I thought one of more interesting points was her synopsis of a Rutgers University report entitled "Alone Together: How Marriage is Changing in America." Part of the report examines "divorce proneness": how likely a couple is to fail based on certain demographic factors. Unsurprisingly, Gilbert notes that, as per the report: "[t]he age of a couple at the time of their marriage seems to be the most significant consideration. The younger you are when you get married, the more likely you are to divorce later."
In addition, she points out seven additional factors based on her understanding of the report (*this is directly quoted from her):
1. Education. The better-educated you are, statistically speaking, the better off your marriage will be. The better-educated a woman is, in particular, the happier her marriage will be.A few thoughts on this:
2. Children. The statistics show that couples with young children at home report "more disenchantment" within their marriage than couples with grown children, or couples who have no children at all.
3. Cohabitation: It appears that people who live together before marriage have a slightly higher divorce rate than those who wait until marriage to cohabit.
4. Heterogamy: The less similar you and your partner are in terms of race, age, religion, ethnicity, cultural background, and career, the more likely you are to someday divorce. Opposites do attract, but they don't always endure. Sociologists suspect that this trend will diminsh as society's prejudices break down over time, but for now?
5. Social Integration: The more tightly wove a couple is within a community of friends and family, the stronger their marriage will be.
6. Religiousness: The more religious a couple is, the more likely they are to stay married, although faith offers only a slight edge.
7. Gender Fairness: Marriages based on a traditional, restrictive sense about a woman's place in the home tend to be less strong and less happy than marriages where the man and the woman regard each other as equals, and where the husband participates in more traditionally female and thankless household chores.
- I don't think a lot of it is surprising. For instance, getting married later in life means that you're more in tune with yourself, your needs, your desires. On the other hand, as some of my family members have pointed out: the younger you are, the more adaptable you are, able to grow together.
- Once again, people: correlation does not signify causation. I don't think these factors are set in stone, and who knows the predictive success? (I tried finding the study online and failed, so I also can't examine it more thoroughly. For example, what was the non-response rate?) Also, I'm a little skeptical of the author's ability to parse through the report, but that just comes from my belief that statistics can often be easily manipulated. (Numbers might not lie, but how one interprets the numbers can often be a game.)
- What about the other intangibles, like life goals? If two partners are thoroughly incompatible in terms of what they're seeking in life, what is the predictive success of the marriage?
- I'm a little unclear what this measured: Happiness? Tendency to divorce? What of the couples unhappily married?
So who knows, but there you have it. An interpretation of marital success based on Elizabeth Gilbert's understanding of a Rutgers report.
The NY Times recently had some articles/quizzes on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/weekinreview/02parkerpope.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=marriage&st=cse
ReplyDeleteand the "sustainable marriage quiz": http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/the-sustainable-marriage-quiz/?scp=2&sq=marriage&st=cse
I think these are a bit bs-y, partly because I think the quiz is worded in such a skewed way. That said, I do think there's something here. If two people are meant to "grow together" then that must mean that they are sharing new experiences with each other and broadening each other's view of life.
Anyway, I agree with your thoughts on Gilbert - is this study looking at happiness or divorce rate? Because, especially for #6, just because a couple is married doesn't mean that they're happy and have a marriage to aspire to. And as for #4, that was something our minister talked to us about in the months leading up to our wedding, but more in terms of similarities in our parents - did our moms have a similar mothering style, for instance. Given that our child is going to be a mix of 3 races I don't really buy into the race part of the equation. Although the fact that we both are mixed races, while not the same mixture could make us more similar than a mixed person and a non-mixed? Anyway, I think #4 is actually showing something that we haven't figured out how to interpret. Perhaps it's more about "view of the world" or level of openness to experiences outside of your own? And here the NY Times articles come into play...
Oh, and also what part of the marriage did the study look at? Did it normalize it in anyway? I'm pretty sure that the next couple months will be more trying for our marriage than any part of the past 4.5 years just because of the total unknown of caring for a newborn (also as implied in #2). And looking at my parents' marriage - they definitely had some rocky spots and better times so I'm sure they would answer whatever questions differently in, say 1998 than 2004 (which is a pretty small time frame for their marriage of 40 years). Did the study only look at that for #2?