Back in the 80's when the U.S. legalized No Fault divorce we saw a huge jump in divorce rates - up to 50%. During that time we also saw a large up-tick in cohabitation rates. Most researchers looked at this and hypothesized that these couples would actually fare better than couples who just jumped straight into marriage - after all, practice makes perfect, right?
Turns out this isn't actually the case. As the years passed by, the same researchers started to look at the data and they started to see that couples that were living together before they were married were actually ending more frequently. Thirty years down the road we're now seeing the results in pre-marital child-births, continual divorce rates, and late age of marriage. Now some people have looked at this and assumed cohabitation to be the kiss of death for relationships. On the other hand, if we look at the data, what we find is that most of these studies are actually lumping all cohabiting couples together into one big group of data. But when we step back and look at it, it's pretty easy to see that couples that are living together don't all have the same goals.
A 2011 study published by Brian Willoughby divided cohabiting couples into several different categories based on each partner's trajectory toward marriage (within a year, or longer), whether they agreed on marital trajectory, and their relationship status (dating or engaged). What he found was that the factor that made cohabiting couples the most unhappy was their agreement on marriage trajectory.
For instance, let's say Bob and Sally have been living together for a year, they're engaged, and they have a date set for the following year. Jimmy and Julie live upstairs from Bob and Sally. They've been living together for 2 years and Julie wants to get married, preferably within the next year, while Jimmy still isn't sure about the whole marriage thing. What Jimmy and Julie have is an incongruence of marital trajectories. According the Willoughby's research, Bob and Sally are going to have an overall greater relationship satisfaction, with better perception of communication and less likely to feel like their relationship is "on the rocks" - regardless of the fact that they've been together longer.
Willoughby reports that "being in either an incongruent engaged or incongruent non-engaged cohabiting relationship was associated with generally negative outcomes compared to other types of couples." And as you read through his entire article, what the statistics start to unravel is this idea of both people being on the same timeline. While the happiest and most stable of all of the couples were those who are living together and plan to marry within the next year, it's almost no contest that the unhappiest and most unstable of all of the couples are those who - whether living together or not and engaged or not - disagree on where their relationship is going.
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Is communication the root of all evil?
Normally I'm a sworn skeptic to anything proclaiming to be relationship advice on Huffington Post, but this time I was pleasantly surprised! I came across this article and I thought "This guy knows what's up!" Turns out he's a clinical psychologist who specializes in marriage and family relationships.
He discusses how the inability to communicate is often blamed as one of the primary causes of relationship break down. The point that he makes is that often times, there are things looming around that cause the bad communication in the first place, and he's totally right, but there's a piece of research done by Dr. John Gottman that I think is really important to note here called accepting influence.
Dr. Flanagan touches on it a little bit in his article, but doesn't totally tie it together. Basically couples inevitably have complaints within relationships, and when concerns are brought up, the manner in which partners respond says a lot about the relationship. This is where Flanagan's principles of shame, ego, power and empathy come in. There are three ways partners can respond to requests - they can turn away from their partner, toward them, or against them. The only one of these responses that is related to positive outcomes is turning toward a partner - seeking to understand their point of view and either changing, or working out a compromise.
This is especially important for husbands. Research shows that women tend to bring a larger amount of complaints to the table, and the more often they are met with understanding and empathy, the more likely a relationship is to survive. As Gottman explains it, responding any other way is "simply winning the battle, but losing the war."
Families are the ultimate institution to teach us selflessness and sacrifice, and as the research shows us over and over again, sacrificing our own ego and wants in a relationship to respond selflessly to a spouse are what opens up communication, and allows resolution and healing to take place in times of conflict. So yes, as Flanagan explains in his article, marital communication " like the kid who fights back on the playground...He didn't create the problem; he was reacting to the problem. But he's the one who gets caught." Next time communication seems to be in a bit of a rut, try running through another checklist:
He discusses how the inability to communicate is often blamed as one of the primary causes of relationship break down. The point that he makes is that often times, there are things looming around that cause the bad communication in the first place, and he's totally right, but there's a piece of research done by Dr. John Gottman that I think is really important to note here called accepting influence.
Dr. Flanagan touches on it a little bit in his article, but doesn't totally tie it together. Basically couples inevitably have complaints within relationships, and when concerns are brought up, the manner in which partners respond says a lot about the relationship. This is where Flanagan's principles of shame, ego, power and empathy come in. There are three ways partners can respond to requests - they can turn away from their partner, toward them, or against them. The only one of these responses that is related to positive outcomes is turning toward a partner - seeking to understand their point of view and either changing, or working out a compromise.
This is especially important for husbands. Research shows that women tend to bring a larger amount of complaints to the table, and the more often they are met with understanding and empathy, the more likely a relationship is to survive. As Gottman explains it, responding any other way is "simply winning the battle, but losing the war."
Families are the ultimate institution to teach us selflessness and sacrifice, and as the research shows us over and over again, sacrificing our own ego and wants in a relationship to respond selflessly to a spouse are what opens up communication, and allows resolution and healing to take place in times of conflict. So yes, as Flanagan explains in his article, marital communication " like the kid who fights back on the playground...He didn't create the problem; he was reacting to the problem. But he's the one who gets caught." Next time communication seems to be in a bit of a rut, try running through another checklist:
- Ego
- Power
- Shame
- Empathy
Are we doomed by divorce rates?
So I've seen this article and it's sister articles popping up on my friends' newsfeeds about the divorce rate lies that society has been feeding us. It chaps me a little bit because while some of her points are valid, the only element of credibility her claim has is that she received research training at Harvard. Other than that none of her proclaimed numbers hold any scholarly validated backing, and that scares me a little bit.
But in reality, we do see a decline in the divorce rate in America over the last twenty years. Divorces reached their 50% peak in the 1980's as a result of No-fault Divorce, but then began to decline steadily after that, with a decline in the last decade. Take a look at the dotted green line on our little graph here. You'll see that while it's still pretty high, it's definitely on its way down.
There are several speculations for why this decline is happening, but the honest truth is that most researchers aren't sure. One of the possibilities is the later age of marriage trend happening currently in the US. We do see that marriages that happen at age 27 and greater tend to be more stable, which leads to a lower divorce rate, but they also tend to report lower marital satisfaction.
However, regardless of what the numbers say, I think that the most important thing to remember regarding marriage and divorce is that the statistics don't determine our fate - we do. The statistics of heart attacks in America are relatively similar to the divorce statistics we're seeing, but I would venture to say that if you're the person that maintains a healthy lifestyle, you're not too worried about that. Marriage is the same. Divorce isn't something that happens to us. It is a series of choices, something that doesn't have to be an option.
In fact, research shows us that if we live by principles of commitment, love, compassion, forgiveness, and respect in our relationships, marital satisfaction skyrockets. As we choose to stay committed as couples, turn toward one another in conflict, and are willing to let things go, while hard times, annoyances, and conflict will still happen we will find deeper love and appreciation in our relationships.
But in reality, we do see a decline in the divorce rate in America over the last twenty years. Divorces reached their 50% peak in the 1980's as a result of No-fault Divorce, but then began to decline steadily after that, with a decline in the last decade. Take a look at the dotted green line on our little graph here. You'll see that while it's still pretty high, it's definitely on its way down.
 |
| National Bureau of Economic Research 2007 Report |
There are several speculations for why this decline is happening, but the honest truth is that most researchers aren't sure. One of the possibilities is the later age of marriage trend happening currently in the US. We do see that marriages that happen at age 27 and greater tend to be more stable, which leads to a lower divorce rate, but they also tend to report lower marital satisfaction.
However, regardless of what the numbers say, I think that the most important thing to remember regarding marriage and divorce is that the statistics don't determine our fate - we do. The statistics of heart attacks in America are relatively similar to the divorce statistics we're seeing, but I would venture to say that if you're the person that maintains a healthy lifestyle, you're not too worried about that. Marriage is the same. Divorce isn't something that happens to us. It is a series of choices, something that doesn't have to be an option.
In fact, research shows us that if we live by principles of commitment, love, compassion, forgiveness, and respect in our relationships, marital satisfaction skyrockets. As we choose to stay committed as couples, turn toward one another in conflict, and are willing to let things go, while hard times, annoyances, and conflict will still happen we will find deeper love and appreciation in our relationships.
Finding Yourself Before Marriage
This morning one of my friends posted an article entitled "Married at 19: Worth Every 'Lost Experience,'" and of course I had to read it. The author talked about the benefits of marrying young, such as growing together with her spouse, learning sacrifice and selflessness, and having a built-in support system during the difficult developing years of her early twenties. Naturally, as comes with posting your opinion in cyber space, the onslaught of opposing viewpoints followed. One person in her late twenties mentioned the financial problems she was having and how being connected to another person would've compounded that into financial disaster. Another man expressed his distaste for the "throwback post" to the 1950's, and cited that one in two people married right out of high school will divorce. He mentioned the ability to have an education, be more financially secure and being able to "find yourself" as great benefits to post-poning marriage.
It's no secret that the average age of marriage has been steadily increasing for the last decade, and each of the reasons mentioned have been accepted as explanations of why it should continue. But are they really? Can the author of the article really be happy without experiencing the freedom of singlehood? Is it possible to beat the odds? And more importantly, are things such as greater financial security, education and life experience actually essential to a happy marriage?
In order to figure it out, we only need to ask one question which can provide us several answers - Was the early-marriage hater right? Do those married out of high school really have higher divorce rates? Rather than throw around randomly Googled statistics, let's look at a real graph from a real peer-reviewed, published article.
For those non-statisticians, what we're seeing on the left of this graph is an 80% chance of divorce for persons married at the age of 15 and younger - shocker, right? However, once we hit 18-20 we've dropped to about 40% - so our hater wasn't too far off. By the time we get to age 21 though, it's gone almost down to 20% and we see it on a steady decline from there. But honestly, the statistical significance of a divorce rate moving from 22% - 18% in this particular data set is pretty much nothing.
So that was only one study, no big deal right? Actually, Norval D. Glenn (kind of a sociological legend) from the University of Texas found the same exact findings in 5 different data sets from around the United States. That's the statistical equivalent of "What now suckas?!"
So hater was kind of right. But the bigger question here is: is stability the only thing you're looking for in a marriage? Because yeah, if you want a better chance of staying married, wait until at least 21, but if you want a happy marriage with great sex, you might want to start looking at the age of 20 and hope you get to where you're going before 25. Check it out.
The Glenn data sets also showed a curvilinear relationship between age of marriage and marital satisfaction. This means that as age of marriage goes up, satisfaction in marriage starts to go up until it plateaus at 20, and then takes a dive again at age 25. In a follow up study done by researchers at Brigham Young University they found that couples married after age 24 displayed lower levels of effective communication and significantly lower levels of sexual satisfaction.
Now, if you were married after 25, or are currently 25 and unmarried don't start freaking out on me, there are several factors that contribute to these trends, and unlike our hater friend, I won't tell you that statistics determine your fate. I'll just make you read another post on what you can do to not become a statistic. But I digress...
The greatest trend that we're seeing in why marriages from 22-25 have higher satisfaction is actually what was said in the Married at 19 article - couples are able to grow together. Despite having more life experience, education, greater income, etc., research is finding that this process of waiting to "finding yourself" makes the concept of you very solid. Marriage requires flexibility, sacrifice and selflessness. When young adults spend more time becoming independent, the outcome is a more difficult process of bringing two people together in a relationship.
So what is the right age for marriage? Honestly, social science will probably always refuse to answer that questions, but I'm going to side with Norval himself on this one when he says, "it would be premature to conclude that the optimal time for first marriage for most persons is ages 22-25. However, the findings do suggest that most persons have little or nothing to gain in the way of marital success by deliberately postponing marriage beyond the mid-twenties."
It's no secret that the average age of marriage has been steadily increasing for the last decade, and each of the reasons mentioned have been accepted as explanations of why it should continue. But are they really? Can the author of the article really be happy without experiencing the freedom of singlehood? Is it possible to beat the odds? And more importantly, are things such as greater financial security, education and life experience actually essential to a happy marriage?
In order to figure it out, we only need to ask one question which can provide us several answers - Was the early-marriage hater right? Do those married out of high school really have higher divorce rates? Rather than throw around randomly Googled statistics, let's look at a real graph from a real peer-reviewed, published article.
 |
|
Heaton,
T. B. (2002). Factors Contributing
to Increasing Marital Stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues
|
So that was only one study, no big deal right? Actually, Norval D. Glenn (kind of a sociological legend) from the University of Texas found the same exact findings in 5 different data sets from around the United States. That's the statistical equivalent of "What now suckas?!"
So hater was kind of right. But the bigger question here is: is stability the only thing you're looking for in a marriage? Because yeah, if you want a better chance of staying married, wait until at least 21, but if you want a happy marriage with great sex, you might want to start looking at the age of 20 and hope you get to where you're going before 25. Check it out.
The Glenn data sets also showed a curvilinear relationship between age of marriage and marital satisfaction. This means that as age of marriage goes up, satisfaction in marriage starts to go up until it plateaus at 20, and then takes a dive again at age 25. In a follow up study done by researchers at Brigham Young University they found that couples married after age 24 displayed lower levels of effective communication and significantly lower levels of sexual satisfaction.
Now, if you were married after 25, or are currently 25 and unmarried don't start freaking out on me, there are several factors that contribute to these trends, and unlike our hater friend, I won't tell you that statistics determine your fate. I'll just make you read another post on what you can do to not become a statistic. But I digress...
The greatest trend that we're seeing in why marriages from 22-25 have higher satisfaction is actually what was said in the Married at 19 article - couples are able to grow together. Despite having more life experience, education, greater income, etc., research is finding that this process of waiting to "finding yourself" makes the concept of you very solid. Marriage requires flexibility, sacrifice and selflessness. When young adults spend more time becoming independent, the outcome is a more difficult process of bringing two people together in a relationship.
So what is the right age for marriage? Honestly, social science will probably always refuse to answer that questions, but I'm going to side with Norval himself on this one when he says, "it would be premature to conclude that the optimal time for first marriage for most persons is ages 22-25. However, the findings do suggest that most persons have little or nothing to gain in the way of marital success by deliberately postponing marriage beyond the mid-twenties."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)