UFI Features
How to Increase Your Odds for a Happier, Healthier, More Prosperous Life
By Christine Christensen
October 24, 2007
The family is the basic unit of society, an essential building block in a civil society. The family plays a huge role in a child's development, rendering or hindering them as productive citizens. However, today some believe that the traditional family is primitive and non-essential, a nice ideal but a fleeting reality. As out-of-wedlock birth, divorce and cohabitation increase, the effects of these new lifestyles must be scrutinized. Looking at empirical evidence, the intact marriage -- with a married mother and father -- is the best for the child and the couple. The intact married family has proven best in the areas of physical and mental health, education, income, good citizenry and the ability to form future families. Owing to the effectiveness of the intact family upon society and the common good, it deserves to be protected and held up as the ideal.
Health
Strangely, statistics show that marriage actually increases one's life expectancy. According to a review in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, “the non married have higher mortality rates than the married -- about 50 percent higher among women and 250 percent higher among men,” 1 Marowitz, a professor at Yale, found that divorce was as dangerous to a man's health as daily smoking a pack of cigarettes. 2Gallagher and Waite concluded that being unmarried holds greater risks than having cancer or heart disease. On average, heart disease shortens a man's life by about six years while being single chops off almost 10 years. 3 Also, nine out of 10 married males will live until the age of 48, while only six out of 10 unmarried men will do the same.4
Being married boosts the immune system, and couples are more likely to feel healthier and happier. Physician Micahel Roizen found in his research that for men, being happily married is the equivalent of being one and a half years younger than chronological age, and for women it is half of a year. In contrast, for divorced females, two years are added and three years for divorced males. 5 Married couples recover faster from illness, and a study on outcomes for hospitalized patients show that married surgical patients are far less likely to die in the hospital.6
The reasons for this health boost and increased longevity are found in the bonds of marriage. Wives are more likely to decrease their husband's risky behaviors, such as speeding and drinking, while encouraging healthy behavior such as adequate sleep and healthy eating. Likewise, married women decrease their risky behavior and enjoy security and financial safety. In their companionship, married couples offer one another emotional support. Talking and sharing deep emotions has proven therapeutic. Furthermore, realizing their dependence on each other adds meaning to life. Monogamous sexual relations and the realization that their lives are intertwined also result in continued and lasting physical benefits.7
Mental Health
Generally, not only do those from intact families enjoy better physical health, they enjoy better mental health as well. Repeated studies report that the grown children of divorced parents are significantly more vulnerable to depression compared to those from intact families. 8 Furthermore, the mental and physical well-being of children whose parents were never married is worse than those children from divorced families. 9 From depression to suicide, additional research shows that children who attempted suicide were more likely to live in non-intact families, even after controlling for factors such as age, income, race and religion. In a case study, more than half of those children who had attempted suicide lived in homes with one or less biological parent, while only about a third of those who did not attempt suicide lived in such a setting.10
Marital disruptions, such as divorce, affect psychological well-being before and after the breakup. 11 Children from single-parent homes also have a greater risk for psychiatric disorders: nearly four times for girls and three times for boys. 12 Also, adolescents in one-parent families are more than three times as likely to be referred for mental health services. 13 In contrast, children from homes with intact married parents are happier and enjoy greater mental health.
Education
Educationally, single-parent homes are the worst for the child even after controlling for factors such as income and the mother's education. 14 For students, not only is there a direct correlation between single-parent homes and less years of education attained, 15 they also have lower academic achievement, receive lower grades and are more likely to repeat grade levels. 16 One study shows that a child who lives with both biological parents scored 103 in terms of math achievement, while a child living with a never-married mother scored a 92, a 15-point difference. 17 The gap deepens when the single mother gives birth as a teen; one-half of adolescents born to teen parents have failed a grade. One reason for the disparity between single and intact families is that single parents are not as likely to spend their time, money and attention to assist children in their learning, which makes a significant difference, especially in the child's younger years.
Children of divorced parents perform worse in school compared to children from intact families. 18 Remarriage also hurts the child, and cohabitation after divorce hurts the child even more. 19 Yongmin found that those children who experienced marital disruptions scored lower on academic tests and had lower academic aspirations before and after the disruptions. 20 Another study shows that with divorce, educational achievement measures were consistently and cumulatively low across four years. 21 Step-families are better than other family structures, but when compared to the intact family, they still fall short in each of the six areas of grades attained: educational expectations, math, reading, history and science scores. 22 Children from divorced families are also less likely to complete each stage of schooling. Fewer students complete high school, attend college or receive a degree.23
Children from intact married families obtain more years of schooling. Generally, they receive more encouragement and their parents have higher expectations. Not only do students from married-parent families go to school longer, but they receive better grades. 24 Teens from intact families earned an average GPA of 2.85, while those from non-intact families received a 2.6.25 Forehand found that adolescents from intact homes not only obtain higher grades, but they were also perceived by their teachers as being more socially competent. 26 Teens from intact families are also the least likely to be expelled or suspended.27
There is a direct correlation between education and future income. Children who receive less education earn lower incomes and are less likely to support their own child's education. Society needs educated citizens because increased learning optimizes the functioning of society. Children from intact married families achieve the greatest educational achievements and should be held up as the ideal.
Income
Marriage is economically robust. According to t he Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finance for the year 2000, incomes for families with children under the age of 18 are as follows: intact family ($54,000), cohabiting ($30,000), divorced ($23,000) and the never-married ($9,400). Smith found that the median assets for couples reaching retirement was $132,000 for the intact family, $35,000 for those never married, $30,000 for the divorced family, and $7,600 for the separated. 28 Looking at younger families with children under the age of 18, the intact family again had higher assets than any other family structure.29
Intact families work longer hours in the workplace than any other family structure. Marriage makes good economic sense, boosting many out of poverty. According to Smith's study, marriage doubles the chances for one to move out of a poor neighborhood.30 Evidence also confirms the presence of a “marriage premium.” A causal relationship exists between marriage and a 27-percent premium or wage increase.31
Economically, other family structures repeatedly fall short in comparison to the intact family. For example, divorce is devastating to a family's income. After divorce, nearly half of those families drop into poverty.32 Data from the last 27 years show that after divorce, household incomes drop 28 to 42 percent, a cut that mimics the economic loss experienced during the Great Depression. 33 In addition, three-fourths of women who apply for welfare do so because of the effects of divorce.35 Cohabiting and remarriage cannot make up for the loss. The needs-to-income is worse for children living in a divorced home, compared to married mothers, who have the highest income-to-needs ratio for their six-month-old babies.36
Cohabiting couples also cannot compete financially with the intact family. One-third of those who cohabit failed to finish high school, 37 and they have lower earnings. 38 Unlike the five percent of children from intact families that need public assistance, 25 percent of children from cohabiters need public assistance.39 One reason for this phenomenon is that partners in a cohabiting relationship are less financially supportive of each other. Single mothers fare worst financially. In a survey of seven western countries, families with single mothers and children had the highest rates of poverty. 40
Evidence has accumulated showing that present income affects a child's future propensity for income, thus continuing a cycle of poverty. Those with less income receive less education and, comparatively, a smaller future income. Furstenbert found that women whose parents divorced during childhood were more likely to be less educated, earn a lower income, be on welfare and live in social housing at age 33 than those women whose parents did not divorce during childhood.41
Because intact families are able to earn the largest incomes, are less dependent on government support and are able to contribute positively to the marketplace, family dissolution is a costly phenomenon.
Crime/Abuse/Addictions
Intact families protect against crime. In his research, Malik discovered that the marital status of the parents were significant predictors of adolescent crime and violence. Furthermore, children living with both parents were the least likely to be involved in violence, while step-families, single-parent families and other structures experienced higher rates of violence.42 In addition, Smith and Jarjoura, using the Police Service Study for three major cities, (Rochester, New York, St. Petersburg, Florida and St. Louis), found that single-parent households are significantly associated with rates of violent crime and burglary. 43 Adolescents from intact families are less likely to exhibit delinquent behavior, such as damaging property, stealing, fighting, selling drugs, sexual activities and crime.44 Intact homes with two parents offer supervision for their own children and their neighborhood, which results in less delinquent behavior.45
In contrast, Sampson and Groves studied data from British cities and found that family dissolution caused by divorce or out-of-wedlock birth was correlated with mugging, violence against strangers, auto theft and burglary.46 Rodgers also found that youth who lived with a divorced parent, single or remarried, were more likely to engage in high-risk behavior such as substance abuse, carrying a weapon, fighting and sexual relations.47 Rates of serious and fatal abuse are lowest in the intact married family. Rates of serious abuse are six times higher in the stepfamily, 14 times higher in the always-single family, 20 times higher in cohabiting-biological parent families and 33 times higher when the mother was cohabiting with a boyfriend who was not the father. For fatal abuse, the rate was three times higher in the stepfamily, nine times higher in the never-married single-mother family, 18 times higher in the cohabiting-biological parents household and 73 times higher in families where the mother cohabited with the boyfriend.48 Additionally, Yexley found that children with family structures other than the intact family experience higher rates of exposure to domestic violence as victims and witnesses.49 The cycle continues, according to one study that found that if a child was exposed to violence in his or her family of origin, then there was a better chance that the child would be abusive.50
Unlike the intact family where children are the least likely to have ever used hard drugs and been drunk,51 other family structures have a greater risk for developing addictions. One study confirms that adolescents with divorced parents are more likely to be involved with drugs.52
One of the government's roles is to maintain the peace. The intact family helps reduce crime, abuse and addictions, contributing to peaceful society. Therefore, it is in the best interest of government to protect and strengthen families.
Family Itself
One's family of origin affects one's future family. Crowder found that female teens living with a single parent have a greater risk of teen pregnancy.53 Adamcyzk said that those living with two parents were 20 percent less likely to have ever had sexual intercourse, 54 and Sieving found that teens living with their biological parents were 38 percent less likely to transition to sexual intercourse.55 Teen boys from intact families also average the fewest sexual partners over a lifetime.56
It seems that those who come from families with married parents believe more in the institution of marriage and trust that they can have a lasting happy marriage. Colman discovered that males whose parents never married were significantly less likely to marry and were more likely to cheat and walk out on their romantic partners. Likewise, women with never-married parents were more likely to cohabit with and walk out on their partners. Women with divorced parents had higher rates of marriage and cohabitation, but they also had higher rates of dysfunction -- such as walking out on their partners and divorce. 57 Children, as part of a married intact family, can incorporate the successes of their parent's marriage in their own marriages.
Cohabitation vs. Marriage
Cohabitation rates have grown tremendously in the past few years, making it important to study and highlight the differences between marriage and just living together. There are many types of cohabitation, presenting numerous scenarios. However, overall, many of the benefits found in marriage are absent in cohabiting relationships. Waite and Joyner report lower levels of happiness and sexual satisfaction among cohabitors.58 Each additional sexual partner and cohabiting partner, before marriage, increases the divorce rate after marriage. 59 The risk of partner abuse increases in cohabitation.60 Cohabitation is the least safe environment for children, 61 and they experience more negative emotional and educational development impacts than in other forms of the family.62
Monogamy (having only one sexual partner in a life time) seems to be a big factor in the permanence of unions whether they are cohabiting or married. 63 However, t hose who cohabit have a harder time staying together. Treas and Giesen report that those in marriage are more likely to be sexually exclusive than cohabiters. 64 Both men and women in cohabiting relationships in the U.K. 65 and in the U.S. 66 were more likely to be unfaithful to their partners. In the U.K., less than 4 percent of cohabiting relationships last for 10 years or more before breaking up or marrying.67
When couples cohabit and break up, the children are dragged along as well. Heaton and Manning found that in the U.S. the risk for parental divorce was 292 percent greater among children whose cohabiting parents do not marry than children born to married parents and 151 percent greater among children whose cohabiting parents marry than for those children born into marriage. Fifteen percent of children born to cohabitors experience the end of their parents' union by age 1, half by age five and two-thirds by age 10. 68 Bumpass and Lu estimated that cohabitation continues to be a short-term arrangement for most with about half lasting a year or less, only one-sixth lasting three years and about a tenth lasting five years or longer.69
Breakups are less frequent among the married. In Sweden , even if only those unions with children are considered, separation rates are still as much as three times higher than divorce rates. 70 Again, the marriage bond is significant. Couples in marriage are more likely to perceive and treat their relationship with permanence. Trust is greater and when trouble strikes there is a greater pull to forgive and work things out instead of calling it quits. Marriage is an institution in which commitments and expectations are more likely solidified.
Conclusion
Abundant studies prove the importance and effectiveness of the intact married family. However, some may disregard the studies by arguing that the desired outcomes are a result of higher education or income, not family structure. As shown above, there seems to be a relationship between the intact family and higher incomes and education. However, the family is not merely a result of these other factors. When they are controlled for, there is still something powerful found in family bonds. For example, studies do show that abuse and neglect are less likely in those households with higher incomes. 71 Richard Gelles, a recognized expert on abuse, has shown that it is the presence or absence of adult support, especially from the father, rather than poverty, which makes the greatest difference in whether child abuse is going to occur within poor families.72 Buchanan found similar results in the areas of murder and crime, and his finding was supported by the FBI.73 Sampson and Laub studied adults who were delinquent in their youth but discontinued this behavior as adults. Of all the characteristics studied -- their previous adult criminal record, income and job stability -- marital attachment was the greatest factor overall in protecting these men from again falling into criminal or deviant behavior.74
Velez and Cohen found that children who attempted suicide were more likely to live in non-intact families, even after controlling for factors such as age, income, race and religion. 75 And as noted, children from single-parent homes do much worse in school even after controlling for factors such as income and the mother's education.76
Regardless of income or education, family disruptions consistently result in negative conditions for the children and couples. On the other hand, the intact family continues to produce positive outcomes across many nationalities, income disparities and education levels.
Couples and children thrive in the intact family, prospering in the areas of physical and mental health, education, income and good citizenry. Therefore, the family deserves our protection.
End Notes
1 Waite, L.J. & Gallagher, M. 2000, The Case For Marriage, Doubleday, New York.
2 Et al.
3 Et al.
4 Et al
5 Et al
6 Et al
7 Et al
8 Aro, Hillevi M. & Ulla Palosaari 1992, "Parental Divorce, Adolescence, and Transition to Young Adulthood” A Follow-Up Study" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol 62 (July), pp: 421-429.
9 Moilanen, Irma & Rantakallio, Paula, 1988, "The Single-Parent Family and the Child's Mental Health" Social Science Medicine Vol. 27 (Summer), pp: 181-186.
10 Velez, Carmen Noevi & Cohen, Patricia 1988, "Suicidal Behavior and Ideation in a Community Sample of Children: Maternal and Youth Reports" Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 273, pp: 349-356.
11 Sun, Yongmin & Yuanzhang Li 2002, "Children's Well-Being During Parents' Marital Disruption Process: A Pooled Time-series Analysis" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64 (May) pp: 472-488.
12Moilanen, Irma & Rantakallio, Paula, 1988, "The Single-Parent Family and the Child's Mental Health" Social Science Medicine Vol. 27 (Summer), pp: 181-186.
13 Zwaanswijk, Marieke, Jan Van der Ende, Peter F. M Verhaak,; Jozien M Bensing, & Frank C. Verhulst 2003, "Factors Associated With Adolescent Mental Health Service Need and Utilization" J ournal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 42 (June) pp: 692-700.
14 Blau, P.M. & Duncan, O.D. 1967, The American Occupational Structure, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
15 Amato, P.R. & Keith, B. 1991, ‘Consequences of parental divorce for children's well-being: A meta-analysis', Psychological Bulletin, vol. 110, pp. 26-46.
16 Dawson, D.A. 1991, ‘Family structure and children's health and well being: Data from the 1988 National Survey of Child Health', Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 53, pp. 573–584
17 Armor, David J., Maximizing Intelligence, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers 2003), pp. 51-100.
18 Guidubaldi, J., Cleminshaw, H.K., Perry, J.D. & Mcloughlin, C.S. 1983, ‘The Impact of Parental Divorce on Children: Report of the Nationwide NASP Study', School Psychology Review, vol. 12, pp. 300-323.
19 Jeynes, W.H. 2000, ‘The effects of several of the most common family structures on the academic achievement of eighth graders', Marriage and Family Review, vol. 30, pp. 73-97.
20 Sun, Yongmin & Li, Yuanzhang 2002, “Children's Well-Being During Parents' Marital Disruption Process: A Pooled Time-series Analysis" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, (May) pp: 472-488.
21 Sun, Yongmin & Li, Yuanzhang 2002, “Children's Well-Being During Parents' Marital Disruption Process: A Pooled Time-series Analysis" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, (May) pp: 472-488.
22 Downey, D.B. 1995a, ‘Understanding academic achievement among children in stephouse-holds: The role of parental resources, sex of stepparent, and sex of child', Social Forces, vol. 73, pp. 875-894.
23 Biblarz, T.J. & Gottainer, G. 2000, ‘Family structure and children's success: A comparison of widowed and divorced single mother families', Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 62, pp. 533-548.
24 Aro, H.M. & Palosaari, U.K. 1992, ‘Parental divorce, adolescence, and transition to young adulthood: A follow-up study', American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 62, pp. 421-429.
25 Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006),
26 Forehand, Rex 1987, "Adolescent Functioning as a Consequence of Recent Parental Divorce and the Parent-Adolescent Relationship" Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 8, pp: 305-315.
27 Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006)
28 Smith, J.P. 1995, Marriage, Assets, and Savings, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
29 Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finance, 2001
30 South, S.J. & Crowder, K.D. 1997, ‘Escaping distressed neighborhoods: Individual, community, and metropolitan influences,' American Journal of Sociology, vol. 102, pp. 1040-1084.
31 Korenman, S. & Neumark, D. 1990, ‘Does marriage really make men more productive?', The Journal of Human Resources, vol. 26, pp. 282-307.
32 Heath, J.A. & Kiker, B.F. 1992, ‘Determinants of spells of poverty following divorce', Review of Social Economy , vol. 50, pp. 305–315.
33 Corcoran, M.E. & Chaudry, A. 1997, ‘The Dynamics of Childhood Poverty', Future of Children, vol. 7, pp. 40–54.
34 OECD, 1989
35 McKeever, M. & Wolfinger, N.H. 2001, ‘Reexamining the Costs of Marital Disruption for Women', Social Science Quarterly, vol. 82, pp. 202-217.
36 Aronson, Stacy R & Aletha. C Huston 2004, “The Mother-Infant Relationship in Single, Cohabiting, and Married Families: A Case for Marriage ?" Journal of Family Psychology Vol. 18, pp: 5-18.
37 Ozawa, M.N. & Yoon, H-S. 2003, ‘Economic impact of marital disruption on children', Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 25, pp. 611-632.
38 Brown, J.B. & Lichter, D.T. 2004, ‘Poverty, welfare, and the livelihood strategies of nonmetropolitan single mothers', Rural Sociology, vol. 69, pp. 282-301.
39 Manning, W.D. & Lichter, D.T. 1996, ‘Parental cohabitation and children's economic well-being', Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 58, pp. 998-1010.
40 Brandon, P.D. & Bumpass, L. 2001, ‘Children's living arrangements, coresidence of unmarried fathers, and welfare receipt', Journal of Family Issues, vol. 22, pp. 3-26.
41 Christopher, K., England, P., Smeeding, T.M. & Phillips, K.R. 2002, ‘The gender gap in poverty in modern nations: Single motherhood, the market, and the state', Sociological Perspectives, vol. 45, pp. 219-242.
42 Furstenbert, Frank F & Kathleen E. Kiernan, 2001, "Delayed Parental Divorce: How Much Do Children Benefit?" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 63, (May) p: 452.
43 M alik, S., Sorensen, S.B. & Aneshensel, C.S. 1997, ‘Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization', Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 21, pp. 291-302.
44 Smith, D. & Jarjoura, G.R. 1988, ‘Social structure and criminal victimization', Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, pp. 27-52.
45 Manning, Wendy D. & Lamb, Kathleen A. 2003, "Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, no 4, pp: 876-893.
46 Sampson, R.J. & Groves, W.B. 1989, ‘Theory', American, vol. 94, pp. 774-802.
47 Sampson, R.J. & Groves, W.B. 1989, ‘Theory', American, vol. 94, pp. 774-802.
48 Rodgers, Kathleen B. & Rose, Hillary A, 2002, “Risk and Resiliency Factors Among Adolescents Who Experience Marital Transitions" Journal of Marriage and the Family , Vol. 64, No 4., pp: 1024-1037.
49 Fagan, Patrick F. & Kirk A Johnson, 2002, "Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children" Heritage Foundation Working Paper, Backgrounder No. 1535, p 3.
50 Yexley, M., Borowsky, I. & Ireland, M. 2002, ‘Correlation between different experiences of intrafamilial physical violence and violent adolescent behavior', Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 17, pp. 707-720.
51 Heyman, Richard E. & Amy M. Smith, 2002, "Do Child Abuse and Interparental Violence Lead to Adulthood Family Violence?" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, no 4. pp: 864-870.
52 Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006)
53 Richard H. Needle, Susan Su, and William J. Doherty, 1990, "Divorce, Remarriage, and Adolescent Substance Use: A Prospective Longitudinal Study" Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 52, pp: 157-159.
54 Crowder, K. & J. Teachman, 2004, "Do residential conditions explain the relationship between living arrangements and adolescent behavior?" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, pp: 721–738.
55 “Adamczyk, A. and J. Felson, 2006, “Friends' religiosity and first sex." Social Science Research
56 Sieving, R.E., M.E.Eisenberg, S. Pettingell, & C. Skay, 2006, “Friends' influence on adolescents' first sexual intercourse" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Vol. 38, no 1, pp: 13-19.
57 Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America : Key Outcomes for the Common Good , ( Washington , D.C. : The Heritage Foundation 2006)
58 Colman, Rebecca A. & Cathy Spatz Widon, 2004, "Childhood Abuse and Adult Intimate Relationships: A Prospective Study" Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 28, No 11, pp: 1133-1151.
59 Waite, L.J. & Joyner, K. 2001a, ‘Emotional and physical satisfaction with sex in married, cohabiting and dating sexual unions: Do men and women differ?' in Sex, Love, and Health in America: Private Choices and Public Policies, eds. E.O. Laumann & R.T. Michael, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
60 Waite, L.J. & Joyner, K. 2001b, ‘Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual investment, and sexual exclusivity', Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 63, pp. 247-264.
61 Waite, L.J. & Gallagher, M. 2000, The Case For Marriage, Doubleday, New York.
62 Daly, M. & Wilson, M. 1988, Homicide, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
63 Brown, S.L. 2004, ‘Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation,' Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 351-367.
64 Teachman, J. 2003, ‘Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women', Journal of Marriage and Family , vol. 65, pp. 444-455
65 Judith Treas, Judith & Deirdre Giesen, 2000, Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62, No.1, pp. 48-60.
66 Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A.M. & Wadsworth, J. 1994, Sexual Behaviour in Britain : The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyle, Penguin Books, London
67 Steinhaiser, J. 1995, ‘No marriage, no apologies', The New York Times, 6 July, sect. C, p.1, column 2.
68 Ermisch, J. 1995, Premarital Cohabitation, Childbearing and the Creation of One-Parent Families, Working Paper No. 1995-17 , Economic and Social Research Council, Research Centre.
69 Heaton, T.B. 2002, ‘Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States ', Journal of Family Issues , vol. 23, pp. 392-409.
70 Bumpass, L.L. & Lu, H.H. 2000, ‘Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts in the United States,', Population Studies, vol. 54, pp. 29-41.
71 Harper, S. 2003, ‘Changing families as societies age: Research Report No. RR103', Oxford Institute of Ageing, University of Oxford , [online] 19 October 2005, Available at: http://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/publications/ResearchReport1.pdf.
72 Sedlak, A.J. & Broadhurst, D.D. 1996, Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families, National Center on Child Abuse Abuse andNeglect, Washington, DC. Seidman, S.N., Mosher, W.D. & Aral, S.O. 1988, ‘Women with multiple sexual partners: United States ', American Journal of Public Health, vol. 82, pp.1388-1394.
73 Gelles, R.J. 1989, ‘Child abuse and violence in single-parent families: Parent absence and economic deprivation', American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 59, pp. 492-501.
74 Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, 1990, Criminal Investigative Analysis: Sexual Homicide, Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
75 Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.H. 1990, ‘Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds', American Sociology Review, vol. 55, 609-627.
76 Velez, Carmen Noevi & Cohen, Patricia 1988, "Suicidal Behavior and Ideation in a Community Sample of Children: Maternal and Youth Reports" Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 273, pp: 349-356.
77 Blau, P.M. & Duncan, O.D. 1967, The American Occupational Structure, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Christine Christensen wrote this article during an internship with The Heritage Foundation, located in Washington, D.C. She is a law school student at Brigham Young University. Previously, Christine represented UFI at the 2007 International Conference on Population and Development at the United Nations and at a world summit in Seoul, Korea in 2004.
©2001 - 2007 United Families International. All rights reserved. No content, images, or other information may be used from this site without prior written consent of United Families International or original authors.
