Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Marital Status Transitions and Self-Reported Health among Canadians: A Life Course Perspective

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focuses on the relationship between marital status transitions (the formation and dissolution of unions) and the self-reported health of adults in Canada. Empirical research has found that those in intimate unions generally enjoy better mental and physical health than the unattached and the dissolution of a union causes distress both for men and for women. Much remains to be understood about the effects of marital status transitions on health, especially from a life course perspective. This study poses the following research questions: do the number of marital status transitions and the kind of marital status transitions (from single to cohabitant; from single to married; from cohabitant to married and from married to divorce) affect health over time? Does difference between genders exist in this relationship? Data come from the nine cycles of the Canadian National Population Health Survey (1994–2011) and random-intercept logistic regression models are estimated to address these questions. Results do suggest that marital status transitions play a crucial role in determining health over time. Controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, marriage and cohabitation are associated with better physical and mental health, and depression symptoms are clearly stronger in cases of the dissolution of unions. Differences between genders are also evident.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Statistics Canada calculates the response rate of Cycle 1 on the 20,095 in-scope persons selected to form the longitudinal panel, while the response rate for subsequent cycles is based on the 17,276 individuals who form the longitudinal panel (Statistics Canada 2012a).

  2. Multilevel normal linear regression was used in the previous stage of this study, but the dichotomization of the dependent variables allowed to reach higher fit of the models.

  3. Since the variable “marital status” has four categories, all the possible transitions are 12 [4*(4–1)]. However, I am conscious that some of these combinations are not conceptually correct. For example it is not possible to be single after being married, as well as it is not possible to be “divorced” if the same individual was “single” in the previous cycle. In my analyses I do not consider these cases as marital status transitions.

  4. Sixteen models come from the three outcomes and four marital status transitions, separated by gender: 2[outcomes]*4[marital status transitions]*2[genders].

  5. Together with the likelihood, each model also indicates sigma_u and rho. They are the respective estimated residual standard deviation of the random intercept and the estimated residual intraclass correlation of the latent responses (Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2008).

References

  • Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amato, P. R., & Kane, J. B. (2011). Life-course pathways and the psychosocial adjustment of young adult women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(1), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabitating unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, W. R., Ali, J., & Walters, D. (2007). Family structure, stress, and psychological distress: a demonstration of the impact of differential exposure. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barban, N. (2013). Family trajectories and health. A life course perspective. European Journal of Population, 29, 357–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernier, J., Feng, Y. & Asakawa, K. (2011). Strategies for handling normality assumptions in multi-level modeling: A case study estimating trajectories of Health Utilities Index Mark 3 scores. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X Health Reports.

  • Blekesaune, M. (2008). Partnership transition and mental distress: investigating temporal order. Journal of Marriage and Family, 7(4), 879–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L. (2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(3), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 743–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (2008). Multiple partnerships and children’s well-being. Family Matters, 80, 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drefahl, S. (2012). Do the married really live longer? The role of cohabitation and socioeconomic status. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 462–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, C. J. (2012). The Transformation of Conjugal Partnerships: Union Transitions and Trajectories in Canada. University of Western Ontario – Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository, Paper 427. 28 February 2013, http://ir.uwo.ca/etd/427.

  • Duncan, G. J., Bessie, W., & Paula, E. (2006). Cleaning up their act: the effects of marriage and cohabitation on licit and illicit drug use. Demography, 43(4), 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupre, M., Beck, A. N., & Meadows, S. O. (2009). Marital trajectories and mortality among US adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 170(5), 446–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferree, M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 866–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, R. & Cohn, D. (2011). Living Together: The Economics of Cohabitation. Pew Research Demographic and Social Trends. 5 March 2013 http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/06/27/living-together-the-economics-of-cohabitation/2/#i-prevalence-and-growth-of-cohabitation.

  • Goldman, N. (1993). Marriage selection and mortality patterns: inferences and fallacies. Demography, 30(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halfon, N., & Hochstein, M. (2002). Life course health development: an integrated framework for developing health. The Milbank Quarterly, 80(3), 433–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, S., Rodgers, B., & Power, C. (1999). Marital status transitions and psychological distress: longitudinal evidence from a national population sample. Psychological Medicine, 29(2), 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, A. V., & White, H. R. (1998). The relationship of cohabitation and mental health: a study of a young adult cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2), 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M. E., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(3), 344–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. J., Backlund, E., Sorlie, P. D., & Loveless, C. A. (2000). Marital status and mortality: the national longitudinal mortality study. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(4), 224–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jylhä, M. (2009). What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3), 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, D. C. (2013). Marital and cohabitation dissolution and parental depressive symptoms in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, D., Moyser, M., & Beaujot, R. (2006). Marriage and cohabitation: demographic and socioeconomic differences in Quebec and Canada. Canadian Studies in Population, 33(1), 83–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koball, H. L., Moiduddin, E., Henderson, J., Brian, G., & Besculides, M. (2010). What do I know about the link between marriage and health? Journal of Family Issues, 31(8), 1019–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreager, D. A., Felson, R. B., Warner, C., & Wenger, M. R. (2013). Women’s education, marital violence, and divorce: a social exchange perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(3), 565–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, K., Lee, G. R., & De Maris, A. (2003). Union formation and depression: selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 953–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Bourdais, C., Lapierre-Adamcyk, E., & Pacaut, P. (2004). Changes in conjugal life in Canada: is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 929–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. (2009). Till death do us part: marital status and US mortality trends, 1986–2000. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71(5), 1158–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K. U. (2009). New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 413–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, S. O. (2009). Family structure and fathers’ well-being: trajectories of mental health and self-rated health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Stability and change in family structure and maternal health trajectories. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 314–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. USA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulatu, M. S., & Schooler, C. (2002). Casual connections between socio-economic status and health: reciprocal effects and mediating mechanism. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(1), 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (2012). Reexamining the case for marriage: union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putney, N. M., & Bengtson, V. (2005). Family relations in changing times: a longitudinal analysis of five cohorts of women. Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 25(3), 92–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. Texas: StataPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. K., Kamp, D. C., Atkins, M., Stanley, D. C., Scott, M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Breaking up is hard to do: the impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 366–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schieman, S., VanGundy, K., & Taylor, J. (2001). Status, role and resource explanations for age patterns in psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(1), 80–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., Landale, N. S., & Daniels, K. (2007). Family transitions in young adulthood. Demography, 44(4), 807–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenborn, C. A. (2004). Marital status and health: United States, 1990–2002. Advance Data, 351, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. (2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status and mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 1065–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soons, J. P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well-being differences in 30 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1141–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 12. College Station: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2011). Health Indicator profile, annual estimates, by age group and sex, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions (2011 boundaries) and peer groups (CANSIM table 105–0501), Ottawa: Statistics Canada. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=10.

  • Statistics Canada (2012a). Fifty years of families in Canada: 1961 to 2011. Families, households and marital status, 2011 Census of Population, Catalogue no. 98-312-X2011003, 28 February 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_1-eng.pdf.

  • Statistics Canada (2012b). Portrait of Families and Households in Canada, 2011 Census, 5 March 2013. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.cfm.

  • Statistics Canada. (1998). National population health survey: Public use microdata files [CD-ROM]. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2009). Canadian health measures survey. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strohschein, L., McDonough, P., Monette, G., & Shao, Q. (2005). Marital transitions and mental health: are there gender differences in the short-term effects of marital status change? Social Science & Medicine, 61(11), 2293–2303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, I., Hughes, M. E., & Brooks, T. L. (1996). Marriage protection and marriage selection: prospective evidence for reciprocal effects of marital status and health. Science & Medicine, 43(1), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickrama, K. A. S., Frederick, O. L., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (1997). Marital quality and physical illness: a latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(1), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender, marriage, and psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(4), 470–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: a gendered life course perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Sassler, S., & Nicholson, L. M. (2008). For better or for worse? The consequences of marriage and cohabitation for single mothers. Social Forces, 86(4), 1481–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., Goesling, B. & Avellar, S. (2007). The Effects of Marriage on Health: A Synthesis of Recent Research Evidence. Technical Report, Mathematica – Policy Research, Inc., MPR http://www.mathematica-mpr.org/publications/PDFs/marriagehealth.pdf.

  • World Health Organization. (2006). Constitution of the WHO. New York: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Hart, R. (2002). The effects of marital and nonmarital union transition on health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 420–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Schimmele, C. M. (2011). Changing Canadian families. In B. Edmonston & E. Fong (Eds.), The changing Canadian population (pp. 235–252). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., Schimmele, C. M., Penning, M. J., Zheng, C., & Noh, S. (2012). Effect of marital status on duration of treatment for mental illness. Canadian Studies in Population, 39(1–2), 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, H., & Thomas, P. A. (2013). Marital status, self- rated health, and mortality: overestimation of health or diminishing protection of marriage? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, XX(X), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The National Population Health Study was carried out by Statistics Canada. The author obtained access to the data through an agreement with the Research Data Centre of Statistics Canada in Lethbridge (affiliation of Calgary). Statistics Canada officials reviewed the analyses to ensure that confidentiality had not been breached and that the data were weighted properly to produce uniform estimates across reports. No other sponsor influenced the data analyses in any way.

Note: I thank the University of Lethbridge and the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences (FORS) for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and I am grateful to the colleagues from these institutions for inspiring many of the ideas discussed in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences (FORS) and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Sara Zella

Authors
  1. Sara Zella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Zella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zella, S. Marital Status Transitions and Self-Reported Health among Canadians: A Life Course Perspective. Applied Research Quality Life 12, 303–325 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9462-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9462-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation