something about a horse and carriage....

October 26, 2007 9:31 AM

Statistically speaking, what makes marriages last the longest?

It seems like I've seen lots of statistics over the years to the effect of "couples who did X stayed together longer." However, I've never seen these statistics collected in one place.

I'm not looking for anecdotes or personal experiences. I'm looking for actual statistics, so all sources should be cited. If you can link to your sources, all the better!

The types of factors I'm looking for :

* Identity - characteristics about the partners at time of marriage - things like age, education, romantic history, socioeconomic status, physical attributes, psychological characteristics, etc. This would also include any sort of differences between partners - such as one partner being more educated than the other, etc.

* Pre-marriage relationship - how long the partners were together before marrying, what they did together before they married, how long did they wait before moving in together, etc.

* Post-marriage relationship - what kinds of things did they do as a couple, what habits did they get into, what was their divison of labor, etc. This would include any data having to do parenting, and how their roles as parents effected their relationship. This would also include data having to do with how the partners changed over the years as individuals.

You get the general idea.

I should mention that I'm not engaged or looking to get engaged any time in the near future. But I do want to get married *someday,* and I figure that the more I know about this stuff, the better.

posted by Afroblanco to human relations (44 comments total)

John Gottman's books are very good on this.
posted by escabeche at 9:48 AM on October 26, 2007

Seconding Gottman. There's a bit of info on his website.
posted by occhiblu at 9:50 AM on October 26, 2007

I'm guessing that "consequences" is what keeps people together. So, pre-nup up. Have the language say that the person who files for divorce voluntarily gives up all claim to both pre and post wedding assets.

My point: Rather than look for data, approach the problem as a cost/benefit question. I'm not sure that data will be that helpful. Divorce has been a fad for the last 30 years.
posted by ewkpates at 9:52 AM on October 26, 2007

(Also, I realize Gottman's website does not have statistics. But he's actually done some amazing experiments/research with couples, and his articles and books do back up what he's saying with numbers.)
posted by occhiblu at 9:52 AM on October 26, 2007

approach the problem as a cost/benefit question

This sounds foolish to me, in the same way that old-school economics is foolish. People are not rational agents. My marriage is probably a bad deal in terms of money and assets. But it's a great deal emotionally, which is why I say. And I suspect that's true for many people.
posted by grumblebee at 10:09 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Malcolm Gladwell alluded to a study in one of his books, and experts found that showing contempt of your partner was one of the best predictors of divorce.

A pre-nup might make a couple stay together unhappily, perhaps openly hostile, but who wants that?
posted by fogster at 10:11 AM on October 26, 2007

Statistically speaking, Atheism apparently helps your chances by a few percentage points.
posted by phrontist at 10:11 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

pre-marital counseling, I believe. Don't have an official source for that.
posted by Autarky at 10:14 AM on October 26, 2007

Gladwell's book was talking about John Gottman. His self-help books are very popular-science and tend to be light on numbers so as not to bore the layperson to death, but this kind of stuff is exactly what he studies, and it's fascinating.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 10:17 AM on October 26, 2007

While it doesn't answer your question directly, this pdf at the Journal of Economic Perspectives has a ton of interesting statistics about marriage and divorce trends.

This factsheet, while religiously based, cites it's "facts" from what cursorily appear to be not particularly partisan sources:

- Individuals who cohabit before they marry face a significantly higher chance of getting divorced. Estimates of this divorce risk range from 33% (Cherlin 1992) to 48% (Bumpass and Sweet 1995).
- "Cohabiting couples are less satisfied than married spouses with their partnerships, are not as close to their parents, are less committed to each other, and, if they eventually marry, have higher chances of divorce" (Nock 1998: 4)
- Couples who attend church weekly are 82% less likely to divorce than couples who do not attend at all (Bumpass and Sweet 1995)
- Couples who say good-bye to their youngest child at an early age are significantly more likely to divorce than other couples. The 20-year marriage is more vulnerable to the disruptive effects of the empty nest syndrome than the 30-year marriage (Hiedemann, Suhomlinova, and O'Rand 1998).
- Contrary to the expectations of feminists and family scholars, couples where men are more likely to share household tasks with their wives are also significantly more likely to get divorced (Bumpass and Sweet 1995).
- Couples where men earn the lion's share of the family income (i.e., more than 50% of couple income) are significantly less likely to get divorced (Bumpass and Sweet 1995)
- More than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve highly conflicted marriages. In other words, two-thirds of divorces do not happen because of spousal physical abuse and/or serious conflict; rather, they happen because spouses grow apart. "Unfortunately, these are the very divorces that most likely to be stressful for children." (Amato and Booth 1997: p. 220)

A pdf of the Bumpass/Sweet paper (which seems to be the cite for some of the more conservative claims above) is here, at the National Survey on Families and Households, where there is also a lot of other stuff you might find interesting.

I read a paper in an American Sociology Journal in ~2000 about cohabitation and divorce that said that people who cohabit without explicit commitment to get married are more likely not to get married. Basically you get all of the hassles of being married without the big benefits of being married, they concluded.

I've also tried to search for a study I read in the past several years that indicated that divorce rates among people who get married because the woman is pregnant are lower than among people who get married with no baby on the way. Sorry I can't find the cite.
posted by OmieWise at 10:17 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't have a link to give you off-hand, but as a minister who does a fair amount of premarital counseling, the training I received emphasized compatibility. That sounds obvious, but it's true that the more similar you are in age, intellect, educational level, economic background and interests, the more likely the relationship is to last. One or two of those can be divergent and things can still be great, but with each significant difference come more opportunity for trouble.

I've seen research that indicates that if there is an imbalance, marriages have greater success if it is the man who is either older, richer, smarter or more educated. That's not a pleasant reality, but I suspect most of us know more wealthy smart women who are having a hard time finding a compatible spouse than we know wealthy, smart men with the same problem.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:18 AM on October 26, 2007

Gladwell is talking about Gottman's work.

Historically, you have to look at the cultural significance and expectations of marriage. I think one of the problems for modern marriage in US society (in particular; I'm sure we're not alone in this) is that there is a fundamental confusion between the romantic-love component and a practical combination of households for, eg, bringing up children. In other words, we make it a lot harder than it needs to be. (I'm not arguing against loving your partner; I'm just saying our culture does a kind of crap job of modeling how relationships can be happy and satisfying and all kinds of other things that we don't articulate but are vaguely dissatisfied in the absence of, which is what we expect from marriage, for some reason.)

Have the language say that the person who files for divorce voluntarily gives up all claim to both pre and post wedding assets.

This kind of "pre-divorce planning" is exactly the reason I would never sign a prenup. But I don't much like the idea of a marriage certificate, either, so that's not a practical problem for me.
posted by caitlinb at 10:18 AM on October 26, 2007

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publications.html
posted by rglass at 10:19 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Bumpass and Sweet

I felt this needed to be emphasized, as this name combination gave me a great deal of pleasure.
posted by caitlinb at 10:20 AM on October 26, 2007 [9 favorites has favorites]

If you don't get along with your family and she doesn't get along well with hers, and/or if either of your families hates your choice of partner, statistically you are more likely to divorce.

Also, marrying at a "young" age (I've seen postulated as younger than 20) is supposed to be a big factor, but my folks were married young and so was I, and we're all still married, so we're statistical anomalies.

Higher education for both partners (i.e. college) seems to correlate with lower divorce rates.
posted by misha at 10:21 AM on October 26, 2007

Financial security.

I'll say it again: financial security.

Marriage is a partnership is more ways than one - and increasingly I feel that people see it as a business arrangement. If both people have active and productive careers things are more likely to be better at home.

This doesn't mean that couples have to be rich... but it helps if they each have the same expectations for what their lifestyle should be.
posted by wfrgms at 10:28 AM on October 26, 2007

According to an L.A. Times article from April 8, 2000, the divorce rate for Mormons who marry in the temple is 6%.
posted by The World Famous at 10:30 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Some of the cohabitation figures don't seem to take into account the fact that couples who are more likely to live together without being married are probably also more open to the idea of divorce. That is, people who refuse to live together before marriage are also often people who tend to think divorce is immoral, and therefore more likely to stay married.

It doesn't necessarily show that they're in good relationships.

It's also interesting that you phrased your question simply about what makes marriages last long, rather than what makes them successful partnerships. Are you just looking for longevity?
posted by occhiblu at 10:33 AM on October 26, 2007

I'm looking for actual statistics, so all sources should be cited.
posted by OmieWise at 10:34 AM on October 26, 2007

Though it's sadly lacking in citations (but it does mention a number of scholars in the field), the Economist had a good article in May outlining general marriage trends in America.

Two main points: more educated peple are more likely to stay together and (surprisingly, I think) cohabitating before marriage weakens chances of staying together.
posted by kittyprecious at 10:36 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

But I do want to get married *someday,* and I figure that the more I know about this stuff, the better.

Particularly in light of this, I think it's important to distinguish between marriages that last and ones that are successful.

As many of the answers so far indicate, the reasons people tend to stay in a marriage (finances, children, cultural mores) often have little to do with what we've come to consider to be "successful" (read: happy, sharing, stable) relationships.

For example, arranged marriages have a radically lower divorce rate than non-arranged ones. With all due respect to parents everywhere, I suspect that true love is not the deciding factor in those decisions.
posted by mkultra at 10:54 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

The real question is what factors contribute to a happily lasting marriage.

Being part of a community/religion that frowns on divorce is going to lower the rates of divorce, but it won't change the % of people that remain happy.
posted by zeoslap at 10:57 AM on October 26, 2007

To clarify : I'm specifically looking for information on long-lasting marriages.

So, for now, let's put aside any other notions of what makes a "successful" marriage. Perhaps that will be the subject of a separate AskMe question.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:58 AM on October 26, 2007

And, to further clarify - it's not that I'm interested in having a long-lasting, unhappy marriage.

It's just that if we were to discuss "what makes a happy marriage," then we start getting into all sorts of grey swampy territory where we have to ask ourselves questions like "what is happiness?"

And don't get me wrong. Such a discussion would be fascinating. But it would be outside the scope of my question.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:04 AM on October 26, 2007

Since Gottman's already been mentioned, I'll add one other good book I've read that is research-based: Peer Marriage: How Love Between Equals Really Works, by Pepper Schwartz. Written in the mid-90s, it was based on some studies she did of same-sex couples that allowed her to (sorta) factor out gender-based differences to see what characteristics were present in successful long-term relationships. She then looked at heterosexual couples through the lens of those same characteristics. For books a little closer to the bone, I'd try a sociology or psychology textbook focusing on marriage and the family. There will be lots of primary sources cited which you can then track down and read.

If you're really diving into the topic, you could also come at it from the other side: statistics on what causes marriages to fail. For instance, this 2003 Slate article, "Do Daughters Cause Divorce?" mentioned some statistics, though I don't think the cause + effect is clear, just interesting.
posted by cocoagirl at 11:06 AM on October 26, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

So, pre-nup up. Have the language say that the person who files for divorce voluntarily gives up all claim to both pre and post wedding assets.

I;ve always assumed that the type of couple that would think to sign a pre-nup would also be more likely to divorce, just because those couples have divorce as a known option from the beginning. Do the stats prove me wrong?
posted by fermezporte at 11:18 AM on October 26, 2007

And, to further clarify - it's not that I'm interested in having a long-lasting, unhappy marriage.

It's just that if we were to discuss "what makes a happy marriage," then we start getting into all sorts of grey swampy territory where we have to ask ourselves questions like "what is happiness?"

I realize this may be off topic, but I don't see how you can avoid this problem. I looked at the Gottman stuff above, and it's all self-reported, plus a lot of the advice is stuff like "change the topic when you get in a fight" - it does not seem to be pushing for comprehending the depths of the connection between people or anything, just maintaining a social contract for the greater good.

If people feel obliged to maintain that contract, they'll put more effort into it; if people feel like it's more important for them to live their own life to the absolute fullest & this marriage isn't everything they'd hoped, then they'll put less effort in. That attitude is really a major component, so that even with identical "happiness" levels, if we could quantify such a thing, I would bet you'd get different rates of divorce based on the different attitudes toward responsibility, obligation, personal freedom, individual fulfillment, etc.

I've seen research that indicates that if there is an imbalance, marriages have greater success if it is the man who is either older, richer, smarter or more educated.

That research is out of date.
posted by mdn at 11:43 AM on October 26, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Honesty. In everything.

But i cant state this enough, There has to be honesty BEFORE the couple marries as well.

Your goals, interests, likes, dislikes...

Not a list of who you slept with or anything like that. But each in the couple has to be honest with each other and themselves about who they are, and what they want. None of this "I'll change for them" or "I'll change them" once we get married.

If youre a messy person, you always will be, so get it out beforehand.

If youre good or bad with money... be upfront.

Good luck!

P.S. Oh and if one or the other is kinky in any way, don't be embarrassed, let the other know. You might be pleasantly surprised. And if they are 100% against your kink, better to know beforehand because you'll have to weigh going the rest of your life with out it.
posted by sandra_s at 11:44 AM on October 26, 2007

To clarify : I'm specifically looking for information on long-lasting marriages.

Sure, but the number-one predictor of marriage duration will then be a variable that boils down to "Both parties are very unwilling to get divorced no matter how miserable they are."

A lot of the things that the "factsheet" notes are probably not important in and of themselves -- it's more likely that they're just markers for the sorts of people who will refuse to get divorced even when terribly unhappy, or physically beaten, or other under other harsh circumstances.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:56 AM on October 26, 2007

Sure, but the number-one predictor of marriage duration will then be a variable that boils down to "Both parties are very unwilling to get divorced no matter how miserable they are.

This theory is based on... ?
posted by grumblebee at 12:09 PM on October 26, 2007

Guys, seriously. If I were the OP, I'd be frothing at the mouth right now.

I'm looking for actual statistics, so all sources should be cited.

"My personal and totally unscientific opinion" is not a source.

The Gottman chapter in Blink may come close to what you want. As I said, his self-help books are pretty... light, but his actual research is evidence-based. Here is a conversation with him where he addresses some of the things he's interested in studying. His work is focused more on how good marriages work and less on who the people coming into the marriage are, which may be more the thrust of your question, but it may still be interesting to you.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 12:09 PM on October 26, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:33 PM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

This theory is based on... ?

...the idea that people who refuse to get divorced are much less likely to get divorced that people who do not refuse to get divorced. Is this rocket science?

It's not that cohabiting makes you more likely to get divorced. It's only that cohabitation is a marker for other traits that are associated with divorce being anathema. The study cited earlier shows this; the effect of cohabitation drops into insignificance once you take into account religion and religiosity and other assorted factors.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:34 PM on October 26, 2007

Guys, seriously. If I were the OP, I'd be frothing at the mouth right now.

He shouldn't. He's been pointed at a study doing solid multiple-variable logit models of marriage/relationship breakup. Hard to find better than that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:36 PM on October 26, 2007

Guys, seriously. If I were the OP, I'd be frothing at the mouth right now.

Yeah, I'm not really happy about the uncited sources and philosophical wandering, but a number of people in this thread have given good answers. So far, I'm glad I posted it.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:42 PM on October 26, 2007

ROU_X: I agree with you that people who refuse to get divorced are more likely to stay in a marriage, but your clam was that "the number-one predictor of marriage duration will then be a variable that boils down to 'Both parties are very unwilling to get divorced no matter how miserable they are.'"

That's where I need some evidence before I buy wholesale.
posted by grumblebee at 1:19 PM on October 26, 2007

Ah. When I said "the number one," I meant "among the very important predictors will be such things as..."

Fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:35 PM on October 26, 2007

Not marriage exactly, but feminism is good for healthy and stable romantic relationships. From a 2007 study in Sex Roles :

[Rudman and Phelan] looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.
posted by raxast at 3:01 PM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

although its clearly designed to be advertising the blurb on the eharmony dating reckons there's 29 dimensions scientifically proven to predict happier, healthier relationships.
posted by browolf at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2007

low expectations
posted by notswedish at 3:25 PM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

There's been some U.S. research that durability of marriages (and by extension, satisfaction) is tightly correlated with the ratio of positive to negative responses that spouses give each other. In an interview on NPR, the researcher was able to predict marital success with high accuracy just by listening to a short video tape of their conversation and counting the positive and negative responses. Sorry I don't recall the name of the researcher, perhaps someone does?
posted by bbranden1 at 5:53 PM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

To clarify : I'm specifically looking for information on long-lasting marriages.

There are two factors that haven't yet been mentioned in this debate. Life threatening health problems and advanced age at time of marriage are negatively correlated with long-lasting marriages.
posted by yohko at 6:17 PM on October 26, 2007

Sorry I don't recall the name of the researcher, perhaps someone does?

That's Gottman.
posted by OmieWise at 7:49 PM on October 26, 2007

Thanks all for your answers. I favorited all the ones that cited statistics or at very least linked to an article that addressed my question. Y'all rock.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:57 PM on October 26, 2007