[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed


Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Study finds few well-being advantages to marriage over cohabitation
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01 ... ges-marriage-cohabitation.html
Published: Jan 24, 2012
Author: ,
Post Date: 2012-01-24 06:18:26 by PSUSA2
Keywords: None
Views: 294
Comments: 25

January 18, 2012

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period.

"Marriage has long been an important social institution, but in recent decades western societies have experienced increases in cohabitation, before or instead of marriage, and increases in children born outside of marriage," said Dr Kelly Musick, Associate Professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University's College of Human Ecology. "These changes have blurred the boundaries of marriage, leading to questions about what difference marriage makes in comparison to alternatives."

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time.

Dr Musick drew a study sample from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of 6 years. The study focused on key areas of well-being, considering questions on happiness, levels of depression, health, and social ties.

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

"We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth" said Musick.

"Compared to most industrial countries America continues to value marriage above other family forms," concluded Musick. "However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits."

Provided by Wiley (news : web)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#8. To: PSUSA2 (#0)

My take on this article is simply that the purpose of marriage is for the sake of property and inheritance rights with respect to the children. In the old days, the only people who could afford to marry were those who owned property and the exclusively very wealthy. It was never meant for the poverty- stricken people. Marriage was an institution reserved for people with money so that they could leave their money and inheritance to their children.

Now marriage today has been de-valued by the notion of co-habitation being better for both people. What it really does is de-value the relationship and it is the children who pay dearly for it.

In short, don't start a family if you cannot afford to and don't marry a man who will just use you and then dump you without any honorable commitments. And yes, the true purpose of women's liberation movement was to destroy the institution of marriage and family and discourage people from pro-creating! and it sure as hell is working. Talk about population control.

purplerose  posted on  2012-01-24   16:09:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 8.

#10. To: purplerose (#8)

My take on this article is simply that the purpose of marriage is for the sake of property and inheritance rights with respect to the children.

That is the states function. But marriage is a fusion of church and state, institutions that I don't give a tinkers damn about.

And yes, the true purpose of women's liberation movement was to destroy the institution of marriage and family and discourage people from pro-creating!

No, their purpose was to destroy men. They hate men, probably because no man would want them. They will ruin what they can't have for themselves. They are some real vindictive parodies of women.

There is nothing wrong with marriage itself, but there is no level playing field. Even things up and most of the problems would fix themselves. As things stand now, a man would have to be a complete idiot to get married. And it looks like some of the old, usual excuses for getting married are being corrected, as this article shows.

PSUSA2  posted on  2012-01-24 17:25:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: purplerose (#8)

In the old days,

...in the old days the state was not a party to the marriage commitment...it was between a man, a woman and GOD...the ceremony was overseen by a pastor and family or witnesses. We STILL have common law marriages in the Commonwealth of Virginia...and they are recognized as legitimate. It was not until after the war of Northern aggression, when inter-racial marriage was illegal, did the state get involved...you had to go to the state and get permission, or a license, to marry a person of another race. Our forefathers would have been appalled at having to go to the government to get permission (a license) to marry. The state has NO business in the business of marriage...

Freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-01-25 22:11:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]