Review of causal research - University of California, …mitch/teaching/f10/phil12/lectures/... ·...

Review of causal researchPhil 12: Logic and Decision Making

Fall 2010UC San Diego

11/22/2010

Monday, November 22, 2010

Announcements• Trying to answer paper topics for other sections a good

way to study

• Sample final exam questions will be posted tomorrow

• Must register your clickers if you didn’t already

• Today CAPE should send you an email at your UCSD email address

- link for evaluating each of your courses

- Deadline: midnight before Finals

• Remember no lecture or section on Wednesday

• My office hours for this week are today rather than Wed


Which of the following involves questioning the internal validity of an experiment?

A. Questioning whether the causal relation between these variables would hold when using a different task

B. Raising doubts about whether the results are applicable to a different context

C. Questioning whether your operational definitions really measure the theoretical constructs of interest

D. Questioning whether there might be an alternative explanation for the effect produced

Clicker Question 1


Which of the following concerns are about external validity?

A. Your study did not achieve statistical significance

B. A non-representative group of participants was studied and one can’t anticipate what sorts of effects the independent variable will have on other participants

C. Participants might have responded to the novelty of the experiment more than the specific effect of the independent variable that was manipulated

D. The participants figured out which treatment they were on

Clicker Question 2


Review• Internal validity: are the effects on the dependent

variable due solely to the manipulation of the independent variable?

- Was there a confounding subject variable?

- Was there a confounding procedural variable?

• Demand characteristics—did subjects behave as they did because of knowing they were in an experiment?

• Experimenter bias in measuring variables

• External validity: do the results of the study generalize to the population, setting, and manipulation of interest?


Which type(s) of causal research involve identifying groups in terms of the independent variable?

A. Experiments

B. Prospective studies

C. Retrospective studies

D. Two of the above

E. All of the above

Clicker question 3


Which type(s) of causal research can make use of randomization to control for subject confounds?

A. Experiments

B. Prospective studies

C. Retrospective studies

D. Experiments and prospective studies

E. Experiments and retrospective studies

Clicker question 4


Review - 1• Experiments provide the best evidence of a causal relation,

but sometimes they are not possible

- Because it is impossible physically or morally to manipulate the independent variable

• Two strategies

- Prospective studies

• Divide groups according to the independent variable and investigate correlation with the dependent variable

- Retrospective studies

• Divide group according to the dependent variable and investigate correlation with the independent variable


Review - 2• All studies of causation are beset by confounds

- Factors correlated with the independent variable that may themselves be the cause of the change in the dependent variable

• By manipulating the independent variable in an experiment, researchers reduce the risk of confounds

- Researchers can randomize or match subjects or lock (control) procedural variables to minimize confounds

• Prospective and retrospective experiments do not allow manipulation

- Greater risk of confounds. Try to reduce the risk by:

• matching subjects

• measuring possible confounds


Science in the news

• Paper 2 asked you to come up with a causal study to test a given causal hypothesis

• Today we’ll practice understanding and evaluating causal research reported on in the news



Sound Level of Environmental Music and DrinkingBehavior: A Field Experiment With Beer Drinkers

Nicolas Gueguen, Celine Jacob, Helene Le Guellec, Thierry Morineau, and Marcel Lourel

Objective: It had been found that environmental music was associated with an increase in alco-hol consumption. The presence versus absence of music, high versus slow tempo and the differentstyles of environmental music is associated with different level of alcohol consumption. However,the effect of the level of the environmental music played in a bar still remained in question.

Methods: Forty male beer drinkers were observed in a bar. According to a random distribu-tion, patrons were exposed to the usual level of environmental music played in 2 bars where theexperiment was carried out or were exposed to a high level.

Results: The results show that high level volume led to increase alcohol consumption andreduced the average amount of time spent by the patrons to drink their glass.

Conclusions: The impact of environmental music on consumption was discussed and the‘‘arousal’’ hypothesis and the negative effect of loud music on social interaction were used toexplain our results.

Key Words: Young Adults, Environmental Music, Music Influence, Alcohol Consumption.

E NVIRONMENTAL MUSIC IS known to affectbehavior and particularly the consumer’s behavior. Sev-

eral experimental studies carried out in natural settings haveshown that different environmental music and structural com-ponents of the music (e.g., sound level, tempo, tonality) affectthe consumer’s behavior such as in-store traffic flow(Milliman, 1982), sales volumes (Areni and Kim, 1993), prod-uct choices (North et al., 1999) or time elapsed in a commer-cial area (Milliman, 1986).It was shown in social psychology literature that drinking

behavior is affected in multiple ways by environmentalmusic. Drews et al. (1992) shown that male beer drinkersunobtrusively observed in 2 bars, drank significantly morebeer when environmental music was played than when themusic was off. Milliman (1986), when examining the effectof music on the behavior of restaurant patrons, shown thata slower music tempo led to an increase in the average dollaramount of bar charges per customer. These findings wererecently confirmed by Caldwell and Hibbert (1999). The styleof music played in a store, in a bar or in a restaurant couldinfluence the choice of drinks. North et al. (1999) underlined

the fact that customers’ selection of French and Germanwines was strongly affected by stereotypic French andGerman environmental music played in the store. Frenchmusic increased the sales of French wines compared toGerman ones whereas German music led to the reverseeffect. Jacob (2006) had conducted an experiment in a bar totest the influence of 3 different styles of music on patrons.According to a random assignment, patrons were exposed totop 40 music, which was usually played in the bar, cartoonmusic or drinking songs. Results showed that drinking songsappeared to increase the length of time customers stayed inthe bar and the average amount spent.An aspect of the structural components of music that has

been studied less as far as drinking behavior is concerned isthe sound level. A recent experiment of Gueguen et al. (2004)had tested the effect of sound level on drinking behavior in abar. An experiment was carried out in 2 bars to test patrons’response to music loudness. Using random assignment,patrons were exposed to a sound level which was higher thanthat usually employed in the bars in which the study tookplace. Analysis showed that a sound level higher than usualwas associated with consuming more drinks. An ‘‘arousal’’hypothesis was used to explain the findings. The high soundlevel created a high level of arousal in the customers which ledthem to enhance their behavioral response toward the stimu-lus. High tempo was assumed to have the same property toenhance arousal that also enhanced the behavioral responseof the perceiver. McElrea and Standing (1992) found that fastmusic significantly decreased the amount of time spent onconsuming a drink. Again, these results were explained by theauthors by high ‘‘arousal’’ level induced by high tempo music.In the study of McElrea and Standing the same music wasplayed with a different tempo. Furthermore, the effect of the

From the Laboratoire Gestic, UFR LSHS, Universite de Bretagne-Sud (NG, CJ, HLG, TM), Lorient Cedex, France; and the Labora-toire PsyNCA, Universite de Rouen (ML), Mont-Saint-AignanCedex, France.

Received for publication February 1, 2008; accepted June 3, 2008.Reprint requests: Nicolas Gueguen, Laboratoire Gestic, UFR

LSHS, Universite de Bretagne-Sud, 4 rue Jean Zay, BP 92116,56321 Lorient Cedex, France; Fax: 33 2 97 67 65 37; E-mail:[email protected]

Copyright ! 2008 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00764.x

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research Vol. 32, No. 10October 2008

Alcohol Clin Exp Res, Vol 32, No 10, 2008: pp 1795–1798 1795


Music and alcohol consumption• Previous research found that environmental music

is associated with an increase in alcohol consumption

- The presence versus absence of music

- high versus slow tempo

- different styles of environmental music

• “Arousal” hypothesis: music enhances arousal level, which enhances drinking behavior

• What about the effect of the sound level of the environmental music played in a bar?


• Subjects: 40 males (aged 18-25) drinking in 2 bars in a medium-sized city in France

• On 3 Saturday nights, observers manipulated the sound level of the music in the bar

- control condition: normal sound level of 72 dB

- high sound level condition: 88 dB

• Sound level randomly manipulated, then observers looked for first people entering bar to observe

- Participants only selected for observation if:

• male, in a pair, and at least one person ordered a glass of draft beer

Music and alcohol consumption


• The observers used several measures of the DV, alcohol consumption:

- number of drinks ordered

- time spent to drink each glass (in minutes)

- number of gulps used to drink each glass



music played could have a different effect on drinking behav-ior. Bach and Schaefer (1979) found that the slower the tempoof country western music was, the faster barroom patronsconsumed their drinks. For the authors, perhaps slow tempoelicited a mood that in turn elicited rapid drinking.The purpose of the present experiment was to confirm the

effect of sound level of environmental music on drinkingbehavior in a natural setting and to find the mediating effectthat could explain the increase of consumption. Because itseems that high sound level could create high arousal level,we hypothesized that high sound level compared to a moder-ate sound level should lead the customer to drink more. Wehypothesized that high sound level led the patrons to decreasethe amount of time spent to drink their glass. So the increasein alcohol consumption would be explained by a decrease inthe amount of time spent to drink the glass.

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 40 patrons (40 males, aged 18 to 25) whounknowingly participated in the study and were observed at randomin 2 bars situated in a medium-size city (more than 70,000 inhabit-ants) in a very attractive spot located in the west of France on theBreton Atlantic Coast. These 2 bars were famous bars for youngpeople in the town where the experiment was carried out. Eachobservation was made by considering a table where 2 participantswere seated. Observations were limited to pairs of participants,because individuals drinking alone were few and unrepresentative ofthe normal social pattern. Tables with more than 2 participants ledto some difficulties in making correct information. Only patrons whohad ordered a glass of draft beer (25 cl or 8 oz) were used as ‘‘partici-pants’’ in this experiment (about 70% of the alcohol consumption inthe 2 bars where the experiment was carried out because beer is analcohol that is not very expensive in French Bars compared to Sodaor to drinks with high level of alcohol like Vodka, Whisky, Rum…).That way it was possible to evaluate the consumption behavior withthe same category of product and with the same capacity.

Procedure

The observations were made during 3 saturday nights with theconsent of the owners of the bars. 2 observers situated in 2 differentplaces in the bars where the experiment took place were used. Beforeselecting a participant, the sound level of the environmental musicwas manipulated according to a randomization scheme. The level ofenvironmental music was randomly selected and then observationswere conducted until the last participants left the bar. Then a newrandom selection of the environmental music was done and new par-ticipants were selected between patrons who entered the bar. Theexperimental environmental music played in the 2 bars was the sameas the music usually played (top-forty music in both bars). In thecontrol condition, the sound level used was the same as on usual days(72 dB). In the high level condition, the environmental music wasplayed at a level of 88 dB in the 2 bars. Volume levels were measuredby a decibel meter placed near the middle of the room (A Vellemandecibel meter, model VELL 1326, Velleman, Inc., Gavere, Belgium).The high level was selected according to the previous work of Kellarisand Altsech (1992) and in our previous study Gueguen et al. (2004).It was found that 88 dB was a level considered by subjective evalua-tion as a typical level of ‘‘foreground music.’’ This level was also con-sidered by the owners of the 2 bars as the maximum level they coulduse. Hence it was decided to take 72 dB as the typical level ordinarily

used in the bars in which the experiment took place, whereas 88 dBwas considered the highest level.After selecting the sound level session, the observers waited for the

patrons who first entered the bar. If the patrons were males, in a pairand that one of them ordered an 8 oz glass of draft beer, they wereselected as participants. If the 2 patrons ordered an 8 oz glass of draftbeer, both were observed. If the patrons were alone or were in agroup of more than 2 people, observers waited until a pair of patronsentered. The observers were instructed to observe discretely the pairof participants and to count the drinks ordered until they left the bar.For each drink, one of the observers was instructed to note theamount of time spent by each participant to drink their glass (thetime elapsed between the moment the participant received his glassand the moment the participant finished his glass). The other obser-ver was instructed to note the number of gulps used by each cus-tomer to drink each glass. The 2 observers were instructed to notetheir data on a piece of cardboard.

RESULTS

The 3 dependent variables used in this experiment were thenumber of drinks ordered by each patron observed, theamount of time spent to drink each glass of beer, andthe number of gulps used for each glass. The results obtainedin the 2 environmental music conditions are presented inTable 1.For each dependent variable, the difference between the 2

experimental conditions was tested by the help of an unpairedt-test. With the number of drinks consumed a main effect ofthe sound level of environmental music was obtained [t (38,two-tailed) = 2.37, p < 0.03, df = 0.77]. Then it appearedthat high level of environmental music was associated with anincrease of drink consumption. With the time elapsed betweenthe moment the participant received his glass and the momenthe finished it, a main effect of environmental music was found[t (38, two-tailed) = 2.36, p < 0.03, df = 0.76] revealingthat with a high level of environmental music, patrons spentsignificantly less time to drink their glass than in the controlcondition where the level was the same as usual. With thenumber of gulps used to drink each glass of beer, despite theapparent differences between the 2 means, no statistical differ-ence was found [t (38, two-tailed) = 0.40, ns, df = 0.13]revealing that the number of gulps to drink 8 oz of draft beerwas not different when a volume of environmental musichigher than usual was used. Correlation between these twolater dependent variables (time spent to drink the glass andnumber of gulps to drink it) revealed a significant relation inthe high volume condition [r(19) = 0.73, p < 0.001] and

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation (in brackets) of Drinks Ordered,Time Spent, and Number of Gulps Used to Drink a Glass of Beer According

to the Level of Loudness of the Environmental Music

Level ofenvironmentalmusic

Number of drinksordered

Time spent todrink a glass(in minutes)

Number of gulpsper drink

Usual level 2.6 (1.14) 14.51 (4.88) 7.02 (1.26)High level 3.4 (0.99) 11.45 (2.89) 7.18 (1.29)

1796 GUEGUEN ET AL.

Is the difference between groups significant?

p<0.03 p<0.03 n.s.



• Internal validity

- how were potential subject and procedural confounds controlled for?

- any potential confounds not controlled for?

• External validity

- Would results generalize to other populations, settings, manipulations?





M a rri a g e a n d C o h a b it a tio n in th e Unite d St a tes: A St a tistic a l Portr a it B a se d o n C y c le 6 (2002) of th e N a tio n a l Surve y of F a m ily Growth

2010

yu

are

brF

28N

um

ber

23,

ies

Ser


Cohabitation and marriage success

• Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth

• Subjects: 12,571 Americans (7,643 females and 4,928 males) aged 15-44

• Survey questions either asked by a female interviewer or a computer


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/NSFG.htm





+ The current marital and cohabitingstatus of men and women.

+ Their past experience withcohabitation and marriage.

+ The sequencing and timing ofmarriage and cohabitation.

+ The characteristics of marital andcohabiting partners.

+ The stability and duration ofmarriages and cohabitations.

Union formation, by marriage orcohabitation, is one of the primaryevents in adulthood. The occurrence andsequencing of marriage and cohabitationcan have implications for later lifeevents and outcomes, such as nonmaritalchildbearing and child and adult healthand well-being. Research findings (6–8)consistently document associationsbetween formal marital status and healthand well-being. Married persons have

generally better mental and physicalhealth outcomes compared withunmarried persons (9). Married personsalso live longer (10), have higher ratesof health insurance coverage (11), andlower prevalence of cardiovasculardisease (12) than unmarried persons.Research also indicates that marriage ispositively associated with the health andwell-being of children. Children born tounmarried mothers are at greater riskthan children born to married mothersfor poverty, teen childbearing, poorschool achievement, and maritaldisruption in adulthood (6,7,13–16).

In addition to marriage, this reportprovides detailed information oncohabitation. Over the past severaldecades, there have been large increasesin the number of persons who have evercohabited, that is, lived together with asexual partner of the opposite sex. From1987 to 2002, the percentages of womenbetween ages 35 and 39 who had evercohabited doubled, from 30% to61% (3,17). Cohabitation is increasinglybecoming the first co-residential unionformed among young adults. Over halfof marriages from 1990 to 1994 amongwomen aged 19–44 began as acohabitation (17). As a result of thegrowing prevalence of cohabitation,the number of children born tounmarried cohabiting parents has alsoincreased (17,18). By 2001, themajority of nonmarital births (52%)occurred within cohabiting unions,compared with the 33% of nonmaritalbirths between 1980 and 1984 thatoccurred within cohabiting unions (19).Young children are also more likely thanin the past to live in a cohabitinghousehold. In 2002, 2.9 million childrenunder age 15 lived with an unmarriedparent and his or her unmarriedpartner (20). Estimates suggest thatabout two-fifths of all children willspend some time in a cohabitinghousehold before age 16 years (17).

Despite the growing prevalence ofcohabitation, little is known about thehealth and well-being outcomes relatedto cohabitation compared with marriage.One reason for this dearth of knowledgeis that in many analyses cohabitors areincluded with other unmarried persons,which includes the never married,divorced, widowed, and separated.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 4, 6, and 8 in this report.

Lived with both parents at age 14 Other

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic

4543

3230

45

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perc

ent

Figure 5. Percentages currently married among men aged 15–44, by parental livingarrangements at age 14 and by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Figure 6. Percentages of women and men aged 25–44 who have been married two or moretimes, by current age: United States, 2002

Page 4 [ Series 23, No. 28

+ The current marital and cohabitingstatus of men and women.

+ Their past experience withcohabitation and marriage.

+ The sequencing and timing ofmarriage and cohabitation.

+ The characteristics of marital andcohabiting partners.

+ The stability and duration ofmarriages and cohabitations.

Union formation, by marriage orcohabitation, is one of the primaryevents in adulthood. The occurrence andsequencing of marriage and cohabitationcan have implications for later lifeevents and outcomes, such as nonmaritalchildbearing and child and adult healthand well-being. Research findings (6–8)consistently document associationsbetween formal marital status and healthand well-being. Married persons have

generally better mental and physicalhealth outcomes compared withunmarried persons (9). Married personsalso live longer (10), have higher ratesof health insurance coverage (11), andlower prevalence of cardiovasculardisease (12) than unmarried persons.Research also indicates that marriage ispositively associated with the health andwell-being of children. Children born tounmarried mothers are at greater riskthan children born to married mothersfor poverty, teen childbearing, poorschool achievement, and maritaldisruption in adulthood (6,7,13–16).

In addition to marriage, this reportprovides detailed information oncohabitation. Over the past severaldecades, there have been large increasesin the number of persons who have evercohabited, that is, lived together with asexual partner of the opposite sex. From1987 to 2002, the percentages of womenbetween ages 35 and 39 who had evercohabited doubled, from 30% to61% (3,17). Cohabitation is increasinglybecoming the first co-residential unionformed among young adults. Over halfof marriages from 1990 to 1994 amongwomen aged 19–44 began as acohabitation (17). As a result of thegrowing prevalence of cohabitation,the number of children born tounmarried cohabiting parents has alsoincreased (17,18). By 2001, themajority of nonmarital births (52%)occurred within cohabiting unions,compared with the 33% of nonmaritalbirths between 1980 and 1984 thatoccurred within cohabiting unions (19).Young children are also more likely thanin the past to live in a cohabitinghousehold. In 2002, 2.9 million childrenunder age 15 lived with an unmarriedparent and his or her unmarriedpartner (20). Estimates suggest thatabout two-fifths of all children willspend some time in a cohabitinghousehold before age 16 years (17).

Despite the growing prevalence ofcohabitation, little is known about thehealth and well-being outcomes relatedto cohabitation compared with marriage.One reason for this dearth of knowledgeis that in many analyses cohabitors areincluded with other unmarried persons,which includes the never married,divorced, widowed, and separated.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 4, 6, and 8 in this report.

Lived with both parents at age 14 Other


4543

3230

45

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perc

ent

Figure 5. Percentages currently married among men aged 15–44, by parental livingarrangements at age 14 and by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Figure 6. Percentages of women and men aged 25–44 who have been married two or moretimes, by current age: United States, 2002




Cohabitations are also generally shorter-lived unions, often ending in marriage or disruption (4,17), so the long-term effects of cohabitation are difficult to document. Yet studies have emerged that suggest that cohabitors do not show the same level of health benefits as married persons but may show greater health benefits than divorced, separated, widowed, and never-married persons (21). Cohabitors also report lower levels of relationship quality (22) and lower household incomes than married couples (23).

Some data also suggest that cohabitation may have a negative effect on later marriage and on children’s outcomes (6,16). Previous studies (4,24) have found that persons who cohabit prior to marriage are more likely to have their marriages dissolve than those who did not cohabit premaritally. Studies comparing child academic outcomes and behaviors in cohabiting and married parent households conclude that children living in families where the mother is cohabiting do not fare as well as those where the mother is married (25–27). Poorer child outcomes in cohabiting unions compared with marital unions have been linked to lower household incomes and greater instability in cohabiting unions (26,28).

In This Report This report provides national

estimates of the marital and cohabiting status of men and women aged 15–44 in 2002 in the United States and the characteristics associated with these unions. Separate estimates are provided for men and women and also for different groups classified by race and Hispanic origin and by other demographic characteristics. These factors are reviewed briefly to explain why they are included in this report.

Numerous studies (e.g., references 1, 3, 29, and 30) have documented divergent marriage behaviors among racial and ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic differences are also found in the probabilities of marital dissolution (4). Some research suggests that the factors affecting marriage and outcomes vary among racial and ethnic groups. For example, premarital cohabitation, age at

marriage, and premarital conception were found to have different effects on white, black, and Hispanic (i.e., Mexican American) women (31). Thus, when sample sizes permit, the current report examines marital and cohabiting behaviors within racial and ethnic groups, as well as among them.

Individual characteristics such as age, education, parity (women), children fathered (men), childhood living arrangements, prior cohabiting and

marital experiences, timing of first birth, poverty status, importance of religion, and nativity are included in analyses when appropriate because all have been shown to be related to marital and cohabitation status and history (4,5). Some characteristics of spouses and partners—such as whether the spouse was previously married or had children prior to the marriage—are also included, for the same reason (31–33).

Perc

ent

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 9 and 11 in this report.

63

39

58

51 51 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ever married Ever cohabited


Figure 7. Percentage of women aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 5

42

53 50

47

53 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic


Perc

ent


Figure 8. Percentage of men aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Cohabitations are also generally shorter-lived unions, often ending in marriage or disruption (4,17), so the long-term effects of cohabitation are difficult to document. Yet studies have emerged that suggest that cohabitors do not show the same level of health benefits as married persons but may show greater health benefits than divorced, separated, widowed, and never-married persons (21). Cohabitors also report lower levels of relationship quality (22) and lower household incomes than married couples (23).

Some data also suggest that cohabitation may have a negative effect on later marriage and on children’s outcomes (6,16). Previous studies (4,24) have found that persons who cohabit prior to marriage are more likely to have their marriages dissolve than those who did not cohabit premaritally. Studies comparing child academic outcomes and behaviors in cohabiting and married parent households conclude that children living in families where the mother is cohabiting do not fare as well as those where the mother is married (25–27). Poorer child outcomes in cohabiting unions compared with marital unions have been linked to lower household incomes and greater instability in cohabiting unions (26,28).

In This Report This report provides national

estimates of the marital and cohabiting status of men and women aged 15–44 in 2002 in the United States and the characteristics associated with these unions. Separate estimates are provided for men and women and also for different groups classified by race and Hispanic origin and by other demographic characteristics. These factors are reviewed briefly to explain why they are included in this report.

Numerous studies (e.g., references 1, 3, 29, and 30) have documented divergent marriage behaviors among racial and ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic differences are also found in the probabilities of marital dissolution (4). Some research suggests that the factors affecting marriage and outcomes vary among racial and ethnic groups. For example, premarital cohabitation, age at

marriage, and premarital conception were found to have different effects on white, black, and Hispanic (i.e., Mexican American) women (31). Thus, when sample sizes permit, the current report examines marital and cohabiting behaviors within racial and ethnic groups, as well as among them.

Individual characteristics such as age, education, parity (women), children fathered (men), childhood living arrangements, prior cohabiting and

marital experiences, timing of first birth, poverty status, importance of religion, and nativity are included in analyses when appropriate because all have been shown to be related to marital and cohabitation status and history (4,5). Some characteristics of spouses and partners—such as whether the spouse was previously married or had children prior to the marriage—are also included, for the same reason (31–33).

Perc

ent


63

39

58

51 51 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



Figure 7. Percentage of women aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002


42

53 50

47

53 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic

Ever married Ever cohabited Pe

rcen

t


Figure 8. Percentage of men aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Women Men


Cohabitation and marriage successPe

rcen

t

No high school diploma or GED

High school diploma or GED

Some college Bachelor’s degree or higher

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 11 in this report.

28 26

21

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 9. Percentage of women aged 22–44 who have had two or more cohabiting relationships, by her level of education: United States, 2002


19

14

26

12

0

10

20

30

Men Women

Lived with both parents at age 14 O ther

Perc

ent


Figure 10. Percentages of men and women aged 15–44 who have ever married but not cohabited, by parental living arrangements at age 14: United States, 2002

Comparison With Previous Reports

The current report, using data from the Cycle 6 (2002) NSFG, updates and extends previous analyses on cohabitation and marriage that used data from Cycles 5 and 6 of NSFG (1–5). For the first time, the 2002 NSFG included a sample of men aged 15–44.

Thus, this report provides information on the marital and cohabiting behaviors of both men and women.

Because of the smaller sample of women in the 2002 NSFG (N = 7,643) compared with the 1995 survey (N = 10,847), separate probability analyses of marriage and cohabitation dissolution for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women were not

possible. Furthermore, smaller sample sizes of men and women did not allow for estimates of the probabilities of unions remaining intact for up to 15 or 20 years, as could be done in the previous 1995-based report (4,5). Instead, marriage probabilities were estimated with the 2002 NSFG data for up to 10 years, and cohabitation-related probabilities were estimated for up to 5 years. In addition to probability tables, the current report includes prevalence estimates of marriage and cohabitation.

Data and Methods

Source of Data The statistics presented in this

report are from the 2002 NSFG (also known as Cycle 6). The 2002 NSFG was based on a nationally representative multistage area probability sample drawn from 121 areas across the country. The final sample consisted of 12,571 respondents (7,643 females and 4,928 males) aged 15–44. One person per household was interviewed in each selected household. Teenagers and black and Hispanic adults were sampled at higher rates than others in the Cycle 6 NSFG. The overall response rate for the survey was 79% (80% for females and 78% for males).

Data were collected by computer-assisted interviewing. The majority of questions were administered by a female interviewer, using a technique called computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), in which the interviewer reads questions from a computer screen and enters the respondent’s answers. More sensitive questions were collected using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI)—a private mode of data collection in which respondents hear the questions and response choices through headphones or read them on the screen. Respondents are able to enter responses without the interviewer or anyone else knowing the response. Unless noted, data presented in this report come from the CAPI or interviewer-administered portion of the survey.


Cohabitation and marriage successProbability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive)Page 32 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 16. Probability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive) at specified durations, by selected characteristics and with standard errors, for women aged 15–44: United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Probability Probability Probability Probability Characteristic of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE

Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.80 0.010 0.68 0.017 Non-Hispanic white, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.78 0.011 0.64 0.019 Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race. . . . 0.92 0.012 0.81 0.018 0.73 0.026 0.51 0.025

Education2

No high school diploma or GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.011 0.82 0.015 0.74 0.020 0.63 0.022 High school diploma or GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.008 0.83 0.011 0.73 0.015 0.54 0.031 Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.011 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.019 Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.97 0.004 0.91 0.007 0.86 0.010 0.78 0.015

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.67 0.012 Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.008 0.82 0.019 0.72 0.021 0.48 0.045

Age at first marriage

Under 20 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.008 0.78 0.015 0.68 0.018 0.54 0.022 20–25 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.86 0.007 0.79 0.010 0.64 0.021 26 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.006 0.92 0.007 0.86 0.009 0.76 0.019

Parity at time of first marriage

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.80 0.009 0.65 0.017 1 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.011 0.77 0.015 0.67 0.016 0.55 0.020

Timing of first birth relative to first marriage

No birth during first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.85 0.010 0.69 0.013 0.54 0.017 0.34 0.018 Birth before marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.011 0.77 0.015 0.67 0.016 0.55 0.020 Birth during marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.99 0.001 0.94 0.006 0.88 0.009 0.74 0.019 0–7 months after . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.97 0.006 0.85 0.019 0.72 0.027 0.54 0.033 8 or more months after . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.001 0.96 0.005 0.92 0.008 0.79 0.021

Ever cohabited before first marriage

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020

Cohabited premaritally with first husband

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019

Engaged to first husband when premarital cohabitation began

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015

First husband ever married before this marriage

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016

First husband had any children from previous relationships when they married

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015

First husband’s race and Hispanic origin

Same as wife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.006 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.015 Different from wife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.90 0.014 0.79 0.017 0.68 0.019 0.54 0.021

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on other characteristics shown. 2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. NOTE: SE is standard error.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).

For women:

• Probability that a woman’s marriage would survive for 10 years:

- Did not cohabit at all: 66%

- Cohabited before marriage: 60%

p = 0.06Difference not significant

at 5% level





Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015



Education2











Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015









Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015



Education2











Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015




SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Monday, November 22, 2010

Cohabitation and marriage successProbability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive)Page 32 [ Series 23, No. 28




Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015



Education2











Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015









Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015



Education2











Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015





For women:

• Probability that a woman’s marriage would survive for 10 years:


- Was engaged when they began cohabiting: 65%

- Not engaged when premarital cohabitation began: 55%





Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015



Education2











Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015





n.s.


Cohabitation and marriage successProbability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive)Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 33

Table 17. Probability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive) at specified durations, by selected characteristics and with standard errors, for men aged 15–44: United States, 2002



Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009


Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.87 0.009 0.82 0.011 0.75 0.014 Non-Hispanic white, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.012 0.64 0.012 Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race. . . . 0.94 0.011 0.82 0.024 0.74 0.022 0.51 0.036

Education2






Number of biological children at time of first marriage

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010 1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028

Timing of first child’s birth to first marriage

No birth during first marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.87 0.015 0.64 0.021 0.52 0.020 0.37 0.023 Birth before marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028 Birth during marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.98 0.006 0.92 0.010 0.87 0.011 0.74 0.013 0–7 months after . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.026 0.77 0.048 0.69 0.047 * * 8 or more months after . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.000 0.96 0.008 0.91 0.009 0.79 0.012


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017

Cohabited premaritally with first wife

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018

Engaged to first wife when premarital cohabitation began

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017

First wife ever married before this marriage

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014

First wife had any children from previous relationships when they married

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014

First wife’s race and Hispanic origin

Same as husband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.85 0.011 0.80 0.011 0.68 0.014 Different from husband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.022 0.83 0.032 0.73 0.035 0.59 0.046

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision. 1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on other characteristics shown. 2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. NOTE: SE is standard error.


For men:





Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009



Education2







None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010 1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028




Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014





• Probability that a man’s marriage would survive for 10 years:







Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009



Education2







None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010 1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028




Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014





p <0.05


Cohabitation and marriage successProbability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive)Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 33




Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009



Education2







None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010 1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028




Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014





For men:





Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009



Education2







None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010 1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028




Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014





• Probability that a man’s marriage would survive for 10 years:







Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009



Education2







None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010 1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028




Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * * No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014





- Was engaged when they began cohabiting: 71%

- Not engaged when premarital cohabitation began: 53%

n.s.



• What kind of study was this?

• Independent and dependent variables?

• Internal validity

- were any potential confounds controlled for?

- any potential confounds not controlled for?

• External validity

- Would results generalize to other populations, settings, manipulations?


Date post:	06-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doandang
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Review of causal research - University of California, …mitch/teaching/f10/phil12/lectures/... ·...

Documents