Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 424–436 | Cite as

Beyond Employment and Income: The Association Between Young Adults’ Finances and Marital Timing

Original Paper

Abstract

This study tested an extension of the theory of marital timing (Oppenheimer, Am J Sociol 94:563–591, 1988) by assessing whether visible and less visible financial assets and debt mediated the relationship between employment and the likelihood of marriage. We conducted these prospective, longitudinal analyses using a sample of 1,522 never-married young adults from the National Survey of Families and Households. For participants who were not cohabiting at Wave 1, financial issues such as car values predicted marriage but did not mediate the relationship between work hours, occupational prestige, and the likelihood of marriage. For cohabiting participants, employment factors were the strongest predictor of marriage.

Keywords

Assets Cohabitation Consumer debt Employment Marriage 

References

  1. United States Census Bureau. (2007). Table MS-2. Estimated median age at first marriage, by sex: 1890 to the Present. Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.xls.
  2. Ahituv, A., & Lerman, R. I. (2007). How do marital status, work effort, and wage rates interact? Demography, 44, 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Baek, E., & Hong, G.-S. (2004). Effects of family life-cycle stages on consumer debts. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 359–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Rohwer, G. (2002). Techniques of event history modeling: New approaches to causal analysis (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bougheas, S., & Georgellis, Y. (1999). The effect of divorce costs on marriage formation and dissolution. Journal of Population Economics, 12, 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bumpass, L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bumpass, L., Sweet, J. A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgess, S., Propper, C., & Aassve, A. (2003). The role of income in marriage and divorce transitions among young Americans. Journal of Population Economics, 16, 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J., Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Distress about mating rivals. Personal Relationships, 7, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarkberg, M. (1999). The price of partnering: The role of economic well-being in young adults’ first union experiences. Social Forces, 77, 945–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dew, J. P. (2009). The gendered meanings of assets for divorce. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single-mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47, 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garasky, S., Fletcher, C. N., & Jensen, H. H. (2006). Transiting to work: The role of private transportation for low-income households. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 40, 64–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kendrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heimdal, K. R., & Houseknecht, S. K. (2003). Cohabiting and married couples’ income organization: Approaches in Sweden and in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 525–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Mellot, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution: Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography, 40, 127–149.Google Scholar
  26. Presser, H. B. (2000). Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex: Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sassler, S., & Goldscheider, F. (2004). Revisiting Jane Austen’s theory of marriage timing: Changes in union formation among American men in the late 20th century. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sassler, S., & McNally, J. (2003). Cohabiting couples’ economic circumstances and union transitions: A re-examiniation using multiple imputation techniques. Social Science Research, 32, 553–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, P., Patterson, D., & Steen, S. (1995). The dynamics of power: Money and sex in intimate relationships. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 253–274). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Shapiro, M. (2007). Money: A therapeutic tool for couples therapy. Family Process, 46, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharpe, D. L., Hermsen, J. M., & Billings, J. (2002). Factors with having flextime: A focus on married workers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skogrand, L., Johnson, A. C., Horrocks, A. M., & DeFrain, J. (2010). Financial management practices of couples with great marriages. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. doi:10.1007/s10834-010-9195-2.
  35. Smock, P. J., & Manning, W. D. (1997). Cohabiting partners’ economic circumstances and marriage. Demography, 34, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snyder, A. R., & McLaughlin, D. K. (2006). Economic well-being and cohabitation: Another nonmetro disadvantage? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 562–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stevens, G., & Cho, J. H. (1985). Socioeconomic indexes and the new 1980 census occupational classification scheme. Social Science Research, 14, 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the national survey of families and households. NSFH Working Paper #1. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  41. Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution, among women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trachtman, R. (1999). The money taboo: Its effects in everyday life and in the practice of psychotherapy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 276–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trigg, A. B. (2001). Veblen, Bourdieu, and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 99–115.Google Scholar
  44. Veblen, T. (1992). The theory of the leisure class. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1899).Google Scholar
  45. Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2001). The state of our unions 2001: Who wants to marry a soul mate? Piscataway, NJ: National Marriage Project. Retreived October 16, 2007, from http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/NMPAR2001.pdf.
  46. Wong, O. M. H. (2005). The socioeconomic determinants of the age at first marriage among women in Hong Kong. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26, 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Worthy, S. L., Jonkman, J., & Blinn-Pike, L. (2010). Sensation-seeking, risk-taking, and problematic financial behaviors of college students. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu, Z., & Pollard, M. S. (2000). Economic circumstances and the stability of nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie, Y., Raymo, J. M., Goyette, K., & Thornton, A. (2003). Economic potential and entry into marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 40, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family, Consumer, and Human DevelopmentUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations