CCF Research Director and eminent expert on the history of marriage, Stephanie Coontz reflects on the blurred meaning of marital status in Single or married: Does it really matter anymore?, an opinion piece for the Washington Post.
Singles & Dating
Dating Partners Don’t Always Prefer “Their Own Kind”: Some Multiracial Daters Get Bonus Points in the Dating Game
Dating Partners Don’t Always Prefer “Their Own Kind”: Some Multiracial Daters Get Bonus Points in the Dating Game
A briefing paper prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families by Celeste Curington, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Ken-Hou Lin, University of Texas at Austin, and Jennifer Lundquist, University of Massachusetts Amherst
July 1, 2015
Despite growing approval of interracial dating, researchers have long documented the existence of a racial hierarchy within the dating world, with white women and men the most preferred partners, blacks the least preferred, and Asians and Hispanics in between. But where do the growing numbers of biracial and multiracial individuals fit into this hierarchy? Do they too get ranked by descending shades of lightness?
It’s clear that individuals already have a lot of preferences when it comes to dating, excluding race. There are sites for BBW Dating, BDSM dating and even sites for people who wear a uniform. Aside from the color of someone’s skin, people can choose their partners based on their hair color, height, and hobbies and that is shown by the vast amount of unique dating sites available.
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of individuals who identified themselves to Census takers as being of two or more races increased by a third. These nine million individuals still represent less than three percent of the population. But studies predict that by the year 2050, nearly one in five Americans may claim a multiracial background. How will this affect dating and marriage patterns in the United States?
We recently completed a study of how multiracial daters fare in a mainstream online dating website. Using 2003-2010 data from one of the largest dating websites in the United States, we examined nearly 6.7 million initial messages sent between heterosexual women and men. Specifically, we looked into how often Asian-white, black-white, and Hispanic-white daters received a response to their messages compared to their monoracial counterparts.
The most surprising finding from our study is that some white-minority multiracial daters are, in fact, preferred over white daters. We call this the multiracial “dividend effect,” something that has never before been reported in the existing literature on dating and mate preferences. This finding suggests that the treatment of multiracial people may in certain circumstances be more complex than is commonly recognized in research on racial hierarchies.
We found that three multiracial groups received a “dividend effect.” Asian-white women were viewed more favorably than any other group of women by white and Asian men, beating out women of the same race or ethnic group. Asian-white and Hispanic-white men were also afforded “dividend” status by Asian and Hispanic women respectively. Asian and Hispanic women responded more frequently to the multiracial men than to either their coethnic men or to whites.?
Although white women did not prefer Asian-white men to white men, they did respond to this group as frequently as to white men. This is in practice a multiracial dividend, because white women responded to monoracial Asian men as infrequently as they did to blacks.
Much scholarly discussion of multiraciality in America has been dominated by the concept of the “one drop rule” that was long enforced in the Jim Crow South, meaning that white-minority multiracial people are treated as minorities. But our study finds no support for this dynamic in the online dating world.
That is not to say that the color line has been erased. For example, white men and women are still less likely to respond to an individual who identifies as part black and part white than they are to a fellow white. But the color line has certainly been blurred, with whites responding more favorably to such individuals than to blacks. And white women actually prefer black-white men to Asian and Hispanic men, a phenomenon that explicitly contradicts what the one-drop rule would predict.
When we look at the preferences of black daters, we find that both men and women are slightly more likely to respond to whites than to same-race daters. They are also more likely to respond to black-white daters than black daters who contact them. In earlier research we found that while black women are reluctant to send messages to out-group daters, they are extremely willing to respond to messages from daters of other racial groups. Taken together with our current findings, this former behavior is likely driven by an expectation of rejection by men of other racial backgrounds, not by an inherent preference for black men over other men.
There are several possible explanations for the multiraciality dividends we found, and they may represent different dynamics in each case. In some cases they seem to be closely linked to a continuing partiality for lightness or whiteness. In the case of the preference that white and Asian men show for white-Asian women, we may be seeing the influence of longstanding cultural representations of multiracial women as unique and sexually exotic. Likewise, Asian and Hispanic women may have been influenced by the media’s increasing portrayal of multiracial men as attractive, chic, and trendy.
Some research also suggests that Asian American women may perceive Asian men with a more recent immigration history to the United States as more patriarchal and gender conservative than white American men. Thus, Asian and Hispanic women may perceive multiraciality as a marker of Americanization or gender progressiveness. At the same time, multiracial co-ethnics may be more appealing than monoracial white men in the sense that they bring a shared cultural heritage and may be accorded greater acceptance by family members.
These findings provide us with potential insight into the social meaning of multiraciality in the post-civil rights era United States and how demographic changes in racial identification operate at the level of everyday interactions. The growing multiracial population in the United States is likely to change not just the overall racial landscape but the most intimate arenas of personal life.
For Further Information
Ken-Hou Lin, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, lin@austin.utexas.edu
Celeste Curington, PhD Candidate, University of Massachusetts Amherst, ccuringt@soc.umass.edu
Jennifer H. Lundquist, Associate Dean of Research, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, lundquist@sbs.umass.edu
References:
Curington, Celeste Vaughan, Ken-Hou Lin, and Jennifer Hickes Lundquist. Forthcoming. “Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website.” American Sociological Review
Hochschild, Jennifer L., Vesla M. Weaver and Traci R. Burch. 2012. Creating a New Racial Order?: How Immigration, Multiracialism, Genomics, and the Young Can Remake Race in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lee, Jennifer and Frank D. Bean. 2004. “America’s Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/Ethnicity, and Multiracial Identification.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:221–42.
Masuoka, Natalie. 2008. “Political Attitudes and Ideologies of Multiracial Americans: The Implications of Mixed Race in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly 61(2):253–67.
Nemoto, Kumiko. 2006. “Intimacy, Desire, and the Construction of Self in Relationships between Asian American Women and White American Men.” Journal of Asian American Studies 9(1):27–54.
Pyke, Karen D. and Denise L. Johnson. 2003. “Asian American Women and Racialized Femininities ‘Doing’ Gender across Cultural Worlds.” Gender & Society 17(1):33–53.
Spencer, Rainier. 2004. “Assessing Multiracial Identity Theory and Politics: The Challenge of Hypodescent.” Ethnicities 4(3):357–79.
Spencer, Rainier. 2011. Reproducing Race?: The Paradox of Generation Mix. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
July 1, 2015
Hoping for a Valentine’s Day date? Stop waiting to be asked!
For Immediate Release
Contact: Stephanie Coontz
Coontzs@msn.com; 360-352-8117; cell 360-556-9223
CCF RESEARCH UPDATE: Hoping for a Valentine’s Day date? Stop waiting to be asked!
University of Texas sociologist Shannon Cavanagh studies online dating and analyzes hundreds of thousands of messages between partners. In a Council on Contemporary Families Research Note, Dr. Cavanagh shares the following observation, just in time for Valentine’s Day:
In the 1950s, dating etiquette decreed that the man had to initiate all interactions. Although much has changed since then, many women continue to believe they will end up with a higher quality man if they don’t appear too eager. You might think the tech savvy women who turn to the internet to search for partners would be less inhibited, but in a recent study using 6 months of online dating data from a midsized Southwestern city (N=8,259 men, 6,274 women), my coauthors and I found that women send 4 times fewer messages than men.
But the payoffs for violating older gender conventions are significant. A woman who initiates a contact is twice as likely to get a favorable response from a potential partner as a man who does so. And women who take the initiative connect with equally desirable partners as women who wait to be asked, without having to wade through a pile of less desirable suitors.
For Further Information
Contact Shannon Cavanagh, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Sociology & Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 512.471.8319, scavanagh@austin.utexas.edu.
About CCF
The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the University of Miami, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of family researchers and practitioners that seeks to further a national understanding of how America’s families are changing and what is known about the strengths and weaknesses of different family forms and various family interventions.
The Council helps keep journalists informed of notable work on family-related issues via the CCF Network. To join the CCF Network, or for further media assistance, please contact Stephanie Coontz, Director of Research and Public Education, at coontzs@msn.com, cell 360-556-9223.
Follow us! @CCF_Families and https://www.facebook.com/contemporaryfamilies
Read our blog Families as They Really Are – www.thesocietypages.org/families
DATE: February 11, 2015
“Can I watch?” Sometimes women kissing women isn’t about you
Expert Contact: Paula England, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, New York University
pengland@nyu.edu
Release Contact: Virginia Rutter, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, Framingham State University
206 375 4139; vrutter@gmail.com
Is there more going on in the hookup scene than meets (men’s) eyes? The college hookup scene is typically understood as a male-dominated environment-where men are mainly in charge of sexual initiation, parties are often centered around fraternity houses, treating women as sex objects is common, and women engage in sexual displays, including kissing each other, in order to arouse male interest.
Yet, in the forthcoming April 2014 issue of Gender & Society, a team of researchers observes that for some women the super-straight environment of college hookups is also a setting “to explore and to later verify bisexual, lesbian, or queer sexual identities.” Turns out public kissing and threesomes play an important role – and that not all of that sex play is about performing for men’s pleasure.
In a recent survey of college students about hooking up,
- 40 percent of women who called themselves lesbians had had oral sex or intercourse with men;
- Two percent of women who identify as straight report having had oral sex with a woman;
- Compared to straight women, more women who indicated they were not sure about their sexual identities had same-sex sexual experience: 15 percent have given and 18 percent have received oral sex from a woman.
A novel study on same-sex hooking up. The Gender & Society study, “Queer Women in the Hookup Scene: Beyond the Closet?” took a novel approach to investigating bisexuality and sexual fluidity. Researchers Leila Rupp and Verta Taylor (University of California-Santa Barbara), Shiri Regev-Messalem (Bar Ilan University, Israel), Alison Fogarty (Stanford University), and Paula England (New York University) used the Online College and Social Life Survey (OCSLS) of over 24,000 college students from 21 four-year colleges and universities that was designed to study how college students approach hooking up, dating, and relationships. To this large data set, the researchers added 55 in-depth interviews with women students at Stanford University and the University of California, Santa Barbara who had had some romantic or sexual experience with other women, to learn more about same-sex activity occurring in hook-up settings that are mainly understood to be heterosexual.
Study co-author Paula England-who developed the OCSLS study-explained, “‘Hooking up’ was defined in our survey as ‘whatever definition of a hookup you and your friends use,’ but we know from talking to students that what they usually mean by a hookup is some sexual activity-ranging from kissing to intercourse-outside of a committed relationship.”
Hooking up, women with women, and a puzzle. The investigators reported that of the 14,128 women surveyed in the OCSLS, 94 percent identify as heterosexual. Though identifying as “straight,” these women’s behavior did not always line up with that-instead, women had more sexual fluidity.
Because of this sexual fluidity that the women surveyed ended up revealing, the investigators conducted in-depth interviews. In particular, the interviews focused on women who identified as queer, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or some other non-heterosexual identity in order to learn more about how encounters in the hookup scene played a role in developing their current sexual identities. They learned that, since women making out with other women and threesomes between two women and a man are acceptable as a turn-on for men, this allowed women to expand and explore their sexual identities.
As study coauthor Verta Taylor points out, “Some students are embracing fluid identities and calling themselves ‘queer,’ ‘pansexual,’ ‘fluid,’ ‘bi-curious’ or simply refusing any kind of label. The old label bisexual no longer fits because even that term implies that there are only two options: lesbian/gay or straight.”
Women kissing women. In tune with the Katy Perry song, “I Kissed a Girl”, the interviews revealed that for some women, public kissing-typically seen as for the enjoyment of men onlookers-is a key opportunity for exploring same-sex attractions.
Often alcohol played a role in women’s opportunities to explore same-sex attraction, just as it plays a significant role in hooking up in general. While some women who make out with other women in public had a previous same-sex attraction, others told interviewers about experimenting when they had had no previous sexual attraction to women. In sum, the authors note that “Kissing can result from or lead to emotional connections with women. It doesn’t always-but sometimes it leads to more exploration.” The interviews confirmed that public same-sex kissing in the hook up scene is one pathway into same-sex desire and behavior.
Threesomes. About 20 percent of women interviewed for this study reported participating in threesomes. “Threesomes allow same-sex pleasure without the stigma of non-heterosexual identity,” the authors explained. In some cases, women said that threesomes were a way to reduce their anxiety about approaching women on their own. One woman noted, “It’s not clear how you would initiate a relationship with a woman…I’m really inexperienced chasing women, rather more experienced at chasing men.” In other cases, women explained that threesomes were instigated by male partners, but that it led to women following up-solo-with the other woman in the encounter. The authors explain, “Although threesomes may begin with men’s desires, they introduce women to new sexual pleasures or allow them to act on same-sex or bisexual desires.”
What’s it mean? Joya Misra, editor of Gender & Society and Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at University of Massachusetts, notes that the study is a valuable contribution to the expanding literature on sexuality. “Rupp and colleagues’ article shows us that women’s sexual fluidity can be expressed in a variety of environments, and that the ‘hook-up’ culture does not simply support heterosexuality and male dominance. It is important to recognize the way women consider and act upon their desires, rather than assuming that they cannot escape meeting dominant ideals regarding heterosexuality.”
Coauthor and historian Leila Rupp explains that this may not be so new: She points to intimate sexual relationships between co-wives in polygynous households in China and the Middle East, romantic friends in heterosexual marriages in the Euro-American world of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and “girlfriends” in avant-garde cultural environments such as Greenwich Village and Weimar Berlin in the 1920s. “Bisexual behavior between women has flourished in a variety of societies where women’s same-sex desires and sexual behavior did not pose a threat to the gender order,” explains Rupp. Whether in these historical settings or in the setting of collegiate hook-up culture, women’s same-sex sexuality can flourish in tight conjunction with heterosexuality. What is new in the 21st century setting, however, are the ways in which women can go on to have the opportunity to affirm new identities.
About the Study
Rupp, Leila, Verta Taylor, Shiri Regev-Messalem, Alison Fogarty, and Paula England. 2014. “Queer Women in the Hookup Scene: Beyond the Closet?” forthcoming in April Gender & Society.
About the Study Authors
Leila Rupp, Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, can be reached at lrupp@femst.ucsb.edu.
Verta Taylor, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, can be reached at vtaylor@soc.ucsb.edu.
Alison Fogarty, Stanford University, can be reached at afogarty@stanford.edu.
Paula England, Professor of Sociology, New York University, can be reached at pengland@nyu.edu.
About Gender and Society
Gender & Society is a peer-reviewed journal, focused on the study of gender. It is the official journal of Sociologists for Women in Society, and was founded in 1987 as an outlet for feminist social science. Currently, it is a top-ranked journal in both sociology and women’s studies. Gender & Society, a journal of Sage Publications, publishes less than 10 percent of all papers submitted to it. For additional commentary, you can also read the Gender & Society blog and follow the journal on twitter: @Gend_Soc.
For more information, contact Gender & Society editor Joya Misra, Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts. Misra is also affiliated with Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies and Labor Studies. Her research and teaching focus primarily on inequality. She can be reached at misra@soc.umass.edu.
Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS), currently headquartered at the University of Kansas, works to improve women’s lives through advancing and supporting feminist sociological research, activism and scholars. Founded in 1969, SWS is a nonprofit, scientific and educational organization with more than 1,000 members in the United States and overseas. For more information, contact Dr. Joey Sprague, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas and SWS Executive Officer, at jsprague@ku.edu.
About CCF
The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Miami, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of family researchers and practitioners that seeks to further a national understanding of how America’s families are changing and what is known about the strengths and weaknesses of different family forms and various family interventions. For more information on CCF researchers, contact Stephanie Coontz, Co-Chair and Director of Research and Public Education, coontzs@msn.com.
Not everybody is hooking up at college—Here’s why
Expert Contact: Barbara Risman, PhD
Professor and Chair of Sociology
University of Illinois-Chicago, and CCF Board Chair
brisman@uic.edu; cell: (312) 996-3074
Rachel Allison
PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology
University of Illinois-Chicago
rallis2@uic.edu; (563) 209-1822
Release Contact: Virginia Rutter
Framingham State University Sociology
vrutter@gmail.com or (cel) 206 375 4139
Has “hooking up” become the defining feature of college life? Does everyone do it? Does everyone want to? Most research on hooking up has examined college students who live on campus, or nearby, and hook up after alcohol-fueled parties. For example, the Online College Social Life Survey (OCSLS) of 21 colleges and universities shows that more than 70 percent of students, overall, hook up at some point in their college career. Even so, new research from the University of Illinois at Chicago, a diverse urban, public university with more commuters than on-campus residents, suggests that college sex is something quite different for the typical commuting student.
In a forthcoming study, “‘It Goes Hand in Hand with the Parties’: Race, Class, and Residence in College Student Negotiations of Hooking Up” (in February issue of Sociological Perspectives), Rachel Allison and CCF Senior Scholar Barbara Risman find that commuter students do not typically participate in hooking up culture-but they still believe it is a key feature of authentic college experience.
Allison and Risman explain, “The students we interviewed endorsed the media-driven belief that the ‘real’ college experience involves parties and hooking up. They explained, though, that it is simply unavailable to many of them.” Sociologists Allison and Risman found that only students who live on campus or in apartments away from their families have substantial opportunity to “hook up.” In particular, the authors found:
- Less-wealthy students and most of the non-white students at this university who are working class participate in hookup culture far less than middle-class students.
- Even when white working class and racial minority students live on or near campus, the tendency for students to hook up within racial and ethnic communities means that working class and racial minority students still feel excluded from what they see as “real” college experience.
- Students who work for pay many hours per week also feel excluded from a party culture that takes both time and money.
What is hooking up? “Hooking up” typically means some sexual activity-ranging from kissing to intercourse-outside of a committed relationship. While much research focuses on residential college students and shows participation is common, those studies also demonstrate that hooking up leads to sexual intercourse less often than college students-and the general public-imagine. According to OCSLS data, 40 percent of students who have ever hooked up report intercourse during their most recent hookup.
Is hooking up the “real” college experience? Allison and Risman’s study elaborated specifically on commuter students’ beliefs and experiences with hooking up. Allison and Risman explained, “Students from a range of class and ethnic backgrounds told us the ‘real’ college experience involves parties and hooking up, but white middle-class students believed they actually live the ‘real’ college experience.” One student (a Middle-Eastern woman) in the study explained about hooking up: “It goes hand in hand with the parties.”
Commuters and minority students talked wistfully about missing what they believe–often based on what they see in movies or television of campus life–is the “real” college experience. The researchers explained, “They feel they are getting a second rate experience.” The researchers added, “It’s not that the commuting students don’t tell us they sometimes have casual sex-they do. But they do not participate in the hooking up culture that most students see as part of college life.”
About the Study
Find Rachel Allison and Barbara Risman’s February 2014 article, “It Goes Hand in Hand with the Parties”: Race, Class, and Residence in College Student Negotiations of Hooking Up in Sociological Perspectives.
Allison and Risman analyzed 87 in-depth interviews with undergraduate students at the University of Illinois-Chicago for an article forthcoming in the February issue of Sociological Perspectives. Thirty-three percent lived on or near campus; 39 percent lived with their parents. The authors were especially struck by the extent to which students were convinced that the party and hookup scene was part of an authentic college experience. “On the one hand, our study demonstrates a lot more diversity in the way that students actually experience college-but on the other, it showed us that students don’t necessarily see the wide range of collegiate experiences as equally valid.” The authors reflected, “Could the real college experience be redefined as about learning? Of course, as college professors, we’d like to think it could.”
About the Study Authors
Barbara Risman, PhD, Professor and Chair of Sociology, University of Illinois-Chicago, and CCF Board Chair., at brisman@uic.edu or (312) 996-3074
Rachel Allison, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois-Chicago, at rallis2@uic.edu or (563) 209-1822.
For Further Information
For further information on hooking up, Paula England, PhD, New York University, led the 21-college Online College and Social Life Survey. She can be reached at pengland@nyu.edu.
For information about how the rise of dating in the early 20th century was equally shocking to observers at the time, contact Stephanie Coontz, Co-Chair and Director of Research and Public Education, at coontzs@msn.com, cell 360-556-9223.
About CCF
Based at the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Miami, the Council on Contemporary Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of family researchers and practitioners that seeks to further a national understanding of how America’s families are changing and what is known about the strengths and weaknesses of different family forms and various family interventions.
The Council helps keep journalists informed of notable work on family-related issues via the CCF Network. To join the CCF Network, or for further media assistance, please contact Stephanie Coontz, Co-Chair and Director of Research and Public Education, at coontzs@msn.com, cell 360-556-9223.
Women’s Education and their Likelihood of Marriage: A Historic Reversal
By Paula England
Professor of Sociology
New York University
Email: pengland@nyu.edu
Phone 650-815-9308
Jonathan Bearak
Ph.D. Candidate
New York University
Email: jonathan.bearak@nyu.edu
Download Full Report as a Word Document
Historically, women who graduated from college were far more likely than any other group of women — whether high school dropouts, high school graduates, or women with some college – to remain single their entire lives. As late as 1950, a quarter of white female college graduates 40 years of age had never married, compared to compared to only 7 percent of their counterparts without a college degree. (See this CCF Report) But what has happened since women have been completing college and obtaining advanced degrees at much higher rates, and since divorce has become easier to obtain?
On the one hand, highly educated men and women often postpone marriage until college or even graduate school is finished. Many choose to establish themselves in demanding careers before they even consider marriage. These factors suggest that marriage rates of the well educated should be lower.
On the other hand, poorer and less-educated men and women are most apt to have children outside marriage, while men lacking high school or college degrees are sometimes seen by themselves and their partners as less “marriageable” because stagnating wages have made them less reliable breadwinners (see Appendix A). The latter suggests lower marriage rates for the less educated.
The key to resolving this puzzle is to realize that education affects not only the timing of marriage among those who eventually marry, but also whether people ever marry, and whether they divorce. As we’ll see, these effects come into play at different ages for men and for women at different educational levels, and they also vary by race.
Our Analysis
To show how the education differences in marriage rates vary by age, we have graphed marriage rates separately by age for each of four education groups—those who ultimately finished less than high school, just high school, some college, and four years of college. We show the education-by-age graphs separately for blacks and whites, as well as for all races combined, and separately for men and women. Our data come from a national sample of people who were born between 1958 and 1965 and therefore turned 20 between 1978 and 1985, a period of rapid cultural and socioeconomic change. These individuals were followed for many years, allowing us to know their marital status at every age through 45. Most people who ever marry have done so by age 45, so, roughly speaking, we are able to see what percent of those in each group will ever marry.
Figure 1 shows the percent of men or women who have ever married by each age, separately for each group by their ultimate education. In Figure 2, we look at the same thing except that we show what percent are “currently married” rather than what percent have “ever married.” The difference between who is “currently” and “ever” married for any group is that those who have married but are now divorced or widowed but not remarried are included in the “ever married” but not the “currently married” figures. (More details on the data and our statistical analysis can be found in Appendix B.)
Educational Differences in When or If Individuals Marry
Getting a lot of education delays marriage, but for women and men born after 1958, unlike for women born early in the 20th century, the well educated are just as or more likely to ultimately marry as any other group. In Figure 1 we see that up into the 20s, the more education you have, the less likely you are to have married, with college graduates the least likely and those with less than a high school education the most likely. But somewhere between the mid 20s and late 30s a catch-up of the more educated occurs. Although people who get more education typically wait till after they complete schooling to marry, making their marriages later, they are just as likely to ultimately marry by about age 40. In all education groups, roughly 75-90% will ever marry.
The patterns for whites look about the same as the patterns for the whole sample. But among black women, those with a college degree not only catch up to the marriage rates of the less educated, but far surpass them. Overall, black women have lower odds of ever marrying than white women. But getting a college education raises ultimate marriage rates by the 30s and 40s much more substantially for blacks than whites. (The only group of women where a majority have not married by age 45 is black women with no college education.)
The overall pattern for men is similar. Like women, men who complete fewer years of schooling are more apt to marry at young ages, but like women, higher-educated men catch up later. However, men’s results differ from women’s in three key ways. First, men typically marry a couple of years later than women, reflecting the convention that men in first marriages are slightly older than their wives. Second, higher-educated men catch up to lower-educated men sooner than higher-educated women catch up to lower-educated women. Finally, whereas black women with some college are as likely as black women who graduate from college to marry by 45, there is a notable difference between black men who do and do not finish college, with black college graduates much more likely to marry than black men with only some college.
Educational Differences in Who is Currently Married: The Role of Divorce
On average, almost half of American marriages will end in divorce, but divorce rates are lowest for college graduates, and the education gap in divorce has increased in recent decades. (See McLanahan, Sara. 2004. “Diverging Destinies: How Children Fare Under the Second Demographic Transition.” Demography. 41(4): 607-627.) There are several reasons for this. Less educated individuals typically marry at an earlier age, which is associated with higher divorce rates. Additionally the lower incomes and greater economic insecurity of those with less education increase stress, affecting divorce.
In Figure 2, we look at the percent of people who are currently married at each age, separately for each education group. These figures differ from the “ever married” percents in Figure 1, in that those who have married but are divorced and have not remarried appear in Figure 1 as married but not in Figure 2 as currently married.i Thus, the “currently married” figures are influenced by educational differences not only in who marries, but also in who has divorced.
Looking first at women of all races, we see that after age 30 college graduates pull ahead in the percentage currently married. About 75% of college graduates are married at age 40, compared to about 70% of those who attained high school or some college and only about 60% of those who didn’t complete high school. So even though female college graduates marry later, they are so much less likely to divorce that by age 40 they are significantly ahead in the percentage currently married, while female high school drop outs fall even further behind. In yet another historical reversal, women with less than a high school education are the least likely to be currently married at all ages after 30.
The figures for white women look quite similar to those described here for all women combined. But for black women, the percent currently married varies more dramatically by education than for whites. This is partly because, as we saw above, education differences are larger for blacks than whites in whether they ever marry by age 40. But there are also education differences in divorce for blacks, as for whites, so the higher divorce rates of less-educated black women also contribute to the difference in how many are currently married.
Educational differences in the percent currently married are larger for men than women. Overall, as we saw for women, black men have much lower marriage rates than white men. The only exception is black male college graduates by age 35. By age 45, about 75% of college-educated black men are married, whereas less than 55% of college-educated black women are married at the same age.
Men who attain less than a high school education are much less likely to be married than any other education group of men at most ages. Among white men, a similar percentage of all education groups except those who do not complete high school are married at age 30, whereas among black men, college graduates have much higher percentages married, and high school dropouts much lower percents married, compared to the middle education groups.
Summary of Education Differences in Marriage Patterns by Age
Early in the life cycle, those who ultimately get more education are less likely to have married than their less educated counterparts. This is because those staying in school longer also delay getting married longer. But by age 40, the well educated have caught up with the less educated and even surpassed them in the percent that have married. Thus, ultimately the more educated are as likely or even more likely to marry as any other group. The education differences in whether people ever marry are small for whites, but quite large for blacks, owing partly to the very low marriage rates of the most disadvantaged blacks—those without high school or less.
If we look at who is currently married by age, educational differences get even more dramatic. Because the less educated divorce at higher rates, fewer of them are left still married as the decades go by. These differences are particularly pronounced for men.
In sum, if we focus on the early to mid-20s, a higher percent of the less educated are married. The higher educated groups catch up and pull ahead in their late 20s and 30s, possibly because more of them have the economic resources that young people now consider a prerequisite to marriage (See Appendix A.) If we focus on the rest of life (represented in our data up to age 45), educational differences in those who are currently married are even larger once people move into their late 30s and 40s because those at lower educational levels have higher divorce rates.
[button link=”https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/files/2013/10/2013_Factsheet_England_Marriage-and-education.pdf” color=”red” target=”new” size=”default” icon_before=”pdf”]Download Full Report as a PDF [/button] [button link=”https://contemporaryfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013_Factsheet_England_Marriage-and-education.docx” color=”primary” target=”_self” size=”default” title=”Download DOC” icon_before=”doc”]Download Full Report as a Word Document[/button] [divider style=”shadow”]About CCF
The Council on Contemporary Families is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best-practice findings about American families. Our members include demographers, economists, family therapists, historians, political scientists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, as well as other family social scientists and practitioners.
Founded in 1996 and now based in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Miami, the Council’s mission is to enhance the national understanding of how and why contemporary families are changing, what needs and challenges they face, and how these needs can best be met. To fulfill that mission, the Council holds annual conferences, open to the public, and issues periodic briefing papers and fact sheets.