Pamela J. Smock

Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors*

Our study investigates the transition to first marriage among cohabiting black and white men and women, drawing on data from the National Survey of Families and Households. Our results underscore the importance of economic factors on the transition to marriage for both black and white cohabitors. We also find that for black cohabitors, but not for whites, socioeconomic disadvantage during childhood reduces the odds of marriage. The presence of children in cohabiting unions tends to increase the chances of marrying a cohabiting partner for both blacks and whites. Our results demonstrate the importance of including cohabitation in research on the marriage process.

Cohabiting partners’ economic circumstances and marriage

Past studies of the transition to marriage generally have relied on information about only one individual or have attempted to measure characteristics of potential spouses indirectly. Drawing on data from the two waves of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), we examine the effects of economic circumstances of both partners in cohabiting unions on the transition to marriage. Focusing on both partners in a relationship affords a more direct test of the relative importance of men’s versus women s economic circumstances. Our findings suggest that only the male partner’s economic resources affect the transition to marriage, with positive economic situations accelerating marriage and deterring separation. Our results imply that despite trends toward egalitarian gender-role attitudes and increasing income provision among women, cohabiting men s economic circumstances carry far more weight than women’s in marriage formation.

The effect of marriage and divorce on women's economic well-being

This article focuses on the question of whether divorced women would experience the same absolute levels of economic well being by staying married as women who remain married experience. The study additionally examines the argument that all women are economically vulnerable once marriage ends by examining whether the average married women would if she were to divorce experience the same low levels of economic well being as divorced women do. Longitudinal data from the National Survey of Families and Households are utilized to estimate endogenous switching regression models that simultaneously predict the odds of divorce and subsequent economic well being for women who divorce and for those who remain married. Findings suggest that divorced women would not fare as well economically as married women had they remained married instead of divorcing. This study concludes that women generally are economically vulnerable outside marriage. By virtue of the division of labor in marriage many women still accrue lower levels and less continuity of employment than their husbands. This study indicates that the typical married woman would experience the same financial distress if she were to divorce thus underscoring womens economic vulnerability.

He Says, She Says: Gender and Cohabitation:

Cohabitation has become the modal path to marriage in the United States. However, little is known about what cohabitation means to young adults today. Drawing on data from 18 focus groups (N = 138) and 54 in-depth interviews with young adults, this exploratory study investigates motivations to cohabit and examines potential gender differences in those motivations and the meanings attached to them. The authors find that primary motives to cohabit include spending time together, sharing expenses, and evaluating compatibility. Strong gender differences emerge in how respondents discuss these themes and how they characterize the drawbacks of cohabitation, with men more concerned about loss of freedom and women with delays in marriage. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that gendered cultural norms governing intimate relationships extend to cohabiting unions and point to gender differences in the perceived role of cohabitation in union formation processes.

Divorce and Women’s Risk of Health Insurance Loss

This article bridges the literatures on the economic consequences of divorce for women with that on marital transitions and health by focusing on women’s health insurance. Using a monthly calendar of marital status and health insurance coverage from 1,442 women in the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we examine how women’s health insurance changes after divorce. Our estimates suggest that roughly 115,000 American women lose private health insurance annually in the months following divorce and that roughly 65,000 of these women become uninsured. The loss of insurance coverage we observe is not just a short-term disruption. Women’s rates of insurance coverage remain depressed for more than two years after divorce. Insurance loss may compound the economic losses women experience after divorce and contribute to as well as compound previously documented health declines following divorce.

The role of romantic partners, family, and peer networks in dating couples' views about cohabitation

Emerging adults are increasingly cohabiting, but few studies have considered the role of social context in the formation of their views of cohabitation. Drawing on 40 semistructured interviews with dating couples, we explored the role of romantic partners, family, and peers on evaluations of cohabitation. In couples where each member had a differing view about cohabitation, one romantic partner’s desire to not cohabit trumped their partner’s more ambivalent feelings about cohabitation.The influence of family in the formation of cohabitation views was evident through a variety of mechanisms, including parental advice, social modeling, religious values, and economic control. Peers also played a key role, with couples using the vicarious trials of their peer networks to judge how cohabitation would affect their own relationship. By using a couple perspective, assessing reports from both members of each couple, this study showcases how beliefs about cohabitation are formed within an intimate dyad.

Living Together Unmarried: What Do We Know About Cohabiting Families?

Heterosexual cohabitation has become a normative feature of the life course. The prevalence and incidence of cohabitation have risen considerably in the past 3 decades. In fact, it is now so commonplace that researchers have moved beyond debates about its transience as a trend. Most marriages and remarriages begin as cohabiting relationships, and the majority of young adults has cohabited or will cohabit at some point in their lives (Smock, 2000). Moreover, most young adults in the United States now view nonmarital cohabitation as an acceptable relationship form (Axinn & Thornton, 2000; Scott, Shelar, Manlove, & Cui, 2009; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). The incidence of cohabiting partners with children is increasingly widespread, too: two-fifths of cohabiting couples are currently raising children and nearly half of these couples have a joint biological child (Kennedy & Fitch, 2009, p. 15).

A message from the new editor.

The transition of Demography from the University of Washington–Seattle to the University of Michigan on May 1, 2013, was a smooth one, facilitated by many people. Outgoing Editor, Stew Tolnay, has been available when needed and handled some of the manuscripts initially submitted under his editorship; his influence is evident in this issue, which is largely composed of articles accepted during his editorship. Others who have been instrumental in the transition include Managing Editor Laura Tesch, members of the Population Association of America (PAA) Publications Committee, the former Deputy Editors and Editorial Assistants, and the exceptional current team of Deputy Editors. Sara Zobl also deserves recognition for quickly mastering the role of Editorial Assistant and then some. My editorial philosophy is straightforward. The state of Demography is outstanding, and the foundation for maintaining its excellence lies in continuing to publish first-rate demographic scholarship. Thus, my primary focus is to continue to attract and publish the very best work in our field. I am aided in this effort by an editorial team that, together, has extensive knowledge of the field—both its core and recent innovations. I am also strongly committed to timeliness; an important goal is to maintain the relatively short turnaround time for review, currently at about three months, without compromising the quality and rigor of the peer-review process. It has now been a half-century since the birth of Demography. The first issue (1964), under the editorship of Donald Bogue, named 15 “Editorial Assistants.” The current issue names 16 Deputy Editors and an Editorial Board comprising 61 demographers, up from 39 under the past editorship. One reason for the sharp uptick in the number of Editorial Board members is related to a major trend I wish to underscore: the continuing increase in the number of submissions we are tackling. I do not think the details of the increase in submissions or the implications of this surge for editorial operations and maintaining rapid turnaround times are well Demography (2014) 51:1–2 DOI 10.1007/s13524-013-0276-3

The Best of Intentions: A Structural Analysis of the Association between Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Unintended Pregnancy in a Sample of Mothers from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979)

OBJECTIVES Births to less educated women are more likely to be classified as unintended than other births. We question a common interpretation that this association reflects a lack of contraceptive knowledge or self-efficacy among less educated women. We theorize that differences in early life educational advantages structure pregnancy desires and the salience and opportunity costs of precise fertility timing. We hypothesize that net of covariates indicative of early educational disadvantage, mothers with less education are not more likely to report births as unintended compared with mothers who have attained higher levels of education before becoming mothers. METHODS Using multivariate regression, we analyze a sample of women in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979) who had their first births by 1994. We test whether an index measure of educational advantage in youth predicts unintended first birth. RESULTS Unadjusted results confirm well-documented associations between educational disadvantage and greater likelihood of unintended pregnancy. However, once covariates are controlled, those with high educational advantage in youth are more likely to report their first birth as mistimed (relative risk ratio, 1.57). DISCUSSION Educational advantage captures expectations about how much education a young woman will obtain before giving birth and is a structural dynamic that precedes proximate factors related to family planning access and behaviors. CONCLUSIONS These findings highlight the need to incorporate structural factors that condition perceptions of pregnancy intention in the study of unintended pregnancy and to critically reevaluate the conceptualization and interpretation of pregnancy intention measures.

Cohabitation: United States

Over the past several decades family patterns have changed markedly in the United States and numerous other countries. Prominent increases in nonmarital cohabitation have been central to this change. It is now the norm for individuals to cohabit, whether or not the cohabitation leads to marriage, and the vast majority of marriages now begin as cohabiting relationships. While cohabitation is now common across most population subgroups, there remain economic and racial ethnic differences in the extent to which cohabitation is tied to marriage. Those with higher incomes and education are more likely to transform their cohabiting relationships into marital ones. Major research issues about cohabitation include understanding the striking increase in its popularity, measurement, the implications of cohabitation for children, and the relationship between premarital cohabitation and marital stability.