Slashdot Mirror
Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage
HughPickens.com writes Randy Olson, a Computer Science grad student who works with data visualizations, writes about seven of the biggest factors that predict what makes for a long term stable marriage in America. Olson took the results of a study that polled thousands of recently married and divorced Americans and and asked them dozens of questions about their marriage (PDF): How long they were dating, how long they were engaged, etc. After running this data through a multivariate model, the authors were able to calculate the factors that best predicted whether a marriage would end in divorce. "What struck me about this study is that it basically laid out what makes for a stable marriage in the US," writes Olson. Here are some of the biggest factors:
How long you were dating: (Couples who dated 1-2 years before their engagement were 20% less likely to end up divorced than couples who dated less than a year before getting engaged. Couples who dated 3 years or more are 39% less likely to get divorced.); How much money you make: (The more money you and your partner make, the less likely you are to ultimately file for divorce. Couples who earn $125K per year are 51% less likely to divorce than couples making 0 — 25k); How often you go to church: (Couples who never go to church are 2x more likely to divorce than regular churchgoers.); Your attitude toward your partner: (Men are 1.5x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's looks, and women are 1.6x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's wealth.); How many people attended the wedding: ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding: Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people."); How much you spent on the wedding: (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.); Whether you had a honeymoon: (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon)
Of course correlation is not causation. For example, expensive weddings may simply attract the kind of immature and narcissistic people who are less likely to sustain a successful marriage and such people might end up getting divorced even if they married cheaply. But "the particularly scary part here is that the average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is well over $30,000," says Olson, "which doesn't bode well for the future of American marriages."
How long you were dating: (Couples who dated 1-2 years before their engagement were 20% less likely to end up divorced than couples who dated less than a year before getting engaged. Couples who dated 3 years or more are 39% less likely to get divorced.); How much money you make: (The more money you and your partner make, the less likely you are to ultimately file for divorce. Couples who earn $125K per year are 51% less likely to divorce than couples making 0 — 25k); How often you go to church: (Couples who never go to church are 2x more likely to divorce than regular churchgoers.); Your attitude toward your partner: (Men are 1.5x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's looks, and women are 1.6x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's wealth.); How many people attended the wedding: ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding: Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people."); How much you spent on the wedding: (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.); Whether you had a honeymoon: (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon)
Of course correlation is not causation. For example, expensive weddings may simply attract the kind of immature and narcissistic people who are less likely to sustain a successful marriage and such people might end up getting divorced even if they married cheaply. But "the particularly scary part here is that the average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is well over $30,000," says Olson, "which doesn't bode well for the future of American marriages."
Couples where one partner says, "Well yeah, but correlation doesn't equal causation" at least three times a day are almost 100% guaranteed to end up with the death of one spouse at the hands of the other.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Your marriage will "succeed" or "fail" based on why you're getting married, period. Things come up during any relationship, but reasoning keeps things going. Look at business relationships. Look at the cultures where they have arranged marriages. The thing is, when one side tries to make it work for the sake of the relationship itself, then the other side feels this and also tries. When both sides are trying, then success. Eventually true love develops out of the pure sacredness of the effort from the other side toward your side. Each side sees personal sacrifice and feels in debt.
There is no mathematical formula for this, for the same reason that pi cannot be pinned down to a certain number.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
That was 36 years ago.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
"Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.");"
"Whether you had a honeymoon (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon).""
Those two seem to be at odds with this one:
"How much you spent on the wedding (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.);"
Unless they mean that you should invite 200 people to a park wedding with no food, and then honeymoon in the alley behind Dunkin' Donuts to take advantage of their dumpster?
And how do you get rid of them before the wedding night?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I am a social scientist. The methodology employed in this paper; and the summary offered by OP is completely off. OP alludes to causality, but that isn't really possible with summary statistics. Please don't lump all of us in with this terrible methodology.
Also wealthier people simply have more resources to deal with financial trouble. They're not as likely to be split by external financial pressures, able to afford marriage counseling, possibly less likely to have been financially pressured into selecting a poor match and less likely to be looking to upgrade to a wealthier partner.
Better yet, just hire an indian couple to get married for you. MUCH MORE EFFICIENT!
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
My wife and I were together for 7 years and lived together for 6 months before we got married. We had to deal with a lot of things happening before we could even move in together. We got married because we wanted to and being married did not really change anything from the way it was before we got married.
8.5 years later things really haven't changed since before we got married. We still argue at times, sometimes fairly heated. We don't always make up after the arguments but we understand we are two different people who often see things differently but are committed to each other.
I think having a wife that is just like me would be more relaxing but probably a lot less interesting.
I would be really interested in a link for something like this because on the surface it seems intuitive that people why go to church may be exposed to more societal pressure to maintain an unhappy marriage than risk social shame for going through a divorce.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
A $9k wedding can be quite a treat in the U.S. as long as you dispense with the bullshit of playing dress-up and having a formal, overpaid party. Just go to a good restaurant, eat a good dinner, hit a club afterwards. Heck, if you want to look cute, $1k buys all the clothes, hairdo and makeup you'll need, if you wish to put a little bit of elbow grease into it.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
There are lots of correlated variables here, so it's difficult to pick out useful information.
The comment thread on the article includes lots of discussion about the impossibility of a wedding that is both cheap and large, but lots of people pointing out that weddings with lots of church and/or community support can be both cheap and large. But church and/or community support are also correlated with other elements of a very stable social structure.
For example, my wedding was both large (> 600 people attended our reception) and cheap (< $3000). How is that possible? We're Mormon, so the actual marriage ceremony was at the LDS temple, which is free, and allows limited attendance. Then we had a wedding breakfast for the ~50 people who attended the ceremony, but the breakfast was at the church (free) and the food was cooked and served by members of our congregation (ingredients cost: low; labor: free). The reception was at the church (free); the bridesmaids paid for their own dresses, best man rented his tux, etc.; the flowers were a wedding gift from a cousin with a flower shop; the table centerpieces and other decorations were handmade by friends and relatives, so we only paid for the materials (cheap); the cake was made by my aunt, who had a wedding business on the side, and cost us $200 for a large, beautiful and tasty cake; my aunt also provided backdrops and other decorations; and some other relatives who are professional photographers did the photos. I don't recall who did the music, but it was all free, using the church's sound equipment. Our biggest expense was the hors d'oeuvres which were actually made by my wife's sisters, so we paid only for the ingredients.
The common thread throughout that list is heavy support from friends, family and community. But I suspect that deep family and church/community support are strongly correlated with long-lasting marriages for lots of reasons which have nothing to do with the wedding day, which to me suggests that those are far more relevant and that wedding cost and attendance are mere proxies for those variables. Also related is the fact that if a lot of people attend, you also get a lot of gifts. So big/cheap weddings are financially beneficial to the couple (mine sure was; spontaneous cash gifts alone -- from the "money tree" -- were more than 2X what we spent, plus all of the gifts of housewares, etc.), while small/expensive weddings are a net drain on their finances.
Similarly, long-term dating tends to be more uncommon among those who get married very young, because it takes time to date someone for 2-3 years, and it's well-known that marriages of the very young are riskier.
Elopement is another one: Those who elope are generally people who decide to get married on the spur of the moment. Such impulsiveness doesn't bode well for future decisions if your goal is long-term stability.
It would be interesting to see a study on this done well, with lots of effort put into teasing apart the correlated variables. This one doesn't actually tell us much.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yeah, but how do you get 200+ people there for the party, without the cost going up?
Just hire some locals to attend. The important thing is to get over the 200 guest threshold so you don't get divorced.
This can really be condensed to only three, since some are redundant if you know the underlying cause. It's not like a research study is needed if you know people with successful marriages. The factors they chose that have an impact really only reflect the relevance of the following factors:
1. Taking marriage seriously. Eloping or skipping a honeymoon says "I don't want to invest much in this." Even those with moderate income can have a modest wedding and inexpensive honeymoon instead of going all out. Any indicator of not taking the marriage seriously is a negative, no matter what form it takes.
2. Genuinely valuing the other person for who they are. Hence, this means to not be a gold-digger or care more about looks. Also, dating longer is just an indicator that "finding the right person" is the attitude the person is taking, which means they want the person as a person to be a good match. By contrast, looks and money can be identified immediately, so it doesn't require a long time to get engaged. Desperation is also not a good reason for marriage, and desperation doesn't need a long time to get engaged.
3. Having a deterrent for divorce. Rich people, church-goers, and people with lots of people at their wedding have a lot of people to pressure you to stay together because you lead *public lives*. You don't get a private divorce, you get public embarrassment. Rich people have an additional deterrent in that it's a lot of money to lose if your ex-spouse wants to take you to the cleaners.
There might also be a sort of "reverse correlation" between divorce and going to church. If you go to a church where divorce is frowned upon and you get a divorce, you might be less likely to go to church (and deal with the whispers of "X got divorced... how SCANDALOUS!"). Thus, when the survey hits, they'd find that more people who go to church are still married. It could easily be the attitude of the parishioners keeping divorced people out, not the church keeping people married.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I would argue that larger weddings are evidence of a larger social support network of family and friends. More social support likely leads to improved psychology for both partners and perhaps better support when the marriage may encounter trying circumstances.
Cost in and of itself seems to be a function of narcissism and expectations that diverge from reality. Plus a lot of couples who spend freely on a wedding may burden themselves financially and face economic challenges early in a marriage when they may be younger and less capable of weathering them. Or it may indicate a lack of financial discipline which just repeats itself when married.
Look up Shinto Buddhists
Look up Hindu
Look up Taoists
Look up Buddhists.
Many of these religions had little or no contact with Christianity.
Christianity didn't even handle marriage until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Before that, marriage was tied to the state.
Place something witty here
The secret of successful marriage is beating off.
There, FTFY. You seem to have made a typo.
It is more than just pressure. There is also a support network of close friends and any good church will offer marriage counselling to try and sort out problems long before it gets to divorce.
Short men tend to get married later but stay married longer. Referenced
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The government has a good reason to favor certain lifestyles. Up until the last century, it was a lifestyle that had one person at home, raising the kids, and the other one out making money for them. And those were the same people who caused the children to come into existence.
The government doesn't give a shit if you love your partner, they just want to make sure that those who can breed are encouraged to control their spawn and provide for them.
The divorce rate and the whole "who can get married" debate is everyone missing the point about why you get married and why the government even gets involved. It's about the government providing convenience and some breaks in return for control.
Forget the stigma of divorce. In some places there are still different social values involved. These people aren't spineless or mere slaves to the apparent popular opinion of the local population (which would be a fragile situation circular, since they are the local population); they believe that marriage is a holy, sacramental bond which does things to your soul. If present, this conviction is a far stronger reason to avoid divorce than social pressure.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
According to my wife, its no poles in the right half plane.
No matter how much I beg.
Have gnu, will travel.
Marriage isn't necessarily like an overripe fruit which, once it goes bad, it is done. Relationships can be worked on, and when they are, you can overcome bad situations.
I won't suggest that all relationships can be repaired, nor should they be. Still, if you spend the time finding a good match, as opposed to going straight for the fat wallet or a nice pair of tits, you have a shot at picking someone who isn't necessarily perfect, but someone you have a fighting chance of having enough in common to mend a relationship, if you try.
Point being, there is a tendency to be dismissive of Christians (or whoever), who stick it out longer than others might due to community influence. Without effort put into working on the relationship, that may well just generate misery, but if the couple has a solid basis for a relationship, it can cause the couple to actually work on something when they might otherwise have decided to simply give up.
Marriage is one of those things where people are inclined to turn it into something disposable, where in reality, many of those people simply shouldn't have gotten married at all. The problem isn't with the ability to get divorced quickly or easily, the problem is with the people who think they should get married, but who really shouldn't have even left their number for the other person after the drunk sex.
If both party's motives are pure, they should have no problem with one.
Well, if someone asks for a pre-nup he or she is already considering divorce to be a event with a rather high likelyhood. Is it really smart to marry someone who considers divorce a likely event?
Jan
Up until the last century, it was a lifestyle that had one person at home, raising the kids, and the other one out making money for them. And those were the same people who caused the children to come into existence.
That's actually bullshit. The "woman stays home" model may have been an ideal for a long time (though certainly not the entirety of human existence), but that doesn't mean most people could afford it. Aristocrats might do so, but then aristocrats don't really need either partner to work and the wife was more likely to have servants care for house and children to make room for a busy social calendar. Which leaves us with the middle class, which until the 1950s wasn't very large in America. If you marry a doctor or a lawyer, you could stay home (and your egotistical husband probably would rather you didn't threaten to be successful like the big important doctor). Otherwise...well, you found other ways to make a living.
The poor unwashed masses don't have the luxury of consistent income able to support an entire family from just one job. They have always had every possible member of the family working, especially in the past when children older than toddlers were given a lot more freedom with much less supervision. Husband working a construction job, wife working in a textile mill, and if you're really lucky the two could do both at the same time for years. If you aren't, well then somebody will be home raising chickens or something and probably engaging in a local barter market.
Not every "tradition" actually goes back any farther than your grandparents. Know your history. Not just the "great events" version of history either; know how people lived and the kind of economic opportunities they had. There's a lot more interesting about the 1800s than all the wars. Don't let some 1950s sexist reaction after WW2 overwrite the reality of your ancestors.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
First off that 30k average for a wedding is based off a survey in a high end bridal magazine. So the people who answered that are exactly the sort who would be in the market to spend 30k on wedding. http://resultzdigital.com/wall...
Second, this church going statistic needs a bit more elaboration. Because atheists and agnostics have the lowest rate of divorce in the U.S. while fundamentalist Christians have the highest. http://www.religioustolerance..... So do they mean to imply that Christians divorce less or is it that lazy Christians divorce more?
Other than that interesting statistics.
While I find arranged marriages horrifying personally, a friend (not Hindu) was married that way and at least their process was interesting to say the least. The families selected potential partners based on their knowledge of their (adult) childrens' personalities. He went on dates with the suggested women and, the third one was apparently compatible. They have been together for 20 years now.
But maybe that is just the old-fashioned version of a modern online dating service's compatibility algorithm.
Why do you think your irrational belief in ghosts is less annoying than someone else's?
Ultimately, the willingness to believe things because "someone said so" is what leads to the ills of religion in its many forms. Your religion is no less irrational or annoying than someone else's.
As an atheist, I'm obviously a non-believer as well, and I think you need to stop with the belittling. The combative, militant atheist is just as annoying as the Westboro member. Well. Maybe not quite so much. But you will convert no one with such tactics, and you drive away the people in the middle who may just come to the conclusion "man... atheists are a bunch of assholes."