|
The institution of marriage is in trouble in the
West. In the last forty years, marriage rates have plummeted, nonmarital
childbearing and divorce have surged, and cohabitation has become fashionable
throughout the West.
The collective manifestations of
this retreat from marriage can be seen on the slide. From 1960 to 2003, marriage
rates fell more than 40 percent in countries such as Austria, France, Germany,
and Italy. From 1960 to 2000, divorce rates more than doubled in countries as
varied as Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.[1]
Nonmarital childbearing rose more than 500 percent from 1960 to 2002 in Italy,
France, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Indeed, in
Scandanavia, largely because of the popularity of cohabitation, almost half of
all children are born out of wedlock.[2]
Thus, in much of the West, marriage has ceased to be the primary institution
anchoring the adult life course and guiding the bearing and rearing of children.
Why should this retreat from
marriage be of any concern to us? As you know, many leading European scholars,
diplomats, and politicians think the de-institutionalization of marriage is not
a problem. German sociologists Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, for
instance, believe that the destabilization of family life in Europe is good, and
that it prepares children for the challenges of adult life in late modernity.[3]
By contrast, a recent report I
coauthored, titled Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social
Sciences, argues that the de-institutionalization of marriage poses a grave
challenge to the welfare of European societies and particularly to their most
vulnerable members: children. Communities, adults, and especially children pay a
heavy price when marriage ceases to be the central institution governing the
bearing and rearing of children. Poverty, crime, depression, and suicide are
just some of the consequences that follow when the institution of marriage is
weakened. Let me now offer a tour de force of the latest social science on
marriage.
In making the case that marriage matters for the
common good, this report draws largely on the latest social science research on
the consequences of lone parenthood and cohabitation for children in the United
States. Over the last 30 years, American sociologists, psychologists, and
economists have studied the effects of the retreat from marriage upon children
and families. An overwhelming body of social scientific evidence has accumulated
indicating that children are most likely to thrive when they grow up in an
intact, married family. As one recent review of the literature from Child
Trends, a leading research organization on child well-being in the United
States, concluded, “[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure
matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”[4]
Although the social scientific
research on the consequences of the retreat from marriage for children in Europe
is less well-developed than the research on American children, research on
European children suggests that these children suffer in largely similar ways
from the retreat from marriage. I turn now to briefly summarizing the key
arguments of the report, making connections with existing studies of European
family life, and offering a few reasons that marriage matters for children and
families in Europe and, indeed, throughout the West.
Lone Parenthood
As this report makes clear, children in lone-parent
families are about twice as likely to experience serious behavioral or emotional
problems, compared to children in intact, married-parent families. In a recent
summary of the literature on family structure and child well-being, American
sociologist Paul Amato writes, “compared with children who grow up in stable,
two-parent families, children born outside marriage reach adulthood with less
education, earn less income, have lower occupational status, are more likely to
be idle (that is, not employed and not in school), are more likely to have a
nonmarital birth (among daughters), have more troubled marriages, experience
higher rates of divorce, and report more symptoms of depression.”[5]
One recent U.S. study found that adolescents living in lone-mother families were
twice as likely to use illicit drugs, and adolescents living in lone-father
families were three times as likely to try illicit drugs, compared to teens
living in married families.[6]
Research also indicates that adolescents who grow up in lone-parent families are
significantly more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, compared to
adolescents in intact, married families.[7]
In fact, one study found that boys raised in lone-parent families are about
twice as likely to commit a crime that leads to imprisonment by the time they
reach their early thirties.[8]
All of these studies control for factors such as parental income and education,
which could otherwise distort the association between family structure and child
emotional and behavioral outcomes.
As this report points out,
social scientific research from the U.S. indicates that children are
significantly more likely to be neglected or abused if they are reared in a
lone-parent family, compared to an intact-married family. With respect to
neglect, studies find that children in lone-parent homes are more likely to be
left unattended, to receive insufficient parental oversight, and to be
undernourished, compared to children in two-parent families. Even after
controlling for factors that increase the risk of abuse, studies indicate that
children are also more likely to be physically and sexually abused if they are
raised in a lone-parent family.[9]
For instance, as this report points out, one study found that children living
with a lone parent were almost twice as likely to be sexually abused, compared
to children living in an intact, married home.
The voluminous literature on family structure from the
U.S. suggests a clear conclusion: children raised in intact, married families do
significantly better on a range of social, behavioral, and emotional outcomes
than children raised in lone-parent families. But are these research findings
applicable to a European setting? It might be, for instance, that the generous
welfare policies of countries like Sweden and Norway offset or reduce the
social, emotional, and economic consequences of lone parenthood.
In fact, research does suggest that the economic
consequences of lone parenthood are reduced in countries with large welfare
states like Sweden and Norway, where lone mothers are not likely to suffer from
poverty.[10]
But the social and emotional costs of divorce and lone parenthood seem to be
about as negative for European children as they are for American children. For
instance, one study of the entire population of children in Sweden
found that boys who were reared in lone-parent homes were 50 percent more likely
to die from a range of causes—such as accidents, suicide, or addiction—than were
boys reared in two-parent homes. This same study found that children raised in
lone-parent homes were twice as likely as children in two-parent families to
attempt suicide, suffer from substance abuse, or depression.[11]
Another study found no differences in the negative effect of lone parenthood on
educational attainment for children living in Sweden and the United States.[12]
Studies of divorce come to similar conclusions. A study
examining the effects of divorce on children in Norway found that children who
suffered from divorce were significantly more likely to use illegal drugs, to
engage in violent behavior, to be sanctioned for bad behavior in school, and to
suffer from poor school performance, compared to children whose parents did not
divorce. This same study found that the effects of divorce on Norwegian children
were similar to the effects of divorce on American children, despite the fact
that Norway has a much more generous welfare state than does the United States.
Norwegian psychologists Kyrre Breivik and Dan Olweus write, “our findings
suggest that the negative association between divorce and various problem
behaviors was found to be basically similar in Norway and the United States.”[13]
A study of children in the United Kingdom found that children who experienced
the divorce of their parents were significantly more likely to suffer from
emotional problems such as divorce, anxiety, and obsessions as young adults,
compared to children whose parents did not divorce, even after controlling for
children’s psychological problems prior to divorce.[14]
What accounts for the advantage
that two parents have over one parent when it comes to child well-being? A large
body of research provides a range of explanations for the association between
family structure and child well-being, but here I focus on three primary
explanations: social networks, the social and emotional support and monitoring
of a co-parent, and the quality of parenting.
First, children raised by
married parents typically have sustained access to two sets of kin, social, and
professional networks, whereas children raised by lone parents typically only
have sustained access to one set of these networks.[15]
Consequently, children raised by two parents, as opposed to one parent, are more
likely to draw on the material and emotional support of two sets of
grandparents, as well as the social and professional contacts of a father as
well as a mother.[16]
Second, parents generally offer
one another support and monitoring when they are engaged in co-parenting. So, if
a father sees that the mother of their child is exhausted after a long day of
outside work and childcare, he can step in and relieve his wife; similarly, if a
wife sees her husband getting angry as he disciplines his children, she can ask
him to step back and let her take control of the situation. Thus, two parents
can work together to improve the quality of their mutual parenting, whereas a
lone parent is more likely to become overwhelmed by the challenges of raising
children.[17]
Finally, in large part because
they get more emotional and social support for the work that they do as parents
from one another and from kin and friends, married parents are more affectionate
and involved with their children; they are also less likely to resort to abusive
behavior. Moreover, they are more likely to monitor their children’s activities
and friends than are lone parents. Not surprisingly, as this report points out,
children report higher-quality relationships with married parents than they do
with lone parents.
Cohabitation
But what about cohabiting
couples? Might a family headed by a cohabiting couple do as well as a married
couple in raising children? To answer this question, this report summarizes
research conducted in the United States to date on cohabitation and child
well-being. This research suggests that the answer to this question is no. The
extant literature on cohabitation and child well-being from the U.S. indicates
that children reared in the average cohabiting household are less likely to
thrive, compared to children in the average married household.
Studies on the behavioral,
emotional, and educational welfare of children find clear differences between
cohabiting families and marital families. For instance, one study found that
adolescents from cohabiting families were significantly more likely to engage in
delinquent behavior, compared to adolescents from intact, married families.[18]
Another study found that teenage children in cohabiting families were
significantly more likely to experience emotional and behavioral problems,
compared to children in intact married families.[19]
Compared to children in married families, children from cohabiting families are
significantly more likely to be suspended, expelled, or to experience poor
academic performance in school, such as difficulties in their relationships with
peers and teachers.[20]
These studies control for a range of socioeconomic factors, and still find that
children in cohabiting families do measurably worse than children in married
families.
Of course, one of the reasons
that children in cohabiting families in the U.S. may fare markedly worse than
children in intact, married families in the U.S. is that these children are
often not biologically related to one of the cohabiting parents, typically the
father.[21]
Consequently, the association between cohabitation and negative child outcomes
may be an artifact of differences in biological relatedness rather than marital
status. This would be a fair supposition but for the findings of new, tightly
constructed studies examining just this question.
Consider a recent study by
American sociologists Wendy Manning and Kathleen Lamb that compared children in
married stepfamilies with children in cohabiting stepfamilies. In both families,
the children are biologically unrelated to one parent. This study finds that
children in cohabiting stepfamilies are significantly more likely to engage in
delinquent acts, compared to children in married stepfamilies.[22]
The relationship between delinquency and marital status of the parents remained
even after controls were added for the socioeconomic status of the parents, the
parent-child relationship, and family instability, such as the number of the
mother’s previous partners. Similarly, other studies indicate that married
stepfathers are more engaged with their children than cohabiting stepfathers.[23]
Thus, these studies suggest that children are still better off in families
headed by a married couple, even when they are not biologically related to one
of those parents.
Why are cohabiting families more
problematic for children than married families? Cohabitation is not
institutionalized to the same degree that marriage is. Consequently, there are
fewer norms to provide direction and order to the relationship, compared to
marriage.[24]
This affects the couple in a number of ways. First, cohabitation does not have
the same normative association with lifelong commitment and sexual fidelity as
does marriage; not surprisingly, cohabiting couples report lower levels of
commitment and sexual fidelity compared to married couples.[25]
Second, cohabiting partners often disagree about their view of the
relationship—some view it as a prelude to marriage, others as an alternative to
marriage, others as an economically convenient form of dating, and still others
as a way to test for compatibility.[26]
Lower levels of commitment associated with cohabitation, and confusion about the
status and direction of the relationship, means that cohabiting mothers are less
likely to receive material and social support from their parents and other
relatives, compared to married couples.[27]
The lack of normative
commitment, relationship clarity, and social support for cohabitation also helps
explain why cohabiting relationships are significantly less stable than married
relationships. As this report indicates, one U.S. study found that a child born
to a married couple had a 15 percent risk that her parents would break up in her
first five years of life; a child born to a cohabiting couple had a 50 percent
risk that her parents would break up in the first five years of her life.[28]
Another U.S. study found that fully three-quarters of
children born into cohabiting unions will see their parents break up before age
sixteen.[29]
By contrast, a clear majority of children born to married parents in the U.S.
will spend their entire childhood with both parents in an intact household.[30]
But are these studies from the
U.S. really generalizable to the European experience with cohabitation? Scholars
do not yet know if children born to cohabiting couples in Europe suffer more
than children born to married couples in Europe. But European family scholarship
does indicate that children who are raised by cohabiting parents experience more
instability than children who are raised by married parents. One recent survey
of Western countries (with a largely European sample) by demographer Patrick
Heuveline found “in most countries that children born to cohabiting parents are
two to four times more likely to see their parents separate than are children of
parents married at the time of birth.”[31]
Some countries see even more instability in cohabiting households. In Spain, for
instance, children born to cohabiting couples are six times more likely to see
their parents break up than children born to married parents.[32]
Because family instability is
strongly associated with behavioral, academic, and emotional problems among
children, these demographic trends strongly suggest that European children who
are raised in cohabiting households will be more likely to suffer harm than
children raised in married households.[33]
Indeed, not only is this instability bad for children because it prevents them
from building and maintaining a stable emotional bond with one or two
caregivers, it is also bad for them because it can place them directly in harm’s
way, as this report points out.[34]
Specifically, children who
experience high levels of instability are much more likely to be neglected,
physically abused, and sexually abused, for at least three reasons. First, these
children tend to seek out attention and emotional support from unrelated adults,
which makes them more vulnerable to sexual predators. Secondly, family
instability often brings unrelated adults, especially males, into the household
who are more likely to physically or sexually abuse them. Finally, and most
importantly, their primary caretaker is often distracted (romantically or
otherwise) by the loss of a partner, a breakup with a partner, or the search for
a new partner.[35]
For instance, a recent U.S. study of child mortality found that preschool
children in cohabiting households were almost 50 times more likely to be killed
than children in intact, married families, largely because these children were
being exposed to an unrelated adult male in their household.[36]
But even if there is not yet any
definitive evidence that European children do worse in cohabiting households,
there is compelling evidence that the spread of cohabitation is leading to
increases over time in lone parenthood in countries across the European
continent. Some European family scholars have dismissed recent increases in
nonmarital childbearing as unimportant because they assumed that cohabiting
couples would replace married couples in providing a stable, two-parent home for
children. But the research of Hueveline and his colleagues on Western
demographic trends indicates that increases in nonmarital childbearing and the
percentage of children born into cohabiting unions are both associated
with increases in lone motherhood, largely because cohabiting unions are less
stable than married unions. “[W]hile children who do not live with married
biological parents could in principle live in other two-adult families, most do
not or do so only temporarily,” observes Hueveline et al.[37]
In other words, “[p]erhaps the only universal Western trend is that childrearing
is being shifted from married parents to single mothers more than to cohabiting
parents, stepfamilies, or single fathers.”[38]
So, even if the jury is still out on the consequences for individual children of
being raised by cohabiting versus married parents, the broader, environmental
consequences of increases in cohabitation across the continent look disturbing.
For the rise in European cohabitation seems to lead ineluctably to increases in
lone parenthood, and we know that lone parenthood poses a threat to the
well-being of children in European societies such as Norway, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom.
Conclusion
In the last 40 years, marriage has lost substantial
ground as the primary institution for the bearing and rearing of children in the
West. The causes of this retreat from marriage are myriad—secularization,
unprecedented affluence, androgynous feminism, changes in family law and tax
policy that have undercut marriage’s unique status, and so on[39]—and
some scholars now believe that the cultural, economic, and political forces
arrayed against marriage in the West are so powerful as to make resistance to
this retreat futile.[40]
In parts of the West, they may be right.
But the West’s experience with family decline tells
us a cautionary tale: From Oslo to Ottawa, from London to Los Angeles, children,
adults, and communities suffer when marriage loses its institutional power. For
this reason, we must do all in our power to strengthen marriage and to resist
the forces, largely from the West, that would seek to abolish the institution of
marriage. Sadly, many Western elites are blind to the social scientific evidence
mounting in front of their very eyes – that is, from places like Sweden, Norway,
and England – showing that a strong and healthy marriage culture is vital to the
social, economic, and psychological welfare of our society’s most vulnerable
members—children. If we wish to bequeath humane and well-ordered societies to
posterity, we need to think creatively and act quickly to renew the institution
of marriage. For, as this report makes clear, the future of the societies
throughout the West depends in no small part on the quality and stability of the
unions between the mothers and the fathers of the next generation.
Endnotes:
[1] Council of Europe,
2004. Recent Demographic Developments in Europe. Strasbourg: Council
of Europe Publishing. P. 68. [2] Kathleen Kiernan, 2004.
“Unmarried Cohabitation and Parenthood: Here to Stay? European
Perspectives,” in D.P. Moynihan, T. N. Smeeding, and L. Rainwater (eds.) The Future of the Family (New York, NY: Russell Sage). P. 76.
[3] Ulrich Beck and
Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim, 2002. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism
and its Social and Political Consequences. London: Sage.
[4] Kristin Anderson Moore,
Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig, 2002. “Marriage from a Child’s
Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can Be Done
About It?” Research Brief, June 2002. (Washington, DC: Child Trends).
P. 6. [5] Paul Amato, 2005. “The
Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social and Emotional
Well-Being of the Next Generation,” The Future of Children
15: 76-96. P. 78. [6] Robert L. Flewelling
and Karl E. Bauman, 1990. “Family Structure as a Predictor of Initial
Substance Use and Sexual Intercourse in Adolescence.” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 52: 171-181. [7] See, e.g., Chris
Coughlin and Samuel Vuchinich, 1996. “Family Experience in Preadolescence
and the Development of Male Delinquency.” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 58: 491-501; and, Robert Sampson and J.H. Laub, 1994. “Urban
Poverty and the Family Context of Delinquency: A New Look at Structure and
Process in a Classic Study.” Child Development 65: 523-540.
[8] Cynthia Harper and Sara
McLanahan, 2004. “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.” Journal of
Research on Adolescence 14: 369-397.
[9]
Robin Fretwell Wilson, 2001. “Children at Risk: The Sexual Exploitation of
Female Children After Divorce,” Cornell Law Review 86: 101-174.
[10] Shelley Phipps, 1999.
An International Comparison of Policies and Outcomes for Young Children.
Ottawa, Canada: Renouf Publishing.
[11] Gunilla Ringback
Weitoft, Anders Hjern, Bengt Haglung, and Mans Rosen, 2003. “Mortality,
Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in
Sweden: A Population-Based Study.” The Lancet 36: 289-295.
[12] Anders Bjorklund,
Donna K. Ginther, and Marianne Sundstrom, 2002. “Family Structure and
Children’s Educational Attainment: A Comparison of Outcomes in Sweden and
the United States.” Paper presented at the ESPE-meetings in Bilbao.
[13]
Kyrre Breivik and Dan Olweus, 2006. “Children of Divorce in a Scandinavian
Welfare State: Are They Less Affected than U.S. Children?” Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology 47: 61-74. P. 71.
[14] Andrew Cherlin, P.
Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, and Christine McRae, 1998. “Effects of Parental
Divorce on Mental Health thoughout the Life Course.” American
Sociological Review 63: 239-249.
[15] Sara McLanahan and
Gary Sandefur, 1994. Growing Up With a Single Parent. (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press). Pp. 3-4, 116-133.
[16] Ibid. Paula Roberts,
2004. “I Can’t Give You Anything But Love: Would Poor Couples With Children
Be Better Off Economically If They Married?” CLASP Policy Brief 5: August.
[17] McLanahan and
Sandefur, Pp. 38, 135-136.
[18] Wendy D. Manning and
Kathleen A. Lamb, 2003. “Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and
Single-Parent Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 876-893.
[19] Susan L. Brown, 2004.
“Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental
Cohabitation.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 351-367.
[20] Manning and Lamb.
[21] Sandra Hofferth and
Kermyt Anderson, 2003. “Are All Dads Equal? Biology Versus Marriage as a
Basis for Paternal Involvement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65:
213-232. [22] Manning and Lamb.
[23] Hofferth and Anderson.
[24] Steven L. Nock, 1995.
“A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships.” Journal of
Family Issues 16: 53-76. Pp. 54, 74 .
[25] Steven Nock, 1995. “A
Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships,” Journal of Family
Issues 16: 53-76; R. Forste and K. Tanfer, 1996. “Sexual Exclusivity
among Dating, Cohabiting and Married Women,” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 58: 33-47. [26] Wendy D. Manning and
Pamela J. Smock, 2002. “First Comes Cohabitation, Then Comes Marriage?” Journal
of Family Issues 23: 1065-1087.
[27] Robert Lerman, 2002.
Impacts of Marital Status and Parental Presence on the Material Hardship
of Families with Children. (Washington, DC: Urban Institute).
[28] Pamela J. Smock and
Wendy D. Manning, 2004. “Living Together Unmarried in the United States:
Demographic Perspectives and Implications for Family Policy.” Law and
Policy 26: 87-117. Wendy D. Manning, Pamela J. Smock, and Debarum
Majumdar, 2004. “The Relative Stability of Cohabiting and Marital Unions for
Children.” Population Research and Development Review 23: 135-159.
[29] Larry Bumpass and
Hsien-Hen Lu, 2000. Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for
Children’s Family Contexts in the United States, Population Studies 54:
29-41. [30] Ibid.
[31] Patrick Heuveline,
Jeffrey Timberlake, and Frank Furstenberg, 2003. “Shifting Childrearing to
Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries.” Population and
Development Review 29: 47-71. P. 57.
[32] Ibid. P. 56.
[33] Manning and Lamb.
[34] Manning and Lamb.
[35] Manning and Lamb;
Smock and Manning; Pamela Smock, 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States:
An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual
Review of Sociology 26:1-20; and, Wilson.
[36] Patricia G. Schnitzer
and Bernard G. Ewigman, 2005. “Child Deaths Resulting from Inflicted
Injuries: Household Risk Factors and Perpetrator Characteristics.” Pediatrics
116: e687-e693. [37]
Hueveline et al. P. 66. [38]
Ibid, p. 49. [39]
Surkyn and Lesthaeghe. Allan Carlson, 2006. “The De-Institutionalization of
Marriage.” The Family in America. 20: Issue 2/3.
[40] Larry Bumpass, 1990. “What’s Happening to the
Family?” Demography 27: 483-498. Scott Coltrane, 2001. “Marketing the
Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood.” Sociological Perspectives
44: 387-418.
|
