Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

The Future of Marriage

Item

Title

The Future of Marriage

Author

McClintock, Elizabeth Aura

Research Area

Social Institutions

Topic

Marriage and the Family

Abstract

After briefly examining the history or marriage and the development of modern marriage, this essay describes major themes in the study of marriage, including research on the rise of alternatives to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and the consequences of these changes. It next considers current demographic trends, recent advances in research, and likely future directions of research. In particular, the imminence of same‐sex marriage and the increasing importance of the internet in partner selection are likely to be important areas of research and social change. The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage's future and for future research on marriage.

Related Essays

The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian F. Codding

Patterns of Attachment across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and Theodore E. A. Waters

Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres

Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec

Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen

Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen Hawkes and James Coxworth

Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes Huinink

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology), Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff

The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus

Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology), Michaela Kreyenfeld

Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross‐National Comparison (Economics), Bhashkar Mazumder

Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith

Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe

Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman

Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu

Identifier

etrds0339

extracted text

The Future of Marriage
ELIZABETH AURA McCLINTOCK

Abstract
After briefly examining the history or marriage and the development of modern marriage, this essay describes major themes in the study of marriage, including research
on the rise of alternatives to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and
the consequences of these changes. It next considers current demographic trends,
recent advances in research, and likely future directions of research. In particular,
the imminence of same-sex marriage and the increasing importance of the internet
in partner selection are likely to be important areas of research and social change.
The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage’s future and
for future research on marriage.

INTRODUCTION
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. His successor, President
George W. Bush, launched a national Healthy Marriage Initiative to promote
marriage, especially among the poor. At the same time, much popular and
academic attention has focused on the plight of marriage. But is marriage
truly in need of defense or promotion? Indeed, marriage rates have fallen dramatically throughout developed nations. Divorce rates are relatively high, as
are rates of nonmarital childbearing and cohabitation. Yet, most Americans
hope to marry someday, and the popularity of celebrity weddings and reality
television shows such as The Bachelor and The Bachelorette attest to marriage’s
enduring appeal.
This essay considers the future of marriage and the future of research about
marriage. It begins by briefly examining marriage’s past. This insight into the
realities of “traditional” marriage provides context for understanding current
demographic trends and directions of research. It next describes foundational
research on modern marriage, including research on the rise of alternatives
to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and the consequences
of these changes. Following this overview, it examines recent advances in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

research and probable directions for future research. The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage’s future and for future
research on marriage.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
A BRIEF HISTORY OF MARRIAGE
To many Americans, the phrase “traditional marriage” conjures an image of
a 1950s family—a male breadwinner, his homemaker wife, and their children. Yet, as marriage historian Stephanie Coontz documents in her books
Marriage, a History (2006) and The Way We Never Were (2000), this type of marriage was actually a historical anomaly. In fact, two-provider families were
normative throughout most of history. Divorce, single parenting, cohabitation, and even same-sex marriage are not new phenomena—all have existed
in the past in some time and place. It is true that marriage has changed and
that traditional marriage is all but gone in developed nations, but this revolutionary change in marriage had solidified by the close of the eighteenth
century.
Throughout most of history, marriage was a social institution designed
to benefit extended families and the larger community—not a means of
achieving personal happiness or fulfillment (Coontz, 2004). Marriage was
the primary means of consolidating and transferring wealth, forming political alliances, and establishing the mutual claims of parents and children.
Given marriage’s institutional importance, love was not deemed a rational
or sufficient motivation for marriage. Moreover, the choice of partner was
not left to the individual—her or his family exercised substantial control in
arranging marriages. However, economic and cultural changes beginning
in the seventeenth century increased individual autonomy and eroded
parental and community control over marital matches. The idea of marrying
for love gained popularity and love matches quickly became normative.
Thus, as industrialization and urbanization undermined the institutional
basis for marriage, marriage began a transition from a public institution to a
private choice.
Still, marriage did not immediately lose its monopoly over the regulation
of sexuality, inheritance, and childrearing, nor did the rise of love-based marriages alleviate gender inequality within marriage. However, the valuation
of marriage primarily as a source of emotional fulfillment represented a revolutionary change from traditional, pragmatic marriage. The consequences
of this shift are evident today. Perhaps most importantly, basing marriage
on love made marriage both less stable and more desirable. The absence of
love in a marriage gradually came to be seen as a cause for divorce, greatly

The Future of Marriage

3

undermining the norm of stable, lifelong marriage. At the same time, the
promise of emotional fulfillment made marriage a desirable state, sought
after even by couples who would not benefit from its institutional functions
(like having biologic children). In fact, demands for the liberalization of
divorce laws and the extension of marriage rights to homosexual couples
began as early as the eighteenth century.
In the twentieth century, the emphasis on emotional satisfaction and love
in marriage increased further. Marriage was nearly mandatory and spouses
were expected to find happiness by fulfilling their gender-appropriate
roles as breadwinner, homemaker, and parent. By the 1950s, marriage was
almost universal, with about 95% of the population marrying, often at
young ages. However, beginning in the 1960s, this was followed by a rise in
expressive individualism, the belief that individuals must discover, develop,
and express their unique inner self. Women entered the labor force, and
marriage lost its monopoly over the regulation of adulthood, sexuality, and
childbearing. In the words of family sociologist Andrew Cherlin, marriage
became “deinstitutionalized” (2004) meaning that there was less legal and
normative pressure to marry, to enact traditional roles within marriage, and
to stay married for life. Marriages were formed and maintained to achieve
individualistic goals—self-fulfillment, self-development, and emotional
satisfaction. In response to this cultural change, laws regulating marriage
were liberalized. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation
laws forbidding interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
This was followed in the 1970s by the introduction of no-fault divorce. Today,
in a debate that strongly parallels the earlier battle over interracial marriage,
gay rights advocates are demanding marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Not unsurprisingly, these changes have been controversial.
This distinction between marriage’s institutional and individualistic
functions helps clarify the ongoing controversy over its current health and
future trajectory. Politicians, religious leaders, and laypersons concerned
with the institutional aspects of marriage are right to worry—marriage has
indeed retreated in importance as a social institution. It is less mandatory,
less stable, less connected to family and community, and less regulated by
other social institutions. For better or worse, couples are relatively isolated
from the interference and support once provided by extended families, communities, the church, and the government. However, from the perspective
of observers who value its individualistic rewards, marriage is faring much
better. Young adults express a strong desire to marry and most Americans
eventually do marry. Now that unhappy couples are easily freed from marital commitments, the remaining marriages are happier and more fulfilling.
No longer heavily stigmatized, divorcees have a second chance at happiness
with another partner. In this individualistic sense, marriage is thriving.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE’S DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
As marriage loses ground as in institution, fewer individuals marry, those
who marry do so at older ages, and more divorce. Accompanying this
change in marriage is a change in fertility. Childbearing has been decoupled
from marriage, resulting in a rise of births to single mothers and cohabiting
couples. The age at first birth has risen, women are having fewer children,
and many women are forgoing children altogether. Much recent sociological
research has addressed the causes and consequences of these changes, seeking to understand partnering trajectories and to evaluate the implications of
these trajectories for child well-being.
The retreat from marriage has not been uniform. Marriage rates remain
high among middle-class Americans but have fallen dramatically among
poor Americans and especially among African-Americans. While many
politicians have assumed that the poor do not value marriage (as demonstrated by the Healthy Marriage Initiative), qualitative research by Kathryn
Edin and Maria Kefalas refutes this (2005). In fact, they find that poor
unmarried mothers revere marriage. It is this reverence that makes them
reluctant to rush into a marriage that would likely end in divorce. For
such women, economic stability, a satisfactory relationship, and money
for a wedding are prerequisites for marriage; the marriage itself is a
symbol of this success and a crowning accomplishment. Given their limited economic prospects and the chronic infidelity and criminality of the
men in their lives, they may never achieve the stability they require for
marriage.
Another important area of recent research compares cohabiting and
marital unions and investigates the transition from cohabitation to marriage.
Research comparing marriage and cohabitation generally finds higher
relationship quality and greater stability among married couples, and
greater diversity among cohabiting couples. However, those cohabiting
couples who marry may more closely resemble married couples in terms of
relationship satisfaction. While both types of relationships are characterized
by strong homogamy (similarity in demographic and social characteristics),
cohabiting couples are less likely to match each other on characteristics such
as race, religion, and education. Understanding cohabitation is increasingly
important to understanding marriage not only because cohabitation is a
primary alternative to marriage but also because most marriages today are
preceded by cohabitation.
Interestingly, the fact that marriage is generally preceded by cohabitation
may have implications for marital quality and divorce (Amato, 2010).
Contrary to popular beliefs that cohabitation provides a “test run” to ensure
marital compatibility, prior cohabitation is associated with worse marital

The Future of Marriage

5

outcomes. There is an ongoing debate over what extent of this relationship
is due to selection (couples with high-risk traits may be more likely to
cohabit), the experience of cohabitation (as a more individualistic and
independent partnership, cohabitation may instill behaviors or attitudes
that destabilize marriage), and to inertia (couples who would not otherwise
marry—and are not really a good match—might marry because the inertia
of cohabitation makes it difficult to break up). There is also some evidence
that as prior cohabitation is becoming more normative, the relationship
between cohabitation and divorce is weakening.
Finally, child well-being has always been an important theme in research
on marriage, and it is only increasing in importance as marriage loses its
monopoly on childrearing (Brown, 2010). Children are increasingly being
born to unmarried mothers; currently, about four in ten births in the United
States are to unmarried women. Over half of these births are to (unmarried) cohabiting parents. This is concerning because cohabiting relationships
are less stable than marital relationships and because nonresidential fathers
often provide little economic or practical support. Growing up with a single mother and experiencing multiple family transitions (due to terminated
cohabitations or to divorce) are risk factors for children, although some of the
association is due to selection and economic disadvantage. This has spawned
a growing literature on understanding how family structure in itself impacts
children, net of related economic and parental characteristics. Analytic techniques for parsing apart these interrelated factors have advanced in recent
years, enabling researchers to better isolate the effect of family structure, but
more research is needed. Overall, although findings are somewhat mixed,
there is evidence that family structure and family stability have a causal effect
on child well-being—and that children in stable, two-parent homes may be
best off. This is certainly the popular perception among politicians and the
general public.
The popular consensus that children of stably married parents have the best
life chances has led to research investigating why unmarried cohabiting or
dating parents do not marry. Such couples often hope to marry, but do not feel
ready yet—they want to be economically secure and confident about their
relationship before marriage. This supports the concern that while outcomes
for children raised by married parents are better, it is not clear that marrying unmarried parents would be beneficial for their children. Marriage, in
itself, would not solve the economic or relational problems which both prevent many unmarried parents from marrying and are largely responsible for
their romantic instability. Nevertheless, largely as a result of President Bush’s
Healthy Marriage Initiative, there is a growing interest on promoting marriage between such parents.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
While it is not possible to discuss every exciting new trend in research on
marriage, the discussion below highlights themes that have been important
in recent, ground-breaking studies and which are likely to gain importance in
the coming years. It also draws attention to topics that have been understudied and which are likely to receive increased attention in the future. Finally,
it concludes by describing relevant methodological advances.
UNDERSTANDING MODERN MARRIAGE
As documented above, much foundational research has focused on documenting marriage’s transition from a public institution to a private and
individualistic relationship. Yet the meaning of modern marriage is still
not well understood. Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’s research among
poor, unmarried mothers has done much to clarify the meaning of marriage
for this population—and has overthrown prior assumptions that marriage
was unimportant to such women. Similar studies are needed to understand the meaning of marriage among other populations. In particular, the
gendered meaning of marriage has been under-investigated. For example,
for men more than for women, marriage may imply children and an
increase in gender specialization. Women may hold a more progressive and
gender-egalitarian view of marriage in which children are optional and the
division of labor is equitable. These understandings of marriage likely vary
by class and race as well as by gender and disparities between spouses’
expectations may be an important source of conflict.
In addition, understanding the meaning of marriage provides insight into
marriage’s future prospects by providing insight into why modern couples
bother to marry at all. For example, marriage patterns in Sweden highlight
the complex social motivations for modern marriage (Ohlsson-Wijl, 2011).
Long viewed as a frontrunner in family change and in the deinstitutionalization of marriage, Sweden provides cohabiting couples with the same
legal rights as married couples. There is little institutional or social pressure
to marry, even when raising children. It is not surprising therefore that
marriage rates began to fall rapidly in the 1960s—what is puzzling is why
they began to rise again in the 1990s. This rise cannot be fully explained
by changes in legal motivations, employment, population composition, or
fertility. Marriage seems to have genuinely gained in popularity, perhaps
because it is increasing in symbolic importance. Understanding why this has
happened—and whether it is likely to happen in other nations—requires
a better understanding of what motivates couples to marry. A better
understanding of couples’ motivations for marriage would provide a more
informed approach for policymakers and others who wish to promote

The Future of Marriage

7

marriage. Given that funding is available for such research, it is likely to
receive continued attention.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
At the time of writing this essay, the debate over same-sex marriage is
still raging. About 37 states have passed constitutional amendments (31
states) or laws (6 states) banning gay marriage. Nine states and the District
of Colombia have legalized gay marriage. Despite this legislative bias,
public opinion polls indicate majority support for same-sex marriage among
American adults. The political and social controversy over this issue is
strikingly similar to that over anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s—when
these laws were overturned in 1967, 16 states were enforcing them. In this
context, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear challenges to prohibitions
against gay marriage. Regardless of the outcome of the current hearings,
same-sex marriage will eventually be legal throughout the United States. As
it did in the case of interracial marriage, public opinion is shifting slowly but
steadily to favor gay marriage. Within every cohort, attitudes are becoming
more favorable over time, and younger cohorts have much more favorable
attitudes than older cohorts. In light of this attitudinal change, gay marriage
is a question of “when,” not “whether.”
Given the inevitability of widespread access to legal marriage for same-sex
couples, social scientists are likely to devote even more attention to gay and
lesbian relationships and parenting. One of the challenges in comparing the
relational and parenting behaviors of same-sex and other-sex couples is their
different socio-legal contexts. Married couples enjoy greater social legitimacy and innumerable legal rights that are denied to cohabiting couples
(whether straight or gay). Legalizing same-sex marriage would make these
populations more comparable. Also, just as straight couples’ relationships
change during the transition from cohabitation to marriage, same-sex
couples are likely to experience similar—but not identical—transitions. This
will be an area of interest in coming years. Research is also likely to examine
how the option to marry changes partner selection, dating, and cohabitation
for homosexual individuals who are not yet ready to marry or who do not
wish to marry.
In addition, extending research on marriage to same-sex couples forces
researchers to acknowledge the assumptions inherent in current studies of
marriage which almost invariably rely on distinctions between husbands
and wives and assume a nuclear family form (two parents residing with their
children) or a single parent (Goldberg, 2010). Yet, gay and lesbian families
are often more complex and may involve more than two parental figures,
particularly because same-sex couples often desire the involvement of both

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

a “father” and “mother.” For example, lesbian mothers may use a known
donor because they want their child to know their biologic father; such a
child would potentially have two residential mothers and a nonresidential
father. Likewise, gay men may pursue open adoption so that their child
will have a relationship with the biologic mother. For example, one cannot
compare partnered lesbian parents with single heterosexual mothers in
order to isolate the effect of “fatherlessness” (as opposed to the effect of
only having one parent) because children raised by two women are not
necessarily entirely fatherless. Thus, extending marriage rights to same-sex
couples may require a greater flexibility in academic conceptualizations of
married couple households.
Another challenge in studying gay and lesbian marriage is the lack of adequate data. Same-sex couples make up a small minority of the population;
unless they are deliberately over-sampled, there are often too few same-sex
couples for meaningful analysis. In addition, until recently many surveys
were unequipped to ask about same-sex partners. There have been many
excellent qualitative studies, but these lack generalizability. Data providing
a large, nationally representative, generalizable population of same-sex couples are rare. The US Census provides a large sample of same-sex couples;
however, the depth of data is limited. A recent survey conducted at Stanford
University, how couples meet and stay together (HCMST) over-sampled
individuals who had previously identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or
bisexual. It provides a moderately-sized sample of 474 same-sex couples
(out of 3009 total couples) and has already provided valuable insight into
patterns of partner selection among same-sex couples (Rosenfeld & Thomas,
2012). However, the scope of the survey is relatively limited, and more
datasets are needed to provide a complete understanding of committed
same-sex relationships. In addition, once marriage rights are extended to
same sex couples, the dynamics of their relationships may change, requiring
new data collection.
Complexity and Context. While researchers have long acknowledged the
increasing diversity of families and marriages, studies that truly engage with
this complexity are lacking. Marriages are already more diverse in regards to
race (interracial marriage has been increasing rapidly since the 1960s), prior
partnering experience (many marriages involve divorcees and those with
prior co-residential partners), cohabitation and fertility prior to marriage,
and the presence of blended families. As noted above, marriage will soon be
yet more diverse as marriage equality is extended to same-sex couples. Prior
research has frequently compared different categories of married couple,
attempting to isolate the effect of many of these specific characteristics (such

The Future of Marriage

9

as prior cohabitation or spousal gender). However recently, researchers
have begun to acknowledge the need for a more nuanced perspective on
complexity and context (Fincham & Beach, 2010). For example, the effect of
gender is unlikely to be the same for women married to men as for women
married to women, nor is gender itself likely to be expressed equivalently
across these different contexts. As discussed in the following sections, the
social and economic context in which couples are embedded also impacts
their relationship and marital trajectory.
Just as marriages are shaped by their social context, so is research addressing marriage. The Healthy Marriage Initiative made funding available
for studies of healthy marriage and for evaluation of marriage education,
especially in the context of couples at-risk for poverty, and this has influenced the direction of recent research (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Whereas
prior research has tended to assume that a healthy marriage was characterized by the absence of conflict, greater attention is now being given
to positive processes such as forgiveness and support. Given its goal of
poverty reduction, the Healthy Marriage Initiative has also shifted focus
to diversity in marriage, especially targeting economically disadvantaged
populations. Importantly, less educated and racial minority couples report
lower marital satisfaction and lower chances of forming a stable marriage.
Poverty and race/ethnic discrimination increase stress on marriage by
increasing conflict and instability and by reducing positive interactions;
these processes are not captured in studies of primarily White, middle-class
couples. For example, economically disadvantaged couples report higher
rates of infidelity and substance abuse, factors that destabilize marriages
and merit further investigation. Social context is especially salient among
African-American couples who are substantially less likely to marry and
more likely to divorce than White couples. Some part of this difference is
due to economic factors, but the stress and social disadvantage associated
with racism are also important factors in destabilizing African-American
relationships. Future research is likely to continue focus on marriages’ social
context and the specific stressors resulting from that context.
Researchers have also begun to focus on the larger relational context in
attempting to understand the impact of specific characteristics or behavioral
patterns. For example, recent research has demonstrated that the effect of
spousal conflict on marital satisfaction is minimized when it occurs in the
context of frequent, positive interactions. Thus, conflict cannot be examined
in isolation from other aspects of the spousal relationship because its effects
on marital satisfaction depend on that very relationship. Likewise, the effects
of chronic stress and work-to-home spillover are moderated by the quality of
the relationship. Researchers interested in intimate partner violence have also

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

begun to focus on the relational context of the violence, finding that studying the violence itself is insufficient for explanation and prevention. Given
these findings, future research is likely to focus on interactions between negative behaviors and other aspects of the couple’s overall relationship that
may reduce (or amplify) their effect.
TECHNOLOGY
It is becoming increasingly common for couples to meet online, yet the
consequences of online partner selection are not fully understood. Most
obviously, finding partners through an online database greatly increases the
size of one’s potential dating pool by expanding it past one’s social network
of acquaintances, coworkers, family, and neighbors. This facilitates both
diversity and homogamy (marriage between people with similar social and
demographic characteristics). Because social networks generally lack diversity in characteristics such as race and education, finding a partner through
one’s social network constrains choice and encourages homogamy. In this
sense, selecting a partner online broadens one’s options and may increase
the chances of an unconventional choice (such as an interracial relationship).
It may also free individuals from the constraints of family or community
approval, allowing them to make less conventional choices. Indeed, couples
that meet online are more likely to be interracial, interreligious, or same-sex.
That said, for those seeking homogamy, the internet may also facilitate
searches for partners with specific characteristics. Specialty dating websites,
such as JDate.com (for Jewish singles) and singlevegetarian.com (for vegan
and vegetarian singles), may make it easier for members of minority groups
to find a suitable partner.
By expanding individuals’ dating pool beyond their social network, the
internet also results in matches that are less embedded in social networks.
Insofar as a shared social network exerts pressure to maintain the relationship, this may result in less stable marriages. In addition, the ease and relative anonymity of online dating may influence subsequent attitudes about
relationship dissolution and infidelity. Yet contrary to this expectation, preliminary studies have not found that couples who initially met online report
lower relationship quality or greater risk of break up, compared to couples
who met through more traditional means (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). It is
possible that successful couples integrate their partners into their prior networks and develop a supportive, shared, social network. However, meeting
one’s partner online might have implications for the larger (physical) community. Couples who met online might have lower community engagement
because the partners are less likely to have the same connections to local

The Future of Marriage

11

institutions. Future academic studies are likely to investigate the long-term
consequences of online partner selection for couples and communities.
Technology is also relevant in facilitating infidelity. Online infidelity is
relatively common and may involve long-term online relationships or
brief, anonymous encounters. In either case, spouses generally view a
secret, intimate online relationship as an act of betrayal, and their discovery
undermines the marriage. Online intimate relationships may also result in
dysfunctional behaviors such as compulsive internet usage, withdrawal
from the spouse, and failing to complete tasks at home and at work. In many
instances, romances that begin online may lead to physical affairs in the
“real” world. Physical infidelity is problematic both because it undermines
the marriage and because of the risk of transmitting a sexually transmitted
diseases to the spouse; thus, it has important societal and public health
implications. Greater research is needed to understand the frequency of
online infidelity, the degree of online intimacy required to constitute a
betrayal, and the extent to which online infidelity predicts physical infidelity
with the online partner or with another partner.
METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES
A recent trend in social science research generally is the incorporation of
genetic information (Amato, 2010). This is often done by comparing groups
with known genetic (dis)similarity, including monozygotic and dizygotic
twins, the children of twins, or adopted and biologic children. For example,
recent research has investigated whether the intergenerational transmission
of marital quality and divorce might be due in part to shared genetics;
this explanation was generally rejected. Similarly, there is little support for
the hypothesis that some of the negative outcomes found among children
whose parents’ divorce might be due to simple genetic inheritance. However, studies that consider gene–environment interactions have been more
promising. For example, family context may moderate the effect of genetic
risk. Children with a genetic polymorphism associated with antisocial
behavior display increased behavioral problems if they are raised by a single
mother—but their behavior was no different from children without the gene
if they were raised by married parents.
Another important methodological trend is toward more rigorous statistical models that are better able to isolate competing processes and test causal
explanations. Methods for studying longitudinal data, such as fixed-effects
models and lagged dependent variables, are especially useful when selection
is of concern. For example, estimating the causal effect of divorce on children
is difficult because families themselves decide whether to divorce (they are
“self-selected” into divorce) and their children were often disadvantaged

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

before the divorce. Similarly, couples select themselves into cohabitation and
differ from those who do not cohabit; this difference must be controlled to
estimate the causal effect of cohabitation on subsequent marital satisfaction
or divorce. There is rarely (if ever) complete information on differences that
account for self-selection, but because fixed-effects models allow researchers
to control for all unmeasured fixed (time-invariant) characteristics, they can
largely account for self-selection. Fixed-effects models, however, are not
appropriate for all situations (e.g., if a variable of interest is not time-variant)
and have rather stringent data requirements. In some of these instances,
alternative models that employ longitudinal data may be more appropriate,
such as those using lagged dependent variables. For example, to isolate the
effect of divorce on child test scores, net of unmeasured family differences,
one could control for test scores before the divorce. Many other sophisticated
analytic techniques, such as propensity score matching, are also applicable
to both new and classic topics in the study of marriage. While space prohibits
a full discussion of all relevant statistical innovations, we are likely to see
many of these applied in future research on marriage.
CONCLUSION
Future research on marriage is likely to continue investigation into many
of the classic research topics, including cohabitation, divorce, marital conflict, relationship quality, and partner selection. However, these analyses will
have to consider a more diverse population of married couples, including
same-sex spouses. Researchers are also likely to continue investigating motivations for marriage and barriers to marriage, especially for populations with
low rates of marriage. There will also be continued emphasis on the importance of context—both the social context in which marriages are embedded,
and also the broader relational context in which specific positive or negative spousal interactions occur. Given the increasing importance of the internet in partner selection and romantic interactions, researchers are likely to
investigate the social implications of this technology on the types of partners
selected and on the resulting relationship. Finally, the trend toward increasingly sophistical statistical analyses is likely to continue.
What about the future of marriage itself? Three things are certain. First,
marriage is unlikely to ever regain its monopoly as the only legitimate
context for sexual activity and family formation. Second, the current controversy over same-sex marriage will fade after its legalization, and will soon
seem as dated as the 1960s furor over interracial marriage. The result of these
changes will be an ever more individualistic, diverse, and flexible marriage.
Third, even if marriage rates continue to decline, marriage is unlikely to lose
its appeal anytime soon. In fact, the very debate over same-sex marriage

The Future of Marriage

13

demonstrates marriage’s continued symbolic and cultural importance. It
may become unattainable or even personally undesirable for many (perhaps
most) Americans, but it will nevertheless retain a hold on our imaginations
into the foreseeable future.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.
Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1059–1077.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.
Coontz, S. (2000). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (2004). The world historic transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 66(4), 974–979.
Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood
before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade
in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 630–649.
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Studying complex families in context. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72(1), 29–34.
Ohlsson-Wijl, S. (2011). Sweden’s marriage revival: An analysis of the newmillennium switch from long-term decline to increasing popularity. Population
Studies, 65(2), 183–200.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Search for a mate: The rise of the Internet as
a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.

ELIZABETH AURA McCLINTOCK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth Aura McClintock is an Assistant Professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame. McClintock’s research primarily focuses on gender
and inequality in the context of romantic and sexual relationships, particularly in partner selection and in negotiated outcomes within established relationships. In addition to studying inequality within romantic partnerships,
her research also addresses how intimate relationships reflect, perpetuate,
and potentially alter broader, societal patterns of gender, class, age, and racial
inequality. She is also interested in the social, romantic, and relational consequences of employment in gender-atypical occupations. Her other research
and publications focus on gender and sexual identity, and body image and

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

weight self-concept. Recent papers appear in Journal of Marriage and Family, Population and Development Review, Biodemography and Social Biology, and
American Sociological Review.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Patterns of Attachment across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
Theodore E. A. Waters
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes
Huinink
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu



The Future of Marriage
ELIZABETH AURA McCLINTOCK

Abstract
After briefly examining the history or marriage and the development of modern marriage, this essay describes major themes in the study of marriage, including research
on the rise of alternatives to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and
the consequences of these changes. It next considers current demographic trends,
recent advances in research, and likely future directions of research. In particular,
the imminence of same-sex marriage and the increasing importance of the internet
in partner selection are likely to be important areas of research and social change.
The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage’s future and
for future research on marriage.

INTRODUCTION
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. His successor, President
George W. Bush, launched a national Healthy Marriage Initiative to promote
marriage, especially among the poor. At the same time, much popular and
academic attention has focused on the plight of marriage. But is marriage
truly in need of defense or promotion? Indeed, marriage rates have fallen dramatically throughout developed nations. Divorce rates are relatively high, as
are rates of nonmarital childbearing and cohabitation. Yet, most Americans
hope to marry someday, and the popularity of celebrity weddings and reality
television shows such as The Bachelor and The Bachelorette attest to marriage’s
enduring appeal.
This essay considers the future of marriage and the future of research about
marriage. It begins by briefly examining marriage’s past. This insight into the
realities of “traditional” marriage provides context for understanding current
demographic trends and directions of research. It next describes foundational
research on modern marriage, including research on the rise of alternatives
to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and the consequences
of these changes. Following this overview, it examines recent advances in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

research and probable directions for future research. The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage’s future and for future
research on marriage.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
A BRIEF HISTORY OF MARRIAGE
To many Americans, the phrase “traditional marriage” conjures an image of
a 1950s family—a male breadwinner, his homemaker wife, and their children. Yet, as marriage historian Stephanie Coontz documents in her books
Marriage, a History (2006) and The Way We Never Were (2000), this type of marriage was actually a historical anomaly. In fact, two-provider families were
normative throughout most of history. Divorce, single parenting, cohabitation, and even same-sex marriage are not new phenomena—all have existed
in the past in some time and place. It is true that marriage has changed and
that traditional marriage is all but gone in developed nations, but this revolutionary change in marriage had solidified by the close of the eighteenth
century.
Throughout most of history, marriage was a social institution designed
to benefit extended families and the larger community—not a means of
achieving personal happiness or fulfillment (Coontz, 2004). Marriage was
the primary means of consolidating and transferring wealth, forming political alliances, and establishing the mutual claims of parents and children.
Given marriage’s institutional importance, love was not deemed a rational
or sufficient motivation for marriage. Moreover, the choice of partner was
not left to the individual—her or his family exercised substantial control in
arranging marriages. However, economic and cultural changes beginning
in the seventeenth century increased individual autonomy and eroded
parental and community control over marital matches. The idea of marrying
for love gained popularity and love matches quickly became normative.
Thus, as industrialization and urbanization undermined the institutional
basis for marriage, marriage began a transition from a public institution to a
private choice.
Still, marriage did not immediately lose its monopoly over the regulation
of sexuality, inheritance, and childrearing, nor did the rise of love-based marriages alleviate gender inequality within marriage. However, the valuation
of marriage primarily as a source of emotional fulfillment represented a revolutionary change from traditional, pragmatic marriage. The consequences
of this shift are evident today. Perhaps most importantly, basing marriage
on love made marriage both less stable and more desirable. The absence of
love in a marriage gradually came to be seen as a cause for divorce, greatly

The Future of Marriage

3

undermining the norm of stable, lifelong marriage. At the same time, the
promise of emotional fulfillment made marriage a desirable state, sought
after even by couples who would not benefit from its institutional functions
(like having biologic children). In fact, demands for the liberalization of
divorce laws and the extension of marriage rights to homosexual couples
began as early as the eighteenth century.
In the twentieth century, the emphasis on emotional satisfaction and love
in marriage increased further. Marriage was nearly mandatory and spouses
were expected to find happiness by fulfilling their gender-appropriate
roles as breadwinner, homemaker, and parent. By the 1950s, marriage was
almost universal, with about 95% of the population marrying, often at
young ages. However, beginning in the 1960s, this was followed by a rise in
expressive individualism, the belief that individuals must discover, develop,
and express their unique inner self. Women entered the labor force, and
marriage lost its monopoly over the regulation of adulthood, sexuality, and
childbearing. In the words of family sociologist Andrew Cherlin, marriage
became “deinstitutionalized” (2004) meaning that there was less legal and
normative pressure to marry, to enact traditional roles within marriage, and
to stay married for life. Marriages were formed and maintained to achieve
individualistic goals—self-fulfillment, self-development, and emotional
satisfaction. In response to this cultural change, laws regulating marriage
were liberalized. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation
laws forbidding interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
This was followed in the 1970s by the introduction of no-fault divorce. Today,
in a debate that strongly parallels the earlier battle over interracial marriage,
gay rights advocates are demanding marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Not unsurprisingly, these changes have been controversial.
This distinction between marriage’s institutional and individualistic
functions helps clarify the ongoing controversy over its current health and
future trajectory. Politicians, religious leaders, and laypersons concerned
with the institutional aspects of marriage are right to worry—marriage has
indeed retreated in importance as a social institution. It is less mandatory,
less stable, less connected to family and community, and less regulated by
other social institutions. For better or worse, couples are relatively isolated
from the interference and support once provided by extended families, communities, the church, and the government. However, from the perspective
of observers who value its individualistic rewards, marriage is faring much
better. Young adults express a strong desire to marry and most Americans
eventually do marry. Now that unhappy couples are easily freed from marital commitments, the remaining marriages are happier and more fulfilling.
No longer heavily stigmatized, divorcees have a second chance at happiness
with another partner. In this individualistic sense, marriage is thriving.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE’S DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
As marriage loses ground as in institution, fewer individuals marry, those
who marry do so at older ages, and more divorce. Accompanying this
change in marriage is a change in fertility. Childbearing has been decoupled
from marriage, resulting in a rise of births to single mothers and cohabiting
couples. The age at first birth has risen, women are having fewer children,
and many women are forgoing children altogether. Much recent sociological
research has addressed the causes and consequences of these changes, seeking to understand partnering trajectories and to evaluate the implications of
these trajectories for child well-being.
The retreat from marriage has not been uniform. Marriage rates remain
high among middle-class Americans but have fallen dramatically among
poor Americans and especially among African-Americans. While many
politicians have assumed that the poor do not value marriage (as demonstrated by the Healthy Marriage Initiative), qualitative research by Kathryn
Edin and Maria Kefalas refutes this (2005). In fact, they find that poor
unmarried mothers revere marriage. It is this reverence that makes them
reluctant to rush into a marriage that would likely end in divorce. For
such women, economic stability, a satisfactory relationship, and money
for a wedding are prerequisites for marriage; the marriage itself is a
symbol of this success and a crowning accomplishment. Given their limited economic prospects and the chronic infidelity and criminality of the
men in their lives, they may never achieve the stability they require for
marriage.
Another important area of recent research compares cohabiting and
marital unions and investigates the transition from cohabitation to marriage.
Research comparing marriage and cohabitation generally finds higher
relationship quality and greater stability among married couples, and
greater diversity among cohabiting couples. However, those cohabiting
couples who marry may more closely resemble married couples in terms of
relationship satisfaction. While both types of relationships are characterized
by strong homogamy (similarity in demographic and social characteristics),
cohabiting couples are less likely to match each other on characteristics such
as race, religion, and education. Understanding cohabitation is increasingly
important to understanding marriage not only because cohabitation is a
primary alternative to marriage but also because most marriages today are
preceded by cohabitation.
Interestingly, the fact that marriage is generally preceded by cohabitation
may have implications for marital quality and divorce (Amato, 2010).
Contrary to popular beliefs that cohabitation provides a “test run” to ensure
marital compatibility, prior cohabitation is associated with worse marital

The Future of Marriage

5

outcomes. There is an ongoing debate over what extent of this relationship
is due to selection (couples with high-risk traits may be more likely to
cohabit), the experience of cohabitation (as a more individualistic and
independent partnership, cohabitation may instill behaviors or attitudes
that destabilize marriage), and to inertia (couples who would not otherwise
marry—and are not really a good match—might marry because the inertia
of cohabitation makes it difficult to break up). There is also some evidence
that as prior cohabitation is becoming more normative, the relationship
between cohabitation and divorce is weakening.
Finally, child well-being has always been an important theme in research
on marriage, and it is only increasing in importance as marriage loses its
monopoly on childrearing (Brown, 2010). Children are increasingly being
born to unmarried mothers; currently, about four in ten births in the United
States are to unmarried women. Over half of these births are to (unmarried) cohabiting parents. This is concerning because cohabiting relationships
are less stable than marital relationships and because nonresidential fathers
often provide little economic or practical support. Growing up with a single mother and experiencing multiple family transitions (due to terminated
cohabitations or to divorce) are risk factors for children, although some of the
association is due to selection and economic disadvantage. This has spawned
a growing literature on understanding how family structure in itself impacts
children, net of related economic and parental characteristics. Analytic techniques for parsing apart these interrelated factors have advanced in recent
years, enabling researchers to better isolate the effect of family structure, but
more research is needed. Overall, although findings are somewhat mixed,
there is evidence that family structure and family stability have a causal effect
on child well-being—and that children in stable, two-parent homes may be
best off. This is certainly the popular perception among politicians and the
general public.
The popular consensus that children of stably married parents have the best
life chances has led to research investigating why unmarried cohabiting or
dating parents do not marry. Such couples often hope to marry, but do not feel
ready yet—they want to be economically secure and confident about their
relationship before marriage. This supports the concern that while outcomes
for children raised by married parents are better, it is not clear that marrying unmarried parents would be beneficial for their children. Marriage, in
itself, would not solve the economic or relational problems which both prevent many unmarried parents from marrying and are largely responsible for
their romantic instability. Nevertheless, largely as a result of President Bush’s
Healthy Marriage Initiative, there is a growing interest on promoting marriage between such parents.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
While it is not possible to discuss every exciting new trend in research on
marriage, the discussion below highlights themes that have been important
in recent, ground-breaking studies and which are likely to gain importance in
the coming years. It also draws attention to topics that have been understudied and which are likely to receive increased attention in the future. Finally,
it concludes by describing relevant methodological advances.
UNDERSTANDING MODERN MARRIAGE
As documented above, much foundational research has focused on documenting marriage’s transition from a public institution to a private and
individualistic relationship. Yet the meaning of modern marriage is still
not well understood. Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’s research among
poor, unmarried mothers has done much to clarify the meaning of marriage
for this population—and has overthrown prior assumptions that marriage
was unimportant to such women. Similar studies are needed to understand the meaning of marriage among other populations. In particular, the
gendered meaning of marriage has been under-investigated. For example,
for men more than for women, marriage may imply children and an
increase in gender specialization. Women may hold a more progressive and
gender-egalitarian view of marriage in which children are optional and the
division of labor is equitable. These understandings of marriage likely vary
by class and race as well as by gender and disparities between spouses’
expectations may be an important source of conflict.
In addition, understanding the meaning of marriage provides insight into
marriage’s future prospects by providing insight into why modern couples
bother to marry at all. For example, marriage patterns in Sweden highlight
the complex social motivations for modern marriage (Ohlsson-Wijl, 2011).
Long viewed as a frontrunner in family change and in the deinstitutionalization of marriage, Sweden provides cohabiting couples with the same
legal rights as married couples. There is little institutional or social pressure
to marry, even when raising children. It is not surprising therefore that
marriage rates began to fall rapidly in the 1960s—what is puzzling is why
they began to rise again in the 1990s. This rise cannot be fully explained
by changes in legal motivations, employment, population composition, or
fertility. Marriage seems to have genuinely gained in popularity, perhaps
because it is increasing in symbolic importance. Understanding why this has
happened—and whether it is likely to happen in other nations—requires
a better understanding of what motivates couples to marry. A better
understanding of couples’ motivations for marriage would provide a more
informed approach for policymakers and others who wish to promote

The Future of Marriage

7

marriage. Given that funding is available for such research, it is likely to
receive continued attention.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
At the time of writing this essay, the debate over same-sex marriage is
still raging. About 37 states have passed constitutional amendments (31
states) or laws (6 states) banning gay marriage. Nine states and the District
of Colombia have legalized gay marriage. Despite this legislative bias,
public opinion polls indicate majority support for same-sex marriage among
American adults. The political and social controversy over this issue is
strikingly similar to that over anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s—when
these laws were overturned in 1967, 16 states were enforcing them. In this
context, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear challenges to prohibitions
against gay marriage. Regardless of the outcome of the current hearings,
same-sex marriage will eventually be legal throughout the United States. As
it did in the case of interracial marriage, public opinion is shifting slowly but
steadily to favor gay marriage. Within every cohort, attitudes are becoming
more favorable over time, and younger cohorts have much more favorable
attitudes than older cohorts. In light of this attitudinal change, gay marriage
is a question of “when,” not “whether.”
Given the inevitability of widespread access to legal marriage for same-sex
couples, social scientists are likely to devote even more attention to gay and
lesbian relationships and parenting. One of the challenges in comparing the
relational and parenting behaviors of same-sex and other-sex couples is their
different socio-legal contexts. Married couples enjoy greater social legitimacy and innumerable legal rights that are denied to cohabiting couples
(whether straight or gay). Legalizing same-sex marriage would make these
populations more comparable. Also, just as straight couples’ relationships
change during the transition from cohabitation to marriage, same-sex
couples are likely to experience similar—but not identical—transitions. This
will be an area of interest in coming years. Research is also likely to examine
how the option to marry changes partner selection, dating, and cohabitation
for homosexual individuals who are not yet ready to marry or who do not
wish to marry.
In addition, extending research on marriage to same-sex couples forces
researchers to acknowledge the assumptions inherent in current studies of
marriage which almost invariably rely on distinctions between husbands
and wives and assume a nuclear family form (two parents residing with their
children) or a single parent (Goldberg, 2010). Yet, gay and lesbian families
are often more complex and may involve more than two parental figures,
particularly because same-sex couples often desire the involvement of both

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

a “father” and “mother.” For example, lesbian mothers may use a known
donor because they want their child to know their biologic father; such a
child would potentially have two residential mothers and a nonresidential
father. Likewise, gay men may pursue open adoption so that their child
will have a relationship with the biologic mother. For example, one cannot
compare partnered lesbian parents with single heterosexual mothers in
order to isolate the effect of “fatherlessness” (as opposed to the effect of
only having one parent) because children raised by two women are not
necessarily entirely fatherless. Thus, extending marriage rights to same-sex
couples may require a greater flexibility in academic conceptualizations of
married couple households.
Another challenge in studying gay and lesbian marriage is the lack of adequate data. Same-sex couples make up a small minority of the population;
unless they are deliberately over-sampled, there are often too few same-sex
couples for meaningful analysis. In addition, until recently many surveys
were unequipped to ask about same-sex partners. There have been many
excellent qualitative studies, but these lack generalizability. Data providing
a large, nationally representative, generalizable population of same-sex couples are rare. The US Census provides a large sample of same-sex couples;
however, the depth of data is limited. A recent survey conducted at Stanford
University, how couples meet and stay together (HCMST) over-sampled
individuals who had previously identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or
bisexual. It provides a moderately-sized sample of 474 same-sex couples
(out of 3009 total couples) and has already provided valuable insight into
patterns of partner selection among same-sex couples (Rosenfeld & Thomas,
2012). However, the scope of the survey is relatively limited, and more
datasets are needed to provide a complete understanding of committed
same-sex relationships. In addition, once marriage rights are extended to
same sex couples, the dynamics of their relationships may change, requiring
new data collection.
Complexity and Context. While researchers have long acknowledged the
increasing diversity of families and marriages, studies that truly engage with
this complexity are lacking. Marriages are already more diverse in regards to
race (interracial marriage has been increasing rapidly since the 1960s), prior
partnering experience (many marriages involve divorcees and those with
prior co-residential partners), cohabitation and fertility prior to marriage,
and the presence of blended families. As noted above, marriage will soon be
yet more diverse as marriage equality is extended to same-sex couples. Prior
research has frequently compared different categories of married couple,
attempting to isolate the effect of many of these specific characteristics (such

The Future of Marriage

9

as prior cohabitation or spousal gender). However recently, researchers
have begun to acknowledge the need for a more nuanced perspective on
complexity and context (Fincham & Beach, 2010). For example, the effect of
gender is unlikely to be the same for women married to men as for women
married to women, nor is gender itself likely to be expressed equivalently
across these different contexts. As discussed in the following sections, the
social and economic context in which couples are embedded also impacts
their relationship and marital trajectory.
Just as marriages are shaped by their social context, so is research addressing marriage. The Healthy Marriage Initiative made funding available
for studies of healthy marriage and for evaluation of marriage education,
especially in the context of couples at-risk for poverty, and this has influenced the direction of recent research (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Whereas
prior research has tended to assume that a healthy marriage was characterized by the absence of conflict, greater attention is now being given
to positive processes such as forgiveness and support. Given its goal of
poverty reduction, the Healthy Marriage Initiative has also shifted focus
to diversity in marriage, especially targeting economically disadvantaged
populations. Importantly, less educated and racial minority couples report
lower marital satisfaction and lower chances of forming a stable marriage.
Poverty and race/ethnic discrimination increase stress on marriage by
increasing conflict and instability and by reducing positive interactions;
these processes are not captured in studies of primarily White, middle-class
couples. For example, economically disadvantaged couples report higher
rates of infidelity and substance abuse, factors that destabilize marriages
and merit further investigation. Social context is especially salient among
African-American couples who are substantially less likely to marry and
more likely to divorce than White couples. Some part of this difference is
due to economic factors, but the stress and social disadvantage associated
with racism are also important factors in destabilizing African-American
relationships. Future research is likely to continue focus on marriages’ social
context and the specific stressors resulting from that context.
Researchers have also begun to focus on the larger relational context in
attempting to understand the impact of specific characteristics or behavioral
patterns. For example, recent research has demonstrated that the effect of
spousal conflict on marital satisfaction is minimized when it occurs in the
context of frequent, positive interactions. Thus, conflict cannot be examined
in isolation from other aspects of the spousal relationship because its effects
on marital satisfaction depend on that very relationship. Likewise, the effects
of chronic stress and work-to-home spillover are moderated by the quality of
the relationship. Researchers interested in intimate partner violence have also

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

begun to focus on the relational context of the violence, finding that studying the violence itself is insufficient for explanation and prevention. Given
these findings, future research is likely to focus on interactions between negative behaviors and other aspects of the couple’s overall relationship that
may reduce (or amplify) their effect.
TECHNOLOGY
It is becoming increasingly common for couples to meet online, yet the
consequences of online partner selection are not fully understood. Most
obviously, finding partners through an online database greatly increases the
size of one’s potential dating pool by expanding it past one’s social network
of acquaintances, coworkers, family, and neighbors. This facilitates both
diversity and homogamy (marriage between people with similar social and
demographic characteristics). Because social networks generally lack diversity in characteristics such as race and education, finding a partner through
one’s social network constrains choice and encourages homogamy. In this
sense, selecting a partner online broadens one’s options and may increase
the chances of an unconventional choice (such as an interracial relationship).
It may also free individuals from the constraints of family or community
approval, allowing them to make less conventional choices. Indeed, couples
that meet online are more likely to be interracial, interreligious, or same-sex.
That said, for those seeking homogamy, the internet may also facilitate
searches for partners with specific characteristics. Specialty dating websites,
such as JDate.com (for Jewish singles) and singlevegetarian.com (for vegan
and vegetarian singles), may make it easier for members of minority groups
to find a suitable partner.
By expanding individuals’ dating pool beyond their social network, the
internet also results in matches that are less embedded in social networks.
Insofar as a shared social network exerts pressure to maintain the relationship, this may result in less stable marriages. In addition, the ease and relative anonymity of online dating may influence subsequent attitudes about
relationship dissolution and infidelity. Yet contrary to this expectation, preliminary studies have not found that couples who initially met online report
lower relationship quality or greater risk of break up, compared to couples
who met through more traditional means (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). It is
possible that successful couples integrate their partners into their prior networks and develop a supportive, shared, social network. However, meeting
one’s partner online might have implications for the larger (physical) community. Couples who met online might have lower community engagement
because the partners are less likely to have the same connections to local

The Future of Marriage

11

institutions. Future academic studies are likely to investigate the long-term
consequences of online partner selection for couples and communities.
Technology is also relevant in facilitating infidelity. Online infidelity is
relatively common and may involve long-term online relationships or
brief, anonymous encounters. In either case, spouses generally view a
secret, intimate online relationship as an act of betrayal, and their discovery
undermines the marriage. Online intimate relationships may also result in
dysfunctional behaviors such as compulsive internet usage, withdrawal
from the spouse, and failing to complete tasks at home and at work. In many
instances, romances that begin online may lead to physical affairs in the
“real” world. Physical infidelity is problematic both because it undermines
the marriage and because of the risk of transmitting a sexually transmitted
diseases to the spouse; thus, it has important societal and public health
implications. Greater research is needed to understand the frequency of
online infidelity, the degree of online intimacy required to constitute a
betrayal, and the extent to which online infidelity predicts physical infidelity
with the online partner or with another partner.
METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES
A recent trend in social science research generally is the incorporation of
genetic information (Amato, 2010). This is often done by comparing groups
with known genetic (dis)similarity, including monozygotic and dizygotic
twins, the children of twins, or adopted and biologic children. For example,
recent research has investigated whether the intergenerational transmission
of marital quality and divorce might be due in part to shared genetics;
this explanation was generally rejected. Similarly, there is little support for
the hypothesis that some of the negative outcomes found among children
whose parents’ divorce might be due to simple genetic inheritance. However, studies that consider gene–environment interactions have been more
promising. For example, family context may moderate the effect of genetic
risk. Children with a genetic polymorphism associated with antisocial
behavior display increased behavioral problems if they are raised by a single
mother—but their behavior was no different from children without the gene
if they were raised by married parents.
Another important methodological trend is toward more rigorous statistical models that are better able to isolate competing processes and test causal
explanations. Methods for studying longitudinal data, such as fixed-effects
models and lagged dependent variables, are especially useful when selection
is of concern. For example, estimating the causal effect of divorce on children
is difficult because families themselves decide whether to divorce (they are
“self-selected” into divorce) and their children were often disadvantaged

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

before the divorce. Similarly, couples select themselves into cohabitation and
differ from those who do not cohabit; this difference must be controlled to
estimate the causal effect of cohabitation on subsequent marital satisfaction
or divorce. There is rarely (if ever) complete information on differences that
account for self-selection, but because fixed-effects models allow researchers
to control for all unmeasured fixed (time-invariant) characteristics, they can
largely account for self-selection. Fixed-effects models, however, are not
appropriate for all situations (e.g., if a variable of interest is not time-variant)
and have rather stringent data requirements. In some of these instances,
alternative models that employ longitudinal data may be more appropriate,
such as those using lagged dependent variables. For example, to isolate the
effect of divorce on child test scores, net of unmeasured family differences,
one could control for test scores before the divorce. Many other sophisticated
analytic techniques, such as propensity score matching, are also applicable
to both new and classic topics in the study of marriage. While space prohibits
a full discussion of all relevant statistical innovations, we are likely to see
many of these applied in future research on marriage.
CONCLUSION
Future research on marriage is likely to continue investigation into many
of the classic research topics, including cohabitation, divorce, marital conflict, relationship quality, and partner selection. However, these analyses will
have to consider a more diverse population of married couples, including
same-sex spouses. Researchers are also likely to continue investigating motivations for marriage and barriers to marriage, especially for populations with
low rates of marriage. There will also be continued emphasis on the importance of context—both the social context in which marriages are embedded,
and also the broader relational context in which specific positive or negative spousal interactions occur. Given the increasing importance of the internet in partner selection and romantic interactions, researchers are likely to
investigate the social implications of this technology on the types of partners
selected and on the resulting relationship. Finally, the trend toward increasingly sophistical statistical analyses is likely to continue.
What about the future of marriage itself? Three things are certain. First,
marriage is unlikely to ever regain its monopoly as the only legitimate
context for sexual activity and family formation. Second, the current controversy over same-sex marriage will fade after its legalization, and will soon
seem as dated as the 1960s furor over interracial marriage. The result of these
changes will be an ever more individualistic, diverse, and flexible marriage.
Third, even if marriage rates continue to decline, marriage is unlikely to lose
its appeal anytime soon. In fact, the very debate over same-sex marriage

The Future of Marriage

13

demonstrates marriage’s continued symbolic and cultural importance. It
may become unattainable or even personally undesirable for many (perhaps
most) Americans, but it will nevertheless retain a hold on our imaginations
into the foreseeable future.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.
Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1059–1077.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.
Coontz, S. (2000). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (2004). The world historic transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 66(4), 974–979.
Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood
before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade
in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 630–649.
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Studying complex families in context. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72(1), 29–34.
Ohlsson-Wijl, S. (2011). Sweden’s marriage revival: An analysis of the newmillennium switch from long-term decline to increasing popularity. Population
Studies, 65(2), 183–200.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Search for a mate: The rise of the Internet as
a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.

ELIZABETH AURA McCLINTOCK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth Aura McClintock is an Assistant Professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame. McClintock’s research primarily focuses on gender
and inequality in the context of romantic and sexual relationships, particularly in partner selection and in negotiated outcomes within established relationships. In addition to studying inequality within romantic partnerships,
her research also addresses how intimate relationships reflect, perpetuate,
and potentially alter broader, societal patterns of gender, class, age, and racial
inequality. She is also interested in the social, romantic, and relational consequences of employment in gender-atypical occupations. Her other research
and publications focus on gender and sexual identity, and body image and

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

weight self-concept. Recent papers appear in Journal of Marriage and Family, Population and Development Review, Biodemography and Social Biology, and
American Sociological Review.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Patterns of Attachment across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
Theodore E. A. Waters
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes
Huinink
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu


The Future of Marriage
ELIZABETH AURA McCLINTOCK

Abstract
After briefly examining the history or marriage and the development of modern marriage, this essay describes major themes in the study of marriage, including research
on the rise of alternatives to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and
the consequences of these changes. It next considers current demographic trends,
recent advances in research, and likely future directions of research. In particular,
the imminence of same-sex marriage and the increasing importance of the internet
in partner selection are likely to be important areas of research and social change.
The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage’s future and
for future research on marriage.

INTRODUCTION
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. His successor, President
George W. Bush, launched a national Healthy Marriage Initiative to promote
marriage, especially among the poor. At the same time, much popular and
academic attention has focused on the plight of marriage. But is marriage
truly in need of defense or promotion? Indeed, marriage rates have fallen dramatically throughout developed nations. Divorce rates are relatively high, as
are rates of nonmarital childbearing and cohabitation. Yet, most Americans
hope to marry someday, and the popularity of celebrity weddings and reality
television shows such as The Bachelor and The Bachelorette attest to marriage’s
enduring appeal.
This essay considers the future of marriage and the future of research about
marriage. It begins by briefly examining marriage’s past. This insight into the
realities of “traditional” marriage provides context for understanding current
demographic trends and directions of research. It next describes foundational
research on modern marriage, including research on the rise of alternatives
to marriage, the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, and the consequences
of these changes. Following this overview, it examines recent advances in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

research and probable directions for future research. The conclusion considers the implications of these trends for marriage’s future and for future
research on marriage.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
A BRIEF HISTORY OF MARRIAGE
To many Americans, the phrase “traditional marriage” conjures an image of
a 1950s family—a male breadwinner, his homemaker wife, and their children. Yet, as marriage historian Stephanie Coontz documents in her books
Marriage, a History (2006) and The Way We Never Were (2000), this type of marriage was actually a historical anomaly. In fact, two-provider families were
normative throughout most of history. Divorce, single parenting, cohabitation, and even same-sex marriage are not new phenomena—all have existed
in the past in some time and place. It is true that marriage has changed and
that traditional marriage is all but gone in developed nations, but this revolutionary change in marriage had solidified by the close of the eighteenth
century.
Throughout most of history, marriage was a social institution designed
to benefit extended families and the larger community—not a means of
achieving personal happiness or fulfillment (Coontz, 2004). Marriage was
the primary means of consolidating and transferring wealth, forming political alliances, and establishing the mutual claims of parents and children.
Given marriage’s institutional importance, love was not deemed a rational
or sufficient motivation for marriage. Moreover, the choice of partner was
not left to the individual—her or his family exercised substantial control in
arranging marriages. However, economic and cultural changes beginning
in the seventeenth century increased individual autonomy and eroded
parental and community control over marital matches. The idea of marrying
for love gained popularity and love matches quickly became normative.
Thus, as industrialization and urbanization undermined the institutional
basis for marriage, marriage began a transition from a public institution to a
private choice.
Still, marriage did not immediately lose its monopoly over the regulation
of sexuality, inheritance, and childrearing, nor did the rise of love-based marriages alleviate gender inequality within marriage. However, the valuation
of marriage primarily as a source of emotional fulfillment represented a revolutionary change from traditional, pragmatic marriage. The consequences
of this shift are evident today. Perhaps most importantly, basing marriage
on love made marriage both less stable and more desirable. The absence of
love in a marriage gradually came to be seen as a cause for divorce, greatly

The Future of Marriage

3

undermining the norm of stable, lifelong marriage. At the same time, the
promise of emotional fulfillment made marriage a desirable state, sought
after even by couples who would not benefit from its institutional functions
(like having biologic children). In fact, demands for the liberalization of
divorce laws and the extension of marriage rights to homosexual couples
began as early as the eighteenth century.
In the twentieth century, the emphasis on emotional satisfaction and love
in marriage increased further. Marriage was nearly mandatory and spouses
were expected to find happiness by fulfilling their gender-appropriate
roles as breadwinner, homemaker, and parent. By the 1950s, marriage was
almost universal, with about 95% of the population marrying, often at
young ages. However, beginning in the 1960s, this was followed by a rise in
expressive individualism, the belief that individuals must discover, develop,
and express their unique inner self. Women entered the labor force, and
marriage lost its monopoly over the regulation of adulthood, sexuality, and
childbearing. In the words of family sociologist Andrew Cherlin, marriage
became “deinstitutionalized” (2004) meaning that there was less legal and
normative pressure to marry, to enact traditional roles within marriage, and
to stay married for life. Marriages were formed and maintained to achieve
individualistic goals—self-fulfillment, self-development, and emotional
satisfaction. In response to this cultural change, laws regulating marriage
were liberalized. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation
laws forbidding interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
This was followed in the 1970s by the introduction of no-fault divorce. Today,
in a debate that strongly parallels the earlier battle over interracial marriage,
gay rights advocates are demanding marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Not unsurprisingly, these changes have been controversial.
This distinction between marriage’s institutional and individualistic
functions helps clarify the ongoing controversy over its current health and
future trajectory. Politicians, religious leaders, and laypersons concerned
with the institutional aspects of marriage are right to worry—marriage has
indeed retreated in importance as a social institution. It is less mandatory,
less stable, less connected to family and community, and less regulated by
other social institutions. For better or worse, couples are relatively isolated
from the interference and support once provided by extended families, communities, the church, and the government. However, from the perspective
of observers who value its individualistic rewards, marriage is faring much
better. Young adults express a strong desire to marry and most Americans
eventually do marry. Now that unhappy couples are easily freed from marital commitments, the remaining marriages are happier and more fulfilling.
No longer heavily stigmatized, divorcees have a second chance at happiness
with another partner. In this individualistic sense, marriage is thriving.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE’S DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
As marriage loses ground as in institution, fewer individuals marry, those
who marry do so at older ages, and more divorce. Accompanying this
change in marriage is a change in fertility. Childbearing has been decoupled
from marriage, resulting in a rise of births to single mothers and cohabiting
couples. The age at first birth has risen, women are having fewer children,
and many women are forgoing children altogether. Much recent sociological
research has addressed the causes and consequences of these changes, seeking to understand partnering trajectories and to evaluate the implications of
these trajectories for child well-being.
The retreat from marriage has not been uniform. Marriage rates remain
high among middle-class Americans but have fallen dramatically among
poor Americans and especially among African-Americans. While many
politicians have assumed that the poor do not value marriage (as demonstrated by the Healthy Marriage Initiative), qualitative research by Kathryn
Edin and Maria Kefalas refutes this (2005). In fact, they find that poor
unmarried mothers revere marriage. It is this reverence that makes them
reluctant to rush into a marriage that would likely end in divorce. For
such women, economic stability, a satisfactory relationship, and money
for a wedding are prerequisites for marriage; the marriage itself is a
symbol of this success and a crowning accomplishment. Given their limited economic prospects and the chronic infidelity and criminality of the
men in their lives, they may never achieve the stability they require for
marriage.
Another important area of recent research compares cohabiting and
marital unions and investigates the transition from cohabitation to marriage.
Research comparing marriage and cohabitation generally finds higher
relationship quality and greater stability among married couples, and
greater diversity among cohabiting couples. However, those cohabiting
couples who marry may more closely resemble married couples in terms of
relationship satisfaction. While both types of relationships are characterized
by strong homogamy (similarity in demographic and social characteristics),
cohabiting couples are less likely to match each other on characteristics such
as race, religion, and education. Understanding cohabitation is increasingly
important to understanding marriage not only because cohabitation is a
primary alternative to marriage but also because most marriages today are
preceded by cohabitation.
Interestingly, the fact that marriage is generally preceded by cohabitation
may have implications for marital quality and divorce (Amato, 2010).
Contrary to popular beliefs that cohabitation provides a “test run” to ensure
marital compatibility, prior cohabitation is associated with worse marital

The Future of Marriage

5

outcomes. There is an ongoing debate over what extent of this relationship
is due to selection (couples with high-risk traits may be more likely to
cohabit), the experience of cohabitation (as a more individualistic and
independent partnership, cohabitation may instill behaviors or attitudes
that destabilize marriage), and to inertia (couples who would not otherwise
marry—and are not really a good match—might marry because the inertia
of cohabitation makes it difficult to break up). There is also some evidence
that as prior cohabitation is becoming more normative, the relationship
between cohabitation and divorce is weakening.
Finally, child well-being has always been an important theme in research
on marriage, and it is only increasing in importance as marriage loses its
monopoly on childrearing (Brown, 2010). Children are increasingly being
born to unmarried mothers; currently, about four in ten births in the United
States are to unmarried women. Over half of these births are to (unmarried) cohabiting parents. This is concerning because cohabiting relationships
are less stable than marital relationships and because nonresidential fathers
often provide little economic or practical support. Growing up with a single mother and experiencing multiple family transitions (due to terminated
cohabitations or to divorce) are risk factors for children, although some of the
association is due to selection and economic disadvantage. This has spawned
a growing literature on understanding how family structure in itself impacts
children, net of related economic and parental characteristics. Analytic techniques for parsing apart these interrelated factors have advanced in recent
years, enabling researchers to better isolate the effect of family structure, but
more research is needed. Overall, although findings are somewhat mixed,
there is evidence that family structure and family stability have a causal effect
on child well-being—and that children in stable, two-parent homes may be
best off. This is certainly the popular perception among politicians and the
general public.
The popular consensus that children of stably married parents have the best
life chances has led to research investigating why unmarried cohabiting or
dating parents do not marry. Such couples often hope to marry, but do not feel
ready yet—they want to be economically secure and confident about their
relationship before marriage. This supports the concern that while outcomes
for children raised by married parents are better, it is not clear that marrying unmarried parents would be beneficial for their children. Marriage, in
itself, would not solve the economic or relational problems which both prevent many unmarried parents from marrying and are largely responsible for
their romantic instability. Nevertheless, largely as a result of President Bush’s
Healthy Marriage Initiative, there is a growing interest on promoting marriage between such parents.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
While it is not possible to discuss every exciting new trend in research on
marriage, the discussion below highlights themes that have been important
in recent, ground-breaking studies and which are likely to gain importance in
the coming years. It also draws attention to topics that have been understudied and which are likely to receive increased attention in the future. Finally,
it concludes by describing relevant methodological advances.
UNDERSTANDING MODERN MARRIAGE
As documented above, much foundational research has focused on documenting marriage’s transition from a public institution to a private and
individualistic relationship. Yet the meaning of modern marriage is still
not well understood. Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’s research among
poor, unmarried mothers has done much to clarify the meaning of marriage
for this population—and has overthrown prior assumptions that marriage
was unimportant to such women. Similar studies are needed to understand the meaning of marriage among other populations. In particular, the
gendered meaning of marriage has been under-investigated. For example,
for men more than for women, marriage may imply children and an
increase in gender specialization. Women may hold a more progressive and
gender-egalitarian view of marriage in which children are optional and the
division of labor is equitable. These understandings of marriage likely vary
by class and race as well as by gender and disparities between spouses’
expectations may be an important source of conflict.
In addition, understanding the meaning of marriage provides insight into
marriage’s future prospects by providing insight into why modern couples
bother to marry at all. For example, marriage patterns in Sweden highlight
the complex social motivations for modern marriage (Ohlsson-Wijl, 2011).
Long viewed as a frontrunner in family change and in the deinstitutionalization of marriage, Sweden provides cohabiting couples with the same
legal rights as married couples. There is little institutional or social pressure
to marry, even when raising children. It is not surprising therefore that
marriage rates began to fall rapidly in the 1960s—what is puzzling is why
they began to rise again in the 1990s. This rise cannot be fully explained
by changes in legal motivations, employment, population composition, or
fertility. Marriage seems to have genuinely gained in popularity, perhaps
because it is increasing in symbolic importance. Understanding why this has
happened—and whether it is likely to happen in other nations—requires
a better understanding of what motivates couples to marry. A better
understanding of couples’ motivations for marriage would provide a more
informed approach for policymakers and others who wish to promote

The Future of Marriage

7

marriage. Given that funding is available for such research, it is likely to
receive continued attention.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
At the time of writing this essay, the debate over same-sex marriage is
still raging. About 37 states have passed constitutional amendments (31
states) or laws (6 states) banning gay marriage. Nine states and the District
of Colombia have legalized gay marriage. Despite this legislative bias,
public opinion polls indicate majority support for same-sex marriage among
American adults. The political and social controversy over this issue is
strikingly similar to that over anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s—when
these laws were overturned in 1967, 16 states were enforcing them. In this
context, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear challenges to prohibitions
against gay marriage. Regardless of the outcome of the current hearings,
same-sex marriage will eventually be legal throughout the United States. As
it did in the case of interracial marriage, public opinion is shifting slowly but
steadily to favor gay marriage. Within every cohort, attitudes are becoming
more favorable over time, and younger cohorts have much more favorable
attitudes than older cohorts. In light of this attitudinal change, gay marriage
is a question of “when,” not “whether.”
Given the inevitability of widespread access to legal marriage for same-sex
couples, social scientists are likely to devote even more attention to gay and
lesbian relationships and parenting. One of the challenges in comparing the
relational and parenting behaviors of same-sex and other-sex couples is their
different socio-legal contexts. Married couples enjoy greater social legitimacy and innumerable legal rights that are denied to cohabiting couples
(whether straight or gay). Legalizing same-sex marriage would make these
populations more comparable. Also, just as straight couples’ relationships
change during the transition from cohabitation to marriage, same-sex
couples are likely to experience similar—but not identical—transitions. This
will be an area of interest in coming years. Research is also likely to examine
how the option to marry changes partner selection, dating, and cohabitation
for homosexual individuals who are not yet ready to marry or who do not
wish to marry.
In addition, extending research on marriage to same-sex couples forces
researchers to acknowledge the assumptions inherent in current studies of
marriage which almost invariably rely on distinctions between husbands
and wives and assume a nuclear family form (two parents residing with their
children) or a single parent (Goldberg, 2010). Yet, gay and lesbian families
are often more complex and may involve more than two parental figures,
particularly because same-sex couples often desire the involvement of both

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

a “father” and “mother.” For example, lesbian mothers may use a known
donor because they want their child to know their biologic father; such a
child would potentially have two residential mothers and a nonresidential
father. Likewise, gay men may pursue open adoption so that their child
will have a relationship with the biologic mother. For example, one cannot
compare partnered lesbian parents with single heterosexual mothers in
order to isolate the effect of “fatherlessness” (as opposed to the effect of
only having one parent) because children raised by two women are not
necessarily entirely fatherless. Thus, extending marriage rights to same-sex
couples may require a greater flexibility in academic conceptualizations of
married couple households.
Another challenge in studying gay and lesbian marriage is the lack of adequate data. Same-sex couples make up a small minority of the population;
unless they are deliberately over-sampled, there are often too few same-sex
couples for meaningful analysis. In addition, until recently many surveys
were unequipped to ask about same-sex partners. There have been many
excellent qualitative studies, but these lack generalizability. Data providing
a large, nationally representative, generalizable population of same-sex couples are rare. The US Census provides a large sample of same-sex couples;
however, the depth of data is limited. A recent survey conducted at Stanford
University, how couples meet and stay together (HCMST) over-sampled
individuals who had previously identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or
bisexual. It provides a moderately-sized sample of 474 same-sex couples
(out of 3009 total couples) and has already provided valuable insight into
patterns of partner selection among same-sex couples (Rosenfeld & Thomas,
2012). However, the scope of the survey is relatively limited, and more
datasets are needed to provide a complete understanding of committed
same-sex relationships. In addition, once marriage rights are extended to
same sex couples, the dynamics of their relationships may change, requiring
new data collection.
Complexity and Context. While researchers have long acknowledged the
increasing diversity of families and marriages, studies that truly engage with
this complexity are lacking. Marriages are already more diverse in regards to
race (interracial marriage has been increasing rapidly since the 1960s), prior
partnering experience (many marriages involve divorcees and those with
prior co-residential partners), cohabitation and fertility prior to marriage,
and the presence of blended families. As noted above, marriage will soon be
yet more diverse as marriage equality is extended to same-sex couples. Prior
research has frequently compared different categories of married couple,
attempting to isolate the effect of many of these specific characteristics (such

The Future of Marriage

9

as prior cohabitation or spousal gender). However recently, researchers
have begun to acknowledge the need for a more nuanced perspective on
complexity and context (Fincham & Beach, 2010). For example, the effect of
gender is unlikely to be the same for women married to men as for women
married to women, nor is gender itself likely to be expressed equivalently
across these different contexts. As discussed in the following sections, the
social and economic context in which couples are embedded also impacts
their relationship and marital trajectory.
Just as marriages are shaped by their social context, so is research addressing marriage. The Healthy Marriage Initiative made funding available
for studies of healthy marriage and for evaluation of marriage education,
especially in the context of couples at-risk for poverty, and this has influenced the direction of recent research (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Whereas
prior research has tended to assume that a healthy marriage was characterized by the absence of conflict, greater attention is now being given
to positive processes such as forgiveness and support. Given its goal of
poverty reduction, the Healthy Marriage Initiative has also shifted focus
to diversity in marriage, especially targeting economically disadvantaged
populations. Importantly, less educated and racial minority couples report
lower marital satisfaction and lower chances of forming a stable marriage.
Poverty and race/ethnic discrimination increase stress on marriage by
increasing conflict and instability and by reducing positive interactions;
these processes are not captured in studies of primarily White, middle-class
couples. For example, economically disadvantaged couples report higher
rates of infidelity and substance abuse, factors that destabilize marriages
and merit further investigation. Social context is especially salient among
African-American couples who are substantially less likely to marry and
more likely to divorce than White couples. Some part of this difference is
due to economic factors, but the stress and social disadvantage associated
with racism are also important factors in destabilizing African-American
relationships. Future research is likely to continue focus on marriages’ social
context and the specific stressors resulting from that context.
Researchers have also begun to focus on the larger relational context in
attempting to understand the impact of specific characteristics or behavioral
patterns. For example, recent research has demonstrated that the effect of
spousal conflict on marital satisfaction is minimized when it occurs in the
context of frequent, positive interactions. Thus, conflict cannot be examined
in isolation from other aspects of the spousal relationship because its effects
on marital satisfaction depend on that very relationship. Likewise, the effects
of chronic stress and work-to-home spillover are moderated by the quality of
the relationship. Researchers interested in intimate partner violence have also

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

begun to focus on the relational context of the violence, finding that studying the violence itself is insufficient for explanation and prevention. Given
these findings, future research is likely to focus on interactions between negative behaviors and other aspects of the couple’s overall relationship that
may reduce (or amplify) their effect.
TECHNOLOGY
It is becoming increasingly common for couples to meet online, yet the
consequences of online partner selection are not fully understood. Most
obviously, finding partners through an online database greatly increases the
size of one’s potential dating pool by expanding it past one’s social network
of acquaintances, coworkers, family, and neighbors. This facilitates both
diversity and homogamy (marriage between people with similar social and
demographic characteristics). Because social networks generally lack diversity in characteristics such as race and education, finding a partner through
one’s social network constrains choice and encourages homogamy. In this
sense, selecting a partner online broadens one’s options and may increase
the chances of an unconventional choice (such as an interracial relationship).
It may also free individuals from the constraints of family or community
approval, allowing them to make less conventional choices. Indeed, couples
that meet online are more likely to be interracial, interreligious, or same-sex.
That said, for those seeking homogamy, the internet may also facilitate
searches for partners with specific characteristics. Specialty dating websites,
such as JDate.com (for Jewish singles) and singlevegetarian.com (for vegan
and vegetarian singles), may make it easier for members of minority groups
to find a suitable partner.
By expanding individuals’ dating pool beyond their social network, the
internet also results in matches that are less embedded in social networks.
Insofar as a shared social network exerts pressure to maintain the relationship, this may result in less stable marriages. In addition, the ease and relative anonymity of online dating may influence subsequent attitudes about
relationship dissolution and infidelity. Yet contrary to this expectation, preliminary studies have not found that couples who initially met online report
lower relationship quality or greater risk of break up, compared to couples
who met through more traditional means (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). It is
possible that successful couples integrate their partners into their prior networks and develop a supportive, shared, social network. However, meeting
one’s partner online might have implications for the larger (physical) community. Couples who met online might have lower community engagement
because the partners are less likely to have the same connections to local

The Future of Marriage

11

institutions. Future academic studies are likely to investigate the long-term
consequences of online partner selection for couples and communities.
Technology is also relevant in facilitating infidelity. Online infidelity is
relatively common and may involve long-term online relationships or
brief, anonymous encounters. In either case, spouses generally view a
secret, intimate online relationship as an act of betrayal, and their discovery
undermines the marriage. Online intimate relationships may also result in
dysfunctional behaviors such as compulsive internet usage, withdrawal
from the spouse, and failing to complete tasks at home and at work. In many
instances, romances that begin online may lead to physical affairs in the
“real” world. Physical infidelity is problematic both because it undermines
the marriage and because of the risk of transmitting a sexually transmitted
diseases to the spouse; thus, it has important societal and public health
implications. Greater research is needed to understand the frequency of
online infidelity, the degree of online intimacy required to constitute a
betrayal, and the extent to which online infidelity predicts physical infidelity
with the online partner or with another partner.
METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES
A recent trend in social science research generally is the incorporation of
genetic information (Amato, 2010). This is often done by comparing groups
with known genetic (dis)similarity, including monozygotic and dizygotic
twins, the children of twins, or adopted and biologic children. For example,
recent research has investigated whether the intergenerational transmission
of marital quality and divorce might be due in part to shared genetics;
this explanation was generally rejected. Similarly, there is little support for
the hypothesis that some of the negative outcomes found among children
whose parents’ divorce might be due to simple genetic inheritance. However, studies that consider gene–environment interactions have been more
promising. For example, family context may moderate the effect of genetic
risk. Children with a genetic polymorphism associated with antisocial
behavior display increased behavioral problems if they are raised by a single
mother—but their behavior was no different from children without the gene
if they were raised by married parents.
Another important methodological trend is toward more rigorous statistical models that are better able to isolate competing processes and test causal
explanations. Methods for studying longitudinal data, such as fixed-effects
models and lagged dependent variables, are especially useful when selection
is of concern. For example, estimating the causal effect of divorce on children
is difficult because families themselves decide whether to divorce (they are
“self-selected” into divorce) and their children were often disadvantaged

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

before the divorce. Similarly, couples select themselves into cohabitation and
differ from those who do not cohabit; this difference must be controlled to
estimate the causal effect of cohabitation on subsequent marital satisfaction
or divorce. There is rarely (if ever) complete information on differences that
account for self-selection, but because fixed-effects models allow researchers
to control for all unmeasured fixed (time-invariant) characteristics, they can
largely account for self-selection. Fixed-effects models, however, are not
appropriate for all situations (e.g., if a variable of interest is not time-variant)
and have rather stringent data requirements. In some of these instances,
alternative models that employ longitudinal data may be more appropriate,
such as those using lagged dependent variables. For example, to isolate the
effect of divorce on child test scores, net of unmeasured family differences,
one could control for test scores before the divorce. Many other sophisticated
analytic techniques, such as propensity score matching, are also applicable
to both new and classic topics in the study of marriage. While space prohibits
a full discussion of all relevant statistical innovations, we are likely to see
many of these applied in future research on marriage.
CONCLUSION
Future research on marriage is likely to continue investigation into many
of the classic research topics, including cohabitation, divorce, marital conflict, relationship quality, and partner selection. However, these analyses will
have to consider a more diverse population of married couples, including
same-sex spouses. Researchers are also likely to continue investigating motivations for marriage and barriers to marriage, especially for populations with
low rates of marriage. There will also be continued emphasis on the importance of context—both the social context in which marriages are embedded,
and also the broader relational context in which specific positive or negative spousal interactions occur. Given the increasing importance of the internet in partner selection and romantic interactions, researchers are likely to
investigate the social implications of this technology on the types of partners
selected and on the resulting relationship. Finally, the trend toward increasingly sophistical statistical analyses is likely to continue.
What about the future of marriage itself? Three things are certain. First,
marriage is unlikely to ever regain its monopoly as the only legitimate
context for sexual activity and family formation. Second, the current controversy over same-sex marriage will fade after its legalization, and will soon
seem as dated as the 1960s furor over interracial marriage. The result of these
changes will be an ever more individualistic, diverse, and flexible marriage.
Third, even if marriage rates continue to decline, marriage is unlikely to lose
its appeal anytime soon. In fact, the very debate over same-sex marriage

The Future of Marriage

13

demonstrates marriage’s continued symbolic and cultural importance. It
may become unattainable or even personally undesirable for many (perhaps
most) Americans, but it will nevertheless retain a hold on our imaginations
into the foreseeable future.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.
Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1059–1077.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.
Coontz, S. (2000). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (2004). The world historic transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 66(4), 974–979.
Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood
before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade
in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 630–649.
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Studying complex families in context. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72(1), 29–34.
Ohlsson-Wijl, S. (2011). Sweden’s marriage revival: An analysis of the newmillennium switch from long-term decline to increasing popularity. Population
Studies, 65(2), 183–200.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Search for a mate: The rise of the Internet as
a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.

ELIZABETH AURA McCLINTOCK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth Aura McClintock is an Assistant Professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame. McClintock’s research primarily focuses on gender
and inequality in the context of romantic and sexual relationships, particularly in partner selection and in negotiated outcomes within established relationships. In addition to studying inequality within romantic partnerships,
her research also addresses how intimate relationships reflect, perpetuate,
and potentially alter broader, societal patterns of gender, class, age, and racial
inequality. She is also interested in the social, romantic, and relational consequences of employment in gender-atypical occupations. Her other research
and publications focus on gender and sexual identity, and body image and

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

weight self-concept. Recent papers appear in Journal of Marriage and Family, Population and Development Review, Biodemography and Social Biology, and
American Sociological Review.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Patterns of Attachment across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
Theodore E. A. Waters
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes
Huinink
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Maternal and Paternal Employment across the Life Course (Sociology),
Michaela Kreyenfeld
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
Family Income Composition (Economics), Kristin E. Smith
Transnational Work Careers (Sociology), Roland Verwiebe
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu



Media

The Future of Marriage