research paper topics on marriage

• Services Paper editing services Paper proofreading Business papers Philosophy papers Write my paper Term papers for sale Term paper help Academic term papers Buy research papers College writing services Paper writing help Student papers Original term papers Research paper help Nursing papers for sale Psychology papers Economics papers Medical papers Blog

250 Outstanding Marriage and Family Research Topics

Looking for the best marriage and family research topics for your sociology paper? With the changing dynamics of family and marriage, there is always scope for more research. This leaves you with endless options for a suitable title for your paper. To make the process simpler, here is a list of the best topics on marriage and family to help you narrow down the choices. It is good to remember that some of these topics may evoke conflicting emotions and opinions. therefore, they are best handled with sensitivity and objectivity. They present ample scope for classroom discussion and debates. However, pick a topic that also presents sufficient scope for research to showcase your understanding of the subject and writing skills as well. 

Trending Marriage and Family Research Topics

Here is a list of some of the most commonly used topics on marriage and family that will help you get ample supporting data and content.

• The evolution of the concept of marriage
• The changing role of spouses in a modern marriage
• Changes in the values around marriage and family over the last decade.
• The effect of social media on marriages
• Types of marriages in Nigeria
• Cultural differences and its effect on the sociology of marriages
• The influence of media on marriage and family
• Change in marriages in your country
• Does gen X think that marriage is an outdated concept
• The sociology of inter-racial marriages
• A traditional role that men could perform better than women and vice versa.
• The social benefits of a marriage
• The financial benefits of a marriage
• How does mental health affect marriages?
• The important role of stress in modern marriages.
• Getting married but not choosing to have children. The benefits and risks.
• How long should a couple know each other before getting married?
• Should gender roles within a marriage be maintained strictly? What are the benefits and risks?
• Does society benefit from prioritizing marriage
• Living with an unmarried partner or marriage. Which has a higher level of relationship satisfaction?
• Your thoughts on an egalitarian marriage
• Marriage is a public performance in the age of social media. Your understanding of this statement.
• Is financial instability one of the most common reasons for not getting married.
• The steady decline in marriage among individuals without a college degree.
• Marriage rate for women with good education is higher.
• People who want children should get married. Your thoughts on this.
• The common causes for decline in marriage rate in modern society
• The concept of arranged marriages across the world.
• The role of matrimonial sites in modern marriages.
• Are dating apps a reliable option to meet a suitable partner for marriage?
• Is marriage rate affected by ethnicity?
• The effect of substance abuse on a marriage
• Physical acts of aggression in a marriage. When does one go too far?
• Financial independence of women and its effects on marriage.
• Increasing rate of infidelity in marriages. What are the common causes?

Best Research Topics on Family

Here is a list of some of the best family research topics that explore the changing dynamics on family structures in the recent times.

• How can you define the term ‘family’?
• Family background determines your rate of success in career and life. Comment.
• What are the consequences of divorce on children?
• Overcoming trauma of a dysfunctional family
• Is it possible to always live up to family expectations?
• The effects of parental neglect on children.
• How to minimize negative effect of divorce on a family
• War veterans and their families. Do they really need help?
• Family and its impact on teenage delinquency
• Stages of grief in children after the loss of a family member
• Stages of grief in an adult after the loss of a family member
• How should families cope with the loss of a family member?
• The increasing problem of work-life balance and its impact on families
• Joint family versus a nuclear family
• Family members who should have a say in the upbringing of a child
• Fostering children and the issues that arise
• Substance abuse within a family. How to save yourself and the rest of your family?
• Sexual abuse within a family. Strategies to escape it.
• Family violence in the last decade. Has it increased?
• The effect of setting very high expectations for members of the family.
• Family values: Should they be strict or flexible?
• Different types of relationships within a family.
• Putting life together after a natural disaster.
• Accepting children from a previous marriage into your family.
• How to meet a crisis as a family
• The issue of gender discrimination within a family.
• Gender roles and expectations of the family
• Coping with unpleasant secrets of your family
• The pressure of inheriting a family business and the impact on children and younger members of the family.
• Balancing between family support and allowing young adults to live their lives on their own.
• How involved should the family be in one’s career?
• The absence of love within a family
• Helping a family member in distress.
• Unwanted activities that modern families engage in
• Accepting the transition of children into adult lives.

Family Life Education Topics for Research

Among the many family and marriage topics for discussion, family life education is an important concept that presents a huge scope for research.

• The objectives of family life education
• The importance of family life education
• The primary principles of family life education
• The practices of family life education and their importance in effective outreach.
• How family life education can improve moral codes in young adults
• The importance of family life education in developing a good personality in adolescents
• Complementing parent education with family life education.
• How family life education can fill the gap when parents abdicate responsibilities.
• The three behavioural needs for family planning.
• Importance of setting priorities when planning a family.
• Resources that teen parents need for effective parenting.
• Tools to build resilience in teen parents
• Family life education and psychology
• Family life education and social work.
• The 10 contents of family life education.
• Family life education is one of the most flexible fields of sociology. Your comments.
• Family life education to help problem teens cope in college or school.
• The role of family life education in decision making among family members.
• Write in detail about a decision making model that youth can benefit from when it comes to family planning decisions.
• Skill application in family planning.
• Parenting classes: A modern trend or a necessity for new parents?
• Identifying personal attitude and belief in teen parenting.
• How family life education contributes to overall well being and growth of a family.
• Assessing knowledge levels of adolescent girls with respect to issues in family life education.
• The key areas of study of family life education.
• Differences in rural and urban approach to family life education.
• How to set up an effective intervention plan when dealing with family life education crisis
• The challenges of parents with adolescent parents.
• Using family life education to teach teens about balancing between responsibility and freedom.
• Critical interests of preschool children
• Stimulating growth and development of preschool children.
• The right time to plan for a second child.
• Adjusting to the ‘Empty Nest Syndrome’.
• Importance of family life education in reproductive health.
• Population education versus family life education.

Sociology of Family Research Topics

Family structures are an important part of studying sociology. Here are trending sociology research topics on family to help you ace your papers.

• Unconventional family structures in the modern world.
• Child behaviour and the impact of parents on it.
• Child abuse and its long term effects
• The impact of cross-racial adoption
• The challenges of cross-racial adoption
• Differences in family structures across ethnic groups and races
• How single parenting impacts the life of children.
• The impact on children when couples live apart.
• The impact on family structure when couples live apart.
• Family and its involvement in community
• The role of the community in changing family structures.
• Different household structures within families
• The earner-carer family model
• The need for dual earner couples
• The evolution of household structures within families
• The importance of dividing household labour within a family.
• What is family demography?
• Effective ways of dealing with family conflicts
• What is maternalism?
• The changing approach to filial responsibility
• Effective family migration planning
• The challenges faced by immigrant families.
• Examples of matriarchal family structures across the globe.
• The changing roles of a woman in a family.
• The changing roles of a man in a family.
• Effective ways to manage money within a family
• The important parental roles in deciding the outcomes for children.
• Sibling relationships at different ages.
• Dealing with stepfamilies.
• Challenges faced by stepmothers and how to overcome them?
• Challenges faced by stepfathers and how to overcome them?
• The concept of sibling ties.
• Causes for increase in female householders
• Deteriorating economic circumstances of men and the impact on family structures.
• Cohabitation and a decline in marriage.

Popular Research Topics on Gay Marriage

With the legalization of same sex marriage in many countries while some still remain in conflict, there are several gay marriage topics that you can write about.

• Should the government have a say in marital decisions?
• Why is gay marriage illegal in some countries?
• The importance of legalizing same sex marriages.
• The social challenges faced by same sex couples.
• How to help a member of the family who has come out of the closet.
• Accepting same sex marriage with a family.
• How to support family members who belong the LGBTQ community?
• The effect of same gender parents on the social life of a child.
• Challenges faced by gay couples with adoption.
• Can gay couples provide the same parenting structure as straight couples?
• Common marriage and family issues for gay people.
• Differences between a heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage.
• Do same gender couples make fit partners? The common consensus.
• The limitations imposed by the law on same sex couples.
• The importance of marriage for gay couples
• Divorce among gay couples. Is it harder to get professional assistance?
• Legalising same sex marriage and the impact on psychological well-being.
• Impact of same sex marriage on the society.
• Are changing contours of family making it easier to accept gay and lesbian marriages?
• Legal decisions affecting children of same sex parents.
• Anticipatory minority as a stressor among same sex couples.
• Civil Union versus same sex marriage.
• Defining household structures in same sex homes.
• Potential differences in the political attitude between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
• Child development and homosexual parenthood.
• The differences in social challenges of a gay marriage and lesbian marriage.
• Emotion work in gay, lesbian and heterosexual relationships.
• Same sex civil partnership and its impact of health.
• How same sex marriage impacts the understanding of same sex relationship.
• A sociological perspective on the legal recognition of same sex marriages.
• Perspectives of gay and lesbian marriages across the globe.
• Czech lesbian activism. Explain some of the significant events.
• Safety concerns for same sex couples in the society.
• The psychology of children of same sex couples.
• Domestic violence in same sex marriages.

Marriage and Family Therapy Research Topics

Whether it is research paper on relationships, marriage or family structure, therapy and counselling plays an important role in today’s world. Here are some topics that are trending and relevant.

• Stress and its impact on family or marriage counselling.
• Qualities of a good family therapist.
• The role of pre-marriage counselling in strengthening relationships.
• Techniques of family therapy
• The key concepts of family therapy
• Objectives of marriage and family therapy
• Living with a family member who has mental health issues
• Providing family support to members with mental health issues.
• Importance of family therapy in the sociology of family.
• The emergence of family therapy as an identifiable field of psychology.
• Family therapy and its importance in social work.
• Child guidance and mental health
• Family systems model of therapy.
• Improving communication patterns within family through counselling.
• The concept of function and purpose of symptoms.
• The circular causation model of family therapy.
• Recognizing structural characteristics of families through therapy
• The increasing need for family and marriage therapy.
• How family therapy can help cope with members who are addicted to substances.
• Family therapy and child sexual abuse.
• Family therapy versus marriage counselling.
• Non systemic postmodernist models of family therapy.
• The challenges faced by family therapists.
• Factors that limit the scope of family therapy.
• History of professional marriage and family therapy.
• The evolving treatment of gender in family therapy.
• The evolving treatment of sexual orientation in family therapy.
• The perspective of family and marriage therapy among various ethnic groups.
• The need for counselling for children of divorce.
• Family therapy to help deal with loss of family members.
• Family therapy to cope with terminally ill family members.
• Significant models of family therapy in the modern world.
• Important research papers on family therapy.
• The pioneers of family and marriage counselling.
• Changes in psychiatry and its role in the development of family therapy.
• The contributions of Harry Stack Sullivan to family therapy.
• Factors that contribute the positive mental health among family members.
• The impact of cultural systems on the understanding of family dynamics.
• Family therapy and its integration into family medicine.
• Common treatment protocols in family therapy.

Divorce Topics For Research Paper

Because of the social and emotional impact that it has, divorce is among the most important marriage topics for discussion.

• Study of abusive and toxic relationships within a family.
• The causes for increasing divorce rates.
• Perception of divorce among different ethnicities.
• The impact of culture on the perception of divorce.
• Marriage counselling as an effective way of preventing divorce
• The trauma of child custody battles
• The impact of child custody battles on the child.
• The social perspective of divorced couples.
• Raising children as a divorced couple.
• A study on family violence
• The changing perspective of marriage among children of divorce.
• The impact of divorce on the social lives of children.
• Sociological consequences of divorce.
• Changing patterns and trends of divorce
• Is divorce a social problem?
• The negative consequences of divorce
• The positive consequences of divorce
• The economical consequences of divorce
• How divorce impacts your social circle.
• The impact of increasing divorce rates on society.
• Ideological considerations of divorce
• The process of marital breakdown.

Family Law Topics for Research

Here is a list of family law topics that have a good scope for data collection so that you can present an impressive paper.

• Shared residence orders versus single residence orders.
• The need for reform and alteration in family laws in your country.
• Relationships, family and the law
• Reform in the cohabitation law.
• The Children Act of 1989 and its importance in Family Law.
• Extending civil marriage availability to same sex couples. Write your views for and against this topic.
• Laws regarding non-conjugal relationships.
• The role of family law in determining the boundaries of marriage.
• Child relocation and the laws associated with it
• Divorce decisions based on the Principles of Fairness
• The matrimonial cause act of 1973. Discuss its importance and the evolution.
• Discuss three family laws that may be irrelevant in the modern world.
• Why is it necessary to establish family laws?
• The Piglowska versus Piglowski case of 1999 and its impact on divorce law decisions.
• The role of religion on divorce laws.
• Providing legal support to make victims of domestic abuse.
• Why are child protection laws important?
• The legal aspects of family welfare and social work.
• Intervention of the State or authorities in families where children are abused or neglected.
• Termination of parental rights in case of neglect or abuse. Is it the right approach?
• Family laws about inheritance.
• The changing laws of adoption.
• A comparison of family laws in the West and the East.
• Are family laws more liberal in the West?
• Is the concept of alimony redundant in today’s world?
• The need for legal validation of relationships.
• Should women receive child support even if they are financially stable?
• Is it correct for one parent to withhold visitation rights of the other?
• Challenges faced by family lawyers.

Family Bible Study Topics of Research

Religion is a primary construct in the family structure. Here are some best rated family bible study topics that you can choose from:

• Family bible study and its role in establishing values with a family.
• How to use family bible study to improve the personality of adolescents.
• The role of family bible study in increasing bonding between family members.
• Is family bible study necessary in the modern world?
• How the church positively influences the family structure.
• Some family theories and concepts from the bible that are relevant even today?
• Some outdated concepts of family that are mentioned in the bible that do not fit into modern society.
• How family bible study impacts marriages and relationships.
• Family bible study and why it is important for children to start young.
• Family bible study and its role in improving behaviour of family members.
• Interesting ideas to make family bible study relevant and interesting.

It is common for students to often get busy with other subjects and not find ample time to either shortlist the topics or write the research paper . In such scenarios it is best to take help from a reliable writing service like ours. Whether it is topic selection or writing help with the essay, we can offer it all. Don’t be afraid to get research paper help from our professional writers! Our team is experienced in handling an array of writing works for students of different educational backgrounds. We offer plagiarism free and well written submissions that suit every budget. For any help with a research paper about marriage and family, get in touch with our professional writers today. Contact us with a “ do my research paper for me ” request for quality assistance. Get high quality and affordable papers written by experts in the field to increase your grades and present an informative and interesting paper on the subject.  

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms & Conditions Loyalty Program Privacy Policy Money-Back Policy

Copyright © 2013-2024 MyPaperDone.com

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

118 Marriage Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Marriage is one of the oldest institutions in human history, with its roots dating back thousands of years. It is a sacred bond between two individuals, a union that is meant to last a lifetime. With such a rich history, it's no wonder that marriage has been a popular topic for essays and discussions.

If you're looking for inspiration for your next marriage essay, look no further. Below are 118 marriage essay topic ideas and examples to help you get started:

• The role of marriage in society
• The evolution of marriage throughout history
• The benefits of marriage for individuals and society
• The challenges of modern marriage
• The impact of technology on marriage
• The role of gender in marriage
• The changing definition of marriage
• The legal implications of marriage
• The cultural significance of marriage
• The economics of marriage
• The psychology of marriage
• The impact of marriage on mental health
• The role of religion in marriage
• The effects of marriage on children
• The importance of communication in marriage
• The significance of trust in marriage
• The role of intimacy in marriage
• The impact of infidelity on marriage
• The benefits of premarital counseling
• The challenges of maintaining a healthy marriage
• The impact of marriage on personal identity
• The role of conflict resolution in marriage
• The benefits of marriage for mental health
• The impact of marriage on physical health
• The role of commitment in marriage
• The impact of divorce on individuals and society
• The benefits of marriage for financial stability
• The impact of marriage on career development
• The role of social media in marriage
• The impact of cultural differences on marriage
• The benefits of arranged marriages
• The impact of age on marriage
• The role of family in marriage
• The impact of marriage on social status
• The benefits of marriage for emotional well-being
• The challenges of long-distance marriage
• The impact of marriage on personal growth
• The role of forgiveness in marriage
• The benefits of marriage for personal development
• The impact of marriage on self-esteem
• The role of love in marriage
• The impact of marriage on happiness
• The benefits of marriage for physical health
• The role of compromise in marriage
• The impact of marriage on parenting
• The benefits of marriage for children
• The impact of marriage on career satisfaction
• The role of equality in marriage
• The benefits of marriage for social connections
• The impact of marriage on community involvement
• The role of respect in marriage
• The benefits of marriage for emotional intimacy
• The impact of marriage on personal fulfillment
• The challenges of maintaining a work-life balance in marriage
• The impact of marriage on personal values
• The benefits of marriage for personal growth
• The impact of marriage on personal goals
• The challenges of balancing individuality and partnership in marriage
• The impact of marriage on self-awareness
• The role of communication in marriage
• The impact of marriage on spiritual growth
• The challenges of maintaining a healthy lifestyle in marriage
• The impact of marriage on social connections
• The role of trust in marriage
• The impact of marriage on emotional well-being
• The challenges of balancing work and family in marriage
• The role of emotional intelligence in marriage
• The challenges of balancing independence and partnership in marriage
• The role of empathy in marriage

Whether you're writing a research paper, a personal essay, or a persuasive argument, these marriage essay topic ideas and examples are sure to spark your creativity and inspire a thoughtful discussion. Marriage is a complex and multifaceted institution, and there are countless angles from which to explore it. So grab your pen and paper, or fire up your laptop, and start exploring the fascinating world of marriage through the lens of these thought-provoking topics.

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

• Journal of Marriage and Family
• Family Relations
• Journal of Family Theory & Review
• Permissions

Read JMF Articles Online

• Submit to JMF

Information for JMF Reviewers

Non-Subscribers: See Article Titles in the Wiley Online Library

JMF Editorial Board and Staff

Qualitative Research and JMF

About the Journal of Marriage and Family

The Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF), published by the National Council on Family Relations, has been the leading research journal in the family field for more than 75 years and is consistently the most highly cited journal in Family Science. JMF features original research and theory using the variety of methods reflective of the full range of social sciences, including quantitative, qualitative, and multi-method designs; research interpretation; integrative review; reports on methodological and statistical advances; and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families. The journal also publishes brief reports.

Contributors to JMF come from diverse fields and disciplines, including Family Science, human development, anthropology, demography, economics, history, psychology, and sociology. JMF is published in February, April, June, August, and October of each year. Each issue averages 284 pages in length. Its worldwide circulation is more than 6,200 copies. It receives more than 700 submissions annually, of which approximately 15 percent are published following one or more revisions. Eighty percent of all reviews are completed within six to eight weeks of manuscript receipt. Publication lags vary, but average five to nine months following acceptance.

Articles published in JMF are indexed in the Family Studies Database, SocAbstracts, PsychInfo, the Social Sciences Index, Education, Exceptional Child Education Abstracts, Book Review Index, Abstracts for Social Workers, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Guide to Reviews of Books from and about Hispanic America.

The Journal of Marriage and Family is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) . 

Interested in advertising in JMF? Visit our  publications advertising page .

Copyright and permissions

Copyright © 2023 by the National Council on Family Relations. All rights reserved.

Written permission to reprint articles or to reproduce materials from this journal for publication, or to use in the classroom, or for research and other scholarly purposes must be requested from Wiley . NCFR reserves the right to deny any permission at its sole discretion. Additional information can be found on the NCFR permissions webpage .

• Editorial Board and Staff
• For JMF Reviewers

Family Science is a vibrant and growing discipline. Visit Family.Science to learn more and see how Family Scientists make a difference.

NCFR is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose members support all families through research, teaching, practice, and advocacy.

Get the latest updates on NCFR & Family Science in our weekly email newsletter:

Connect with Us

National Council on Family Relations 661 LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (888) 781-9331 [email protected] Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2023 NCFR

Marriage Essay Examples and Topics

Divorce: agreement or disagreement.

• Words: 1169

Relationships. To My Beloved Spouse on How to Love

• Words: 1011

Early Marriage Advantages

• Words: 1099

Christian vs. Muslim Marriages Comparison and Contrast

• Words: 1202

Negative Effects of Cohabitation

• Words: 2140

The “Drawbridge” Exercise by Judith H. Katz

• Words: 1000

Polygamy: Disadvantages and Social Impact

Arranged marriages: the ethical issues, the benefits of marriage, marriage and family challenges, why people choose to marry.

• Words: 1006

Temporary Marriage in Lebanon: Pros and Cons

Early marriage and its impact on education.

• Words: 2330

Qualities of Successful Marriages

• Words: 1387

Weddings Cost in the United Arab Emirates

• Words: 2822

People Under the Aue of Eighteen Should Not Be Allowed to Marry

• Words: 1078

Islamic Marriage and Divorce

• Words: 1839

“Why Marriages Fail” by Anne Roiphe

Importance of communication in marriage.

• Words: 1083

The Story of Us (1990): A Happy Family?

Interracial marriage explained.

• Words: 1612

Women Reactions to Bisexual Husbands

• Words: 2985

The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale

Marriage differences in botswana.

• Words: 5003

“His Needs, Her Needs” by Willard Harley

• Words: 1120

Benefits of Remarriage for Happy Life

Sex and marriage relations analysis, the marriage in norway in the 1800s, cohabitation vs. marriage, “vows” by julie showalter, arranged marriage and its ethical dilemma, traditional marriage and love marriage comparison, influences of marital quality.

• Words: 1494

The Women’s Career Role in the Institution of Marriage

• Words: 1092

Marriage Vs. Living Together: Pros and Cons

Interracial marriage in the 1950s, institution of marriage and its history.

• Words: 1645

Family Concept in “The Story of Us” Movie

Mate selection in american society then and now.

• Words: 2187

Behavioral Trends Paper Premarital Sex Document

Love, marriage, and divorce.

• Words: 1347

My Friend’s Intercultural Wedding

• Words: 1081

Marriage Peculiarities in the United Arab Emirates

• Words: 1679

Divorce in the UAE: Causes and Solutions

• Words: 1918

Absolute Gender Equality in a Marriage

• Words: 1410

Travel For Abuse: Mail Order Brides From Asia

• Words: 1711

Marriage Types and Their Critical Components

• Words: 1453

Early Arranged Marriages in Indonesia

• Words: 3905

The Traditional Form of Family

Arranged marriages are less successful.

• Words: 1166

Marriage Decline Among Black Americans

• Words: 1757

Dating and Partner Selection From Different Decades

• Words: 1498

Life in Marriage or Single Life?

Premarital cohabitation’s impact on marriage, premarital counseling discussion, creating a survey about an institution of marriage, comparison of marriage in elizabethan times and in “othello”.

• Words: 1398

The Love and Marriage Relationship Analysis

• Words: 1734

Therapeutic Intervention in Families

• Words: 3244

Should Divorced People Get Remarried?

Institution of marriage: the sociological perspectives, aspects of marriage and family life, institution of marriage in china, the church’s attitude toward homosexual marriage, future of marriage: non-monogamy, people’s needs in marriage, explaining of theories of family science, interracial marriages in “like mexicans” by gary soto, oral history marriage guide.

• Words: 1122

Cuban Americans Views on Marriage

Legalization of the same-sex marriage: advantages, controversies surrounding the topic of same-sex marriage, history of marital or spousal rape, “why marriages succeed or fail”: the “bang” or “whimper”, attachment styles and lifestyle marital satisfaction.

• Words: 1858

The Opinion of Americans on Whether Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed or Not

Millennials say marriage ideal but parenthood the priority, doomed marriage in “the girls in their summer dresses” by irwin shaw, cross-border marriages between japan and china: reasons and results, correlation between mismatched libido and marital discord.

• Words: 1412

Same‐Sex Couples, Families, and Marriage

• Words: 1371

Marriage Premium for Professional Athletes

Psdm model usage in solving family conflicts, pornography being “the crack cocaine of sex addiction”, for richer (not for poorer): the inequality crisis of marriage, effect of same-sex marriage on the legal structure of gender in all marriages.

• Words: 2560

Military Divorce, Its Causes and Effects

Marriage and mothering challenges, the case against gay marriage, violence in common law and marital unions, conflict and marriage satisfaction.

• Words: 2203

Marriage and Physical Well-Being

• Words: 2836

Cohabitation Before Marriage

Birth control, pregnancy and childbirth.

• Words: 1125

Irony of Marriages in an Indian Set Up

Marriage and family systems: western society and kadara of nigeria, madama butterfly by henry hwang, do young couples marriages always end in divorce, what predicts divorce: discussion.

• Words: 1984

The Concept of Marriage: Discussion

Marriage rates in oklahoma and illinois.

• Words: 1234

Interracial Marriage: History and Future Developments

• Words: 3370

Cohabitation: Family Environment and Life

• Words: 2933

“A Marriage in Full” by Gary A. Anderson

How is marriage related to health.

• Words: 1329

The Story About Chunhua nd Hong: Chinese Beliefs

• Words: 2083

American Circumstances in “The Joy Luck Club” by Wayne Wang

• Words: 2266

Successful Marriage Conditions

• Words: 1690

The Definition of Marriage

The history behind the scarlet letter: way of life of early colonists in puritan-influenced new england.

• Words: 1200

Brief History of Divorce as a Process: Present Divorce Laws and Religious Imperatives

Marriage in contemporary america.

• Words: 1442

Gender Role Attitudes and Expectations for Marriage

The main causes of divorce, three main causes of divorce, marriage and divorce statistics in the united states, “the case for same sex marriage” video by savino, major trends in the paradigm of family life.

• Words: 2463

Family Life Cycle: The Institution of Marriage

Marriage expectations in newlyweds, marriage stages: mother and daughter’s interview.

• Words: 1991

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Articles on Marriage research

Displaying all articles.

Most couples still make decisions together when they give money to charity – but it’s becoming less common

Jacqueline Ackerman , IUPUI and Jon Bergdoll , IUPUI

A 4-step maintenance plan to help keep your relationship going strong

Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. , Monmouth University

Your relationship may be better than you think – find the knot

How your genes could affect the quality of your marriage

Richard Mattson , Binghamton University, State University of New York

As the Royal Wedding approaches, what can one of the world’s greatest novels teach us about marriage?

Richard Gunderman , Indiana University

Why you should date your best friend

Relationship advice from the government doesn’t help low-income couples – here’s what might

Justin Lavner , University of Georgia ; Benjamin Karney , University of California, Los Angeles , and Thomas Bradbury , University of California, Los Angeles

Why are fewer people getting married?

Jay L. Zagorsky , The Ohio State University

Have children? Here’s how kids ruin your romantic relationship

Matthew D. Johnson , Binghamton University, State University of New York

Dual-earner couples share the housework equally – until the first baby comes

Claire Kamp Dush , The Ohio State University

Youthful vows: what it means to marry young

Christina Gibson-Davis , Duke University

Town and gown relationships are like a marriage

Stephen M Gavazzi , The Ohio State University

Related Topics

• Marital happiness
• Relationships
• Relationship science
• Romantic relationships

Top contributors

Professor of Psychology, Monmouth University

Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

Associate Professor of Sociology, Duke University

Professor, Human Development and Family Science, The Ohio State University

Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Georgia

Associate Professor of Human Sciences and Sociology, The Ohio State University

Professor of Social Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

Associate Professor of Markets, Public Policy and Law, Boston University

Associate Director of Research, Women's Philanthropy Institute, Indiana University

Associate Professor & Director of Graduate Studies in Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Chancellor's Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy, Indiana University

Associated Director of Data Partnerships at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Marriage and relationships

Across countries and cultures, most people are involved in a marriage, or a committed, marriage-like, couple relationship at some point in their lives in order to meet needs for affection, companionship, loyalty, and sexual and emotional intimacy.

Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. For children, growing up in a home with two stable and happy parents is one of the strongest protective factors against a wide variety of mental, physical, educational, and peer-related problems.

Adapted from the Encyclopedia of Psychology

Resources from APA

Did sex shaming lead to the death penalty?

Gender stereotypes may impact verdicts and sentencing.

How to cope with political stress this election season

Brett Q. Ford, PhD, and Kevin Smith, PhD, talk about how political stress affects people’s well-being, what it means for democracy, and how to stay engaged while maintaining your mental health

Estrangement: Healing the pain

Therapists work with patients to identify relationships worth salvaging

Love and algorithms: The future of dating apps

Liesel Sharabi, PhD, discusses how the shift to dating apps has changed how people meet and form relationships and how AI and virtual reality could change dating in the future

More resources about relationships

What APA is doing

Society for Couple and Family Psychology

APA’s Division 43 provides a home for psychologists interested in families in their many forms. Clinical, scientific, educational, and public policy perspectives are well represented in the wide range of divisional activities

Family Evaluation in Custody Litigation

Challenging the Fantasy Bond

Marriage Checkup Practitioner's Guide

The Forgiving Life

Emotion-Focused Couples Therapy

Magination Press children’s books

Ginny Morris and Mom's House, Dad's House

What Can I Do?

This Is Me and My Two Families

Was It the Chocolate Pudding?

Journal special issues

Mitigating the Impact of the Pandemic on Families and Couples

Interventions for Military Service Members, Veterans, and Their Families

Risk and Resilience in Sexual and Gender Minority Relationships

Groups in Educational Settings

Relationship Uncertainty

• Marriage and Couples

More About Our Research

• Effectiveness
• Same-Sex Relationships
• Research FAQ
• Published Journal Articles

More About Gottman

• Our Mission
• Drs. John & Julie Gottman
• The Gottman Method
• In the Media
• Permissions Request

Join the Gottman Pro Newsletter

Recieve regular updates and clinical resources for professionals from the gottman institute..

John Gottman’s concept of “flooding” triggers the “fight or flight” response, risking conflict escalation or emotional disengagement. Subscribe for free resources on managing it in clients.

The infographic below highlights some of Dr. John Gottman’s most notable research findings on marriage and couple relationships. For a more in-depth review of the three phases of Gottman’s research with marriage and couples, continue reading.

Phase 1: The Discovery of Reliable Patterns of Interaction Discriminating the “Masters” From the “Disasters” of Relationships

In 1976, Dr. Robert Levenson and Dr. John Gottman teamed up to combine the study of emotion with psycho-physiological measurement and a video-recall method that gave us rating dial measures (still applying game theory) of how people felt during conflict. This was the new way of getting the “talk table” numbers. The research also became longitudinal. They made no predictions in the first study, but they were interested in a measure of “physiological linkage,” because a prior study showed that the skin conductance of two nurses was correlated only if they disliked one another. They thought that might be linked to negative affect in couples. Indeed it was.

They were also amazed that in their first study with 30 couples they were able to “predict” the change in marital satisfaction almost perfectly with their physiological measures. The results revealed that the more physiologically aroused couples were (in all channels, including heart rate, skin conductance, gross motor activity, and blood velocity), the more their marriages deteriorated in happiness over a three-year period, even controlling the initial level of marital satisfaction.

The rating dial and their observational coding of the interaction also “predicted” changes in relationship satisfaction. Such large correlations in the data were unprecedented. Furthermore, Gottman and Levenson had preceded the conflict conversation with a reunion conversation (in which couples talked about the events of their day before the conflict discussion), and they had followed the conflict discussion with a positive topic. Gottman and Levenson were amazed to discover that  harsh startup  by women in the conflict discussion was predictable by the male partner’s disinterest or irritability in the events of the day discussion. They found that the quality of the couple’s friendship, especially as maintained by men, was critical in understanding conflict. Furthermore, the ability to rebound from, or  “repair” , conflict to the positive conversation became a marker of emotion regulation ability of couples.

Both Levenson and Gottman had discovered Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. Wallace Friesen’s Facial Affect Coding System (FACS), and Gottman subsequently developed the  Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) , which was an integration of FACS and earlier systems in the Gottman lab.

The SPAFF became the main system that Gottman used to code couples’ interaction. At first, it took 25 hours to code 15 minutes of interaction, but later Gottman was able to get the same coding done in just 45 minutes, with no loss of reliability. Gottman also began applying time-series analysis to the analysis of interaction data. He wrote,  Time-Series Analysis: A Comprehensive Introduction for Social Scientists , a book on time-series analysis to explain these methods to psychologists, and developed some new methods for analyzing dominance and bi-directionality with James Ringland.

Phase 2: Prediction and the Replication of the Prediction

Soon after, Gottman and Levenson received their first grant together and began attempting to replicate their observations from the first study. The subsequent studies they conducted in their labs with colleagues eventually spanned the entire life course — with the longest of the studies following couples for 20 years, in Levenson’s Berkeley lab.

The Gottman lab at the University of Illinois also studied the linkages between marital interaction, parenting, and children’s social development with Dr. Lynn Katz, and later at the University of Washington involved studying these linkages with infants with Dr. Alyson Shapiro. Gottman developed the concept of  “meta-emotion” , which is how people feel about emotion (such as specific emotions like anger), emotional expression, and emotional understanding in general. Meta-emotion mismatches between parents in that study predicted divorce with 80% accuracy.

Gottman and Levenson discovered that couples interaction had enormous stability over time (about 80% stability in conflict discussions separated by 3 years). They also discovered that most relationship problems (69%) never get resolved but are  “perpetual problems”  based on personality differences between partners.

In seven longitudinal studies, one with violent couples (with Neil Jacobson), the predictions replicated. Gottman could predict whether a couple would divorce with an average of over 90% accuracy, across studies using the ratio of positive to negative SPAFF codes, the  Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse  (Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt, and Stonewalling), physiology, the rating dial, and an interview they devised,  the Oral History Interview , as coded by Kim Buehlman’s coding system.

Gottman could predict whether or not their stable couples would be happy or unhappy using measures of positive affect during conflict. With Dr. Jim Coan, he discovered that positive affect was used not randomly, but to  physiologically soothe  the partner. Gottman also discovered that in heterosexual relationships,  men accepting influence from their wives  was predictive of happy and stable marriages. Bob Levenson also discovered that humor was physiologically soothing and that empathy had a physiological substrate (in research with Dr. Anna Ruef), using the rating dial.

Phase 3: Theory Building, Understanding, and Prevention & Intervention

The third phase of Gottman’s research program was devoted to trying to understand the empirical predictions, and thus building and then testing theory. Ultimately, Gottman aimed to build a theory that was testable or disconfirmable.

Testing theory in the psychological field requires clinical interventions. In 1996, the Gottman lab returned to intervention research with Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. John and Julie Gottman designed both proximal and distal change studies. In a proximal change study, one intervenes briefly with interventions designed only to make the second of two conflict discussions less divorce-prone. In one of these studies, they discovered that a 20-minute break, in which couples stopped talking and just read magazines (as their heart rates returned to baseline), dramatically changed the discussion, so that people had access to their sense of humor and affection.

Together with Julie, John Gottman started building the  Sound Relationship House Theory . That theory became the basis of the design of clinical interventions for couples in John Gottman’s book,  The Marriage Clinic , and Julie Gottman’s book,  The Marriage Clinic Casebook . In August of 1996, they founded The Gottman Institute to continue to develop evidence-based approaches to improving couples therapy outcomes.

Read more about The Gottman Institute’s mission  here .

• Bringing Baby Home for Parents
• Emotion Coaching
• Gottman Parents Store
• The Art and Science of Love
• Gottman Couples Store
• Gottman Connect
• Gottman Love Notes
• Marriage Minute
• Private Couples Retreats

Professionals

• Online Learning
• Get Certified
• Gottman Relationship Checkup
• More Training
• Gottman Pro Store
• Drs. John and Julie Gottman
• Research Overview

Related Sites

• Gottman Referral Network
• The Art and Science of Lovemaking
• Gottman Help Center
• Gottman Speakers and Consultants
• Reset Account Password
• Manage Email Subscriptions

Sign up for the newsletter tailored to you:

• Gottman Pro Newsletter
• Parents Newsletter

©2024 The Gottman Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Happy Marriage: A Qualitative study

• February 2012
• Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Gift University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Muhammad Azam
• Muhammad Irfan Ahmed

• Muhammad Moazim Ali

• Behnam Honarvar
• Hasan Rahgozar
• Sepideh Niknejad

• Mehdi Mahdavi
• Seyed Abolghasem Mehrinejad
• Abolfazl Karami
• Rasoul Roshan Chesli
• Thaddeus Arkum Aasoglenang

• Patrick Bonye

• Haroon-Ur-Rashid 
• Hanood Shah

• Maryam Fatehizade
• Kiumarth Farahbakhsh
• Maryam Nazemi

• Masoud Asadi
• Ahmad Hariri Mohd Saat
• Raihanah Azahari
• Leslie L. Bachand

• J SOC PERS RELAT

• Elizabeth Douvan
• Joseph Veroff
• BMC PSYCHIATRY

• Syed M Israr

• KRISTEN TAYLOR CURTIS

• J MARRIAGE FAM

• Jeffrey S. Blum
• Albert Mehrabian

• Julie H. Hall

• Kieran T. Sullivan
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

MARRIAGE AND MENTAL HEALTH AMONG YOUNG ADULTS

Jeremy e. uecker.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Marriage is widely thought to confer mental health benefits, but little is known about how this relationship may vary across the life course. Early marriage—which is non-normative—could have no, or even negative, mental health consequences for young adults. Using survey data from Waves 1 and 3 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health ( N = 11,743), I find that married young adults exhibit similar levels of psychological distress as young adults who are in any kind of romantic relationship. Married and engaged young adults report lower rates of drunkenness than others. Married young adults—especially those who first married at age 22–26—report higher life satisfaction than those in other types of relationships or no relationship at all, as well as those who married at younger ages. Explanations for these findings are examined, and their implications are discussed.

Social scientists have amassed a considerable amount of evidence showing that married individuals enjoy better mental health than never-married and previously-married individuals ( Gove, Hughes and Style 1983 ; Ross 1995 ; Horwitz, White, and Howell-White 1996 ; Brown 2000 ; Simon 2002 ; Lamb, Lee, and DeMaris 2003 ; Marcussen 2005 ). Marriage is typically thought to increase psychological, social, and economic resources ( Williams and Umberson 2004 ; Liu, Elliot, and Umberson 2010 ), and to help individuals avoid the stress of relationship dissolution ( Williams and Umberson 2004 ; Simon and Barrett 2010 ; Liu et al. 2010 ).

As one recent study notes, however, studies of marriage and mental health tend to focus on the average effects of marriage on mental health, and few investigations have sought to identify potential moderators of this relationship ( Frech and Williams 2007 ). In other words, though marriage on average may confer mental health benefits, this positive association may not hold across different contexts or groups of people. For some, marriage may be unrelated to mental health or even harmful to it. Marital timing may be one important contingency of the marriage and mental health relationship. Particularly, marriage at an early, non-normative age may not be as salutary as marriage at a more culturally-appropriate age ( Williams and Umberson 2004 ).

Moreover, other recent evidence suggests it is important for research on marriage and mental health to specify the relationship circumstances of unmarried adults with the recognition that they are a heterogeneous group with different levels of social support, resources, and relationship stability ( Bierman, Fazio, and Milkie 2006 ). Not only is it important to make these relationship distinctions, but so too, according to Bierman and colleagues (2006) , is it important to map the domains of mental health that marriage affects (and in what ways). Marriage may have different effects on internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and subjective well-being.

This study asks and answers four research questions: (1) What is the effect of marriage on mental health—vis-à-vis other relationship circumstances—in young adulthood? (2) Does the effect differ by domain of mental health? (3) Does the effect vary by age at first marriage? and (4) What explains the effect? I address these questions by focusing exclusively on a cohort of young adults and assessing differences in mental health outcomes between ever-married individuals and those in other types of relationships, as well as differences in these outcomes by age at first marriage. In so doing, I compare the mental health of ever-married young adults to fine-grained categories of never-married young adults: singles, unengaged daters, engaged daters, unengaged cohabitors, and engaged cohabitors. I also consider several mental health outcomes, including internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and subjective well-being. Finally, I am able to test five explanations—selection, socioeconomic differences, parenthood, relationship stability, and differences in psychological resources—for the mental health differences among married young adults and those in different types of relationship circumstances.

AGE AT MARRIAGE AND MENTAL HEALTH: A LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE

According to the life course perspective, the effect of roles and transitions is contingent on their timing ( Elder 1985 ; Williams and Umberson 2004 ). In some cases, “the timing of an event may be more consequential than its occurrence” ( Elder 1995 :114). This may be especially true for marriage, where most agree there is a culturally-appropriate time to marry ( Settersten and Hägestad 1996 ). In particular, it has become increasingly non-normative (both statistically and culturally) to marry at early ages. The US median age at first marriage now stands at 28 years for men and 26 for women ( United States Census Bureau 2009 ). Just 4% of 18–19-year-old women, 23% of 20–24-year-old women, 2% of 18–19-year-old men, and 13% of 20–24-year-old men have ever married ( US Census Bureau 2011 ). The probability of marriage increases quickly, however, through the 20s and 30s such that 86% of women and 81% of men will marry by age 40 ( Goodwin, McGill, and Chandra 2009 ). Thus, those who transition to marriage at an early age—especially those who marry in their teens, but also those who marry in their early 20s—may be less likely to enjoy positive mental health benefits from marriage. Early marriages are notorious for their relatively low survival rates ( Lehrer 2008 ), which suggests early marriages may be distinct from later marriages in terms of marital quality and may not confer the same mental health benefits. Moreover, the benefits of marriage’s social approval ( Marks 1996 ) may not extend to those who marry young and receive less societal support.

Indeed, it is possible that early marriage confers no mental health benefit, or even contributes to more mental health problems than other relationship arrangements—or not being in a relationship at all. One study of New Jersey young adults found that early marriage was not associated with depression among men or women, and curtailed alcohol problems only among women ( Horwitz and White 1991 ). Another more recent study of young adults found mixed effects of marriage on mental health that varied across outcomes and by race and gender: Early marriage was protective against binge drinking only for Whites, and it was associated with higher depression among Black men ( Harris, Lee, and DeLeone 2010 ). Still, as that study notes, “The relationships between marriage and cohabitation with health during the transition to adulthood are not well understood despite substantial research on marriage and health, and increasing attention to health during the transition to adulthood” ( Harris et al. 2010 :1107).

THE HETEROGENEITY OF YOUNG ADULT RELATIONSHIPS

Recent research on marriage and mental health differentiates among married adults and those who are living in cohabiting relationships (e.g., Brown 2000 ; Kim and McKenry 2002 ; Lamb et al. 2003 ; Marcussen 2005 ), as well as those in non-cohabiting romantic relationships ( Ross 1995 ; Fleming, White, and Catalano 2010 ; Simon and Barrett 2010 ). Ross (1995) argues that the salutary mental health benefits of marriage are the result of underlying social attachment and support. Relationships of different types fall along a continuum of social attachment, from singles to non-cohabiting romantic relationships to cohabiting relationships to marriage. The mental health advantages accrue as individuals move from less attachment to more attachment, and thus marriage has the most benefits. Relatedly, Simon and Barrett (2010) find that young adults who are in a romantic relationship have better mental health than those not in a relationship, in part because relationships provide social integration and heightened feelings of self-worth, and in part because those in a relationship are less likely to have experienced a recent breakup. Making these relationship distinctions is especially important during the transition to adulthood when marriage is not yet the norm and the pathways to adulthood have diversified ( Mouw 2005 ). Among 18–25-year-olds, just 20% are married, 25% are not in a relationship, 20% are cohabiting, and 35% are dating ( Scott et al. 2011 ). Among those who are dating and cohabiting, many are engaged to be married, which signals a commitment to marry among the partners and likely increased attachment vis-à-vis their unengaged counterparts. Thus, especially among young adults, we might conceive of a continuum of social attachment ranging from single to unengaged dating to unengaged cohabiting to engaged dating to engaged cohabiting to marriage (though the ordering of unengaged cohabiting and engaged dating is not entirely clear). Engagement has been mostly absent from the literature over the past half century, but the relational support and commitment that accompanies it may have positive mental health benefits. Some recent evidence, for example, suggests engaged young adults curb their substance abuse ( Bachman et al. 1997 ; Bachman et al. 2002 ). In general, then, a more nuanced and fine-grained measure of relationship status is appropriate for determining the mental health effects of marriage, especially among young adults who are just beginning to transition into adult roles.

DOMAINS OF MENTAL HEALTH

Studies of mental health typically focus on mental health problems ( George 2007 ). The typical approach in the marriage and mental health literature has been to examine internalizing problems, usually measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, and externalizing problems, measured by substance (especially alcohol) use and abuse. These measures have proven valuable especially to scholars who are interested in gender differences in the effect of marriage on mental health, as women tend to internalize and men tend to externalize their mental health problems. But good mental health is about more than avoiding problems; it is also about overall well-being ( Bierman, Fazio, and Milkie 2006 ). Indeed, research suggests that psychological well-being is comprised of both positive affect and the absence of distress ( Ryff and Keyes 1995 ; Williams 2003 ). Focusing attention on one or the other of these components may fail to capture the full effect of marriage on mental health.

EXPLAINING THE MARRIAGE AND MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION

The causal relationship between marriage and mental health is usually explained by marital resources—economic, social, and psychological—and by relational stability, or the absence of stress from breakups. Selection into marriage by those with fewer mental health problems may also be part of the explanation. These explanations are more or less relevant for the mental health of married young adults. There are several potential explanations for why marriage may improve or impede the mental health of young adults in particular.

Selection into Marriage by Prior Mental Health

Some scholars argue that at least part of the association between marriage and mental health is the result of selection ( Mastekaasa 1992 ; Horwitz et al. 1996 ; Stutzer and Frey 2006 ). In other words, married people do not have better mental health because they are married; rather, people with better mental health are the ones who get married. Although many other longitudinal studies find no evidence of selection into marriage by prior mental health ( Kim and McHenry 2002 ; Simon 2002 ; Lamb et al. 2003 ), selection remains a plausible explanation for this relationship. Depressed or unhappy individuals may not be particularly motivated to find a partner, and even if they are they are probably not the most appealing marital match for others seeking a marriage partner. The selection argument, however, is different for earlier marriers than for “on-time” marriers. Early marriage may be selective of individuals with poorer mental health. Forthofer et al. (1996) found that psychiatric disorders were positively associated with marriage before age 19, though the effects were weak and not often statistically significant. Still, they argue there may be some validity to the argument that distressed individuals marry early to escape difficult circumstances. Similarly, Gotlib, Lewinsohn, and Seeley (1998) found that a history of major depressive disorder predicted early marriage among women (but not men). Thus, if early marriage is negatively associated with mental health, selection may explain that relationship. But if early marriage has a positive effect on mental health, selection is likely not a good explanation and may actually suppress some of the beneficial effect of marriage on mental health.

Socioeconomic Resources

Marriage is typically thought to increase economic resources ( Waite 2009 ). Married couples are able to benefit from specialization within their family, economies of scale, and the added insurance an able-bodied partner provides against unexpected events ( Waite 2009 ). In turn, these economic resources reduce depression by alleviating stress from economic hardship and by providing the opportunity to seek treatment when mental health problems do arise ( Ross, Mirowsky, and Goldstein 1990 ; Liu et al. 2010 ). Again, however, this line of argumentation is different for young adults. According to Uecker and Stokes (2008) , young adults who marry early are more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged: They have parents who are less educated and less wealthy, and they themselves have lower educational aspirations and high-school grade point averages. Early marriage may also curb both educational attainment and earnings ( Marini 1985 ; Teachman, Polonko, and Scanzoni 1986 ; Loughran and Zissimopoulos 2008 ). Therefore, whether due to selection or causation, heightened socioeconomic resources are unlikely to underlie any positive effect of marriage on mental health among early marriers, but they may help explain a negative effect of marriage on mental health among young adults who have married.

Children typically diminish the mental health of their parents, and these deleterious effects are stronger for those who are not married ( McLanahan and Adams 1989 ; Nomaguchi and Milkie 2003 ; Evenson and Simon 2005 ). The negative effect of children is usually explained by a “role strain” argument—that is, parents with children may find it difficult to balance work and family roles ( McLanahan and Adams 1989 )—or by citing the increased economic and logistical stress created by parenthood ( Nomaguchi and Milkie 2003 ). While children may have negative effects on psychological outcomes like depression and life satisfaction, they may also reduce certain behaviors like binge drinking ( Bachmann et al. 2002 ). Given that fertility remains higher among married women despite the dramatic rise in nonmarital childbearing ( Martin et al. 2010 ), parenthood may explain a negative effect of marriage on young adults’ mental health or suppress a positive effect on mental health.

Relationship Stability

Marriage is often accompanied by a sense of relationship permanence, and despite the relatively high rate of divorce in the United States, marriages are much more likely to last than other relationships like cohabitations ( Brines and Joyner 1999 ). Since relationship dissolution may harm mental health, relationship stability may explain positive effects of marriage on mental health. For example, Brown (2000) attributes the heightened depression of cohabitors (vis-à-vis married individuals) to their relationship instability. Once instability is accounted for in her models, there is no statistically significant difference between marrieds and cohabitors with respect to depression. Moreover, single young adults who have experienced a recent breakup have more psychological distress than those who are in a romantic relationship ( Simon and Barrett 2010 ). Of course, early marriages are notoriously unstable. Their short-term survival, however, is somewhat high: 78 percent of women’s teenage marriages last at least three years, as do 86 percent of those begun in the early 20s (men’s three-year marital survival rates are 64 percent for teenage marriers and 84 percent for marriages commenced in their early 20s) ( Goodwin, Mosher, and Chandra 2010 ). Relationship stability may help explain a positive effect of marriage on young adults’ mental health, but it would likely suppress a negative effect.

Psychological Benefits

Marriage may provide a number of psychological benefits. Marriage may provide enhanced feelings of meaning and purpose, improved sense of self, and heightened sense of mastery ( Marks 1996 ; Bierman et al. 2006 ). However, in young adulthood many of these psychological benefits may not be restricted to marriage, as other types of relationships are more normative at this time. Young adults receive a valued social identity, self-worth, and social integration not just from marriage but from nonmarital romantic relationships as well ( Simon and Barrett 2010 ). Moreover, many of marriage’s benefits may stem from social approval of the relationship ( Marks 1996 ), which may not apply in many contexts where early marriage is viewed as unwise. Thus, it is not clear whether married young adults reap these benefits in the same way as other married adults. 1

The data for this study come from Waves 1 and 3 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Add Health was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 23 other federal agencies. It is a school-based panel study of health-related behaviors and their causes, with emphasis placed on social context and social networks. Wave 1 was conducted in 1994 and 1995 and consisted of in-depth interviews with 20,745 American youth in grades 7–12. The 132 schools included in the study were chosen from a sampling frame of U.S. high schools and were nationally representative with respect to size, urbanicity, ethnicity, type (e.g., public, private, religious), and region. Because the study is school-based, it does not represent those who had dropped out of school at Wave 1. Wave 3 was conducted in 2001 and 2002, when respondents were 18–28 years old, and consisted of interviews with 15,197 of the Wave 1 respondents. For this study, I restrict the sample to those who were unmarried at Wave 1, participated in the detailed relationship inventory, and have a valid sample weight (N = 11,743). 2 Missing values on the independent variables in the study were imputed using indicator/dummy variable adjustment; mean values for these variables were imputed and a dummy variable flag was included to identify these respondents in the models ( Cohen et al. 2003 ).

Dependent Variables

For this study I analyze three dependent variables: (1) psychological distress, (2) frequency of drunkenness, and (3) life satisfaction.

The measure of psychological distress is an abbreviated form of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D). The CES-D scale consists of 20 items measuring psychological distress over the prior week. Examples include agreement with statements like “You felt sad” and “You were depressed.’” Wave 3 of Add Health included nine of these items. The summed index has a potential range of 0–27, with higher scores indicating higher psychological distress, though in the sample the range is only 0–26. The alpha coefficient of reliability is .80.

The second measure of mental health is the frequency of drunkenness over the past year. Young adults were asked, “During the past 12 months, on how many days have you been drunk or very high on alcohol?” A response of “none” was coded 0; a response of “every day or almost every day” was coded 6.

My final measure of mental health is life satisfaction. All respondents were asked, “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” Respondents could respond anywhere from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied.” This measure is dichotomized such that a response of “very satisfied” is coded 1 and all other responses coded 0. Treating this variable as an ordinal variable and analyzing it with ordered logit regression techniques produced similar results to those presented here but violated the parallel regression assumption.

Key Independent Variable

The key independent variable for this study is the relationship status of the respondent at Wave 3. I divide respondents into six relationship categories: single, unengaged daters, engaged daters, unengaged cohabitors, engaged cohabitors, and ever-married. This means divorced young adults are included with married young adults, rendering this a stricter, more conservative test of the effects of marriage. This is optimal for two reasons. First, measuring marriage in this way does not allow for the possibility that married individuals have better mental health because those with poor mental health select out of marriage through divorce. Second, because early marriage is associated with higher divorce rates, this yields a fuller assessment of the impact that marriage has on the mental health of young adults. Models separating out divorced young adults produced results substantively similar to those presented here, but divorced young adults fared worse than married young adults on two of the three outcomes (the difference in the third—psychological distress—was not statistically significant but was substantively large).

I also differentiate the ever-married respondents by their age at first marriage. I create three categories for age at first marriage: married as a teenager, married at ages 20 or 21, and married at ages 22–26. Because never-married respondents are missing information for their age at marriage, a multiplicative interaction term cannot be created. I construct these three categories in order to retain adequate cell sizes and because they mark the normative timing of important educational transitions that typically precede marriage ( Mouw 2005 ). Teenage marriers married before or just after the completion of high school, those marrying at age 20 or 21 likely married before the completion of a four-year college degree or after the completion of an associate’s degree, and marrying at 22 or above allows time for a traditional student to complete a four-year college degree. Age at first marriage is determined by comparing the month and year of their first marriage to that of their birth.

Explanatory Variables

I test how several variables may explain the association between marriage and mental health. To begin, I include Wave 1 mental health measures (although there is no comparable Wave 1 life satisfaction measure). The Wave 1 CES-D measure is the full 20-item index and has an alpha of .87. The Wave 1 measure for frequency of drunkenness is nearly identical to the Wave 3 measure and is coded the same way.

Socioeconomic factors may also explain the relationship between marriage and mental health. I include a series of dummy variables (still in high school, never went to college, went to college but dropped out without earning a degree, two-year college student, earned an Associate’s degree, four-year college student, and earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher) to measure respondents’ educational attainment at Wave 3. To measure the respondents’ personal earnings, I created an eight-category earnings variable. The lowest category (coded 1) is for those earning less than $10,000/year; the highest category (coded 8) is for those earning $75,000/year or more at Wave 3.

Parenthood is a binary variable. Respondents who identified at least one “son” or “daughter” on their household roster at Wave 3 are considered to have a co-resident child and are coded 1 for the dummy indicator. These children include biological, adopted, and step children.

To test how marriage may affect mental health through relationship stability, I incorporate a Wave 3 measure of the respondents’ number of sexual partners over the last year. This question refers specifically to vaginal sex and is coded as three binary variables: zero partners, one partner, and two or more partners.

Finally, I include a four-item index tapping respondents’ self-image at Wave 3. The items in the index measure respondents’ agreement (from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) that they (1) have many good qualities, (2) have a lot to be proud of, (3) like themselves just the way they are, and (4) are doing things just about right. The summed index ranges from 4–20 and has an alpha of .86.

Control Variables

I control for a number of demographic and personal characteristics that may influence one’s mental health and their standing in the marriage market. I control for a continuous measure of age in years, gender, living in the South, urbanicity, race, BMI classification, the interviewer reports of the respondents’ physical attractiveness and the attractiveness of their personality, and their employment status. All controls are measured at Wave 3 except for gender, region, urbanicity, and race, which are Wave 1 measures. Descriptive statistics for all variables are listed in Table 1 .

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Notes: Indicator variables for missing values not displayed. Variables are Wave 3 unless otherwise noted.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Tables 2 – 4 are series of multivariate regression models predicting each of the three mental health outcomes (one table per outcome). These tables all follow the same modeling strategy. In Panels A, ever-married respondents are the reference group for the relationship status variables. Model 1 includes the relationship status variables and control variables. Model 2 adds the Wave 1 CES-D variable (and, for Table 3 , the Wave 1 drunkenness measure), Model 3 adds socioeconomic measures, Model 4 adds the parenthood measure, Model 5 adds number of recent sex partners, and Model 6 adds the self-image index. This iterative approach allows me to assess the impact of each set of mediators on the relationship status effects.

Coefficients from Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models Predicting CES-D Score

Notes: Reference groups are ever-married (Panel A) or first married at ages 22–26 (Panel B), never went to college, one sex partner in last year, suburban, White, and normal weight. Models include, but do not display, controls for age, gender, region, urbanicity, race-ethnicity, body mass index classification, physical attractiveness, attractiveness of personality, and work status. Models in Panel B include the same controls as well as the explanatory variables displayed in Panel A. N = 11,636

Incidence Rate Ratios from Negative Binomial Regression Models Predicting Frequency of Drunkenness

Notes: Reference groups are ever-married (Panel A) or first married at ages 22–26 (Panel B), one sex partner in last year, suburban, White, and normal weight. Models in Panel A include, but do not display, controls for age, gender, region, urbanicity, race-ethnicity, body mass index classification, physical attractiveness, attractiveness of personality, and work status. Models in Panel B include the same controls as well as the explanatory variables displayed in Panel A. N = 11,453

Odds Ratios from Logit Regression Models Predicting Very Satisfied with Life

Notes: Reference groups are ever-married, never went to college, one sex partner in last year, suburban, White, and normal weight. Models include, but do not display, controls for age, gender, region, urbanicity, race-ethnicity, body mass index classification, physical attractiveness, classification, physical attractiveness, attractiveness of personality, and work status. Models in Panel B include the same controls as well as the explanatory variables displayed in Panel A. N = 11,688

Panels B of Tables 2 – 4 examine the influence of age at first marriage. The models include the same independent variables as those in Panel A, but these models split the ever-marrieds by their age at first marriage to explore how marriages that are closer to on-time—such as marriages among those in their mid-20s—may differ from those that are much earlier—such as teenage marriages. In order to account for the complex multistage sampling design of Add Health, I generate all analyses using svy estimators in Stata 11.

Panel A of Table 2 reports coefficients from OLS regression models predicting psychological distress in young adulthood. Engaged daters display less psychological distress than ever-marrieds in all six models, though this is explained somewhat by selection (engaged daters had lower Wave 1 CES-D scores than ever-marrieds), socioeconomic differences (engaged daters are more highly educated than ever-marrieds), and self-image (engaged daters have a more positive self-image than ever-marrieds). Interestingly, engaged cohabitors do not exhibit the same low levels of psychological distress, even after accounting for several potential mediating factors. Model 2 of Panel A also reveals an important suppression effect; once prior psychological distress is considered, single young adults have higher psychological distress than ever-married young adults. This suggests (and ancillary analyses confirm) that respondents with higher levels of psychological distress are more likely to select into marriage than to be single. The deleterious effects of being single are explained in large part by relationship stability (Model 5): Single young adults are more likely than ever-marrieds to have two or more sex partners in the last year (results not shown), which is in turn related to higher psychological distress. Adding self-image in Model 6 further reduces the coefficient for singles from .37 to .20, and the effect is no longer statistically significant.

Panel B breaks up the ever-marrieds into age-at-first-marriage categories. These models include all the independent and control variables from the parallel models in Panel A. These findings suggest that no group fares significantly better in terms of psychological distress than those who married for the first time at ages 22–26. Two groups, however, report more psychological distress than those who married at ages 22–26: singles and teenage marriers. The teenage marriage effect appears to be a function of selection into teenage marriage by those with higher pre-existing levels of psychological distress; once Wave 1 CES-D is considered, the difference between teenage marriers and 22–26-year-old marriers is reduced greatly and is no longer statistically significant. The positive effect of being single on psychological distress is, as in Panel A, mostly a function of relationship instability among this group. The coefficient is no longer significant in Model 5 of Panel B. It may also be explained somewhat by lower self-image among singles. It is also noteworthy that the positive association between both types of cohabitors and higher psychological distress is not statistically significant net of control variables. It is sizable, however, but even that appears to be a function of selection as the effect size is greatly reduced in Model 2.

Panel A of Table 3 reports incidence rate ratios from negative binomial regression models predicting young adults’ frequency of drunkenness. According to Model 1, singles and unengaged daters get drunk at more than twice the rate of ever-marrieds, and unengaged cohabitors get drunk at about 1.80 times the rate, net of controls. Very little of this difference stems from prior (Wave 1) differences in drinking behavior or psychological distress (see Model 2). Each of the explanatory variables in Models 3–5—socioeconomic status, parenthood, and relationship stability—reduces the disparity between ever-marrieds and these groups somewhat, but adding self-image does very little in Model 6, and the effects remain positive and statistically significant in the final models. Engaged daters and engaged cohabitors resemble ever-marrieds in their drinking behavior, a finding that is consistent across all models in Table 3 .

Panel B reports the results for frequency of drunkenness with first married at ages 22–26 as the reference group. Unengaged adults have higher rates of drunkenness than do 22–26-year-old marriers—findings that mirror those of Panel A where the comparison group was ever-marrieds. Interestingly, those who married at age 20 or 21 get drunk less frequently than those who marry later (at ages 22–26). This appears to be due in part to the higher educational attainment of the latter group, as the difference is no longer significant in Model 3. Each of the explanatory variables in Models 2–5 slightly reduces the effects of singleness, unengaged dating, and unengaged cohabiting, but differences remain in the final model between these groups and those who marry at age 22–26.

Table 4 displays odds ratios from logit regression models predicting respondent reports of being very satisfied with their life. There is a clear association between marriage and higher life satisfaction (compared to all other groups) in these models. Model 2 suggests this has little to do with selection based on prior psychological distress. In Model 3, the difference between engaged cohabitors and the ever-married is no longer statistically significant once socioeconomic status is considered. Otherwise, the marital life satisfaction advantage is robust to a number of potential mediating variables. While the odds ratios diminish slightly from Models 4 to 5—when relationship stability is added—they remain strong and significant the p < .001 level. Accounting for self-image in Model 6 only widens the life-satisfaction gap between ever-marrieds and other respondents, and the significant difference between engaged cohabitors and ever-marrieds re-emerges.

In Model 1 of Panel B, all groups are less likely to report being very satisfied with their lives than are those who married for the first time at ages 22–26, including those who married as teenagers and those who married at ages 20 or 21. These differences withstand the addition of Wave 1 CES-D score in Model 2, suggesting selection is not the key story here. Socioeconomic status (in Model 3) reduces the effect of marrying at ages 20–21 to nonsignificance and partially explains other effects, like the engaged cohabitor and teenage marrier effect. Accounting for relationship stability attenuates the relationships only very slightly, and adding self-image in Model 6 somewhat suppresses the effects; in the final model, all groups except those who first married at ages 20 or 21 report significantly lower life satisfaction than those who first married at ages 22–26.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Taking a life course perspective, I have investigated the relationship between marriage and mental health in young adulthood. I examined three aspects of mental health—psychological distress, drinking behavior, and life satisfaction—and six different relationship arrangements—being single, dating and unengaged, dating and engaged, cohabiting and unengaged, cohabiting and engaged, and ever-married. I also explored how this connection may vary by age at marriage and tested several potential explanations for the marriage-mental health connection among young adults.

Several key conclusions can be reached from these analyses. In terms of psychological distress, marriage’s benefits are limited but not absent. Married young adults have lower psychological distress than single young adults, but they do not have a clear advantage over young adults in any other type of romantic relationship. In fact, young adults who are engaged and not cohabiting have lower levels of distress than do married young adults. This may be the result of their more normative and socially approved transition to adulthood, and may also reflect the excitement of an impending wedding and new marriage. Why engaged cohabitors do not exhibit similarly low levels of psychological distress is not clear. It may be that living together in a “marriage-like” relationship somewhat dampens the excitement and anticipation of an impending wedding.

Marriage has a clearer benefit when it comes to drunkenness. Married young adults get drunk less frequently than single ones and those who are not engaged. Engaged young adults—both cohabiting and not—look similar to married young adults in this regard. Engaged young adults may be curbing their drinking habits as they prepare for their transition to marriage. Marriage and engagement likely carry with them a heightened sense of responsibility and obligation and a less active social calendar which leads to less drunkenness ( Umberson and Williams 1999 ; Bachman et al. 2002 ). Frequent drunkenness among young adults may not be entirely about externalizing mental health problems, however. Given the strong positive association between educational attainment and drunkenness and the strong negative association between educational attainment and psychological distress, it is likely that this variable is capturing, at least in part, a “partying” lifestyle characteristic of many college students.

Married young adults are much more satisfied with their lives than are other young adults (with the possible exception of engaged cohabitors). The marriage premium for life satisfaction is strong and robust to a number of potentially explanatory factors, including selection, socioeconomic status, parenthood, relationship stability, religious participation, and psychological gains. Married young adults are likely benefiting from the emotional and social support that accompanies marriage (with its heightened social attachment) and that has not been gauged adequately by this study’s measures. Marriage may also provide a degree of certainty, finality, and sense of satisfaction deriving from “accomplishing” one of the tasks involved in the transition to adulthood, the task some consider the capstone to adulthood ( Cherlin 2004 ). Those who have not married may still experience anxiety about locating and securing a lifelong (ideally, at least) partner.

Somewhat surprisingly, there appears to be little gain to waiting until one’s mid-20s to marry for two of the three mental health outcomes under examination. Although teenage marriers have more psychological distress than those who married at ages 22–26, this difference is the result of selection and not causation. Only in terms of life satisfaction do more “on-time” (though still early) marriers outpace teenage marriers and those who marry at age 20 or 21. Waiting until later to marry may do little good in terms of avoiding mental health problems but much good in terms of improving overall well-being. This latter finding suggests social approval for marriage—which is likely higher for those marrying at ages 22–26 than for those marrying earlier—may be a key mechanism explaining marriage’s effect on overall well-being. This finding also highlights the importance of considering multiple domains of mental health in studies such as this one.

This study has also tested a number of potential mechanisms that may explain the relationship between marriage in young adulthood and mental health. I have found no evidence that differences in married young adults’ mental health are attributable to selection into marriage by those with better mental health. Instead, teenage marriage is selective of those with relatively high psychological distress, suggesting that—if anything—marriage’s mental health benefits in young adulthood are masked by differences in pre-existing psychological distress. Selection plays virtually no role in explaining differences between married young adults and others in terms of frequency of drunkenness and life satisfaction. Economic resources also do little to explain marriage’s mental health effects during this stage of the life course. Marriage at these ages is likely both selective of those with less education and earnings potential ( Booth et al. 2008 ; Uecker and Stokes 2008 ) and an obstacle to educational attainment and higher earnings ( Marini 1985 ; Teachman et al. 1986 ; Loughran and Zissimopoulos 2008 ). In either case, differential socioeconomic resources do not explain much of the differences between married young adults and other young adults’ mental health; if anything, like selection by prior mental health, the fewer resources available to married young adults suppress the effect of marriage (vis-à-vis singles) on psychological distress and explain some of the engaged dating advantage over marriage. Socioeconomic resources do little in the way of explaining differential levels of either drunkenness or life satisfaction.

Perhaps the best mediators of those tested are relationship stability—measured here by the number of sex partners in the last year—and self-image. Not having multiple sex partners (which indicates relationship stability) explains almost 30% of married young adults’ psychological distress advantage over single young adults. Exiting relationships can lead to psychological distress among young adults ( Simon and Barrett 2010 ), and marriage—though not indissoluble—buffers many young adults from that distress. More positive self-image explains the rest of the marrieds’ lower psychological distress compared to singles and about 23% of engaged daters’ lower psychological distress (compared to married young adults). Still, self-image is less helpful in explaining differences in frequency of drunkenness (where parenthood may be a key factor) and life satisfaction. In the end, marriage’s effects are often robust to these selection factors and mediating variables.

While this study has mapped the effects of marriage and mental health in young adulthood and the moderating effect of age at first marriage on those effects, future studies may wish to explore the social contexts in which these effects hold true. Individuals’ immediate social context, including both structural (e.g., neighborhood disadvantage) and cultural (e.g., local age norms) factors, may buffer or exacerbate the effect of marriage on mental health ( Clarke and Wheaton 2005 ). The conclusion that social approval explains some of the age-at-marriage effect on life satisfaction could be further tested to see whether this effect is more or less present in contexts where early marriage is more or less affirmed.

Because many studies of marriage and mental health focus on gender differences, I did conduct ancillary analyses to test for gender interactions. None were significant for psychological distress. Three were significant for frequency of drunkenness: the effect of being single and of being an unengaged cohabitor (vis-à-vis ever-married) is positive for men, but even more positive for women. The effect of engaged dating was negative for men but not significant for women. For life satisfaction, unengaged cohabiting men reported lower satisfaction than ever-married men, but the effect was even more negative for unengaged cohabiting women. The same pattern is true for unengaged daters, but only in the final model. These results corroborate the findings of several other studies that suggest perhaps “the future of marriage has arrived” (e.g., Williams 2003 ) in terms of converging gendered effects of marriage on mental health.

Finally, and importantly, this study cannot speak to the long-term effect of an early marital transition, only relatively short-term effects. Given longer exposure to the difficulties associated with early marriage, those who marry early may exhibit higher levels of mental health problems as they age. Furthermore, using a sample with a restricted age range such as this makes it difficult to reject the hypothesis that early marriage confers mental health benefits because these individuals are still in a “honeymoon” phase of their relationship ( VanLaningham, Johnson, and Amato 2001 ; Kim and McHenry 2002 ). Other studies with a wider age range in the sample are necessary to address this issue.

Researchers have only recently begun to move beyond the average effects of marriage on mental health and examine the contexts associated with better or worse mental health among those who are married. This study has furthered research efforts by focusing on marriage (vis-à-vis other types of relationships) in young adulthood, when marriage is non-normative and considered “early.” In general, marriage in young adulthood is not detrimental to mental health. Being in any sort of relationship is good for psychological distress, being married or engaged to be married curbs drunkenness, and married young adults—especially those who marry at ages 22–26—are more satisfied with their lives. These findings suggest that marriage’s mental health benefits are apparent, at least in many ways, among young adults who have married at a relatively early age.

Acknowledgments

Data acknowledgement: This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website ( http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth ). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Funding acknowledgment: The author acknowledges support from the grant, 5 T32 HD007168, Population Research Training, awarded to the Carolina Population Center at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The author was partially supported by funding from the Social Trends Institute.

1 Some might construe some of these psychological benefits as aspects of mental health. They are certainly the most proximate explanation for mental health differences. Because of this, I include psychological variables in the final models of my analysis. Including these items as mediators thus does not obscure the affect of the other mediators in the previous models.

2 Those who had never had a romantic or sexual relationship may not be represented in these data. To help assess how this might affect my results, in ancillary analyses I included those who were missing from the relationship inventory and reported never having had sex at the Wave 3 interview. These respondents are similar to the other single respondents in their psychological distress and life satisfaction, and including this group with the other singles does not significantly alter the effect of being single in the results presented for these two outcomes. This group of virgins is less likely than marrieds (and other singles), however, to get drunk more frequently. Including them with the other singles in the models reduces the effect of being single, but it is still substantively and significantly positive in all models when these respondents are added to the sample. Because many of these respondents may have had romantic partners (but not sexual partners), I only include respondents who provided the detailed relationship data.

• Bachman Jerald G, Wadsworth Katherine N, O’Malley Patrick M, Johnston Lloyd D, Schulenberg John. Smoking, Drinking, and Drug Use in Young Adulthood: The Impacts of New Freedoms and New Responsibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bachman Jerald G, O’Malley Patrick M, Schulenberg John E, Johnston Lloyd D, Bryant Alison L, Merline Alicia C. The Decline of Substance Use in Young Adulthood: Changes in Social Activities, Roles, and Beliefs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bierman Alex, Fazio Elena M, Milkie Melissa A. A Multifaceted Approach to the Mental Health Advantage of the Married: Assessing How Explanations Vary by Outcome Measure and Unmarried Group. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27 :554–582. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth Alan, Rustenbach Elisa, McHale Susan. Early Family Transitions and Depressive Symptom Changes from Adolescence to Early Adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008; 70 :3–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown Susan L. The Effect of Union Type on Psychological Well-Being: Depression among Cohabitors Versus Marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2000; 41 :241–255. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brines Julie, Joyner Kara. The Ties That Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage. American Sociological Review. 1999; 64 :333–355. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherlin Andrew J. The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66 :848–861. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke Philippa, Wheaton Blair. Mapping Social Context on Mental Health Trajectories through Adulthood". In: Macmillan Ross., editor. The Structure of the Life Course: Standardized? Individualized? Differentiated? New York: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 269–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen Jacob, Cohen Patricia, West Stephen G, Aiken Leona S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder Glen H., Jr . Life Course Dynamics: Trajectories and Transitions 1968–1980. New York: Cornell University Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder Glen H., Jr . The Life Course Paradigm: Social Change and Individual Development. In: Moen Phyllis, Elder Glen H, Jr, Lüscher Kurt., editors. Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development. Washington, DC: Psychological Association; 1995. pp. 101–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evenson Ranae J, Simon Robin W. Clarifying the Relationship Between Parenthood and Depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2005; 46 :341–358. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleming Charles B, White Helene R, Catalano Richard F. Romantic Relationships and Substance Use in Early Adulthood: An Examination of the Influences of Relationship Type, Partner Substance Use, and Relationship Quality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51 :153–167. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forthofer Melinda S, Kessler Ronald C, Story Amber L, Gotlib Ian H. The Effects of Psychiatric Disorders on the Probability and Timing of First Marriage. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1996; 37 :121–132. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frech Adrianne, Williams Kristi. Depression and the Psychological Benefits of Entering Marriage. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2007; 48 :149–163. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George Linda K. Life Course Perspectives on Social Factors and Mental Illness. In: Avison William R, McLeod Jane D, Pescosolido Bernice A., editors. Mental Health, Social Mirror. New York: Springer; 2007. pp. 191–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin Paula, McGill Brittany, Chandra Anjani. Who Marries and When? Age at First Marriage in the United States, 2002. NCHS Data Brief, No. 19. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2009. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin Paula Y, Mosher William D, Chandra Anjani. Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Statistics. 2010; 23 (28) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gotlib Ian H, Lewinsohn Peter M, Seeley John R. Consequences of Depression During Adolescence: Marital Status and Marital Functioning in Early Adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998; 107 :686–690. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gove Walter R, Style Carolyn Briggs, Hughes Michael. The Effect of Marriage on the Well-Being of Adults. Journal of Family Issues. 1990; 11 :4–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris Kathleen Mullan, Lee Hedwig, DeLeone Felicia Yang. Marriage and Health in the Transition to Adulthood: Evidence for African Americans in the Add Health Study. Journal of Family Issues. 2010; 31 :1106–1143. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horwitz Allan V, White Helene Raskin. Becoming Married, Depression, and Alcohol Problems among Young Adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1991; 32 :221–237. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horwitz Allan V, White Helene Raskin, Howell-White Sandra. Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1996; 58 :895–907. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Hyoun K, McKenry Patrick C. The Relationship Between Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Family Issues. 2002; 23 :885–911. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamb Kathleen A, Lee Gary R, DeMaris Alfred. Union Formation and Depression: Selection and Relationship Effects. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003; 65 :953–962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lehrer Evelyn L. Age at Marriage and Marital Instability: Revisiting the Becker-Landes-Michael Hypothesis. Journal of Population Economics. 2008; 21 :463–484. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu Hui, Elliott Sinikka, Umberson Debra J. Grant Jon E, Potenza Marc N. Young Adult Mental Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. Marriage in Young Adulthood; pp. 169–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loughran David S, Zissimopoulos Julie. “Why Wait? The Effect of Marriage and Childbearing on the Wages of Men and Women” WR-482-1, RAND. 2008. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcussen Kristen. Explaining Differences in Mental Health Between Married and Cohabiting Individuals. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2005; 68 :239–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marini Margaret Mooney. Determinants of the Timing of Adult Role Entry. Social Science Research. 1985; 14 :309–350. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks Nadine F. Flying Solo at Midlife: Gender, Marital Status, and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1996; 57 :387–398. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin Joyce A, Hamilton Brady E, Sutton Paul D, Ventura Stephanie J, Mathews TJ, Kirmeyer Sharon, Osterman Michelle JK. Births: Final Data for 2007. National Vital Statistics Reports 58:24. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mastekaasa Arne. Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: Some Evidence on Selection into Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1992; 54 :901–911. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan Sarah, Adams Julia. The Effects of Children on Adult’s Psychological Well-Being: 1957–1976. Social Forces. 1989; 68 :124–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mouw Ted. Sequences of Early Adult Transitions. In: Settersten Richard A, Jr, Furstenberg Frank F, Jr, Rumbaut Ruben G., editors. On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago; 2005. pp. 256–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nomaguchi Kei M, Milkie Melissa A. Costs and Rewards of Children: The Effects of Becoming a Parent on Adults’ Lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2003; 65 :356–374. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross Catherine E. Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum of Social Attachment. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1995; 57 :129–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross Catherine E, Mirowsky John, Goldsteen Katherine. The Impact of the Family on Mental Health: The Decade in Review. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1990; 52 :1059–1078. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryff Carol D, Keyes Corey Lee M. The Structure of Psychological Well-Being Revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :719–727. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott Mindy E, Steward-Streng Nicole R, Manlove Jennifer, Schelar Erin, Cui Carol. Characteristics of Young Adult Sexual Relationships: Diverse, Sometimes Violent, Often Loving Child Trends Research Brief #2011-01. Washington, DC: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Settersten Richard A, Jr, Hägestad Gunhild O. What’s the Latest? Cultural Age Deadlines for Family Transitions. The Gerontologist. 1996; 36 :178–188. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon Robin W. Revisiting the Relationships among Gender, Marital Status, and Mental Health. The American Journal of Sociology. 2002; 107 :1065–1096. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon Robin W, Barrett Anne E. Nonmarital Romantic Relationships and Mental Health in Early Adulthood: Does the Association Differ for Women and Men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51 :168–182. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stutzer Alois, Frey Bruno S. Does Marriage Make People Happy, or Do Happy People Get Married? The Journal of Socio-Economics. 2006; 35 :326–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teachman Jay D, Polonko Karen A, Scanzoni John. Family Demography: Recent Trends and Developments in the Field. In: Sussman Marvine D, Steinmetz Suzanne K., editors. Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press; 1986. pp. 3–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uecker Jeremy E, Stokes Charles E. Early Marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008; 70 :835–846. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson Debra, Williams Kristi. Family Status and Mental Health. In: Aneshensel Carol S, Phelan Jo C., editors. Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plunem Publishers; 1999. pp. 225–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Census Bureau. [Accessed online March 24, 2010]; Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present. 2009 from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.xls .
• United States Census Bureau. [Accessed online February 20, 2011]; Marital Status of the Population by Sex and Age: 2009. 2011 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0057.pdf .
• VanLaningham Jody, Johnson David R, Amato Paul. Marital Happiness, Marital Duration, and the U-Shaped Curve: Evidence from a Five-Wave Panel Study. Social Forces. 2001; 78 :1313–1341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite Linda J. Marital History and Well-Being in Later Life. In: Uhlenberg Peter., editor. International Handbook of Population Aging. New York: Springer; 2009. pp. 685–698. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams Kristi, Umberson Debra. Marital Status, Marital Transitions, and Health: A Gendered Life Course Perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2004; 45 :81–98. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams Kristi. Has the Future of Marriage Arrived? A Contemporary Examination of Gender, Marriage, and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2003; 44 :470–487. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Modern Marriage

“i like hugs. i like kisses. but what i really love is help with the dishes.”.

For anyone trying to figure out what makes for a successful marriage nowadays, the scrap of doggerel 1 in the title of this report isn’t a bad place to start.

According to a new Pew Research Center survey of American adults, “sharing household chores” now ranks third in importance on a list of nine items often associated with successful marriages – well ahead of such staples as adequate income, good housing, common interests and shared religious beliefs. Well ahead, even, of children (for more on attitudes about marriage and parenthood, see the Pew Research Center report “ As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned about Social Impact “).

Some 62% of adults say sharing household chores is very important to marital success. On this question, there’s virtually no difference of opinion between men and women; or between older adults and younger adults; or between married people and singles.

Another three-in-ten adults says sharing household cores is “rather important” to a successful marriage. Just 7% say it is “not very important.”

In the public’s ranking of keys to a successful marriage, “sharing household chores” still trails far behind the perennial leader — “faithfulness” –which is rated as very important by 93% of survey respondents. But household chores are now nipping at the heels of the second-place item – “happy sexual relationship,” which draws a very-important rating from 70% of survey respondents.

It hasn’t always been this good for household chores.

Back in 1990, fewer than half (47%) of adults said sharing household chores was very important to a successful marriage. In the 17 years since then, no other item on the list has risen in importance nearly as much. And this rise has come all across the demographic landscape – among men as well as women, among marrieds as well as singles; among old as well as young.

There are only a few significant group differences on this question. Blacks and Hispanics are somewhat more inclined than whites to say shared household chores are very important to a successful marriage. Also, married working mothers are more inclined to feel this way than are married mothers who don’t work outside the home.

But even these variances are relatively modest. Overall, the new social consensus on this point is quite broad. Which raises the question: just how well are the actual behaviors of actual spouses measuring up against these new social norms?

The Pew survey wasn’t designed to explore that question, but other surveys have taken it on. And the trend lines are clear: there’s a lot more spousal sharing in the family chore foxhole now than there used to be.

A comprehensive study of family time diaries released earlier this year by researchers at the University of Maryland found that fathers, on average, did 9.6 hours a week of household chores in 2003, more than double the 4.4 hours they did in 1965. They also upped their child care to an average of 7 hours a week in 2003, nearly triple the 2.5 hours they logged in 1965.

To be sure, fathers still trail well behind mothers in both categories. The Maryland study found that mothers on average, spent 18.1 hours a week on household chores in 2003 (down from 31.9 in 1965) and 14.1 hours a week caring for their children (up from 10.2 hours in 1965).

In short, there’s not yet full gender equality on the diapers-and-dishes front lines, but there’s obviously more sharing than there used to be – leading one family studies professor, William Doherty of the University of Minnesota, to observe: “It is not the case that men are slugs.” 2

Touché, professor. Now hand that man a dirty dish.

• Author unknown. ↩
• “Fathers Are No Longer Glued to Their Recliners – Child-Care, Housework Hours Increase” by Donna St. George, Washington Post Staff Writer: Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A11. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Household Structure & Family Roles
• Marriage & Divorce

What do Americans think about fewer people choosing to have children?

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, most east asian adults say men and women should share financial and caregiving duties, the modern american family, in a growing share of u.s. marriages, husbands and wives earn about the same, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Marriage Research Paper

This sample marriage research paper features: 8600 words (approx. 28 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 41 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Choice of marriage partner, courtship patterns and mate selection, restrictions on marriage: the incest taboo, the act of marriage, love and marriage, economic aspects of marriage, sexuality and marriage, forms of marriage, universality of marriage, family structure and types of households, changes in marriage and the family.

• Bibliography

Marriage and families are found in all societies; however, marriage and family customs vary significantly across cultures. Cultures differ with regard to what is considered appropriate premarital behavior, whom one marries, how one marries, a proper marriage ceremony, and length and purpose of the marriage. From an anthropological perspective, there are various marriage systems or “marriagelike” relationships that fulfill both biological and social functions. Regarding families, all societies have parent-child social groups but the size and form of the family varies. Although marriage remains customary across societies, it does not necessarily constitute the basis for family life.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Marriage is found in virtually all societies, and the majority (some 90%) of people in every society get married at least once in their lifetime (Carroll & Wolpe, 1996; Ember, Ember, & Peregrine, 2006). Cultures vary with regard to what is considered appropriate premarital behavior, whom one marries, how one marries, a proper marriage ceremony, and length and purpose of the marriage. Each culture also defines marriage differently although there are some common criteria across many societies. Marriage is typically defined simply as a “socially approved sexual and economic union, usually between a woman and a man”  (Ember et al., 2006, p. 343), which is generally denoted symbolically in some way (e.g., ceremony, certificate, symbols—rings). Normally, there are reciprocal rights and obligations between the two spouses and their future children. Viewing marriage as a social process where new relationships are set up between the kin of both the husband and the wife essentially describes all forms of marriage. With this, marriage maintains social patterns through the production of offspring.

Traditionally, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman with children born to the woman being recognized as legitimate offspring to both parents (Royal Anthropological Institute, 1951). Marriage was thought to change the status of a man and a woman, stipulate the degree of sexual access for the married partners, establish the legitimacy of the children born to the wife, and create relationships between the kin of both the wife and husband. Anthropologists have since noted the exceptions to this standard definition and have expanded it to reflect broader practices. As such, Miller (2008) offers a working definition of marriage given the complexity of practices that fall under the umbrella of marriage— “a more or less stable union, usually between two people, who may be, but are not necessarily, co-residential, sexually involved with each other, and procreative with each other” (p. 140).

British anthropologist Edmund Leach (1955) observed that marriage may accomplish the following depending on the society. Leach described these rights of marriage as possibilities for either or both spouses:

• Establish legal father and mother of children
• Provide control over sexuality of spouse
• Give rights to labor of spouse
• Give rights over spouse’s property
• Create a joint fund of property (for children)
• Begin a socially significant affinal relationship between spouses and their relatives

In some cultures, there are other reasons for marriage. For instance, the Hindu religion considers marriage sacred and representative of the marriage between the sun goddess Surya and the moon god Soma. Without a wife, a man is considered spiritually incomplete (Kumari, 1988). Representing the two interacting principles of Yin (female, passive, weak) and Yang (male, active, strong), long-term relationships in China are thought to be a spiritual necessity that ensures survival. Still others may marry to gain higher status (Sonko, 1994).

From the ethnographic literature, we know that one group of people did not have marriage as it has been typically defined. During the 19th century, a caste group in southern India called the Nayar appear to have treated sexual and economic relations between men and women as separate from marriage. At puberty, Nayar girls took ritual husbands but after the ceremony, the husband had no responsibility for his wife and typically never saw her again. The girl lived in a large household with extended family and was visited by other men through the years. If she became pregnant by any of them, the man was not responsible for supporting her or the child except for paying for a midwife. The female’s relatives remained responsible for supporting her. Thought to be a response to extended male absence during military service, Nayar unions seemed to fulfill the needs of this particular caste group within a historical and cultural period. Today, the Nayar men are not involved in soldiering to the extent they once were, and stable marital relationships have become the norm (Ember et al., 2006).

Across societies, many people live in long-term, common-law domestic partnerships that are not legally sanctioned. Some people have civil marriages which are licensed and legalized by a justice of the peace while others go through religious marriage ceremonies so they are united from a religious perspective but not a legal one (Kottak, 2008).

Every society has directives and ideological notions about whom one should marry ranging from arranged marriages to exogamous individual choice of partner. Sometimes these directives are informal and implicit, and other times they are formal and explicit. Marriage is one of the primary ways to establish relationships of affinity in contrast to consanguine relationships, which are from bloodlines.

Exogamy and Endogamy

Exogamy, the practice of seeking a husband or wife outside of one’s own defined social group, has adaptive value because it links people into a wider social network that can nurture, provide for, and protect during times of need (Kottak, 2008). For example, the Hindus of northern India practice village exogamy in order to ensure that spouses live in a far-away village or town. In addition, exogamy ensures genetic diversity between groups and maintains a successful human species.

In contrast, endogamy is the practice of marriage within a particular group so that the spouse comes from a specific social category. Sometimes endogamy is based on geographic location. For instance, village endogamy is favored in the eastern Mediterranean among both Christians and Muslims, and among Muslims throughout India and among Hindus in southern India. In other cultures, endogamy occurs to maintain a strong kinship network. Some religious and ethnic groups prefer endogamy in order that groups remain intact. An extreme example of endogamy is India’s caste system, which, although abolished in 1949, still remains in terms of structure and ideology. Royal endogamy, usually royal brother-sister marriage in a few societies, is similar to caste endogamy whereby certain sacred, political, and economic functions can be maintained. Inca Peru, ancient Egypt, and traditional Hawaii allowed royal brothersister marriages. Other kingdoms, including European royalty, have practiced endogamy through cousin marriage rather than brother-sister marriage (Kottak, 2008).

Hypergyny, Hypogyny, and Isogamy

Status also plays an important role in the selection of a spouse across cultures. Hypergyny, or “marrying up,” indicates a marriage where the bride has a lower status than the groom. Hypergyny is commonplace in northern India especially among upper-status groups and in middle- and upper-class individuals in the United States. The opposite of hypergyny is hypogyny, or “marrying down,” in which a bride has a higher status than the groom. Hypogyny is relatively rare cross-culturally. Isogamy is marriage between partners who are status equals and occurs in cultures where gender roles are viewed as holding equal value (Miller, 2008).

Arranged Marriages

Arranged marriages are marriages that are “arranged” by parents of the bride and groom based on whether they believe the families are good matches. Arranged marriages are well-known in many Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries. The most important criteria that parents consider are the family’s reputation, social status, education, occupation and income of the spouse, and the absence of undesirable family traits like mental illness or divorce (Miller, 2008).

Cousin Marriages

An example of kin endogamy is cousin marriages, which has two forms: parallel cousins and cross-cousins. The marriage between parallel cousins is comprised of the children of either one’s father’s brother or one’s mother’s sister (linking siblings are the same gender). The marriage between cross-cousins includes children of either one’s father’s sister or one’s mother’s brother (linking siblings are of different genders). Parallel-cousin marriage is practiced by many Muslim groups in the Middle East and northern Africa, especially patrilateral parallel-cousin marriage, which is cousin marriage into the father’s line (Miller, 2008). Matrilateral cross-cousin marriage (cousin marriage into the mother’s line) is favored by Hindus of southern India but only includes about a fourth of the population (Ramesh, Srikumari, & Sukumar, 1989).

Levirate and Sororate

Still common as a form of second marriage, cultural norms in many societies require individuals to marry the spouse of deceased relatives so that alliances between descent groups can be maintained. Levirate is the custom of a man marrying his brother’s widow. Sororate describes when a woman marries her deceased sister’s husband. In some societies, this practice is permitted but not required and widows make other arrangements (Potash, 1986).

There is a plethora of research about what attracts people to potential mates. Proximity has long been linked to attraction, and physical attractiveness seems to be a key ingredient in romantic relationships especially for males. Several hypotheses have been proposed about what attracts someone to a partner for a romantic relationship. The matching hypothesis proposes that people with equal physical characteristics select each other as partners (Brehm, 1985). The similarity hypothesis proposes that people with similar demographics of age, race, religion, social class, education, intelligence, attitudes, and physical attractiveness tend to form intimate relationships (Brehm, 1985). Another approach is the reciprocity hypothesis, suggesting that people like others who are unlike them (Byrne & Murnen, 1988).

How and why individuals are attracted to each other varies significantly across cultures. Despite some of the differences, there are cross-cultural similarities with regard to mate selection. In a well-known study conducted by evolutionary psychologist David Buss (1989, 1994), more than 10,000 respondents across 37 different cultures responded to questions about factors in choosing mates. In 36 out of 37 cultures, females, as compared with males, rated financial prospects as more important, and in 29 of the 36 cultures, they rated ambition and industriousness as more important. In all 37 cultures, females preferred older mates and males preferred younger mates. In 34 of the cultures, males rated good looks as more important than did females, and in 23 of the cultures, males rated chastity as more important than females. Buss concluded that his findings represented and supported an evolutionary framework of universal mate selection across cultures whereby females look for cues in potential male mates that signal resource acquisition and males place more value on reproductive capacity.

Others have emphasized the cultural differences in Buss’s study. As compared with more advanced or modern cultures, traditional, less advanced cultures place greater value on chastity, domestic skills (e.g., housekeeping), desire for home and children, and abilities to support the home (Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988). In China, India, Taiwan, and Iran, chastity was viewed as highly desirable in a prospective mate while in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway, it was considered irrelevant (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). Being a good housekeeper was highly valued in Estonia and China and of little value in Western Europe and North America. Refinement/neatness was highly valued in Nigeria and Iran and less so in Great Britain, Ireland, and Australia. Being religious was highly valued in Iran, moderately valued in India, and little valued in Western Europe and North America (Buss, 1994, p. 199).

Gender differences were also revealed in Buss’s study. Women across cultures place high value on characteristics of men that relate to providing resources—good earning capacity, financial prospects, ambition, industriousness, and social status. Men across the 37 cultures place a high premium on the physical appearance of a potential mate; according to Buss (1994), this supports an evolutionary argument because men use physical attractiveness as an indicator that the woman is fertile and has good reproductive capacity.

Other similar studies have shown that men across cultures rate physical attractiveness higher than women do in terms of preferences in a marital partner (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1995). However, there seem to be more consistencies than differences in descriptions of physical attractiveness. For instance, female attractiveness cross-culturally is connoted by characteristics of kindness, understanding, intelligence, good health, emotional stability, dependability, and a pleasing disposition (Shiraev & Levy, 2007). Attractiveness is usually described in terms of cleanliness, health, and feminine plumpness. Although the degree of plumpness varies across cultures, extreme thinness seems to be considered unattractive and unhealthy (Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988).

Other theories, such as the social construction perspective, suggest that interpersonal attraction is due to individual and cultural factors instead of evolutionary factors.

One study conducted in the United States highlights gender similarities in mate selection with both men and women rating kindness, consideration, honesty, and a sense of humor as important traits in mate selection (Goodwin, 1990). A more recent study (Pines, 2001) of American and Israeli students and their perceptions of romantic relationships combines both the evolutionary and social construction theories. Pines (2001) found that more men than women, regardless of culture, reported physical attractiveness as a major part of attraction (evolutionary theory). However, culture was important in other factors of attraction (e.g., compared with Israelis, Americans indicated status, closeness, and similarity as key determinants of attraction—social construction theory). In one study demonstrating different standards of beauty, Daibo, Murasawa, and Chou (1994) compared judgments of physical attractiveness made by Japanese and Koreans. In Japan, attractiveness ratings were positively correlated with large eyes, small mouths, and small chins. In Korea, however, attractiveness ratings were positively correlated with large eyes, small and high noses, and thin and small faces. Koreans were more likely than the Japanese to attach other judgments such as maturity and likeability to judgments of attractiveness (Daibo et al., 1994).

Patterns of courting and flirtation have similarities across many cultures (Aune & Aune, 1994), but there are many exceptions to the rules. Kissing, for example, is a widely acceptable cross-cultural phenomenon but is unknown to people in some cultures in Africa and South America, who would not consider kissing as an aspect of mate selection and reproduction (Shiraev & Levy, 2007). In Mediterranean cultures, physical affection is displayed by touching as a form of communication and is considered acceptable and appropriate, whereas in the United States it may be considered inappropriate with some groups. The expectation of marital fidelity appears to be almost universal, although among some Arctic peoples, it is customary to offer a host’s wife to a guest (Shiraev & Levy, 2007). Men everywhere react more negatively, as compared with women, when their partners share sexual fantasies about having sex with others. Women everywhere are more distressed than men when their partner is kissing someone else (Rathus, Nevid, & Fischer-Rathus, 1993).

A relatively new phenomenon is Internet dating and the development of computer-mediated relationships (CMR). Since the 1990s, the Internet has become a primary venue for social encounters across the globe—offering an expanded world of mate possibilities in a shorter period at less expense (Lawson & Leck, 2006). Although some theorists have lamented the technological isolation and reduction of face-to-face interaction leading to emotional disconnection or superficial attraction that can occur with the Internet (Lawson & Leck, 2006), others have suggested that the Internet can be helpful in promoting romantic relationships because physical attributes and traditional/ constraining gender and relationship roles are downplayed while other factors related to emotional intimacy (e.g., rapport, similarity, mutual self-disclosure) are emphasized (Lawson & Leck, 2006). Whitty and Carr (2006) describe how online relating is different than romantic and sexual relationships offline. Advantages include opportunity to “grow” a relationship, safe space to flirt and experiment with relationship development, and greater freedom for people who are anxious or introverted (Whitty & Carr, 2006). The biggest benefits of Internet dating are the sheer number of potential partners and the freedom of choice among partners (Lawson & Leck, 2006). In fact, in one study examining the dynamics of Internet dating, Internet daters reported being lonely and many said they were seeking comfort after a crisis situation. The majority of the respondents liked the control over the presentation of self on the Internet and the feeling of a safe environment for getting to know someone. Finally, respondents reported that Internet dating provided freedom from commitment and stereotypic roles (Lawson & Leck, 2006).

Some of the typical dating problems still remain with Internet dating—people still tell lies, trust has to be negotiated, presentation of self must be managed, compatibility continues to be important, and appearance and shyness issues do not completely disappear when dating online. Rejection and emotional pain still can be part of Internet dating, as they are with face-to-face dating. There is also a dark side of online relationships, including Internet infidelity, Internet addiction, pedophilia, cyberharassment, cyberstalking, and misrepresentation of self (Whitty & Carr, 2006). However, many Internet daters say they are willing to take the risks associated because of the advantages offered by this technology (Lawson & Leck, 2006). Overall, successful relationships online start with people being honest and upfront in their profiles (Whitty & Carr, 2006).

One of the most basic and universal rules of exclusion to marriage is the incest taboo, or a rule prohibiting marriage or sexual intercourse between certain kinship relations. The most common form of incest taboo across societies is against marriage or sexual intercourse between fathers and their children and mothers and their children. In the majority of cultures, brother-sister marriage is prohibited, although there are exceptions. Historically, brothersister marriage in royal families was considered the norm and even existed to some extent in the general population (Kottak, 2008). A prime example of this was brother-sister marriages of royalty in Egypt at the time of the Roman Empire (Miller, 2008). In some cultures, incest taboos include cousin marriage, although in other cultures, cousin marriage is considered a viable option in order to build localized kinship networks. In other groups, such as the Nuer of southern Sudan, the incest taboo includes all members of the patrilineage in order to create widely dispersed kin networks (Kottak, 2008; Miller, 2008).

One of the most practical explanations for the incest taboo is that it arose to ensure exogamy, which was evolutionarily advantageous in terms of increasing survival via the creation and maintenance of alliances outside the social network. Despite prevalence of the taboo, in one study across 87 societies, some occurrences of incest were identified (Meigs & Barlow, 2002). Reportedly incest was “widely practiced” among the Yanomami of Venezuela and Brazil. Among the Ashanti people, punishment for incest shifted from death to merely being fined. Among 24 Ojibwa individuals, 8 cases of parent-child incest and 10 cases of brother-sister incest were found (Kottak, 2008). In Western societies, father-daughter incest is considered a risk under certain conditions (Meigs & Barlow, 2002). Father-daughter incest is most common with stepfathers and nonbiological male household members but also occurs with biological fathers, especially those who were absent or did little caretaking of their daughters in childhood (Kottak, 2008).

Societies have some way of marking the onset of marriage. Many societies have formal ceremonies and rituals that denote the beginning of marriage while others use symbolic or informal practices to indicate that a marriage has occurred. In the societies where a ceremony occurs, several elements emphasizing important aspects of the particular culture commonly occur as part of the ceremony. For instance, feasting and celebrations typically accompany marriage ceremonies, often with the underlying purpose of bringing the two families and friends together in unification. Shinto customs are still followed by many in Japanese wedding ceremonies with the drinking of rice wine (sake) after the ceremony to confirm the marriage (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). In some cultures, marriage ceremony customs include ritualized expressions of hostility between kin groups such as the trading of insults, which occurs on the Polynesian atoll of Pukapuka (Kottak, 2008). In Kenya, the rebuilding of a house in the bride’s village represents an important part of the marriage ceremony (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002).

The role of romantic love has been debated historically and cross-culturally. Many argue that romantic love did not become part of marriage until Western Europe and America accepted the idea given the strong influence of the Enlightenment and the individualistic emphasis during the French and American Revolutions (Coontz, 2007). Romantic love is more common in cultures where women are dependent on men economically, but increasingly, marriage based on romantic love is becoming widespread in many cultures (Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1995).

There is cultural variation in the extent to which love plays a role in marriage. Marriage for love is a fairly recent development in the Western world and may be related to the individualistic orientation (Coontz, 2005). In many Western cultures, marriage is viewed as the culmination of romantic love represented by the idealistic and somewhat “fairy-tale” notion that people meet their soul mates, fall in love, marry, and live “happily ever after,” proving that “love conquers all” (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). People in collectivistic cultures place less emphasis on romantic love and love commitment in marriage. Historically, people married to acquire status through influential in-laws, for political reasons, to forge family alliances, to increase labor forces, and to effect business mergers. Romantic love was not unknown but it was not considered an essential part of marriage and thus was discouraged on the basis of being a selfish and weak reason to marry. For instance, in ancient India, love before marriage was perceived as irresponsible and antisocial. During the Middle Ages, the French viewed love as a type of insanity only curable through sexual intercourse either with the beloved or with someone else (Coontz, 2007).

In contrast, many of the arranged marriages common in Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world do not have romantic love as a basis (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). This “Eastern ideal” is based on the notion that individuals have several possible mates with whom they could have a successful and enduring marriage. Arranged marriage is still practiced in some places, such as India, where arrangements may be made between families during a child’s infancy. Such arrangements are typically based on the parents’ status and knowledge of other families and possible matches; the marriage is considered the blending of two families (Ember et al., 2006; Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). Arranged marriages are viewed as more than just a union between two individuals and more as an alliance between families and even communities (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2002). However, trends are changing even in countries where arranged marriage has been popular. For example, in Japan, love marriages are replacing the earlier practice of arranged marriages, yet traditional customs often remain as part of the ceremony.

For thousands of years, the institution of marriage served many economic, political, and social functions at the cost of minimizing the needs and wishes of individuals (Coontz, 2005). Especially in the last 200 years, marriage, particularly in Europe and America, has become more personal and private with a greater emphasis on the emotional and sexual needs of the couple. With this historical transition came free choice in mate selection as the societal norm and love as the primary reason for marriage. As Coontz (2005) notes, “Marriage has become more joyful, more loving, and more satisfying for many couples than ever before in history. At the same time it has become optional and more brittle. These two strands of change cannot be disentangled” (p. 306). For some, this transformation of marriage and love has been appreciated as a liberating option from restrictive social and cultural expectations. For others, the shift has meant a significant loss of rules and protocol for relationships with nothing offered in its place. With such factors, the need to marry or remain unhappily married decreases.

Coontz (2005) suggests historical factors that have supported single living and personal autonomy. Factors include the belief that women have just as much sexual desire as men; less societal/governmental regulation of personal behavior and conformity; reliable birth control, which became readily available in the 1960s, relieving women from fears of unwanted pregnancy; increasing economic independence of women; and more time- and laborsaving devices, which have lessened the demand on women to do housekeeping. Examining the role of love in marriage provides a unique lens that reveals many aspects of culture, economic, interpersonal, and emotional (Padilla, Hirsch, Muñoz-Laboy, Sember, & Parker, 2007).

Most marriages (approximately 75%) are accompanied by some type of economic transaction, and exchanges between partners of goods or services and their families and friends (Ember et al., 2006).

Bride Price

Bride price or bridewealth, common in horticultural and pastoralist cultures, is the transfer of goods or money from the groom’s family to the bride’s family. This is the most common economic transaction across cultures. Payment of the bride price can be in the form of money, livestock, or even food. Bride price still occurs globally but is most popular in Africa and Oceania. For example, the Nandi typically offer five to seven cattle, one or two sheep and goats, cowrie shells, and money equivalent to one cow as the bride price.

Brideservice is a type of bride price where labor is transferred from the groom to his parents-in-law over a designated time period. This still occurs in about 19% of societies that have an economic transaction as part of marriage. One particular example is the brideservice still practiced in the Amazon (Ember et al., 2006).

Exchange of Families

In a few societies (about 6% who have economic transactions at marriage), a sister or female relative of the groom is exchanged for the bride. This occurs, for example, among horticultural and egalitarian societies such as the Tiv of West Africa and the Yanomamö of Venezuela and Brazil (Ember et al., 2006).

Gift Exchange

Gift exchange between the two kin groups linked by marriage occurs in some 11% of societies that have economic transactions at marriage. In the United States, it is customary that the groom’s family is responsible for paying for the rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding whereas the bride’s family is expected to pay the costs for everything else (Miller, 2008). Among the Andaman Islanders, kin groups become united through the parents exchanging gifts via a third party once a boy and girl have voiced their intention to marry (Ember et al., 2006).

A dowry is the transfer of goods (sometimes money) from the bride’s side to the new married couple for their use. Occurring in about 8% of societies with economic transactions at marriage, the dowry normally includes household goods such as furniture, cooking utensils, and perhaps even a house. Dowries are still practiced in parts of Eastern Europe, southern Italy, France, and India (Ember et al., 2006).

In parts of India, the dowry passes to the groom’s family making the more accurate term groom price (Miller, 2008). Sometimes, an indirect dowry is provided from the groom’s family by giving goods to the bride’s father who then passes them along to her. Among the Basseri of southern Iran, the groom’s father gives cash to the bride’s father in order to set up the couple’s new household (Ember et al., 2006).

In many cultures, marriage sanctions sexual relations between partners. In others, sexuality is confined to procreative purposes. Depending on the society, there are different views about procreation. In some societies, it is believed that spirits place babies in women’s wombs. Some cultural groups believe that a fetus must be nourished by continual insemination during pregnancy. The Barí of Venezuela believe that multiple men can create the same fetus (multiple paternity). When the baby is born, the mother names the men she recognizes as fathers and they assist her in raising the child (Kottak, 2008).

Sexual practices differ as well depending on the society. Some societies are more restrictive concerning sexuality. The regulation of premarital sex and extramarital sex differs depending on the society. For example, Inis Beag, off the coast of Northern Island, is a sexually conservative and prohibiting culture. Nudity is prohibited, sexual ignorance is widespread, female orgasm is unknown, marital sex occurs infrequently, and the idea of sexual pleasure is nonexistent (Messenger, 1993). In other societies, such as the Melanesian Islands in the South Sea, marital sex is perceived as a normal and natural form of pleasure; however, premarital and extramarital sex are almost equal to the crime of murder (Davenport, 1965). Reportedly, in the Melanesian Islands, marital intercourse including orgasm is expected to occur two to three times per day in the early years of marriage, and later to subside to once a day or less. Premarital masturbation is encouraged for both males and females. The Trobriand Islanders approve of and even encourage premarital sex and provide thorough instruction in various forms of sexual expression for adolescents, believing that it is important preparation for later marital activities. The Ila-speaking population of central Africa encourage trial marriage between adolescents so that girls can “play wife” with boys of interest before marriage. Reportedly, virginity in this group does not occur after age 10 (Ember et al., 2006). Other cultural groups, such as many Muslim societies, “test” the female’s virginity by displaying blood-stained sheets from the wedding night as proof of her premarital chastity.

Extramarital sex is fairly common across societies, with about 69% of men and 57% of women engaging in extramarital sex more than occasionally. Most societies have a double standard with regard to women’s sexual behavior and expect that women will have more restrictions against extramarital sex.

One commonality of sex occurring during marriage is privacy in almost all societies. North Americans typically find privacy in their bedrooms while others have to locate other private areas or sometimes perform coitus with others present. Nighttime is generally the preferred time for coitus in most cultures although there are examples of preferences for daytime sex (e.g., the Rucuyen of Brazil). There are other prohibitions in some cultures restricting sexual activity, for example, before certain activities like hunting or planting or because of certain events like death, pregnancy, or menstruation (Ember et al., 2006).

The acceptance of homosexual relations differs widely across societies. Some more restrictive societies deny homosexuality and thus forbid homosexual practices. Historically in other groups, like the Siwans of North Africa, there are examples of much greater permissiveness regarding homosexuality, and all males were expected to engage in homosexual relations. The Etoro of New Guinea are reported to have preferred homosexuality to heterosexuality with specific prohibitions against heterosexuality most of the days during a year. Furthermore, male homosexuality was thought to make crops flourish and strengthen males (Ember et al., 2006).

Typically, marriage has been between a male and a female, but some societies have recognized marriage between people of the same biological sex. In the anthropological literature, alternative forms of marriage have also been noted.

Monogamy is the marriage between two people (opposite gender if heterosexual and same gender if homosexual). Heterosexual monogamy is the most frequent form of marriage across cultures and constitutes the only legal form of marriage in many countries (Miller, 2008). Serial monogamy appears to be a common form of monogamy in North American, where people may have more than one spouse in their lifetimes but never legally at the same time (Kottak, 2008).

Same-Sex Marriages

Some societies recognize various kinds of same-sex marriages (Kottak, 2008). Same-sex marriages are legal in Denmark; Norway; Holland; South Africa; Ontario, Canada; and Massachusetts, in the United States. There is much debate politically and socially regarding the legal status of same-sex marriages (Miller, 2008).

Depending on the historical and cultural setting, samesex marriages have been accepted. In some African cultures, for instance, women may marry other women in order to strengthen their social and economic status among society (Kottak, 2008). Among the Nandi of Kenya, approximately 3% of marriages are female-female marriages. The Nuer of southern Sudan are also reported to have womanwoman marriage. In this type of marriage, a woman with economic means gives gifts to obtain a “wife” and brings her into the residential compound just as a man would do if he married a woman. The wife in a Nuer woman-woman marriage performs productive labor by having sexual relations with a man, as the two women do not have a sexual relationship with each other. Her children, however, will belong to the two women who are married (Miller, 2008). In former times, the Cheyenne Indians allowed married men to take berdaches (two-spirits/male transvestites) as second wives (Ember et al., 2006).

Plural Marriages/Polygamy

Polygamy is marriage that involves multiple spouses, which is still permitted in many cultures (Miller, 2008). The most common form of plural marriage is polygyny, which is the marriage of one man with more than one woman. Polygyny in many societies serves as an indicator of a man’s wealth and prestige—in other words, the more wives he has, the greater status he accrues. In other societies, polygyny is practiced because a man has inherited a widow from his brother (levirate). In still others, polygyny is a way to advance politically and economically. For polygyny to work, there has to be some agreement among the wives about their status and household chores. Generally, there is a first wife or a senior wife who is in charge of the household and has some say-so regarding who is taken as another wife. For instance, among the Betsileo of Madagascar, each wife lived in a different village, but the senior, first wife, called “Big Wife”, lived in the primary village of her husband where he spent most of his time (Kottak, 2008). Other customs like having separate living quarters for cowives who are not sisters helps lessen jealousy among the cowives. The Tanala of Madagascar require the husband to spend one day with each cowife in succession and assist with cultivation of that wife’s land. If this rule is not followed, a wife can sue for divorce and alimony up to a third of the husband’s property. Such a practice gives cowives greater equality in matters of sex, possessions, and economics (Ember et al., 2006).

Marriage between one woman and more than one man (polyandry) is extremely rare, although it is still practiced in Tibet and parts of the surrounding Himalayan region. In Tibet, fraternal polyandry (brothers jointly marrying a wife) is still practiced. Fraternal polyandry is one of the least common forms of marriage globally, but in Tibet, it remains a viable and ideal form of marriage and family. Practically, the eldest brother is normally the dominant authority. The wife is expected to treat all brothers equally, and the sexual aspect of sharing spouses is not viewed as repulsive by males or females. Any offspring are treated similarly, and the children consider all the brothers their fathers. The typical explanation given for this type of marriage in Tibet is that it is a materialistic and economically advantageous one. The brothers do not have to divide their property and can therefore have a higher standard of living. Due to changes in social and economic conditions, polyandry may vanish within the next generation (Kottak, 2008).

Other Forms of Marriage

In the Brazilian community of Arembepe, people can choose among various forms of sexual union including common-law partnerships (not legally sanctioned), civil marriages, and “holy matrimony” (religious ceremony but not legally sanctioned). This means that some can have multiple spouses at the same time from the different types of unions (Kottak, 2008).

Also common among the Nuer was what EvansPritchard (1951) called the ghost marriage. The Nuer believed that a man who died without male heirs in his family was likely to trouble his living kin through an unhappy and angry spirit left behind. To appease the angry spirit, a relative of the dead man would often marry a woman “to his name” so that the woman was married to the ghost but lived with one of his surviving kinsmen.

The custom of female-male marriage practiced across societies appears to have adaptive functions that solve problems in societies. For instance, marriage has been proposed as an answer to gender division of labor that exists in every society. If societies designate different economic activities for men and women, there needs to be a mechanism by which the products of labor can be shared between men and women, and marriage is one possible solution.

Another interpretation of why marriage is universal is based on the extended care required for human infants. It has been suggested that infants have a prolonged dependency on the mother (typically the main caregiver in most cultures); this limits the kind of work she can do (hunting, for example). Therefore one solution is that the man must be available to help the woman with certain tasks, thus the mechanism of marriage (Ember et al., 2006).

A third interpretation of why marriage is universal is sexual competition between males for females. Marriage offers one possibility for reducing male rivalry and destructive conflict so that societies can survive (Ember, et al., 2006).

Many believe that divorce occurs more frequently in the modern United States as compared with other societies. However, anthropologists have reported comparable rates of separation and remarriage among hunting and gathering societies and other groups to those in modern-day industrial societies. For example, the highest rates of divorce ever recorded in the first half of the 20th century were in Malaysia and Indonesia, which surpassed the U.S. record rates of 1981 (Coontz, 2007). Depending on the society, ease of divorce varies. Marriage is much easier to dissolve in societies where marriage is more of an individual affair. In other societies where marriage represents a political and social union between families and communities, divorce is more difficult (Kottak, 2008). Considerable bridewealth and replacement marriages (levirate and sororate) work to preserve group alliances and thus decrease divorce rates. A wife among the Shoshone Indians could divorce her husband by merely placing her husband’s possessions outside the dwelling, which was considered her property. Divorce is official among the Cewa of East Africa when the husband leaves his wife’s village taking along his hoe, axe, and sleeping mat (Coontz, 2007). In the traditional society of Japan, a woman wanting a divorce had to complete two years of service at a special temple while the man could simply write a letter containing three and half lines in order to divorce his wife.

Coontz (2007) posits that the reasons for divorce in any given time period relate to the reasons for marriage. For example, a common reason for divorce in contemporary society is the loss of love, lack of individual fulfillment, or absence of mutual benefit. This has to do with the primary reason for marriage being love and romance.

In Western societies, there is more flexibility with the notion of a failed marriage. Generally, if romance, love, sex, or companionship dies out in a marriage, then couples in contemporary Western society may opt for divorce. However, sometimes for economic reasons, obligations to children, negative public opinion, or simply inertia, couples may maintain “failed” marriages. Among countries across the globe, the United States has one of the highest rates of divorce, although rates have dropped as compared with the 1970s. From historical records of divorce in the United States, there is an increase after wars and a decrease after tough economic times. The high rates of U.S. divorce are thought to be related to the economic independence enjoyed by many women and the cultural ideas of independence and self-actualization which give greater permission for people to abandon marriage if it is not working for them (Kottak, 2008).

A family is a group of people who consider themselves related through kinship, while a household is defined as people who share a living space and may or may not be related (Miller, 2008). Most households consist of members who are related through kinship, although an increasing number do not. For instance, a group of friends sharing living quarters or a single person living alone constitute a household. Young adults in the United States usually live away from home when they go to college. In more complex societies, family members tend to live apart from one another, while in more simple societies, the family and the household are impossible to differentiate (Ember et al., 2006). Across most societies, a primary function of families is the socialization and protection of children so that the children can obtain the cultural behavior, beliefs, and values necessary for survival. The nature of the family inevitably shifts and reflects the social and cultural changes in economics, education, and political systems (Georgas, Berry, van de Vijver, Kagitçibasi, & Poortinga, 2006).

All societies have families, although family form and households vary from society to society. The nuclear household, still commonly referred to as the nuclear family, comprises one adult couple, either married or “partners,” with or without children. Most people belong to at least two different nuclear families during their lifetime. Anthropologists distinguish between the family of orientation, the family in which one is born and grows up, and the family of procreation, the family formed when one marries and has children of his or her own. Nuclear-family organization is widespread cross-culturally and varies in significance from culture to culture, but it is not universal. For instance, in the classic Nayar group, the nuclear family is rare or nonexistent (Kottak, 2008). In contrast, in North America, the nuclear family is the only well-defined kin group and remains somewhat of a cultural ideal (Ember et al., 2006). Such a family structure is thought to arise from industrialism and contributes to geographic mobility and isolation from extended family members. Many North American married couples live far away from their parents in locations generally determined by their jobs in communities (neolocality) and establish households and nuclear families of their own (Ember et al., 2006).

An extended household is a domestic group containing more than one adult married couple related either through the father-son (patrilineal extended household) or motherdaughter line (matrilineal extended household) or through sisters and brothers (collateral extended household). Extended families are the prevailing form in more than half of the world’s societies (Ember et al., 2006). For example, in former Yugoslavia, extended-family households, called zadruga, consisted of several nuclear families living together. The zadruga was headed by a male household head and his wife, considered to be the senior woman. Also included were married sons and their wives and children, and unmarried sons and daughters. Each nuclear family had their own sleeping quarters; however, many items were freely shared among members in the zadruga (e.g., clothes, items from the bride’s trousseau, and other possessions). The Nayar, a caste of southern India, provide another example of extended households. The Nayar lived in matrilineal extended-family compounds called tarawads (residential complexes with several buildings headed by a senior woman and her brother). The tarawads were home to the woman’s siblings, her sisters’ children, and other relatives of matrilineal descent. These compounds were responsible for child care and provided the home for retired Nayar men who were military warriors (Ember et al., 2006).

Expanded-family households (those that include nonnuclear relatives) also exist in some cultures. For example, in lower-class families of North America, expanded-family households are more common than in middle-class families. If an expanded-family household consists of three or more generations, then it is considered an extended-family household. Collateral households, another type of expanded family, include siblings and their spouses and children (Ember et al., 2006). Polygamous married people are considered to constitute complex households in which one spouse lives with or near multiple partners and their children. Descent groups including lineages and clans of people claiming common ancestry may reside in several villages, but rarely come together for social activities. These descent groups are common in nonindustrial foodproducing societies (Kottak, 2008).

Globalization, including technological advances and international migration, has increased the opportunity for interactions among different types of people and contributed to rapid changes in the structure and function of marriage and the family. The institution of marriage continues to retain popularity although many of the details of marriage are undergoing transformation. For instance, the Internet has provided new forms of finding a potential partner and courtship. Also, the age of first marriage is rising in most places due in part to increased emphasis on completing education and higher marital aspirations (e.g., owning a house). Marriages between people of different nations and ethnicities are another example, now increasingly commonplace and leading to pluralistic practices and customs of marriage and family. Coontz (2007) claims that marriage “has been displaced from its pivotal position in personal and social life” (p. 15) with many children being raised in alternative settings. The definition of marriage has also changed, given that most people today live in a global climate of choice with many options. This makes divorce and other relationship forms like cohabitation viable options for many people across the world.

In many societies, people choose to have children without being married, or being a single parent becomes a necessity, and thus one-parent families are becoming more common globally. Traditionally, single-parent families have been more common in Western societies, but there continues to be a large increase in one-parent families with the majority headed by women (approximately 90%). In the 1970s, of the Western countries, Sweden had the highest rates of single-parent families, but now the United States has the largest percentage. One-parent families occur for several reasons, including divorce/separation of two-parent families, births outside of marriage, deaths of spouses, and single people who decide to have children. Some parents may choose to remain single because of lack of suitable partners. For example, in the former Soviet Union, the ratio of women to men is much higher because males are more likely to have died from war, alcoholism, and accidents. In other countries, a common explanation is that one-parent families are able to manage because of support from the state; for example, in Sweden, unmarried and divorced mothers receive significant social supports, maternity leave, and educational leave (Ember et al., 2006).

Another family form that is making a comeback, at least in the United States, is the multigenerational family (three or more generations living together). According to the 2000 Census, there are almost 4 million U.S. multigenerational households; this represents about 4% of all households, and this number continues to rise. The majority of these households include grandparents living with their children and their grandchildren in the house of the grandparent. In about one third of these households, the grandparents live in the home of their children (or son- or daughter-in-law) and their grandchildren. A very small percentage of these households are comprised of grandparents and great-grandparents as well as children and grandchildren of the grandparents (Generations United, 2006).

Some of the reasons for the rise in multigenerational households include financial factors such as high housing costs, high cost of living, child care/elder care expenses, unemployment, parents returning to school, and parents working to save money to become independent. Cultural reasons such as immigration, value systems, importance of ritual and celebration of holidays and events, and desire to stay connected with one’s cultural group all are reported reasons for multigenerational households. Other reasons include individual beliefs that child care and elder care are family responsibilities or that age-integration within communities is important, and a desire to be involved and connected with offspring and elders. Situational factors such as the inability to live alone after being widowed, a divorce that requires moving to a parent’s home with children, an illness requiring regular care and assistance, single parenting, housing shortages, and extended life span also promote multigenerational households (Generations United, 2006). In the future, multigenerational families are expected to become more commonplace and continue to increase. By 2010 in the United States, it is expected that more children will know their great-grandparents, people in their 60s will be caring for 80- to 90-year-old parents, more children will grow up with the support of older relatives, and there will be an increase in four-generational households (Generations United, 2006).

Grandparenting in general is a relatively new phenomenon as of the last 100 years, due to increased life expectancy and good health. The number of grandparents parenting grandchildren has increased generally due to crisis situations involving drugs, divorce, desertion, and death (Glass & Huneycutt, 2002). Other factors contributing to the increase of grandparents raising their grandchildren include high teenage-pregnancy rates, more parents in prison (with some 80% having dependent children), more women using drugs, and parents dying from AIDS. All of these scenarios that lead to the number of grandparents raising their grandchildren are thought to be on the rise.

Increasing numbers of lesbian women and gay males are exploring parenting options (McCann & Delmonte, 2005) and taking on parenthood through donor insemination, surrogacy, fostering, and adoption. Although there appears to be no definitive research pointing one way or another, gay parenting has been a contentious issue for many because of the presumed damaging effects that gay parents can have on their children. Concerns have been raised regarding whether the child will become homosexual, whether the child will be bullied, whether the child will have appropriate opposite-sex role models, and more (McCann & Delmonte, 2005).

Another complexity for family structure is the challenge presented by international migration. Parents may still identify with their ancestral culture and children often become immersed in the new culture, quickly adapting to the language and customs. This can cause rifts in the relationship between parents and children and can contribute to disagreements about social issues like dating, clothing, and careers. Sometimes children also serve as cultural brokers for their parents, navigating complex and unfamiliar bureaucratic systems since their parents may not speak the language or be acculturated to the new country and customs. Immigrant children typically adapt to the dominant culture faster than their parents, which also contributes to conflict between parent and child—parents trying to hold on to previous traditions, while children are adapting to the new, dominant culture as their new way of life. Immigrant children frequently become masters of both cultures, easily adapting between both worlds (Suárez-Orozco & SuárezOrozco, 2001). Immigrant parents are often conflicted between encouraging their children to develop the cultural competencies of the dominant culture and trying to maintain their own traditions (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001). In addition, resettlement issues such as obtaining housing, food, and employment, and dealing with the bureaucracy of immigration and documentation, can overwhelm parents’ ability to attend to their children. Immigrant families may also experience stress due to adaptation to the United States, including such tasks as learning and/or enhancing English skills and finding employment, housing, and schools; these are difficult tasks for anyone, but especially for immigrants as they also deal with new and different social/cultural expectations and attitudes.

International adoption (sometimes referred to as transnational adoption) is becoming more common in the United States and European countries. Although still on a relatively small scale, international adoption represents a significant shift from historical adoption practices and constitutes an entirely different family structure (Conn, 2009). More than 20,000 internationally adopted children enter the United States each year from China, Russia, and Guatemala.

Marriage and family are universal forms of mating and relating; however, the forms of marriage and family are variable depending on social, cultural, and historical influences (Ferguson, 2007). Family arrangements are more diverse now than ever before, and relationships have shifted from having a biological emphasis to a social emphasis. In the future, there is likely to be increased diversity and transformation in the institution of marriage, along with family forms and households, across the globe (Miller, 2008).

Bibliography:

• Aune, R., & Aune, K. (1994). The influence of culture, gender, and relational status on appearance management. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25 (2), 258–272.
• Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. New York: Random House.
• Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
• Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
• Byrne, D., & Murnen, S. K. (1988). Maintaining love relationships. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 293–310). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Carroll, J. L., & Wolpe, P. R. (1996). Sexuality and gender in society. New York: HarperCollins.
• Conn, P. (2009). The politics of international adoption. Origins, 1 (4). Available at https://origins.osu.edu/article/politics-international-adoption
• Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York: Penguin Books.
• Coontz, S. (2007). The origins of modern divorce. Family Process, 46 (1), 7–16.
• Daibo, I., Murasawa, H., & Chou,Y. (1994). Attractive faces and affection of beauty: A comparison in preference of feminine facial beauty in Japan and Korea. Japanese Journal of Research on Emotions, 1 (2), 101–123.
• Davenport, W. (1965). Sexual patterns and their regulation in a society of the Southwest Pacific. In F. A. Beach (Ed.), Sex and behavior (pp. 164–207). New York: Wiley.
• Ember, C. R., Ember, M., & Peregrine, P. N. (2006). Anthropology (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Kinship and marriage among the Nuer. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
• Ferguson, S. J. (2007). Shifting the center: Understanding contemporary families (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2002). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Generations United. (2006). Multigenerational households. Available at https://www.gu.org/explore-our-topics/multigenerational-households/
• Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Kagitçibasi, C., & Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.). (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Glass, J. C., & Huneycutt, T. L. (2002). Grandparents parenting grandchildren: Extent of situation, issues involved, and educational implications. Educational Gerontology, 28 (2), 139–161.
• Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar? Sex Roles, 23, 501–503.
• Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men’s and women’s preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26 (6), 728–750.
• Kottak, C. P. (2008). Cultural anthropology (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Kumari, R. (1988). Female sexuality in Hinduism. Delhi, India: Joint Women’s Programme by ISPCK.
• Lawson, H. M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of Internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24 (2), 189–208.
• Leach, E. R. (1955). Polyandry, inheritance and the definition of marriage. Man, 55, 182–186.
• Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 554–571.
• McCann, D., & Delmonte, H. (2005). Lesbian and gay parenting: Babes in arms or babes in the woods? Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 20 (3), 333–347.
• Messenger, J. C. (1993). Sex and repression in an Irish folk community. In D. N. Suggs & A. W. Miracle (Eds.), Culture and human sexuality (pp. 240–261). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Meigs, A., & Barlow, K. (2002). Beyond the taboo: Imagining incest. American Anthropologist, 104 (1), 38–49.
• Miller, B. (2008). Cultural anthropology in a globalizing world. Boston: Pearson.
• Padilla, M. B., Hirsch, J. S., Muñoz-Laboy, M., Sember, R. E., & Parker, R. G. (2007). Introduction: Cross-cultural reflections on an intimate intersection. In M. B. Padilla, J. S. Hirsch, M. Muñoz-Laboy, R. E. Sember, & R. G. Parker (Eds.), Love and globalization: Transformations of intimacy in the contemporary world (pp. ix–xxi). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
• Pines, A. M. (2001). The role of gender and culture in romantic attraction. European Psychologist, 6 (2), 96–102.
• Potash, B. (Ed.). (1986). Widows in African societies: Choices and constraints. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Ramesh, A., Srikumari, C. R., & Sukumar, S. (1989). Parallel cousin marriages in Madras, Tamil Nadu: New trends in Dravidian kinship. Social Biology, 36 (3/4), 248–254.
• Rathus, S., Nevid, J., & Fischer-Rathus, L. (1993). Human sexuality in a world of diversity. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Royal Anthropological Institute. (1951). Notes and queries on anthropology (6th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Shiraev, E., & Levy, D. (2007). Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Sonko, S. (1994). Family and culture in sub-Saharan Africa. International Social Sciences Journal, 46, 397–411.
• Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). Person perception in crosscultural perspective. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series: The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 245–265). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• Leadership Research Topics Topics: 620
• Team Management Paper Topics Topics: 79
• Alibaba Topics Topics: 60
• Nintendo Research Topics Topics: 50
• Home Depot Topics Topics: 60
• Competitive Strategy Research Topics Topics: 55
• Marks & Spencer Essay Topics Topics: 60
• Market Research Research Topics Topics: 60
• Unilever Research Topics Topics: 70
• Dell Topics Topics: 76
• Exxon Topics Topics: 51
• BMW Paper Topics Topics: 51
• Kodak Essay Topics Topics: 49
• IKEA Topics Topics: 72
• Red Bull Research Topics Topics: 55

65 Team Leadership Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on team leadership, ✍️ team leadership essay topics for college, 🎓 most interesting team leadership research titles, 💡 simple team leadership essay ideas.

• 4th Armored Brigade Combat Team Leadership
• Reflections on Managing Multicultural Teams
• Leadership Styles for Leading Teams
• Managing Project Teams: Leadership and Information Systems Development
• Building and Leading High Performing Teams
• Responsibility in Managing the Capabilities of the Team Members
• Managing a Remote Team in the COVID-19 Crisis
• The Methods of Managing a Team’s Resources The deadline change poses a major challenge in terms of a team’s resource management and impact on their member.
• Authentic Leadership, Team Leadership, and LMX Theory The juxtaposition of Authentic leadership, Team leadership, and LMX theory in relation to team management revealed their close correlation.
• Managing Effective Team Process Team management is said to be effective when the management implements team-building activities so that members are able to bond with each other and build trust with one another.
• Managing Projects: A Team-Based Approach Project managers can manage conflicts within teams by identifying the root cause of the conflict to ensure that the conflict does not recur.
• Team Leadership: Essence and Rationality Team leadership is a complex undertaking that requires numerous attributes in order to guarantee success and propagation of ideals that characterize group contexts.
• Team Leadership in the “Engaging Others” Video Competent leaders will engage their followers, identify and tackle their problems, and empower them to deliver meaningful results.
• Building and Managing Collaborative Teams: Challenges and Solutions The paper focuses on the discussion of the case “Two Poorly Functioning Teams” by Thomasina Borkman to understand the factors which lead to building ineffective teams.
• Hernandez & Associates Agency’s Team Leadership Model The Hernandez & Associates advertising agency has to apply to the Team Leadership Model to overcome difficulties of economic downturn and change their business strategy.
• Effective Team Leadership’s Keys This paper provides an explanation of how environmental variables come into play in deciding which factors take precedence in leading an effective team.
• Strategic Team Leadership: Evaluation of Team Members, Situation and Leadership Approaches In order to be able to lead team towards the desired success, it is important to understand the personality of every one of them in order to be able to know how to approach them on different issues.
• Understanding the Motivational Contingencies of Team Leadership
• Examining the Relationship Between Team Leadership and Performance
• Facilitating Team Learning Through Transformational Leadership
• Shared Leadership Contributing to Selling Team Outcomes
• Team Leadership in a High-Risk Organization: The Role of Contextual Factors
• The Impact of Agile Leadership on Team Performance
• Creative Team Leadership: Empowering Your Team in Decision-Making
• Strategies for Effective Team Leadership and Professional Relationship Building
• Examining the Differential Longitudinal Performance of Directive vs. Empowering Leadership in Teams
• The Intrinsic Value of Diversity in Team Leadership
• Leadership Styles and Their Influence on Project Team Performance
• Mindfulness and Performance: The Moderating Role of Effective Team Leadership
• The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams
• Democratic Leadership and Team Performance: Moderating Effect of Gender
• Shared Leadership in Teams: Antecedent Conditions & Performance
• Team Leadership in Modern Organizations: A Systems Approach
• The Influence of Top Management Team Leadership on Corporate Refocusing
• Changes in Relational Team Leadership Processes Over Time
• Role Conflict and Ambiguity: The Challenges of Team Leadership in Schools
• Team Leadership in Developing Resilience During an Organizational Crisis
• Assessing Team Leadership in Emergency Medicine
• The Effects of Team Leadership and Group Potency on Group Performance
• Essential Leadership Skills for a Virtual Team Leader
• Leadership in Teams: Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes
• Interdisciplinary Team Leadership: A Revisionist Approach
• The Importance of Leadership in the Development of an Integrated Team
• Discussing the Role of Emotional Intelligence in Team Leadership
• Overview of Future Research Directions for Team Leadership
• Influence of Team Leadership and Commitment on Teamwork and Conscientiousness
• Towards a Theoretical Framework for Integrated Team Leadership
• Navigating the Challenges of Workplace Disagreements as a Team Leader
• Exploring Team Leadership in Upper Secondary Education
• Executive Team Leadership in the Global Economic and Competitive Environment
• Adaptability and Strategic Acumen in Audit Team Leadership
• The Effect of Communication by Team Leadership on the Effectiveness of Collaborative Partnerships
• Primary Principles of Team Leadership: Developing Leadership Qualities in a Management Team
• Managing Negative Feedback to Enhance Team Leadership Skills
• Effective Team Leadership Tactics for Dealing with Remote Workers
• Fostering Product Development Efficiency Through Cross-Functional Team Leadership
• Establishing Team Leadership Emergence and Its Driving Factors
• A Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluating Virtual Team Leadership Behaviors
• Team Leadership: Encouraging Ownership and Accountability
• Remote Communication Challenges in Team Leadership
• The Influence of Empowering Team Leadership on Employees’ Innovation Passion
• Using Tools and Technology for Better Team Leadership
• Team Leadership Strategies to Keep the Team on Track and Meet Tight Deadlines
• Leading a Team Through Change Towards Promotion
• Major Factors in Salary Negotiations for Team Leaders Seeking Raises

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2024, September 9). 65 Team Leadership Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/team-leadership-essay-topics/

"65 Team Leadership Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 9 Sept. 2024, studycorgi.com/ideas/team-leadership-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2024) '65 Team Leadership Essay Topics'. 9 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "65 Team Leadership Essay Topics." September 9, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/team-leadership-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "65 Team Leadership Essay Topics." September 9, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/team-leadership-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2024. "65 Team Leadership Essay Topics." September 9, 2024. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/team-leadership-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Team Leadership were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on September 20, 2024 .