Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“His” and “Hers”: Meeting the Economic Bar to Marriage

  • Published:
Demography

Abstract

Scholars have suggested that low-income parents avoid marriage because they have not met the so-called economic bar to marriage. The economic bar is multidimensional, referring to a bundle of financial achievements that determine whether couples feel ready to wed. Using the Building Strong Families data set of low-income parents (n = 4,444), we operationalized this qualitative concept into a seven-item index and examined whether couples who met the economic bar by achieving the majority of the items were more likely to marry than couples who did not. Meeting the bar was associated with a two-thirds increase in marriage likelihood. The bar was not positively associated with cohabitation, suggesting that it applies specifically to marriage. When we examined different definitions of the bar based on whether the mother, father, or both parents contributed items, all variants were associated with marriage, even if the bar was based on the mother’s economic accomplishments alone. When mothers contributed to the economic bar, they reported significantly higher relationship quality. Our results reinforce the importance of the multidimensional economic bar for marriage entry, highlighting the role of maternal economic contributions in low-income relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We did not use Fragile Families data because the study did not collect baseline individual-level information on homeownership, bank accounts, or material hardship. Moreover, given that previous work on the economic bar used Fragile Families (Gibson-Davis 2007, 2009), it was important to analyze the bar using another data source.

  2. The survey did not ask respondents about their highest level of education completed. Given the sample involved, we assume that respondents who answered in the negative had less than a high school education.

  3. The Support and Affection scale was the only BSF relationship quality scale that avoided the problem of truncations bias given that it was asked of all couples and not just those still romantically involved. See Moore et al. (2012) for details on BSF truncation bias.

  4. The baseline survey collected categorical earnings over the prior 12 months, and the 15-month survey asked total earnings in the past month. We construct an annual earnings approximation by multiplying reported monthly earnings by the number of months employed. To approximate earnings growth, the baseline categorical variable was recoded to be the upper bound of each category (e.g., an earnings category of $1–$4,999 became $4,999). Earnings growth occurred if a respondent’s constructed annual earnings at the 15-month survey exceeded the upper bound of the baseline earnings category.

  5. To test the sensitivity of results to home ownership in the either-parent bar, we also construct a version of the either-parent bar that excludes home ownership. Results are consistent with those presented later.

  6. We regress meeting the bar at 15 months on baseline covariates (online appendix, Table A1). Associations across bar definitions are generally as expected, with education and employment positively related, and mother’s receipt of public assistance and having a child with another partner negatively related.

  7. We measured outcomes at both 15 and 36 months to guard against couples who were married by 15 months reporting on their economic well-being after they married. In supplementary models for the 36-month outcomes where couples who were married at 15 months were excluded, estimates were underpowered but substantively similar to our main results.

  8. These models present the association at 15 months between meeting the bar and relationship status, where cohabitation was the omitted category. The RRR of 1.75, for example, indicates that after adjusting for covariates, couples who met the bar were associated with a 75 % increase in the likelihood of marrying rather than cohabiting.

  9. Consistent with the BSF evaluation (Wood et al. 2012), at 15 and 36 months, across all bar definitions, treatment status was not significantly associated with the outcomes. The only exception to these null results was that treatment status (in all bar models) was associated with an increased likelihood of breaking up at 36 months (p < .10).

  10. At 15 and 36 months, the effect sizes of meeting the both-parent bar were statistically larger than the effect sizes of meeting the either-parent bar for maternal relationship quality. Paternal relationship quality effect sizes differed only at 15 months.

  11. At 15 and 36 months, mothers’ mean relationship quality score was 3.05 (SD = .79) and 0.81 (SD = .86), respectively. Fathers’ mean relationship quality score at the two time points was 3.23 (SD = .71) and 3.03 (SD = .78), respectively.

  12. We conducted similar analyses for the other three definitions of the bar (results not presented but available upon request). Those results were substantively the same as the results for the either-parent bar.

  13. We do not have any a priori expectations about the relative size of the marriage probabilities associated with achieving more than four items. The marriage probabilities associated with achieving five, six, or seven items could be similar in size to the marriage probabilities associated with achieving 4 items, or marriage probabilities could continue to increase as items are achieved. Either scenario—additional items beyond a threshold do not increase marriage likelihood or, conditional on achieving a threshold, additional items increase marriage likelihood—is conceptually consistent with the bar.

References

  • Addo, F. R. (2014). Debt, cohabitation, and marriage in young adulthood. Demography, 51, 1677–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Addo, F. R., & Sassler, S. (2010). Financial arrangements and relationship quality in low-income couples. Family Relations, 59, 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, L. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (2015). Income, relationship quality, and parenting: Associations with child development in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 996–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41, 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B.,... Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dion, M. R., Avellar, S. A., & Clary, E. (2010). The Building Strong Families Project: Implementation of eight programs to strengthen unmarried parent families. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edin, K., Kefalas, M. J., & Reed, J. M. (2004). A peek inside the black box: What marriage means for poor unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1007–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England, P., & Farkas, G. (1986). Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic and demographic view. New York, NY: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, P., Wu, L. L., & Shafer, E. F. (2013). Cohort trends in premarital first births: What role for the retreat from marriage? Demography, 50, 2075–2104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1342–1396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V.,... Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassman-Pines, A., Gibson-Davis, C. M., Vernot, C., Butler, M., Hall, N., Taylor, L.,... Eastwood, K. (2017). They should say “I don’t”: Norms about midpregnancy marriage and job loss. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassman-Pines, A., & Yoshikawa, H. (2006). Five-year effects of an anti-poverty program on marriage among never-married mothers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassman-Pines, A., Yoshikawa, H., & Nay, S. (2006). Can money buy you love? Dynamic employment characteristics, the New Hope Project, and entry into marriage. In H. Yoshikawa, T. S. Weisner, & E. D. Lowe (Eds.), Making it work: Low-wage employment, family life, and child development (pp. 206–231). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2007). Expectations and the economic bar to marriage among low-income couples. In P. England & K. Edin (Eds.), Unmarried couples with children (pp. 84–103). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2009). Money, marriage, and children: Testing the financial expectations and family formation theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 146–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Davis, C. M., Edin, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005). High hopes but even higher expectations: The retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1301–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. S., & Carlson, M. J. (2014). Parents’ relationship quality and children’s behavior in stable married and cohabiting families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 762–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graefe, A. (2015). Improving forecasts using equally weighted predictors. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1792–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday Hardie, J., & Lucas, A. (2010). Economic factors and relationship quality among young couples: Comparing cohabitation and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1141–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., Tuma, N. B., & Groeneveld, L. P. (1978). Income and independence effects on marital dissolution: Results from the Seattle and Denver income-maintenance experiments. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 611–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, K., & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in marriage after the birth of a child. American Sociological Review, 69, 790–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P. M., Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Bergstrom-Lynch, C. A. (2011). He says, she says: Gender and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 876–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlson, K. B., Holm, A., & Breen, R. (2012). Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit: A new method. Sociological Methodology, 42, 286–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, J. C.-L., & Raley, R. K. (2016). Is it all about money? Work characteristics and women’s and men’s marriage formation in early adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1046–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., & Graefe, D. R. (2007). Men and marriage promotion: Who marries unwed mothers? Social Service Review, 81, 397–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Michelmore, K., Turner, R. N., & Sassler, S. (2016). Pathways to a stable union? Pregnancy and childbearing among cohabiting and married couples. Population Research and Policy Review, 35, 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker, J. K., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1983). Economic hardship and marital relations in the 1930s. American Sociological Review, 48, 343–359.

  • Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Payne, K. K. (2014). Two decades of stability and change in age at first union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masarik, A. S., Martin, M. J., Ferrer, E., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (2016). Couple resilience to economic pressure over time and across generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 326–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLanahan, S. (2011). Family instability and complexity after a nonmarital birth: Outcomes for children in fragile families. In M. J. Carlson & P. England (Eds.), Social class and changing families in an unequal America (pp. 108–133). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, D. K., & Lichter, D. T. (1997). Poverty and the marital behavior of young women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 582–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Q., Wood, R. G., Clarkwest, A., Killewald, A., & Monahan, S. (2012). The long-term effects of building strong families: A relationship skills education program for unmarried parents: Technical supplement (OPRE Report No. 2012-28C). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography, 40, 127–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K., Kalmijn, M., & Lim, N. (1997). Men’s career development and marriage timing during a period of rising inequality. Demography, 34, 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piotrowski, M., Kalleberg, A., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2015). Contingent work rising: Implications for the timing of marriage in Japan. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 1039–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rackin, H., & Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2017). Low-income childless young adults’ marriage and fertility frameworks. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 1096–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassler, S. (2004). The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 491–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassler, S., & McNally, J. (2003). Cohabiting couples’ economic circumstances and union transitions: A re-examination using multiple imputation techniques. Social Science Research, 32, 553–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2017). Cohabitation nation: Gender, class, and the remaking of relationships. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. (2011). Wealth and the marital divide. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 627–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D., & Hastings, O. P. (2015). Socioeconomic variation in the effect of economic conditions on marriage and nonmarital fertility in the United States: Evidence from the Great Recession. Demography, 52, 1893–1915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D., & Reich, A. (2014). Marrying ain’t hard when you got a union card? Labor union membership and first marriage. Social Problems, 61, 625–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Porter, M. (2005). “Everything’s there except money”: How money shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 680–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, T., & McLanahan, S. (2011). Marriage meets the Joneses: Relative income, identity, and marital status. Journal of Human Resources, 46, 482–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. G., McConnell, S., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Hsueh, J. (2012). The effects of building strong families: A healthy marriage and relationship skills education program for unmarried parents. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 228–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Pollard, M. S. (2000). Economic circumstances and the stability of nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., Raymo, J. M., Goyette, K., & Thornton, A. (2003). Economic potential and entry into marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 40, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R., & Johnson, D. R. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 926–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R., & Johnson, D. R. (2015). Handling missing values in longitudinal panel data with multiple imputation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 277–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Work was supported by a grant from the Administration for Children & Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, PO Box 90312, Durham, NC, 27708, USA

    Christina Gibson-Davis, Anna Gassman-Pines & Rebecca Lehrman

Authors
  1. Christina Gibson-Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Gassman-Pines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Lehrman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Gibson-Davis.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 171 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gibson-Davis, C., Gassman-Pines, A. & Lehrman, R. “His” and “Hers”: Meeting the Economic Bar to Marriage. Demography 55, 2321–2343 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0726-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0726-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation