Skip to main content

Union Formation Selectivity After Childbearing: Do Local Marriage Markets Matter?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Developments in Demography in the 21st Century

Part of the book series: The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis ((PSDE,volume 48))

  • 467 Accesses

Abstract

Since the 1970s, people in the U.S. have been more likely than in the past to experience union separation and re-partnering, and children have been more likely to experience more than one kind of family arrangement throughout their childhood (Bzostek et al. 2012; Cherlin 2009, 2010). Previous research has paid important attention to the outcomes of children growing up in step-families and the determinants of union formation of parents. Significant research has focused on the experiences of single mothers. However, less attention has been given to the role of marriage markets on the formation of unions among single parents, and the differences in the impact of marriage markets for men and women with children. The main goal of the research I present in this chapter is to provide a better understanding of the context of union formation after childbearing, with special focus on its determinants and the influence of local marriage markets. I particularly focus on how these effects differ for men and women.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The NSFH includes a category for “other race,” but only 52 cases in the sample were in this category. Given the small sample size, and the difficulty to reach statistically significant and substantively meaningful conclusions from an “other” category, I decided to exclude these records from the analysis.

  2. 2.

    See Appendix for the tables with the full results of the first two models summarized in Table 15.3. To avoid repetition, the discussion on individual and partner characteristics presents the results of the full model that adds partner/spouse characteristics.

References

  • Argys, L. M., et al. (2007). Measuring contact between children and nonresident fathers. In S. L. Hofferth & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 375–398). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckle, L., Gallup, G. G., & Rodd, Z. A. (1996). Marriage as a reproductive contract: Patterns of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Ethology and Sociobiology, 377, 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bumpass, L. L., Raley, R. K., & Sweet, J. A. (1995). The changing character of stepfamilies: Implications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing. Demography, 32(3), 425–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bzostek, S. H., McLanahan, S. S., & Carlson, M. J. (2012). Mothers’ repartnering after a nonmarital birth. Social Forces, 90(3), 817–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelikaksoy, A., Nekby, L., & Rashid, S. (2010). Assortative mating by ethnic background and education among individuals with an immigrant background in Sweden. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung-Journal of Family Research, 22(Jahrg), 65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72(3), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooksey, E. C., & Fondell, M. M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: Effects of family structure on fathers’ and children’s lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(August), 693–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donato, K. M. (1999). A dynamic view of Mexican migration to the United States. Gender Issues, 17(1), 52–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donato, K. M. (2010). U.S. migration from Latin America: Gendered patterns and shifts. The Annals of the American Acadamy of Political and Social Science, 630(1), 78–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider, F. K., & Kaufman, G. (2006). Willingness to stepparent: Attitudes about partners who already have children. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1415–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider, F., & Sassler, S. (2006). Creating stepfamilies: Integrating children into the study of union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(May), 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider, F., Kaufman, G., & Sassler, S. (2009). Navigating the ‘new’ marriage market: How attitudes toward partner characteristics shape union formation. Journal of Family Issues, 30(6), 719–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B. (2006). How do marriage market conditions affect entrance into cohabitation vs. marriage? Social Science Research, 35(2), 332–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B. (2016). Marriage and disolution among women’s cohabitations: Variations by stepfamily status and shared childbearing. Bowling Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, K. (2008). Mate availability and unmarried parents. Demograhy, 45(3), 555–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection. Demography, 43(1), 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for parental investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(February), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(24), 395–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. K., & Oppenheimer, V. K. (2000). Educational assortative mating across marriage markets: Non-hispanic whites in the United States. Demography, 37(1), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., & Graefe, D. R. (2007). Men and marriage promotion: Who marries unwed mothers? Social Service Review, 81(3), 397–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., & Landry, D. J. (1992). Race and the retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men? American Sociological Review, 57(6), 781–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Anderson, R. N., & Hayward, M. D. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16(4), 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Mellott, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43(2), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, K. M., & South, S. J. (1996). Contextual influences on young men’s transition to first marriage. Social Forces, 74(3), 1097–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oropesa, R. S., Lichter, D. T., & Anderson, R. N. (1994). Marriage markets and the paradox of Mexican American Nuptiality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(4), 889–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, E. A., & Zenteno, R. M. (2002). Gender differences in union formation in Mexico: Evidence from marital search models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(August), 756–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S. D. (2003). Union formation among men in the US: Does having prior children matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(June), 667–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J. A., & Bumpass, L. L. (1996). The national survey of families and households – waves 1 and 2: Data description and documentation (pp. 1–598).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, J. A., Bumpass, L. L, & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the national survey of families and households. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. J. (2005). Marriage and Family. In D. L. Poston & M. Micklin (Eds.), Handbook of population. New York: Springer US.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Sánchez-Soto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Table 15.5 Parameter estimates of the probability of family formation by union type
Table 15.6 Parameter estimates of the probability of family formation by union type and stepfamily status

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sánchez-Soto, G. (2020). Union Formation Selectivity After Childbearing: Do Local Marriage Markets Matter?. In: Singelmann, J., Poston, Jr, D. (eds) Developments in Demography in the 21st Century. The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26492-5_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics