Table 1. Logistic Regression of Being "Very Happy" with Life for 18-46-year-olds, by Marital Status and Parenthood

 

Women

Men

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

-1.16***

.28

 

-.86**

.29

 

Married, Children Presenta

-.19

.10

.82

.09

.11

1.09

Cohabiting, No Children Presenta

-1.25***

.23

.29

-.70**

.23

.50

Cohabiting, Children Presenta

-.47*

.23

.62

-.66**

.25

.52

Single, No Children Presenta

-1.03***

.14

.36

-.66***

.13

.52

Single, Children Presenta

-1.13***

.15

.33

-1.43***

.27

.24

N: 3202 18-46-year-old Women; 2,691 18-46-year-old Men.

Note: Data from the General Social Survey (2000–2010) with participants between the ages of 18 – 46.  Happiness measured by a question that asked participants, “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days - would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?.”  Marital and parenthood status measured using GSS variable HHTYPE1.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown).

a Comparison category was Married, No Children Present.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 2. Logistic Regression of Being Depressed Among 24-28-year-olds, by Marital Status and Parenthood

 

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.21

.66

 

Married, Children Presenta

.20

.15

1.22

Cohabiting, No Children Presenta

.33*

.15

1.39

Cohabiting, Children Presenta

.25

.16

1.28

Single, No Children Presenta

.60***

.14

1.82

Single, Children Presenta

.75***

.16

2.12

Male

-.44***

.07

.64

N: 6,103 24-28-year-olds.

Note:  Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 cohort, 2008.  Depression measured using scale of 4 items examining depression symptoms.  The top 20% of scores on the distribution of depression scale were considered “depressed”.  Marital and parenthood status measured using NLSY97 marital status variable and household roster.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown).  Gender did not interact with marital/parenthood status (not shown).

a Comparison category was Married, No Children Present.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 3a. Logistic Regression of Marital Quality Outcomes Among Married Women Aged 18-46, by the Presence of Children

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Conflict

High Divorce Proneness

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.24

.51

 

.65

.58

 

-.15

.63

 

Children Presenta

-.42**

.13

.66

.15

.16

1.16

.12

.18

1.13

N: 1,435 Married Women.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High marital conflict was defined as arguing about different marital topics several times a month or more (a “3” or higher on a scale of 1-6); high divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  The presence of children was measured using the household roster.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

Unadjusted results: 37% of married mothers (18-46) are “very happy” in their marriages, compared to 49% of their childless peers; 22% of married mothers experience high conflict in their marriages, compared to 19% of their childless peers; and, 19% of married mothers are divorce prone, compared to 16% of their childless peers.

a Comparison category was No Children Present.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

 

Table 3b. Logistic Regression of Marital Quality Outcomes Among Married Men Aged 18-46, by the Presence of Children

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Conflict

High Divorce Proneness

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.44

.50

 

1.00

.60

 

-.12

.62

 

Children Presenta

-.66***

.13

.52

.16

.17

1.17

.20

.18

1.22

N: 1,435 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High marital conflict was defined as arguing about different marital topics several times a month or more (a “3” or higher on a scale of 1-6); high divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  The presence of children was measured using the household roster.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

Unadjusted results: 35% of married fathers (18-46) are “very happy” in their marriages, compared to 53% of their childless peers; 19% of married fathers experience high conflict in their marriages, compared to 17% of their childless peers; and, 19% of married fathers are divorce prone, compared to 15% of their childless peers.

a Comparison category was No Children Present.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

 

Table 4. Logistic Regression of Strongly Agreeing that "My Life has an Important Purpose" Among Married Women and Men Aged 18-46, by Parenthood Status

 

Women

Men

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

-.49

.50

 

-1.29**

.49

 

Children Presenta

.69***

.14

1.99

.44**

.14

1.55

N: 1,438 Married Women; 1,436 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  Strongly agreeing was defined as participants reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5).  The presence of children was measured using the household roster.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

Unadjusted results: 50% percent of married mothers strongly agreed that their “life has an important purpose,” compared to 37% of their childless peers; 46% of married fathers strongly agreed that their “life has an important purpose,” compared to 38% of their childless peers.

a Comparison category was No Children Present.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

 

Table 5. Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Education

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Divorce Proneness

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

-.90

.53

 

-1.24***

.57

 

Some Collegea

-.21

.21

.81

-.11

.21

.90

Completed Collegea

-.68**

.22

.51

-.69**

.22

.50

N: 1,122 Married Mothers; 1,118 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Some college was defined as participating in college, but not completing a bachelor’s degree.  Completed College was defined as having received a bachelor’s degree or higher.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was less than some college.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 6a. Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers by Income

 

High Divorce Proneness

 

b

SE

OR

Intercept

-1.25

.52

 

2nd Income Quartilea

-.33

.21

.72

3rd Income Quartilea

-.16

.21

.85

4th Income Quartilea

-.58*

.23

.56

N: 1,122 Married Mothers.

Note:  Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”   The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was 1st income quartile.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 6b. Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Economic Pressure

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.30

.58

 

-.16

.58

 

Above Average Financial Stressa

-.65***

.14

.52

-.28*

.14

.76

N: 1,115 Married Mothers; 1,115 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  Above average financial stress was defined as responding to the question, “How often do you worry that your total family income will not be enough to meet your family's expenses and bills?” at a level that exceeded the mean. The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average financial stress.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 7.  Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers, by Consumer Debt

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.18

.69

 

.01

.58

 

Above average consumer debta

.07*

.03

1.07

-.07*

.03

.93

N: 1,102 Married Mothers for High Marital Satisfaction; 1,106 Married Mothers for High Divorce Proneness.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Above average consumer debt was defined as responding to the question, “How much debt do you owe on credit card or charge accounts, installment

loans, or bills that you've owed for over two months?  Do not include vehicle loans or home mortgage debt.” at a level that exceeded the mean.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was average or below average consumer debt.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 8. Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Shared Housework

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

-.28

.57

 

-.46

.57

 

Housework Equally Shareda

.59***

.16

1.80

.38*

.16

1.46

N: 1,118 Married Mothers; 1,118 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  Housework was defined as being “equally shared” when both wives and husbands reported that they “equally shared household chores”.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was housework not equally shared.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 9.  Predicted Level of Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Match between Desired and Actual Worked Hours

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Divorce Proneness

 

b

SE

b

SE

Intercept

3.88***

.60

3.70***

.58

Desire More Hoursa

.10

.16

.30

.18

Desire Fewer Hoursa

.44***

.17

.14

.14

N: 1,049 Married Mothers; 1,087 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Desiring more hours was defined as reporting a desire to work 5+ hours per week more than participants’ were actually employed.  Desiring fewer hours was defined as reporting a desire to work 5+ hours per week less than participants’ were actually employed.  The ordinary least squares regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was Actual Employment Hours Equal Desired Hours.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 11.  Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Support of Friends and Family 

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.74

.71

 

-.59

.60

 

.83

.71

 

-.65

.59

 

High Social Support for the Marriagea

-1.88***

.18

.15

1.50***

.15

4.48

-1.40***

.18

.25

1.02***

.13

2.77

N: 1,122 Married Mothers; 1,115 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Social support was created from a scale that measured support for the marriage received from family members and support for the marriage received from friends.  High social support for the marriage was defined as reporting “always” receiving support for the marriage from friends and family (“5” on a scale of 1 – 5).  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was less than high social support for the marriage.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 12.  Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Religious Attendance

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.47

.68

 

-.28

.57

 

.29

.70

 

-.34

.57

 

Wife attends weeklya

-.15

.34

.86

.15

.29

1.16

-.36

.35

.70

-.43

.33

.65

Husband attends weeklya

-.97

1.07

.38

-.12

.70

.89

-.16

.81

.85

-.12

.70

.89

Both attend weeklya

-1.33***

.22

.26

.56***

.14

1.75

-1.50***

.24

.22

.35*

.14

1.42

N: 1,115 Married Mothers; 1,115 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  If participants reported attending religious worship services at least once every week, they were coded as attending weekly.  If they both reported that they jointly attended they were coded as both attending.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown).

a Comparison category was Neither attend weekly.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 13.  Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by God Center of Marriage

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

1.18

.71

 

-.57

.60

 

.80

.72

 

-.58

.59

 

Wife reports God at the center of Marriagea

-1.35***

.33

.26

.37

.23

1.45

-.38

.26

.68

-.08

.24

.92

Husband reports God at the center of Marriagea

-.57

.32

.57

.08

.28

1.08

-1.04**

.37

.35

.44

.26

1.55

Both report God at the center of Marriagea

-2.31***

.29

.10

1.21***

.15

3.35

-2.37***

.31

.09

1.13***

.15

3.10

N: 1,107 Married Mothers; 1,106 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Reporting that God is at the center of their marriage was defined as somewhat agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, “God is at the center of our marriage” – a “4” or “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5).  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown).

a Comparison category was Neither felt that God was at the center of their marriage.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 14a.  Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Opinions about Divorce

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Divorce Proneness

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

.40

.68

 

.25

.68

 

Above average anti-divorce attitudesa

-1.21***

.27

.30

-.77***

.22

.46

N: 1,120 Married Mothers; 1,116 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011 (All participants in the Survey were married).  High divorce proneness was defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Above average anti-divorce attitudes were defined as rating divorce as undesirable on two questions at above average levels.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average anti-divorce attitudes.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 14b.  Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Pronatal Attitudes

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-1.33*

.60

 

-1.06

.60

 

Above average pronatal attitudes a

1.25***

.16

3.49

1.28

.14

3.60

N: 1,115 Married Mothers; 1,113 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  Above-average pronatal attitudes was defined as agreeing with the statement “Raising children is one of life’s greatest joys” at above mean levels. The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average pronatal attitudes.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 15a. Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Sexual Satisfaction

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

B

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-2.81***

.68

 

-2.57***

.66

 

Above average sexual satisfactiona

2.60***

.18

13.46

2.35***

.17

10.49

N: 1,113 Married Mothers; 1,116 Married Fathers.

Note:  Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall.”  Above-average sexual satisfaction was defined as  participants reporting a “4” or higher (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were with their sexual relationship.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average sexual satisfaction.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 15b. Above Average Sexual Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers

 

Women

Men

 

Above Average Sexual Satisfaction

Above Average Sexual Satisfaction

 

B

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

.20

.63

 

.18

.62

 

Above average generositya

.96***

.15

2.61

.84***

.14

2.32

Both report God at the center of Marriageb

.57***

.17

1.77

.49**

.16

1.63

Above average commitmentc

.70***

.15

2.01

.61***

.14

1.84

Above average quality time with spoused

.83***

.14

2.29

.90***

.14

2.46

Housework Equally Sharede

.44*

.19

1.56

.20

.18

1.22

N: 1,111 Married Mothers; 1,109 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  Above average sexual satisfaction was defined as participants reporting a “4” or higher (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were with their sexual relationship.  Generosity was created from a scale of 4 variables that asked participants about performing small acts of kindness to their spouse, expressing admiration to their spouse, expressing respect to their spouse, and forgiving their spouse.  Above average generosity was defined as having a score on the generosity scale that was higher than the mean.  Reporting that God is at the center of their marriage was defined as somewhat agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, “God is at the center of our marriage” – a “4” or “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5).  Commitment was created from a scale of four variables that measured participants’ feeling of personal dedication toward their marriage.  Above average commitment was defined as having a score above the mean of the commitment scale.  Above average quality time was defined as a score of “4” or higher (on a scale of 1 – 6) on a question that asked participants “During the past month, about how often did you and your husband/wife spend time alone with each other, talking, or sharing an activity?”  Housework was defined as being “equally shared” when both wives and husbands reported that they “equally shared household chores”.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average generosity. b Comparison category was neither report that God is at the center of their marriage. c Comparison category was at or below average commitment. d Comparison category was spending quality time with one’s spouse at or below average levels. e Comparison category was housework not equally shared.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 16. Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Daily Generosity Toward Spouse

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-1.83**

.64

 

-1.83**

.62

 

Above average generosity toward spouse a

1.81***

.15

6.11

1.68***

.14

5.37

N: 1,113 Married Mothers; 1,117 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  Generosity was created from a scale of 4 variables that asked participants about performing small acts of kindness to their spouse, expressing admiration to their spouse, expressing respect to their spouse, and forgiving their spouse.  Above-average generosity was defined as having a score on the generosity scale that was higher than the mean.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average generosity.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 17.  Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Commitment

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

1.22

.73

 

-1.22

.65

 

1.32

.74

 

-1.40*

.64

 

Above Average Commitmenta

-2.54***

.24

.08

2.16***

.15

8.67

-2.25***

.22

.11

2.01***

.15

7.46

N: 1,116 Married Mothers; 1,116 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High divorce proneness is defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Commitment was created from a scale of four variables that measured participants’ feeling of personal dedication toward their marriage.  Above-average commitment was defined as having a score above the mean of the commitment scale. The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown).

a Comparison category was at or below average commitment.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 18. Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Quality Time

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-.88

.59

 

-.90

.59

 

Above average quality time with spouse a

1.04***

.14

2.83

1.11***

.14

3.03

N: 1,117 Married Mothers 1,114 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  Above-average quality time was defined as a score of “4” or higher (on a scale of 1 – 6) on a question that asked participants “During the past month, about how often did you and your husband/wife spend time alone with each other, talking, or sharing an activity?”  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average quality time spent with spouse.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 19. Marital Satisfaction, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers, by Time with Children

 

Women

Men

 

High Marital Satisfaction

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-.34

.59

 

-1.20*

.61

 

Above average time with children a

.46***

.16

1.58

.95***

.14

2.59

N: 1,088 Married Mothers; 1,094 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.   Above-average time with children was defined as a score of “6” (on a scale of 1 – 6) that asked participants, “How often do you spend time with your children working on a project, playing together, or talking?”  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, education, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was at or below average time spent with children.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 20.  Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Proneness, 18-46-year-old Married Mothers and Fathers

 

Women

Men

 

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

High Divorce Proneness

High Marital Satisfaction

 

b

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

b

SE

OR

Intercept

2.95*

.87

 

-4.30

.80

 

1.94*

.81

 

-4.79***

.77

 

Some Collegea

-.15

.30

.86

.21

.27

1.23

.06

.27

1.06

.08

.26

1.08

Completed Collegea

-.72*

.32

.49

.44

.28

1.55

-.33

.29

.72

.14

.27

1.15

Above Average Financial Stressb

.32

.23

1.38

-.16

.20

.85

.21

.21

1.23

.12

.20

1.13

Above average consumer debtc

.18

.23

1.20

-.40

.21

.67

--

--

--

--

--

--

Housework shared equallyd

-.10

.30

.90

.52*

.23

1.68

-.26

.28

.77

.19

.23

1.21

Desire More Hourse

.57*

.26

1.77

-.06

.21

.94

.03

.28

1.03

-.40

.26

.67

Desire Fewer Hourse

.61*

.28

1.84

-.26

.24

.77

.11

.22

1.12

.02

.19

1.02

High Social Support for the Marriagef

-.97***

.22

.38

.69***

.20

1.99

-.57**

.21

.57

.29

.18

1.34

Wife attends weeklyg

-.17

.43

.84

.33

.43

1.39

-.39

.41

.68

-.23

.42

.79

Husband attends weeklyg

-1.00

1.39

.37

-.65

.90

.52

-.72

1.20

.49

-1.76

1.19

.17

Both attend weeklyg

-.43

.33

.65

-.40

.24

.67

-1.03***

.32

.36

-.51*

.24

.60

Wife reports God at the center of Marriageh

-.94*

.41

.39

-.04

.31

.96

-.26

.33

.77

-.28

.33

.76

Husband reports God at the center of Marriageh

-.71

.42

.49

.34

.38

1.40

-.30

.44

.74

.11

.34

1.12

Both report God at the center of Marriageh

-1.21**

.40

.30

.54*

.25

1.72

-1.14***

.38

.32

.65**

.25

1.92

Strongly Agree: Parenting a joyi

-.22

.22

.80

.74***

.20

2.10

.18

.21

1.20

.79***

.19

2.20

High Sexual Satisfactionj

-1.30***

.23

.27

2.09***

.21

8.08

-1.27***

.22

.28

2.03***

.20

7.61

Above average generosity toward spousek

-.42

.24

.66

.74***

.20

2.10

-.76***

.22

.47

1.01***

.18

2.75

Above Average Commitmentl

-1.61***

.29

.20

1.37***

.21

3.93

-1.44***

.26

.24

1.38***

.19

3.97

Above average quality time with spousem

-.50*

.22

.61

.36

.19

1.43

-.23

.20

.79

.32

.19

1.38

Above average time with childrenn

-.10

.24

.90

-.11

.23

.90

-.08

.21

.92

.28

.18

1.32

N: 978 Married Mothers; 1,040 Married Fathers.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.  High divorce proneness is defined as reporting a “3” or higher (on a scale from 0-10) regarding the likelihood that “you and your partner will eventually separate or divorce.”  Some college was defined as participating in college, but not completing a bachelor’s degree.  Completed College was defined as having received a bachelor’s degree or higher.  Above average financial stress was defined as responding to the question, “How often do you worry that your total family income will not be enough to meet your family's expenses and bills?” at a level that exceeded the mean.  Above average consumer debt was defined as responding to the question, “How much debt do you owe on credit card or charge accounts, installment loans, or bills that you've owed for over two months?  Do not include vehicle loans or home mortgage debt” at a level that exceeded the mean.”  Housework was defined as being “equally shared” when both wives and husbands reported that they “equally shared household chores”.  Desiring more hours was defined as reporting a desire to work 5+ hours per week more than participants’ were actually employed.  Desiring fewer hours was defined as reporting a desire to work 5+ hours per week less than participants’ were actually employed.  Social support was created from a scale that measured support for the marriage received from family members and support for the marriage received from friends.  High social support for the marriage was defined as reporting “always” receiving support for the marriage from friends and family (“5” on a scale of 1 – 5).  If participants reported attending religious worship services at least once every week, they were coded as attending weekly.  If they both reported that they jointly attended they were coded as both attending.  Reporting that God is at the center of their marriage was defined as somewhat agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, “God is at the center of our marriage” – a “4” or “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5).  Above average pronatal attitudes was defined as agreeing with the statement “Raising children is one of life’s greatest joys” at above mean levels.  Above average sexual satisfaction was defined as  participants reporting a “4” or higher (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were with their sexual relationship.  Generosity was created from a scale of 4 variables that asked participants about performing small acts of kindness to their spouse, expressing admiration to their spouse, expressing respect to their spouse, and forgiving their spouse.  Above average generosity was defined as having a score on the generosity scale that was higher than the mean.  Commitment was created from a scale of four variables that measured participants’ feeling of personal dedication toward their marriage.  Above average commitment was defined as having a score above the mean of the commitment scale.  Above average quality time was defined as a score of “4” or higher (on a scale of 1 – 6) on a question that asked participants “During the past month, about how often did you and your husband/wife spend time alone with each other, talking, or sharing an activity?”  Above average time with children was defined as a score of “6” (on a scale of 1 – 6) that asked participants, “How often do you spend time with your children working on a project, playing together, or talking?”  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown).

a Comparison category was less than some college. b Comparison category was at or below average financial stress.  c Comparison category was average or below average consumer debt.

d Comparison category was housework not equally shared.  e Comparison category was Actual Employment Hours Equal Desired Hours.  f Comparison category was less than high social support for the marriage. g Comparison category was Neither attend weekly.  h Comparison category was neither report that God is at the center of their marriage.  i Comparison category was at or below average pronatal attitudes.  j Comparison category was at or below average sexual satisfaction.  k Comparison category was at or below average generosity. l Comparison category was at or below average commitment. m Comparison category was spending quality time with one’s spouse at or below average levels. n Comparison category was at or below average time spent with children.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table A1.  Logistic Regression of being "Very Happy" in Marriage, by Number of Children at Home

 

Women

Men

 

B

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-.09

.51

 

-.07

.50

 

One Child Presenta

-.48**

.17

.62

-.67***

.17

.51

Two Children Presenta

-.44**

.15

.64

-.75***

.15

.47

Three Children Presenta

-.55**

.19

.58

-.66***

.19

.52

Four+ Children Presenta

.03

.22

1.03

-.30

.22

.74

N: 1,436 Married Women; 1,436 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.   The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was no children.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table A2.  Logistic Regression of Frequently Attending Religious Service, by Number of Children at Home

 

Women

Men

 

B

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-1.54**

.52

 

-2.76***

.55

 

One Child Presenta

.08

.18

1.08

-.08

.19

.92

Two Children Presenta

.37*

.16

1.45

.38*

.17

1.46

Three Children Presenta

.94***

.19

2.56

.89***

.20

2.44

Four+ Children Presenta

1.40***

.23

4.06

1.52***

.24

4.57

N: 1,437 Married Women; 1,439 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  Frequent religious service attendance was defined as participants reporting attending religious worship services at least once every week.   The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was no children.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table A3.  Logistic Regression of "Strongly Agreeing" that Their Life has an Important Purpose, by Number of Children at Home

 

Women

Men

 

B

SE

OR

B

SE

OR

Intercept

-.61

.51

 

-1.29***

.50

 

One Child Presenta

.59***

.16

1.80

.37*

.17

1.45

Two Children Presenta

.52***

.15

1.68

.32*

.15

1.38

Three Children Presenta

.89***

.19

2.44

.56**

.19

1.75

Four+ Children Presenta

1.36***

.23

3.90

.97***

.23

2.64

N: 1,436 Married Women; 1,438 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  Strongly agreeing was defined as participants reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) with the statement, “My life has an important purpose.”   The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was no children.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table A4.  Predicted Probability of Wife being "Very Happy" in Marriage, by Number of Children at Home and Religious Attendance

 

B

SE

OR

Intercept

.01

.52

 

One Child Presenta, b

-.47**

.17

.63

Two Children Presenta, b

-.47**

.15

.63

Three Children Presenta, b

-.59**

.20

.55

Four+ Children Presenta, b

-.40

.26

.67

Weekly Religious Service Attendanceb, c

.51***

.12

1.67

One Child * Weekly Attendance

.35

.36

1.42

Two Children * Weekly Attendance

.26

.31

1.30

Three Children * Weekly Attendance

-.19

.39

.83

Four+ Children * Weekly Attendance

1.40**

.49

4.06

N: 1,434 Married Women.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  High marital satisfaction was defined as a participant reporting a “5” (on a scale from 1 – 5) on a question that asked how happy they were in their marriage “overall”.   Frequent religious service attendance was defined as participants reporting attending religious worship services at least once every week.  The logistic regression model also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was no children.  b Variable was mean-centered. c  Comparison category was less than weekly attendance.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table A5.  Ordinary Least Square Regressions of Husbands’ Reports of Quality Time with Wife, by Wives’ Number of Children at Home and Religious Attendance

 

B

SE

Intercept

4.18***

.38

Four+ Children Presenta, b

-.12

.16

Wives’ Weekly Religious Service Attendanceb, c

.14

.09

Four+ Children * Weekly Attendance

.86**

.31

N: 1,427 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  Above-average quality time was defined as a score of “4” or higher (on a scale of 1 – 6) on a question that asked participants “During the past month, about how often did you and your husband/wife spend time alone with each other, talking, or sharing an activity?”  Frequent religious service attendance was defined as participants reporting attending religious worship services at least once every week.   The ordinary least squares regression also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was three or fewer children.   b Variable was mean-centered. c  Comparison category was less than weekly attendance.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table A6.  Ordinary Least Square Regressions of Husbands’ Reports of Generosity toward Wives, by Wives’ Number of Children at Home and Religious Attendance

 

B

SE

Intercept

16.79***

.71

Four+ Children Presenta, b

-.52

.31

Weekly Religious Service Attendanceb, c

.41*

.16

Four+ Children * Weekly Attendance

1.23**

.58

N: 1,427 Married Men.

Note: Data from the Survey of Marital Generosity 2010 – 2011.  Above average generosity was defined as having a score on the generosity scale that was higher than the mean.  Frequent religious service attendance was defined as participants reporting attending religious worship services at least once every week.   The ordinary least squares regression also adjusted for participants’ age, household income, and race/ethnicity (coefficients not shown). 

a Comparison category was three or fewer children. b Variable was mean-centered. c Comparison category was less than weekly attendance.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001