Metropolitan Magnets for Unmarried Women

Nowhere did Americans witness a more remarkable retreat from wedlock during the twentieth century than in the nation’s metropolitan centers.  Illuminating one of the reasons that the ringing of urban wedding bells has become rare, a team of demographers recently examined the marital patterns evident in the Great Migration that between 1910 and 1970 sent millions of Southerners north in search of greater economic and social opportunities.

Parsing data collected from migrants in 1920, 1940, and 1970, the researchers identify marital status as a decisive influence on migrants’ destinations. “In all three decades,” the researchers acknowledge, “both never-married and previously married women were significantly more likely than all three groups [married, never-married, and previously married] of men and married women to reside in metropolitan areas.”  The data thus indicate that “among both black and white migrants, unmarried women were more likely than men to migrate to metropolitan areas where economic opportunities for women were typically more plentiful.”  For married women — black and white — the researchers see “migration patterns that were more similar to those of men, migrating at a somewhat higher rate into nonmetropolitan areas.”

The researchers plausibly reason that disparate migration patterns may have “played an important role in the family-formation behaviors in recent decades,” especially “among black migrants, for whom the retreat from marriage has been pronounced.”  The analysts thus highlight “the gender gap in migration destinations” — a gap which was “most pronounced among unmarried blacks” — as the reason for “a geographic distance [between unmarried black women and unmarried black men] ... exacerbating the shortage of black men in urban areas that was created by high rates of unemployment, mortality, and incarceration.”

The unmarried female migrants who left the South for northern urban centers may have hoped for better economic opportunities.  They may not have realized just how their new urban setting would jeopardize their chances for marriage and family life.

(Source: Katherine J. Curtis White et al., “Race, Gender, and Marriage: Destination Selection During the Great Migration,” Demography 42 [2005]: 215-241.)

Still Hurting Children  

Progressive commentators have often assured worried Americans that parental divorce will hurt children less and less as divorce loses its stigma and as parents and therapists become more adept at dealing with it.  Such assurance looks very dubious, however, in light of research findings recently published in Demography by a research team from the London School of Economics.

To be sure, the British scholars acknowledge the widely held view that “as alternative family structures have become more widely accepted, divorce has been accompanied by less stigma, and any negative effects of community disapproval should have lessened over time.”  The British researchers likewise cite the view that because of “increasing levels of information on the effects of divorce,” parents who divorce now may be better able to “mitigate the effects of separation on their children” than were parents who divorced in the past.  However, when the researchers set about comparing the effects of parental divorce on children born in 1958 with the effects of parental divorce on children born in 1970, they uncover no evidence that family disruption has lost any of its sting — in the short run or the long run — for the children involved. 

Indeed, when the LSE researchers examine the effect of parental divorce on children’s anxiety scores, they conclude that it makes little difference whether they are looking at the children born in 1958 or the children born in 1970.  The statistical analysis for both groups shows that, compared to peers from intact families, “children who experienced a parental divorce are significantly more likely to have a high anxiety score at age 11 or 10” with “the odds ratios for parental divorce [being] similar across samples.” 

What is more, when the researchers shift their focus to behavioral problems, they reach the provocative conclusion that the apparent effects of parental divorce are actually worse for children born in 1970 than for children born in 1958.  “Contrary to the hypothesis that the associations [between parental divorce and negative child outcomes] might decline over time,” the researchers write, “these [findings] show that, if anything, there is possible evidence of an emerging relationship — at least when it comes to aggressive or anxious behavior.” 

When the researchers examine the long-term effects of parental divorce, they again uncover evidence indicating that children born in 1970 have suffered just as much harm as a consequence of such divorce as have children born in 1958.  Looking at adult attainment of academic or vocational qualifications, adult receipt of welfare benefits, and adult indications of psychological malaise, the LSE team finds that parental divorce is “positively and significantly linked” to all three types of negative outcomes for both groups of adult children.  For all three outcomes, the researchers find that the statistical odds ratios linked to parental divorce are “remarkably similar.” 

In their conclusion, the authors of the new study stress that “despite rapid changes in the frequency and acceptability of parental divorce beginning in the 1970s, it is striking that the parameters linking family disruption to child and adult outcomes are so similar in magnitude across these two samples.” 

In other words, the increasing frequency of parental divorce has not diminished the distress experienced by the children affected.  It has simply — and tragically — multiplied the number of children experiencing that distress.

(Source: Wendy Sigle-Rushton, John Hobcraft, and Kathleen Kiernan, “Parental Divorce and Subsequent Disadvantage: A Cross-Cohort Comparison,” Demography 42 [2005]: 427-446, emphasis added.)

Girls Who Strike Back  

It’s not sugar and spice but rather vinegar and poison that public officials have seen in a growing number of adolescent females.  Although young females still account for less than a quarter of juvenile arrests for aggravated assault (24% in 2002), rates for violent crimes have surged among America’s young women.  Indeed, it is largely because of widespread “concern that girls were becoming more violent” that a team of Harvard researchers recently took a searching look at the individual characteristics and social backgrounds of violent young females.  The findings of these Harvard scholars strongly implicate family disintegration in the upsurge in female belligerence.

In conducting their study of female violence, the Harvard researchers scrutinized data collected from 793 female Chicago-area adolescents in three interviews conducted between 1995 and 2002, finding that “more than one-third (38%) of the respondents reported perpetrating at least one type of violent behavior in the 12 months prior to the baseline [1995] interview; more than one-quarter (28%) of the girls reported perpetrating violent behavior in the 12 months prior to the first follow-up interview [in 1995]; and one-seventh (14%) of the girls reported violence at the third interview [in 2002].”  Though the percentage of girls who acted violently dropped as they grew older, a significant number remained bellicose throughout the study period. When the investigators analyze the individual characteristics of the female adolescents who turned violent, they discover that a disproportionate number of these aggressive females had themselves been victims of violence.  Indeed, even after taking into account neighborhood poverty, illegal drug use, and other background variables, the researchers calculate that “the odds of violent behavior were 2.2 times higher among girls who reported prior violent victimization” than among peers who report no such victimization. 

But not all young women face the same likelihood of becoming victims to violence — and then of later acting violently themselves.  The Harvard scholars report that the adolescent females who report having been violently victimized are “more likely to report black or other [nonwhite] race/ethnicity and having unmarried parents” than are peers who report no such victimization.

It would appear that violent young females multiply when parental marriages disappear. 

(Source: Beth E. Molnar et al., “Violent Behavior by Girls Reporting Violent Victimization: A Prospective Study,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 159 [2005]: 731-739.)

Precarious, Premarital Sex  

Some public opinion polls reveal that two-thirds of teenagers who have lost their virginity regret doing so. Now comes a study by Leslie A. Houts of the University of Dayton that shows that a majority of young women who have engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage report that their first act of intercourse was either “not really wanted” or report an “ambivalent level of wantedness.”

Houts studied a sample of 574 women, ages 15 to 24, from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, each of whom reported that her first experience of sexual intercourse was “of her own free will”—a category that was exclusive of rape or incest—and then rated on a scale of 1 to 10 the degree to which that experience was “not really wanted” at the time to “really wanted” at the time.

More than one-fourth of the respondents (28 percent) said their first sex was “not really wanted” (1 through 4 on the scale), and another 27 percent reported feeling ambivalent about it (5 and 6 on the scale). The remaining 44 percent said their first sex was wanted (7 through 10 on the scale). The most common reported score, representing 20 percent of the sample, was 5, “demonstrating perhaps a significant level of ambivalence for young women’s wantedness of first sex.”

In her multivariate analysis, Houts discovered that women who were older and were in a “committed relationship” (defined as either going steady or engaged) were more likely to report a higher level of wantedness (p<.001 for each variable). In these regressions, the woman’s race as well as the age discrepancy between partners were not significantly related to level of wantedness.

These multivariate findings prompt Houts to observe, “sexual intercourse may symbolize a bond of intimacy between partners that should only occur if the commitment is right.” Yet she seems unaware that marriage is the necessary expression of that “right” commitment. Had she polled young women who had waited until their honeymoon to lose their virginity, her results would have been very, very different.

(Source: Leslie A. Houts, “But Was It Wanted? Young Women’s First Voluntary Sexual Intercourse,” Journal of Family Issues 26 [November 2005]: 1082-1102.)

Tough Neighborhoods  

If fathers are rare in a neighborhood, then acts of teen violence are not.  Such is the sobering conclusion of Ohio State researchers who recently completed a study of the community context of youth violence. 

Based on nationally representative data collected between 1994 and 1996 for adolescents in grades 7 through 12, the new Ohio State study traces a clear relationship between the kind of family life found in a neighborhood’s homes and the risk of violent crime on a neighborhood’s streets.  More specifically, the researchers calculate that “a 1% increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood (i.e., going from 20% to 21%) is associated with a 3% increase in an adolescent’s expected level of violence” (p< 0.001).  The linkage between youth violence and the percentage of single-parent families in the neighborhood persisted (p< 0.001) even when the researchers repeated their calculations with a more sophisticated statistical model that accounted for various background characteristics (such as race, economic dependency, and parental education).

Not surprisingly, the researchers find that “for adolescents living in two-parent families, family integration through one’s resident mother appears to be an important deterrent to committing violence.”  However, the Ohio State team concludes that even among teens who are themselves living in two-parent families “the proportion of single-parent families in the neighborhood continues to be positively associated with an adolescent’s risk of committing violence, even after accounting for feelings of family integration at the individual level” (p< 0.05).  In other words, “the influence of family integration as a deterrent to committing violence appears to evaporate in neighborhoods with greater proportions of single-parent families” — even for teens who are themselves from two-parent homes. 

These sobering findings — which the Ohio State scholars interpret through the lens of “social disorganization theory” — provide strong evidence that marital and family decisions are not simply matters of personal preference, but rather critical determinants of the entire community’s well-being.

(Source: Chris Knoester and Dana L. Hayne, “Community Context, Social Integration into Family, and Youth Violence,” Journal of Marriage and Family 67 [2005]: 767-780.)

Abstinence Makes the Mind Work Harder  

Many health educators dismiss the idea of teaching sexual abstinence until marriage, thinking it leaves teens ignorant and ill prepared to make transitions to adulthood. However, a new study by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., finds just the reverse, documenting that teens who heed the abstinence message—relative to those who do not—are less likely to drop out of high school and more likely to attend and graduate from college.

Looking at the rich data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which interviewed a cohort of 14,000 teens in 1994, 1995, and 2001, researchers Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson found consistent and robust correlations between teen virginity and several positive academic outcomes. Most important, by narrowing the comparison among teens to those with identical social background characteristics, the researchers were able to isolate the effects of teen virginity from the effects of socioeconomic differences that might also account for such outcomes.

Controlling for parental education, race, gender, family structure, religiosity, and family income, their multivariate logistic regressions confirmed teen abstinence as a “significant and independent predictor of academic success,” being associated with a 40 percent lower rate of high school expulsion, a 50 percent lower rate of dropping out of high school, a 70 percent increase in the probability of attending or graduating from college, and a 66 percent increase in college graduation.

These statistically significant correlations held firm even when girls who had given birth before 18 were excluded from the analysis, evidence that the academic differences were not due to the disruptive effects of non-marital pregnancy and childbearing. The associations also held in tests that controlled for the educational expectations of teens that were 16 and under at the time of the 1994 Add Health follow-up, evidence that abstinence contributes to higher academic outcomes independent of a teen’s desire or expectations to attend college.

While not claiming that teen virginity directly causes academic achievement, the researchers nonetheless theorize that virginity both reinforces and reflects the academic capacities and personality traits that contribute to academic success. “Teens who abstain [from sexual relations] will be subject to less emotional turmoil and fewer psychological distractions; this will enable them to better focus on schoolwork.” Furthermore, virgin teens “are likely to have greater future orientation, greater impulse control, greater perseverance, greater resistance to peer pressure, and more respect for parental and social values.”

(Source: Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, “Teenage Sexual Abstinence and Academic Achievement, The Heritage Foundation,” August 2005.)

Still Pink, Still Blue  

For some time progressive social theorists have been predicting that the words feminine and masculine can only mean less and less as new economic and legal pressures take men and women out of family roles in which traditional gender differences appear quite natural.  These predictions do, indeed, appear plausible to sociologist Lloyd B. Lueptow of the University of Akron, who recently analyzed the gender attitudes expressed by college students in surveys conducted between 1974 and 1997.  The data collected in the surveys Lueptow examines, however, contradict rather than confirm progressives’ predictions of an increasingly androgynous population.  Indeed, the data indicate that gender differences have actually widened in recent decades. 

Lueptow begins his study recognizing that the “sociocultural model” is “the most accepted explanation of sex differences in personality” — at least among academic social theorists — and that this theory anticipates that “given the changes that have occurred in social structure and processes in recent decades, especially as regards the roles and contexts of women,... women [should] have become more masculine in their personality characteristics and less feminine,” so narrowing gender differences.  But Lueptow’s data run the opposite direction, showing gender differences actually becoming more pronounced in recent years. 

Between 1974 and 1997, “the ratings of both male and female [college students]...showed an increase in sex typing on most of the traits” surveyed, Lueptow reports.  The widening gap appeared particularly “striking” in the feminine characteristics surveyed: “male respondents perceived increased gender differences on femininity over the two decades of the study” and “similar results prevailed for female respondents.”  Both male and female college students alike saw a widening gender gap in the degree to which male and female students are “sympathetic,” “talkative,” “affectionate,” “romantic,” “friendly,” and “responsible.”  The gender gap for masculine characteristics widened also, albeit less dramatically.  Male and female students alike saw increasing sex-typing differences in the degree to which male and female peers are “competitive.”  Male students also saw an increasing gap in the degree to which male and female students are “adventurous” and “aggressive,” while their female classmates saw this gap as stable during the period.

Obviously, progressive theorists will find little to prop up futurist fantasies of androgyny in decades in which  “women and men have intensified their gendered characteristics and have become more differentiated, not less.”  Will they now acknowledge the naturalness of the traditional family roles that harmonize so well with those gendered characteristics?

(Source: Lloyd B. Lueptow, “Increasing Differentiation of Women and Men: Gender Trait Analysis 1974-1997,” Psychological Reports 97 [2005]: 277-287.)