step toward marriage when they first started living with their now-spouse. Among cohabiting adults who were not engaged when they moved in with their partner, 44% say they saw living together as a step toward marriage. Cohabiters who have gotten engaged since moving in with their partner are more likely than those who are not currently engaged to say they saw living together as a step toward marriage (63% vs. 38%).

Among cohabiters who are not currently engaged, those with at least some college education are more likely than those with less education to say they saw moving in with their partner as a step toward marriage. Half of cohabiting college graduates who are not engaged – and 43% of those with some college experience – say this, compared with 28% of those with a high school diploma or less education.

About four-in-ten cohabiting adults who are not currently engaged (41%) say they want to get married someday. Of this group, 58% say they are very likely to marry their current partner, while 27% say this is somewhat likely and 14% say it’s not too or not at all likely that they will marry their partner. About a quarter of non-engaged cohabiters (24%) say they don’t want to get married, and 35% aren’t sure.

Two-thirds of cohabiters who want to get married someday cite either their own or their partner’s finances as a reason why they’re not engaged or married

About three-in-ten cohabiting adults who are not engaged but say they would like to get married someday say their partner’s (29%) or their own (27%) lack of financial readiness is a major reason why they’re not engaged or married to their current partner. About a quarter (24%) say their partner not being ready financially is a minor reason, and 29% say the same about their own finances.

Roughly four-in-ten cite not being far enough along in their job or career as a major or minor reason why they’re not engaged or married to their partner. Similar shares say they (44%) or their partner (47%) not being ready to make that kind of commitment is at least a minor reason why they’re not engaged or married, though more cite their partner not being ready, rather than themselves, as a major reason (26% vs. 14%).

Younger adults are more likely to see cohabitation as a path to a successful marriage

About half of U.S. adults (48%) say couples who live together before marriage have a better chance of having a successful marriage than those who don’t live together before marriage; 13% say couples who live together before marriage have a worse chance of having a successful marriage and 38% say it doesn’t make much difference.

Adults younger than 30 are more likely than older adults to see cohabitation as a path to a successful marriage: 63% of young adults say couples who live together before marriage have a better chance of having a successful marriage, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49, 42% of those ages 50 to 64 and 37% of those 65 and older. About a third or more of those 30 and older say cohabitation doesn’t have much of an impact on a couple’s chance of having a successful marriage.

Adults who lived with their spouse before they were married are much more likely than those who didn’t to say that couples who live together have a better chance of having a successful marriage (57% vs. 24%, respectively). About a third of married adults who didn’t live with their spouse before marriage (32%) say cohabitation worsens a couple’s chance of having a successful marriage, while 44% say it doesn’t make much difference.

A majority of Americans say cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as married couples

Just over half of cohabiting adults ages 18 to 44 are raising children, including about a third who are living with a child they share with their current partner. A majority of Americans (59%) say that unmarried couples who are living together can raise children just as well as married couples; 40% say couples who are married do a better job raising children.

White non-evangelical Protestants (57%) and black Protestants (59%) are far more likely than white evangelicals (33%) to say cohabiting couples can raise children as well as those who are married.

There are also differences among Catholics: 73% of Hispanic Catholics – compared with 48% of white Catholics – say cohabiting and married couples can raise children equally well.

Views on this are also linked to partisanship. Overall, 73% of Democrats and those who lean Democratic say cohabiting couples can raise children just as well as married couples; 41% of Republicans and those who lean to the GOP say the same. These gaps persist even when taking religion and age, which are strongly linked to partisanship, into account.

Cohabiting adults (82%) are far more likely than those who are married (52%) to say couples who are living together but are not married can raise children as well as married couples. Cohabiters with and without children younger than 18 in the household are about equally likely to hold this view.

Most Americans favor allowing unmarried couples to have the same legal rights as married couples

About two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say they favor allowing unmarried couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them the same rights as married couples when it comes to things like health insurance, inheritance or tax benefits; 34% oppose this. For the most part, views about these types of legal agreements don’t vary considerably along demographic lines, although white (66%) and Hispanic (68%) adults are more likely than black adults (58%) to express support.

About three-quarters of Democrats (77%) favor allowing unmarried couples to enter into these types of legal agreements. In contrast, Republicans are about evenly divided, with 50% saying they favor and 49% saying they oppose this.

Most don’t see being married as essential to living a fulfilling life

Relatively small shares of U.S. adults say being married is essential for a man (16%) or a woman (17%) to live a fulfilling life; 54% say being married is important but not essential for each, while about three-in-ten say being married is not important for a man (29%) or a woman (28%) to live a fulfilling life. When asked more generally about the importance of being in a committed romantic relationship, 26% say this is essential for a man and 30% say it is essential for a woman to live a fulfilling life.

Far larger shares see having a job or career they enjoy as essential in order for a man (57%) or a woman (46%) to live a fulfilling life. One-in-five say having a lot of money is essential for a man, while 15% say it is essential for a woman. When it comes to having children, 22% see it as essential in order for a woman to live a fulfilling life; 16% say this is essential for a man.

References to whites, blacks and Asians include only those who are non-Hispanic and identify as only one race. Asians include Pacific Islanders. Hispanics are of any race. For the most part, the views and experiences of Asians are not analyzed separately in this report due to sample limitations. In the analysis of Current Population Survey data in chapter 1, data for Asians are shown separately. Data for Asians and other racial and ethnic groups are incorporated into the general population figures throughout the report.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree. “High school” refers to those who have a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as a General Education Development (GED) certificate.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party: Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and independents who say they lean toward the Republican Party, and Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and independents who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

A person is considered to have “at least one shared child” if there is a child age 18 or younger residing in the household who is the biological child of themselves and their present spouse or partner. If a person does not have any “shared children,” but does have other children ages 18 or younger in the household – for instance, a spouse’s child from a prior marriage, an adopted child or a foster child – then the person is considered to have “child(ren) from other relationships.”

• The NSFG is administered to respondents ages 15 to 44. The analysis of NSFG data in this report includes only those ages 18 to 44. ↩
• For more details, see the Methodology section of the report. ↩
• Only 2% of married respondents and 7% of cohabiting respondents report that their spouse or partner is the same sex as them. Due to the small size of these groups, our ability to draw comparisons between those in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships is limited. Figures in this report include those in both types of relationships, unless otherwise noted. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Family & Relationships
• Marriage & Divorce
• Unmarried Adults

Who do Americans feel comfortable talking to about their mental health?

Few east asian adults believe women have an obligation to society to have children, among parents with young adult children, some dads feel less connected to their kids than moms do, how teens and parents approach screen time, most east asian adults say men and women should share financial and caregiving duties, most popular, report materials.

• 2019 Family Study
• American Trends Panel Wave 50

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Times Insider

An Intimate Look at Modern Love and Marriage

Amanda Montei, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, spoke to more than 30 married people for whom sex is not essential.

By Sarah Bahr

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

When Amanda Montei began reporting an article last year about married couples who had little to no sex, she didn’t know how forthcoming people would be about their sex lives.

But to her surprise, many of the couples were willing — grateful, even — to talk about it.

“It was almost like a pressure valve was released,” Ms. Montei said of her conversations with more than 30 married people who are among the 50 percent of American adults having sex once a month or less . “Most couples I talked with said speaking to me felt like a relief because they were able to talk openly about their sexual lives without judgment.”

The article, which was published this month in the Modern Love issue of The New York Times Magazine, is based on phone and video conversations with couples in seven states, as well as Canada, Britain and Italy, and took Ms. Montei five months to report.

“My main takeaway was that there are so many factors that influence a person’s desire,” she said. “It’s a really complicated negotiation with the self and the body and our current cultural moment.”

In a phone conversation from her home in the San Francisco Bay Area, Ms. Montei discussed how she helped sources feel comfortable sharing intimate details of their private lives and what questions she hopes to tackle next in her reporting. These are edited excerpts.

How did you come up with the idea for this article?

I published a book last fall about motherhood and sexuality and received lots of notes from readers who connected with it and saw themselves represented in it, and who found that motherhood impacted the way they viewed their bodies, sexual lives and relationships. Writing and publishing the book made me more curious about women’s sexual lives, especially how desires can change with age and parenthood; what marriage has tended to demand of women; and how people in long-term heterosexual relationships navigate those changes today.

There’s also been a shift lately in the public conversation around traditional marriage. We’ve seen so much coverage of polyamory and questions about monogamy, but less coverage of marital sex and what that looks like today. I wanted to explore that.

Did you ask people to use their full names?

I tried, but most people asked for some level of anonymity. I think that speaks to how much shame and secrecy there is surrounding this issue. Many couples I spoke to said this isn’t something they talk about with other people; that was especially true for the men.

How did you get sources to open up?

I’ve written candidly about my life, so I think that helped some of my sources open up. These couples knew I was there to listen and didn’t have a predetermined agenda.

What was your biggest reporting challenge?

There was so much I wanted to say about the history of marital sex. There are lots of women who have written to me with experiences of trauma and violation in their marriages. There are also couples who aren’t straight or monogamous. For me, this was a study of heterosexuality and monogamous marriage today, and it felt important to stay focused on that.

What was the biggest surprise?

I expected to find a lot of straight men who were impatient with women who had a low sense of desire, or who felt disconnected from their desire. But I found that the men I spoke to were really patient, empathetic and thoughtful about issues of consent. They were curious and trying to figure out the best ways they could support their partners.

Were you surprised by the reader response?

The piece definitely took off in a way I didn’t expect. People have opinions about marriage and sex, and the popularity of the piece shows how desperate people are to talk about these topics. They want to have more open conversations about sex, desire, partnership and what all of that looks like today.

What questions do you still have after reporting this article?

One thing I didn’t have space to examine in the piece is how cultural beliefs about desire, sex and our expectations of intimacy in relationships are circulating online. There are some ways that digital spaces and social media have made room for more diverse representations of desire, sexuality and partnership. But there are also plenty of pro-marriage accounts, influencers and so-called intimacy experts who advocate regressive ideas about married women.

In the era of wellness culture and the unregulated relationship-coaching industry, we also see a lot of relationship, intimacy, and sex coaches online advocating fairly traditional gender roles, often under the guise of health or relationship stability. Other figures are more earnestly helping people understand and articulate their desires and sexualities.

Sarah Bahr writes about culture and style for The Times. More about Sarah Bahr