Journalhttp://jfi.sagepub.

com/
of Family Issues

The Relationship Between Marriage and Psychological Well-being: A Longitudinal Analysis

HYOUN K. KIM and PATRICK C. McKENRY
Journal of Family Issues 2002 23: 885
DOI: 10.1177/019251302237296

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/23/8/885

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Family Issues can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/23/8/885.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 2002

What is This?

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

JOURNAL
10.1177/019251302237296
Kim, McKenry
OF FAMILY
/ MarriageISSUES
and Well-Being
/ November 2002

This study examined the relationship between marriage and psychological well-being using
a sample from the National Survey of Families and Households panel data. Eight different
marital status groups were identified and used to test two competing perspectives explaining
the relationship between marriage and individual psychological well-being (protection vs.
selection). Findings confirmed the strong effects of marital status on psychological well-
being, supporting the protection perspective. The effect of the quality of marital (cohabiting)
relationship on psychological well-being was significant, but the strong effect of marital sta-
tus remained unchanged after controlling for relationship quality. Findings also indicated
that the transition to cohabiting did not have the same beneficial effects as marriage for psy-
chological well-being, suggesting that the protective effects of marriage are greater than
those of cohabiting relationships. The selection effects of psychological well-being were
found to be weak and inconsistent. The findings generally did not vary by gender.

The Relationship Between Marriage

and Psychological Well-Being
A Longitudinal Analysis

HYOUN K. KIM
Oregon Social Learning Center
PATRICK C. MCKENRY
Ohio State University

Traditionally, the association between marriage and individual well-being

has led to the following two distinct lines of research: (a) influence of mar-
riage, including marital status and marital quality, on one’s well-being
(protection perspective); and (b) the effect of one’s health status and phys-
ical and psychological well-being on marriage (selection perspective)
(Ren, 1997). Many previous studies have tried to identify mechanisms of
each perspective and to explain questions such as what aspects of marital
life are crucial for one’s well-being and unique in comparison with other
intimate relationships. However, questions still remain regarding whether
the protection effects or selection effects are operating consistently across
different marital groups. For instance, do remarried individuals have the

Authors’ Note: Salaries and research support for this study were provided in part by state
and federal funds appropriated to the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
Ohio State University.
JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES, Vol. 23 No. 8, November 2002 885-911
DOI: 10.1177/019251302237296
© 2002 Sage Publications
885

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

886 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

same beneficial effects from marriage as first-married individuals? How is

the transition from cohabitation to marriage to the same partner different
from being continuously married? How is becoming married different
from becoming cohabiting? Given the dramatic changes in attitudes and
behaviors regarding marital relationships over the past two decades, it is
important to investigate how each perspective is functioning within di-
verse marital status groups.

THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN MARRIAGE

AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
ACROSS DIFFERENT MARITAL STATUS GROUPS

Horwitz and his colleagues (Horwitz, White, & Howell-White, 1996)

found that marital status was a strong predictor of depression even after
controlling for initial level of depression, social support, and demographic
variables; transition to being married and staying married enhances men-
tal health. A panel analysis revealed that the continuously separated/
divorced, the never married, the widowed, and those persons becoming
separated/divorced tended to report a decline in several dimensions of
psychological well-being as compared to the married (Marks & Lambert,
1996). According to the protection perspective, the variations in mental
health across different marital status groups are mainly attributed to mar-
riage itself because marital relationships (a) provide individuals with a
sense of well-being, a meaning for life, and emotional support; and (b)
produce mutual obligations and reinforcements between two parties—all
of which serve to reduce vulnerability to psychological disorders (Gove,
Style, & Hughes, 1990; Ren, 1997). On the other hand, from the selection
perspective, the variations in individual well-being are viewed as attribut-
able to certain characteristics of the individual, such as personal disposi-
tion, socioeconomic status, childhood background, substance abuse prob-
lems, or preexisting health conditions. These personal attributes are
thought to affect social relationships including the marital relationship
(Umberson, 1992).
Although the association between marriage and psychological well-
being has been well documented in the literature, most of the arguments
regarding the association between marriage and psychological well-being
have failed to incorporate diverse marital groups into the research. Given
the diverse types of marital groups today, the failure of previous studies to
control for marital history and to take multiple marital transitions into ac-

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 887

count seems to be a critical weakness in most of the studies. In particular,

inconsistent evidence regarding the effects of cohabitation on psychologi-
cal well-being seems to be mainly due to the fact that cohabitants typically
have been grouped with the separated, divorced, widowed, or never mar-
ried (Ren, 1997). Even recent studies on cohabiting relationships have
failed to distinguish cohabiting after marital dissolution from cohabiting
never marrieds. If “living with an intimate partner” is a key factor that con-
tributes to one’s enhanced well-being, following the protection perspec-
tive, cohabiting individuals should have (a) higher levels of well-being
than those who are unmarried living without a partner and (b) similar lev-
els of well-being compared to those married living with a spouse. How-
ever, findings consistently have indicated that cohabitants have poorer
well-being status compared to married people, and in fact, cohabitation
status is much closer to single than to married status in terms of well-
being; thus, the protection hypothesis cannot be extended to cohabiting in-
dividuals (Horwitz & White, 1998; Ren, 1997; Stack & Eshleman, 1998).
Considering increasing rates of cohabitation prior to marriage and multi-
ple changes in marital relationships, the association between marital sta-
tus and psychological well-being should be examined based on de facto
marital status.
Using two-wave national survey data, this study examined eight differ-
ent marital status groups, taking marital history and cohabiting relation-
ships into account. This study investigated how the levels of psychological
well-being differed across eight different marital status groups at both
Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) and also looked at how early levels of psy-
chological well-being affected later marital status.

FACTORS RELATED TO THE ASSOCIATION

BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Along with questions regarding different levels of psychological well-

being across marital status groups, to fully understand the relationship be-
tween marital status and well-being, focus also should be placed on sev-
eral possible contaminating factors (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Ren,
1997). Studies on the association between marriage and psychological
well-being have indicated that an individual’s psychological well-being is
closely related to quality of the marital relationship (e.g., Ren, 1997),

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

888 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

stress and social support (e.g., Burman & Margolin, 1992), self-esteem
(e.g., Williams, 1988), and gender (e.g., Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989).

QUALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Many researchers have suggested that marital status itself, apart from
the quality of the relationship, is a major predictor of one’s psychological
well-being because marital status as an important social structure plays a
key role in determining family resources, relationships, and processes
(Acock & Demo, 1994). However, evidence from various studies has indi-
cated that living in an unhappy relationship is detrimental to mental
health; people living in an unhappy relationship fare even worse than di-
vorced individuals from a conflictual relationship (Ren, 1997; Ross,
1995). Conversely, it is possible that a decline in mental health has a nega-
tive effect on the quality of relationships through (a) impairments in daily
functioning either at home or work and/or (b) decreases in joint activities
such as shopping or going out with friends (Booth & Johnson, 1994).

STRESS AND SOCIAL SUPPORT

In addition to the quality of marital (cohabiting) relationships, the asso-

ciation between marital status and psychological well-being may be in
part affected by one’s perceived stress and social support. Burman and
Margolin (1992) suggested that marital variables (i.e., marital status,
quality of the relationship, and interactions between the couple) are
among major determinants of stress and social support and that stress and
social support influence psychological well-being either directly or indi-
rectly. Pearlin and Johnson (1977) argued that two mechanisms underlie
differential depression levels by marital status in relation to stress—dif-
ferential exposure and vulnerability to life strains. They found that com-
pared to the married, the unmarried are not only more likely to be exposed
to stressors but are also more vulnerable to such stressors.
Some studies have equated marital status as an indicator of social inte-
gration with social support (e.g., Waltz, Badura, Pfaff, & Schott, 1988). A
major pitfall of these studies is that social support is confounded with the
marital relationship, and consequently, the researchers fail to delineate the
independent effects of social support. Ross and Mirowsky (1989) indeed
found that social support accounted for only a small portion of the effect of
marriage on depression (approximately 10% of the variance), whereas
marriage was found to have a large direct effect on depression. Another

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 889

long-standing criticism of studies on the relationship between social sup-

port and mental health is centered on its causal relationship because of the
lack of longitudinal data. Some evidence has indicated that psychological
disturbance also may result in decreased involvement in supportive inter-
actions (Kessler & McLeod, 1985).

SELF-ESTEEM

Whereas social support is conceptualized as interpersonal factors and

resources from the social environment, self-esteem can be referred to as an
intrapersonal factor and as a resource from one’s inner state. Self-esteem
is regarded as an important psychological characteristic that enhances
psychological well-being by reducing psychological despair and/or in-
creasing motivation to cope better (Cohen, 1988). Studies have indicated
that self-esteem impacts the effects of stress and other situational condi-
tions on mental health outcomes (Gore & Colten, 1991) and that positive
social support relationships serve to increase self-esteem (Pearlin,
Lieberman, Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981). In addition, because an individ-
ual’s self-evaluation is developed through social interactions, rejection by
an intimate partner can be a strong risk factor threatening one’s self-esteem.
The divorce literature has indicated how marital status and the quality of
marital relationship are closely related to one’s self-esteem; marital sepa-
ration results in feelings of failure and loss of self-esteem and feelings of
personal incompetence (Williams, 1988). Studies of intraindividual vari-
ables as influential factors in the association between marriage and psy-
chological well-being are sparse.

GENDER DIFFERENCE

The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being has

been known to vary by gender (Glenn & Weaver, 1988; Wood et al., 1989).
The prevalent perspective is that marriage is more beneficial for men than
for women (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Umberson, 1992), and con-
versely, being single is more disadvantageous for men (Gove et al., 1983).
However, more recent studies have questioned whether marriage benefits
men more than women (e.g., Joung et al., 1997; Marks & Lambert, 1996)
because married women are often found to report higher levels of depres-
sion as well as overall happiness compared to their male counterparts.
Relatively little attention has been paid to gender differences in psy-
chological well-being among the unmarried (Wood et al., 1989) because it

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

890 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

has been assumed that the roles of single men and women are relatively
similar. Findings from empirical studies have shown that unmarried
women fare better in terms of psychological well-being than their male
counterparts (Gove et al., 1990). In addition, transitions from nonmarried
to married status are associated with lower levels of depression among
men, but this does not hold true for women (Horwitz et al., 1996;
Umberson, 1992). Similarly, other researchers also reported that differ-
ences in health status between unmarried and married women were not
statistically significant, but the opposite was true for men; unmarried men
were found to fare worse than married men (Ross & Mirowsky, 1989;
Wyke & Ford, 1992).

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

This study was designed to test two competing perspectives—the pro-

tection and the selection perspectives. This study overcomes shortcom-
ings in previous studies by (a) controlling for marital history by excluding
multiple marriers before and after the initial survey, (b) considering co-
habitation status, (c) disaggregating the unmarried group into a number of
different groups, (d) examining moderating factors, and (e) investigating
relationship quality as well as marital status. Using recent longitudinal
panel data, the present study had the following objectives:

1. To test the protection perspective, this study was designed to examine the ef-
fects of continuity and changes in marital status on psychological well-being
at T2, controlling for the initial level of psychological well-being at T1.
2. To test the selection perspective, this study was designed to examine the ef-
fects of psychological well-being at T1 on continuity and changes in mari-
tal status 5 years later at T2.
3. To assess the significance of the quality of marital/cohabiting relationship
in explaining the association between marriage and psychological well-
being, this study controlled the effects of the relationship quality among
married people and cohabitants.
4. As an effort to explore the mechanism of the relationship between mar-
riage and psychological well-being, this study examined the association
of marriage and psychological well-being after controlling for interper-
sonal factors (perceived stress and social support received) and an
intraindividual factor (self-esteem).
5. To assess gender differences in the association between marriage and psy-
chological well-being, this study examined gender-specific effects in each
perspective.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 891

METHODS

SAMPLE

The present study used data from two waves (1987-1988 and 1992-
1993) of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH)
(Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1987-1988, 1992-1993). The initial T1 data set
is composed of interviews with a national probability sample of 13,008 re-
spondents, including a main sample of 9,637 respondents aged 19 or older
and a double sample of minority families and single-parent families,
stepfamilies, recently married couples, and cohabiting couples. One adult
per household randomly was selected to be the primary respondent. With a
23% attrition rate, the second interviews included 10,005 respondents.
The measures used in the T2 data set are almost identical to the ones ap-
plied in the survey at T1.
Of the 10,005 respondents who participated in the survey at both time
periods, eight mutually exhaustive and exclusive marital groups were
identified based on reports of marital history over the 5-year period be-
tween T1 and T2, and the following groups served as analytic sample in
the present study: (a) continuously married (M→M, n = 3,539), (b) married
to divorced/separated noncohabiting (M→D/S, n = 219), (c) continuously
divorced/separated noncohabiting (D/S→D/S, n = 615), (d) divorced/
separated noncohabiting to remarried (D/S→R, n = 252), (e) continuously
never married noncohabiting (NE→NE, n = 766), (f) never married
noncohabiting to never married cohabiting (NE→NC, n = 118), (g) never
married noncohabiting to married (NE→M, n = 380), and (h) never mar-
ried cohabiting to married (NC→M, n = 102). For further clarification of
the data, individuals who had experienced multiple marital dissolutions
before T1 (n = 1,917), who experienced multiple marital transitions or
changes in cohabiting partners between the two data collecting periods (n =
715), or who were widowed at T1 (n = 835) or became widowed since then
(n = 243) were excluded from the present analyses. In addition, those who
were older than the age of 75 (n = 304) were excluded from the analysis.
There was a total of 5,991 respondents included in the analytic sample.
The sample consisted of 42% (n = 2,511) men and 58.0% (n = 3,480)
women. They ranged in age from 19 to 75 years with a mean age of 37.95
years at T1 and from ages 23 to 80 with a mean age of 43.75 years at T2.
Respondents had a mean educational level of 13.14 years and 13.09 years
at T1 and T2, respectively. The total household income for the sample av-
eraged $34,610 at T1 and $46,073 at T2.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

892 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated that there were significant

marital group differences for all of the demographic variables at T1, and
the pattern of the differences among the groups changed at T2. According
to within-group comparisons over time (t-test results not shown), whereas
all other groups showed significant increases in family income at T2, the
M→D/S group revealed significant decreases in the family income at T2,
t(157) = –2.32, p < .05. In terms of the number of children, those who were
in the M→D/S and M→M groups had significantly more children resid-
ing in the household than did any other group at T1. Those who were never
married at T1 (i.e., NE→M, NE→NE, NC→M, and NE→NC) had signif-
icantly fewer number of children living with them. The pattern of differ-
ences changed at T2 depending on their current marital status. The
NE→NE and D/S→D/S groups had the fewest number of children living
in the household at T2. Within-group comparison tests indicated that
those who remained married or who became married by T2 showed a sig-
nificant increase in the number of children, whereas the opposite was true
for those who remained or who became divorced/separated noncohabitors
by T2. In terms of length of the relationship, the M→M group showed a
longer period of relationship than did the M→D/S group at T1 (17.87
years vs. 10.19 years). The M→D/S group had been divorced/separated
about 2½ years at the time of the second interview. The average length of
the relationship for the NC→M group was 1.76 years and 7.61 years at T1
and T2, respectively. The duration of the new relationship for the
NE→NC and NE→M groups were 2.87 years and 3.64 years, respec-
tively, at T2. On the other hand, the D/S→D/S group had a longer time pe-
riod since marital dissolution than did the D/S→R group at T1
(10.40 years vs. 4.39 years). The average time lapse between marital dis-
solution and remarriage for the latter group was 6.51 years, and the aver-
age length of the new marriage at T2 was 3.70 years.

OPERATIONALIZATION OF VARIABLES

MARITAL STATUS

Based on responses to marital status at T1 and T2, respondents were

classified into eight different marital status groups, and these groups were
represented as categorical variables.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 893

PREDICTORS

Quality of the marital relationship. The quality of the marital relation-

ship was assessed by examining the following four aspects of the marital
relationship: disagreement, fairness, marital satisfaction, and conflict
management. Disagreements at T1 were measured based on responses
from married individuals to four items that asked about the frequency of
disagreement over household tasks, money, spending time together, and
sex. The response set for each item ranged from 1 for never to 6 for almost
every day. Responses were summed to create an index score of disagree-
ment, with higher scores representing higher levels of disagreement. The
same items were assessed for cohabiting individuals. The internal consis-
tency of the scale was .69 and .67 for the married and cohabiting individu-
als, respectively. Fairness of the marital (cohabiting) relationship at T1
was measured using four items that asked about the degree of fairness in
household chores, working for pay, spending money, and child care. Re-
sponses to each item ranged from 1 for very unfair to me to 5 for very un-
fair to the spouse. The original responses were recoded such that higher
scores indicate high levels of fairness to both the respondent and the
spouse and vice versa. A summed score was calculated, with higher scores
indicating higher levels of fairness in the marital relationship. The internal
consistency of the scale was .63 and .70 for the married and cohabiting in-
dividuals, respectively. Martial satisfaction at T1 was measured with re-
sponses to a single item question asking, “Taking things all together, how
would you describe your marriage?” The responses ranged from 1 for very
unhappy to 7 for very happy.

Social support. Social support at T1 was measured with responses to a

series of questions asking whether respondents have received help from
(a) friends/neighbors, (b) children or parents, (c) siblings, and (d) other
relatives during the past month with (a) babysitting or child care, (b) trans-
portation, (c) work around the house, and (d) advice, encouragement, and
moral or emotional support. Answers to each item were combined to cre-
ate an index score of social support, with higher scores indicating greater
social support received. The internal consistency of the scale was .51.

Role strain. Role strain was measured with responses to a series of

questions regarding perceived strain from the following four role areas:

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

894 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

(a) household, (b) paid job, (c) parenting, and (d) spouse. The internal con-
sistency of the items in the each area ranged from .52 to .75. Responses
were combined to create an index score, with higher scores indicating
higher levels of stress.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem was assessed with responses to the following

three questions from Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale: (a) “On the
whole I am satisfied with myself,” (b) “I am able to do things as well as
other people,” and (c) “I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal
plane with others.” Responses for each item ranged from 1 for strongly
agree to 5 for strongly disagree. Responses to each statement were reverse
coded and summed, with higher scores representing a higher level of self-
esteem. The internal consistency of the scale was .65.

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms of the respondents were

measured using a 12-item variation of the Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) at both T1 and T2. The
CES-D scale was designed for the purpose of measuring the current level
of depressive symptomatology with an emphasis on the affective compo-
nent. Subjects were asked to indicate the number of days (0 to 7 days) dur-
ing the past week that they experienced each of 12 symptoms. Sample
symptoms are feeling bothered by things that usually do not bother you,
feeling fearful, and not feel like eating. The responses to each symptom
were combined, with higher scores indicating higher levels of depressive
symptoms. The internal consistency of the overall scale was .93 at both T1
and T2.

CONTROL VARIABLES

Some other factors that might account for the relation between mar-
riage and psychological well-being were controlled in the analyses, spe-
cifically, the number of children, respondents’ age, education, and length
of the marital (cohabiting) relationship or time since marital dissolution.

Number of children in the household. Previous studies have indicated

that children have a negative effect on parents’ well-being (Ross,
Mirowsky, & Goldsteen, 1990). Parents, especially mothers, have been
found to be more psychologically distressed compared to nonparents.
Children can also bring about economic strain on the family, particularly

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 895

on single-mother families (McLanahan & Adams, 1987; Ross & Huber,

1985). This study included all children age 18 and younger, including bio-
logical child and stepchild, adopted child, foster child, or child of lover/
partner.

Age. Given the changes in the norms and meanings of marriage in

contemporary society, as privileges once reserved to marriage (e.g., sex-
ual life, parenting, and economic security) cease to be so restricted, so
does the association between marriage and well-being (Glenn & Weaver,
1988; Horwitz et al., 1996; Marks & Lambert, 1996). Therefore, there
might be cohort effects in the relation between marriage and psychologi-
cal well-being.

Education. Findings have consistently indicated the significance of so-

cioeconomic status for psychological well-being (see Ross et al., 1990).
Socioeconomic status, often indicated by income or education, is highly
associated with depression, anxiety, or other types of psychological dis-
tress. In the present study, education is used as a proxy variable for one’s
socioeconomic status because education is considered to be the most im-
portant aspect of social status for health (Ross et al., 1990). In addition, ed-
ucation has been known to be a better predictor than income for minorities
because of discrimination in the occupational world (McAdoo, 1998), and
Acock and Demo (1994) suggested that education is a more consistent so-
cioeconomic status measure when one is dealing with diverse family
forms, especially single-parent, divorced, and lower-income families.

Length of the relationship. Researchers have suggested that it is crucial

to control the length of the relationship or time since divorce/separation
when we make comparisons among different marital groups (Kitson,
1992). Most studies, however, have not controlled for the duration ef-
fects in studying the association between martial status and psychologi-
cal well-being. In this study, for those who divorced or separated, time
since physical separation was controlled. For those who were married/
cohabiting or started a new relationship, the total length of the relation-
ship was controlled.

RESULTS

Findings from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for depressive symp-

toms, perceived stress, social support received, and self-esteem while con-

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

896 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

trolling for age, education, and number of children in the household are
presented in Table 1; means and standard deviations of major study vari-
ables are also provided (length of the relationship or time since marital
dissolution was not controlled for ANCOVA because comparable items
were not available for never-married noncohabiting individuals). Results
indicated that all study variables were significantly different across mar-
tial status groups even after controlling for covariates. Following the
ANCOVAs, mean comparison analyses (t tests) were conducted to exam-
ine between- and within-group differences more specifically. Because of
limited space, discussion of the findings from mean comparisons will be
confined only to the dependent variable, depressive symptoms (Table 2).

M→M, M→D/S, AND NC→M

The mean difference in depressive symptoms between the M→M and

the M→D/S groups was significant at both T1 and T2. It is important to
note that the difference between the two groups was manifested in the
level of depressive symptoms at T1 when both groups were still married.
The M→D/S group reported significantly more depressive symptoms
prior to the marital dissolution than did the M→M group. Within-group
comparison tests revealed a significant increase in depressive symptoms
over time for individuals in the M→D/S group, t(193) = –3.33, p < .001
(results from within-group comparisons are not shown in the table). On
the other hand, the NC→M and the M→M groups showed similar levels
of depressive symptoms. The difference in depressive symptoms at both
T1 and T2 was not significant between the two groups.

D/S→D/S AND D/S→R

The mean difference in depressive symptoms between the D/S→D/S

and the D/S→R was not significant at T1 when both groups were unmar-
ried but became significant at T2 when the latter group became remarried.
Tests for within-group changes over time indicated that the former group
did not experience significant changes over time, t(544) = .87, p > .05;
whereas the latter group experienced a significant decline in depressive
symptoms at T2, t(231) = 5.24, p < .0001.

NE→NE, NE→M, AND NE→NC

All three of the never-married noncohabiting groups reported similar

levels of depressive symptoms at T1, but the mean levels among the

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Major Variables by Marital Status Groups
M→M M→D/S D/S→D/S D/S→R NE→NE NE→NC NE→M NC→M
(n = 3,539) (n = 219) (n = 615) (n = 252) (n = 766) (n = 118) (n = 380) (n = 102) F

Depression (T1) 11.64 (14.37) 14.71 (15.15) 17.05 (17.88) 18.93 (18.04) 16.75 (17.21) 16.47 (16.03) 16.13 (16.74) 13.41 (14.56) 17.76*** (7, 5684)
Depression (T2) 11.24 (13.56) 19.86 (19.40) 16.56 (17.28) 12.24 (12.55) 15.31 (17.07) 15.48 (15.94) 11.49 (11.90) 12.36 (13.99) 19.29*** (7, 5598)
Fairness (T1) 9.83 (1.93) 9.61 (2.01) — — — — — 9.35 (1.22) 4.49* (2, 3491)
Disagreement
(T1) 7.53 (3.71) 8.0 (3.72) — — — — — 7.32 (1.50) 1.53 (2, 3491)
Marital
satisfaction (T1) 6.02 (1.22) 5.4 (3.18) — — — — — 5.88 (1.27) 20.42*** (2, 3491)
Social support
(T1) 2.20 (2.11) 2.48 (2.05) 2.35 (2.10) 3.00 (2.37) 2.25 (1.90) 2.64 (1.81) 2.71 (1.96) 2.44 (2.20) 6.26*** (7, 5666)
Self-esteem (T1) 12.48 (1.64) 12.32 (1.65) 12.32 (1.95) 12.44 (1.72) 12.25 (1.89) 12.24 (2.05) 12.64 (1.66) 12.41 (1.54) 2.40* (7, 5587)
Role strain (T1) 16.07 (4.69) 16.71 (5.08) 16.72 (5.40) 17.68 (5.09) 16.91 (5.67) 17.75 (5.05) 17.07 (4.53) 16.74 (4.42) 7.36*** (7, 5692)

NOTE: M→M = continuously married, M→D/S = married to divorced/separated noncohabiting, D/S→D/S = continuously divorced/separated non-
cohabiting, D/S→R = divorced/separated noncohabiting to remarried, NE→NE = continuously never married noncohabiting, NE→NC = never married non-
cohabiting to never married cohabiting, NE→M = never married noncohabiting to married, NC→M = never married cohabiting to married. T1 = Time 1; T2 =
Time 2. Fairness, disagreement, and marital satisfaction were not available for nonmarried and noncohabiting marital status groups.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
897
 898
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

TABLE 2
Mean Comparisons (t tests) Between Different Marital Status Groups
M→D/S M→Ma NC→M D/S→D/S D/S→R NE→NE NE→Ma NE→NC

Depressive symptoms (Time 1) 14.71** 11.64 13.41 17.15 18.93 16.75 16.13 16.47
Depressive symptoms (Time 2) 19.86*** 11.24 12.36 16.56*** 12.24 15.31*** 11.49 15.48*

NOTE: M→D/S = married to divorced/separated noncohabiting, M→M = continuously married, NC→M = never married cohabiting to married, D/S→D/S =
continuously divorced/separated noncohabiting, D/S→R = divorced/separated noncohabiting to remarried, NE→NE = continuously never married non-
cohabiting, NE→M = never married noncohabiting to married, NE→NC = never married noncohabiting to never married cohabiting.
a. Indicates reference group.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 899

groups were significantly different at T2 depending on changes in their

later marital status. The NE→M group had significantly lower levels of
depressive symptoms at T2 compared to the other two groups. The within-
group comparison tests indicated significant decreases in depressive
symptoms over time among the newly married, t(348) = 5.39, p < .0001;
and among those who remained uncoupled, t(674) = 2.38, p < .05. Levels
of depressive symptoms among individuals who remained uncoupled
were similar to those who were in the NE→NC group, t(816) = –.17, p >
.05; but unlike the former group, the latter did not indicate a significant de-
crease in depressive symptoms over time, t(103) = 1.27, p > .05. It should
be noted that the transition to cohabitation was not associated with de-
creased depressive symptoms.

TESTING EFFECTS OF MARRIAGE ON

PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

The results of hierarchical regression models that tested the effect of

becoming and staying married and of becoming and staying unmarried on
depressive symptoms at T2 are presented in Table 3. Eight different mari-
tal status groups were dummy coded, with the M→M group as the refer-
ence group in all analyses. Model 1 indicates that after controlling for age,
education, number of children in the household, and initial level of depres-
sive symptoms, the transition from married to divorced/separated
noncohabiting, staying divorced/separated noncohabiting, and staying
never married noncohabiting were related to higher reported levels of de-
pressive symptoms at T2 in comparison to the staying married. On the
other hand, the transition from never married noncohabiting to married
was inversely related to depressive symptoms at T2. It is interesting to
note that the transition from divorced/separated to remarried was not sig-
nificantly related to reduced depressive symptoms at T2 in contradiction
to those who were newly married, implying that positive effects of marital
relationships on psychological well-being would be different for second
or subsequent marriage. When social support, role strain, and self-esteem
were added (Model 2), role strain was positively and self-esteem was
negatively related to depressive symptoms at T2. Both role strain and self-
esteem seem to account for effects of marital status to a certain extent, but
the positive effects of becoming unmarried and of staying unmarried and
inverse effects of becoming newly married on increased depressive symp-
toms at T2 were still significant and strong. This finding indicates that the
transition from married to unmarried and staying uncoupled are strong

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

900 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

predictors of depressive symptoms even after controlling for demograph-

ics, prior levels of depressive symptoms, and other relevant factors. In
Model 3, gender was added to the regression model, and the results indi-
cate that women were more likely to report higher levels of depressive
symptoms than were men. Even after further controlling for gender, the
significant effects of marital transition on depressive symptoms at T2
were still significant. In Model 4, a series of interaction terms for gender
and marital status groups were added. The main effect of staying never
married without cohabiting was no longer related to higher levels of de-
pressive symptoms compared to the continuously married. Instead, the in-
teraction term with gender was significant, indicating that the level of de-
pressive symptoms at T2 reported by those who stayed never married
noncohabiting was higher for women.

EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP
QUALITY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

To examine the contribution of relationship quality to the association

between marriage and psychological well-being, the same hierarchical re-
gression analyses were performed, with an additional step in which fair-
ness, disagreement, and marital satisfaction were fitted in the model.
These analyses were confined to only the following three marital status
groups (because other groups were not assessed on these measures):
M→M, M→D/S, and NC→M. These marital status groups were dummy
coded, and the M→M was used as the reference group.
Findings indicated that there was a positive relationship between the
transition of becoming unmarried and increases in depressive symptoms
at T2 (Table 4). Those who experienced marital dissolution were more
likely to report depressive symptoms compared to those staying married
(Model 1). The effects of quality of marital (cohabiting) relationship at T1
on depressive symptoms at T2 were significant; greater disagreement at
T1 was positively related to depressive symptoms at T2, indicating rela-
tionship quality accounts for the association between marital status and
psychological well-being to some extent (Models 2 through 4). However,
even after adjusting for the quality of marital or cohabiting relationships,
the strong effects of marital status remained unchanged; becoming di-
vorced/separated was positively associated with depressive symptoms at
T2. Both role strain and self-esteem were significant in predicting depres-
sive symptoms but did not reduce the effect of marital status on psycho-
logical well-being. Women were found to report higher levels of depres-

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 901

TABLE 3
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients
for Depressive Symptoms at Time 2
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

M→D/S 6.18*** 6.09*** 6.05*** 4.35***

D/S→D/S 3.74*** 3.62*** 3.22*** 4.92***
D/S→R –1.32 –1.52 –1.58 –1.09
NE→NE 1.94** 1.79** 1.72** 0.35
NE→NC 1.56 1.28 1.46 2.02
NE→M –1.73* –1.75* –1.63* –2.60*
NC→M –0.56 –0.65 –0.64 0.26
Role strain 0.17*** 0.17*** 0.17***
Social support received 0.10 0.03 0.04
Self-esteem –0.44*** –0.46*** –0.46***
Gender 1.81*** 1.51**
Gender × NE→NE 2.40*
Age –0.05** –0.05** –0.05** –0.05**
Education –0.48*** –0.47*** –0.47*** –0.48***
Number of children 0.30 0.24 0.19 0.20
Depressive symptoms (Time 1) 0.32*** 0.30*** 0.30*** 0.30***
2
Adjusted R 0.17*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.18***

NOTE: M→M (continuously married) group was dummy coded. Nonsignificant interaction
terms with gender are not presented in the table. M→D/S = married to divorced/separated
noncohabiting, D/S→D/S = continuously divorced/separated noncohabiting, D/S→R =
divorced/separated noncohabiting to remarried, NE→NE = continuously never married
noncohabiting, NE→NC = never married noncohabiting to never married cohabiting,
NE→M = never married noncohabiting to married, NC→M = never married cohabiting to
married.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

sive symptoms than were their male counterparts (Model 4), but none of the
interaction terms with gender were significant (not included in the table).

TESTING EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

WELL-BEING ON MARRIAGE

To examine the effects of psychological well-being on changes in mari-

tal status (selection effect), a series of sequential logistic regression analy-
ses was conducted, controlling for the same covariates in the hierarchical
regression. The dependent variables in these analyses were transitions in
marital status as a dichotomous variable (e.g., M→M vs. M→D/S).

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

902 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

TABLE 4
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for Depressive
Symptoms at Time 2: The Quality of the Relationship
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

M→D/S 6.56*** 6.32*** 6.37*** 6.32***

NC→M –0.73 –0.80 –0.75 –0.72
Fairness –0.21 –0.20 –0.18
Disagreement 0.40*** 0.35*** 0.38***
Marital satisfaction –0.23 –0.06 –0.06
Role strain 0.12* 0.12*
Social support 0.22 0.16
Self-esteem –0.29* –0.30*
Gender 1.56**
Age –0.17** –0.15** –0.14* –0.09
Education –0.37*** –0.41*** –0.41*** –0.41***
Number of children 0.04 –0.02 –0.03 –0.01
Length of the relationship 0.01* 0.01* 0.01* 0.01
Depressive symptoms (Time 1) 0.34*** 0.31*** 0.30*** 0.30***
2
Adjusted R 0.17*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.19***

NOTE: M→M (continuously married) group was dummy coded. None of the interaction terms
with gender were significant; therefore, they are not presented in the table. M→D/S = married
to divorced/separated noncohabiting, NC→M = never married cohabiting to married.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

M→M VERSUS M→D/S

Model 1 included depressive symptoms at T1 and control variables

(i.e., age, education, number of children, and length of the marital rela-
tionship). Although findings from ANCOVA and mean comparison test
indicated that there was a group difference in depressive symptoms at T1
between the two groups, supporting the selection perspective, logistic re-
gression analyses indicated that depressive symptoms at T1 were not asso-
ciated with changes in later marital status. Instead, the quality of relation-
ship was significantly associated with predicting changes in marital
status. Higher levels of marital satisfaction reduced the odds of becoming
divorced/separated (Model 2 and Model 3). That is, a one-unit increase in
marital satisfaction decreased the odds of becoming divorced/separated
by 29%. Marital satisfaction remained significant with controlling for
other predictors. It should be noted that there was no main effect of gender
(Table 5).

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 903

TABLE 5
Unstandardized Logistic Regression Coefficients:
The M→M Versus M→D/S
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Depressive symptoms (Time 1) .00 (1.00) –.00 (1.00) –.00 (1.00)

Fairness –.00 (1.00) –.00 (1.00)
Disagreement –.00 (1.00) .00 (1.00)
Marital satisfaction –.34 (0.71)*** –.35 (0.71)***
Role strain –.01 (0.99)
Social support –.03 (0.97)
Self-esteem –.01 (0.99)
Gender –.16 (0.86)
Age –.02 (0.98) –.03 (0.97) –.03 (0.98)
Education –.05 (0.95) –.06 (0.95) –.05 (0.95)
Number of children .11 (1.12) .09 (1.08) .10 (1.10)
Length of the relationship –.00 (1.00) –.00 (1.00) –.00 (1.00)
Chi-square 68.22*** 106.28*** 108.02***
df 5 8 12

NOTE: None of the interaction terms of gender were significant; therefore, Model 4 with
the interaction terms is not included in the table. M→M = continuously married, M→D/S =
married to divorced/separated noncohabiting.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

D/S→D/S VERSUS D/S→R

The same sequential logistic regression analysis was performed to in-

vestigate whether the level of psychological well-being at T1 exerted in-
fluence on the subsequent marital status for those who were divorced or
separated at T1 (Table 6). Depressive symptoms at T1 were not signifi-
cant, which implies that among those who were divorced/separated
noncohabitors at T1, the subsequent marital transition is not attributable to
selection effects. Instead, gender was found to be a powerful predictor for
the marital transition. The results indicated that women were more likely
to stay uncoupled as compared to their male counterparts; being a man in-
creased the odds of getting remarried by 178%. However, none of the in-
teraction terms of gender were significant.

NE→NE VERSUS NE→M

Again, depressive symptoms at T1 did not increase the odds of becom-

ing newly married by T2 among never-married noncohabitors (Table 6).

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 904
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

TABLE 6
Unstandardized Logistic Regression Coefficients
D/S→D/S Versus D/S→R NE→NE Versus NE→M
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Depressive symptoms 0.00 (1.00) .00 (1.00)

.00 (1.00) .00 (1.00) .00 (1.00)
.00 (1.00)
Role strain .02 (1.02)
.02 (1.02) –.01 (0.99)
–.01 (0.99)
Social support .02 (1.02)
.05 (1.05) –.08 (0.92)*
–.08 (0.92)*
Self-esteem .02 (1.02)
.03 (1.03) –.12 (0.89)**
–.12 (0.89)**
Gender 1.02 (2.78)*** –.17 (.85)
Age –.08 (0.92)*** –.08 (0.92)*** –.09 (0.92)*** .10 (1.11)*** .10 (1.11)*** –.09 (0.92)***
Education .03 (1.04) .02 (1.02) .01 (1.01) –.10 (0.91)** –.07 (0.93)* .07 (1.08)*
Number of children –.19 (0.83)* –.20 (0.82)* –.04 (0.96) .09 (1.09) .09 (1.10) –.17 (0.84)*
Length of the relationship –.01 (0.99)** –.01 (0.99)** –.01 (0.99)** — — —
Chi-square 159.02*** 160.74*** 180.24*** 144.93*** 156.76*** 157.99***
df 5 8 9 4 7 8

NOTE: None of the interaction terms of gender were significant; therefore, Model 4 with the interaction terms is not included in the table. Values in the paren-
theses represent odds ratio. D/S→D/S = continuously divorced/separated noncohabiting, D/S→R = divorced/separated noncohabiting to remarried, NE→NE =
continuously never married noncohabiting, NE→M = never married noncohabiting to married.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 905

Instead, social support and self-esteem were found to be important predic-

tors of becoming married among those never-married individuals. Greater
social support and higher levels of self-esteem reduced the odds of staying
unmarried by 8% and 11%, respectively. Gender was not associated with
becoming newly married.

NE→NC VERSUS NE→M AND

NE→NE VERSUS NE→NC

The results in Table 7 indicate that depressive symptoms at T1 were not

associated with becoming married among never-married individuals ei-
ther. Only self-esteem was significant in predicting changes in marital sta-
tus; a one-unit increase in self-esteem reduced the odds of becoming co-
habiting by 14%. This result indicates that never-married individuals with
higher levels of self-esteem are more likely to choose to get married than
to cohabit. In the comparison of NE→NE versus NE→NC, there was no
main effect of depressive symptoms on the transition to cohabitation. Ex-
cept for age, none of the other controlling factors were significant.

DISCUSSION

Findings from univariate analyses support the arguments in the litera-

ture that (a) the level of psychological well-being differs according to dif-
ferent marital status categories, (b) married individuals have a higher level
of psychological well-being than members of any other marital status
group, and (c) most of all, marital status is associated with individual psycho-
logical well-being (protection perspective). Also, remarriage was related
to a significant decrease in depressive symptoms compared to divorced/
separated individuals who did not remarry. However, cohabitation was not
related to a decrease in depressive symptoms, confirming arguments of
Horwitz and White (1998) and other researchers (e.g., Nock, 1995; Ren,
1997) who suggested that cohabitants have poorer psychological well-
being in comparison to married individuals, suggesting that the protection
effects of marriage are not as applicable to cohabitation.
Findings from multivariate analysis further substantiated these rela-
tionships between marital status and well-being by focusing on how
change in and the continuity of certain marital status categories impacted
psychological well-being. Controlling for the initial level of psychologi-
cal well-being, those who became divorced/separated, the continuously
divorced/separated, and the continuously never married were found to

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

906 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

have higher levels of depressive symptoms compared to individuals who

remained married. The strong effects of remaining unmarried as a result of
divorce or separation or becoming divorced/separated on psychological
well-being might reflect the persistence of life strains associated with
marital dissolution beyond the initial adjustment period (Marks & Lam-
bert, 1996).
Furthermore, those who married for the first time had significantly
lower levels of depressive symptoms compared to those who remained
married, perhaps reflecting the higher romanticism of early marriage
(Fitzpatrick & Wampler, 2000), whereas transitions to remarriage or to
cohabitation were not significantly different from staying married; remar-
riage and cohabitation may not have as clear guidelines and the same level
of support as does entry into first marriage (Prinz, 1995). Additional anal-
yses with the D/S→R, NE→C, and NE→M groups indicated that even af-
ter controlling for length of the relationship, transitions to remarriage or to
cohabitation were less beneficial for psychological well-being than transi-
tions to the first marriage. It is particularly interesting to note the signifi-
cant difference between NE→M and NE→NC. This study, by taking mar-
ital history before and after cohabitation into account, clearly indicates the
advantageous effects of marriage over cohabitation in terms of psycholog-
ical well-being.
This study further demonstrated that not only marital status but also the
quality of the marital or cohabiting relationship influence individual psy-
chological well-being. However, the contribution of the quality of the re-
lationship did not reduce the effect of marital status per se on psychologi-
cal well-being. Findings revealed that becoming divorced/separated was
positively associated with depressive symptoms, and the effects of be-
coming divorced/separated remained strong even after controlling for the
quality of the marital and cohabiting relationships. This is consistent with
Glenn and Weaver’s (1988) argument that marital status is one of the
strongest correlates of psychological well-being regardless of the charac-
teristics of the relationship. Acock and Demo (1994) noted that marital
status itself is a major predictor of one’s psychological well-being because
marital status determines family resources, relationships, and processes.
However, the findings from this study contradict those of other recent
studies that have indicated that marital quality rather than marital status
per se explains the relationship between marriage and mental health
(Gove et al., 1983; Haring-Hidore, Stock, Okun, & Witter, 1985; Ren,
1997; Ross, 1995; Williams, 1988). This discrepancy might be due to the
fact that most of the previous studies were neither empirically based (e.g.,
Gove et al., 1983; Haring-Hidore et al., 1985) nor longitudinally designed

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

TABLE 7
Unstandardized Logistic Regression Coefficients
NE→NC Versus NE→M NE→NE Versus NE→NC
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Depressive symptoms –.09 (0.99) –.01 (0.99)

–.01 (0.99) –.00 (1.00) –.01 (0.99)
–.01 (0.99)
Role strain .03 (1.03)
–.03 (1.03) .03 (1.03)
.03 (1.03)
Social support –.05 (0.95)
–.04 (0.96) .06 (1.06)
.07 (1.07)
Self-esteem –.15 (0.86)*
–.15 (0.86)* .02 (1.02)
.02 (1.02)
Gender .18 (1.20) .37 (1.45)
Age .04 (1.04)* .03 (1.03) .03 (1.03) –.05 (0.96)*** –.04 (0.96)*** –.04 (0.96)**
Education –.16 (0.86)** –.14 (0.86)** –.15 (0.86)** –.01 (0.99) –.02 (0.98) –.02 (0.98)
Number of children –.02 (0.98) –.01 (0.99) –.03 (1.00) –.10 (0.91) –.10 (0.91) –.06 (0.94)
Length of the relationship –.03 (0.97)*** –.03 (0.97)*** –.03 (0.97)*** — — —
Chi-square 33.66*** 40.31*** 40.79*** 19.54*** 22.76** 25.44**
df 5 8 9 4 7 8

NOTE: None of the interaction terms of gender were significant; therefore, Model 4 with the interaction terms is not included in the table. Values in the paren-
theses represent odds ratio. NE→NC = never married noncohabiting to never married cohabiting, NE→M = never married noncohabiting to married, NE→NE =
continuously never married noncohabiting.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
907
908 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

(e.g., Ren, 1997), whereas the present study was based on panel data. In
most studies based on cross-sectional designs, the relationship quality
was likely to be confounded with the outcome variables, for example,
psychological well-being. Therefore, it is possible that the effect of the
quality of the marital (cohabiting) relationship on mental health was
overestimated.
According to social integration and social control theory, being mar-
ried is more beneficial for men than for women (Gove et al., 1983;
Umberson, 1992). In addition, transitions from unmarried to married sta-
tus are known to be associated with reduced levels of depression among
men (Horwitz et al., 1996; Umberson, 1992). Consistent with studies of
depression in general (McGrath, Keita, Strickland, & Russo, 1991),
women were more likely to report higher levels of depressive symptoms
compared to men. However, overall findings from the present study did
not indicate strong interaction effects of gender with marital status except
for the NE→NE group. Women who remained never married
noncohabiting tended to have more depressive symptoms than did their
male counterparts. Marks and Lambert (1996) found significant gender
interaction effects among never-married individuals, but the evidence in-
dicated mixed results; never-married women reported less unhappiness
but also reported less self-acceptance and lower levels of personal
growth than never-married men. This inconsistency might be due to the
fact that Marks and Lambert did not control for cohabitation status; thus,
some of the unmarried individuals in the study might have been living
with a partner.
The overall findings of the study did not yield a generalizable pattern
that confirms the selection perspective. Generally speaking, the effects of
psychological well-being on change or continuity of marital status were
insignificant. However, one of the relationship quality measures—marital
satisfaction—was a significant predictor of becoming divorced/separated.
Neither depressive symptoms nor other predictors significantly predicted
becoming remarried among the divorced/separated individuals. Also in
support of a selection perspective, social support and self-esteem seemed
to be important factors determining the marital status of never-married in-
dividuals, suggesting that lower levels of self-esteem and supportive rela-
tionships decreased the opportunities for intimate relationships (Kessler
& McLeod, 1985). Gender was not a significant factor in predicting future
marital status transitions except for those who divorced or separated;
women were more likely to stay unmarried than their male counterparts,
consistent with other literature.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 909

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study overcomes many of the weaknesses of previous

studies in investigating the relationship between marital status and well-
being, the study does have some methodological limitations. First, al-
though this study tried to break the typical married-unmarried dichotomy
and disaggregated the unmarried into a number of different groups, we
were unable to consider separated individuals because of the small num-
ber in the data set; research suggests that the psychological effects of sepa-
ration are expected to be more detrimental than those of divorce (Ren,
1997; Ross et al., 1990). Therefore, it is possible that the negative effects
of being or becoming divorced/separated were somewhat aggravated by
grouping the separated with the divorced.
Other limitations of this study are derived from the secondary nature of
the data, which limited the ability to test theoretically based constructs.
Some of the variables were based on single-item questions, and a few
measures suffered from low internal consistency, consequently underesti-
mating the actual predictive power. In addition, this study used only one
variable as an indicator of psychological well-being, which may be insuf-
ficient to assess individual psychological adjustment in depth, especially
for men whose adjustment might be better assessed with measures of
externalizing as well as internalizing symptoms (Horwitz & White, 1998).
Finally, the lack of support for the selection effect might be attributed
to some of the limitations of the study. Because respondents were not ran-
domly assigned into specific groups at T1, the selection aspect is still a
problem in the data. That is, married, divorced/separated, and never-
married individuals at the initial survey were already selected into certain
marital status categories, and thus it was not possible to test whether the
marital status at T1 resulted from pre-T1 psychological well-being. With
two-wave data, it is almost impossible to fully examine the selection ef-
fect. Future studies based on multiwave data would be more informative.
However, despite these limitations, this study extends the literature for-
ward by assessing the protection and selection hypotheses by simulta-
neously utilizing a variety of marital status categories that increasingly de-
fine the America population. In addition, factors that have been suggested
to be related to marital status and psychological well-being were consid-
ered, and because of the longitudinal nature of the data, it was possible to
consider marital history and thus more thoroughly assess these two com-
peting hypotheses. Future testing of the relationship between marital sta-
tus and well-being should involve expansion of martial status categories

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

910 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES / November 2002

(e.g., gay/lesbian), consideration of life course and cultural variations, uti-

lization of more sophisticated instrumentation, and the addition of other
psychological outcomes besides depression.

REFERENCES

Acock, A., & Demo, D. (1994). Family diversity and well-being. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Booth, A., & Johnson, D. (1994). Declining health and marital quality. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 56, 218-223.
Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships
and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39-63.
Cohen, S. (1988). Psychological models of the role of social support in the etiology of physi-
cal disease. Health Psychology, 7, 269-297.
Fitzpatrick, J. A., & Wampler, K. S. (2000). Marital relationships: A life course perspective.
In S. Price, P. C. McKenry, & M. J. Murphy (Eds.), Families across time: A life course
perspective (pp. 92-104). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Glenn, N., & Weaver, C. (1988). The changing relationship of marital status to reported hap-
piness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 317-324.
Gore, S., & Colten, M. E. (1991). Gender, stress, and distress: Social-relational influences.
In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 139-163). New York: Plenum.
Gove, W., Hughes, M., & Style, C. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psycho-
logical well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 122-131.
Gove, W., Style, C., & Hughes, M. (1990). The effect of marriage on the well-being of adults.
Journal of Family Issues, 11, 4-35.
Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W., Okun, M., & Witter, R. (1985). Marital status and subjective
well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 947-953.
Horwitz, A., & White, H. (1998). The relationship of cohabitation and mental health. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 505-514.
Horwitz, A., White, H., & Howell-White, S. (1996). Becoming married and mental health: A
longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,
895-907.
Joung, I. M. A., Stronks, K., van de Mheen, H., van Poppel, F. W. A., van der Meer, J. B. W., &
Mackenbach, J. P. (1997). The contribution of intermediary factors to martial status dif-
ferences in self-reported health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 476-490.
Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1985). Social support and mental health in community sam-
ples. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 219-240). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Kitson, G. (1992). Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital breakdown. New York:
Guilford.
Marks, N. F., & Lambert, J. (1996). Marital status continuity and change among young and
midlife adults: Longitudinal effects on psychological well-being (Working Paper HSFH-
71). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography and Ecology.
McAdoo, H. P. (1998). African-American families. In C. H. Mindel, R. W. Habenstein, & R.
Wright (Eds.), Ethnic families in America (pp. 361-381). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014

 Kim, McKenry / Marriage and Well-Being 911

McGrath, E., Keita, G. P., Strickland, B. R., & Russo, N. F. (1991). Women and depression:
Risk factors and treatment issues. Final report of the American Psychological Associa-
tion’s National Task Force on Women and Depression. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
McLanahan, S., & Adams, J. (1987). Parenthood and psychological well-being. In W. R.
Scott & J. F. Short (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 13, pp. 237-257). Palo Alto,
CA: Annual Review.
Nock, S. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family
Issues, 16, 53-76.
Pearlin, L., & Johnson, J. (1977). Marital status, life-strains and depression. American So-
ciological Review, 42, 704-715.
Pearlin, L., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E., & Mullan, J. P. (1981). The stress process.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.
Prinz, C. (1995). Cohabiting, married, or single. Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the gen-
eral population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Ren, X. S. (1997). Marital status and quality of relationships: The impact on health percep-
tion. Social Science and Medicine, 44, 241-249.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Ross, C. (1995). Reconceptualizing marital status as a continuum of social attachment. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 129-140.
Ross, C., & Huber, J. (1985). Hardship and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior, 26, 312-327.
Ross, C., & Mirowsky, J. (1989). Explaining the social patterns of depression: Control and
problem solving—Or support and talking? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30,
206-219.
Ross, C., Mirowsky, J., & Goldsteen, K. (1990). The impact of the family on health: The de-
cade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1059-1078.
Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 60, 527-536.
Sweet, J. A., Bumpass, L. L., & Call, V. A. (1987-1988). The National Survey of Families and
Households. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography and Ecology.
Sweet, J. A., Bumpass, L. L., & Call, V. A. (1992-1993). The National Survey of Families and
Households. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography and Ecology.
Umberson, D. (1992). Gender, marital status and the social control of health behavior. Social
Science and Medicine, 34, 907-917.
Waltz, M., Badura, B., Pfaff, H., & Schott, T. (1988). Marriage and the psychological conse-
quences of a heart attack: A longitudinal study of adaptation to chronic illness after 3
years. Social Science and Medicine, 27, 149-158.
Williams, D. (1988). Gender, marriage, and psychological well-being. Journal of Family
Issues, 9, 452-468.
Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A con-
sideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 249-264.
Wyke, S., & Ford, G. (1992). Competing explanations for associations between marital sta-
tus and health. Social Science Medicine, 34, 523-532.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CHICAGO LIBRARY on October 12, 2014